Am we going early or late?

I think it's even written in here.

Thank you, Jack.

Put it.

Thank you for Chair Staffers Beto and you are good evening.

Welcome to the August 21, 2025 Active Transportation Commission.

The meeting is now called to order.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioners, please unmute Commissioner Harris.

Here.

Commissioner Gibson.

Present.

Commissioner Wadwani.

Absent.

Vice Chair Gonzalez.

Here.

Commissioner Hop.

Here.

Commissioner Tao.

Present.

Commissioner Hyatt.

Here.

Commissioner Moore.

Present.

Commissioner Banks.

Here.

And Chair Hodell.

Here.

Thank you, Mabel Corm.

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

You'll 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.

To the original people of this land, the Nissanon people, the Southern Maidu, Valley and Plains Miwok, Patwin 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 together today in the active practice of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's Indigenous People's History, contributions, and lives.

Thank you.

Please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance by the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

Our first business uh today is the Commission staff report.

Um you may proceed.

Thank you, Chair Hodell.

Good evening, everybody.

Jennifer Donlin Wyatt, division manager for mobility and sustainability.

Um division in public works.

I have my staff report for you this evening.

It's relatively brief.

Uh, and most of it is staffing updates.

Uh first I'll go with commissioner updates.

I wanted to share with you that Commissioner Litaker and Commissioner Lisa Cruz have resigned from their seats, so we'll be actively recruiting.

So if you know of somebody who fits either of those uh candidaces, um, Commissioner Luceus Cruz was the youth seat, and Commissioner Litaker was represented or uh nominated and appointed uh through District 5.

So heads up on that.

So we'll be recruiting.

I believe it's already live on the clerk's website.

If not, it will be soon.

Right, Safar?

Great.

Awesome.

And so that's it on seats on the commission, and then I wanted to take a moment to introduce some new staff on our transportation planning team.

So first I'd like to introduce Chris Doherty.

Chris is sitting over there next to Jeff.

Chris is our new transportation planning manager, and he will be overseeing the transportation planning team.

Uh Chris has over 20 years experience in transportation planning.

Uh this is his boomerang back to the city of Sacramento, uh, where he worked uh a number of years ago.

He also has experience in the city of West Sacramento, SayCog, and Caltrans, among a couple of other jurisdictions, and we are excited and welcome Chris to the team.

Um we also have Kemi Ademu Yewu, um, who just joined us uh three weeks ago, I think.

Kemi joined us from uh the feds and we're really excited to have her on our team.

Kemi will be leading some really important community-based planning work, including our reconnecting communities, uh reconnecting old North Sacramento, um, which I'm sure Commissioner Harris is very excited about.

Um, we'll be issuing an RFP for that soon uh to begin our work with our communities on that effort that is funded through the federal reconnecting communities program.

Um so welcome to Chris and welcome to Kemi on our teams.

We're very excited to have you here.

And you'll be seeing their faces more often here at Commission.

And related to that, um, I will be stepping down in my role supporting the staff for the commission, uh, because that's Chris's role.

Because that's Chris's role.

And so we'll be transitioning over the next couple of months.

I'll still be here and we'll be training Chris up on the things that I do.

Which is a lot of, I don't know, telling you all the rules and telling you what's going on in the city of Sacramento.

And so you'll still see me for the next couple of months, but then Chris will be taking over my seat soon.

So with that, thank you.

And that is my staff report, Chair.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

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 speaker's lips for this item.

Thank you.

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

Is may I have a motion and a second for the consent calendar?

So move.

Commissioner Okay, I have a motion from Commissioner Help and a second from Commissioner Harris.

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioners, please unmute Commissioner Harris.

Aye.

Commissioner Gibson.

Aye.

Commissioner Wadwani.

Aye.

Vice Chair Gonzalez?

Yes.

Commissioner Ha?

Aye.

Commissioner Hayat?

Yes.

Commissioner Tao?

Yes.

Commissioner Moore.

Aye.

Commissioner Binks?

Aye.

Chair Hodell.

Aye.

Thank you.

And the motion passes.

We'll now proceed to the discussion calendar.

Item number three is streets for people, um, active transportation plan.

