It is four o'clock.

I'm calling to order the City of St.

Lana Facilities and Transportation Committee.

Today is Thursday, July 10th, 2025.

Madam Clerk, would you please call the vote?

Council Member's addendum?

Present.

Council member roll.

Present.

Mayor Gonzalo?

Present.

And would you please proceed with your announcement?

After each agenda item is consented, the mayor will ask for committee member comments and then take public comment.

If you'd like to speak during public comment, please complete a speaker card submitted to the court before the items heard.

Members, so the public will have two minutes to share their comments.

Okay, and then this is the time that we're going to move to item number two.

Is there any public comment on items that are not on today's agenda?

No comments.

Okay, so close that item.

Based on some discussion, this is up here.

We'd like to make sure that we get items 3B and 3C taken care of.

So we'd actually like to start with item 3B, and we will do 3A last.

So I know you may need a little bit of time.

You can do some other work or whatever.

But can we start with 3B first?

Good afternoon, Mr.

Chairman.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Honorable City Mayor, Council members, committee staff, and the public.

My name is Irwin Cheng, Engineering Manager for the Public Works Department.

This afternoon, engineering would like to provide an update on the Carry has pedestrian bridge project.

This presentation is for information only.

During my presentation, I will be providing project background, the current project status, the proposed bridge design, the schedule and the funding analyses.

The Carrie has bridge connects Carrie Drive and Haas Avenue and have been providing pedestrian access over the San Leandro Creek for nearly 60 years.

It provided a path of travel for pedestrians going to Bancroft Middle School, Memorial Park, the San Diegro Main Library, and many retail businesses.

On March 2023, three eucalyptus trees fell into the San Leandro Creek, causing damages beyond repair to the bridge.

In September 2023, Council approves an emergency contract to demo the bridge.

In December 2023, City secures an environmental clearance and obtains the required permits to demolish the bridge.

And by August 2024, the bridge was demolished.

And in September 2024, City accepts a letter of intent to donate $5 million from anonymous daughter for the reconstruction of the fallen bridge.

Upon acceptance of the letter of intent, the daughter dispersed one point five billion for the design of the bridge.

In October 2024, City Council approves consultant agreement to MNS for the design and construction of the bridge.

It is anticipated that the project will be advertised for construction in spring of 2026 and then completed in the winter, midwinter of 2026 to early 2027.

Now for the project status update.

The environmental review, FEMA floodplain analyses, and the utility conflict analyses are 80% complete.

Existing caseon analyses and survey and mapping are completed.

And the outcome of the case and analysis determined that the existing foundation would not be able to carry a bridge with concrete banking.

The civil and structural plans are currently at 35% complete.

MS Engineers is proposing a weathered steel truss option, which is prefabricated, a prefabricated bridge pictured in this slide.

Weathering steel requires minimal maintenance, and a prefabricated bridge will minimize disruption to the public during construction, and the cost will be lower compared to other types of bridges.

It is the fastest and simplest on-site construction and will have minimal environmental and permitting impacts.

For a single span pedestrian overcrossing, this type of bridge has the most advantages.

Before moving on to the next slide, I would like to bring to your attention the bridge decking.

In the picture, the decking is right at the bottom of the truss.

While in the section and elevation drawings opposite the picture, the decking is raised higher.

Because of the span of the bridge, the truss will need to be deeper, and the decking is expected to be raised as shown in the details opposite the picture.

Raising the decking would not make the railing from inside the bridge too high.

So being able to adjust the decking, even if the depth of the truss is much deeper, would not change the site, the life site of people walking on the bridge.

And I will be providing information on the two options in the next few slides.

Option one would be using the existing foundation of the bridge, while option two will be a longer bridge and will be installing a new foundation that will be located behind the existing foundation, drawn as a red rectangle on the slide.

Since only the top portion of the existing foundation will be retrofitted.

However, option two shows that a foundation on the Hass Avenue side is near a gas line.

The consultant is investigating the exact location of the gas line but believes that the new foundation for the bridge can be designed to avoid it.

Option one, the cost is less and will be less of a disruption to the public during construction, but the worsening erosion at the creek embankment is a threat to the existing foundation, and the condition of the existing foundation embedded in the ground is unknown.

This option would also only be a bit able to carry a wood or composite wood decking, which is protected, which is projected to have a higher cost to maintain than concrete.

On the other hand, installing new abutments would mean that the design and construction costs will be 200,000 more.

The installation of new case is more disruptive to the public during construction.

However, this option will install a new foundation, and the foundation will be set back further from the eroding creek and back to increasing the longevity of the structure.

This design will support concrete decking, which has the least cost to maintain.

However, the utility conflict analysis show an existing gas line near the location of the proposed case.

Looking at the project schedule, the difference in project delivery for either option is minimal.

It is estimated that retrofitting the existing abutments would only be approximately two weeks quicker than installing your foundation.

It is anticipated that either option will go out to bid and will be completed at the same time.

For a total authorization of $509,000.

If option one is selected, there will be no additional funding request.

On the other hand, if option two is selected, then an additional 103,000 will be needed for design designing a longer bridge and a new foundation.

When the additional cost required for option two is added to the current design contract, it would exceed the contingency by 1,460.

At a future meeting, staff will be recommending option two, and we'll be requesting for an additional funding allocation for the budget shortfall, and we'll be requesting an additional 50,000 contingency in the case that the gas line is determined to be too close to the foundation and will need to be relocated.

The total funding request will be for 51,460.

This concludes my presentation.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you for your presentation.

Prior to having questions and discussion amongst ourselves with you, I'd like to take public comment at this time on this item.

And not as a member of the bicycle pedestrian advisory commission.

But I can tell you that my neighbors in Estadio States are thrilled with any progress on the bridge.

Mr.

Chengdin uh mentioned the children that have used the bridge for 60 years, probably longer because there has been a bridge there before the one that the trees broke.

So it goes back further, the kids that go to Roseman Elementary School from the south side of the creek.

So those parents have been very anxious to see that the bridge is completed.

And there are many, many people, adults who are just getting out there for their exercise on both sides of Ancroft all the time.

Thrilled and would be thrilled to get it when it's done.

So thank you for your work.

Thank you for everyone's work.

Yeah, that concludes my comment.

Thank you.

If I heard you correctly, that was our sole comment.

Yes.

Okay, thank you for your comment.

At this point in time, we'll close public comment and come back for the questions, discussions, exploration.

I'll begin with Council Member Azevita.

Thank you for your presentation.

Yeah, I'm excited about getting this done.

It seems like it's going to take a long time, 2027 or the end of 2026, but takes time.

But I wanted to ask a question.

We got the $5 million donation in September 2024.

What happened to the other 3.5 million?

Did that go towards the demolition of the bridge or what happened to it?

Good evening, good afternoon, or excuse me.

Uh, City Engineer JC, my public works department.

So uh with the letter of intent to donate, there was an agreement as to when uh installation is installations of the payments basically would be made for the five million dollars.

So the first one was due uh when the city uh submitted the intent to begin the project, so the 1.5 million dollars was provided to the city.

The next uh installment, I believe is due when we go to advertise for pen uh for construction, and then once we award the bid, then the balance of the five million dollars would be due.

Okay.

And is there a reason?

Is there a reason why?

Excuse me.

Is there a reason why this is all getting started in 2026?

Because we have the rest of this year.

I'm just wondering how we go ahead.

Uh yes.

So uh currently, well, the design is at 35%, and uh we need to uh decide whether we we would like a bridge on top on top of the existing foundation, uh which has some limitations and some risks, um, being that the bridge is 60 years old, it is impossible to investigate the condition of the foundation that's embedded in the soil, so um and and the bridge also will not be able to carry a concrete thing, uh which was the surface of the the existing bridge that was that was fought and just uh destroyed.

