How do we give us a hug As we say, if the balcony's ready, we're all ready.

Um good evening, everyone, and welcome to the City of Alameda City Council meeting tonight is Tuesday, December 16, 2025, last council meeting of the year.

And um we are um about to go into a closed session, but first I want to call this meeting to order.

We're going to start with a special city council and successor agency to the community improvement commission that used to be known as a redevelopment agency meeting.

And I would like to ask the city clerk, Lara Weisinger to please call the role.

Council Member Smaller.

Day Sag.

Here.

Jensen.

Here.

Prior.

Here, Mayor Ezie Ashcraft.

Here.

Thank you.

And then Madam Clerk, will you please introduce the um consent calendar for and this is just for the closed session?

Yes, so you're just designating um negotiators for um the building five twenty-five and the um adding the interim city manager as a negotiator for the um labor negotiations.

Do we perhaps have an item 2A?

Yeah, that's that's what that was.

Oh, it's okay.

It's negotiators.

Yes, yes, okay.

In fact, so um before we take that vote, let me just make an introduction.

Um there's a new face up here um for our last meeting of the year, but he'll be back in the new year.

The city council recently selected unanimously selected Mr.

Adam Pollitzer to be our interim city manager while we conduct the search for a permanent city manager, and he'll have a chance to make his comments later.

He comes to us with lots of experience, and um I know you'll all enjoy getting to meet him.

Um and so anyway, that's that new name that you might not have heard before.

Okay, so we have the the um closed session, the consent calendar for the closed session.

And uh this is a routine item that can be approved by one motion, so I'm looking for a motion and a second.

It's moved by council member bowler, seconded by Vice Mayor Pryor.

All those in favor, please signify by stating I.

Aye, all right.

That must motion passes unanimously.

So Madam Clerk, do we have um public comment on closed session items?

We do.

Evan Philippi.

Welcome, Speaker Philip.

Philippi.

Okay.

Come on up when you hear your name called and just make that microphone the height you need it, gently.

And um, welcome.

Cool.

Thank you so much for the time, uh, honored city council.

I am here representing the Pacific Pinball Museum on item four C, which is regarding building five twenty-five out on the Naval Air Station.

I just want to talk a little bit, uh, appreciate the time and opportunity even to be in contest for that building.

Um we've been in Alameda for twenty-three years.

We're rolling into our 23rd year as a successful nonprofit operating here in Alameda.

And our museum, but truly is a museum of all ages, from kind of five and ten up to ninety and a hundred plus.

So we're really excited to handle multiple generations of folks.

Um we do have dreams of opening the largest pinball museum in the world.

Um, if we have the opportunity, and we really want to share that with Alameda.

We have a significant war chest of almost a million dollars to apply to this effort.

And out of my own kind of personal prejudice of having my kids here living here and having the original museum here, which we would still leave open.

I'm very favored towards expanding in Alameda and making that on the map.

So we really appreciate the opportunity.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Do we have other public speakers on this item, Madam Clerk?

Go ahead and introduce them.

Sadia Katsikoya Koya.

Sorry.

You can help us with that.

And again, make that microphone your own.

Welcome.

Hi, everybody.

My name is Sadia.

I am an occupational therapist, and I am the owner of.

You're lower with the microphone.

Perfect.

And I'm the owner of Swings and Wings Family of Services.

And I'm here to talk about a little bit about how our vision of expansion really is in cohesion with what the city needs right now.

We opened Swings and Wings six and a half years ago with the vision to provide an inclusive space for kids and their caregivers.

And since then, we have experienced a lot of joy from this space and a lot of joy in serving our community.

Um our space provides a combination of therapeutic play, uh, early education and therapy.

And the goal is to provide activities that are developmentally appropriate for kids, and also to reduce the social isolation and to support the mental health of caregivers who might not find appropriate services in the community.

Since the time we have opened, we have shown a steady increase in our revenue and the offerings that we have in the community.

We really are present in the community giving it our all.

We have, you know, we live here, our kids go to school here, we support our local businesses, and we're there in every festival that we can be present on because that is the way that we can really know what our community needs and what we can uh find to support it.

Um really hope that our vision to expand is seen by uh the city as an opportunity for generations to come.

Our vision includes uh building a sensory museum, which is something that the Bay Area uh East Bay especially does not have, and we hope that, you know, this is something that a lot of families in and around Alameda will continue to enjoy for years to come.

And uh I think an important thing is that we are very strong in inclusion, and Alameda is such a family-friendly city, and our hope is that we will really remove the stigma of neurodiversity and bring people together and provide the space for everybody to enjoy.

Our plan is big.

It's gonna take a longer time to get together, but we promise you that it will bring the social uh and the economic development uh with what the city really plans to bring.

Uh thank you so much for the opportunity to let me come and speak to you and for considering a proposal.

Thank you.

Do we have other speakers, Madame?

We have one remote.

Um Miriam Sultan.

Welcome, Speaker Sultan.

Sultan.

Welcome.

Hi, hi.

Hi, my name is Miriam Sultan.

I'm a public educator, and I volunteered with Swings and Wings, and I'm currently pursuing a career in occupational therapy myself.

Um, and through volunteer work, I've seen firsthand the impact swings and wings has on children and families in our community.

I've learned so much from Sadia, Sadia's leadership vision and deep commitment to accessible accessibility, inclusion, and family-centered care.

Her work has been incredible incredibly expi inspiring to me as someone who is hoping to become an occupational therapist, and it reflects the kind of community-based services our families and city needs.

I strongly support Swings and Wings proposal and believe they would be an excellent choice of the space and valuable long term partner to the city and community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any further speakers, Madam Clerk?

That was our last one.

Alright, with that, we will close public comment on the closed session items, and we will adjourn to closed session to consider a whole bunch of things.

Madam Clerk, would you introduce the closed session agenda, please?

For AS Conference of Labor Negotiators pursuant to government code section five four nine five seven point six.6, the city negotiators are the interim city manager, human resources director, Jack Hughes from Liebert, Cassidy Whitmore, uh Assistant City Attorney.

The employee organizations are international association of firefighters local six eight nine and Alameda Fire Chiefs Association.

Under negotiation, our salaries and play benefits in terms of employment.

For B is conference with legal counsel, potential litigation, initiation of litigation pursuant to government code section five four nine five six subsection C.

Number of cases with is one with the city exp uh exposure to litigation.

Potential defendants are Valley Investments, Redwood LLC, DBA, Barn Hill Marina and Boat Yard, Summit Bank and Receivership Specialists.

The city negotiators are the base for use and economic development director and the economic development division director and assistant city attorney.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

She's pretty amazing, is she not?

Um I always want to take a deep breath while you're talking.

I hope you do too.

So as you can see, those are a lot of items, but we will be back before you all right around 7 p.m.

Because that's when the um a regular meeting is scheduled to begin.

We will take however many items.

I think it will be the first two we can accomplish before 7 p.m.

We will go through our meeting, which I'm knocking on wood as I say that because it doesn't look like a long agenda.

So we will finish the entire agenda, regular agenda, and we will go back in and we will complete the remaining, probably the remaining three um items.

So we're gonna do it all to the best of our abilities.

Okay, so with that, um I would like whoever um is uh on staff or or um working with the city on item 4a and the council and staff um everyone in the dias to come on back and we will take up um item 4a first.

All right, thank you everyone.

Come on back.

Those who are involved on 4A, I think that's what I think.

How do we give us a h do we give us a hug All right.

Welcome.

I told the audience seven ten and we need to abide by that.

Okay.

All right.

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the city council meeting.

Tonight is Tuesday, December 16, 2025.

The council has just returned from its first session at closed first closed session session, and we will be back after we finish this meeting, but we're going to finish this meeting first.

Yes.

Do you want me to report on on the two items you've gotten through?

As soon as I finished my sentence, I was gonna call on you.

Oh, thank you.

I'm still conducting the meeting.

Thank you.

So as I was about to say, we have just returned from closed session, which we will finish afterwards.

But I would like to ask our city clerk Laura Weisinger to report out from the two items that we heard, and then um explain what will happen with the other three items and when they will be reported on.

