Correspondence - Updated 11/18 — Alameda City Council, November 18, 2025

From: Aileen
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose the closure of Gibbons Drive and Roundabouts and Redesignate Gibbons to a connector street
Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 12:03:59 PM
Dear Transportation Commission and City Council Members, I am writing to oppose the closure of Gibbons Drive and the use of roundabouts in the current traffic-calming proposals.

Gibbons Drive is a key neighborhood connector, not a simple local street. It is one of the only streets in the area wide enough for safe two-way travel. Closing it—or diverting traffic away from it—would push cars onto narrow streets like Bayo Vista, Fairview, Harvard, Cornell Avenues, which cannot safely handle increased volumes.

The 2023 redesignation of Gibbons as a “neighborhood local street” was not well communicated and does not reflect how the street is actually used. This classification is negatively affecting traffic-planning decisions, and it should be re-evaluated before any changes move forward.

Roundabouts would remove parking, create navigation challenges, and are unnecessary for the true neighborhood local streets. Speed cushions or similar proven tools are far more appropriate and far less disruptive.

I urge the City to keep Gibbons Drive open, reject roundabouts in the Gibbons, Northwood, Southwood area and Southwood, Bayo Vista and Fairview area, correct the street’s classification, and use reasonable traffic-calming solutions that truly improve safety without harming neighborhood access.

Sincerely,
Aileen Dubois
Alameda East End Resident
From: Gordon Williams
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] What problem are we trying to solve? Let"s keep Gibbons open AND calm traffic.

Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 11:57:59 AM
Attachments: 70d5bfa5-d3e0-4316-9fdd-7b44c6fc84de.png
Dear Mayor Ashcraft and Councilmembers,
I am writing to strongly oppose Phase 2C of Agenda Item 7B, the proposed pilot to restrict left turns from Gibbons Drive onto High Street, but to also support traffic calming measures. Why are we so fixated on closing the Gibbons Drive left turn? The rationale keeps shifting, but still does not hold its own.

1. Safety at the Fernside/High/Gibbons Intersection?
Initially, this was described as a safety improvement. However, the City’s own crash data show that none of the recorded collisions would have been prevented by closing Gibbons. The core issue lies in the complex intersection of two major streets, Fernside and High. Gibbons is not the problem, and closing it does nothing to fix that. The most common cause of injury accidents was improper turning, where cars turned from High Street onto Fernside.

Eliminating the single traffic-light-controlled exit from Gibbons out of the neighborhood will push cars to make uncontrolled turns on Fernside and High Street, making safety worse.

Instead of closing Gibbons, I strongly suggest the City improve signage and pavement markings to clarify intersection right-of-way and proper movement for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians.

2. Traffic Calming on Gibbons Drive
Next we heard the closure was about slowing traffic on Gibbons. But there is a simple and direct solution: install speed cushions, which enjoy broad support among neighbors, or better yet a stop sign on Gibbons at Cornell. Closure is a drastic overreach to solve a manageable issue.

3. Congestion (in the Future, from a Different Project) The latest justification centers on future congestion, not existing problems, caused by the yet- to-be-funded Fernside Protected Bikeway. When the City Council voted to approve this project in March 2025, they were not told that approval of this project would necessitate closing the Gibbons left turn to compensate for the added signal time required for the reimagined two-way dedicated bike lane. As you are well aware, the City Council specifically directed staff to perform a traffic study to better understand the impacts of closing Gibbons prior to making a decision about closing it off.

According to the Parametrix report, the existing AM signal delay of 31 seconds would be increased by 19 seconds to 50 seconds total in the "do nothing" future due to the future bike lane signal. Alternative C (pedestrian signal, but keep Gibbons open) is projected to increase the delay by 20 seconds, to 51 seconds total, while Alternative A (closing Gibbons) increases it by 6 seconds, to 37 seconds today. In the end, we are talking about a 14 second difference.

Is closing Gibbons really justified for the 14 seconds in a scenario that depends on a future project that may never happen? These 14 seconds come at a safety cost of pushing traffic onto smaller streets, reducing bicyclist and pedestrian safety on these smaller streets throughout the neighborhood. Further, both Alternatives A and C have the same Level of Service (LOS) classification of D, which is considered acceptable in urban settings.

From the Parametrix Report:

4. Real Safety Impacts of Closure
Closing Gibbons will reroute traffic onto smaller, unprotected neighborhood streets, forcing drivers to make left turns onto High Street and Fernside without the benefit of a signal. That is not safer. It’s significantly more dangerous for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists alike.

We need to ask: What problem are we trying to solve? The closure of Gibbons doesn't meaningfully solve congestion, doesn't address the real cause of crashes, and introduces new safety hazards to the rest of the neighborhood. Please reject this short-sighted and harmful proposal and reject any closure of Gibbons Drive, including a pilot closure.

Instead, please consider the Keep Gibbons Open proposal:

Approve funding and implementation of the proposed speed humps, the Gibbons traffic circle, and the Fernside/High/Gibbons bulb-out, with meaningful neighbor engagement during the design phase.

Thank you for taking the time to read and think about this issue. I very much appreciate your time and your efforts to improve our wonderful little city.

Sincerely,
Gordon Williams
Fernside Neighborhood Resident
November 17, 2025

RE: Item 7B City Council Agenda for November 18, 2025
Honorable Mayor and members of the Alameda City Council

I offer my suggestions regarding proposed plans for improving safety along the Fernside Boulevard corridor and adjacent neighborhoods.
“Just the facts, Mam” , as Sgt. Friday used to say.

Let’s look at the facts, the facts that Staff has presented in support of their recommended pet Fernside Blvd. modiﬁcation and Gibbons Dr. closure projects. Well, there really aren’t any; and certainly, none that would justify the hundreds of thousand dollars of taxpayer money, which, for Staff is OPM, Other People’s Money. And even if some of the funds can be derived from State or Federal sources, it would still be OPM.

But let’s say that we taxpayers would be ok with such expenditures if they could be justiﬁed through careful analysis as a ﬁnancially savvy investor, say Warren Buffet, would do.

He would ask why the projects were even being considered. His employees would argue that the projects would make the neighborhood streets safer. “Great” , he would say, ” but can the desired safety improvement be accomplished through application of more efficient, less disruptive, and less expensive means?”
Later, speaking among themselves, the employees might acknowledge that simpler and less expensive ﬁxes would work, or at least be worth trying before they would again propose their original plans for consideration and, hopefully, approval. They would reluctantly have to acknowledge that it wouldn’t take college-trained planners to come up with some much less sophisticated alternatives to their professionally developed and recommended planned projects. Amateur citizens have already submitted their ideas for consideration.

Let’s take a look at them and maybe take them to the boss as our own suggested alternatives to our more sophisticated and expensive, not to mention disruptive, plan.

And these are the amateur suggestions:

1. Put pedestrian and cyclist-triggered ﬂashing warning lights at selected intersections. Maybe even one or two midway along extra-long blocks.

2. Assign police officers to monitor speeds on an irregular and unpublicized schedule.

3. Place speed humps at strategic locations on Gibbons drive and selected neighborhood streets.

4. Make the intersections of Cornell Drive at Gibbons Drive and Bayo Vista four-way stops.

5. There would be no need for any traffic circles or bulb-outs anywhere in the neighborhood.

6. Preserve the right turn slip at Fernside and High Street.

7. Make bike lanes un-direction which would be safer than the planned bi-directional one being considered.
“Good ideas” , they conclude. “We should present them to the boss and suggest that they be implemented and then re-evaluate the safety in the neighborhood in a year or two to see if anything more expensive and complicated need be considered. “Fantastic” , says the boss. “Let’s get going with these ﬁxes and plan to re-evaluate our progress in two years, maybe ﬁve, if there aren’t any obvious problems reported over the next year or two.

Thank you for taking the time to consider these suggestions.

Jay Garﬁnkle

From: Kelly Becker
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List; City Clerk
Cc: Kelly Becker
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to Agenda Item 7B – Pilot Closure of Gibbons Drive Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 11:49:18 AM
Dear Mayor Ashcroft and City Council Members,
I am writing in reference to Agenda Item 7B for the 11/18/2025 meeting.

I oppose ANYclosure of Gibbons Drive, including a pilot closure. I am also GREATLY OPPOSED to a quick build traffic circle or any type of traffic circle at the Southwood/Bayo Vista/Fairview intersection.

The city has not shown substantial data that warrants a closure of Gibbons. A one day study is not a proper study of traffic flow and patterns. The City's accident data does not support the idea that closing the Gibbons left turn at High Street will improve safety.

It will NEVER be safer than it is now by diverting traffic off of Gibbons onto so many of the SMALLER local streets, no matter how many safety measures are put in place. It will absolutely make our neighborhood less safe.

Gibbons never should have been reclassified as a local street as it's been a connector for decades. Why weren't the surrounding street's residents notified via mailer of this major change before it happened so residents could weigh in on something that would greatly impact the entire neighborhood? Regardless if Gibbons has been reclassified or not, it's currently the widest local street compared to the streets that will take the brunt of all the re-routed traffic. It is designed as a connector street and should remain that way. It makes no sense at all. Why does anyone think that relocating the Gibbons traffic to smaller streets is okay? The City is now using our safety arguments regarding the closure of Gibbons against us.

The City is trying to create issues where there weren't previously. Prior to the Gibbons closure discussions, residents were not at meetings demanding safety measures to be put in place on these local streets. We showed up to the meetings to express our concerns for our streets IF Gibbons was closed. The quick build circle at Southwood/Bayo Vista/Fairview is not necessary the way traffic is now. The streets have managed just fine for decades. We bought our homes knowing this is how they were designed and the same for the people on Gibbons.

The city council needs to stop approving wasteful spending of taxpayer's money for something they don't want. We don't need to spend $200K of the general fund to put in "quick build" calming measures. The name itself shows how little thought has gone into this whole process.

The city continues to try and push things through quickly without actual designs, only scribbled drawings by a city employee on a photo of the intersection. We haven't been presented with a design that will even work or the effects it will have on the immediate home owners. As a homeowner whose driveway and home faces the intersection of Southwood/Bayo Vista/Fairview, I have a lot to lose. It will be unsafe for me to use my driveway, parking will be removed and the traffic circle will lower the value of my property.

This is also about aesthetics. I bought my home two years ago and chose this location because of it's charm. It adds value to my home. So I am very much against the traffic circle at Southwood/Fairview/Bayo Vista. The traffic circle will be a safety issue for me and my immediate neighbors whose driveways will also be affected.

The City claims Fernside/High/Gibbons is a high injury corridor, however most injuries are at Fernside and High Street. This is not the same intersection as Gibbons/High Street. The City keeps trying to make it seem that the Gibbons intersection is the unsafe intersection when in fact it is the intersection of High St and Fernside that those numbers are reflecting. There is so much information that is being misrepresented and in a way to sway the council members and try to fool the public. This is all being done to benefit ONE city block!! Meanwhile there will be several other safety issues created throughout our neighborhood.

It’s so blatantly obvious to many surrounding neighbors what is happening. Use of power and persuasion to benefit two city officials and their homes and home value. Meanwhile, hundreds of homes will be affected by this change. How Tracy Jensen is not required to recuse herself from this vote is appalling and shows she is not working for the better of the people, she has a personal motive and is willing to use her role as a city council member to move her personal agenda forward. She’s doing all of this under the guise of safety and the Fernside project. I am disappointed with her comments and actions regarding this matter.

I urge you NOT to approve the Quick Build Circle at Southwood/Bayo Vista/Fairview or the Pilot Closure at Gibbons during the November 18th meeting. Please do what's best for the ENTIRE neighborhood.

