Correspondence - Updated 3/18 — Alameda City Council, March 18, 2025

From: Frank Matarrese
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Yes on Gibbons intersection improvement Date: Tuesday, March 18, 2025 1:38:43 PM
Dear Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and City Councilmembers,
Thanks to you all for serving Alameda. I am writing to advocate for the 2026 implementation of staff's proposed safety improvement to the Gibbons/Fernside/High intersection.

As it is, the intersection where Gibbons, High Street and Fernside Boulevard meet is subject to speeding, and is configured in a way that often confuses drivers and pedestrians. Note the danger to pedestrians, specifically those crossing from the south corner of Gibbons, where there is no pedestrian signal to indicate that it is safe to cross due to fast oncoming traffic off the High Street Bridge. I have personally experienced this while walking with my grandchildren.

I support implementing the Improvement plan because I believe it will make conditions safer for people crossing the street at this intersection and add clear direction for drivers passing through it. .

With Fernside resurfacing scheduled in 2026, I believe that now is the ideal time to concurrently implement this much-needed improvement cost effectively with a minimum of disruption to the neighborhood..

Please prioritize the safety of the Gibbons Drive and Fernside community by implementing staff’s proposed improvement in 2026.

Thank you for your consideration. Your service is much appreciated.

Sincerely,
Frank Matarrese
Former Council Member, City of Alameda
____
From: Kimberly Giuntini
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fernside Traffic Calming and Bikeways Project Date: Tuesday, March 18, 2025 12:34:10 PM
I am writing to strongly object to this ill-conceived project because it merely DIVERTS traffic - it doesn’t solve traffic problems.

We have no idea what’s happening in this town anymore. Traffic lanes and parking has been drastically reduced to make room for more and more bike lanes and less room for cars. Hardly anyone shops on Park Street anymore because there’s no place to park. I’ve spoken to some of the shop proprietors and they’re upset about it. They have every right to be.

During the pandemic certain streets were blocked off to allow people to spend time outside safely. The shelter in place orders were over YEARS ago yet the roadblocks remain. This has caused continuous chaos. I personally spoke to the mayor about 2 times my dog and I have almost been hit by people speeding around the roadblocks. The mayor informed me that I needn’t worry because the roadblocks were to be taken down LAST SPRING!! Obviously this was not true. (I don’t like being lied to or blown off. If the mayor can run again, I look forward to supporting - financially and otherwise - any viable alternative at a future election.) One wonders why Alameda is catering to bicycles when at least 90+ percent of our citizens drive cars. This has been going on for years, literally. And the bicyclists keep blasting through stop signs without regards for cars. It’s crazy. It’s DANGEROUS for all involved.

Traffic Calming and Bikeways Project? The name itself is absurd. This proposal doesn’t “calm” traffic and, as noted, Alamedans drive cars not bikes. And apparently you haven’t considered the increased potential danger to pedestrians. More confusion would be created. Our streets were fine before. Put them back. Speeding can be dealt with more speed bumps.

Unfortunately we were made aware of this potential debacle by a neighbor just now and are unable to attend tonight’s meeting because of a prior commitment. I want this letter to be made part of the record.

Kimberly Briggs Giuntini
Alameda resident for 35 years
Sent from my iPhone
From: Matthew Bartlett
To: City Clerk; Transportation; CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Agenda Item 7B - 3/18/25 Alameda City Council Meeting Date: Tuesday, March 18, 2025 11:30:43 AM
City Council,
I write to express my significant concern at the proposed changes to the Fernside/High/Gibbons intersection. The surrounding side streets (Cornell, Yale, Bayo Vista, etc.) are narrow and are not built to accommodate the traffic that the proposed changes will shunt onto those streets. This will create significant safety and quality of life issues for Alamedans living on and near those streets.

Safety
The proposal creates significant safety issues. Traffic headed off island via the High Street Bridge will be forced onto the surrounding side streets. Those streets are much more narrow than Gibbons and are frequented by pedestrians, including a large number of children and seniors. The narrowness of the streets combined with the parking on both sides of the streets already creates low visibility for pedestrians. The increase in traffic will increase risks to the pedestrians who are a constant presence on these streets.

Quality of Life
From a congestion perspective, the narrowness of the surrounding side streets cannot accommodate two-way traffic. If there is opposing traffic on these side streets, one vehicle must find a place to pull over for the other vehicle to pass. The increased traffic will have a significant negative impact on those Alamedans who live nearby, including worse air quality from idling vehicles and more difficulty accessing homes.

Process
Finally, I am deeply concerned with how this has been handled by the City Council/staff. It appears that the City is papering over the significant concerns of the community in favor of ramming through a pet project.

The record (Supplemental Memo Regarding Agenda Item 7B, dated March 14, 2025) indicates that "More than 50 people attended an on-site pop-up event, and approximately 180 people filled out an online survey. Feedback predominantly included significant concerns, particularly about spillover traffic onto nearby streets." (emphasis added). In short, community input was predominantly against the proposal, citing significant safety concerns.

Given this community input, staff recommended further public engagement after a traffic
study. This is a common sense approach.

We now learn that the City is attempting to ram this project through in spite of the community's concerns. Citing the vague fig leaf of "additional community members" having expressed support for implementing the design update sooner, the City seeks to move forward, impact to the neighborhood be damned. This is shameful. The City should stick to its word and invite community comment on the proposal after a traffic study has been completed.

Anything less makes a mockery of the notice and comment period and of the concerns of affected Alamedans.

Matt Bartlett
Fernside Resident
From: Keenan Dmyterko
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Gibbons / Fernside / High Street Proposed Intersection Project Date: Tuesday, March 18, 2025 10:18:56 AM
As a resident living on High Street (south side, one door down from European Auto shop) approximately 60 feet from the intersection of Gibbons / High / Fernside Intersection, I highly recommend that you DO NOT move forward with the proposed recommendations.

First, this will greatly increase the flow of traffic on High Street heading eastbound to the High Street bridge. Traffic is already heavy enough where it sometimes takes multiple light changes for me to pull out of my drive-way during the day. This is without the bridge being up. I am not sure what previous studies have revealed, but as a resident close to this intersection, I can attest to long back-ups on High Street past Bayo Vista street. The planned recommendations will make things worse.

If High Street gets further backed-up (without the bridge being up), drivers will turn-off onto side streets, such as Bayo Vista (south side) or Monte Vista. Both of these streets are fairly narrow and will result in potential accidents. Additionally, there is no stop signs at the intersection of Bayo Vista and Monte Vista. Drivers unfamiliar with the area will not stop or proceed very cautiously. I have seen so many vehicles cross that intersection without slowing and it scares the heck out of me. I guarantee that the proposed recommendation will result in a very bad accident at the intersection of Bayo Vista and Monte Vista when two cars do not slow down or stop at the intersection due to the lack of a stop sign posted.

Second, there is no doubt in my mind that drivers who are forced to turn right onto High Street to head towards the bridge will attempt to make a quick left once on High Street potentially blocking traffic coming westbound on High Street from the bridge. Based on my personal observance, I have seen this happen many times. Drivers are not going to want to loop around through Bayo Vista or make a U turn at an appropriate location. The proposed recommendation will result in more congestion and in dangerous conditions at the intersection.

Third, drivers will attempt to make U turns at Bayo Vista, Monte Vista, or Fairview Streets.

These are not easy intersections to make U turns. This will result in more potential accidents.

This also increases the potential that drivers not mindful of pedestrians or bikers on High Street sidewalks and could potentially result in someone being hit. As a resident of High Street since 2013, I know how dangerous it is to bike on High Street and always bike on the sidewalk. High Street is a popular street for pedestrians and bikes to use to move east or west bound.

Fourth, drivers will be driving down Bayo Vista on the north side on a regular basis due to lack of Gibbons being a method to head towards the bridge. This street is very narrow with only room for one car at a time. I frequently drive down this street because of where I park my vehicle on High Street in front of my house. Whenever I see a car coming down the street, I yield to them and pull over. If you have a heavy volume of traffic down this street, the result will be games of chicken being played every day during most of the day. I am sure this will result in accidents and potential conflicts with drivers, not to mention making it impossible to bike down Bayo Vista.

