Hello.

Good evening, everyone.

We will wait for a minute or two for the reading for at least one other commissioner to join.

Thank you for being here.

This is welcome to City of Alameda Transportation Commission meeting.

Today is October 22nd, and it is 6 32 p.m.

And we will start with the roll call.

Commissioner Dara Abrams.

Commissioner Kim.

Present.

Commissioner Gloin.

Present.

Vice Chair Sutham Fira.

Present.

Commissioner Johnson is absent.

Commissioner Noctigal is absent.

And Chair Whitesy is also absent.

So I'm going to be facilitating the meeting today.

I'm moving on to item two on the agenda.

Any agenda changes.

All right, seeing none.

Item three is staff communications.

Lisa.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

This is Lisa Foster, Transportation Planning Manager for the City of Alameda.

I just have some brief staff communications today.

We don't have any major city council actions on items reviewed by the Transportation Commission since our last meeting.

Our next meeting will be November 19th.

And I want to note for the record that we've just been joined by Commissioner Johnson.

Thank you.

Good to see you.

And potential agenda topics for upcoming meetings include the AC Transit's transit signal priority project update for Park Street, the citywide shoreline adaptation project update, the next year's and the next year's meeting schedule, and potentially Lincoln Av Walnut Street Planning.

And then public events on November 7th.

There will be a transportation 101 and clipper cards for seniors event at the Mastic Senior Center.

For updates, the Oakland Alameter water shuttle continues to do well.

In September, it carried over 12,000 passengers and over 3,000 bicycles.

This is 12% higher than the previous September.

And over a third overall increase in ridership thanks to the expanded schedule.

That expanded schedule started in July and will be in place through November 2nd.

After that, the Tuesday service will remain, but the longer weekend hours will be reduced through the winter months.

And then the Alameda CTC recently announced a staff recommendation to award 931,000 for the water shuttle to uh bring full expanded schedule back in the spring and continue it during for 19 months during the Oakland Alameda Access Project construction.

So the full commission will consider approving this pretty soon.

And then for neighborhood greenways, construction is expected to begin by November on our first full segment of a neighborhood greenway on Pacific Ave between Lafayette and Oak Streets.

A combination of new and previously used traffic calming treatments along a continuous corridor.

And lessons learned from that pilot will be incorporated into the designs for the remaining slow street segments of Pacific, Versailles, and San Jose Ave, which would be constructed by fall 2026.

Another construction coming up soon is the Clement Tilden project construction is going to be starting very soon.

And that concludes my communications.

Thank you.

Thank you, Lisa.

Moving on to item four, non-agenda public comment.

Do we have any public comment on non-agenda items?

Yes, we have four uh speakers in-house.

If you are online and would like to make a comment for a non-agenda item, please raise your hand now.

And we have one speaker online.

So first we can start with Jim Strelo.

Hi, Jim.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Staff.

Uh, the city is becoming a greenhouse gas emission uh grower.

When Fernside Boulevard is soon shut down at Tilden Way for about five months, maybe longer, your traffic diversions past Edison Elementary will generate lots of additional greenhouse gas.

Also along High Street in Oakland, it may be bumper to bumper all the business hours of the day.

I commented a year ago that the success or failure of the Tilden Way roundabout would depend upon how you will construct it.

The current design got an F-Source, you should have abandoned the project once you saw the negative impact it would generate around the island.

When the safeway on Bay Farm Island is going to be shut down and demolished for a housing project, Bay Farm Island residents will have to drive further for groceries, thus generating even more greenhouse gas.

The city appears to have a staff and its city council who have not familiarized themselves with the computer simulation SimCity.

That simulator helps players to see what will happen if you do X before doing Y or considering option Z.

This commission and the city staff often ignore my warnings of cause and effect.

Most of all, because of new housing projects and adding more people to the island, I often ask for the emergency operations center report for the Alameda City evacuation plan.

How many people can safely evacuate from Alameda in the first 30 minutes?

Each hour thereafter, the number of people per hour will decrease because of traffic congestion.

Some of what you will hear later today will increase the danger, reducing the number of people who can safely evacuate Alameda.

You decry safety, and yet the city's plans decrease the safety of the people of Alameda when a water surge, flood, or fire or earthquake emergency happens.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have William B.

Morrison.

Commissioners and staff, I would like to start off by first of all recalling an incident associated with the uh COVID-19 epidemic.

I think you will recall the fact that when things went into quarantine, we had a situation where emergency medical masks and other surgical items used for safety ended up being in not short supply, but almost non-existent.

This was mainly due to what was basically at that time an inventory procedure called just in time.

They replaced what was used what was used before, which was an inventory procedure of just in case.

Is the traffic circle as Clement, what will happen with that is that we're going to lose uh access for rail service.

Now, right now you would say we don't need it because it's not in time.

We don't really need rail surface.

But if you get rid of it, what will happen when you need it just in case?

I would like for you to, if at all possible, look at whatever alternatives can be made to remain the or retain the ability for a rail connection into Alameda.

At one point in time, Alameda had the status of not only dealing with modes of transportation such as rail and cars and buses, but actually aircraft as well.

If you know the Pan Am had their flying boat service out of Alameda, California.

Now, I state that because at one point in time I can remember seeing rail cars go down Clement as far as and actually servicing the Naval Air Station.

Now, and I just think that one of the things that you might want to continue to retain is the rail capability.

I've talked with people from DPW on various occasions that talk about how terribly expensive it is to remove rail.

Well, I can tell you from an economics viewpoint and being someone that's done again in the past, building rail is even more expensive.

And the basic point is that I would think and would like to see the uh commission maintain the ability to have rail service into Alameda.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comment.

We can go to uh the two on Zoom.

Um Barat Sin.

It's um Beifallm Island, and I have a request of the commission that they ask the uh transportation planning department to uh provide an explainer of how the proposed projects uh uh on the Safeway site would be uh assessed in from in terms of traffic impact assessment.

As I understand it, um there wouldn't be a CEQA requirement since it's a housing project and it's a housing element.

Thank you for your comment.

Evaluate the traffic impacts assessment.

It would be uh nice to hear how that would be addressed in a public forum so that the community at large understands uh how that assessment would be done.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And next we have on Zoom uh the guest whose phone is ending in 271.

Hi, my name is Hi, my name is Kelly Becker.

I live at 3004 Fairview Avenue, and I'm calling um in regarding the traffic circle that is proposed in that intersection of Southwood Bailey and Fairview.

Um I'm not really sure how something can be proposed when there's been no studies done.

This is a this is on the agenda later.

Okay.

So I'll be able to speak later.

Yes.

Okay.

This is what non-agenda items, so thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Christy Cannon.

Hi, hi Christy.

Good evening.

Yeah, I'm Christy Cannon.

I'm on the Casa Transportation Committee.

Um, in response to some very recent complaints, I've heard from residents of housing on an adjacent to Bolina Boulevard on the west end.

I made a point today of driving down there.

I don't drive in the city much, but I drove down there and I went through many times and around that first roundabout that's at Bellina, Fourth, and Central.

Um, I'm very concerned, as I know you are as well about safety.

And um, there's some problems there that I noticed.

I just wanted to share with you what I observed.

Okay, so first, if you're heading west on Central, going towards that roundabout, um, what I observed was about one in five drivers who were driving straight through.

So, in other words, they're both entering and exiting on central appear to maintain their speed.

They don't slow down at all.

And in some, in two instances that I observed, they actually speed it up to try to beat the car that was already in the roundabout when they should have been yielding.

Okay, so when I compared it to the next roundabout, it seems like the curve in that roundabout as you go from central to central in the first roundabout is not nearly as round as the one in the next roundabout.

In the next roundabout, you definitely have to slow down to do that straight through.

Okay, so all of those drivers, again in the same direction, entering the roundabout from central, going west, have a somewhat obstructed view to the left of any car that's approaching the roundabout from Bellina Boulevard.

And that is only a temporary situation, I hope, in that there are three of those large orange construction objects.

And they can see the I could see the cars plainly that were in the roundabout.

But if they were coming from Bellina Boulevard, it was difficult to see them.

And if you're if you're a driver that's focused on trying to get through that roundabout as fast as possible, it becomes even more dangerous, I think.

There is a yield sign for the drivers coming into the roundabout from central.

But right now it is placed kind of low to the ground, and it's very close to the entry point of the roundabout.

I wouldn't think you'd want to move it, but I do think it could be missed by a driver, and maybe it would be good to have another one a little bit further back that's higher, emphasizing the need for those people to yield.

And then due to the continuing construction, and I understand that's temporary, access for pedestrian and bike crossing on the south side.

So the Bellina Boulevard side.

Is that my time?

Shoot.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

I just wanted to say for the previous caller, um, thank you for participating.

I'm sorry if we're a little quick, but um this is the non-agenda public comment period, and we will be getting to that agenda item later.

And the last in-person speaker we have for a non-agenda item is Mary Ann Keeley.

I'm nervous, I haven't done this before.

Um, so good evening, and I want to say thank you to the commission for your focus on the health and safety of all the residents and guests of Alameda.

Um, uh I've lived in the Bellina Bay neighborhood for over 21 years now, and um so it's just kind of funny that I'm succeeding Christy in her comments.

Um, but I'd like to bring to a concern about the roundabout at fourth and central.

I feel that it really prevents uh presents driving challenges that could result in harm to our kids, and um when they're walking or biking, or even if they're older kids driving through the roundabout.

Um the key issue here is that there's very poor visibility at this roundabout, at this intersection.

Um, the reason being is that the buildings and the trees come right up to the sidewalks, which are then right at the intersection.

So, and Christy alluded to this, but um to illustrate, when you're driving on one street, the approaching car traffic and pedestrians on the intersecting streets are not clearly visible to the driver on the first street.

Um, and then particularly the drivers on central when they're coming from Fifth Street cannot easily see that there's actually an intersection at 4th Street, or that there's a roundabout, or more importantly, that they do not have an automatic right of way.

Now, generally, when you're driving on central through town, if you're on central, you've got an automatic right away.

The side streets all generally stop, but when you're now at this new new for us, roundabout at Fourth and Central, everybody is supposed to yield to who's ever's in the roundabout, but it's very difficult, and so I've spent time like Christy did, but independently, you know, going through as many directions as I could and trying to figure out is this a visual impairment issue, or is this just uh I'm playing a chicken and I want to beat the other guy in the roundabout?

And it's some of both that I've observed.

Um because of time, I just want to ask that um I'd like very visible signage to be installed so that all drivers approaching the intersection understand that they must yield or stop, whether they're on central or on 4th Street or on Bellina Bay to allow the traffic and pedestrians with the true right-of-way to proceed.

So I'm asking for like really big yield signs and really or really big stop signs.

Um I just want to prevent accidents.

I've nearly been hit twice.

I've been in the roundabout and approaching the entryway from Central, coming from Fifth Street, and I've actually had a stop to allow the cars coming from Central because they weren't gonna stop.

And that's kind of scary, twice.

So thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comment.

And we have one more on Zoom, Travis Morgan.

Hello, thank you, Transportation Committee for your continued efforts at City.

Wanted to talk about I'm a president of Gibbons Drive.

I wanted to talk about the hi Travis.

Um, sorry um for intract interjecting.

Uh we do have an agenda item on this, uh, I mean, an item on the agenda.

Right now we are on non-agenda item.

Because you are talking about an item that's on the agenda.

Probably you can wait and then talk about it at that time.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, it's gonna be about the overall fernside roundabouts in support of those.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And we have no more non-agenda item speakers.

All right, thank you.

Moving on.

Um item number five is consent calendar and 5A is approved rough minutes of the September 24, 2025 Transportation Commission meeting.

I think I was absent, so I'm going to excuse myself.

So, one of you have to move the item.

Sure.

I can say I I had no no issues with um with the uh minutes.

Does anyone else want to propose any edits?

Okay.

Then I'll make a motion to approve.

All right, a second.

Okay.

All right, that's good.

So um everyone.

All in favor, say aye.

All in favor.

I would say aye.

Any opposed?

And uh an abstention.

Thank you.

Now moving on to regular agenda items.

Item, item number six, six A is to receive an update from Karl Trans on Interstate 580 truck access study, so discussion item.

Yes, just uh we are very glad to have Caltrans joining us to speak about this truck access study.

The city is serving on the technical advisory committee for this because it will influence you know the lives of our of people in Alameda accessing 880 uh potentially.

So thank you so much, both of you for being here, and I'll let you guys get started.

Hi, John.

Uh hi, Vice Chair.

Uh, very nice to see you again.

Yeah, likewise, likewise.

Thank you for being here.

Yeah, thank you.

Uh let me get started.

Uh good evening.

My name is Zhang Shu.

I'm the office chief for multimodal system planning uh at Caltown City 4 Bay Area.

Also attending this meeting virtually with me is Kelsey Rodriguez on my team.

Uh Kelsey is the uh branch chief for the system and freight planning branch, and she's also the contract manager for the study.

So today we're going to present the 580 chalk access study or the test.

Next slide.

So for today's presentation, I'm going to cover the following topics.

I'm gonna provide a study overview, then talk about study goals, existing conditions, as well as public and stakeholder engagement, and then wrap up with upcoming work and events.

Next slide.

So in terms of the origin of the study, the Bay Area Air District developed the West Oakland Community Action Plan or WOLCAP.

WOCAP recommends a number of strategies.

One of those strategies is to study the effects of removing the truck ban on 580.

So after WOCAP was completed, the Air District and Caltrans had a discussion and was decided that Caltrans would take the lead on this study.

So the study is really trying to tackle this question.

How would removal of the truck ban affect safety, efficiency, reliability, velocity, and throughput of the A80 and 580 corridors, and achieve equitable public health for nearby populations.

The study scope uh the scope of this study uh is divided into four components or four buckets traffic studies, air quality and noise impact assessments, a racial equity assessment, as well as a comprehensive community engagement strategy, which will guide our engagement activities.

So this study represents a close partnership between Caltrans, the Air District, and the City of Oakland.

The air district will be responsible for the air quality assessment, and the racial equity assessment will be modeled after something similar to the city of Oakland has done before.

This is to ensure that the study will look beyond just traffic study and forecasting.

Next slide.

So this map shows the study area.

Highlighted in orange on the map is the existing truck band starting from Foothill Boulevard in San Angelo and ending at Grand Avenue in Oakland.

So the study will include the 580 corridor, the A80 corridor, other state highways within the study area, as well as major arterials that connect A80 and 580.

Additional areas of Piedmont, Berkeley, Emberville, Salangel, and unincorporated Alameda County, also included.

Next slide.

So this is a very technical-focused study.

So for technical analysis, first there will be numerous freight technical memos, including existing conditions, future conditions, which will include a no-chalk band scenario as well as a width truck band scenario.

And also we will be recommending strategies for the air quality and north impact assessments.

As I mentioned before, the air quality assessment will be completed by the air district, and the north impact uh assessment will be completed by the study consultant.

Next slide.

This is the overall timeline for the study.

Uh the study was officially kicked off back in March this year, and will wrap up in late 2026 slash early 2027.

So throughout the study, we are planning for seven technical advisory committee meetings as well as three rounds of public engagement.

Next slide.

So working closely with the TAC, we have established the study goals.

Uh, there are several of them.

First, reduce exposure to air and noise pollution from trucks.

Second, reduce truck traffic on local streets.

Third, reduce the frequency and the severity of truck collisions.

Number four, reduce roadway degradation and maintenance costs.

Number five, identify potential strategies and lead agencies to support reduced local truck traffic exposure.

Number six, balance travel conditions and safety between A80 and 580 corridors.

And number seven, improve efficiency of goose movement through the study area.

As you can see, we have equity focus, and that's reflected in many of the corridor or study goals.

Next slide.

So we are currently finishing up the existing conditions.

We are looking at the study area from multiple angles.

We're looking at socio-economic factors, freight factors, and environmental factors.

For each of these factor groups, we are looking into different performance measures or metrics.

So shown on the screen here are just a few examples.

This will serve as the basis for our forecasting work.

Next slide.

So now I want to pivot and talk about public and stakeholder engagement.

For public engagement, we are planning for three rounds of engagement, which will include these activities, community workshops, surveys, informational presentations, as well as social media and constant contact e-blasting.

For stakeholder engagement, this is really how we work with different subject matter experts in the area.

And as I mentioned, we are going to have seven TAC meetings.

Next slide.

So I'd like to quickly go over the TEC membership.

So for public agency tech members at the state and regional levels, we have the Air District, the Port of Oakland, CHP, as well as MTC.

At the county level, we have the Alameda County Planning Department, Alameda County Public Health, Alameda CTC, as well as AC Transit.

We are also including all the cities along the study corridors as well as cities that may be affected by the study.

Next slide.

So for industry tech members, we have two trucking associations on the TAC.

There are the California Tracking Association and the Harbor Trucking Association.

Next slide.

There are also three community-based organizations on the TAC, including the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project or WAWIP, Communities for a Better Environment or CBE, and San Diego 2050.

This is because when we reached out to them to invite them to be a TAC member, they responded by saying that they unfortunately do not have the staff resource to be a full TAC member.

So now we are gearing up for the first round of public engagement, which will be a virtual public meeting on Zoom.

This will happen on Wednesday, November 12th at 6:30.

I should know there's a typo on this slide.

The duration of the meeting is actually one hour and 30 minutes, not one hour.

The goal of the first meeting is twofold.

We want to introduce the study and then explain the purpose and the importance of the study to the public.

During the meeting, we will start with a presentation where we will explain the study scope, timeline, as well as existing conditions.

This will take roughly 30 minutes, and after that, there will be facilitated QA session where we try to answer as many questions as we can.

The meeting will also be recorded.

So after the meeting, we will be posting the recording on the study website.

In terms of our promotion plan for this first meeting, we will be sending out e-blast to our mailing list, and we will also be posting the meeting information on our social media platforms.

We will be asking our tech members to do the same through their communications channels.

CalChan staff are also attending different poppings, making presentations to different committees, city councils, like what we're doing here tonight.

We will also pass out flyers.

Next slide.

So for upcoming work, as I said, we're planning for the first public meeting on November 12th.

We will also be working on traffic analysis as well as air quality analysis.

Next slide.

So this is my last slide.

This is where people can sign up to receive study updates.

If anyone has any questions, they're more than welcome to send an email to the Bay Area Freight, general email address, or reach out to Kelsey Rodriguez, the contract manager.

So that concludes my presentation.

We'd be happy to take questions.

The last time I heard was 10 years ago.

And thank you, Kelsey, for being here.

First, let's open it to the commissioners for any clarifying questions.

Okay.

Any public comment on this item.

I have no speaker slips filled out.

If anyone would like to speak on this on Zoom, please raise your hand now.

And there are no public speakers on this.