City Clerk on to you.

Thank you.

Sorry about that.

Um item four A was conference of uh labor negotiators and the city council um staff reading information and city council provided direction uh unanimously by five eyes, and four B which was potential litigation, uh staff provided information and council also provided direction unanimously by five eyes.

Uh the three remaining items, which are all uh real property items for building five twenty-five, uh the Alameda Theater, and uh building twenty-two uh once the council the this closed session has been recessed and once the council regular council meeting finishes, the council will return back and then we'll report out on those three after that.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um City Clerk.

So um we're not adjourning, we're just um recessing the um the closed session, and now I'm going to call the um regular city council meeting to order, and I would like to ask our vice mayor Michelle Prior to please lead us in the pledge.

All right.

Uh please rise if you are able.

Thank you, Vice Mayor Prior.

Um, Madam Clerk, do we have any agenda changes?

Do we want to do roll call?

Um sorry, let's do roll call, yes.

Um council members bowler.

Jensen.

Um prior.

Here.

Mayor Ezy Ashcraft.

Here.

This is the last meeting of the year, which makes it sound like I've never done one of these before, but I have.

Um we also have no proclamations or special orders of the day today.

So then we will go on to item four, which is oral communications non-agenda items.

And this is where we will take 15 minutes at the top of the agenda and only for in-person comments.

If we run out of time, there's another opportunity at the end of the closed session.

Madam Clerk, do we have any uh oral communications?

We do.

We have two.

All right.

Uh the first is Brian Kennedy.

All right.

Welcome, Speaker Kennedy.

Good evening and Merry Christmas.

Um, I got good news and bad news.

Tony, Tracy, what do you want to hear first?

All right, you're you're stuck.

You're gonna hear the bad news.

The bad news is it's still up on our website.

This anti-ICE stuff says immigrants know your rights, which they means illegal aliens know your rights.

If you see immigration, custom enforcement, da da da da da da.

What a horrible thing.

What an ugly thing.

Helping out MS 13 and Trendy Raga illegal alien getting bangers.

That's the bad news.

You know what the good news is?

The number is 62,000.

Does that mean anything to any of you, Madam Mayor?

That's the number of little kids that ICE so far has rescued from the child sex trafficking of the cartels.

62,000 little kids.

And we've got this anti-ICE garbage up on our site.

Um, as we all know, during the utterly incompetent Biden uh Kamala Harris administration, the worst administration in the history of the country, over 300,000 little kids were sex trafficked by the cartels into the U.S.

And so far, ICE in one year, one year has rescued 62,000 of them.

That's a good positive thing.

So my question to you is why are we hindering that?

Why are these heroes of ice?

And we've got this anti-ICE stuff.

Come on.

You're not into child sex trafficking, you know?

You guys aren't GMODs, are you?

I didn't think so.

Um anyway, um, that's ugly.

You want to see something, I guess.

Madam Clerk, can you bring up the graphic, please?

This sums up Alameda's sanctuary city policy.

This sums up exactly how ugly Alameda's sanctuary city policy is.

It kills innocent people.

You might have heard of Kate Steine, a little girl on a pier in San Francisco, shot by an illegal alien that was released by Sanctuary City, and Sanctuary City supporters applauded that.

You know what her last words were?

Help me, Dad.

Help me, Dad.

Her father had to watch his daughter die.

I don't want to die, Dad.

I don't want to die, Dad.

Help me, Dad.

And Alameda became a sanctuary city anyway, despite this ugliness.

And Marilyn Ashcraft voted for it.

Marilyn, what if it was your daughter Claire Ashcraft saying, help me, Dad?

Help me, Dad.

Well, if it was, well, maybe I'd be pro-Sanctuary City.

How's it feel?

Huh, Marilyn?

Voting to kill other mothers' children.

Yeah, I'd look down too if I were you punk.

So anyway, um, why don't we get rid of both?

Let's get rid of this anti-ICE stuff.

Let's let the hero of ICE continue to fight the cartels and the fentanyl.

It's the holidays.

Merry Christmas to everybody.

You know who's not gonna have a Merry Christmas?

Angel families.

Like Kate Stanley's mothers, Lakin Riley's mother, Jocelyn Nungary's mother, because they were killed by this garbage that our mother of twins, mayor, she likes to boast to angel moms who don't have kids anymore doing that.

Do the right thing, guys.

Let's make the holidays right.

Let's get rid of both the anti-ICE stuff and the sanctuary city garbage.

Merry Christmas.

Thank you.

And before we go on to our next speaker, I'm just gonna take a moment.

Um, the Okay.

Mr.

Kennedy, sit down and be quiet.

I didn't think I had to read the rules of conduct for a meeting, but let me do just that.

If you continue to interrupt me, there will be consequences.

As I would like to mention to everyone, if you I am calling a break.

We will be back in five minutes.

This meeting is journal proof.

We don't need a five minute break because the disruptor has left, and I judge from seeing you all that the rest of you know how to conduct yourselves.

But what I do want to say for the record is that this is a business meeting where we carry out the business of the city of Alameda.

And I always want this to be a forum where f people feel comfortable and safe in expressing their views.

The First Amendment of the Constitution, and the reason it is the first amendment to our nation's Constitution is that our founding fathers, and yeah, they were all fathers, but um they felt felt that it was so important to protect the right of free speech, to protect the right of assembly, to protect the right to practice your religion.

And that's what we're doing.

Not religion, but we're some people think politics is religion, but we're we're practicing our free expression of speech.

Now you all have the right to come up and share your views.

We don't have to agree with each other.

That is the value of this system of democracy that we're fighting for that we live under.

Sometimes we hear things that are abhorrent.

I will say personally, using my child's name in public that way.

I'm very proud of my children, but I did not appreciate that sort of use of um of my child's name.

Nonetheless, that is the speaker's right.

But I want you to know that there are standards that 99% of the time, the people who come before this body abide by, and I appreciate it because it just makes it that safe space where we can share our views, we can agree, we can disagree, but we listen to each other respectfully.

Um, and I just want you to say that just because someone says something in this body, no one swears to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Um, when they talk to us, they just express their opinions.

We don't have to agree with them, but we do honor their right to do so.

What I expect and require for those who come before this body is just civility.

So I like to say just treat people the way you would like to be treated, and 99% of you do.

With that, I believe we have another or more than one just one more.

Okay, oral communication.

Matt Riley Mahaney.

Why don't you raise that microphone just a little for you?

Yeah.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, members of the city council, and city manager.

My name is Matt Riley Mahaney, and I live at nineteen eighty-two Kaufman Parkway, directly across the street from Tillman Park and Bay Farm Elementary.

I speak here tonight on behalf of my wife, my mother-in-law, and my concerned neighbors to urgently request that this council address the driving dangers that are making our neighborhood a collision risk for all residents who use our parks and streets.

Just this past Saturday morning at 5 26 a.m., our family and other neighbors were all shaken awake by a car crash outside our home.

A distracted driver who reportedly was reaching for a water bottle, crashed into our parked car so hard that her SUV flipped.

This confirms the high severity of these collisions, which could easily have been tragic for a pedestrian.

This section of Kaufman Parkway is a high traffic corridor used by a diverse group of children, parents, cyclists, senior citizens, and park goers.

It is a primary access point for Tillman Park, which hosts recreational sports, family gatherings, and is utilized daily, as well as being one of the primary drop-off and pickup spots for Bay Farm elementary, despite the fact that it is not designated as one.

The combination of distracted driving and high vehicle speeds puts every pedestrian at risk.

The repeated serious natures of these accidents demonstrate that this is an unsafe public street that requires immediate traffic calming interventions.

Council, we have a critical safety gap here.

Currently, there are no speed bumps, flashing school zone signs, no properly marked crosswalks, and rarely any traffic enforcement along this traffic corridor.

In all of your email inboxes, you'll find a copy of the speech as well as a current screenshot of Google Maps showing this on Coffin Parkway.

We are not asking for a study, we are asking for an immediate and visible traffic calming solution.

We suggest three solutions: speed bumps, high visibility crosswalks, and enhanced traffic enforcement.

