Good evening, everyone, and welcome back.

To the Transportation Commission for the City of Alameda, Wednesday, September 24th, 2025.

And we will begin with roll call.

Lisa Foster, take it away.

Good evening, Commissioner Dara Abrams.

Commissioner Kim.

Commissioner Gloyne.

Yeah.

Chair Whitesy.

Here.

Vice Chair Sutham Fira is absent.

Commissioner Johnson.

Present.

And Commissioner Noctigall.

Here.

Seeing that we have quorum.

We will now move to item number two agenda changes.

Any requested agenda changes.

Seeing none, we will move on to item number three, staff communications.

Take it away.

Lisa Foster.

Thank you.

Good evening, Chair White C and Transportation Commissioners, and Lisa Foster Transportation Planning Manager for the City.

I'll give you a few updates starting with a couple of actions the City Council has taken on items that the Transportation Commission reviewed since our last meeting.

So in July, the City Council approved construction contracts for the Clement Tilden improvements project.

And the first in the neighborhood greenway, the first segment on Pacific Avenue.

And then in September, the City Council accepted Alameda County Transportation Commission grant awards for Stargil Complete Streets Corridor and for Neighborhood Greenway Crossings.

The agenda topics that we're looking forward to include Caltrans will present to you about the I 580 truck access study.

And then we will also be talking about the Gibbons Drive High Street and Fernside Boulevard intersection design and phasing recommendations.

Um we have some public events.

Speaking of that, tomorrow, September 25th, we will have a community open house regarding Gibbons High Fernside Intersection proposed changes.

So we have completed a traffic study and we look forward to sharing the outcomes with the community and hearing their thoughts.

We have two events on Saturday, the sea level rise planning fair and the family fun ride around Alameda, which will be in Bay Farm this year.

And then starting on Monday, September 29th through August 5th, we are willing the week without driving will take place, and the city is encouraging community members to participate this year.

Excuse me, America Walks.

It was started by disability advocates so that those who have the option to drive can learn firsthand about the barriers and challenges non-drivers face and work toward creating more accessible communities for all.

On September 30th, we will have the virtual workshop for the Gibbons High Fernside Public Outreach.

This will be the same presentation as the open house.

So for people who prefer a virtual setting or can't make the open house, that is another option.

And then we also have a survey, which is open right now through, believe October 5th for that project as well.

And then on October 3rd, we have the Transportation 101 and Clipper Cards for Seniors event.

And then I just got a new one.

I believe it's October 7th.

We are having a travel training event for older adults and people with disabilities, hosted by our paratransit coordinator with the Center for Independent Living.

They're planning to go to the Farmers Market by bus.

And then in terms of updates, you know, we have our status report on transportation coming up.

So I would just be really brief on that.

I think it's the one thing that's not in there is that the SF Bay Ferry is has a South San Francisco service study happening right now.

They're seeking input on it.

Um they're considering changes to their South San Francisco ferry route, which go which serves Main Street and Jack London Square right now, to ensure it's uh financial sustainability.

So people who use that route or would like to use that route are encouraged to go to the URL in the staff communications and fill out a survey and find out about events.

And that concludes my staff communications.

Thank you for the updates.

We will now move to agenda item number four, non-agenda public comment.

Anyone may speak for three minutes.

If it is not on the agenda, do we have any speaker slips?

Yes, we have three in-house, and if you are participating via Zoom, please raise your hand if you'd like to speak.

But first we have Gordon Williams.

Hi there and welcome.

Hey, how's it going?

Uh my name's Gordon Williams.

Uh, I'm a Rith in here in Alameda.

I live on Bay of Vist Avenue.

Um, I have a lot to say about the Gibbons uh intersection project that's being talked about, uh, but there are two things I want to bring to your attention now, right now.

One is the survey that's out.

Um, if you read through the questions, there's a lot of inherent bias in it that is, I don't know how it got that way or why it is that way, but they're very leading questions that I think are problematic and should be addressed.

Uh there's things in there that are saying like, hey, like uh here's the data from the transportation study.

Here's how the um here are the increase in numbers of traffic going through the neighborhood, and then it goes ahead and interprets those numbers for you and then asks your opinion on it.

And I think that that's wrong to put in a biased interpretation into the data and then ask people's questions people questions about it.

The other thing that I thought was really biased in there um was at the beginning.

The first question is like here is just the Gibbons fernside uh high street intersection.

This is what we're looking at doing.

Don't think about anything else outside of this, only think about this.

Uh, do you think this is going to improve safety?

And I think that's uh that's a flawed question to be looking at not looking at the whole picture.

And that is the big big issue here.

So let me just say real quick.

The biggest issue I see is that we're talking about closing off gibbons, so there's no left turn from Gibbons uh into the intersection onto the high street bridge.

We said that's gonna push traffic elsewhere.

The traffic study showed that's gonna put traffic elsewhere.

Uh we are taking away the only uh traffic light protected turn out of the neighborhood to get towards the high street bridge.

We're gonna get rid of that to push traffic, and we know we're gonna push traffic onto smaller streets.

Uh, most like I'm concerned about all of them.

There's a lot of safety issues there with bikers, kids walking to school.

But uh, you look at Bay of Vista, you're it says 55% of the traffic is gonna get diverted from Gibbons onto Southwoods and Bay of Vista that has more dangerous intersections, and then they're gonna be forcing people to take a left turn onto high street that's unprotected.

And I I I just do not see how in the world that could increase safety.

So it's not gonna increase safety for pedestrians, it's not gonna increase safety for bikers, it's not gonna increase safety for cars, and talk about congestion, it's gonna build up congestion.

Like we have a protected turn now, and we're gonna take that away.

The only protected turn away.

And so I'm not sure how we got to this point.

Uh I'm not even sure why Gibbons is part of the fernside study.

Uh, I would rather it just not be.

It seems weird to me that it is.

Uh, and I'll leave it with that.

And thank you guys.

Appreciate it.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Next we have Jim Straylo.

Hi, Mr.

Strela, welcome back.

Evening, commissioners.

Um I'm here about uh I've said this many times.

Bike pet laws that are not being enforced or being taught.

Um, since our last meeting that there's been at least uh two times when a bicyclist that has been in my bike lane.

I'm going westbound, they're going eastbound.

Uh, straight at me.

Yeah.

And that's not safe.

You know, why are they, you know, well, it's a bike lane.

No, it's a bike lane in the wrong direction.

Uh, so that there's people not being educated, and it's the people, not the um, you know, the design of the streets because it's the people that are you know not obeying, uh, huh?

And there's nothing you can do, you know, you construct, you know, whatever lanes you want, and and if they're not going to pay attention, they're you know, I'm gonna have more and more of these incursions.

Uh today there was a vehicle making a right hand turn on red.

We're prohibited, and it blocked another vehicle from going forward from entering the intersection on green.

Um, my niece bought an e-scooter because other friends got e-scooters at the Christmas time for her nine-year-old daughter without educating her, uh, after seeing her daughter not abiding by my education, you know, you know, how to make the right signals, you know, and slow down, say that you're passing on the right ahead of time.

Uh luckily that my niece took the scooter away from her.

But how many other parents are gonna do that?

How many parents don't educate their kids?

Oh, here's an e-scooter, have at it.

So I'm concerned about Oakland's new e-bike program, because Oakland will probably rent us some low income, and I foresee them coming into Alameda, and I just do not see enough education of adults as well as youth about the bike and pedestrian laws, and it's just gonna get worse.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Next we have William Morrison.

Hi, William.

Good afternoon, good evening.

Uh I'm gonna basically want to talk about a little situation that I've seen over like Gordon.

We became very involved with the Gibbons furnside situation and the intersection.

Um he has a different opinion from me.

I believe that this is a favor done between various members of staff to address a problem that was personal.

That being said, that's not a that's not really my issue at this time.

My issue is where does the public stand in regard to being able to have input into these various decisions?

We can attend meetings, we get two and a half, three minutes, that's it.

And that's all, no input whatsoever.

There was a real big effort, apparently, to perform a study associated with this specific situation.

The only problem is we never had any capacity or avenue for any input, any suggestion, any review.

And of course, I then turn and say, Well, that's probably the purview of the commission.

But I have to ask you the question.

I think you get deals that are done, and that's it.

And unless somebody really comes in and talks to you about it, you will rely upon staff.

To be honest with you, these guys are getting paid.

I would think they would know what they're doing, you know.

I don't think you guys are getting paid.

I know I'm not.

However, I was a consulting economist, so I do know something about studies.

And like Gordon, I've seen things where everything that comes in is we have a problem, this is how we want to fix it.

Let's do, let's put up the data and make certain that we have the answers we want, not the answers.

In other words, not study.

I would call it propaganda.

Is Mark Twain said?

There are three types of lies.

They're lies, they're damned lies, and then there's statistics.

So from that viewpoint, this is just something I would like to discuss or at least present.

I don't think there's enough, let's call it public input.

Now, the main difficulty is a lot of the input is nothing but clamor.

And I can see any any way to, shall we say, get rid of clamor, but there we are.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

I would direct the speaker to the Gibbons High Fernside Virtual Public Workshop on Tuesday, September 30th, 2025, from 12 to 1 p.m., where the city is studying design concepts to improve safety at the intersection of Gibbons Drive, High Street, and Fernside Boulevard.

That would potentially be a good avenue to give feedback.

Do we have another speaker?

We have two more in person and one on Zoom.

Would you like to do the zoom?

Sure.

Let's do Zoom.

Last digit 764.

Hello, can you hear me?

We can.

Speed hump policy discussion.

Yeah, if it's on the agenda, we so we this is going to be for non-agenda items, and so we have uh regular agenda item on the draft speed pump policy.

So if it is related to that, I would request that you hold your comment for that period.

We will take public comment on that item.

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Next we have Mitch Ball.

Hi, Mitch.

Hi.

With construction on the Webstrom Posey tube about to begin, Alameda will likely be facing high traffic congestion in the next few years before the Oakland Alameda Access Project finishes.

I work in between these two tunnels and often pass by the congestion that already exists when I bike to and from work.

The city has made meaningful progress in enabling people to use other modes of transportation in its recent years from bike lanes to the water taxi and vehicle miles traveled have been reducing.

However, there are still ways that people are being artificially incentivized to use cars, and the city can end these incentives by simply enabling enforcement of a 30-year-old California state law.

For those of you who don't know, parking cash out law has been on the books since 1992, but often goes unenforced, like it is here in Alameda.

The intent of this law is to prevent employers from subsidizing car use more than they subsidize any other modes of transportation.

This law requires qualifying companies to offer employees who don't drive to work the ability to cash out their parking space and receive cash or alternative transit subsidies instead, equivalent to the cost of parking space.

This could be huge for individuals who can't afford to own cars or families who can't afford to own multiple cars.

Additionally, for those who currently drive to work but could use other modes, this could be a great incentive to stop contributing to rush hour congestion and road maintenance costs.

These people deserve to be properly compensated for the true economic consequences of their decision.

Alameda just needs to do two things to enforce this law.

Firstly, adopt a financial penalty for businesses that do not comply with this state law.

The state law explicitly grants cities the powers to do this.

Secondly, change zoning to require that new commercial leases have their parking space unbundled and listed as a separate adjustable line item in the lease.

This makes calculation of the cost of parking easy and allows businesses to save money by reducing their parking footprint.

Additionally, it also benefits commercial lessers as it allows them to identify land unclaimed by lessees as prime for infill development in the form of new jobs, uh new jobs, homes, and property tax revenues.

As you are well aware, we have huge slots of pacement all over Alameda.

Much of this goes unparked and is for all intents and purposes vacant land, but just hasn't been formally recognized as such.

Unbundling parking is not a radical policy and is in fact already required of all new residential development in most of California.

Alameda can go farther by requiring that all commercial and residential leases in Alameda on development, both new and old, offer only unbundled parking.

It's not fair that tenants and employees who don't or can't drive are made to pay for parking that they don't use and don't want.

It's a distortion of the market that encourages speculation of effectively vacant land.

Unbundling parking and enforcement of parking cash at law, reduces car congestion, protects the environment, encourages new development during a housing crisis, doesn't have any high construction costs, and instead actually increases tax revenue and provides financial relief to the city's road maintenance budget as well as Alamedans who need it the most.

And so should be implemented here in Alameda.

Thank you.

Well timed.

Next comment, please.

And our last speaker is Marie Kadawaski.

Hi Marie.

Hi, I'm Marie Kotowski.

I'm here representing the 300 block of Santa Clara Avenue, which was a slow street.

And this morning we had the traffic accident, you know, a child was hit on the on the street, the one that we've been expecting ever since construction happened on Central Avenue.

Luckily, the kid is okay, or not badly damaged.