Right.

So back to the commissioners for any questions or comments.

Go ahead.

Commissioner Dana.

Thank you.

And thank you to Caltrian staff for attending.

I'm really glad this project is getting attention.

For folks who haven't followed it, that um KQED News article that was in a screenshot, is an excellent article that kicked off a lot of this work.

My understanding is a science class of middle schoolers in Oakland were asking, well, why?

Why does 580 up in the Oakland Hills have them?

My understanding is it's the only leg of interstate that bans semi trucks, while the flatlands of Oakland have increased asthma rates, increased pollution from 880.

Obviously, no one wants this pollution, but it's it's a really valid question to ask of, you know, can these impacts be better spread out?

So I I really highly recommend that that article from KQED, and I'm glad that those middle schoolers are, they're probably now in high school or hopefully not college, but our are kicking off their work kicked off this process.

Um I'm also really glad that Alameda, I hope, can provide its own support to our neighbors for um spreading out these impacts a bit more broadly.

Um, and maybe making we can't we can't make five 880 a lovely freeway, but hopefully spreading out the impacts of all of that concentrated semi-trucks some more.

So I don't I I just want to share these positive comments, and I hope the city staff and city leaders from the Alameda side can continue to participate and uh be a voice to support the uh the residents of the Oakland neighborhoods pursuing this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I mean, this is a discussion item, so any other comments.

Right.

Um, I understand um Lisa Foster is on the TAC from the city side, so which is really nice to be at the table.

Um, and um I'm really pleased to see that the study is happening again, and it was opened about 10 years ago to see whether the truck ban on 580 can be removed and uh um you know the truck trip can be distributed between 880 and 580, but that didn't go anywhere then.

But uh now it seems to be much more um uh thought-out and detailed approach you have.

Um, John, so this is really nice, and um, it definitely will benefit uh the city and uh we look forward to hearing back from you when the studies wrapped up or even in the middle.

If you if there is a milestone point with some outcomes, um, and just looking at Lisa, I'm sure she will identify the right point in time to bring it back to the commission so we can hear it.

So, with that uh, since no other comments, uh thank you, John and the Kelsey.

Uh, thank you for presenting it here and uh good luck with the study.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Alright, now we are moving on to item six B on the agenda, which is the major focus uh item today, I guess.

And so consider endorsing quick builder traffic calming in the neighborhood around Gibbons Drive, followed by long-term data collection and planning for the fernside boulevard traffic calming and bike waste project.

It is an action item, and uh I understand Lisa will kick it off and parametric staff will join too.

Thank you, Vice Chair Sucanthera.

Good evening.

Uh um commissioners Lisa Foster again here to talk to you about the Gibbons High Fernside intersection in the neighborhood about around Gibbons Drive as part of the Fernside Boulevard Traffic Calming and Bikeways project.

So uh the vice chair just read out the staff recommendation.

I'll get back to it to remind you at the end.

Um our current recommendation starts with neighborhood traffic calming in the neighborhood.

So phase one has uh quick build traffic calming and intersection improvements in the next couple of years.

Um I'll go into more detail on this later in the presentation.

And then our current recommendation then conducts further study of the Gibbons High Fernside intersection after that traffic calming is in place.

So phase two includes uh pilot, a temporary pilot of this term restriction at Gibbons Fernside High with data collection and evaluation, and and then along with that long-term planning for the fernside traffic calming and bikeways project.

Uh for the project background, this project did start with a fernside project, which began uh study and outreach in 2023 and then came to the city council in 2025, during at which point they did make direction to uh conduct a traffic study of this intersection related to a proposal there.

Um, and then at their direction, we contracted with consultants, parametrics who are here tonight to gather data in the spring and then complete the traffic study over the summer.

Um we conducted public engagement last month in September, and now we are in the public hearing phase with updated recommendations.

The implementation of these recommendations would start next year and go through 2030 plus.

So the Fernside project was looking at the corridor as a whole to reduce speeds, increase pedestrian safety, and implement the separated bike lanes called for in the city council adopted active transportation plan.

In um November, we came to you all to the Transportation Commission, and you endorsed the near and long term design concepts for the Fernside Project with a request that staff return with a concept for the Gibbons High Fernside intersection.

And then in March, the City Council approved the design concepts for Fernside with direction related to this intersection that I'll show later.

And the design that was approved for in the long term is pedestrian median islands with a two-way protected bikeway.

This will achieve the goals to manage speeds, enhance pedestrian safety, and create a low-stress bikeway.

The Gibbons High Fernside Intersection will need to be updated at least in the long term to incorporate these changes.

So as we were working on the Fernside project, we identified safety issues at the Gibbons High Fernside Intersection.

If it's not hard, could we switch over to the PDF?

We'll show up a little better.

So you can see a heat map here of collisions on Fernside from 2017 to 2021, and that this intersection is the hot spot.

During that time we had two 22 collisions here, six that caused injury, and then since then, from 2022 to present, we had eight collisions that four caused injury.

So you know, the intersection, it's got five legs, it has a very atypical design, it's confusing for people who aren't used to it, and it has very long pedestrian crossings.

David will give more detail.

So Fernside Boulevard is a high entry corridor, so this is a hot spot on a high entry corridor.

Relatedly, the general plan first directed Gibbons Drive to become a local street in 2009.

As you all know, street classifications are in our general plan and they guide roadway design broadly.

They are adopted by the city council after a series of public meetings.

Um then in 2009, the street classifications that were adopted included Gibbons as a what was called a transitional collector, and it was designed defined as a street that needed to transition from being a collector street to a local street.

So then the next street classifications that were adopted were in 2023, and at that point the classifications didn't use transitional categories and set target goals instead of reflecting current uses.

So all that was done to simplify the classifications.

They were a little complicated in 2009.

So with that background, you can see that the 2023 classifications were consistent with and continued the city council direction from 2009.

So here is the what city council reviewed for the long term at Gibbons High Fernside.

It includes removal of the right turn slip lane on the northeast corner, which is crucial to protect cyclists in the two-way cycle track, as well as pedestrians who otherwise face a long crossing of an uncontrolled and high speed turning movement.

City Council also reviewed changes at the Gibbons leg on the southwest corner, which would include restricting northbound drivers on Gibbons Drive to right turn only.

On its own, this change at the southwest corner could have benefits at the intersection, even before the Fernside project goes into effect in the long term.

These include simpler intersection layout.

You can see that the crosswalks are shorter now.

It is would be easier to navigate for people who aren't used to the complicated intersection, would encourage slower vehicle speeds and actually have shorter signal wait times as well.

You know, last fall and spring we did hear a lot of concern about rerouting vehicles from Gibbons onto nearby streets.

And so City Council's direction in March was to evaluate the Southwest Corner changes in the near term as well as the long term, with a study looking at how traffic circulation would change, reach out to the community, which we did last month, and then return to City Council with transportation as a step along the way.

Commission, I mean.

And now I'm gonna pass to David Parisi, uh Principal Consultant at Parametrics to talk about that traffic study.

Thank you.

Thank you, Lisa.

I am David Creese at Civil Engineering Traffic Engineer with Parametrics.

I'm joined here tonight by Jimmy Jessup, also a transportation engineer, in case there's any questions that we would answer.

Next slide, please.

So this slide is showing many of the issues at the uh five-legged intersection of high, fernside, and gibbons, starting in the top right.

As Lisa mentioned, it is a very complicated uh layout.

There's a lot of conflict points, including uh free movements across pedestrian crosswalks and bikeways.

Crosswalks are also quite long, some of them up to 70 feet in length.

There is some confusion, and we've observed it with some of the traffic movements.

Uh, for instance, coming out of Gibbons, we've seen people making left turns out of the right turn lane and uh left turns into the left turns from high into the right turn lane, also.

Um, there is no walk, don't walk signal light for pedestrians across uh the Gibbons leg here, so it can be kind of challenging and confusing for drivers and motorists.

Next slide, please.

And speaking of the intersections operations and traffic signal phasing, Lisa mentioned the two-way cycle track in the future will require a dedicated traffic signal phase for east-west cyclists through the intersection, so that'll be a brand new signal phase.

Um the existing intersection as a five-legged intersection is kind of complicated to operate today, and as I mentioned previously, there is no pedestrian signal across the Gibbons leg of the intersection.

Next slide, please.

So we were asked uh to do a two-step process first to analyze the uh intersection and some different uh some different alternatives that could be considered here, and then secondly, uh for any alternatives that could reroute traffic to assess the impacts, potential impacts of those intersections.

Next slide, please.

With the key question being how well do the alternatives that have been developed improve safely safety and potentially simplified traffic operations at the intersection, and as Lisa mentioned, all of these for the long term take into account the proposed two-way cycle track along the fernside corridor.

Next slide, please.

There's three uh alternatives we looked at.

Lisa briefly showed alternative A, which is a alternative that would realign Gibbons at high street as shown here.

It would restrict the outbound movement for Gibbons to right turns only so that left turns would not be allowed any any longer.

Um it would shorten those long pedestrian crossings that are up to 70 feet long today, and reduce speeds of traffic coming in from high street onto Gibbons.

Uh, we know today there's there's vehicles that can come in very fast.

The study findings that we determined were several.

Number one, again, it would shorten pedestrian crossings, it would slow the vehicle speeds not just coming into Gibbons but also out.

When drivers see the green light, they tend to often accelerate uh to get through the intersection, certainly with simplified the intersections layout, make a little bit more standard at the high street first side intersection, more like more typical four-legged intersection.

From an operational standpoint, it would definitely signalize or simplify the intersection, particularly in regards to traffic signal operations.

We no longer have the signal phase coming out of Gibbons, which is causing an extra phase.

But in near term, it certainly uh would reduce uh traffic congestion and allow for the additional uh addition of the bikeway in the future, really providing a good good traffic operation, very similar to what we see today at the intersection.

Next slide, please.

We also came up with a couple additional alternatives after listening to some of the public input.

Alternative B is very similar at the intersection of high and first side, but at Gibbons, uh the intent here was to continue to allow the left turn out and channelize everybody into a single lane that is shared with left and right turns, but it would be signalized.

And that signal would be tied with the signal at high and furred side.

Many of the same benefits at the fernside and high intersection as described previously.

From a safety aspect, again, would offer shorter pedestrian crossings, slowed vehicular speeds coming in and out of Gibbons, and through many of the turns, including the free ride turn that goes from furnace side on to high, and also offer very simple simplified intersection layout.

However, we were uh pretty bummed to be honest, to determine that from a signal operation standpoint it would cause a lot of congestion because that extra signal, supplemental signal, would really uh add a lot of phases, create more delays, more congestion, and potentially some safety issues associated with that as well.

Particularly when the two-way bikeway is in place.

It's just a brand new additional signal phase that we don't have today.

Uh a couple signal phases, frankly.

So this would be uh quite an impact from a traffic uh standpoint.

Next slide, please.

And finally, we looked at a whoops, can go one slide back, please.

Thank you.

Great.

And we also looked at kind of a lower cost, shorter term type of improvement, which would be with uh paint and posts, perhaps, as shown here.

Um there'd be really no changes to the Gibbons alignment, there'd be no traffic light uh or phase added at that location to compare to what there is today.

In the longer term, we would add a signal phase for pedestrians crossing Gibbons, which isn't there now.

Uh, and it would reduce that turn radius you can see from eastbound furnacide onto Gibbons with some paint and posts.

Certainly would offer some safety benefits, but in the long term would increase uh traffic congestion because of the additional signal phasing, particularly for the east west uh cycle track added onto the entire intersection.

So those are the three alternatives we looked at.

One alternative, alternative A, is the alternative that would restrict the left turn out, and so we took that to another level of analysis.

Next slide, please, which I'll get to in a second.

I forgot to mention we also did look at a roundabout.

Uh it's a very peculiar intersection.

We wouldn't be able to fit in a circular roundabout, it'd have to be uh irregularly shaped, somewhat similar to what you're seeing here, right here, but at the same time, it'd be very very difficult to tie Gibbons into it, and it may require some right-of-way take, so we were able to quickly dismiss the idea of a roundabout dislocation.

Next slide, please.

So now I'll jump to the alternative A, which is the option that would restrict left turns out of Gibbons.

Next slide, please.

And I want to mention we did this deeper level of analysis only for alternative A because that's the only option that would uh affect traffic patterns, right?

It's the only option that would restrict the left turns out.

And the question here is what would that what would the effects be if we uh restricted those turns out?

Obviously, traffic would probably go to other streets.

How much?

What would the impacts be, and what are some of the improvement measures that could be associated with that?

So that's that was our mission to try to take a look at that.

And we uh really focused on traffic circulation within the area shown in the yellow highlight.

Next slide, please.

We do know a couple things.

We did measure traffic speeds in both directions on Gibbons, uh just southwest of the intersection, and the 85th percentile speed, that's the speed that 85% of people drive at or below, is 31 miles an hour, which is much faster than we'd like to see on Gibbons.

Um, and this is in both directions.

Not only are folks in some cases speeding up to get that green light, but the people coming in off a high and turning right from that very fast right turn lane are going fast into the neighborhood.

We also know during the peak hour, and that's during the AM peak when the traffic is the uh the highest.

About 55% of the traffic on Gibbons, particularly going toward the bridge, is cut through traffic.

This is traffic that does not originate in that area that is shown in the yellow highlight.

And we know this because we were did we we tracked uh vehicles uh from one end to the other, and so we're very confident about that level of cut through traffic.

That's a cut through traffic that exists now.

We would expect that as Lisa mentioned with traffic calming that number would actually go go down quite a bit.

But that's the assessment we did looking at that level of traffic volume to understand the potential impacts.

Next slide, please.

We also looked at traffic counts on various streets, and there's two different color-coded streets here.

Uh the blue streets are connectors and the white streets are local streets shown here.

And you'll see that the traffic volumes on Gibbon or I'll start with Fernside, about 8,600 vehicles a day on Fernside, and then on the local streets that we studied vary from about 2200 on Gibbons, and then some of the streets that are closest to Gibbons that would take some of the potential diverted traffic, Cornell, Bio Vista, about 150 to 160 vehicles per day on these streets.

I do want to mention that you know neighborhood local traffic streets carry between about a thousand expected to carry about between a thousand and four thousand uh cars today uh per day.

So um Gibbons is already on the low end Cornell and Bio Vista at the very very very low end of what we'd expect on similar streets through the city of Alameda.

Next slide, please.

Again, looking at the peak times, which we uh studied and we did additional counts.

About 88 cars during the AM peak hour are current currently driving up Gibbons and making that left turn.

That's during the AM peak, and that's 55% of those are cut through trips.

So 88 cars, it's about one car every 40 seconds, is making a left turn again with about 55% of those being cut through trips.

We did assess um and estimate what we thought the the diverted traffic where it would go if the left turns are no longer allowed.

We think the bulk of it would go on Southwood by O Vista and Cornell Drive, with Southwood of Vista carrying about 45 to 50 vehicles an hour, which is about a little less than one car a minute added to that those streets, and Cornell about between 30 and 35 cars an hour, which is about one car every every two minutes.

Of course, drivers may use other streets too, including Broadway, Tilden, Fernside, uh, Cambridge, and other streets too, but we think to a lesser degree.

So that was that was our estimate again.

If no traffic calming is done, and the same amount of cut-through traffic that exists today were to divert to the other streets in the neighborhood.

Next slide, please.

And stepping back at a vehicles per day perspective, uh, how that could change things.

Again, we think Gibbons Drive today, as I showed you before, is carrying about 2200 cars uh on a daily basis just south of the intersection.

Uh we believe it would decrease to about 1,400 cars per day.

Bio Vista would reduce to let's see, where's it before Bio Vista?

Okay, yeah.

So Bio Vista, about 150 cars today would increase to about 600 cars a day.

Uh and Cornell from 160 to about 400 vehicles per day.

Again, to note that those volumes are still uh really uh low compared to local streets, other local streets throughout Alameda, but still there'd be an increase of three to four times uh on those streets on a daily basis.

Slide, please.

With that, I think I'm turning it back to you, Lisa.

Thank you.

Thank you, David.

So in September, we shared that traffic study with the community, and um saw input on a uh three-stage implementation that was aimed to balance safety needs with neighborhood traffic management.

So this is what we showed the community last month.

Uh we showed them step one would be doing a little quick build improvement at Gibbons and at the Gibbons leg of Gibbons Fernside High in 2026, and also at that point assessing adding speed humps on Gibbons.

And then in 2028, we talked about doing the southwest corner of alternative A with concurrent neighborhood traffic calming along the streets that would see increased traffic to make sure to manage volume manage speeds and bring down volumes.

And then the third step would be to look at alternative A at the full intersection, so adding the northern section of it with the long term fernside project.

We had about 120 people, 120 people come to the community open house.

Oh, 33 people at our virtual workshop.

We had an online survey with 373 responses.

And we, you know, we got the word out in many many ways, but one of them was postal mail notices, and we sent sent that to over 1200 addresses in the neighborhood.

Next slide.

Are we okay?

So many people emphasize the need to address safety in the neighborhood.

We had a sheet here you can see pictured of a roll plot of streets in the neighborhood.

Lots and lots of people putting their sticky notes with their requests for traffic safety improvements.

Some of them saying that's needed whether or not we do alternative A.

You know, a lot of people concerned about Gibbons, Northwood Southwood.

A lot of people asking for design changes, a few saying, you know, just enforce to address speeding in the neighborhood.

We did hear about the worries about impacts on school routes of kids who are walking to Edison, particularly, uh through the neighborhood.

Many thought that more study was needed.

We heard that a lot.

And some people were saying let's do traffic calming first before we think about the closure recommendation, the turn restriction for northbound traffic on Gibbons.

One person said, how about we accelerate neighborhood traffic calming, then reassess the decrease in cut through traffic may take care of the biggest concerns.

The residents on the nearby streets had serious concerns about spillover and safety with alternative A.

The majority of the residents on the nearby streets in our survey said that alternative A would not improve intersection safety, and they would prefer maintaining left turn even if it causes more congestion.

And really commonly talking about how diverting traffic to smaller streets concern them for safety.

Some people, you know, saying that 2028 was too far.

So a variety of input, but a lot of concern.

So based on that input, we, you know, we want to show we heard the community.

We saw you all saw the public input summary and compendium that was attached to this agenda item.

It's quite lengthy, and a lot of worries from the community.

So our current updated recommendations for phase one.

We have quick build traffic calming expedited for this neighborhood for next year, and then bleeding into 2027.

We're showing four speed humps, two on Gibbons, one on Cambridge, and one on Southwood.

Two quick build roundabouts and a new paint and post bulb out at Gibbons High Fernside.

I'll show you some more details on that.

So here's the interim interim safety measure at Gibbons High Fernside.