Is there a staff presentation?

Yes, there is good evening.

Associate Pioneer with Department of Public Works.

I'm joined tonight by uh Marisa Hernandez from Alta Planning Design, which is the consulting group helping us on this effort.

So tonight's presentation is for the Streets for People Active Transitation Plan with action to pass a motion to recommend to City Council to approve the plan.

So tonight's agenda includes a brief overview of the plan, what's in it, and what has changed since we last presented in the spring and next steps.

So a quick overview of the project.

So the Streets for People Plan is a plan for people walking, rolling, bicycling, and also access to transit citywide, and we'll guide future city and private development interests or investment.

So the streets for people plan will identify in all ages and abilities network, including neighborhood connections, made up of traffic call and residential streets and minor collectors.

Thank you.

So the plan's goals aligns with the criteria and metrics developed as part of the city's 24 year general plan, as well as the climate action and adaptation plan and the transportation priorities plan.

So those include one providing access to destinations, two providing equitable investment to address historical inequities, three, improving transportation safety, four um improving air quality, climate and health, and five, fixing and maintaining the system.

So the project schedule shows uh the progress to date, um, noting the split of the project into two into part one, neighborhood connections shown in green there on the bottom, which was adopted in 2020, or February 2025.

And part two, Streets for People Plan, which is tenuely slated for council adoption later this year.

So what's in the plan?

I'll pass it over to Mauricio to go over that.

Hi, everybody, Maurice Fernandez.

Um I do this easy.

All right, cool.

All right, uh hi everybody, Mauris Fernandez, Alta Planning and Design.

I am the PM for the project.

I know that you have talked to my colleague and second hand in command, uh Cole Pfeiffer before.

Sorry I couldn't join you.

I got married right at the same time that we were meeting.

So yeah, glad I could join you guys today.

Um, so I'm gonna go really fast uh related to the sections that are included here in the plan.

You can see the plan already on the website.

Uh as well as an executive summary.

We really focused everything that we did was focused on equity.

And based on our analyses, we did find that a few different people required different uh items and specialized services and infrastructure to get around, particularly people with disabilities, people uh that uh are younger and or older may require additional assistance, and of course, uh for the longest time, the disadvantaged populations are more likely to walk, bike and roll and need and ride transit.

Uh and there's a lot of uh there has been a lot of uh historical disadvantages.

On the walking and rolling side, we do include a little bit of a summary.

This is very, very high level.

We found that proximity and directness are critical to access.

You can see here then uh less than half uh of folks here uh have community access or are able to access their essential needs, including grocery stores, healthcare.

We did a bunch of analyses on accessing by walking and biking.

Uh so those are really good.

Um certainly not all people travel at the same pace.

This is very interesting for all of us, uh, particularly those folks that are a little bit older or quite a bit younger.

They really certainly need a little bit more time to walk and bike.

In relation to uh how people get around, of course, there are tons of crossing barriers like highways, rivers, and major uh streets that limit the access for people walking and people biking.

Um focusing on biking, uh again, less than half of the population have access to essential needs by bike.

Certainly, people travel at different paces, so folks with a family or kid kiddos travel a little bit slower than others.

Same thing, barriers uh like highways and rivers are a little bit more limiting, so we were focusing on ameliorating those uh or improving those connections.

Uh finally, the majority of Sacramentos tend to be very disconnected, and so we wanted to focus on improving those conditions for the uh folks.

We also consolidated our comments uh as part of a tree canopy analysis, and generally we found that uh the focus areas that included North Sacramento, Fruit Rich, and Broadway were the ones that had the least coverage from uh tree uh canopy.

And of course, you can see the uh uh central neighborhoods of land park, East Sacramento, and Curtis Park, some of those neighborhoods have the highest tree canopy.

We did uh the analysis to really understand uh the best locations to tie improvements for biking and walking with, of course, the tree canopy, which is really really useful when you're walking, particularly in days in the in the summer uh days.

Um, in terms of community engagement, as you can see, we try to focus our engagement throughout all areas of the city with very much a focus on North Sacramento, Fruit Ridge, Radway, and South Sacramento.

