Adoption of Resolution Establishing Policies on Street Width, Lane Width, Crosswalks and Bulb-Outs to Promote Safe, Livable Streets and Environmentally Sustainable Transportation Choices; and Recommendation to Provide Direction to Staff on Tools for Improving Safety at Intersections. (Planning, Building and Transportation 4227287) [Not heard on March 17, 2020]
That. This is harder than it looks at first glance. Sorry about that. They got set up. So, my name's Andrew Thomas, planning director. I am representing for today's item a team, a team of transportation planners and also public works department staff who have worked together on this. This has really been a joint effort. Today on the phone, I think I also have with me to help answer questions if necessary are our excellent city engineer, Scott Wickstrom, our well qualified. Senior transportation planner Rochelle Wheeler, and our overqualified part time transportation planner, Brian lives. In a tie. Oh, hi, Brian. Good. Is Brian wearing a tie? That's the first time I had to look at the name plate. But no. Okay. Just a little background. Back in September of last year, the city council approved a council referral to direct staff on transportation priorities and in advance of active transportation plan work. This resolution that we're presenting tonight addresses several of the requested short term actions that this council requested of us back in that referral. So we're responding to that referral. But it also and just as important. This this policy really is a step forward in the ongoing effort that this council is making to really transform Alameda transportation system, to make it safer, more environmentally sensitive, and just work better for all of our users, particularly our most vulnerable users of our transportation system. On November 5th of last year. This City Council adopted a Vision Zero policy aiming at reducing and ultimately eliminating severe and fatal injuries caused by traffic collisions in Alameda. This policy that we're bringing to you tonight, which was put together by our two departments working together, establishes safety as the number one priority for the design, reconfiguration and maintenance of city streets. Vision. Vision Zero dictates that we change the way the public right of way looks, feels, and operate. To achieve Alameda Transportation Safety and Climate Action Goals just for some of the viewers who might be listening in. This is a very important issue here in Alameda. This council taking a real leadership role in this, that the just one data point here between over the last ten years are on a ten year average between 2009 and 2018. Each year, an average of two people die and nine suffer severe injuries while traveling by either car by four foot on Alameda Streets. And just last fall, 12 collisions involving school aged children walking or biking occurred on our city streets. So we think this policy is an important step in transforming our network to be safe for all of our residents. It's not the final step. We still have a lot more work to do, but we do think it's a very important step. What I'm going to do now is just quickly, I'm not going to go through the entire policy and every single step, every single piece of it. But I want to just highlight some of the major policy directions that that are included here. This policy really states and reinforces the Vision Zero policy by stating that safety is our first and foremost priority when designing or redesigning streets. The resolution establishes a hierarchy and clear priorities for how we're going to allocate rights of way space. When we designing, redesigning or resurfacing streets safe and convenient, access for the most vulnerable road users is the highest priority, including children, seniors, people bicycling and walking. Transit priority is the second priority, as well as Americans with Disabilities Act accessibility. And then third priority will be space for on street parking. So we're establishing a very clear hierarchy with this policy. We know that all of these things are important to Alameda residents and businesses, but it's important to set that higher up that hierarchy so that when we have to decide how to use limited space, we have a clear set of priorities. The second aspect of this policy that we think is very important is that this relationship, that if we want to reduce deaths on our streets, we need to reduce speed. And by reducing and we can reduce speeds of vehicles by reducing travel. LANE With measures that reduce motor vehicle speeds can save lives. A person walking has only a 50% chance of living if hit by a car that's traveling 42 miles an hour. But if that same person but that same person has a 90% chance of living, if the car is only traveling 23 miles an hour per ngakoue, the National Transportation Organization's Urban Street Design Guide. Wider travel lanes are directly correlated with higher vehicle speeds. So what this policy says is that our streets in Alameda, our goal is to have our streets be 25 miles per hour. That is not only how we want to establish speed limits, but also how we want actual speeds to occur. What we see in Alameda is even though in some of these streets that are assigned for 25 miles an hour, we have people driving much faster. So with a couple exceptions, of course, we have Doolittle Drive and Harper Bay Parkway. So this policy says our standard width for travel lanes in Alameda will be ten feet. This as per national standards. There is an exception when working with trend on transit streets where we have transit busses or designated truck routes. Will the standard will be 11 feet. Less than ten feet is also possible when we are dealing with low volume residential streets. In other words, we're going to keep those travel speeds low. Next that I'd like to highlight bicycle lane and parking lane with the allocation of space between an automobile travel lane and the curb for bicycle lanes and on street parking. This requires a really careful balance and marking of space to ensure the safety of the people. Bicycling The people on the bicyclists on a bicycle are the more vulnerable of the users. So what this policy states is that the use of space for the safety of people bicycling is a higher priority than the use of space for on street parking. The policy states that separated bicycle lanes should always be provided instead of unprotected bike lanes whenever we can. So if we can find the space to protect the bicyclists, that should be our highest priority. And there's a standard width for a parking is eight feet, but seven feet is acceptable if necessary, to provide that safe bicycle facility for the more vulnerable user on the bicycle. As we move on now to the pedestrians, crosswalks and bulb outs, pedestrians and children walking and biking or being struck by automobiles in Alameda, shortening are crossing distances, slowing turning movements and visually narrowing roadway through the use of marks. Ball boats will increase pedestrian safety in Alameda. The safety impacts are even greater when accompanied by the use of bollards and other physical barriers and indicators. The City of Oakland did a study and found that 80% and 80% increase in the frequency of drivers yielding to pedestrians after they installed a paint and bollard pulled out at the uncontrolled intersection of Harrison Street and 23rd Street. This resolution states that more crosswalks should be placed at regular and interval and frequent intervals, arterials and collective streets that going forward. We are going to look at not just how many pedestrians cross the street today when we think about where to put pedestrian facilities. But what how many would use this crossing if we put in a safer crossing or with future development in the area? So looking forward to future pedestrian levels as well as current and looking ahead, placement will be prioritized according to high injury corridors, uncontrolled crossings at arterials and collector streets and locations, corridors and typologies identified in our upcoming active transportation and Vision Zero plans. Finally, the resolution also acknowledges that striping adding crosswalks both about this will require additional adventures of limited public funds for roadway improvements. Yes, we felt it was important to acknowledge that these facilities, bollards and striping require maintenance and physical barriers, will reduce the efficiency of things like the city street sweeping program. But we will we acknowledge in this resolution that these increased costs will need to be reflected in future city budgets, and that those issues and cost implications will have to be addressed with each, you know, capital improvement program and city budget as we move forward. And there may be tradeoffs between things like street paving priorities and other things. So this policy, we think, is an important step, aided by by no means the final step. We still have lots of work to be done to transform Alameda Transportation Network into that network that is safe and convenient for all users, especially the most vulnerable , and a network that supports our immediate climate action goals. As work continues on our planning effort, we will still we will be back in the future with more pieces of this and more steps in this process. It's going to be a long process, but staff is committed to working with the council to achieve these goals. It's not just about the climate. It's not just about traffic reduction. It's really about saving lives. So from our perspective, there's really nothing any more important than that. We're here to answer any questions you might have about the resolution. I think we have Scott and Brian and Rachelle and maybe some others on the phone to help me answer those questions. So with that, I'll turn it back. Turn it over to you. Thank you, Mr. Thomas. Great report. Important topic, miss. Why do we have any public comments on this item? We have three so far, and one more person has said that sending it in in the moment. Okay. So right now, I just want to hear from council. If you have any clarifying questions to ask of Mr. Thomas, we'll hold our praise and our discussion and all that after the the public comment and even have any clarifying questions. Councilmember Otis. