Recording in progress I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. All right. I'm going to go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and and as a first item, can we get a roll call please? Chair Dynand. President. Vice Chair O'Coney. President. Commissioner Lewis Virges. Commissioner Cao has sent a note that he will not be able to make it to the meeting tonight. Commissioner Griffin. Present. Oh. Commissioner Patel. Present. Commissioner Wilkerson. Here. Thank you. We have a call for a meeting. Excellent. Item number two is approval of the agenda. Can I get a motion to approve the agenda? I'd just like to make a amended motion to just correct the speed hump request 7.1. It's currently listed at 7.1. I believe that is to be discussed in discussion in action section eight. So just the, I make a motion to move that over and approve the agenda as stated. Do I get a second? I'll see seven point one. I'm sorry, I don't see seven point one. Can you clarify? It's just listed in informational reports, but I believe on page three. Okay, one moment, please. But I believe that's going to be presented for discussion and action. So just formatting on the agenda. But what is that? That's supposed to be a discussion and action. Yeah, yeah, it was just placed in the wrong section Okay, all righty. Can I get a second then then I I second with the suggested Suggested amendment or change Okay, all in favor I The motion passes unanimously Item number three approval of minutes 3.1, public, approve the minutes for public works and transportation commission minutes of October 16th. 2020-24 and the recommendation is that we approve the public works and transportation commission minutes for October 16th 2024. Are there any amendments to the next slide. Can we get a motion to approve the minutes? Motion to approve. Can we get a motion to approve the minutes? Motion to approve. And a second. A second motion. All in favor. Hi. Hi. The motion passes unanimously. Item number four, public comment. Is there anyone who wishes to comment on an item not on the agenda today? Okay. Very good. There's no virtual speakers and there's nobody in the audience and so we'll move on to item number five storm preparation updates. Do we want to perhaps move to the I think there's people here to talk about the speed hump would it be possible to move that to the first item and get that out of the way and then finish up with storm preparations because I believe there's people in the audience who want to talk about the speed humps on for them. I believe you just need to amend the agenda kind of similar to what O'Hila did with moving the item. Okay. So I think we would need to re-approved the agenda and then just swap the order is People want to do that. Okay. Can I get a motion to do that? Is it the agenda for possible changes? I second the motion. All in favor? Hi. Hi. Okay. Can we now we revisiting the agenda so make this suggestion? So we're going to revisit the agenda. I would like to make suggestion that we move item 7.1 to first on the agenda or first presentation. And if I can get a second on that. Second. Okay, all in favor? Hi. Hi. Hi. All right, that passes unanimously. I hope we did that right. But can we do the presentation then on the speed hubs? Because I think there's people here to chat about it. Yeah, Irene too will be giving the information report on the speed home requests on Fordham and Paulus Avenue, Steyre slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. Good evening. My name is Irene Chu. And I'll be presenting on the topic of speed home requests on Fordham Street and Polgis Avenue. So the presentation overview. I'll be covering the background, the analysis, and then finally the recommendation. So little background, we received two speed-hover requests at two locations. The first one is at Fordham Street between Beirot and Notre Dame Avenue, and the second one is at Poulgis Be Road and Notre Dame Avenue, and the second one is at Poulgis Avenue between Weeks and Be Road. And these are the location maps showing where the request for Fordham Street, the petitioner mentioned that there's speeding vehicles at Fordham Street. For the second one at Poulgis Avenue, the petitioner mentioned there's loud vehicles at night and there's pedestrian crossing, picking up food for the EHP, and then multiple kid drop-offs and pickups at the EPA Center, which is across from the EHP. So again, we cover the adopted speed home criteria and to in order for the speed home to be qualified, all these criteria must be met. So in order for the speed home to be qualified, all these criteria must be met. So for example, it has to have a width of 40 feet or less. And it has to have, they have to provide petition signatures from 67% of the residents that live in the area. It has to have a speed limit of 25 mile per hour or less. And then for one, it has to be classified as a local residential street. So want it to give you a map, which is the general plan street designation map. And if you can see for the two locations, it would be and the city of San St. and the city of San St. and the city of San St. and the city of San St. and the city of San St. and the city of San St. and the city of San St. and the city of San St. and the city of San St. and the city of San St. and the city of San St. and the city of San St. and the city of San St. and the city of San St. in number one. So for a neighborhood connector street, it's intended to serve more destinations such as a local school. It's intended to distribute local traffic to neighborhood streets. And it's also to accommodate low to medium traffic volumes. So our recommendation is to deny the establishment of speed homes on Fordham Street and on Pugus Avenue due to it not meeting the criteria. But we are following up on next steps, which is to follow up on the residential street management policy. We have reached out to our police department about the concerns that the resident raised about the speeding on Fordham. And we are also doing data collection. As you can see here, we have installed a device to measure the volume and then the speed. And we are working to get the data for future analysis. And then also going over the residential street management policy, we get resident requests and then we follow up by initiating and processing the evaluation. We have data collection, which is the speed the volume for example speed volume and then There's approach to speeding issues which is like The 25 mile per hour if it's more than we we may lower the the speed to that the 25 mile per hour in that Street the speed to that 25 mile per hour in that street. And you're a little bit lost. We're speaking of for them, right? So there's and focus. Yes. The question. And you're saying that you don't believe that to be a neighborhood connector street? So it is a neighborhood connector. Yeah, it is. Yes. So I'm, I'm this part of your first explanation that it was not considered an eligible street. It's not eligible because it's a, it's a, it's not a local residential. But it is local residential. No, it's a, it's a neighborhood connector street. And you're saying that's not a local residential area. Yeah. No, it doesn't mean that it's not a residential area. Basically, the general plan does. If you go back to that slide, Irene. Yeah, in our general plan, there's each street is designated one more one more over. Yeah. So this map is actually from the general plan. It's a little hard to see because it's small, but it basically each street has a different designation. So like University Avenue in Blue, that's a major thoroughfare, and then it kind of shows what each street is. Both Fordham and Pulgis are designated as neighborhood connectors, which wouldn't be considered a local street or residential within the definition that's kind of established in the speed hump policy. So basically the idea is the streets that are neighborhood streets or yield streets, those are the ones that would qualify for a speed hump. So could you tell me on the map, give me help me pinpoint where Forda is because I must be thinking of a speed hump. So could you tell me on the map, give me help me pinpoint where Ford am is because I must be thinking of a different street. If you if you're able to see the pointer it's right here. Okay, go where exactly. That pointer here is. So that says the neighborhood connector, which is the orange and the other one. Where they're requesting that the speed hump be by looking at where they were for them is. Who'll be in this in this section? The request came for between Bay and Notre Dame. Now show me exactly. I see the Bay. I can't make out the room. So this is Notre Dame right here. It says Notre Dame. And I believe Bay is right here. Bay. Yeah, that's the thing. So it'll be the section here. It is a neighborhood. I don't understand. I think there's something unclear about this definition of this street. I mean, I'm a local resident. I know the street, right? And for it not to be classified as a neighborhood street, I'm confused. Basically the streets that would be classified as like a local or residential street are the neighborhood streets. So like the light, the blue ones, the light, the then blue one, and then the yield street. So basically the general plan establishes certain definitions for each street and what their intended uses. So for example, a neighborhood connector street per the general plan, it's defined as a street that's intended to serve more destinations, more than like a typical neighborhood street. Distribute local traffic and then it's meant to accommodate low to medium traffic volumes. Okay. And in the speed hump petition, it basically has some information on like