Kind Regards,
Kelly Becker
3004 Fairview Ave

From: Mitch B
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Written comment for item 7B of 11/18/25 City Council Meeting Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 11:46:07 AM
Attachments: CEF0905A-39EE-4054-AD4D-B7E87B3F72CA.png
image001.png
image002.png
Thank you, Lara
After reading a bit of the discourse, I thought to add a few more points:
-More than 300 of the petition signatures were made before the traffic calming measures were announced. People signed the petition thinking that there would not be additional traffic calming measures. -The traffic study was made before the traffic calming measures were announced meaning that any modeled increases in traffic on side streets does not include the traffic calming measures and is certain to be an overestimate. -Nearly 90% of survey respondents were homeowners despite homeowners being less than half of Alameda residents ( https://datausa.io/profile/geo/alameda-ca?redirect=true#:~:text=Housing%20&%20Living- ,The%20median%20property%20value%20in%20Alameda%2C%20CA%20was%20$1.2M,of%202%20cars%20per%20household. ). More than half of respondents come from households with more than $150,000 income. The survey was not representative of the community and no demographic weighting was applied. Non-homeowners are typically less wealthy and drive less, making bike and pedestrian safety and accessibility far more important to them.

I strongly urge the city council to consider all Alamedans. Not just those who have the means to be politically involved.

Thank you,
-Mitch Ball
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 11:24 AM Lara Weisiger <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Mitch,
Your email will be included in the meeting record.

Respectfully,
Lara

Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
From: Charles Varner
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List
Cc: Gretchen Hoff Varner
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to Resolution under File No. 2025-5500 Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 11:41:07 AM
Charles Varner
3015 Gibbons Dr
Alameda, CA 94501
November 18, 2025
The Honorable Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Mayor
The Honorable Michele Pryor, Vice Mayor
The Honorable Greg Boller, Councilmember
The Honorable Tony Daysog, Councilmember
The Honorable Tracy Jensen, Councilmember
City of Alameda, California
Re: Opposition to Resolution under File No. 2025-5500
Dear Mayor Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Pryor, and Councilmembers Boller, Daysog, and Jensen:

Much thanks to you and City staff for your service towards an ever more prosperous Alameda.

The single, most effective way to create a safer and more pleasant Gibbons / High / Fernside neighborhood is to implement the facilities Council already adopted in the Active Transportation Plan (see Figure 7 of the ATP). As that plan makes clear, “comfortable, low-stress” Neighborhood Greenways “improve walking safety and calm traffic” via comprehensive treatments that “achieve and maintain low vehicle volumes and speeds” (pp. 43-44).

Whether a speed hump here, a roundabout there, or a closure on the opposite side from high- speed inbound traffic during low-light peak school-crossing hours would facilitate or hinder implementation of the Gibbons Neighborhood Greenway is a fundamental question this resolution doesn’t address. Will these cobbled-together measures yield the ATP’s “average daily traffic of 1,500 vehicles or less” and “travel speed of 20 mph” throughout the neighborhood? I wish we knew. On the contrary, the traffic study tells us only that vehicle volumes will increase exponentially on several currently calm streets.

Thus I urge you to reject this resolution and instead return to the work of implementing the plan Council has already adopted. Instead of separating the Fernside Project from the Gibbons Neighborhood Greenway, fund the clearly-integrated work streams and build them together. It would be wonderful to see a calm High Street too.

The benefits this even more pleasant gateway would have for the East End and the City as a whole are enormous. But of course you already know this! Council already saw this bright future when it adopted the carefully considered Active Transportation Plan three years ago. Rather than spend $200,000 without evidence, use the money to craft an evidence-based buildout of the plan that’s already been adopted. Let’s work together and get it done.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

I respectfully request confirmation that this correspondence has been received and will be included in the agenda packet for the upcoming City Council meeting on November 18, 2025.

Sincerely,
Charles Varner
From: Nick Psiol
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Keep Gibbons Open 7B
Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 11:40:32 AM
I oppose any closure of Gibbons Drive, including a pilot closure.

The City’s accident data does not support the idea that closing the Gibbons left turn will improve safety. None of the recorded accidents were caused by a left turn from Gibbons.

Pushing traffic elsewhere will reduce safety.

Blocking off the only controlled exit from our neighborhood toward the High Street Bridge, forcing drivers to make unprotected turns onto High Street and Fernside, is dangerous and a bad idea. Calling it a “pilot” does not make it safer.

In Alameda, temporary closures often become permanent (for example, “Slow Streets”).

The projects that have been developed in recent years have created safety and liability issues, a traffic situation and a tremendous reduction in parking all during a time of population growth in our town and an increase in motorized vehicle usage.

I’ve worked with transportation agencies for over 3 decades, and have seen some questionable projects, but The City of Alameda projects are unmatched in their poor design, impracticality, wasteful use of funds and the inability to meet our citizens’ needs and safety concerns.

Respectfully,
Nick Psiol
From: Peter Huddleson
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to Agenda Item 7B – Pilot Closure of Gibbons Drive Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 11:04:55 AM
Dear Mayor Ashcroft and members of the City Council,
I am writing this to voice my opposition to any closure of Gibbons Drive, including a pilot closure. From my review of the City’s accident data, there isn't anything to support the idea that closing the Gibbons left turn will improve safety. According to the data, none of the recorded accidents were caused by a left turn from Gibbons.

In contrast, closing Gibbons Drive will force traffic onto much quieter and narrower streets, which will certainly reduce safety on those blocks. Not only will the likelihood of traffic collisions increase greatly on those streets, but there is a very high probability of increased accidents involving pedestrians and bicyclists who currently use those streets as a safe way to get around. In particular, children going to and from school and the elderly are especially vulnerable to increased traffic on these streets.

Furthermore, we should take sufficient time to think very carefully about where traffic calming measures would be the most effective for, and least disruptive to, the residents of those smaller, quieter streets. Putting speed bumps on Gibbons, and possibly some of the other neighborhood streets (including Central and Santa Clara avenues), would do much to alleviate speeding. However, putting traffic circles on the smaller streets would negatively impact the residents of those streets. In particular, traffic circles would be a potential safety hazard for residents trying to get in or out of their own driveways, and they would also reduce street parking for those residents.

In conclusion, blocking off the only controlled exit from our neighborhood toward the High Street Bridge, thereby forcing drivers to make unprotected turns onto High Street and Fernside Blvd, is an unnecessarily risky and terrible idea. Calling it a pilot does not make it better or safer, nor even temporary. As we all know, "temporary" closures often become permanent, as our experience with “Slow Streets” has shown. We should not be in a rush to implement any of these measures, including (and especially) the wholesale reconfiguration of Fernside Blvd, which created this incredibly illogical and unwise premise to close off Gibbons in the first place. This entire endeavor is a solution in search of a problem. Please vote against it.

Best,
Peter Huddleson
2841 Santa Clara Ave
Alameda, CA 94501
[email protected]
From: Lorre Zuppan
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to 7B Gibbons “pilot” closure and poorly planned traffic calming proposals Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 10:14:44 AM
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I want to share with you why I oppose any closure of Gibbons Drive, including a pilot closure that will amplify the safety issues and resident impacts due to its planned occurrence during the tube closures. And why, after discussion with those in the neighborhood who will be affected by the hastily thrown together traffic calming measures, I also oppose those steps until a more thoughtful plan can be put together that does not create more issues than it solves. Because you have hundreds of messages opposed to these changes and limited time to read them, key statements are bolded.

When moving into this neighborhood there were not speeding and safety issues because there was a police chief with sufficient sworn officers in the department who was committed to community policing that consistently addressed these issues. The sidewalks were smooth and maintained, not hazardous. The streets were not cracking open with chunks of pavement coming out and becoming trip hazards for pedestrians crossing streets or walking to the driver’s side of their cars. I enjoy bicycling, though I walk around this city far more. The slower pace provides a regular closer look at how the city’s leaders are failing to maintain city infrastructure, even when recently created.

If this city has millions to invest in infrastructure, improving the Fernside bicycle lanes and closing Gibbons is the wrong place to invest them. The funds should be invested in fixing our infrastructure. Investments should have priority where there is a legal obligation, like the taxes that been collected for decades to fix the sewers or address Mount Trashmore.

This city has a greater duty to fix its sidewalks and streets, protect the street drain outflows from rising sea levels that city’s own studies show will inundate in our neighborhoods, and so many more urgent issues with a far better ROI affecting more residents than upgrading bicycle lanes. Or invest in safety measures that help everyone, but for which the city wants to directly charge individual residents instead, like undergrounding utilities. The funds should not be invested in infrastructure to upgrade existing bicycle lanes and close Gibbons Drive, an investment dependent on matching funds from a federal government whose leader has vowed these projects will remain unfunded regardless of any legislation otherwise. This investment will create widespread safety issues, and, like Shoreline and others, has no maintenance plans to prevent its decline into an unswept, cracked, weed-rimmed, accident-plagued addition.

The City’s accident data does not support the idea that closing the Gibbons left turn will improve safety. None of the recorded accidents were caused by a left turn from Gibbons. The safety arguments are a ruse to take the signal time for the Gibbons light and devote it to this expensive upgrade of bicycle lanes that in reality will create safety issues for thousands of residents traveling through and living in the area.

To put it plainly, these plans to close Gibbons and push traffic elsewhere have not been sufficiently studied (e.g., inaccurate and incomplete traffic counts on the cheap, deeply flawed “license plate” methodology). The changes were planned with one goal: upgrading the bike lanes, not the safety of others or the needs of residents. With the exception of residents on the first block or two of Gibbons, these changes will reduce safety for children and residents of the neighborhood, and all those who must drive through this area to get to their livelihood earned elsewhere.

This effort also represents an illegal taking. People in those first two blocks of Gibbons paid less for their homes because for the last nearly one hundred years Gibbons has been the primary route for traffic through the area by design. Owners were fully aware of this when purchasing those homes. People on the surrounding blocks paid more to be removed from that traffic and its impacts, and were fully aware of that benefit when paying more for those homes. Now the city proposes to unilaterally change those valuations and ownership costs without sufficient study and to the benefit of some of those voting for these changes. Those side streets also were designed as slower streets, not like Gibbons as the primary route through the neighborhood, and do not have the width to safely support cars driving in both directions and the needed parking that Gibbons was designed to manage. Changing words on a plan document does not change how a street is physically constructed or a neighborhood connects, and the city has made no plans to compensate residents for imminent domain issues raised.

City announcements also indicate the “pilot” closing of Gibbons will be occurring at the same time as a crucial change compounding the problems: closures of the Webster/Posey tubes will divert thousands of vehicles to other island entrances and exits already in gridlock during commute and even non-commute times. Please also consider that for many residents a switch to public transportation (with or without bicycles) is not a viable option due to job demands, childcare, lack of timely connections or needed service, physical limitations and more. Yet most organizations now require that they be physically present at the office again to retain their livelihood.

Blocking off the only controlled exit from the neighborhood toward the High Street Bridge, forcing drivers to make unprotected turns onto High Street and Fernside, is a very dangerous and bad idea. Calling it a “pilot” does not make it safer. It is also noticeable that Alameda’s existing temporary closures are permanent eyesores while pretending to be temporary (see the changing justifications for the barely used but publicly- funded, essentially private, “Slow Streets”). Please, do not transform one of the most beautiful entrances into our city into yet another eyesore.

And finally, I do not support the traffic calming proposals as designed. These designs show the plans were hastily thrown together as a means to justify closing Gibbons without sufficient understanding of appropriate placement or impacts to vehicles and residents, thoughtful analysis of potentially lower cost solutions, or consideration of the neighborhood’s historic character and design. Please do not waste the city’s funds on these poor designs.