Additionally, when drivers attempt to make a left turn onto eastbound High Street to head towards the bridge, this will be a difficult turn if traffic is backed up on High Street past Bayo Vista (which it will be as mentioned in my first point). If drivers get wise to the difficulty of turning left from Bayo Vista to High Street, drivers will shift to other narrow streets such as Cornell, Fairview, and Thompson.

Last, drivers on eastbound Gibbons will start turning right from Gibbons onto Southwood to travel down Thompson, Fairview, or towards Bayo Vista. This presents new problems because there are no stop signs at two intersections on Southwood (at Thompson and Fairview). With an obvious increase in traffic down these streets, there is much greater potential for accidents for drivers unfamiliar with these intersections or just in a hurry because of the newly formed traffic congestion as a result of the proposed changes.

Please do not move forward with the proposed change at this intersection. As a long-time resident of this area, I understand that there may be issues at this intersection. However, the proposed recommendations cause a lot more harm than good.

Keenan
From: Calla Yee
To: CityCouncil-List; City Clerk; Transportation
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposing: Agenda Item 7-B
Date: Tuesday, March 18, 2025 9:34:09 AM
Dear City Council:

I oppose the proposal to remove the fifth leg from the intersection at the Fernside Blvd/High St. Gibbons Dr. intersection, making Gibbons Drive a right-turn only onto High Street.

It seems premature to consider a change of this magnitude without fully understanding its impact on congestion and safety to the neighboring streets. It is unclear from the materials how or if this decision will improve safety, and how it will impact and re-route traffic on the neighboring streets. Nearby streets, including Bayo Vista, are already very narrow and full of pedestrians. This decision will potentially the-route traffic to these narrow nearby streets.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response.

Best regards,
C. Yee
From: James Cummons
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fernside Blvd Bikeway - Yes!
Date: Tuesday, March 18, 2025 5:43:42 AM
More bikeways! Fernside Boulevard is a great place for a bikeway. I support The City of Alameda staff recommendation to make Bikeway improvements to Fernside Boulevard.

Please don’t table or delay. Get it done now!
Thank you for serving our city,
Jim Cummons
Sent from my iPad
From: Jeanne Allen
To: Jennifer Ott
Cc: Tony Daysog; Yibin Shen; Lara Weisiger; Lisa Foster; Allen Tai; Amy Wooldridge; Scott Wikstrom; Tracy Jensen; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Michele Pryor; Greg Boller; Tony Daysog; Alameda Post Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: 2025-4837 Long term design concept for Fernside Blvd.

Date: Tuesday, March 18, 2025 5:23:13 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Right now I live about three houses from Eastshore cross street. Cars do not stop at the stop signs going down Fernside. Usually there three for four cars that breese through. I do drive out of our driveway. I am one of the few. It would be very wise to put a speed bump going towards High st. and another going towards Encinal at the so called 4 way stop sign. If you proceed as planned . Don't be surprised in the future if there are accidents along that narrow portion of Fernside.

Sincerely,
Jeanne Allen
On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 9:41 PM Jennifer Ott <[email protected] > wrote:

Hello Tony:

I circled back with staff and we will be prepared to answer these questions tomorrow night. In case helpful, here are quick answers regarding the long-term concept:

There would still be curbside parking on the side of the street with the two-way bikeway, next to a new curb past the bikeway.

In the presentation, David Parisi (our transportation consultant) is planning to explain how backing out of driveways would work safely. The larger buffer strip afforded by the two- way bikeway allows a driver to do a two-stage exit that allows for safe yielding: 1) cross the bikeway, and then 2) wait next to the buffer + parking lane for an opening in traffic.

The concept shows “new RRFB assembly” (flashing beacons) at several uncontrolled intersections.

Like most intersections in this concept, the Fernside Blvd/Eastshore Dr/Garfield Ave intersection has pedestrian median islands to manage speeds and increase pedestrian safety.

It does not have flashing beacons because it has an all-way stop, and CA standards only allow flashing beacons at uncontrolled intersections.

Thanks,
Jen

Jennifer Ott
City Manager
City of Alameda
[email protected]
c: (510) 867-8237

From: Tony Daysog <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2025 3:26 PM
To: Jennifer Ott <[email protected]>; Yibin Shen <[email protected]>; Lara Weisiger <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: 2025-4837 Long term design concept for Fernside Blvd.

Also: please confirm what happens in the long-term scenario involving two way bike path:
do residents where the path fronts lose street parking? Is parking allowed, iow, in the amenity zone, even if partially? It looks like there are cars in the drawings in the brown amenity zone. -- Tony

Get Outlook for Android
From: Tony Daysog <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2025 3:03:56 PM
To: Jennifer Ott <[email protected]>; Yibin Shen <[email protected]>; Lara Weisiger <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: 2025-4837 Long term design concept for Fernside Blvd.

Hi Jenn,

Can staff be prepared to answer these questions raised by Jeanne Allen: " Why the raised islands near Eastshore and Fernside? Where are the much needed flashing yellow lights?" Also: please be prepared to address questions that residents on the eastern side on Fernside, as discussed by Ms. Allen: "With the planned 2 way bike way near the curb, then parked cars on Fernside, it would be a serious SAFETY issue for any property owner that needs to back out of their driveways." Does this arrangement exist elsewhere in Alameda, and what so far has been the experience? Is the summary of experience research-significant or anecdotal?
Thanks.
-- Tony

Get Outlook for Android

From: Jeanne Allen <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 9, 2025 1:09:06 AM
To: Tony Daysog <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: 2025-4837 Long term design concept for Fernside Blvd.

I don't know why this email. went to your personal email account? I sent this email along with the mayor and other council members to the proper address.

Please read and consider.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jeanne Allen <[email protected]
>
Date: Sun, Mar 9, 2025 at 3:03 AM
Subject: 2025-4837 Long term design concept for Fernside Blvd.

To: T Jensen <[email protected]>, Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>, Michele Pryor <[email protected]>, Greg Boller <[email protected]>, Tony_Daysog <[email protected]>

Mayor and council members,

Regarding your long term design concept for Fernside between High Street and Eastshore take a look at the impact this will have on property owners in that area. The area between Fernside and High Street is already several feet narrower than other areas of Fernside. With the planned 2 way bike way near the curb, then parked cars on Fernside, it would be a serious SAFETY issue for any property owner that needs to back out of their driveways. I would encourage you to take a drive down Fernside on Tuesday when all the ACI containers are in the street. It would be very difficult for Harbor Bay residents or anyone else diving down Frenside. Why the raised islands near Eastshore and Fernside? Where are the much needed flashing yellow lights? There is no need to sign off on this design until there is further study.

Thank you for your consideration.

Jeanne Allen

From: Amanda Nummi
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose Gibbons Closure
Date: Monday, March 17, 2025 10:27:29 PM
I oppose closing off Gibbons because it will cut off access to get onto the High St. bridge. This will cause heavy traffic on the small, narrow side streets parallel to Gibbons. It’s unfair to do this without proper studies showing where the traffic will be directed if this occurs, and impacts the safety on other streets.

Amanda Nummi
5104210338
Sent from my iPhone
From: Diana Gibson Pace
To: CityCouncil-List
Cc: Diana Gibson Pace
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opinion AGAINST Fernside Boulevard Traffic Calming and Bikeways Project Date: Monday, March 17, 2025 10:03:45 PM
Attachments: apple-touch-icon.png
Dear Madame Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am an Alameda resident and have lived on Cambridge Drive for 25 years.

I am writing about the Fernside Blvd Traffic Calming & Bikeways Project. I was made aware of this by neighbors just this evening. Please note that I have had zero awareness of this before this evening. My awareness came from a neighbors, not the City. I see from the website that attempted outreach is listed, but it certainly wasn’t made widely available. Those of us with demanding jobs and children to raise are not studying the city webpages looking for these things.