The bullbout is made out of paint and bollards, so it is not as effective at decreasing the pedestrian crossing as concrete would be, but it's something.

You can see that this decreases the length of the southern leg crossing of High Street.

And it will also decrease the speeds for drivers coming south on high and entering Gibbons because they'll have to navigate a somewhat tighter entrance.

This updates consistent with our Vision Zero Action Plan because it's a fernside is a high injury corridor, and with our general plan similarly.

Here's what Gibbons Northwood Southwood could look like with a quick build roundabout and new pedestrian crossings.

This would be consistent with the ADA transition plans because we do not have curb ramps at the crosswalks.

We don't have crosswalks here right now because we don't have curb ramps.

And it's also consistent with a recommendation from the safe roots to schools safety assessment that was done.

And then here is Southwood Bayo Vista and Fairview with another quick build roundabout and with new pedestrian crossings.

This is also consistent with the ADA transition plan for the same reasons.

I wanted to mention that roundabouts were proposed at both these intersections in 2012 due to traffic safety concerns, and they weren't pursued in the end because of community some there was some community resistance to the idea.

However, our public input last month, many people were requesting just this change.

So it could be that attitudes have changed.

We're going a little further with roundabout design, getting better at it.

The ones on central that input is really helpful to us for design, and also want to mention they are not fully constructed.

So they should improve really hard to judge a project before it's fully constructed.

So here are some examples of the kinds of quick build materials we're talking about for those roundabouts and also the bulbout.

This is meant to make improvements quickly before we resurface these streets, which won't happen for another couple years at fastest, it might be longer.

And to test out what works before investing large amounts of money.

So we're looking at temporary ADA curb ramps, also great first rollers.

And the circles could be created with rubber curb or plastic paneling.

We're very familiar with bollards and paint in this in our community.

And then we could introduce decorative paint if it could be coordinated.

Speed humps, this is what speed humps look like for the four locations that I showed you guys earlier.

These are proven to manage speeds.

These recommendations are in addition to an existing construction project that we're working toward getting constructed this year for the safe roots to school infrastructure project for Edison School, which includes a high visibility yellow crosswalk marking on the southern edge leg of Buena Vista and Northwood.

And then a no U-turn sign at Buena Vista and Versailles and high visibility yellow crosswalks and advanced stop bars on all the legs of Lincoln and Pearl.

So that is happening in addition.

And then phase two of our updated recommendations are looking at data collection and planning for the long term, including monitoring traffic conditions to see what kind of effects the neighborhood traffic calming is having.

You know, as we move forward, we will want to implement permanent accessibility and safety upgrades, so at least upgrade the curb ramps to permanent installations and upgrade those roundabouts to permanent design as funding allows, and as you know is accepted by the community.

See if it's working out, and then to uh test a turn restriction at Gibbons, uh, with a temporary to pilot uh with data collection and evaluation to to find out what really happens, rather than having to make projections based on assumptions, and to do this after we have done the the traffic calming.

Um and then report the findings, figure out a funding strategy, and then make the plan for the long-term fernside project, uh which I think I might not have mentioned is not currently funded, and so the timing is quite uncertain.

It's at least 2030.

It might be later.

So the temporary turn restriction pilot concept's really quite simple.

Um that we would we wouldn't attempt to create the whole intersection improvement, but just to test what happens with this turn restriction for a uh defined period of time with data collection and evaluation and temporary materials, um, and find out what happens.

We uh we will be with this recommendation.

Um we would be asking the city council for some general fund support for the quick build neighborhood traffic calming, because we don't have a project for that to fund it.

So we would need extra support for that.

And then for phase two, we'll be looking at a combination of funds for that data collection, the temporary pilot, and then long-term planning.

We can be seeking grant funding, we have an uh another biennial budget coming by that point, um, and then strategic uses of our paving program and measure BB funds.

So our staff recommendation is that the Transportation Commission take action to endorse doing quick build traffic calming in the neighborhood around Gibbons Drive, followed by long-term data collection and planning for the fern cycle of our traffic calming and bikeways project.

Thank you.

Thank you, Lisa, for the and David for the thorough um work on the presentation.

And uh for the QA, I'm also joined, David and I are also joined by the city engineer and by uh Scott Wickstrom and by Jimmy Jessup from Parametrics.

You have a crew with you.

Okay.

Um now uh to the commissioners.

Um do you have any clarifying questions?

Yes, Commissioner Canada.

Yeah, a couple of quick clarifying questions.

Um, the map shown earlier with the um high collision corridors is that uh or high collision hotspots?

Um is that uh auto auto collisions or auto pedestrian collisions?

Thanks.

The map with the hotspots show all collisions between all modes of travel between 2017 and 2021, and that was performed as part of the fernside boulevard traffic calling and bikeways project existing conditions assessment.

Okay.

Um, other ones uh and alternatives that show the um severe congestion in the future um or that's um it's not really solving the congestion.

Um, but I think as alternative C kind of keeps all the different, all the existing kind of turn movements, but it says there's high congestion in the future.

Is that uh what does that do to if we're just not kind of modifying the intersection very much?

Well, all the three alternatives would include the two-way bikeway along first side, which requires its own traffic signal phase for for bikes in both directions.

So it's a new phase.

So the alternative C would include that.

And so the additional congestion would primarily be related to that additional phase in that project, which has already been approved.

So maybe a different way of asking uh if we did nothing to that intersection, we would see safe air congestion.

No, not necessarily, because if you if you're adding additional if you did nothing to the intersection, but added the bikeway.

Correct.

Got it.

Okay.

So there's a lot of phases that are five you know, five-legged intersection.

So we're looking at means to uh not only improve safety, but traffic operations.

Okay, okay.

Thanks.

I have to follow actually Commissioner Kim's point.

Um I thought uh in B and C, you have the signals for the gibbons added, and uh that's adding to the congestion.

There's a signal, new signal you're proposing in B and C.

In B.

Yeah.

Yes, C is the pedestrian signal.

Yes.

So that's adding to the congestion as well.

As well, yeah.

So the again A, B, and C would all add the two-way bikeway, which has been adopted, right?

Which is a brand new signal phase.

Alternative B, which again we were thinking, man, this is a great idea, but it would add that new signal to allow traffic to come out.

That'd be um uh that as another complication with another signal phase.

So it could we have to stage traffic through kind of two successive closely spaced signals.

Okay, which unfortunately doesn't doesn't work.

Okay, come here, Abrams.

Go ahead.

Okay.

Uh thank you all.

Um uh I saw in the the staff report mentioned there's a street tree program underway, and I wonder if staff could speakly, excuse me, quickly speak to that.

Okay.

Uh yes.

So and one of our timing considerations is that the public works department's undertaking a Gibbons Drive sidewalks and trees study right now.

Um, have Scott speak to that.

Um, that is underway and might could inform design for Gibbons Drive.

Thank you.

I'll just add on that uh we're early on in that process.

We did have an Arborist uh go out and evaluate the trees and found that the vast majority of the trees are in good condition with a fair amount of lifespan still left in them.

Um that still does bring the the question that's been surrounding the trees for a while is they're exceeding their planting space and affecting both the sidewalk and the roadway.

So we're working with the Arborist closely to figure out what is what are some options to best preserve the health of the tree with minimizing impacts to infrastructure.

If we are to rebuild the infrastructure that would have it uh we'll say it last as long as it possibly can.

And there's different alternatives for that, but I don't want to jump ahead of ourselves with any conclusions yet.

So, um well, you know how the kind of questions I always like asking.

So if you could speak at a very high level, is this mainly about sidewalk or this is also extending out beyond the curb for what may be on the table?

Yes, it's it's really both sides.

So if anybody who walks down gibbons and sees the the the root balls of these trees or the the crown of these trees and the bottom of flare, I should say, um, it's wider than the four and a half foot gap, the parkway strip that's there.

So the the street trees are actually pushing into the sidewalk, and in many cases are pushing out into the roadway as well, and have lifted up the the gutter pan.

There's a fair there's a a lot of drainage issues and poding problems that we have on the roadway during the winter time.

Um we need we need room on both sides.

Um how that room is achieved, there's many different options for that.

I don't want to jump ahead of that in answer.

But yes, there is both a roadway side problem and a sidewalk side problem.

Okay, thank thank you for the context, Scott.

Um, uh another context question, maybe I don't know if this is for Scott or Lisa, is the city has been working on some planned changes at central in Gibbons, correct?

If you could.

Thank you, Rochelle.

Hi, Rochelle Wheeler, senior transportation coordinator.

Good evening, commissioners.

Hi, Josh.

Um so yeah, can you repeat the the question?

Um, so down at uh Gibbons, Gibbons and Central, right?

Where currently is uh, are there just A frames there from what I'm remembering?

Um changes are on the table, correct?

Is that something City staff are able to speak to, or is this not transferred?

Yeah, it's the intersection of Gibbons, Versailles, and Central.

And so Versailles is currently in that section, a slow street, and it is becoming a neighborhood greenway, and we did outreach on that.

Our design plan this spring.

We're still refining the exact design, but what we're looking to do there is to um there are basically at that intersection three ways on and off of Gibbons there, and so we're looking to close the one that where Gibbons comes into central.

It would still allow all of the same movements on and off of um Gibbons, so you would not lose any ability to um come on to or come off of Gibbons in either direction, but it would close that middle opening onto Gibbons that comes directly off of um central.

That is also a high injury um intersection.

Okay, thank you for the context, and just to confirm my understanding, that will benefit a number of streets there.

It's maybe not relevant to the questions at hand tonight, though, given that movements to get Gibbons are.

Yes, I think we can call it a traffic calming measure at that at that point of Gibbons as well as being a part of the neighborhood Greenway project.

Okay, thank you, Lisa.

Um, the only other clarifying question I want to ask is if um if Scott could speak to just uh when in the normal cycle of repaving this whole neighborhood may be up, you you're just speaking to potentially leveraging repaving cycles in the future?

Yes, we we have broken up the city into uh areas and we focus on one area at a time.

Um we will next be in what we consider the eastern end of the island, which we consider grand high street in 2028.

Um we have not gone through the process of identifying what are the priority streets for repaving, um, but I can say that a lot of these streets in this area are within the area that is ready for a surface treatment, most likely a slurry seal.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Okay.

Um, China.

Thank you.

Um I have a few questions.

The first one is I noticed in the materials that um uh a lot of the collisions at that intersection were due to what was termed improper turning.

Could you could someone explain what we mean by improper turning in the context of that intersection?

It's a good question.

Thank you.

Collision analysis takes data that has been submitted to the state highway patrol database, and so that's that's what we based our analysis off of, and there are a number of primary collision factors that, if indicated on the police report that then gets rolled up into the state data gets categorized into a certain number of measures, and uh I'll also mention that doesn't mean that's the only collision factor, but that's the the primary collision factor, and so one of those categories is improper turning, and that can encapsulate a number of different ways in which the uh collision can uh you know be seen in the field, and so it oftentimes is say for an unprotected left turn, maybe a vehicle trying to turn left against traffic, uh, would be one example, and another example might be a vehicle turning um making a right turn as through traffic is coming on.

So if you're trying to make a right turn on red, that would be an improper turn at the incorrect um moment.

Uh, but but really the level of detail for a number of collisions is also not discernible from what is available in the state database.

So uh it's it's a little bit of an uh database exercise and and some art to understand.

Thank you.

That's helpful.

Um in the traffic evaluation study, did we count the vehicles that are traveling up gibbons towards that intersection?

I noted that you know we talked about 55% of it being um cut through traffic.

Of the of that, regardless where they've come from, how many of those vehicles are turning left versus turning right when they reach the end of gibbons?

Do we know that?

Even approximately?

Yeah, thanks for asking again because apologize for flipping through my notes.

So we collected data in May of this year on two common weekdays when schools were in session.

And in the AM period for that northbound movement, we discerned on average eighty-eight cars are approaching the intersection.

And six make a right turn through that right turn slip lane going southbound on the high.

Zero make a sharp left turn on the fern side going westbound.

And then the rest make either uh easy left going across a high street bridge, that's about two thirds, and then about one third makes the easy right on the fern side going toward Bay Farm.

Got it.

Thank you.

That's helpful.

Um we talked about um traffic calming enforcement.

Am I correct in my understanding that we cannot install speed cameras due to state law at the current time?

I know there's currently a pilot in San Francisco and a couple of other places, but what's the Yeah, you're correct.

You're speaking about automated speed enforcement cameras, and that is correct.

That's currently legal in California in a few pilot cities, so it would be uh it would be an act of state law to expand that.

Uh, the city is we are working toward a um small automated red light um running uh enforcement camera uh program with at two intersections coming up um next year.

Uh uh so that is legal, but the speed enforcement cameras are not currently legal.

Thank you.

Is this intersection one of those two?

Is that this intersection in question?

Is it one of the two that's gonna get around like a?

No, it's not.

Okay, okay, thanks.

Um one final question, which is I noted in the various design concepts that were considered, I noted that the roundabout was a very strange shape, it was dismissed.

Did we look into whether it was possible with the geometry to have two roundabouts, a slightly larger one at the fernside high intersection, and a smaller one at the intersection of gibbons and high?

Is that something we considered?

Yes, it was.

We actually considered a number of different alternatives, and I was just sharing one tonight, and they all ran into the same same problems.

We'd have to eliminate some other movements uh to make them work, and uh it is became very very challenging.

The most promising one would require some right-of-way take uh to function.

Okay, thank you.

That's all from me.

Um quick um clarifying question I have is uh for the public outreach are the the three events you had um in terms of the traffic calming measures that you presented, so whatever you have now with the speed harms um and the traffic circle slash roundabouts um you're proposing now where they in the presentation for the public outreach?

They were not we we mentioned you know the kinds of options that people could have, and we asked for their input on where they would like to see traffic calming measures and what kinds of things they would like to see.

So we had a table at the uh in-person workshop for that, and then we had some places in the uh survey where people could give a free form response and provide their input.

Did you select the location based on the input you received?

The locations of the speed?

Yeah, a combination of the you know input we received and then also the ADA transition plan and you know our expert judgment on where we think speeds uh need to be managed and intersections need to be improved.

Okay, uh, okay.

Uh one other question is um um David mentioned like 55% does uh through traffic uh cut through traffic um going through the neighborhood and were there any measures considered to prevent uh that cut through traffic from happening.

We haven't considered prevention.

You know, we're we're looking at calming and and sort of discouraging, but we haven't considered prevention at this point.

Okay, all right.

We can talk in the comments, yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Uh with this uh we will move into the public comment.

Oh, sorry, may I ask one more clear one?

Sure, commentator.

Um I just realized given the amount of you seem to be previewing a lot of um thoughts on um uh yield flow streets.

Um I happen to live on one myself, but I won't comment on it.

Um I want I was curious to know from maybe Scott could speak to roadway width.

Um in terms of these various side streets.

I'm not familiar with them myself, but if you could just speak to, is it two uh two through lanes um or are there actual um yield flow situations under current conditions?

Yeah, I can I can address that, I think.

Um Gibbons is 40 feet wide between the curves of parking on both sides of the street.

Some of the uh streets that um some of the other streets that are parallel or are narrower, 35 feet or 30 feet as we predicted.

If there is some uh cut through diversion to some of the other streets, the the numbers would be quite low.

I mean, is it like one every two minutes or one a minute?

Primarily one direction, right?

Because most of the cut through traffic or the movement that would be restricted is is that northbound movement.

So there is uh again it's a it's a low number.

The streets are oh, if I may rephrase just I'm just wondering just clearance for vehicles traveling in opposite directions, um, are these roadway widths such that it will behave as a yield flow street or where cars have to take turns or for typical passenger cars would would it be two way it'd be very similar to what they are today, particularly on some of the uh narrower streets with a little bit more traffic volumes uh on them.

But there is there's enough room for them to clear in both directions.

Okay, but I I want to reiterate that the volumes we assumed was what's out there today, right?

Without any traffic calming, and without any reduction in cut through trips.

So we looked at a worst case scenario to address part of the previous question.

We think with traffic calming and uh with term restrictions, whatnot, there'd actually be less traffic uh cut through than there is today, and that would be monitored as Lisa mentioned as part of the program.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Um moving on to the public comments uh session.

Um Jennifer, how many public comments requests we have?

We have 11 on, we have 11 in person so far.

If you are on Zoom and would like to speak, please raise your hand now so that I can get an accurate head uh hand count.

I'm sure there'll be at least one.

Right.

So the reason I'm asking for the number is that if it passes 11, um then um the public comment time for each comment is uh two minutes.

Yes, we are past 11.

Okay.

So let's um start with the in person.

Yes.

Okay.

Uh first we have Amanda Numi.

Hi, Amanda.

Hello.

Thank you for making it today.

Hi, thank you guys so much for um having this.

And uh I live on Bayovista Avenue.

Um I'm I moved here just three years ago with my three children.

Uh and it's been it's been a really great uh neighborhood.

Um I wanted to say that I am against having uh the closure for Gibbons onto the high street bridge, and I don't think that this should be passed today.

Uh there's a lot of phases to this project.

It seems that we are rushing to get all of these done in order to improve safety, but I believe that they're lacking in really looking into the other much, much narrower roads.

Um I use that as an example because I get out of Bayovisa when I take my um car out of my street, it takes me six turns to actually efficiently get on Bayovista to either go to high or to go to Cornell on to uh Gibbons.

It's very, very narrow.

Um I don't think people are taking that into consideration because we have a lot of people who live on that street and a lot of parked cars, and they're large cars, and they add to narrowing that street down.

Um it sounds like a small number, you know.

They say, you know, 40 or 50 cars an hour, but when you consider all of the Amazon trucks that are stopped on our street, the FedEx trucks, they all add to heavy heavy congestion.

It's not a two-way road when there are people parked.

So when I try to get onto my street, I wait in line until the people are stopped delivering packages, and then I wait patiently to get into my driveway.

So uh please please think about these small neighboring streets because we didn't study them.

Uh adding that congestion is uh sounds very stressful.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much.

Next we have Adam Garfinkel.

Hi, Adam.

Hello, hey commissioners.

Um, I live in the neighborhood, I've been there for 10 years.

I bought in this neighborhood because I like the neighborhood.

I like the way it looks, I like the way it functions, it's a great place to be.

Um I was thoroughly impressed with many of the questions that you guys asked.

However, I've been extremely disappointed with the process of how we got to where we are.

Uh the main thing that bothered me was that people who want change got three votes, and the people who like it the way it is only got one vote.

So they've misrepresented the data by giving people up to three options to choose.

But if you think it's safe and you think it's fine the way it is, you only get one vote.

So everything else is inflated, is misrepresented, and I think the vast majority of people in the neighborhood don't feel that there's a problem.

