Good evening.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Welcome to the January 16th, 2025, active transportation commission.

The meeting has now called to order.

Will the clerk please call the roll to establish a quorum?

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioners, please unmute your microphones.

Commissioner Harris.

Commissioner Gibson.

Commissioner Dewey Westbrook.

Commissioner Ledaker.

Vice Chair Gonzalez.

Commissioner Hopped.

Commissioner Moore.

Commissioner Lycia Cruz.

Commissioner Banks.

Chair Hodell.

Thank you, we have quorum.

I would like to remind members of the public and chambers that if you would like to speak on an agenda item, please turn in a speaker slip when the item begins.

You will have two minutes to speak once you are called on.

After the first speaker, we will no longer accept speaker slips.

We will now proceed with today's agenda.

Please rise for the opening acknowledgments in honor of Sacramento's Indigenous people and tribal lands.

Through the original people of this land, the Nisanan people, the southern Maidu Valley and Plains, Miwaak,

Pac-win-Winton peoples and the people of the Wilton Rancheria.

Sacramento's only federally recognized tribe.

May we acknowledge and honor the native people who came before us and still walk beside us today on these ancestral lands by choosing to gather today together today in the active practice of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's Indigenous peoples history, contributions and lives.

Thank you. Please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is the approval of the consent calendar.

Clerk, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on the consent calendar?

Thank you, Chair.

I have no speakers on the consent calendar.

Thank you. Are there any commissioners who wish to speak on this item?

This includes the log also that, yeah.

I just wanted to highlight this is my last meeting and there are several items on the log that are assigned to me.

So we'll just encourage commissioners to look at that and see if there's anything that they'd like to take on.

Is there a motion and a second for the consent calendar?

Second.

Motion by commissioner hopton, a second by ice chair, Gonzalez.

Will the clerk please call the roll for the vote?

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Harris.

Commissioner Gibson.

Commissioner Dewey Westbrook.

Commissioner Lattaker.

Abstain.

Vice chair, Gonzalez.

Commissioner hopton.

Commissioner Moore.

Commissioner Lycia Cruz.

Commissioner Banks.

Chair Hodele.

Thank you, the motion passes.

Do we have a staff report this evening?

Chair Hodele.

I'm a client division manager from Ability and Sustainability.

Happy to give you a brief staff report.

I wanted to share with everybody that we took the annual, 2024 annual report to the KME Committee of City Council.

And that is moving forward to the forwarded City Council.

So we will be working on that.

I wanted to thank commissioner Dewey Westbrook for her years of service.

I want to thank you, Chair, you kept us in line, kept us moving along, and you provided great insight.

So really appreciate your conversation.

And I also wanted to welcome our newest commissioner, Juan Luis, who is his first day here at the commission.

And round of applause and welcome.

And if I may, Chair, I'd like to invite him to introduce himself to everybody.

Please.

Right. Hello.

As mentioned, my name is Juan Luis, Lisa Cruz, and I am a high school student at West Campus.

I am 17 years old, and I'm very excited to start a new chapter of my life going into college soon.

I applied for urban planning, so I plan to make this sort of like my future.

I do like the idea of public transportation and active transportation very much.

And I hope to continue this in my career to help the community and those who are in need,

because I do know there's a lot of people who cannot own a car, and it's very burdening in terms of finances.

So I hope to be there for you all.

Thank you.

Welcome to the Active Transportation Commission.

We look forward to your input.

Okay.

We will now proceed to the discussion calendar.

Item number three is selection of Chair and Vice Chair for calendar year 2025.

Is there a staff presentation?

No.

Good evening.

No staff presentation.

Just wanted to remind the commission of a few things.

We will be taking typically nominations are taken for the chair first and then for the vice chair.

And then members may serve two calendar years as each designation, a chair or a vice chair.

So at this time,

current chair and vice chair are eligible to serve another term as that and then everyone else on the commission is also eligible to serve as chair vice chair as well.

Thank you.

Clerk, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this item?

I have no speaker slips on this item.

Thank you. Are there any commissioners who wish to speak on this item?

Okay.

Vice Chair Gonzalez.

Thank you, Chair Hodel.

As I stated at the end of our last meeting in November,

during the last portion, my intention to nominate Chair Hodel for another term.

And I will tell you that I had the pleasure of serving with her as vice chair and it's been an honor and she's done a great job.

So I hope the commissioners,

someone will second that and we'll get the full support from our commission.

I'll second.

We have a motion by vice chair Gonzalez, a second by commissioner Hopp.

Okay.

I'll now do the roll call vote unless there's a discussion.

You should just ask if there's a discussion.

Oh, is there any just.

Yeah.

Oh, yeah.

Anybody else?

Sorry.

I'm brought about.

Okay. So I think we're ready for the roll call.

Yes. Thank you, Chair. I'm hearing no discussion and I'll now do the roll call vote.

Commissioner Harris.

Aye.

Mr. Gibson.

I.

Commissioner Duwere Westbrook.

I.

Commissioner Lidker.

Aye.

Vice Chair Gonzalez.

Yes.

Commissioner Hopp.

I.

Commissioner Moore.

I.

Commissioner Lysia Cruz.

Commissioner Banks.

Yes.

And Chair Hodele.

Yes.

Thank you. The motion passes.

Thank you.

I would like to nominate vice chair Gonzalez for vice chair.

I.

All third.

That was a second second by commissioner Banks.

So we have a motion by chair Hodele, second by commissioner Banks.

Will the clerk please call?

No.

Any discussion?

Any additional nominations?

No one leaving in.

Okay.

Clerk.

Will you please call the roll for the vote.

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Harris.

Aye.

Commissioner Gibson.

Aye.

Commissioner Duwere Westbrook.

Aye.

Commissioner Lidker.

Aye.

Vice Chair Gonzalez.

Yes.

Commissioner Hopp.

Aye.

Commissioner Moore.

Aye.

Commissioner Lysia Cruz.

Aye.

Commissioner Banks.

Aye.

And Chair Hodele.

Yes.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Item number four is the Cal Trans American River Bridge Rehabilitation Project.

Is there a staff presentation?

There is.

We have guests from Cal Trans District 3.

They're on their way up.

Perfect.

Is this working now?

Yes.

All right.

All right.

Well.

Thank you for having me.

My name is Andrew Huang.

I'm the project manager for the state route 51 American River Bridge Rehabilitation Project.

What you can see up in front, it's obviously in Sacramento County.

If many of you drive through that area, it's between Elvis underpass to exposition Boulevard.

What you see up front is our current project limits.

Right now, it's a shop project, which is also known as a state highway operation and protection program project.

Currently, we're in construction and are expecting to complete the project in December, 2026.

This shared use path is outlined in the image above.

You can see it in red.

It extends towards the southern levee to across the river for a more complete street access for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Let's see.

Moving to the next slide.

I apologize for all the feedback on this microphone.

Maybe there's a better way I can speak into it.

So the purpose of the project is to replace the deck of the American River Bridge on state route 51 and prevent scour along the piers.

The proposed work will repair, protect and extend service life of the deck.

And of course, there's the shared use path, which is relevant to the folks here to increase pedestrian and bicycle accessibility.

The need of the project, basically why we have it is the deck was experiencing transverse and longitudinal deck cracks on the bridge.

It will continue to deteriorate and need an emergency repair project if not done now.

And it was also to provide a multi-modal connection to medical centers and employment opportunities between downtown and eastern Sacramento.

And I apologize I didn't change the slide there.

So I'll give people a little bit of time to look at that before I move to the next one.

All right, moving forward.

As I mentioned, there's a shared use path that's being built across the Santa Levy to extend across the river.

Currently, there's no existing path there now.

So the connectivity is supplied there and it connects into the parkway.

So you could either go west or east towards eastern Sacramento or west towards Cal Expo and Arden Firmall with your bicycles or walking or any other form of transportation you choose other than vehicles.

And it provides that connectivity with that being said.

Currently, state funding is applying $4.3 million of access or rather that improvement.

And Sacramento City has provided ATP funds provided by SAICOG for $2.7 million.

So there's a few renderings. So this is not what's actually out there.

As you can see on the image above, the peers and the outlook of the pedestrian or rather shared use path are shown above.

And there's an outlook that you could see just where people could stop their trip to overlook the parkway.

Moving on to the next slide, obviously another rendering.

This is looking south.

You can see that the pedestrians have railings on both sides of the bridge.

The concrete barrier will have slotted lightings at a 20 foot spacing for pedestrians to ride on it regardless of the time of day.

And now you can see the overlooking path over there. Also, there's another barrier so that debris and other things that may be flying from vehicles are basically protected.

The pedestrians are basically protected from those items.

Another view of the overlooking area just highlighting what's being proposed out there.

I won't spend too much time on this one. It's kind of a repeat of the previous.

This is looking at the southern levy. The structure itself is patterned.

As you can see on the image above, this is to provide the access between the existing Sacramento City Trail that they're currently constructing out there.

And have in tandem with our project. We're in close coordination with them in regards to the connectivity of the trail and this actual structure itself to get on to the structure.

I appreciate it. That's probably where the feedback's coming from.

Does anyone here everyone hear me? Does that still work? Perfect.

Now, this is not an actual rendering. This is an image of one month ago.

What's being done currently. You could see the grading of the roadway and the levy and the actual bike path.

So if you look at the center portion of this image, you can see that there's a turn in the bike path itself.

And it's down into the parkway and connects to the current bike path in the parkway.

Kind of an update picture as to what's going on out there approximately a month ago.

That's essentially where we're heading with the CalTrans project.

Again, the project is targeted to be completed in December 2026.

Thank you very much.

Clerk, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this item?

Thank you chair. I do have two speakers on this item. Our first speaker is Walt Ciphert and then Matt Anderson.

Hi, first of all, I want to thank you for your time and effort being.

I'm going to put this project in perspective. Rivers and freeways and railroad tracks are like this, you know.

Sacramento doesn't have enough bridges. Pittsburgh, about an area about the same size as Sacramento.

Some of the bridges we do have are deficient by street bridge, each street bridge.

I would want 60 others don't allow by so pedestrians.

There's been no bridge built in Sacramento in the last 50 years.

I was the first executive director of the Sacramento area bicycle advocates and I thought.

That project at this location was a priority.

There's a four mile stretch of the American River.

We can't get across by foot or.

From the Sacramento Northern Trail to the H Street Bridge.

So after I thought it was a priority 25 years later, we've got a project.

It's great.

CalTrans was sued and that's why this project is there as the settlement as a result of that lawsuit.

So the bridge is good. The issue is getting to the bridge.

There's no access to Cal Expo.

There's no access through southern regional park because of southern specifics.

There's poor access from River Park.

You live the River Park 100 yards away from this bridge.

You would have to walk two miles to get to the bridge.

The only access is through Glen Hall Park.

Opportunities to fix that.