Additionally we note that before resident opposition to the proposed Gibbons closure, city staff had not included any traffic calming measures for this area in the annually reviewed multi-year infrastructure plan. In past years unpredictable but frequent strict and heavy enforcement of stop sign and speeding violations has had a significant impact on safety for all, and often created more safety-conscious driving across the city. Alameda police do a great job. Adding sworn officers specifically to do preventative policing would likely be a far more effective investment for managing multiple safety risks.

Thank you for your consideration of safety, resident needs, and the comparative value of potential City investments. And thank you for your vote to reject these proposals.

Respectfully,
Lorre Zuppan
Fernside area resident
From: Kate R
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to Agenda Item 7B – Pilot Closure of Gibbons Drive Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 10:09:12 AM
Dear Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and the Alameda City Council Members, I am writing to express my STRONG opposition to any closure of the left-hand turn at Gibbons Drive (Agenda Item 7B), including a pilot closure.

I have lived on the 3100 block of Gibbons for almost twenty years. I have raised two children in this house and am well-acquainted with the traffic patterns of the street and the intersection in question.

In reviewing the City's own data about accidents at the High Street/Gibbons intersection and potential increase of traffic on side streets (which are not designed for increased traffic), I can see no logical reason for this change to take place. Voting yes on a pilot closure has no basis in need or data, and should not be tied to other traffic-calming proposals.

The argument about increased biking safety at the intersection does not address the guaranteed
increased danger of biking on all other streets in the neighborhood that would come with any closure.

As a resident, I have been involved from the first pop-up session at the corner of Gibbons and Fernside and have followed this closely. From the initial proposal, the broad and significant opposition to any closure has been consistent and unwavering, and the data generated during this process supports these concerns. I am unclear about what is behind the push to continue considering this and to continue attempting some kind of closure of the left-hand turn from Gibbons.

Please vote no on any
closure of this intersection, including a pilot closure. This closure is not evidence-based, and we can not close Gibbons to benefit one block (my own block, to be clear) at the expense of the safety and negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood streets and the greater Alameda community.

Thank you for your consideration.

Kate Rome
3100 Block of Gibbons Drive
--
Kate Rome, MFT, PPS
From: Joe VanWinkle
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fernside, oops, Gibbons project
Date: Monday, November 17, 2025 11:28:44 PM
Mayor, Council and City Attorney,
The Fernside corridor calming project appears to have been hijacked with scope increase. A rushed traffic study now underpins an unjustified cost request focused on Gibbons and surrounding neighborhood. Why does this street get special attention and funding ahead of others? The item is tainted by influence of those in power who have impacted the recommendations and can benefit from their votes. In the spirit of transparency, the item should clearly state members of council and commissioners that reside in the neighborhood. Council members who live on Gibbons should recuse themselves.

The City Manager shutdown citizens attempting to ask questions at the "open house." And yet, the recommendation claims to be responding to residents' concerns. Perhaps just a favored few?
The traffic study was rushed and resulted in data gathering on a Wednesday, which is a shortened school day. The city's consultant clearly stated this was not ideal as data for peak hours were invalid. And the study failed to measure cyclists and pedestrians, yet those are cited as safety concerns. Was the study just checking a box?
The issue was not properly noticed to residents on Lincoln Ave. This street is outside the Fernside Homeowners group, but be likely impacted by the recommendations.

Traffic study claim of zero change in traffic for Lincoln is unbelievable. The same claim was made of Cambridge in the study, and yet speed bumps are now to be added on Cambridge. If the study warrants such action, then bumps should be added on Lincoln too.

I hope council will vote no or defer action on this item. Step back and acknowledge the existing transportation plan with phased implementation.

Streets shouldn’t get special attention and funding because a council member lives there.

Joe Van Winkle
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Vickie Chan Teng
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List; City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to Gibbons Turn Restriction Date: Monday, November 17, 2025 11:16:30 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
image.png
image.png
Dear City Council,
I am writing to express and put on record my opposition to Phase 2c of Agenda Item 7B, the proposed “Test Turn Restriction at Gibbons Drive”. While I support safer streets for all, including traffic calming measures on Gibbons Drive, I am one of hundreds of concerned residents who have continued to raise concerns with changing the intersection. After having attended several meetings, I have specific concerns about:
1) Exaggeration of the current problems with the Gibbons/High/Fernside intersection when it is NOT considered a high crash intersection in Alameda
2) Minimization of safety issues that will arise on smaller streets with traffic spikes of 300-400% 3) Use of skewed data to justify the City’s long term focus on shifting traffic away from Gibbons, regardless of impact on neighboring streets, and disproportionately benefits residents within one block of the intersection where City Officials currently live.

This leads me to believe the results of a "pilot” will be distorted to justify the long term closure no matter what.

1. Exaggeration of current issues that justifies the project:

The below graphic distorts the reality of whether the intersection is a high collision intersection. This shows that it has higher collisions within FERNSIDE only. Given this intersection is the only one on Fernside that leads to a busy interstate, that does not seem out of the ordinary.

In reality the Alameda General Plan does not show this intersection as a High Crash Intersection, yet, we’re being told how dangerous this intersection is.

2. Minimization of Safety Issues that will arise:

All the City’s “findings” and recommendations minimize the impact on neighboring streets. The following image is being used to convince everyone that the Turn Restriction will be an easy checkmark for safety.

However, this ONLY focuses on the intersection and completely ignores the impact of increasing traffic by 300-400% to smaller narrow streets. The study confirms: "re-routed drivers may cut-through the alternative routes at high speed, offsetting the benefit of traffic reduction on Gibbons Drive." The study doesn't mention the safety hazards of forcing 500 cars away from a protected left turn light on Gibbons with crosswalks; to an already scary unprotected left turn from Bayo Vista onto busy High street where there are already NO crosswalks for pedestrians or bicyclists.

BIASED RESULTS IN STUDY BELOW

3. Ultimately, my concern is the misallocation of attention to skew data and results for what seems like a foregone conclusion to remove the left turn signal and make Gibbons a neighborhood Greenway.

All of the questions in the survey were framed in a way to skew results and data was cherry-picked.

Gibbons is 33% wider than Bayo Vista & Cornell. One of the most egregious examples of cherry-picking data was by saying that traffic volumes on Bayo Vista and Cornell would be "relatively low" with the closure. The report selected San Antonio and Pacific Ave as favorable comparisons which are not in the area in question and are VERY different streets. By only showing one truly comparable benchmark (Moreland), it’s clear the bias in the recommendations and study. This makes me think even if “piloted”, the results would be distorted to justify the long term closure no matter what.

CHERRY PICKED COMPARISONS BELOW
Finally, I want to raise concerns about the 2023 reclassification of Gibbons Drive as a local neighborhood street and a neighborhood greenway and would like to officially open this designation as a future greenway up for discussion or get more solid rationale for why it should be a greenway.

This designation is partly what is justifying the intersection, when the data does not substantiate that this should even be a greenway given its current conditions - traffic, tree roots making it difficult to bike on.

This was a controversial decision made with little public input, and now directly impacts City officials who live on Gibbons. That reclassification impacts the entire neighborhood. Regardless of its current designation,
Gibbons continues to function as a connector and attempts to turn it into a greenway should be reconsidered.

Thank you for your time and serious consideration of the issues.

Vickie
From: Serena Hom
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to Phase 2C of Agenda #7B: Proposed Closure of Gibbons Drive Date: Monday, November 17, 2025 10:26:50 PM
Hello City Council Members,
My family and I are vehemently opposed to any closure (pilot or not) of Gibbons Drive, as that action would reduce safety, by diverting and increasing traffic onto the narrower side streets.

After attending many Transportation and City planning meetings on this issue and reading everything that is published, I remain unclear on how closing GIbbons would increase safety.

As it stands now, I can't even drive our car down the street if even a mid-sized sedan is travelling the other way. There is NO room for simultaneous passing.

A pilot to close the left-turn lane of Gibbons onto High would be ill-advised and dangerous.

Per the traffic study reports, traffic volume would increase 3-4x on these side streets whose narrow width can't handle increased traffic. How could one even agree to doing a pilot when it hasn't been established what safety KPIs (key performance indicators) are to be measured? I'm in agreement with continuing the pursuit of traffic-calming solutions that would benefit the entire Fernside neighborhood, not just one particular street. Thank you.

Best regards,
Serena Hom
From: Matthew Bartlett
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to Agenda Item 7B – Pilot Closure of Gibbons Drive Date: Monday, November 17, 2025 9:45:33 PM
Dear Mayor Ashcraft and Members of the Alameda City Council, I write to express my strong opposition to Phase 2c of Agenda Item 7B, the proposed “Test Turn Restriction at Gibbons Drive” to pilot the closure of the left turn from Gibbons Drive to the High Street Bridge. This closure is unnecessary, disruptive, and dangerous.

The City's own data show that preventing a left turn from Gibbons to the High Street Bridge will do nothing to improve safety. There have been zero recorded accidents caused by a driver turning left from Gibbons towards the High Street Bridge.

Rather, the City's data show that closing Gibbons will substantially decrease safety. As the City's traffic study showed, blocking off the only controlled exit from the Fernside neighborhood to the High Street Bridge will force drivers down much smaller streets that were not designed to handle this traffic. It will also force drivers to make unprotected turns onto either High Street or Fernside to reach the bridge. This is dangerous and unnecessary.

Why are we considering spending $200,000 on traffic calming measures when we could spend $0 and leave Gibbons as it is? Or merely add a couple speed humps to address speeding on Gibbons? We know from the City's own data that safety does not necessitate closing Gibbons.

Why is this being jammed down our throats over strong neighborhood opposition?

1. Two city officials live on the 3100 block of Gibbons. And a city official living on Gibbons requested that the Gibbons closure be added to the Fernside Project at the last minute (it was not originally in scope).

2. The City wants to avoid the significant blowback that is surely coming when the dedicated bike lane in the (currently unfunded) Fernside Project adds an extra cycle to the current High/Gibbons/Fernside traffic light, substantially increasing wait times to cycle through that intersection.

We all know that "pilot projects" in Alameda mean permanent projects (see the Slow Streets pilot). I urge the City Council to add some speed humps to Gibbons, own the effects of its decisions in the Fernside Project, and then focus on other, higher risk, corridors rather than pushing through a project designed to address a political issue of the Council's own making while significantly benefiting two city officials at the expense of the entire neighborhood's safety.

Matt Bartlett
Fernside Resident
From: Christy Cannon
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: letter from CASA for 11/18 Council meeting, Item 7-B — Gibbons/High/Fernside Date: Monday, November 17, 2025 9:21:52 PM
November 17, 2025
To: Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Members of the Council
Re: November 18 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 7B,
Recommendation to Approve Quick-Build Traffic Calming in the Neighborhood Around Gibbons Drive Followed by Long-Term Data Collection and Planning for the Fernside Boulevard Traffic Calming and Bikeways Project
Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda (CASA) supports the staff recommendation for a quick build-out on Gibbons and the surrounding streets to calm traffic, coupled in 2028 with a pilot left- turn restriction where Gibbons comes into High Street just before the intersection with Fernside.

As you are well aware, transportation accounts for the majority of our City’s greenhouse gas emissions. Increasing safety for pedestrians in the Gibbons Drive neighborhood, as well as the pedestrian and bicyclist safety goals on Fernside Boulevard will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by encouraging pedestrian and wheeled modes of transportation.