There might be some minor safety problems that could be addressed with speed hump.

Maybe you could add, you know, if it really is an issue crossing Gibbons at High Street, which it's not an issue, you could add you know just the, you know, whatever was the crosswalk sign if you want.

Um but I don't think that there's there's really an issue.

Um we've heard from others that the roundabouts are terrible.

The pictures that you've shown would really make our neighborhood a disgusting place.

You take all the charm out of it.

It's it's inappropriate.

Uh the pass-through traffic, we want them getting out of town so that we can get our kids to school, or so we can drive around.

It's a good thing that it's passed through and it's getting people out.

So if it's not broke, don't fix it.

Don't trust the information from these people that are lying to your face.

All the traffic, all the accidents are caused.

Well, sorry.

A little enforcement is all that's needed.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

I wish I had another minute.

Or two.

Next, we have Gordon Williams.

I'm sorry, I pick it up from there.

Uh hey, thanks.

I just want to start out with saying thanks for listening to us about uh not just closing Gibbons off from the get-go.

That's the city staff and changing the recommendations to at least defer the decision to more data.

Um thank you guys for asking great questions.

I want to say that uh the what is it, the the inappropriate turning, like that question that you were asking, and he was trying to clarify or what that really means, and we've seen it, is that it's cars coming in high street, and they are taking a left under fernside and they get hit by another car coming off the bridge too fast.

The reason why that intersection shows up as that bright circle on that safety map is because it's high street and fernside.

It's two major roads, and high street has way more traffic, it's two major roads intersect, you're gonna have more accidents.

It is not Gibbons, and what they're not telling you, and what people I you asked it, but it's not getting answered is uh how many accidents would if we closed off the left turn from Gibbons on the high street, how many accidents would that prevent?

And I'm not seeing any.

And so if this is really about safety, why is shutting off that left turn and pushing the traffic elsewhere gonna make anything safer?

And what I really don't like is this concept of let's I like the traffic calming measures, I'm for that, but why uh say now that in 2030 we'll do a temporary pilot?

Why not just do the traffic calming now and see if that takes care of it?

It's the the thing that they're getting at, the thing that they're not telling you is that with the fernside project, I think somebody messed up and they didn't really think about the congestion that was going to cause, and they're trying to create correct that by closing off Gibbons, and that's creating a safety issue.

It's less safe for pedestrians, it's less safe for bikers.

I'm an avid biker, uh it's less safe for the cars in the neighborhood.

And so closing closing that off, pushing the traffic elsewhere is gonna push the problem elsewhere, and it it's not just the places with the traffic comming measures, it's everywhere in the neighborhood making it less safe.

So please just reject the phase two C.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Next we have Ruben Ramirez.

Hello.

Uh I live on Northwood Drive, and my wife and I, we we look out onto that main intersection there.

Uh and first off, I appreciate that the city and all of you listened to the concerns we had about the calming measures at the main intersection, but I have some concerns about how quickly they came up with the roundabout of the traffic circle.

Uh about 14 years ago, they I think it was mentioned earlier, this came up, and at the time we we pushed back bigly because it was going to eliminate, I can't remember, it was like 13 to 16 on-street parking spaces in front of people's homes, and that's significant.

And some of the so I asked the question.

Uh I sent an email in, and I don't know if this is the forum to get the answer, but I'm not against roundabouts.

Maybe the decorative painting doesn't sound so great, but uh, will it eliminate on-street parking for the for the homes in the immediate area for both roundabouts that are being proposed?

So that's a big concern for me and my neighbors.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have William B.

Morrison, hi, William.

Thank you again.

I really appreciate the question and answer section that I just went through because I learned a few things.

But first of all, I would like to thank Scott for telling me why the little tags are on the trees on Gibbons.

I've got a two and a half year old grandson, and we count tags every time we walk there.

So that's that right there.

Another thing I really appreciate that I just learned tonight is this is really the first time you have seen this.

They talk to you about fernside traffic calming in November.

Everything that we are talking about now, as best I understand, happened after they got your approval for everything associated with traffic calming.

So from that perspective, I, you know, this is something that I I'm glad you get the opportunity to at least make a statement.

But this was a last minute increase in scope, and I think Gordon is right to handle a problem that they didn't know they had.

And the big problem is actually bicycle light systems.

As best I know, looking at what happens on Fernside and Gibbons is people cross high street and they keep going straight.

And you know they can do that on a traffic light.

They don't have to have a special light for them.

Right?

That's that's that and uh just bringing that up two other items that I'd like to see is our or talk about is one no right turn on red for southbound traffic on high street.

That increases congestion there.

The other thing is the crossrock on the south side of fern side that was an addition that was not there until recently I think it is a self-inflicted ruin of the of the uh the uh the city at this time so there we are thank you thank you for your comment we're gonna move more on to the online first we have Cindy Johnson good evening commissioner coming back we'll be coming sorry go ahead Cindy hi thank you good evening commissioners I'm calling on behalf of Bikewalk Alameda mostly to reiterate points we made in our letter we're supportive of staff's recommendation but think the pilot of the turn prohibition should happen in 2028 as part of the paving plan setting a time and funding source for the pilot would ensure meaningful progress towards fixing the problems of the intersection which is the primary objective of this project the intersection is part of our 2030 low stress network which means that over the next five years our city should be taking what few opportunities there are to make it safe for people of all ages and abilities to navigate.

Committing to the pilot in 2028 is one of those opportunities and we urge you to recommend it.

We also hope you will consider some traffic calming and signage at Santa Clara where much of the cut through traffic starts we believe that all these pieces working together the traffic calming the signage and the turn prohibition will move us towards the greater vision of the area where there's little to no cut through or diverted traffic on neighborhood streets at all and the intersection is much safer and functional for all users.

Thanks to staff for all their hard hard work on this and to you for your consideration tonight.

Thank you Cindy next comment next we have Alex Cheng Chiang.

Hi Alex.

Hi uh I've been uh in my in the neighborhood for about 20 25 years and I do remember the last time that uh the um roundabouts were proposed and um did um get a lot of uh neighborhood um uh uh not rejection but um negative sentiments on it i i'm here to kind of uh reinforce that and um also discuss uh uh bring up the fact that uh the uh the uh three um the the corner on northwood southwood and gibbons is not a uh is not a regular 90 degree cross street so a lot of cars that are heading towards the same direction into that arrow area are not going to be able to see each other and and the right turns are going to be very narrow it's gonna be a wide turn so that's gonna be a problem for a lot of um people that navigate through that area the other part that I want to bring up is um the garbage collections are gonna be have gonna have a really difficult time collecting garbage around that area once the ones uh the turn about roundabouts up with it and um I also uh agree with uh some of the uh previous uh commenters that uh the original proposal way about when was because people are doing donuts around the neighborhood, and I haven't seen that anymore since since the cops started enforcing the law and I don't understand uh if there's no problem why are we doing this again?

Uh I'll leave it at this thank you thank you, next we have Eileen Dubois.

Hi, Aileen.

Eileen, you need to unmute.

I believe they've lowered their hands.

Uh next we have Ida King.

Hi, Ida.

Ada, you need to unmute.

Okay.

Next we have uh phone ending in 271.

I believe Kelly uh Beaker.

Hi.

Hi, Kelly.

Hi, um, sorry for jumping the gun earlier.

I'm on the east coast and I thought I missed the time on the meeting.

Um I just wanted to, I kind of um agree with all the speakers that have spoken so far.

Um I feel like we are looking at a problem that doesn't exist.

I live right at the intersection of uh Fairview Southwood where Bayovista comes in, and I am also opposed to the closure of Gibbons, as it's going to cause a lot of unnecessary traffic onto the small neighboring streets, even with the traffic calming measures put in place that are suggested.

Um you cannot drive down the street without having to pull over and letting other traffic flow through.

Um I reviewed the proposed traffic circle, and um I believe that this particular implementation could have several negative consequences for our neighborhood.

Um the streets are so narrow that we would lose several parking spaces um all the way down the streets because you'd have to allow for other traffic.

I would personally lose it in front of my house because it's at the edge of the circle, with my driveway being part of the traffic circle, and I've done research where it shows it's extremely unsafe to have driveways with direct access into a traffic circle.

There's reduced visibility, um conflicts um with traffic flow, complex maneuvers.

We've also um, you know, people have discussed garbage trucks, there's emergency vehicles, all of that.

Um, and it lowers the value of our homes if we remove such things as parking.

Um it also concerns me that uh as others have mentioned that these major major decisions affecting our beautiful neighborhoods are being fast tracked and they will greatly affect our community.

So I would urge you also, I appreciate all the questions you've asked, but I'd urge you to really take a look at this and not fast track these items.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kelly.

Can we move back to the in person?

Can you hear me now?

I'm sorry, Ada King is able to speak.

No, perfect.

Yeah, thank you.

Um I have heard a lot about traffic calming on the entire intersection leading to High Street Bridge, except what about high street itself?

Saw nothing on the maps, nothing on the bullet points.

High street right now already uh the the speed of travel is too high, of course.

And um there is a temporary um digital um speed monitor there now, which is great, which I called in and and asked to be put on the wait list for that, but none of the studies have shown have mentioned high street, upper high street.

People come on and off the bridge at very high speeds going down high.

And I I don't understand uh why.

Uh I think there should be the the traffic calming should be extended to High Street as well from Lincoln Park up through the bridge entrance.

And that's all.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next back in-house, we have Christine Huddlison.

Hi, Christine.

Hi.

Thank you for your consideration, good questions and discussions tonight.

Um, you know, I've even learned from this discussion, um, and the discussions about the roundabouts on Central that, you know, while I support calming of the traffic in the neighborhood, and I live in the neighborhood, I don't think the roundabout option should be part of any quick fix or rush plan.

Um, certainly many of these neighbors are uh agree with me on that point as well.

Um I think the second key takeaway is that so much of this seems to go back to the change that was already approved in March.

The bikeway on Fernside, that whole redesign.

And now I want to go back and see.

It seems like by approving that bike lane.

Now we're faced with either the option of severe congestion or the requirement that we restrict terms from Gibbons on the high street.

I don't recall that being part of the discussions and the communications when we were asked, do we approve that bike lane?

That we would be presented with this either-or situation.

I think if that was known at the time, shame on me for not seeing it.

It was not known at the time, I think that is reason to reconsider that bike lane design.

We didn't know it was going to be this either-or, either you have to restrict turns or live with the congestion.

Are there other options for that bike lane?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Jim Strayload.

Hi, Jim.

Good evening.

The city's Gibbons Drive Project history slide is conveniently incorrect.

In November 22, the city made Gibbons a neighborhood greenway, not on the slide.

In 2023, Gibbons is a local street.

Did the city notify the homeowners?

Not that I heard the timeline was mostly the Fernside Boulevard project for two years.

Cut off those first two years off the timeline.

None of tonight's projects changes were ever discussed before tonight.

So tonight is our first real workshop, yet you are finalizing without fair public input.

You insist on six-month studies on closing Gibbons Drive at High Street, but no study for speeding tickets.

There are many alternatives that could be designed, changing the intersection programming.

If there's speeding, ticket those who are speeding.

Do not change and ruin Gibbons Drive for those who live here.

The residents are not the problem.

The city in 1968 reduced accidents by its design on that map there, uh, and slow down traffic then.

Speed bumps will divert traffic to other neighborhood streets.

You will install many ugly signs in order to install those speed bumps.

Similar, why not just install stop signs at Cornell Drive?

You don't even discuss that along Gibbons Drive.

You'd have a bulb out for the pedestrian southern crossing at the intersection at High Street, only that was recently installed without any public notice, and gets maybe one person an hour using it.

Just remove it.

Your collision statistics do not mention Gibbons Drive was ever a factor.

You, the city are petting neighbor against neighbor, neighborhood against neighborhood with such urgent actions.

I suggest that you have more workshops and discussions on this without finalizing tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Mitch Ball.

Hi.

I don't live in Fernside.

I live on 9th Street near Lincoln Ave and Wilmachan Way intersection, which at one point used to be a five-way intersection.

The north side of 8th Street was cut off and it is now a four-way intersection.

Is my street 9th Street a busy traffic congested dystopia?

No, it's a very nice, quiet street, and all the traffic is on the ethereal streets of Lincoln Street and Wilmochan Way as intended.

There are plenty of examples of other dangerous five-way intersections that have been converted, such as many on Tilden Way and Tilden Way is better for it.

The Fernside and Gibbons intersection is dangerous and should be converted so that there isn't such a long unsignal crosswalk.

Gibbons Drive should be treated as a residential street so kids can walk to school safely, and Fird Side and High should be treated as arterials.

Unfortunately, because Gibbons Drive is a diagonal on the grid, people see it as a shortcut, despite it having a lower speed limit and not actually being any quicker.

If we restrict one end of Gibbons, less people will see it as a shortcut, which is great.

However, Bayo Vista is one other diagonal street that is uniquely parallel with Gibbons Drive, and unlike all the other streets on the superblock, might appear faster on a map than the arterials that are actually faster.

Rather than just a roundabout at the west end of Bayo Vista, I would like to suggest that the intersection get cut in half.

Cut Southwood in half and disconnect Bayovista from Fairview.

This is one, if not the largest residential intersections on the island and encourages speeding in its current state.

However, if cut into two streets, it would instead actually provide more parking and eliminate drivers from using Bay of Vista as a through street.

Best yet, because it is right down the center of the superblock, it will not prevent local traffic only through traffic.

I always find it funny that people have complaints about proposed projects or recently competed projects, but see existing development as perfectly fine.

You've gotten a lot of comments on this topic this year, but I haven't bet you haven't got a single comment about asking you to reconnect 8th Street with Lincoln Street and Wilmachan Way.

Both five-way intersections and confirmation bias are dangerous, and I hope you oppose both of them.

Thank you.

Thank you very comment.

Next we have Glenn Yako.

Good evening, Commissioners, and thank you for your time.

Uh my name is Glenn Yaco, and I'm a resident of Bayo Vista.

I want to express my support uh in phase of the traffic calming measures uh listed in item 6B.

Efforts to slow speeds, improve crossings, and enhance safety are truly needed in this area.

Measures like speed cushions, many roundabouts, visibility enhancements are effective ways to protect everyone who walks, bikes, and drives in our neighborhood.

I understand the concerns about roundabouts in our neighborhood, and I understand their concerns, but I also think that perhaps the one that's most needed is this is the Northwood-Southwood Gibbons uh intersection.

In addition, I also strongly urge you to reject phase two C, the proposed six-month no-left test turn restriction on Gibbons.

A term restriction doesn't calm traffic and re reroutes it to surrounding streets, creating new issues rather than solving the problem.

And the traffic study confirmed that.

And while it may be labeled temporary, we have seen with Alameda slow streets that temporary measures can linger much longer than and planned.

While we have the tools to slow that slow cars down, reduce speeding and improve safety without shifting the burden.

Let's focus on those things first and keep our community uh safe and connected.

Thank you for your time and commitment to the safer streets and neighborhoods in Alameda.

Thank you.

Next we have Rebecca Colstran.

Hey nobody.

Hello, it's nice to see everyone.

Thank you, members of the Transportation Commission, for taking the time to hear testimony tonight.

I live on Cornell Drive between Thompson and Fairview Avenue.

And I support the some of the interim traffic improvements.

I actually think that traffic circles can be an effective way of improving safety at these intersections.

But I say that with some reservations because you've heard tonight, and I also heard today as I was walking through the neighborhood and talking to people along the way that there's a lot of concern about the design of those traffic circles because of the driveways that are um would have to people would have to back out into the traffic circles from their driveways.

And also I know there's a concern about loss of parking on those two intersections.

But I do think the traffic circles could lead to a reduction of as someone mentioned before.

But I have a lot of concern about restricting the traffic movements on Gibbons to High Street and vice versa.

When I was a member of the Transportation Commission in 2023, and we adopted the uh general plan, including the street classification system, I was against the downgrading of Gibbons Avenue.

Okay, thank you.

We can move back online.

Next we have Travis Morgan.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm a resident of Gibbons Drive, and I'm a co-chair of the Edison Elementary Walk and Roll Committee.

I appreciate the city staffs and your deliberate nature of the studies, the community outreach, the hearings, the mailers.

I disagree with some of the other speakers.

I think this has felt very drawn out.

As a resident of Fernside, I am supportive of your efforts to increase safety in the neighborhood.

I support city stops revised recommendation for quick build traffic calming measures in 2026, and I recognize that it attempts to balance project goals with resident concerns regarding cut through traffic.

I like the suggested roundabout design and placements for ease of pedestrian access.

That's gonna be helpful for our kids, people with mobility devices to actually use those intersections more safely.

I am concerned that forgoing the traffic calming will mean that we can never get a pilot investigating the impact closing gibbons on the other streets.

If roundabouts aren't added there, we can't do a pilot and neighborhood street neighbors will return to the argument that we don't know what the impact will be.

So it's circular logic that stops any safety improvements from happening.

I don't think their arguments are disingenuous, but I do think that would be a byproduct of not doing anything.

Further, I would ask you to firmly commit to the term prohibition pilot and find funding as quickly as possible.

I would love to know what the impact really is.

Um again, thank you for your hard work.

Have a wonderful night.

Thank you very much.

Next, we have Caroline Ping.

Hi.

Hello.

Hi.

Yep.

We can hear you.

Okay, commissioners.

My name is Caroline Chain.

I'm a resident of Cornell Drive, uh, very close to Gibbons Drive.

I'm a mom of two kids.

And um, in a past life, I was actually an urban designer, so I'm definitely a proponent of bikeable and walkable streets.

Um, so I do support the phase one traffic coming measures.

Um, I think it's a good idea to split things into phases, but I do not support the pilot that would block the left turn from Gibbons to High, because it feels like fair just doesn't seem to be any benefit in rushing this decision on phase two right now when phase one hasn't even been completed and studied.

Um, at the last public workshop, I I talked to Lisa Foster, and I I really appreciated the conversation with her.

Uh, but one thing that I learned was that the gibbons and high intersection may be high crash when you're just looking at Fernside Boulevard, but when you zoom out, it's not actually in a even in the top 20 of high crash intersections in Alameda.

And I was really shocked to hear this.

And so I'm I'm confused as to why this intersection improvement continues to be marketed as a way to solve key safety issues when, you know, according to the city itself, this intersection is not actually where the greatest safety issues actually exist in Alameda.

So it just feels like the communications around this project are not being fully forthright then.

And that you know city funds could be better used on truly dangerous intersections rather than this one just that just happens to be part of another project.

I also wanna urge you to reconsider like the past decision to um change the designation of gibbons to a local street.

I just wish there was more community outreach around it that decision.

So please do consider re-engaging.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Next we have Brian Fowler.

Nice to meet you.