which types of street would qualify? Would meet that criteria? Cause I think the idea is you don't want, you wouldn't want to put like a speed hump on university avenue or like Bay Road. So that's kind of the reason that the criteria is in the... But I understand those streets, but Fordham is not one of them. That's where my concern is coming from. Is there anyone else here who are familiar with the streets? There's like tears to the streets. Like she was mentioning, so university would be maybe like... It's about like the number of like vehicles that go through the street and the boredom is far more residential than a bay or university they have nothing for sure they have nothing in common no she but it's a classifying them as the same sorry classifying for them in pulgas as the same as a university in fact no she just said they're different yeah I'm saying that they're very different yeah so why is it in Fordham considered eligible because it's not a neighborhood street it's a neighborhood connector so city council did this on May 21st of this year right there was a new criteria Yes, so basically the speed hump petition was amended and the criteria that was removed was the bus stop criteria. So basically in the old petition, if there was a bus route on a street, it immediately like disqualified it. So we went back to city council to amend the criteria to then remove that, but we obviously, we met with Sam trans and others before doing that, but that was the amendment that took place at the last council meeting. Yeah, it's interesting. When I look at the map, and this is, you know, the first time I'm seeing this, the places that most need traffic calming, pulgas, cleric, runny, mead, Fordham, by definition definition can't have them. And it's interesting, you know, like if you go around, you know, it seems like we're making it very difficult to do things that other communities easily install. And I'm just wondering how did we get to this point? Because you know, Euclid, you know, needs traffic calming. They may have it already. Running need cars go 60, 70 miles down that street. Clark, I was talking to somebody who lives on Clark and Green and when I was going door to door city council. And he was talking about how people, he's terrified because there's been five accidents on that street with cars speeding out of control. It seems like we've got a big problem. If our ordinance is saying you can't put traffic calming in the places that most need them. If you can't put traffic, speed bumps and things like that. And I mean, I'm kind of shocked and outraged to be honest. And I know there's probably people in the audience here who want to make a public comment and we should definitely do it. But when I was on Fordham knocking door to door, that was the number one thing. We need more traffic coming. We need speed bumps. Yeah, one lady, let me finish, said, you know, like my fence has been cars have crashed into it three times in the last five years. You know, she had cars in her front yard because they were speeding on Fordham. So I know you guys are just applying the ordinance, but it seems to me that this ordinance needs to change and it needs to change right, you know, soon. But anyway. So one thing I just wanted to add is we're hearing these concerns and last week, as part of the Student Travel Fellowship, they installed the temporary traffic circle at Fordham and Notre Dame. So that's a traffic calming measure, a temporary one, but the city, there's a traffic calming measure. A temporary one. But the city there is a traffic calming measure that was implemented on that section. So the city is you know, investigating and we are in like in this case, we implemented a temporary measure to help with some of the speeding concerns. Through the chair, if I may, I'm such a public works director. So yeah, this is good, good discussion. I think it's important for us to remember. And I think the chair pointed out to this eloquently that, you know, these, these policies sometimes are adopted, you know, they've been adopted a while ago. And there might be certain things that we would want to change in the future. So if now we're at a point where we're saying, hey, you know what, some of these streets may be appropriate or a speed hump, we might want to go back and look at that policy. That's the first thing. But I also want to point out to the fact that City Council has also adopted another policy, which is a residential streets traffic management policy. I believe the, that was probably adopted a couple years ago, went through the commission a couple times. And that is sort of the city's mechanism to address speeding on residential streets. So, you know, a lot of times residents may think that speed humps are the only solution to address speeding. But if you look at the policy that council has adopted, physical devices such as speed humps are actually at the end of the list. So we don't just directly jump to speed humps to solve speeding issues. There's a full process that the city follows. And the first process, the first step in that process is for us to go back and collect data regarding speeding. When is this speeding happening? Are there, you know, a number of vehicles or there's a handful of vehicles or is this like a recurring issue throughout the neighborhood? We collect data and based off of the data that we collect, then we can recommend certain improvements to the road. Like it might be that we don't have enough signage out on the road. It might be that the striping is inadequate and we need to narrow down the lanes a little to address speeding. It might be just one vehicle that goes, this guy goes to work in the morning, any speeds. So, and that's solved through enforcement. You can't... So, there's this process that we follow to address speeding. And I think the point of the report today is that, according to the policy, the way it's currently written, we have to deny these because it just doesn't follow the criteria. However, there are still certain guidelines that are part of the residential streets management policy that we will continue to follow to address this concern. Okay. I mean, there's is there time for public comment right now or did you want to finish your your report? I think she was on the second to last slide she was just explaining the presidential street management policy. But I believe Hummshub pretty much covered it that there are different devices not just speed hump which so for example there's bullbots there's barricade there's medians so there's different types of improvements and the speed home is actually considered the last. So I mean, I can conclude this and give it back to you. Or maybe do you want to explain what a bulb out is for folks in the audience that might not know some of these other devices that you're talking about, maybe that'll give them more of an understanding of what else they can do. Because I can understand that speed hump might be the last resort for the city. Because for instance, when you drive down pulgas, it is clearly a connector road. Like you are clearly going out to other parts of the, like neighborhood. There are dead end streets that you're trying to get to, there are neighborhoods that you're trying to get to. But for instance, like a ball belt, like she mentioned, it could slow people down by, if you've ever driven in Palo Alto, for instance, there are like really nice boulevards or there are like yards that go out. When you're visually driving or you see all these trees, you see things coming out of the road, you slow down. So there are other mechanisms to slow traffic down. I can understand why it seems like a very negative thing to deny a speed hump, but it's about what makes sense for the road. And when you're driving down pulgas, a lot of people are just trying to get to their homes. And I don't know if necessarily a speed hump is an efficient method of doing what needs to be done on that road. And there is a hierarchy of streets. So... Well, I concur with everything that you're saying, as we speak about Pogas, my concern continues to be for them. Those streets have nothing totally common. They're two totally types of streets. Now, they may be classified the same according to this document, but for those of us who know the community in the neighborhood, we know that there are two totally different types of streets. So, to put them in the same category is a great concern to me. Global comment? Yeah, I guess I could follow up with that. So the way these roads are designated within the framework of the document. Yes, there might be some differences, but within the general category, they are the same. So, you know, Fordham and Paul Gus, according to the definition of a neighborhood collector or a connector, is a neighborhood connector within the frame. And simple math can one of you tell me real quickly just to help me. The footage, the square foot, the width of Fordham and the width of Pogas. So I don't have all that because I know that they're not anywhere. Yeah, you're right. That's my point. Like I said, you know, they're not exactly the same kinds of road, but within the classification defined by the transportation documents they are. And so like I said, I agree with you in certain circumstances. Yeah, you know, Fordham, they're not exactly the same. So I think we need to fall back on what our policies is currently stating in that, yes, if we are getting complaints about speeding. So let's follow the traffic management policy. Let's collect data. Let's see how speeding is when speeding is occurring, if it is occurring, and what our next steps need to be. So that's the criteria that policy that we would need to follow. So I think in future reports, it would help us a lot. The commissioners, Ms. Chen, if we could have some more information that could help us like what is the width of the streets that we're talking about. What is the traffic? Because that's not on my. I understand the width that's outlined for what is required, but I don't see what the width for the street is actually. No, this is what's required for what is required, but I don't see what the width for the street is actually. No, this is what's required for the hump. I'm asking what is the width of four of them? So in, sorry to interrupt, but in the report, there is some information on the width of four of them, and it's about 40 feet wide. About, yeah. So if it's about, and it says that the street width needs to be 40 or less, it's about right. Yeah, so it means that criteria. Okay. It means the street width criterion. Can I ask a question? Before if I can. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Okay. So I did when when this Report came out I did look into it and I was communicating with Patul and Irene and my my initial Thoughts where for him should be a residential street and I think part of for me personally and I think the same with I shared the same sentiments with the commission is that the the documents were using are in a way conflicting with each other. The traffic management update plan does give a definition for residential, but we're not using that definition. We're using the definition from the general plan. And so I ask for that clarification. Thank you. I think also too, specifically for for them. I grew up on for them and I've seen speeding cars. I've seen cars going through stop signs. So I understand that this request, and I'm sensitive to this request, in this request, it shows two photographs of severe collisions that happen within one year. And to deny this request, when we have evidence, photographic evidence, and I believe the initial customer complaint was submitted at the end of 2023. And to wait until the end of 2024, where we're at a point where the residents are asking for a speed hump. And we're denying them on semantics. I don't think we should, That is a very tone deaf thing to do. We're talking about safety for the residents of the city and they're coming to the city to ask us to do something when they've shown us that there are severe issues with speeding. The other thing is, as a commission, for the public, for those of you that are here, we are only an advisory board to the City Council. So if I want you to know that if your request is denied, you can go straight to the City Council and bring this to them. They have the executive power to make these changes. No matter what the city has in their policies, if you take this request to the city council, they can execute your request. So I just wanted you guys to know that we're just an advisory board and we try to work together with the staff. But if there are still needs for the residents that are not met within this commission or this meeting, you can still take your request to the City Council and ask them to fulfill that need. Thank you. Um, I like to say, you know, um, if I had a one my bid for city council, I, I'm against Humbs roundabouts, things that they call sloan calming traffic. Um, I don't know if it's the budget or not. Why can't they put up speed light signs? You're going over, they have one on what, Clark, there and then flash, you got to take it. That would, in the word, we get around. That's where I'm visualized East Palo Alto going towards, and not Humps in the street. It might stop the people who have low riders, you know, low riders and they'll tear up the inside of the car. But I'm more in favor of technology to in that. And the speed on Ford, you know, we got Jack Farrell Park there. It has been forever almost about people speeding down Fordham. And I'm surprised nobody's gotten hit or killed. But still, I think the traffic would stop if people know if I go down Fordham, it's a speed traffic and I'm going to get a thousand dollar ticket. It'll start. It'll start slowing it down. I would just like to make a final comment then I'll be done with this item. For future reference it's my recommendation and suggestion to staff that we receive something far less convoluted to review in these types of requests. If there's eight criteria that a person has to meet, what is the width of the street, how many signatures that they submit, etc., etc. I shouldn't have to read through all of this in a convoluted way where there's conflicting information to get to the bottom line. They shouldn't have to wait a year to know that they don't have enough signatures if that's one of your criteria. If it's this type of street or that type of street or if it's classified A instead of B, that's simple. This could have been a counter request if that's all we're going to do. There is something wrong with this request to me and you know, I don't get to animate it over request. I really don't. But because I'm so familiar with the street and the community, I'm a little animated tonight, because I think that we're comparing apples and oranges. Yes, they're both fruits, but they're not one is citrus and one is not. They're not the same type. So to put forward them in the category would pogueas, I think it's off to wait this long for simple semantics as my brother commissioner mentioned. I think it's wrong. I think it doesn't show good faith on our part. So I just would like to see us just tighten it up a little bit. And I'm interested to hear if there's anyone from the community here that have comments on it, but they do need to know that we are sympathetic to the requests. And we are in alignment with even though somebody may not like speed humps or whatever, we all do know that they do have impact as a calming measure for certain type of behavior on the streets. And again, I would like to know specifically if this is the eight criteria, right? Here they are, the criterion, right? They didn't meet this, they didn't meet this, they didn't, and why. That should be a simple chart. Instead, we have lots and lots of information here that doesn't get us any closer to where we need to be. And I'm done. Thank you for listening. Thank you, DeBora. I presume people in the audience would like to speak on this, fill out a speaker card. Have you done that? Or do we need them to do that? Yeah, they need, we need the speaker cards. So please fill out speaker cards and it's just your name and address and Things like that we definitely want to I mean while you're filling up. I want to say one thing I was talking to Hilo about this the other night that there is a difference between Fordham and Paul Gus qualitatively you can tell so I completely agree for what it's worth. Right, so it's up to us to make sure that we acknowledge that in some of the decisions and even if there's a plan that was put together that says to the contrary, we can't allow them to be grouped together when we know that they're not the same type of streets. So yeah, through the chair, one other comment that I have is, I guess the in the report, we're saying that this this is not, the item is not closed. So even though I didn't meet the criteria for speed humps, according to the policy, there are some additional steps that we're continuing to take and we will come back to the commission with the results of that further analysis. So it's not like today the case is closed. It's just we're continuing on. However, it does not meet the criteria for speed ups. That's all. Do we have any public comment? We have two public speaker. The first one is Dorae Jimenez. That's why. So, Fordham is much wider than the 40 foods. Sadly, I measured it just before coming here. It's 56, at least in front of my house. It is 56. I, honestly, I despised speedham's. I think they're just dangerous for biking. I am interested in the extra measures that the city council wants to do, the public response to do because the speeding problem in Fordham is made a lot worse by the street being visually so wide. Especially around Jack Farrell, where it'd be very easy to just like have temper installations to visually narrate so people don't feel so confident driving really fast. But also because the sidewalks are completely destroyed and that means people have to walk on the streets where the cars are speeding. So if the sidewalk would just be like a tiny bit wider and just not broken every other feet, then it'd be a lot safer for everyone. Thank you. Thank you. Martin Kosener. Kosener. Yep. Hi. So my wife and two and a half year old son over here. We live on Fordham now for six years, right between the park and Notre Dame. I'm working on my cars a lot in the front yard and basically C was going on all the time and we have like three major issues there. One are donuts that happen a lot on the Notre Dame Fordham intersection. We're now that temporary circle has been installed, which is gonna prevent that, that's great. Same goes for running that stop sign there which happens literally every day multiple times and then the third one is really speeding on Fordham which yeah happens all the time including races I've seen two cars doing actual street racing multiple times my car got hit twice in the last two years at night, late at night, on there. And then, yeah, really also a little bit surprised about the whole designation that was going on with that. So same things for bringing it up and then challenging that. I don't agree with that at all. Plus, what hasn't been talked about at all is that street actually has that park that is designated to the public where I think that park should have like a special kind of like circumstance or weight that is not within your