So um when we and we'd like to take the council uh a request for option two, which carries an additional funding request.

Um we did with option two, new foundations will be uh placed, and more assurance that this structure would be able to survive a longer period of time, and in addition, it would be able to maintain a concrete decking, uh which is uh very minimal maintenance in the future.

Yeah, so yeah, I'm in favor of option two.

I've been on that bridge several times ever since I was a kid, and yeah, it was an old bridge, but uh it was a nice bridge though, but yeah, so yeah, so we got to do what we can to get it so it's stable for another 60 or 100 years at least.

Thank you.

Any questions or comments, Council Murphy?

Yes, thank you.

I want to go back to that just a second.

So we got a five million dollar donation for this bridge, and after the five million dollars is going to be um exhausted, does still be if we choose option two, we'll still need $51,000 for the design current design contract that's been authorized.

Yes, you do, but uh there's no additional prohibition.

Okay, I think we're not communicating.

I just want to be very clear.

His question is, we got five million dollars at least a letter of intent.

Will we run out of the five million dollars at this point in time?

I think the answer is no.

So maybe we can have uh city engineer talk about some of the budget piece if you don't mind.

Yeah, right now uh what we're asking for is authorization beyond the contingency.

So when we awarded the contract, there was a certain can you uh go back to the uh the budget slide uh energy chain?

Okay, so when we awarded the contract, we we awarded a 407,000 dollar contract, plus the gave the authority for staff to approve contingencies up to 101,000 for a total of 509,000 dollars.

That's the limit of the authority we have to work with the design consultant.

Now we have 1.5 million dollars currently for design.

So we don't we're not asking for additional funding, we're asking for additional authorization to uh appropriate the funding, additional funding to the project and additional authorization to award a increase that not to exceed amount beyond the pre-authorized contingency amount, if that makes sense, yes, uh the current budget says 1.5 million.

What is that current budget for?

It's it's just the first installment set and it was intended to find design, but if there's uh money left over because uh we are not anticipated to use the 1.5 million dollars for design, then it rolls over to construction, it's just for the entire project.

So of the 1.5 million current budget for design, we may be getting it to the point that at some point I guess it was here before my time, we've authorized five hundred thousand dollars to do design, and of that 1.5 million of the five million, we're saying can we get $51,000 more of that of the 1.5?

Correct.

Okay.

I know it's not you guys.

Government maps just fries my brain, though.

But when we start doing these things, pulling it out, putting it in here's there, and here's that.

It it doesn't never make sense, but you guys understand.

Um with the gas line, do we have a rough estimate of where that is?

So the price of that.

Well, the price of that, yes.

So the estimate provided here is only for the design of the gas line.

So uh this is just a rough estimate.

Uh the the consultant is feeling very confident that you will be able to design it around the gas line and avoid it, but uh in order for us to be certain that can have some contingency in case that doesn't work out because right now we're still doing a pot line, we don't know exactly where duplication is.

So until such time, then we'll get more confident that whether the gas line will have to be relocated or not.

Okay, yes, fair enough.

Um I want to go back to the one slide with the you said we couldn't move the deck up and down and and right now it says 54 inches from the top of the deck to the top of the rail, and and I feel like you were explaining that no matter what we do, we're not gonna be out of compliance, it's just say ADA.

Is that the compliance we have to go under for top of deck to top a rail?

Right, so yes, so we can maintain that height from within the deck so that we're complying with those requirements.

Yeah, I and I'm sure you guys are I'm not trying to second guess any of that.

I know that's probably the first thing you guys are looking at when you're talking about this.

But what I was confused about is you said it doesn't if you raise it up, it doesn't change the elevation.

How is that?

What I meant to say is uh just what I said earlier is that uh we can't keep the height of the railing from inside the deck constant.

So um if let's say if if we want to keep 54 inches of the height of the railing, and the depth of the trust actually because it's a longer bridge, requires it to be nine feet, for example.

When you're walking across the bridge, you won't have the experience of the the railing or the vertical element to be nine feet tall.

You'll just be could be maintained at 54 feet.

54 inches.

What's gonna happen is it the concrete abutment will now have to be adjusted lower.

Got it.

The debt.

Okay.

The slats that the decking's gonna sit on is gonna be lower, correct?

Got it.

What what is there some type of clearance that we need to have from creek to bottom of uh bridge, bottom bottom of the the trusses?

I don't believe there is.

As long as um floating, you're above the base flood elevation, you're fine with media Jason.

No, that's a good idea.

The Alumina County flood control requires a certain clearance above the 100 year storm.

The creek is so low that we are way above that elevation.

So we're not, there's no concerns really about vertical clearance.

But we will uh be in close coordination with the flight of the district on the design.

And new designs are often always higher than the old particular.

Okay, good.

So um, yeah, the the last thing is is I'll just say I would be in favor.

I know we're not taking the decision right now, but I don't want to use the old foundation, and then in 20 years from now we're going, oh we need so much more to fix.

So that's just those are my comments.

Okay, a couple questions.

The 54 inches, is that some sort of standard?

Is it can it be higher or lower?

Like what what is the role of 54 inches?

Okay.

Well, um, I'm not exactly sure about the height, but uh for certain use of the bridge, but it's pedestrian or bicyclist, uh, there's there are standard requirements for the height.

And um the 54 inch here is just an example that we provide here.

But during design, we will look into that.

If the bridges is going to be uh solely for pedestrians, then we would adjust that accordingly based on the standard.

Okay.

My general sense is that people enjoyed the view, the vista, the look to be able to hang on the be able to lean over and just look, right?

And so to the extent that we have safety requirements, let's meet the safety requirements.

Um, but I I wouldn't see the uh it desirable to go above and beyond what the requirements are.

Um, I noticed that we moved to an eight feet of width.

Was that the original design?

Was it that wide?

Okay, that was like maybe five feet or something.

And I apologize, this actually this detail here uh is actually a different bridge.

Um but the I think if I'm not mistaken, if I record recall correctly, uh the planning is about uh between six to seven feet wide, which is still wider, yeah.

But I think um if you would like a more detailed response, I think we have the project engineering.

I'm less stressed, uh for me.

One thing that crossed my mind, um, way early in this process.

I had spent some time speaking with federal officials about funding for this bridge, and one of the questions that came up uh had to do with um could the bridge be used as an emergency egress for a vehicle.

I'm just wondering in the width that's being designed, or the nature of the bridge that's being designed.

Was that contemplated?

Not that I'm asking it to, I was just more curiosity.

Unfortunately, the bridge was uh designed for a pedestrian, a sub pedestrian bridge.

Okay.

Um continuing with uh the prior bridge, I think might have had some sort of uh abutment pole, I don't know what the technical term is, support in the middle.

Is that accurate?

Uh a bridge, I believe the original original bridge is one of our residents had was was a multi-span bridge.

It this one was like I believe the very original bridge.

That one was since replaced.

I think Sarah uh one of our residents did did refer to that.

Uh the latest bridge that went down is a single span bridge.

It didn't have any uh support in that one.

Okay, and then the cantilevering actually will make the much stronger bridge.

Uh I'm assuming it's that correct statement.

So this bridge is uh supported with both ends of cantilever, my definition would be a squared from one end and then hanging freely on one on the other side.

Oh, I was assuming that you know all these little cross trusses, that's what I was referring to as cantilevering at the bottom of this design.

The structural design for this one, uh, it's not very evident, it looks like railing, but uh the vertical elements here are actually the structural component that holds the bridge, uh holds the bridge together.

So it's a truss.

So if you notice that there's a pattern of uh and vertical structural elements and combined with the top and bottom cord forms of trust, which is pretty strong.

Okay, then moving on to weatherized weathering steel.