As you confer on this staff recommendation, please keep in mind:
o      The Fernside Boulevard Traffic Calming and Bikeways project supports the emissions goals of the CARP and is in line with other city initiatives, specifically the Active Transportation Plan and Vision Zero Action Plan.
o
Improving the safety of the Gibbons/High/Fernside
intersection is critical for the future buildout of the two-way bikeway on Fernside.
o
Staff’s proposal for a phased approach begins with traffic calming measures that can be implemented quickly at low cost.
o      The proposed 6-month temporary pilot of a turn restriction at Gibbons/High/Fernside includes collecting data to improve the long-term implementation of the Fernside Project.
o      Timing of the pilot allows for the completion of the traffic calming measures in Phase 1 and is designed around the
Oakland Alameda Access Project completion and Public Works’ re-paving schedule.
o
Staff, the Transportation Commission and Council have
worked diligently to ameliorate the concerns of the local residents and find a balanced solution to address speeding, improved pedestrian crossings, and possible increases in traffic on narrower streets leading off from Gibbons.

Thank you for your consideration of the safety of our city’s streets and meeting our emissions goals!
Christy Cannon
CASA Transportation Committee
From: Linda Britton
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Keep Gibbons Drive Open
Date: Monday, November 17, 2025 9:05:07 PM
As a long time resident on Bayo Vista, I strongly oppose the closure, even for a 6 month test, of Gibbons Drive to left hand turning onto High Street. This change will directly effect the surrounding steets which were never meant to carry two way traffic, let alone the safety issue this terrible idea would cause.

Respectfully,
Jeffrey T Britton
3105 Bayo Vista Ave
Alameda, CA 64501
From: Cindy Mills
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to Agenda Item 7B – Pilot Closure of Gibbons Drive Date: Monday, November 17, 2025 8:39:03 PM
Dear Mayor Ashcraft and Members of the Alameda City Council, I am a lifetime Alameda resident and have lived on Cornell Drive for more than 25 years. I am writing to express my strong opposition to any closure— pilot or permanent—of the left turn from Gibbons Drive onto the High Street Bridge. Such an extreme measure should not be considered until every reasonable alternative has been fully explored and tested.

If the goal is to improve safety at this intersection, there are numerous evidence-based measures the city could implement without eliminating the left turn. Many intersections throughout Alameda have undergone safety upgrades without altering their fundamental function. I respectfully ask why similar alternatives have not been explored or piloted here.

If speeding on Gibbons Drive is the concern, there are well-established traffic- calming tools that have not yet been attempted. It is difficult to understand why the city would consider closing a vital neighborhood entry/exit point— temporarily or permanently—before trying basic, low-cost interventions such as stop controls or other proven measures.

Enacting a temporary closure without first testing these options would, in my view, be irresponsible.

While the city has identified this location as a “hot spot,” no clear evidence shows that the left turn from Gibbons is the source of the problem. The intersection is heavily used because it is one of the few points of access to and from the island. High traffic volume—not the left turn itself—is what makes this intersection busy.

Gibbons Drive provides a safe, protected turn to the bridge. Closing the left turn would push cars onto much narrower residential streets not designed to handle commuter traffic, creating new safety risks and forcing drivers into more hazardous turning movements on Fernside and High Street.

I also oppose the installation of “quick build” traffic circles without meaningful resident input. Traffic circles—especially at Bayo Vista / Southwood / Fairview —are unnecessary if Gibbons remains open. Homeowners did not purchase their properties anticipating a traffic circle at their doorstep; such a significant change requires thoughtful analysis and community consent, not rushed implementation.

For these reasons, I urge the City Council to vote against a temporary closure of Gibbons Drive. Please exhaust all other reasonable options and pilot alternative traffic-calming strategies before taking any action that would restrict access from Gibbons.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Cindy Mills
1819 Cornell Dr.

From: Mitch B
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Written comment for item 7B of 11/18/25 City Council Meeting Date: Monday, November 17, 2025 7:09:53 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
Hello,
I unfortunately will not be available to make a public comment in person on item 7B for the 11/18/25 City Council Meeting and so am making a written comment instead.

I don’t live in the Fernside neighbourhood. I live on 9th St near the Lincoln Ave-Wilma Chan Way intersection which at one point used to be a 5-way intersection. The north side of 8th St was cut off and it is now a 4-way intersection. Is my street, 9th street, a busy traffic congested dystopia? No, it’s a very nice, quiet street and all the traffic is on the arterial streets of Lincoln St and Wilma Chan Way as intended. There are plenty of other examples of dangerous 5-way intersections that have been converted such as those on Tilden Way and Tilden Way is better for it. I always find it funny that people have complaints about proposed projects or projects in construction but take no issue with existing development. You’ve gotten a lot of comments on this topic this year, but I bet you haven’t gotten a single comment asking you to reconnect 8th St with Lincoln St and Wilma Chan Way.

The Fernside and Gibbons intersection is dangerous and should be converted so that there isn’t such a long unsignaled crosswalk and room for completion of the Fernside Bikeways Project. Gibbons Dr should be treated as a residential street so kids can walk to school safely and Fernside Boulevard and High St should be treated as arterials without additional traffic congestion. To achieve these goals, a turn restriction at the end of Gibbons Dr is necessary.

However, I do understand that this could push more traffic onto streets such as Bayo Vista Ave and Cornell Dr, so I tried to reach out to Bayo Vista Ave and Cornell Dr residents gathering at city hall before the last Transportation Commission meeting to see if I could interest them in advocating for additional traffic calming measures such as splitting the Southwood Dr/Bayo Vista intersection in half or making parts of Bayo Vista Ave and Cornell Dr one-way streets. While some of those residents were interested in engaging in thoughtful conversation (namely Gordon Williams), a number of them talked over me before I could finish a sentence and demeaned my interest in getting involved in a neighborhood I didn't immediately live in. One of them spent most of the meeting heckling the meeting by half-shouting/half-whispering throughout.

His words appeared to be targeted towards the transportation commission, but his decision to sit immediately behind me made me feel otherwise. Drew Dara-Abrams also took note of their poor behaviour in his latest blog post (https://www.themorningbun.com/pursuing-equity-for-our-transportation-networks-with-finite-resources-for-process/ ). I bring this up not to suggest that their concerns don't matter because of their inability to engage in respectful discourse, but to warn you that this may be a very difficult meeting to handle and that it may be inadvisable to try to placate or satisfy some of these people further than the transportation committee already has as they have shown themselves uninterested in compromise.

Lastly, I want to make a strong case for the inequity of not approving the staff recommendation. While the traffic-calming improvements alone are positive, they are beneficial only to the residents of this neighbourhood. There should be concern about disproportionately putting this many city resources into any neighbourhood as stated by Drew Dara-Abrams at the last Transportation Commission meeting, however, I believe there is further reason to be concerned here. The Northern Fernside neighborhood (where Gibbons Dr cuts through) is uniquely the highest income census tract and highest percentage white census block group in all of Alameda (income and race data are reported with different resolutions). https://www.justicemap.org/index.php?gsLayer=plural&gfLon=-122.27026311&gfLat=37.75935226&giZoom=13&gsGeo=block&giAdvanced=1& https://www.justicemap.org/index.php?gsLayer=plural&gfLon=-122.27026311&gfLat=37.75935226&giZoom=13&gsGeo=block&giAdvanced=1& This neighbourhood is one of the, if not the, most privileged neighbourhoods in all of Alameda. This is likely a factor in the large amount of civic engagement from this neighbourhood in particular. Higher income people tend to have more time and resources to commit to civic engagement and whiter populations have historically had more positive results from engaging in civic engagement due to implicit biases that we all have. As a result, this uniquely privileged area of the city has gotten more municipal resources in terms of attention dedicated by city staff and elected/appointed officials and additional funding from the General Fund with the fast-tracked traffic calming.

Again, I want to state that I think the residential traffic-calming is a good idea and I appreciate that it addresses concerns of residents of Bayo Vista Ave and Cornell Dr, but only supporting this neighbourhood with residential traffic-calming and not supporting the rest of the island with bike and pedestrian safety on arterial streets would be a clearly inequitable dispersal of city resources. In general, I hope the city council keeps these maps in mind when discussing other matters that affect select areas of the island.

Lastly, while I encourage the city council to approve the staff recommendation and take the next steps for improving this dangerous five-way intersection, I also want to acknowledge that I would not at all be disappointed if any city council member decided to recuse themselves from this vote to avoid a conflict of interest if this decision would have a personal impact.

Thank you,
-Mitch Ball
From: Robert Prinz
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Public comment - 11/10/2025 Alameda City Council meeting Date: Monday, November 17, 2025 6:16:12 PM
Correction: The previous message should have referenced the "November 18th, 2025, Alameda City Council meeting agenda item 7-B — Gibbons/High/Fernside." Please excuse the error, and thank you for receiving these comments.

Logo Robert Prinz | Advocacy Director
Pronouns: he/him
Mail: PO Box 1736 Oakland, CA 94604
Office: 466 Water Street Oakland, CA 94607
P: (510) 845-7433 x5 | E: [email protected]
************
On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 6:13 PM Robert Prinz <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello, this is a public comment on behalf of Bike East Bay for the November 10th, 2025, Alameda City Council meeting agenda item 7-B — Gibbons/High/Fernside.

Bike East Bay urges City Councilmembers to support the staff recommendation and approve both the Phase 1 quick-build traffic calming as well as the Phase 2 pilot of the turn prohibition at Gibbons Drive.

Fernside Blvd is a critical bikeway corridor not only for the City of Alameda but also with regional significance via connections to Oakland and San Leandro. This will become increasingly relevant with Doolittle Drive bikeway upgrades on the way south of Fernside in 2026, as well as Alameda's Tilden Way bikeway connection to Fruitvale Ave toward the north.

The High Street intersection with Fernside is a major high-stress conflict point along this route. Reducing driver turning speeds through traffic calming will help to mitigate some of these conflicts, and piloting the turn prohibition at Gibbons will help inform whether this will help simplify the intersection and reduce conflicts altogether.

Thank you for your consideration,
Logo Robert Prinz | Advocacy Director
Pronouns: he/him
Mail: PO Box 1736 Oakland, CA 94604
Office: 466 Water Street Oakland, CA 94607
P: (510) 845-7433 x5 | E: [email protected]
************
From: Fox, Justin
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to Agenda Item 7B – Pilot Closure of Gibbons Drive Date: Monday, November 17, 2025 5:34:20 PM
Dear members of the Alameda City Council:

I have been a resident of the Fernside District for 25 years, and I have written twice to the mayor and to you in the last year attempting to make clear my opposition to any closure of Gibbons Drive (sadly no response has been forthcoming, however). I see no need for such a closure, and I can only predict that the Gibbons traffic will simply be diverted to narrower, less frequented neighborhood streets which cannot accommodate it as well as Gibbons, with no net improvement in safety.

In the interim, I have seen proposals for traffic circles and speed bumps. As far as I am concerned, none of this is necessary. Where is the evidence that such things are needed? Have you provided such evidence? I don’t think so. And as far as I can tell, none of my neighbors has seen much of a need either.

I work for a firm that does transportation planning for public agencies. The firm is the largest architectural and engineering company in the US. And over the last nine years I have delivered either as project manager or key staff more than 40 projects performed for cities, counties, states, and the federal government. Based on that experience, I can unequivocally say that I have never seen a public infrastructure project with a less rigorous, less deliberate, and less thorough outreach effort than what the city has done here so far. I have not even seen a cogent problem statement.

My advice is that you send this project back to your planners and ask them to conduct a thoughtful public outreach. That the city come back to my neighbors and me with a clear explanation of the problem, with supporting evidence, and a logical path forward with the public benefits of any improvements quantified. No more rushing about to justify something the neighborhood just does not want.

I remember about 10 years ago the city floated the idea of a traffic circle at Northwood/Southwood/Gibbons at Lincoln. Fierce opposition by residents of the neighborhood shut down that project. I attended a public meeting, hosted by the city’s traffic engineer, where I saw and heard what people had to say. None of it was supportive.

