Alameda County Transportation and Planning Committee Meeting: Castro Valley Bike Lane Debate and BPAC Update - February 2, 2026
Alameda County Transportation and Planning Committee Meeting: Castro Valley Bike Lane Debate and BPAC Update - February 2, 2026
The Alameda County Transportation and Planning Committee (TMP) met on February 2, 2026, to consider a recommendation from the Castro Valley Municipal Advisory Council (MAC) regarding the Castro Valley Boulevard Class II bike lane, and to receive an informational report on the unincorporated county bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee (BPAC). The committee also received a brief update on the battery energy storage and solar project ordinance for East County. After extensive public comment and deliberation, the committee decided not to adopt the MAC recommendation and instead directed staff to gather additional data on parking, safety, and business impacts, with a status report due in approximately one year.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Supporters of the bike lane (including representatives from Bike East Bay, the BART Bicycle Advisory Task Force, and Castro Valley residents) argued that the bike lane is essential for safety on a high-injury corridor, cited a UC Berkeley study showing 64 bicycle crashes in Castro Valley over five years with 22 on Castro Valley Boulevard, and noted that removing the lane would increase liability. Several speakers noted that 80% of parking was retained and that 556 residents signed a petition supporting the lanes.
- Opponents of the bike lane (including business owners and residents) contended that the 35 parking spaces removed (30% of on-street parking) harm businesses, that the process lacked outreach to stakeholders, and that the bike lane usage (22–51 bikes per day) is minuscule compared to 21,000 daily car trips. Some argued that the MAC is unrepresentative of the community and that the county should conduct a poll of business owners.
- On the BPAC item, speakers were divided: some supported creating a commission for more independence, while others urged expanding the existing committee or streamlining commissions before adding new ones. Several speakers noted that the BPAC met only twice in 2025 and that its agenda is controlled by staff.
Discussion Items
1. Castro Valley Boulevard Bike Lane & MAC Recommendation
- Public Works Director Will Dessenberg (Daniel) presented the item. Background: The Class II buffered bike lane was installed as part of the 2019 Bike/Ped Master Plan, removing 12 on-street parking spaces on the north side and 23 on the south side along a half-mile stretch on Castro Valley Boulevard, which carries 21,000 cars per day. A bicycle utilization study (two-week count at eight locations) found a consistent daily range of 22–51 bikes (max 89). Public Works recommended against the MAC’s proposal for shared parking/bike lane use, citing safety risks and liability concerns, and advised ongoing monitoring.
- Supervisor Miley expressed concern about the 30% parking removal and asked about time-of-day shared use (e.g., 11am–3pm). Director responded that data show no peak-hour concentration, making such modifications risky and unsupported. Supervisor Miley also noted the need to balance safety, business vitality, and climate goals, and requested input from the Planning Department on the downtown specific plan (expected completion this year).
- Supervisor Halbert questioned the legal viability of reverting to shared-lane markings (sharrows) under SB 1216, and asked for a legal opinion. Both supervisors expressed discomfort with acting without more data on business impacts, safety performance, and the law.
- The committee decided to not adopt the MAC recommendation and instead directed Public Works, in coordination with the Economic Development Department, to conduct outreach to businesses, gather accident data, and monitor bike usage, with a status report in about one year. The report will first go to the MAC, then back to the TMP committee.
2. Unincorporated County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC)
- Director reviewed the BPAC’s history: created in 2019 as an advisory body to Public Works, with a 13-member stakeholder composition (including BART, AC Transit, school districts, seniors, business interests). The committee meets quarterly (three remote, one hybrid). Current membership has dwindled to 6–7 regular attendees. The BPAC has no independent agenda-setting authority.
- Supervisor Miley advocated for eventually creating a board-appointed commission (like an active transportation commission) but noted the need to first streamline the county’s many commissions. Supervisor Halbert agreed, favoring a holistic transportation commission reporting to a future Office of Unincorporated Services.
- No action was taken; the item was informational.
3. Battery Energy Storage & Solar Project Ordinance Update
- Planning Director Albert Lopez gave a brief update: Draft amendments to the East County Area Plan and zoning ordinance are being prepared. A CEQA document and roadshow (to MACs, including Sunol) will take 4–6 months. Two major projects are pending: one at the California Energy Commission and one (NextEra) awaiting local framework. The committee requested a follow-up in six months.
Key Outcomes
- Item 1 (Castro Valley bike lane): The committee voted (consensus) to reject the MAC recommendation for shared use. Public Works and Economic Development were directed to collect data on parking demand, business impacts, safety, and legal requirements, and to report back to the TMP committee via the MAC in approximately one year (by early 2027).
- Item 2 (BPAC): No action taken. The committee noted interest in a future commission but agreed to address the consolidation of existing boards and commissions first.
- Item 3 (Battery/solar ordinance): Informational; staff to return in six months with progress.
- Item 4 (public comment on non-agenda items) was continued due to time.