I um moved to Johnson Avenue in 2007.

We raised our family here.

We've been walking around the neighborhood for since then we, you know, especially to Edison Elementary with our kid and our kids' friends and and everything and uh you know I want to thank you all for spending the time to to calm down the traffic in the neighborhood because especially on Gibbons it is really fast through there.

And it's you'll see it if you come out this uh for Halloween weekend because it is nuts.

Especially in both of these places you'll be thinking gosh we've got to slow down you know how many how people come through here.

But on the on a typical day Gibbons is is seen as a through street and people treat it as a as a as a great place to you know it's it's an attractive place to drive so you know I can see why people want to be on it but it we've got to slow down that traffic there and and I appreciate the efforts there especially um hearing tonight that you're gonna be doing things down on central uh because uh down there actually closer at at Santa Clara um and and they feed with the the feed in Santa Clara and Gibbons right there we could really use some attention uh if we don't want people using this as a through street that's a great place to put a sign that says this is a local street if you go to the highway go down go down Santa Clara to you know stop feeding people through this area.

So thank you for all that I would also uh voice my support for the prohibition pilot in 28 put it on the calendar so that we have a plan to do it and and we can test it out and we'll know that um but thank you all for all the work you do to to calm things down here while everybody else talk thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have uh the caller whose phone is ending in 878.

You need to unmute with eight sounds I can you hear me.

Yes we can hear you.

Okay great.

Hi my name's Frank Tang and I uh live in the frontside neighborhood on BioVista.

Thanks for all your time today and uh for all the thorough study and discussion.

Um I'm uh I have the two young children uh going to elementary school and other preschools in the area and uh I'm an avid uh cyclist and uh pedestrian in the neighborhood as well.

Um I am supportive of the uh uh the traffic calming measures uh as an interim step um and uh am uh uh aligned with some of the other speakers in terms of um questioning the um the the uh the outcome of or or the the perceived outcome of the benefits from uh stricting the left turn off gibbons uh in and uh proponent of doing a more thorough study of the water spread impacts of that um some of my concerns are mostly around um uh where the through traffic uh would uh uh proceed through the neighborhood would get out onto the other streets like high street or fernside.

Uh for example, no protected left turns onto High Street from a lot of the feeder streets like Fairview.

Um particularly during commute times um uh because these are yield flow streets where typically traffic is one way.

Um anytime there's a uh vehicle chubbing in the opposite direction, things really get stopped up.

So I think the a more broad uh study is really needed to to help identify all these impacts.

Um the other impact is during uh school times and a lot of the pedestrians walking around.

Uh, as we spoke earlier, and I work on the walk and roll committee, and we're actually trying to get people to walk through school and bike through school, and uh understanding that there would be more traffic impacts on all of the streets around as as traffic is diverted around rather than concentrated around one main corridor would be helpful.

Thank you very much.

Next we have Eileen Dubois again, so I'm gonna allow to talk.

Eileen, if you want to speak, you have to unmute.

Okay.

And in that case, we'll go to the last speaker on Zoom, Jay Garfinkle.

Good evening.

Uh my family has lived four generations of my family have lived on Northwood Drive since first moving there in 1949.

Uh we appreciate the current ambience of the whole neighborhood and believe that uh the project that's been proposed is akin to dropping a 500 pound bomb to kill a ground squirrel.

Uh the staff and the consultants are recommending this project because they put months and thousands of dollars into it.

The consultant definitely has uh an interest in having you approve this.

Um the uh looking at the uh data, there is no significant justification for any of the changes uh proposed.

Like I say, the staff and the consultant have a conflict here, and I would suggest submitting the data to uh an unbiased uh uh entity.

Eliminating the turn slip from fernside onto the bridge will only force more traffic into the actual main intersection and makes absolutely no sense.

Um also having uh two bike two direction bike lanes on one side of the street uh is a dangerous situation.

Um you know traffic has been calmed on Fernside Drive, uh Vernside Boulevard, excuse me, over the years by the intermittent presence of police uh hiding on I think it's Bayo Vista.

Um similar activities would be very helpful on high street, and if it gibbons is a problem, they could be on Gibbons also.

But we don't need these big changes that have been uh uh proposed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, going back to email small.

We are we're going back to in person.

Jake Olson.

Thank you.

My name is Jake Olson.

Uh I've lived in Bayo Vista for 12 years now, about a hundred yards from the intersection, so I'm very familiar with the neighborhood.

I'm also a licensed civil engineer in the state of California.

While I'm not currently practicing traffic conditions, I've worked on some major highways and roadway projects in my career.

I'm just gonna restate the obvious here tonight.

Our neighborhood is a collection of small, narrow streets.

Streets that don't have signage, stop signs, crossing, many don't even have yields.

In fact, one of the largest intersections in that whole neighborhood doesn't even have a crosswalk yet.

Yet, every day, hundreds of kids navigate the school on these small streets safely because of the low volume of traffic we currently have on these streets.

There's another reason why these kids are safe on these streets.

We are fortunate to have a unique street in our neighborhood, designed 30 to 40% wider than any other street, including four-way stops, marked crosswalks, and a convenient signal, allowing people to exit that street.

Not only that, it cuts diagonally on and off the island.

In the engineering world, we would call this a collector, despite whatever we may try to rename this as the city.

This collector is wide enough to serve the volume of traffic to get people through the neighborhood, not pushing them onto the smaller streets.

Our small streets, two cars cannot pass.

Anybody who lives in this neighborhood, who may work for the city and lives on the street, and would propose that closing the collector with a signal.

I can only think it's for self-serving interest, not neighborhood safety.

I think that's done in haste, and I strongly oppose any closure or attempts to make Gibbons a cul-de-sac.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have uh Vicky Tang.

Hi there, thank you for your time.

Um, as an Alameda resident, parent of elementary kids, and a frequent cyclist, I've been very active in this discussion.

At the open house, this room is packed, and over 300 people and residents have signed a petition to be against the closure.

Um I appreciate that the city has somewhat heard us and changed the recommendation from alternative A to more of a phased approach, but I still think that it's not fully thought through.

Making recommendations to increase traffic even for six months by 400% on these small streets that are 30% narrower without a full analysis.

The study doesn't show that the comparison of Bio Vista to streets like Pacific were cherry picked to justify the increase in traffic when it really shouldn't be compared to streets like that that are smaller.

Um, it also doesn't show the safety issues that would be caused from moving 500 cars from a protected left turn onto unprotected left turns onto high street from these smaller streets.

So getting that check mark from alternative A doesn't feel like it's really thorough because it hasn't really factored in any of these things.

And while I'm aligned um with speed pumps to slow traffic on Gibbons and potentially better signage and signaling at Gibbons and high, I strongly urge you to reject the test turn at Gibbons for six months.

The data doesn't show that the intersection is actually unsafe enough to warrant this change, like somebody else mentioned.

It was looked at a very narrow view of the Fernside Corridor, not within all of Alameda.

That was cherry-picked data as well.

Um, and I worry that this test is just about getting an approved now in hopes that the opposition will die down in the future and it will become a permanent change like some of the slow streets have really been uh become now.

And finally, I want to raise concerns about the 2023 uh reclassification of Gibbons Drive as a local neighborhood street and a neighborhood greenway, and would like to officially open this designation up for discussion or get a more solid rationale for why it is that way.

It feels like it's partly justifying this change in Gibbons when the current conditions don't really justify it.

The tree roots, the actual traffic, it just doesn't feel like it should be a greenway.

Appreciate your time.

Thank you.

And last in person, we have Sarah Husan.

Hi, thank you for your time tonight.

I'll make this short.

I've lived on Gibbons Drive for the past eight years with my three small children.

Believe it or not, children also live on Gibbons Drive.

Despite what others have said, the way things are currently is not okay.

It just does not work.

The speed and haphazard driving by confused drivers coming off the bridge and going onto the high street bridge is frankly out of control.

There is zero enforcement.

On top of that, there are no crosswalks for us to safely walk in our own neighborhood.

We need speed humps and roundabouts to bring order and safety to a chaotic intersection, more than one, that's prioritizes pedestrians and bicyclists.

You've heard re excuses or reasons why the proposal won't work and request study after study after study.

But how many more studies need to be done until a decision is made?

The bottom line is that the current neighborhood configuration prioritizes vehicles.

However, I asked the city to take this opportunity to protect pedestrians, bicyclists, and promote safe driving in a neighborhood full of small children.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And we have one more on Zoom, and I think Chris Dubois.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes.

Oh, great.

Uh thanks for giving me the time.

I'm an avid cyclist that lives about one house from Gibbons, so I'm very familiar with the problems on Gibbons in terms of the speed.

So I'm all for traffic calming.

I think that makes sense, but I don't see any point to this prohibition at this point.

It seems like we're trying to solve for an issue that just doesn't seem to be there, or we don't have the stats to see if there's an issue there.

All we're told is that there are certain number of collisions.

Nobody says what those collisions are due to.

Nobody says, is that a lot of collisions for this type of high volume intersection?

And would any of the traffic uh rerouting change that?

Uh so what are we?

What are our goals?

Before we start changing the neighborhood and putting traffic onto streets, frankly, that you can barely get one bicycle by a car, much less two cars.

What are the actual goals in terms of safety that we're trying to achieve?

Uh I think we need to look at what those goals are before we try to try to think about doing anything beyond traffic calming.

And I haven't heard anything about any of those goals.

I think it's dangerous to keep to move forward with something that is going to be very hard to back out of later on.

So that's it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have no more speakers on Zoom.

Let me check.

And not in house.

Okay.

Vice Chair Sutham Thira.

I have um staff made a mistake and we didn't post one of the written public comments that we received.

So uh I would like to, if if you're okay with that, if we could invite Gordon Williams to have another two-minute chunk to speak to those.

Let's go with that.

Hey, thanks so much.

I appreciate it.

This is a letter not just from me, but from a lot of people, so I think it's important to be read.

Uh dear Transportation Commission members, we write on behalf of the more than 100 neighbors, and they keep Gibbons open coalition to express our strong opposition to phase two C of agenda item 6B.

The proposed six-month temporary pilot closure of the Gibbons Drive left turn to the High Street Bridge.

As concerned residents, we believe this closure is unwarranted and harmful.

The city's own data do not justify such a disruptive measure, and modeling shows the closure would push traffic onto narrower, less equipped neighborhood streets, worsening safety rather than improving it.

Over 300 allimeter residents signed a petition opposing this closure.

I have it attached, I'll read it real quickly.

These signatures reflect a broad cross-section of neighbors across the fernside and east end communities, including many who live directly on or near Gibbons.

The message from the community is clear.

Keep uh Gibbons should remain open.

We respectfully urge you to listen to the neighborhood voice and reject the proposed turn restriction pilot.

Sincerely, myself, Jake Olson, Vicky Chan, organizers of the Keep Gibbons Open Coalition.

And the petition says oh God, I need reading glasses.

Uh, we are deeply concerned about the city's proposal.

I'll summarize it.

Um the narrow streets like Cornell, Bayo Vista, Southwood, Fairview, Thompson, Northwood, Cambridge, Fremont, Harvard, and Yale would see sharp increases in traffic and are not equipped to handle traffic like this during the morning and evening commutes.

The city's own traffic data shows a 400% increase.

Gibbons is the only traffic light controlled exit from the fernside neighborhood to the high street bridge.

Removing it would force drivers to exit at uncontrolled intersections.

It would uh delay emergency response time and increase congestion and confusion throughout our neighborhood.

The proposal puts the safety of our entire community at risk to benefit a single block.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Thank you for all the robust comment comment and then robust engagement.

Turning to the commissioners, if you're if you like, I know it's been uh two and a half hours.

If you like a brief four-minute recess, are we if you're ready?

Oh, okay.

That's that's yes, a recess would be lovely.

Okay.

We will be back in four minutes.

I think we are back.

Okay.

Thank you for your patience.

Uh, we are back in session.

Um, thank you, Commissioners.

So we are starting with the commissioners' deliberation now.

Any who wants to go first?

Actually, I know everybody has comments.

I can go.

Okay.

All right, Commissioner McLean.

Thank you.

Um, well, first I just wanted to say thank you to um staff and to um everyone who's contributed to the uh a lot of thought has gone into this um project over multiple phases and um uh so thank you for all the materials and all the um work that's been done to also gather um public feedback and thank you, of course, to everyone who's showed up or has contributed to in many ways over over a period of time to um this discussion, which is clearly um uh an important one.

Everyone has a uh you know um thoughtful uh input on.

Um this is uh an attractive part of the city, and um I can understand why people have uh strong feelings around safety and and um traffic.

So um it seems to me that we are um as regards the left turn from Gibbons onto High Street at the intersection.

Um, looking at the data and reading the public comment, it seems that people who live on Gibbons would like the left turn to be um uh prohibited, at least as a pilot, and people who live in surrounding streets would prefer the opposite because nobody ultimately wants additional traffic on their street, which is perfectly understandable.

Um unfortunately it's uh the only way to um actually solve that for both parties would be for us to reduce traffic significantly.

Unfortunately, I don't haven't seen any comments suggesting that we um stop driving, stop uh walking, biking, and taking transit more.

So I don't realistically think that's something that's going to happen.

Um and so I think our role here is really to balance the um concerns of the different um uh groups in this uh discussion, whilst also um addressing the safety concerns, which I based on the data seem very real, particularly um traffic coming off the high street bridge turning onto Gibbons, and arguably going in the other direction as well at different times of day.

On the phase one, which is the quick build um uh that has been proposed.

Um I think trying to address the speed of traffic coming from um high street turning onto gibbons going south, um, is something that is clearly important to do.

And in fact, as I look at the um diagram of what has been proposed with the quick build um paint and post bulb out, I actually wonder whether we could extend, and I don't know if we can pull this up on the slide.

I think it's slide um I don't have the numbers here, but this is uh alternative C.

Yes, that one.

I would like to know if it's possible for that bulb out to actually go further to the east, maybe another 10 or 15 feet, because as I look at this diagram, the turning radius from high street onto Gibbons has not changed a great deal in this um version rather as opposed to the existing situation.

I recognize that the um entrance to Gibbons is now narrower, which will presumably slow the traffic down.

But can is it feasible to extend the bulb out further into the intersection?

Um, basically, as I say, 1015 feet to the east of where it is proposed right now, and I guess that's a question for um the um I don't know who that's a question for Scott or I don't know.

I think what you're uh asking is on that southwest corner.

Correct.

On the south wall, be extended a little further to the east.

This is a uh schematic diagram.

So it hasn't been uh particularly designed yet, but certainly we'd have to look at vehicular turning movements and the design, different type of design vehicles to uh see what the best design would be.

So that could certainly be uh taken into account and see if we can shift things over a bit.

And the nice thing is about quick build kind of designs, they can be tested and adjusted to be more to be as uh optimal as possible.

Understood.

Thank you.

That's helpful.

Um I would just like to add on that.

Um, one of the considerations by pushing it out is we're looking at these are plastic ballards that if they get hit, they will cause a little bit of damage, but they really won't damage a car.

Um if we push them out too far, our maintenance screws would be out there regularly replacing things.

So this is a there is a trade-off by the farther you push them out, the more maintenance we'll end up doing on these things because that it's it takes a bit for the behavior to change, and there will be maintenance expenses.

Understood.

That's helpful, thank you.

Um so that's my first um thought on this.

As we think about um continuing to think about the speed of traffic on gibbons, which I think is probably one of our primary concerns here.

Um, I think the quick build aroundabouts could help with that a little bit.

Um I noticed there are um speed humps suggested for traffic calming.

The reason I asked the question about speed cameras is because I like to think that speed humps are sort of a last resort in terms of slowing down traffic.

There are reasons why they're not ideal.

But we live in this sort of strange world where we can have speed limits and traffic laws, but we it's very difficult for those to be enforced without employing a large number of police to um uh to you know um monitor and and hand out tickets, and that is not really um feasible.

So um acknowledging that enforcement is a significant challenge.

Um, I wonder if there are other ways to um slow down the traffic without necessarily always um resorting to to speed humps, which as I say um are not ideal for a number of reasons, and I would like to think are are more of a last resort.

And then finally, I think thinking about the left turn um from Gibbons onto High Street, as in going in the opposite direction.

This is not something that we could do in the short term as part of the pilot.

But again, the reason I asked the question about how many vehicles are turning right there is because there are currently two lanes.

There's a lane to turn left and there's the lane to turn right.

I wonder if we need both of those lanes for turning.

If almost nobody is turning right, which makes sense because it's uh you will probably wouldn't go that way if you were going to turn right.

Do we even need that right turn lane?

And if we don't need that right turn lane in the longer term, then perhaps there's a way to design the intersection such that um you can maintain the um you can have both the uh traffic calming elements that slow the traffic turning into gibbons whilst potentially maintaining access, how do I put this access to the um signal for the overall intersection for the traffic coming um coming out of gibbons going northbound?

I don't know if I'm explaining that very well, but as I say, I'm just thinking whether it's possible to, by having fewer lanes for traffic coming out of gibbons, maybe there's a way to design it such that the signal can uh still function for for people wanting to turn left.

All of that said, if we move ahead with the um if we agree to move ahead with the pilot for the uh restricting the left turn, um I would like to think about what we can do at the other end of Gibbons at Lincoln, Santa Clara, Central, to discourage that road being used as a cut through because it strikes me that that's really the problem that we're trying to solve.

It isn't necessarily the left turn that's the that's that's the issue, it's the amount of traffic and the speed of that traffic.

So I wonder if there's a way, and I don't know what the answer is, but I wonder if there's a way to discourage gibbons being used as a cut through that would address uh some of those concerns.

And as I say, I don't know what the answer is, or if anyone from the city or that the planners have any thoughts on that, but um those are my thoughts.

With the chair's permission, um we can make this more of a discussion if that's what is desired.

I figured one more into that.

You there are two things that you you talked about with the questions.

One was about uh eliminating the right turn, I'll say northbound gibbons making the right turn on the high.

That it's a very small count.

We said six vehicles during the peak hour.

Unfortunately, eliminating that movement and realigning the the intersection to you know get the benefit of increased bulb out, you're effectively describing alternative B without that right turn movement.

Um, and so that's it, we would still end up with the issue that the intersection then functions inefficiently and leads to a work uh a slower case.

Sorry, to clarify, I don't mean to um eliminate the option to turn right, I just mean we probably don't need two lanes to accomplish that.

And yes, you're right.

That is largely what is described in alternative B.

But it but I'm all but I'm also just thinking in terms of the geometry.

Can the in alternative B, could the um intersection of Gibbons and High be moved further north, as in closer to the intersection with fernside, which and would that allow it to be included in that one signal rather than having a separate signal?

It is functionally one signal, uh, but there's multiple lights and multiple stop stopping points.

