Downtown Berkeley BART - Urban Design Plan by CD+A, Inc

Downtown Berkeley BART Plaza & Transit Area Urban Design Plan

Prepared for:

City of Berkeley Transportation Division of the Department of Public Works

Prepared by:

Community Design + Architecture, Inc Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Strategic Economics Cambridge Systematics November 18, 2006

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

November 18, 2006

Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................3 1.1

Study Purpose and Process ..............................................................................3

1.2

Site Information .............................................................................................4

1.3

Alternative Design Scenarios ...........................................................................4

1.4

Concept Plan Overview .................................................................................. 4

1.5

Next Steps ......................................................................................................8

Project Overview ...........................................................................................10 2.1

Study Area and Process .................................................................................10

2.2

Study Goals and Objectives ..........................................................................11

2.3

Design Considerations ..................................................................................15

2.4

Access Considerations for All Transportation Modes .....................................19

2.5

Site Use Considerations ................................................................................32

2.6

Site Opportunities and Constraints ..............................................................40

Design Alternatives ........................................................................................45 3.1

Introduction .................................................................................................45

3.2

Sketch Alternatives .......................................................................................45

3.3

Sub-Alternatives............................................................................................57

3.4

Community Input on Sketch Alternatives.....................................................61

Concept Plan ...................................................................................................63 4.1

Short-Term Improvements ............................................................................63

4.2

Proposed Improvements ...............................................................................64

4.3

Alternative East Side Shattuck Avenue Treatment .........................................72

4.4

Project Phasing and Other Considerations ....................................................73

4.5

Next Steps ....................................................................................................74

Ta b l e o f C o n t e n t s

â&#x2013;

November 18, 2006

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

List of Figures

Figure 1.1: Existing BART Plaza features ................................................................................................................... 1 Figure 1.2: The existing plaza has obstacles that limit visual connections and obstruct pedestrians in the plaza. ................ 1 Figure 1.3: Aerial view with outline of Study Area....................................................................................................... 2 Figure 1.4: The Study Area in the larger context of the city ........................................................................................... 2 Figure 1.5 Sketch concept alternatives tested different access scenarios and approaches to public spaces .............................. 3 Figure 1.6: Concept Plan showing short term improvements ......................................................................................... 4 Figure 1.7: Section BB through the plaza .................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 1.8: Plaza Elevation looking west ..................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2.1: View of the BART Plaza looking north ...................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2.2: Aerial view with outline of Study Area....................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2.3: Community Workshop 1, in January 2006................................................................................................. 8 Figure 2.4: Community Workshop 2, in April 2006 2006. .................................................................................................... 8 Figure 2.5: The Downtown Berkeley BART Plaza and Transit Area .............................................................................. 8 Figure 2.6: Existing layout of the study area ................................................................................................................ 9 Figure 2.7: The plaza design has had minor modifications over time ............................................................................. 9 Figure 2.8: BART provides much of the activity on the plaza ........................................................................................ 9 Figure 2.9: The existing plaza lacks legibility to help orient users and facilitate transit access and pedestrian circulation ... 9 Figure 2.10: The pl plaza design should provide opportunities to create a focal point for community activity ...................... 10 Figure 2.11: The plaza design should support opportunites for performances or other social gatherings ........................... 11 Figure 2.12: Historically Historically, Shattuck Avenue was an important railroad route................................................................ 13 Figure 2.13: Historical picture of Shattuck Avenue lookin lookingg North ............................................................................... 13 Figure 2.14: Recent plaza improvements ................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 2.15: Scale comparisons of the Berkeley BART Plaza with other Bay Area multi-modal transportation hubs ....... 14 Figure 2.16: Section through Shattuck Avenue between Allston Way and Center Street ................................................. 15 Figure 2.17: Section through the Shattuck Avenue couplet, north of Center Street continuing uing to University Avenue ........ 16 Figure 2.18: Shadow study showing the BART plaza at the summer and winter solstices .............................................. 16 Figure 2.19: Pinch points along sidewalks at bus stopss create congestion and conflict point points for pedestrians ..................... 17 Figure 2.20: Constrained waiting area areass leave little space for amenties such as shelters and benches ................................. 17 Figure 2.21: Bike racks, pedestrian lights, and newspaper boxes reduce the effective width of the sidewalks .................... 17 Figure 2.22: The existing brick paving at the Berkeley BART Plaza ............................................................................ 18 Figure 2.23: The only BART access elevator is located on the northwest corner of the Shattuck Avenue........................... 18 Figure 2.24: The BART rrotunda, otunda, the main entry/exit to the station, lacks clear signage ................................................ 18 Figure 2.25: Surface bike parking is dispersed throughout the study area ..................................................................... 19 Figure 2.26: The eexisting Bike Station located at the southern end of the BART station is oversubscribed. ..................... 19 Figure 2.27: Surface public transportation in the study area ....................................................................................... 19 Figure 2.28: Transit Routes and Stops ....................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 2.29: One of AC Transit’s potential configurations for the BRT system ............................................................. 21 Figure 2.30: BART has studied the possibil possibility ity of a new entry on the northeast corner of Shattuck Avenue ...................... 22 2 Figure 2.31: Secondary entries with only stair access have the potential to be retrofitted with escalators .......................... 22 2 Figure 2.32: Pedestrian traffic exiting the BART entries ............................................................................................. 23 2 Figure 2.33: Vehicular traffic throughout the study area operates at level of service A or B ............................................. 24 Figure 2.34: PM peak hour traffic flow in study area ................................................................................................. 25 2 Figure 2.35: The limited loading and drop-off areas in the study area ......................................................................... 26 Figure 2.36: Loading areas are in high demand throughout the day ............................................................................ 28 ii

■

Ta b l e o f C o n t e n t s

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

■

Ta b l e o f C o n t e n t s

November 18, 2006

Figure 2.37: The taxi drop-off on Center Street is also highly used ............................................................................... 28 Figure 2.38: The east side of Shattuck Avenue in the Study Area is almost entirely devoted to bus loading areas .............. 28 Figure 2.39: Curb designation and street configuration .............................................................................................. 29 2 Figure 2.40: Site usage around BART Entry/Exits ..................................................................................................... 30 Figure 2.41: The BART plaza is used by individuals and groups at all hours of the day ................................................ 30 Figure 2.42: Travel paths and desire lines from an analysis of user groups..................................................................... 31 Figure 2.43: The bus waiting zone on the east side of Shattuck Avenue between Center Street and Addison Street .......... 31 Figure 2.44: The raised planters on the plaza provide many ttypes ypes of seating ................................................................. 32 3 Figure 2.45: The current plaza layout tends to push pedestrians to the perimeter .......................................................... 32 3 Figure 2.46: People use the low walls and benches in the BART Plaza in many ways ................................................... 32 3 Figure 2.47: Plaza use patterns based on information gathered through observation and analysis of the user groups ........ 33 Figure 2.48: Adjacent land uses support increased activity and new uses on the plaza ................................................... 34 Figure 2.49: Shoppers and other leisure users stay mostly along the edge of the plaza ..................................................... 35 Figure 2.50: These studies show visual obstructions at various locations within the study area ....................................... 36 Figure 2.51: Physical obstructions at various locations within the study area ................................................................ 37 Figure 2.52: The rotunda has the potential for cosmetic improvements ......................................................................... 38 Figure 2.53: The secondary BART entries lack visibility and prominence ..................................................................... 38 Figure 2.54: The brick paving in the BART Plaza ..................................................................................................... 39 Figure 2.55: The low walls in the plaza create barriers to pedestrian movement ........................................................... 39 Figure 2.56: Center Street improvements provide a widened sidewalk ......................................................................... 40 4 Figure 2.57: The plaza design presents an opportunity to improve Downtown as a retail destination ............................. 41 Figure 3.1: The sketch alternatives highlight long-term programming options ............................................................... 43 4 Figure 3.2: Option 1 Plan........................................................................................................................................ 44 4 Figure 3.3: .3: O Option 1 Sections ................................................................................................................................... 45 4 Figure 3.4: Option 2 Plan........................................................................................................................................ 46 4 Figure 3.5: Option 2 Sections ................................................................................................................................... 47 4 Figure 3.6: Option 3 Plan........................................................................................................................................ 48 4 Figure 3.7: Option 3 Sections ................................................................................................................................... 49 4 Figure 3.8: Option 4 Plan........................................................................................................................................ 50 Figure 3.9: Option 4 Sections ................................................................................................................................... 51 Figure 3.10: Existing Center Street configuration (view towards Oxford Street) .................................................................................. 55 5 Figure 3.11: Basic improvements .............................................................................................................................. 55 5 Figure 3.12: Major improvements with One-Way Center Street .................................................................................. 55 5 Figure 3.13: Closure of Center Street with no auto access ............................................................................................ 55 5 Figure 3.14: All of the sketch alternatives have the potential to improve existing surface bike parking. ........................... 56 Figure 3.15: Example of a store front Bike station in Seattle ....................................................................................... 56 Figure 3.16: Chicago Bike station at Millenium Park ................................................................................................ 56 Figure 3.17: Fruitvale BART Bike station ................................................................................................................. 56 Figure 3.18: Detailed public space design options for each sketch alternative ................................................................ 57 Figure 3.19: Illustration of detailed design considerations and the relationship lationship to each sketch alternative ....................... 58 Figure 4.1: “Rezoning” of the BART P Plaza laza ................................................................................................................ 62 6 Figure 4.2: The concept plan will widen the existing sidewalk zone to facilitate pedestrian circulation ........................... 63 6 Figure 4.3: The concept plan will create a café zone similar to Center Street................................................................. 63 6 Figure 4.4: 44: The concept plan will create an improved transit zone at the curb .............................................................. 63 6 Figure 4.5: Concept Plan and Elevation (looking west) showing short-term improvements ............................................ 64 6 Figure 4.6: 6 These sections through the plaza show the ddiff 6: ifferent components of the conce concept pt plan ...................................... 65 6 Figure 4.7: Transit ccanopies anopies help create a vibrant identity for the Downtown Berkeley BART plaza .............................. 66 6 ■

iii

November 18, 2006

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

Figure 4.8: Bus canopy section .................................................................................................................................. 66 6 Figure 4.9: Bus canopy plan showing the various elements incorporated into the design ................................................. 66 6 Figure 4.10: Bus canopy nopy elevation showing lighting and seating .................................................................................. 66 nopy 6 Figure 4.11: The scope and detail of improvements to the BART rotunda .................................................................... 67 6 Figure 4.12: Planting trenc trenchh detail at the plaza ......................................................................................................... 68 6 Figure 4.13: P Potential reconﬁguration of the curb on east Shattuckk Avenue .................................................................. 70 7

List of Tables

Table 2.1: BART entry locations and vertical circulation ............................................................................................ 22 2 Table 2.2: Vehicular Level of Service at Study Area intersectionss.................................................................................. 24 Table 3.1: Sketch alternatives comparison matrix ......................................................................................................... 52 5 Table 3.2: Community input on sketch alternatives from Workshop #2 in April 2006 ......................................................... 59 5 Table 3.3: Key Elements of Option 3 and Option 4 ........................................................................................................... 60 6 Table 4.1: Community input on plaza programming from Workshop #2 in April 2006 ....................................................... 61 6

■

Ta b l e o f C o n t e n t s

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

■

1.1 Study Purpose and Process

��

The City of Berkeley, led by the Transportation Division of the Department of Public Works, with assistance from the consulting ﬁrms Community Design + Architecture (CD+A), Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Strategic Economics, and Cambridge Systematics, undertook a community-based urban design and transportation planning process to develop a concept plan for the Downtown Berkeley BART Plaza and Transit Area. The planning eﬀort was funded by a Transportation for Livable Communities planning grant from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and was conducted in co-operation with BART and AC Transit.

Consequently, the second part of the planning process focused on identifying short-term improvements that can happen regardless of future change, but that can, on their own, improve the public space in the Downtown Area for all users.

��

The alternatives, examined a number of transportation and urban design issues, including the incorporation of dedicated bus lanes in the study area, reconfiguration of Shattuck Avenue, closure or partial closure of Center Street between Shattuck Avenue and Oxford Street, modifications to bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and redesign and programming of open space areas. Due to its limited nature, further analysis of some of these issues, such as the reconfiguration of Shattuck Avenue or Center Street, is beyond the scope of this study. The work completed on the design alternatives does, however, inform the larger visioning and planning process to update the Downtown Area Plan, which is underway concurrently.

��

The ﬁrst part of the planning process exhaustively identiﬁed issues and the opportunities of the Study Area. The issues, which included circulation options, the primary BART entry, and open space opportunities helped inform the development of four design alternatives.

�

��

The primary goal of the project has been to create a comprehensive vision for public improvements to the transit plaza and vicinity that plans for the needs of Berkeley’s changing and growing population, considers planned improvements in bus transit service, and better meets the needs of existing activities and users. The study has developed a concept-level set of capital improvements for the BART Plaza and the surrounding area. These are focused on short-term improvements that can create an improved environment now, while setting the stage for future change.

��

November 18, 2006

1 Executive Summary

��

� ��

�

��

� �

Figure 1.1: Existing BART Plaza features

Figure 1.2: The existing plaza has obstacles that limit visual connections and obstruct pedestrians in the plaza. Executive Summar y

■

��

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n ��

��

� ��

��

�

��

�

��

� �

�

��

�

��

■

There are many possible design solutions that meet the project goals and objectives, while addressing the site opportunities and constraints. This process considered in some detail a number of potential alternative design scenarios. The design alternatives � considered diﬀerent bus transit scenarios, pedestrian and bicycle circulation alternatives, and major and minor changes to BART access. Each alternative also considered the implications for public space design. The design team also evaluated alternative scenarios for the treatment of Center Street and for improvements to the BART Bike Station.

��

Figure 1.4: The Study Area in the larger context of the city 2

� �

�

��

The design alternatives and evaluations are described in detail in Section 3 of this report.

��

� ��

��

� ��

��

�

��

1.3 Alternative Design Scenarios

� ��

��

�

Th e key site features and design considerations are described in �� detail in Section 2 of this report.

Figure 1.3: Aerial view with outline of Study Area

��

The primary Study Area focuses on the Downtown Berkeley BART Plaza. It extends from Addison Street at the north to Allston Way at the south on both sides of Shattuck Avenue. The Downtown Berkeley BART Plaza area is heavily used by transit riders, pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. It provides one of the primary access points to UC Berkeley, and to the residential, commercial, employment, and cultural uses located in Downtown Berkeley.

��

1.2 Site Information

��

�

��

� ��

�

��

�

��

� ��

Two public meetings, led by CD+A and City staﬀ, gathered input on the project’s goals and objectives, additional information on existing conditions, and public comments on the four design alternatives. Over 50 people attended the ﬁrst meeting, while nearly 100 attended the second. Additionally, a Technical Working Group and Citizen’s Advisory Committee met four times over the course of the project to review and provide feedback on all phases of the project. ��

November 18, 2006

��

�

��

Executive Summar y

1.4 Concept Plan Overview There is clear direction from the public workshop and other stakeholders in support of a long-term vision that involves major changes to the Study Area. However, these long-term changes require further study of several key issues before they can be ﬁnalized. While further study of these issues is beyond the scope of this project, which is intended to develop a concept-level set of capital improvements for the Study Area, it has developed a

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

■

November 18, 2006

�

��

� � ��

��

Option 1

�

��

� ��

��

Option 2

��

�

��

� � ��

Option 3

��

� � ��

��

Option 4

Figure 1.5 Sketch concept alternatives tested different access scenarios and approaches to public spaces. A larger version and text description of each option is included in Section 3 Executive Summar y

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n Modified Standpipe New Canopy w/ security gates at street level

elevator

� �

(N) Curb Ramp

�

��

(E) Kiosk (E) Lights (replace to match new)

(N) Curb Ramp

Newspaper Racks

BART Entry Seating

Bike Racks

Modified Standpipe

Accent trees

Planter

Cafe Seating

Existing Brick Paving

London Plane trees planted in 12’ wide trench w/ structural soil

�

��

� Pedestrian Lighting

Bus Canopy with bike racks and seating

Accent Paving Concrete Scored

New Canopy with security gates at street level

Bike Racks

Bike Parking

Existing BART Entry wall to be removed

Existing BART Entry wall and planter to be removed

New Canopy with security gates at street level

�

��

Preferred Alternative Future Curb Line

Existing Curb Line

�

November 18, 2006

■

Figure 1.6: Concept Plan showing short term improvements

�

60 feet

��

4 ■�� Executive Summar y ��

��

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

November 18, 2006

program of short-term improvements that make needed changes while supporting the framework for the long-term vision. The concept plan for short-term improvements reorganizes the BART Plaza space into clearly defined zones of activities without changing the street configuration. The redesign creates a wide sidewalk zone with the potential for café seating between the sidewalk and main plaza area and a transit zone along the street edge. It develops a unique vocabulary for the Downtown transit architecture which is reflected in the new canopies over secondary entries to BART and the multi-purpose bus canopies. These features not only improve the visibility and the legibility of the plaza (especially for the pedestrians) but also address maintenance and security concerns. The plan utilizes lighting and paving from the surrounding areas to tie the plaza into the larger Downtown Area. It takes into consideration the curb line for the future west side of Shattuck Avenue under an eventual long-term reconfiguration so that short-term investments will prepare the area for long-term options. The café zone, larger street trees, and street lighting all serve to establish the potential future location and conditions of the west curb of Shattuck Avenue. The Concept Plan design is described in detail in Section 4 of this report. ��

��

�

��

Figure 1.7: Section BB through the plaza shows the relationship between the sidewalk zone, the cafe zone, and the transit zone.

��

■

��

Figure 1.8: Plaza Elevation looking west shows the rhythm that new street trees and lights will create, punctuated by new architectural treatment of the BART entries. Executive Summar y

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

1.5

November 18, 2006

■

Next Steps

Review and Approval of the Plan This Concept Plan was presented in July 2006 to the Transportation Commission for review and endorsement and will subsequently be presented to the Downtown Area Plan Advisory Committee in September. This process of input and discussion will ensure that the Concept Plan can be used in the future to secure capital funding for needed improvements and will ensure consistency between this document and the ongoing Downtown-wide transportation and land-use planning eﬀort. The Concept Plan will be brought to City Council for approval as part of capital grant funding applications.

Short-term Improvements and Capital Funding The improvements detailed in the Concept Plan can be implemented in the near future. The City will need to continue its collaboration with BART, AC Transit, and the Bear Transit and LBNL shuttle services to ensure that the improvements complement Downtown transit while creating opportunities for new activity on the plaza. Continued collaboration with the Downtown Berkeley Association, local business owners and residents, and other community stakeholders will also be necessary as the concept plan is implemented. Section 4 of this report highlights some potential sources of capital funding.

Integration with Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Planning The City of Berkeley will need to work with AC Transit to make sure enhancements to bus service in the Downtown are compatible with the multi-modal access needs of the community. The alternative bus enhancements considered in this report have identified potential benefits to overall circulation with the introduction of exclusive bus lanes. By consolidating stops, exclusive lanes would free curb space for other uses, such as auto drop-off and short-term parking and widened sidewalks throughout the Study Area. The City can use this study to provide informed critiques as AC Transit’s planning efforts move forward.

DAP Process and Long-Term Vision This study has recommended a dynamic long-term vision with large-scale improvements to the Study Area. The short-term improvements in this plan are a ﬁrst step towards this vision, but the Downtown Area Plan will provide the long-term vision, with appropriate analysis of key circulation and public space considerations. The key recommendations for the long-term vision from this report are outlined in Section 4.

■

Executive Summar y

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

■

November 18, 2006

2 Project Overview

In 2004, the City of Berkeley and its project partners, BART and AC Transit, received a $75,000 Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) planning grant from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to create a Design Plan for the Downtown Berkeley BART Plaza and Transit Area. The city provided $15,000 in matching funds. Figure 2.1: View of the BART Plaza looking north.

��

The primary goal of the project has been to create a comprehensive vision for public improvements to the transit plaza and vicinity that meet the needs of Berkeley’s changing and growing population, while better meeting the needs of existing activities and users. The study has developed a concept-level set of capital improvements for the BART Plaza and the surrounding area. These are focused on short-term improvements that can be made to create an improved environment now, while setting the stage for greater improvements in the future.

��

� ��

��

Beginning in the summer of 2005, the City of Berkeley, led by Transportation Division of the Public Works Department staﬀ, with assistance from the consulting ﬁrms Community Design + Architecture (CD+A), Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Strategic Economics, and Cambridge Systematics, undertook a community-based urban design and transportation planning process to develop a concept plan for the Downtown Berkeley BART Plaza and Transit Area.

��

Study Area and Process

��

2.1

Study Area

��

The Study Area for the Downtown Berkeley BART Plaza and Transit Area Urban Design Plan includes the area along Shattuck Avenue between Allston Way to the south and Addison Street to the north, including the interaction with the side streets connecting with Shattuck Avenue. Some of the design decisions within the Study Area have implications for the surrounding area, and while the detailed design focus of the plan is on the Study Area, consideration has been given to the surrounding areas as well.

��

Community Involvement

��

The study process has involved broad community input and involvement in decision-making. A Technical Working Group (TWG), including City and transit agency staﬀ, has met throughout the process to review work products and help guide the development of sketch alternatives and the ﬁnal concept plan. A Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), including a range of stakeholders, has also met to review work products and help

��

Figure 2.2: Aerial view with outline of Study Area. Project Over view

■

��

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

shape the community workshops. Two community workshops (one in January and one in April) have provided the opportunity for residents and stakeholders to provide direct interaction with City staﬀ and the consultant team around key design and planning decisions. Additional public input was sought at Transportation Commission and Downtown Area Planning Advisory Committee meetings.

November 18, 2006

■

Downtown Area Plan Coordination Figure 2.3: Community Workshop 1, in January 2006, invited participants to comment on the existing conditions and identify issues.

Throughout the design process, decision-making has been coordinated with the ongoing Downtown Area Plan (DAP) process. The Downtown Area Plan will be a long-range land use and transportation plan for the broader Downtown Area. The DAP will include technical analysis of some of the larger circulation issues raised during the course of this study, such as the configuration of Shattuck Avenue and potential modifications to side streets. The improvements recommended in this concept plan are consistent with the DAP process outcomes to date. The final implementation of the concept plan should continue to be coordinated with the DAP process in order to ensure consistency.

2.2 Figure 2.4: Community Workshop 2, in April 2006, provided for participants to give feedback on large decisions as well as design details.

Study Goals and Objectives

The following project goals and objectives were identified by members of the TWG, CAC, City Staff and the consultant team and presented to the general public for review and input. The project goals and objectives have guided the development of the concept design alternatives and the improvements recommended in the final concept plan.

Goal 1: Improve the Plaza area’s function as a universally accessible transportation hub. The Downtown Berkeley BART Plaza area is heavily used by transit riders, pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. It provides one of the primary access points to UC Berkeley, and to the residential, commercial, employment, and cultural uses located in Downtown Berkeley.

Figure 2.5: The Downtown Berkeley BART Plaza and Transit Area is a multi-modal transportation hub, combining pedestrians, bikes, buses, and BART with a key auto route in the city. 8

■

Project Over view



Enhance multi-modal transit access to expand ridership. This may include reorganizing curb functions to enable timed transfers between buses and shuttles and BART, facilitate pick ups/drop oﬀs, and improve surface transit waiting areas.



Increase accessibility for pedestrians and bicyclists. This includes the incorporation of universal access design standards (including access for those with visual, hearing, as well as mobility disabilities) and

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

November 18, 2006

� ��

��

�

� ��

��

�

��

Figure 2.7: The plaza design has had minor modiﬁcations over time. ��

��

� ��

��

� �

�

��

�

��

� ��

� �

��

�

��

� ��

��

�

��

� ��

��

�

��

Figure 2.8: BART provides much of the activity on the plaza.

� ��

��

� ��

Figure�� 2.9: The existing plaza lacks legibility to help orient users and facilitate transit access and pedestrian �� circulation. ��

��

� ��

��

� ��

Figure 2.6: Existing layout of the study area. Project Over view

�

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

supportive infrastructure (including pedestrian crossings and expanded attended bicycle parking options).