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just a couple of quick ones. And forgive me for asking this because I know we discussed this, but these buttons have been in the news. Could we do something on that already? Because I didn't see anything in there. And the belly button. You know, I might like to call on our city engineer, traffic engineer, city engineer, Scott Wickstrom to answer that one. Yeah, you are. Scott. Hello? Hello? Yes. Enter the number of his question. Beg buttons. We're not specifically part of this referral. And if I could just ask that you tell us what a big button is. But actually, let me just go to Mr. Chan, our city attorney. I do try to keep him happy, or Mr. Rasch or both of you in tandem. Segments can be about crosswalks. So, yes. You know what that what you're talking about, it's the button you press to ask for the pedestrian crossing icon to come on. And so. Yeah. Status sufficiently related to the topic at hand? Yes. Yes, I think so. Okay. All right. This is Michael. Can you hear me? Yes, Michael. Yes, I think it's relevant. It's relevant enough in this whole scheme of the transportation discussion. But I think it's appropriate question for for the best guy to answer. Thank you. Thank you both. Okay. I just want to make sure. So. So tell us I mean, my my description was a little brief that when we when we hear the term big button, what does that mean? Yes. Really, it's a pedestrian push button that you'll see at signalized intersections and at some particular locations. The pedestrian is actually required to push the button in order for the green walk symbol to come up. And that's referred sometimes as a garden, as a possible tree in response to something very complex. Here's the first one is this referral is really the first component of the referral is really looking at the lane with some crosswalks and some bollards. There will be a separate response coming back to look at what is termed intersection access equity, which is a broader term between the relationship and the priorities between cars, bikes and pedestrians . We will be coming back. Transportation engineer Daniel Mira and I leading that referral at some point in the future. There's a separate question more related to the COVID 19 response, and we are looking into exactly where in the city the number of instances where pedestrians are required to push the button prior to cross. And we're looking to get that information gathered by either end of this week or early next week to have ready that make up for making it better. I appreciate that. My second. Question. You had a in your outstanding questions you asked us should crosswalks I think place intersection pairs of clubs. Can you kind of maybe talk about the pros and cons of of pairs versus clubs to help us provide input on that question? Right. I will go ahead to start on that. I might ask Rochelle to kind of add a little bit of context to that as well. We have a number of locations where for one reason or another, historically, there's only been a crosswalk on one side of the street. And what would what attend obliges a pedestrian to do is to walk. If they're just trying to go across that one leg without the crosswalk, they have to cross three sides of the road as opposed to going straight across. So the question, the desire, is it whenever possible to have them in pairs or quads? We're kind of speaking, soliciting your input on it. There are times I will say and it's not common, but there are some times where it is preferred from a traffic safety standpoint that you would only locate on one leg and not on all legs. But if there's no traffic safety consideration that's found, that's more of a general question. Would you prefer them in pairs? And we can't do anything to add. Hi, Michelle. Welcome. Hi. I know I don't have anything more to add. It's it's a matter of. Visibility of. Pedestrians. To motorists. By having more of the. Crosswalks straight. So to for. Rather than just to it's I think it's also a matter of. Signifying to the roadway. Users, all of the users that the street. Belongs to everyone to use. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay. My time to run. So just be aware of that, and I'm done. Thank you. Oh. But, madam. Okay. You're running out of time. But, Madam Clerk, we make sure that you're timing the speakers, including us. So Larry's muted the. I'm sure she's nodding her head. There's the. Um. So any other council clerk. Staff reports. I see no hands. I have questions. Tony. Yeah. Can you hear me? I think things are going in and out. Oh, dear. I'm losing people here. Oh. Can you hear me? Yeah. Yeah. I can hear you, Jim. I don't see me at all. Oh, yes, you're right. I think she. I hear her, but I don't see her. Oh, I don't hear her. Sorry, Marilyn, I don't. The voices. Her face is back. Okay. Yes, yes. Same with me. Um. I only hear you, Jim. Is there anyone else? I'm here. Oh, okay. All right. Not not talking to. Yeah. Only I can hear you, too. Okay, so I go ahead and ask my questions. Okay. Okay. I'm going to ask you a question. Oh. I'll hold off on them and say something. I want to just be. Okay. That was that. You took it from there. Oh, I shouldn't. Yes, you are correct. Great. I can hear you merrily. And I'm sure the staff is. Yeah. I think staff is frantically. Working on it. It's appear that people are we're having some various bandwidth issues. So I'm getting. So you're lucky. Well, I see. And seeing if there's anything we can do about it. But if you end up losing both video and audio, I would suggest you put your video on mute and your audio will hopefully continue better. But we just think, okay, you want us to put our video on mute? Just if you run into bandwidth issues again. Okay. And I have I have a request, Laura. I actually think I should be watching this meeting in real time. But we should not have we should not have to email them to get their attention, especially after last night. Yes. Yeah. Thank you. Please. Yep. Okay. It's like, you. Know, let's just hold for just a minute because I think the city clerk may be working on getting us a connection, but. Okay. Sounds good. Yeah. Thank you. I hope that people establish. I think. Okay. But Laura. Yeah? I texted. I like them, and we're getting them in real time until I adjourn this meeting. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah, I hear you. Yeah. Lightning is not going to strike twice. Okay. Thank you. Okay, so our next clarifying question is you Councilmember De. Well, thank you. I have several clarifying questions. The first is I received an email from a Web history business owner who was concerned about the placing on street parking as the lowest priority. What concerns and particularly he he felt that that would definitely affect small businesses, not just on Webster Street, but elsewhere. What kind of thoughts have been given to how this affects local small businesses on Webster Street or Park Street? I'm sorry, what was it that what what particular aspect was hit just. So at the very top of page three, that three of five at the very top, there's the first bullet point. And I think the second or third sentence says that the on street parking will be the lowest priority. So the question that I have is, in what ways has staff, you know, discussed among themselves as well as stakeholders, how this affects small businesses? Got it. Okay. And Mr. Thomas is going to address that. Can you hear me? Yeah, I can hear you just fine. Yeah, no, it's a great question. I think it's we we have to be very clear here. What we're saying is we're not. This policy does not say we are going to run out and start removing a bunch of on street parking. We know on street parking is