Um I had this question a while back on at the Stephen Taylor bar.

It's weathering steel code for rusting steel, correct?

So this this bridge is gonna generate a bunch of rust.

Um it's going to rust.

But it will not be required to be painted, there's no coating, and it will naturally rust and form a protective layer uh for the bridge.

I don't know if you've seen uh they've used this type of material and it's it's favorable in that it requires less maintenance, but it will look like steel, but it's not like the rust is going to be uh like a powder.

I've seen it.

Um it's it looks actually kind of nice, but so uh my main concern boils down to rust on clothing, angry parents.

Uh why is this bridge getting all over my kids' clothing?

The rest that goes down onto the deck and creates stains on the deck, it's that kind of thing that I'm thinking about.

I'm not unfortunately I'm not I can go back to you.

Um, yeah, that would be nice because just from a design perspective, I do get concerned about something that um looks nice when it's built, and then five years later it's all stained, and people say, what's going on here?

So we can move on from that question.

Um absolutely agree that we should have new foundations, right?

That we designed that we know that the difference between as designed and as built, there's no debate or question because we know about built.

Um I think closing with the financial questions, two questions.

Um I just want to be really simple.

So I think of the current budget, when we say 1.5 million dollars, we actually got a 1.5 million dollar check.

Okay, so there's a pile of money sitting there 1.5 million dollars.

How much of that money have we spent thus far?

And how much is left?

How much is has been spent?

I would based on what I've seen uh maybe a few days ago, I think we've spent around uh almost 300,000.

So I would say that out of one by five million, one by two million is the left.

Perfect.

Yeah, because when I think of budget presentations, I think of like how much do we have, how much have we spent, how much is left?

Because I think there was some confusion in the question or in the answering process, where we have a lot of money left out of the 1.5.

Yes?

Okay, um, so this is really more about the appropriation process coming to council and getting permission to go ahead and spend some more of the money that's sitting there that the donor has provided.

Perfect.

Um, last question.

Um what role, if any, is the donor, the donor's rep playing in reviewing designs.

Um, no role at all.

No, okay.

Perfect.

Is there anything else that we need to know before recommending to council that we move forward with option two?

So the only thing that's on unknown at this point, uh, as I mentioned earlier, is the gas line.

Um the designer is feeling a lot feeling confident that you would be able to design around it and meet the required clearances uh by PG.

So that part is the unknown at this point, but they will be doing a pothole pretty soon to determine exactly where that line is located, and we're recommending that they reach out to PGE, and they will be reaching out to PG to find out whether PG will require that this gas line be relocated.

The $50,000 that we are set aside is for the instance that uh PGM says you need to relocate this one.

And that what that means is uh they will have the option of designing it for PJ.

That money uh would be used for that purpose.

During construction though, we may come back to council depending on how much the bids we well let me take a step back.

Uh, when after bids are received, uh then staff will come to city council to request for appropriation for uh for the mid about plus it is perfect, and then I was just kidding, I do have maybe one more question.

So we started with a pile of 1.5 million dollars, and when I hear we've spent maybe 300,000.

Is that 300,000 part of that 508 997?

The third line up there.

Correct.

Okay, perfect.

Okay, so at this point in time, I'm just gonna use a term committee guidance.

Is that we go for option two that we not waste a lot of time going back and forth?

That it is this committee's recommendation that we move forward with option two, that this committee recognizes that there is a contingency related to the gas line.

I think that we would be prepared to authorize that that come to council for authorization with the support of this committee.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm gonna go on to 3C.

I think we have the same presenter for the C.

So if you're when you're ready to go, we're ready to hear.

Thank you.

Uh City Mayor, uh, good afternoon again, everyone.

Um so this afternoon I will be providing uh you with an update on the MacArthur Runabout project.

During my presentation, I will be providing the project background, the project update, the grant funds receipt, and the impact of grant funds on the schedule and the budget.

The project as shown in the exhibit is located at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard, Foothill Boulevard, Superior Avenue to the south, and the I-580 off ramp to the east.

At this point, I would like to summarize the important project milestones.

In 2006, a feasibility study to build a rockabout at this intersection was performed.

In 2008, a preliminary design was completed, but the project was put on hold because of lack of funding.

In 2014, the design of the project resumed, and a traffic study was initiated.

Between the years of 2016 and 2018, different concepts were presented to this committee.

However, this concept required a larger footprint for the roundabout.

An additional ride-away will be required from Caltrans and a private property owner.

It also meant that a low retaining wall will be needed on CalTrans right away since the encroachment since the encroachment is on the slope.

In 2019, CD requested CalTrans to begin the process of decertifying their property.

During this time, CalTrans put a hold on the review of the plans until the decertification process has been completed.

In 2022, CalTrans approved the decertification of the property.

And also the maintenance agreement at the same time with Oakland was also approved.

In 2023, CapTrans grants the certified land to the city.

And in the same year, city staff was given direction to redesign the roundabout so that taking from a private property will not be needed.

In early 2024, CalTrans resumes the review of the plans and determined that the retained wall will need a special design.

This meant that the review would need an additional plan submitted that would take about three iterations before it gets approved.

This year, the 65% retaining wall plans and 100% roadway plans were submitted to Caltrans for review, and comments have been received.

And last April, MTC awarded the Housing Incentive pool grant funds in the amount of 1.8 million to the MacArthur Roundabout project.

Since the last FTC project update in December of 2024, we reported that we were waiting for Caltrans to approve the submill of the retained wall and had requested to submit the roadway plans and retaining wall plans concurrently to save time.

PGE and ATT and Comcast relocations are still ongoing, but are further aloft.

One of the goals last December was to get PGE to relocate the polls.

PGE is now scheduled to relocate the polls in fall of this year.

However, if the project is federalized, additional procedures from CalTrans will delay the poll relocation.

Between 2019, when the project reviews was put on hold and when the review resumed in 2024, more than four years have lapsed.

And since then, the ADA and Rounabout design standards have changed.

Furthermore, roundabouts that were built during that time using the old standards are experiencing some challenges.

An example of this is the roundabout and presidio in San Francisco.

Knowing these challenges provides an opportunity to incorporate the new standards into the design to optimize the MacArthur Roundup Roundabout.

The CalTrans maintenance agreement are currently ongoing, and the Oakland maintenance agreement that was previously approved will need to be revised to update the final design of the roundabout.

This is anticipated to be completed by the end of the year.

Negotiations with the private property owner also is ongoing, but will be affected by the new federal procedures if the project is federalized.

A project is federalized if it uses federal funds.

In September 2024, NTC notified that the city will be receiving an award of 1.8 million from the housing Incentive pool grant funds.

Two projects were then submitted to MTC for consideration, and the MacArthur Roundabout project was selected.

Staff is currently evaluating the impact of federalizing the project to determine if the project will be able to meet the grant obligation deadline on January 31, 2027.

In addition, a request for federal earmark funds for the MacArthur Roundabout was submitted to Senator Ship and was since advanced to the Senate and Housing Appropriations Committee for further review.

However, this grant is not guaranteed.

Grants are great, but it has strengths attached.

The earliest the construction that construction can start if the project is federally funded for this project will be in the summer of 2027.

A new NEPA clearance will be required.

Without NEPA approval, other requirements from CalTrans cannot start.

Right-of-way negotiations and utility work are some of these requirements that cannot begin until after NEPA has been completed.

Consequently, if these requirements have not been completed, construction cannot begin.

The grant also comes with a deadline to obligate the funds by January 31, 2027.

This means all the requirements I mentioned earlier, including any and all agreements and permits should already be completed by November of 2026.

If NEPA, which is a prerequisite of these requirements, is approved by the end of 2025, then that leaves only 11 months to get everything else completed.