definition at all where you know people are unloading kids kids are running in between the cars they could just step out on the road. Yeah big car and who the else actually, if not a fan of speed bumps in general, but I think really speed bumps or speed bumps on Ford HEM is the only solution to the problem and to avoid that speeding alongside the park in between the intersections. Plus those meetings that are at the park, the events is going on in the weekends. It's like, you know, also kind of like people with cars that love cars meet there They like to show off they speed and then especially once everything like you know come sound people leave That's when we see a lot of that speeding and yes, so please revisit your definitions here and yeah consider consider that I think it's the only chance. Thank you. Thank you. If you could punch the microphone off, if nobody else is going to talk, there's something in the system that can only allow for. Thank you guys for coming out. Really appreciate it. We appreciate a community that's engaged enough to care and get these signatures. It's very disappointing that, and I've seen this again and again in East Palo Alto, enough to care and get these signatures. It's very disappointing that, and I've seen this again and again in East Palo Alto, where we put the burden on the community to do safety measures instead of the city doing, you know, proactively doing it. I mean, to me, it seems ridiculous that you'd have to get two thirds of a street to install safety or traffic calming. I mean, you know, for the roundabout, so I guess we don't have to do that for other traffic calming. It seems like these are common sense things. I agree with everything that's been said. And it's kind of shocking to me that when you look at a map of these Pell Alts and you think where should there be the most traffic calming, you know, Clark, Runnymead, Poulguss, it seems like we've created an ordinance that makes it impossible to actually do anything there. I guess I shouldn't say anything. If traffic circles and roundabouts are the way that we can address this, I think that's a great idea because it's effectively the same thing as a speed bump because you can't get going super fast. Hopefully, I was elected to City Council and I will start on December 17th. Hopefully we can bring you know some changes and prioritize things like this because I don't think it should be up to the community whether it's a permit parking or speed pumps to get signatures. That doesn't seem to work for me because if you have 40% of the people in a community that just don't want anything, then you can't do anything even if it's the right thing to do. But again, thank you for coming out. Thank you for getting this petition together. Yeah, if there's one thing that, you know, when you're campaigning public office, you go to streets, you don't actually live on. And I heard that again, and again, I heard it probably 10 times on Fordham. The number one thing I heard is speeding cars and you people showing me that their gates and fences have been broken into. The other thing I heard is that they didn't feel safe going to Jackfail Park. And this is from residents who live in the neighborhood that they never go there. But that's a side item that neighborhood. Are there any public comments on the online? Anyone zooming in? I don't see any here. Hands raised. If anyone who is joining via Zoom would like to make a public comment. Please raise your hand and then we'll allow you to speak. What is that? Okay. So do we have any attendees with their hands up? I don't see anybody. Okay. And then Commissioner Wilkerson would have one more comment. Yeah. I just want to add history. When I moved here, 55, the village was a new area. And the young man he mentioned about what I don't know if you are insinuating that it should be cut off for the neighborhood there or not. They try to do that behind home detail poll too. But when we when we first here, that area was new and there were the neighbors, their citizens, the homeowners wanted to put the gates around it. So you're going to still have people here when you say you want to make it exclusive to that neighborhood. They're going to kick up a storm about that because they're going to remember about what the six gates they wanted to put blocking off what do you know, trade for them and ill and noise and make a gate at community. So I don't think that'll go through. But we do feel you're paying. And we're with you, but I'm looking in the vision of a future. I'm thinking about aesthetics and I'm thinking about teaching our citizens how to be good neighbors and not to speed. You have to teach people not to speed. And the Humps may help. Maybe we could put them in temporary and later on take them out. But I just want to say that. Okay, are there any comments from public comment commissioners? Any anyone? Anything dead? I'd see it seems the other thing I would want to add is it seems unfortunate that there was this effort made and there was all these signatures collected when staff could have told people initially, no, we can't do this for our ordinance. The ordinance has to change or, you know, but by definition, we can't do it if it's a 56 foot wide street. You know, it seems to me that we need to take a close look at the speed hump criteria and make some changes to that. And or otherwise do, um, you know, roundabouts out of your other block on, you know, keep people from accelerating. And I said that was my last comment, but I'm going to backpedal a bit. If we could get some preliminary information from staff moving forward, if something blatantly doesn't meet or requirement, a person shouldn't even have to enlist trying to get signatures if it's impossible to be approved. Doesn't he make sense? Doesn't make sense. We need to be able to say that this street is ineligible for A, B and C. If we need to have preliminary criteria that they must meet and then their secondary criteria that when we start the application process but all of the information should not be a part of the application process if we know right up front that this street doesn't qualify. Yeah thank you for all your comments we typically don't review them until they actually submit their petition but staff is always more than happy to discuss with residents before they fill out a petition so if they come to the calendar, we could always pull up them up and look at it together. And I am recommending something to that effect that somehow takes more of an engaged role in making some preliminary determinations in the beginning so that a person doesn't even have to go through all of that only to discover that your street is too wide or it's not in designated area. Yeah. Okay. Maybe I'll try to add some maybe additional information on the city website too where the petition is. That's so. I mean obviously I can't amend the actual petition. I'm sorry if the nation would be helpful. A person would know. Thank you so much. Through the chair. So one question I had, you know, when we refer to the to the general plan, so that that has different types of streets and it seems like a guideline of what we can put there or not put there. My question to the staff is, do we have to follow those guidelines or if we feel that there is a need to put a physical device there can we can we overrule the guideline. I know the guidelines there to to especially the general plan to help us plan development within the city, but if we feel if we see a need because there's a request from residents we have photographic evidence of collisions within the year Can we just say okay? Yeah, we did plan to that street to be a certain type of street But hey, we have we have a request from a resident. It's a safe issue and we're gonna overrule that What kind of flexibility do we have I believe that would be need to be adopted by council like those changes would because the general plan itself was like a whole document. It's like a policy and planning document that the council adopts. To me, I mean, in this case, it may make sense to maybe request to amend the actual policy to give maybe that flexibility of saying like, Hey, yeah, these maybe these streets are designated the same, but we feel like they're they shouldn't be maybe categorize the same even though the general plan list them as the same and I'd like to add on that as well. So You know just because there is an accident on a road we can't say that the traffic, you know speed hump would solve the accident problem And that's the reason why I keep going back to the residential streets traffic management policy because, you know, you look at all that. You take in data, you look at speeding, you look at accident history, you look at traffic volumes and pedestrian access. And then based off all the data you collect, you're able to see, you know, what is the actual problem here? Is there a drunk driver on the road or is it a systematic traffic speeding issue that can be resolved by traffic controls or physical devices? The thing I see is when I go over to Memelopark, which is a lot, I pick up my son at MA frequently. You cross over into Memelopark and there are speed bumps on Woodland Park that don't exist in EPA, believe. You go down Alma, there's speed bumps in Manlo Park near Burgess Park. If you go on Willow, there's speed bumps on Willow. And these are all big wide boulevards. They're definitely connector streets and they have, so it seems that other cities have very different definitions of where they can and cannot install speed bumps. And I'd just be curious why Eastpalt makes it so difficult to do traffic calming in the places that need them the most. Now I'm 100% if we can put roundabouts in these