There could be a trail sign trail through Cal Expo.

There could be.

Thank you for your comments. Your two minute time is complete.

It would be closer closer access.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker is Matt Anderson.

Can I see my time to the previous speaker?

No.

You tried.

All right. Well, my name is Matt Anderson.

100% agree with what he was saying.

Access to this location is pretty important priority moving forward.

I do not have a many creative or positive things to say other than this is a very needed location.

And I'm glad this is here.

It's unfortunate that this is part of way widening or rehabilitation.

I'm going to use this strong quotes here.

I guess this is an apology to future generations.

Sorry that we let this happen.

I'm also sorry that we couldn't get more out of Cal Trans.

We're looking at 40% of the bridge.

Despite there being massive amount of funds in the shop program.

But do want to thank everyone who participated in that lawsuit to make this happen.

I'm very glad that this is happening because it is a needed piece of infrastructure.

Thank you all.

Thank you for your comments.

Chair, I have no more speakers.

Are there any commissioners who wish to speak on this item?

I'll start with Commissioner Dora Westbrook.

Thank you so much.

It was really great to be an update on this project.

I know a lot of us have been following the progress throughout the last few years or it's like 20 years, 25 years.

I just had a few questions.

One around the height of the fencing that will be used adjacent to the highway.

I ride along the causeway and there's often a lot of debris that gets into the bicycle path there.

I was curious if I represented from Cal Trans can speak to the height of the fence.

And then also with that, if there is been any discussion around regular maintenance for that facility.

And yeah, kind of what the plan is to maintain that path so that it is accessible for folks walking and biking in that area.

So this mic thing.

We'll start one question at a time.

I believe the fencing one was first.

Yes.

But that one, if you want to contact me, you have the contact for the actual agenda.

I could get back to you on the exact measurements on that.

And the second one was just a plan for regular maintenance of that bridge once it's, once it's been built.

So just referencing the causeway doesn't appear to be regularly maintained.

And I'm sure there's multiple jurisdictions involved there so understand the complications.

But if this is an investment that the state is making just curious if the project team is already thinking about how it will be maintained.

Yeah, so we're still in contact.

We're coordinating with all the agencies through here.

The Levy Maintenance District, the city parks in regards to maintenance responsibilities for above the bridge.

So there will be maintenance throughout the lifespan of this bridge.

Sorry, you might have included this.

There's going to be lighting 24 or, you know, during 20 foot spacing lighting.

Okay.

Throughout the cold concrete barrier of the bridge on the right hand side.

If you're traveling southbound.

Thank you so much.

Commissioner Harris.

As the representative for district room really excited about this because this is really key for connecting.

I'm sure that you're going to be able to do this.

I'm sure that you're going to be able to do this.

Thank you for that.

It is really important.

I'm personally aware.

I walk about every week or so.

Right as far as maybe past where I should.

With my dog.

Looking to see if you got the photo of me.

It looks about the right time of the day when I'm there.

So I am familiar and I hear the concerns about what this could do.

Beyond building the bridge.

I understand that CalTrans may not be responsible.

But if you could provide some information about what sort of conversations have been occurring with CalXCO.

Expo because there is a huge opportunity to reduce traffic and provide an opportunity for active transportation to events at that facility.

And it is on the opposite side of the entrance.

And then I wasn't clear on your description.

Is this bridge only going to be or is the crossing is just going to be on one side on the eastern.

I guess I'm trying to.

Yeah, if you look northbound, it'll be on the eastern side of the bridge.

So what is the ability to cross?

Because right now if I'm.

Where I walk with my dog looking at this picture.

How would I get to the other side?

Because I'm just imagining that I get on here.

And if I want to get.

On the other side if I'm headed.

Towards.

The confluence.

Sure.

I don't have a path forward.

Can you talk to that?

Sure.

So.

Essentially there's a few designated bike paths through this area.

That would be the one on the southern levee.

And that would be the existing city parks trail beneath the structure itself.

There are no other designated bicycle paths in the area.

These are the ones that we can connect to.

The top of levee is not designated as bike path.

And if you.

We've been coordinating with Cal Expo.

And other agencies out there.

I think if you're looking to.

Get to Cal Expo from this portion.

You would have to take that off ramp and then get on to the.

And then.

Back end.

On the top of levee.

I understand it's not a bike path, but people still use it as such.

But.

For connectivity, we needed to connect to a bike path itself.

Now granted there is a gate.

That is place there.

And we have this area for the.

Levy district for maintenance.

So it's accessible.

And on our side.

So basically.

What you're asking for is basically we wanted to connect to existing bicycle facilities.

And Cal Expo's property is not designated as a bicycle facility.

The levee top is not designated as a bicycle facility.

So we had two choices.

Truly.

Commissioner Banks.

I got to reach.

At the same time.

Sorry.

Having a hard time with this myself.

Yeah.

Thank you, Andrew, for the.

For the presentation and just an aside.

Thanks everybody for showing up tonight.

This is like the biggest group we've ever had in the audience.

So excited.

We'll make it worth your while we hope.

I have a lot to say about this, but I'll keep it hopefully succinct.

Thank you.

Thank you for the presentation.

I am someone that uses the cause way a lot and have ridden my bike.

Thousands of miles up and down that cause way.

So I know it very well.

And this project is similar to the way the cause way is currently built.

And there's a lot of problems with the way the cause way is currently built.

And I see the same.

Project elements here.

I think that the barrier between the highway and the bike path might be fine.

But that beautiful gate that you're talking about, that screen that Ms. Westbrook was talking about needs to have some plexiglass around it or something else that helps with sound and debris.

Because otherwise every cyclist in pedestrian is breathing in all of the fabulous fumes on that highway, which is, as we all know, not healthy for anybody.

So if there's any way that we can augment that the space, the delineator between the highway and the bike path, that would be great.

I agree wholeheartedly with Walt about needing more access and more ways to.

River and.

And it looks like this is not going to be the solution for that.

I mean, it's one additional, but it's not going to help us with more.

Ways to get across the river without going all the way up to the H street bridge and then back down the levee to the two rivers and then over to this.

On the on the path.

The other thing I want to talk about is maintenance.

The cause way is never maintained unless people take some time to write nasty grants to cultureans.

So a really strong maintenance project that has some accountability to it would be fantastic.

Because we do know that this bike path is being created as sort of a mitigation strategy for the widening of the project, which is not quite good enough when it comes to putting cyclists right next to five, six, maybe eight lanes in the future of freeway.

So I think a maintenance project is going to be really important.

The cause way and I didn't see that on your slide, but it has at the base of it, it has drainage space so that the roadway can drain water and water drains and debris drains is right onto the causeway bike path.

So consequently making the cause way full of debris, broken glass, paper, all sorts of things out of people's cars.

And so again, I just want to double stress on the maintenance for this piece.

And then finally, I want to talk about detour policies, which we've talked about at length.

I myself tried to ride to my office and I live over near this.

And there was no signage that said I could not get through underneath the bridge.

So I rode the two miles from the H Street bridge all the way to where the work was going on.

And a worker that was working on it, I said, where's the signage?

Why am I being turned around to ride back two more miles to then find a detour?

It's really important that whoever is doing the work on this has strong signage that allows cyclists not to have to take two miles out of the way to then be turned around.

Luckily, I wasn't. They walked me through and I got to the other side.

And that's great, but that's not what it should be.

So we should have a really strong detour policy that is clear, concise, and has big signage that lets everybody know.

From way back where they're going to have to make their turn to use another road.

So those are my comments.

I can address two quickly.

Now the signage, we coordinate with our public information constantly.

So if there's no signage that properly detoured you or gave you a heads up, then I'll have to touch base with them.

Please do.

The question was that specifically, was that the Southern Levy or this middle portion?

Southern Levy. Southern Levy. Yeah, on the other side.

I'll touch base with them then on that one because we do post a lot of closures, signs ahead of time. We should be.

So I'll take a double look at that.

That would be great.

There's been so much work that's being done off cyclists using the air.

So it's frustrating to be turned around when you have to go all the way back to.

H street bridge.

Especially where the two rivers trail is now just about finished.

Getting closer, definitely.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Commissioner Liseya Cruz.

Thank you.

So I was just wondering for the multi-use bike path, would this be your standard six foot wide bike path or would it be 12 feet wide?

I was just wondering how the dimensions are like since I have.

Yes.

It would be larger than 12 feet wide for both sides to be open to pedestrians and vice versa for the shared use path itself.

Now my second comment is relating to sound mitigation too.

I want to write off of Commissioner Banks a comment of Plexiglass.

I think that is a much better idea than my sound wall that I had in mind.

You could actually see through it.

As a cyclist, we do appreciate being able to enjoy nature while on our bike rides.

I think that is a very good idea.

I think that is a very good idea.

I also like the idea of not having too much sound.

It can be stressful when you have more than 70 decibels flying past you.

So I would like to express extra consideration for some sort of sound mitigation if that is possible.

Vice chair Gonzales.

I think that is a very good idea.

I think that is a very good idea.

I think that is a very good idea.

I think that is a very good idea.

I think that is a very good idea.

I think that is a very good idea.

I think that is a very good idea.

I think that is a very good idea.

I think that is a very good idea.

I think that is a very good idea.

I think that is a very good idea.

I think that is a very good idea.

I think that is a very good idea.

I think that is a very good idea.

Page number 97.

Talk about.......

So thank you, colleagues.

arr

Barr is talking about how many in the Trumps congress chimware jobs.

I wrote the schedule and thought Claudio had seen that last winter

I'll translate adopted new standards for the middle of a freeway.

We have opposing direction of traffic flow.

And I would like to see a wall of at least that high protecting

districts and bicyclists that don't have a roll cage around them

from these rather large trucks.

So I was wondering what's the height of that concrete barrier?

I don't have that off the top of my head.

It isn't our standard plans.

It is, don't quote me on it exactly.

But if I remember correctly, it's greater than 4 feet.

Approximately or higher?

That would be great.

Yeah, it's in our standard plans.

Again, don't quote me on it.

You have my email there.

I could flip open the plans.

And you?

I encourage CalTrans to not roll back the height of that wall.

It's talking about speed.

I think what's the speed limit there?

65.

65.

And a full size tractor trailer, long haul, class 8 truck is $80,000,

going to 65.

So we need a real wall to protect.

Here.

Yep.

Good.

Any other commissioners who would wish to speak?

OK, I'd like to echo some of what has already

been brought up.

The sweeping and cleaning of the space is very important.

And I really think that that needs

to be given attention to.

I think the productive barriers need

to be upgraded and for the safety and health of bikes

and pedestrians.

The portion of the shared use path

is to get bicyclists over the river.

However, the project is much longer, correct,

for the rehabilitation of the DG.

If you go back to the slide that had the whole project on it.

Yeah, it shows as longer.

However, main goal is to rehabilitate the bridge itself.