But we've all been expecting this, and the Santa Clara construction is just kind of a nightmare that goes on, and we of course it will you know be over eventually.

But for now, I think we have tried we have you know asked for more police enforcement.

Haven't seen it happen.

Um we have asked for a re uh a review of the greenway policy.

Um the city has said no, we're just going to be a regular street again, despite the fact that there are schools on the west end is Antonel on the on the right end is Payton.

And of course, I live right near 4th Street, and you have many, many people walking to the marina.

So it's a busy place, and uh I think we need to do everything we can.

So besides the enforcement, I'd like you to uh review the greenway um policy.

And then the other thing is right now the bike lanes on Central are pretty much done, but they're not paved.

I think it would make a huge difference if they paved the bike lane only as far as as far as they can, which be I think would be to Third Street.

Uh after that, you know, they're still working on the construction there, but that would help a little bit.

Um what we're seeing basically is this people who sped down Central, you know, when it was open after the pandemic, going 40 50 miles an hour, uh, do it on Santa Clara.

And uh and the odd thing has been when school was out, things got much quieter.

So I think we can all assume it's the parents who are in a hurry who were dropping off their kids.

And I would like to urge you to do what you can to try and fix this before somebody is really hurt.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Any additional comments?

Seeing no other public comments or non-agenda items, we will move to item number five, the consent calendar, item 5A to approve the draft minutes of the May 28th, 2025 Transportation Commission meeting.

This is an action, a votable item.

I believe that Commissioner Nochtgall was absent for this, so you could recuse yourself from this.

Um please take a moment, review the main meeting minutes for the 28th.

Sorry, May 28th, if you would.

Any changes?

Any revisions proposed.

Seeing none, I would move to approve the draft minutes of the May 20th, 2025 Transportation Commission meeting.

Does anyone do I have a second for that?

All second.

Seconded, and all in favor of the motion, please say aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries unanimously with one abstention.

Let's move to item number six, regular agenda item six A, review and provide input on the draft citywide speed hump policy.

This is a discussion item, but not a voting item, so a discussion item.

And I believe we will have a presentation.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners.

My name is Susie Hofstadter, Senior Transportation Coordinator, and I'll be presenting on the draft speed hump policy.

Next slide, please.

Oh, I can use this.

Sorry.

So, just as a reminder, today's action is not uh really action item.

We'll just review and provide input on the draft speed hump policy.

Um so we'll first jump in on background and goals.

Uh so just as kind of set the stage with what we're talking about here, what is a speed hump.

A speed hump is one of a few types of raised traffic calming devices shown on the left side of the slide.

It differs a little bit from a speed cushion, which we also have here in Alameda.

A speed cushion has cutouts in it so that the wheelbase of a fire truck can more easily go through without slowing down.

And a speed table is similar, but it has a flat top that coincides with a crosswalk.

As a team over the course of some of the neighborhood greenways planning and also during the development of this policy, between public works and planning, we've selected a speed hump as the typical design that we sort of prefer for consistency citywide.

Staff have observed and talked with other cities about speed cushions and generally agree that drivers tend to kind of swerve to try to have their wheels hit those gaps and avoid slowing down, and it's really most appropriate on streets where we expect to see larger numbers of fire trucks needing to access.

And of course, a speed table is for a location with a crosswalk and is a little bit higher cost.

So a speed hump has been successful in our neighboring cities, and we see it as a pretty good typical design to use.

So the history of speed humps in Alameda, we currently have very few.

There are some on singleton, but otherwise, we see mostly speed cushions in Alameda, and there hasn't been in the past any policy or program for systematic installation.

They've been sort of one-off for specific reasons, but despite many community requests by email and on C-Click Fix, we have not been able to consistently implement speed humps, which we would like to do because there hasn't been any policy or prioritization framework and not really a fair or clear way to decide where to do them.

So for some background on policy, the general plan does include a policy action to install traffic calming on neighborhood streets for safety and livability.

As I mentioned, there hasn't really been a program or mechanism to do so.

And then the City of Alameda's active transportation plans and Vision Zero action plans have items in them that relate to neighborhood traffic calming, and I'll talk more about that in a moment.

So the objectives of the policy are to improve street safety and reduce vehicle speeds, enhance livability of residential neighborhoods, provide transparent process for speed hump implementation, to prioritize that implementation to ensure equity and effectiveness, to leverage existing programs for implementation, and to maintain effective emergency response times.

This relates to the street classifications from the general plan.

The policy does address all street classifications, including the citywide circulation types.

But because the speed hump is most appropriate on a neighborhood local street, that's really where we're focusing for the prioritization, and that's where we see the most requests.

Some corridor projects might include raised traffic calming of some kind on a citywide circulation corridor, but this is much less common, and so our policy will include an appendix which will outline design guidance for when that might be appropriate, but really the prioritization framework we're talking about today is for neighborhood local streets, which are the light blue lines on this map.

So the timeline has been relatively straightforward.

In the spring, we started doing research and policy development, including a review of our peer cities neighboring here in the Bay Area and some out of the region.

Then this summer we've been working on the draft policy and prioritization framework.

Here tonight we're for here with you for the Transportation Commission feedback.

And then in the winter time, we'll make revisions, add those appendices, and then it will be finalized at the staff level by the city engineer.

So let's dive in on the prioritization framework.

There are three location types that we've identified in the draft policy, and I'll go through each of these in a little bit more detail in a moment.

Type one, plan priority locations are priorities because of their designation and adopted plans.

Type two eligible locations are eligible for speed humps but need further prioritization using scoring criteria.

And then type three ineligible locations do not qualify for speed humps.

So one at a time.

Type one plan priority locations are neighborhood greenways, school frontages, high injury corridors, and locations where, if relevant needed for the fatal crash response program.

We don't expect or and of course we don't want that to be the case but we want that to be in the policy in case needed for some reason.

High injury corridors is also not so common for neighborhood local streets.

Right now only Pacific Avenue is the only neighborhood local street that's a high injury corridor but that analysis for the vision zero action plan will get refreshed in the future and so that's there to preserve the possibility of having those more of those corridors there if that's warranted.

And I want to mention on the plan priority streets and I'll go into this more in a little bit but just because their plan priorities designated in in this way that doesn't necessarily mean that they would get implemented before the other type it's more just that they don't need to be scored or prioritized any further once they're kind of one of these meet one of these criteria.

So type two is the most common type in our city it's kind of if you haven't been screened out and you haven't been screened in because of the plans then your location would get scored and ranked so those would be based on destinations access to proximity to destinations, equity need, cut through risk and unimpeded length and I'll talk more about what that what all of these are in a moment but that unimpeded length is slightly different from a block length because it's between traffic controls or other types of traffic calming.

In the QA I'd be happy to answer more questions about why we don't have speed volume and collision history as the primary criteria but the short version is that collecting speed and volume data is very expensive and can be time consuming and we didn't want that to be an impediment to implementing speed humps or moving the process forward.

And then collision history on neighborhood local streets is quite sporadic and patterns can be difficult to identify and so we want to have these as possible data sources but not necessarily primary criteria.

Type three locations are ineligible there are actually not too many criteria that we have for ineligibility because we think that most streets in Alameda are kind of similar to each other but we don't want to be necessarily prioritizing streets with a dead end very very short distance between stop controls or other traffic controls or where the fire department gives us the feedback that it's very critical for their access into the neighborhoods.

And it's not listed on the slide but we also won't be doing any on private streets.

So just as a little visual for what we mean when we say unimpeded length this is essentially distance between traffic controls and the reason why we're not calling this block length is kind of demonstrated by that horizontal segment where there's a stop control coming in from the side street but so technically your block is is short but the distance between traffic controls is long.

So we see this as an opportunity for drivers to pick up speed and so the longer that unimpeded length the sort of higher priority we would see that as a place for traffic calming.

So this is kind of the slide sized version of the flow chart that's in the policy essentially the even though type three comes third that's all kind of the first step is to do that screening of whether it's on a very short length of unimpeded or on a dead end and that would get screened out.

And then from there the location would be screened for this policy designations and then those would sort of go into their own special list and then if they're not one of those either then they would be placed on a candidate list for prioritization and scoring.

So the scoring system is currently under development we wanted to come here for feedback on the criteria overall before we kind of got way too deep on the methodology here but this is kind of an example of the types of threshold we will be setting in the next few months as we refine this.

We think that there will actually be a need to do kind of a two-step or two point system per per criterion because the number of ties would be very many if you had only one threshold.

So we'll probably end up having a two-point system.

But felt that that was a little bit overcomplicated for discussing today.

So we'll just kind of assume that there's a single threshold for a sort of theoretical discussion here.

And then cut through risk is one that we'd like to discuss with you all and hear feedback on.

We see this as a vehicular desire line to a destination.

So this is kind of like a parallel street to maybe a major corridor that accesses a bridge or a parking area.

It's a little bit qualitative, but not all parallel corridors are actually on the desire line because maybe they don't go through, or maybe there's a reason why you know the permeability to the destination is not really there.

And so it we would expect that it that it be within a certain distance, and that it's also actually a street that takes you there.

So looking forward to your feedback on that.

And in general, these are meant to be maybe edited in the future, and we want the policy to allow us to do that so that if there's too many ties or if it's just not working, we can adjust our methodology.

But happy to go into more detail with you in the QA.

And then how would this look in implementation?

So again, we'd have these two category lists, and then we would be evaluating these different locations that score high or that are a plan priority, and then there's kind of this additional layer where they have to be feasible.

So there's a few different aspects that would get assessed at that point once we're doing project development, and that would be primarily outlined in our forthcoming design guidance.

But this is things like uh it can't be too close to driveways and drainage inlets and things like that, and sometimes a block just doesn't have a particularly good location for a speed hump because of those factors, so that's kind of that piece.

And of course, funding is very limited.

We have a uh we don't have a specialized program for this, and so part of the goal is to create a prioritization framework so that when that funding is available, we've got some locations to implement.

So, what are those project opportunities?

As I mentioned, we don't have a dedicated program, so right now this policy is really meant to slot into other programs.

Uh I'll talk more in a moment about the paving project, but there's also dedicated programs like neighborhood greenways or the say for us to school infrastructure.

So some of those planned priorities would also have their own projects, and then we have the street safety CIP.

So that's a funding source that's really meant for the fatal crash response program and some of the Vision Zero safety projects.

It could be a potential funding source for speed humps as well, and then a just a general consideration is that the money that we might spend on speed humps means that that's money that we don't have for maybe crossing enhancements on a larger street that might have higher traffic.

So it's all kind of trade-offs, and we want to be doing more speed humps, and we also want to be doing safety enhancements on high entry corridors.

So that's another point for discussion as well.

So each year with the paving, what we'd like to see is to have both of these types, type one planned priority and type two eligible candidate lists kind of reviewed against our paving segments and really using available funding to identify how many we think we can reasonably implement in a year, and the goal is really to choose from both lists as makes the most sense for the project.

So, for example, if in a given year there was a like five neighborhood greenway corridors, and none of them had had any planning work done yet, but there were also some very high scoring uh like community request locations.

We would probably not just do all of these neighborhood greenways because they might need their own planning and design process anyway, and so we would be looking to balance those planned priorities with the community requests and with the goal of pulling from both lists.

So the next steps are to finalize the policy, develop the appendices that include the design guidelines and the prioritization scoring methodology, and then we hope to finalize that this winter so that we can begin developing these location lists next year for for future implementation.

So it's a little technical, but happy to answer questions you might have.

Technical is great.

Any clarifying questions again?

These are questions just of fact within the presentation.

Any clarifying questions.

Seeing none, let's move on to public comments specifically on this item.

Do we have any public comment requests?

Yes, we have three in person and one on Zoom so far.

If you'd like to speak on Zoom, please raise your hand.

And I believe I have all the cards in person.

Let's do the in-person first.

First, we have Gordon Williams.

Gordon.

Hey, uh, thanks.

Thanks again.

Uh that was a great presentation.

Uh I've been an Alameda resident for 15 years.

Uh, when I moved in, I remember you could get a t-shirt that says, like, Alameda Drive 25.

I remember having to like worn like friends or family that weren't familiar with Alameda, like, hey, when you get here, just so you know, like don't drive over 25, you'll get a speeding ticket.

And that was 15 years ago, and I don't know what happened, but that doesn't seem to be the case today.

Uh, I see I hear it from a lot of neighbors, like this whole given situation.

There's a whole nother discussion about high street in my neighborhood.

Uh, it seems like it's all about the speed of cars.

And so um it seems like this tool of the the speed humps, or I don't know what's called when there's the space in between cushions.

Uh I'm not sure if the cushions fit in this or not, but uh that seems like a great tool that we can use in addition to better enforcement to slow people down.

Um, so I'm very much in favor of this.