Federalizing the project will impose new CalTrans rules and procedures, and since grant-funded projects are reviewed by a different division in CAPTRANS, the project is now assigned to a new group of people who are seeing the plants for the first time.

Last but not the least, there will be additional costs to meet all the requirements of CalTrans.

Comparing the schedules between the two funding sources shows that a federally funded project will start a year later compared to a locally funded project.

However, this schedule is contingent upon the successful completion of the negotiations and coordination with the utility companies.

If grant funds are not obligated by January 31, 2027, the grant could be lost.

Staff is in the process of determining if the MacArthur Runabout project will be able to meet this deadline.

If not, staff will need to pivot and ask MTC to consider another project.

However, MacArthur is still the project that is furthest in the Caltrans process compared to other projects.

Finally, let's take a look at the budget.

This budget analysis illustrates the additional required funds.

These additional funds are needed to move the project forward, regardless of the funding source.

An additional 350,000 will be needed to complete the retaining wall design and the optimization of the roundabout.

The changes to the AVA and roundabout design standards and the additional submittals for the structural design of the retaining wall are driving the additional work.

An additional 220,000 is for meeting the new federal requirements, and the total ask will be 570,000.

Staff during the July 20 first council meeting, we'll be requesting for additional funding.

And if approved by council, no additional appropriations will be needed.

However, if the project cannot meet the grant fund obligation deadline, staff will need to pivot and use the grant funds on another project.

This means that an additional appropriations will be requested to allocate 1.8 billion for the CIP reserve funds towards this project.

This concludes my presentation.

I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Okay, so thank you for your presentation.

We will follow the same process.

It's going to take some public comment questions that the public will like for us to ask if there are any.

Okay, so once again, speaking as an individual, not as a member of bicycle pedestrian advisory commission.

I live uh three blocks, three blocks from uh what uh from this project, and um that I know it's been a headache.

I've been on the council uh commission for a long time, and now and uh we were originally we were the ones that said, Oh, we don't we want to be able to have a free uh bicycle plane all the way around it, and so um we're having to give that just a micro class.

But um if you have ever recently stood on the corner of Lewis and Arthur, you can see how really dangerous it is, and I know that people who live on Lewis have come and spoken to the council a few times, and if you've seen the photographs that I've seen and heard the stories, um, you'd really want to get this to go forward.

Um so I'm sorry, it is such an enormous headache and has been a headache for uh not 20 years, but it is an important project, and um I hope we can figure out a way to um have it finished.

Thank you.

None of other comments, okay.

So thank you for your public comment, and we'll close public comment and come back to council members for questions, commentary, discussion.

Who wants to jump in first?

Go ahead, brother.

Go ahead.

Well, first, okay, okay, okay.

Council Member is a thank you for the presentation.

Um, yeah, I know this area is real dangerous.

I've been over there by Lewis, I've seen the damage it's done to some of those homes with the cars crashing into their homes, they're getting up the freeway going 60, 80 miles per hour, and they're not stopping and slamming in the homes.

Well, my question is what's happening with the Presidio roundabout that because you mentioned it, but I'm not familiar with it, so let's go.

So the procedure roundabout, and I'm no way an expert in roundabouts, but based on what I've been told, uh, it used a Dutch design or a roundabout, which was uh a model of the roundabout that we were doing up until you know uh the intent to optimize the roundabout to make it better, and essentially, what was happening with the Dutch roundabout is that in theory, it could be parts a lot of space, and if you don't have that space, you're not able to create a solid circular path for the bicycles within the roundabout, and that that circular path allows the bicycles to have good line of sight of cars that's that's crossing the street.

If you don't have that space, then the bicycles, as they are riding on their path and would like to make a left turn into the roundabout, would not be facing the street, but instead their backs will be facing the cars.

So essentially, when they're riding the bicycles, they need to do a movement that they will have to turn all the way back to see whether there's a car, and it's not it's not optimal because as if you're riding the bicycle, you should be able to keep keep moving.

But in this case, because of the constraint space, there was no place for uh to allow the bicycle to make a perpendicular movement to have a better land site.

Okay, all right.

Um, I have a question about the grant application status, the federal earmark that we're trying to get.

Have we received similar grants for road projects before?

Sounds for the federal yearmark?

Yeah, for the federal market for somewhere.

As far as I know, we received a federal earmark for one of our bicycle and pedestrian projects.

Okay.

Okay, and my last question is the additional cost that says um point 20, 220,000.

Um, what are those additional costs to federalize it?

Because you mentioned updating, it's different than it was before.

Yeah, what exactly comes to us?

Once the project is federalized, then the environmental clearance will have to be following NEBA instead of CQ.

SQL is typically what we do.

Uh, if the funding is local, so NEEPA requires uh administering and also uh we need the consultant to provide that service and provide the reports so that it's a and provide a determination uh after the study on how about the impacts of the environment uh the impacts of the project on the environment.

So that's one of the the other requirements are uh right-of-way certifications, and all of these are applications and submittals that is sent to CattleTracks that are not typically needed if the project is locally funded.

Okay, that's all my questions.

Thank you.

That's what I'm doing.

Thank you.

Thank you for the presentation.

This is, I'm sure it's uh gotta be frustrating for you guys, Brian, nowhere near as frustrating as it is for the residents that live right there.

But I I see all these, you know, PGE and ATT, Comcast, Cal Trans, everybody's involved.

How much do they?

How much are they paying?

Yes.

For the UK companies, uh, you'll for relocating their facilities, it'll that all of that cost will be on their time.

So the city's not paying for that.

Okay, so PGE, ATT and Comcast, they're all gonna float their own boat.

And the reason they'll do that is because we have the federal grant.

Because it sounded like they're waiting to find out if we have the federal grant before they do anything.

Um the I think it's more the franchise agreement uh with the city.

Uh if a city has a project that would require the facilities to be relocated, they will need to relocate that.

It's it doesn't need to be federally funded project, but a city project that requires them to move their facilities.

So we just need to get to a certain point in the process, I guess, legally to tell them it's time to move your shop.

Well, why are they waiting?

Um right now, so PGE, we were we were successful in getting them to schedule the work.

Um we've tried, we've been trying to reach out to ATT and Comcast, and we're we haven't been successful in getting to the right person.

And similar to uh other agencies and other utility companies, uh everybody is just so busy.

So we're trying to push to get this project in their schedule.

And that's where the struggle is.

Okay, so what kind of leverage do we have?

Like, how do we create this deal?

Where do we go with them and say, hey, this is gonna cost you money?

You're gonna not just is it gonna cost you money to fix this, but you're gonna be paying money.

Because if we have another accident that crashes into the homes, you're gonna be liable for it.

I mean, 20 years, right?

Like, and I know it's not all on them, but at some point, as a good friend of mine said, iron fists with a soft lever.

What at what point do we put them in a position to say, okay, we gotta move or there's some liability, we're gonna be culpable in this.

Because it's true.

I think every well, I don't know how many people seen it, but yes, I think everybody up here and members of the public and maybe even staff have seen these pictures.

And nobody should have to live like that.

And they've come here and they spoke to us and they've talked to us, and and and I and here, and I don't mean you guys, you two individuals or our city staff.

I just uh where's the pressure point that we can push to tell them enough is enough and we're moving on this.

When it comes to Comcast and them not getting back to you.

I think we just need to push harder.

Um, similar to PJE.

Um in the beginning, it was very hard uh to get them to schedule the work.

And we started to escalate this because we we have relationships with uh these companies.

It would never be escalated, then we get some lot of action done.

So for Comcast and ATT, we're prepared to do that to escalate it and to get the uh this work uh planned and then scheduled so that so that they know you're not interfering with the city's project.

Oh, excuse me, I talked to my wrong add to that to the engineer Jason.