See, there is so that we could do more traffic

on the other end of construction.

My only thought is, it's great to have a bridge that

goes over the river.

But in the spirit of true equity from my bicycling point of view,

there should be a shared use path along the entire length

of the freeway.

I just think that CalTrans should look at that in the future

as part of their standards to make a bicycle arrival

at a destination as efficient as possible instead

of routing us onto all of these circuitous bike paths.

So that's my personal opinion.

Thank you very much.

I don't think a vote is needed.

So we can move on to the next item.

Thank you very much for your presentation.

Thank you.

Item number five is the alternative recommendation.

The Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study

is there a staff presentation?

Yes, there he is.

It's okay.

First of all, thank you for having me for the record

for D'Alia Harris, Principal Planner

with the Public Works Department.

Better known as Sparky, I'm going to stick to my notes.

I'm sorry, I know you hate for people to read from notes,

but if I just go off the dome on this one,

it could take a long time because a lot to stay.

So I'm here tonight seeking a recommendation

for preferred alternative for the bridge crossing

over the lower American river.

But before I get there, I want to remind everyone

of where we started.

So in 2013, City Council adopted the purpose

for any crossings, which included the following,

to add capacity that minimizes growth in VMT,

air pollution, and greenhouse gases,

to minimize growth in soft and term,

as cut through traffic.

I primarily serve local connectivity,

and to improve access to the American River Parkway.

The effort is not being performed in a vacuum.

The city already has adopted plans to make changes

to Trucksville Road north of the river,

including the reduction of travel lanes from four

to two lanes between San Juan Road and Garden Highway.

The right of way free by this road diet

will be reallocated to other modes,

including the planned extension of Light Rail.

Additionally, Fit Street through downtown

has already been converted to two-way,

and plans are in place to connect the missing segments

of Fit Street and the River District and the rail yards.

So this is all you.

I came before the Active Transportation Commission

last February to present the preliminary drafts

of the cross sections, alternatives,

as part of the community engagement process,

which has occurred throughout this project,

and we had a very vibrant conversation.

The figure in the upper left is intended

to remind everybody of the location of the proposed bridge,

as well as the multimodal nature of the bridge concept

that was approved by Council over 10 years ago.

The three alternatives presented in February included one

that was largely based on SACRT's plans

for a bridge to accommodate the Green Line extension

to the airport.

That's number one.

Next was a bridge that combined cars and transit

in the same lanes to produce a narrower cross section

that could fit between the existing buildings

at the end of Sequoia Pacific on the southern end of the bridge.

It's number two.

And the last was an option that segregated modes

into bidirectional couplets.

We didn't discuss the horizontal alignment options

in detail at the last meeting.

So I wanted to show this figure just to explain

that the first alternative follows the alignment

originally considered by Sacramento Regional Transit

for the Green Line extension to the airport shown in red,

but all of the other alternatives follow a revised alignment

shown in black that was designed to minimize property takes,

relocations and major utilities.

The ATC provided thoughtful feedback

on the proposal alternatives at the last meeting

and have tried to summarize the comments

into major topics.

First topic was VMT, vehicle miles traveled

and the concern that a bridge with cars

would increase vehicle miles traveled.

Our unbiased analysis performed by our consultant team

and Pamela Delson-Walling is here with Doc and engineering

if we get into any hairy details that I can't cover.

Confirms that citywide passenger vehicle miles travel

would decrease with the proposed alternative very slightly

and vehicle miles per capita would also decrease slightly

based on results from the regional traffic model

compared to the NO project future.

I know these numbers are really small,

but keep in mind that we're talking about a half mile segment

that actually has the potential to move the needle

on a region wide traffic model.

Something.

Induced VMT is a metric that is calculated outside

of the regional traffic model and it's not as sensitive

to land use or context, but the accepted calculator predicts

an increase in induced VMT because the new traffic,

because new traffic capacity is being introduced.

The very simple model you put in how long your facility is

and it spits out a number.

Really no nuance to it like the regional traffic model.

Traffic impacts were the next topic of concerned

expressed in February.

And this figure shows the regional traffic model output

for total daily trips with and without the project in 2040.

Oh, none of you can read that so I zoomed in a little bit.

Volume increases are shown in red and volume reductions

are shown in green.

I tried to translate the volume numbers

into something more digestible than the raw numbers

and cars per minute seem to be the best way to present the data.

So what you see here are daily volume changes in each direction

divided by, divided over time and rounded up

to the nearest whole number.

So just looking at the intersection of San Juan

and Truxill, you can see in all four directions as well

as the area to the very top there is an increase

in the number of vehicles over time at these along this corridor.

I would consider this very slight, but that is the way

that I would describe it.

You can also go a little farther south and you'll see

that those numbers along Truxill continue to increase

to a maximum of an additional four cars per minute

going southbound on Truxill between West El Camino and Garden Highway.

But you'll also notice that the volumes on El Camino

and Garden Highway actually are reduced.

All in all, let's go up, some roads go down

and regional traffic models don't get into analyzing residential streets.

Data at that level, so this is the best information

that we have accepted model that's used in general plan,

the MTP and all other traffic models.

So what's a comment heard loud and clear from the February ATC meeting

was the desire to eliminate cars from the proposed

alternatives or to at least have an alternative

that did not include cars.

I explained then that a bridge that did not accommodate cars

would not meet the purpose statement that drove this effort.

I can also add that a Truxill bridge

without cars would be inconsistent with our adopted general plan

inconsistent with say COGs metropolitan transportation plan.

And if council direction changed and these two plans were to be amended

to remove cars responsibility for building the resulting bridge

would fall to Sacramento Regional Transit

as a component of the Green Line extension.

But the caveat is the 2008 American River Parkway plan

would no longer need to be amended.

So cyclist safety was also a major topic of concern in February.

The preferred alternative is anticipated to have a design speed

of 30 miles an hour.

And the modeling suggests that the average daily traffic volume

would be just above 17,000 vehicles.

The city's bikeway facility selection guidelines would recommend

buffer bike lanes under these conditions.

But the preferred alternative goes above and beyond that.

It includes a separated bikeway buffered with dedicated transit lines

based on your feedback as well as comments from the community at large.

So community engagement continued through the 80 following the ATC meeting

and over a thousand comments were received regarding the project

through an online survey.

Focus group was held with advocacy stakeholder groups

and a community open house attended by over 140 people was held in November

and a final online survey collected feedback after the open house.

Based on all of that collected information,

I wanted to present this slide, which is intended to clarify the development

of the recommended alternative, which is 3B.

Starting with a couple of alternatives at the top that I just showed you.

That couple was presented to you in February.

And based on again, your feedback as well as the general public,

we swap the transit and car lanes, as you can see in the top

to better protect cyclists creating alternative 3A.

This alternative includes a mid bridge by can pedestrian connection down

to the Jetsmith trail on the downriver side of the bridge.

Turn of 3B basically mirrors 3A by flipping everything around.

Place in the pedestrian and cyclists on the upriver side of the bridge

for a few good reasons.

First, this configuration allows for fewer conflicts between transit

and cars as light rail turns northbound off of Richard's Boulevard

onto Sequoia Pacific Boulevard where the bridge begins.

Second, this configuration allows for better pedestrian and cyclist connectivity

with the two rivers trail on the South Levy and Fitz Street,

the Fitz Street corridor that will provide a direct low-stress two-way street

from the American River to Broadway and beyond.

And finally, this configuration could accommodate a more concealed connection

down to the Jetsmith trail by basically starting the connection upstream

and then switching back and going underneath the bridge

to connect into the trail instead of coming off of the down street side

with one continuous trail.

So the next few slides provide some detail regarding the revised alternatives

and I'll flip through them slowly for your review and please stop me

if you have any questions.

So alternative one, as you can see again based on the administrative draft

sequence analysis that was never released for public review from RT

which is pretty much your standard layout.

Second is a class one trail on one side of the bridge and cars and transit

mixed together as I showed you before.

Shoulders and a refuge lane in the middle.

A again is the bidirectional couplets.

I don't know why these images have fences.

When I asked for there would be some kind of vertical element

and enhanced curb but not necessarily.

And 3B is again that mirroring of.

So I mentioned earlier that one of the benefits of alternative 3B was a better

connection to the two-river trail and Fitz Street.

The next two slides are intended to show visually how that would be accomplished.

The idea is that all modes are on the bridge deck between the levees

but only the transit and cars extend south of the two-river trail

down Sequoia Pacific Boulevard.

A standard sidewalk on the west side of the bridge is shown for connectivity

but potentially could be removed.

The majority of the pedestrians and cyclists would be devoted off of the bridge

at the South Levy onto the two-river trail to connect to the Fitz Street

for a more direct route into the river district rail yards and downtown.

So here you can see on the right the full deck that would kind of see the different marks

there for section A, A and A, B.

A is between the buildings and that's where you see the

cycle track and the wide sidewalk on the east has been removed because those pedestrians

and bicyclists are basically diverted onto the trail and then back onto Fitz Street

and then Fitz Street is a continuous corridor from that point all the way down to Broadway and beyond.

So preliminary cost estimates for the alternatives range from 179.2 million to 295.3

with the preferred alternative.

The standard alternative being 227.4 million.

Staff's recommendation is based on the ability of alternative 3B to accomplish the purpose adopted by council in 2013

and your recommendation tonight will be added to the council staff report for action in February.

Following council's decision the next phase to advance the project is preliminary engineering

and formal environmental analysis of the preferred alternative which could be getting the fall

and under the most favorable conditions construction could start in about 10 years.

I'd be happy.

Thank you very much.

We need to speak thank you clerk are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this item.

Thank you chair I have 16 speaker slips on this item. First speaker is Jeffrey followed by Michael.

Michael Bevens.

So.

For me I'm going his

We are looking at exactly what is being discussed of needing a bridge across the American

United States.

420% of the city population and the best solution.

My problem tonight was trying to find getting clear.

Can you guys hear me?

Okay, sorry, maybe I needed to point it this way to get you to hear me better.

Again, Jeff Tartaglia, advocate.

I am in downtown.

I am part of District 4.

And of many years heard about the trucks bridge needing to get built, wanting to get built, and realizing it is 20% of the city population.

So it does need to have a direct connection, but I also realized that it does need the factor of keeping your bicyclists and pedestrians separated.

It was unclear to me whether it was a better advantage for the north side or looking to the east versus looking to the west.

I didn't see any indication of, you know, north-east, south-west on this presentation to be clear which is going east and which is going west.

That's my public comment right now to start it off with.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker is Michael Bevens, followed by Alex Bink.

Thank you.

Is that good?

Too much.

just a district two if it matters.

Well, all this bridge thing, it all comes down

as the beginning, as you guys know,

is all about the design.

You've got to get the design right at the beginning,

at least, to further our goals.