This is something with the given situation that we've been suggesting as an alternative.

It doesn't seem to get any traction for some reason, and maybe it's because we didn't have a policy on it.

And so maybe having this policy approved would make that easier.

Uh, like the whole concept.

I'm gonna I gotta hit on the Gibbons thing again, is like if we like cut off the head of the Hydra right in mythology, it two more heads sprout out, right?

If we shut off gibbons, we're gonna push traffic onto other streets.

That's what that traffic study says.

People are not gonna slow down.

I heard this like ridiculous comment from somebody in the March board meeting that was with the city that said, like, oh well, people will uh will push traffic onto other streets, smaller streets, yeah, but they'll have to slow down because it's more narrow.

That's really wishful thinking.

I wish that were the case, but having like these speed humps out there could actually slow people down.

And instead of cutting off the head of the hydra of the traffic hydra over on Gibbons, just put in speed humps or even a stop sign.

I think could go a long way.

But I very much support this.

I think it's a great idea.

And uh I'll yield the rest of my time.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Next speaker, please.

Uh next on Zoom, we have Denise Tripenye.

Hi Denise.

Hi, sorry.

Thanks, Commissioners.

Um, my name is Denise Trapany, and I'm the board president for Bike Walk in Alameda, and thanks for the opportunity to speak on this today.

It seems like very detail-oriented and mundane, but um I think as you all know, this is Alameda, and people will care very deeply about this once implementation starts.

So appreciate the opportunity to talk about this.

And I also want to thank staff for their work on this policy with hopefully more and more slow street conversions to greenways in the very new future.

There's gonna be a lot of conversation and feedback about their implementations, and I think having this clear prioritization in place that we've discussed and endorsed as a community will will help with that.

So I guess we we don't often get to have these proactive conversations around stuff we know that's gonna be contentious, so um appreciate that.

Um, I really have no input on what staff's presented so far and fully endorse their work and hope you will as well.

Um, and we're about to get some first-hand experience with this as well.

Um staff, I think we're getting ready to implement this on Pacific in the relatively near future.

So we're gonna get some direct feedback on how these are working.

Um, I expect that we're doing some monitoring and traffic and the preconditions so we can monitor their effectiveness and meeting our goals around volume and speeds on our on our safe street networks.

My only apprehension, and it's a slight one, and it's only about the design, not the policy, um, is that my understanding is that we will not have cut throughs for cyclists as they do as we currently do on Bayview.

Um, and it just seems to me that we should be doing all we can to make our low-stress backbone as inviting and as comfortable as possible for especially for new mode shift users that we're trying to encourage.

But I'm very curious, you know, I'm hoping we'll get that feedback before we move too far forward with appendix A, which is about the implementation.

So yeah, again, just want to thank staff for this work.

Again, I think it'll be a really important conversation to have on what we're doing, where, when, and why maybe we'll even get some staff to do some PR around this.

Um, like I said, it seems mundane, but I think this is something that we'll be surprised about how much feedback you'll get on this.

So thank you for starting the conversation, and I'll yield the rest of my time.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Any additional speakers on Zoom?

Uh we have three more on Zoom and two in person.

Next we have Carl Mijet.

Hi there.

Can folks hear me?

We can, Carl.

Uh hi everyone.

My name's Carl Majet.

It's actually my first time being in this meeting.

Thank you to those who uh just told me about it a day or two ago.

Uh, thank you, student.

Uh I think the structured framework for how to implement this is fantastic.

Um, I'm uh we live in the Bayport neighborhood.

It's a neighborhood with lots of young kids.

Kids ride their bikes.

Uh, we're trying to load our kids in the car in the morning to get going, and it's just really helpful to know that maybe this uh Coral Sea Street will be safer in some near future.

Um my only question is uh we're really increasingly organized community here.

Is there any way for the community to help uh or make this happen?

So this is typically not a QA, just a three-minute period where you can uh give your statement.

Well, so happens, I guess when you just do this for the first time.

Uh, you're doing great.

Keep going.

Uh next time I'll embarrass myself in person.

Uh, then I'll just say uh I'll throw my support.

Really happy about this and and thank you for the invitation to join.

Thank you for your comment, and please do come again.

Next speaker on Zoom, please.

Next, we have uh the caller uh last three digits 764.

Hi there, 764.

Hi, uh, this is Jim Myers again.

Um I wanted to thank you again for uh for the um opportunity to speak to you and the men staff and the commission on the draft policy that sounds really uh well put together.

I wanted to draw your attention to Garden Road on a Bay Farm Island.

Um this is a uh shortcut, um, a cut through for the the draft policy um uh between McCartney and Island Drive.

So it's a short little street that um is between, if you know where the Catholic church is on McCartney, and uh Safeway is on Island Drive.

It's this little short street in between there, and folks uh take that street to avoid going by Starbucks on the corner there, and it's so they reach speeds of you know 50 60 miles an hour sometimes.

So coming out of your driveway, kids going to school, it's quite dangerous.

So I would uh request that um for the policy that this street be one that um you look at, and um seems uh you know, that might be in the eligible category with the additional scoring criteria.

So I really appreciate the opportunity to bring it to your attention, and um, and uh with the policy you have now.

Hopefully, something will um you know uh some speed humps will be added in a street for increased safety if it meets the criteria.

So, one to thank you for that.

Thank you for your comment.

Last speaker on Zoom, I believe.

We have two more step, excuse me.

Uh Zhao Wang.

Oh.

So they went away.

Uh next we have Karen Bay.

Yes.

Uh, do you hear me okay?

We can turn go ahead.

Yes, thank you.

Um, first of all, I just wanted to thank you for all the work that you're doing on Central.

It's really looking great.

The roundabouts are beautiful.

Um, so thank you for that.

Um, one of the concerns that I have as a result of the roundabouts, unfortunately, is that we're finding that people at drivers to avoid the roundabouts are turning right on to 5th Street, which is where I live, to avoid the roundabouts, and they're speeding.

It feels like it's becoming a highway.

And I would love if you would consider speed bumps on Fifth Street.

I'm talking about Bit Street all the way to Lincoln.

It seems like that's where they're going.

Of course, we're close to a school, paid in school.

And so I don't know if that's part of your how you how we score in terms of your priorities, but I would love if you would consider Fifth Street.

It's a whole different experience.

All of a sudden, I've lived on this street for a very long time, and I can hear it.

I mean, this weekend was really, really bad.

Um so anyway, I just wanted to um ask you to consider Fifth Street uh as a uh street that you would put the uh speed bumps.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comment.

Any additional speakers on Zoom that have popped up.

Now Zhao Wang.

Hi, can you hear me?

We can go ahead.

Great.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm I'm Zoe Wong.

Uh and I, by the way, I also live in Santa Clara per the other uh in-person speaker.

Um and I really appreciate the staff's work and I appreciate the welcome uh to this commission meeting.

Um and I love the proposed framework for speed humps uh as it brings us in line with most of the 14 other cities in Alameda County who do have a speed hump policy uh on paper.

Um and uh I really appreciate more so uh when as soon as I thought about the policy as it is drafted, uh I love that it would cover the two candidates I had in mind immediately.

So where um the kid was struck on Santa Clara Avenue today, as well as at Poggy Street uh at RAMP where a driver caused fatality earlier this year, and of course another fatality um I believe three years ago.

Uh from what I understand and like the C click fixed tickets that I I've read, uh, there's just overwhelming public support for speed humps in particular.

Um, just regardless of uh their feelings about other traffic calming devices, even if those work better on paper.

Um so even the folks who pay bike lines uh they want speed bumps.

Um and I would love for that uh public desire to actually be captured by by location specifically on paper.

And I think a good example of that might be something like the C click fixed ticket uh category specifically for request the speed pump.

Um Oakland then also has like a actual application form for request speed hump.

Uh I also appreciate the goal of transparency in this process.

I mean that that would be uh one way great way to do it.

Um I think Oakland sets another example in publishing a spreadsheet uh, like a PDF that just gets updated periodically with the current priorities of the various speed hump locations uh where folks have requested uh and sent in applications.

Uh and I I would uh I would like to see that uh in Alameda and um I think it would be a really low overhead for staff to offer that to the public uh on the website.

Um and I I would also uh ask to carefully consider the the funding um as far as being bundled with certain other projects uh just because of our current jeopardy with federal funding for various transportation projects and so uh and where the I I feel that speed humps are meant to be quickly quick to install and uh quickly it's uh and then uh quick data blitz.

Uh and finally uh as far as the cost of gathering data, uh San Francisco has a semi-official partnership with a Dutch company called Telvom uh for their slow series program, which produces an automated camera-based speed sensor uh that identifies road users and traffic speeds without transmitting any video.

Um looking at their published pricing, they're quoting 200 Euro sensors, SR costs and 15 euro per month per sensor, um which is vastly cheaper than anything else.

Uh but we could be implementing.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

I believe that's it for Zoom.

One more on Zoom.

Oh, keep coming.

Next one on Zoom, please.

But Ratsin.

Good evening.

Uh thank you for the uh opportunity to speak.

Um, the uh framework seems to be pretty robust and I appreciate that, but one thing that um I would like to know more about uh and uh would urge the department to consider is uh looking at alternatives uh that are there that actually reduce uh the speed by design rather than uh intervention.

So areas where uh you could look at narrowing down the the streets be also considered I live on Bay Farm, it's fairly you know uh quiet uh as such, but the streets are so wide that you do see vehicles speeding by it through neighborhood streets, and it's it's always I scratch my head is why is it so wide out here?

So I would like to also see in that uh in the framework uh some sort of uh understanding of where streets are uh too wide, what can be done in order to uh reduce that width, either you know, tactic we're using some tactical urban interventions along with speed bumps, but also speed bumps not being the be all and end all, but there should be a actual plan post this framework to actually narrow down those streets so that they are genuinely safe streets for everyone.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Do I dare ask?

Are there any more speakers on Zoom?

That is all on Zoom, and next we have Jim Strela.

And thank you to the robust conversation virtually.

Appreciate everyone attending in person.

Hi, Jim.

What are the minimums to be met before implementing such speed bumps?

I.e.

that you uh can install devices that temporarily measure the speed, says speed limit is your speed is so and so, and does it have to exceed 10 miles an hour above or six miles an hour above before, and and then you have X number of traffic tickets issued before then considering that speed hump is needed.

Instead, there are cities that are authorizing the speed cameras.

Uh Almeida should first adopt a speed camera policy and install on such troublesome streets before considering the speed humps.

Why?

Your presentation slide stated that uh we're not gonna collect stats and data.

I consider that criminal that allows for biased because we the city says so planning.

Uh last year I saw the city planning speed humps bumps for Versailles.

I asked the city, did you notify the residents near the city's planned location?

No.

Did these residents ask for it to be installed in front of their homes?

No.

Such humps make or increase the noise 24 hours a day in front of people's houses.

So when on your slide it says does enhance livability, I say it does not enhance livability for those that live right where the humps are installed.

That's a misleading statement in your presentation.

The misuse of choosing where to install speed humps as a retaliator as a retaliatory uh method can target citizens who argue against the city on certain policies.

Uh you should always, and that that's enough on that.

You should always have a cut through for bicyclists for 50 years.

I've been going to Lincoln Park through Fernside, and there are bumps a lot.

Speed hubs already there, been there for as long as I've been around, uh, to slow down cars, but I'm on a bicycle, uh, and there's no cars coming, you know, from uh SNL, excuse me, from Fernside into the park.

And I, as a bicycle, just have to slow down from eight miles an hour to maybe three miles an hour, and there are no vehicles around at all.

So there should be cut-throughs for bicyclists because where they exist and that there's no traffic at all, it is quite a hassle.

It slows down a bicyclist for no reason whatsoever.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Shrilo.

Next speaker in person, please.

Yes, this is our last in speaker, and then I've just been informed there's one more on Zoom.

Um so William B.

Morrison.

Hi, William.

I had the opportunity to look at everything associated with this proposal, read through everything.

And the one thing that I have a particular difficulty with is that everything seems to stop at the city engineer, and he makes the decision.

I would think that review by this commission, or something like that, should be part of the procedure, or at least let's say a method set up for shall we say challenge or you know, uh request for redress or re-examination.

I don't see that in there, and I think it should be something in there.

Again, this goes back to my theme about who's running the city, you know, or who makes the decisions or who provides the data that we work from.

The other thing I find myself unbelievably at, you know, in agreement with is bike walk alameda.

I kind of feel like these guys are really big on bikes and walking, and they'd rather everybody that have a car die in them.

That's their attitude as best I see.

They go about limiting roadsides, everything along that line.

But at the same time, speed bumps offer what I call instant summary judgment.

You go too fast, you pay for it.

And that I think makes a real big difference.