It's it it is a constant struggle uh with our utility companies.

Um a lot of cities need their services, we need their services on several different projects.

We're working with them currently to get service to the Walford Library, a lot of our uh uh irrigation to that uh modern park.

We can't have every, it's hard for us to say every project is is critical to them because every city says the exact same thing.

Uh so we do we can choose, we do work with their government liaison when one project rises above the rest, and we try to get that uh more uh emphasis, but it it is a it is a challenge uh that we have been facing and that all cities have been facing with scheduling uh work uh from PGE.

Not just to construct the project but just to review it.

Um but they they have a lot of requests as you can as you can imagine, it's their hands are strapped, according to their I I appreciate that, and I love you guys.

You're good.

This is the third time you guys hit me with more for guards because you know what it means to me, so it's like oh that punch, but I'm gonna tell you this.

I want it all all now.

They got enough workers.

I work in that industry.

We gotta be tougher, we gotta be stronger.

And it's not you guys, I know, I know you guys are doing your darndest, but there are processes that we gotta figure out buttons to push.

And yes, we're demanding.

We're a city that wants to move forward and give back what we need to give back to the community, and and I'm not saying this to you.

Maybe someone will listen to this, who I don't know.

Um lastly, the Caltrans piece, um, you know, it feels like they have to do their their shoring, right?

Of on the freeway because we're gonna cut into some of that.

I look at the map, and it's like, good lord, like what what when we design it, it doesn't look like we're cutting into any of their infrastructure.

We're cutting into the the dirt and the grass and the trees, maybe, but I don't see anything that's gonna um interrupt the way that uh bridge is on the off-ramp.

But is it because we're moving the road?

Well, maybe that's what it is.

We're moving the road further.

No, okay, all right, fair enough.

It takes my Google brain a little bit longer to figure it out.

I don't know if I need it quick.

Okay, I'm good.

Thank you.

Well come back to coming back to Councilman Reserve.

Okay, I have one more question.

Um I can't really tell on this drawing, but what's happening with the liquor store?

There's like a liquor store convenience store that's over there.

I know it's had some problems over there too.

It's been rhyme and other things, but um, is anything happening to that?

Or is it just staying there with this project?

So we've started conversations with the property owner and the um uh the messy.

Um so far, we're trying to meet again uh with them to to share with them uh what the adjustments we can do to help mitigate the impacts to their property, so that's that part is the uncertainty of the entire process, um, because uh we cannot dictate how fast that process will take, um and as I mentioned earlier, being federally funded uh makes that even harder because uh of the timeline that's given us uh to do everything and complete everything, but as far as I know, the liquor store is staying in that location and the business is continuing.

Okay, that's my last question.

Thank you.

Okay, a couple questions on my end, the housing incentive program.

Well, whatever that the grant name is.

Do we have other projects that are eligible?

Yes, we do.

Can you give me some examples?

When we submitted the project list to MTC, we provided them with two projects.

Uh the second project was the Hisparian Biking Gap Closure project.

So MTC approved those two projects.

Um, now it I I talked to MTC and asked them because the Hisperian bike gap closure project is not as uh it's not ahead of the MacArthur project in terms of following the Cal Trans procedure, so it may have the same struggles, except that there won't be an arrival we need.

So that's an advantage, but because we're trailing uh and we need to catch up and put this project into the MTC tip, all of that will take time.

So as a third option, we are looking at a street maintenance project, which is eligible for this grant, and we're looking into whether what are the steps that we need to do to get this uh federalized, and what would be the impacts to our current schedule because we're looking at the project that we are we have scheduled to go out to bid late this year, so we have to we have to match those the timelines and make sure that uh we pin the project of least resistance so that we don't lose the money.

And the timeline just hypothetically speaking, some of the Llewellyn bike lanes.

The timeline is first, would it be eligible for something like that?

And if so, is it just the timeline for design on such a long stretch of uh far would exceed any possible delivery date?

So for the welling, that project we think is also eligible for for this grant now.

For both for Hisperian and Lowell, we just started design.

We were uh we awarded the contract um just last Monday uh to uh to the start to go to a design project.

What that means is um we need to first get MTC to approve those projects.

Oh, his parents are already approved, but do I get it approved by MTC?

Takes them two months.

Once MTC approves those projects, then we have to get a resolution of local support from C Council.

So that can possibly take another month.

Uh after we get that, then that's the only time we can put the project in the tip.

And when and projects that are in the tip are projects that can be funded, uh can be federally funded.

Without the project being in the tip, uh, it's not considered uh a federal federal project.

So those are the steps.

Now, being that blue welling and Hisperian compared to MacArthur, McCarthy is already in the tip.

We had that foresight of including it years ago.

So if we were to add it now, it estimates about six months to get to get those projects into TIP.

So if you're adding all of those time together, that's easily a year.

And after a year, that's the only time that you can start the NEBA clearance.

And NEPA typically would take six months.

So that's why we are kind of worried about all of these country requirements and procedures that we're trying to start to look at a street maintenance project with the hopes that that procedure would be simpler to do, so then we still keep the money.

Okay, so this is going to be as much a comment as a question.

When I think of all the many different infrastructure projects that we have around the city, if something like the gap closure lane, the gap closure on Hesperian was eligible, it strikes me that we've got a lot of eligible projects.

And then I think like what does it take to just pass council resolutions to support various possible projects as we support these projects so that if one fails, we can just write pivot to the next.

Like I'm just trying to avoid this sequential and just but get um the term in electronics would be headroom, right?

Create the headroom so that we can pivot and we're not bumping into walls and we can just plow if somebody closes down, we got plenty of other bandwidth uh headroom to keep to keep operating.

I see a light come on over here, so I'm assuming city manager you want to chime on.

City engineer.

City engineer, sorry.

Either promotion or no, um I'll turn it back to manager Ching too.

But we did just want to, that's a good comment and a good question.

Staff did anticipate something along those lines.

So on Monday night, we got two resolutions of support to council and council uh uh thankfully approved both of them.

One of them was for the MacArthur roundabout, one of them was for the Hesperian cap closure.

Just for that in case uh in-case scenario, like we have the two ready to go, whether we choose one or the other.

Uh, it is possible for us to bring additional resolutions.

We can look into that if we're gonna look at it, but staff then uh manager Cheng and his staff is diligently looking at other options that we could use that would best position us to use this, not lose the money uh and use it for a project um and while still delivering MacArthur and all of the other projects.

So uh federal money is good, but it does come with a lot of requirements.

Uh so we do have to uh navigate those uh challenges.

Yeah, so in this particular case, I think that the concern is the timing as much as the requirements because I'll pay 25% tax, so that I have 75% free money left, as long as it doesn't result in zero money because I failed to comply.

Um, that brings me to uh Councilman Rabolt's question about P or comment, I guess, as much about PGE.

PGE owns the polls, and is there something that prevents PGE from saying we're moving this poll?

Do you guys want to have your utilities attached to the knee poll or not, right?

That they own the poll, others are as 90% of the polls are PGE, and the others are less C's, less C is on the poll.

I feel like the power sits in PGE.

They pick a move date and tells the other people, hey, we're moving the poll this day, come along for the ride.

That is correct.

So, however, we still there still needs to be some form of coordination.

PGE have done in the past, is that ATT Comcast, if you're not ready, you're the one removing the poll.

So they would remove their facilities, and then ATT they cannot touch ATNT and Comcast facilities, so they would leave the poll there until ATT and Comcast are able to remove their facilities, and then they need to remove the pole at that time.

So the goal is for ATT and Comcast to be at the same time removing all of their facilities so PGE removes the poll.

Okay, that's perfect.

So do we have, and this is I guess a lot for city manager and city manager.