November 18, 2006

■



Create a transit user-friendly environment and enhance the experience of Downtown’s visitors. This may include way-ﬁnding signage and other design elements that make it easy to navigate to and from commercial, cultural, and educational destinations and transit services.



Reorganize the public space to accommodate enhanced bus service and other planned developments. Several transportation and land use changes are planned for Downtown. AC Transit has proposed a new Bus Rapid Transit service that would terminate in Downtown Berkeley, and a hotel/ conference center and museum complex is being planned at Center Street and Shattuck Avenue.



Support functional needs of adjacent land uses. The BART Plaza and Transit Area should provide adequate loading and drop-oﬀ curb areas, as well as providing opportunities for sidewalk café seating or vending.

Figure 2.10: The plaza design should provide opportunities to create a focal point for community activity.

Goal 2: Create a high-quality, memorable place. This site provides a unique opportunity to create a landmark at the center of Berkeley. While access and the particular needs and activities of users are important, creating a place that is a joy to be in must be in the forefront of the design.

■

Project Over view



Create a focal point for community activity. The BART Plaza area provides an opportunity to create a lasting and lively center for residents, workers, students, and visitors as both a key element within the Downtown and within the larger community. The design plan should understand the needs of these users and make a space that is comfortable and welcoming for everyone.



Improve the aesthetic quality of the Plaza area. The design plan for the BART Plaza and Transit Area should create public spaces that are beautiful and highlight the role of the BART Plaza and Transit area as a landmark in Downtown Berkeley.



Incorporate Sustainable Design and Construction Techniques. The design plan should incorporate natural elements and construction materials and techniques that are sustainable wherever possible and provide a beneﬁt to the environment through the approach to landscaping, urban design, and architecture on the site.



Reﬂect History of the Downtown Area. The design

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n



November 18, 2006

should reﬂect the historic resources in the Downtown Area and be in character with the rest of the Downtown. Reﬂect the Identity of the Community. Opportunities to incorporate public art and unique visual elements should be pursued whenever possible.

Goal 3: Support the environmental, cultural, social, and economic development goals for Downtown Berkeley. The BART Plaza area presents an opportunity to help further the environmental, cultural, social, and economic development goals for the Downtown Area by creating an inviting and attractive public space to a wide variety of users. 

Improve safety and amenities for plaza users. The design plan should explore features to improve security (improved sight lines, decreased nuisance areas, lighting etc.) and enhance amenities for plaza users (such as seating, a public toilet, and climatic comfort through landscaping, etc.).



Support existing businesses, civic institutions, and new economic development. The design plan should incorporate landscape and streetscape improvements that create a safe and attractive place to travel through or wait in, and that meet the needs of surrounding businesses.



Provide public space for social, cultural, and community activities. To the extent possible, the design plan should consider opportunities for creating spaces for public art displays, performances, or other social and cultural gatherings.



Activate ground ﬂoor commercial space. Facilitate the ability for ground ﬂoor commercial uses to optimally provide goods and services to the variety of plaza users.

■

Figure 2.11: The plaza design should support opportunites for performances, art display or other social gatherings. (Source: Downtown Berkeley Association)

Project Over view

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

November 18, 2006

■

Project Over view

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

Design Considerations

November 18, 2006

2.3

Site History The existing design of the BART Plaza and Transit Area is the result of incremental improvement projects over the course of the last 35+ years. The current Study Area bears little resemblance to historic photographs taken in the early 1900s, other than several buildings that remain today. In the early part of the last century, Shattuck Avenue was an important railroad route, and railroad tracks occupied the center of the street. A station was located on the north side of Center Street, at the present location of the Kaplan Building. Trolleys ran along University Avenue connecting to the Berkeley Ferry Pier and providing access to the Downtown and the university campus. The primary function of the area was as a transit hub and vital downtown shopping district. Following the removal of the railroad tracks on Shattuck Avenue, a park was constructed in the middle of the street, with traffic lanes on either side. Shattuck Square was redeveloped with smallscale retail and office buildings. The area lost some of its function as a transit hub, while still retaining its retail and entertainment character. With the construction of the BART system in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the function and character of the area changed again. The BART Plaza on the west side of Shattuck Avenue consolidated the main public space with the existing sidewalk and added the highly visible rotunda structure. The consolidation of the plaza space caused automobile circulation to be altered, adding a C-curve for southbound traffic. BART reintroduced the transit hub function to the area, although beyond the plaza itself, much of the street design was more oriented towards automobile use than pedestrian and local transit functions. The rotunda entry to BART created an object that terminates the view down southbound Shattuck Avenue, similar to how the “off set” at University Avenue terminates the northbound view.

■

Figure 2.12: Historically, Shattuck Avenue was an important railroad route.

Figure 2.13: Historical picture of Shattuck Avenue looking North.

Over the past 15 years, the City has made a conscious eﬀort to improve the pedestrian circulation functions in Downtown through a series of streetscape projects. The south side of Center Street between Shattuck Avenue and Oxford Street was improved to provide a key link between the University and the Downtown. The widened sidewalks, pedestrian lighting, and urban design details set an important precedent that has been followed up with the Downtown Streetscape improvements project, which added pedestrian lighting and new trees between University Avenue and Kittredge Street along Shattuck Avenue. Figure 2.14: Recent plaza improvements have included signage and lighting and landscaping improvements along Center Street and along Shattuck Avenue. Project Over view

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

November 18, 2006

Physical and Environmental Factors There are important physical and environmental characteristics of the Study Area that contribute to the design process. These factors inform decision-making about both long- and short-term design options for the site and contribute to the recommendations in the concept design described in Section 4 of this report. Scale of Study Area and Public Spaces The scale of the BART Plaza and Transit Area informs the potential use programs in the Study Area. Figure 2.15 below illustrates the scale of the Study Area in relation to some other important Bay Area multi-modal hubs. These studies help show some of the limitations on the BART Plaza. While the plaza is bigger than the 16th Street Mission BART Plazas, it is considerably smaller than the Powell Street BART Plaza and the Ferry Plaza in San Francisco. The scale of the plaza constrains the ability to program the public spaces, and makes long-term options that create additional public spaces attractive (such as on Center Street between Shattuck Avenue and Oxford Street). ��

��

�

��

�

� ��

��

�

��

�

��

�

��

�

��

�

��

�

��

�

��

�

��

�

��

�

��

Figure 2.15: Scale comparisons of the Berkeley BART Plaza with other important Bay Area multi-modal transportation hubs. � ��

��

■

Project Over view

�

■

��

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

Strong retail streets benefit from visual connections between stores on opposite sides of the street and sidewalks that are appropriately proportioned to the activities that take place along them. The retail along this block of Shattuck Avenue is challenged by the width of the Shattuck Avenue right-of-way and a weak pedestrian environment. North of Center Street, Shattuck Avenue splits to form a couplet continuing to University Avenue. Three lanes of northbound traffic run on the east side of Shattuck Square, while three lanes of southbound traffic run on the west leg of the street. Both legs of Shattuck Avenue have curb parking or bus loading lanes. The east leg is narrower, with a 78-foot wide right-of-way, while the west leg has a right-of-way 107 feet wide. Looking north, the west leg of Shattuck Avenue frames a picturesque view with the Berkeley Hills in the background. Looking south, this view is terminated by the BART rotunda.

Figure 2.16: Section through Shattuck Avenue between Allston Way and Center Street. This area suffers from a poor visual and physical connection between the two sides of the street. Project Over view

■

November 18, 2006

Shattuck Avenue Cross Section There are two distinct cross section conditions on Shattuck Avenue in the Study Area. The area along the Shattuck Avenue right-of-way on the block between Allston Way and Center Street is extremely wide— ranging from 160 feet at Allston Way to almost 200 feet at Center Street. This block has six lanes of twoway traﬃc with a raised median and bus loading areas on both sides of the street. The roadway cross-section is typically 85 feet wide in this block. While the crossing at Center Street is 105 feet wide; there is an ample pedestrian refuge at this point. The width of the roadway causes the block to lack a cohesive identity, and it suﬀers from poor visual and physical connection between the two sides of the street.

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

November 18, 2006

■

Figure 2.17: Section through the Shattuck Avenue couplet, north of Center Street continuing to University Avenue.

The east leg of Shattuck Avenue, in contrast, is framed by buildings looking north, and does not have a strong terminus in the southern direction. The diﬀerent characters of these two legs suggest that varying treatments to the two sides of the Shattuck Square block may be appropriate.

June 21, 9:00 am

December 21, 9:00 am

June 21, 1:00 pm

December 21, 1:00 pm

June 21, 4:00 pm

December 21, 4:00 pm

Figure 2.18: Shadow study showing the BART plaza at the summer and winter solstices. 16

■

Solar Access Solar access can be an important factor in creating a successful open space, especially in the winter. The existing BART Plaza has good morning and mid-day solar access year round. In the afternoon, the existing plaza is often in shade, but does have some late afternoon solar access. A sketch solar analysis done for this project identiﬁed the potential for improved solar access if the plaza were shifted to the east side of Shattuck Avenue, a concept that is discussed more fully in Section 3 of this report. Shifting the plaza, however, would result in decreased morning solar access. Because the plaza is generally oriented on the north-south axis, there will always be good mid-day solar access, regardless of the surrounding building heights. Strawberry Creek Presently, Strawberry Creek runs under Allston Way in a culvert and is integrated into the underground structure of the BART station as it crosses Shattuck Avenue. There has been ongoing interest in Berkeley around the concept of day-lighting the creek along Center Street as part of a public open space. This project has not looked at the feasibility of this idea, and the creek needs to be further studied in suﬃcient detail—both in terms of technical analysis and urban design—before this idea can be implemented.

Project Over view B

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

November 18, 2006

2.4 Access Considerations for All Transportation Modes Downtown Berkeley is one of the most heavily used transit hubs in the Bay Area and is at the heart of an active downtown with commercial, oﬃce, cultural, civic, entertainment, and residential uses. Access to the BART Plaza and Transit Area is complex and integrated. Buses, pedestrians, bicycles, service vehicles, and autos all interact in a highly constrained area. This section of the report deals with the access needs of each mode and the resulting implications for design.

Pedestrian and ADA Access

Figure 2.19: Pinch points along sidewalks at bus stops create congestion and conﬂict points for pedestrians.

The existing pedestrian network provides a good base level of connectivity and circulation; however improvements to the Study Area could improve pedestrian access signiﬁcantly. All sidewalks in the area meet ADA standards and all of the intersections have marked crosswalks with pedestrian signals, while others—such as Shattuck Avenue/Kittredge Street—also have pedestrian countdown signals. Some signals, including the Shattuck Avenue/Center Street intersection have audible pedestrian signals as well. A primary issue is the constrained waiting areas at surface transit stops. All bus stops in the area create congestion and conﬂict points for pedestrians. Additionally, the space constraints of these waiting areas leave little space for amenities such as benches and shelters. The stops on the east side of Shattuck Avenue, including the stop south of Center Street, in front of Games of Berkeley and the stop on the north side of Center Street, in front of the Wells Fargo Bank to the west of Shattuck Avenue, are particular problem points.

Figure 2.20: Constrained waiting areas leave little space for amenties such as shelters and benches.

Sidewalks in the area are generally wide enough for the pedestrian traffic, with pinch points in key locations, such as around the BART entries and at bus stops. The sidewalk on the north side of Center Street west of Shattuck Avenue is only nine feet wide, which is narrow to accommodate existing pedestrian traffic, and is especially, constrained at the bus stop. The narrow width makes it difficult to provide amenities for bus riders and pedestrians. The result is a low-quality bus waiting area, with only a bench, and a low-quality pedestrian environment. Another important pinch point is on the east side of Shattuck Avenue, just south of Addison Street. The current 12 foot sidewalk is narrow given the existing Bear Transit stop and adjacent businesses. The existing sidewalks on the west side of Shattuck Avenue are relatively wide, but are constrained in places by existing street furniture, such as bike racks and newspaper boxes. For example, adjacent to the BART entry at Shattuck and Allston Way, there is approximately 16 feet between the low wall of the entry and the adjacent building. However, the bike racks, pedestrian lights,

■

Figure 2.21: Bike racks, pedestrian lights, trash cans, and newspaper boxes reduce the effective width of the sidewalks making them further constrained. Project Over view

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

and newspaper boxes reduce the eﬀective width of the sidewalk to approximately nine feet.

November 18, 2006

■

Figure 2.22: The existing brick paving at the Berkeley BART Plaza does not cause an accessibilty concern, but can be hard to maintain.

The surface of the primary plaza area is paved mainly with brick, while surrounding areas are paved with concrete. The brick is well-installed and level, and there are no accessibility issues in the plaza area. However, it is hard to maintain. Some, but not all, curb ramps meet the current city standard for ADA and include detectable tiles. Most curb ramps point directly in the direction of the crosswalks, but there are some issues in this regard, particularly at the corner of Shattuck Avenue and Center Street, that can be disorienting to visually impaired users. The east side of Shattuck Avenue at Center Street also has diagonal curb ramps on both the north and south side of the intersection. The elevator access to the BART station is located on the northwest corner of the Shattuck Avenue/Center Street intersection, making this a primary consideration in addressing issues of ADA accessibility. Access to this elevator is problematic for wheelchair users and others due to a low semi-circular wall structure containing stand pipes a few feet from the elevator door, resulting in ingress/egress conﬂicts. There have been past discussions about adding a second elevator to the BART station with a new entry on the east side of Shattuck Avenue as part of the station expansion plans (discussed further in the Transit Access section of this document), and to the extent feasible, this has been explored as part of this project.

Figure 2.23: The only BART access elevator is located on the northwest corner of the Shattuck Avenue/ Center Street intersection.

There is a lack of legibility of the physical environment. All of the BART entries except for the stair on the northwest corner of Center Street and Shattuck Avenue point away from the rotunda structure, one of the most recognizable landmarks in the Downtown, and pedestrians exiting from these points often have a difficult time orienting themselves. Exiting the rotunda structure can also be disorienting as there is no signage or a clear visual relationship to streets or other landmarks. Likewise, the lack of prominence of secondary entries channels more pedestrian activity to the rotunda. Dispersal of some of the BART-bound pedestrian traffic from the rotunda entrance to the secondary entries could improve overall circulation in the area. The map in the existing kiosk at Center Street, adjacent to the rotunda, aids in way finding. Planned bus arrival information with the new Rapid Bus Service will also aid orientation.

Bicycle Access

Figure 2.24: The BART rotunda, the main entry/exit to the station, lacks clear signage and makes orientation for BART patrons difﬁcult because of its indirect relationship to the street. 18

■

Project Over view

Bicycle access to and within the Study Area is good, however there is potential for improving the existing surface bike parking and improving access to an expanded concourse-level attended bike parking in the BART station. Bicycle racks are dispersed throughout the Study Area, with concentrations at the BART rotunda and adjacent to the BART entry on the west side of Shattuck Avenue at Allston Way. Bike parking is heavily used at

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

The existing bike station at the southern end of the BART station concourse level is oversubscribed, and BART would like to expand and relocate the station. BART has worked with Robin Chiang Architects and Strategic Economics to explore the feasibility of reconstructing the facility within the BART station as well as the feasibility of relocating the bike station to an existing street-level storefront. If reconstructed within the BART station, the bike station would continue to be located at the southern end of the station on the concourse level. This suggests the potential for improvements to the southern BART entries and the surrounding plaza areas to facilitate bike use.

November 18, 2006

all times, although there are a high number of vandalized and/or abandoned bikes, which reduces overall capacity and negatively impact the perception of safety in the plaza area. The dispersal of bike parking throughout the plaza area helps meet the various needs of bicyclists, including accessing retail and entertainment uses as well as transit.

Figure 2.25: Surface bike parking is dispersed throughout the study area with concentrations at the BART Rotunda and adjacent to the BART entry on the west side of Shattuck Avenue at Allston Way.

Center Street currently has striped bike lanes west of Shattuck Avenue, and striped bike lanes between Shattuck Avenue and Oxford Street are included in the City’s 2000 Bike Plan. Milvia and Oxford Streets, one block west and east of Shattuck Avenue, respectively, are primary north-south bike routes in the broader area, meaning that Shattuck Avenue does not need to serve as a primary bike route. However, bicyclists do use Shattuck Avenue at times, so the bicycle access functions of the street are an important consideration in any modiﬁcations to the street section.

Bus Access One of the primary functions of the Study Area is providing access to and connections between various modes of public transportation. Surface public transportation in the Study Area includes AC Transit buses, and Bear Transit (UC Berkeley) and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL) shuttles. Downtown Berkeley is AC Transit’s second-busiest transit point in the entire East Bay, after Downtown Oakland. Figure 2.28 shows existing bus routes and stop locations.

Figure 2.26: The existing bike station located on the concourse level at the southern end of the BART station is oversubscribed.

AC Transit is currently developing plans for several bus enhancements in the Study Area. A “Rapid” service, similar to existing service on San Pablo Avenue, will be introduced in Fall 2006. Improvements will include visible signage and shelters, and two information kiosks that display real-time arrival information for all bus routes serving Downtown Berkeley. The Rapid will replace the existing 40L service, and will lead to some additional route modiﬁcations in the Downtown Area. AC Transit is also developing plans for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) in the Study Area. Downtown Berkeley would serve as the northern terminus for a BRT line connecting Downtown Berkeley with Downtown Oakland via Telegraph Avenue and

■

Figure 2.27: Surface public transportation in the study area includes AC Transit buses, and Bear Transit (UC Berkeley) and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL) shuttles. Project Over view

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

��

�

��

� �

�

��

�

��

� ��

��

�

��

� � � ��

��

� ��

��

� ��

��

� ��

��

�

��

� � ��

��

� � ��

��

� � ��

��

Figure 2.28: Transit 20

■

��

�� Routes and �Stops. Stop information

��

�

��

� ��

��

� ��

��

� ��

��

� ��

��

� ��

��

November 18, 2006

■

��

is current as of 12/01/05. Map does not reﬂect planned changes in service.

Project Over view ��

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n



Exclusive bus lanes incorporating local service as well as the BRT line. It is likely that all of the AC Transit service in Downtown Berkeley could be incorporated into exclusive lanes;



Raised platforms to facilitate boarding and alighting. Platforms would be raised approximately seven inches above the normal curb height in order to provide a level ﬂoor with buses. This requires ADA-compliant ramps at either end of platforms to bring patrons back to ground level; and



Improvements to traﬃc signals and fare collection systems in order to improve running times.

November 18, 2006

continuing south to San Leandro. The BRT system would include enhancements intended to improve bus functionality, travel time, and reliability. These improvements include:

In all options being considered by AC Transit, BRT is accommodated in center-running exclusive lanes within the Study Area. One option has BRT traveling in both directions on Shattuck Avenue, while in the other, the BRT runs only in a northbound direction on Shattuck Avenue before circling back to the south via Oxford Street. In both options, the BRT “stations” are located between Addison and Center Streets. This creates some challenges in terms of pedestrian connections to BART, since the closest BART entry (at Shattuck Avenue and Addison Street) is not particularly visible, and it is necessary to cross Shattuck Avenue to access the existing BART elevator. The planned BRT system will have some impacts on auto circulation in the Study Area. The center running configuration will result in the removal of several left turn lanes: northbound Shattuck Avenue onto Center Street and Addison Street, and southbound Shattuck Avenue onto Center Street and Allston Way. Some BRT variations also remove the left turn lane on northbound Shattuck Avenue onto Allston Way. While the effect on congestion and Level of Service (all intersections in the Study Area currently operate level of service A or B)1 is not significant, the removal of left turn lanes will make access to Downtown destinations more circuitous. The City’s plans for a Parking Information System with better signage to parking lots will help with this need.

■

Figure 2.29: The diagram shows one of AC Transit’s potential conﬁgurations for the BRT system with center running bus lanes and consolidated loading areas. This conﬁguration results in the prohibition of several left turn movements within the study area.

Level of Service (LOS) is a method for analyzing the performance of an intersection in terms of automobile efficiency. Letter grades ranging from A (free flow—no delay) to F (stopped traffic) are given to provide a qualitative rating of intersection performance Project Over view

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n Downtown Berkeley BART Plaza and Transit Area Urban Design Plan BART Access

November 18, 2006

■

�

DRAFT Final Concept Plan

�

July 5, 2006

There are currently six entries to the Berkeley BART station within the Study Area. Entry Location

Vertical Circulation

West side Shattuck south of Center (Rotunda)

Two escalators

West side Shattuck (SB) north of Center

Elevator + Stair with returns

West side Shattuck (SB) south of Addison East side Shattuck (SB) south of Addison West side Shattuck north of Allston

Straight Stairs with central divider

East side Shattuck north of Allston

Figure 2.30: BART has studied the possibility of a new entry on the northeast corner of Shattuck Avenue and Center Street incorporated into potential development on the Bank of America property.

Figure 2.31: Secondary entries with only stair access have the potential to be retroﬁtted with escalators to increase their use and reduce the demand on the rotunda entry.

Table 2.1: BART entry locations and vertical circulation.

BART has studied the possibility ofMidday an additional entry on AM Peak PM Peak the northeast corner of Shattuck Avenue and Center Street Period Period Period incorporated into Delay potentialLOS development on the Bank Delay LOS Delay LOSof Shattuck Avenue at: (Sec) (Sec) (Sec) America block. While this entry is technically feasible, the cost University Ave (West) 10.9 circulation B 6.6 A 9.0 A of tunneling and vertical may make it economically infeasible. a new entry as part Bof a development University Ave.However, (East) 12.0 B 15.9 14.5 B projectStreet would greatly5.2 increaseA transit lead Addison (West) 7.6accessAand could 7.8 A to creativeStreet approaches to4.8reconﬁAguring5.1existing Addison (East) A entries. 6.5 Potential A reconﬁStreet guration in10.9 the Study Center (West)of the 8.9roadways A B Area 8.7 will allow A alternative solutions for an BART entry, Center Street (East) 9.0 providing A 4.6 additional A 6.3 A such as Street and Allston Waythe southeast3.9cornerA of Center 6.8 A 6.9 Shattuck A Avenue, or in the median of Shattuck Avenue. Th ese solutions Source: "Shattuck Operations Analysis—Final Memorandum", DKS Associates, February 14, 2005 would be costly but could radically alter the Study Area to help achieve the project goals and objectives. Intersection

Other than the main rotunda entry and the elevator entry, all existing BART entries include only stair access. One possible way to increase the capacity of the station would be to retrofit other entries with escalators. One escalator could be added to each existing stair entry with the direction changing to serve peak flows either entering or exiting the station. This might increase the use of the northern entries and reduce the demand on the rotunda entry (See Figure 2.32 for volumes of pedestrian traffic exiting the BART Entries). All BART entries are gated at night, with all but the rotunda gated at the bottom of the stairs, leading to security and vandalism problems.

Community Design + Architecture Consulting Team

■

Project Over view

�

Page 1

Figure 2.32: Pedestrian trafﬁc exiting the BART entries. ��

��

�

��

�

��

November 18, 2006

��

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

Project Over view

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

Auto Access

November 18, 2006

■

Auto access is a broad category that includes several areas of consideration: (1) vehicular circulation and safety; (2) potential changes to the Shattuck Avenue Couplet; (3) auto access to transit; and (4) general considerations regarding auto access to serve the Downtown Area.