I think there should, in my opinion,

all cars on the Truxel Bridge, but cars, like I said,

need to be able, maybe not to access I-5,

really want to deliver that traffic,

so we need another place for cars to go.

I suggest that we'll put cars on Truxel.

That's priorities for light rail,

and while we're building it, you have room

for pedestrians and cyclists.

The cars should go on existing north-south route

that is already there.

They're just made to me.

Add it to the existing 160 Bridge,

or make its own bridge, and that's Northgate.

Northgate is major north-south route.

That's where cars should go in the future.

Over the American River, either connected to 160,

somehow make a new on-ramp there, or have its own bridge.

Cars will be the priority, but bicycles and pedestrians

will still be able to go that way too.

It's all about design.

I think the park, the Discovery Park,

that could become an asset, much like Land Park,

and extend Discovery Park, where this bridge is going to go,

and then we can have access.

Bikes and pedestrians can get their cars,

can get there currently through the Discovery Park entrance.

And maybe if you had to absolutely have cars on the Truxel Bridge,

that would only be to have access to the Discovery Park.

Not a three-way.

It's to come down, and it's not convenient

to go for cars to go across Truxel.

We should build that later on to Northgate.

Cars should have to meander.

They go into Discovery Park, and then use the existing Jibbom Bridge.

Thank you for your comment.

Your time is complete.

Our next speaker is Alex Bink, followed by Chance Chambers.

Hello, thank you for the opportunity to comment here.

I would like to urge you to study an alternative for the bridge

that does not have motor vehicles as someone who

has lived and worked on both sides of this bridge

in the immediate vicinity.

It's actually already very easy to get across the bridge

by personal vehicle because of the existing bridges

that are already in this area.

However, it's extremely difficult to do so without a car,

which speaks to the need for this bridge.

In addition, the area, the bridge is to be constructed,

is one of the few remaining natural areas

in the downtown area of Sacramento.

And I feel it's very important to minimize the footprint

of this project, which eliminating the personal vehicle aspect

would greatly improve.

And I think that's about it.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker is Chance Chambers, followed by Simon Hyatt.

Hello.

My name is Chan Chambers.

I'm from District 5.

I'm a real quick.

I have everything written down.

So I take up less of your time.

The city of Sacramento, according to the website,

is working to be a more bikeable and walkable city

and improve safety, enhance quality of life,

and be more equitable and address climate change.

Quote.

There is no better way to uphold that

than getting rid of the option of cars on this bridge.

The presence of cars has been actively

harmful to the environment around it, whether it be pollution

in the form of noise chemicals or increasing

the risk of more traffic fatalities that are going ramp

up in the city.

The cars are the loudest option of transportation by far

and an outstanding problem within the trucks of bridge study.

The study also shines light on the fact that the option of cars

has raised the budget by millions of dollars,

whereas all of the eco-friendly options just so happened

to not be in that budget or not popular,

whether it be reducing roads with noise blockers

or anything between the roads.

The community values within the study

state that they are trying to avoid the same old,

transportation planning solutions in the hamster-real thinking

that we can build our way out of congestion,

and that's exactly what adding cars to the bridge is doing.

The only way to combat traffic is to have more viable

alternatives to driving and a trucks will bridge

without cars as a step in the right direction

to doing that and making Sacramento more walkable,

bike-bowl safe, equitable,

while combating combat change and improving quality of life,

not only for our citizens,

but the nature around it where this bridge is being built.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker is Simon Hyatt, followed by Alyssa Lee.

So thank you for taking this up.

And my name is Simon Hyatt.

I am a member representative of the local chapter

of the California Working Families Party.

I'd like to first honor Ali Doher Westbrook

for her leadership on this committee.

Thank you so much, Ali.

I also second what the last speaker said,

we need a bridge.

There's plenty of space for cars in this city.

I was riding the bus and my bike to get here tonight.

We're stuck in gridlock traffic.

There's plenty of space for cars all over this city

to invite more vehicles, especially into a new area

of our city, like the rail yards,

will only increase car dependency going forward.

And we're talking about potential construction in 2035.

What kind of city do we want to prepare for our children

in the...

We've had a hundred years of car dependency arms,

our environment.

The arms working families by strapping them

with expensive costs, vehicle maintenance, gas costs,

maintenance costs to our local...

So I would like to see...

Forward with a different plan that has access for...

Actounds...

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker is Alyssa Lee, followed by Dan Allison.

Hi everyone, my name is Alyssa.

I live in District 4, great to see you all.

And thank you to Commissioner Gibson

for running the letter to propose an alternative

that would have the council study a design

that does not include personal motor vehicles.

I'm a favorite alternative.

I think a lot of people will speak

about the vehicle, climate, vision zero, safety,

financial reasons to do so.

I just want to address something about how this process

is being presented to us.

The claim is that the reason that we need a vehicle option

in this bridge design is because it would require amending

our mobility element in our 2040 general plan

to go back to a transit and bike pet option.

And all of the reasons that stated in the policy considerations

are because we need to go to mobility element actions.

I think that's really intellectually dishonest

and really insulting to many of us who have been involved

in that 2040 general plan process.

Every single goal of the mobility element that is named

as a reason for including a car option

could be just as well served, if not better served,

by removing cars.

The other reason that's given, and I don't know how

to express this, but it would require the city of Sacramento

to be a responsible and commenting agency with our team.

Something about that it would take away our ability

to be at the forefront of this.

I'm not sure I totally understand, and maybe I can be invited

to a conversation about that afterward.

But I think if removing cars from new infrastructure,

which is what we desperately need to do to address our deficit,

our growing deficit, and the debt to generations to come,

if the reason we need to do that is to become a better

collaborator with agencies, that is what we need to do.

That is what council needs to do, that is what our new leadership

that has just joined council needs to do.

That is a direction we must go, and if that's the reason to stop it,

that is not a good enough reason.

Your time is complete.

Our next speaker is Dan Allison, followed by Jesse Cohn.

Good evening commissioners, Dan Allison, District 4.

I appreciate the additional information that Marky provided this evening,

answering some of the concerns of the SACATC.

I support recommendation three, which is to remove or reject the current study,

and to go back to a transit-only bridge.

However, I also think that the City ought to reconsider alignment eight,

which is Highway 160 alignment.

I think that was expected at almost out of hand,

because it was more expensive, but it makes sense in some ways,

and I think it should be studied.

This project was approved by the SACATC board as a transit-only bridge.

The board has never reconsidered that approval.

There have been staff discussions, I'm very aware of that,

but the board has never approved a bridge with private motor vehicles on it.

I think that would have to be resolved.

Transit information, I'm not sure that light rail will ever go to the airport.

It's an incredibly expensive project, well over a billion dollars,

and the two council members that represent Natomas are on record as saying

they don't want to wait 20 to 40 years for a light rail.

They want BRT now.

If there is BRT instead of light rail,

the bridge becomes much less important,

the jog to use the freeway that Route 11 currently uses,

probably is not significant to BRT.

That's worth considering as well.

That's it. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker is Jesse Cohn, followed by Troy Sinkie.

Thank you.

Sparky claims that this bridge is incompatible with the 2040 general plan,

which is insane considering the fierce climate emergency that the 2040 general plan stated.

The 2008 American River Compact Plan also specifically said,

do not build a bridge with cars on it.

This bridge that you're proposing is literally illegal.

This is a federally protected river, a state protected river,

you would literally need federal approval to build this bridge.

You would need county approval to amend this document to create this bridge.

I don't want to hear it that this bridge is incompatible to the documents.

When you're literally proposing any legal bridge that will reinforce our city's priority,

the private vehicles that are literally destroying the planet.

LA is on fire right now.

Do you guys realize this?

We have a choice today to prioritize public transit over private vehicles.

That is what the 2040 general plan says.

This bridge is going to cause 0.04 percent reduction vehicles in travel.

We're going to spend $200 million to do that.

That's actually insane.

Let's think about our priorities in the city.

Think about the discovery park as a precious biological resource for our city.

This is the only natural area in the city.

Promitting private vehicles through this park is going to create pollution.

It's going to create noise pollution.

There's federally protected species like the Valley Longhorn Beetle.

There's state protected species like the Swanson talk.

It's insane.

This will never get through sequel.

So please, I beg the council recommend a car free bridge option and build a light rail to the airport.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Troy Sankie, followed by Tracy.

What's?

Hello, Troy Sankie here, D for resident.

I guess I'll just start by claiming that I think it's it should seem clear that a bridge without cars is consistent with documents that have been.

I'm just going to move right past that.

I'm going to focus primarily on the finance aspect of this.

As you all probably are aware, like especially reading about what we talk about at strong towns.

Auto infrastructure is very expensive and it's not the cost of build that we talk about.

That we're talking about.

It's the cost to maintain.

I think it's timely that the previous item agenda item four mentioned maintenance project on state route 51, the American River Bridge rehab project.

I just looked this up in the construction company that was awarded this job got $131 million to do the project.

Now I understand part of that is potentially part of that is to add a bike lane.

But like it stands without saying I think.

Like this is not building into bridge this $131 million.

This is just maintaining an existing one.

And this bridge, the truck soul bridge.

That's we're going to be on the hook for maintenance of that.

That goes that goes within the city.

And when we add cars, we double the width of the bridge.

We potentially double or if not more the maintenance cost of the bridge.

I'm going to go over a few more of the costs and I'll keep in mind.

We're talking about a city that last year was $66 million in deficit this year.

We're approaching 70 plus.

Not good.

Let's see.

It's going to length and trucks all bridge.

I think I think when we increase the cross section of the north between north and south Sacramento.

The Mt models tend to ignore development.

I'll just leave it at that.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker is Tracy Wetzel, followed by Caesar Aguer.

Hi, good evening commissioners.

My name is Tracy Wetzel.

And I'm here to ask you to think about the alternative to the bridge to not include motor vehicles.

This bridge is proposed to be built over a riparian habitat.

And I urge you to preserve the riparian habitat.

We have migrating songbirds that go to this area.

And if we put a vehicular traffic across this area, we may lose those songbirds.

And as you're aware, acre by acre of our riparian habitat, small portions of it are being lost each year and each month to other construction projects.

Excuse me.

So I'm urging you to consider an alternative.

Thank you.

Your comments or next speaker is Caesar Aguer, followed by Nikolai Itiner.

Hi committee.

My name is Cessna Laguerre.

I am a district for residents.

I am speaking before you today to urge you to find a way to not let cars take over this bridge.

Like they dominate so many of our roads already.

I think that there is nothing more pertinent, nothing more crucial than making sure that we reduce our carbon emissions.

And currently I don't see us reaching our climate goals and to consider that we would not build a car free bridge when we very much could.

So if there are some stalls in acquiring funding or getting approval, then it's just about finding a way to do that.

And that's, I think, what council needs to be urged on is what staff needs to be urged on.

I don't think I need to urge you all.

I think that you all have a good understanding of the importance of creating a car free bridge.