Therefore, I respectfully request that a member of the city council move to refer this public safety issue to the city manager's office for a full assessment and placement on a future council agenda for action and funding.

We need intervention before a member of our community is severely injured or worse yet killed.

I play basketball at Bay Farm Elementary almost every evening before dinner.

And it is rare for me to not see a speeding vehicle while crossing the street from our home.

Thank you so much.

And we'll see the rest of your statement in our inboxes.

Thank you.

All right, and that was the extent of our okay.

And with that, we will close um oral communication non-agenda items, and we will move on to the consent calendar.

These are routine items that will be approved by one motion unless council members remove items for discussion and any pulled uh consent calendar items will be heard after our regular agenda items.

Council members can speak for up to three minutes.

So, first, are there any items on the consent calendar that anyone on the council wants to pull?

Do my bobblehead thing and seeing none.

Okay.

Um, any council questions on any consent calendar items?

Councilmember Jensen.

Thank you.

I have a question on item four five.

Sorry.

Um, no, I actually I don't have any questions.

No, okay.

Anyone else?

Okay, and then um uh the city clerk is going to make an announcement about a hearing.

Um take it away, please.

City clerk.

Thank you.

Um, there is a public hearing on the consent calendar, which is to consider amendments to the community development block grant action plans for fiscal years 2019 20 through 2024-25.

Um, and authorize the intermittent manager negotiate documents.

So now is the time for public comment on this hearing.

And that would be item five.

And as in neighbor.

Okay.

Um, okay.

So are there is we call for any speakers on this item?

There are no speakers.

No speakers.

Okay, there are no speakers on the consent calendar at all.

No.

All right, then I will close public comment on the consent calendar.

Council want to make any comments on the consent calendar, or otherwise, I'm looking for a motion in a second.

I'll make a comment.

Please, Councilmember Jensen.

If I could, um, I would just like to comment uh with um appreciation and support for several items on the consent calendar.

On the consent calendar are um two items for construction of the re-location of the day center of for the city of Alameda, and um I've I've asked some questions, so I didn't bring this up in questions for on the consent, but item number five uh F and 5G have to do with authorizing construction and for the new day center project, which will serve the um residents of Alameda to provide support and social services for us, especially for unhoused Alameda residents, but for all residents who might need um social services, and this is I'm I'm excited to support this.

I appreciate that these are both on the agenda, and um, that these services are being provided and continue to be provided at um Alameda Point as we move forward with the reshape project and the and the relocation of of a number of of supportive housing at Alameda Point.

I also want to point out that the other item is 5H that could be considered bundled with these two is to execute a fourth amendment to the agreement with the village of love for emergency shelter services shelter services at the um Alameda Alameda Day Center and so these are all taken together, these are all just expressions I think and and visible support for what Alameda is doing, what our assistant city manager and others are doing to provide support for unhoused residents and to expand the services available.

And I want to wholeheartedly approve this, and I'll make the motion to approve the consent calendar.

Great.

Any other comments?

Second okay, we've got a motion by council member Jensen to approve the consent calendar, seconded by council member bowler.

Any further comments seeing none, all those in favor, please signify by stating aye.

Aye.

All right.

So the consent calendar passes unanimously.

We have no item uh no agenda items under um item six, and we would move to the regular agenda, but we have none because um we have none.

So um we are going to go right on to number eight, which is city manager communications, and it is my pleasure to once again introduce and call on our new interim city manager, Adam Paulitzer.

Welcome.

Thank you, Mayor, and uh thank you, council members.

Um I uh saying this out loud to the team.

This is day number six, and uh I can't tell you how welcome I have felt by the council by the uh the staff here at Alameda and the community.

Um I've been telling people that Alameda is a unicorn city.

It's magical.

I like that.

There's a lot of things you all are doing that are quite impressive and incredible, and that starts with your staff.

Uh you have incredible experienced staff here that really give uh great advice and expertise and recommendations to this council, and then you have a council that works really well together, and you can watch councils throughout the Bay Area, let alone the rest of the country, and that's not always the case.

So just a big congratulations to this team.

Um, thank you for the incredible welcome that I've received from you all uh and members of the community.

I've been to several events now and have just felt really um really welcomed by various community leaders and then uh just the residents um of Alameda as well.

Um my office is available.

I would like to hear and see um what's going on, and so I've shared that with staff.

The best thing you all can do is get me out of my office so I can see what's going on and be as helpful as possible, and the same with the community.

Reach out uh to my office and and um while I'm here serving as your interim, the best thing I can do is learn everything I can so that as I hand the baton to your next city manager, I'm able to share my insights and and my advice for them on their continued success.

So I'm I'm very honored to be here leading this team and just want to thank you again for the warm welcome.

Thank you, and we are pleased to have you here.

Um Mr.

Paulitzer came to us after serving for 13 years as the city manager of the city of Sausalito, and then after he retired, he has spent a number of um uh time uh as the interim city manager in other cities in the Bay Area, including our not too distant neighbor Emoryville.

So we are delighted to have him, and yes, he has um he's been drinking from a fire hose.

He joined us at the um minora lighting at uh Hall Circle Park on the chili Sunday evening this past weekend, um, and more that we'll talk about when we do council um council uh comments, but we're very happy to have you.

And so then we move on to item nine, which is our second round of oral communications.

But I'm guessing since we didn't fill the slot before, we don't have any.

So then we move to um council referrals, and we have two this evening, and the first one is 10A.

Madam Clerk, would you introduce that, please?

Consider adoption of resolution supporting Caltrans Interstate 580 truck access safety study and state legislation to enable fair use of East Bay Freeways, including directing staff to work with study partners to expand the project study area to include impacted parts of Alameda.

And this item was placed on the agenda at the request of Councilmember Jensen.

All right, so with that, I will turn the um the meeting over to Councilmember Jensen.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I um do have a slide here.

The there's um, as many of you may know, and some of you may not know, there are two north-south highways, freeways running through Alameda County running adjacent to um to our city.

One's a little bit further away, and that's Highway 580 with the uh yellow or an orange line, and the other is Highway 880, which runs directly and sometimes within a quarter mile of Alameda.

And the study that Caltrans and the City of Oakland, along with partnerships with Dublin San Leander, Oakland, Amoryville, Alameda, and other cities that run through both 880 and 580, the study will determine what first of all the health effects of having the semi-trucks that run along 880, the health effects of nearby communities, and then address whether or not there should be a change which would allow trucks either on all or partial portions of highway 580, which is the orange line.

And my referral is to first of all, let me say thank you to city staff and um former city manager Jen Ott, as well as transportation uh staff Lisa Foster is um part of the technical advisory committee for this study.

So we we are already working on this.

The City of Alameda is already partnering with Caltrans and with Oakland to address these issues and to identify options.

What I have why I've introduced this proposal is to ask my colleagues and to direct city staff to re to work with the study coordinators to ask this.

Would be Lisa Foster of City Staff, Transportation Manager, and um Alan Ty, Planning Building and Transportation Director, to work with the study directors, which is Caltrans mainly, and to change the boundaries of the study.

And so if you look at the map here, you can see, and I'll ask Rosalita to show the boundaries.

The blue line that is being shown by the cursor is the boundary of the study.

And so the study will look at all of the areas above that, all of the areas inside the boundary, including Bay of Farm Island, the airport, and most of Alameda County, all the white areas that are included, not even the airport, just Bay Farm Island.

So all of the white areas are part of the study area.

But what is striking to me about this is that the most proximal areas of potential or of pollution for Alameda are the areas along the northern waterfront along the estuary, the areas, and I happen to live near the High Street Bridge, and I hear and can often see traffic from nearby my home if I'm walking the dog because 880 is very close there.

So what I'm asking is to direct staff to work with Caltrans to adjust the boundaries to include the northern waterfront of Alameda in the study area.

Thank you.

Um and Councilmember Jensen, I oh, Madam Clerk, do we have any uh public comment on this item?

Okay.

So we'll close public comment on it.

But um I had the opportunity to speak to Tony Tavares, who is the executive director of the Alameda County Transportation Commission and um former executive director of Caltrans statewide, and of course I'm the vice chair of Alameda County Transportation Commission, and I discussed your um a council referral with him, and uh Mr.