important. We know it's important in the business community. What this resolution is saying is if we are balancing a situation where we have an unsafe situation for a vulnerable user, like for pedestrians who might be walking to that same business or children biking to school and the we have to decide how to use a limited amount of space. The priority is going to go to making sure that we we, you know, we make that pitch that that. That location safe for the user, the most vulnerable user. And in this case, it is going to be the child going to school or the senior crossing the street. Obviously, we want to be able to provide for everybody's needs. We get it. We local businesses need parking. I think. In in. Cases like Webster Street, where we are looking at pedestrian safety. Issues. On Webster Street, if we have an intersection where we do not meet our our visibility needs, you know, the recent council policy that said we need 20 feet at at two daylight intersections. Yes, we're going to for example, that policy already establishes the priority. We remove the parking space to get the visibility for the pedestrian. But this doesn't mean that we just randomly go around the city and start pulling out parking just for the sake of pulling up parking. It's only where we need it to ensure that the other users are are safe. So this is not we will always try to preserve as much on street parking as we can. But if it's a tradeoff between a single parking space and preserving somebody's life, we're always with this policy says we're always going to air on the side of saving somebody's life. Okay, follow up question, which is separate. Coverage. Okay, great. Is it correct that the transportation element hasn't been updated since 2009 or. And so, if that's correct, what thought has been given to doing this kind of changes that are contemplated tonight within the context of the transportation element, as well as within the larger context of the general plan, updating the general plan as a whole in June and updating the general plan as a whole, one chapter, which is a transportation element, you're looking not just at traffic transportation issues, but in combination with a set of other issues housing, how you want your built environment, etc.. So I think I think I think that as the as the planner guy, I love that question. I think that's a great question. I completely agree with the the direction of that question, which is we have to make sure that all these documents are consistent and that they are comprehensive and consider all these different issues. So what this this you know, your staff under the direction of this city council is working on multiple fronts simultaneously. We have a complete rewrite of the general plan, load it up on the city's website today. The one chapter that we are probably the final chapter that we're updating is the transportation element. It will be up on the city website probably within two weeks. Meanwhile, we're doing an active transportation plan, which is the plan for bicycle and pedestrian planning update. Meanwhile, we're doing a Vision Zero plan which the council authorized. So all of this work is going on simultaneously. It was really the count this council that said, yeah, we and this goes back to the when you authorize the contract for the active transportation plan and when you did this September referral that this council said, yeah, we don't I mean, this is my words, not yours. But essentially this council said, don't wait. You know, we don't want to wait for a year and a half to see these plans start bringing some of these policies to us as soon as you can. And from that perspective, we love that approach because it is each of these opportunities come back to you with these policies are an opportunity for us to check in with you and and make sure that we're headed in the right direction. So if you adopt these policies tonight, some of these policies that are we are bringing to you now in this draft policy are also when you see the transportation element posted on the website in probably two weeks, you'll see these same policies there. Now, of course, tonight you say, hey, we don't want these policies, we don't like these policies. We don't support them more than we'll pull them right out of that draft transportation element. And as the taskforce says, if you if you adopt these policies tonight. You will see these policies not only in the transportation and also in the upcoming active transportation plan. So where we're doing it all at once and we agree it all has to be coordinated. So the general plan looks at and updates the policies in the general plan around climate change, around transportation, around land use and housing, around economic development. So it's all being coordinated together. I think it's the right way to do it. It's a big job, but it's the council's up for it. Staff is certainly ready and putting you in position to take action on all these plans. The one wrinkle in all of this has been COVID 19. We can't we're not scheduling any public hearings other than these council meetings at this point on the general plan. We're going to wait. We're putting stuff up on the website, but, you know, we're not holding big public meetings on the general plan update. So until things settle down with the COVID 19. I have one more question, but I can wait. You want to wait until after we hear the public comments. Or if other council members have questions? Okay. Any clarifying questions before we go to our public speakers? Okay. Councilmember Desai, if you have another clarifying question and you appear to be the only councilmember. Before we go to public comment. So I do. Ask. I do. Mike, I sent an email last week and there was a pretty strong statement in the staff report that correlated narrow streets with safety. And the question that I sent was if there was any academic research to back that up, because when I read the the when I read the article in the the staff report , I thought that was a very strong statement in that and that that some kind of. Data is there. Is your question is there academic research behind it? Because this is clarifying questions. Well, what, you know, I guess did in addition to Marketo, which is a stakeholder organization, did you find academic research to support that claim? Thank you, Mr. Thomas. Thank you. Well, Nextel is a national organization of transportation professionals that set guidelines that are followed by cities around the country. And they've done a lot of research on the relationship. And there is quite a bit I don't have the study at my fingertips, but we can certainly provide them. There's there's a lot of research. Let me hand it off to Brian Maguire, if it's okay with you, Mayor, to help out with it. Is that okay with Brian? You're ready for that? Sure. Yeah. Brian McGuire. Just just to jump in and add that the standards that Maxo uses and that we're trying to adopt here are based off of several like FH subway research and people, you know. Tell us that. Why don't you tell us what that acronym stands for, for this insiders? So to answer the question, yes, the data is used in study by academics to study like Federal Highway Administration type data and other resources to develop these standards. So they are are definitely academic, you know, academically valid studies and and data driven standards. And that's okay. Thank you. All right. So seeing that further clarifying questions, I am going to go to public comment. So, madam, quickly, you call first or read our first comment, I guess. Yes, I can read the first comment. I think there are 545 comments now, so we still get 3 minutes each. The first one is from Linda Astbury, West Alameda Business Association. Please note that within the WAPA Business District we value our customers that prefer bicycling from there for their form of transportation. However, on street parking is a critical element in the preservation of local business. The agenda item in question six May 20, 2070 761. That parking identified as the lowest priority, suggests the business district and the local businesses are a low priority, particularly when we will be Post-Coronavirus times. Business revenues will be down to reduce street parking hits businesses even more. To reduce parking would be a large hit for small businesses in the area. Parking preservation should be noted as a priority, not as a dismissed item. Okay. Okay. That was one. Okay. You did that in less than 3 minutes. Okay. Yes. Next is RN and I'm going to apologize for the at you. Very, I believe. Madam Mayor, council members and city staff as commercial and residential property owners in Alameda, we would like to express our deep concerns of providing vision and or plan language within the resolution item six eight, which may and will be utilized to eliminate on street parking. The city utilized similar language, a vision and or a plan to place the current plans being developed involving the arterial roads on Central Avenue and Webster Street