It's it it solves the difficulty of the police enforcement, which unfortunately runs into even more budget difficulties.

I guess the only other thing I can say is there's a a degree of concern over um how much everything cost.

And I'm just got to thinking, and you know, a pothole is kind of like a poor man's speed bump.

You know, so if you want to go through on your paving program, you can pick pick spots where you don't have enough for you know speed bumps.

Let's go ahead and leave the potholes for a while, you know.

But that's that's kind of like anarchistic, so I'll stop and not go any further.

At the at the same time, I the the policy really does come in into uh of uh a need, and it's good to see.

And my basic thing is I I kind of follow anybody else who likes speed cushions as opposed to speed bumps.

Thank you.

Thank you for your creative budget budget solutions.

Next speaker on Zoom, please.

And our last speaker, um, they're phoning in last uh last numbers 271.

You'll need to unmute on your end.

Hi, my name is Kelly Becker.

Um I live on Fairview Drive, right at the intersection of Fairview Southwood and Bay of Vista.

Um, and I just wanted to make some comments.

Um, I've only lived here a couple years, um, but my front window faces that intersection, and I can just tell you that the amount of almost misses is really concerning, and to think that you would be pushing more traffic onto those intersections that are already hard to navigate is unfathomable to me.

Um to take them from a road that was two lanes with parking on both sides that has a light at an intersection where we have no stop signs, we have no um crosswalks, and then people going down Bay of Vista to make a left on the high or fair view to make a left on the high.

There's no lights there.

I keep hearing that people this is all about safety, but yet it seems like we're putting people in harm's way by doing this, and it just doesn't seem to make sense.

The other thing I'd like to note is that with the speed humps on Gibbons, if we put them, it's one street versus having to put speed humps on multiple streets when we know something that is going to become a problem.

Um we're not solving the issue, we're just pushing it to further streets, and you know, with a limited budget, why would we not correct the one street versus all of these other small narrower streets that I don't have children, but I sit here and I see so many families biking, walking to Edison, going the other way to Lincoln.

It it just I I we're putting these kids and families in so much danger by proposing these changes.

Um and gibbons really is the only intersection I feel comfortable going down there with my dogs.

There's a walk, you know, there's a pedestrian crossing, there's a light.

I have a much harder time just going across to my neighbors um often through a huge intersection, and so I just would like to say that I'm not in favor of the Gibbons closure.

Um, and I really think something like speed humps would be a much more profit, you know, budget-friendly um idea, and you know, it would suffice everybody.

Thank you for your comment.

Any additional in-person or on Zoom comments?

No more on Zoom, and no more in-house.

Okay.

Let's move back to commission discussion the further clarification questions that have come up.

Who has a question?

Who has a comment?

Commissioner Johnson.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, thank you for that great presentation.

Um I have a question.

I I used when I work for the city of Oakland and it was a request for speed bump.

They would go to the neighborhood, they would come up with a survey for all the people who were in favor of it.

But the interesting thing was that where the proposed speed cushion or hump was, if it was in some front of someone's house, they had veto power.

They could basically say we don't want this in front of our house.

Also, there was a review on the fire department, the traffic engineers, there was this whole process.

Um, North Oakland was a little different because we had a lot of activists in North Oakland.

It's a very unique place, but I just remember um that if you wanted to put a speed hump or a bump in front of someone's home, no matter what the fire department said, no matter what the community said, they could say no.

So I know we're in a different time, but I didn't I didn't hear or capture in your great presentation.

How does the public or how does a community what role do the does a neighborhood playing say in saying yes or no in getting a speed hump or cushion?

I apologize if I miss that.

Uh no, you didn't miss that, thank you.

Um yeah, I I just want to like emphasize the aspect of our policy that's pretty different from the city of Oakland and many other cities where there's like that whole petition process, and so um I'll I'll get to the part about the the no, but the also the on it's important on the yes side as well because we're trying not to have a situation where neighbors are compelled to get a certain percentage of their block to sign a petition.

Um this makes it extremely difficult for neighborhoods that are maybe a little less organized, or maybe they have a lot of renters, or maybe they don't they just don't know each other.

Um, so we don't want to be disadvantaging neighborhoods where there isn't that level of organization.

Um in Oakland, I also had lived in a neighborhood where we were all renters and they we couldn't access everybody in the building, so it was really hard.

But in terms of the no, we actually have been talking quite a bit about what level of appeal or maybe noticing we want to do.

And I think we haven't quite landed on that.

So if if you have feedback, that would be fantastic, but I think we'll probably have some level of noticing, and uh we probably wouldn't um create like a super formal system, like the the parking thing that comes to you all if somebody wants to appeal a red curb.

Um that's something that there isn't much appetite for internally.

Um, but we do want to have some way of noticing and for people to give their feedback if if they have specific concerns about the location.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Can I ask a follow-up question to that?

Sorry.

So I guess what you kind of got just got to was there's gonna be a no, but it's not gonna be brought back to any body other than you, the city.

Who's who's I didn't understand what no went exactly?

It sounds like it's in development, but it didn't really get a sense of like direct who's saying yes, that's fine that you have a no, and we're gonna let you continue with that.

No, I don't get that.

What's the plan?

What would be a plan?

You mean in terms of an individual homeowner not wanting in front of their house?

Yeah, I mean, I I think right now that's something that we haven't quite finalized yet.

And I think Scott, if you want to also chime in, you can.

But uh right now I think that's we we don't want to be necessarily creating a formal way for an individual to have veto power over something happening on their street.

Um that's not how we really do anything else.

And so uh we wouldn't want a speed hump to be so different from a crosswalk or a stop sign or any other type of infrastructure we think is appropriate.

Uh and at the same time, I think you know, if there's a situation where one person was the one doing all of the C-click fix requests, and then a bunch of neighbors are all kind of like what is going on, we would probably wanna revisit that, but it's it's walking a fine line in terms of sort of engineering appropriateness versus community feedback, and the community input is one piece of it.

It's not also not all of it.

So uh for example, like a school or one of any of these other metrics where we think there's a safety and livability need, um, we don't want it to just be like a popularity contest only.

So it's it's balancing act there, but in in summary, no, we don't have a formal plan yet, and we we definitely will be adding that piece in.

Um I will also say that there was a comment earlier about the city of Oakland, how they publish, and we do plan to like once a year publish the list of requests and sort of some tiers of how they've scored so people can kind of see their relative priority.

Yeah.

Do you have anything else?

Good evening, Commissioners uh Scott Books from City Engineer.

Uh Susie covered it really well.

I think the only couple things to add is uh Mr.

Strila brought up the point that yes, in fact, some of these uh a speed hump does create noise if a car's gonna break and maybe some suspension compression and then acceleration beyond hand.

So it is not an all good situation.

There are some drawbacks to speed humps.

Um that being said, you know, when we look at a block, um, we when we would look at a block, we try to space out speed bumps at an appropriate kind of spacing.

We have a little bit of flexibility of moving it back and forth, but it's not an unlimited amount of flexibility.

We're not gonna want to put a speed hump 30 feet from the from an intersection.

We're gonna want to put up mid block, so it'll slow the cars, we're not gonna leave big gaps between them.

So we may have some opportunities to move things, uh, but we're not we don't have an unlimited ability to move things within a block.

So uh, you know, we are still looking to develop that policy, and as Susie mentioned, uh your comments and feedback is certainly the evaluated, uh, it is appreciated.

Um, you know, we don't want every single speed hump to come to the spot.

I think that would be a lot of work for this body and a lot of work for staff to do all the presentation on that work.

Um but what would be an appropriate amount if something did that would we'd love to hear your your comments and feedback?

Great, thank you.

And for what since we're in the opinion section, I actually agree with the lot, making sure no single person has veto power over this kind of thing.

But Mr.

K.

Yeah, uh thanks for the presentation.

I actually want to kind of a follow-up question.

Um because it seems like there's these kind of two sets of um kind of um what's eligible, like so there's the priority and then there's what's eligible.

Um do we have a sense of kind of like I guess what percentage of the eligible streets are in the plan priority?

And then I'm also wondering how like implementation works with those two different sets, right?

Because I'm like, for example, if something's in the priority set, uh can you just not veto it or does it does it not get vetoed?

I'm kind of curious like how the priority like bumps things up, right?

So yeah.

Yeah, that's a great question.

Um, yeah, so the plan priority, so like neighborhood greenways and school frontages.

Is your question kind of how many of the community requests are also those?

Well, I guess the first one would be like um so there's like um we'll say in like number of miles of eligible streets in Alameda, right?

Like, so how many miles of that is in the priority set?

I actually don't know that number off the top of my head.

Uh I think it's a decent amount, though.

I mean, the neighborhood greenway network is pretty extensive, and um that's kind of the primary place we get lots of mileage.

Um, what we're hoping for is that there are some responses to community requests and construction to community requests moving forward.

And so we didn't want to have the policy say only the plan priorities are gonna be done first.

Um that would be extremely expensive and take many years to do.

Uh, and the goal is actually to implement some speed humps based on requests.

So I think that the goal is to have it be about 50 50 with each year.

We don't even have a dedicated funding source to say how many speed humps are necessarily implemented each year, so that's kind of just conceptual.

But um, as I mentioned during the presentation, I think, like with the neighborhood greenways, some of the corridors have had planning already and some of them don't, but I'd say that yeah, the the community engagement on the neighborhood greenways, for example, is individual to those corridors, and the treatments recommended are spaced a certain way to achieve the speeds and volumes we want for neighborhood greenways.

So as Scott mentioned, speed humps can move around a little bit within the block, but if that's the treatment, that's that's the recommendation.

And so uh yeah, I do think that the community engagement for neighborhood greenways will kind of stand alone, but yeah, with school frontages and stuff like that, we we want to be calming traffic where kids are walking.

So I would say the policy is intended to sort of set those as priorities and and not give too much um ability to kind of throw it out.

Yeah.

Um I can actually do have one more question.

All right.

Um, this is actually about costs.

Um, just kind of curious, uh, I like you know, you don't have to tell me the actual actual cause of the speed bump, but I'm kind of wondering um if it's aligned with like the pavement plan.

Is it like a very marginal cost to add these speed bumps?

Is it more expensive than you think?

Like, is does it feel like there's only a limited number of speed bumps we could put in a city each year?

Um, and then I was also wondering about um the maintenance cost of speed bumps uh versus um speed uh cushions, if there's any like difference there.

Um I would say the cost is not marginal.

Um it's in the range of about ten thousand dollars per each just for the construction, and um we always are planning our paving program to kind of maximize the amount of segments where we can do our asset management and rehabilitation for our corridors, so uh in that sense there's almost no marginal wiggle room in the paving program because there's always a trade-off of where we can't pave if we do that.

So that's why we've been sort of thinking of it in terms of the paving program as the bucket or container for implementation, and then the expectations that there would be some supplemental funding.

Um, and yeah, I mean a dedicated program would require council action, and that doesn't exist right now.

Um, but as far as maintenance for the different types of um treatments, I don't know that there's a big difference.

There might be a little bit of difference, but um, Scott, can you?

Sure, I'll I'll be happy to answer a couple questions about cost.

Um so we have a couple different types of speed humps, speed cushions.

Uh the speed humps that are built out of asphalt.

We got pricing recently, and Susie mentioned about 10,000.

I think it was 11,000 per.

But then you've got to factor into some signage and some other stuff and some mobilization costs that get back in.

So I tend to look at close to like about a fifteen to fifteen to eighteen thousand dollars per.

Um the rubberized speed cushions that we had installed.

So we have some of those on Bayview, and then we also have a few that we recently installed on Orion north of West Midway.

Uh, those ones are actually more expensive than the asphalt speed humps.

Those are pushing in the order of 25,000 per installation.

Um, the we also believe that the asphalt speed humps will last longer than the bolted-down rubber ones.

At a certain point the rubber uh will degrade, but it's really more the bolting to the asphalt and the impact of that over time that we look at that.

So we'd assume that these things should last the same length as what we assume our pavement life is 20 20 years.

Um, and when we repave, they would presumably just be ground out and put back in their same locations.

Great.

Thank you.

Good questions.

Alicia, go ahead.

Thank you.

Um so thank you for the presentation.

It really it helped to clarify.

I do appreciate there being a policy for this and a framework.

I think it's important to be mindful about it.

I also appreciated the fact that you've flagged that most of the most would fit into the type two, because when I was originally reading it and I was looking at type one, I was starting to feel like I had a van diagram that was like this.

So here's this and there's this, and they weren't really coming together except for neighborhood greenways, you know, because neighborhood greenways are an obvious fit.

Because otherwise, because it's focusing on the neighborhood streets, the neighborhood local streets, there's thankfully in a lot of ways there aren't the Venn diagram doesn't come together as much.