We tended to really, really focus on BIPOC communities, households with no limited or access motor vehicles, as well as people with disabilities.

And again, we try to focus that engagement, face-to-face engagement as such, particularly within phases two and three.

Um you can see some of the numbers here of how many people we engage and how we engage them, but really what we heard kept summarized, and this is extremely high level, is folks really want to make it safer and more connected.

They certainly want to make it more comfortable to walk indoor bike as well as roll for those folks that need a mobility device.

And we certainly want to keep what we have and maintain it.

Again, we don't want it to go into this repair, so we want the uh improvements to continue.

And finally, we certainly need uh to provide uh supportive amenities and programs again to continue the use of active transportation and so that they support active transportation programs.

Um as part of the recommendations that we developed, these are an updated numbers, and you'll see a little bit of a note later on.

The last time that we came, this cut number came a little bit higher than that, or quite a bit higher, I should say.

Um that was partly because we uh cleaned up the data.

We really understood that we were double counting some sidewalks.

So this is the updated numbers.

These numbers have been included in the plan as well as the numbers for people biking.

Uh it is uh 866 if and when the uh complete network or the network is completed.

We really focused on upgrading many of the facilities, so existing class twos or bike lanes were upgraded to many cases to class fours to provide that higher level of separation, higher level of comfort for folks that need a little bit more or that are not um super gun-ho about biking, like those like myself who wear like route every Saturday and Sunday.

As part of recommendations, there were we worked with the city staff to really develop recommendations for about 612 intersections.

We highlighted those for in uh additional improvement.

These were highlighted, not in specific the type of facility that will be going in there, as every intersection will need to be highlighted in there, and we'll need to be studying each and every one of the intersections by itself.

We really were focusing on tying existing routes as well as neighborhood connections, in addition to addressing any safety concerns that the public had.

So many of these recommendations were also informed by what the public had to say.

As noted, uh the policies and programs, we certainly wanted to supplement and complement what's already existing.

Uh and so wherever possible, we wanted to highlight what is already uh what the city's already doing in relation to equity, education, engagement, engineering, evaluation, and encouragement, um as well as providing for uh additional recommendations on policies and programs that the city can actually achieve.

So everything was really focused on achieving every single goal here.

These were developed again based on the goals and based on the feedback that uh folks had uh during public engagement.

Um in addition, because we were focusing on continuing maintenance and improving maintenance, we certainly developed maintenance considerations, including uh providing solutions for those issues that we that are noted here.

So, in areas of historical investment, you'll see that a lot of the um improvers were focused there.

Not that we're not looking at the city, but we certainly wanted to pay a lot more attention in those areas.

And of course, there is a ton of deferred maintenance that we still continue to see, so we wanted to address that.

Uh so since the last time that my partner in crime cole came, uh, what has changed in the plan, or what did we change in the plan?

We didn't this is included in your packet.

Um, we did incorporate a ton of different comments from the public.

I believe we got over 700 comments on the web map.

Sorry, not the web map, but the um PDF comment tool that a lot of people used.

We certainly got over a hundred comment, over sorry, seven seventy comments from uh on email that staff shared with us, and of course, you all shared uh a number of comments on the plan itself.

We certainly, in addition to that, there were some recurring themes, so some of these comments will allude to that.

So, common questions.

We developed a section that really addressed those common questions.

It's a pretty comprehensive, I believe it's two and a half pages long.

Uh, really provides some information for folks really asking the same question that provides more details on how, when, and why.

We also expanded the plan to include existing and planned crossings for people walking, people biking, and of course, addressing those uh uh barriers, including freeways, waterways, and railroads.

Um, as Jeff mentioned, as the project completed, I guess the part A, which is the neighborhood connections plan completed.

We also appended the toolbox that was created uh as part of that project, or as part of that part of the project.

Um we included it in here, so it is all one in one centralized location.

Uh, this was a big one.

Uh we collaborated with great photographers and a few of you and uh developing and putting together more representative photos of the city as well as the residents of the city.

So you'll see that it's a really fun uh and playful uh plan.

Uh and also developed a section on return of investment that does provide additional information about why uh cities like Sacramento should continue to invest in active transportation infrastructure.