places instead of speed bumps. Okay, let's do it. You know, that's effectively the same, I think it achieves the same goal, but it seems like we're using semantics and I don't know, like arbitrary decisions to not install these things when they're kind of desperately needed. I mean, I don't think people are lying to us when they say they've had a bunch of accidents and cars have crashed into their house. I mean, I've heard that on Clark, I heard that on Fordham. And I think on Pogas, the new roundabouts are great. And they've really solved a lot of problems. And hopefully when they're more permanent, they'll be even better. But I guess my question is, what do we need to do to have more actual traffic coming instead of creating a bureaucracy that you punch in any input it's always going to come back to know. And that's kind of where I see with the map that was shown. I mean, if we need to do roundabouts instead, sure, let's do it, but let's actually take action and help address these issues. Through the chair, I got one more comment here. So, you know, whatever the policy is, the city council can bypass that, you know, they, there's been certain capital projects where we have done street improvements and council has said, let's speed humps here. So, you know, there's the criteria is there, but the city council has the authority to bypass all of that. So that's just, just so everybody knows about that. I have a question. Could we do two different recommendations? Like maybe one for Paul Gus and one for Fordham. Is that a, that allowed? I mean, it depends on the recommendation. What are we? What are we thinking? That further inquiry be given to the Fordham request to re-evaluate the feasibility of perhaps a speed bump and redesignation of the street and or to make some other suggestion of an effective alternative. I know that there's a temporary roundabout in now. I don't know whether that's solved it, but just that it'd be given further consideration. I say that in contrast to the Pogas request. I think it should be denied. I'm in agreement. They both are being given further analysis. Okay. Like I mentioned before, you know, just because they've been denied for speed homes according to the existing criteria, we're still continuing to address it through the residential streets management policy. Now, that's the first part. The second part is what you mentioned about potentially revisiting the way the policy or the speed hump criteria is written. So that might be a separate thing that we have to go back in. Okay. Yeah. Okay. So kind of looking at, you know, taking action on this item and as we discuss, there still needs to be analysis done before we can truly determine if there are other, you know, provisions that could help with this issue. What it would it make sense to the, I mean, if we were to vote on this today, I my answer would be no, but I want to be in alignment with the commission and staff. So could we table this until we get further more information? And then also for the residents, if you know, if you feel that this has to move forward sooner rather than later, like the public works director mentioned, you can take this straight to the city council and they can take action on this if it's needed urgently. Through the chair, just to reiterate what Hanz said, we're planning on bringing back an item and going bringing back the data on like the speeding data for both streets, bringing back collision data and then at that meeting we're going to provide recommendations and then take the commission's thoughts and comments. So we will be coming back with basically a report on both of these locations regarding the coming like tabling the item and coming back. We followed the council's adopted policy. So until that changes or unless council bypasses it, we don't have the authority to make that approval. So I just wanted to make that clear. But. So I had a question. I mean to the attendees. Do you guys feel that the roundabout is adequate to stop speeding in lieu of speed bumps or is that had an impact on the people's behavior? Okay. Yeah, we appreciate staff taking action on that. I'm sure this petition directly led to the roundabout. And you can do both, right? You can do both. And there's a ton of kids on Fordham as well. That's one thing that's really, really noticeable. And yeah, I mean, it's a matter of time before something really, you know, awful happens with these cars. And I'd say that about Clark, I'd say that about running me, to say that about Paulus even. But I think we have the roundabouts on Paulus, which are definitely a step forward. Okay. Do we have a motion on this to bring it to a closure? But thank everybody for coming out. It's, you know, we're talking about this now because you guys took action and we appreciate that. That's, it's essential, you know, for people in the community to speak up about stuff like this. If you wanna see improved safety in the city. Is there a motion on this? I see it. Would you like to make a motion? You seem to be all over that. Yeah. Motion to deny the requests for speed. I'm not going to thank you. I have a suggestion so table I'm not going to say I'm okay. I'm going to say I'm okay. I'm going to say I'm okay. I'm going to say I'm okay. I'm going to say I'm okay. I'm going to say I'm okay. I'm going to say I'm okay. I'm going to say I'm okay. I'm going to say I'm okay. I'm going to say I'm okay. I'm going to say I'm okay. disposition until staff returns with the recommendation. So staff, our recommendation on the denial of the speed hump will not change. That is still going to stay, but we will do further assessment based on the residential street traffic management policy. And in that, we will be able to collect additional roadway data. Like I mentioned before, you know, roadway data, traffic data, speeding, pedestrian vehicle volumes. And based on that, we will provide additional recommendations on whether or not there's a speeding issue and what we would need to do to address it. So what is the specific action that is requested of the commission tonight? tonight. The commission is being requested to deny the request for speedhumps but can direct can request staff to go back and further assess the roadways based on the residential street traffic management policy. Okay, then I would like the record to reflect that I have my, oh, I'm so sorry. Then I would like the record to reflect that I have to abstain based on the policy and the process in making a vote so I will abstain tonight. Do we have enough of a yes then. We do the motion. Through the chair. Motion to deny but request additional information from staff at another meeting. We have a second. I have one more comment. The commission, if the commission has an issue the way the policy is written, then that has to be further reviewed. So right, it sounds like you have a you have a concern because the speed homes are not being recommended because of a stipulation in the policy. So you. That is correct. So you in essence, what you're saying right now is that you will you do not want you have an issue with the policy. That's correct. The recommendation is based off the policy. That's right. Right. So so you're yeah, so you have an issue with the policy. So that one thing that you can do, another thing you can do is deny speed humps, ask staff to go back and review the roadway segments based off the policy, the residential streets traffic management policy, and go back and revisit the speed hump criteria to address the roadway classification criteria. Anyone want to make that motion through the chair? Motion to deny request additional information and revisit the city council don't make it happen. All right, so I second the motion. All in favor? Hi. Hi. Nay. Okay, the motion. I abstain. Motion passes with for vote. Yeah, I'm abstaining too. I'm sorry. Yeah. Yeah, I would like to add the qualification that I think this policy stinks and then we need to revisit it. And we also need to proactively install a lot more traffic coming through Odyspell, Alto, and address needs like this. And not wait for residents to actually get signatures together, but to actually look at the places where we see this. So, okay. Can I say something to the constituents? Keep us stipp up, burlip, I think you're going to get it from the people who are going to be on there. Come December 17th. Because I know at least two of them are in favor of pumps. Yeah, there's at least three of us who are in favor of changing this. And to my colleagues on the commission, I just like for you to know that I respectfully abstain tonight because I do believe that yes, we may not be policymakers, but I believe that our vote and our voice matters. So I cannot co-sign something that I inherently disagree with and the record needs to reflect that. So if you go back to council and say when the vote happened, the commissioners couldn't even agree. They may have gotten a majority that agreed to deny, but there were two people that abstained. And I think that we have to exercise our rights in that way to make our vote matters. Okay. So that's why I'm abstaining. Okay, thanks everybody. This isn't the end of it for sure. So I think we have an other item on the agenda and I I fully agree with what DeBora said. So so eloquently I think this needs to be revisited and it's not just for them it's a bunch of other streets in East Palo Alto that have have you know safety issues so thank you so much for bringing this up okay so now we're going to go back to item five special presentations. Are you? Oh, okay. Okay. Okay. Um, we have special presentations on storm preparedness or preparation updates and the recommendation is we receive a presentation from