When we're working with our uh the entities that we franchise the utilities that we franchise, do we have the right to put them on notice?

You have 90 days, 180 days, whatever that notice is, and after which point we begin them because if the objective is to move that pole in six months, I'd say we put everyone on notice, PGE, they go and they move the poll, and the other said, you can either line up, schedule out six months, or we're just gonna find you.

Thank you, Mirror.

Uh, we would need to look into the franchise agreements that we have with the utilities as well as statute to see if the city has the ability to do that.

Okay, so I just think that you this this notion of putting pressure, and I'm totally sensitive to this idea that everything can't be a priority.

Uh, but part of what I struggle with is when projects have been in the works for a long time and it's they've ripened for lack of a better word.

Um, there is an opportune time to apply pressure, and so I'm just trying to be sensitive to that.

Um there's also questions like PGE.

We've known for I don't know, I've known PGE is slow to connect.

Um, so sometimes we just need to plan in advance.

If it's going to be a year, let's plan right now or next year, and here's the date, and no more excuses, and we'll do whatever we should do between now and then, but let's just make the request now, or whenever we need it to be done, and then you know, if we ever get into any kind of litigation, we would say, you know, we gave 300 days notice.

That's far beyond kind of reasonably necessary notice.

Okay, enough about uh moving polls.

Um, is the difference between NEPA and CEQA so great that it's a material delay, or is it more of an administrative process for the consultant that did our CQA EIR to update it to reflect whatever additional vocabulary is required?

So I've always been under the impression that California is has higher standards, um, but I mean that just could be pop culture knowledge as opposed to the truth.

I think it's it's a more procedural impact.

Um, for example, and maybe I can answer it uh give give giving examples.

Typically, if let's say we have a road projects, because those projects are within existing, uh the existing footprint of the roadway, for example, it's as simple as staff using a category called exception, uh, and finding that in the county of Spencer Solvice and uh the state clearinghouse, and that solves it, right?

Because yes, that's true, you're within the footprint, this it's that quick.

Um, NEPA in this case uh required that we hire a consultant so that we can uh look at the cultural resources impact of this project, and this area is my understanding is sensitive.

There might be areas here that uh cultural like meaning Native Americans uh would have to to look into and make sure that the expansion of the footprint, which is slight, which is within the property uh of CalTrans, we'll be in, will we'll be in that in a land that that is important to them.

So things like that is slightly different, the requirements are different from if it were CQL.

But I do understand your copy that's California's typically has a a different higher standard for environmental uh you know protection, right?

And I'll and I'll sorry, uh excuse me, Manager Chang, I'll answer that.

So SIQA and NEPA are similar.

Uh you are correct.

California has one of the most stringent environmental uh requirements in the nation.

Um for NEPA, NEPA is administered by Caltrans, and Caltrans has a lot of procedural requirements.

Uh while CEQA is administered by the city, uh, when we assess if a project is say categorical sand and does it does it impact certain things, we can do our own little uh our own assessment, evaluation, and make determinations.

Caltrans typically requires several technical studies, formal technical studies to document that there are no impacts to say traffic or cultural resources, and those each of those individual studies take time to take money, and typically those level of studies wouldn't be required uh for SQL.

Although we look at those same things too, we don't like not, we don't not look at them, uh, but it's the procedural requirements of NEPA are uh additional to the Caltrans local assistance process than Equal, then SQL.

And from a cost perspective, it's a couple hundred thousand dollars.

I'm not sure if it's a couple hundred thousand dollars, but because of the because the effort is more to do the additional technical studies, the cost is more typically to do a NEPA study than it is a sequel, especially for uh categorical exemption project.

So so again, now I'm gonna go into comment a little bit because these are these are kind of economic decisions that we make and how we use the public's money and all this kind of stuff.

My concern is that if we are going to continue to pursue federal money for our larger scale projects, and not to make up numbers now, instead of spending 150,000 dollars for a CEQA study, we spend 220,000 for a NEPA study, that on a six million dollar project, spending the extra 70,000 at the beginning, is a great investment in that it enables the federal money, and we don't have to go back and delay a year and and all of which increase the cost by four percent of six million, which is 240,000.

If I did my math right in my head, right, and and it's just the math is really simple, and so I again I'm not I'm not here to second guess, but it really is as we as we think about where we want to take the city that making investments in uh I'll call it NEPA qualified studies that then enable us to get two million dollars and literally just drop it in, so to speak, and continue.

I think would be a wise um a wise investment decision.

As we consider those things, um and then the last thing that I have here, so is it your recommendation?

I mean, your professionals that we not federalize this, because what I don't want to do is kind of lose lose lose.

So we don't get the money for this because we're afraid we won't meet the deadline, then we pivot to different project, and then we don't get the money for that project because we can't meet that deadline, and in the end, we've we've lost out that didn't try.

So kind of guide me through a little bit of how to think in uh that decision making.

The challenge is uh not knowing it's a like a labyrinth of procedures with Cal Trans.

So right now we're trying to make a decision early to avoid the loss of the grant funds.

We're trying to pick up all of this information, reaching out to different people to give us good advice.

Sometimes they give us advice that doesn't help because it's not clear, it's also big.

We look at the L and PM standards, it tells us one thing, and somebody else, a consultant, tells us my experience is different.

So it's very challenging.

We're not getting a certainty that we want in order for us to have the confidence to move forward and not and say later on that yeah, we got everything covered.

We're not there yet.

So if I may ask right there, just a clarification, is that uncertainty with respect to Caltrends, and what they will require in this alternative path, correct?

Yes.

So we're trying um trying to think outside of the box.

So we're we're reaching out to uh in the case of the right-of-way certification, which uh we're hearing in the past project that we did the right-way certification for a road.

Yeah, project took NIPA took about six months, and the right-of-way certification also took about six months.

In another project that the consultant was telling us, quite similar to what we have.

Um, we were told that it took one and a half years.

So six months we can do one and a half years we cannot that's gonna take us beyond the two.

So we're not giving up just yet.

We just need a few more times, but we do need to decide quickly and pivot because we don't want to lose the time that we we need for the other projects.

So we're reaching out to the Caltrands and asking the person who is actually reviewing the revival weight certification, asking them this is our situation.

We have a deadline at this time.

This is the requirements we need for a right away.

Can we do it?

Using your experience with your procedures and all what's needed.

If we do it perfect, can we do it within 11 months?

If they respond no, then we stop right there.

Okay, so thank you very much.

So as we leave this item because I want to be, I know I we've kept Miss Schultz here for a while.

Um, is there some sort of guidance or consensus that staff is looking for this committee to offer?

At this point, we do want uh want to ask uh the committee to help us push this project forward.

So the ask that we will have the city council in a couple of weeks is to uh fund the available fund the needed money to move this project forward because the funding need funding need for the project doesn't only focus on the fund on the federal funding requirements, it also focuses on getting this project to a certain point.

Um, was that not in the approved CIP?

Correct, it is it is so everything with approved CIP.

Uh we have the appropriations we there will be additional appropriations, but we do need an additional authorization to increase uh the agreement the design contract to a certain level.

Got it, thank you.

Okay, but perfect.

Perfect.

So what I'm gonna do at this time, then is so if there's nothing else, close this item and move back to 3A, and thank you for your presentation for both of the presentations.

I know we got into some detail, but this is committee, and so we'd like to dig in and really understand when so when we speak to the council, we can say as a committee we have vetted this and we feel comfortable.

So thank you.

Going back to item 3a, our bait fair, I think it's transit plan.

If I'm not mistaken, we've got is that right?

Is it that the formal income?

Bait fair community-based transportation plan.

And we do have our system community development director, Ms.

Adelon Schultz here.

Oh, that's not it.

Hi.

Here to just give an update, no action required.