Many just did not see the need for a traffic circle; others lamented the potential loss of precious parking spaces that the installment of the circle would require. Just as today, no problem was ever well explained. My question is, what has changed in the last 10 years that would make anyone think a traffic circle now is the correct answer? I am afraid nothing much has changed.

Bottom line: ideas such closing Gibbons, speed bumps and traffic circles, lacking a demonstrable need that can be parsed and debated, only annoy. There can be no support, only resentment, in pursuing these things in the present fashion. It’s worth noting that, with regard to unwanted improvements, Fernside District residents have long memories.

Justin Fox, Fernside District Resident
From: Keep Gibbons Open
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List
Cc: Gordon Williams; Jake Olsen; Vickie Chan Teng; Lisa Foster Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to Phase 2C: Any Closure of Gibbons Drive Will Make Our Neighborhood Less Safe Date: Monday, November 17, 2025 5:24:43 PM
Attachments: KGO Letter to City Council - Item 7B- 11-17-2025.pdf Dear Mayor Ashcraft and Members of the Alameda City Council, On behalf of the Keep Gibbons Open Coalition, we are submitting the attached letter in strong opposition to Phase 2c of Agenda Item 7B, regarding the proposed closure of Gibbons Drive.

The full package (combined into one PDF) includes:

Our coalition’s letter, including our proposed actionable path forward A petition signed by over 400 Alameda residents
A summary of survey results collected from our members
We respectfully request confirmation that this correspondence has been received and our letter with the attachments will be included in the agenda packet for the upcoming City Council meeting on November 18, 2025.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Gordon Williams, Jake Olsen, Vickie Chan Teng
Organizers, Keep Gibbons Open Coalition

Keep Gibbons Open Coalition www.keepgibbonsopen.com

November 17, 2025

Opposition to Phase 2C: Any Closure of Gibbons Drive Will Make Our Neighborhood Less Safe

Dear Mayor Ashcraft and Alameda City Council,
We write on behalf of the more than 100 neighbors in the Keep Gibbons Open Coalition to express our strong opposition to Phase 2c of Agenda Item 7B, the proposed “Test Turn Restriction at Gibbons Drive” to pilot the closure of the left turn from Gibbons Drive to the High Street Bridge. As concerned residents, we believe this closure is unnecessary, disruptive, and ultimately dangerous.

While we support trafÞc calming measures in general, especially ones that slow trafÞc and improve safety across the entire neighborhood, these measures should not be used to justify or enable the closure of Gibbons Drive. The City's own modeling shows that closing Gibbons would reroute a signiÞcant volume of trafÞc onto smaller streets. This would undermine safety for the broader neighborhood. Even with trafÞc calming in place, redistributing cars away from a safe, controlled intersection and onto side streets will make the area less safe than it is today. TrafÞc calming should address real problems, not be used to support a closure that introduces new risks elsewhere.

Over 400 Alameda residents have signed a petition opposing this closure (see Attachment No.1). These signatures represent a broad cross-section of neighbors across the Fernside and East End communities, including many who live directly on or near Gibbons Drive. The message from the community is clear: Gibbons should remain open. https://www.change.org/p/keep-gibbons-drive-open-say-no-to-unsafe-trafÞc- changes
After a signiÞcant turnout at both the Open House and Transportation Committee meeting, we are concerned that information is being presented by the City in a manner that exaggerates the current problem with the intersection and minimizes the impact on the neighborhood to justify a long-term closure. Therefore, in addition to the petition, we conducted a survey of our coalition members to better understand their views on the proposed trafÞc calming measures (see Attachment No. 2).

Keep Gibbons Open Coalition www.keepgibbonsopen.com
Our survey results show the following:
 Universal opposition to ANY closure of Gibbons Drive, including a temporary one.  Strong majority support for speed humps on Gibbons Drive to slow trafÞc.  General support for speed humps on Cambridge, a trafÞc circle on Gibbons, and the proposed bulb-out at Fernside/High/Gibbons intersection.  Lack of support for the trafÞc circle at Southwood/Bayo Vista/Fairview intersection.

We do not see the need for this trafÞc circle if Gibbons remains open.

Apart from the Southwood/Bayo/Fernside roundabout, we support the proposed trafÞc calming measures and respectfully urge the City Council to direct staff to work with impacted neighbors to reÞne and design these measures in ways that address our concerns.

We cannot emphasize this enough:

We strongly oppose and urge the Council to reject any closure of Gibbons Drive, including a pilot closure. Any closure will make our neighborhood less safe.

As an actionable path forward, we recommend the Council:

Approve funding and implementation of the proposed speed humps, the Gibbons trafÞc circle, and the Fernside/High/Gibbons bulb-out, with meaningful neighbor engagement during the design phase.

Do not advance or pre-approve any plan that includes a temporary or permanent closure of Gibbons Drive.

Thank you for listening to the voice of the community.

Sincerely,

Gordon Williams Jake Olsen Vickie Chan Teng

Organizers, Keep Gibbons Open Coalition

https://www.change.org/p/keep-gibbons-drive-open-say-no-to-unsafe-traffic-changes Attachment #1 - Keep Gibbons Open Petition
Keep Gibbons Open Petition Signatures

1. Gordon Williams

2. J
ake Olsen

3. Vickie Teng

4. R
oyze Adolfo Haag

5. Jenny Sui

6. T
ina O'Grady

7. Kelly Becker

8. W
alter Grady

9. A
nna Williams

10. C
ynthia Grady

11. S
usan Yajko

12. M
ike Kuhlmann

13. Vanessa S

14. Tracy Brotze

15. Ma
tt Bartlett

16. Kerri Aman
17 .

John Puccini

18. Peter Huddleson

19. A
nna-Marie Blinn

20. Keenan Dmyterko

21. J
onathan Butts

22. K
yungmi Yoo

23. K
imberly Giiuntini

24. Zoe Banchieri

25. Er
ic Long

26. J
ason Fang

27. F
rank Dignon

28. Al
lison Irvin

29. K
atina Psihos

30. A
ngela Fang

31. J
anine Hayward

32. C
ynthia Mills

33. K
aren Hodges

34. Ma
rion Kofman

35. C
hristine Huddleson

36. K
ate Bassett

37. F
aye Wang

38. K
elly Fang

39. M
ichael Picetti

40. S
haron Young

41. Mi
chael Butterﬁeld

42. El
liott Blake

43. Zara Santos

44. Ai
leen Dubois

45. J
ohn Kevlin

46. Haleh Cunningham

47. Zane Howard

48. C
aroline Teng

49. Sabrina Britton

50. Kelley Seltzer

51. K aren Olsen

52. Edward Kofman

53. El
eanor Garver

54. P
eter Husby

55. Melissa Linzer

56. Nicholas Parker

57. Allen Sangco

58. Bret Bustos

59. Jenny Lau

60. Re
gina Finuliar

61. Joao Alameida

62. V
ictor Bright III

63. T
erri Cooley

64. D
rew Fowler

65. James Weigand

66. A
shleigh Snowden

67. T
onya Stephens-Fernandez

68. A
lice Kam

69. A
nne Garﬁnkle

70. Amy Seefeldt

71. Ann Sleigher

72. Houston Nathaniel

73. Patrick Civello

74. B
ryan Charles

75. C
hristian Dubois

76. B
ethany Fong

77. R
uben Ramirez

78. Paul Weir

79. Jon Moore

80. K
ate Rome

81. Serena Hom

82. Er
ic Lagarenne

83. Gene Dashiell

84. Stephen Wolf

85. Be
verly Ramirez

86. A
my Lu

87. Mo
na Swearingen

88. Diane Deering
89 .

Matt McGowan

90. Mi
ke Chong

91. Heather Wagner

92. M
arissa Fong

93. Perry Wagner

94. Er
in Hanelt

95. G
uy Blume

96. C
hristine Lok

97. D
ylan Garﬁnkle

98. Tracy Hazelton
9 9. T
orsten Glidden
100. Ma
tthew Barham
101. Julia W Hinshaw
102. Ixchel Glidden
103.

A
manda Nummi
104. Jo
hn Sweeney
105. Jer
ry Nummi
106. A
shley Moore
107. Judy Jaber
108.

B
etty Hom
109. S
tephen Seche
110. Dave Worley
111.

C
aleb Goodew
112. R
osemarie Dere
113. Betsy Williams
114. Les Burd
115.

J
ose Navarro
116. Tara Navarro
117. Fiona Lau
118. M
ichelle Sweeney
119. Gina Fang
120. Mike DeWindt
121. Mary Morrison
122. Alan Chi
123. Christina Narensky
124. Victoria Chan
125. Charlise Tiee
126. Keena Hom
127. Phoebe Grow
128.

Jo
rdan Le Boeuf
129. Kevin Venkiteswaran
130. Lea Fox
131.

C
hristian Grunt
132. Andrew Roin
133. Tina Ma
1 34. Emily Grunt
135. Courtney Bergin
136. Karen Wolf
137. Hoon Kim
138.

J
ennifer Olson
139. Lisa Freilicher
140. David Freilicher
141.

J
essica Schultheis
142. Anna Silva
143.

L
eland Chan
144. Mark Cardona
145.

J
effrey Britton
146. Mike Valkosky
147. Linda Britton
148. Susan Neff
149.

Jer
ome De Verrier
150. Chih Wu
Keep Gibbons Open Petition Signatures
151. Calvin Hao
152. K
atherine Goodew
153. Diana Gibson Pace
154. Elton Fong
155.

L
inda Valler
156. Harry Fong
157. Adam Garﬁnkle
158. Bethany Polentz
159. Nancy Mach
160.

Ro
chelle Goldberg
161. Billie Jaber
162. Tem Narvios
163. Bobby Winston
164. Adair Roberts
165. Regina Tran
166. Cindy Acker
167. Gabin Wu
168. Nicole Proiette
169.

Ji
m Valler
170. Jen
nifer Bennett
171. T
homas Bennett
172. P
hillip Ballerini
173. C
incent San Nicolas
174. M
ichael Ballerini
175. Paul Cohen
176. N
ancy Bennett
177. A
my Walker
178. L
ouis Dutra
179. L
ynnette Chirrick
180. Anthony Pontino
181. R
uzanna Kirakosyan
182. T
odd Roloff
183. D
eborah Sullivan
184. H
unter Hodges
185. J
ack Pigott
186. A
manda Picetti
187. L
uke Szymanski
188. J
an Schlesinger
189. Jeffrey Youngman
190.

Jo
an Jessen
191. A
manda Thompson
192. Daniel Lopez
193.

J
oel Van Rooyen
194. Betsi Bilyck
195. Deborah Roach
196. William Roach
197. Susan Wainwright
198. John Hurley
199.

A
my Costa
200. Angela Tamblin
201. Timothy Halls
202. Maureen Nohra
203.

N
atalie Lewis
204. Er
in Haynes
205. Vi Peralta
206.

S
andra Padilla
207. K
aty Falkenborg
208. Shannon Mason
209
. Ka
itlin Lewis
210. C
hristine Shores
211. M
arilyn Bowe
212. N
ikke Voris
213. S
teve Paul
214. J
oan Stebbins
215. W
inifred Ghiglione
216. Patrick McCartney
217. G
eorge Huang
218. Janice Garvey
219. P
age Barnes
220. J
oycelyn Young
221. W
ill Lee
222. Ken Gutleben
223. Stephanie Lipow
224. Jacek Kasprzycki
225. Ted Owyang
226. Susan Huang
227. Ivan Rychkov
228. Kellen Gauthier
229. Ron Soltz
230.