So it it all functions as one unified signal.

It's not two completely independently operating signals.

It's just the fact when you create that space, it creates the delay, it creates the the inefficiencies.

Um pushing the whole thing further to the north.

Well, then we we start.

We haven't looked at that in detail, but I think we run into right-away issues pretty quickly.

Okay.

And to your point, um discouraging cut-through traffic on the south end, whether it be Santa Clara, whether it be um uh central, that is it's gonna be functionally a byproduct of the neighborhood greenway uh discussion that uh Rochelle talked about with Versailles.

So Versailles, Central, and Gibbons.

Gibbons basically starts kind of at that three-way intersection on that on that southbound leg.

Um, and we are looking at doing some changes there to minimize the number of access points to Gibbons right now.

You have three access points, and the movements will still be there, but most likely whatever we do will uh we'll just use the term increase the friction a little bit so that you can't go quickly down central and make a flying left onto Gibbons, which you can do now.

That that uh encourages a faster car movement, and we want to maintain the vehicular movements, we just don't want that to happen quite so quick.

So we're we're still workshopping what those design looks like and how that would function, but that will that will have that same effect.

We haven't really talked about it specifically with this project because it's really gonna be a component of the neighborhood greenway project.

Got it.

Thank you.

That's helpful.

Okay, I'll come to camp.

Yeah, thanks.

Uh yeah, I want to also reiterate the comments.

So I want to thank staff for presentation, also thank the public for coming out and uh voicing your concerns and thoughts about the project.

Um I want to actually add on to what Commissioner Glenn was saying about the the cut-through traffic.

I know in the presentation it was mentioned that a lot of the traffic on Gibbons is cut-through traffic.

Um, and I think that would um that needs to be considered as part of this as a whole, right?

Because um, if we eliminate a lot of the cut through traffic going to Gibbons, then um my major modifications at Gibbons may have less of a impact.

Um, right?

And so we do want to understand kind of where those cars are coming from and um what uh I guess kind of like adjacent projects in the city that are going to help divert traffic to still say high streets sooner than Gibbons, right?

So um just a better understanding what those projects are and how those are gonna work in concert with what happens at um this intersection would be very important.

Um kind of also related, uh, I I am concerned about the um the kind of the cut through traffic that we're potentially seeing into some of these smaller side streets.

Um the um, you know, I think you know, the Bay of Vista and Cornell like some of the streets that are the closest.

I know there's been a lot of concerns about cut through traffic, and while it seems like it's only you know about you know, car a minute and peak hour.

Uh it still seems a lot for those smaller streets.

Um so I am, but but I would like to better understand like uh what other things have been looked at to prevent cut through traffic on the smaller streets, if any.

Like, has there been considerations for eliminating left turn access from Bayo Vista to High Street to prevent some of those uh potential cut uh prevent that cut-through traffic?

Um I guess my biggest concern is I don't want to just take the accidents that are happening at this one intersection and distributing them to a bunch of other intersections around that intersection.

So I do want to better understand like how do we prevent cut through traffic to some of these smaller streets.

I think these are interesting ideas of thinking about you know downstream.

Um so I think that can be considered and discussed.

So far, what we've been talking about are the traffic calming measures that we brought to you all to um both make drivers uh slow down and make it less convenient and you know fast for people to get through the neighborhood, which has been shown to encourage people to take other routes.

I don't know if anybody wants to.

Would it be helpful to bring that slide up?

Because there's a lot going on if you want to.

Sure.

Yeah, sure.

Yeah, appreciate the other ideas.

Um I do just want to mention that this isn't reflected in the figures that have been presented in terms of number of redirected trips because those numbers were calculated on the assumption that there is no neighborhood traffic calming present.

Um, the federal highway.

Um we are looking at different looking for a different slide, or uh this is the one.

I thought Commissioner Kim might want the treatment, the quick build treatment slide, but here go ahead if you want.

Yeah, I think maybe a slide of the um the traffic diversion.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Yeah, I forgot which slide number that is, but two slides before, maybe.

Two slides after.

It's 22 of 23.

This one also works, I think.

This is fine.

Uh well, I I I just wanted to mention that the Federal Highway Administration and Institute of Transportation Engineers do have published literature that has um summarized a number of studies trying to measure the effects of traffic calming on both speeds and volumes.

And off the top of my head, I can remember that on average, and of course, studies are all over the map and vary greatly on number of inputs, uh alternative routes, and uh but on the whole, speed humps are shown to reduce traffic volumes by approximately 20%, also depending on the speed hump design.

So it's not that just the existence of speed humps themselves would eliminate cut-through traffic, but it we would forecast that it would have around that type of an impact, and agree.

Often we think of speed humps as the last kind of application measure, but it would have impact on both speeds and volumes through the neighborhood.

Um I do have, I guess maybe this is more pro of a procedural question.

Um, I'm trying to understand the recommendation we're actually voting on today.

Um, so uh it sounds like we're voting on the recommendation for uh kind of the interim safety improvements at the intersection as well as the quick build treatments for the roundabouts and the speed humps.

Um, are we taking any kind of action related to the pilot uh to eliminate the the right turns?

Yes, the recommendation is that you would also endorse the long-term data collection and planning, which would include the pilot.

You know, you all obviously can take the action that you choose to take, but that was the staff recommendation.

Uh and then so I guess follow-up question on that.

With the data collection slated to start in 2028, um, it how typical is it for uh this commission to vote on things like this that are that far out?

We you all have many times approved design concepts that then didn't get implemented until many years later.

Central Av started coming to the Transportation Commission maybe a dozen years ago, um, and is now under construction.

So, you know, this this is a I would say, you know, uh temporary pilot is a somewhat different project and then the design concepts that we then end up constructing many years later, but but no, it's quite common.

Okay, okay, thank you.

Um I do have to follow up on Commissioner Kim's uh point, last point in terms of the timing.

Um if 2028 is going to be the the data collection time, and then um you're proposing our uh the recommending the quick build approach to go now in the next year.

When is the the turn uh restriction pilot um is going to be um looked at or implemented and looked at because then there is a long gap, and that the turn restriction is proposed for six months in the staff report.

So, yeah, we have 2028 in mind for that, um, because we think we can get the quick build traffic calming done by sometime early mid-2027.

Then you get give some time for them to settle in, uh, get some time for Oakland Alameda Access Project to you know, stop making our traffic patterns strange, uh, and and then we would be able to start thinking about a test uh with evaluation.

So basically there will be a gap in time with the one implementing the traffic calming measures within the neighborhood, and then to implement the pilot.

Yes, I mean you guys can make recommendations to us, but that is how we've conceived it.

Yeah, okay, okay.

You know, maybe we'd end up with a six-nine month gap between the the um quick build neighborhood traffic calming and the the uh pilot of the term restriction.

Okay, all right.

Um anybody wants to go after?

Sure, sure.

Commissioner, so um I'll echo the thanks um from the commissioners to staff to residents um and consulting team who have been working on this.

Um let's just say if it would be great if the city could give this level of attention uh to every neighborhood.

I mean that genuinely, um, I I mean that genuinely that uh the city has engaged this in a um a multi-layered fashion uh traffic studies um potential um uh traffic calming, um a lot of resident engagement.

Unfortunately, the city does not have the resources to do this.

Um I mentioned that first because I think this is a good example of how um the city genuinely needs more resources to maintain and improve its infrastructure.

I know city council is studying that now, but I just want to put this into context that ideally we can do more of this, but the city is constrained.

Um, I do also want to highlight that there is a process and equity issue here where time spent in one single neighborhood means time that is not spent on the rest of the city, and that does affect some of the the thinking I bring to this too of when staff are focused on this project, what are they not able to do elsewhere?

I think our last meeting on the speed hump policy was trying to zoom out and just say, like, hey, can we um give staff a toolkit that can scale and that can kind of be more adaptive, uh, be more efficient.

Uh this is project is very much at the other end of the spectrum in terms of being bespoke, um, but I do want to speak to that at a very high level uh first.

Um within the context of this project, um, I I'm gonna echo points I've heard that that um I think this is a really multi-layered treatment that's being proposed here.

Um, we see we learned a lot about speed humps at the last meeting.

It's helpful to have that 20% figure in mind.

We've had a couple different meetings on uh roundabouts, um, and this type.

Am I correct in saying in figuring this is similar to the kind that's going into Bay Farm, the um the.

All right, Scott, I can never you got a modern roundabout at one end of the spectrum, you've got a mini neighborhood traffic circle.

This is in between.

Roundabouts can come in many flavors.

Um what we're doing on central, what we're going to do at Tilden Clement, those are arterial streets, those are what they refer to as modern roundabouts, full concrete construction, approach ramps, all that.

What we are doing over on Bay Farm Island, it should be installed hopefully in the next month, is uh what's known as a it's a um it's it's a durable material, but it's it's a recycled plastic material that we put down that's far less expensive than a concrete roundabout, but it does have a life expectancy of at least 20 plus design here.

So it's it's it's a solid, we'll say permanent installation with using less expensive materials.

What we're proposing about here for these roundabouts are called quick build, and it's really we're going to be doing mostly uh paint, maybe some posts you saw the rubberized curves doing the roundabouts.

We recognize those are not necessarily the ideal desire of what the community would want in the long term.

That's very clear, that's very recognizable.

But it's something we can commit to to do because as uh Lisa showed the the the ask for the city council is a relatively small number.

Um it takes you know, what we're doing out on uh Bay Farm Island is is uh about three or four or five times more expensive than that.

So um what this would be a quick build if it's uh accepted by the community, then we'd be looking for other sources of revenue to to upgrade those to a more durable solution.

Okay, great.

Thank you for that context.

Um I did Scott, can I ask one more on the the roundabout front?

Um one of the presenters spoke to the intersection up uh Northwood uh Cambridge Bueno Vista getting um paint treatments.

Um have staff considered the similar type of um of quick build roundabout for that intersection.

The geometry of that intersection is a little much more elongated, so it's not quite as I'll say come uh compact in like a circular format, so it doesn't lend itself to a roundabout.

Um if to if we would go back to the 2012 study that was very similar to what we're talking about now about traffic calming within the entire neighborhood, they did have some painted lane reconfigure options that we could look at that would be in the same manner as what we're talking about for the for the roundabouts, a quick build, basically post and and paint predominantly.

That is something we could we could certainly evaluate moving forward.

Okay, and um can I ask just are there are there any other spots that staff where staff are seeing potential for similar types of treatments?

Um these are these were the most obvious ones.

Um and I know uh the callers were talking about high street and the color, and there's also, you know, we're doing work on fern side.

Those, you know, this goes back to the question you were almost alluding to, where um we could keep peeling back and we zoom out just a little further, and there's a little bit more we could do in the next neighborhood, a little bit more we do the next neighborhood, a little more we can do the next neighborhood.

We know there's plenty of work that we have throughout the entirety of the city for traffic calming, and so we're trying to be both thoughtful and in addressing the concerns that the neighbors have brought forward about the cut through traffic and putting in both countermeasures to both slow the traffic and as what as Jimmy had mentioned, uh potentially increased diversion.

People don't like going over speed humps, they will at a certain point look to look to take alternate routes.

So we were looking to be a little bit focused to address the issue that was related to the the intersection up here.

I mean, at the very first slide I was kind of pointing out to Lisa that don't don't forget this this whole startup, whole fernside two-way cycle track, and and it it we're trying to to look at uh appropriate level of traffic calming measures within the within the vicinity of the neighborhood.

Okay, th thanks.

And just to bring it back up to if I can characterize that it's saying given the traffic study, what are the treatments that and we're we're being presented with treatments chosen strategically in order to both fit what can fit into the space as well as um what can potentially mitigate um some of the um the the shifts.

Correctly.

And we did stop short of I'll say potentially even a little more drastic options where you know argued you know maybe we would prevent the left turnout of biovista so that everybody would go up either Cambridge, Fremont, Harvard, Yale, make a right, and then on the way back, you know, I mean there are other more substantial kind of um traffic restrictions that we could put in place that would really kind of um I'll say redirect traffic through this localized neighborhood.

We want to stop short of that.

I think our goal in in presenting the layered approach that we have is to recognize what the community said about hey, this is there's more than just the intersection of fernside givens and high.

We have some neighborhood concerns, and we're really concerned about the cut through traffic.

So our attempt here was to come forward with some degree of neighborhood traffic calming layered on with the pilot study to really get an understanding of once these traffic calming measures are in place, um, what are the what are the what are the movements that we observe, and then if we close down on a pilot process for about six months to take another observe observation and say where does that that traffic that is diverted, where does it go?

Um we've heard a lot of things from a lot of people, both our consultants, the neighbors, but frankly, a lot of it, nearly all of it is conjecture at this point.

We really don't know how, you know, humans are very complex species and behaviorally.

Once we add these things in there and change that, we almost have to just observe to see what happens.

And that's really kind of taking the step back why we are proposing this layered approach.

I think the recognition is that we did not want to go forward and invest a huge amount of money in concrete in what we had shown as alternative A right now, and then recognize, hey, we have a problem.

Um we are willing, because we think it's the right thing to do is to do the traffic hopping within the neighborhood, but then layer it on with the the pilot study to really factually understand what happens with that traffic.

I I know there's concern um, but we don't know until we actually observe it, and and that's I think why we are proposing the the recommendation that we have about the multi-layered approach.

Okay, and and if I may just add um one more layer here.

Um the I see the width of the side streets as a a feature, not a bug, if you will.

Um narrower streets lead to slower auto speeds.

Um I think it's important, and I don't I say this so before I was asking about um about roadway width, um, that um uh that again that the narrower streets that some commenters have been concerned about, I think um uh will drive behavior in the right direction here.

It will disincentivize uh people who want to move efficiently on side streets um with caveats, like I'll ask like, you know, like there needs to be sufficient daylighting here, like and that's like getting back to like this intersection you've spoken about um up at uh Cambridge, like, you know, narrower streets with parked cars do slow traffic, but there needs to be visibility there.

And if there's anything you want to add on that, go go ahead, but I just want to add that as a layer of the width of the side street.

It certainly is a layer, and and and I'll say from a traffic basic traffic textbook perspective, wider roads have can accept higher volumes of traffic at basically at faster speeds and narrower roads, the converse is true, you have fewer fewer traffic and typically at slower speeds.

We typically look for our standards as a 36 foot roadway face to curb to face the curb as kind of uh the the I'll say the normal local street, which has two 10 foot travel lanes and eight foot parking on both sides, adds up to 36.

I don't know the exact number on Bio Vista, but I believe it's 32, so we're missing 32, 33, maybe 34.

It's short, it's it's less than that, but it it does what it means is you know, not all cars are eight feet wide, many are smaller, but some of the larger SEVs and stuff can be it does create that that friction, which then by nature does tend to slow traffic, but it also makes people feel very uncomfortable as you're driving very closely to other cars.

And so there's a perceived kind of safety concern because you have to be much closer to other cars.

Um, yeah, I'll I'll leave it at that because it, you know, yeah, that's important I just wanted to add that you know for the traffic study every traffic study is based on assumptions when you're projecting out uh like this one did and those assumptions are based on best practices you know data lots of factors and we did that but we did make a conscious decision to make sure we didn't underestimate the spillover within the neighborhood if anything our assumptions are are a little bit worse case scenario because we wanted we wanted the neighborhood to you know we knew they had big concerns and we didn't want to come with a study that looked like we were underestimating the issues so um it is entirely possible that the narrowness of those streets will discourage more people from using them.

They might try it once it'll be deeply uncomfortable when they try to pass another vehicle and then they might take a different route the next time so um and then also of course we'll have the neighborhood traffic calming in place.

So I'd just like to share my thoughts with with the others on the commission I'm seeing uh well first we've been seeing this this project in this area over um over many months and in accordance with quite a lot of uh well planned city plans active transportation plan vision zero plan all on and on I'm seeing multiple layers of protection proposed here my own read of the assessment also was that it it is a um it is a very conservative assessment I feel like we have the confidence to to recommend this to council I honestly also think that should come with uh a firmer ask I think we I think it would be reasonable to um to recommend to council this uh this combination of traffic calming as proposed by um by staff and that there be an actual timeline uh for making the changes at that that intersection I'm very welcome to hearing others' thoughts on this and what form that takes um but I don't think we should kick the can down the road on um on decisions and that um we've been presented with with really thorough research lot lots of thoughts as well but um that all are valid but that based on the work that's gone into this I think we're being presented with a multi-layered plan that um and I would like to if others are open to it you know here of course here all the thoughts and uh here maybe a form that's agreeable of a a stronger recommendation um than the staff has recommended to us tonight.

Commissioner one do you want to go or uh okay.

Commissioner Abrams could you please clarify what you're proposing.

Um sure I mean I'll put some options on the table but um you know I I think first endorsing the quick build traffic calming because the first half of the staff recommendation and as part of that um recommending that staff go to council and request general just to confirm this is a request for general funds from the residual fund balance the most precious fund of the city to put unplanned improvements I'm saying that's a good it's a good thing but so that's the first the first half endorse the quick build traffic calming uh combined uh together with with a firmer recommendation for an option we've been presented with um that goes beyond just uh uh commitment I mean I I think there are ways that it can be framed that provide some flexibility.

Maybe this could be pegged against the 2028 uh paving work planned for here.

Yeah, open to staff input here, but I um uh and I I I I think I think it I think if we can give a recommendation to council um that combines the investments together with the intersection improvements, I think that will be the best long-term outcome.

Okay.

Let me go with my comments, my thoughts.

And then I will open it up so that we can kind of work towards uh recommendation that we can endorse and uh decide how we want to approach.

So just in thinking through the process, um, or thinking aloud on the process how we have where we have come to and how we have come to.

So, like it started, I very clearly remember uh the fern side uh Bolivar improvement, uh, long-term improvement last year um when staff presented it when the commission approved it uh or endorsed it for the council action.

One of the elements is to um see uh or study the intersection the because of the unique nature of this, you know, the five-legged intersection, um, and you know, the high street fern side and the gibbons and the need to take or connect the two-way protected bike lane through it, um, and uh it really adds to the complexity or challenge of the operation of the intersection.

Uh, the recommendation was to study that separately, and that's how um I see this focus to study has started, and then of course, all this overlaying plans uh were looked at uh by the staff and um uh and I can see um you started the public outreach process or developed the recommendation with the help of um you know work from uh parametrics and uh you went to the public with the uh study proposal or study outcomes, and then took their input, and um when you started the recommendation development, I'm I'm just again thinking aloud, um the alternative one a uh was to uh eliminate um the the left turn, and then you uh had the with the safety of the neighborhood in mind, um you operations um in terms of operational safety improvement perspective, you proposed the uh traffic coming with two measures.