Vehicular Circulation and Safety The streets in the Study Area serve a vital function in carrying the vehicular traffic for the city. Shattuck Avenue is a major north-south street connecting from South Berkeley, and carries traffic from the Southside area around the UC Berkeley campus. Vehicular traffic peaks in the PM commute hour, and traffic is bi-directional, meaning that traffic flow is basically even in the northbound and southbound directions at most times of day. (See Figure 2.34 for details of the PM Peak traffic flows). Throughout the Study Area congestion is not a major concern. All intersections along Shattuck Avenue between Allston Way and University Avenue currently operate at level of service A or B at all times of day (Table 2.2). This means that delays at intersections due to traffic are not a substantial impediment to traffic flow. The existing traffic on the east-west streets is relatively light; these streets are not arterial streets, but serve to access properties and parking garages within the Downtown Area.Downtown Current City in Plan the current Berkeley BART policy—expressed Plaza and Transit Area Urban Design DRAFT Final Downtown Concept Plan July 5, 2006 Area Plan (1995)—cites LOS D as the lowest acceptable LOS for any intersection in the Downtown Area. This leaves a good deal of flexibility for potential changes to roadway configuration to meet Entry project Locationgoals and objectives. Vertical Circulation �

West side Shattuck south of Center (Rotunda)

�

Two escalators

Analysis of traﬃc collision data Elevator from +December 1999West side Shattuck (SB) north of Center Stair with returns December 2004 (SB) (the compiled data that is available) West side Shattuck southlatest of Addison shows a relatively modest level East side Shattuck (SB) south of Addison of collisions. In total, there were Straight Stairs with central divider 77 West collisions in the Study Area in this time period, of which 44 side Shattuck north of Allston East sidein Shattuck north of and Allstonnone of which resulted in a fatality. resulted an injury

Intersection

■

Project Over view

Midday Period

PM Peak Period

Delay (Sec)

LOS

Delay (Sec)

LOS

Delay (Sec)

LOS

University Ave (West)

10.9

6.6

9.0

University Ave. (East)

12.0

15.9

14.5

Addison Street (West)

5.2

7.6

7.8

Shattuck Avenue at:

Figure 2.33: Vehicular trafﬁc throughout the study area operates at level of service A or B with little delay at intersections due to trafﬁc.

AM Peak Period

Addison Street (East)

4.8

5.1

6.5

Center Street (West)

8.9

10.9

8.7

Center Street (East)

9.0

4.6

6.3

Allston Way

3.9

6.8

6.9

Source: "Shattuck Operations Analysis—Final Memorandum", DKS Associates, February 14, 2005

Table 2.2: Vehicular Level of Service at Study Area intersections

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

November 18, 2006

��

�

��

� ��

��

� ��

��

�

��

�

��

�

� ��

��

� �

�

� ��

��

�

��

�

��

� ��

��

�

��

� ��

��

� �

�

��

� ��

��

�

��

Figure 2.34: PM peak hour trafﬁc ﬂow in study area Project Over view

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

November 18, 2006

■

Figure 2.35: The limited loading and drop-off areas in the study area means service vehicles sometimes pull up onto the plaza.

(Since this period, however, there was a pedestrian fatality at Shattuck Avenue and Allston Way, in which a pedestrian was struck in the crosswalk.) The greatest concentration has been around the Shattuck Avenue/Center Street intersection, with 25 collisions, 14 of which resulted in injuries, and the Shattuck Avenue/Allston Way intersection, with 37 collisions, 23 of which resulted in injuries. For an area with so much pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic, there have been remarkably few collisions that have resulted in an injury to a pedestrian (nine collisions) or a bicyclist (five collisions, all clustered around the Shattuck Avenue/Center Street intersection). Possible explanations for the low level of traffic collisions include: (1) the slow travel speeds (generally 15-27 mph) and high volumes in the Study Area cause motorists and others to proceed with caution at intersections; or (2) the existing improvements in the area, such as the median nose at Center Street and pedestrian signals, improve pedestrian safety. Despite the generally good operating conditions, there are several areas of concern regarding vehicle circulation in the Study Area. Some of these issues will be addressed in this project, while others are issues that would be better addressed through traffic enforcement or long-range planning for the Downtown Area. Issues include:

■

Project Over view



Turning Vehicles At Times Block Through Lanes: On southbound Shattuck Avenue, the large volume of pedestrians crossing the street frequently block turning vehicles, which in turn block through lanes. This particularly impacts operations at Center Street, but not to an unacceptable degree. A pedestrian-only phase at this intersection could alleviate this issue to some extent.



Illegal Left Turns: Prohibition on left turns from westbound Center Street onto southbound Shattuck Avenue is frequently violated. This is mainly an enforcement and signage issue.



Stopped Vehicles At Times Block Through Lanes: Insufficient storage space between the two legs of Shattuck Avenue from Center Street to University Avenue causes queued vehicles to spill back into through lanes. This is particularly problematic for left turns off northbound Shattuck Avenue onto westbound Center Street. Illegal left turns off westbound Center Street contribute to the problem.



Parking in Through Lanes: This is particularly common adjacent to BART entries as people pick up or drop oﬀ passengers.



Last Minute Lane Changes: Southbound traﬃc in the far left lane of Shattuck Avenue sometimes makes a last minute maneuver to avoid the left-turn only lane onto

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n



November 18, 2006

eastbound Allston Way. This is both a traﬃc ﬂow and safety consideration.

■

Vehicular Sightlines At Times Blocked by Buses: This is a problem primarily for autos making right turns on red. While this is not directly addressed by the concept design, prohibiting right turns on red in the Downtown Area would address the sightline concern and generally improve pedestrian safety.

Potential Changes to the Shattuck Avenue Couplet The City has previously studied the possibility of reconfiguring Shattuck Avenue between Center Street and University Avenue to provide two-way access on the west side of Shattuck Square and a local street or bus and pedestrian-only access on the east side. The analysis of traffic impacts does not indicate that the change would have an adverse impact on vehicular circulation in the immediate Study Area. The configuration previously studied by the City was only one of a number of potential roadway reconfigurations. This project has not studied the issue of the Shattuck Avenue couplet in any technical detail, but the ongoing Downtown Area Plan process is likely to analyze and determine the feasibility of this change. Auto Access to Transit While BART does not have a park-and-ride facility at the Downtown Berkeley station, kiss-and-ride access is an important component of transit access. Kiss-and-ride capacity in the Study Area is extremely limited and the activity is highly dispersed. People dropping off BART riders currently use a number of locations, most of them technically illegal. The northern entries at Addison Street are a primary drop-off location. Some riders use the white zone on the BART Plaza, but this area is not well signed for this purpose. Drivers waiting to pick up BART riders have very few options. The white zones do not allow standing to wait for passengers, and the metered spaces along the street are often occupied. In a highly qualitative assessment, it appears these users are either waiting elsewhere in the Downtown Area or are using alternative BART stations (such as North Berkeley or Ashby) that are better suited for waiting. Very short term parking (15 minutes or less) may also benefit certain convenience retailers (such as coffee shops, dry cleaners, and video stores) in the Downtown Area. Drop-off zones could also be converted to short-term parking in off-peak hours.

Project Over view

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

November 18, 2006

■

Figure 2.36: Loading areas are in high demand throughout the day.

Figure 2.37: The taxi drop-off on Center Street is also highly used.

Figure 2.38: The east side of Shattuck Avenue in the Study Area is almost entirely devoted to bus loading areas. 28

■

Project Over view

General Considerations Beyond the through-traffic and access to transit, auto access within the Study Area also serves the activities of the Downtown Area. The existing curb functions in the Downtown Area reflect the various needs for access by different modes. The existing taxi stand on Center Street serves BART and AC Transit riders, but also the broader users of Downtown. Because of the density of activities, the curb zones are highly regulated and programmed. North of Center Street and south of Allston Way, metered parking is the standard curb function, as it is on most of the side streets. Adjacent to the BART Plaza and on the east side of Shattuck Avenue between Allston Way and Addison Street, the curb function is primarily devoted to bus loading. There is a small white zone adjacent to the BART Plaza for drop-off and service vehicles (such as USPS and City vehicles). Some City and BART maintenance vehicles pull directly onto the plaza to perform maintenance activities. On the east side of Shattuck Avenue, there is a small yellow zone for loading purposes between Allston Way and Center Street. On the west side of Shattuck Avenue there is a small yellow zone for loading and a red zone for BART police parking. On Center Street west of Shattuck Avenue there is a small green zone which was recently added to allow bank patrons to access ATMs without occupying the bus zone. Figure 2.39 illustrates the curb designations in the Study Area.

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

November 18, 2006

��

� ��

��

� ��

��

� ��

��

CMY

��

�� C

� ��

��

CMY

��

Figure 2.39: Curb designation and street conﬁguration.

��

�

��

�� P r o j e c t O v �� erview ■ ��

��

■

��

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

2.5 Site Use Considerations The BART Plaza and Transit Area is consistently most active during the middle of the day. Oﬃce workers and students take their lunch breaks and run errands, families walk to the next activity, and others wait for the bus. Site observations yielded several categories of users, each of which have design implications. While the morning and evening peaks have the greatest transit rider activity, the mid-day has the most varied activities and the greatest uses of the plaza space itself.

Transit Riders

Site Usage around BART Entry/ Exits

to campus

bus waiting secondary entries to library, movie theaters, campus & housing

to library, movie theaters, campus and housing

large spillover bus waiting area for southbound traffic

passive zone. few users. usually dominated by a group of people which deters others from using it.

residual space along the road with minimum use

passive zone. usage varies on weather

bus waiting along the edge of the road

secondary entries

to arts district

November 18, 2006

■

Transit riders are the predominant user group at most times of the day. People entering or exiting BART, waiting for the bus, or transferring between the two modes provide much of the activity in the Study Area. These users usually know their destination and take the shortest route to get there. More frequent users access BART from the southern or northern entries if they are closer to their destinations, while bus riders will take as direct a path as possible to and from their bus. This is reﬂected by paths of travel from the AC Transit stop on the BART Plaza: 

Riders crossing Shattuck Avenue to access the UC campus will walk directly along the curb, on the “back” (east) side of the BART rotunda to get to the intersection;



Riders transferring to BART enter down the adjacent stairs into the BART station;



Riders going to Berkeley High will walk directly west on Allston Way; and



Riders with destinations elsewhere in Downtown take direct paths around the planters and other BARTrelated structures in the plaza.

Figure 2.40: Site usage around BART Entry/Exits.

People waiting for the buses at the various bus stops in the Study Area fan out over a wide area to wait for their bus to arrive. The waiting area on the BART Plaza extends from the Shattuck Avenue/Allston Way intersection to nearly 150 feet north to the set of benches in the middle of the plaza. The waiting area is usually contained within the curb zone, though, and bus riders for the most part do not wait on the building side of the planters and benches.

Figure 2.41: The BART plaza is used by individuals and groups at all hours of the day. 30

■

Project Over view

Bus waiting zones in other parts of the Study Area have similar use characteristics. The zone on the east side of Shattuck Avenue between Center Street and Addison Street extends along the entire length of the block, with many riders using the seating along the edge of the low wall outside of the Bank of America. The existing bus shelter is not especially well used in this area, likely because riders can wait farther back from the roadway by sitting and leaning against the low wall.

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

��

�

��

�

��

November 18, 2006

� ��

��

�

��

�

��

� ��

��

�

��

� �

�

��

Figure 2.43: The bus waiting zone on the east side of Shattuck Avenue between Center Street and Addison Street; many riders use the low wall along the Bank of America for seating. ��

��

� ��

��

� ��

��

� �

�

��

� ��

��

Figure 2.42: Travel paths and desire lines from an analysis of user groups in Fall 2005 and City of Berkeley pedestrian counts from May 2003. Line widths represent relative volume of pedestrian activity.

� �

��

Project Over view

��

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

Plaza Users

November 18, 2006

■

A number of people use the existing seating within the plaza for a variety of uses. Groups of teenagers hang out, oﬃce workers eat lunch, read a book, or sit in groups, and some people just sit and watch others walk by.

Figure 2.44: The raised planters on the plaza provide many types of seating that accommodate different combinations of groups and individuals.

Figure 2.45: The current plaza layout tends to push pedestrians to the perimeter, rather than drawing them through the center of the plaza.

People use the seating in a variety of ways. People often use the low walls of the planters in the BART Plaza to sit on, sometimes resting their feet on the benches below. Groups of people will often use the low walls and benches in different ways, with some people leaning on the walls, others sitting on benches, and some sitting on the plaza surface or standing. There are two primary areas in the Study Area where people congregate and stay for long periods of time without using transit: (1) the center of the BART Plaza, and (2) the Bank of America plaza. Different groups tend to cluster in each. The BART Plaza often has groups of people and individuals seeking sunlight and the public setting the space offers. The plaza is a central place to watch or meet people, and the larger groups are often in flux, with people arriving or leaving constantly. The Bank of America plaza, on the other hand, is shaded by the surrounding trees and is often populated by individuals or small groups of people looking for a more private setting. The plaza area is an important gathering place for homeless people in Berkeley. The homeless population uses the plaza in much the same way as other groups. Some homeless users sell the “Street Spirit” newspaper. These vendors often choose locations with large numbers of passersby in a tight area, such as near the raised planter at the north end of the BART Plaza or between the entrance to the Walgreens at Allston Way and Shattuck Avenue. Many homeless people also use the Bank of America plaza because it is out of the way and sheltered from passersby. At times, the homeless population uses the plaza in large numbers, and can be perceived as “dominating” the space. The new plaza design is aimed at incorporating new uses that invite others to use the plaza area without excluding any users. Understanding the needs of the homeless population is important for designing a plaza that can be used by all.

Figure 2.46: People use the low walls and benches in the BART Plaza in many ways, sometimes to sit on, resting their feet on the benches below. 32

■

Project Over view

Buskers and people soliciting donations for various causes are another important user group. These users tend to concentrate in the area in front of the BART rotunda, often along the building edge, where the pedestrian traﬃc ﬂows are the greatest. The expansive area in front of the BART rotunda sees people waiting to meet, too, since it is a central location that is highly visible. Buskers rarely use the center of the BART Plaza, since the current design tends to push pedestrians to the perimeter, rather than drawing them through the center of the plaza.

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

��

�

��

� ��

�

��

�

��

�

��

� �

��

� ��

��

�

��

November 18, 2006

��

� ��

��

� ��

��

� ��

��

�

��

�

��

� ��

��

� �

�

��

� ��

��

�

��

Figure 2.47: Plaza use patterns based on information gathered through observation and analysis of the user groups at key times of the day. Project Over view ��

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

Adjacent Land Uses

November 18, 2006

■

The land uses fronting the Study Area predominantly consist of ground floor retail uses, often with office or residential uses on upper floors of buildings. Both sides of Shattuck Avenue between Allston Way and Center Street have active ground floor uses, including several cafes and retail storefronts on the west side, and retail storefronts on the east side with one restaurant space. This block has some larger-footprint uses, with Ross on the west side and the Walgreen Drug Store on the east side. The intersection of Shattuck Avenue and Center Street has banks on three corners. This limits the retail potential of the corner sites that have the most adjacent pedestrian traffic. This also creates blank or inactive facades at these important corners. The southwest and northwest corners of the intersection have large office buildings (13 stories). The block of Shattuck Avenue between Center Street and Addison Street also has ground-floor retail uses, with a high number of restaurants and cafes. The Shattuck Square block, between the two legs of Shattuck Avenue has businesses fronting on both sides and has predominantly single-story buildings, except for the Kaplan Building on the southern corner. Only a few of the ground floor uses in the Study Area currently use the public space of the adjacent sidewalk for seating or other activities. One café on the west side of Shattuck Avenue between Center Street and Addison Street has several tables outside, and the restaurant at Shattuck Square and Addison Street has limited outdoor seating space.

East Elevation of Shattuck between Center and Allston Figure 2.48: Adjacent land uses support increased activity and new uses on the plaza.

■

Project Over view

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

November 18, 2006

Retail Demand Segments and Synergy in the Downtown There are four primary demand segments in the Downtown: 

Students. Berkeley High School students contribute to retail sales in the middle of the day (lunchtime and after school) while UC Berkeley students make purchases throughout the day as well as at night, supporting restaurants, bars, cafes and cinemas in the Downtown.



Daytime office workers. There are over 7,000 office workers in the immediate Downtown Area. A national study completed by the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) suggests that the average downtown office worker spends $130 weekly on goods and services close to his or her place of work, representing potential for more than $19 million in annual sales in Downtown Berkeley.2



Destination. Residents from Berkeley and beyond come Downtown to access a variety of cultural or entertainment uses in the Downtown.



Residential Population. Since 2000, 522 new units have been built in the Downtown and more than 1,800 units are under construction or in the development pipeline. Until recently, virtually all of these units have been for rent, and many of the occupants are students, however this market segment may be diﬀerentiated from the student group as these residents will support retail according to local buying patterns. More recent developments are also starting to include ownership housing, which will have further implications for the retail market in the Downtown.

Figure 2.49: Shoppers and other leisure users stay mostly along the edge of the plaza. The design of the plaza does not invite use by this group; most people walk by without using the plaza space.

While the Downtown currently caters to each of these populations, it does not fully capitalize on the synergistic potential among land uses or among retailers. For example, while the Downtown Arts District appears to be quite successful, the success has largely been contained to Addison Street west of Shattuck Avenue. The opportunity exists to draw these patrons into other areas of the Downtown and to expand the range of uses that cater to this segment. Similarly, the expanding residential population Downtown represents an opportunity to ensure that the product mix in the Downtown addresses the local shopping habits of downtown residents. Development of ownership units may represent an opportunity to expand local-serving retail even further to serve a greater variety of household types.

■

Oﬃce Worker Retail Spending Patterns. International Council of Shopping Centers, 2004. Project Over view

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

November 18, 2006

�

Figure 2.50: These studies show visual obstructions at various locations within the study area to demonstrate the impediments to visibility. 36

■

Project Over view

�

to campus

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

bus shelter

secondary entries

bus shelter

bike racks raised planters bus shelter

seating

rotunda

tree wells

Physical Obstructions

While the BART Plaza, and the Study Area as a whole, is not a hotbed of criminal activity, it can, at times, feel unsafe. Existing lighting is often obscured due to the close placement of trees. The raised planters, low walls around BART entries, and other opaque structures block sight lines through the plaza (See ﬁgures 2.50 and 2.51). Blank facades along the west side of Shattuck Avenue and the separation of the sidewalk area from passing street traﬃc limit passive surveillance of the plazas. Finally, the BART rotunda reduces the visibility of the plaza from the north and east of the Study area, because of the opacity of the glass as well as the steel structure itself.

service room

Pedestrian traffic exiting the BART Entries

secondary entries

bus sto

Safety Concerns

to library, movie theaters, campus & housing

rotunda

bus sto p

Visitors and tourists are an important user group. Many arrive by transit with destinations on the UC Berkeley campus. The existing design of the Study Area is disorienting for this user group, as the BART entries point away from the primary axis to the campus along Center Street. Many visitors appear disoriented upon exiting from BART and will take a circuitous path to their destination and sometimes need to ask passersby for directions. Similarly, people who are unfamiliar with the area will often bypass secondary BART entries to access the station via the rotunda due to its visual prominence in the Downtown.

light poles

mainly to campus

Visitors/Tourists

light poles

bus sto p

secondary entries

Shoppers or other leisure users tend to stay along the edge of the plaza. The BART Plaza design retains the character of a sidewalk along the western building edge, with a relatively impermeable edge formed by the BART entries, raised planters, seating, street trees, and lights. Because the design of the plaza does not invite use by this group, most people walk by without using the plaza space. There are few other gathering or resting places for shoppers within the Study Area. Seating is primarily located at bus stops or in the BART Plaza.

raised planter with seating

to arts district

November 18, 2006

Shoppers/Leisure Users

Figure 2.51: Physical obstructions at various locations within the study area, to demonstrate the impediments to visibility.

Existing BART entries, including the elevator, do not provide good sight lines into the station, and, with the gates down one ﬂight of stairs, are often used as toilets during the night. The BART Plaza area can be contrasted with Center Street between Shattuck Avenue and Oxford, where well-placed pedestrian lighting (spaced so as not to conﬂict with street trees), activated building frontages, and clear sight lines makes the space feel safer to users. The east side of Shattuck Avenue between Center Street and Allston Way has similar problems with a lack of clear sight lines and lighting that is obscured by trees. Project Over view

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

2.6 Site Opportunities and Constraints

November 18, 2006

■

The following opportunities and constraints were identiﬁed as a result of input from the community and Downtown stakeholders, as well as City, AC Transit, and BART staﬀ, and the analysis performed by the consultant team.

Potential New User Groups The current design of the plaza supports some users at the expense of others. While it is diﬃcult for a survey of existing conditions to identify these users, discussions with the CAC and the broader public at the ﬁrst community workshop included a focus on generating concepts for those who are not currently using the plazas, including supporting cultural uses, expanded sidewalk cafes, and others.

BART Entries

Figure 2.52:The rotunda has the potential for cosmetic improvements such as clear glazing and lighter colored ﬁnishes.

The BART entries present both an opportunity and a constraint for the redesign of the plaza. The entries, aside from the rotunda, lack visibility and prominence, and do not have escalators. As a result, the rotunda entry is more heavily used. The secondary entries present an opportunity to develop a coherent design vision for the entire Study Area. The potential to add canopies, shorten openings, and/or modify the low walls surrounding the entries could help improve the visual character of the plaza and increase the visibility of the entries. The rotunda itself presents an opportunity, but also a constraint, as any modifications to the structure or the opening may be prohibitively expensive in the near term. Cosmetic changes to the rotunda, such as clear glazing, lighter colored finishes, or other less expensive fixes may be more feasible financially. A range of potential changes have been explored in developing alternative concepts for the plaza.

Consolidating Bus Facilities The possibility to consolidate bus facilities through the use of exclusive bus lanes and bus loading platforms provides an opportunity to reorganizing bus facilities within the Study Area. In addition to improving bus performance and service reliability, this opportunity would alleviate existing pedestrian pinch points at bus stops, particularly on the east side of Shattuck Avenue.

Capacity of Shattuck Avenue in the Study Area Figure 2.53: The secondary BART entries lack visibility and prominence and present an opportunity to develop a coherent design vision for the entire study area. 38

■

Project Over view

The lack of automobile congestion and delays in the Study Area provides the opportunity to reconﬁgure the cross section of Shattuck Avenue, while still maintaining an acceptable Level of Service for motor vehicles. A reduction in automobile capacity could be used for expanded bus facilities (in an exclusive lane) as

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

November 18, 2006

well as expanded pedestrian areas (in the form of sidewalks, bus loading platforms, and center medians).

Outdated Surface Materials and Lighting The brick paving and existing pedestrian street lights on the BART Plaza are outdated and showing wear and tear. In addition, existing planter areas located at the BART entries and in the middle of the plaza act as barriers without providing amenities other than as seating areas. The curved base of the BART entry structures also results in newspaper racks, bus stops, and other streetscape elements having to be installed about three feet away from the walls around the entries. This results in an ineﬃcient use of potential plaza space and an area that is a challenge to clean and maintain.

Figure 2.54: The brick paving in the BART Plaza is monotonous and clearly shows patches in locations where alterations have been made in the Plaza.

Existing Utilities and Underground Facilities Because improvements in the Study Area have been designed in small increments over many years since the major BART construction and the drastic reconfiguration of the roadway, the location of existing utilities is complex. This complexity is furthered by the underground extent of the BART station. Throughout most of the Study Area, utilities are located underneath the sidewalks, near the curbs. Additional utilities are located within the roadway. The concrete structure of the BART station limits, to some extent, what improvements are possible, and has implications for the cost and feasibility of more major changes to access and circulation. The existing plaza area drains to the historic curb line (approximately ten feet east of the existing buildings that front onto the west side of the plaza). At the time BART was constructed, some major telephone infrastructure was located under the plaza area. The utility configuration is not anticipated to have an impact on the concept design, but a more detailed understanding of this issue must be developed as the design is refined.

Recent Downtown Improvements The incremental improvements undertaken by the City and private development in the past 10+ years include: 

The Center Street improvements that widened the existing sidewalk, installed decorative tree grates, pedestrian-supportive crossing of Shattuck Avenue, public art (the “tuning fork” public art installation in the median of Shattuck Avenue), and pedestrian-scale lighting (including some lighting on the BART Plaza);



The Downtown Streetscape improvements that replaced street trees and added pedestrian-scale lighting on Shattuck Avenue between University Avenue and Kittredge Street (excepting the BART Plaza);

■

Figure 2.55: The low walls in the plaza create barriers to pedestrian movement and can be modiﬁed to make better use of the plaza space.

Project Over view

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

November 18, 2006

■

Figure 2.56: Center Street improvements provide a widened sidewalk with a cafe zone, pedestrian lighting, trees, and pedestrian crossing improvements.



The Arts District improvements that added public art, decorative paving patterns, ornamental tree grates on Addison Street between Shattuck Avenue and Milvia Street, and public art adjacent to the BART entry at Addison Street and Shattuck Avenue; and



Recent residential, mixed-use, and entertainment developments that have increased the 24-hour activity of the plaza, augment demand for local-serving retail, and create the opportunity to activate the plaza in ways that were not possible in the past.