And of course, you know, with space for emergency vehicles.

That's, that's, you know, totally understandable.

But if we want to actually have a valuable impact in vehicle miles traveled and carbon emission reductions, then we have to, we have to find a way to make this car free bridge for Sacramento.

And really just set the tone for the type of construction that we're going to be doing in the ongoing future.

I think it was mentioned by someone on the committee before that Pittsburgh right now the city has near 30 bridges and yeah, we just pay all in the car.

Thank you for your comments. Your time is complete. Our next speaker is Nikolai Itiner, followed by Ryan Foster.

Hi, good evening. I'm a winged today. I think I want to point out that the, I'm also here to support a car free alternative to the Truxel bridge.

I'd like to point out that the supporters of a car free alternative are coming at this.

I'm a perspective from an ecological perspective from a safety perspective.

While the alternative seems to be that we can't do that because we supposedly might have to amend a couple of documents.

It seems well worth the cost savings, the benefits and safety, the mode shift, etc.

No shift is what I really want to address here today, I think as as I said, I think we're all here in favor of active transportation.

I don't think I need to explain to you the benefits of shifting our transportation mode.

However, I think that if we were to have a no car alternative, we would truly immediately shift, have the opportunity to mode shift both to increase transit use to increase bicycle use to increase walking to our destinations.

All of those things would in mode shift us away from cars to these alternative forms of transportation.

That are existing roadways freeways, etc. to reduce traffic, reduce vehicle miles, traveled, etc. We would accomplish those goals.

The alternative is to, I think, we're also talking about a bridge that's not going to be completed or even start construction. I think you said for 10 years.

If you don't believe in immediate mode shift as kind of our way to an ecological sustainable future, then we're talking about like the benefits of electric cars and self automated cars and self driving cars and how that's going to reduce traffic dependency and VMCs down the line.

If we believe that argument, then we also don't need cars on the trucks or bridge because that will reduce the vehicle miles traveled and reduce traffic in the city.

So regardless of which way you perceive it, it really seems to make sense to choose a no car alternative and to push the city in that direction.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Our next speaker is Ryan Foster, followed by Teresa or take a.

I'm just shocked that the staff instructed the city to the engineers to study a car free bridge and it just was completely ignored.

I think that's the obvious choice. First of all, from obviously maintenance and cost point of view, but also from a sound point of view.

It's pretty crazy.

And I mean, I'm a resident of Northgate area.

And I we've already have enough crazy drivers like I know that if we choose one of the options with people biking next to traffic, you post it to 30 people are automatically going to go 10 over and you're going to get people driving 40 along like people biking and that's just untenable.

I really would urge the city to choose a no traffic option and then also 10 years out, 20, 15 years out to build the bridges is wild like we really need to work on speeding things up and I know that's hard, but yeah, and I appreciate you guys for all your work and and for serving us.

So thank you guys.

Thank you for your comments or next speaker is Teresa or Tega followed by Kim Nemi Kassar Neni.

Hi, good evening. I'm Teresa from District 6 and don't have too much to add, but really just want to echo what so many of our neighbors have beautifully articulated already, which is that we need this bridge to not have cars.

There is the right choice in terms of the environmental impact, the fiscal impact and certainly public.

Off-truck bridge. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Nemi Kassar Neni followed by Brenda Gustin.

Hi, thank you for having me. I want to echo everything everyone has said before and talk about the environment one more time.

With the climate crisis, the worst it's ever been and the understanding that it will only get worse for the lifetimes of everyone in this room today.

I want to make sure our city develops and grows with environmental considerations at the forefront of our decision making.

We need to protect the vulnerable repair and ecosystem we have left around Sacramento to prevent our air from becoming even more polluted from motor vehicle exhaust shrink our deficit and protect the single greatest carbon capture technology we've ever invented.

Our precious trees.

We need to develop infrastructure that encourages greener methods of transit and deprioritizes private motor vehicles.

We have a responsibility to the ecosystem we belong to, the indigenous stewards we have displaced and to future generations.

So please do not support the addition of cars to Truxel bridge.

Thank you. Our final speaker is Bridegustin.

The article shows what a river bridge over the river should look like.

I wanted to say that as you know the American River Parkway is a major asset of Sacramento.

The project proposal to construct this Truxel bridge will destroy one of the greatest old growth, riparian forest anywhere in Sacramento.

With California having lost 95% of its riparian habitat, why would anyone support this proposal?

A perfectly good thoroughfare has already been constructed and is in dire need of repair that will serve and improve areas of Sacramento with greater connectivity, protection from flooding and provide increased commerce in an area that deserves to be supported.

New is attractive but only solves part of the problem and creates more.

One mile away, four bridges already crossed the parkway on state route 160, one of which has been identified by CalTrans as needing to be replaced and the remaining three are in need of rehabilitation.

Eliminate flood problems that cause Northgate to close when creeks and or the river overflow that have caused mobility and economic hardships for over 20 years.

And all weather Northgate Boulevard will provide more flexibility in moving people between flood basins and possibly even save lives.

Rehabilitation of these bridges will provide added conveniences for the residents to walk and cycle.

Thank you for your comments your time is complete.

Thank you.

Chair, I have no more speakers.

Thank you. Are there any commissioners who wish to speak on this item? Commissioner Gibson.

Thank you. I had some slides for people who are remarks. We are getting lights so I'll try to be succinct with those. Does anyone have a clicker?

I'll begin speaking while the clicker comes. I was the first thank city staff, JDW, Jeff for helping processing this request.

There's some process. Things I have learned along the way. Thank you. I also wish to thank Mr. Harris for his diligence on this project.

We communicate offline from this very professional thoughtful, even though we share different perspectives on the project.

So speaking of different perspectives, that's where I want to start.

What is the goal of this current design? Overall, VMT reduction, faster drive time to downtown.

More direct connections, green light extension and new bike and pad. That's kind of the inherent goals and values behind said project.

I don't think there will be a lot of disagreement there, hopefully.

But I want to share kind of a different value what I brought here is how can we have the greatest mode share shift?

And when I've been following this project, thank you. When I've been following this project for the last year and change, that's what's kind of what I was hoping to get out of this, especially since we've updated with our general plan and climate action adaptation goals.

Now, there are probably three or four major tradeoffs that I want to highlight. First of all, as an increased travel on Trucksle Boulevard, the larger bridge will have a larger impact upon the river and parkway, higher cost, and then also lower quality transit and active transportation designs, depending on some of the alternatives.

So Trucksle Road, I'm a daily user of it. I've lived in what's now district three, mostly South Natomas for 12 years and I use Trucksle Boulevard daily.

Trucksle Boulevard is considered a high-end record or unfortunately there have been six fatalities and nine serious injuries in the last decade on Trucksle Road itself in between San Juan and Garne Highway or just very close to it.

I estimate that there's roughly 17 intersections in a 1.3 mile span. There's a lot of small roads, neighborhood roads connecting to it. There's a lot of travel already on that.

The image on the right is right next to my child's daycare. It's at the end of the project section. I mean, if the little laser works, great. So that's about over here. And at the peak travel, there's going to be roughly about 7,000 new car trips from the latest estimates.

Unfortunately, Trucksle Road is already considered high stress for both pedestrian and biking use in the draft streets for people plan, which actually I think we're going to see again in a few minutes when this is over.

For those not from the area again, I'll be quick. So, a lot of community members in the Thomas High School is up here right under the Y. Then there is a library and community center in park.

Three and four shopping centers along there. So, there's a lot of intersection. So, if the goal of Trucksle Road is a connection from people in the Thomas to get to downtown or is it a community street. And I would prefer to be a community street than a through connection.

So, to go off what the studies at previous said on the left hand side is kind of just a broad strokes. Yes, we'll increase travel on Trucksle Boulevard with the alternative three, which is what this is based on.

And then the fallup, which was this image presented at the town hall or open house back in November. That's the mating that roughly again, 7,000 trips at the end of the project.

Mr. Harris brought up a plan to do a road diet, which I'm in full support of. How can we do a road diet and also increase travel demand at the same time.

Although the back of the napkin math of about four cars per minute, that's if I understand how the math is done again, quick math, no argument there. It's not culling for peak travel time.

Again, I drive it on daily and it takes me took me today five and a half minutes to go from Garden Highway and Trucksle intersection all the way to the J Street exit on I five.

So, yes, you can get there. It would have speed some drivers up. Sure. Doubtful as much. A lot of people spoke about the sense of environmental impact to respect time. I just want to highlight. I estimated about 5.8 acres of pavement would be built as square footage of this.

Cost is higher than initial previous proposals on the bottom left. Alt three and in 2013 estimated up in today's dollars, factoring the DGS construction increase about 92 million dollars.

Again, construction increases go faster than inflation usually and rough with a 54 or 45 feet. So what would be the overall capital costing again? This is why my request is for the city council direct staff to look at it.

Let's get what the capital cost would be of this and as some other public commenters mentioned, how much will this add to the backlog of a smaller bridge design for a larger one.

And then I will highlight that at least two of the four designs. I think are very deficient on active transportation and transit use having class two bike lanes. Very high stress environment. This is all one. Alt two mixing personal vehicle travel with transit really slows it down.

When it comes to active transit and transportation, I do agree with Mr Harris if something has to be shown now. Three A or B is better. But again, this is the widest and pedestrians and cyclists will still have cars nearby.

This is why I want to recommend that this commission pass along a recommendation for council to request staff to study at least understand what it would look like for a different direction.

I think that's the best of me at about 48 feet using kind of the similar apps that Mr Harris used. And again for transit, I'm kind of agnostic whether it's BRT or light rail.

And I also think it should be used in an option for emergency vehicles because it has emergency vehicle access. And you don't have regular car travel. Those emergency vehicles won't be slowed down by somebody just trying to get to work.

Also, I want to highlight that a lot of things have changed since 2013. We have had three mayors. No current city council members still sit on council.

Mayor McCarty was a council member then. So hence the asterisk. And then there has been a general plan update, vision zero, climate action and adaptation plan and climate emergency declaration resolution, which I feel call for greater mode shifts than planned.

We want to prioritize pedestrians over while we'll prepare prior to his pedestrians cyclists and transit over drivers.

And I think the general plan would go in that direction. When it comes to motion shift again, I'm want to see what's the greatest one we're looking at roughly I think was 23% motion shift of transit and active transportation within the next decade and a half.

The general plan wants to do this via transportation demand management. I'm very skeptical of TDM's. I think they only really moved me a very little and you need capital investment to really get that shift in modes. Also, as again, as somebody's daily driver, when I first heard about this, in my average travel time at peak AM hours, roughly 8 AM was 80 seconds to 2 and a half minutes to the other section.

I as the VMT just appears limited and how much with a driver even save a couple minutes. Well, I hate driving. So I would like to save a couple minutes. But I don't think it should be at the expense of all the negative externalities that this bridge causes.