Fernside Boulevard Traffic Calming and
Bikeways Project
alamedaca.gov
I have strong concerns about his project, because it will simply divert traffic, not calm it. I have been advocating for traffic calming on Cambridge Drive and our surrounding streets for many years, never with any luck. We advocated for speed bumps, traffic circles and other solutions. We were always turned down.

I had my car totaled in front of my house in June 26th, 2023 by a car going at least 80 miles per hour down Cambridge Drive. My neighbor’s car was also totaled in the same accident.

The driver was the only car involved and was driving so fast he spun out and wrecked two parked cars. The driver was not even arrested because he claimed a medical condition. If anyone wants to see the video of that, I have it - it was caught on security cameras. It is terrifying when you think how many pedestrians and animals there are in this neighborhood, especially since we are right by Edison school
Additionally, I watched the cars speed past our house in a high speed chase that killed a young man a few years ago on Fernside and Cambridge and literally drove into a resident’s house.

They drove by our front window as my daughter was playing piano and then we heard the crash. We didn’t realize at the time they had killed someone.

The Versailles “traffic calming” has simply diverted additional traffic onto Cambridge Drive and surrounding streets. There are more cars driving faster, and I have witnessed countless people ignoring stop signs and driving through intersections with stop signs at speed.

Diverting traffic from one street to others will not calm traffic. That is what this initiative is attempting to do. Moving problems around doesn’t solve them.

I cannot attend the meeting Tuesday because of a work obligation, so I am writing instead. I ask that you please hold on this initiative and make MUCH MORE of an effort to talk to all concerned and do a better job of coming up with a solution that doesn’t just shift traffic around to other residential streets. Diverting does not solve the problem.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Diana G. Gibson Pace
1717 Cambridge Drive
Alameda, CA 94501
510-599-5810
Sent from my iPad
From: Shiantel Fields
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fernside
Date: Monday, March 17, 2025 9:04:33 PM
Dear council,
I am writing in support of the staff recommendation for Fernside Boulevard safety improvements. As someone who teaches in Fremont (FUDTA strong!) my goal is to one day be able to take BART to my school site. Part of my cycling route would take me through Fernside and I am very invested in NOT being hit by a driver. Additionally, my child will one day be attending Lincoln Middle School. Similarly, I also do NOT want her being hit by a driver.

Thank you,
Shiantel Fields
From: Jake Olsen
To: City Clerk; Transportation; CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] March 18 - City Council Agenda Item 7B - Fernside Traffic Calming and Bikeways Project Date: Monday, March 17, 2025 8:29:40 PM
Hello,
I am writing to express my deep concern with the March 18 City Council Agenda Item 7B - Regarding the Fernside Traffic Calming.

Specifically, I would like to address the proposal of modifying traffic low at the Gibbons-High St. intersection. As a registered Civil Engineer living within 1-block of this intersection - I have been very engaged in this issue during the public outreach and pop-up last fall and have reviewed all potential solutions. As was pointed out by many of us, limiting traffic flow at this intersection will only push commute traffic onto smaller roads that have less capacity for traffic increasingly the likelihood of pedestrian collisions. This is particularly concerning during school commute times when many small children navigate these small, narrow streets.

Gibbons is 20% wider than other streets in the Fernside Neighborhood and designed for traffic volume. Side streets like Yale, Cornell, Bayo Vista, etc. are not.

The Traffic Commission acknowledged this concern back in November and agreed to conduct further study and analysis of the impact of potentially diverted traffic flow and delay this decision until 2030. Many of us local residents are waiting to see this further investigation.

I was therefore shocked to learn, just a few months after the Traffic Commission agreed to a delay and further analysis, that this concept of modifying the Gibbons - High St. intersection was now being fast-tracked with City Council. This feels like a complete "bait and switch" and a betrayal of the local residents.

I respectfully ask that the promises made to us in November with a delay in this intersection change to allow further analysis and traffic studies be upheld.

Thank you,
---
Jake Olsen, P.E.

M: 510 364 6263
From: Cindy Mills
To: CityCouncil-List; City Clerk; Transportation
Cc: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Michele Pryor; Greg Boller; Tony Daysog; Tracy Jensen Subject: [EXTERNAL] Updated Recommendation for Fernside/High/Gibbons - Resident Feedback Date: Monday, March 17, 2025 8:02:39 PM
Dear City Council members, Mayor Ashcraft, and Vice Mayor Pryor, I was surprised to see the Fernside/High/Gibbons street intersection modification on the agenda for approval at the March 18th meeting. It was my understanding that after receiving significant feedback from neighbors about the impact to surrounding streets, the city was going to do a traffic study before any changes are made. This made a great deal of sense to me. Perhaps, I misunderstood the decision.

If this were just an issue of bike and pedestrian safety at the Ferside/High/Gibbons intersection, then I can not imagine an opposition. But, in fact, this is also an issue of traffic flow and the safety of bikes, pedestrians, and residents on smaller surrounding streets.

Gibbons is an artery to the High Street Bridge. I understand the city classifies it as a local neighborhood street, but in reality, it has served as an artery to the High Street Bridge for decades. The number of people who use it to exit and enter the island cannot be ignored. By eliminating bridge access, you are closing that artery.

As with any artery, if you are going to close it off at the end, you need a plan in place as to where that traffic will go. Without a plan in place, cars will drive down Gibbons toward the bridge, take one of the last left turns onto Cornell or Yale, then a right turn onto Fernside. I know this because I see it every day. When a driver sees a red light at the end of Gibbons, and they decide they don't want to wait, they make the last left turn onto Cornell, and they seldom slow down. Both Cornell and Yale are narrower streets than Gibbons. Two cars cannot pass each other with resident cars parked on the sides of the street. I can't even open my car door and have one car drive by when a car is parked on the other side.

Wouldn't it make more sense to have traffic study done and put traffic mitigation in effect before you close off the end of Gibbons? I feel like it would be very irresponsible to make such a huge change to the traffic pattern leaving the island via Gibbons without as much information as possible. We want to make the right decision for all residents.

I urge you to do a traffic study BEFORE any changes are made to ensure the safety of ALL bikes, pedestrians, and residents.

Cindy Mills
Cornell Drive resident
From: Catherine Egelhoff
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fernside project
Date: Monday, March 17, 2025 6:50:18 PM
Dear Councilmembers,
As a longtime Alameda resident and frequent pedestrian and cyclist, I wholeheartedly support the Fernside Improvements that you will be voting on March 18. Please vote yes- so much thought and hard work has gone into this.

Sincerely,
Catherine Egelhoff
From: Serena Hom
To: City Clerk; Transportation; CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comments for 3/18 Mtg: Fernside Blvd Design Concepts Date: Monday, March 17, 2025 5:49:13 PM
Hello City Council,
I live on Bayo Vista between High and Cornell and I strongly oppose the design where eastbound traffic on Gibbons can ONLY make a right turn onto High Street.

This means eastbound traffic trying to get onto the High Street bridge or head towards Fernside (requiring a left turn onto High) will come down Bayo Vista.

Negative impact to Bayo Vista:

1. As it is, Bayo Vista is a NARROW street, barely allowing for 2 cars to pass in opposite directions. It will be dangerous to increase the flow of eastbound traffic down Bayo Vista.

2. There are many elementary school-aged children on this block, running, scootering and biking. Increased traffic will bring the potential for an increase in accidents.

I thought at the Transportation Committee mtg in Nov 2024, that the city recommended delaying making changes UNTIL further study and neighborhood input was solicited i.e. “pending results of a traffic study determining expected new traffic patterns.”
Questions:

1. What is the impetus to move up this design conversation?

2. Where is the traffic study/statistics to justify these changes? As a concerned Alamedan who loves living on Bayo Vista, please do NOT proceed without consulting its residents on the answers to questions #1 and 2 above.

Ideally, please come up with another design solution that doesn't involve shunting traffic down small side streets.