Tavaras directed me to the Caltrans website that it explains that Caltrans is conducting this interstate 580 truck access study to answer the following questions.

How would removing uh the truck weight restriction?

I aka track ban on 580 affect safety efficiency, reliability, and traffic speed along the I 880 and 580 corridors, and how would this change impact public health equity for nearby communities?

So a study is already going on.

I understand you want it to expand it to include certain areas of Alameda.

My suggestion is and Mr.

Tavaras also emphasized that there's nothing immediate about this because this would take a change in legislation, state legislation, and so right now there's not even a bill.

So it's nothing that the council needs to act on now this year, but shortly after the beginning of the new year, we are going to do a priority setting workshop.

And I think that this would be an excellent topic to include because right now I wouldn't want to see transportation staff taken away from projects they're working on, including some traffic calming, and we heard some very sobering remarks about some others that might be needed.

Um and so the um and again right now the majority of truck traffic I understand is going to and from the ports.

The logical routing is really 580, but this study is underway.

I don't think tonight we need to direct staff to do anything other than to bring this back for consideration in our priority setting workshop.

That would be my preference.

Um because again, we have only so much bandwidth with our staff, especially our transportation staff.

Um last year we weren't able to pursue some grant funding we were invited to apply for because the city manager said we just didn't have enough bandwidth in our transportation staff, and that affects us right here right now.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.

Um any others from council members, Councilmember Desox.

Yes, thank you.

Um this is uh um interesting topic, um, one in which I think the city of Alameda needs to um move very uh carefully, if not cautiously.

Um the matter of um truck traffic on 580 is a controversial matter um in some parts of Oakland and some parts of Oakland, it is not a controversial matter.

Um, because and so we need to be cautious as to um uh how we insert ourselves in um Oakland affairs for the reason that we need to be caught, we would you know likewise be cautious should the should the city of Oakland insert themselves into Alameda affairs.

Um so I don't mind um this coming back to us, but but I do uh would I would hope that that care um is given um to to that um frame.

Um so thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Roller, anything from you?

Okay, vice mayor.

Um, I you know what uh council member Daysog just uh I it just got me thinking um about when we were talking about timing, and then I I was thinking what would the consequences be uh of the of the findings of this report.

So I I think um I think it's interesting.

Um I think it's worth looking at, but I think to the mayor's point, I think it would be to discuss it at our priority session just so that we could figure out I don't know just how to work this into the calendar.

Um that's all.

Like I sorry, I don't have strong opinions either way on this one.

I just think that um it sounds important, but I think it's not urgent.

All right, Councilmember Jensen back to you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Thank you for talking to um Caltrans.

I appreciate that, and I wonder if Mr.

Tavars advised you of how much staff time would be required for um to provide input regarding the changing the boundaries.

How much Alameda staff plan?

We did not discuss that.

But you I thought I heard you say that this would be burdensome for staff.

Well, you're suggesting a whole new study that's not currently being done.

I'm sorry, I that's not what I'm suggesting at all.

I'm suggesting that our current staff who's on the technical advisory committee work with the Caltrans study, which is actually going on now to answer the following questions.

The study's going on now, and I uh uh I apologize, I'm not on the trans the MTCT or I don't work closely with Caltrans like you do, but I just happen to see this study going on, and I recognize that it unfortunately, although the study says that the objective is to um change to improve public health equity for nearby communities, but yet the nearest community, as you can see from the map to the the 880 freeway is Alameda, and it's not included in the study.

So my concern and my reason for bringing this forward is because as the study points out, the impact on the public health equity of nearby communities is the is what is being studied, and Alameda is actually the nearest community to 880.

I think ignoring any public health consequences of the current truck truck usage on 880 and ignoring any public health impacts in Alameda is just not effective.

I see that Bay Farm Island is included in the study area, and maybe you were part of that discussion to include Bay Farm Island, but and maybe Mr.

Tavarros expressed to you why Bay Farm Island is included, but nowhere else in the city of Alameda, it can't be because Bay Farm Island is closer to either 880 or 580.

So to your point, there wouldn't be additional staff time.

It would not be burdensome, and I would just ask that staff be directed to work with Caltrans with Mr.

Tavares or whoever is running the study to ensure that Alameda's public health and the adjacent neighborhoods that are impacted by this traffic on Highway 880 and the airborne consequences of that.

By the way, I didn't mention that the um California Air, or excuse me, the local air quality board is part of the project as well.

So that's why one of the main the main objectives is to address the public health issues here.

So I apologize if I wasn't clear if if it wasn't clear that this is a public health study, and Alameda is the closest community, and I was just asking for some support for um addressing the issues that our residents are impacted by.

And Councilmember Jensen, I would prefer that you not mischaracterize what I said.

I was not talking about ignoring anything.

What I would like to ask from my colleagues is a motion to add three minutes of speaking time to this because I'm almost out, and I'd like to give a little further explanation.

So moved.

Second.

All right.

All those in favor, please signify by stating aye.

Aye.

Um was that five eyes?

Yes, okay, thank you.

So Councilmember Jensen, I'm sorry, I wasn't clear enough.

What this study is doing, and I know you've looked at the website, and you know that in the past there have been attempts to remove the truck ban from I 580.

They've been unsuccessful, but never before until now has there been a study undertaken to justify that no, the traffic could still move along, why it is the air quality in the area, and the my understanding and from reading the website is that it is understood and assumed that I-880, the IA80 corridor that passes Alameda, although I will hasten to add that there's a lot more communities that have more residential exposure than Alameda.

I'm concerned about all of them.

I represent the 14 cities of Alameda County on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.

But the assumption is this change needs to be made.

This is the fifth time out of the gate.

This time they're trying to do the study of the 580 corridor.

It is, I think it is already understood and assumed that communities along 880 are bearing too much of that burden.

The traffic, the air quality, the you know, idling, the fumes and all that.

So it is fine if staff wants to, you know, when they're attending, you're right.

Our transportation staff are on the technical advisory committee for the Alameda County Transportation Commission.

It's fine if they want to say, oh, well, what's the what's the impact on Alameda?

I will tell you from the six speakers we had at ACTC last week.

They were all from 580, and they're all very vociferously opposed to having trucks on 580.

And I think that's the the kind of that those are the issues that the people who are going to make this decision, or whoever's going to carry this legislation are going to be considering.

I um, and I don't need to get into all their arguments, but it is what I'm trying to say is no one is ignoring the impacts of the residents and uh along 880.

It's just that what they need to show is yeah, we could make this change on 580, and it wouldn't be a big deal because it has been opposition from residents in that area that has kept this from happening over the the last decades that these attempts have been made.

That is what I was trying to say.

Thank you.

And I I appreciate that and I want to just let everyone know that I'm not taking any position.

Um, Councilmember Desag pointed that out.

I know that this has been a um it's come up several times since 1972 or whenever 1960s when when 580 was was first established, but I I don't I'm not taking a position or asking the council or asking staff to take a position.

I'm just requesting since staff is already part of the technical advisory commit committee for the study that staff work with the study leaders to expand the boundaries to include Alameda.

I there must be some reason that Bay Farm Island is included to your point because it's not nearby either 580 or 880, and um also the the extended parts of San Leandro are included along the shoreline and as well as Berkeley and Emerybill that are nowhere near 580.

So I I I can't really um understand why we can look at this map, and if you put the map back up, I appreciate that, but why Alameda seems to have just been the main island of Alameda just seems to have been completely overlooked as we look at the study, which would address impacts on public health equity for nearby communities.

And if nearby communities only means highway 580, and this is something that you with all due respect, you may have more, you obviously have more information than I do.

With because you're on the MCCT and because you are um closer to the the Caltrans director, but if that's the case, then I would just like to get an explanation, and perhaps that's all I would direct staff to say.

Why are all these other further away cities part of the study, but yet Alameda, which is the closest city seemingly to both 880 and 580 is overlooked.

I have a suggestion before we direct staff one way or the other.

Um I would be happy to have a discussion with Caltrans to get that question answered.

I um I know the current director, I know the D4, we're in District Four director.