One is the speed hump, the other one is uh uh roundabout, and then um for the intersection, you proposed um couple of variations.

Uh, one is the um, you know, curbing the or uh restricting the left turn, and which was the A, and then the B had the signal and uh C had the pedestrian um signal and uh with that the neighborhood um came back with uh more comment, robust comments.

Thank you for uh you know letting your views very clearly heard.

Um and then staff took that into consideration and amended or updated the um recommendation uh with the pilot um version so you can study so you can make the data-based decision making.

Um I'm just trying to walk us through the milestones and then the process.

Um is there any change you say in this Lisa?

Okay, thank you.

Um I mean it's uh the the thoughtful, the thorough process the staff and then the consultant team, how they helped uh staff to come to this, and also how the public um outreach or public input have been taken into account um to reflect that.

So I just want us to acknowledge that.

Um, I mean in terms of where we are, but then comes to comes the nuances um in the recommendation.

Um I do see um you know broad support overall for the traffic coming within the neighborhood for the neighborhood safety, but uh when I say um the traffic coming, it's only I can see the quick um speed hump being the more favored one.

And then um the roundabout uh has um some questions, and uh it's it's uh in the design aspect or the um the up um aesthetics parking loss, so all that I mean if we are recommending that um you know, including the um roundabout in the uh, you know, if we endorse the recommendation to move forward, including the roundabout, then we need to kind of um include those elements and how that needs to be looked at so it doesn't impact the um neighbors, the issue that we heard about, you know, backing the car into the um you know, roundabout and things like that.

Um and uh and then we clearly heard about um you know the operation at the intersection of um high street gibbons and fern side.

Um there is one thing I um um that caught my attention was uh the density or in the in the map that you showed the accident map you showed.

Someone mentioned about uh the location of uh the accidents being different from the the actual the high and given intersection.

Um is it just the mapping error or are the way it is just them located on the map, or how is that?

Are you looking at the entire um the broader intersection as one and then map the mapped all of the uh collisions in that location?

So, did you did you want an answer or you continue it on?

Uh I mean that um let me finish my thoughts.

So I mean that's uh one um question I have, but uh in terms of the intersection um improvement.

I mean, that's one thing that we were uh you were asked to address it.

Um I think you have done a good job in locating, I mean, looking at the options and um especially from um in David what he mentioned, like there are some that are not presented, were also considered and eliminated up front.

Um but then one other bottom line uh issue that's driving all this is the um cut through traffic, which is which seems very, you know, significant portion, which is 55%, and I mean that's one thing that's missed out in terms of how it's addressed.

I mean, you do say um Jimmy did mention that that speed hump reduces 20 percent, it's like we are encouraging people not to kind of drive through or you know, um, but then there could be other measures like I mean one I can think of is like you know um how we are doing it at central and park intersection.

Um do not um no left turn during peak time, peak hour period, right?

Or peak periods, something like that along um Santa Clara and gibbons.

I mean, I'm just throwing it out there.

I mean, you will probably you may be able to think more options, so something to prevent them coming in.

Of course, the school traffic will be there, so people will be you know coming from all of the attendance area, so you may not be able to fully control that movement, but there is something you can think about, you know.

So um, so all this is happening, and um, and we need to really move forward as well.

It's uh one thing I we did hear is um a strong opinion on the left-turn pilot, and and one other question I have related to that is um why is it six months?

And uh and there is also time gap in, you know.

So if you approve it now, and then the um safety measures are are um the traffic coming is implemented, and then you have a gap, and then so how will it be tied together and studied later?

Um, you know, if you implement the turning moment restriction even for a pilot period, much with a with a long gap, so um, the effect of this, and then the restriction may be you know, how will it correlate and so are you going to do study or study two-time periods?

So, I mean, there are all these questions.

I'm sure I threw many different fragmented questions, but if you're able to remember and respond, and I can help you.

Um the first question I heard was about parking on-street parking loss and driveway access and the roundabout designs.

Yes, Scott, did you want to speak to that?

Sure.

So the as we talked about the roundabouts, what you saw today was a very crude sketch, something I drew in Bluebeam quite simply.

These roundabouts would need to be properly designed.

Speed humps we can put in the ground pretty quickly.

Those are that they're relatively easier, it's a known quantity.

A roundabout needs a design.

And a couple of comments that were brought up tonight were about driveways, driveway accesses and how those, and that's something we definitely have to look at.

The one on uh Gibbons, Northwoods, Southwoods, there are no driveways right there, which is convenient.

I think there might be one on Northwoods, but I think we have a lot of flexibility to work around that.

BioVista, we might have to be a little more thoughtful about how that would work.

So that would require design.

It's also one of the reasons why you know the speed humps potentially could come in 2026.

We're giving ourselves just the time to do the design properly for these roundabouts.

Even if they're quick build, we still need to kind of lay them out and make sure they all function.

As it relates to parking loss, um it's pretty clear to say that we would uh the the crosswalks get pulled back from the intersection.

It's a much shorter crosswalk, it's a much safer crosswalk.

Um we would definitely daylight immediately in advance of the crosswalk for each of the advancing directions.

So you would lose definitely one parking stall there.

So you'd definitely lose four parking stalls at Bio Vista, at least three at Gibbons, potentially a fourth.

What we haven't looked at, and we look at the design.

A lot of the designs that were proposed in 2012 had a much more, we'll say involved kind of layout and significant amount of landscaping.

There's a likelihood we may a lot be able to maintain some parking within portions of the roundabouts.

Um, and there's also another thing to consider that's different than 2012 is we now have state law that basically um requires daylighting at intersections.

That's very easy to kind of, I'll say, understand at a orthogonal 90 degree intersection.

It's rather hard to really appreciate at either one of these two intersections.

Certainly at the very tighter radius ones, it's argument that that it's illegal to park there now based on the current daylighting law.

So we are only doing a nominal additional parking loss.

Okay.

So yeah, we would definitely need a lot of design.

I would like to add that about these roundabouts, this is a sort of different project than we usually do because we are using truly quick build um materials that we uh we're we're testing this out.

If it doesn't quite work, we can change it.

We're not, we're not even putting in permanent curb ramps until we know that it works.

So um, so that it gives us a chance to iterate on the designs.

So the second question I heard.

And can I just add to that?

Yes, I mean, this is definitely the most beautiful neighborhood we have in the city, right?

And um, and I haven't driven through just to get a feel for it, too.

You know, I'm gonna pick my daughter from high school, so uh even though I don't live there.

Um so you don't want to implement something that really spoils the aesthetics of it, too.

So in terms of the design part.

Okay.

Um the second question I heard was about the heat map and and whether the collisions.

Yeah, whether those collisions were related to the gladiating leg.

And I would say, yeah, the heap of the map is just about intersect collisions at that intersection, irrespective of which you know, legs contributed to it.

Okay.

And and what I can contribute to that conversation is that we've been trying to take this complicated five-leg intersection and turn it into something that it has shorter crosswalks and um a more simple layout, something that people will not speed as quickly through, something that people will make fewer strange turning movements in.

Um, and the way we found to do that was that turn restriction from Gibbons.

The goal was not restricting gibbons.

Um the goal was fixing that intersection.

It just that is what makes it all of that possible.

So we think that crashes at the intersection in general, even if they're just high in fern side, could be diminished by this change because it um makes the intertext section smaller.

It can reduce speeds, it can simplify the intersection.

So I think they're all relevant, even if they're not related specifically to the Gibbons leg.

Oh, I heard you ask why the pilot is six months.

Did you want to speak to that recommendation?

That's also a very good question.

We do a lot of pilot tests on programs such as this, and we've uh determined that it takes about six months, maybe a little less, but for traffic patterns to get adjusted, people to change their behaviors, and it's also allows you to do before and after studies and really track what's going on and make adjustments if necessary.

So we feel pretty pretty strongly about six months makes sense for doing a doing a trial period.

Okay, that's kind of a standard practice.

Yeah, that's what you'd say.

How are we doing?

I mean, are there any other options or measures to reduce them?

Um, some other ideas about uh upstream traffic, traffic that's coming into the neighborhood.

Um we will uh we've looked at uh what we think makes the most amount of sense for for an initial program, and I think what we do is after monitoring and seeing what really happens, uh, then step back and see if there are there other remedies that that should be tested.

We want to be careful not to cause additional diversion or start re uh making people backtrack on other other uh other routes as well.

So it's always we like to start a little small and simple, monitor and then come back and maybe maybe make some adjustments without restricting other turns and uh and creating other diversions.

Uh one thing I didn't hear from the commissioners too is like how um pedestrian signal and then alternate to C.

Um, and you did say you know it increases congestion, but it definitely improves safety for people to cross.

I was hoping that that'll get better traction, but somehow it didn't.

So I believe your question relates to Gibbons.

Um there is on the three little segments of that cross Gibbons, um, there's a crosswalk, but there is no pedestrian signal for that.

So uh pedestrians at this time really have no indication when it's safe to cross.

And that is the current configuration.

Um to fix that would require uh a decent amount of investment, uh a non-trivial investment, but we have to do it in a traffic signal, add some additional signal heads, run some additional conduits, some additional wiring.

And while that is a potential, if alternative C is the direction we go in the long term, we would definitely make that investment.

Um if we're looking at other alternatives, alternative A as we're recommending in a multi-phase approach to get there, it wouldn't necessarily make sense to make that investment now if it's not going to be needed uh in in short order, if that's helpful.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um I'm I'm sorry, your public comment period is over, and uh, unfortunately, we have heard all of your comments and uh I'm in other words, we just get up and leave because whatever we do, you know, we're done, right?

Do you do you have any follow-up comments?

I'm uh happy to answer the question about testing or what a testing program could look like if that would help.

Um, we haven't really fleshed out the evaluation method for a pilot project project, but one of the great things about where we are now is we have taken a great deal of data on the before existing conditions phase.

One of the ideas of taking a bit of a pause after implementing neighborhood traffic calming is that we could take that same level of data and then have another tranche of data plan to conduct uh after a pilot is in place.

And on other pilot projects that we have implemented, we've taken two tranches of data collection, one directly after implementation, and then another four or five, six months out, so that we understand the difference between the first several months, uh weeks of implementation and how behavior normalizes over time.

So, but but we haven't got to that level of thinking through what an evaluation for a pilot project would look like for this project.

In that uh note, actually, is it possible to conduct uh testing or data collection after the uh neighborhood uh calming is done, traffic calming is done, and then one after.

If need I mean, based on the data you see, and then if it's really warranted to do the left-turn pilot, then can you do one after?

So it'll be like in two parts.

I think we are saying the same thing.

Oh, I don't know.

We would take another round of collection after the neighborhood traffic calling.

Oh, so that we could understand just eliminating to that as the changed variable.

What difference does the neighborhood traffic calling make?

And then that would allow for another point of comparison with the potential pilot.

Okay.

That helps.

Something else I can add process-wise, is that you guys can direct that this is you know the direction we want to go.

Um, but certainly once we're designing that pilot, we would come back to the Transportation Commission and tell you what kind of before data, what kind of pilot, what kind of after data we want to do, and and you know, kind of get your input on that that specific plan.

Um so you we don't have to have all of this stuff figured out, but we do need to know that that's the general direction in order to really actively pursue the near-term traffic calming so that we know that you know it's all kind of related to each other.

Um, so yeah, we will come back.

All right.

Oops.

Good, good.

You're good.

Okay.

I can't add anything else.

Okay.

So can I ask the maybe?

Yeah.

I I keep getting like hung up on like the recommendation and timing, things like that.

Um, and so it sounds like the uh idea is we're gonna put in these traffic calming improvements, um, the quick build ones.

Uh there's gonna be a little some time where we collect data.

We're um we're gonna do the pilot restriction for six months.

We'll collect more data, and then sometime after that we figure out what to do as a permanent solution.

Is that the kind of the process we're going through?

Yeah, I think you have it.

I mean, the pilot, a pilot test will require before and after data no matter what.

So that before data ends up being a good study on the neighborhood traffic calming, um, kind of get too far there.

Um, and then, you know, that's just a test.

That's all we're deciding to do today is to test it and to then move forward with that toward our long-term planning for the front side project while we seek funding for that project and have a you know a whole plan for that project in place.

Go for it.

Um, so I just want to speak this, these are questions that are above our pay grade, but I do want to speak a bit to opportunity cost.

Um in 2026, the um, so firm side is the bay trail.

MTC has funding dedicated to improving the bay trail, and in summer 2026, they'll be um having what maybe the final call for applications to using that funds or to applying for that funds.

Um, the city has successfully pursued this for um startup, right?

Um I think it's worth, and again, this is more the this is just broader context.

The city has the opportunity to get the region, the the people who are paying tolls on the Bay Bridge to pay to improve fernside with a lovely permanent build, but that's a uh an opportunity that um has a time frame, and so time spent uh um other concerns may mean staff are not able to apply for those funds.

I again these are that's not what we're being asked to to speak to recommend on tonight, but I think we have to think more broadly um in the and um uh think across the city as a whole, think about any and all external funding opportunities.

The advantage of those funds from MTC is they come from San Francisco, they do not come from Washington DC, and that's the reality of the matter right now, is we need to use local funds and state funds when we can.

And I think city staff should use their time to be pursuing those types of funds.

So again, I just want to add that context that we we need to make a well-formed recommendation.

It should be informed by as um as much comment and study as possible, um, but there is opportunity cost to uh uh to the city uh undertaking a multi-year long um open-ended study on uh one neighborhood.

What would your proposal be at this point?

Um, we are asking for a recommendation from our a proposal from him.

I'm glad to put something on the table.

I'm also very glad to hear others' thoughts as well.

Um, but I'm I like um Commissioner Bloingo and then Commissioner Kim and then uh maybe Commissioner Dera Emblem.

Yeah.

You had final thoughts.

And yeah, my I guess my final my final thoughts are we discussed this back in whatever it was, November, and uh recommendations.

The time was to ask staff to come back with an alternative recommendation for how to treat this particular intersection.

Staff has done that, and I think the recommendation that they've put in place makes sense given all the considerations which are complex.

Um that said, I recognize that there is a the funding is always an issue, and um I think what you're saying is if we could make a decision a more longer term decision today, then we are more likely to get it funded.

Is that correct?

Um just to be specific, I think open-ended study will take time away from pursuing funding and for other projects.

So that I think open-ended study is a a risk.

Please, if you had thoughts you wanted to share.

Uh I I guess um uh I'll say like on the transportation commission at uh the whatever year or year and a half I've been here, this seems like to be the most contentious item that we've seen.

Um, uh I guess to me it almost feels like uh this is one of those items that does necessitate some of the work that we're doing.

Do you know you know like there's a reason that we've seen this multiple times and heard it multiple times and it's evolved kind of a lot, you know.

Um so but I I still think we're like going in the right direction.

I'm just uh I'm just trying to figure out like I keep calling the doctor like what the recommendation is, right?

Because I feel like um uh we're kind of agreed on the the first part of it, which is the traffic calming, the quick bill traffic calming efforts and things like that.

Um I'm trying to figure out um like I'm even generally uh aligned with um piloting the turn restrictions as well uh because it is a pilot because we want to learn like what from that and kind of what to do next.

Um I guess I'm just trying to figure out um is the process that we're that's being put out there for the pilot the right process for the pilot.

And that's the thing I'm just like trying I'm still like noodling on like is there like because I I guess I feel like um it feels like the the current recommendation that we're just gonna do a pilot is like kind of a half recommendation to me.

Like I wish there was more to it.

I just don't know what that more is right now.

And so that's I was like hoping to hear from some of the other commissioners to see if there was a kind of a a change uh to that right turn pilot or an add on or something.

Is it possible to kind of uh do complete phase one just with the bulb out I'm I'm looking at your executive summary and I think we had to get to action um bulb out and then um in terms of traffic calming go with the speed hump and then for roundabout engage with the community and and then in in the design and get get the feedback and also kind of bringing it to us at some point.

And then in terms I mean collect data at that point um and and um for the pilot restriction any you are you are looking at doing um doing it only in 28 so can we wait until then to see how this uh interim data collection are for the first phase with the traffic calming and uh you know the bulb out portion works out and what the data how the data looks and then decide on uh going with the left I mean how to go with the left turn restriction even as a pilot at that time but but given the timeline we are looking at I think it makes sense and also it addresses uh Commissioner Kim's point uh because it's we hear so much um strongly for and um against that mostly against um and uh I think we need to be a little more thoughtful and having two different very different flavor of improvements we are looking at for that uh neighborhood so these are good questions and you guys can make whatever recommendation makes sense um what I can contribute is if we separate these two out entirely then it begs the question of why are we prioritizing this neighborhood because we have traffic calming needs all over the city um we have traffic calming requests all over the city we have them in this neighborhood and we have them in other neighborhoods so if if uh if the the project is only just discreetly related to the neighborhood traffic calming with no sort of thought about pushing forward this this other project that we're trying to figure out the front side one um then you know maybe it gets prioritized based on how we prioritize things citywide which would be you know equity traffic crashes um ADA transition plan uh etc.

I think it what what it leads to is what we are looking at you know we are kind of backtracking from we are looking at improving the intersection but then we are trying to see how the improvement locally proposing will impact or influence the um operational performance operational improvement overall and safety of course because once this reduces you know the whole thing is you know it's it's the cut through traffic that's contributing to the operational um complexity or challenge what we are facing now.

So I mean, this is just my thinking again, you know, if we do what you're proposing now for the local traffic calming measure that could reduce um the trips that's making the interest making the intersection, and then that'll improve the intersection performance and then improve the safety in turn.

I mean, this is again again again your data will tell.

Yeah, it we we would uh certainly we do think it'll reduce volumes into the neighborhood.

We think that will make any changes we make at that intersection less impactful.

Um reducing the number of drivers coming up that one leg of Gibbons doesn't shorten the crosswalks, it doesn't square off the intersection.

Um so we we still haven't solved for the that problem.

Okay, how about this?

So we recommend we've or endorse as proposed, but seek the data in the midtime midterm data after the phase one are part of the phase one is implemented, and then the data analysis is shown before the pilot gets implemented.

How's that?

Go ahead.

Yeah, I think I was having a similar thought, and I don't maybe staff could help figure out how to word this where it's like we endorse the staff recommendation, um, but add in that uh I don't know.

At a certain time we could choose to um remove the uh pilot uh if felt like it was unneeded at that time.

Um but then this would I guess I'm trying to figure out what the right timing is because I I agree I think we want to see what's going on there.

I I still think the pilot makes sense to do.

Um but it and I understand why we're actually proposing it right now because it's part of this bigger project.

Um I'm just kind of worried that we're gonna get a couple years down the line and realize um it's not needed or that we're doing it the pilot the wrong way or something like that.