Thank you,
Serena Hom
From: Alan Chi
To: City Clerk; Transportation; CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose Gibbons / High Street Safety Improvement Recommendation Date: Monday, March 17, 2025 4:55:01 PM
Dear City Council,
My name is Alan Chi and I live on Bayo Vista Avenue between High Street and Cornell. If you drive by, you will often see my 4th grader and I play football, soccer, basketball, and/or baseball in our front yard. My son love’s (almost all!) sports and we have been doing this regularly since moving-in in 2017. Since then, we have seen an increase in traffic speeding through Bayo Vista in both directions and making illegal u-turns on High Street at the Bayo Vista intersection.

Your Safety Improvement Recommendation, the inability for motorists to make a left from Gibbons onto High, will ONLY INCREASE TRAFFIC THROUGH BAYO VISTA AVE and U-TURNS AT THE HIGH AND BAYO VISTA INTERSECTION!
This not only impacts my family’s safety, but also the safety of eight other families with young children who live on this block (Bayo Vista Avenue between High and Cornell) that plays in their front yard and/or on the sidewalk. It is a matter of time before someone is KILLED and/or HURT.

The current recommendation is simply UNACCEPTABLE. Please develop a BETTER SOLUTION.

Thank you,
Alan Chi
From: caitlin schwarzman
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] traffic calming agenda item
Date: Monday, March 17, 2025 3:11:50 PM
I'm writing in support of the proposed safety improvements on Fernside Boulevard, because delivering the improvements for Fernside as recommended by city staff will both save lives and support our city's climate goals.

Win, win.

Best,
Caitlin Schwarzman
Alameda resident
From: Andy Murdock
To: CityCouncil-List; City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] In support of Fernside upgrades, 7-B March 18, 2025 Date: Monday, March 17, 2025 2:04:36 PM
Dear Councilmembers,
I'm a resident of Windsor Drive, which means I have to use or cross Fernside anytime I go anywhere on the island. I strongly support plans for traffic calming and pedestrian/bicyclist safety on the portion of Fernside currently being discussed (item 7-B on the agenda for March 18, 2025).

Regarding the current proposal, I would prefer a near-term design that had separated bike lanes for maximum safety (e.g. Near-Term Option 3 in the earlier proposal), especially because this route is heavily used by children to and from Lincoln Middle School. I do appreciate that the near-term plan needs to be done quickly and cheaply, but the Near-Term Option 3 design had both the benefit of increased safety and closely matching the long-term design, which would allow drivers to adjust to the future lane conformation now rather than having to adjust to two design changes. That said, if it must be buffered lanes, then it would still be a positive step in the right direction.

Thank you for your attention to this important work. This is a project that will benefit everyone's safety. The city staff has been really wonderful about working with the area residents throughout this process. It's really appreciated.

Sincerely,
Andy Murdock
From: Kate R
To: City Clerk; Transportation; CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Gibbons/High Street proposal
Date: Monday, March 17, 2025 1:51:23 PM
Hello. I am a long-time resident on the 3100 block of Gibbons Drive. I have participated in the

meetings

and

surveys

about

the

traffic

calming

proposals,

has

husband.

When

the
latest

update

came

out,

was

dismayed

see

that

was

basically

the

same

proposal

as
originally presented,

with

attempt

address

the

very

real

concerns

residents,

and

pushed
to

2026

timeframe.

see

modification

plans

address

the

increased

traffic

side
streets,

which

are

only

really

one-car-at-a-time

streets

and

have

few

four-way

stops.

This

was
the

primary

concern

conveyed

the

team

and

seems

have

been

left

unaddressed.

fact,
the

city

clearly

states

that

they

would

traffic

study

AFTER

completing

the

work:

"Due to
the

time sensitive and opportunistic nature of the outreach, staff did not yet have a completed traffic study to fully address these concerns or answer questions about spillover traffic."

This proposal trades potential increased safety (but not studied) for almost certain increased danger on side streets.

I understand there is a time opportunity,
but this is not a logical way to proceed and in fact voids the public outreach intentions that the city professes.

To spend the money on the work and then to consider
changing it if/when traffic studies show a negative impact is a wasteful way to proceed.

resident

Gibbons

who

crosses

the

High

Street

bridge

and

goes

onto

Fernside

daily,

I
foresee

worse

traffic,

not

better.

have

rarely

had

problem

this

intersection

18 years
and

would

see

the

traffic

statistics

that

the

city

said

was

propelling

this

change

of
access

the

bridge.

would

also

the

traffic

impact

studies

happen

BEFORE

work

is
approved.

Thank

you

for

your

consideration,
Kate

Rome
--

Kate

Rome,

MFT,

PPS
From: Vickie Chan Teng
To: CityCouncil-List; City Clerk; Transportation
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Updated Recommendation for Fernside/High/Gibbons Date: Monday, March 17, 2025 1:49:33 PM
Hello,
I

resident

the

Fernside

neighborhood

and

concerned

that

the

recommendations
proposed

for

the

Fernside

Blvd +

High

St +

Gibbons

intersection

are

being

rushed

through
proper

process

and

analysis

without

comprehensive

community

feedback,

but

based

input
from

limited

number

Gibbons

residents,

including

current

Councilmember

who

lives
on

Gibbons

Dr.

attended

the

November

Pop

Open

House

along

with

several

other

residents

who

voiced
serious

concerns

about

the

proposal.

After

the

meeting,

were

given

opportunity

to
complete

survey,

and
were clearly told:
"After receiving input, the Fernside team determined that finding a workable solution at this intersection will require more time, public process, and analysis than anticipated.

The

team is planning further traffic study and
public engagement
before

recommending
a

design concept
for this intersection as part of the long-
term

Fernside
Blvd

project. The corridor design concepts the commissions are reviewing mark this intersection treatment as "pending further traffic analysis and public engagement."
However, there hasn't been any additional public engagement or evidence of further analysis, and

only

4 days

before

the

3/18

City

Council

Meeting,

are

told

that

now

being
reviewed

for

approval:
"Based on ongoing public feedback and the need for near-term safety measures, on March 18 the City Council will consider an updated staff recommendation to construct these changes intersection in 2026 rather than 2030, pending results of a traffic study determining expected new traffic patterns."

would

understand

where

the

public

process

ongoing

public

feedback

came

from.

I
was

not

asked

provide

additional

feedback

and

understanding

was

that

would

part
of

broader

effort.

seems

the

Fernside/High/Gibbons

recommendation

foregone
conclusion,

and

the

team

trying

use

the

traffic

study

confirm

the

new

traffic

patterns

INSTEAD

honestly

looking

for

better

recommendations.

It's

critical

that

public

engagement
is

done

and

further

analysis

proves

show

that

the

traffic

will

not

add

danger

the
smaller

side

streets

BEFORE

this

recommendation

considered

and

approved.

unclear

if
there

have

been

any

measures

taken

improve

the

intersection

with

signage,

lighting,

lane
painting,

etc.

Also,

the

current

proposal

has

mention

the

impact

surrounding

streets,
and

would

irresponsible

for

this

approved

without

any

that

analysis.

It's

true

that

live

one

the

smaller

side

streets,

and

not

want

see

the

spillover
traffic.

have

two

young

children

and

purchased

our

house

the

street

with

the

current
traffic

patterns.

Walking

school,

bike

riding,

and

other

activities

would

become

more
dangerous

for

many

these

smaller

side

streets

this

were

move

forward.

would

expect
that the City Council would do the proper due diligence on impact for the community on making a change like this, or I would lose my confidence that the City Council is acting in the full

community's

best

interests.

Best,
Vickie

Teng
Fernside

Neighborhood

Resident

From: David Moran
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Support for the Fernside Traffic Calming and Bikeways Project Date: Monday, March 17, 2025 1:00:46 PM
As a parent of an Edison and future Lincoln kid who is an adamant biker, I would like to voice my support for the staff's recommendations on the

Fernside Traffic Calming and Bikeways
Project. I think it is a huge safety improvement that will improve

everyone's access to Fernside
and surrounding neighborhoods.

Thanks,
David Moran
From: Kevin Clancy
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Supporting 2026 implementation of the Gibbons intersection improvement Date: Monday, March 17, 2025 12:20:48 PM
Dear Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and City Councilmembers,
I’m a Gibbons Drive resident. I am writing to advocate for the 2026 implementation of staff's proposed safety improvement to the Gibbons/Fernside/High intersection.