and its intersection in development at an approximate cost of $12 million. The outcome of this language and idea they will push traffic away from the business district and toward the city owned developing property at the old Naval Air Station by lane reduction or on street parking elimination on the arterial roads of Alameda without any serious development consideration as to removal of on street parking and its effects on homeowners , businesses and the business districts as a large mistake during any time the business community and property owners who have contributed investment dollars, tax dollars, sweat, blood and tears seem to be being left out of consideration by the elimination of on street parking without as much as a study as to what each parking spot lost equates to within a business district or on a non residential street. Parking lost means lost to home values, lost to business, which means lost staff and loss of our lives. The return on investment is what Mom and Pops are counting on in their retirement and from their prop real property investment, presenting parking as the lowest priority. Denigrates the business district's small businesses, which rely on local parking in each and every real property owner. Hurting the financial position of property owners does not do anyone any good. You must protect on street parking so residents, businesses and the business districts can survive long term in a business shutdown like we have now more than ever on street parking. Preservation needs to occur and needs to be a high consideration. Having on street parking saves businesses, saves lives and save cities. And the next speaker is Jay Lucy. Madam Mayor, council members and city staff as longtime property owners in Alameda. We are surprised that this item is before the council at this time. The perspective of parking preservation for on street parking remains the same as with the Webster Street and Central Avenue intersection. Within the best business district on street parking is critical. A critical element in the preservation of local businesses. Resolution item six eight presents that on street parking be noted as the lowest priority, suggesting the business districts and the local businesses are a low priority. Business districts are critical to the city, the residents and real property owners. It would make a lot of sense for the City Council and its staff to openly discuss this topic with the city's business associations, local businesses and property owners on an upcoming agenda. On street parking, preservation should be noted as a priority. Hurting the financial position of businesses and property owners only denigrates the city the council must protect on street parking so residents, businesses and the business districts can thrive. Let's preserve on street parking for the future. And the new speaker is Jim Strelow, a lifelong resident. Deaths and injuries are just statistics. Accidents happen. We need to drill down into fault factors. Was the pedestrian or bicyclist or the driver distracted e.g. cell phone? Or both of them was accident caused by poor lighting, fog or dark clothing? Worn was either person under the influence travel lane width narrower than ten foot road lanes can lead to more head on collisions, which would send crashed vehicles into straight bike lanes, making bicycling more dangerous instead of less dangerous. Delivery trucks and moving vans on narrower streets create an even more hazardous passing situation, meaning three and a half feet. To clear a bike, a six and a half foot wide, average vehicle width means zero inches as vehicles pass each other on the roadway. How safe is that on the streets now? All Alameda streets are straight. Not all Alameda streets are straight. Streets that curb half to allow for a truck's slept width where a truck travels inside the curve or outside the curve of a roadway. Are you allowing for the AFC? T o's slept with wit pass recommendations. The Transportation Commission was concerned about enforcement, police, understaffed and policy versus guiding principles. Where the Commission argued against the details of ten foot lane width and using bollards since your policy policy just. Should just be general strategies. There is no mention anywhere for of safety for the evacuation of the island. Narrowing lanes reduces the width of many streets necessary for the safe evacuation of the island in an emergency for convenience. A very limited few bicyclists versus the necessary safety of a majority population in Alameda are misguided priorities. Is the port in the policy is accepting these priorities necessarily prioritizes the preservation of on street parking. Adoption of this resolution will result in less space in the public right of way for the short and long term storage of private vehicles, taking away parking spaces from businesses at a time when businesses need all the help they need, all the business that they can muster is again the wrong priority for this city. Thank you. Thank you. And one more comment, right? Yes, that's the last one. And this is from Suzy Hofstetter. Mayor as the Ashraf City Council members. My name is Susie Hofstetter. Hofstetter and I am both a constituent and advocacy manager with Bike Eastbay. I have already submitted comments to you via email and I'd like to add a comment for the public meeting to repeat my many thanks to our excellent staff team in transportation, planning and public works for developing excellent standards for transportation safety in our city. As Mr. Thomas said, we have had an unfortunate sequence of tragic crashes on our streets in the past few months. The standards you are reviewing today are the first step in a more robust revamp of our standard designs that will take place during the process of the Vision Zero Action Plan and Active Transportation Plan. The standards ensure that new projects coming online during re paving and redevelopment will be as safe as possible, reducing traffic speeds and making our city safer for the most vulnerable road users. Thank you in advance for your support of street safety. And that is the last. Thank you. That's what I said. I just want to I have a clarifying question about some of those comments, especially from the business community. Mr. THOMAS I've attended a few of the Labor West Alameda Business Association board meetings probably then this week and this week this year, but last year and all of the ones I attended, you were also there. Have you made it a point to attend business association meetings to talk about these plans? Well, we've been we've been meeting with we've been talking to business associations, various groups around the city about Vision Zero, about and about specific plans. And I think that's where there seems to be some misunderstanding here. This is an overall policy. This is a policy establishing what the city will do when we have a specific situation where we're trying to balance the needs in a specific location, space needs. This is not a policy that is saying, hey, we're going to go and start taking out all the on street parking in the business districts. Of course, we're not going to do that. This is when we do a project in the business districts. We always involve them. We've been working with the labor, the West Alameda Business Association for years on the Central Avenue Project. Rozelle met with them today about the active transportation plan and future plans for Webster Street to make it more bicycle friendly. This is, you know, I guess I'm I'm a little bit. So I think there's this misconception. I mean, I guess no. Have we have we gone to the business and said, hey, what's more important, a parking space or the life of a child? No, we have not, because we think we know what their answer would be. It's of course, the life of the child is more important. And I don't want to belabor the point and we'll get into the council discussion. And by the way, Mr. McGuire, could I say I love the cat rocking back and forth cat and they should be safe on the streets, too. But I just and you have done your outreach to the business communities for years, and that outreach continues. So this is. Yes, I. Wanted to confirm. So with that, we've had our public comment period and we didn't receive any further public comment. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. Public comment. Okay. So then public comment is now closed and we will open the discussion and entertainment of the the this resolution. So who would like to start? Council member delegate. I see your hand that. I. Your muted. Did I see your hand? But I didn't. I didn't. I didn't raise my hand. But I'm happy to say that that lovely blue background, a three off a little death. I'm Mai Mai. I'm calling in from my son's playroom so I can. I can simultaneously mom and participate in the meeting my son had. That's what we do. Yeah. So, yeah, I mean, I want to thank staff for their work on this. This has been a priority of the council as we've been talking about it for some time. I know that there's been a lot of outreach and a lot of conversation, both with the public and among the council at our publicly notice meetings. I did want to just say, you know, again, from a perspective of a mom and somebody who routinely walk the west end of our need, especially down Webster Street and in the surrounding areas, you know, the return on investment of removing a parking space to save a life is. Huge. It's preserving the safety of pedestrians. And we have a farmers market that draws in a lot of people that walk over there and a lot of people that walk to the businesses on Webster Street. And I want to make sure that, you know, everybody who's walking and biking over there, especially now that we have the the bikeway that's going to be crossing out and needed across our new trail, that that we really are making our streets as safe as possible. And so there really isn't a price you can put on saving a life and making it safer. And so if that means removing a parking spot from a corner so that we can make sure that there's better visibility, I think that that's a just an easy, easy fix and something that that really doesn't take a lot of thought on my end other than let's do it and let's get that done. I hear what the businesses are saying. I think that, you know, one of the things that's come out in this during the shelter orders is that we're seeing a lot more delivery and then takeout and pickup. And I think perhaps some of what we need isn't for potentially long term parking, but we need more, you know, kind of short term parking zones in our business district so that people that are picking up and doing the food delivery have a place to kind of pull in safely rather than double parked, pick up the food and go. But I also think that one thing that is coming out of all of this is that many, many of us are now walking or biking to go pick up our takeout food and enjoying the outdoors on the way over. Obviously, masks and following social distancing protocols. But I think we all need to evolve and I think traffic safety doesn't stop just because we're in a shelter order. In fact, we've we did have we've had a few bike versus vehicle or vehicle versus bike accidents. One was a fatality and that was during the shelter order. And I think we need to keep that in mind. And so I think that it absolutely makes sense that we continue forward with implementing what's safe. But I'm looking forward to supporting staff recommendations tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember and Councilmember Data. Well, thank you very much. I will have to say that I'm very troubled at the direction that this this item is going, in the sense of how we're linking traffic safety issues with, you know, changes to the physical environment. Um, you know, I'm not a traffic planner or a transit planner, but I did go to Berkeley's City of Regional Planning School to get my master's of city and regional planning from Cal. And I think one of the basic things that you always learn is when it comes to safety, you want to incorporate the three, the three E's, which is basically taking into account, you know, educating people kind of change the culture of traffic and the way in which people use the roads. So there's education. E And then there's also the engineering. E which is, you know, altering the streetscape in the, you know, perhaps in the manner that we're doing so right now. But then the third E would be enforcement. This is all very basic. And the thing that's concerning me about the trajectory of a discussion is we're we're really going overboard, in my opinion, on just emphasize emphasizing engineering aspects to all of this. I mean, if we really care. If we really care about the the the tragic statistics about, you know, two deaths per year and that, you know, one death or any death whatsoever is tragic. If we really care about the increase in society of pedestrian safety issues or basic life issues, and we can't just look at this from an engineering lens. We also have to certainly look at it, you know, from a from an enforcement position. Leading up to this this evening last week, I had asked city staff to give me some data on on traffic on citations for traffic speed violations. So, you know, speeding tickets, basically. So I asked for 20 years worth of data from the year 2000 each year until the year 2019. And I also asked for data on the number of traffic police officers, police officers in dealing with traffic. The interesting thing, though, is that. Over the course of those 12 years of those 20 years of the course of those 20 years, in 12 of those years, we had five or more traffic officers. And when we had five or more traffic officers, on average in those 12 years, they had citations. They generated citations of roughly 2300 speeding citations. Now, right now, I believe the number of traffic officers, we're down to three and four. And when you look at the average for those years, over the 20 years as well, of the 20 years we had 12 years where we had five traffic officers or more. The balance eight years we had five less than five traffic officers. And when you look at the amount of speeding citations on average in those eight years, we generated basically 1500 speeding violations per year. I mean, that's obvious. You have more you have more traffic officers. You catch more people who are speeding. It's obvious. It's very basic. And I think we're overemphasizing the engineering aspect of this. And as a and to me, as alarming as the fatality statistics are, as alarming as the as the pedestrian accidents are. To me, that's crying out for an emphasis or looking at this item with a lens, especially of enforcement, when you have five officers or more, if you generate on average 23,000, 2300 traffic speed citations a year, when you have less than five, 1500, that's a 55% difference. And and and it does go back to the very first question that I asked about, you know, why aren't we looking at this within the context of our general plan and within the context of our transportation element? Within the general plan? Because I think when you look at things like what we're dealing with tonight, you can't just look at it in isolation. You can't just look at it, you know, with the the lens of an engineer. There has to be an education component. There has to be an enforcement component. And finally, there has to be certainly an engineering component. But I think tonight we're looking at a document that's just too heavy on the engineering. I want to close on this much on this note. You know, I think one of the reasons why you're hearing a lot of concerns about Webster Street is we have to remember that Webster Street lost a lot of parking. They lost a lot of street parking because of the the bull belts that we've created. And they're wonderful. People use them, especially the one in front of West Cafe, the one in front of, you know, the other places on Webster Street. But also, we've also created those bus extensions. And so Webster Street does feel especially hard hit. So I think that's why they're they're clamoring right now. And, you know, the concern about the Central Avenue Webster Street bike project, certainly let's not kid ourselves necessarily is an issue here. I just want to end by summarizing. I think this is way too heavy on the engineering view of things. I think we need to look at it more holistically. As you're taught in basic, you know, city planning school, we need to look at how engineering enforcement and in education come together to bring down those fatality numbers that we're talking about. So it will be very hard for me to support this. Thank you. All right. Thank you. And I've seen that I have not had his agenda, but he has his hand up. So your next vice mayor. Thank you very much. I well, I appreciate the the comments that have come before me. I have to say, I'm a little flabbergasted in the. Okay. Sorry. Everybody just froze for a second. In in in the transportation, planning and world, it is very well understood that the environment and the design of the environment is the number one thing that we can do to make sure that we have safe streets, that that is what actually pushes the behavior. And when you're finally getting to the point of of enforcing behavior, it means you've designed the streets badly. And now we're penalizing people for behaving the way that we've encouraged them to do it. So. Well, I appreciate the comments and I appreciate the educational background of Councilmember Dessau. I would say his basic planning tenets that that he outlined represent more of an old school perception of how this is done and that the folks coming out of Cal and UCLA and University of Texas and and MIT and whatnot would would beg to differ. Today, I'm going to move forward. Again, I want to reflect I understand the concerns that we've heard from from Ms.. Astbury and onwards and and folks. And I think Mr. Thomas did a fine job of explaining that this is not an attack on parking. This