Um additionally, and this is uh at the request of a many of you, we did include a lot more information on the methods on how the recommendations were developed.

We had initially placed all of this as part of the appendices, but we certainly got the same question over and over again.

How did we come to this conclusion?

So we included this as part of the uh main plan.

Uh the hope again was to provide a more simplified version of the methodology.

Again, it's very data-driven, so we included some of those sections.

Um as mentioned, we fine-tuned some of the policies, programs, and of course the facilities, and as I mentioned, we cleaned up a little bit more of the data.

We also consolidated some of the improvements that were already there, or that were in the process of being constructed.

So you'll see those included in the plan.

And we, of course, updated the overall facility costs since the last time that we came, as the numbers came on the a little bit lower than last time.

As mentioned, again, this uh, and I I gotta check my notes, my paper notes here, but uh the streets for people plan recommends over 1.5 billion dollars in uh facilities for people walking and for people walking, and just over eight, just under 900 million for people biking, and these figures were a little bit lower than before the plan.

Sorry, I gotta check my notes on how much we have.

So they went uh from one point from six billion dollars to 1.5 billion dollars after we cleaned up the data and consolidated everything.

Um, and from 1.6 billion for people biking to eight point oh, I'm sorry, eight hundred and ninety-three million dollars in projects for people biking.

Uh so those are the biggest changes in the plan.

Um I'm gonna cede it over to Jeff so that he can finalize on the next steps.

Thank you.

Great, thank you, Mauricio.

I just want to clarify as well that the cleaning of the data didn't necessarily uh mean that any of the network that was proposed was changed, it was just a doubling of the network.

Um, so some data cleaning.

So the network didn't itself did not change.

Um so for next steps for the plan, um, we're here tonight for to ask for um to pass a motion to uh to bring the plan to council for adoption.

Um, more likely in October of this year.

And then um once we do get adoption um in approval of the plan, we will be prioritizing the projects that were identified in the network, so that we'll be going through the transportation priorities plan process with those metrics to identify the low, medium, and high priority projects based on those council adopted metrics.

Um so again, tonight we are asking for the commission to pass the motion to recommend city council approve the streets for people plan.

And um we can open it for comments and questions.

Thank you very much.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I have one speaker slip for this item.

Our speaker is Alyssa Lee.

Good evening, Commissioner.

My name is Elisa Lee.

I live in District Four.

Um, thank you to all the staff who worked on this plan.

And like there really is not much to say because I think we're running into the same problems we always run into with our plans, which is that I think many of the meaningful changes that communities know make sense on the ground that are specific and feelable um were answered in the common questions as there's no funding, or it's not in the preview of this plan, which are totally totally valid um issues, and I think just betrays that this plan does not actually signify making Sacramento streets for people, which is not a problem with the plan, but really I think as the direction for the commission to think about is when we bring this to council, thinking about passing the plan, I hate to say it, the plan means very little, and so that's mostly what we already know with very little specificity and very little teeth.

So when we talk about this to the council and what the presentation of the council should highlight and emphasize, um I think the the few change the changes that are worth highlighting are you know the the updates on the map and the expanded toolbox of neighborhood connections and really emphasizing to council that we have these great recommended and researched um suggestions and they need to listen on where to improve where to implement them.

Um but I think for the commission, you know, this plan should pass, it should move forward, it should get adopted.

Um, but perhaps there is a way to incorporate some of the learnings from the urban forest adoption plan of can we create a community um uh implementation advising group.

Uh it just I think we shouldn't call it something that it's not, and it's not a plan for creating streets for people in Sacramento.

It's uh it's a summary of many attitudes that we've heard over and over with very little to actually make it happen, and that's not a problem with the plan, but it's a problem with our city's processes.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Chair, I have no more speakers.

Thank you.

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

Commissioner Banks.

Hi, you guys, thank you.

Thank you for the overview and hearing about what's new.

Um that's always a little bit um that I always feel like we kind of gloss over and we never really quite get to is this piece about evaluation.

And you spoke about evaluation in this plan.

More often than not, when we're doing projects for the city, I hear uh well, we don't have money for the evaluation because it doesn't get built into the plan.

What gets into the plan is planning, engineering, building.