This intersection's current design encourages speeding, confuses drivers, and prioritizes vehicular throughput over pedestrian safety. The city’s data
shows that along the 1.3 miles of Fernside Boulevard
being studied for improvement, this intersection has had the highest rate of accidents over the past few years.

Staff’s proposed changes
would simplify the intersection, shorten pedestrian crossings, and reduce speed-through opportunities.

The 2026 Fernside restriping and resurfacing project offers an opportunity to implement this much- needed improvement quickly and efficiently. Delaying this safety measure for several more years is a decision in favor of inaction and the status quo. I urge you to prioritize the safety of the Gibbons Drive and Fernside community by implementing staff’s proposed improvement in 2026, rather than waiting several years more on uncertain funding.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Kevin Clancy
From: Katharine Van Dusen
To: CityCouncil-List
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment for March 18 meeting, Item 7-B Date: Saturday, March 15, 2025 12:23:26 PM
Re: March 18 Item 7-B
Hello all,
I am an East End resident with two children at Edison.

I bike on Fernside regularly to
commute to the Harbor Bay ferry.

My family also uses the Fernside bike lane south of
Lincoln Middle for family bike rides to Bay Farm, but we cannot safely ride on Fernside north of Lincoln Middle, because of dangerous drivers.

The long-term plan for Fernside looks great.

Unfortunately, the short-term buffered bike lanes
are not good enough to improve on current conditions.

One of the biggest dangers I face as a cyclist on Fernside is that cars use the bike lane as a second lane to get around traffic.

Without a physical barrier stopping bad drivers, people on bikes are still be at risk of cars driving into the bike lane.

This is not an abstract concern.

I was nearly hit by a driver performing this dangerous
maneuver, and I know that families and children (including mine) avoid biking on Fernside because of this danger.

If a quick build is approved, please consider bollards or some other physical barrier to prevent drivers from using the bike line.

Thanks,
Katharine Van Dusen
From: Meghan Rahman
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Supporting 2026 implementation of the Gibbons intersection improvement Date: Friday, March 14, 2025 2:47:58 PM
Dear Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and City Councilmembers,
I’m a Gibbons Drive resident. I am writing to advocate for the 2026 implementation of staff's proposed safety improvement to the Gibbons/Fernside/High intersection.

I'm very familiar with the lack of safety this intersection causes. As a primary matter, we drive instead of biking most of the time because we are scared of our small child being hit by one of the cars speeding down Gibbons well over the speed limit. We also walk in the neighborhood multiple times daily between walking our child to school and walking the dog. We fear for our safety whenever we have to use this intersection on foot, as well as generally fearing for our safety when cars speed down Gibbons. In addition, as a driver the intersection is confusing and dangerous - I personally use the Fruitvale bridge to come and go from the island, which I do daily as I work in Oakland - but when I take rideshares, my drivers often end up in dangerous situations because they do not understand how to navigate the intersection.

Staff’s proposed changes
would simplify the intersection, shorten pedestrian crossings, and reduce speed-through opportunities.

Please note that in the City's Streets Classification Index (adopted as part of the General Plan), Gibbons is mapped to be a 'Neighborhood Local Street' and should not be used as a connector street as it is today.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
____
From: Andy Wang
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Supporting 2026 implementation of the Gibbons intersection improvement Date: Friday, March 14, 2025 12:00:00 PM
Dear Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and City Councilmembers,
I’m a Gibbons Drive resident. I am writing to advocate for the 2026 implementation of staff's proposed safety improvement to the Gibbons/Fernside/High intersection.

This intersection's current design encourages speeding, confuses drivers, and prioritizes vehicular throughput over pedestrian safety. The city’s data shows that
along the 1.3 miles of Fernside Boulevard being studied for improvement, this intersection has had the highest rate of accidents over the past few years.

Staff’s proposed changes
would simplify the intersection, shorten pedestrian
crossings, and reduce speed-through opportunities.

The 2026 Fernside restriping and resurfacing project offers an opportunity to implement this much-needed improvement quickly and efficiently. Delaying this safety measure for several more years is a decision in favor of inaction and the status quo. I urge you to prioritize the safety of the Gibbons Drive and Fernside community by implementing staff’s proposed improvement in 2026, rather than waiting several years more on uncertain funding.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Joseph Dierking
From: Nick Seymour
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Supporting 2026 implementation of the Gibbons intersection improvement Date: Friday, March 14, 2025 11:53:23 AM
Dear Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and City Councilmembers,
I am a resident of the 3100 block of Gibbons Drive. I am writing to advocate for the 2026 implementation of staff's proposed safety improvement to the Gibbons/Fernside/High intersection.

As a father of
two young children I am constantly in fear of cars speeding away from this intersection or speeding towards it as they attempt to make the green light. This is due to the current design of the intersection. The geometry of the turn from the High Street Bridge not only allows, but encourages, drivers to accelerate as they approach Gibbons. My children frequently walk, scooter, or bike along Gibbons to Edison Elementary or across Gibbons on the way to Lincoln Playground. Chronic speeding is a constant danger as they do so.

Staff’s
proposed changes to Gibbons/Fernside/High would simplify the intersection, shorten pedestrian crossings, and reduce speed-through opportunities.

The safer the intersection and built
environment, the more likely we are to use non-car options on daily trips.

The 2026 Fernside restriping and resurfacing project offers an opportunity to implement this much- needed improvement quickly and efficiently. Delaying this safety measure for several more years is a decision in favor of inaction and the status quo. I urge you to prioritize the safety of the East End community by implementing staff’s proposed improvement in 2026, rather than waiting several years more on uncertain funding.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Nicholas Seymour
From: Jennifer Ott
To: Lara Weisiger
Cc: Allen Tai; Amy Wooldridge; Lisa Foster; Scott Wikstrom Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] In support of Gibbons / Fernside / High intersection improvement in 2026 Date: Thursday, March 13, 2025 11:22:33 AM
Attachments: Gibbons Dr at Fernside High - original handout w markup.pdf 250312 Gibbons Fernside High discussion.pdf
fyi
From: Michele Pryor <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2025 3:44 PM
To: Jennifer Ott <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: [EXTERNAL] In support of Gibbons / Fernside / High intersection improvement in 2026 Michele Pryor - Vice Mayor
[email protected]
Sent from Android
From: Andy Wang <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2025 10:51:04 AM
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>; Michele Pryor <[email protected]>; Greg Boller <[email protected]>; Tony Daysog <[email protected]>; Tracy Jensen <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] In support of Gibbons / Fernside / High intersection improvement in 2026 To Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft and Councilmembers:

On March 18 you’re due to hear from city staff about their proposal for the Fernside Boulevard Traffic Calming and Bikeways Project. Though this item is focused on the 1.3 miles of Fernside Boulevard being contemplated for redesign, I write about a specific intersection — Gibbons / Fernside / High — which city staff notes has had the highest rate of injury crashes along this corridor over the last five years.

To review:

In November of last year the city distributed a flyer, noting a specific and concrete "opportunity to improve the (Gibbons / Fernside / High) intersection as part of a planned resurfacing project on Fernside Blvd … in 2026.” The flyer further noted benefits of the proposal, pictured above, which would limit eastbound Gibbons traffic to right-turn only onto High Street: “shorter pedestrian crossings, simpler geometry … reduced vehicle speeds … less cut-through traffic on Gibbons.” This flyer clearly identified a well- considered design with many pedestrian-safety and traffic-calming benefits, and it explicitly noted this design as potentially being bundled with a 2026 restriping effort on Fernside. See attached for the original flyer, which has since been revised on the city’s website.

To distinguish the above 2026 proposed improvements from a more holistic redesign of the entire intersection (rather than just the Gibbons side), the same flyer further noted “long-term changes to this intersection will be explored with the full Fernside Blvd Traffic Calming & Bikeways Project at …City Council in early 2025. Pending further traffic study, this could include removal of the right-turn slip lane at the northeast corner of this intersection. The City explored a roundabout option here but it did not fit in the existing space.” Note that the right turn slip lane at northeast refers to the corner diagonally across from Gibbons — where Marina Garden Nursing Center is sited, and which I’m not addressing in this email.