Um I would be happy, and even working with our interim city manager to get those questions answered.

I'm a I'm a little hesitant about directing staff to tell the study authors that they want to expand the study.

I just I'm a little hesitant about that.

I think maybe we just need a fuller um understanding of this study.

Um that would be my suggestion.

That would be I would totally accept that proposal, and I would like to be part of that discussion as well.

So if I could join you with Caltrans with the your um colleagues, and I would have been happy to discuss this with you anytime before this meeting.

I just didn't know if you discussed it with anyone else.

Um, so do we even need a motion, or can we just agree that we'll work offline to do this?

That's fine.

I don't need a motion.

Okay, yeah.

Let's uh let's talk offline.

Council member, I would be happy to do that.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Okay.

Moving on, Madam Clerk, our second council referral.

Yes, that is item 10B, which is consider directing staff to analyze and make recommendations regarding establishing a 15 mile per hour speed limit for bicycles and e-bicks on city owned paths and parks.

And this item was placed on the agenda at the request of Councilmember Daysong.

Councilmember Days, the floor is yours.

Oh, okay.

Well, thank you very much.

Um, because I have five minutes, um, I'm gonna kind of talk fast.

Um, I put together a presentation explaining why I believe the city of Alameda, the council uh working with staff needs to consider um implementing a 15 miles per hour speed limit on enclosed bike paths for all bikes, including e-bikes, scooters as well.

Um what inspired this uh uh topic was uh article two weeks ago that was in the New York Times, and here I presented uh the uh cover of the New York Times Sunday magazine.

Um, and it we were apprised of it through an email um uh from Lori Lori Zupan, former uh planning board member.

So I want to uh shout out and make sure to say thank you very much.

Next page.

And one key feature of that um uh newspaper article that really caught my mind was this statement where on a pedal bike the chance of dying from an injury is about three-tenths of one percent, Alfrey said.

On an e-bike, the data indicated it was 11 percent.

Next page.

So reading that and realizing that I have observed on times, um, I believe to be middle school children riding really quickly on what I do at least to be class two e-bikes um through Cruzy Park.

It led me to believe that you know we should really consider um a speed limit.

Now, why 15 miles per hour, you might ask?

I put together a list that demonstrates that the typical daily commuter travels at a rate of 12 to 15 miles per hour.

Someone who considers himself or herself an intermediate fitness rider travels at a rate of typically 15 to 18 miles per hour.

So 15 miles per hour seems a bit right.

Now, I got this from the well the the um website, uh a website, and so the question is well, maybe it maybe it's off.

Um now, and I do want to point out below that it says that someone who is an advanced rider, like someone who's on a tour de France cyclist, they will travel at 25 miles per hour to just tour de France cyclists and at sprint speed, they'll travel 40 miles per hour.

And that kind of gives you a magnitude of how fast bicycles.

Now, this is pedal pound bicycles, not not not um, but the the issue is are these numbers right?

Is the um daily commute 12 to 15 average or the intermediate fitness fitness um 15 to 86 correct?

Well, next slide.

Um I'll remind you of the movie in 1978, uh breaking away, um, where there's a youthful bicyclist um who would uh drive uh ride his bike down the highway um outside of Bloomington.

Um great movie, by the way.

And then in one scene, he's um driving uh behind a truck rate.

And here, and he's an advanced cyclist, and here the truckers are demonstrating four, which is he's traveling 40 miles per hour.

So this kind of next slide.

Uh next slide.

Okay, so this kind of tells you next slide.

So this kind of tells you that these numbers are correct.

And in fact, we just received an email uh today uh from an individual who said that he had just purchased a speedometer to see how fast he, you know, what his rate of speed is in traveling, and 15 miles per hour seemed to be the right thing.

Next slide.

And it appears that East Bay Regional Park itself has a 15 miles per hour speed limit uh for e-bikes on its um uh trails.

Next slide.

Um, and we'll just go to the next slide.

So my observations given my limited time is one, the proposed 15 miles per hour limit is aligned with a practical and statutory limits of class one and class two bikes whose electricity induced speeds tops at 20 miles per hour.

Um, two, the proposed speed limit of 15 miles per hour is aligned with the typical pedal powered commuter bicyclists or the pedal-powered intermediate fitness.

That was the data that I showed you about the typical speeds at which bicyclists ride.

And three, the 15 uh miles per hour limit is also aligned with what East Bay Regional Park has.

And now the most pressing reason why I believe that we do need to look at um uh speed limits has to do with class two bikes.

With class two bikes now will be probably the only e-bikes that have a throttle device because going forward, class three bikes are no longer allowed to have throttle devices.

So the problem with throttle devices, next slide, is that they are easily circumvented, and here is uh uh something from YouTube showing you how you can change an all uh a class two bike to allow it to go faster than the 20 mile per hour limit.

Um so that's why I think next slide that we need to uh consider a 15 mile per hour speed limit.

The end.

All right.

Um thank you for that.

Madam Clerk, do we have public comment on this item?

We do.

Three, okay.

Um any clarifying questions before we go to our public comment.

Okay, um, let's call our first public commenter.

Uh huh.

Tishan, um, yeah, I can do that.

Welcome.

Good evening.

It's amazing to see you at item 10 at 7.56.

Don't jinx it.

Um Tony, thank you.

Thank you for uh the concern for safety on this matter.

Um, though I am writing and talking uh against this proposal because I think it will actually have some inverse effects.

Uh I am probably a single car family bike uh family.

Uh there's many of us on the island that these electric bikes have allowed us to be single car uh single car families.

And um the throttle maxes out at 20, which as a parent feels actually pretty safe with my kids in the back to go down things like the cross alameda trail.

And I think that's if anything, that's the big thing that I hear a lot of my friends have concern around is that that is the backbone, an amazing backbone that just got connected, uh, that allows us to go across the island and going slower would hurt commutes and hurt uh our ability to get around the island if we were to just get it down to that 15 miles.

So my push on this would be consider all the gains that we've made by people adopting these bikes because they have been such a great new vehicle.

Um, and that yes, those safety concerns are real, but I think it's around the bike, like that that image on on the cover was very much a different class of bike.

It effectively is a motorcycle.

Um, and I think our efforts would be better spent on ensuring that our speed limits in general are uh being enforced, and even things like uh delivery trucks and cars in bike lanes.

That's another issue that uh as a bike list I feel quite a bit.

But thank you, uh counsel, for this consideration.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, Mitch Ball.

Welcome, Speaker Ball.

Hello, hello.

I think this is a decent referral, but could use some revision for implementation.

First off, I think we just need to acknowledge that the problem we're trying to solve here is not e-bikes.

E-bikes have a strict legal definition.

While some of these two-wheeled vehicles that are putting children into others in danger have pedals, they do not fit this definition.

These dangerous vehicles are either not e-bikes or at point of sale or are designed to be easily modified with aftermarket motors or easily hacked to disable software controlled speed limits.

They're at this point legally mopeds or motorcycles that are being ridden without proper licensing and registration.

Now, given that Alameda can only do so much to limit what people could buy online, I appreciate that speed limits are something that Alameda has the capacity to do.

I do not own a car or an e-bike.

For my day-to-day life, I own a regular bike that does not naturally inform you of your speed.

So when I learned about this referral, I got concerned that I had the potential to be breaking the law without realizing it.

So in order to learn what 15 miles per hour on a bike truly is, I took a trip to the new Greenway Pilot on Pacific Avenue.

Great job, by the way, to Alameda bicycle to purchase a bike speedometer.

The first thing I learned when I installed my speedometer is that my natural speed on residential streets like 9th Street is between 12 to 15 miles per hour.

I think this speed is a reasonable maximum for shared multi-use paths in parks as described in A1B through C.

In my opinion, going faster than this on these spaces shared with pedestrians would be inconsiderate, reckless, and dangerous.

If enforcement needs a new tool in addition to current tools to protect pedestrians in these areas, then I take no issue with it.

You do not need a speedometer to know going faster than 15 miles per hour on a pedestrian shared path is too fast.

What I do take issue with is 15 miles per hour limit on bike designated paths as described in A1A.