However, then when I started to look a bit more at type two and wanted to understand it better, I hit a bit of a wall because you don't have the prioritization to you know yet.

And I know you you flagged that you wanted to get feedback on it on this policy first.

However, that made it harder for me to better understand the policy and how it could actually be implemented because that wasn't in existence yet.

And then I was concerned because building on cost, if this is going to pull from major projects, and most of the major projects we have aren't on neighborhood local streets, except for the pavement, and we know that pavement doesn't have a lot of money.

I kind of hit a wall like, well, okay, are we gonna have a policy that can't actually get implemented because there's no funding?

So just being mindful of all of that so that we have a policy, we have a framework, and we can actually get speed bumps in the places that make sense to have them, and have uh a noticing and you know, notification.

I think that's a great idea as well, so that folks know once they actually are put into a plan of action and there is funding for them.

I feel like this is several years down the road, but once you actually get there, you can let folks know, hey, this is what's coming down the pike for you.

Unless of course you're in a neighborhood greenway and that's a different story.

So those are my thoughts.

You know, it's complex, generally this speaks to it really well.

I think it makes sense to have a policy and framework, but there are a few areas that feel a little bit uncertain and some wrinkles that need to be ironed out.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So I have um two questions.

The first one is I think as a couple of people have mentioned, speed humps are not necessarily without any downsides.

And I think in an ideal world, we would be able to reduce traffic speeds without having to implement speed humps.

And so my first question is we've talked purely about the policy for these speed humps today.

I'd I'd like to understand how this fits into the larger um city um policy on traffic calming in general, because obviously there are other ways to reduce speed, other, you know, um uh other methods um different types of road design and lane widths and all sorts of things.

So I'm and I'm conscious that perhaps speed humps are relatively um inexpensive relative to certain other things that could be done, but I'm interested to know how we're thinking about this specific policy in the sort of larger context of other interventions that the city could do, perhaps all even in within the sort of paving uh project that we talk about, and how sort of speed humps fit within other possible interventions.

Yeah, thank you for that.

So, yeah, there are lots of different ways to calm traffic speeds using design.

Um, the appendix will reference some other options, especially for our citywide circulation classifications, um, and a lot of the time we're doing traffic calming on major corridors using lane narrowing, road diets, curb extensions, that kind of thing.

Uh there are also other types of traffic calming that are more appropriate for neighborhood local streets.

Um, sometimes there's toolboxes that include things like chicanes, which kind of moves this the lane over and back.

Um on neighborhood greenways, we're going to be using neighborhood traffic circles and that kind of thing.

Uh I think there is a desire to in the future develop a more sort of diverse toolbox.

Um, one of the reasons why we're focused on speed humps right now is that we've developed a sort of typical engineering design for the neighborhood greenways project.

We also receive a lot of very specific requests, and we know from neighboring communities that speed humps are effective, and so uh we really wanted to take this, you know, typical design sheet that we have and be able to say, okay, yes, now we have a way that we can actually implement these um without needing to kind of do like uh more complex sort of treatment selection process and that kind of thing, um, especially since neighborhood local streets almost are so I mean it especially on the main island where it's a grid, they're very, very similar to each other in width and character, and so um there was an interest in having a kind of consistent treatment and just sort of creating a relatively simple, relatively simple prioritization scheme for those.

Um but yeah, there are many other treatments.

We do use them on neighborhood greenways during paving.

We very frequently will do painted bulbouts and other types of crosswalk enhancements, that kind of thing.

So there are other treatments, and and this is really focused on helping channel that community desire along with the effectiveness to be able to kind of put that into action.

Thank you.

That's that's useful.

I appreciate the uh extra context there.

So um I do have a second question, which is as I read through the supporting documentation that was provided with the um uh with the policy um within the agenda.

I saw that we have different street types designations within the city.

We have um I forget the names of them, but um the the streets that connect us to uh other communities.

There are obviously connector streets, which are um generally not eligible at the moment for this treatment, and then we have I think what we call main streets, which in Alameda are basically primarily Park Street and Webster, which is our main commercial um streets.

And I thought it was interesting that they are considered arterial streets, which I can see why that is.

Those are those are busy streets which um handle a lot of traffic, but I think it's um and I'm not saying that they should be included within the uh within the eligible streets here.

I don't necessarily think that speed humps are the right um uh the right thing to uh to address um traffic speeds on those streets, but I do think it's um worth noting that in this city, two of our main arterial streets are also our busiest commercial streets where we would assume that um pedestrians and people in general will congregate, and I wonder whether at some future date we can consider traffic calming and ways to um reduce conflicts, let's say, broadly, on those streets, which are unfortunately, as I say, both arterial and uh our commercial uh main commercial corridors.

Um, of course, whether we can reduce traffic without um uh pushing it onto other streets that may be even less appropriate for that, I don't know.

But um as I say, I think um as I think about this sort of traffic calming in general, it would be interesting to um consider the bigger picture of our the irony of having arterial streets that are also our main um commercial card doors, yeah.

If I could just gently redirect the response.

So I it so specific to the topic at hand, which is speed humps.

There's no current plan to implement speed humps on the specific streets that Commissioner Gloin is speaking about, correct?

Uh no, that's not imminent.

Uh I will say that the design guidance appendix will include some general guidelines for what types of raised traffic calming might be appropriate on arterial streets or our citywide circulation streets.

Um that wouldn't rule it out by any means.

Um, but it is a little bit more case by case.

We have to do much more coordination with bus transit, AC transit, and fire in particular on major corridors.

Um, but it can't, it can be done, especially um, like for example, the Clement Tilden roundabout will have a raised crosswalk on one leg, kind of entering entering Blanding Avenue, and fire department and AC Transit can handle a speed table like that, and they're usually amenable to it, especially if there's a compelling safety need.

So our uh guidelines will include some information about what types of treatments are more appropriate on those citywide circulation corridors, but it would definitely be part of a larger corridor planning process to identify what treatments are appropriate along the entire corridor to manage speed and safety.

Um, and if one of those treatments were recommended, it would be part of its own design effort within that corridor.

Yeah.

Thank you, that's helpful.

Street classification subcommittee, I'm getting nostalgic.

Go ahead.

Thanks for that.

Okay.

Thank you to staff for this, and um let me just start by saying I'll focus my comments on our agenda item of speed humps, but appreciate comments across the city, look forward to a future agenda item on Fernside in particular, but my comments tonight on the speed hump policy.

Um, I think this morning's um driver on cyclist crash on Santa Clara is a really unfortunate example of why this is so important, um, especially uh given that that is on a segment of roadway where um my understanding is public works used its authority um to remove those barricades, citing a safety concern, and it's unfortunate that um as a side effect uh we have uh traffic like this.

That said, ultimately it's the responsibility of the driver at fault at the same time.

Um I think tonight's um agenda item really gets at the need for the city to have a citywide toolkit.

The neighborhood greenways program has been really valuable, but it has taken up a lot of oxygen around City Hall, a lot of staff's time, a lot of consulting time and budgets.

Um I trust the results are gonna be great, but I really appreciate that this effort here is zooming back out across the whole city, putting together a toolkit.

Um I do want to agree with with Commissioner Noctigall that if this is a policy without a budget, as for better or worse it is at this moment, that that is not a good thing.

We have to, you know, trust that there's a larger process here, um, but putting in place a policy so that it can be used with the annual pavings.

Um maybe so this is a hypothetical, but maybe if something like this had been in place, uh staff might have had some more options uh when choosing to remove barricades.

Um I appreciate a lot of comments that have been made tonight, and by going last I get to just echo them and agree.

Um I do want to kind of ask, like, what is the actual timing here?

Like, are we talking about a policy that can lead to uh that's going to affect next summer's uh paving?

Um, or is this a little further out on the horizon and dependent on budget?

So, Scott, if I could turn that into a question for you.

Well done.

Thank you.

And um Susie did have a timeline up there that we're looking to complete the policy by the end of this year, early into next year.

Um, and if we have the policy in place, there's no reason to say we couldn't start implementing it.

It does bring up the question about budget.

Um that's not to say we are completely without budget.

We do have a budget category called uh street safety.

Um it's primarily for our vision zero rapid response after collisions, serious or fate fatal collisions, um, but we have been using that to implement other traffic calming and safety street safety um measures throughout the state.

Now that's not a very large pot of money, and there's a lot of other desires for uses of that money.

Um we could also potentially use a little bit of our paving money, but as was previously mentioned, that truly is an opportunity cost.

Our pavement PCI has been declining, and money not spent on paving is fewer streets and just further degradation of our pavement system.

So the intention is that we'll have it in place by early next year with the possibility that we will be implementing street bumps next summer.

Apologies, can I ask a follow-up question directly related to that?

So we keep talking about how this is taking money away from paving streets because it, you know, money in money out, speed bumps cost money or speed humps cost money.

Is there any evidence that the reduced speed on the streets created by speed humps lengthens the amount of time?

Damn it.

Okay, I'm sorry, there's no savings you're gonna find there.

Okay, I appreciate the thought.

I get it.

Um a little bit about that policy without a budget uh point, which is a really well-made point that we will, you know, take back to the team.

But I do want to say this policy gives us an opportunity, even with a limited opportunity to at least start because with limited funding and the number of requests we get, it's been a little paralyzing.

Um, and so this gives us a system, even if it's only half a dozen blocks a year, even if it's a little less than that, at least we're able to do some and have a process to get started.

And then we can you know get that rolling and then be able to have conversations with city council about what kind of uh program they might want to fund in the future.

Okay, Mr.

Debra, please.

Yeah, if I if I could just ask um actually both uh I a hypothetical here, Susie spoke a bit to how there are many possible treatments, and I know at one end of the spectrum, neighborhood greenways bespoke design for each corridor, whatever treatment is the best for that point.

This end of the spectrum is you know one treatment, um, which I think more efficiency is in order at the same time if we only have hammers and nails, um have in staff's opinion, is it worth considering any other treatments to have two options at hand, or does that turn does that turn into scope creep that might defeat the the efficiency and um and what Lisa speaks to in terms of beginning a process that can use resources at hand?

Yeah, that's a great question.

Um, well, I think you know, at the base level, the cushions and humps are kind of two treatments in the case that the fire department asks us to use cushions.

Um and for the other types of treatments, I think that the neighborhood greenways program is really an important springboard for other types of traffic calming.

So you mentioned kind of the amount of resources and energy and the kind of bespoke design, which has been true up until now, but part of the effort that has happened kind of to date on neighborhood greenways is to create this kind of toolbox and typical design that we plan to be sort of copy pasting over more miles of greenways.

We haven't talked about having a citywide program for traffic circles yet.

I don't know that that's really a priority given how many neighborhood greenway miles we want to be doing with that type of treatment.

Um but the paving program, you know, on Bay Farm right now is going to be doing some sort of mini roundabout type treatments at some larger skewed intersections and things like that.

So I think the the pay the city and the paving program are open to using these types of um lower cost construction methods for traffic circles and mini roundabouts where it's appropriate.

So we haven't quite created like a whole toolbox for uh you know implementing based on community requests, but the paving program is flexible enough to be able to respond to specific conditions, and I think that the process of the traffic circles at the neighborhood greenways has kind of given us a second tool for when we have an intersection where that might be necessary.

Yeah, Scott has other things.

Yeah, I want to add on a little bit.

Just in the last three years, we've kind of taken a very deliberate pivot with our paving program that we're being much more inclusive of complete streets approaches.

Um you can see that most recently last year when we repave Central Avenue, right?

We repave Central Avenue.

Now we have high visibility crosswalks, we have uh bike lanes with stripes on both the driver's side and on the parking side.

We have a lot more green paint added in there.

There's a lot more paint and post bulb outs.

Um we're continuing that same effort, the additional level as we go to Bay farm.

That is an additional cost.

That is taking away from miles being paved.

But at the end of the day, we think it's a net good for the city that we're improving the safety.

So we with our paving program have been doing a lot of these other treatments that we talk about.

Um the you know, paint and post, the higher higher visibility crossbox, etc.

It's just we've stayed away from the speed humps because frankly, from my standpoint, unless we had a structure to kind of like start prioritizing ranking and putting these down in certain spots, it gets to be everywhere, everywhere all the time, right?

And there's no way to kind of define when and where these things go down.

So I think that prioritization is gonna be super helpful for us, whether it's a part of our pavement program or whether it's money that we we capture elsewhere.

Um, but we've been very deliberate to look at a lot of other means to kind of incorporate traffic safety, particularly with our our paving program, and and I think you'll definitely see that uh with our phase 43 program, they'll be really starting going in the next two, three weeks.

You mean Bay Farm paving?

Oh, farm, yeah.

Okay, yeah, great.

Cool.