T
ina Van Rooyen
231. Patrick Morrison
232.

C
hristian Nelson
233. Sarai Dunsany
234.

R
yan Bremer
235. J
ames Morrison
236. C
hristine Aguilar
237. Brad Wetstone
238. Kristian Hanelt
239.

H
eather Morganstein
240. Sara Custer
241. Eric Karlson
242. Tim Murphy
243. Joanna Hagerty
244. Kathy Kugler
245.

C
hris Drioane
246. Jeff Smith
247. Bonnie McKean
248.

Jen
Whatley
249. Ken Wong
250. Amy Youngman
2 51. Carol Dutra
252. Al Vanegas
253. Ian Ho-Wong
254.

Jee K
im Smith
255. Raynesha McGhee-Reed
256. T
almadge Vessels
257. H
ilary Payton
258. W
illiam Roach
259. Jen
nifer Ayres
260. Cathy Peloquin
261.

T
erri Abrahamson
262. T
atiana Demkowski
263. Alejandra Rassvetaieff
264.

V
inita Chhugani
265. Gustavo Sanchez
266.

Ev
a Volin
267. Linda Kamby
268. Hoy Kwok
269.

C
ecile Judy
270. Ro
dger Scott
271. Jo
yce Simmonds
272. Evernease Cook
273.

K
ate Schnoebelen
274. J
onathan Schnoebelen
275. Olivia Schnoebelen
276. C
loud Schnoebelen
277. Haylie Kerr
278. Alondra Sainz
279. Katherine Sanchez
280. Daniel Hoover
281. Edwin Hernandez
282. Julian Williams
283. Eric Banach
2 84. J
hunior Pintor
285. Isabelle Orain
286. Patrick O'Grady
287. Kevin Mills
288. Assia Day
289. Brendan Mills
290. Henry Mills
291. Matthew Brotze
292.

Ma
tthew Attaway
293. Vickie Maloney
294. Brian Morgan
295. Rick Breslin
296.

Mo
nte Mentry
297. M
arisa Ong
298. J
ustin Truong
299. Eileen Goor
300. Ellen Ostergren
Keep Gibbons Open Petition Signatures
301. David Syfrett
302. Gina Bustos
303. Lorre Zuppan
304. Luis Dela
305. William Morrison
306. Fei Xu
307. ﻣﮭرداد رﯾﯾﺳﯽ
308. Selena Belay
309. Tristen Teeveer
310. Carol Ostergren
311. Rukuya Harris
312. Irene Garcia
313. Johnny C
314. Cory LeGars
315. Benjamin Fong
316. Amy Blakeley
317. April Joseph
318. Marc Warsowe
319. Kora Terbeek-Eads
320. Cole Campbell
321. Andrea Johnson
322. Mengistab Gebryohannes
323. Etan Reed
324. Zack Lohr
325. Tatiana Seymore
326. Kim L J
327. Louis Duarte
328. Akram Ishov
329. Mario Neto
330. Jeff Franco
331. Seth Orvis
332. Nathan Lasche
333. Brandon Koren
334. Rachel Dominguez
335. Tracey Matheney
336. Amanda Ronquillo
337. Brenda Hattisburg
338. Shah Husain Pashtoon
339. Faith A
340. Marilyn Bowe
341. Ana Stringa
342. Veleeta Davis
343. Jose Menjivar
344. Everett McNamara
345. Robert Beebe-Diaz
346. Pat Gray
347. Chelsea Green
348. Anna Zell
349. Debi Fitzgerrell
350. Tony Abuyaghi
351. Gladis Steinway
352. Sergio Acevedo
353. Yukari Sakura
354. Antonio Torres
355. Laarni Ramirez
356. Pat Cronin
357. Emma Taylor
358. Yeqing Cai
359. Carmen Fonseca
360. Yong Li
361. Denie English
362. Robin Greene
363. Angela Naggie
364. Margaret Chinn
365. Rich Sievers
366. Virginia Collins
367. Logan Hawke
368. R.A. Rojas
369. Kelly Delgado
370. Sergi Goldman-Hull
371. Nathan Lang
372. Ernesto Gallegos
373. Tamaran White
374. Nathan Lee
375. Reyla Graber
376. Johanna Peterson
377. Peter Conn
378. Ameea Moore
379. Jessica Kwon
380. Imahni McC
381. Anthony Ridings
382. Adrian de Jager
383. Janet Libby
384. James Tham
385. Joe Van Winkle
386. Gregory Schopf
387. Tiyana Davis
388. Joel Finley
389. Leah Onori
390. PJ Onori
391. Amanda Chase
392. Lydia Dorrance
393. Jody Moore
394. Naveed Makhani
39 5. Carole A Lohr
396. Rachel Jester
397. Karen Miller
398. Jodie Moran
399. Jeff Thomas
400. Marci Stewart
401. Patricia Eyen Stewart
402. Jeff Stewart
403. Richard Falletti
404. David Foote
405. Katie Stewart
406. Vanessa Sykes
407. Carol Alliger
408. Kathleen Ratto
409. Kathleen Rabbach
410. Marguerite Deichman
411. Michael Heley
412. Jacquelyn Falletti
413. Carol Gottstein
414. Linda Murphy
415. Heather Hildreth
416. Brittany Tracy
417. Robert Yastishak
418. Amy Kimball
419. Selinda Antill
420. Jayden Williams
421. Juliana Rocha
422. Michael Goetz
423. Joseph Lahman
424. Leslie Shubin
425. Anda Bockis
426. Jeanie Egbert
427. Donna Little
428. Gaard Logan
429. Elizabeth Garone
430. Sheilah Cahill
431. Barbara Rossillon
432. John Rossillon
433. Keiry Ayala
43 4. Steve Bitker
435. Christine Huddleson
Keep Gibbons Open Survey: Input on Fernside
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Measures

1. Do you support a pilot "6-month" closure of Gibbons?

2. Do you support the "quick build" bulb out on the southwest corner of the Fernside/Gibbons/High St intersection, that is meant to slow traffic, reduce the pedistrian crossing length, but still keeps Gibbons open?

3. Do you support speed humps on Gibbons (provided Gibbons stays open)? 57 Responses 08:30 Average time to complete Active Status Yes 0
No 57
No opinion 0
Yes 32
No 13
No opinion 12
Yes 40
No 9
No opinion 8
Attachment #2 - Keep Gibbons Open Member Survey

4. Do you support a "quick build" traffic calming calming circle for the Gibbons/Northwood/Southwood intersection near Lincoln (provided Gibbons stays open)?

5. Do you support a "quick build" traffic calming calming circle for the Southwood/Bayo Vista/Fairview intersection (provided Gibbons stays open)?

6. Do you support speed humps on Cambridge (provided Gibbons stays open)?

7. Please provide additional comments if you would like Yes 30
No 23
No opinion 4
Yes 21
No 26
No opinion 10
Yes 30
No 13
No opinion 14
Latest Responses
"Do Not Close Gibbons Dr. This whole “safety” effort is a r… 37 Responses
Keep Gibbons Open Coalition - Member Survey on Proposed Traffic Calming Measure - Additional Comments Please provide additional comments if you would like….

No. Comment
1 Totally opposed to closing Gibbons
2 I think speed humps slow people down and that is the goal. They will also encourage people to not use Gibbons and use other streets to avoid the humps, but that is worth the price (I live on Harvard) vs completely blocking Gibbons. The only accidents I have seen at that intersection have been cars going both ways on Fernside and the person making a left onto the bridge not yielding. I have seen this at least 3 times. That has nothing to do with Gibbons or High. I have walked and ridden a bike across the "long crossing" and I think that's pretty silly.
3 I don't believe there is a problem with the left turn from Gibbons to High Street. Where is the data that shows this is an issue? Taking away access from a wider neighborhood street to the bridge leaving the island is a bad decision as it directs traffic to more narrow neighborhood streets. 4 Still very concerned about roundabout impacts to on-street parking at Northwood/Southwood/Gibbons. While I understand the need for crosswalks here, the California Daylighting law will further reduce on-street parking.

I've sent email to Lisa Foster asking that they share full impacts to on-street parking with us and Council members before they vote next week. No response so far. 5 I have lived in Alameda my whole life. I am all for making streets safer, but NOT for street closures OR slow streets. It is hard enough to get around Alameda as is - especially when the bridges are up. Heaven forbid there ever be an emergency situation that we all have to get off the island. I think the city needs to stop spending money on things that have been fine for decades - and start focusing on infrastructure that would really benefit the island as a whole!
6 There isn’t a good enough reason for the Gibbons closure. As expressed by many people who live in the city, there are other areas that are more dangerous and truly need calming measures. But if there isn’t a choice but to move forward with the closure, speed humps or cushions throughout the area is what I’d like to see. If speed humps and cushions are placed throughout the neighborhood why would there be a need for the traffic circles? Traffic circles will reduce parking spots and be in front of homes’ driveways. Instead of traffic circles, let’s try stops signs first and see how that works out before putting traffic circles on the local streets? 7 I am all for traffic-calming measures as an alternative to closing the Gibbons left turn onto High St. However, closing Gibbons would be unconscionable and create LESS safety, so it should not be considered in the first place.
8 If it could be confirmed that Gibbons STAYS open, I would STILL be for those traffic calming measures, as long as the residents on those affected streets are in agreement and their input is sought. 9 Personally - I think the quick-build solutions look like shit, but they are better than nothing. Would much rather see a "not quick build" intersection improvement done right at the 2 intersections in question. 10 If Gibbons gets closed, it's going to be more than Cambridge that needs speed humps... and I don't think Gibbons will need additional calming measures if it's turned into a one way (as that would encourage even more displacement onto small side streets).
11 I live on the 3100 block of Gibbons and am opposed to the closure. Generations of kids have biked to Lincoln via other streets and not the Fernside intersection, I have not seen any significant safety issues that warrant any change. I am deeply concerned about the safety issues for side street, if the closure happens. 12 Closing the Gibbons left turn is not necessary to make the intersection safer. Do NOT close Gibbons access to the bridge.

Keep Gibbons Open Coalition - Member Survey on Proposed Traffic Calming Measure - Additional Comments No. Comment
13 Adding both the speed humps on Gibbons and the bulbs out makes sense and contributes to the safety of all who live in and travel through the neighborhood. We don't need the other traffic calming measures if we don't close Gibbons. And the evidence shows that closing Gibbons would make the neighborhood less safe and only benefit a handful of homeowners to the detriment of scores of others. 14 To question 7, you crafted it as requiring an X somewhere. Add [X] remove the rarely used pedestrian crosswalk across High St on the south side of Fernside Blvd .... [X} replace the pedestrian crosswalk with a rapid flashing beacon crosswalk at either Bayo Vista or Monte Vista ... [ ] none of the above 15 Please leave our beautiful neighborhood alone. 42 years on Northwood and the street setup works considering the increased traffic EVERYWHERE.
16 I prefer the city put up stop signs and yield signs on the intersections in question instead of speed bumps. I definitely don't like roundabout circles.
17 For those of us who live on Fernside, closing it would be a nightmare. We are already subjected to so much traffic at high speeds.
18 Traffic calming before contemplating a closure of a major thoroughfare makes sense, but the city needs to work with residents who live near these proposed traffic calming measure to hear their concerns. 19 The Fernside calming project has been hijacked. Council member living on Gibbons should recuse herself given the recommendation of speed bumps on Gibbons.
20 I would also propose a 4 way stop sign at Gibbons and Cornell. This would slow traffic both ways on Gibbons and make this intersection safer
21 Yes, the Fernside neighborhood needs traffic calming, but it DOES NOT need a) Gibbons to be closed nor b) Gibbons left turn to High eliminated. The increased traffic to narrower neighboring street would be UNSAFE and DANGEROUS, the narrower streets are NOT 2-way and CANNOT accommodate increased traffic WITHOUT COMPROMISING SAFETY.
22 Decades ago, we had speed humps on Gibbons. They made the house jump and shake. It was horrendous and they were taken out. I don’t understand how this is being reconsidered! 23 Recommend stop sign at Cornell on Gibbons 2 way
24 The city has not shown any concrete data that warrants a closure of Gibbons. A one day study is not a proper study of traffic flow and patterns. Far more residents are opposed to the closure than are for it. Why has that not been taken into account? Prior to the Gibbons closure discussions, residents were not at meetings demanding safety measures to be put in place on these local streets. The streets have managed just fine for decades. We bought our homes knowing this is how they were designed. Same for the people on Gibbons. The city does not need to spend $200K of the general fund to put in "quick build" calming measures. The name itself shows how little thought has gone into this whole process. The city continues to try and push things through quickly without actual designs, only scratched out drawings from a city employee. I am okay with changes if the immediate resident's it will affect are in favor. This isn't just aesthetics being considered, it will change the value of those homes. I am very much against the traffic circle at Southwood/Fairview/Bayovista as it will remove parking in front of my home and my driveway will be affected which will become a safety issue for my and my immediate neighbors whose driveways will also be affected. 25 I don't think any of proposed changes are really necessary as long as Gibbons remains open and is reclassified as a connector street. Certainly none of these would be necessary if if the Fernside/High St/Gibbons intersection remains unchanged.