So I guess maybe it's more that like I would that um uh like pilot will be modified, like reassessed or something.

I don't know, I'm trying to think about the right term is because I almost want to think about it when like I wanted to come back to us before it actually gets implemented so we can make sure we're doing it the right way.

I don't want to interject too much because you guys discussed, but you know, one option to me would be you could require us to come to you with a plan for the pilot before doing it.

Okay, that sounds good.

Anyone want to make a motion?

So can I propose when I get your two thoughts on this?

I think we're more attention from us and the broader public would be on the on the uh traffic calming treatments.

I think that's what's people have strong feelings about for good reason.

You know, you know, Chair, you've raised some questions, you know.

The city engineer has spoken to issues that will be addressed in design, and I know that's pretty typical for the paving projects.

I wonder if it would be a more productive use of the city's resources and everyone's attention to um direct staff and and or provide some input right now on what form this could take to come up with some um intermediate checkpoints for presenting these the traffic calming features um and hash them out and spend put the put the time towards that, but firmly with the with the um endorsement tonight, firmly commit to the to the plans that city staff have have laid out that do include the change to that intersection.

Um they've what they've presented to us lays the groundwork for that, but I think it's on the traffic calming treatment side of the equation that um more attention, more public input, and our own thoughts in the future can can be productive and actually lead to um something that's better on the ground.

So, how are we narrowing it down to uh recommendation though I mean in terms of our motion sure actually could I ask maybe staff to come up and and just give a a concrete thought of if we were to provide some direction that involved um the in when it fits within the context of the existing project plans to to for us to or for you to publicly to come back to the transportation commission.

I am open to the venue I'm open to the venue I'm also open I I want to put this more on the table for others if it's just staff led engagement with the community I think that would be fine too but I'm mainly just trying to to say that I think the the treatments are what folks care about.

I think tonight we can confidently recommend um the pilot as described as part of this recommendation.

I would prefer that we would I mean and we could reach out to the community in advance and share our plans but I prefer that we would come back to the transportation commission for a recommendation and decision as appropriate.

And I and I say that um you know one of the big takeaways from this community meeting or these community meetings and and similarly the effort that was done in 2012 is that there's a very strong difference of opinion amongst many of the residents and if we just go to the community showing what we have there may be still a expressed difference of opinions and at some point we need a decision about going forward or not going forward.

So um we can certainly reach out to the community and share our our our kind of designs at a at an appropriate level but I would rather come back to this this body so that we can have that public meeting with the community input and then a decision can be made um and and that's you know I mean that's it's a hard decision I recognize that you guys are being put into but that that at least we we come to a decision where we can go forward as opposed to just being you know uh mired in in inverse of the yeah yeah thank you Scott um and I would say if you want to dye from a design standpoint um once we get to about 65% design we have a lot of things kind of figured out but we're not a hundred percent so we still can accommodate uh further input so that would be about the time to do it.

I think you know the the hard job tonight is to make an endorsement on the general game plan.

If you want us to come back or promise to do some kind of more community engagement with the specific designs for say those roundabouts I think that's great.

I think we can do that um but I don't want to ask the same questions again.

Yes.

Yeah yeah because you know yeah we understand they have strongly divided and uh and you may end up in the same position again.

So yeah and just to clarify like I I agree I think we I think it's important for us to be endorsing the and moving forward um personally I think with both the the um traffic calming um work that's been that's been proposed tonight um I think it would be useful clarity for everyone to also endorse the uh the closure the modification to the intersection I'm hearing I I well maybe clarification because on the staff recommendation is to endorse the pilot for the closure not the closure itself right yeah so just want I want I just want to make that clarification.

Yeah yeah no yeah when you say the modification do you mean the pilot or do you mean one of the alternatives?

Um that's I think what we're gonna I think that's what we're hashing out now.

And the per to be honest, the perspective I'm coming from is the amount of research done and the investment proposed in traffic calming should get gives the city sufficient confidence to commit to that plan at this point.

I appreciate.

I just want to be clear on that there are different perspectives on that from everything I've I've said previously in terms of the broader context of equity concerns.

This is a city of 80,000 people.

We have many neighborhoods that need attention.

The amount of interest in the speed hump policy at the last meeting.

Folks coming out of the woodwork just saying they want traffic coming for their neighborhood.

I am I'm gonna be blunt on this.

I this is I and I appreciate that not everyone is in agreement on this, but I think clarity is important that in this case, the city has put a lot of effort into figuring out this intersection.

The city is putting effort into figuring out incremental progress that can be made in this neighborhood.

I appreciate that it may not be a perfect solution, um, but I don't think we should be kicking the can down the road.

I also want to appreciate that others uh um are coming from different may come from different perspectives.

I don't want to put words into others' mouths.

Um I um and uh uh but I'm I'm just gonna be frank about where I'm coming from here.

And so I think you know, if if the general consensus among us tonight, and you know, I've set something out that goes a little further than the staff recommendation.

Um but I do think at a minimum we should be endorsing the staff recommendation.

That does mean committing to the pilot.

So thank you everyone for my extended uh thoughts there.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Derahms, for the 30,000 view.

Um, taking us, you know, take a step back and um look at the broader picture um of the you know the entire city needs and how the staff is focusing on where the resources are spent.

So um coming down to where we are, um, and uh this is my draft uh recommendation.

Let me know how it should be voted.

Um so endorse uh the staff recommendation as uh uh proposed with the interim safety measures, um uh with the bulb out.

Um, I mean, I'd given and uh high end front site, as in A, I'm just going to read out.

I mean I skip that, but um as in the executive summary portion and B roundabouts with the new pedestrian crossings uh inside the neighborhood and uh with the condition that round the comments from be heard will be taken into consideration, and then staff will work on the uh design and appearance of the roundabouts, and um then add um new speed humps as proposed, and uh then the point is point I'm I would like to add is um requiring staff to come present the um our data collection, complete the data collection after the traffic uh calming implementation and the bulbout and then bring it bring the results to the commission.

Um with the recommendation on the um left-town restriction.

And uh we do endorse the left-turn restriction, but we want to see uh the the data, how the data what the data shows is that does it cover everything or uh maybe I okay if I'm hearing you right, and let me know if this is maybe a more succinct way to put the staff the recommendation is that we're we would be uh recommending to endorse the staff recommendation.

Yes, um, with uh requests that staff comes back uh to the committee with uh the uh I guess the plans or designs for the quick build improvements as well as uh staff come back comes back to the committee with um I guess the like plans for the uh turn restrictions before they are implemented.

Does that sound right?

Yeah, I mean they don't need to come back for the speed humps.

Oh yeah, it's pretty straightforward and the bulbout is that's also straightforward.

Oh, sorry, I thought someone had asked them to come back.

Okay, then we can mark we can cross that one off.

That's fine with me.

Yeah, I don't think we need to build again.

And then roundabout, they are good with they can they can take care of it.

We don't need to see them.

Oh, sorry, okay.

I think I misunderstood some of those.

No, no, I'm and but we do need we do want to see their performance in terms of they we want them to do the data collection and analysis and then come to us with the um in presenting the data and also um how they are going to go with the left-hand restriction.

But at this point, we are endorsing it, endorsing the left-hand restriction as well, but with the requirement that staff come to us um uh with the data collection outcome before implementing the pilot.

Uh yeah, I I I can't support something that comes back before the pilot in terms of decision making.

The staff recommendation that we've been offered is is to um endorse that tonight.

Yeah, it's not to commit to something past the pilot.

They they are this is not going to stop change any of their timeline, any of the proposed timeline, they are going to be doing data collection in the middle anyways.

So this will just add one step for them to show it to us before um implementing the left-turn restriction because that's proposed only in 2028.

So, in in time-wise, we are not changing anything, it's not to hamper any or uh, can I make an alternative suggestion?

Yeah, okay.

Which is to endorse the traffic coming as described with um uh staff have the discretion to implement it as broadly as described.

Um the alternative is we could ask staff to return to us after that has been done and we have some more data to make an immediate decision on the long-term solution without the pilot.

How different is what from what I proposed?

Would that interesting proposal?

Does that at least save us some time?

That's interesting idea, Commissioner Going.

Um can I ask staff a concrete question?

Um over the next few years there will be a number of break of defined times when things are happening in this neighborhood.

Uh Scott has mentioned uh repaving.

Um, are there any natural points at which this body could peg some targets against?

Um without encumbering the project.

It's fine if the answer is no.

And I I'm I think I'm struggling a little with your question.

Um the only time that we're definitively going to be back in the neighborhood is 2028.

We're going to be in the neighborhood, obviously, Tilden Clement, which is down the road.

Um, and that's in and the other thing about 2028 is it's it's likely after the bulk of the Oakland Alameda Access project is done and that impacts to citywide traffic.

Um, but we don't have any other kind of major plans in the media area.

Um I think that the next kind of big project in the area that we're looking for is really the long-term grant for the furside project, right?

And um, it's possible we may be able to be successful in a grant in 2026, um, even if we're successful in the grant, it's gonna take some time to marshal up design and work through process and it so it's it'd be a few years out either way.

So that I don't know that there's really any other natural times that we're gonna be in this neighborhood other than a plan for paving on the east end in 2028.

So there's I don't think there's I don't think that should constrain you or should put uh any um pressure one way or another on time.

I don't I think I think we can kind of separate that.

Okay, okay, does that affect your thinking at all, your thought there?

There is only four four words I'm trying to insert here in the recommended um recommendation from the staff report.

Okay.

Um the executive summary, they say after these improvements are installed, staff recommends collecting updated traffic data and conducting a temporary pilot restriction on the intersection.

So my change here is after these improvements are installed, staff rec collecting updated traffic data.

Okay, staff will collect updated traffic data and present it to the transportation commission before conducting a temporary pilot restriction as part of the long-term planning.

I'm not changing anything.

And I guess Commissioner Going had a change to that.

Oh, right, but uh, not necessarily.

That's what I I would be willing to endorse the staff's recommendation this evening, though, unless Commissioner Darrell Abrams has an alternative proposal.

I don't think we want to drag this out any more than it already is.

So I I don't think we need any decision between now and the pilots.

My inclination is we either endorse it as staff has recommended, or to your point, we go further.

But if we are going to go further, we need a proposal on what that should look like.

Um, yeah, I I think staff have given us sufficient materials to have confidence in the in um I believe it's alternative A that was presented in terms of the um you know with a timeline that takes into account the uh implementation, full implementation of traffic calming.

To clarify, alternative A is the permanent turn restriction.

Yes, but um that raises actually the that does um raise a question of the quality of the the build, um, the level of permanence.

I um I will acknowledge you know the I think we're touching on like you know some core questions here.

I am also comfortable endorsing the staff recommendation as presented tonight.

I agree with Commissioner Goyne that I don't think we should add in any additional uh requirements or checkpoints at this point.

I would like to see the data, that's all in the middle.

Um I mean it is not stopping anything, they're going to collect the data and they can present it.

So with the request to um for the staff to come back and then present the data with the traffic coming and uh the bulb bulb out implementation.

They're not going to be doing the left turn restriction for two years anyways.

We can endorse SIS with the request for the staff to be with the request to present the data to the transportation commission after the traffic calming measures are implemented.

What are we um how are we impeding anything with the work here?

We are just doing additional due diligence.

It's not a new data collection anyway.

They are going to be doing the data collection.

I'm concerned that we're we're kicking decisions down the road.

Not at all.

I I'm not proposing that the data be connected.

It's we are endorsing SIS, but they'll be presenting the data as a due process.

After implementing a one of the measures.

Yeah, I guess the way I feel about it is we are not kicking the decision down the road.

We're making the decision today and we're reserving the right to change our mind in a couple years.

But I but I think at the same time I'm supporting the staff recommendation as is.

I would like to see it one more time.

So I'm I'm just concerned that we're that sets up I don't know what what decisions that actually sets up at this point.

Tonight we're being so tonight we're being presented with a combination a combination of investments in traffic calming as well as you know the the proposed change that is being mitigated against like they go together.

Like one without the um the other doesn't make sense.

Yeah this isn't intended neighborhood traffic calming is not the original goal it is it is an integral part now in order to make this overall project um uh not have um unplanned side effects there's value in that it's important to have um but I I I think it's important that the combination be moved forward at the same time um just in terms of decision making even if there's you know different timelines for for implementation um and the and I I acknowledge that that there's there's disagreement and different perspectives on I've spoken to a lot of confidence in the actual intersection plan itself.

Staff have actually put together something tonight that is called a pilot.

I think that if we are going to endorse something we should endorse the combination of the traffic calming investments in the pilot as proposed with any follow up being at the conclusion of the pilot.

Clearly that we have two on two do you have any opinion I think we have to have the data come back here to the to the commission.

We have to we have to I mean this is this is transparency we we have to we have to bring that back here but the people have to see it I just I just think that's what we have to do sausage making that's that's that's what we gotta do.

I do um understand and appreciate your point um commissioner terraum's uh in terms of uh the com combination because we are looking at um tying it with the fern side boulevard improvement, and that's actually started with the interchange intersection improvement, and then kind of we kind of backtracked into the neighborhood, and then now we are focusing on the neighborhood improvement so um but the impact, it's it's because it's uh proposed to be implemented in two parts, and then there seem to be a different impact, and then that could um influence the intersection um performance, and we may have we may go for uh you know not left-hand removal or you know, doing the pedestrian signal.

I mean, we don't know.

We do want to improve that, but you know, at this point, we given the information we um endorse it as this package, but with the request to see the data in the in the middle without um changing any of their timelines.

I I respectfully disagree.

I um I think that if there's going to be this upfront investment made, there needs to be a commitment uh to add a minimum this the pilot and I think the transportation commission and just everyone in general will only be equipped to revisit the topic, not just to like I I honestly don't see this as a I I'm I'm I think it should the topic should only be revisited when there will be options on the table and budget attached to those options.

Um, you know, seeing data at the wrong time isn't doesn't lead to actual decision making.

Uh it can just lead to more uncertainty.

And so I I think that I think what we've been presented with tonight is sufficient to commit to the traffic calming measures as you described with with which I think we've brought more light to.

I think we've really given staff input that they can follow up on to make that better.

Um, you know, the same happens every time we see paving plans.

Like we get to chat it through with Scott and the other engineers, and it comes out better because of that.

Um the the I think there will the combination of the data collection from the pilot is when there will be an operative decision to make again.

Um, and uh and with both change on the ground and relevant uh data in hand.

Can I ask a procedural question?

Sure.

Which is there are five of us here.

How many of us need to agree in order to make a decision?

Majority of the three.

Okay, so we'll have decision one way or another.

But I my preference is you guys could also take more than one action.

You know, if you wanted to separate things out, you could do that too.

I I agree with the point that asking to see the data after the traffic calming does not necessarily slow down the process because it this pilot wouldn't be in 2028 anyway.

But I do tend to agree with Commissioner Dara Owens that in let's say a year's time or whenever that whenever that happens, maybe a bit longer than 18 months, we might have exactly the same meeting again as we've just had right now, and that feels like um uh an inefficient use of both our time, public's time and this and the city's time.

We may be in the same state mate even at that time you're expecting.

Yes.

I and I guess um how I feel is that that may happen at that time, and we may also at that time agree to move forward the pilot.

You know, I absolutely you're right, and to because to me it's just like a like a touch point in between.

Uh, because I agree with um Commissioner Derrick Abrams that the the key is the data we're gonna get after the pilot.

Right.

That is the data we want to see because that's gonna inform an actual bigger project that happens.

Um I think it's just having a touch point in between is would be my preference, right?

I'll also just kind of throw out like we can we can take an action that we you know either vote three to do or we actually just doesn't pass, right?

Like that that happens sometimes.

I'm just yeah.

Yeah, I so I will say I think one of the tensions here is um that I think it's important that the investment in the traffic common be coupled with the longer term decision making.

And I know that's where that for that adds adds complication but I think that is the you know horse in front of the cart is the the infus the excuse me the inter the intersection improvements are the end goal here.

And so I think even if it is more contentious I think that's where the decision making process should be driving towards and that the uh the traffic calming is in support of that but it has to be coupled with that um you know if we just did traffic calming neighborhood by neighborhood that would be amazing but that's not that's not you know staff are gonna go to council and ask for general fund and like oh boy that residual fund balance is the most precious resource in this building so that's not done lightly um and it has to be coupled with in service of the longer term goal of the um the intersection improvements okay we need to make a move move forward because it's almost 11 yeah it's crazy um so I yeah okay please chair go I don't want to interrupt you.

No you had final thought to go ahead I will I'm I am inclined to stay with the what I mentioned but it's like you know I think um Commissioner Kim put it in a nicer way that we just want to have a you know in a touch point in the middle to see uh how the improvements um I mean are performing and then what the data shows and uh it'll it'll reconfirm that okay let's go ahead with the pilot or you know add more to that so um my proposal is to I mean unfortunately we have only five of us and then we are still having like three and two here um so recommend the staff proposal with the requests to bring the data after the implementation of the interim um our first face of traffic calming measures all right that's that'll be my motion but uh okay and clarify so uh staff recommendation here to for the interim improvements and also and for the left term pilot and for staff to bring the uh an interim update before the left term pilot is implemented.

Yes.

Okay.

Um sorry temporary pilot actually yes I'm just gonna be up front and say I I can support that I can support the staff recommendation as presented tonight with with a lot of chair I think you you ticked off a really helpful list of the um the traffic calming improvements that we discussed tonight and I would be extremely supportive of your comments that you were ticking off being included in the motion but um I I feel strongly that you don't want to see the data before you want to see everything only afterwards um after the pilot is I think tonight we should endorse the traffic calming improvements with enriched with some additional thoughts and the and the pilot as recommended by staff.

If you if you are swayed, please weigh in so we can just move on.

Or have you changed your mic?

I don't want to do that.

Yeah, okay.

Sounds like you have the votes.

Okay.

Okay, so I'll make a motion.

All right.

So make the motion to endorse the staff recommendation as is with uh the request that staff come back to this committee before uh the turner search and pilot is implemented with the data.

Yeah, yeah.

And I think I need a second for I'll second.

Roll call.

Okay.

Um all in it can I still say all in favor, say aye.

Chair White, he likes to do it himself, but normally the yeah, the secretary can do it.

All in favor say aye.

I all opposed?

No.

Oh.

Uh okay, very unfortunate.

Sorry.

So that passes.

White three to two.

White C goes one meeting, and this is what happens.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you, Chair.

We still have to like call the meeting to a close and things like that, right?

We are not done.

Don't go.

You're already just commission communications.

Commission commun commissioners, any communication?

Okay, none.

No communication.

Um item eight is uh adjournment.

Um anybody make a motion.

Make a motion to adjourn.

Second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

Good night.

Thank you.