I just want to summarize my commissioner perspective and just to be brief in the far right column is my commissioner's perspective of a table. And fundamentally, if we're going to get VMT reduction, we need to look at it. We need to know what the cost would actually be.

And this would be some trade offs. So first of all, thank you. And thank you for consideration.

Commissioner Harris.

Thank you so much. Your presentations are always great. So I have mixed feelings when I say, although you tied it back to what we spoke about, I didn't feel heard.

One of the things that I specifically brought up was the need for a car free option to be carried through. So it's a sequel analysis. And they really truly believe that you will not know what you're missing.

If it is not analyzed and sequel does not require full analysis of the non-perferred alternative. So without that, we're just not going to see it.

I also spoke about the need the community perspective of a bridge.

I think about Redding's Sundial bridge. I think about Guy Westbridge. And how much those attract the community and people visit them on purpose.

And then I think about the Natomas crossing. No, hey, don't fall. So it's great. But it's very similar design to people that's being proposed. Only it just doesn't have the light rail they built it for it. But that's another story.

Actually, it's the same story, but nevermind. The light rail is not coming. So I, and I also spoke about the need to come up with options that ways wanting to hear how cars were going to be limited.

Because if the light rail doesn't come, how does it not become a four lane road? Because in the meantime, that's what happens when there's unutilized space.

And I will say that my new perspective when we talked about this is just the assumption that cars have the right. That's what we're hearing.

That there's a bridge that cars have the right to be there. And I find that offensive. And I will say as somebody who lives off of Marconi, a city constructed bridge that had to happen, everyone here is right.

35 miles an hour is nothing. You built a freeway in my community and I hear every night from my bed. So I will not be supporting any of the options hearing the community.

And knowing that we for unheard when you came back to visit, you can't, I had concerns. I don't feel heard. And I personally am a little upset that we are, you're coming back and we have not heard an option that

reflects what we spoke about what the community would like to hear as well.

Are there any other of Commissioner Liseya Cruz?

So I just want to say thank you for your presentation. It was very insightful for someone coming in for the first time. I'm kind to go kind of in order of how your presentation went.

I want to start off by saying that 0.04% of VNT miles traveled as a decrease is with all due respect negligible.

It is almost nothing and I would like to consider the idea that do vehicle reductions in these neighborhoods really end in a negative.

I do remember seeing that there was a plus 4 plus 5 vehicle count per minute. How does this compare to minus 1 minus 2 vehicles per minute.

Second part is we will still make car travel faster in the end even without a personal motor vehicle option.

For example, if vehicles considered, you know, using transit that means there's less vehicles on the street. And if people still consider driving, they're going to have less traffic.

Is there any mitigation between bikes and transit for alternative 3B by the way? And what does an enhanced element also count as is what I was wondering this time too.

Is it okay if you can come up? Thank you.

Yes, my question is what does your enhanced element for vertical separation mean exactly because you did say in your presentation that you didn't add in that fence in your renderings.

I was wondering what that vertical element really was.

I think that there's too much opportunity for bikes to fear into transit ways so there's at least a curb. This is the concept and feasibility stage so we're not going to get into the exact.

The other question is from what I saw it seems that there is a huge cost reduction if you make the lane with or just the bridge with much smaller.

So would we be seeing any real cost improvements if we went with a no vehicle option.

Yes, I mean the engineers would have to sharpen their pencils and look at a bridge. There are a lot of sunk costs just by doing a bridge itself, but obviously you'd have reduced costs and all of the construction materials.

Yes, there would be.

And then lastly, I do want to consider that we are going into a new presidential administration and obviously funding dollars for active transportation and transportation as a whole will probably be limited.

This is really my way of saying please let us have some sort of transit plan because we really need more public transit and especially in North and Chitomas.

I try going there by the bus take bus 11 and it's let's just say it's agonizing.

So agonizing driving it's also agonizing biking so we need some sort of alternatives that are visible and really do make a difference. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Charles.

Thank you, chair.

Thank you, Sparky for the presentation. It's always nice to have you here and you know, very professional and thank you for making yourself available.

And thank you to everyone who spoke this evening here in person and to the 32 comments that were on this on our e comments that had to do with this item appreciate all your feedback insight.

And I'm going to turn it over to the room this evening how people are feeling and as the act of transportation commission you're probably ready to determine the outcome of tonight's vote by reading the room.

To speak to a couple of the comments going back to Walt earlier this evening if we haven't built a bridge here in 50 years.

We shouldn't build bridges like we built them 50 years ago. I would really like to see us building a bridge without any automobile traffic at all on it and to speak to.

And so it's about a long term maintenance costs which are not factored currently in the report.

And being tied in perpetuity to high infrastructure maintenance cost is not a physically prudent measure for a city that is in.

In multi year deficits so we really need to be thinking about ways to build infrastructure that will last a long time and.

And that's where and tear on it while still providing the quality of services that I think the future of Sacramento once.

I want to speak a bit to the to the timeline of this project not only going backwards but also going forwards.

This project started so long ago as others said that no one's currently on city council isn't there same role anymore all the council members are gone and the one council member was there is now the mayor not a council member.

And this is a lot to the fact that you know we need to be able to abandon the fact that it happened in 2013 we have a lot of different philosophies today in 2025.

Then we did in 2013 and our priorities have changed and people able to localize it better and I think people are ready for a difference and I think in 2037.

Hopefully the paradigm will be even farther towards a future where transportation infrastructure installation is really having a mode shift that prioritizes safety.

The environment and long term sustainability so I don't see any problem whatsoever in pausing and stopping now and reevaluating and resetting options that I think represent the not only the values that we have today but the values that are going to need to grow.

To grow with the next generation like our young new commissioner that we have here tonight like the many young people who spoke this evening who are future leaders and will be you know up here in 10 years I'm sure serving many of these positions I'm 44 years old now and I remember being 34 and very upset with the state of the city and now here I am in a position where I get to speak and share things and I'm sure many of the people here this audience tonight will be elected or serving on commissions like this one in the future with all your passion and active.

I know these kind of projects are going to reflect more and more in the future prior to prioritization of active transportation over automobile use so I think now is a point in time when we can make that shift we talk about documents that say that we have to prioritize other things or or plans to say this is an compliance.

So I can you know I highly respect you but you also know that there are many documents that have been created for decades that have resulted in built environments that are dangerous for people dangerous for a vulnerable road users dangerous anybody in a bicycle or walking so I we have to be brave enough to abandon.

A rationale that says because a piece of paper says we shouldn't we shouldn't we should build things the way we want them to build a Sacramento that we all want to live in so tonight well I think we're almost went out I'm going to make a motion for option three to deny the project as as submitted with any vehicle traffic and to go back to the drawing board with this thank you.

I'll second.

I'll second the motion is there any further just any further discussion comments to make as well.

You can start a mission or let it.

Thank you chair I just want to say I also agree we should not have vehicle traffic on this road but if that were to happen is there some way we can just allow commercial trucks.

So I'm going to start with the vehicle traffic and then of course again I'm concerned about the concrete barrier between the pedestrian cyclists and any vehicles.

You know at the entrance of a bicycle trail there's ballerge to prevent vehicles from getting on those trails so we need something equally as obstructive so that people can start driving around on bicycles rails accessing it from the bridge.

Commissioner Moore Commissioner door whisper.

Brief because I know we have another long item after this but thank you so much Sparky for your presentation and thank you to everyone in the audience for your really thoughtful comments.

I'm really pleased that we were able to bring this item back for discussion.

I just had one clarifying question and then a comment.

So I think it was mentioned that if a car free alternative was studied that the responsibility for funding the bridge would then fall on Sakur tea.

Is that correct or incorrect?

It's not necessarily funding it would be implementation.

Implementing.

Because it would no longer be necessarily a city of Sacramento project it would be an object for transit that happened to have bikes and pets.

Okay so you would be like partners in the project.

We try to partner.

Okay that sounds good.

And then just curious if the city has looked at state and federal funding sources that are specific for transit and rail projects and if the possibility of like receiving that money.

The chances might be a little bit higher so I'm thinking of like the TIRCP program that calls to operates.

That is more focused on rail and transit than you know building additional bridges and infrastructure for cars.

We have looked at all sources including Tercep.

We almost had an application for the last round we were teeing up for the future round.

Rt obviously is always looking.

We have a lot of things to do with transit.

We have a lot of things to do with transit.

Thoughts for transit that's typically not something we go after because we're not a transit provider.

But considering Tercep.

Have a jurisdiction that would partner with.

I'd really hard the last.

Didn't make it happen but.

Table for future.

That's great.

Yeah I'm glad to hear it's on the table and conversations that already started because I'm just thinking there's already.

All these existing grant programs are already so competitive for the existing car infrastructure that we have.

And so if the city had the ability to look at programs that are dedicated to support active transportation and transit.

Maybe our chances of being successful and getting awarded would be higher.

My last question was just whether or not the city has looked at other places within the country.

One example would be Portland who have already built car free bridges.

And if those bridges have seen a reduction in VMT across the community.

It looked a little bit into the telecom bridge.

Yeah that's what I'm referring to.

I actually walked across that bridge when it was under construction.

I haven't seen any data.

Oh do you see that?

Okay.

So just be one recommendation is if there's possibility for staff to connect with city staff in Portland and kind of see the data that they've collected or.

Any increases and mode shift for people walking by.

And transit has occurred.

I think that's just an additional case.

That could be made for this car free option that we've heard from commissioners and also from the community that they like the city to pursue.

That's the only bridge I'm aware of that's car free but I'm sure there's others across the country.

So I think that's the one most people point to.

Yeah because it's relatively new.

Yeah and it's beautiful.

I've been on this well.

Thank you.

Commissioner Moore.

Yeah.

I hear at the risk of being maybe forcefully removed from this commission that I'm actually not opposed to 3B.

I appreciate commissioner to Westbrook's comments around soccer T because I think that hasn't been mentioned yet but it is a consideration of does that provide benefit or challenges and.

In terms of pursuing grants to have saccharity be the implementer of a non vehicle alternative and I don't know if you have insights into that or not just a high level general speaking.

Does that reduce any kind of.

It's a hard question to answer because if it were our T's project we would really follow their lead.

Right.

So what grant funding they go after and you know what's the point for them but.

This point they're not the lead so.

Yeah really read the tea leaves.

Okay that's and that's fair.

I think my concern is that I feel like the city of Sacramento has more capacity to pursue a project like this.

I think I also have concerns maybe with saccharity's funding projections.

I know they recently received some emergency funding from say cogged that wasn't expected.

So I think just big picture shifting the staff saccharity some concerns not that they couldn't be addressed.

I think another component of this I think the maintenance is probably the biggest issue that really drives me in full support of a non vehicular alternative.

That's a big consideration I think we continue to pay for roads that we cannot pay for and this is going to add to that but.