Okay, thank you.

I appreciate to hear that staff are considering a lot of these trade-offs.

It sounds like, you know, maybe now's the time to take learnings from uh and the toolkit from neighborhood greenways citywide, but over time maybe bring some of those treatments along, like, you know, a uh uh mini neighborhood roundabout that may in the future be possible the cookie cutter as well.

Um let me end just to just because I don't even physically understand some of this.

Do these have to be installed while paving repaving the roadway, or can asphalt just be put in place?

Just so excited.

Um they do not have to be placed on new paving.

So what they will do is uh these things are gonna be about 14 foot wide, they combine, they grind down about two inches on either end, and then they they basically pave in there so they so it so it doesn't thin down to nothing and it basically has a nice two-inch edge, and they could build it on older asphalt.

We'd be mindful if the if the roadways do to be repaved in a couple of years that we might want to hold off and maybe not do that so we don't put it in, put up you know $15,000 investment and then take it out two years later and have to repave it.

Um but it can be paid uh placed on existing payment.

And um, and this is a question I'm gonna ask again on the status report on other projects, but who can do that?

Do you actually need a specialized contractor or can public works staff?

We need specialized contractor, yeah.

It's more than we we do not have a paving machine in-house.

We we do pottable repairs and fixes, but that's about the extensive problem.

Okay, thanks for that information because again, to speak to the point of policy is great.

Then you need budget, then you actually need delivery, and um and securing the contracts at a reasonable cost to do so.

So anyway, those are all the the thoughts I wanted to share.

And thank you again.

I I again just to echo it.

The point I keep making.

I'm glad we're jumping back up to the citywide level because this is a citywide uh concern.

Thank you, China.

Well said.

I was hoping we could kind of conclude this item with going back to slides uh 16 and 17 in the presentation.

So let's do 17 first if we could.

Type two draft scoring methodology.

Uh one more.

Thank you.

Um, honestly, I just wanted to open this back up.

Part of our mandate with this item is to give specific feedback.

And so this is a great chart.

It defines scoring, it talks about specific things to look for, and I just want to open this back up briefly to the commission.

Is there anything here that we would recommend would change or be removed or be added or is missing, or is there something that is not a column on here that should be added?

Because I think that's that that's part of our goal here tonight.

So anything that doesn't look quite right and you would it recommend change.

Commissioner Kim.

Um I do have a question specifically about um like kind of how cut-through risk is defined.

I know in the presentation you also mentioned this.

Um I think I I think it was a public comment related to that kind of cut through street um on Bay Farm that people speed on.

Um so I'm wondering um if it could I guess to me it should be defined as I don't know how this technically gets defined, but like a street people are gonna avoid like park street and go down instead or something like that.

Um I I feel like the definition here isn't exactly how I would define it in my head, right?

I would maybe follow up with that.

I think one of the things we hear on this commission a lot fairly is when we're when the city does something, I'm worried that traffic's gonna get pushed into my neighborhood.

And so some way to think about cut-through risk is when a new product is implemented that defines certain cut throughs, be it public feedback or be it uh the city identifies that, and so that could also be a criteria, or I guess it kind of folded into the cut-through risk, but it's a nut, it's not just attractiveness of like it's 0.5 miles away from something, it is also we change something, so we should reevaluate what our new cut through risks that come with that and keep that as part of your scoring criteria.

Commissioner Abraham.

This is this is something I think about when I see uh people driving uh a block from my house or a block off of uh signalized intersection.

So, you know, some folks cut the corner and I I I think to myself, well, cut through traffic is traffic.

Traffic is allowed on roadways.

The issue is the specific behavior.

It's like are people coming to a complete stop?

Are they or are they rolling through a stop sign?

Are people speeding or not speeding?

And so like I I I mean, I think there are a lot of meanings we have here, but ultimately I assume I'm open to others' thoughts.

I assume this isn't about changing the volume of traffic.

This is about encouraging good behavior for drivers who they have a target in mind, they want to use this other route, they're welcome to, but they they need to know that they're on a local neighborhood street.

They're not they're not in the tube yet, they're not you know, but yeah, please go ahead and go.

No, that's my thought.

Please go ahead.

Thanks, because it I want to add on this as well, because part of the cut through risk is it going to be ongoing because some of this is if we know the different plans and projects in the future that could change the cut-through risk, then being mindful that so I have an example.

We know that there is a piece of Clement that is still closed, but when it opens, Clement will be the truck route.

Until it opens, there is a cut through that happens as folks are on Buena Vista heading toward grand.

If they don't want to sit in a light, they will go up and around and cut through a neighborhood.

However, in the future, when Clement is a through street, that cut through risk will be mitigated because there will be another through street.

So it's being mindful that it isn't just cut through risk, it is ongoing cut through risk that won't be changed in the short term.

So your recommendation for column four would be durable cut-through risk or something like that.

Good, that's smart.

Other things on this chart that we would recommend change or be clarified.

Sounds like a great chart.

If we go back one slide to slide 16.

So slide 16, again, so we just looked at type two, what makes them eligible.

I think we're pretty familiar now with what the plan priority for type one is.

Anything on here that we feel is not appropriate or is insufficiently defined.

Sounds like another great chart.

I will get to my last couple questions real quick.

Um question that was made by the public was if uh 5th Street qualifies.

I believe as I look at the street classification, it would, but if we could just clarify that, we it's not QA for public comment, but I thought that was a fair question, so could we clarify that uh Fifth Street would qualify under this uh criteria?

Yeah, it would need to go on to for the scoring.

Yeah, okay.

And I and the other question that came up or the comment that came up several times was about bike access and speed humps.

And I you may have got into this briefly and I got a little distracted to be perfectly honest.

Um, but if you could just help us understand why or why not, that's really being considered as part of this, and if there's criteria that would be set up, would there be different kind of a speed hump, but then also whatever you call it when you add a cut through for a bike.

Just help us understand why or why not.

That's a good idea.

Yeah, thanks for revisiting that question.

Um, we talked about this quite a bit uh also with City of Oakland staff who've kind of gone back and forth on the cushions versus humps.

Um yeah, those cutouts are really specifically meant for fire access.

Uh some bike riders like it because it creates kind of a gap where they can ride through.

The position of those gaps within the lane and within the roadway is always determined by the fire access and not by the bicycle access.

It's just what it's for, and so uh there isn't necessarily a good way to like have that double purpose also position the bike rider well, but that's kind of secondary to the primary concern that we had as a staff team, which is just about the concerns we saw in other communities with the swerving uh really.

That's kind of the big one.

Uh there's cushions on 35th Avenue in Oakland, and there's some like by the Emeryville Marina and a bunch of other locations where staff have really observed that people are very intentionally moving their vehicles so that they can go through without slowing down, and so it creates this kind of double thing where they're not only not slowing down, but they're also doing something erratic, you know.

So um we have talked pretty extensively with City of Oakland staff who have really been working on their standard detail over the years on the profile of the speed hump, and so they've worked on creating this what they call a sinusoidal profile, which makes the conform to the roadway much smoother than kind of an older speed hump that's kind of just like asphalt plopped on top, you know.

So they actually, as Scott mentioned, dig in a few inches into the roadway, lay the asphalt and then conform it down.

So people have had positive feedback in Oakland on how kind of rideable they are for bicyclists, but yeah, the Pacific Neighborhood Greenway is our opportunity to give feedback on that.

So if something is really really uncomfortable or not working about it, we'll certainly have the conversation.

But right now, our priority is making sure that it's safe and the speed cushions will primarily come in where the fire department asks for it for the neighborhood access, yeah.

And I'm sure there's a there is a robust public process.

We'll give some of that data about what you hear about the specific greenway hump, correct?

Yeah, there will be a major process on neighborhood greenways.

Yep.

Great, thank you.

Thank you.

That's it.

All I have.

Any other questions?

Any other comments?

Okay.

With that, we will close out this discussion item and we will with the commission's permission take a four-minute break.

Everyone stretch your legs.

Get your brains back and come on back about 819, 820.

Welcome back from our break.

We will now do regular agenda item six B to accept the status report on transportation.

This is an action item, a voting item.

If I could give gentle advice on this item from historical precedent, this is not necessarily an item that we need to talk about how great a project is.

We are looking for progress and any specific questions about progress on these items.

So gentle advice.

Lisa Foster, please take it away.

Thank you.

Good evening.

I will give a highlight report on the status report of press of transportation.

As you all know, as the transportation commissioner, it is part of your work to monitor the city's progress on our on implementing our adopted plans and policies.

That includes our active transportation plan, vision zero action plan, general plan, transportation choices plan.

So the efforts within this are all related to those.

Starting with programs, our annual bike festival in April.

Sorry, Chair White.

It was great.

I specifically said that they're all great, Lisa.

They're all great.

Keep going.

It was a paid in elementary this year.

It was well attended.

We had free bike repairs, helmet getaways, bike rodeos, and bike safety classes and more.

We also did continue our ongoing bike education for both children and adults, and as of the end of uh August, I think we had reached 160 adults and children this year.

And with uh parking, we have taken steps toward our goal to launch uh increased security at our ferry terminals with paid parking at Harbor Bay and seaplane lagoon ferry terminals.

We did launch the security at Harbor Bay in uh May and the pay stations, but they weren't activated because we were awaiting a merchant bank transition that I'm glad to say is now complete.

So you should be seeing communications pretty soon about upcoming paid parking at Harbor Bay, and then we're looking at seaplane lagoon sometime in the winter, maybe early next year.

I'm not sure.

Um for public transit.

Our water shuttle continues to be a really popular service last in August, it served over fifteen hundred or fifteen thousand five hundred passengers with over six thousand bicycles.

Um it did have an expanded service that we launched in July, and is now operating six days a week.

Uh we also secured grant funding to continue the pilot for an additional two years, and we are awaiting a response from a funding application to retain our expanded schedule during the Oakland Alameda Access Project construction.

AC Transit launched its realign service changes in on August 10th.

The city helped out with getting the word out about that, and is continuing to work with them to upgrade all the new bus stop locations, including ADA upgrades and interim landing space on Stargil ahead of the corridor project there.

And as you know, this did come with some changes for the city, some reductions, but with you know advocacy from the city and this body and community members.

The 51A trunk line is unchanged and continues to be our biggest service to this to uh Alameda residents.

Oh, I wanted to say the city's paratransit program would is now called Alameda Connect.

Um, and and our big milestone for this year is that we extended the AC Transit Free Bus Pass Program contract for an additional two years.

And then this map, you guys have seen it, it's always a little hard to look at.

The lines in blue are the capital projects that are in the planning and design phase.

So I'll go through a few highlights of those and then pass to the city engineer for uh the construction phase projects.

So for fernside, traffic calming and bikeways project.

The final design concept was approved by city council in March, and of course uh from that came the direction to study the Gibbons High Fernside intersection more, and we're working on that right now to come back to you and then the city council again with a lot of uh public input of possibilities in between.

Um, and then Lincoln Marshall Pacific project.

We uh city council recently approved a contract to finish the construction designs with uh existing funding, and so we are moving very quickly forward with that for neighborhood greenways.

We broke ground on the Pacific Avenue neighborhood greenway in April with a few key interventions, and then the construction on the first section of Pacific will be this fall, and oh no, I'm just moving on the slides we got.

Um then the Stargil concept the Stargle Complete Streets Project uh was approved by City Council in April, and we're moving forward with design for that.

And I also wanted to let you know that the Oakland Alameda Estuary Bridge, we're moving forward on our next step for that planning process, which is a waterway study of the Oakland Alameda Estuary, and um we released an RFP and are working on um bringing a contract to city council for that.

And now I'll pass to Scott Wickstrom.

Good evening, commissioners.

Pretty pictures.

Uh, a couple of projects that recently completed Grand Street phase one was completed about a month ago, and almost immediately after we finished cars were parking in the bike lane.

Um so we are looking to add in some additional stripings of additional ballards to kind of make it a little more clear to uh vehicles that they need to park kind of out on the road and not in the actual bike lane, but otherwise that is ready to go.

Um Grand Street Phase 2 is in design, which is the connection from Otis all the way up to Benson, with the expectation that we're gonna be going out to construction in 2026.

Okay.

On the right, you see Central Avenue.

There's been a lot of talk about it.

I know there's been a lot of a lot of work and effort into it.

Paving starts is scheduled to begin next Tuesday and go through next Friday, shortly after that, basically, perhaps even as early as next week, and if not, certainly the following week.

Uh, the roundabouts at third and fourth will be open to traffic.

Um that's a big milestone, big achievement.

They are going to be paving from Sherman all the way to Lincoln Avenue, and then they'll follow that up about a week or two later with all the striping details that go on in that.

That's that's a big thing.

Um, following that, the next step will be the uh closing.