Four days after this flyer was distributed, the city distributed an email stating "the team will not recommend including these changes in the near-term project."
At the Transportation Commission later the same month, staff noted that their recommendation would now be to pursue an improvement to this intersection in the long-term, unless "City Council were to decide to prioritize that project in a different way." At this point, city staff has written and spoken a number of times about why they pulled back: the volume of negative feedback received regarding the Gibbons proposal. No doubt before this item is voted on, you’re going to hear more of the same.

I ask this: that the city measure not only the volume of comments but their merit. This would include weighing them against and alongside the city’s well-established goals and policies.

Here are my own comments:

The Gibbons / Fernside / High intersection is confusing for drivers. The city’s injury crash statistics bear this out. Weigh this against the city’s Vision Zero commitment.

The pedestrian crossing on Gibbons is the only unsignaled crossing at the five-way intersection. Pedestrians must therefore do their best to guess when it’s the right time to cross, all the while negotiating for their safety alongside drivers who are often either confused or going too fast. The walkways in the pedestrian islands are substandard in width, and the islands aren’t of sufficient dimension to protect a person with a stroller or a bicycle from oncoming traffic. Again, weigh this against the city’s Vision Zero commitment.

The geometry of the turn from the High Street Bridge not only allows, but encourages, drivers to accelerate as they approach Gibbons. Weigh this against the city’s Safe Routes to School for Edison Elementary, which notes many problems along the Gibbons corridor — chief among them chronic speeding.

Gibbons is used as a diagonal cut-through and “shortcut” from eastbound drivers on Lincoln, Santa Clara, and Central to get to the High Street Bridge. If the city were to remove the outbound Gibbons connection to the High Street Bridge, the incentive to speed along Gibbons out to the High Street Bridge would be entirely removed. In this scenario, drivers wouldn’t continue to drive onto Gibbons, and then further elect to speed from there onto smaller adjacent streets like Bayo Vista, Yale, or Cornell. For one thing, this would yield no reward — only another turn onto Fernside or High before hitting a traffic light. For another, these other streets are all 30 feet curb to curb, about as narrow as they could get — compared to 36 feet on Gibbons. It’s difficult to achieve even the speed limit of 25 mph on these smaller streets, let alone to habitually speed. Drivers’ navigation apps are going to tell them to take the next most logical route: stay eastbound on Lincoln, Santa Clara, or Central until they get to High Street, then turn left. This point doesn’t need to be weighed against official city policy, only common sense. (Note, however, that removing the outbound Gibbons Drive connection to the High Street Bridge would bring Gibbons more in line with its current designation under the City of Alameda's Street Classification Index as a Neighborhood Local Street, rather than as a Neighborhood Connector Street, which is how it's currently de facto performing.)
These points are further illustrated in the attached discussion notes, and a number of them are supported by literature linked to on the city’s own website.

Good policy, including transportation safety, should be our north star. And it's my hope that under the Council's leadership, good policy will prevail over the forces of fear, uncertainty, and delay.

Yours truly,
Andy Wang
Gibbons Drive resident, Planning Board member, and father to two preschoolers Permanent improvements,
shown to the left here, are
proposed “as part of a
planned resurfacing project …
in 2026.”
Under the category of “long-term
changes,” this flyer discusses more and
greater revisions to the intersection
beyond the Gibbons-side crosswalk —
namely the right-turn slip lane at Marina
Gardens Nursing Center, diagonally
across the intersection from the start of
Gibbons Drive.

Problems today
Staff proposal
Neighboring streets
The ask
Gibbons / Fernside / High: problems today

1. Confusing = unsafe

2. Chronic speeding along Gibbons Drive

3. Substandard pedestrian crossing
1 Timeline
References
Confusing = unsafe
The unusual outbound turn from Gibbons to northbound High Street is confusing for people who don’t live here. This bus is just one example. It blocked the Gibbons and High part of the intersection for an entire light cycle, with cars behind honking. 1 2
Problems today
Staff proposal
Neighboring streets
The ask
Timeline
References
Confusing = unsafe
Along the 1.3 miles of Fernside Boulevard being studied, the city’s June 2024 presentation suggests that the Gibbons intersection deserves higher priority.2 No other
intersection on
Fernside has an
accident rate
this high
3 Problems today
Staff proposal
Neighboring streets
The ask
Timeline
References
Chronic speeding along Gibbons Drive
The view is gorgeous. The downside: it invites car-commercial driving. 4 Problems today
Staff proposal
Neighboring streets
The ask
Timeline
References
Chronic speeding along Gibbons Drive
For drivers headed off-island and eastbound on major cross-island streets like Lincoln, Santa Clara, or Central, the left turn onto Gibbons is low friction and low trafﬁc – compared to their left-turn counterparts onto High, two of which present an extra light.

The problem
intersection:
drivers who ﬂy
through this
green light are
rewarded with
quick access to
the High Street
Bridge
You can’t ﬂy
through these
signaled stops
Very easy left
here – no stop
sign eastbound
5 Problems today
Staff proposal
Neighboring streets
The ask

LINCOLN

SANTA CLARA

CENTRAL

GIBBONS

HIGH STREET
BRIDGE
EDISON
Timeline
References
Chronic speeding along Gibbons Drive
Though drivers habitually speed along Gibbons, the City recommends portions of the street, as well as streets that intersect it, as designated walking and biking routes to Edison Elementary School.
3 6
Problems today
Staff proposal
Neighboring streets
The ask
Timeline
References
Substandard pedestrian crossing
No other
intersection
comes close to
this accident
rate.
➔ The Gibbons pedestrian crossing is
unsignaled, despite the intersection’s
confusing design and high accident
rate
➔ According to the NACTO, crosswalks
should “cut through” islands, creating
walkways within the islands that are the
same width as the crosswalk itself.

However, the walkways within the
islands are only 5 feet wide, compared
to the crosswalk’s 10+ feet.4
➔ One of the islands is only 4.5 feet, below
the 6 feet that NACTO considers the
minimum protected width for an island,
based on the length of a bicycle or a
person pushing a stroller.
4 7
Problems today
Staff proposal
Neighboring streets
The ask
Timeline
References
Problems today
Staff proposal
Neighboring streets
The ask
Staff proposal
➔ Vastly simpliﬁes the
intersection design5
➔ Shortens the pedestrian
crossing distance, giving
pedestrians more refuge and
more visibility to drivers
➔ Eliminates speed-through
opportunities outbound
➔ Requires a slower turn into the
travel lane inbound – an
important psychological signal
to downshift in speed as
drivers transition to a
residential neighborhood
No other
intersection
comes close to
this accident
rate.
8 Timeline
References
Problems today
Staff proposal
Neighboring streets
The ask
Neighboring streets vs. Gibbons
9 Streets like Bayo Vista and Cornell are about as tight as they can get: 30 feet curb to curb, compared 36 feet on Gibbons. Narrower than typical travel lanes of 7-8 feet make it difﬁcult to even travel at 25 mph, let alone to speed. See also footnote 6.

Streets like Bayo
Vista, Cornell, and
Southwood don’t
connect directly to
an easy green light.

The reward for
speeding through
them is still a
required turn onto
Fernside or High.

If outbound
Gibbons were
removed, the most
rational next choice
would be to just
stay on the higher
throughput streets.