city staff on storm preparations for that the city of East Palatos taking for winter season. Thank you, Chair and members of the commission. I will be giving that presentation just once like while I share my screen. All right. Thank you all. Humsai Javad Public Works Director with the city. Glad to be here. Giving this presentation about these storm preparation. So a quick agenda for tonight. I'm going to be talking a little bit about what the City of East Palo Alto is doing in preparation for the upcoming rainy season. Then I'm going to talk a little bit about the collaboration between the city and its neighbors, how we are addressing encampments and then I'm going to finally end it with some community resources. So what are we doing in order to prepare for the winter storms? So the first thing is is that the city coordinates with its partners along the creek as as we all know our city on our southern boundary is surrounded by the San Francisco Creek and the Creek is owned by various agencies. So you know we have portion within East Palo Alto and there's a portion between in Menlo Park. There's some ownership by Palo Alto. There's some private ownership and then there's also Valley Water District, which owns a piece of that. So what we do is before any rainy season, we all get together as a group and we walk the creek, identify issues within the channel, and give recommendations on improvements. So that was performed two months ago and we've been in the process of enhancing some of the issues in the creek. Storm grain system maintenance, the city's maintenance crews, every rainy season, go through this effort of clearing out the storm grain system citywide. Emergency and public safety team coordination. So as I mentioned, some of the partners along the creek, there's this joint powers authority. So these agencies essentially are led by, are grouped and led by a San Francisco CREC joint powers authority and this JPA helps coordinate CREC related issues, CREC planning and also funding for various projects. So part of this team coordination also is an annual drill that we do where we assess certain issues around the CREC and then we look at various ways of communication in case you know we have major issues such as flooding Sandbags we are also providing sandbags to the community the city of East Palo Alto has a sandbag station at our corp yard which is on Terra Road 150 Terra Road It is open to the public. There's a limit of 10 sandbags per household. And we currently have capacity of, I believe, 3,000 sandbags. So if anyone is in need of any sandbags, and that's the place to go. Stream flow monitoring, the city and its neighbors have identified certain locations where we have flow gauges and cameras within the creek. And I will share a link on that further in this presentation. On call contracts, the CDVs Palo Alto City Council last year executed three contracts with companies that provide either labor or materials or large equipment to assist with flooding or any other storm related projects. So, we just, we just rehabilitated that slope earlier this year. Staging equipment. This kind of ties into the on call contract. So as we have more of the, we have more of the, we have more of the, we have more of the, we have more of the, we have more of the, we have more of the, we have more of the, we have more of the, we have more of the, we have more of the, we just rehabilitated that slope earlier this year. Staging equipment, this kind of ties into the on-call contract. So as we have more support from other companies that can provide excavators, backhows, or vacuum trucks, we have identified some locations where we have had issues in the past with creek flooding. And some of these locations are available for staging and we're working with our contractors to identify those locations. One of them is at the four seasons where we've used their parking lot in the past. So that's something that we're also going to continue to communicate with them. And then lastly communications. We are in continuous ongoing communications with our partners, our Creek partners, the JPA and the agencies around the Creek. There's a lot of information that is on our website and I'm going to share a link of that shortly and we have emergency phone numbers and email addresses for all these other agencies. Collaboration, as I talked a little bit before, the SFC JPA, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Valley Water, the police department, Menlo Fire, we as part of our multi-agency coordination drill, which is held annually. All of these agencies and the representatives are brought together. And we discuss, you know, certain issues and how we can communicate better in terms of any emergencies that may come up. Everybody has each other's contact phone numbers. We also have radios that we purchased last year that are in the same frequency with the police department and fire department so we can communicate better in case of any power outages. And then finally emergency operation center, the EOC, the city of East Palo Alto, the city of East Palo Alto's emergency operation center is located here. Actually, this room is considered the city's EOC and in emergency this room is activated and this is where we run our operations from. There's a secondary location at the police department and that is activated as needed. It's important to talk a little bit about encampments because we've had a lot of encampments in the creek this year. We've had multiple cleanups out there. This picture actually here on my slide is from today. So we've we've actually been out there multiple days this month to ensure we can get everything cleared out before the storms. There this year was a special year for us because not only all the all the encampments that popped up within the San Francisco to Creek, but also because we formally adopted a bag and tag policy. And that essentially falls in line with what the state is doing. And it addresses issues such as how or the steps that staff needs to follow to keep and secure people's belongings for a certain time frame. So as we are cleaning out the creek and some of these encampments, these encampments are properly noticed and then the belongings are picked up and stored at the yard, at our corporation yard for a certain period of time, before they're discarded. We've had multiple contractors that have assisted our crews in the cleanup operations along the creek. For most of it, it has been our city crew, so we've had to essentially mobilize our crews from their daily duties like they, you know, the parks or, you know, taking care of the medians or tree trimming. None of that has been happening because we've been so focused on clearing out the creek in the last few days. There's been a few encampments that have been pretty significant. So,'s been some structural work in the creek. So there's almost like people have built-in rooms. There's concrete. There's closets. And there's appliances. There's fires. So there's been a lot that our crews have been taken care of the last few weeks. There was a large cleanup. We also had earlier this year, but it's almost like you clean it up, and then a few days, weeks later, they start building up again. This is not a unique situation to East Paul Alto, of course, this is happening throughout the state. We have collected about 120 yards of trash and debris, and we are continuing to work very closely with our neighbors, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, and we're asking the JPA to take a larger role in kind of assisting with these cleanup operations because as we know, the access to the creek is from the East Palo Alto side and a lot of the dumping that occurs is from the east polo Alto side. But there is various sections in the creek that the ownership varies, right? So there's like I mentioned before, Valley Water District has certain parcels. There are some polo Alto residents that actually own property within the creek. So it's a little bit convoluted and complicated when it comes to figuring out the ownership. But we've taken a large role and a big, and I think I'd say more than any other city's Palo Alto has taken the largest role in trying to address this. Do we know how many people live down in the creek? Is there a population estimate? Oh, well, the encampments that we just cleared out this month, there were four encampments in the San Francisco Creek between University and East Bay Shore along Woodland. There were four or encampments. So one of them had a couple and then there was a few of them that you know had a few a few occupants in there. So the this is phase one is to take care of the creek phase two of course as weak street it's on our radar we have been waiting to address the the channel before we get on to weak street but that's going to be our phase two of cleanup where we're going to start noticing the RVs that have been piling up out there. Here's some important links that we have. So the first link here is our East Palautos website and it's also our emergency phone number. This is the dispatch center. So if if we're out of hours and or if we're out of business hours and there's like a flooding issue or a down tree. Any emergency, this is the number to call and similarly we have the other agencies with their emergency information. Also on this slide is a link to the San Mateo County Emergency Management link. This is where you can sign up for countywide emergency alerts. So we do encourage the public and the commission to go out and sign up. This is a snippet of the city of East Palo Alto's flood protection website. And again, a lot of those links that we talked about before are located here. We also have other valuable information