What I learned with my speedometer is that I naturally go up to 20 miles per hour while commuting on the cross Alameda Trail.

Additionally, when I bike for the purpose of exercise rather than getting to work, I can even reach up to 25 miles per hour on long stretches like Gene Sweeney Park and Ralph Epozzetto Parkway.

I did not know as a professional, but thank you.

Um I've never considered this to be unsafe as this is bike dedicated infrastructure with very high visibility and bidirectional striping to prevent head-on collisions with other cyclists.

People have been safely riding non-motorized pedal bikes at these speeds for decades.

So it's no different if those who ride bikes want to match these speeds.

As a final point, the cross Alameda Trail transitions between bike lanes and bike paths at many locations.

But other than the presence of a median, these sections look no different.

There are even sections of bike path that have signs labeling them as bike lanes, such as the section west of entrance street.

This is not really a big deal unless different laws are applied to bike paths and cyclists are tricked into exceeding the speed limit.

Well, multi-use paths are both for bikes and pedestrians.

Bike paths and bike lanes are designed for bikes, and the law should reflect this.

Lastly, before any final decisions are made on this topic, I strongly encourage council members to do what I did and get a bike or any bike with a speedometer and learn what 15 miles per hour on different pieces of bike infrastructure truly means.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, uh Cindy Johnson.

Welcome.

And this is a remote speaker, I think.

Yes.

Welcome, Speaker Johnson.

Good evening, Mayor Z Ashcraft, and members of the council.

I'm speaking on behalf of Bike Walk Alameda to reinforce points in our letter.

While a 15 mile per hour speed limit is appropriate for shared use paths where people walking and biking mix, we oppose applying the same limit to bidirectional dedicated bike paths like the cross Alameda Trail.

Traveling faster than 15 miles per hour is not uncommon and generally safe even on a standard bicycle.

Criminalizing that this everyday behavior risks undermining the city's goal of encouraging biking as daily transportation.

We very much share the concern about e-modos.

Motor vehicles that are often unfortunately incorrectly conflated with e-bikes, even in the article that was attached to the referral.

An important step our city could take would be to support state legislation that clearly distinguishes legal e-bikes from electric mopeds and motorcycles and restricts devices that don't fit any legal category.

Our city should also create clear, accurate public messaging to address the confusion.

Biking Spay is a great resource offering education services and helpful guidance around changing legislation, among other things, and we strongly encourage taking advantage of their services and support.

Finally, we urge the city to keep limited transportation planning and enforcement resources focused on the behaviors that have historically been the primary cause of traffic violence in Alameda.

Motorist failure to yield, unsafe vehicle speeds, and dangerous turning.

Last year, Alameda saw 11 severe fatal traffic injuries.

While bicyclists were overrepresented in the injuries, speeding by people biking was not a factor in those incidents.

Their engagement with cars was.

We encourage the city to remain guided by data and by the priorities in our vision zero and active transportation plans.

Thank you so much for your consideration.

Thank you.

Our next speaker.

Michael Sullivan.

Welcome, Speaker Sullivan.

Hi, Mayor and Council.

I just want to make a couple comments on this.

One is I'm not sure if there's anyone who's a bicyclist on the um uh not a uh uh athletic bicyclist on the uh council, but that uh breaking bad picture that Councilmember daysog showed.

Uh, that uh that um bicyclist was drafting behind the truck.

So, you know, in drafting is when the the the um space behind the truck pulls the bicyclists along.

So that's not really an indication of what an a person could do on a bicycle without being behind a big truck like that um and it from the chart it seems like 15 miles an hour was kind of the average speed of bicyclists so I mean if we were gonna set a limit it should be the max speed not the average because now you're gonna force everyone to go with the average the same speed as the average bicyclist could do um and then lastly um you know how would this even be enforced uh it's hard enough to get tickets for parking and bike lane violations uh I could see spending money on putting signs up with speed limits and um but it it just seems like it'd be very hard to enforce this um I'd rather see signs be put up on bike lines saying you know no parking in the bike lane so uh that was it for me thank you thank you do we have any speakers okay we will um thank you speakers we will close public comment and if I could lead on this one again again um I appreciate my colleagues bringing these referrals on topics that you know are important to them this is one where I also would suggest that we punt it over to our priority setting workshop see you know do we have the band bandwidth to look into this but even more important and I hope you all I think we're all members of the League of California Cities because just today there was an email that announced a round table that League of California cities is um presenting I've registered for it I hope you will too it is on e-bike regulation and this is January 20th at 11 a.m.

I'll forward the email if you all didn't get it.

But they and they asked us um to not only share with your um councils but also with code enforcement with your police department I sent it off to um to all those folks and chief josh she already said that he's having someone from his traffic division attend but the the um this is a roundtable discussion on e-bike laws enacted local ordinances and potential state legislation because when I was just down in Southern California I guess Palm Springs that's pretty southern huh um but for a league board of directors meeting we did hear that there's potential um legislation coming to Sacramento about this topic because communities all over the state are grappling with it but it does say cities across California are experiencing rapid growth in e-bikes e-motorcycles and other micromobility um devices anyway that this is something that will the topics include uh e-bike laws current California e-bike laws and recently enacted legislation local authority and constraints enforcement and safety challenges uh city case studies and then there'll be peer discussion and QA and uh one of our League of California cities lobbyists um uh will be the moderator so I would like us to all learn more about this we don't need to reinvent the wheel we could see what other communities are doing but as far as giving direction for giving staff direction to do something now the last meeting of the year I kind of like to put it over to the closer to the beginning of the year um let's all attend this webinar but then let's let's add it to our list of potential priorities in our priority setting um workshop those are my thoughts who wants to go next vice mayor yeah I I agree I think base I think um members of the community made a lot of really good points um I think the bigger concern is um the people that are using the bikes that are kind of they're pseudo bikes but they're really motorcycles or mopeds I think that's really the bigger safety issue um but I think yeah a lot of individuals do probably go 15 miles an hour um I I grew up going to a bike path.

I lived it I grew up in Los Angeles and so I just I use bike path a lot um and people go really fast.

This is before electric bikes were invented um so I I I just by anecdotal experience I think 15 miles an hour is pretty low on a just for a bike bike um so I I would hesitate to put limits um based on the information I think somebody said we should have more data and I I agree.

I think this is this is something that we can look into in the future.

I don't think it's a I just think based on the information we have I would hesitate to put a 50 miles per hour uh bike limit um speed limit on bike paths and that's it thank you um council member Jensen thank you and I I appreciate this as well um council member daysaga I keeping bicyclists almost known as a bicycle friendly city we're a flat city where we've we've welcomed bicycles we've tried to have um bicycle charging we've tried to expand bicycle parking and um we have our ferries that welcome bikes so I I think that that our attention to this is really really necessary but I would also say um to one collar's point give some other numbers with there last year or in this year in 2025 there have been about 60 60 bicycles colliding with either mostly with vehicles in fact there have been several maybe two or three bicycle bicycle collisions but I just looked at November and in November of the eight collisions that happened involving bicycles seven of them were bicycles and vehicles seven were vehicles hitting bicycles and one was a solo bicyclist I don't know if they were on an e-bike if they were oh well maybe they were going too fast but you know these things are are really important to address and really important to to respond to whether or not right now we should uh establish or adopt a um uh a provision that would establish a a certain limit to all bicyclists on on most paths I'm not sure about that I I would think that um like in your presentation maybe starting with ARPD and saying you know whether or not you can be cited for riding uh e-bike through a park and I'll just also point out that um in my it I notice and I see that at Lincoln Park there are lots of kids who ride through the park on regular bikes and on e-bikes and you know it could be a place to start by looking at some of our parks where we have paths and bike paths and and slowing people down through those areas.

Another uh potential places to ensure that scooters and bikes are always helmeted people not everyone of course adults aren't required always but especially children under 18 where the law requires that we could begin with using our resources to give out um warnings at least to those that we see that are unhelmeted to improve safety so I again appreciate this coming forward.