BAYO VISTA

CORNELL

HIGH STREET
BRIDGE

LINCOLN

SANTA CLARA

CENTRAL
EDISON
Timeline
References
Problems today
Staff proposal
Neighboring streets
The ask
Neighboring streets vs. Gibbons
10 Implementing staff’s proposal would bring driver behavior more in line with Gibbons Drive’s designation as Neighborhood Local Street under the city’s Streets Classiﬁcation Index.7

BAYO VISTA

CORNELL

HIGH STREET
BRIDGE

LINCOLN

SANTA CLARA

CENTRAL
EDISON
Timeline
References

Problems today
Staff proposal
Neighboring streets
The ask
The ask
Move the ball forward for the Gibbons
intersection in both:
1) substance of safety improvements
2) timing of safety improvements
Direct the city to return to its original
proposal to implement the new intersection
design in 2026, using funds available.
11 Timeline
References
Problems today
Staff proposal
Neighboring streets
The ask
Timeline
Introduction of
Gibbons intersection concept
➔ Late 2023 through Late 2024 – City staff
working on near-term and long-term
plans regarding 1.3 miles of Fernside
Boulevard (“Fernside Boulevard Trafﬁc
Calming and Bikeways Project”)
➔ Nov 8, 2024 – Staff distributes email
handout regarding intersection
improvement at Gibbons / Fernside /
High (previous page), noting design
proposal could be implemented as part
of 2026 Fernside resurfacing and
restriping
➔ Nov 9, 2024 – Pop-up sidewalk workshop
at Gibbons Drive
➔ Nov 12, 2024 – Email notice stating
Gibbons proposal would no longer be
contemplated in 2026
12 Timeline
References
Timeline
Nov 20, 2024 Transportation
Commission discussion of Gibbons
concept
Staff (Transportation Planning Manager Lisa Foster):

As we were working on our draft ﬁnal concept designs
we concluded that this intersection needed more
attention, and so we created a proposed design to limit the eastbound Gibbons Drive trafﬁc to right turn only
onto High to create shorter pedestrian crossings,
simpler geometry, shorter trafﬁc signal wait times —
which in the long term is important to be able to have a cycle track trafﬁc signal phase, reduced speeds entering Gibbons, and less cut through trafﬁc on Gibbons.

Andy Wang:

I want to challenge the commission and staff to put
community feedback they got through a rigorous
technical and policy ﬁlter before coming to the
conclusion that 2026 isn't feasible. From my perspective and the perspective of other young families I know on
Gibbons today, cars speed down Gibbons Drive in both
directions constantly. For outbound and inbound
drivers, Gibbons is effectively a shortcut to speed
through, not to mention the city's own data on a high
volume of trafﬁc collisions here. My point to you tonight is that when it comes to safety especially, timing
matters. Our neighbors on adjacent streets have raised
some valid concerns around whether cut-through
trafﬁc would instead speed down their streets. But
unlike Gibbons, these streets don't connect major
corridors to the Fernside and High trafﬁc light. And
they're all much narrower than Gibbons with seven-foot
travel lanes each. You all know this has a huge effect on speed reduction, but staff should absolutely study this.

Respectfully, again, I'd simply challenge the
commission and staff to do so while committing to
timely progress and 2026 implementation.
13 Problems today
Staff proposal
Neighboring streets
The ask
Timeline
References
Timeline
Nov 20, 2024 Transportation
Commission discussion of Gibbons
concept (cont.)
Bike Walk Alameda:

Our city has very explicitly prioritized safety for all users over on-street parking and public rights of way. It's
important to stay true to the priorities in our visioning documents if we're going to achieve the long term
goals we've collectively decided are important. … Grants are difﬁcult to win and construction takes a lot longer than we ever anticipate. … As for the improvements
proposed for the High/Gibbons/Fernside intersection,
we prefer that they continue to be studied further and
implemented sooner rather than later if possible.

Elina Rubuliak:

In regards to the Gibbons Fernside High street
intersection, I understand the proposal as shown is not going to be moving forward and that disappoints me. I
was surprised it received such a negative response. So I would just encourage, you know, city staff and
Transportation Commission: stay on this one. It remains a dangerous intersection and I hope it will continue to be prioritized.

Commissioner Drew Dara-Abrams:

On the Gibbons work you were talking about: does staff
have a proposal for when that work could happen?
(Staff: “Related to the Fernside project it would be put in with the full long-term project. If City Council were to decide to prioritize that project in a different way, you know, that intersection, then there are other places
where we do work, but Fernside project it would be in
the long term, so 2030 is the goal.”)
Commissioner Jason Kim:

So for the Gibbons intersection, are we assuming that
it's going to be modiﬁed later in the next design set or are we kind of voting on nothing changing at the
southern part of the intersection?
(Staff: “If you approve the recommendations as they
stand, you would be approving the near-term concept
without those signiﬁcant changes at Gibbons. We
might add an extra bulbout, little things, but we
wouldn't be changing the movements of that
intersection in the near term. And then you would be
approving the long-term overall concept with the
knowledge that we will continue to work on changes at
that intersection. So that is sort of a fuzzy area. If, when we work on that, you would like us to come back so you
can weigh in on just that one intersection, we could
probably do that.”)
14 Problems today
Staff proposal
Neighboring streets
The ask
Timeline
References
Timeline
Nov 20, 2024 Transportation
Commission discussion of Gibbons
concept (cont.)
Commissioner Drew Dara-Abrams:

On Fernside/High/Gibbons, I think we've heard two
options tonight, and I'm just curious to know if staff
would be able to speak to any other potential options. I heard the staff is currently thinking of this being an
aspect of the long term project pegged against 2030,
and staff had some other previous approaches. Are
there any other intermediate options staff might be
able to speak to hypotheticals tonight just as
standalone projects? I can understand if you're not
prepared to speak to that.
(Staff: “We aren't prepared to speak to any other
alternatives right now.”)
I just want to say I hear this body interested in that and so if staff is able to articulate some other tentative
options for Council that could be of interest. Again, I just want to articulate the feedback we're hearing tonight.

Resolution (from ofﬁcial minutes):

Commissioner Kim made a motion to endorse the
two-way protected bikeway as long-term concept with
a request for staff to return to the Commission with a
concept for Gibbons/High/Fernside intersection and
vertical conﬁguration of the two-way bikeway. Vice
Chair Suthanthira seconded the motion. A vote was
taken by a raise of hands and the motion passed 7-0.
15 Problems today
Staff proposal
Neighboring streets
The ask
Timeline
References
Timeline
Jan 22, 2025 Commission on Persons
With Disabilities discussion of Gibbons
concept
Andy Wang:

The Gibbons pedestrian crosswalk is sited at a busy and unusual ﬁve-way vehicular intersection – yet the
crosswalk is unsignaled and difﬁcult to see for drivers headed a certain direction. The crosswalk is interrupted by two narrow pedestrian islands, whose walkways are
much narrower than the crosswalk itself. One of the
islands isn’t wide enough to protect a person walking a bicycle or a person with a stroller. Both of these design issues are in contravention of safety and universal
access, and create hazards for people with mobility or
visual impairments.

Addressing safety on Gibbons is very different from
making a long-term transformation to Fernside, and it
has very different capital requirements. … On top of that, staff has already noted in their proposal for the Gibbons crosswalk that it would have been paid for as part of the Fernside restriping in 2026.
… When it comes to safety especially, timing matters.

Staff (Transportation Planning Manager Lisa Foster):
(Summary from memory) People do speed on Gibbons,
we saw it at the pop up.

Commissioner Katy Beehler:
(Summary of related remarks) Inquiry about timing of
the Gibbons intersection improvement, including what
the near-term possibilities might be.

Staff:
(Summary of response) The drawing does not reﬂect
staff’s current proposal for the near-term, though staff can explore opportunities for quick-build
improvements with paint and post.
16 Problems today
Staff proposal
Neighboring streets
The ask
Timeline
References
References & deeper dives

1. Photo by Gibbons resident Megan Murphy, taken
February 1, 2025

2. City staff presentation to Transportation
Commission June 26, 2024 presentation (Link)

3. City of Alameda Safe Routes to School (Link)
Related, from the Alameda County Safe Routes to
School – School Safety Assessment Technical
Memorandum (Link): “The angle of [the
Northwood/Gibbons/Southwood] intersection and trees
located near the intersection limit visibility of trafﬁc from other approaches.”