located on this page. We have a evacuation checklist. There's a link to the Creek Monitoring Camera, which is updated in real time, so we can go out and see what the Creek levels are. We can also predict what those flows will be and whether or not there could be any upcoming emergencies. A few other links here, Valley Water, and we have links for the JPA. These links are also very important. There's a lot of good information here. For example, on the Sandbags link for Valley Water, you can see how to properly place sandbags, how to fill them. On the Valley Water, there's multiple links to various information about what to do in an emergency, so would also encourage the Commission look into this and be prepared. We will go ahead and send this slide show to the Commission, so you'll have direct access to the links. With that, that concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions. I know I have a couple questions and comments. Does any other commissioners? I'm so thanks for the presentation. I'm glad that the city is taking a proactive step before the storms roll in. I remember I recall back to 2022 and it was not a good place for it to be in especially the residents alongside the creek when the creek overflowed but it looks like we're taking steps to and measures to protect our city residents against another storm like that. Just two questions. For the EOC, the first question is for the EOC who sits in on the EOC? So who's when they activate the EOC who's going to be you may have mentioned that but if you can go over that again. And then the second question has to do with when we I know the city of Palato has flood monitoring and you can go on a website and you can see especially for the where the creek goes under West Bay Shore and there's other bridges, I think, Nual's one of them, but does the city of EPA have something similar to that? And also video, do they? I think I heard that you had, there's a camera, CCTV, and where does that record, just a little bit more information to that. Thank you. Sure. Yeah. So the first question about the EOC, the city's executive team sits on the emergency panel. The city manager, of course, is the lead. And then, you know, we have our Chief of Police, and then the rest of the executive team, myself, finance director, and so we're the core team for the emergency operation center. The regarding the cameras, you are absolutely correct. The cameras that we have linked to, those are the same ones that Palo Alto has on their website. So that's the same. There is an additional link that the JPA has regarding flow gauges throughout the creek. That is something not available to the public. That's something shared between the various agencies, but that will show you on a map various flood levels at each location and it gives you predictions. So that we can staff as, you know we see the the weather forecast we can go in there and kind of see how the creek will be reacting potentially based on what kind of storm is coming. Thank you, Hamza. Another question I have is one of the issues last time we saw were buildings getting flooded, parking. Getting flooded is the building inspectors and these bolts are they involved in terms of notifying buildings in the event of flooding. I know that was one of the issues last time where there was no notification given and people got caught with their cars in three feet of water and the subterranean parking. I believe Commissioner Wilkerson may have some familiarity with that. What? Yeah. So we're we're. Yeah. And so. So is there a system in place that you know when we have flooding like could happen tonight right there's a torrential rain coming that hits farther south than the meteorologists are predicting Is there a system in place that we can have to notify the people in Woodland avenue to Move your cars move you know get out Yeah, it's a good question. You know unfortunately you never you never know how the creek is going to react, right? Even in the December 22 storms, the model that the JPA had provided to us would not have predicted an overflow there at that particular location. That issue has led them to go back and collect all the data from those storms and essentially redo the entire hydraulic model at the channel. So, you know, we really don't know what is going to flood. I mean, we have a general idea, but then again, you don't know what kind of storm it's going to be and how it's going to react. But to answer your question about reaching out to property owners, you know, what I mentioned before and that's you know, there actually there's one thing that I did not mention. There is a mailer that Valley Water District will be sending out to all residents within the county. And it has a lot of the information that I shared. So it includes like emergency numbers. It includes, you know, what to do in case of a storm, how to fill sandbags, but we don't individually reach out to residential areas and residents about, you know, potential flooding that can happen. There is one, you know, when we do, as we're reviewing the the storm, because like when we get the prediction for the storm, there's a core group within the county and the Valley water district. We start communicating with each other, hey, look out for, you know, midnight tonight, there will be, you know, this is a potential 80% of the channel will be full. So keep an eye out. In that case, we will let the police dispatch know and they'll be on call in case anything comes up. But that's, we will let the police dispatch know and they'll be on call in case anything comes up But that's how we coordinate it's there's no there's no specific outreach to to private owners Okay, yeah, I mean, we have a lot of work to do in terms of emergency Very nice and he's all to and one of the fundamental like I was cert certified in 2023, I guess. And one of the things in any emergency, whether it's flooding or earthquake, you have a team of people that go around and knock on doors until people, you know, what's up. And it seems like that's one of the areas that we need to work on as a city. I mean, not just for a flood, but if there's an earthquake, checking on neighbors, you know. We also need to have a lot of work to do in terms of emergency energy supply, generators. If power goes out for three weeks because of a major earthquake, a lot of people who might need refrigeration for insulin or other drugs, you need to have electricity. I don't think we're ready that way, but that's a bigger subject than this meeting. But I could touch on that real quick. If you like, the police department does have a few additional generators just for that specific purpose, for people who are potentially may need it and there's life support issues, they do have additional generators specifically for that purpose. Yeah, that's not sufficient for having power out for three weeks. Yeah. specifically for that purpose. Yeah, that's not sufficient for having power out for three weeks. Yeah. But that's a different subject, but just in terms of storm preparedness, I'm happy to hear. I had messaged the city manager, Melvin, Gaines, and asking about a week street because that's in my backyard. It will flood and there is, I think, 20 RVs there right now. And that's as many as I've ever seen. Now they haven't been as troublesome in the past when we had prostitution theft, drug production, methamphetamines, fires, all that. But it would be nice to know when that's going to happen. There's been a lot of complaints about the RVs on the weak street that I've received in particular from residents on weak street. But I'm glad to hear is there any time timeframe for one that RVs are going to get removed? We have a meeting with our city attorney's office. I believe it might be this week actually. And we essentially get direction from our city attorney's office before we take any steps. So after we get the kind of like the go ahead, the green light from them, we start posting notices. We normally would give you know three weeks or so, but in this case, because the storms are upon us and there's a potential sanitation issue, we will not provide that long of a time frame. So that's to be determined what that number is how many days, but that once that direction is coming in from the city attorney's office will take the next steps. Okay, thank you. Are there any other questions about storm preparedness? Questions, comments? Thank you very much. I think we have a lot of ways to go as a city for emergency preparedness, including storm preparedness, but moving on to the next item, which I believe is a CIP update. Let me just find the agenda, my apologies. Yeah, staff and commission, oral reports and a general CIP update. It's just to receive the updates, but if anyone has any questions on any of the items listed, I'd be more than happy to answer them. Do we want to do oral reports first or go straight into CIP updates? Let's do the CIP update first and then. Is there any motion or movement, I should say on the pedestrian gate for the Ravenswood preserve? The latest that I got from the team is what was included, give me one second so I don't misspeak. The city did receive the construction plans and the city submitted comments to mid-Pen and mid-Pen's consultant, which is BKF engineering. And right now the team is waiting for the final construction plans. So that's the latest and greatest on the Rutgers gate. Thank you. One question that came up is right along Donahoe and University, there was some changes made in the last couple days. And if you could explain what was being done, there was a lot of commentary online. And I haven't driven by there, so I'm not sure exactly what's happening, but it'll look like there was