This incremental approach to improvements has resulted in successful upgrades, but has eroded the coherence of the Downtown as a district within the city. The concept design for the BART Plaza and Transit Area builds oﬀ of these incremental improvements, but also develops a comprehensive identity for the Study Area that could be extended into the broader Downtown.

Downtown as a Retail Destination The ground floor retailers that flank Shattuck Avenue suffer due to poor visual and physical connectivity between the two sides of the street. Strong retail environments benefit from visual connections between stores and a cohesive identity that contributes to the “sense of place” that has become the hallmark of destination retail. The landscape for destination retail has become increasingly competitive in recent years. Lifestyle centers, factory outlets, power centers, and main street retail are models of regional retailing that attempt to create an identity within the region as a destination. The Study Area represents an opportunity in that many of the qualities that shoppers look for in destination retail—a variety of shops, a pleasant walking environment, entertainment and dining combined with shopping opportunities and a memorable sense of place—already exist in the Downtown. However, the area is constrained by the width of the Shattuck Avenue right-of-way and the poor visual and physical connection between both sides of Shattuck Avenue. The plaza reconfiguration presents an opportunity to strengthen the cohesiveness of the plaza retail environment. Design changes present the potential to merge retail programming with public improvements in the form of outdoor dining, moveable street furniture, formal and informal vending kiosks, and/or other solutions. By visually extending retailing into the public realm, the plaza may help to capture the full potential of the activity its other uses generate, instead of acting as a barrier to retail synergy.

■

Project Over view

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

■

November 18, 2006

��

�

��

� � ��

��

�

��

�

��

�

��

� ��

��

�

� ��

��

K CMY CY MY CM Y M C

��

� ��

��

� �

��

� ��

��

� � ��

��

� ��

��

Figure 2.57: The plaza design presents an opportunity to improve Downtown as a retail destination. Project Over view

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

November 18, 2006

■

Project Over view

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

■

November 18, 2006

3 Design Alternatives 3.1 Introduction There are many possible design solutions that meet the project goals and objectives, while addressing the site opportunities and constraints. There are a number of complexities given the Downtown context and the existing planning framework. This process considered in some detail a number of potential alternative design scenarios. Working with the TWG and CAC, these alternatives were reﬁned and presented to the general public in April 2006. The April workshop provided critical input on the path of the project and has led to the concept plan described in the next section of this report.

3.2 Sketch Alternatives The first step in the design process was to develop sketch alternatives that focused primarily on large-scale issues that impact the long-term vision for the Study Area including: Shattuck Avenue circulation options, the primary BART entry, multi-modal access, and open space opportunities. The following text and associated figures illustrate the basic �� considerations of each alternative. In all sketch alternatives, exclusive bus lanes and the functional requirements of BRT have been accommodated. While the decision to implement BRT is still unresolved, the improvements shown in the sketch alternatives do yield benefits in terms of pedestrian circulation due to the concentration of bus stops that is enabled by exclusive bus lanes. (Table 3.1, following the description � of the alternatives provides a comparison of the four �� alternatives.)

��

�

��

�

��

�

��

�

��

Option 1

��

Option 2 ��

��

Option 3 ��

��

Option 4 ��

��

�� Figure 3.1: The sketch alternatives highlight long-term programming�� options that address multi-modal access as well as open space �� opportunities. ��

��

Design Alternatives

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

Option 1

November 18, 2006

■

This alternative retains the existing basic street layout and adds exclusive bus lanes in a conﬁguration similar to that under study by AC Transit, with bus platforms between Center Street and Addison Street. The main BART Plaza space has the same area, but the design concept would modify the BART rotunda (See Figure 3.3 for enhancements to the Rotunda structure) to improve its relationship with the plaza. The exclusive bus lanes and bus platforms allow for some pedestrian improvements, including the widening of the sidewalk on the east side of Shattuck Avenue at Center Street. This alternative prohibits left turns from Shattuck Avenue to Center Street and Allston Way.

��

Improvements to the secondary BART entries would include canopy structures and new reversible escalators at the two northern entries to provide capacity for bus-BART transfers and to improve the accessibility of the Arts District. Exclusive bus lanes would remove metered parking from both sides of Shattuck Square, but the plan would also increase the amount of short-term parking available adjacent to the BART Plaza and on the east side of Shattuck Avenue north of Center Street by concentrating bus loading on the bus platforms. Although this alternative is the least expensive and has minimal impact on the Downtown functions and circulation, it does less to improve pedestrian circulation, bus transfers or bus-BART integration than some of the other alternatives.

�

��

Figure 3.2: Option 1 Plan

■

��

Design Alternatives

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

■

November 18, 2006

Section Through Shattuck Avenue at Addison Street

��

Section Through Shattuck Avenue and BART Plaza at Center Street

�� Figure 3.3: Option 1 Sections ��

30 0

��

60 feet 10

60 feet

Design Alternatives

■

��

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

Option 2

November 18, 2006

■

This alternative removes the existing Shattuck Avenue couplet, with traffic reconfigured to two lanes in each direction north of Center Street. The east side of Shattuck Square accommodates a northbound exclusive bus lane, the northbound bus platform, and a local travel lane. In the southbound direction, an exclusive bus lane begins just south of Center Street, and the southbound bus platform would be located in the middle of Shattuck Avenue north of Allston Way. The reconfiguration of Shattuck Avenue creates a secondary open space on the east side of the street at Center Street. Improvements to the secondary entries would include canopy structures and new directional escalators at the two western entries to provide capacity for bus-BART transfers and to improve the accessibility of the Arts District.

��

This alternative generally improves the integration of buses and BART, particularly in the southbound direction, and expands the open space area. The primary BART Plaza retains a similar conﬁguration as Option 1, with minor modiﬁcations to the curb line. The BART rotunda is retained and enhanced with a treatment similar to Option 1.

��

Figure 3.4: Option 2 Plan

■

��

Design Alternatives

This alternative would require a separate BRT phase for the Shattuck Avenue/Center Street traffic signal. In addition, removing the couplet may preclude left turns from Shattuck Avenue to the side streets, making some traffic movements more circuitous. The two-way configuration also widens pedestrian crossing distances at Shattuck Avenue and Addison Street, and could encourage faster vehicular speeds, which would have a negative impact on pedestrian safety. In this alternative, care needs to be taken while designing the bus platforms so that passengers do not feel isolated in the middle of the roadway. This alternative has the added drawback that bus patrons must use the crossing at Allston Way to access the southbound bus platform. Metered parking is removed on the east side of Shattuck Square and reduced slightly on the west side, but a new on-street parking or drop-off area is included on the east side of Shattuck Avenue south of Center Street.

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

■

November 18, 2006

�� Section Through Shattuck Avenue at Addison Street ��

Section Through Shattuck Avenue and BART Plaza at Center Street �� Figure 3.5: Option 2 Sections ��

��

60 feet

0 10D e20 s i g 30 n A l t e r n a 60 t i feet ves ��

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

Option 3

November 18, 2006

■

This alternative removes the existing BART rotunda and relocates the primary BART entry/exit and the primary open space to the east side of Shattuck Avenue. The existing couplet configuration is again removed north of Center Street, with traffic reconfigured into a 4-lane road to the west of Shattuck Square and a two lane local street on the east side of Shattuck Square. The northbound exclusive bus lane would stop south of Allston Way and buses would cross over to a platform located adjacent to the primary open space. This movement would require a dedicated signal phase for bus movements. In the southbound direction, an exclusive bus lane would start north of Center Street and the bus platform would stretch from Allston Way to Center Street.

�

��

This alternative creates a higher quality primary entry to BART with escalators, stairs, and two elevators, and provides a more direct connection from BART to the UC campus. It generally improves integration of buses and BART, but makes BART access from the west side of Shattuck Avenue more circuitous. The new plaza on the east side of the street would have a similar function and shape as the existing plaza, but would be located on the sunnier side of the block (as shown in the solar analysis in Figure 2.18), which may encourage more users to linger in the space. The integration of the BART entry and bus platform would also serve to reinforce the transit connectivity. As in Option 2, removing the couplet may make some traffic movements more circuitous and could have the unintended effect of increasing traffic speeds through the area. Again, in this alternative, care needs to be taken while designing the southbound bus platform so passengers do not feel isolated in middle of roadway.

��

Figure 3.6: Option 3 Plan

■

��

Design Alternatives

This alternative has the signiﬁcant potential cost implications of moving the primary BART entry. While the concept design uses the existing BART station structure to provide access, there still may be the need for some new excavation to implement this concept. This alternative includes improvements to the secondary entries, including canopies and several new directional escalators. Additionally, the existing elevator on the west side of Shattuck Avenue is replaced with a new escalator and stair conﬁguration similar to the other secondary entries. This alternative removes metered parking from the west side of Shattuck Square and reduces the availability of parking on the west side of Shattuck Avenue, north of Center Street.

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

■

November 18, 2006

�� Section Through Shattuck Avenue at Addison Street ��

Section Through Shattuck Avenue and BART Plaza at Center Street �� Figure 3.7: Option 3 Sections

20 0

��

30 10

60 feet 20

60 feet

Design Alternatives ��

��

■

��

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

Option 4

November 18, 2006

■

��

This alternative re-envisions Downtown Berkeley to create the primary transit plaza in the center of Shattuck Avenue at Center Street. It removes the BART rotunda and relocates the primary BART entry/exit to the center median creating a combined transit station for both buses and BART, while closing off Center Street to through traffic crossing Shattuck Avenue. A highly visible canopy structure could enclose both functions, while still allowing light and air to penetrate. Exclusive bus lanes would run in the center of Shattuck Avenue, with bus platforms on the outside of the transit plaza. This alternative maintains the Shattuck Avenue couplet and substantially widens the east and west sidewalks to improve pedestrian circulation. An exclusive pedestrian signal phase at Center Street could allow pedestrians to easily make the short crossings to the transit plaza. This alternative maximizes the functionality of the transit area with close integration of BRT, local bus, and BART in one place. It connects to the history of the Downtown and will orient those arriving by transit to where they are in the Downtown. This alternative, like Option 3 has potentially substantial cost implications of moving the primary BART entry/exit. The new entry/exit would include stairs, escalators, and two elevators. Canopies over the secondary entries and two new escalator/stair entries—to replace the existing elevator entry and the rotunda—would provide improvements to BART access. The bus islands located in the center of Shattuck Avenue need to be properly designed and sized for expected demand to prevent blocking of through pedestrian movements. This alternative would remove all parking from Shattuck Square, but would expand on-street parking on the west side of Shattuck Avenue. This alternative would also require the relocation of the open space function of the existing plaza to another location in the Downtown Area. Bicycle circulation through the area also needs to be considered in this alternative. While auto traffic would not be permitted to cross Shattuck Avenue at Center Street, if designed correctly, the transit plaza could allow bicycle traffic to traverse the area along Center Street. In this alternative, if the exclusive bus lanes could be configured in a “contra-flow” layout (with northbound buses on the west leg of Shattuck Avenue and southbound buses on the east leg) the central plaza could be expanded to be more substantial since bus boarding islands would no longer be necessary. This would allow more comfortable waiting areas and even more direct transfers, but could cause traffic planning problems on either side of the Study Area. This study has not been able to look in detail at the implications of this concept. ��

��

Figure 3.8: Option 4 Plan

■

��

Design Alternatives

��

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

■

November 18, 2006

Section Through Shattuck Avenue at Addison Street ��

��

Section Through Shattuck Avenue and BART Plaza at Center Street �� Figure 3.9: Option 4 Sections

0 0

10 30

��

60 feet 60 feet

D e s i g n A l t e r n a�� tives ■ 51 ��

November 18, 2006

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

DESIGN ISSUES 1. Shattuck Configuration

OPTION 1: EXISTING STREET LAYOUT � � � �

2. Primary BART Entry

� �

No change in basic configuration of Shattuck (exclusive bus lanes added and left turns removed) Most existing curbs remain Existing entry remains Structure is enhanced to provide stronger urban design statement Reconfigured to improve relationship with plaza and integrate new functions Potential 2nd BART elevator – location to be determined

OPTION 2: REMOVE SHATTUCK COUPLET � �

� � � �

Shattuck couplet removed (two lanes each direction north of Center Street) East side of Shattuck Square with 1 NB lane + Bus-Only lane Existing entry remains Structure is enhanced to provide stronger urban design statement Reconfigured to improve relationship with plaza and integrate new functions Potential 2nd BART elevator – location to be determined

OPTIO � �

�

� � East of Shattuck: New curb extensions at Shattuck with potential to close Center Street to traffic � West of Shattuck: Increase in sidewalk width on north side � Shattuck Intersection: Left turns not allowed from Shattuck to Center

3. Center Street Treatment

� �

4. Open Space Program

�

Primary open space remains west of Shattuck adjacent to BART entry Integrate new program elements into rotunda and possibly in free-standing kiosks

� � �

�

5. Bus Circulation

� � �

BRT in center-running dedicated lanes sharing with most local buses – reconfiguration could occur without BRT NB bus stops concentrated north of Center SB bus stops both north and south of Center Bear Transit/Shuttles with curb stops

� � � �

Primary open space remains on west side of Shattuck adjacent to BART entry Integrate new program elements into rotunda and possibly in free-standing kiosks Secondary open space on east side of Shattuck at Center Street BRT in center-running lanes south of Center – reconfiguration could occur without BRT Requires special signal phase for NB buses @ Center Street NB BRT and local bus consolidated on east side of Shattuck Square SB BRT and local bus on Shattuck at Allston Way Bear Transit/Shuttles with curb stops

� �

6. Pedestrian Circulation

�

No change in pedestrian circulation Some side street crossing distances narrowed with curb extensions Widening of east side of Shattuck between Allston and Center

� � � �

Shattuck crossing distances narrowed Widened pedestrian promenade on Center Street Some side street crossing distances narrowed with curb extensions Widening of sidewalks along various portions of the east side of Shattuck and Berkeley Square

8. Curb Functions

�

Center Street remains primary EW route

� �

Minimum curb changes; some new curb extensions Street parking eliminated on both sides of Shattuck Square; Street parking reduced by 10 spaces Increased sidewalk on east side Shattuck (bus stop eliminated)

�

Table 3.1: Sketch alternatives comparison matrix.

■

Design Alternatives

East o with p West north Shattu Shattu

Prima Secon (appro

�

SB BR along Requi Bus st SB Be Avenu east si

� � �

� � � �

7. Bicycle Circulation

Remo BART elevat Remo and si

� �

� � �

Shattu north East s traffic

Some Cente (north Direc Unive Expan Some curb e Cross Shattu

�

Center Street remains primary EW route

�

Cente

�

Street parking eliminated on both sides of Shattuck Square; street parking reduced by 6 spaces Potential for drop-off on east side of Shattuck

�

Some Avenu Poten

�

OPTION 3: NEW ENTRY/NO COUPLET

ch direction

�

lane + Bus-Only

�

er urban design

ith plaza and

OPTION 4: NEW CENTER TRANSIT PLAZA � � �

�

to be determined

Shattuck couplet removed (two lanes each direction north of Center Street) East side of Shattuck Square with two-way local traffic

� � �

Removes BART rotunda and relocates the primary BART entry/exit to east side Shattuck with 2 new elevators Removes (E) BART elevator and replaces with stair and single escalator entry East of Shattuck: New curb extensions at Shattuck with potential to close Center Street to traffic West of Shattuck: Increase in sidewalk width on north side Shattuck Intersection: Left turns not allowed from Shattuck to Center

� �

� � �

e of Shattuck

tunda and

� �

Primary open space shifted to east side of Shattuck Secondary open space on west side on wide sidewalk (approximately 35 feet)

�

SB BRT in center-running lane and NB BRT lane along the curb north of Allston Requires special signal phase for NB buses @ Allston Bus stops consolidated on Shattuck at Allston Way SB Bear Transit/Shuttle on west side Shattuck Avenue at Allston Way, NB Bear Transit/Shuttle on east side of Shattuck Square north of Center Street

attuck at Center

enter – T es @ Center

east side of

� � �

llston Way

ter Street owed with curb

rtions of the east

�

� � � �

Some Shattuck crossings narrowed (south side @ Center, north side @ Allston) while some widened (north side @ Allston and @ Addison) Direct pedestrian connection from BART to University Expanded sidewalks throughout project area Some side street crossing distances narrowed with curb extensions Crossing distance increased to five lanes on West Shattuck @ Center Street

�

Center Street remains primary EW route

of Shattuck es attuck

�

Some Street parking eliminated along Shattuck Avenue; street parking reduced by 8 spaces Potential for drop-off on west side of Shattuck

�

■

November 18, 2006

K COUPLET

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

No change in basic operation of Shattuck (Exclusive bus lanes added and left turns removed) Reconfiguration of roadway alignment to accommodate new BART entry location Removes BART rotunda and relocates the primary BART entry/exit to center median south of Center Street with 2 new elevators – canopy could create “transit station” covering buses and BART entry Removes (E) BART elevator and replaces with stair and single escalator entry Replaces BART rotunda entry with new stair and single escalator entry East of Shattuck: New curb extensions at Shattuck with potential to close Center Street to traffic West of Shattuck: Increase in sidewalk width on north side Shattuck Intersection: no through traffic on Center

� � �

Transit plaza at Center Street in center median Widened sidewalk on both sides of Shattuck If Center Street east of Shattuck is closed to vehicular traffic it has the potential to become the primary public open space

� �

BRT and local bus in center-running lanes Center Street—reconfiguration could occur even without BRT Bear Transit/Shuttle in curb stops

�

� � �

Crossing distances narrowed with new median at Allston Way Pedestrian “scramble” signal phase at Center Street and Shattuck transit plaza Expanded sidewalks throughout project area

�

Center Street remains primary EW route. Potential for some conflicts between through cyclists and pedestrians at central transit plaza

�

Street parking eliminated on both sides of Shattuck Square; Downtown parking reduced by 10 spaces Limited drop-off along Shattuck

�

Design Alternatives

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

November 18, 2006

■

There were additional alternatives considered as part of the planning process. However, due to their limitations, these alternatives were not developed to a substantial level of detail. Two-Way East Side Shattuck Avenue One suggested alternative would reconfigure Shattuck Avenue from a couplet north of Center Street into a 4-lane road to the east of Shattuck Square with a plaza on the west side of Shattuck Avenue. This alternative, however, would have a significant impact on the pedestrian quality of Shattuck Avenue. The existing 78.5-foot right-of-way on the east leg of Shattuck Avenue is not wide enough to provide two lanes in each direction, on-street parking, and sidewalks at the existing width. If parking were retained, sidewalks would need to be narrowed to less than ten feet on each side, while removing on-street parking would place fast-moving traffic adjacent to pedestrians without an adequate buffer. For these reasons, this alternative was rejected as part of this process. Bus-Only on East Side Shattuck Avenue This alternative would reconfigure Shattuck Avenue, removing the existing couplet to create a bus mall on the east side of Shattuck Square. This option is not feasible given the current plans for the UC hotel and conference center complex (to be located on the present Bank of America site) which call for an auto entry from Shattuck Avenue, and would require direct drop-off access for taxis and autos.

■

Design Alternatives

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

November 18, 2006

3.3 Sub-Alternatives Some design considerations are independent of the alternative treatments of Shattuck Avenue and the primary open space areas described above. In order to develop an understanding of these important considerations, the consultant team generated subalternatives to study a range of potential treatments of Center Street and locations for a Bike Station. These sub-alternatives are independent of the larger sketch concepts, but, in the case of the Bike Station, are somewhat dependent on larger design decisions.

Center Street One of the Study Area variables not directly addressed in the sketch alternatives is the treatment of Center Street. All of the sketch alternatives illustrate minor improvements to Center Street with new curb extensions on the east of Shattuck Avenue and increased sidewalk width west of Shattuck Avenue (see Figure 3.11). However, community stakeholders identiﬁed the potential for more substantial changes to Center Street. These alternatives have implications for the ultimate design of the Study Area and the functions of the public spaces in the Downtown Area.

��

� �� ■� �� ■

Figure 3.10: Existing Center Street conﬁguration (view towards Oxford Street)

��

� �� ■� �� ■� �� ■

Figure 3.11: Basic improvements

One-Way Center Street This option allows for one-way vehicular traffic (see Figure 3.12). The expanded sidewalk accommodates a 20-foot wide pedestrian/bike promenade establishing a strong connection between Downtown and the UC campus. This alternative has the potential to incorporate a landscape feature that evokes Strawberry Creek, as well. Closure of Center Street This option closes Center Street to all auto access, except emergency and service vehicles (see Figure 3.13). A 44-foot wide flexible space could accommodate concerts, fairs and large gatherings with improved bicycle/pedestrian circulation, and would be flanked on either side with outdoor seating and cafe space. This alternative can incorporate additional landscaping and a creek feature, as well. This option is especially relevant to Option 4 where Center Street east of Shattuck Avenue has the potential to become a new site for primary open space that is replaced with the central transit plaza in that configuration.

■

��

� �� ■� �� ■� �� ■� �� ■� �� ■ ■

Figure 3.12: Major improvements with One-Way Center Street

��

� �� ■� �� ■� �� ■� �� ■� �� ■� �� ■

Figure 3.13: Closure of Center Street with no auto access

Design Alternatives ■ 55 ��

��

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

Bike Station/Bike Parking

November 18, 2006

■

The existing bike station opened in 1999 and is located at the south end of the concourse level of the BART station. It is currently over capacity and causes circulation issues within the BART station. BART, the City, and Bicycle-Friendly Berkeley Coalition (BFBC) (a local nonprofit advocacy organization that staffs the bike station) have explored various alternatives for reconfiguring the bike station at the concourse level or moving the facility to a street-level storefront. The City has received a $582,920 grant to reconstruct the bike station and expand its capacity. Figure 3.14: All of the sketch alternatives have the potential to improve existing surface bike parking.

Figure 3.15: Example of a store front bike station in Seattle. (Source: BART)

This study has looked at the potential to locate the bike station within the BART Plaza as a way to activate the space and provide improved accessibility and function of the bike station. A plazalevel conﬁguration has been studied for each sketch alternative, with a program similar to the plans for other locations. In Options 1 or 2 there is the potential to add a bike structure at the plaza level which is linked to the planned bike station at the concourse level. The structure would need to be approximately 17 feet tall to allow construction of two levels of double-height storage (four bikes tall, as at the Fruitvale BART Bike station). The plaza level could accommodate approximately 100 bikes with a cafe and small oﬃce space. The vertical circulation to the concourse-level storage area would need to be determined in more detail if this concept is pursued. Options 1 and 2 would also allow for a plaza-level, stand-alone bike station. However, a station that would accommodate the program required would occupy a large portion of the usable area on the plaza.

Figure 3.16: Chicago bike station at Millenium Park. (Source: BART)

Options 3 and 4 both have the potential to integrate a new bike parking structure at the street level with the new BART entry/exit. The bike station concepts studied in both alternatives accommodate approximately 300 bikes in two ﬂoor levels with triple stacking storage of bikes with a footprint of approximately 2,000 square feet. The facility would also include an oﬃce/ transit kiosk, rest room, and a 600 square foot retail space. A bike station in both Option 3 and 4 would occupy a large portion of the usable public space and could cause some circulation and site line obstructions. Option 4 has more limited opportunity given the space constraints and the height of the structure required (approximately 28 feet tall) for stacking bikes

Open Space Details

Figure 3.17: Fruitvale BART bike station. (Source: BART) 56

■

Design Alternatives

Some of the detailed design considerations were explored during the sketch alternative phase. The illustrations in Figure 3.18 show some options for open space conﬁgurations, and Figure 3.19 shows some considerations of their elements and materials that will create successful public spaces in all of the alternatives.