I don't really align with the rest of them to the degree that my fellow commissioners and some of the public have said.

You know VMT and GHG are two different things I think based on the report that was presented in the packet.

GHG is going to go up with the non vehicular alternative again that was done on 2013 studies I think say cogged updated the regional model since 2013 but I'm not certain.

I think that's a big question.

I think that's a big question.

I think that's a big question.

I think that's a big question.

I think that's a big question.

I think that's a big question.

I think that's a big question.

I think that's a big question.

I think that's a big question.

I think that's a big question.

I think that's a big question.

I think that's a big question.

I think that's a big question.

I think that's a big question.

I think that's a big question.

I think that's a big question.

I think that's a big question.

I think that's a big question.

I think that's a big question.

I think that's a big question.

I think that's a big question.

I think that's a big question.

I think that's a big question.

I think that's a big question.

I think that's a big question.

I think that's a big question.

I think that's a big question.

I think that's a big question.

I think that's a big question.

I think that's a big question.

I think that's a big question.

I think that's a big question.

I think that's a big Register of Veterans

for how we want to develop our street systems.

There are, yeah, I mean, if you think about

the development that's going in,

rail yards is huge.

There is so much housing

that is going to be going in there in

population on top of that.

Secondarily, sleep trainer,

and then we're going to have a

lot of people go to the vehicle trip.

So in accommodation to allow two lanes,

I do also have hesitations around the speed.

I think people will be going faster if there's

any way to mitigate that further.

I would love to see it.

But it's going to contribute again to the congestion

and the greenhouse gas emissions that we see.

I don't think that electrical vehicle

substitutions are happening at the rate that they

should be that we would like to see for that to not

to be a consideration.

So I'm going to put that forward.

I think it's going to be a bit of an

question.

I just wanted to ask, you know,

why don't you just put your foot into the

car?

Is that an alternative to this?

I would love to see the study.

ITodring done originally but it wasn't.

I'm not opposed to option 3B.

Thank you.

You know what?

We've got a tour limit on this meeting.

So I have a motion on the floor,

I can do the extension before we do the vote on this.

Certainly.

Okay.

May I have a, someone please make a motion to extend the meeting by just one hour.

I move to extend this meeting by just one.

Thank you.

Thank you.

A second please.

We have a motion by Commissioner Harris and a second by Commissioner Banks to extend

the meeting for one hour.

Clerk, would you please call the roll.

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Harris.

Aye.

Commissioner Gibson.

Aye.

Commissioner Dewey Westbrook.

Aye.

Commissioner Ledaker.

Aye.

Vice Chair Gonzalez.

Yes.

Commissioner Hopped.

Aye.

Commissioner Moore.

Aye.

Commissioner Lysia Cruz.

Aye.

Commissioner Banks.

Aye.

And Chair Hodell.

Aye.

Thank you.

The motion passes and the meeting will be extended one hour.

Okay.

Commissioner Banks.

Sorry.

Chair Hodell.

Great, such a stir.

I'll keep it really short because I agree with absolutely everything that everybody has said here, including Commissioner Moore.

However, my heart is on three to.

And I think.

I don't think that's an easy one for you.

I'm not really sure what that process.

I have to revisit.

That said, I think it's worth it because of the environment, because of the.

Because of the money that we're talking about for all the reasons that have ever been.

And if it makes means that the bridge doesn't get even considered to be constructed to 2039.

So be it.

Thank you.

We have, I don't see any more hands up.

Okay.

We have a motion on the floor by vice chair Gonzales and the second by Commissioner helped to reject the Truxel Bridge concept and feasibility study and instead recommend that the City Council direct staff to evaluate and study a Truxel Bridge alternative without personal motor vehicles.

Claire, would you please call the roll chair.

Commissioners, please turn on your microphones. Commissioner Harris.

I Commissioner Gibson.

Commissioner Dua Westbrook.

Commissioner Liddaker.

I.

Thank you, sir.

Vice chair Gonzales.

Yes.

Commissioner Hopped.

I.

Commissioner Lycia Cruz.

Mr. Banks.

I.

And Chair Hodeau.

I.

Thank you.

The motion passes for option three.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Item number six.

The street's for people, neighborhood connections draft final plan is there a staff presentation.

Wit

operating as well as

the

committee.

Hello.

Hello.

How better?

Good evening commissioners.

If jell's been a transition

plan with the city of Sacramento,

thank you for extending the

meeting to allow me to have this

presentation for the streets for

people in neighborhood connections

plan.

So today's agenda.

I'll give a quick overview of the

projects and updates since we last

spoke in November.

I'll give a quick overview of the

plan itself and the next steps.

So the streets for people and

neighborhood connection

plans are two different networks

that are combining to connect

folks to neighborhood destinations

via actor transportation.

So the neighborhood connection

plan will be focusing on

residential and minor

connections and the streets for

people.

The plan will be for longer

distance regional trips on

major collectors and arterials.

The timeline.

So for we kicked it off in 2023.

Together the streets for people and

neighborhood connection plans.

And so phase one.

Community engagement was summer in

2023 and summer in 2024.

We had the phase two

engagement and then we had to split

the plans due to timeline

constraints with the funding.

So the neighborhood connection

plan.

Split had the phase three

engagement in all of last year.

And then I'm here before you to

ask for approval to forward the

plan to city council.

Two people plan will have phase three

engagement later on the spring

with option by city council.

The neighborhood connection

plan.

What we completed the date.

We completed an existing

conditions report.

And then we brought that out to

the communities in phase one

engagement.

We as well as presenting to the

ATC in May of 2020.

And then we took the feedback that

we received from phase one

engagement as well as the existing

conditions.

We held the network and the

recommendations which we then

brought out in phase two.

Community engagement in summer of

2024.

And we presented to the ATC in

June.

And then we further refined the

network and recommendations based

all the feedback that we got in

phase two.

We brought that public draft plan to

the community in phase three.

All of 2024.

The neighborhood connection

plan is a plan to connect people to

daily needs through focusing on local

and minor collector streets,

like I mentioned.

Building connections through traffic

calming, supporting biking, walking

and rolling for all ages and abilities,

and providing convenience connections

with neighborhood destination.

Neighborhood destinations were grouped

into four different categories shown

here, which is our central needs,

K through 12 schools, major institutions rains,

The network is overall 431 miles of streets.

It is broken into a primary and secondary routes.

The primary is 237 miles.

It will contain, it will have traffic calming as well as intersection crossing enhancements,

wayfinding and pavement markings.

And the secondary will be essentially a feeder route into the primary with wayfinding.

The primary is shown in pink and the secondary is shown in blue.

In addition to the network recommendations, we have a traffic calming toolkit

to further reduce vehicle speeds and create those low-stress connections for people walking, biking, and rowing.

The five different categories shown here are explained in detail in the traffic calming toolkit, which is appendix the plan.

It is important to note that in the plan these treatments are not recommended for any particular location.

Those will need for-

In addition to the toolkit and the network, we have some policy implementation guidance to be explored by the city to help support the neighborhood connections network.

Following broad categories include traffic calming by default, which would help process-

would help get the neighborhood connections treatments implemented on those streets on the network.

Designed policy updates to be considered to help with network implementation, funding and partnerships to fund those implementation and building projects fast,

identifying opportunities to speed up construction and reduce costs.

Also, there were 10 different corridors that were explored as part of this plan with example treatments shown as an example of what the plan could look like once it is implemented.

And those were city-wide parts of the network.

The preliminary level cost estimates with the secondary routes at around $38 million for the entire of the secondary network, the primary network around $626 million for a total network cost of $664 million.

The secondary routes cost around $200,000 per mile and the primary around $2.65 million per mile.

So next steps for the plan.

So I'm here today to ask you to pass the motion to forward to council.

And then go to council next week with the neighborhood connections next month in February with an action to approve and adopt the plan.

The streets for people will be kicking off phase three and community engagement, including a presentation at ATC, hopefully in March or April, later this year.

And then will be at ATC later in May to ask to approve the plan and recommend it to council with council adoption in June.

And then what's both the neighborhood connections and streets for people plans are adopted. It will be the recommended projects will be analyzed with the transportation priorities plan metrics in order to prioritize the projects identified in both.

And then staff requesting the ATC pass a motion to forward the final draft neighborhood connections plan to city council.

With that, I'll open it up to questions and comments.

Thank you very much. Clerk, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this item?

Thank you chair. I have three speaker slips on this item. Our first speaker is Jeffrey Tatigil.

I apologize for the pronunciation there followed by Alisa Lee.

My concern is I have seen previously again more than five years ago where for the bicycles and for a number of others, you had partial things because that's what your funding supplied.

So just wanting to raise the concern is in this final draft for neighborhood. Is it complete the streets does it make good sense.

And that's my public comment on this item.

Thank you for your comments. Our next speaker is Alisa Lee, followed by Dan Allison.

Alisa district four. I attended one of the workshops. Very excited about this plan. Overall, I admit I haven't read the final draft. Mostly I want to say I think the concerns to raise all the, I mean, starting with the good.

I think being able to really think about neighborhood level connectivity is very important, not just for a completed bicycle network, but I think really emphasizing that if we want to get.

And I think that if we want to get a full-time service, we can use injuries on a high injury quarter. I think we have to look at not just the enormous amount of expense and you know the uphill battle against getting the funding to address those quarters, but really finding alternative pathways that just feel naturally more safe to take in the first place.

I think the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year, the last year

we have these very huge challenges that are not on the jurisdiction of our transportation plan, but I just want to keep bringing that forward, that, you know, I really think about how do we do transportation planning differently, how do we create a better city, how can we keep, you know, pushing the edge, pushing the limit on like one of the things we'd really like to have seen in this neighborhood connections plan is a strategy adopted by the city, adopted by legal adopted by land use planning around how to create more, you know, alleyway passageways

and working with residents, working with schools,

finding things that aren't just already existing roads

and streets, but I know that I think this is a great start.

I just wanna bring that up as something

that let's never limit what we can do

on safety and abilities on the line.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker is Dan Allison, followed by Matt Anderson.

Good evening commissioners.

Dan Allison, District 4.

I love this plan.

I especially appreciate the toolbox.

I like the treatment examples.

I think it's a great plan.

The one disappointment that I have

was the thing that was requested

by a lot of commenters on the plan

that the plan include the possibility

of general funds towards accomplishing these objectives.

It's not there.

The funding ideas does not list general fund at all.

It lists maintenance and rehabilitation.

It does not list general funds.

It's as though general funds are the third rail.

We never talk about them.

We never touch them.

I'm hopeful that under a new city manager,

that will no longer be the case

that we can talk about general funds.

I realize we're under the budget crisis

and that there's a lot of uses for money.

A lot of places it could go,

but I think we do want to have the discussion

about should general fund be going

to implementation of this plan?