some barriers put up if you could give a brief explanation, that would be wonderful. Okay. So I just found that out today. Actually, there, you know, we are building the over crossing there on the university avenue. And for the contractors staging plan, there was a change in striping that was proposed along Donahoe at University and so They essentially reduced three lanes down to two I'm not sure if that's what you were referring to. Yeah, so there was essentially there was a dedicated left a through and then there was a dedicated left, a through, and then there was a dedicated right. So the dedicated right and the through have been merged. So now it is a through right lane, and then there's a dedicated left lane. And this is right there at the corner. This would be the south west corner of university at Donahoe. So that's where they made the striping change. There, unfortunately, that traffic handling plan went through a very thorough approval process with CalTrans. And so that's the way CalTrans wants it done in order to safely build that corner. And so the, I believe that particular phase from what I heard today is going to last two months. And so we'll have to put up with some traffic, some bad traffic for two months. But what I have asked the contractor is to put an additional signage about the delays and a time frame of when that would end or when that striping change would occur. Yes, there was some, uh, for us comments online, disagreeing with the, what they did, but I, I didn't want to comment on it because I had no idea. So I'll pass that on to the community. Are there any other? Yeah. Just to add to that conversation. Um, so I think, you know, it was, it was a coincidence, but a few days before that happened, there was a discussion about the turning lane from Donahoe South into 101 North, and how that lane has been taken up, the majority of mortars in that lane are trying to turn right onto university. So there was a kind of a ticket submitted to see what we can do to control that traffic. So there are not people sending that turning lane onto 101 North to wait to go turn at university. And then a few days after, the contractor comes out and they put up those reflectors or they corded off that lane. And so everyone thought, oh, is that what the city is that their response to the complaint that we're trying to minimize motorists being in that turning lane to 101. So that was part of the reason why there's a lot of feedback from the community in regards to that. I think my assumption is they thought those were the two things, two things were connected. But now we understand it's two separate things. And I agree the contractor should have put up signs to show that hey, this is a new route, new striping, new movement of motor vehicles. And they should have had people out there flagging people, you know, to take the new route because they just cause confusion on Monday. Can I say? Move chair. Does it have anything to do with the project with subroto and that vacant lot behind Chevron? Because what about two years ago? They said that they were going to change the lanes coming off 101 where Amazon is and they're going to have an in-dress off university into that building that they're going to build and then he dressed on the other way. Does that have anything to do with it or this is just totally different? Because they were, it sounded like a mess that was going to happen when they build the other building across the street. So does it have anything to do with it or this is so? No, yeah, this is separate. That's, that is another project. You're right. That is another project that sobrado is going to take on. And there is a, a one-on-one northbound on-ramp re-alignment project that subroto is supposed to build, but we don't know when that's going to happen. Okay, thank you. Are there any other questions about the CIP update? Just on the topic of Donho so that or first issue of the the turning lane into one on one north Are there any updates to that issue and how we could resolve that? I do not have I do not have any updates on that for now You know there is a lot going on at the intersection. So we're going to try to get more signs out there, try to understand what the contract was scheduled is and figure out what the most efficient traffic flow would be there. Yeah, there is going to be, we understand there's going to be some, some unease and there's going to be some delays, but we'll try our best to get the information out and make it as efficient as possible. And the last question on a different topic is the day lighting law. Any updates on that for cars not to park within 20 feet from the intersection. Yeah, thanks for bringing that up that you know that's something that. I think all states are struggling with. That's a new law that, of course, in the CBC now, California vehicle code. We've talked to our police chief and our city attorney about that, just like other agencies are. I don't believe out of the other, out of some of the agencies that I know about none of them have have passed a specific ordinance. Um, kind of like authorizing enforcement of day lighting within their jurisdictions. You know, that is a huge undertaking. We I know at this point it's not something that is a priority for city v. Spalow alto to pass. So we, you know, I as as a, you know, the traffic engineer do support that. I think it's something that we eventually will need to start implementing, but it is something that is probably going to take a while to get implemented and enforced. So back to the way that people park and there is an ordinance for that. Is there an ordinance for people to park their cars in the yard? If they have a driveway that's open, how come you're not using your driveway? You're parking on the sidewalk for what to stop people from parking in front of your house? Is there an ordinance in the city of East Palo Alto that says you should park in your driveway? Yeah, no, absolutely. If you're parked incorrectly, if you're parked in your yard, or if you're parked on the sidewalk, blocking someone's driveway, that's all illegal. And the resident would need to call code enforcement or the police department to get that enforced. Okay, I guess we can, unless there's any other comments move on to oral reports from the commissioners. Yes, do the chair. I do have one report. So I I think that's the question. Yes. Do the chair. I do have one report. So I did follow up on the filling of the vacant commission seat left vacant by a from reread and also brought up the issue that we may face or we may see more vacancies. So the city manager office did receive that report and they are going to start a appointment in, so I think next month is when they're going to go through with that appointment and have it be done or the word for for both commission senators, senator board advisory board and this commission as well. Thank you. Thank you, Hila. One oral report that I had that amount to email. I on East Bay Shore near the University Square, against the highway, I guess there was a sound barrier that was removed at some point, and multiple people commented to me when I was barging in on their lives and knocking on their doors, how they would like to have a sound barrier restored along East Bay Shore. It's near the light tree apartments. I believe it might have been removed during construction. I actually have no idea why it was removed. But it's really noticeable that there's just like a chain-length fence there instead of a 10-foot wall sound barrier. And so I don't know how, I'm sure that's a caltran. I don't know of a sound wall that was removed. I remember last year there was a fence that like fell and then CalTrans actually came back and repaired the fence and we did receive a few emails from people regarding getting a new sound wall and we did reach out to CalTrans about that to kind of understand what we would need to do on this city side to help support that. Yeah because it's really noticeable that you know there's a wall and then it stops. And that would be a nice priority to have because it is very close to residential areas and anything that would make, not living next to a highway more bearable from a noise perspective would be good. I guess update is quitting public works. So it's been fun guys, but I'm going on to city council. So thanks for the opportunity. It's been great. I've learned a tremendous amount from staff and from my fellow commissioners, but I believe this is my final meeting. So thank you. Thank you all. So thank you, Mark. You can find me here on Tuesday nights instead of Wednesday nights. And I'm sure Gail will be there for me. So, and for everyone else for that matter. So is there anything else on the agenda or we? Well, in light of the announcement that you just made, I would like to speak on behalf of the commissioners. To thank you for a job well done thank you for serving as faithfully as you have for being engaged not just a but in the seat excuse the expression but one who comes to the meetings prepared and with solutions and with discussion it's been a joy to work with you and we look forward to continue in our relationship as you represent us all will on the council and we'll still be here to guide and direct. So I just want to say thank you very much. It's been a joy. Thank you. I truly appreciate it. And so with that, I believe we will adjourn the meeting and I'm going to use my galvo for the first time. So there. So. I believe we will adjourn the meeting, and I'm going to use my galvo for the first time. So there. So. Thank you, everyone. Well, I don't think you need to do anything because technically when you take a new position, I don't think you could have both. Yeah.