is a win. There is a tradeoff to be made in something that is unsafe and people dying and and a parking space. We're going to choose protecting the residents and the safety of our residents. And I think that that is consistent with the policies and plans that we've put in place over the last 18 months. I think it's consistent with the policy and the planning that's been done in the last three or four years by the majority of the city council. And so I think this is a continuation of it. I think we have a very solid transportation element and that these these policies, as they're moving forward, are just a continuation of that. And I see no reason why we can't move forward. I want to thank so I'm excited. I will be supporting this. I do have one minor change. There were there were some questions in here. I also just wanted to we've received this as a part of this item, a number of comments asking about so streets. And I wanted to thank staff for circulating the map with the pilot, the two street pilot that's going around excited to see that we are moving forward with that concept. I want to really call out that in my mind, the pilot is a scheme, it's a short term pilot so that we're. Going to stay on topic. I understand. I'm also going to talk about traffic safety just for a few seconds. So I do want to make sure that that that the pilot really is our short term first step and that it leads to a more city wide, brighter place. I want to make sure back to back to the letters we got that as we're considering the safety impacts, including future projects like the Slow Streets that we're building, networks that will support our businesses as we come out of the time of COVID and maintain our social distancing. I want to highlight and concur with Councilmember Ody. A number of our cities are really moving forward with the intersection access in the time of COVID, COVID at a time when we don't want to be touching public infrastructure, people are turning their the pedestrian buttons off at their intersections. I see no reason why we can't be doing that. I don't think it should take a council direction. I think we can just start now where where activation is not required. We should just turn these things off. The council or the staff ask stuff five questions. And so on the question of intersections, I think Mr. Wheeler did a just fabulous job of explaining why we would want to have all of the crosswalks painted. It's because it signals that you're allowed to be there. Right now we have designed again back to design. We've designed a network where people who are in their cars actually think that that pedestrians have to be channeled is, as the question puts it, to a specific place where they are allowed to cross in any way, whether they're crossing that or isn't paint is there is thereby illegal and it basically inhibits people walking, it makes it less safe and it and it causes confusion. So I think that the pairs is very important. I understand that there's concern about the cost of extra paint and the wear and tear. And that's that is very real. I think that use of zebra striped crosswalks without the perpendicular bars has been shown in some cities to be one way to at least reduce the impact of those cross costs, because a lot of the cars actually travel between the bars and so there's less wear and tear on the actual paint. On the question of balancing safety versus areas where we want to create safety, you know, I think that our staff think through the active transportation program as well, can look at some sort of balance. Right. You're never going to be able to say it's just one thing. We're not going to do it. We're not going to say only high crash areas and we're not going to create safe places around schools so that they become high crash areas. I think that we can find a way to do a 7525 split or something like that whereby we can reflect that safety is our priority, but that there are also generators like schools, parks, business districts, etc., where safety, safety improvements are very important, not just from a safety aspect, but also from a encouraging people to use the space aspect. On the question of speed, obviously we want to be smart and data driven, but we also want to make sure that we don't plan ourselves into inactivity. And I think that, you know, I will continue to push for us to be tactical in our ways of implementing quick and effective things. That may not be the perfect solution, but they get us 95% or 90% of the way there while we're doing the data work in the background. And I say all of this with great respect and appreciation for the the the small but mighty staff that we have working on here. And I know that everybody is working very hard. And so my words are not that anything is being done wrong. But if you ask the question, should we do more now or should we plan to do more sometime later? You know, the answer is, of course, yes. And then lastly, the question about bollards and I think this is not just about bollards. Bollards can be ugly. I think it's unfortunate that people drive illegally and require us to put bollards up so that we can make sure they don't park in places that they are not supposed to , that they turn slow enough that they don't run over people, etc.. But at the end of the day, much like the trade off between a parking space and safety, I think that it's very important for us to get to safety and that concerns about ugly people think everything is ugly when it's new. The bollards are just a new piece of infrastructure and we will get used to them and their garish yellow, pink, gray and purple colors. And sometimes, I mean, 15 years ago, if 15 years from now, they'll look like the the trash cans we put out every night. I remember when that changeover happened in Alameda about 15 years ago and people flipped out about the garish trash cans. What happened to the metal? You never rarely hear that concern anymore so quickly. Yeah. Again, I want to thank staff. This is a fabulous staff report. I really appreciate it. The one change I would like to propose is in the final voyage of the first. Now, therefore, be it resolved that separated bike lanes should be provided instead of unprotected standard bicycle lanes. And when you do not swipe left. Hey, John. I'm on paper. I can't tell you. Well, could you count because it's a five page reserve, so maybe. Okay, when you say so sorry. Yeah, hopefully we're going to run out of time, but I think it's about time. Thank you. Page three to look for the page. Thank you. I'm going to go with page three of the resolution. Okay. And fourth. Fifth, pull it down to two. Okay. Separated bike lanes. Yeah, separated bike lanes. Okay. So where it says separated bicycle lanes should be provided instead of unprotected standard bicycle lanes. When feasible, I would change that too, unless not feasible. I think that language needs to say that we should assume we're doing it unless we can prove that it's not as opposed to making the decision now, they don't seem feasible. And then we move on. I know it's it's just a little tweak, but I think that the goal here is to basically say we want the highest level of safety and encouragement and that that becomes a meaningful just reminder as people are thinking about the policy that I look forward to supporting this tonight. Thank you. And I would add that, Jody, before I go to you, I just wanted to ask Mr. Thomas if you could just comment on the vice mayor's suggestion. Is there is that is it feasible to change when feasible to less invisible? And just go ahead and mute yourself so we can hear your lovely voice. Yes, it's fine. It's. It's fine. Okay. Do you hear me? Yes, I did. Yes. Thank you. Okay. So keep that in mind, Counsel, and then we'll go to Councilman Brody. Thank you. I want to thank staff for all their hard work on this. And I'm going to adopt a lot of what the vice mayor said. So I'm not going to take the whole 8 minutes or 9 minutes that I have. You know, I appreciate that they took this referral and ran with it. And, you know, I've been reading the updates from the city manager and at this time, you know, still working. Everyone's working really hard, but, you know, you're still working on your your area, working remotely and able to produce some high quality output. So I appreciate that. Just quickly on the questions. All right. The you know, I asked the question about the pairs versus Clark because, you know, there's really not my my area of expertize. So I'll defer to the engineering folks when it comes to that. And I would agree with the vice mayor that, you know, the more across work opportunities we have, the better. And, you know, if we can even have some of those X ones where the whole intersection is shut down, you know, that's even more the better and the limited resources and where to prioritize. You know, again, I'm kind of going to defer to staff on that. I know that every time we have an accident, you know, there's a lot of clamoring and the squeaky wheel and so