Keep Gibbons Open Coalition - Member Survey on Proposed Traffic Calming Measure - Additional Comments No. Comment
26 Unless the city can prove that Gibbons Drive has been the direct cause of accidents or speeding, any measures to change its current open status are a waste of taxpayers' money. 27 I believe speed humps and or additional stop signs would make our neighborhood safer. 28 I have personally used Gibbons drive to get to the high street bridge for over 55years. I filled up many times at the Standard Station that was located between Fernside and Gibbons at High Street. Gibbons was designed to move traffic to and from the bridge many many years ago and it must stay that way. 29 I'm concerned that the traffic measures being proposed by the city will make our neighborhood less navigable.

The traffic circles in particular squeeze cars and bikes into close proximity, and they eliminate parking used by residents. Not to mention their poor aesthetic. The proposed measures are heavy handed and expensive, when a repainted crosswalk and a 'Yield' sign may be all that's needed to improve safety. 30 I think the intersection at Southwood/Bayo Vista/Fairview needs either a yield or a stop sign on Bayo Vista entering the intersection as well as Fairview. Maybe even a dotted line on southwood showing that the road curves and the vehicles on Southwood have the right of way to cars entering the intersection. I think a traffic circle is overkill and yield signs would be cheaper.
31 I also do not support a bike specific traffic signal at High and Fernside. 32 It appears that the City is determined to restrict the left turn on Gibbons based on special interests of those living on Gibbons, and is using skewed data to minimize the impact on surrounding streets and exaggerate the issues with the current configuration. I am afraid a 6 month closure will be used as a another justification to shift bridge bound traffic on Gibbons to smaller neighboring streets permanently. 33 I can't believe that this city is even considering this ridiculous traffic change. Gibbons is much wider then the proposed other streets. Gibbons can handle the traffic much better. Shame on the two supporters who happen to live in the 3100 block of Gibbons, you sure aren't looking out for the rest of us. Traffic calming my eye. 34 Gibbons has always been intended to handle the traffic through this neighborhood; redesignation is creating a whole new slew of problems that are going to be much worse. 35 I am strongly against ANY closure of Gibbons Drive including a pilot closure. This will make our neighborhood less safe for children. The amount of young families moving into this area had increased greatly over the past five years. Diverting ANY traffic off of Gibbons puts pedestrian and bikers lives at risk. The city has wasted money doing what seems like "their own agenda" study. Again, I am opposed to ANY closure of Gibbons! 36 Tracy Jensen should recuse herself from voting as this directly impacts her as a homeowner living on that street.
37 Additionally, the street never should have been changed from a connector street to a local street. Tracy Jensen and Andy Wang both benefited from that decision and have been using that change to their advantage in this current proposal under the guise of safety improvements. 38 Given the way the Slow Streets barricades have worked out, I am skeptical that the Gibbons temporary closure will really be temporary.
39 Do Not Close Gibbons Dr.
40 This whole “safety” effort is a ruse to steal the time at the Gibbons Dr. stop light for a duplicative bicycle lane on Fernside at High Street. None of this is needed if that *unfunded* effort does not go forward. If the city has those funds, they should be spent instead on fixing city sidewalks, streets, and sewers, and to fund critical utility undergrounding projects and sewer outflow fixes (to prevent sea water inflows). This city needs to focus its resources on what residents crucially need, not these enormous potentially-nice-to-have investments.

From: David Foote
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to Agenda Item 7B – Pilot Closure of Gibbons Drive Date: Monday, November 17, 2025 2:10:19 PM
Dear Council Members:

I totally oppose any closure of Gibbons Drive - - - pilot closure, time of day closure, full closure, etc. On the other hand, I have no problem with reasonable speed reducing measures along Gibbons such as speed bumps or traffic circles. I personally feel Alameda would greatly benefit from enhanced speed reduction measures throughout the city, as there is too much speeding going on in this town.

Regarding Item 7B and the Gibbons closure issue, city staff falsely claims that closing Gibbons would reduce accidents at the intersection of Gibbons, High, and Fernside, but none of the cited accidents were caused by traffic coming from Gibbons. Forcing traffic that now uses Gibbons onto smaller, narrower substitute streets, followed by forcing unprotected turns onto busy Fernside or High to reach the High Street bridge will OBVIOUSLY reduce safety compared to a direct approach on Gibbons, a relatively wide, gently curving street used by Alamedans for decades to reach the High Street bridge.

The City should not take steps to reduce traffic using the High Street bridge. The large new residential developments on Clement, not yet even completed, have ALREADY overcrowded both the Park and Fruitvale bridges as well as arterial streets leading to them. It would be utter foolishness to drive even more vehicles now using the High St bridge onto one of the other crossings. The Gibbons Closure plan in Item 7B would really gum up the works.

Item 7B should be voted down. No pilot closure, no full closure, but speed reduction measures are OK with me.

Thanks for your attention,
David Foote
2534 Lincoln Ave
Alameda CA 94501
[email protected]
From: Andy Wang
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 7B - In SUPPORT of Fernside traffic-calming measures and Gibbons plan Date: Monday, November 17, 2025 2:02:55 PM
To Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Pryor, and Councilmembers:

I’m a Gibbons resident and dad of two Edison kindergarteners.

I’m writing in support of city staff’s recommendation to implement a number of much- needed traffic calming measures throughout the Fernside neighborhood in 2026- 2027, as well as to revisit the Gibbons left-turn restriction as part of a pilot project and the Fernside Blvd long-term project.

Given the ongoing challenge of speeding cut-through traffic, the proposed near-term safety improvements are very welcome. Likewise, I believe the planned long-term improvements will be vital to realizing Vision Zero in Fernside.

Still: if staff’s well-considered, stepwise plan is the headlining story on this topic, I’d like to call your attention to an important sub-story.

The recommendation to push out implementation of the permanent Gibbons left-turn restriction could be read a couple different ways. On one hand, it could be read as consistent with the consultant’s (admittedly conservative) conclusion that a lot of spillover traffic would hit neighboring streets, most particularly Bayo Vista and Southwood. On the other hand, it could be read as inconsistent with the consultant’s analysis, even in this worst-case scenario, that the resulting volumes would be both low and consistent with the streets’ designation as Neighborhood Local Streets.

One way it is not being read: as a well-considered tradeoff that takes into account the cost of waiting.

Waiting how many more years? We don’t know. But it’s going to be no earlier than 2030, and we all know that delays tend to beget more delays.

According to the Caltrans Construction Cost Index
, California civil projects have been
experiencing double-digit cost escalations over the last few years. If such cost escalations continue, perhaps at 10% annually, or even at 20% (still well under what we’ve seen recently), the cost of waiting 4 to 5 years for the permanent improvement could be incredibly high – up to or even more than double staff’s estimate of $480k in today’s dollars.

If it’s all grant funded, should that matter to us much here in Fernside? I think it should.

Because while we’re all interested in safety in our own neighborhood, we also navigate other streets and other neighborhoods in this city – and the safety of our neighbors is as much our safety.

For the cost of waiting 4-5 years to deliver a simple improvement at Gibbons/Fernside/High, the city could potentially deliver another full set of Fernside- scale traffic-calming measures, plus several bulbouts elsewhere in the city – today.

Or, put another way, waiting another 4-5 years to deliver this simple improvement risks so much compounded cost escalation that the price of delivering just the singular improvement would, alone, eat up nearly 2-3 months’ worth of the city’s Measure BB streets and roads funds, using recent distributions as a metric.

My intention in bringing this up isn’t to quibble with the outcome. It’s to ask the city whether it’s thinking in real monetary terms about decisions to piecemeal and delay safety improvements.

While the technical and process reasons to do so have been documented well by staff, the cost implications have not. And while I don’t think that is alone a reason to further delay this process, which has already received more than enough staff and council consideration, I ask that the city work harder to more proactively weigh the potential dollars and cents costs of waiting in decisions like these.

Thank you,
Andy Wang
From: Adam Garfinkle
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 7B Tuesday November 18th City Council Meeting Date: Monday, November 17, 2025 12:41:00 PM
Hello Alameda City Clerk,
Can you please add these comments to the item 7B correspondence file? Dear Alameda City Council,
For item 7B, the identified problem as communicated by City staff is the intersection of High Street and Fernside Blvd. There have been a small number of minor injury collisions at this intersection due to the high speeds of vehicles traveling on High Street or Fernside. Adding roundabouts and installing speed humps at the proposed location will not impact the identified problem of people speeding on High Street or making bad decisions on Fernside. In my opinion, it makes no sense to proceed with any of these changes as the changes will not impact the identified problem. This is simply a disconnected and dishonest process which is a waste of our community's time and money.

The vast majority of the residents do not want these changes. However, you may not be aware of this as City staff have been biased throughout this process and have misrepresented comments and have lied constantly throughout. One example of the dishonest behavior was at the most recent transportation meeting. Your hired consultant would not answer simple questions from the Transportation Commission related to dimensions and traffic flow of Cambridge. They lied because they knew the truth would hurt their chances of getting budget approval. Another example of the dishonest behavior by City staff was my comments being misrepresented on a slide presented by City staff as an example from the community as to why these changes are needed. City Staff completely misunderstood my comment and added their own interpretation of my comment to support their case. It is shameful to see that this is how you allow our local government to operate.

Instead of wasting money on a dishonest, squeaky wheel approach which will ruin the charm and traffic flow of our neighborhood, I would like to ask that you stop this project from moving forward. I would much prefer an enforcement-based approach, either automated or police based. One possible solution would be to install a speed enforcement camera on High Street similar to what San Francisco has done. This is also what your Transportation Commission has suggested as an appropriate way to deal with the real problem. Please do not install the roundabout at Northwood/Southwood/Gibbons and please do not install the speed humps on Cambridge or on Gibbons. Did you even do a traffic study on Cambridge to know if a speeding problem actually exists on Cambridge? According to your Transportation Commission, speed humps and roundabouts should be the last option to consider when there is no other way to solve a problem. They should not be the first option used to silence the squeaky residents in the neighborhood. I would much prefer you guide our city's staff to work on real solutions that solve real safety problems that will benefit the community. Please do not approve this item.