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

Kio

Kiosk

Lighting Kiosk element) (vertical

Lighting Accent (verticaltrees element) STAGE

Existing BART vent Existing BART over vent Canopy Exisitng BART Entry Canopy over Exisitng BART Entry

Option 1 & 2

P e d eP se tdr e s t r ian C i ai nr c C i r c u l a t iuol an t i o n

Bus Shelters with canopy

Avenue Avenue Shattuck Shattuck

Lighting (vertical element) Bus Shelters with canopy

Kiosk

Kiosk Outdoor Seating (Cafe Zone) Outdoor Seating Benches (Cafe Zone)

Benches

ShatSh tuat cktuAv ckenAv ueenue

ion ion n C i nr c Cu li ar ct u l a t P e d eP se tdr ei as t r i a

Lighting (vertical Benches element)

Performance Performance Space Space

STAGE

Outdoor Accent Trees Seating (Cafe Zone) Outdoor Seating Benches (Cafe Zone)

Kiosk

Benchestrees Accent

Kiosk

Benches Bus Shelter with canopy Bus Lighting Shelter (vertical withelement) canopy

Lighting (vertical element)

Canopy over Exisitng BART Entry, Kiosk & Canopy over vent Exisitng BART Entry, Kiosk & vent

Canopy over Exisitng BART Entry Canopy over Exisitng BART Entry

Option 2

Kiosk

ueenue cktuAv ckenAv tuat ShatSh

Newspaper Kiosk Exisitng Rotunda entrance modified with new roof Exisitng andRotunda arcade entrance modified with new roof and arcade Accent Trees

ion ion n C i nr c Cu li ar ct u l a t P e d eP se tdr ei as t r i a

Kio

November 18, 2006

Newspaper Kiosk

■

Kiosk

Option 3 & 4

T BAR it Newtry/Ex ace) En ver sp o T ill (sp BAR it Newtry/Ex ace) p En

GE STA

Performance p RamSpace

Vertical elements Art work with (bollards or lighting) seating around

s Benche p Ram

Transit Plaza

Benches

New BART Entry/Exit

Ramp

Lighting (vertical element) Lighting (vertical element) Outdoor Seating (Cafe Zone) Outdoor Seating (Cafe Zone)

BRT Platform 13” high with canopy BRT Platform 13” high with canopy Outdoor Seating (Cafe Zone) Outdoor Accent Seatingtrees (Cafe Zone) Accent over treesExisitng Canopy BART Entry, Kiosk & bus shelter Canopy over Exisitng BART Entry, Kiosk & bus shelter

Kiosk

Ramp

Kiosk

BRT PLA BR PLA TFTOR M TFORM

Shatt Shuc att k uc k nAue Ave venue

ueenue cktuAv ckenAv tuat ShatSh

M FORM FOR PLAT BRT PLAT BRT

New BART Entry BRTNew Platform BART 13” Entry high

Ramp

Bus Shelter Bus Shelter

New BART Entry/Exit

Bus Shelters Bus Shelters

Transit Plaza

ueenue cktuAv ckenAv tuat ShatSh

Vertical elements (bollards or lighting)

BRT Platform 13” high Tensile roof over new BART Entry and BRT Platforms Tensile roof over new BART Entry and BRT Platforms

Performance Space

Art work with seating around

P e d eP se tdr e s t r ian C i ai nr c C i r c u l a t iuol an t i o n

BRT Platform 13” high

s ver ill o (sp

Ram

GE STA

Ram

BRT Platform 13” high

Ramp

Option 4

Option 3 �

Figure 3.18: Detailed public space design options for each sketch alternative.

�

� ��

��

� ��

��

Design Alternatives

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

November 18, 2006

■

��

3 1

��

3 1

��

3 1

��

Figure 3.19: Illustration of detailed design considerations and the relationship to each sketch alternative.

��

5 8 �� ■ Design Alternatives ��

��

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

The four sketch alternatives and concepts for Center Street and the bike station were presented to the general public at a community workshop in April 2006. The workshop had very good attendance (±100 attendees) and generated a lot of good comments and dialogue about the issues raised in the sketch alternatives. As indicated in the table at left, participants gave clear direction in support of the two alternatives that include more extensive and dramatic change (Options 3 and 4), but there was not clear direction about which alternatives to drop from further study.

Preferred Alternative Option 1 6 (15%) Option 2 3 (8%) Option 3 19 (49%) Option 4 11 (28%) Total Responses 39 (100%)

Rejected Alternative 19 (29%) 15 (23%) 15 (23%) 16 (25%) 65 (100%)

NOTE: Participants were able to choose more than one preferred or rejected alternative, resulting in different totals for the two questions.

Table 3.2: Community input on sketch alternatives

from Workshop #2 in April 2006.

The comments on each of the alternatives reﬂected the need for further study of several key issues that impact the evaluation of the sketch alternatives. These issues include: 

Configuration of Shattuck Avenue between Center Street and University Avenue: Many participants felt that Option 3 provided the best way to address areawide concerns about pedestrian safety, especially at the Shattuck Avenue/University Avenue intersection. Others felt that the existing configuration can be modified in less dramatic ways, and that the couplet is an important feature of the Downtown. In the alternatives that create a two-way street on the west leg of Shattuck Avenue, the design and function of the east leg becomes an important consideration.



Enhanced Bus/BRT: Many participants felt strongly on both sides of the issue of bus enhancements, including dedicated lanes and consolidated loading areas. Some participants felt strongly that enhanced bus would beneﬁt Downtown by bringing more people into the area and better organizing bus access in the Downtown. Others felt there would be too great an impact on auto access and circulation and potentially retail function.



Center Street: Some participants felt strongly that Center Street should be closed or reduced to oneway traﬃc. Others felt that Center Street should remain as it is currently conﬁgured. The treatment of Center Street has an impact on which alternatives are preferred, especially in cases where the primary open space is either adjacent to Center Street (Option 3) or where there is no major gathering space within the Study Area (Option 4).



Costs and Implementation: This sketch alternative process was primarily focused on creating a long-term vision for the Study Area, and did not address cost Design Alternatives

■

November 18, 2006

3.4 Community Input on Sketch Alternatives

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

issues in any detail. Some participants felt construction costs might have a signiﬁcant impact on the feasibility or implementation time frame of the designs, especially Options 3 and 4.

November 18, 2006

■

The resolution of these issues is beyond the scope of this study, which is intended to develop a concept-level set of capital improvements for the Study Area. For this reason, this study recommends the implementation of improvements in the shortterm that are consistent with the more extensive changes of both the Options 3 and 4. The detailed design and function of both Options will require further study prior to implementation. The key elements of Option 3 and 4 are summarized in Table 3.3. OPTION 3

OPTION 4

�

Removes BART Rotunda and relocates the primary BART entry/exit with two elevators, escalators and stairs.

�

Two-way traffic on the west side of Shattuck with straightened alignment. A local serving street on the east leg of Shattuck Avenue between Center Street and Addison.

�

Locates the new open space on the east side of Shattuck Avenue adjacent to the BART Entry with a secondary open space on the west side on wide sidewalk.

�

Enhancements to bus circulation, including consolidating loading ading areas and potentially including exclusive bus lanes.3

�

Direct pedestrian connection from BART to University.

�

No change in basic operation of Shattuck (exclusive bus lanes added and left turns removed). Reconfiguration of roadway alignment to accommodate new BART entry location.

�

Locates transit plaza at Center Street in center median with widened sidewalk on both sides of Shattuck. If Center Street east of Shattuck is closed to vehicular traffic, it has the potential to become the primary public open space.

�

Pedestrian “scramble” signal phase at Center Street and Shattuck transit plaza.

Table 3.3: Key Elements of Option 3 and Option 4

If the reconﬁguration of Shattuck Avenue north of Center Street to a two-way street on the west side of Shattuck Square proves to be infeasible, elements of Option 4 should be reconsidered.

■

Design Alternatives

While exclusive bus lanes are not a requirement of the Preferred Alternative, they do allow for greater consolidation of loading areas. Without exclusive lanes, more curb space must be given to bus stops, since buses have to enter and exit traffic flow. For this reason, exclusive bus lanes have the secondary benefit of freeing curb space for loading and drop-off or short-term parking, in addition to the bus circulation benefits.

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

There is clear direction from the workshop participants and other stakeholders that a long-term vision for the Study Area involves major changes to the BART primary entry and other circulation changes. Given this direction, there is still ample opportunity for short-term improvements that can begin to implement the framework of the long-term vision. The Concept Plan in this study is focused on these short-term improvements that can be made to create an improved environment now, while setting the stage for future change. The proposed improvements include only minor changes to existing curb locations and can be implemented regardless of the ﬁnal long term vision.

4.1 Short-Term Improvements Identified Needs In addition to the needs identified in Section 2 of this report, participants at the April community workshop gave additional input on the program for the plaza. Participants were asked two questions about the programming of the plaza space: (1) how should the plaza look and feel? and (2) what are your priorities for programming the plaza? Participants were given a list of adjectives for the first question and a list of program elements for the second. The answers given by participants are summarized in Table 4.1. The bolded responses are the elements mentioned the most frequently. This summary shows that while there is some support on both sides of some issues (modern vs. historic, or sunny vs. shaded, for example) there is generally support for a vital urban open space that embraces the transit and people-watching functions without attempting to be overly formal and intimate. These responses have contributed greatly to the proposed improvements.

Look and Feel Active Spacious Treed Sunny Fun Civic Busy Relaxed Shaded

Responses 22 (50%) 22 (50%) 18 (41%) 18 (41%) 17 (39%) 17 (39%) 16 (36%) 16 (36%) 16 (36%)

Historic Modern Calm Quiet Grassy Noisy Big Cozy Passive Small

14 12 10 10 8 7 6 3 2 1

Total Responses:

Responses Plaza Program Sit and watch others 23 (52%) Landscaping 21 (48%) Sit and wait for transit 21 (48%) Café Space 19 (43%) Bike Station 14 (32%) Food vendors or kiosks 11 (25%) Performance Stage 7 (16%) Public Art 6 (14%) Sit and read a book 4 (9%)

(32%) (27%) (23%) (23%) (18%) (16%) (14%) (7%) (5%) (2%) 44

Table 4.1: Community input on plaza programming from Workshop #2 in April 2006 Concept Plan

■

November 18, 2006

4 Concept Plan

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

4.2 Proposed Improvements

November 18, 2006

■

The proposed short-term capital improvements address many of the needs that have been identiﬁed for the plaza. The key features of the improvements are:

“Re-Zoning” of the BART Plaza The existing plaza lacks clearly deﬁned zones of activity. The redesign creates a wide sidewalk zone with the potential for café seating between the sidewalk and main plaza area and a transit zone along the street edge. The zone in between these more programmed zones is meant to be informal and ﬂexible to allow for concerts, buskers, conversations, or other impromptu, unplanned activities.

��

Figure 4.1: “Rezoning” of the BART Plaza 62

■

Concept Plan

��

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

Café Zone The café zone occupies the area between the sidewalk zone and the future curb line. The café zone is approximately 18 feet wide. Trees, lighting and bollards are all located within the café zone, which could also have movable seating associated with cafés fronting on the plaza, as well as movable planters. The cafe zone is sheltered and separated from Shattuck Avenue by the plaza and Transit zone which provide an adequate buffer from the traffic on Shattuck Avenue. Transit Zone The transit zone occupies the street edge, and includes a bus canopy (described in more detail below) as well as landscaping, lighting, and signage. The transit zone is approximately 15 feet wide from the curb edge to the back of the canopy (this area is flexible to expand if there is a need to accommodate additional transit patrons). Plaza Zone Between the café zone and the transit zone is an open area that can be used flexibly by buskers or other plaza users. The lack of furnishings in the plaza zone enables easier path of travel for the pedestrians and transit users, and provides flexibility for special activities and events. The plaza zone can also be expanded for special events if the café zone is cleared of furniture, allowing the open area to expand if warranted.

November 18, 2006

Sidewalk Zone The sidewalk zone is widened from the existing ±12-foot clear area to a ±17-foot clear area. Fixed obstacles, such as lighting, newspaper boxes, and bike parking are removed from the sidewalk zone to allow for ﬂexible use of this space and to increase the capacity of the sidewalk. Movable store signage or even several café tables could be incorporated into the building edge without diminishing the concept of the sidewalk zone.

Figure 4.2: The concept plan will widen the existing sidewalk zone to facilitate pedestrian circulation.

Figure 4.3: The concept plan will create a café zone similar to Center Street that will be buffered from the adjacent street by the Plaza and Transit zones..

Preparing Today for Future Improvements The curb line for the future west side of Shattuck Avenue under an eventual long-term reconﬁguration can be established today. The café zone, larger street trees, and street lighting will all serve to establish the future location and conditions of the curb. At the same time, the short-term improvements have been designed to function as a cohesive whole until the ﬁnal vision has been designed and implemented.

■

Figure 4.4: The concept plan will create an improved transit zone at the curb that removes existing obstructions and facilitates bus/BART transfers. It also creates a plaza zone that can function as a gathering place for events.

Concept Plan

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

November 18, 2006

Modified Standpipe New Canopy w/ security gates at street level

elevator

�

(N) Curb Ramp

�

��

(E) Kiosk (E) Lights (replace to match new) (N) Curb Ramp

��

Newspaper Racks

BART Entry Seating

Twin Acorn Lights

�

� Pedestrian Lighting

��

Existing Brick Paving

London Plane trees planted in 12’ wide trench w/ structural soil

��

Cafe Seating

��

Accent trees

Planter

Bus Canopy with bike racks and seating

Accent Paving Concrete Scored

��

Modified Standpipe

New Canopy with security gates at street level

Bike Racks

��

Bike Racks

��

■

Bike Parking

��

Existing BART Entry wall to be removed

Existing BART Entry wall and planter to be removed

New Canopy with security gates at street level

�

��

Preferred Alternative Future Curb Line

Existing Curb Line

�

��

�

�� Figure 4.5: Concept Plan and Elevation (looking west) showing short-term improvements. 64

■

Concept

�� P l a�� n ��

��

60 feet

��

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

■

November 18, 2006

��

SECTION CC

��

�

��

SECTION BB

��

� ��

��

SECTION AA �

�

��

Figure 4.6: These sections through the plaza show the different components of the concept plan. ��

��

�� Concept Plan ��

■

anopy

Info panels ■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a nroof s i textent Area Urban Design Plan Column

6‘-6” clear

10‘-0” clear

November 18, 2006

Developing a “Transit Architecture” for the Downtown Curb Line

Figure 4.7: Transit canopies, such as this example from Bilbao, Spain, can help create a vibrant identity for the Downtown Berkeley BART plaza.

column lighting signage

Section through the bus canopy Figure 4.8: Bus canopy section. Seating Info panels roof extent Column

Column

Leaning rail Bike parking 6‘-6” clear

Seating 10‘-0” clear Info panels

roof extent Curb Line

Leaning rail Bike parking

8‘-0” clear distance

Secondary BART Entries New canopies over the secondary BART entries will improve the visibility of these features and protect against the rain. Bringing after-hours security gates up to street level will address maintenance and security concerns. These canopy structures can incorporate signage, lighting, and seating on the edges, and the roofs can be extended to provide some covered bike parking areas as well. Canopies are proposed for all five secondary BART entries. The design of the canopies should be consistent, but can include some variation to relate to the different contexts of the secondary entries (e.g. the entries adjacent to the Arts District could have special features, possibly public art, to denote this location). Bus Canopies A multi-function bus canopy with a unique design will improve the visibility of the bus stops on the BART Plaza, increase the lighting effective waiting area, and establish a framework for future bus stop enhancements. The canopy incorporates adequate seating, with panels for the display of information and to provide weather info panel protection. The canopy is designedmap to be well lit with adequate protection from sun and rain. The columns supporting the bus canopy leave adequate space in between for through movement, and some bike parking is also planned between the columns. The bus shelter maintains a clear 8-foot wide space from the curb to facilitate the continuous use of the curb for loading/unloading. 6‘-6” clear

8‘-0” clear

8‘-0” clear distance 6‘-6” clear

10‘-0” clear

6‘-6” clear

10‘-0” clear

Bus Canopy Plan Curb Line

8‘-0” clear distance

8‘-0” clear

Bus Canopy Plan

Figure 4.9: Bus canopy plan showing the various elements incorporated into the design.

lighting

info panel lighting map

info panel

map Figure 4.10: Bus canopy elevation showing lighting and seating.

■

Concept Plan

16’-0” 8‘-9”

Bus canopy Elevation 8‘-9”

Bus canopy Elevation

16’-0”

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

November 18, 2006

BART Rotunda Modifications to the “skin” of the rotunda can also complement these improvements. There are a range of possible improvements, from replacing the smoked glass with clear glass to replacing the panels of the structure with a new system that incorporates seating, new glazing, and a shading structure (as illustrated in Figure 4.11). The primary goals of the modification are to make the rotunda more transparent and to lighten its color. The final design of the rotunda improvements should be determined once the long-term vision is finalized. If the long-term vision for the Study Area includes relocating the primary BART entry/exit, the investment in the rotunda should be minimal.

columns infill panels with smoked glass

brick curb

1‘-6”

Existing Rotunda Elevation

Existing Rotunda Section

columns columns

new infill panels with clear glass

new panels with clear low-E glazing shading device

shading device 4‘-0”

bike parking

7‘-6”

seating 1‘-6”

Proposed Rotunda Elevation

■

2‘-6”

Proposed Rotunda Section

Figure 4.11: The scope and detail of improvements to the BART rotunda can be ﬁnalized once the long-term vision for the study area is clear. Concept Plan

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

Relating to the Downtown District While Preserving Unique Aspects of the BART Plaza

November 18, 2006

■

The existing unmatched light fixtures and cobra head street lights are replaced by a combination of standard Downtown fixtures found elsewhere on Shattuck Avenue (acorn head, pedestrianscale lights and double-head gateway street lights). The brick paving is retained on the curb side of the café zone (the area that may be modified in the long-term improvements), but can be replaced in other areas by paving that blends with other areas of the Downtown (scored concrete, with some accented areas to define the café zone). In addition, the existing brick facing of the secondary BART entries, vent structure, and elevator is replaced with more subtle materials and a design that minimizes the size of these structures, such as plaster or concrete. 12’-0” Planting Trench

Figure 4.12: Planting trench detail at the plaza.

London Plane (Platanus x acerifolia) trees, the same species planted during the recent Downtown streetscape improvements project, are planted along the café zone to deﬁne the future street edge. The London Plane trees are approved by the City’s arborist and resolve many problems associated with the Pittosporum species that are currently planted in the Plaza. Smaller accent trees, Red Sunset Maple ((Acer rubru), are planted along the transit zone to preserve visibility across the plaza while still providing landscaping. While there are maintenance concerns about the leaves from deciduous trees, this study recommends the use of deciduous trees in order to be consistent with existing Shattuck Avenue landscaping and to provide solar access to the plaza in winter. The proposed improvements have no net loss of trees in the plaza from the existing number. The plan proposes an improved planting system for healthier trees. Presently, the individual tree pits in the plaza are challenged by the lack of space for tree root systems and poor soil conditions. Typically, soils located under pavement are highly compacted to meet load bearing requirements and engineering standards. These conditions stunt the growth of the trees. The proposed planting improvements include a continuous, twelve foot wide planting trench with structural soils for the trees in the plaza. Structural soils serve the multiple functions of encouraging root growth, satisfying pavement design and installation requirements, and increasing storm water holding capacity. Structural soils are gap graded gravels that consist of crushed stone and clay loam which allow the roots to penetrate. The shift from individual tree pits to an integrated, root penetrable, high strength pavement system would help ensure the long term needs of the trees in the plaza. The proposed improvements include the removal of raised planters to make way for clear sightlines and movements in the plaza. The existing raised planters are inadequately maintained, act as catch basins for rodents and cigarette stubs and are physical and visual barriers in the plaza. The proposed planters are

■

Concept Plan

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

November 18, 2006

appropriately located and can be maintained through ownership by adjacent businesses.

■

Introducing Café Uses While Retaining Overall Flexibility The proposed improvements include space for café uses associated with stores that front onto the plaza. While this will require private initiative, the success of Center Street shows that providing the space for these activities can invite adjacent businesses to provide outdoor seating. There are already several café-style businesses on this block of Shattuck Avenue, and this opportunity may attract additional businesses in the future. The proposed improvements do not incorporate free-standing kiosks or other retail uses because of the diﬃculty of implementing and managing those types of spaces and the diﬃculty of identifying the market for such uses.

Improving Disabled Access to Transit Facilities The existing sidewalk ramps on the south and west sides of the Shattuck Avenue and Center Street intersection are rebuilt to improve disabled access. The south corners of Shattuck Avenue and Center Street are rebuilt with directional curb ramps, and the median crossing is improved with tactile domes. The west side of the Shattuck Avenue and Center Street intersection is rebuilt to include tactile dome panels and improve the width and ﬂares of the curb ramps.

Improvements to Bike Parking The existing bike parking on the plaza is replaced by updated inverted U-style racks. This style of rack will provide more overall capacity than the existing ribbon-style racks because they are more eﬃcient. Racks should be located in concentrations adjacent to the BART rotunda and at the secondary BART entries, as well as in more distributed locations associated with the bus canopies and in other locations throughout the Study Area. This combination of concentrated zones and dispersed racks provides cyclists with a range of choices about where to park their bikes according to their needs and destinations. By improving the eﬃciency of bike parking with the inverted U-style racks, the short-term improvements will encourage increased use of bicycles to access the Downtown Area.

Concept Plan

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

4.3 Alternative East Side Shattuck Avenue Treatment

November 18, 2006

■

The short-term improvements do little to improve overall circulation and access within the Study Area, and bus stops elsewhere in the Study Area will still be pinch points for pedestrians. As a sub-alternative in the concept plan, there is the possibility to create a widened sidewalk on the east side of Shattuck Avenue between Center Street and Allston Way in order to improve the bus loading area and remove bus/pedestrian conﬂicts. Bus Canopy w/ seating

New curb line Existing curb line

London Plane trees planted in 12’ wide trench with structural soil

Pedestrian Lighting

New Canopy with security gates at street level Bike Parking

Existing BART Entry wall and planter to be removed

Twin Acorn Lights

Figure 4.13: Potential reconﬁguration of the curb on east Shattuck Avenue allows for a widened sidewalk with improved bus loading area. 70

■

Concept Plan

The existing sidewalk on the east side of Shattuck Avenue just south of Center Street is only 16 feet wide, which is narrow to accommodate existing pedestrian traffic, and is especially constrained at the bus stop in front of Games of Berkeley at Center Street. The redesign creates a widened sidewalk approx 24 feet wide by removing the existing bus pullout. The bus stop would be moved to the curb, and buses would stop in the right-hand travel lane. The traffic implications of this option need to be analyzed in detail before moving forward with design development. The existing trees and lighting are replaced with larger London Plane trees (with no net tree loss) and the same style of light fixtures used in the plaza concept design. These improvements would align with the elements of the plaza, thereby improving visual connectivity between the two sides of Shattuck Avenue. The existing standard bus waiting area is replaced by a multifunctional bus canopy which helps improve both the visibility of the bus stop and increases the effective waiting area. The bus shelter maintains an 8-foot clear area from the curb for loading/unloading. Access to store-fronts, such as the Games of Berkeley, would be maintained and improved by widening the sidewalk. The reconfiguration of the curb would allow the existing curb ramps to be replaced with wider directional curb ramps that improve ADA access in the area.

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

November 18, 2006

4.4 Project Phasing and Other Considerations

■

The proposed short-term improvements still represent some signiﬁcant capital costs. This may require the improvements to be phased over time, especially while the long-term vision remains undecided. In order to address this issue, it is important to consider phasing of the short-term improvements, as well as some other key considerations.