on and so forth. But, you know, sometimes we're told by our our professional staff that, you know, well, this is the first time that's happened there, and there are other areas that need more priority. So, you know, I'm happy to defer to you. You know, I do think there is around school, though, our high priorities there is around parks in the areas, you know, in our business districts where we have, you know, the most pedestrian traffic. So as far as I mean, you know, I don't think ugly, you know, they serve a purpose. Well, I think it's I believe when people run over them and, you know, they're not replaced or we put one there and it gets destroyed and we don't go back and fix it. So, you know, the more we could do on there to help change behavior, the better. I appreciate the hierarchy. You know, it's not that we're saying that parking is a low priority. We're basically saying that life, especially children's lives, are a high priority. And it's interesting that we're having this discussion. At the same time, the national discussion is about, you know, do we reopen the economy at the risk of hundreds of thousands of lives or do we keep everyone safe and make that our priority and then, you know, open when it's safe? So, you know, just kind of food for thought. You know, I think when we had a big discussion on parking and bike lanes, you know, I think it was the Central Avenue traffic. And if I remember correctly and those that were there can correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought we took out one parking space on Central. It could have been two and it was on the eastbound side, so it wasn't even anywhere near going towards the business district. So I'm glad that we're to codify these these priorities. You know, there's always a risk that some, you know, road councilmember in the future may, you know, behind the scenes try to kill projects and you know now that it's codified and and also staff gets you know an idea on how to write their staff reports and our council gets an idea on, you know, what the priorities are. We won't have that lingering like we did with Central Avenue before. So I know that we've talked about the three E's and, you know, when the vice mayor and I had a town hall or what it just seems like forever ago, it was only like maybe two months, you know, we added the enactment. E because, you know, some of these solutions need an act in the state legislation. But on the engineering side, I think that we kind of under emphasized engineering, and that was the message that we kept hearing from residents across the city, you know, whether it be on websites or whether it be on LinkedIn, whether it be on Bay Farm, whether it be on, you know, Park Street or Otis, you know, we haven't done enough engineering. So and I also caution, you know, enforcement is such human capital intensive activity and we continue to ask more of our police department with, you know, fewer or fewer resources for reasons that pretty much are outside our control. So I think we have to be cognizant of that. But see, and, you know, I know there was some concern about the lack of traffic, but I think there are solutions that the engineers could look at, you know, try to cut off people from going or stop people from going from cutting around. And, you know, I remember that that the discussion was, well, if you put this bike lane in on Central, then you're only going to have maybe like a minute or two delay. So I mean, to me, a minute or two delay, whether you're going to make a left hand turn or right hand turn, I think is is totally acceptable if it means that you're going to save somebody's life. And we're just going back to the engineering. I mean, there are little things we do that impact that reduce the need for enforcement. I mean, I'll say a stoplight is one of them. And the speed bumps, you know, it's kind of a moderate example. You know, that's a that's an engineering tool that, you know, if it is deployed, right. People are not going to speed. I mean you can go to. Extreme and say, you know, every time that a stoplight comes up, you're going to put a pretty foot barrier and then nobody will ever go through the stoplight. Right. But, you know, that's not feasible. But the point is that fine line and a balance between enforcement and engineering and we need both. But, you know, I just think we're under engineered right now. So lastly, I think this also ties in with our goal. You know, we want to make a more pedestrian friendly design in this district. I mean, that is, as the vice mayor said, you know, that's what the experts that are coming out of school now say you want to do before San Francisco shut down Market Street. You know, this is the trend, Sixth Street or Fourth Street in Berkeley. And these are the places that we kind of want to emulate, you know, not where we have cars rushing down our business thoroughfares, you know, 80 miles an hour. And the last point, I can't even read my writing. Oh, it's also about, you know, the current thinking. Now, there's a lot of ink spilled about how poorly designed our streets are, whether they're in California, generally, the Bay Area or Alameda. So, I mean, the sooner we can go about it, fix that and, you know, undo the bad engineering and put in good engineering I'm all for and I appreciate all the hard work staff has done and I appreciate my colleagues for prioritizing this. And I'm glad that, you know, for once we're complaining about a problem, but actually coming up with a solution. And that's what I love about this council. All right. Thank you, Mr. Oteh. Okay. And to that, I'm going to take my comments next. And again, thank you to staff all of you who have contributed to this report. And this is is a very important topic and near and dear to my heart. And I'm going to start with the topic of speed and slowing down drivers. One of the things I've noticed now in Alameda that we do have less traffic on our streets because most businesses are closed, the schools are closed, the people are driving faster. They're driving faster than the 25 mile per hour speed limit. I've talked to our police chief, Paul O'Leary. He confirms that if the officers are out and see you, you can count on a citation. But in the meantime, and I say this every chance I get, more people are out walking because although we are physically distancing and we're sheltering in place except to go out for those essential activities, getting some fresh air and exercise are essential activities. Take your mask with you. I would suggest wearing it because you may run into other people closer than six feet away. But get out and and walk. Explore the city. We're flat, you know, take a different route every time you go out. But my husband and I try and walk in the early evenings and we're very careful crossing streets because and we carry a flashlight if it's starting to get dark because drivers are going fast. So this is not a good thing. And by the way, speaking of the restrictions from COVID 19, I do appreciate staff bringing this forward to us. There are things that are important and just can't wait and traffic, safety and the lives of our residents are certainly among them. So I want to also ask or just inquire to take this under consideration, to go after as much grant funding as possible for for these projects. And I know your office always does your department. Mr. THOMAS As far as the concerns from the business folks that we heard from, I was a little surprised because I have been at some of those meetings where Mr. Thomas is there and answering questions and presenting, and I know he's doing it at our business associations around town, so that's great to go out and inform people. It doesn't mean you get by it. It doesn't mean that everybody agrees with you that the fact that someone disagrees is one data point that needs to be considered. You weigh all the factors, and I and I look to the professionals who are informing this this decision or helping us make informed decisions. I did not study traffic engineering. I'm not an engineer, but I went to UC Davis. And one of the things I loved about Davis, besides the fact that it's an all bicycle campus, your professors will be riding alongside of you, that the whole city is bright as a bike, bicycle, friendly city. The bike lanes are wide enough in one direction for two people to ride side by side and have a conversation. And drivers understand there's bikes all over the place and they they stop. And so we can learn a lot of things. But I think good design and all of the inspired thinking that went into this report are so important. And as far as the enforcement piece, of course it's important. And of course, our police department takes that seriously. That's a reality, as in Councilmember De. Alluded to this. We only have a certain number of patrol officers out on any given shift, and that is the reality. And as with everything we do as a council, we play the hand we're dealt. We can aspire to have more officers, but we also