Other committee, this is a one of two grant funded projects that's going on at Bayfair right now.

Um, the larger grant, the over $2 million dollars, is for a development plan to look at Bayfair and how we implement the vision of the city and the community of that.

This is a different effort.

So I wanted to make sure that this committee had an understanding of the community-based transportation plan as it relates to transportation.

So it's called a CBTP for short, and that's not a name we came up with, it's actually a transportation planning process, and there's a program at MTC for CBTPs throughout the Bay Area, and ACTC locally administers these funds, and they issued a grant to the city for $350,000.

And it's not just for San Leandro, it's for the whole Bay Fair area, which actually includes unincorporated Alameda County.

So while we're administering those funds now, we are partnering very closely with our colleagues at the county.

And we also have Nicole Castellano here who's working on this effort from the Public Works Transportation Center.

The CDTP process is really focused on community engagement, so it's in the name, community-based transportation plan.

The idea is that you look at equity priority areas and you work directly with the community to find out what they would like to see change in their community.

So it's very ground-up, and there's also an emphasis on multimodal, so not cars, right?

But also how are people moving through those communities by foot, on bike, transit, etc.

And the goal with the CBTP process is to come up with like a mini CIP just for the area that we're studying that prioritizes projects for the council's consideration.

And it also identifies funding and implementation steps.

And the neat thing about the CBTP program is that the CIP list that will be put together actually has access to future C BTP implementation funds that would come from regional agencies.

And so the way the process is going to work is that we're really looking at what are the barriers to moving throughout this area and taking inventory of what's already been done, was already been planned.

You guys talked about the Hisparian bike lanes today, that's within this area.

So we want to educate the community about what's already been planned and designed and possibly funded, and then also find out what's missing, what else needs to be done to improve and connect.

So those needs are going to be identified, and then that prioritized project list will come out.

And this will be unique because the city is going to adopt the CBTP and the county is also going to adopt it.

So it's one document that will be adopted by each agency with their lists that are separated by agency.

And then I also just wanted to emphasize as you guys talk to people in the community about this and as we talk about it.

This is really focused on the public rights of way.

There are lots of schools in this area and a lot of resources in Alameda County, right, you know, right beyond the city boundary.

So it's been really nice working with the county and doing tours of like the Reach Ashland Youth Center and some of the hard facilities that are in construction.

There's a lot of amenities that as Bayfair develops are actually going to be really great amenities for St.

Landrins to frequent as well.

These neighborhoods are very connected, even though there's a jurisdictional boundary going through the middle.

And then this map shows kind of one of the working documents behind that prettier map that I showed you here.

The purple hashes represent equity priority communities.

So these are determined by MTC based on demographic data.

And so I think this is just helpful to highlight why we chose the map area we did.

And then the kind of peach colored area in the middle is a 12-minute, fully able-bodied pedestrian walkshed from the Bayfair Bar station.

So we wanted to make sure that that entire walkshed was included within the plan boundaries as well.

So this is the area that we'll be focused on for that mini list of CIP needs that the community will prioritize.

So the types of outcomes that we expect through this process are really the pedestrian and bike infrastructure needs, transit, like bus stop, ADA upgrade needs, intersection improvements, or neighborhood traffic calming and safety measures.

And when we talk about Bayfair safety comes up a lot, so I'm expecting to hear frequent you know comments about lighting and security.

So we'll be taking all that feedback.

And if people give us feedback that's relevant to the development plan, it's the same project team.

So we'll note that in you know the other, the other binder.

Um for stakeholder engagement, it's very broad here.

So, of course, the electeds are making the determination on the plan.

Our project management team includes representatives from the city, county, transportation agencies, and then we have interviews with community representatives happening now, and there is a steering committee for this effort, and it's made up of transportation partners, and we have representation from our bike and pedestrian committee on that steering committee.

And the steering committee, I'll talk a little bit more in the next slide about the steering committee's role.

And then there's a lot of general public outreach.

So right now there's a survey that just launched, and I'd like to ask for your help in getting the word out to your email list or your constituents.

Um, anybody who goes to Bayfair should take the survey.

So you don't just have to live in the area.

If you go there and you travel there, we want to hear what you have to say.

There's also going to be an open house that focuses on access needs where people can come in person and tell us their stories.

Um that open house will also be focused on the development plan at the same time.

So we'll be getting giving information to the community and hearing from them on both projects.

And then towards the end of the project, there'll be an open house where we show the multimodal recommendations and asking what we got right.

So the steering committee's role isn't really highly highly technical, it's more talking about the lived experience within the community, what are the the challenges and barriers, and then helping us get our outreach strategy right, and then they are liaisons back to their community members.

So it's a really important role so that we can vet materials before they go live and go out to the broader community.

So this is the overall timeline, wrapping up by the end of 2026 in alignment with our grant requirements, and where you see the burgundy color, that is that is showing like a joint joint development plan, community-based transportation plan effort.

Um, there's a lot of coordination going on between all the different agencies and partners, but we will be keeping the facilities committee up to speed before this goes to the full council for consideration.

So you'll you'll be getting updates throughout the process, and we would just encourage if you want to refer any interested folks to the new website.

Because this is multi-agency, we actually opted for an external website, BayfairCBTP.org.

That way it can be updated in city and county constituents can go to the website and not get confused about who's doing what.

And then we have the survey open that's been pushed out on social media.

This is a QR code, and again it's gonna be open until mid September.

So we're just gonna keep pushing it and try to get as much input as we can.

Um, and I'm available if you have any questions.

Um, and that concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Um, do we have any public comment on this item?

No, okay, so we'll close public comment and come back to committee members for questions discussion.

That's more important.

Thank you for the presentation.

Since we're on the slide, I'll say I went in here and I tried to access it from the email that we got, and the link was it went to one of those four-one uh unavailable.

So I'm not sure exactly why it did that.

Um but maybe we can uh I don't um maybe we can email that again with the link that works because I did want to push that, but I'm not going to do this.

Yes, yes, thank you for that feedback.

Um thank you for the presentation.

I appreciate it.

I am I am truly blessed three times in one week I get to sit and talk with you.

That's amazing.

Um, this project is obviously something that the city is you know needing and wanting and has been for a long time.

So I appreciate the effort.

I honestly haven't heard of any type of payment warrant that two different agencies would sign on to.

Maybe that's something you guys have done before, but I haven't heard of that, so that's cool.

But when you say that, then I get nervous.

You know, because who we're signing on to it with the county who is the behemoth, and it's only $350,000.

So I'm sure they would be concerned with our best interest.

Um, but how does that play out in the rooms when we guys are discussing something and it ends up this is gonna solely just be in San Leandro and it's not even gonna connect to Alameda Counties here?

How does that conversation go on?

Are they I know you won't say it off anyway?

So I'll only miss it.

You know, it's a good question.

So I think if you think of it as two separate lists that each agency adopts that are just projects within that agency boundary, so St.

Leandro has full control over the list for St.

Leandro, the county will have control over what was on their list, and it really just helps because the constituents don't care who's doing what, like I live here, and yeah, I'm on that side of the line, but I have feedback about this street that leads to my neighborhood.

Um, an example is that Hisperion is city, thornally, that connects to the BART station is county, and it's just you know, everybody's going everywhere.

So, um, we will have independence on what we choose to put in our list, and the county will have that same independence for their list, and then I'm the project manager working directly with the consultants since we were the recipient of the ACTC grant, but we are giving the county and their professional staff lots of options to participate fully and get feedback on materials.

Uh, jointly we'll review anything that goes onto the website, um, and then we're doing outreach independently, you know, within our jurisdictions.

So it's a great collaboration, and I think I think it'll be really appreciated by the community because we'll get a better effort this way.

Yeah, product.