I think that there is work to do with regard to slowing bikes but also with regard to to making it safer for all bicyclists in bike paths in bike part in bike lanes um getting rid of vehicles parking in bike lanes etc so we need to have further discussion to your point Mayor as the Ashcraft thank you.

Thank you Councilmember Bowler I would just say that I you know I appreciate Councilmember Dasog's concern about safety and you know this there's definitely some really um horrific results that can cons can happen on any vehicle and bikes are included of course I just would I would prefer to see um a focus on something that's more narrowly tailored to the safety issue and not as broad as a 15 mile an hour uh speed limit which I think that to my other colleagues' comments I think they were good points there was many good points brought up by the speakers um both in writing and today orally in the in the meeting that uh that we should consider so I believe that um the mayor's intent to have this be possibly included in um further discussions is good too.

So that's where that's what I'm thinking at the time.

Councilmember Dayside.

Great.

Well, thank you um I am of opinion that this is a matter of grave urgency.

Class two bikes will be the only bikes that will have throttles that so you can pedal by your legs, or you can use like a motorcycle, you can you know hit the throttle.

So class two bikes will be the only e-bikes that have throttles that will allow these bikes to go as fast as 20 miles per hour.

The reason why 15 miles per hour should be set is because typically that's the rate at which the commuters are traveling anyways, based upon the data that I showed.

Two, it is five miles per hour less than the maximum speed limit that a class two bike can go, which is 20 miles per hour.

So for all intents and purposes, 15 miles per hour is much aligned with the 20 miles per hour limit on class two bikes, but the problem with class two bikes, as I indicated earlier, is that kids are able to, I guess the word is jack, jack the class two bikes, so that they can go faster than 20 miles per hour.

Please go to Cruzy Park at around three o'clock.

You'll see middle school kids do racing around.

You'll see the same middle school kids are also racing up and down Shoreline Drive.

This is a matter of urgency.

When uh e-bike strikes someone, because it is two times heavier than your traditional bicycle, the health effects of that are pretty grave.

So I do believe that we should and we must implement some kind of speed limit.

And a speed limit of 15 miles per hour is not out of the ordinary, like I said, East Bay Regional Park already has a 15 miles per hour speed limit on class two and class one bikes.

The city of New York has a 15 miles per hour speed limit.

The American River Park Foundation has a speed limit of 15 miles per hour.

And I do believe you need to put a speed limit in order to head off at the pass the explosion of middle school kids riding class two bikes that is going to happen in the coming months, and so I think waiting around and studying um uh is not what is in the order.

So I would uh move that we have staff come back to this with a recommendation.

Um I don't think we have support for that, but perhaps there's support to direct staff to add this item to our priority setting workshop in early 2026.

Well, I'll just question Councilmember Jensen.

I just wonder if Councilmember Daysog, if you have an idea of how this will be enforced.

It's in part two of I have one second, unless you want to give me uh one minute, I will explain.

If we want to vote for that, um council, should we take a vote to add three minutes to all of our our times?

Sure.

I'll move on.

Motion made by Council Member Jensen.

By Vice Mayor Pryor, all those in favor signify by stating aye.

Aye.

Okay, we got three minutes out of our clocks.

Take so council member.

This is the way that it would be enforced.

It's in the second part of my referral, is that we would create what I call speed zones.

So it would be a zone of say 88 feet.

So an a member of the public, if a member of the public observes that a bicyclist travels this speed zone of 88 feet at a with it and it takes that person four seconds, that means that that person is traveling 15 miles per hour.

But if they travel the 88 feet in three seconds, that means that they're traveling faster than 15 miles per hour.

So, in the event that that individual who is traveling faster than the speed limit was involved in the collision, then the that could be evidence that that person was traveling to the extent that the person who observed them going faster than the speed limit, that could be um evidence in any kind of court case.

That would be how you enforce it.

I'm not I'm not asking for the police to go around.

In fact, I think for all intents and purposes, what would happen in reality when it comes to enforcement is that similar to the way that the police typically enforces our vehicular 25 miles per hour speed limit, our police doesn't issue tickets if you drive 27 miles per hour, 29 miles per hour.

I don't know about 30 miles per hour.

Um so there is kind of a buffer.

So for those who are interested in riding 19 miles per hour, 20 miles per hour on a bike in a path.

If you set a 15 mile per hour speed limit, most likely the practical effective speed limit is really 58 plus three or four.

That's just the way our policing works.

Um but in terms of enforcement, what I'm really interested is in creating these speed zones that allow for residents who witness someone speeding, and if that someone who is speeding also uh gets involved in a collision, residents can then say you know, affirm that they saw the person speeding because they saw that they went be uh went through the 88 feet speed zone in three seconds, 1001, 1002, 1003, which means that they went faster than 15 miles per hour.

Okay.

Well, now that's an interesting idea, and I would I if it if it came back, I'm sure I would ask the traffic engineer and city staff for how that would be implemented.

I have one more question actually.

Um, and this has come up most recently.

It came up with my last referral about mylar balloons, but I'm wondering if you have considered or or if you if you know or can comment on how many if how this would impact the six bike shops in Alameda if they would be um not unable to sell these bikes or if it would have any impact on on the this regulation would have any impact on bike sales.

I suspect it would have no impact on bike sales in the sense that people when they're on the enclosed paths they would travel 15 miles per hour.

If they want to travel faster than that, then take take the road, thank you.

Um just to follow up on your um suggestions for enforcement.

Is this based on what you read from other jurisdictions that have implemented uh bike speed speed limit?

I made it up.

I thought you might have made it up because I I am not the city attorney, but I'm just wondering how strong the evidence, and we do have someone from the district attorney's office on the diet, but I just wonder how strong the evidence of someone, a lay person who believes they observed a speed um violation would be to hold would hold up in court, right?

But you've perhaps given that some thought.

Yeah, I I see that as a civil matter between the person who is injured and caused the injury and the person who observed it, you know, whether or not they're gonna go to a court and it, you know, swear that and you know, that so that's how it would work.

Okay.

Well, I go back to my earlier suggestion that uh, first of all, I hope you'll have a chance to uh sign up for the webinar, even if you're not able to, the tape will be available afterwards.

Um, and let's you know just learn what other places are doing.

We don't have to reinvent the wheel.

I definitely share concerns voiced by some of the speakers.

I mean, we just heard again a really harrowing description from this resident who lives on Kaufman Parkway about speeding vehicles, that and we have speed laws now, and they are clearly now putting pedestrians, bicyclists, and other drivers at risk.

Um, speeding bicycles, I yes, that we need to we need to look at how to address that, but I think we need to learn a little bit more.

I would be very supportive of having this come back to us at um our priority setting workshop, and I think it would give us some time to gather information from what other jurisdictions are doing.

The league is really helpful on things like that.

Did you want to say something, Councilmember Jensen?

I was just gonna move that we bring this back to priority setting website workshop.

How's that?

Sounds good.

All right.

Anyone want a second?

I'll second that.

Vice Mayor Prior seconds to bring council members' referral back to the priority setting workshop in early 2026.

All those in favor, please signify by stating aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any no, that was I think that was unanimous, right?

Okay, all right.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Um Day Sach.

All right, then we move on to council communications.

Uh council members may speak for up to nine minutes, but remember we still have to go back into closed session on any matter not on the agenda, including reporting on conferences or meetings they have attended.

Um Councilmember Desag, how about you?

Well, like uh other council members here.

I did attend uh the Shabbat Habad.

Um, Alameda Um Minora Um Hanukkah uh light um ceremony.

Um so um that was very nice.

Unfortunately, for you know, uh the the backdrop of what happened earlier in the morning was unfortunate.

Um, but nonetheless, it was a very nice event this past um Sunday at Bohol Circle Park.

Thank you, Councilmember Bowler.

Um thank you.

I I was there as well, and it's really good to see people out on a lot of different holiday events.

We council members were there for other holiday events as well, and just to see people um to council member Dake's law's point, too.

People uh in the Jewish community out under these circumstances.

Uh, just really important that some of us were allowed were able to be there, and of course we can't always make everything.

I know everybody on the city council would come to every one of these events if they could, and um, I just want Almedans to know that uh we do live in a city that really values inclusivity, that cares about equity, that cares about making sure that everyone feels welcome, and that this is a really difficult holiday season for people in various different respects right now, given world events.