4. Pedestrian Safety Islands, National Association of
City Transportation Ofﬁcials (Link)

5. Gibbons/Fernside/High Intersection Improvements
Proposal [Revised Flyer] (
Link)

6. National Association of City Transportation Ofﬁcials review of literature demonstrating that “narrower lane
widths can effectively manage speeds without
decreasing safety.” (
Link)

7. City of Alameda Street Classiﬁcations (Link)
17 Problems today
Staff proposal
Neighboring streets
The ask
Timeline
References
Board of Directors
Denyse Trepanier
President
Brian F
owler
Treasurer
Tim Beloney
Secretary
Cyndy Johnsen
Board Member
Maria Piper
Board Member
Lucy Gigli
Founder, non-voting
March 18, 2025
RE: Item 7-B: Fernside Project
Dear Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Members of the City Council, We support Staff’s long-term recommendation of a Two-way Protected Bikeway . Our preference is for the curb-protected option over the raised option because it offers the same safety and usability beneﬁts for $6M less. The lower cost and simpler design will likely get built more quickly, which is very important.

For the short-term, we favor Separated Bikeways . This design offers the following advantages over the buffered bike lanes design recommended by Staff:
● More traﬃc calming and increased safety for all users ● Prevents dangerous passing maneuvers and illegal parking in bike lanes that have proven diﬃcult to enforce for paint-only lanes ● It would be a low-stress facility for people biking, and would contribute signiﬁcantly to the Backbone Low Stress Network that’s to be built by 2030 per Active Transportation Plan (ATP). The long-term design will achieve this, but is likely to miss the target date of 2030 because it’s dependent on grant funding, which is very competitive and uncertain under this federal administration
● It offers improved transit access for bus riders
Compared to buffered bikeways, separated bikeway options do remove more parking, but parking is abundant here. Even at peak times over half of the parking spots are available, and most lots have driveways. The resulting parking r
eduction should not cause undue hardship. Importantly, our General Plan prioritizes safety over car parking:
● Space Priorities: When allocating public right-of-way space, the ﬁrst consider
ation shall be for people walking, bicycling, and using transit. Space for on-street parking shall be the lower priority. (Policy ME-6, Action G.) ● Safety First: When designing streets, the safest treatments should be considered the default starting point and be degraded only if necessary after documenting rationale for the approach. (Policy ME-6, Action B.) Cost is another consideration. Painted buffered bike lanes are indeed cheaper than separated lanes, but they’re also less effective in terms of safety. If this facility is in use for 4 or more years and prevents serious injuries and deaths during that time, the $1M cost difference may not seem signiﬁcant. That said, we also understand this project is one of many, and there are competing safe streets objectives and priorities.

Regarding the Fernside/High/Gibbons intersection , which is a pedestrian-hostile intersection on the most dangerous stretch of this corridor, we urge you to support more robust improvements like those Staff presented last fall sooner rather than later. It’s important to note that while some neighbors opposed those plans, the larger community favored them by 53% to 42% in the survey conducted at the time. A traﬃc study is warranted, and it’s good to see that it’s planned for this year, but that doesn’t preclude a ‘near-term’ timeline for the implementation of more robust improvements in 2026 along with the other near-term impr
ovements along this stretch of Fernside.

Thank you for your consideration.

Bike Walk Alameda Board
From: Megan Murphy
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] In support of 2026 implementation of the Gibbons intersection improvement Date: Wednesday, March 12, 2025 9:23:30 PM
Attachments: image.png
To Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and City Councilmembers,
I’m Megan Murphy. I live on the 3100 block of Gibbons Drive. I am advocating for the 2026 implementation of staff's proposed safety improvement to the Gibbons/Fernside/High intersection.

My family uses this intersection in the following ways:

1. Driving: I avoid this intersection and instead take the Fernside bridge to leave and return to Alameda.

2. Lyft: My lyft drivers often verbalize that they don’t know when they’re supposed to drive through the intersection from Gibbons.

3. Bike: My partner bikes daily with my two young children (students at Edison Elementary school). My oldest child will start to bike to Lincoln Middle in 2.5 years.

I no longer bike because I broke my leg slipping on the wet pedestrian bridge to Bay Farm in December 2023.

4. Pedestrian: I take the O and W Transbay buses to San Francisco. I am mobility impaired (due to broken leg from December 2023) and fear for my safety when crossing Fernside to Gibbons on the return home.

In the City's
Streets Classification Index (adopted as part of the General Plan), Gibbons is mapped to be a 'Neighborhood Local Street.' It really should not be functioning as a 'Neighborhood
Connector Street' as it seems to be doing today.

This intersection's current design encourages speeding, confuses drivers, and prioritizes vehicular throughput over pedestrian safety. The city’s data shows that along the 1.3 miles of Fernside Boulevard being studied for improvement, this intersection has had the highest rate of accidents over the past few years.

Staff’s proposed changes would simplify the intersection, shorten pedestrian crossings, and reduce speed-through opportunities.

This is a great opportunity to make strides towards Vision Zero in the near-term. We are rallying our community to get behind the Transportation team’s original proposal to improve safety at the
Gibbons/Fernside/High intersection before changing course.

I'm still hanging onto hope for more support for safety in Alameda in the near-term at this intersection.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Megan
From: Travis Morgan
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Reconsideration of Street Safety Work - Prioritizing Pedestrian Safety on Gibbons Intersection Date: Wednesday, March 12, 2025 9:08:38 PM
Dear Mayor Ashcraft and City Councilmembers,
I’m a Gibbons Drive resident, parent of two active children, runner, cyclist, and co-chair of the Edison Elementary Walk & Roll committee. I am writing to advocate for the 2026 implementation of staff's proposed safety improvement to the Gibbons/Fernside/High intersection.

This intersection's current design encourages speeding, confuses drivers, and prioritizes vehicular throughput over pedestrian safety. The city’s data shows that along the 1.3 miles of Fernside Boulevard being studied for improvement, this intersection has had the highest rate of accidents over the past few years.

Staff’s proposed changes would simplify the intersection, shorten pedestrian crossings, and reduce speed-through opportunities. This would make the intersection, and neighborhood, safer for
all users including pedestrians. The safer the intersection and built environment, the more likely our community is to use non-car options on daily trips.

The 2026 Fernside restriping and resurfacing project offers an opportunity to implement this much-needed improvement quickly and efficiently. Delaying this safety measure for several more years is a decision in favor of inaction and the status quo. I urge you to prioritize the safety of the Gibbons Drive and Fernside community by implementing staff’s proposed improvement in 2026, rather than waiting several years more on uncertain funding.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Travis Morgan
From: Phillip Matarrese
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Supporting 2026 implementation of the Gibbons intersection improvement Date: Tuesday, March 11, 2025 6:13:18 PM
Dear Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and City Councilmembers,
My name is Phillip Matarrese and I live on Gibbons Drive. I am writing to advocate for the 2026 implementation of staff's proposed safety improvement to the Gibbons/Fernside/High intersection.

The current design of the intersection encourages speeding when cars come off of the High Street bridge onto Gibbons and also prioritizes cars over pedestrian safety. The pedestrian islands used when crossing Gibbons are grossly
undersized and the pedestrian walkway widths are below current design standards.

On top of this, there is no pedestrian signal to indicate when it is safe to cross Gibbons on foot in an intersection where 3 of the five green lights allow cars to drive down Gibbons. It becomes a literal guessing game when crossing.

We take it for granted because we live here but the intersection is confusing to outbound drivers not familiar with the area. This has resulted in this intersection having the highest rate of accidents along the

1.3 miles of Fernside Blvd. Here is a link to the city’s data .

In the City's Streets Classification Index (adopted as part of the General Plan), Gibbons is mapped to be a 'Neighborhood Local Street' instead of functioning as a 'Neighborhood Connector Street' as it seems to be used as today.

Staff’s proposed changes would simplify the intersection, shorten pedestrian crossings, and reduce speed-through opportunities.

The 2026 Fernside restriping and resurfacing project offers an opportunity to implement this much- needed improvement quickly and efficiently.

As someone who has kids and lives at the end of this block near the intersection, I urge you to prioritize the safety of the Gibbons Drive and Fernside community by implementing staff’s proposed improvement in 2026 and not delay for several years.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Phillip Matarrese

Alameda City CouncilMarch 18, 2025

Alameda City Council
March 18, 2025