Thanks you,
Adam Garfinkle
Fernside Neighborhood Homeowner
From: Janine DeFao Hayward
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] gibbons/high/fernside and neighborhood traffic calming Date: Monday, November 17, 2025 12:19:56 PM
Dear City Council members,
As a homeowner and resident of the Fernside neighborhood for two decades, I support the neighborhood traffic calming measures recommended by staff and forwarded by the Transportation Commission.

These plans address longtime issues with speeding traffic and poorly designed intersections in the neighborhood that are dangerous for pedestrians and motorists alike. I also support the proposed paint-and-post bulb-out at the southwest corner of the Fernside/High/Gibbons intersection as a means of making that intersection safer.

However, I strongly oppose, and urge the Council to reject, any plans to close Gibbons to a left-hand turn toward the High Street Bridge, even on a temporary or pilot basis. Please give the other proposed traffic calming measures a chance before even considering this pilot.

Eliminating the left-hand turn off Gibbons will divert large amounts of traffic to much narrower surrounding streets, as verified by the city's traffic study. These streets are not equipped to handle hundreds more cars, and it can be difficult to turn onto High Street and Fernside without a traffic signal in order to reach the bridge. Within the neighborhood, cars already must routinely pull over to let oncoming traffic pass because there is so little room when cars are parked on the street. Gibbons is a much wider thoroughfare, regardless of how the city has chosen to classify it.

Furthermore, city accident data does not support the notion that eliminating the left-hand turn will make the intersection safer, nor that this is an especially dangerous intersection compared with others in the city.

Any closure of Gibbons Drive, including a pilot closure, will have unintended consequences, will create more problems than it solves and will make our neighborhood less safe.

The majority of the neighborhood opposes such a closure. Please listen to the constituents you were elected to represent. Thank you for your efforts to make the streets of our neighborhood and city safer.

Sincerely,
Janine Hayward
1705 Cornell Drive
From: Travis Morgan
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] In support of Fernside traffic-calming measures Date: Monday, November 17, 2025 11:32:31 AM
To Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Pryor, and Councilmembers:

I’m a Fernside resident, and I’m writing in support of city staff’s recommendation to implement a number of much-needed traffic calming measures throughout the Fernside neighborhood in 2026-2027.

Given the ongoing challenge of speeding cut-through traffic, the near-term safety improvements proposed by staff throughout the neighborhood are very welcome.

I appreciate the time and effort staff has put into studying the challenges in Fernside, and I strongly encourage the city to continue to make timely improvements prioritizing pedestrian and bicyclist safety here and throughout the city.

Sincerely,
Travis Morgan
From: Meghan Rahman
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fernside Traffic Calming Measures - TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Date: Monday, November 17, 2025 9:41:41 AM
To Whom it May Concern,
I am a Fernside resident, and I am writing in support of city staff’s recommendation to implement several much-needed traffic calming measures throughout the Fernside neighborhood in 2026 and 2027. I also encourage the city to consider additional speed control measures on Gibbons.

Given the ongoing problem of speeding cut-through traffic, the near-term safety improvements proposed by staff are very welcome.

I appreciate the time and effort staff has dedicated to studying the challenges in Fernside, and I strongly encourage the city to continue making timely improvements that prioritize pedestrian and bicyclist safety here and throughout the community.

Thank you.

From: Jason & Caroline Fang
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to Agenda Item 7B – Pilot Closure of Gibbons Drive Date: Sunday, November 16, 2025 10:52:08 PM
[City Clerk: Please distribute to every Alameda City Council member in advance of Nov 18 meeting]
Dear City Council,
We live in the Fernside neighborhood and are writing you because we are extremely concerned with the Agenda #7B proposal to pilot closing the Gibbons left turn onto High St.

We are strongly against and urge the Council to reject ANY closure of Gibbons Drive, including a pilot closure. ANY closure will make our neighborhood less safe.

Pushing traffic elsewhere will reduce safety in the entire Fernside neighborhood overall, and so we are very disappointed that City leaders would even consider a measure like this that puts the the safety of the greater good at risk just to prioritize the safety of one intersection and one street.

We are fearful of all the accidents and near-misses that will happen when more drivers will be forced to make unprotected turns onto High Street and Fernside. We would like to know why this consideration was not factored into the recent traffic study done by the City. It feels like the studies done so far are too myopic, and fail to look at the safety impacts and cost-benefit of these major changes to the neighborhood as a whole, rather than at just one intersection/street.

While we are in support of other traffic calming measures in the neighborhood, these shouldn't be used as concessions for the Gibbons turn closure. We'd like to respectively ask that the City Council oppose any closure of Gibbons Drive, even a pilot closure.

Thank you,
Caroline and Jason Fang
From: Angela Tamblin
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List
Cc: Shaun Tamblin
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to Agenda Item 7B – Pilot Closure of Gibbons Drive Date: Saturday, November 15, 2025 1:00:03 PM
Dear Alameda City Council Members,
I am writing with regards to Agenda Item 7B for the 11/18/2025 meeting.

As a resident of the Fernside district that frequently uses Gibbons Avenue to turn left on High Street to access the High Street Bridge, I strongly oppose any closure of this access from Gibbons Drive to the High Street Bridge, including a pilot closure.

I fully support the changes on Fernside to improve safety, reduce traffic speeds, and provide better safety for bikers on the new cross island bike trail. I do not see this Gibbons left turn closure as a solution to any of the problems surveyed or researched by the city. None of the accidents recorded and used in this assessment were caused by a left turn from Gibbons. I ask you to dig deeper into why this left turn closure was even added to the project.

The consequences of this closure will bring many added costs to the city budget as well as many more safety concerns to the Fernside neighborhood. Drivers will now have to choose between many smaller neighborhood streets to drive down to access Fernside, High Street, and the bridge. This means that multiple streets will now need to have calming measures -- Versailles, Moreland, Cambridge, Fremont, Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Northwood, Southwood, Bayo Vista, Fairview, and Thompson. Many of these streets and intersections don't have stop signs. Most of them are so narrow that cars have to pull over to the side to allow a car to pass from the other direction. I understand that residents on Gibbons want less traffic (not the reason given for this closure, but might be the driver behind it) but it seems like a poor decision to redirect traffic to all these other smaller neighborhood streets.

I also do not support the pilot program, as we all know that in Alameda, pilot programs are frequently never terminated. For example, the "Slow Streets" that were implemented to provide safe walking distances during the early days of Covid are still in place 5 years later, with no benefit and rather an inconvenience to the neighborhood, requiring those of us that live off those Slow Streets to drive out of our way - or around the barriers - to access our homes.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Angela Tamblin
Alameda resident, Lincoln Ave
Alameda business owner
From: bw baycrossings.com
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to Agenda Item 7B – Pilot Closure of Gibbons Drive Date: Friday, November 14, 2025 7:27:49 AM
I am unable to attend the Council meeting on Tuesday and respectfully that request my views re: Agenda Item 7B be brought to the attention of council members. I oppose any closure of Gibbons Drive, including a pilot closure. The City’s accident data does not support the idea that closing the Gibbons left turn will improve safety.

None of the recorded accidents were caused by a left turn from Gibbons. Pushing traffic elsewhere will reduce safety. This plan is unneighborly and cynical. It is unseemly for residents of Gibbons, who include two self-interested officials, to ‘work’ the process so as to slough off onto their neighbors Gibbon’s historically designated role as a thoroughfare. In its cynicism it serves to undermine support for worthy traffic and safety improvement initiatives. I urge Council to do the right thing and halt this ill-advised and counter-productive proposal. Thank you for your volunteerism and service to the community.

Bobby Winston
3026 Fairview Ave.

Alameda, CA 94501
510-205-1447
[email protected]

Outlook
[EXTERNAL] In support of Fernside traffic-calming measures FromMegan Murphy <[email protected]>
Date Thu 11/13/2025 4:10 PM
To CITYCOUNCIL-List <[email protected]>
To Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Pryor, and Councilmembers:

Given the ongoing challenge of speeding cut-through traffic, the near-term safety improvements proposed by staff throughout the neighborhood are very welcome.

Thank you,
Megan Murphy
Alameda Resident
11/13/25, 4:21 PM [EXTERNAL] In support of Fernside traffic-calming measures - Lara Weisiger - Outlook about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane48 1/1
Board of Directors
Denyse Trepanier
President
Brian Fowler
Treasurer
Tim Beloney
Secretary
Cyndy Johnsen
Board Member
Maria Piper
Board Member
Lucy Gigli
Founder, non-voting
November 13, 2025
RE: Item 7-B — Gibbons/High/Fernside
Dear Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Members of the Council,
We urge you to support Staff’s recommendation, especially the turn prohibition pilot.

The turn prohibition pilot is key not only to improving intersection safety and operations, the goal of this project, but it’s also key to the long-term Fernside Bikeway plan , an important corridor project which Council approved earlier this year.

Because the turn prohibition pilot is so important, we ask you to commit to it in 2028, funded as part of the paving plan. This would better position Alameda for hitting its 2030 target to complete the Backbone Low Stress Network , which includes this intersection and the ‘all ages and abilities’ bikeway and Bay Trail along Fernside.

Staff and consultants have dedicated an extraordinary amount of time and attention to this intersection project, expanding its scope into an expedited, neighborhood-wide traﬃc calming effort. While the extensive outreach and responsiveness to local residents’ concerns are commendable, we should recognize that this level of effort is unusual and diverts resources from less-advantaged neighborhoods in Alameda. We believe neighbors’ concerns have been thoroughly heard and addressed, and a turn prohibition pilot in 2028, which offers broader public beneﬁts, is fair and appropriate. It also keeps Alameda on-track with adopted transportation and climate plans.

We appreciate your leadership and hope you will keep the momentum towards a safer, healthier, and greener city rolling forward with your vote on this item.

Thank you for your consideration .

Bike Walk Alameda Board

Outlook
[EXTERNAL] In support of Fernside traffic-calming measures FromRobin Lagorio <[email protected]>
Date Wed 11/12/2025 1:08 PM
To CITYCOUNCIL-List <[email protected]>
To Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Pryor, and Councilmembers:

I’m a Fernside resident, and I’m taking this time to write (five days after delivering my newest son because it's so important!) in support of city staff’s recommendation to implement a number of much- needed traffic calming measures throughout the Fernside neighborhood in 2026-2027.

Given the ongoing challenge of speeding cut-through traffic, the near-term safety improvements proposed by staff throughout the neighborhood are very welcome.

Sincerely,
Robin Lagorio
3101 Gibbons Dr.
11/12/25, 1:53 PM [EXTERNAL] In support of Fernside traffic-calming measures - Lara Weisiger - Outlook about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane5 1/1
Outlook
[EXTERNAL] Fernside traffic-calming
FromPatrick Dolan <[email protected]>
Date Wed 11/12/2025 8:57 AM
To CITYCOUNCIL-List <[email protected]>
To city council and mayor:

I am writing in support of the proposed traffic calming measures in the Fernside neighborhood. I am a resident on Gibbons Dr and we see a significant amount of high-speed cut-through traffic on this street. We also see frequent chaotic driving around the Northwood/Southwood/Gibbons intersection due to lack of crosswalks and stop/yield signs. It's a danger for pedestrians and especially kids going to/from Edison Elementary every school day. At night it's even more dangerous.

I think the speed humps will help reduce speeds and the roundabouts will bring some much-needed order to the flow of the intersection.

Thanks for your support and consideration.

Patrick Dolan
2939 Gibbons Dr
11/12/25, 9:30 AM [EXTERNAL] Fernside traffic-calming - Lara Weisiger - Outlook about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane9 1/1

Alameda City CouncilNovember 18, 2025

Alameda City Council
November 18, 2025