Thu, Nov 20, 2025·San Leandro, California·City Council

Facilities & Transportation Committee Meeting Summary (Nov 13, 2025)

Discussion Breakdown

Engineering And Infrastructure55%
Technology and Innovation30%
Transportation Safety10%
Community Engagement5%

Summary

Facilities & Transportation Committee Meeting (Nov 13, 2025)

The San Leandro City Council Facilities & Transportation Committee held a meeting focused on (1) an informational presentation on the I-80 Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) Central Segment signal/communications upgrades and (2) review of the committee’s 2026 meeting calendar for conflicts around travel and holidays. No public comments were received, and no formal votes were recorded in the transcript.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • No public comments were given on non-agenda items.
  • No public comment was offered on Item 3A (ICM presentation).

Discussion Items

  • 3A: I-80 Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) Central Segment Project (informational)

    • Presenter: Adrian Toscano (Assistant Engineer) presented project background, location, improvements, milestones, schedule, and funding.
    • Project purpose (project description): Maintain traffic flow on local streets during freeway incidents (e.g., collisions) by using coordinated communications and detection technologies; not intended to “divert” traffic generally, but to manage traffic that exits the freeway during incidents.
    • Project area (project description): San Leandro Boulevard (from Wana Ave to Washington Ave) and Washington Ave (from San Leandro Blvd to Wana Blvd), described as a fully connected corridor.
    • Planned improvements (project description):
      • Installation of adaptive/synchronized signal controllers (described as developed by Cubic/Trafficware/Cubic ITS) that adjust signal timing in near real-time based on detected conditions.
      • Detection and communications upgrades, including traffic cameras and fiber-optic communications between intersections, enabling intersection-to-intersection coordination.
      • Integration with the City’s ATMS/ETMS traffic management system (as stated) for remote monitoring and troubleshooting.
      • Trailblazer signs (permanent, pole-mounted signs that activate during incidents to guide drivers to alternative re-entry points to the freeway). Staff noted existing examples already installed in the city from the prior segment (including one near the old Town Hall area and one on Davis Street).
    • Operations discussion (speaker questions/answers):
      • A committee member asked how “AI technology” would be used for safety/operations; staff explained the adaptive system uses camera detection data to adjust timings and prioritize flows during unexpected congestion.
      • Staff indicated the upgraded system would also be used during normal (non-incident) traffic conditions, not only during major events.
      • Staff stated camera detection would take precedence over in-pavement loops because cameras are more reliable and can detect farther upstream than the immediate approach.
      • A committee member asked about standardizing detectors citywide; staff described an objective to move toward consistent camera types/software as upgrades occur.
    • Intersections and scale (project description):
      • Staff stated the City has 63 signalized intersections.
      • A committee member observed approximately 14 signalized intersections (dots) shown along the corridor map (approximate count stated by the committee member).
    • Caltrans maintenance responsibility (project description):
      • Staff reported Caltrans agreed to maintain the I-80 off-ramp terminal signal at Washington Avenue for this segment (not typical for these projects, as local jurisdictions often maintain ramp terminal signals).
      • Discussion clarified (as stated) that other ramp locations were not changed by this project; Davis Street was described as maintained by Caltrans, while Marina had been relinquished to the City previously.
    • Key milestones (project description):
      • MOU/agreements with Caltrans: June (year implied 2025 based on surrounding context).
      • 100% design/specifications/estimate delivered by MTC: August.
      • E-76 authorization from Caltrans (authorization to proceed/spend federal funds): September.
    • Schedule (project description):
      • Bid opportunity posting targeted for Winter 2025–2026 (presenter noted a slide typo and clarified it should read “winter 25–26”).
      • Contract award targeted February 2026.
      • Construction anticipated to begin Spring 2026.
      • Completion anticipated Winter 2026–2027 (discussed as roughly about one year of construction duration).
    • Budget and funding (project description):
      • Construction contract engineer’s estimate: ~$1.1 million.
      • With ~10% design contingency: a little over $1.2 million (as stated).
      • With bid alternates plus contingency: a little under $1.5 million (as stated).
      • Federal funding for construction: $1.6 million.
      • Construction engineering budget: $250,000 (city staff time and/or consultants for QA/inspection/oversight, as stated).
      • Bid alternates described as primarily related to potential additional fiber network work (e.g., more fiber, new conduit/pull boxes/trace lines).
  • 3B: Review of 2026 Committee Calendar

    • A committee member flagged a potential conflict on May 14 due to likely travel to Sacramento.
    • The committee raised potential scheduling concerns for Nov 25 and Dec 16, described as possibly falling on the day before Thanksgiving (Nov 25) and a potential conflict with other board/commission commitments (Dec 16), and suggested the City consider adjustments.
    • The committee indicated general consensus that the calendar was acceptable subject to the noted availability/conflict information.

Key Outcomes

  • Received an informational presentation on the I-80 ICM Central Segment project; no vote recorded.
  • Provided staff scheduling feedback on the 2026 committee calendar (noted potential conflicts around May 14 and holiday-adjacent dates); no formal action recorded.
  • Staff were asked to share a photo/example of a trailblazer sign for committee understanding (informational follow-up mentioned).

Meeting Transcript

City Council Facilities and Reservation Committee to order some critical mistake. Roll. Council Member Soudan. Present. Council Member Vogue. Peter Gonzalez. Present. Okay, so we're going to move to item number two, which is public comment on items that are not on the hour attendants. Do we have any public comment on the attendants? No public comments. Okay. And if we can turn it on by Mike just a little bit. Thank you. So we're going to move to item number three. So we're closing public comment, to be clear. Moving to item number three, discussion items, 3A, the IAEA integrated corridor management presentation. Let's see who do we have. Our agenda, we have Adrian Toscano, assistant engineer, who's presenting this item. Thank you very much. Turn it down. Yes. Turn it down. Joseph. Okay, is this? I don't know if this works. There. Okay, does it work now? Cool. Good afternoon, Mayor, FTC committee, staff. As Randazal said, I'm Ian Jostana, I'm gonna be speaking about our IAA integrated corridor management central segment project. In this presentation, we're gonna be talking a bit about the project background, our project location, and we'll talk a bit about some of the specific project improvements that we'll be getting, and then touching on some of the key milestones that we've recently completed, and then our updated project schedule for the future, and then eventually we'll end up with talking about our funding analysis and budget. So starting off, we'll go about what is integrated board management, or ICM for short. It is an approach to maintaining traffic flow around larger transportation networks, like highways and freeways. As you know, when collisions occur on the freeway, we get a lot of outflow traffic from there that go into our local roadways.