We're gonna physically close Pacific in Maine to allow that roundabout to be done.

We looked at that a few times over, and because of the configuration of the road and the pretty severe jog that exists right now, there wasn't really a way to properly keep that open.

We're preparing all the public outreach for that.

That'll be going out in the next few few days, few weeks.

People going to the ferry terminal are going to make a left on a risk and you're going to open up that roadway.

So if you're coming up Central Avenue and you want to go to the fairway, you'll you will go left on a risky, which is now closed with the white barriers.

That'll be opened up to traffic to allow that.

And if you're on the north of that, you'll be going in through Atlantic.

Some other big projects coming through, Tilden Clement.

We had our pre-construction meeting for that last Thursday, and they anticipate getting started in October.

The first couple phases of that are not going to look that terribly impressive.

There's some environmental soil remediation, some cleanup of the old railroad that needs to be done, and then they're going to be basically building a temporary roadway to the north of the existing roadway so that we can facilitate two-way continuous two-way traffic on Tilden throughout the duration of the construction.

When the construction gets going in earnest, which is probably going to be early in the next year, access to uh tilden from Fernside will be closed to allow construction of the roundabout.

Um so people will have to do a detour.

Um, we're gonna try to get most people as much as possible to detour on Ensinol, but there will be some that will go through the neighborhoods as well.

Um, there's a little discussion about Clement, the Cat Cat Cross Alameda Trail Gap uh west of Grand Street.

Um, that is a developer sponsored, developer-funded project.

So our uh control if you are leverage, is the fact that we're holding occupancy on their first building uh until they get that uh Calimant Avenue uh complete.

Um they anticipate that towards the end of October this year, so it's coming and it's coming soon.

And conveniently that'll be in time and in advance of the Oakland Alameda Access Project.

Um bids were opened in I want to say July and was awarded by the by uh Caltrans award of the project.

They are now in discussions with uh the select contractors base cities, and they're working with them to work through schedule.

And with our partners, Alameda CTC, we hope to be have a chance to review that schedule, understand the impacts to Alameda specifically, and be able to push out communication to residents, businesses that will be affected by by that project.

Um, at the moment, the the best guess, and I'll say that that is actually a guess at this point, is that construction may start in about January of this year.

Um this might have been talked about before this group, but just as a reminder, uh the project is staged as part of the design package.

The first stage will be work within the Webster tube.

Um, really working to build that new pedestrian and bike facility in the Webster tube, along with some concrete work on the north side in Oakland, a little bit of connections on the south side as you come out of the tube to connect to Fifth and Stargil and Mariner Square Loop.

That phase or that stage is anticipated to take about six months, and then after that, they'll move into the second phases, which is gonna be much more impactful, we believe, which is uh most of the work is actually north of the tunnel in Oakland, but the work there is so intensive.

There's a couple of retaining walls to be demolished, reconstructed, some bents to few of the structures for the for the aerial freeway have to be removed, that they will basically require a lane closure in the posey tube, which we anticipate may last up to a year.

Again, when we get the contractor schedule, we'll have a chance to digest that and we'll push that information out when it's available.

And then uh last big item to talk about here is uh uh phase 43, which uh paving on Bay Farm Island.

Um if you live out on Bay Farm Island, you might have seen some concrete work that's been going on over the last two, three weeks.

Um, starting next week, they will be out there doing Crack Seal, which is basically larger gaps in the asphalt, will be sealed up with a the plant uh um uh filler, and then they'll be coming by with the the cape seal and the slurry seals.

The paving work will probably trail by a few weeks, but that that is work is gonna start in earnest, really beginning next week with the slurry, which is the most impactful thing I've heard in the next two or three weeks.

Any questions?

Or any other small projects that I might not have covered.

We can get to that in discussion.

Any clarifying questions from the presentation?

I had one quick one because I'm going to be asked by my HOA, sorry.

Anticipated closure at Pacific in Maine.

That entrance, what was that date again?

Mid-October, I don't have the actual date yet.

Thank you.

Any other non-HOA clarifying questions?

Wait, please.

Commissioner Johnson.

I don't know if it's a clarifying question.

Basket, and I promise I'll stop it if it's not.

Um noticed on Central.

Um, there are how should we say individuals parking where they're going to sort of probably do the uh the work.

Um I know it's a common sense thing that if they shouldn't be parking.

I think people are parking there because they can get away with it.

But will there be any sort of reminders, um notifications?

Um, this would this would be a discussion item.

So I'm gonna move it to discussion.

Okay, okay.

Thank you.

Appreciate your patience, everyone.

Uh seeing another other clarifying questions.

Let's move to public comment.

Any public comment on Zoom or in person?

Yes, so far we have two uh in-house speakers, and if anyone on Zoom would like to speak, please raise your hand.

So far, none on Zoom, but first we have Mitch Ball.

Hi, Mitch.

Uh I would like to comment on parking curb management on page two of the report.

Um, Commissioner Gloin, I think you'll find this very relevant to your last comment.

Um last Friday, I decided I'd like to get a burrito from Calafia Takaria on Webster Street.

So I stopped by there on my bike home from work.

Along the way, I got stuck behind not one, not two, not three, but four individual cars parked in the bike line.

Uh depending on how far in they decided to park.

I had to decide between trying to scoop between a narrow gap between car doors uh that were opening and closing, or passing by using the car lane uh and holding up cars behind me.

Uh this all felt particularly dangerous to me as I currently have a broken toe.

My podiatrist recommends biking over walking because it's a more low impact activity.

Uh, but if I were to be hit by a car or a car door, well, that would be a high impact activity.

Uh now the impulsive request here would be to ask for more enforcement, and there probably does need to be more enforcement in general.

When I park my bike, I notice plenty of cars parked without any time left on their meters.

However, labor is pretty expensive, and prevention is always more efficient than retaliation.

Uh so in the name of prevention, let's ask why so many people are illegally parking.

I think the answer is pretty clear.

There's no available parking spots.

Now there are plenty of parking spots lined up and down Webster Street, Park Street, and their side streets, but they're always full, like they have been since 2014, when the city performed a study to determine if parking meter rates needed to rise to achieve the city's claimed goal of 85% parking occupancy.

The conclusion of the study was yes, the city is far from achieving this 85% parking occupancy, and parking rates should rise, but instead, unfortunately, they were kept at the same rates that exist today: a dollar and a dollar and fifty cents an hour on Webster and Park Street, which is far below the rates of comparable neighboring cities.

The parking meter rates are quite underpriced, and they're so underpriced that the city is actually losing money every year on its parking budget.

Uh, special budget 265, I believe.

Clearly, many people want to visit small businesses on Webster and Park Street, and some are even willing to break the law to do so.

Uh, some of them want to stop shortly to pick up food quickly or their kids.

Uh, and some want to stay there for hours on the taxpayers' dime when they could have easily parked further away or just chosen another mode of transportation.

If parking rates were higher and enforced, uh parking turnover would be able to meet customer demand and the small businesses there would benefit.

The 15-minute green spots are an improvement, but they still clearly aren't meeting demand.

Personally, I would suggest a variable rate scheme, like they do in Long Beach, free for the first 15 minutes with the tap of a single button, and then $2 an hour for any time after that.

I don't want to negate the positive things listed under parking curb management, but steps to reduce uh parking congestion should be on this list to meet the city's vision zero goal.

If current parking policy encourages people to break the law and puts um people's lives at risk, parking encourage management is part of vision zero, and these policies should be changed so that safe parking is intuitive and not a hassle.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Next public comment, please.

Next we have Jim Strainlow.

Hi, Jim.

Good evening, Commissioners and staff.

Uh similar to Central Avenue, uh, where all of a sudden people were surprised that oh, there's gonna be one-way, you know, limitations and you know, closures and stuff.

There was uh one quick little statement uh made by the city engineer about uh Tilden saying, oh, we're gonna close it at Fernside.

So I would like a little clarification there because the O bus uh is highly used and you know, between you know Fernside getting up to Fruitvale uh BART station.

And if you can't uh if the OBUS can't you know use Fernside to get to Childen Way, it'll add 10 minutes uh to the route and we'll make a major uh impact on uh people who use the OBUS.

The main reason why I'm here is is that I went shopping at uh NL Hardware at Ansonelle and Versailles.

Didn't find what I wanted, and I headed down uh Versailles.

That one block is you know not a slow street now, but I saw the sign ahead of me.

I was on my way to Home Depot in Oakland, and it said slow street, uh you know, close to the close to through traffic.

The only icon there was a pedestrian, huh?

I'm on my bicycle.

I thought that the slow streets were for bicycles and pedestrians, and therefore, why isn't there a bicycle on the signage for the slow streets?

Because I actually went through along Versailles to go to Home Depot block by block by block, and I guess against the law or something on my bicycle, because it said closed, and only had a pedestrian figure there.

But I thought that it was supposed to be open for bicyclist and pedestrians, but the signage is not that.

And the reason why I'm here is that if it's confusing to me, it's gonna be confusing to somebody else.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Any additional public comments?

There are no other speakers.

Okay.

Uh, with that, let's move into commission questions and discussion.

Who has a question or discussion?

I am a point of view.

Commissioner Johnson, I cut you off and moved it to this section.

Please restate your question and let's get back to it.

Oh what?

Um, to put you on the spot.

Sorry, right.

I think I was asking about central.

Um I think where they're going to pave, um, it has become a de facto parking area.

Because I when I walk home, I see it in food deliveries and everything else going on in that lane, and I'm just wondering if there's gonna be a reminder or is there any way to sort of remind folks that they shouldn't be doing that.

Um, I don't know if I don't know if you can or you can't, but you know, yes.

Well, what we have the contractor do before they would go out to paves, they'll put door hangers on the doors for all the residents, and then the morning that they would pave, they if there are any cars sitting out there, they will often knock on doors, hey, okay, whose car this is.

And that's the last resort, then we would tell a car.

Yeah, because I know that there's I don't know the percentage, but there are a few apartment buildings over there that you may or may not they may or may not.

Those are the hardest ones because it's there's a lot of doors to knock at, but that that's you know, it's really notifying them in advance.

We'll have new barricades out, and then we try to knock on doors if particularly single areas.

Getting your car towed, people won't be happy.

It's not it wouldn't be a good idea.

Thank you.

Thank you for your patience, Commissioner Thompson.

Additional questions, Mr.

Ken.

Uh just one quick one.

Uh the Gene Sweeney cross connector um trail slight.

Like, just wondering what the status, I know there was like delayed for a couple of reasons, and so just kind of wondering where it is in the process now.

Uh still delayed.

Um, I don't know the details behind it, but I know it has to do with DTSC and uh some environmental clearance and and you know um their approvals so we're we're waiting upon DTSE before we go forward.

So we're waiting for approvals for the DTSC.

Correct.

Yeah we thought the we thought the approvals would be forthcoming when we went out to bid and it's it's been a uh delayed and extended process but I yeah.

Additional comments or questions about the status of these projects uh commissioner Guan please I this is almost a clarifying question but um on central um the the improvement works I'm uh I'm aware that the um streets barriers on I think is Santa Clara were removed currently um is there a plan to reinstall them and if so what's the timeline for that given the other work that's continuing.

Uh there is no plan to reinstall the Slow Street Barricades on Santa Clara.

So when the whole slow streets uh program went in obviously we had them on Santa Clara back in the start of the pandemic um as we developed the neighborhood greenways and went to council with the transition from slow streets to neighborhood greenways Santa Clara was not added as a neighborhood greenway the thought being that one block away in parallel there's gonna be a two way cycle track on central that's going to provide that uh protected safer route for and prefer route frankly for for bikes.

Thank you.

Commissioner Nochtall Thank you.

Um can you please speak to the cross aluminated trail bike crossings at Webster and at Wilmachan Parkway I believe the report says that they're complete however I'm wondering if there's an opportunity for ongoing monitoring of those because I still anecdotally see people turning right on right turn on red.

Yes.

And I will say that I ride my bike through that intersection twice a day.

So I am very familiar with it.

What we have done a couple times and has helped out in a couple different situations is provide more green time for that right arrow.

Particularly at Wilmachan uh it was about a month and a half ago that we um split the westbound phase that we now have a protected left and so when there is no protected left turn for westbound uh Atlantic traffic the overlapping right turn arrow comes on um so that's increased the amount the total amount of green arrow time um but yes it is it it can be challenging I think it's a little more challenging we don't have quite the same opportunity at Webster but fortunately my observations of the the right turning traffic volumes are a little bit lower there as well.