Um, and it's just really great to see that community spirit.

I mean, we have our new interim city manager put it well, you know, just how welcoming here is someone who has never lived in this community before and has this major job to do and feels so welcome on first glance.

And I just think it's a good testament to uh how we how we live in this town, and I'm really proud to be a resident here.

Thank you.

Vice Mayor Prayer.

Um, so you guys haven't mentioned this, but we did the walking tour at the base.

And um it was great.

So all the council members were there and staff and our new city manager and people um and residents, and I really liked um that there was a van available, so not you know, for because walking is not easy for everybody, and I just really appreciated that that was available and it was used, so I um so that was great.

Uh, we had the Christmas tree lighting last week, uh, and there were dancing tap dancing trees, it was super fun.

Um, and then we had the Hanukkah lighting on Sunday, and my mom had come the day before.

Uh Hanukkah was uh my grandmother, my mom's mom's favorite holiday.

So that was fun to you know, we got to share that together.

Um, and then we have another Hanukkah lighting tomorrow.

So yay, eight days of fun.

Okay, thank you.

Councilmember Jensen.

Um, thank you very much.

I I Saturday was a great event, the tree lighting and all of the the Al meetings here and welcoming our new city manager, interim city manager.

I also recently attended the Chamber of Commerce member appreciation event and got to talk to a lot of businesses about their interests and priorities and uh needs from the city, which was very helpful.

I want to thank Supervisor Lena Tam for recently actually when did I meet with you even?

I guess it was yesterday.

Had the um brought the Make Polluters pay act resolution to the Board of Supervisors.

It was deferred for at least a few weeks, but hopefully that will come back.

And the Board of Supervisors heard from many from several Alameda um youth who were supportive of the of this initiative and and I again appreciating Supervisor Tam as well as all of our involved and advocating youth to advocate for this critical measure.

And finally, I'll just close by mentioning again, as I mentioned earlier, this year there'll be at least, depending on how the next two weeks go, at least 60 collisions between vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists.

That's unacceptable.

It's completely unacceptable.

I appreciate Councilmember Desak bringing the referral forward, but we have to do better.

We have to make it safer for people to walk and bike in Alameda, and we have to slow traffic down.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Jensen.

And um I was in Rancho Mirage, which is near Palm Springs, December 3rd, 4th, and 5th earlier this month for um representatives of the League of California Cities, including the board of directors.

We had our meetings, we set our priorities, and that was very intense and always really informative to hear what's happening around the state.

And then I came back and the next morning, as was noted, we did this great walking tour of housing sites and potential sites at Alameda Point.

And our new interim city manager had not been interim city manager 24 hours, but he showed up and went on the tour.

He's just, you know, learning lots in a hurry.

And on Monday, a week ago, Monday, December 8th, I attended Alameda Family Services, did a really fun fundraising event.

We were on motorized cable cars, going out around the island to see the holiday lights.

It was a little chilly because they're open air, but it was fun.

And then I also attended the menorah lighting at Bahall Circle Park this past Sunday.

Um Monday, just yesterday morning, we held a press conference that was very well attended on the steps of the Veterans Memorial Building, because we are not taking lightly the VA's recent announcement that it intends not to move forward with a clinic and columbarium at Alameda Point.

And I credit our public information officer legislative analyst Sarah Henry.

Between the two of us, we pulled together a great group.

We had veterans speaking, and a lot of veterans were just there to show their presence.

But we also had we were joined by Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee and representatives from Congresswoman Latifa Simons' office, State Senator Jesse Adagin's office, assembly member Mia Bonta's office, and uh and I also spoke in addition to the two veterans who were very eloquent, and we got great press coverage, Councilmember Bowler and Interim City Manager and Paulser also joined us.

And then later that morning, I um again dragged the inner city manager out.

We were joined by the fire chief and police chief, and we went to have lunch, a lunch meeting at Coast Guard Island with the new commanding officer of base Alameda to talk about some security concerns that they've had and just get to know each other.

It was a very productive meeting.

So those are my communications, and then we move on to item 11a.

This is always fun.

These are my nominations for a couple more boards or panels.

As I do my interviews, I'll have more names to bring to you.

But the first I want to introduce to you, and at our next meeting, the first meeting in January, we will vote on this.

But for the public art commission, I would like to um to nominate Adrian Sancho.

And she is uh a resident.

I mean, they're all residents of Alameda, but she lives out near Bahal Circle Park.

As a matter of fact, she is um uh graduate of UC Berkeley, where she played in the marching band.

She is a she played flute in Piccolo, but then she discovered that the flute and piccolo don't travel when the band travels but the um but the um the percussions do so she became a symbol player which I thought was um was also innovative she is a Filipino American she dances in a dance troupe she um has um she's involved in a number of things in the performing arts side of of things and I just and she's a mother of two young children and I think she will just bring a lot of energy and and um creativity to the public art commission you will get to um meet her next well the all the nominees will appear either on screen or in person to be sworn in that's next time and then um up for the um my mayor's economic development advisory panel we had an opening come up for the food and beverage manufacturing seat and so I am pleased to nominate Kevin Scholes and Kevin is with Almanac beer company very busy vibrant business out there at Alameda Point he is the chief revenue officer uh overseeing events wholesale distribution community programming where he says his focus is on building spaces that bring people together and if you go by almanac just about any time of the day or night any day of the week there's lots of people out there and um he has also been a very um active participant with the city of Alameda and the other alameda point businesses and hosting different different gatherings there this year almanac um adventureland I guess is the outside space will have had and they must have a way of calculating this over 4000 total visitors and uh they have hosted um companies like oh the Golden State Warriors and other and are on the currently on the NFL's short lived short list for potential official super bowl party locations so again Kevin Scholes from almanac beer company my nomination to fill the economic development advisory panels beverage manufacturing seat you will get to meet and vote on both uh candidates at our next meeting and finally um we will officially adjourn the meeting when we come back from closed session but in case some people don't stay for the end I want to just say in advance that it is my intention to adjourn this meeting this evening in memory of the victims of two horrendous mass shootings that occurred one in our country on the east coast at Brown University in Providence Rhode Island on December 13 and the very next day across the globe and on December 14th in Sydney Australia where a large Hanukkah celebration was taking place on Bondi Beach and there were many too many victims both killed and injured in both and so I want us to all hold those victims in our hearts but I also want us to emulate what the nation of Australia was able to do so swiftly which is to advocate for better and stricter and more meaningful gun regulations in this country.

So with that Madam Clerk tell me what we're doing we're just um I'm gonna uh go back into the closed session so we're just um postponing or not what do we say when we're just reconvening the okay so the rest of you except staff who are involved in the next items um are are free to go thank you so much for joining us for sharing your comments thank you to all who are watching online?

So, what we're looking for now, we're going to take up item 5C.

So, whoever are staff for that item, come on back and join us.

All right.

All right.

Are we in the balcony?

Are we still awake?

Let's see those thumbs.

Yay.

Thank you.

All right.

Have a seat, everyone.

We'll make this quick.

Okay.

So the council has just returned from closed session.

We finished out our closed session.

I am going to ask our city clerk Laura Weisiger to please report out from the final items that we considered in closed session.

Thank you.

So regarding 4C, which is real property negotiations for building 525, staff provided information and council provided direction by unanimous voice vote 5.

Regarding real property negotiations for the Alameda Theater, staff provided information and council provided direction by unanimous vote of 5 eyes.

And regarding 4E, which is real property negotiations for building 22, staff provided information and council provided direction also by five eyes unanimously.

Alright, and thank you, Council and Staff, for a good job, lots of good deliberations.

And once again, we are adjourning our meeting this evening in memory of the victims of the horrific mass shootings in December 13th at Brown University in Rhode Island and December 14th in Sydney, Australia.

All right, everyone.

Have a good rest of your evening.

Be safe out there and hope to see everybody at the menorah lighting tomorrow evening at South Shore.

It starts at five o'clock, and then the menorah lighting will be around 5 30.

Thank you so much.

The meeting is adjourned.