Priority Improvements This study recommends the improvements to the secondary entries on the west side of Shattuck Avenue as priority improvements in order to establish the vocabulary of the improvements in the area. The west side of Shattuck Avenue, within the sidewalk zone, would have the least anticipated change under any of the long-term scenarios considered in this study, so improvements to these three entries (at Allston Way leading to the bike station, at Center Street with the elevator, and at Addison Street leading to the Arts District) should be prioritized. In addition, improvements to the landscaping, lighting, and paving materials in the main Plaza should be high priority improvements. The new bus canopies would be the next priority, as they would need to be custom-built, although it is likely that they could be relocated within the Study Area or elsewhere in Downtown when the long-term improvements are implemented. If the bus canopy improvements are not implemented in the short term, more modest improvements, such as seating and lighting, could be implemented in the first phase. The improvements to the BART rotunda need to be evaluated once the Downtown Area Plan process has identified the preferred long-term vision. The cost of the improvements would be relatively inexpensive and would only be “temporary” if the BART rotunda were removed as part of the preferred longterm vision. Once the timeline for implementing the preferred vision is identified, the cost of the rotunda improvements could be assessed against how long the rotunda structure is going to remain in its current location. The suggestion to include public toilets as part of the plaza design was proposed by the Transportation Commission and DAPAC. This was evaluated and has been identified as an element to be considered as part of long-term planning efforts. Presently, there is no space on the plaza to place public toilets without significantly reconfiguring the area. The sidewalks, cafes, open spaces (with clear sight lines), and transit areas are prioritized over public toilets for the overall functioning of the plaza. Additionally, the location of toilets on the plaza could Concept Plan

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

create security and maintenance issues. For the present needs, the city could negotiate with BART to make the station toilets publicly accessible. The existing station toilets are adequately sized and have their plumbing, lighting and ventilation systems in place. The introduction of security gates and canopies at the secondary entrances will reduce the public urination problems in the stairwells as well.

November 18, 2006

■

Public Art Opportunities There are excellent opportunities to incorporate public art into the BART Plaza. While the canopy structures shown in the illustrations of proposed improvements are fairly simple architecturally, and may not be a potential public art project, there are elements, such as fencing and signage that could be opportunities for public art. In addition, improvements to the exterior materials of the BART vent structure, the BART elevator, and the low walls around stair areas all present additional opportunities for public art or murals. The design of public art should be considered from the earliest possible point of the ﬁnal design phase of these improvements.

Additional Public Involvement This study has brought together a wide range of Downtown stakeholders throughout its process and has engaged the broader public in two community workshops. The Downtown Area Plan further expands the community involvement in the design process. As the ﬁnal design for the short-term improvements proceeds, Downtown stakeholders and the general public will remain engaged in the design process to ensure the improvements support the vision for the Downtown Area.

4.5

Next Steps

There are several important next steps in the process of ﬁnalizing the long-term vision for the Study Area and deﬁning future capital improvements. These steps are described below.

Downtown Area Plan (DAP) Process The Downtown Area Plan process is the proper arena for discussions of larger circulation changes and opportunities for traﬃc calming or new open spaces on Center Street and the east leg of Shattuck Avenue. The transportation consultant for the DAP process will analyze changes to Downtown circulation, and the changes to the Shattuck Avenue couplet will be one of the issues analyzed. The DAP process is also a proper venue for more in-depth discussion of the transit function of the Downtown and the Study Area than was possible given the relatively narrow scope of this project. The result of the community input from this process clearly supported the two options that include more extensive and dramatic changes (Option 3 and 4) with the 72

■

Concept Plan

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

November 18, 2006

reconﬁguration of Shattuck Avenue and the relocation of the primary BART Plaza. The full analysis of relevant considerations, though, may result in an alternative long-term vision in the DAP process.

■

Ongoing BRT Planning One of the intentions of this project was to provide guidance for AC Transit as they proceed with planning for bus improvements in Downtown Berkeley. While this project has developed a number of new alternative configurations, there has not been definitive direction given to AC Transit as to the vision for BRT in the Downtown Area (or even if BRT is part of the vision for Downtown). The City, the Berkeley community, and Downtown stakeholders all need to continue to work closely with AC Transit to ensure that improvements to bus access benefit pedestrian circulation, transit connections, and the quality of public spaces and economic vitality in the Downtown. This can be done through both AC Transit’s on-going planning and environmental review process and through continued refinement of the Downtown’s circulation system as part of the DAP process.

Pursuing Implementation of Short-Term Improvements The City can begin pursuing funding for the short-term improvements identiﬁed in this report immediately. MTC’s TLC Capital program provides an excellent potential source of funding. The short-term improvements phase will require cost estimation and detailed design work prior to construction drawings and construction implementation. The Regional Transportation Plan 2030 includes $5 million for BART plaza improvements, which the city can pursue from state and federal sources. The city has already secured $543,700 in Housing Incentive Program funding for the BART plaza improvements.

Concept Plan

■

Downtown Berkeley BART Plaza & Transit Area Urban Design Plan Appendix Prepared for:

City of Berkeley Transportation Division of the Department of Public Works

Prepared by:

Community Design + Architecture, Inc Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Strategic Economics Cambridge Systematics November 18, 2006

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

November 18, 2006

Table of Contents TWG and CAC Meeting # 1 Minutes .......................................................................................................................... 1 TWG and CAC Meeting #2 Minutes ........................................................................................................................... 4 TWG and CAC Meeting #3 Minutes ........................................................................................................................... 7 TWG and CAC Meeting #4 Minutes ........................................................................................................................... 9 Workshop # 1 Minutes ................................................................................................................................................. 11 Workshop # 2 Minutes ................................................................................................................................................. 17 Questionnaire for Workshop # 2 ........................................................................................................... 24 Community Input for Workshop # 2 .................................................................................................... 25 Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes ......................................................................................................... 26 DAPAC Meeting # 17 Minutes ..................................................................................................................................... 29

APPENDIX

â&#x2013;

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

November 18, 2006

Memorandum October 28, 2005 Kara Vuicich, Oﬃce of Transportation

To:

From: Phil Erickson/Sam Zimmerman-Bergman Project Team Members

CC:

Re: Berkeley BART Plaza and Transit Area Design Plan (CD+A No. 0509) — Technical Memorandum #1: TWG/ CAC Joint Workshop and Site Walking Tour (Deliverables 1.1 and 1.2)

This memorandum summarizes the TWG/CAC meeting on October 27, 2005 and outlines the project team’s initial observations on existing conditions and potential design approaches.

TWG and CAC Meeting # 1 Minutes Matt Nichols began the meeting by introducing himself, the project sponsors, including AC Transit and BART, and the project, explaining that the MTC grant that makes the project possible was the result of years of collaboration and effort by a number of people. A participant asked how this project fits with the Downtown Area Plan (DAP) process. Matt Nichols introduced Matt Taecker, who explained that the schedules for the DAP and this project will dovetail well. The DAP will be initiated in November, with an initial public workshop, followed by existing conditions analysis, alternative scenarios in the summer of 2006, and a goal of a preferred scenario in the fall of 2006. The BART Plaza and Transit Area Design Plan will be slightly ahead of the DAP, which means the results of the focused design process can be incorporated into the larger DAP process. Matt Nichols then introduced Kara Vuicich, project manager for the City of Berkeley’s Transportation Division, who in turn introduced Phil Erickson, President of CD+A and principal-in-charge for the project. Phil introduced the project team, including Sam Zimmerman-Bergman, Project Manager for CD+A, Bonnie Nelson of Nelson\Nygaard, who will be leading transit and access planning tasks, Andrew Tang of Cambridge Systematics, who will be leading traffic and circulation analysis tasks, and Wells Lawson, of Strategic Economics, who will be providing economic analysis and strategies for the project. Phil then gave a brief overview of the project scope and time frame, including the proposed schedule of community workshops and public involvement efforts. After explaining the project, Phil invited all attendees to introduce themselves, explain who they were representing on the committees, and give a brief overview of their goals or primary interests in participating. The introductions focused on a number of themes. The following is not an exhaustive list, but summarizes the goals into several broader themes of what the BART Plazas should be: 

■

Focal Point for Community Identity and Activity. Several members spoke of the opportunity to make a lasting identity for residents, workers, and visitors. Several members also spoke about their goal to make the BART Plaza area more friendly to downtown business and cultural resources, such as local restaurants and theaters; APPENDIX

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

November 18, 2006

■



Function Well for a Variety of Users. The users of the BART Plazas include a broad diversity of groups. From older residents to high school and college students, people seeking a bench rest on to people running for a bus, and across a wide spectrum of economic groups. The design plan should understand the needs of these users and make a space that is comfortable and welcoming for everyone;



High-quality and Memorable Place. This site is a unique opportunity to create a memorable place at the active center of Berkeley. While access and the particular needs and activities of users are important; creating a place that is a joy to be in given the combination of all these factors must be kept in mind;



Designed with Access in Mind. This notion includes universal access design standards (including access for those with visual, hearing, as well as mobility disabilities), but also goes beyond this goal to include considering the provision of space and capacity for future access improvements. A second BART elevator was expressly mentioned as a concern in this regard. If funding is not available in the near term for some improvements, the long term access potential of providing an elevator should be maintained until implementation occurs;



Incorporate Sustainable Design and Construction Techniques. The plazas should incorporate natural elements and construction materials and techniques that are sustainable wherever possible and provide a beneﬁt to the environment through the approach to landscaping, urban design, and architecture on the site; and



Reﬂect History of the Downtown Area. Several members expressed the goal that the design reﬂect the historic resources in the downtown area and be in character with the rest of the downtown.

A number of members also highlighted their past experience with planning efforts in the downtown area and stated their desire for the current design plan to be based in prior planning efforts. Nashua Kalil, of BART, explained that BART and the City will work to have a document library of all past studies available for the CD+A Consultant Team, and to members of both the CAC and TWG. Following the introductions, Phil Erickson asked if any members had a conflict with the tentative dates for the next TWG and CAC meetings (Thursday, 12/8 and Wednesday 12/14, respectively). CD+A then led a walking tour of the project area. The group divided into two groups, led by Phil Erickson and Sam Zimmerman-Bergman. Jim Cunradi, of AC Transit, and Nashua Kalil, of BART, provided overviews of each agency’s current planning and operations in the area. Members were encouraged to share their observations with each other and the consultant team.

CD+A Team Initial Site Observations The following are an overview of initial site observations based on the TWG/CAC walking tour and other site visits by the CD+A Team. The observations will be explored further as part of the Site Survey and Analysis Task.

Overall use and function of plazas 

The plazas have two primary functions: (1) facilitating transit use and (2) providing an open space amenity for a variety of community activities.



The project area (including the Bank of America plaza) has a number of sub-areas that have diﬀerent characters with regards to these primary functions. The design plan will need to understand the character of the sub-areas, including the program requirements of various community activities.

Quality of Streetscape and Landscape



The design plan needs to upgrade the streetscape and landscape of the project area. Existing trees, lighting, street furniture, paving, and BART entries need to be rethought with a variety of approaches that add to the identity of the plaza.



Consideration should be given to creating a palette of landscape and streetscape elements and design approaches that sets a new tone for the entire Downtown, but that also creates a unique identity for the study area.

■

APPENDIX

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

The plaza and transit area have similar design treatments currently (particularly the BART entries). Concepts for the design of the plazas can take a variety of approaches to the unity or uniqueness of various sub-areas.

November 18, 2006



Efﬁcient Use of Space 

Space is at a premium throughout the project area. A tremendous quantity and variety of modes use the space between the curbs on the street, and pedestrians heavily use the sidewalk areas.



The existing design and configuration of the plazas and other areas (particularly around the BART entries) do not make the most efficient use of the existing space. Existing seating, raised planters, and low walls interrupt pedestrian flows through the heart of the plazas, on the west side of Shattuck between Allston and Center Streets, while the placement of street furniture around the existing BART entries often leaves a gap of several feet that does not maximize the usable space of the plazas.



The sidewalk on the east side of Shattuck between Allston and Center Streets is narrow given the amount of activity along it, particularly at the northern AC Transit bus stop.

Visionary Design and Alternative Transportation Approaches 

The TWG/CAC workshop encouraged “big” thinking as part of the project. While the implementation of the ultimate design plan remains a key consideration, this direction from the TWG and CAC will be important to consider as initial alternatives are studied.



AC Transit and BART staﬀ also encouraged visionary thinking. AC Transit has been constrained in much of their BRT planning to building on existing conditions, but would welcome alternative approaches to incorporating the BRT into the downtown. BART has previously studied some potential infrastructure improvements, but is willing to explore any options that arise through the transit plaza design process.

APPENDIX

■

November 18, 2006

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

Memorandum January 2, 2006 Kara Vuicich, Oﬃce of Transportation

To:

From: Phil Erickson/Sam Zimmerman-Bergman Project Team Members

CC:

Re: Berkeley BART Plaza and Transit Area Design Plan (CD+A No. 0509) — Meeting Notes from TWG Meeting #2 and CAC Meeting #2 (Deliverables 2.1.2 and 2.1.3)

This memorandum summarizes comments from TWG Meeting #2 on December 8, 2005 and CAC Meeting #2 on December 14, 2005.

TWG Meeting #2 Minutes Kara Vuicich began the meeting by explaining that the primary purpose of the meeting was to gather input from the TWG on the Draft Survey & Site Analysis memorandum in preparation for the first community workshop in January. Attendees introduced themselves and their affiliation. Sam Zimmerman-Bergman and Phil Erickson of CD+A presented the analysis and findings of the Draft Survey & Site Analysis memorandum. TWG members had a number of comments on the content of the presentation and the presentation materials included with the draft technical memo.

Content-Related Comments 

The urban design implications of pipeline projects needs to be better understood;



Need to understand better how deliveries on Shattuck function;



Need to understand current hotel plans, especially service and access issues associated with the hotel. Hotel has been planning a porte cochere. Is that appropriate given the context?



Issues of bicycles on sidewalks in the Study Area and impact on pedestrians; and



Goals and objectives for the project need to be clear about the character of the plazas as a public space

Presentation-Related Comments 

Create a pedestrian generators map looking at broader downtown area?



TWG members requested that the maps and analysis provide more detail of the plaza uses, including business names, façade information, and detailed information about entries, etc.; and



TWG members requested that sections be incorporated to explain the dimensions of the plaza in greater detail to the community.

Following the discussion of the Survey & Site Analysis memorandum and maps, the group discussed potential approaches and issues to be considered in developing the design alternatives and opportunities and constraints to the project. 4

■

APPENDIX

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

TWG members commented on the difficulty of setting goals for use without knowing what some of the opportunities are for larger changes within the plaza area. The groups discussed some of the key variables that might influence the plaza design, including BRT, the hotel development, the Shattuck Couplet, and the potential closure of Center Street. At the end of the meeting the team briefly discussed issues surrounding commercial cohesiveness in the Study Area and the potential for small-scale improvements such as kiosks or newsstands on the plaza. The TWG also discussed the need for design solutions to take maintenance into account. The existing brick pavers and planters are difficult to maintain. Kara closed the meeting by letting TWG members know about the CAC meeting on 12/14 and inviting members to participate in a discussion of goals and objectives for the project. The date for the next TWG meeting was not set but will be in late February or early March, to discuss preliminary design alternatives.

CAC Meeting #2 Minutes Kara Vuicich began the meeting by introducing the agenda and the consultant team. CAC members introduced themselves and their affiliations individually. The meeting began with a discussion of potential meeting dates for the first Community Workshop. January is hard month to schedule meetings and there are few nights without a commission meeting or another scheduled community meeting. The only date in January that is not booked with either a conflicting workshop or a consultant team conflict is Monday, January 23rd. Some CAC members expressed concern that this date falls during the Transportation Research Board conference in Washington, DC, and many transportation professionals from the area won’t be able to attend. The date is also a conflict with the Creeks Council meeting. Other CAC members expressed concerns that finding a date when everyone is available may be impossible. Kara explained that the Survey & Site Analysis Technical Memorandum will be available for everyone and that City staff will be taking input outside of the Community Workshop as well. The meeting time for the first Community Workshop was set for Monday, January 23rd from 7-9 pm at the North Berkeley Senior Center. CAC members asked that the next Community Workshop be scheduled well in advance so the same conflicts don’t occur. One member requested that future CAC meetings not be scheduled on the same evening as Disability Commission meetings because it is difficult to attend both. Phil Erickson explained the planned Community Workshop format, with an introductory presentation by staff and consultant team, 45 minutes of open house, where participants can put notes on maps and discuss technical issues with the consultant team, and then a wrap up with everyone together again. This meeting format has been effective in Berkeley in the past and helps the consultant team gather lots of information without getting fixated on specific issues. The CAC discussed the best ways to get word out about the meeting. Members suggested a flyer, press release, and listing the workshop on the community calendar in the Daily Planet. CAC members did not feel that paying for advertisements should be a priority for this workshop. Some CAC members also asked about contingency plans in case outreach was very good and lots of people showed up to attend the workshop. Kara said she would make sure the City had reserved the whole room and could open the accordion doors if necessary. Kara will distribute a flyer to CAC members, hopefully before the holidays, for members to distribute to their membership. The flyer will be entered into Commission packets as well and may be placed in the existing kiosk on the BART plaza.

APPENDIX

■

November 18, 2006

Opinions expressed showed some of the various viewpoints that will likely be held by the broader community as well. Some TWG members felt the design should build on the incremental improvements since the introduction of BART service because BART drastically changed the functional character of the Downtown. Others felt these improvements haven’t eﬀectively changed the character of the Study Area and the design concepts should look to radically alter the existing design in order to erase the existing connotations of the place.

■

November 18, 2006

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

After completing discussion of the Public Workshop, the CAC discussed the draft Goals and Objectives for the project and suggested modiﬁcations. The discussion focused on whether to condense the goals into simpler categories as well as text modiﬁcations to the existing goals. The goals currently address three areas of concern: 1.

The function of the Study Area as a transportation hub;

The function of the Study Area as a location for social, cultural, and economic vitality in the city; and

The aesthetic role of the Study Area as the core of the city.

Comments were as follows: 

Priority of the project is to improve the transportation “hub” function of the area which is not reﬂected in the current organization (another CAC members said that “improve” wasn’t a strong enough wording);



Hierarchy of goals (or lack thereof ) needs to be considered;



Is Goal 3 necessary? Is it too broad? Could it be combined with Goal 2?



Something about the “visual” goals and objectives is missing. Need to be explicit about aesthetic goals;



What do “active” (Goal 2) and “vital” (Goal 2, Objective 1) mean?



Improving the design element is as signiﬁcant as improving the transportation functions;



Need to emphasize the role as a gateway to Downtown;



Goal of the project should be creating a place that functions well—from a transportation, placemaking and functional standpoint. This suggests another way to organize the goals into functional vs. placemaking criteria;



Need to be careful not to lose the vital aspect of rationalizing the area and focusing transit accessibility. The area currently does not place transit ﬁrst, modally, and the priority should be for multimodal rationalization;



Need to discuss functional compatibility with all downtown uses;



Need to look at diﬀerent uses, users;



Discuss the opportunity to look for other locations to serve the plaza function;



The image and entrance into downtown is important;



Goals and objectives need to be clear on tight timeline and show people results will happen soon;



Deliveries and red zone violations need to be included;



“Pedestrians” includes people with disabilities (objective is redundant as currently worded) and need to incorporate disability needs explicitly and more inclusively as a goal (one suggested way to address this was to break Objective 2 under Goal 1 into two separate objectives);



Prioritize transit and transportation functions over aesthetic concerns;



Mention the bike station explicitly in Goal 1;

As these comments illustrate, even among the CAC, there is a wide variety of viewpoints. In ﬁnalizing the Goals and Objectives, the CD+A Team and City staﬀ will need to look for ways to express the community sentiment in a clear and concise way that gives a sense of the complexity of issues to be addressed in the design plan.

■

APPENDIX

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

November 18, 2006

Memorandum May 9, 2006 Kara Vuicich, Oﬃce of Transportation

To:

From: Phil Erickson/Sam Zimmerman-Bergman Project Team Members

CC:

■

Re: Berkeley BART Plaza and Transit Area Design Plan (CD+A No. 0509) — Meeting Notes from TWG Meeting #3 and CAC Meeting #3 (Deliverables 3.2 and 3.3)

This memorandum summarizes comments from TWG Meeting #3 on March 9, 2006 and CAC Meeting #3 on March 23, 2006.

TWG Meeting #3 Minutes Kara Vuicich began the meeting by explaining that the primary purpose of the meeting was to gather input from the TWG on the sketch design options in preparation for the second community workshop in April. Attendees introduced themselves and their aﬃliation. Phil Erickson and Sam Zimmerman-Bergman of CD+A summarized each of the design alternatives and ﬁelded questions from TWG members. TWG members had a number of comments on the content of the design.

Content-Related Comments 

Jim Cunradi of AC Transit noted that the preferred design from a BRT perspective would have platforms extending the full length of blocks, which would allow access from both directions. Option 2 does not accomplish this in the SB direction;



TWG members thought Option 3 could be improved by consolidating BRT on the block between Center and Allston. Members thought the design could be revised to include a queue-jump lane for NB BRT at Allston, with a curb stop



TWG members asked whether all buses, including Bear Transit, could be accommodated in the bus-only lane. Since the BRT platforms will be approximately 13” above the curb, Bear Transit’s existing fleet may not be able to load from the platforms, so there are some curb bus drop-off areas in every option. The final programming of the bus-only lanes and loading platforms could be determined later;



Some TWG members said Options 2 & 3 didn’t make sense unless there was some additional pedestrian space gained as part of the options;



Phil Erickson raised the issue of movable café-style seating, but TWG members were generally against the concept due to concerns about management;



TWG members thought the alternatives should be characterized by comparing their placemaking function vs. transit function.

APPENDIX

■

November 18, 2006

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

In general, TWG members supported the concepts shown in the design options, and felt that all 4 contained the basic framework for comparing options. Kara closed the meeting by letting TWG members know about the CAC meeting on March 23 andand the scheduled community workshop on April 29. The date for the next TWG meeting was not set but will be in late May or early June, to discuss the preferred alternative and draft concept plan.

CAC Meeting #3 Minutes Kara Vuicich began the meeting by introducing the agenda. CAC members introduced themselves and their affiliations individually. Phil Erickson began with a review of the first community workshop in January and the outcomes from that workshop. He discussed how participants wanted changes to the rotunda structure, as well as a new vision for the plaza. He also talked about how participation was relatively modest (30-40 participants) likely because of the weather and the busy January schedule, but also because the location was removed from the downtown area. The desire for the second workshop is to locate the meeting as close to the plaza as possible. Phil then explained the four sketch alternatives to the CAC. Members had a variety of comments and questions, most of which centered on clarifications of the alternatives, rather than suggestions for changes to the alternatives. CAC members were concerned about the impact of the alternatives on the Shattuck/University Avenue intersection and the poor existing pedestrian conditions at the intersection. Phil Erickson explained that Options 2 and 3, that make the west leg of Shattuck two-way would clean up the Shattuck/University intersection, but could have the unintended effect of encouraging more and faster traffic on Shattuck. There was general support among CAC members for Options 3 and 4 that rethink the BART plaza and shift the primary entry. There was not a consensus around either option, but there was general support for the plan taking a more aggressive approach. Several CAC members expressed concern that bike issues had not been addressed adequately in the design options or in the explanation matrix. Members felt that issues such as bike circulation and the ability to accommodate a bike station at the plaza level should be more explicitly. Phil also explained some of the next steps in the design process, including more detailed issues, such as landscaping, lighting, and urban design elements that will be the focus after the second workshop. Following the discussion of the alternatives, Kara started a discussion of the scheduled community workshop on April 29. CAC members discussed potential meeting spaces, including the old Eddie Bauer store or another location where information could be posted beforehand and left up afterwards. Kara explained that she had reserved a room at the Public Library for Saturday afternoon, hoping that people will be able to drop-in for some or all of the meeting. CAC members encouraged City staff to find ways to expand involvement in the workshop, including raffles or food. Kara explained that the City has limited resources for meeting expenses, but that there would be the possibility of putting a poster in the kiosk at Center and Shattuck and distributing flyers at the BART faregates.

■

APPENDIX

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

November 18, 2006

Memorandum June 21, 2006 Kara Vuicich, Oﬃce of Transportation

To:

From: Phil Erickson/Sam Zimmerman-Bergman Project Team Members

CC:

■

Re: Berkeley BART Plaza and Transit Area Design Plan (CD+A No. 0509) — Meeting Notes from TWG Meeting #4 and CAC Meeting #4 (Deliverables 4.2 and 4.3)

This memorandum summarizes comments from TWG and CAC Meeting #4 on June 21, 2006.