Yeah, and you're the best one that lead that you do that that would that collaboration.

So I'm glad you're there.

Um and when you speak of those little pieces and and like parts involved, or not necessarily involved, but some of those streets lead to BART or or they lead into other areas.

Have we considered working with them to kind of like fully exhaust the plan that goes much further onto their property, or no, because they're private, we don't like it?

Um, it's a great question.

So the CBTP is more focused on what's happening on the public streets.

The development plan is really focused on getting the VARS site that they own, which is half in the city, half in the county.

They are we're trying to get them ready to put out an RFP to develop their site and find the developer partner.

And so we are very engaged with BART through our development plan and all the other private property owners within the core of Bay Fairs.

We call it sub area one.

Um, and so there will be an update to the full council on the development plan in the fall.

Um, we are doing a lot of work to get it ready to present information to the full council, and BART's been a really um very involved partner.

Um, so I'll just say one thing just because you asked, but with any property owner, including BART, they want to do pre-development work and plan for the future, but they also don't want to overly constrain the site that they want to bring a developer in for.

So BART knows that we're gonna need really great access to the bar station with part of the plan that's gonna be that's gonna be really important, but they also are gonna want some flexibility when they get a developer on board to figure out exactly where things need to go.

So I I think that's the balancing act on the development plan, is doing enough pre-development work that helps them, it doesn't start to hinder.

Right.

Clean clean slave is what they want, right?

Okay, one last thing.

So you spoke about the East 14 um uh bike lanes that are that have been coming from the south to the north, um, that will come into that zone, and I know that's like a that's uh it's not it's not a San Leandro thing, it's I don't know, it's not a county thing, maybe it's a HCDC thing, but when where they come into that zone, I know that's already like like planned, and you see some projects going, none of like are we're being diligent enough to go, well, there's already money for that.

Let's not you know even think about doing anything over there, right?

Like we leave that out of this, or inevitably does some of this money have to go to that because that is I do like that plan, I like the way it looks, you know.

I think I think it'll be telling the community members about what's already been planned and designed, um that isn't fully funded, and those projects I believe will be on the list of of projects that the community wants to see in the area.

Um, but it's a balancing act because there's already been a lot of thinking and a lot of design work done, and we want to hear from the community what they want to see, right?

Um, so it'll be it'll be um an interesting process, but you're right.

So ACTC is planning for protected bike lanes to come down from Oakland down um San Leandro Boulevard and then close to the senior center coming up to East 14th and then coming down past Bay Fair into the county, um, and that'll be a huge project.

And then the development plan has to figure out how do we get people from East 14th across the mall site to the BART station, and that's so there's these two efforts going on that are complementary for sure.

Okay, I don't envy your situation, but you know, right on for the jobs, I should have done thank you, okay.

Thank you for your presentation.

I kind of had a similar question.

So basically what we're talking about that project connecting with this project is like or passing through is the greenway, right?

That we're talking about.

Okay.

Yeah, I was gonna ask you how we're gonna connect these projects.

Okay, the other question I have is about the equity priority communities, so we go according to the demographics, what like race and for income and all that, okay.

Do we okay?

Do we have the do we have the graphics on that or do we have a yeah?

It's part of the the current phase of work, the existing conditions phase, they'll be putting together um all of the equity and the demographic information about this area that we will be able to present at the open house, and then it'll be part of the background information in the plan itself as it's drafted.

So I don't have the number screen off the top of my head, but it's being compiled, okay.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah, I like the way how we're working with the county because I live in this area, and I I know how if one side of 150th is Salandro, the other side, even though we're changing their addresses now before they said they lived in Salandro, but they didn't and they thought they did, but so that's that's important.

Okay, that's that's all my questions.

Thank you.

Okay, so I've got two remaining questions that I've been asked already.

The first one is more of a comment, I guess.

The whole planning process, we're saying that it is independent of the development.

There's work being done on the development side, but in many ways, I just want to be sensitive to the to the reality that what we may need is contingent on a gets developed.

So if you end up putting hypothetically speaking, thousands of units of housing in and around Bay Fair, that I think changes perhaps some of the dynamics or needs, and some even asking for a comment as much as I'm struggling with how they're completely independent.

They're complimentary.

So the traffic experts are working closely with the city to look at what the build-out scenarios will mean for transportation needs and improvements on the rights of way.

So that's one way we're getting information, right?

The other way is listening to the community about what's already not working and how we can think about them.

So I think it helps because there's gonna be a lot of focus on the you know core area of Bayfair, but we don't want to forget the existing neighborhoods and what they might need as well as we're making changes in this area, so they're complementary, but we are rest assured doing the very technical analysis to see what changes might be driven by development.

Um in terms of outreach, that was another comment.

Um I noticed on your slide, I don't think it the graphic that with a survey monkey, it I don't think it listed art.

Yes, on purpose, because really art is working very closely with us, um, but it's an ACTC-funded project that the city and the county are really championing.

Okay, and AC transit and BARC are going to be very engaged, but I think they want to be a little bit more in the background.

So the reason that I ask is that when I think about um reaching out to the populations that use the services currently, and what they would like to see different, like oh, it's just too hard to get into the BART station, or the buses run way too infrequently.

What better place to start than to actually hand out surveys at the bus stop?

Yeah, um, and then the other one that I think about is there are there are a lot of schools in that area, right?

And just in Ashland, there are three three large schools, and what I don't know is how much the families in there avail themselves, but I do know there's a high proportion of Spanish-speaking folks, particularly at Hillside Elementary, and so making sure that we we have that true multilingual outreach to people that uh might not generally be so prone to connect.

The last um, in addition to Ashland Reach Center, uh, Alaska's health center is now there on about 164th of wherever exactly it is.

Um, and there's new construction, new housing going in right there.

So just making sure that um you know there's a large population of people who I think probably use and or will be using public transit, and just availing ourselves of uh of their of their needs, right?

Really understand what they need.

Thank you.

It's very good input.

I think also um looking at different age groups and who relies the most on transit, youth and seniors, and we have um the head of reach on our steering committee, so just like being able to tap into what the young people need.

Um we've already got over 80 survey responses, and it's just just open, so we would love to get as much data and feedback as possible.

Perfect, perfect, perfect.

Okay, thank you very much.

Uh, one more question on here, customer mold.

Yes, thank you.

Um when it just hit me right now, like jurisdictional lines are there, and so when we're doing the outreach as the city, in what ways do we reach that, or or do we not?

Because now we're infringing on what Alameda County's trying to do in that area and their list and they may you know what I mean.

Like I know it's a community and they don't care about the line, but how do we how does that how do we deal with that when in the terms of um outreach?

Yeah, we're both promoting it.

So the county has events coming up that they would like to have promotion at.

Um, we also will be promoting, so I think it's um driving everybody to that shared website.

Oh, is I think a really good idea.

I I really didn't think it would feel right if we put the website on the San Leandro website, and then the county is promoting that, it would just get confusing for our people, like oh my, why am I here around the wrong place?

So I think that neutral website is a really good idea, and um, you know, we won't be sending city staff out into the county because the county teams are doing their outreach.

So I think I think it's just very complimentary and and and so far going really well.

Really great colleagues in planning and engineering over at the county, and um we're gonna have to get used to really partnering and working together because the BART site is split down the middle, as you can see there, that yellow line goes right through that art emblem.

And so we're gonna be partners with these folks for I mean it takes a long time for some of these major abundance to happen, and so I think it's really been great collaborating, and we will continue, right?

For the foreseeable future.

Got it.

Thank you.

So we're we're both saturating the entire area.

Yeah, thank you for your presentation.

Thank you.

At this point, time we'll move to item number four, committee member comments.

Do they have any at this time?

Seeing then the time is 5 46 and we are turned.