The meeting was adjourned after approximately 2.5 hours.
Meeting Transcript
All right, good morning everyone. I'd like to call to order how we need to count supervisors transportation committee. Meeting of Monday. It's called well, established quorum. Supervisor Miley. Supervisor Howard. We have a quorum. Thank you very much. The first item is an action item, a discussion, consideration of Castro Valley MAX recommendation. Castor Valley Boulevards class two bike lane evaluation and bicycle utilization study. Mr. Will Dessenberg, the floor is yours. Good morning, thank you, Daniel Old Desmond Public Post Director. This item was heard by your uh committee a couple of months ago. Uh at the time we did receive a clear direction that uh you committee uh understands the action taken and was in line with keeping the bike lane along Castro Valley Boulevard. Uh however, on January 20th, 2026, uh we presented uh to the Castro Valley Mac the item again, and uh the committee discussed, heard from various uh individuals, and uh recommended that we bring this item back to the TMP uh so that uh public works can be directed to work with area businesses to identify parking needs and to modify existing signing and striping to support shared use of parking and bike lanes uh and then uh requested that the staff brings this back to the MAC within six months. Just to give you a background, uh it's in the report, but uh we uh Castro Valley Boulevard is designated as a class two uh bike facility uh under the master plan the 2019 master plan. Uh you know the master plan was done through extensive community process. Uh, took a long time to put together, has been to the Castro Valley Mac a couple of times before it was adapted, and uh and uh it's established the actions that public works will take in terms of installation of sidewalks and bike in general active transportation facilities, and that's what uh public rest followed. Uh we evaluated, however, uh as any uh action that we take uh what the appropriate strategy would be uh to implement uh the bike lane. We looked at available parking spaces, we looked at uh parking restrictions that need to be adapted due to uh you know side distance issues, uh fire hydrants, bus stops, all those things were done. Most importantly, we looked at what are what is the available off-street parking in that area, and and based on that, we made a decision that the appropriate action to take would be to install a class two bike lane with buffer along the corridor because one it connects two board stations. It's a very much uh consistent with the uh the board's uh action when you adapted the 2019 facility that's connectivity, safety, uh, and and uh active transportation system was one of your uh uh decisions uh in adapting those those policies. So uh we basically did this. We installed the bike lanes, uh, and we removed approximately I would say uh 12 on street parking on the north side uh and then 23 spaces on the south side along about a half a mile stretch of Castro Valley Boulevard. Castro Valley Boulevard has about 21,000 cars a day uh typically uh based on a count that was done a few years back. So as a standard practice, we usually also evaluate uh whether it's counting cars or bikes and various things to see what happens post implementation of a project. So we did a bicycle utilization uh study along that corridor. We implemented uh a bike counting system where we put in about eight locations, uh, those tubes that that you see usually on cars, but this one is for bikes, uh, and counted uh how many bikes were being using, and it was done over about a two-week period. And the study found we have on a typical day ranging at these various locations, 22 to 51 bikes a day, that were utilizing that location. In fact, the highest maximum is as high as 89 bicycles using it per day. So the results are summarized in attachment uh uh B, and it tells you, you know, at each location what the numbers were. And so most importantly, I think what we learned was that there is a modest ridership, but continuously consistent ridership along the corridor. And experience tells us whenever we install something, similar facilities that are, you know, as long as you provide that safety and continuity, this kind of infrastructure will often see increase in use as people become more aware and uh the comfort of riders become more and more uh therefore they will be using this system. So we expect that uh utilization will increase. But the most important thing is now we have a baseline, a starting point to compare uh these numbers. So uh we understand, and I think uh apparent in the community discussions uh whenever you utilize parking space, I mean uh public ride away for various uses, there's certain conflicting interests. Uh in this case, some people thought parking was more important than the bike lane, and others thought bike lanes were more important than others. Uh so because we went through these various uh studies and evaluations and looking at what is uh safe, what is appropriate, that uh we felt, uh at least public works recommends uh that we need to continue evaluating these corridor uh with continuous data. I would like to actually verbatim read what public was recommended. The last page of the report has the public cost recommendation. Uh so I would say the corridor continues to operate with a new bike lane configuration. Public works recommends ongoing monitoring of bicycle volumes, safety performance, and overall corridor operations, including access to adjacent properties. The public works agency does not have a role or funding authority to evaluate or manage parking for individual or businesses. Parking supply and demand on private property are responsibilities of property owners. Accordingly, business owners may consider strategies to increase parking availability, such as restriping existing off-street parking to improve efficiency or explore share parking arrangements. They may also consider measures to reduce parking demand, including promoting carpooling and ride sharing. The bicycle utilization study indicates that the class two bike lane is used consistently throughout the day with no identifiable uh peak hour concentration of bicycle activities. As a result, piecemeal or time of a day modification, including peak hour conversation conversions of on-street parking are not supported by the data and could increase the safety risk to bicycle users. More importantly, uh the let me see, and not support by the data.
openpublica.com