Yeah because I I will share that I see that there have been changes there's additional signage it's still not evident to all the drivers and that puts the bicyclists in peril and also add the police department is leading an effort to put a few pilot um uh uh red light automated enforcement cameras in the city and I believe one of the spots is Webster so that will be uh another way to reinforce the fact that people shouldn't turn right on a red arrow and if there's it may not be feasible because if the you know if the project is considered complete however the the large no right turn light up signal that's at Sherman and that's uh Clement Atlantic Sherman yeah that little intersection there um that is something we may consider as well so yeah thank you.

Additional commissioner question.

Well, thank you as always to city staff who punch genuinely punch above their weight, like the size of the planning department, the size of the public works department for this city.

It's small compared to other Bay Area cities, and you all accomplish so much every year.

I I think we just have to say that on repeat up here.

I did want to ask, I was kind of pleasantly surprised to see a midterm solution for the wooden bridge mentioned in the staff report.

And I wonder if staff could speak to we've heard a lot about the risks to the wooden bridge that's um this kind of hidden critical link.

Um maybe I'm asking a question that is for Rochelle.

Um I can I can if I can instead just say I think the public's very interested in the future of that, and if there is a solution that keeps that going, keeps keeps uh East Bay Regional Park Engineer from red tagging the thing and shutting down the commutes of a huge number of Lincoln Middle Schoolers like please do make that happen.

If it can be done at the expense of East Bay Regional Park District, all the better.

Um, but anyway, I just I'm glad to see maybe there's a midterm solution on the list here.

Thank you.

We are working with them.

They um they are very clear that just regular maintenance falls to them and then replacement of the bridge would not.

Um, so I think it is is more the city's goal to keep it going for as long as we can so that we have time to plan fund and construct a replacement um access point.

Uh so we're working with them, but it's it's negotiation.

Okay.

Thank you, Lisa.

Um, and I'm glad that Lisa also you brought up the red light cameras.

Um I'm glad that's part of the city's toolkit.

I was gonna ask, I know um the state level pilots for um speed enforcement is limited to just a handful of cities, but does staff know if there are any defined windows when Alameda could potentially enter that program, or is that more just an open item for the city's legislative staff to follow?

From my knowledge, it's an open item for the city's legislative uh agenda to follow up on.

The only comment that I would add to that is that the no right on red cameras that we are installing also have the capability to function as speed cameras as well.

If you're at those particular interceptions, okay, great, great.

Yeah, because um, you know, I think again, everyone's looking for more tools here.

Um, and can I ask if if staff know how many APD staff are available or assigned to traffic enforcement at present?

The numbers vary between one and zero, and I know this is beyond our scope, but it's just it's part of the questions people ask when they want to know about the city's approach to transportation.

Yeah, it is they have had a hard time keeping enough staff or officers to be able to keep the motor officer uh group uh staffed.

It is just a handful.

Um, but I will say this year the chief of police has prioritized traffic enforcement and have been sending regular patrol uh to do that when they can.

So they have I think as of the first maybe half of the year, I don't remember exactly, but you know, it was not too far into the year when they had already exceeded the number of traffic citations that they gave out last year.

Okay, thank you for that context and um the final couple questions I want to ask are really about um uh project delivery, because I know this has come up a couple times of budgeting of how um, I believe, Scott, you've said in the past five years construction costs 40%, 50%, something to that effect.

Um there seem to be hints that that's either that's not a baiting, or there's just such a question I'm gonna ask is: is the city having problems getting enough qualified firms bidding on projects?

You know, you've got like if you could speak to the safe routes to schools program, and just in general, does the city need to think of some strategies to either widen the pool of potential vendors, bring work in-house, or do like it's just looking like the city's not able to get done what you all want to get done using outside.

If you could just give the public some context for that question, but the comment I think that's being referred to in the report is that there was one project that essentially no qualified realistic bids were received despite city efforts.

I just wanted to give that context.

Yeah, absolutely.

And thank you, thank you for the question.

So when I did make a comment that uh construction costs based on this, like the Bay Area construction cost index has gone up about 40% over the last five years.

So it's a pretty significant increase.

Really to go back five years, we are 2019, 2020, pre-pandemic, right?

So we're really looking at that pandemic increase.

Um during the pandemic and then coming out of the pandemic, there was a huge influx of a lot of work going on, a lot of things happening, a lot of disruptions, a lot of supply chain issues, variety of things that really drove up costs.

Um, and we were just seeing costs really spiral pretty quickly.

Um in the last year, um, and I will speak to civil projects predominantly, so what we do roads, concretes, uh storm trains, et cetera, um, we have been very fortunate on our larger projects.

Um, so our Tilden Clement, our Central Avenue, even uh the earlier Clement project, our phase 43 paving, we have had multiple bids, and they've been in from for my standpoint when we see six, seven, eight qualified big name, you know, um bidders coming to the table, we know we're at least getting some aggressive pricing because they're they're going in.

So that's that's been reassuring within the last year.

Um two years ago, we weren't seeing quite as many.

So it's it's reassuring to see we have a much larger uh pool of bidders.

Uh the one uh uh uh project in the staff report is the safe routes to school project, and that is a much smaller scoped project, and I think we learned a couple things through that process.

So these other projects I was talking about were the five million to 14 million dollar construction range.

You get a lot of big name contractors.

The safe routes to school was intended to be a less than 200,000 project.

Um, and there are a couple issues with it.

Number one, it had a mixture of both striping and concrete work.

So you had to have a general contractor bid on it.

You cannot have a specialty contractor who only does striping because they can't do the concrete, and you can't have especially concrete because they can't do the striping.

And then we're starting getting that lower volume, you just some of the bigger um general contractors elected not to bid on it.

There's another feature, it did have some grant money associated with it, and while we love grant money, and it's because it extends our dollars, it also adds requirements uh that contractors and the city have to comply with.

And there were some local business requirements that were a requirement of this grant that uh a couple a couple contractors that we had worked with that we had sent the bid package to um elected not to bid on as a result of those requirements.

Um so that we we hope we believe that this the safe routes of school project was more of an anomaly, um, and that what we need, and what I think our takeaway is we if we're gonna go this route with a smaller project is to try to scope it in such a way that a specialty sub specialty contractor can can bid and complete their scope of work, perhaps break it up in that manner, or uh package it together be a little bigger project that would be more enticing to more uh general contractors.

Okay, thank you for that context.

And I'm glad to hear it's maybe perhaps more the exception rather than the rule.

I sure hope it is.

Um could just a final question on that.

If kind of looping back to the um the speed humps we were talking about earlier.

Could do any of these treatments maybe lend themselves either to mapping on to current bench contracts you have or other benches you could potentially set up just to give the city kind of you know more variety of vendors and the upper hand when it comes to having some uh some established selection here.

Yeah, and I think that's exactly what we would look to do.

Um so you know, the idea that we're gonna go out and bid for two or three speed humps is we're not gonna get a lot of bids and it won't be very competitive necessarily.

Um I think we'd be much better served.

We already have a plan for our phase two neighborhood greenways next summer, that we could, if we do have additional areas we want to do speed humps, we would basically look to expand that contract and have the money, the source of the funds come from potentially different location, but to basically add on to that contract to have it done in a similar way when you're doing a four or five million dollar paving project.

Um it's relatively easy for them to bring in a sub to do, you know, whether it's four or five, even ten, ten speed humps.

So we'd be looking probably to kind of um add the scope on to existing larger contracts as opposed to going out on their own.

Oh, I see.

So you already have the year cycle, and maybe you throw on a bit of stuff elsewhere in the city to make sure.

Correct, okay, even if that's not the sector.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

That those are my questions.

Thank thank you for the detail.

And I'm yeah, yeah, fingers crossed that the the price increases a bait, but I'm also glad to hear that you know city staff are really giving thought here because it's it's a little bit heartbreaking to know how much work and delays went into these safe routes to school projects.

Um, and you know, I I everyone wants to see those happen.

So I hope I hope the city can kind of figure out the right way to resource them.

And if I may, um please uh I this was mentioned at the city council meeting uh last Tuesdays, but I'll mention it again here.

So that safe route is a school project.

We did reject the the singular bid.

Um and we basically broke the project up to basically focus on the striping aspects because that's a a much greater safety benefit, um, immediate safety benefit.

So we're gonna basically look to get those striping uh improvements done this fall before the end of the year, um, and then we'll come back later sometime next year and pick up the comedy work later on.

Cool.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And thank you for your comments.

I'll finish.

Thanks.

Any other additional commissioner comments?

Mine are very brief.

Um there's a reference in here to trying to get more money for additional boat service with this impending Oakland Alameda Access Project, which we're all deeply worried about.

I want to see how that's going.

If there's any feedback so far, if there are additional things that are being done by the city, perhaps within the scope of this project to help us understand what's what's being done with that.

I think there's a reference in error to try to get more funding for more boat service, correct?

Yes.

So at Alameda County Transportation Commission's request, we submitted a proposal for them to fund the continuation of the current expanded schedule on the water shuttle during the year and a half.

Uh, they expect to have lane closures in the tubes for the Oakland for the OAP construction.

Um we haven't heard back yet, uh, but I think we are hearing back pretty soon.

Right.

So we'll be able to report back on that.

And so if that's successful, it essentially be it would be continuing the current expanded schedule, but not an additional on top of that amount of trips.

Right.

Okay, just want to clarify that.

Great, thank you.

I hope we are successful in that.

Um, my last comment, I apologize, it's a little bit of editorializing.

Again, the open access project has much of Western Alameda, quite frankly, a little worried.

It is, if I understand the current schedule as communicated today, deeply unfortunate that it appears it will knock out not one but two summers in the West End, and that's kind of a financial problem, quite frankly.

Um so I would advocate for, if at all possible for any amount of scheduling that can reduce the impact on summers, which are very financially successful to West Alameda, we should do that as a city.

That is all I have.

I think this is an incredible amount of work.

Uh small and mighty, as someone said over there, and I'm always proud of you guys, quite frankly, because you guys do a lot of really, really good things.

Uh with that, I am going to move to accept the status report on transportation.

Do I have a second for that?

Seconded by Commissioner Nochtbell.

Yeah, I'll second.

All in favor of the motion, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion carries unanimously.

Um with that, I'm going to move to a regular agenda item six C, Transportation Commission chair and vice chair elections.

This is where we need to uh essentially nominate and elect a chair and vice chair.

Speaking personally, I'm happy to continue doing it.

I'm also happy if someone else would like to do it.

That is I'm good either way.

Does anyone want to nominate someone?

Happy to nominate you for a chair again.

If you would like to keep doing it.

I mostly happily accept.

I think that probably needs to be seconded, I'm not sure if that's how it works.

I'll I'll second that.

Okay.

I feel weird take calling for a vote for that, but I think I technically have to, so I will call for a vote to re-elect Chair White C to the Transportation Commission chair position.

All in favor of that motion.

This is deeply awkward.

I apologize, guys.

Sorry.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

I will try to continue to do a good job playing bat cop.

Um I would also like to uh note that we need to like the vice chair.

I did speak briefly with Vice Chair Susan Thiera who expressed interest.

She sent me an email.

Um she is happy to do it again, but again, um anyone can nominate anyone, so take it away.

I'd be glad to nominate Vice Chair Suth and Sierra.

Aye, second.

Any additional nominations?

Okay, all in favor of the motion to uh reelect vice chair Suth and Thira to the commit to the position of vice chair for the transportation commission.

Please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Motion carries unanimously.

Uh with that, let's move to Commission.

Thank you, by the way.

Uh let's move to Commission Communications item number seven.

Any commission commission communications specific to transportation issues.

Commissioner Johnson.

Well, I did have a comment.

I don't know if it's if it's a transportation.

Can I give it a shot?

Well, I mean, as many of you know, um, one of my transportation Jedi Masters, um, Chris Peoples passed away.

Former AC transit board member.

Um, I knew him for a very long time.

I'm pretty sure a lot of you know him up here, and it was just a sad, sad news to hear that um Chris had passed away.

Um I work with him on numerous campaigns, the BRT, and he was just a really good wealth of knowledge for transportation.

Um I think his memorial service is coming up.

I don't know if you guys got that information.

I have it.

Written down here somewhere.

It's at the uh lasagna club um on Friday, September 26th.

Doors open at 11.

It starts at 12.

That's off of San Pablo Avenue.

It's located at 1146 Street, Oakland, California.

They said you were supposed to RSVP, but I'm not sure I'm not I'm not sure if they're really um how how official they are on that.

But I just I just wanted to mention that Chris was a really, you know, he walked the walk, you know.

So sad to hear about Chris.

So yeah, that was it.

Thank you for that remembrance, Commissioner Johnson.

Yeah.

Anything else from Commissioners?

It is good to be back.

I look forward to our meeting next month.

Um with that, I will move to adjourn our meeting.

Any second for adjournment?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Cloin.

All in favor of adjoining, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Everyone go home and have a great night.

Thank you.