deal with the reality on the ground that the workshop that was organized by Vice Mayor Knox played in Councilmember O.D. and noticed is a public meeting so others could attend. And I did. It was very impressive. We had our city engineer, Scott Wickstrom in, and Dana Emery, our traffic engineer, Miss Wheeler presented and the police officers. Oh, I'm just going blank on his name. Tall. Yes, there are many of them tall. Their his grandiosity. And it was such an informed decision, good audience participation. I think one of the maybe last public forums we had that the police were definitely on top of this, but they could also use the help with the good design to be able to to help keep people safe. But but but we are seeing how cars are speeding with these wide open thoroughfares that are they're finding right now. So so we do need to protect our the safety of all and and the accessibility of our streets to all. And I am looking forward to opening Alameda up again for business. It'll be gradual. As the governor said last week in his press conference, the new normal will be anything but. And so to our Planning and Transportation Department, I want you to be thinking about maybe some new ways that you haven't even contemplated yet, because, A, we don't know exactly what things are going to look like. But the governor certainly told us that, you know, restaurants, for instance, they're going to be removing tables because they'll need to do some physical distance. It's not just a matter of flipping a light switch and we go back to the way we were. It's going to be a gradual process. So think about, you know, new ways of of maybe dealing with all that. But I do hope that one of the things that will come out is always the silver lining and the fact that we've been sheltering in place, but getting out for some exercise. And I'm seeing lots of walking and I hope people will keep that up. It's a great habit. It's a healthy habit. You know, discover your city. Don't just walk down the same streets, try, try different ones. And I think that will also impact and benefit our business districts. And I will say that Webster City I mean, I do go to Webster Street and have coffee and shop and whatnot. Usually I'm on my bike, but when I sometimes I'm in my car, I always find parking at the municipal lot. I will say quickly that I know during the farmer's market days that's that's used as a farm, as part of the farmer's market. But I always find parking maybe not in front of the business that I'm going to, but down a side street, it's healthy to walk a little away from your car. And I know for people who are disabled and need to park right there, we've got those spots, too. And let's see really quickly, I wanted to ask two quick questions. One of Mr. Wikström, which is about the so-called big buttons. I thought I saw an email, I think, from you that said, the reason we can't just go and flip a switch in and be done with them has to do with some of the the equipment we're dealing with. Is that is that accurate? Mr. Wickstrom. That is correct. I think it's been brought before the council when Dani presented in February that we have a very old system. If you look at our aggregate, 87 intersections with a variety of controllers and not all of them are easily programable to just quickly remove where buttons are being attached. So we have to look at intersection by intersection. Another consideration that we also keep in mind is some of those intersections are programed for what's called audible pedestrian signals. The status and accessibility component for someone blind that we also want to keep those active. So they hear here there's some signage, things that could be done to improve that so that people know they don't have to do that. We are we're looking into really trying to catalog our entire system and then trying to attack it systematically. Okay. Thank you for that. And by the way, for anybody out there wanting to cross the street, don't touch it with your hands. Use your elbow. That will activate it. And and then last question is for you, Mr. Thomas, on the Central Avenue Project. I was under the impression that we were still waiting on Caltrans. But remind us, where are we on the Central Avenue project? Thank you for asking. We just met about it today. We will be we are refining the design with our consultants. We hope to be back to the council with those final design refinements, including the final design for the portion that goes by Webster Street Transportation Commission and May Council in June. That will then set us up for the final step with Caltrans. That then puts us in the construction drawings. If things go very well and we can go sort of everything goes as, you know, full speed. We would hope to start construction next calendar year, 2021. But it's a it's a big it's a big step. I mean, it's just a big, complicated, expensive project. The money for the public, just to the public as we have the money ready for us to spend on the construction. So it's just about getting through the design process with Caltrans, we hope in the near term to start construction on the Clement bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements from Grand to Broadway for the Cross Army Trail. That project is ahead of Clement. And then the project that is we're hoping to that's even ahead of that will be the bicycle pedestrian improvements for Otis. So the council has set up a whole series of of actual, you know, projects to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety. Central is just the biggest, most complicated of the three that we're working on right now. And just as an example, all three of those have had extensive public process. So just to reassure the business community, if we're doing anything in your business district, you will be seeing a lot of us before we start changing any on street parking. So that's I hope that is. What it is. Yes, it does. Mr. De Soto, you have 12 seconds. What would you like to tell us? Weekly Vice Mayor Knox White called my views on the three E's and traffic safety as old school. Actually, it's not. All you need to do is Google three E's in traffic safety. And I, in fact, came out with a I found a study put. Out by. Time. Next year, your time is up. Well, thank you. And thank you for your take you all for your comments. And and this is this is a good, lively discussion. I appreciate it. Okay. With that, what we are being asked to do is to vote in a resolution. Vice Mayor. And I thought you had your hand up. I'd like to make a motion. My right. What's that motion? I'd like to move approval of the staff recommendation. With apologies for my lack of clarity to Councilmember De Saag, I meant the his views on the. Unemployed of. Engineering. I just wanted to apologize. And you can take that off line through the motions. Thank you. We always strive, by the way, not to be personal. I'm sure it was meant with this. No, we're okay. Okay, great. Okay. We're okay. And so what was that modification with. The modification of the bullet separated, changing as discussed when feasible to unless not feasible where the under the separated bicycle lanes to shall be provided bullet tried it. Okay, we have that motion. Do we have a segment? Okay, we have 2 seconds. That's a force. So our I think it's thought councilmember village hand at first that at the thank you there'll be more opportunities. Okay. Could we have that roll call vote please. Councilmember de Cut. Three. Not one? No. Not slate. I with an e0di with enthusiasm. Oh, good. That was good. Fellow. I may or as the Ashcroft that's I with for it that's already. That carries I five eyes. All right, well, now I want to take care of your math to find out why you might not want to do as. I was getting too excited, too easy. All right. Okay. So that is that takes care of item six. A item six be has been continued to. Our next meeting on May 10th. Let me pull my counsel really quickly. People, do you want to take a quick break now? Do you want to do another? What do we have? We've got four more. Do we have four more items? Yes. Yes. Everybody. Vice Mayor. I was saying five more items. Okay. Five more items. Thank you. And has them restaurants. Yeah. No, it's for. It's for. Yeah. I didn't remember from my pile. Apologies. Okay. So to have a break or not to have a break. Is that? Keep moving, Mr. Eddie. Yes. I'm sorry. Go ahead. I'd prefer to take of if we could. Yeah. Okay. He's hungry. Hi. Sorry I'm not serving food tonight, but there's good takeout support. Alameda business is okay. So much for that commercial. Okay, our next item, Madam Cook. Introduction of ordinance amending the Municipal Code Chapter 30 Development Regulations to modify Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulations to implement and comply with State Law and make other administrative, technical and clarifying amendments pertaining to appeals and youth center definition as recommended by the Planning Board. Thank you. And who is that? You, Mr. De? This is L.A..