TWG and CAC Meeting #4 Minutes Kara Vuicich began the meeting by explaining that the primary purpose of the meeting was to gather input from both the TWG and the CAC members on the draft Final Concept Design Plan for the Berkeley Bart Plaza. Phil Erickson of CD+A presented an overview of work completed to date, including a summary of the feedback gathered from Community Workshop #2. Phil explained that the feedback from the community showed the need for the Downtown Area Plan process to address the long-term vision for the plaza, while this project would focus on identifying interim improvements based on the existing conditions of the plaza. The draft Concept Plan focuses on these improvements to improve the existing environment in the short-term, while setting the stage for future change. TWG and CAC members had a number of comments on the content of the presentation and the presentation materials included with the draft technical memo. Responses are indicated in italics after each point.

Content-Related Comments 

Cafes on Center Street have recently relocated the outdoor seating to the edge of the building to allow for easy service without interruption from through pedestrians. Is this a possible configuration on the BART plaza? The café seating should be removable to give additional flexibility to the space. Moving the café zone to the building edge is not desirable because the vent structure and the BART entries would require pedestrians to zig zag, rather than providing a clear sight line. Some additional illustration of this issue may be provided in the final report;



Would the existing light fixtures be moved in the concept plan? Yes. The light fixtures in the Concept Plan assume the location of the existing light fixtures would be moved and not only replaced with new poles;



Need to address potential improvements to bus stops, especially problem locations on te east side of Shattuck. Not a lot is possible in the short-term solution. The Downtown Area Plan process may be able to study the impact of allowing northbound buses to stop in the curb lane, which would alleviate some pinch points. This study can illustrate a design option, but cannot make a ﬁnal recommendation;



Need to give more thought to directional signage and other wayﬁnding opportunities;



Will the northern BART entries have a similar treatment to the southern entries? Yes. This will be illustrated APPENDIX

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

more clearly in the ﬁnal report;

November 18, 2006

■



Why would there be escalators at the northern entries? Is there more pedestrian traﬃc at these entries? BART has looked at the possibility of installing escalators at the northern entries. It would be more feasible to have reversible escalators at these entries because of the station agent’s booth at the north end of the station;



Trees should be non-sapping, especially in the vicinity of the café zone;



Plan should take into account the garbage needs of businesses on the plaza. Current plaza does not function well from this perspective;



Desirable to have one long bus canopy instead of two smaller ones. This helps consolidate the bus waiting area in one zone for easy boarding of buses. This may be revised in the ﬁnal plan;



Need to address rain protection and transit information in the design of bus canopies;



Issues concerning safety with large trees blocking sight lines in the plaza and need to avoid long benches in the plaza to prevent people from sleeping on them;



Plan should attempt to improve traﬃc circulation at Shattuck and Center Street intersection. This is beyond the scope of this project, but will be addressed through the Downtown Area Plan process.



Need to improve pedestrian crossing at Shattuck and Allston intersection with curb ramps on the sidewalks and nose at the median and need to provide improved curb ramps (directional if possible) at Shattuck and Center.



The sun shade around the BART rotunda should be more substantial to protect from sun/shade/ rain.

Presentation-Related Comments



The site plan should provide a larger frame for the site plan to include the secondary entrances on the North side.



Request for a sub option illustrating the potential for a widened sidewalk on the east side of Shattuck between Center and Allston to create an improved bus loading area and remove bus/pedestrian conﬂicts.



Request for details of bus canopies illustrating the possible locations of signage and lighting

■

APPENDIX

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

November 18, 2006

Memorandum January 24, 2006 Kara Vuicich, City of Berkeley, Transportation Division

To:

■

From: Phil Erickson/Sam Zimmerman-Bergman Re: Downtown Berkeley BART Plaza & Transit Area Urban Design Plan (CD+A #0509) — Community Workshop #1 Comments

Workshop # 1 Minutes This memorandum summarizes participant comments from Community Workshop #1 held on January 23, 2006, including a transcription of the comments left on post-it notes on individual boards (arranged by the Open House “Stations”) and a summaries of the questionnaire responses.

Open House “Station” Transcription Station 1: Goals and Objectives Goals and Objectives 

Untangle vehicle and pedestrian traﬃc



Do nothing to facilitate “Bus Rapid Transit”. This proposal has near-zero public support, and overwhelming public opposition in the Southside/Telegraph commercial district. The City should do nothing to advance this private obsession of Rob Wrenn’s.



Get a café to make the plaza a friendlier place by creating sidewalk seating there. In Cambridge, Mass. ~22 years ago, Harvard U. reclaimed a similar plaza (at “Holyoke Center”) from hostile skateboard punks by getting an existing café to expand outdoors. Existing public amenities were preserved for nice non-customers: e.g., chess tables.



Examples from other places similar to BART Plaza: Vancouver, Portland



“Environmental” omitted after “support the” [in Goal 3]

Station 2:Transportation and Access Functions Pedestrian Circulation Patterns 

Two-street crosswalk too long [on north side of Center Street across Shattuck]. If east Shattuck from Addison to Allston was the plaza, pedestrians and vehicles would be untangled.



Jobs—cleaning up—for homeless that congregate here. In response: Homeless (thru BOSS) do good job cleaning up!



“Power Bar” earthquake unsafe. Take down and use area for clean/safe transit hub bikes Brower Center.



Can’t we do an “all-walk” crossing phase? In response: YES! I agree!! Great idea! GREAT IDEA. Yes, or just a “no-turns” signal phase, to let peds and cyclists safely cross before vehicles turn.

APPENDIX

■

November 18, 2006

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

Transit Routes and Stops 

UCB should be required to advertise shuttle for public use + use AC Transit stops. In response: Shuttle—we should meet them half way. And: Does UC/LBL plan to expand their shuttle along w/development plans?



I envision an open, clear place where people can: 1. meet, 2. ﬁnd direction, 3. orient self to hills as well as to banks, the arts district.



Tear down the rotunda!



Larger scale bus canopies with more open space and visibility from within



At south end of BART Plaza: Add escalator here for bus traveler access

PM Peak Hour Trafﬁc Flows 

Make a better connection to Civic Center Park



Where will there be public restrooms?



How to ﬁnd the bus once you exit BART? In response: Major diﬃculty.



How can we get nature elements but vulnerable to trampling?



Circulation requires arterials to remain open for through traﬃc.



New development at B of A will make a huge diﬀerence.



More pick-up places



Preserve left turns (on their own signal phase). Close no streets to cars. And please: keep the dam(n) creek underground. The City has no $ to “daylight” it. In response: So many illegal left turns! And: Left turn Center to Shattuck should not be allowed! Very low car volume there. And: Center left onto Shattuck should be legal—everyone does it. In response: I agree!



Side Street volumes seem too low! In response: Can be closed to cars!

Curb Designation & Street Conﬁguration



Wells Fargo Bank and Power Bar create a wind tunnel on Center Street. No more 14 ﬂoor on this intersection



Take “Power Bar” down. Brower Center, Bike Station, clean transit hub.



Add a lighted dome to the rotunda



Can rotunda glass be clear + can exterior be lit?



Get rid of 1 or more BART stairs to relocate buses to periphery of area.



Can curb color be “time driven”? Can red zones be OK to park sometimes (i.e. night)?



Parking is a real problem. Need more parking downtown.



Need to maintain loading zones! Eﬃcient yellow zones.



Innovative ideas for bus loading/unloading/parking (saw-tooths, etc.)



Lots of parking Downtown—garages never full (except 1-2 Wed).



At east side of Shattuck and Center Street: I walk down here and wait for bus on corner. And: This area of Center Street works well—sunshine and lower buildings help.



Eliminate car drop-oﬀ zones at Downtown BART (can go to Ashby + North Berkeley, 1 mile away). In response: Keep car drop-oﬀ zones at BART! But move, remove, or drastically downsize the taxi stand. The taxis are a continual source of dangerous, illegal, unsignaled left turns and u-turns. They also block Center Street by illegally double-parking when their curb zone is full of cabs. Clearly there are too many taxis here. here

■

APPENDIX

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n



At SE corner of West Shattuck and Addison Street: This entrance could be closed + relocated as unused. In response: No way, do not mess with this Shattuck/Addison Way BART entrance! I use it every day, along with a few thousand of my closest friends. It is not nearly “unused” as one ignorant commentor claims.



At NE corner of Shattuck and Allston Way: This entrance could be removed + relocated—almost unused. In response: Nonsense. The Shattuck/Allston Way BART entrance is well-used. It would be more useful if reversed so the stairway top faced south instead of north.



Brick pavers are diﬃcult to keep clean; should be minimized or removed. In response: I agree—also tripping hazard. And: Very poor for walkers, violate ADA for many (w/ crutches, canes, walkers, etc.)

Station 3: Plaza Uses and Context Plaza Use Patterns 

Live music



Art shows



Needs to be lit signage and/or signage downstairs at BART guiding folks towards top exit (northwest).



BART entry needs to be transparent from street to station area—w/mirrors?



On B of A plaza: Could be made more pedestrian friendly



Can Center Street be made a bigger deal as the “center”?



On Center Street: South side beautiful!



Plan for a strong connection to future daylighted Strawberry Creek.



Public Art



Existing station rotunda should be replaced with a more transparent shelter—Its relationship to the plaza would be better than its current tie to the Power Bar building.



Jupiter walk Good Area! (Trumpetvine) very pleasant.

On BART Plaza:  Seating stairs like 16th and Mission. 

Lighted dome on top of BART rotunda (meet me at the “Dome”!) Hanging plants and vines on rotunda In response: Good idea!



Food court



Too many loud and impolite people



Too many heavy brick structures



Sometimes I run into friends also waiting for the bus



High school people hanging out on wall [at south end of plaza] trash/crowded.



Keep news racks out of here [at south end of plaza]



Plaza feels safe and clean, just poorly designed wall and furniture locations



Introduction of businesses which open up to plaza rather than ignore it. In response: Yes!



How to accommodate trash receptacles.



If the plaza was cleaner and felt safer, it would be a great place to hang out for lunch.



Put vendor kiosks in middle and direct ped traﬃc through middle APPENDIX

■

November 18, 2006

Blank Map

■

November 18, 2006

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n



Marquee to arts district down in BART



After nightfall patrons come in to go to Arts District—come out of plaza in the dark & no clear signage.

Design Analysis Diagrams Pedestrian Trafﬁc Diagram:  2000 students/day walk up + down Allston to and from Shattuck. West Allston to SW stair entrance left oﬀ. 

Commuter + shopper + transit walkers from Allston, Center, and Addison to + from Shattuck very heavy + totally omitted from diagram.



10,000 students will be daily accessing Vista from BART + AC Transit west on Center from Shattuck and returning.



On Plaza: Too busy, not clear where to sit and what to do!

Building Openings and Elevations 

Statue of Francis Kittredge Shattuck—a 49’er



Where is the food emporium for farmers market?



Need ped protected median refuges on both sides of Allston crossing Shattuck



Keep homeless and high school kids—like is real in a real downtown.



Need public restrooms



Art shows



Rotunda—imposing unattractive!



On BART Plaza: Filthy area! Sidewalks, seating, etc. avoid unless necessary.



Walking traﬃc funneled along curb and along strorefronts by tree and plaza arrangements, never through it.



Art shows



Live music!



Art shows



Public art

Blank Map 

On west block of Shattuck Square: Pedestrians don’t use these tiny walks.



On median: Make larger for light rail!



If median becomes used for BRT, could a person traverse blocks down the middle?



Public art

Station 4: Plaza Design and Placemaking Urban Design Features



On east leg Shattuck Square between Center and Addison: Move all these bus stops to SE corner or [note at Center/Shattuck] move all to NE corner.



On 40/40L layover: Consolidate with 15 layover



On B of A plaza: This is felt to be more dangerous by disabled (wheelchair) users



On Center Street: taxis and buses clog area. And: Great design great street/walking, eating area!

■

APPENDIX

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

Today—Center Street south side between Oxford and Shattuck is the only pleasant walk in all downtown.



Lamp posts need electrical outlets for special lighting and décor for holidays.



I envision a center that is unobstructed, a large welcome space to get directions, meet people, get oriented, see Berkeley as the world-class space it is.



Increase transparency of BART rotunda.



Too much brick and dark brown structures (elevator entrances, BART rotunda, both highrises walls) everything is brown and dark.



On Center west of Shattuck: This part of Center needs to be in plan due to Vista. Widen sidewalks and narrow lanes to 11’ on Center Street.



Need to recapture the rotunda space as public space. Other BART entrances in urban spots don’t need big buildings.

Sections 

The big rotunda for linear escalators is overscaled overkill.

Visual Analysis and Obstructions 

Remove rotunda In response: Please! Remove rotunda and replace with permeable bike station.



Develop the BART rotunda area as a multi-modal hub. Need better lighting of plaza at night. Sense of celebration!



Plaza is hard, cold, not conducive to most people.



Remove barrier behind stairs [planter or BART vent structure, not clear which]



Add at least one more extra long bus shelter.



Remove nonpermeable wall [around BART entries]



BART stairs to have provision for sliding bikes along the stairs.



More art embedded in pavement and on brick walls.



Brick planters should be replaced with lower walls or open railings @ stair entrances.



Rotunda only useful as a landmark In response: . . . a bad landmark.



Elevator enclosure is a barrier



Relocate newsracks and mailboxes [along BART entry in front of Wells Fargo building]

Scale Comparisons 

The “openness”, choice of materials, and design of amenities at Embarcadero are excellent examples.

Blank Map 

No comments.

Station 5: Big Ideas Big Ideas Boards On BRT concept design:  This is a good utilitarian design but southbound stop should be closer to Center Street 

Add pedestrian protected median refuges at Allston APPENDIX

■

November 18, 2006



■

November 18, 2006

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

On Strawberry Creek:  Strawberry Creek doesn’t run under Center Street. Don’t Disneyfy Downtown! 

Should Strawberry Creek be opened on Allston Way?

On Shattuck Couplet options:  West side pedestrian plaza: Shattuck Square pedestrian connection to pedestrian plaza is ideal 

East side pedestrian plaza: Need to add protected walk-only phase at Shattuck and University Avenue—then this would work well.



Pedestrian areas too bisected by heavy traﬃc



Need to add protected median refuge @ Allston at black divider



Relocating rotunda to east side of street with BRT loop: Great to have separate BRT/bus lanes



Can allow taxis, deliveries, disabled blue placard vehicles and walkers to share block w/BRT stops on it



Moving escalator east is appealing idea



BRT loop on Oxford: BRT stop here [on Oxford] is interesting idea but also need Shattuck + Allston or Center BRT stop

Questionnaire Response Summary The questionnaire responses followed similar themes to the post-its on the various boards. There was wide support for altering the rotunda structure and consolidating/improving bus stops, a widespread opinion that visibility and a perception of safety are key issues in the BART Plaza. Many people suggested programming options for the plaza itself, including food vendors, newspaper stands, a bike station, and the locating the weekend Farmers Market on the plaza. Workshop participants access the BART Plaza in a variety of ways—by foot, bike, AC Transit, BART, and by car—and with varying degrees of frequency—some participants access the area almost daily, while others come only weekly. An overwhelming sentiment among participants was that the plaza area is not welcoming or “accessible” to them (socially rather than physically). Signage and orientation was another consistent theme in the questionnaire responses. Participants noted the need for clear signage both in the plaza area and within the BART station itself. Finally, several questionnaires note the need to rethink landscaping as part of the BART Plaza, potentially including diﬀerent tree species and/or new approaches to landscaping, such as hanging vines to humanize the rotunda. With these considerations is also a need to understand potential landscaping issues, such as attracting rats or other vermin to the Plaza.

■

APPENDIX

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

November 18, 2006

Memorandum May 1, 2006 Kara Vuicich, City of Berkeley, Transportation Division

To:

■

From: Phil Erickson/Sam Zimmerman-Bergman Re: Downtown Berkeley BART Plaza & Transit Area Urban Design Plan (CD+A #0509) — Community Workshop #2 Comments

Workshop # 2 Minutes This memorandum summarizes participant comments from Community Workshop #2 held on April 30, 2006, including a transcription of the comments left on post-it notes on individual boards (arranged by the Open House “Stations”) and a summaries of the questionnaire responses.

Open House “Station” Transcription Station 2: Options General 

Should cut on the left turns



Run the creek through a translucent tube ( as a sculpture)



Bring back vans instead of buses



Option 4 provides better immediate connection to transfer from Bart to Buses than options 1& 2



All stairs and escalators should be covered for protection from rain



Improve pedestrian scale lighting on all alternatives



Yes public toilets are needed



Incorporate more accessibility design and universal design principles



Think with your feet! Make pedestrian activity a dominant zone



Trees- preserve the existing ones



Stairwells should be protected from rain and sun



Need to understand how bikes can be incorporated in all the options



Need to avoid overlooking Milvia with cars



The 2 way Shattuck will improve safety university for peds and may restore parking on University



Need to see connections at University to know how these options work



Reduce bus frequency if they are empty. No 67 is empty



Can the traﬃc be al put on one way Milvia and oxford? Keep Shattuck for pedestrian and transit APPENDIX

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

November 18, 2006

■



Retail visibility depend son pedestrian ﬂow and not transit



Activate the rotundas space...coﬀee it



Need to avoid overloading Milvia with cars



What is the estimated cost of each option



Build a public plaza ﬁrst and then consider any of the options- create green space with trees



Keep the BART Rotunda dome and put bike valet parking in ½ area and bike cage with electronic access 24/7 and stack the bike sin 2 or 3 layers. Between the escalators ramp up the area to get access to the workers who would also do bike repair rentals sales and selling coﬀee to customers. Hang tandems and tricycles from ceiling for rent



Please add pedestrian safety measures at Shattuck avenue intersection. Yellow pedestrian safety signs at center road next to cross walks



For public parking exclusive access and exit lanes for parking lots with proper directions

Option 1 Plan 

Manual stairs don’t break down; are preferable to escalators; are not that diﬃcult to walk up if not steep



6 lane pedestrian crossings here are still too wide.



How much usage does this secondary entrance get? In response- I use it a lot



Design it to ﬁx the University Shattuck disaster/ danger.



Is this curb cut really necessary? Hotel entrance should be on Addison or the other side of the street. In response- the curb cut is good. There should be no new hotel.



This option does least harm, but the bulb outs are a hazard to cyclists and bus only lanes. Must be removed.



Making this area more pedestrian and cycle and transit friendly with the high cost of major structural changes (option 3 and 4) are more attractive. I believe this could be a friendly place with such.

Option 1 Section 

Turn Rotunda into a three layer bike station with rentals. Create a Berkeley attraction.



Really really dumb. Don’t they notice that the monster buses are always empty? In response the buses are not empty

Option 2 Plan



Curved street helps enclose space, less of freeway wind tunnel. Maybe more dangerous for bikes and pedestrians. Long and straight okay if narrowed / slowed traﬃc.



Crossing two lanes of traﬃc is too dangerous to access bus platforms



2-way traﬃc on Shattuck makes it much more dangerous for pedestrians



Curved street confusing to motorists



To be a successful retail/ cultural plaza, vehicular traﬃc must be reduced, congestion is good and appropriate here. Please study for all/ any options.



Maps need to show university avenue for context



Too many store fronts are blocked by bus stations. Potentially a wall of buses.



A curved street supports a more careful driver and better pedestrian environment.



Curved street is dangerous and distracting. In response I second this; in particular the bulb outs would endanger bicyclists.

■

APPENDIX

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

This is thoroughly unacceptable. There should be no bus only lane, and zero co-operations with AC Transit’s berserk unwanted BRT SCHEME! Kill it.

Option 2 Section 

The current drum is the jewel of downtown. In response – No it is not. It’s windows are dirty and its a choke to access



The drum is ugly and impractical. Remove it A.S.A.P



Invest in safety improvements and not cosmetic improvements. Don’t spend dollars changing the BART Drum.

Option 3 Plan 

Concerned about crossing four lanes of traﬃc and pedestrian safety @center and Shattuck



Nice option- but reduces capacity for cars on Shattuck, increase plaza space. Most Shattuck traffic is through traffic. Slow speeds are imperative. Push traffic to MLK. One lane of cars in each direction – maximum.



The added public space and the widening of sidewalk and the two elevators located at the main entrance is good. This does not separate people with disability from others and gives additional security.



Please explore extending dedicated bus lanes for the entire block ( btw center and Addison)



Put elevator in the middle to minimize crossing distance



BRT lanes need to continue north of Center.



Option 3 brings 3 blocks of retail to life



BART entrance from Center East must be below ground level like 12th street BART ( Center will be closed)



Close Center street, daylight the creek



Noisy plaza location, people wont hang out here unless waiting for bus



Waste of public funds to remove the rotunda



# 3 turns its back on Berkeley



Straight Street is costly, encourages higher volume and faster traﬃc. Not what I will like to se as a pedestrian or cyclist.



Borrow space from UC Development Area.



Yes, Yes then the Berkeley Downtown market can move here to the Center of our downtown



Yes, Why not turn the two blocks section from Center to University into a pedestrian area- outdoor cafes etc.



Pedestrian Plaza on both streets Center and Shattuck (between Center and Addison)



The 1984 Downtown Plan by a group of the locals proposed closing Shattuck and Berkeley Square to make the central public gathering place in the downtown. With the relocation of BART entrance this could happen. It is a good idea that can now happen.



Option 3is unacceptable. The new bulb outs are an active hazard to bicyclists. Do not narrow our streets. There should be no bus only lane and no cooperation with AC Transit and BRT. Why have city funds been used to plan for something the city council has not been approved?

Option 3 Section 

The canopy structure in Option 3 and 4 are shown too large. Should consider trellis and trees for coverage and protection from rain and sun. APPENDIX

■

November 18, 2006



■

November 18, 2006

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

Option 4 Plan 

Option 4 is my favorite. Attention should be paid to pedestrian friendly rerouting of traﬃc



This is a horrible island. The pedestrians are stranded between 2 ﬂows of traﬃc, no place to relax.



Don’t like waiting for buses in the center of the street.



More dangerous for pedestrians all forced to cross the street.



No Scramble. Pedestrians are unpredictable. Don’t ignore cars. Only alternative for some.



Yes



Need an especially great treatment of Center/ Shattuck. Can we do scramble signal for peds?



High school and other kids crossing at Milvia. Will this put more cars on Milvia?



This option appears to be the safest.



Like transit front and Center.



Above all, good signage is necessary between modes( where buses are destinations)



Exit here leaves people in the middle of the street prefer they exit surrounded by retail.



This way speed traﬃc through downtown, on e way street sucks!



Does it do much to change University Shattuck dangerous mess?



Need greenery or trees in open space. Not continuous hard-cape.



Works better if Center is closed



Like this option. Need safety barriers for those exiting elevators.



Eﬃcient use of transit, traveler’s time. Very attractive but I am not willing to give up safety I feel as a cyclist when I approach this area which only looks like a transit hub.



Study contra-ﬂow as option for buses.



No layovers here….put transit information on islands.



City garage put main entrance on Addison …exit center.

Option 4 Section 

No Bus Rapid Transit on Telegraph and Shattuck. The people don’t want it ….who does?



Consider Option 5 like Option 4 except with left side of Shattuck with 2 way traﬃc.



Platforms should be for prepaid fares to speed boarding.



Need contra-ﬂow BRT – MANY ADVANTAGES



Avoid massive coverage on the shelter. Preserve historic quality of Shattuck – don’t over whelm street.



Avoid massive covering



Option 4 concerns – don’t like blocking of sightlines to the fork in the road- it’s a unique streetscape.



Need to have platform widths tested by the wheel chair users to make sure they work.

Station 3: Open Space General



Downtown needs public restrooms



Will moving plaza have a negative impact on the retailers?

■

APPENDIX

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

Diagonal parking on Shattuck is desirable



More street closures carefree city center. In response Why



Will bus shelters on Shattuck block the transparency of retail from the street



For open space closing center street move is important than Bart Plaza. Can also close east side of Berkeley Square



Small business/ mitigation elements make more sense for this place especially since a smaller change is less costly. They would also make t feel more intimate .............Make a place I’d be inclined to visit and enjoy



Trees and benches make for a nice space to wait for my bus or to visit when I go downtown. Plaza space here would be compete with too many things- traﬃc noise movement of people especially with more elaborate proposals.

November 18, 2006



Center Street Options 

No bulb outs. They are not any improvements- they are an active hazard and inconvenience to cyclists. There is zero evidence that they improve pedestrian activity. Out! Out! In response they do help pedestrians all over the world



No creek here. Excavating will be hideously expensive and disruptive



Do not narrow Center Street in any way.