The last thing I'll say is

it took me a while to figure out the difference

between neighborhood connections

and active transportation plan.

The neighborhood connections, if implemented,

will encourage people to walk and bike,

but it doesn't solve the safety issues

that occur on the major collectors and arterials.

That's a whole nother plan of equal importance,

at least for safety, but this will encourage

people to walk and promote share.

Thank you.

Your comments?

Our final speaker is Matt Anderson.

Missionaries, Matt Anderson,

I'm gonna stop going after Dan

because I think I just say everything he says,

but this is a fantastic plan.

I am very excited about it.

Huge thanks to Jeff, JDW, Megan,

all the consultants that were part of this.

This really is a very forward plan.

It's got a lot of really cool parts.

Also very excited about the traffic calming toolbox.

I have no disappointments.

One thing that I hope in the future is a focus

on the implementation and designing

is more on the pedestrian side.

I noticed in this final iteration,

they talk a little bit more about sidewalks.

There's 570 miles of streets that don't have sidewalks in there,

which is a basic structure city for active transportation

where we're talking about these buffer bike lanes

and construction we really should get.

So I hope that's a consideration when it is implemented.

And also like the previous commenters said,

implementations.

Excited for the network connections and the toolbox,

but money, we'll see where that happens.

There is one implementation action that I wrote it down

because I was excited about it.

Blanket approval of toolbox elements

on neighborhood connection streets,

which would be fantastic.

I just really hope that staff continues to focus on that

because if we can get things like modal filters

or pedestrian refuge islands

or any of the things that are mentioned there,

out in mass, at least a little more cheaply.

Once we find funding, we can get that going.

I think that could do a lot to really help the city.

But again, this is a fantastic plan.

So excited to see it at the finish line.

And thanks again for all the work that's going to do it.

Chair, I have no more speakers.

Thank you.

Are there any commissioners who wish to speak on this item?

Commissioner Banks.

Yeah.

Awesome.

You can see it at City Council and have everybody.

Thank you.

I'm really excited about it.

I had one question in the picture about the toolbox.

And at this afternoon, I missed it.

Just quick build items in that toolbox.

And no, there's no options for quick build.

Like I said, these are examples of what category of treatments

are different types of sub treatments, I guess you would call them.

I think it didn't do exactly like the implementation.

Hi, Sheridan Zalas.

Thank you, Chair.

And thank you, Commissioner Banks.

You basically took the word out of my mouth.

When I said it's a great plan.

I love the comprehensiveness of it.

I would love to see these bike routes actually way find and signed throughout the communities

they live in so people could mode shift and think about, oh, I could just say this.

It's uninterrupted.

It's connected.

It's got infrastructure to support my motor travel.

But you see the 600 million plus price tag of this project.

It's never going to happen as prescribed.

So I would love, I know it's not a tool and I took it currently, but I would love to see

incremental quick build solutions become policy in this city so that all these great things

that we talked about instead of having to start with hard-scaped $20, $30 million

construction of curbs and cutouts and everything else be temporarily, you know, ballards, you

know, planters, paint, simple things that we can do overnight with off-to-shelf items.

You can be purchased here locally.

I love to go to Capitol Barricade myself in this day dream all day long with all the cool

things they could buy right now and fix the streets of Sacramento today.

And I can do it with my credit card.

I don't want to, you know, so I just don't want to store it 600 million dollars for the

funding that's going to happen for these projects that are beautiful.

And then we have a plan on the shelf collecting dust.

So I'm hoping that sooner rather than later, with full momentum from people like Council

Barricade Maple and the emergency declaration it has mentions of quick build infrastructure

as it is solution to some of our issues that we just make that permanent.

It doesn't even need to be an emergency declaration.

It needs to be permanent policy so that we can forward to do these wonderful things that

Jeff is bringing up this evening.

Thank you.

Commissioner Gibson.

Yeah, just to be brief on that quick build.

I think as we already think about our 2025 annual report, which will need to begin drafting

in just six months from now, quick build, especially in response to a serious collision.

I know other communities have responses for serious collisions.

So whether it is those planter boxes or ballards that off the shelf material cost is, you

know, $100.

I think is something we should consider and use this tool to get to build off and provide,

help provide direction when we can.

At least have some response when there's a serious collision.

I don't, Commissioner Lee-Sea Cruz.

So I want to go off of the idea of a quick build.

There have been many solutions in the air that have been suggested for many of these streets,

but none of them have actually been discussed or implemented.

And I think it's important that we do include quick build as some sort of option if we want

to really decrease the amount of maybe debts by pedestrians or injuries or even just to

increase our modal share by other forms of transportation.

And I know this topic has come up a fair amount of times as far as I'm aware in these transportation

commission meetings.

I do know there are programs in other cities that have worked and I do hope that maybe

in this city of Sacramento we are able to implement something similar.

Thank you.

Commissioner Doer-Wispert.

Commissioner Comet, because I'm leaving, but I think it could be helpful if the commission

comes to consensus on what you all are considering a quick build.

So like this city, like that, we're all talking about the same thing because I don't know if

we are.

And so I think it would be helpful, yeah, if the commission kind of defined what we mean

by a quick build project, if you're simply talking about the different materials that

you want to be able to use on the street and for the city to put together like a list

of approved materials that could be used and that would be helpful.

But usually quick build projects are designed to be there for a limited period of time with

the intention to ultimately build a permanent infrastructure project.

And if we're already hearing from the city that they don't have money, then I don't know

if that's quite meeting like what a true quick build project is.

So I guess just looking for clarification, like our, is the commission, are you all asking

for just like approved materials that could be used on a quick build?

It's been kind of unclear to me during this discussion, leaving.

So you guys can decide for yourself.

Vice Chair guns Hallis.

Thank you, Commissioner Westbrook.

Yeah, I actually go back to Councilmember Katie Van Srella and my Ving, who asked for that

same definition during the 2023 recommendations of staff and heard that we were working on

it.

And I know that an outgoing member of city staff who retired recently said at the same

meeting that we were looking at consultants to talk about quick build.

And we haven't heard any report of that.

So I would push back not on this commission to do that, but we're staff to do that.

Thank you.

Commissioner Harris.

Really trying hard to not speak.

Is this a log item that needs to be asked for a presentation on a quick build item?

I move that I will, I, this is not an item.

I guess I've to order on the extra thing for things not on the agenda to move for an item

for a presentation on where we are in the quick build.

So we could have a discussion so that we could talk about what we want to put in our report.

And questions.

Commissioner Harris.

This is an item that's already on the log for Council.

So I don't know if it would be, if you were requesting a log item for the commission to

identify what it would like to see.

And then we have a sponsor of a commissioner to do that.

That's feasible.

Staff are working with the log item for city council.

And that's a separate item.

We wouldn't come to this commission before we finish following up with the council.

What is the timing of following up with council?

I don't know.

It's not in my team.

But we can report back next month.

And we get a report on the timing for the log item for the council.

I'm happy to add that.

On the quick.

I'm happy to add that's my list.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

The no more hands up.

So may I have a motion to request ATC pass the motion to forward the final draft of the

neighborhood connections plan to city council.

I have a motion by commissioner door westbrook and a second from commissioner helped.

Sorry I saw him first.

Will the clerk please call the roll for the vote?

Chair.

Commissioner Harris.

Aye.

Mr. Gibson.

Aye.

Mr. Doer Westbrook.

Aye.

Mr. Lydaker.

Yes.

Mr. Chair Gonzalez.

Aye.

Commissioner Hops.

Aye.

Mr. More.

Aye.

Commissioner Lycia Cruz.

Stain.

Commissioner Banks.

Aye.

And Chair Hodel.

Aye.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Okay.

The next item.

How about if we do.

Are there any speakers for items not on the agenda?

Chair, I do have two speakers for matters not on the agenda.

Our first is Jeffrey and then Dan Allison.

No commission.

Jeff Tartigia district four.

I have gone around to various as you are electing new chairpeople.

Make this statement is.

Heaven and to the rest of you is please get items not on the agenda.

Do not be the last item on the agenda.

Please move it up.

I'm going to suggest after your consent docket before you get into discussion.

So the public does not have to wait and make comments that because it's the public that you really need to hear from.

And unfortunately unless you bring an item that is of interest to the public.

The only way you hear about it is items not on the agenda.

And around all week to various bodies commissions encouraging them to get this and I'm going to bug Kevin until he changes that.

Thank you.

Your comments.

Our final speaker is Dan Allison.

I live on the P3 bikeway and I observe that bikeway and I also use a lot of the other separated bikeways in the central city.

And I was very disappointed to see them not being maintained this year.

A month into leaf season there had been no sweeping except by private adjacent property owners who did it on their own but not required to.

It appears that they were finally swept though a couple blocks were missed and were not swept.

And during the period of time they were not swept they essentially became impassible.

So we have this great facility in the city that the city is just a firewood proud of.

But they weren't usable this year.

Now you're to maintain them. Thank you.

I have no more speakers from matters not on the agenda.

Thank you.

The next item is member comments ideas and questions.

Are there any commissioners who wish to speak? Commissioner Gibson.

Thank you all for your support of the motion earlier today.

I also wish to thank vice chairkins all is for his memorial they help hosted for the at least 32 people who died in traffic violence in 2024.

It was a very moving event and he took about four minutes to say the name of everyone we know that died due to traffic violence.

And there is at least two people who died of traffic violence since our last meeting.

A woman who was age 53 a pedestrian off of Northgate Boulevard.

And then another woman age 52 on northbound i5 in the city limits.

Thank you.

Any other commissioners.

Nice chairkins all is.

Thank you chair.

Couple things number one.

This is the second time down a row that our meeting has been moved to this location in the last two meetings and then it has happened before.

Happened last year for our first meeting I believe.

And while this room is obviously adequate for the conducting conducting business.

This technology is not.

The windscreens are three bucks for a ten pack.

These might be the windscreens.

The popping of the piece on the main lecture over there are very annoying.

And when you watch these videos back after the factor you're watching them live those cutouts don't get through the broadcast.

So we are actually limiting accessibility by being in this room and having substandard technology.

So I would love it if the city would invest a couple of bucks and getting windscreens.

I don't know what say no mask is ripped every windscreen off of these microphones is room.

I can guarantee you like they can easily be replaced and they should be.

So that's no point number one.

I just want to thank commissioner Westbrook for all of her service and she's going to be greatly miss.

I was so mad I was like so you coming back right she said I don't know I'm not like.

What?

Why not only?

But I was a little miss you but we know we'll see you and I hope you'll be on that side.

Given itself what for and just thank you for all your service to this commission as not only as a commissioner but as chair.

You did a wonderful job and hard to replace.

I'm very excited who will be sitting in this seat after I leave.

Good hands.

I see no more hands up so I will say this concludes today's agenda.

Thank you everyone for your participation.

The meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.

Yes sir.

Parking passes yes.

Thank you.