Do not create a pedestrian bike promenade. It is very friendly as is.



Do not make it one way



Do not close Center Street.



Do not add bulb outs – hazard to cyclists



Maintain the good existing conditions.

Bike Station Options 

Bike station on the plaza kills the plaza open space



Why not have bike lanes on Shattuck? Safer for bikes



Why not include a wheel chair repair shop with a bike shop? UCB had a wheel chair repair shop on campus during the 70’s



Concerned about the visibility of the plaza with the bike station –especially given the historic signiﬁcance and reduction of open space.



How about a bike station entrance to side so a patron entrance similar to the photo, allowing good use of the space under/ behind escalators



Don’t want a bike station



Bike parking for non transit users



Bikes need to be central; visibility and access critical to success and equity



Don’t want a independent bike station – takes away from the plaza space



There should be no planning for a new Bike Station- instead, have a excellent attended secure above ground parking currently provided at Center Street garage, ½ block from the rotunda drum, with entrances on Center and Addison between Shattuck and Milvia. City owned bikes park there, preserve this facility and expand it if needed. Reopen the former ‘Berkeley TRIPS CENTER’ Transit store front next door.

APPENDIX

■

November 18, 2006

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

Open Space Options – Board 1 

Covered stairwells to the BART. Well lit sidewalks please



Love transit being in center of activity( option 4)



Huge transit gesture right in the heart of our historic downtown. Ouch!



Terrible idea to put the transit in the center of the street(option 4)



Good option to have the transit plaza bang in the center



Transit created the downtown key system



Truck safety issues and noise abatement is important to all the options



Redesign this Paris Art Nouveau Entry as an Arts and Crafts “ Bungalow” for Berkeley Identity



Replace the BART Drum with a graceful, small glassy well lit hence visible entrance like the Paris Metropolitan or St Louis.



Open space programming does make the plaza (west side) more welcoming. Add trees, lawns/ green space, and fountain. Add cafe sidewalk seating. Add new kiosk

Open Space Options – Board 2



How many existing trees will be moved?



Open space “Option 4” central plaza is a disaster. Do not block Center Street would congest all of Downtown and even inhibit Bus Operations. Do not kill existing trees. Do not create new bulb outs endanger cyclists. Do not replace plaza with a bus platform. Do not cooperate with BRT which the public opposes



Forget about a plaza of ay kind. Space on its own will not create welcoming activity – only downtown population and vibrant diverse businesses will activate the public space – and almost at this point it doesn’t matter what the space looks like



Plaza- dead space. We don’t need additional “ performance space” ( unused 99% of the time) 1 block away from the major open space ( MLK Park)



We do need performance public space, but we need to feel secure and welcoming. Expand the cafe seating on to the sidewalk. Evict the skateboarders by ordinance or physical barriers



Option 2 and 3 would improve pedestrian safety at university and Shattuck. This should be added to the list of beneﬁts



Option 1 &2, west side plaza is the best but replace the BART drum with smaller footprint glassy entrance as in Paris or St Louis examples



Do not narrow the plaza as in Option 3 and 4



Do not create a new curve or bulb out on the east side of Shattuck as in Option 2 – big hazard and inconvenience for bicyclists. Do not create a new bus platform as in Option 4. Do not kill existing trees. Do not remove the news racks north of BART Drum. They are an important amenity for BART Users. Do make the west side plaza more welcoming. Add trees, lawns, landscape (as in Frank Ogawa Plaza) and add a fountain for warmth and natural feel. Add cafe sidewalk seating to humanize the plaza and displace skateboarders and loiterers. Ban skateboarding on all downtown commercial district sidewalks. Ban smoking in the whole plaza. Add a formal stage or performance space to displace the current psychotic over ampliﬁed street” musicians”. Ban ampliﬁed musical performances in the plaza and within the BART drum or set a decibel limit. No more public speech therapy. “ a place designed without a purpose attracts people without a purpose”

■

APPENDIX

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

November 18, 2006

General 

Stop BRT! It’s a tax rip oﬀ which will wreck our downtown.



Identify existing Biking facilities and hazards



Cant tell stairs from escalators- need to diﬀerentiate



Need to look at BRT routing- Northbound shattuck southbound Oxford



Why must BRT go all the way to University Avenue? Why not stop short sparing this plaza.



University Avenue! How can a study that includes choices on traﬃc and plans of circulation not include a drawing and analysis of University Avenue



Crime locations and ped/ bike/ auto accidents “ hot spots” center shattuck = scary for all



Please do not spend money moving perfectly good infrastructure( BART Entrance) Please use money on schools instead BUS D and others! Thank you



No BRT



There should be no bus only lanes and no cooperation with AC Transit BRT scheme. It has never received any city approval and the public strongly opposes it



BRT has not been approved. Why do all these options show the BRT in them? This should not be.



I agree with BRT being the dumbest idea to come down the pike? Since the developers took over the town.



Oppose BRT



Support BRT



Keep BRT OUT!



BRT on Oxford. One way



No BRT



Yes BRT



Do not want BRT



The question is who is making money oﬀ this dumb idea. BRT is idiotic.



No “BRT SHELTERS” NO BRT- the public opposes it



Need public toilets

APPENDIX

■

November 18, 2006

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

Questionnaire for Workshop # 2 ��

��

Department of Public Works Transportation Division

��

�

��

�

� ��

��

�

� ��

��

�

� ��

��

�

� ��

�

��

�

     

��

     

��

    

��

 ��  ��  ��

� ��

�

    

��

    

��

� ��

�

■

APPENDIX

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

Preferred Alternative Option 1 6 (15%) Option 2 3 (8%) Option 3 19 (49%) Option 4 11 (28%) Total Responses 39 (100%)

November 18, 2006

Community Input from Workshop # 2 Rejected Alternative 19 (29%) 15 (23%) 15 (23%) 16 (25%) 65 (100%)

NOTE: Participants were able to choose more than one preferred or rejected alternative, resulting in different totals for the two questions.

Table: Community input on sketch alternatives from Workshop #2 in April 2006.

Look and Feel Active Spacious Treed Sunny Fun Civic Busy Relaxed Shaded

Responses 22 (50%) 22 (50%) 18 (41%) 18 (41%) 17 (39%) 17 (39%) 16 (36%) 16 (36%) 16 (36%)

Historic Modern Calm Quiet Grassy Noisy Big Cozy Passive Small

14 12 10 10 8 7 6 3 2 1

Total Responses:

■

(32%) (27%) (23%) (23%) (18%) (16%) (14%) (7%) (5%) (2%) 44

Table: Community input on plaza programming from Workshop #2 in April 2006

APPENDIX

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

November 18, 2006

■

Transportation Commission

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING

ACTION MINUTES July 20, 2006

South Berkeley Senior Center All Purpose Room 2939 Ellis Street (at Ashby) Berkeley, CA

Thursday July 20, 2006 7:00 PM

A. PRELIMINARY BUSINESS 1. Call to Order Meeting was called to order at 7:10 PM. 2. Roll Call Commissioners Present:

Commissioners Absent: Staff Present:

Guests:

Alfsen, Wendy Campbell, Dave Greenhut, Marcy Haselsteiner, Fran Landau, Nathan Syed, Sarah Issel, Michael Smulka, Ann Wrenn, Rob Hillier, Peter Nichols, Matt Vuicich, Kara Bright, Tamlyn David Early, DC+E Ted Heyd, DC+E Therese Knudsen, Program Manager, MTC Phil Erickson, President, CD+A Sam Zimmerman- Bergman, Associate, CD+A Councilmember Max Anderson

3. Public Comment on items not on the Agenda: None 4. Approval of Draft Action Minutes of June 22, 2006. The June minutes were not approved due to lack of quorum of commissioners who attended. 5. Approval and Order of Agenda rd

1947 Center Street, 3 Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981-7010 TTY: 510-981-7075 Fax: 510.981-7060

■

APPENDIX

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

■

November 18, 2006

Transportation Commission Minutes Thursday, July 20 ,2006 Page 2 of 4

6. Update on Administration/Staff Peter Hillier announced a temporary vacancy in the Traffic Engineering Assistant position. 7. Announcements B. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS 1. South/West Berkeley Community Based Transportation Plan Therese Knudsen introduced the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) planning process in Berkeley to identify transportation needs, barriers to mobility, and potential funding sources to implement solutions. There was an open discussion between the Commissioners, DC+E staff and members of the public. The role of the Commission is to a) provide a community forum (this meeting, and a second meeting within 2-3 months) for suggested improvements to existing transit facilities and amenities; b) to review and evaluate any resulting plans for small-scale projects when ready; and c) to potentially advise Council as to elements of the plan. The Commissioners joined approximately 50 members of the public, consultants and staff in an informal, open discussion of possible improvements to public access to transit. No formal action was taken. 2. BART Plaza Study Recommendations Staff (Kara Vuicich) reported that the City of Berkeley received a one-year Livable Communities grant from the MTC to improve accessibility in the Berkeley BART Plaza area. She introduced Phil Erickson, and Sam Zimmerman of Community Design + Architecture who presented and illustrated a short term plan for BART Plaza design on the basis of which, if adopted, the City could seek additional funding to implement the long term plan (about 3 years). Commission recommendations on the short-term plan will be transmitted to the DAPAC at its September 6 meeting. Public Comment: None It was MSC (Alfsen/Haselsteiner, Unanimous) to approve in principle the staff recommendations of 6/15/06 and moving forward with the Downtown Berkeley BART Plaza & Transit Area Urban Design Plan with modifications similar to those discussed during tonight’s commission meeting. Ayes: Alfsen, Campbell, Greenhut, Haselsteiner, Landau, Syed Absent: Issel, Smulka, Wrenn 3. UC/City of Berkeley Settlement Agreement Staff (Nichols) presented proposals for Year 1 projects and studies to be funded under the UC/COB Settlement Agreement recommended to the Commission of the whole by the Transportation Demand Management Subcommittee. Public Comment: None Motion: It was MSC (Landau/Alfsen, Unanimous) to support the June 21, 2006 TDM Subcommittee’s list of recommendations for the $200,000 first year funds per UC/City of Berkeley Settlement Agreement as follows, and refer them to the City’s negotiator. Agenda Contact: Tamlyn Bright, Office of Transportation, 1947 Center St., 3rd Floor, Berkeley, CA, 94704, Telephone (510) 981-7010, email: tbright@ci.berkeley.ca.us

APPENDIX

■

November 18, 2006

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

Transportation Commission Minutes Thursday, July 20 ,2006 Page 3 of 4

1. $30,000 Study of Fare Free Transit Zone for Downtown—Southside Business District (With in-kind contribution of staff time by City and AC Transit) Consultant to perform feasibility study of scope and boundaries of fare-free zone, anticipated benefits to diverse user groups, anticipated loss in fare revenue, anticipated impacts on frequency of service, funding mechanisms, etc. 2. $10,000 Transit Maps to complement Real-Time Transit Info Installation Installation of two comprehensive transit maps that showcase each transit route that serves Downtown and show BART Schedule; one on SW corner of Shattuck/Allston and the other at SE corner of Shattuck/Center. 3. $30,000 Signature Transit Shelter at Shattuck/Allston, Design & Construction drawings Install large, transparent, artistic, ad-free bus shelter that provides comfortable, weatherprotected space for transit passengers at Downtown’s busiest bus stop. 4. $50,000 Pedestrian Scale Lighting on Telegraph Avenue Contribution intended to provide portion of funding for pedestrian scale lighting on Telegraph Avenue (Unit cost estimate/pedestrian scale light = roughly $10,000); better cost estimate may be available from Downtown Berkeley pedestrian scale lighting project. 5. $80,000 (or whatever residual funds remain) Start-Up and/or Operating funds for Berkeley Center for Transportation Alternatives Contribution intended to provide start-up funding for replacement of Berkeley TriP store, a commute store for staffed transit/walk/bike commute center. This center would likely be most cost-efficient and effective if combined with an aboveground bike station, if it can be sited within half block maximum from BART. Funds could be awarded on a competitive basis through a City RFP process to an organization, business, or agency interested in operating such a center. Ayes: Alfsen, Campbell, Greenhut, Haselsteiner, Landau, Syed (Absent: Issel, Smulka, Wrenn) C. INFORMATION ITEMS AND SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS 1. 6/19/06 Annual Report on Development Agreement between Bayer Corporation and City of Berkeley D. COMMUNICATIONS 1. 7/20/06 “West Berkeley Needs Sidewalks” by Carol Sutton-- map and photos of west Berkeley locations currently without sidewalks Received. 2. 6/27/06 Letter to Mayor Bates from Robert S. Berry suggesting strategies to create bicycle paths connecting Ashby BART and Children’s Hospital Received. E. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Berkeley Ferry Service Blue Zone Installations Bus Rapid Transit Service Plan Gilman/I80 Interchange Oxford Parking Lot Development Parking Restrictions for Slab-Sided Vehicles

Red Light Camera Update Statewide Double Fines in School Zones Statewide Strategic Highway Safety Plan Telegraph Avenue parking UC Development of Gayley Road and Hearst UC Long Range Development Plan

F. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 10:00 pm. Agenda Contact: Tamlyn Bright, Office of Transportation, 1947 Center St., 3rd Floor, Berkeley, CA, 94704, Telephone (510) 981-7010, email: tbright@ci.berkeley.ca.us

■

APPENDIX

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

November 18, 2006

MINUTES Downtown Area Plan Advisory Committee DAPAC Meeting #17, September 6, 2006 (adopted October 18, 2006) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

Location. North Berkeley Senior Center, Hearst at MLK. DAPAC Attendance. 17 voting members present including: Jesse Arreguin, Winston Burton, Patti Dacey, Victoria Eisen, Lupe Gallegos-Diaz, Mim Hawley, Carole Kennerly, Billy Keys, Juliet Lamont, Lisa Stephens, Will Travis (Chair), Dorothy Walker, Steve Weissman, Jenny Wenk, Raudel Wilson, and Rob Wrenn. 4 voting members not present including: Wendy Alfsen, Gene Poschman, Jim Samuels, Linda Schacht. 2 UC members (non-voting) present: Judy Chess and Linda Jewell. 1 UC member (non-voting) not present: Steve Lustig. TC Attendance. Marcy Greenhut, Fran Haselsteiner Michael Issel, Nathan Landau, Sarah Syed (Chair). COB & UC Staff Attendance: COB: Matt Taecker (Secretary DAPAC), Peter Hillier (Secretary TC), David Fogarty, Matthew Nichols, Katie Handy and Nick Perry. UC: Emily Marthinsen, Jennifer McDougall. Public Attendance. In addition to the above, approximately 30 members of the public attended. Call to Order & Order of the Agenda. Chair Will Travis called the meeting to order at 7:10 pm. Public Comment. Deborah Bahdia, from the Downtown Berkeley Association, spoke on how Berkeley needs to grow a successful retail sector to support sales tax generation, provide products that serve residents, and create a vital mix with arts and dining. She stated that transit and parking are synergistic and need to be addressed together. As an example she noted that AC Transit indirectly relies on sales tax revenue for funding. Fran Gallati, from the Berkeley-Albancy YMCA, said that parking and access considerations need to take into account economic vitality and the access needs of current anchor tenants who rely on parking, such as the Arts District’s theatres and YMCA. Susan Medak, from the Berkeley Repertory Theatre, stated that this is an opportunity to correct the flaws of the general plan. She said that if Downtown Berkeley is to have a vital arts district, then it must have adequate parking and noted that a large percentage of the Berkeley Rep’s audience come from places where taking public transit to Downtown Berkeley is not convenient. Mark McLead, from the Downtown Berkeley Association, wanted to draw attention to the new developments such as the Hotel and University Art Museum that will rely on improvements in both transit and better parking. Kevin Consey, Director of the University of California’s Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive, spoke of the plans to move the museum and film archive to Center Street. He noted that the vast majority of the museum and film archive’s audience come from outside of Berkeley and thus, the organization is very interested in access and parking in the Downtown. Doug Buckwald conducted an informal poll of how people in attendance traveled to the meeting. He then urged the DAPAC and TC to consider the impacts of inconvenient and expensive parking in Downtown on surrounding neighborhoods and their long-term residents. Pre-Assessment Overview of Parking Downtown. David McCrossan, IBI Group, presented general information on IBI’s pre-assessment of current parking conditions in Downtown. He noted that IBI was appointed to the EIR team in July of 2006, and has divided its work into four primary DAPAC17-60906-Minutes.doc / Page 1 of 4 APPENDIX

■

November 18, 2006

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104

tasks: Task 1: Existing Conditions, Task 2: Baseline Traffic Conditions, Task 3: Analysis of Transportation/Land Use Options, and Task 4: Development and Refinement of a Preferred Option. The first component of Task 1 is an analysis of current parking conditions. McCrossan briefly outlined the current inventory of both on and off –street parking, details of which were made available to DAPAC in a Power Point presentation printout. The floor was then opened to DAPAC and TC commissioners’ questions. Lisa Stephens noted that UC’s Tang Center Lot should be logged in the evaluation of Downtown’s parking. Rob Wrenn asked whether IBI would be gathering origin and destination analysis of parking, specifically how many spaces are occupied by commuters who work in Downtown. McCrossan said the intention of the work will identity what proportion of parking is taken up by those using monthly parking permits and plans to study trip type and purpose. Panel on Parking. Transportation Commission Chair Syed introduced the evening’s panelists, Professor Betty Deakin, UC Berkeley, and Professor Donald Shoup, UCLA. Professor Deakin began by commending Berkeley for being a long-time leader in parking and transportation. She noted that the majority of Berkeley residents do not drive to work, but there is still room for improvements. She noted that that car is a necessary, if not integral, transportation option for many people for whom other modes of transit are not viable. She said that Berkeley must continue to strive for a balance between maintaining enough parking to accommodate change while also working to ensure that the City is as sustainable as possible. She believes the main strategy should be via parking management and pricing rather than adding significant amounts of new parking spaces. Professor Deakin then discussed a study she and her students completed on parking in Downtown Berkeley that found many employees were feeding 25-cent meters throughout the day and many meters were out of operation. The city, she noted, has made real progress by installing new meters and she is eager to see how the new technology will impact parking supply. Professor Deakin stated that meters should be priced to make money. On-street parking takes up valuable real estate that could be put to other public uses, and should be priced accordingly. Offstreet parking should cost less than on-street parking to encourage people to use garages. Finally, she said the City should study extending transit pass programs currently being used by UC and the City of Berkeley to other downtown businesses. Chair Syed then introduced Professor Donald Shoup. Professor Shoup began his presentation by discussing the impacts of under-pricing on-street parking. In his studies, he has found that people will cruise around business districts and clog streets with traffic in search for a cheap on-street parking space rather than parking in a lot off-street. Professor Shoup then discussed parking management technology. The parking meter used by most cities is an out-dated technology and a cost inefficient technology. New electronic parking meters and personal parking meters make paying for parking more convenient and can help the City easily manage and adjust parking rates. He recommended that the City of Berkeley adopt performancebased prices for curb parking that prices parking so that it produces an 85% occupancy rate. He then outlined how this program has worked in Pasadena, where new meters were installed with the proceeds of parking revenue going to the Old Pasadena Business Improvement District. He noted that when both businesses and shoppers know that the money from the parking meters is DAPAC17-60906-Minutes.doc / Page 2 of 4

■

APPENDIX

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

November 18, 2006

105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157

going to improving the business district, they feel happier about having paid for parking. The revenue from the meters in Old Pasadena has been integral to funding the improvements that have revitalized the once seedy retail district. He recommended a similar Parking Increment Finance program for Downtown Berkeley. [Due to a recording error during the meeting, minutes from this point forward were summarized from written notes.] Chair Syed opened the floor to questions. Linda Jewell asked both panelists how to strike the right balance in parking management. The Panelists offered the following points and suggestions: � � �

Pricing is complicated in Downtown Berkeley due to competition from other locations nearby with free parking. An emphasis should be placed on considering other modes of transit. 2-hour parking in residential areas adjacent to Downtown doesn’t work and is hard to enforce. Non-residents should have to buy permits from electronic meters with funds going to streetscape improvements in the neighborhood. Enforcement is essential to any price-based policy.

Rob Wrenn asked the panelists how Berkeley should begin the process and if it is done trial and error. The panelists responded with the following suggestions: � �

Take a core Shattuck half block and begin to adjust price according to demand then gradually extend the program throughout downtown. Berkeley has enough density to not only raise parking prices but also improve transit for pedestrians and bicyclists. It’s important to balance all modes of transit.

Mim Hawley asked how to take into account the fact that increasing prices will hurt those who use family services Downtown. The panelists suggested that subsidies should be targeted to people who really need it. With new technology like personal parking meter “smart cards” cities can build in discounts for certain segments of the population. Juliet Lamont asked if it would be feasible to reserve one side of the street for permit parking and the other side of the street for meter regulated parking. Professor Shoup responded that you could make employees pay market rate for a limited number of permits per block. Jenny Wenk asked if a parking validation program for parking lots could free up curb spaces. Professor Shoup responded that it is up to the merchant, but often the programs seem unnecessarily costly. Patti Dacey asks what happens to off-street parking when on-street parking is priced higher? The panelists responded that you would need to adjust the prices to ensure a balance between the two types of parking, and that on-street parking will experience higher demand (in the core) and would be priced higher. Chair Syed then thanked the panelists and moved on to the next item in the agenda. Parking & Consideration of the Current Downtown Plan. DAPAC and TC members discussed both presentations and how to apply what they have learnt to the new Downtown Plan. Recommendations for parking management contained within a memo by Rob Wrenn, Wendy Alfsen, Lisa Stephens, Marcy Greenhut was discussed. DAPAC17-60906-Minutes.doc / Page 3 of 4 APPENDIX

■

November 18, 2006

■

D o w n t o w n B e r k e l e y B A R T P l a z a & Tr a n s i t A r e a U r b a n D e s i g n P l a n

158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178

Broad support for Shoup’s recommendations was heard, along with support for the general approach within the Wrenn/Alfsen/Stephens/Greenhut memo. Consideration was given to possible components in a motion on parking.

179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203

The motion passed with 14 ayes, 0 nayes, and 1 abstention.

Some Committee/Commission members asked that recommendations in the Wrenn/Alfsen/Stephens/Greenhut memo be adopted. Several Committee/Commission members felt that the detailed provisions contained in the memo were debatable and needed more consideration. A request for proposals from any interested Committee members was heard. Taecker expressed his concern that the Committee might be moving to a level of detail that was inappropriate, given that the transportation consultant to the DAPAC (IBI Group) was still gathering information and may have technical advice that might inform discussion. Walker proposed that the motion ask Staff to provide DAPAC with a copy of the Redwood City parking ordinance (referenced by Shoup). A motion was made that: DAPAC generally endorses the parking pricing and management policies presented by Shoup and the provisions of the Wrenn/Alfsen/Stephens/Greenhut memo (when stated broadly); and that Staff provide DAPAC with a copy of the Redwood City parking ordinance; and that formulation of a more specific position on parking be placed on the agenda of DAPAC’s next meeting.

Adjournment of the Transportation Commission. Bart Plaza Design & Endorsement of Near-Term Concept Plan (DAPAC Only). Phil Erickson, Principal of Community Design & Architecture (CD+A), presented a concept plan for near-term BART Plaza improvements -- most of which could remain whether the BART entrance moved or Shattuck was realigned. The design would: replace existing planters with movable seating for outdoor dining, highlight stairways with architectural canopies, make the area more transparent, include new bus shelters, and enhance the “drum”. DAPAC members discussed the merits of the design. Many expressed concern with spending money on a temporary fix without knowing what the long-term plans for the area would be. Some members disliked the overall reduction in green space. The absence and need for a public restroom in the area was also noted. Other members spoke in favor of the design, and noted that DAPAC’s endorsement would strengthen the City’s ability to get grant money to improve the area. Carole Kennerly moved that the DAPAC endorse the BART Plaza Near-Term Concept Plan. The motion was seconded and failed with 7 ayes, 7 nays, and 1 abstention. Future Agenda Items (DAPAC Only). No items were heard. Adjournment. DAPAC adjourned at 10:15.

DAPAC17-60906-Minutes.doc / Page 4 of 4 32

■

APPENDIX