So I'm curious about how you are gonna think about or acting evaluate whether or not any of the projects in the this plan gets done.

I actually have two questions.

That's question number one.

Question number two is um are there targeted goals associated with this?

It's a huge plan.

It's got a lot of money that we don't have yet to implement it, which I think uh lend itself to some of what Elisa is saying.

Uh and so my question to you guys are there sub-targets we want to get this far on this plan by X date, and we'll know we've gotten there by this kind of evaluation.

Curious about that kind of level of thinking, and maybe it's early for that.

It's like we're just launching this thing, and that comes next.

But I'm curious.

Thanks.

Yeah, thanks for the question.

Um, the first question in terms of the evaluation, we the recommended programs that we have are to continue monitoring crash data because we have that vision zero dashboard now.

Um, and we're able to pull city data for the traffic violence that we're happening on the streets.

Um also there's an active transportation count program that is recommended.

So um a lot of times with grant applications, they seek that type of um evaluation for projects so that it can you can see the uptick and people walking and biking and using the facilities that are funded through those grant programs.

Um there is a capital improvement pro um or a CIP dashboard that we have now for public works where it's showing all the different projects that are in either certain design phases or construction or planning, and so that's another thing that we are have rolled out recently in terms of showing progress about how we're moving forward on these different projects that we're identifying.

Um second question targets, goals subtext targets.

Right, thank you.

Um yeah, so the transportation priorities plan I think does a lot of lifting in that space um because it's identifying the high, medium, and low priorities because our funding is so limited.

And so that's really gonna be that um telling us which projects we're gonna do first, which one are gonna do second and third.

And that's really I think the main for us being able to kind of move forward on those projects identified in the plan.

But there won't be anything that says by 2027, we hope to have accomplished this set of projects that have been risen up to that high priority in the TPP.

Yeah, well, we haven't done the TPP evaluation of the projects yet.

Um but yeah.

That's you know, a step of that.

Right.

I mean, um I don't think we would put a timeline on it necessarily because transportation funding is so complex and hard, um, and it takes so long for us to fund things that um it'd be difficult to put a timeline to like all the different projects that we have identified in the plan.

But a goal is always good if you have something to strive for.

Commissioner Banks, I don't think that we can commit to in a plan for that because our funding is uh unpredictable.

But we do have a goal for Mode Chair, right?

So our general plan and our climate action and adaptation plan set clear goals for active transportation to reach six percent by 2030 and 12 percent by um yeah, and then 12% by 2045.

Gosh, too many numbers for me to keep straight.

But we have those goals, and we're using the the ease of the infrastructure, um, the the engineering e, the uh the programmatic ease to help us get there.

Um, but we we what would be remiss to say that we want to complete these projects in a three-year timeline when the funding for those projects are beyond the city's control.

Fine, whatever those metrics are, but I think that if mold shift is the goal, then there needs to be some equation that helps link this program and the plan with the mode shift we're trying to get to, and what will those metrics be?

I think those should be made tacit, whether through the plan or afterwards.

I uh commissioner uh commissioner Hyatt.

Thank you, Chair Hodell.

Uh thanks, Jeff and team um for all the work that you've done on this project.

Uh I don't have much to say.

I didn't have uh quick question we heard from the member of the audience about um the possibility of creating a community implementation advisory group.

Would that be something that the city would be able to help allow the community greater engagement as this as the implementation of this plan proceeds?

Yeah, there is a log item with the active transportation commission to regularly update and give updates on the active transportation plan in the city.

So I think this would be the forum for that.

Commissioner Hyatt, if I might just add the the city code around the regulatory one of the framing of this commission is to advise the city on the implementation of the active transportation plans.

So that's this body's role.

Commissioner Tow.

Thank you, Chair O'Dell.

I just had a question for the plan.

So in the South Sacramento area, some of the borders kind of cross into the boundary of the county.

So I'm wondering if we are considering just our investment there.

Is that part of the plan or how are we collaborating with the county?

Do we have the county to invest in some of that to make it more aligned or connected?

So yeah, I'll start and I'll kick it over to you.

Um so yeah, we showed those county facilities from their um recent active transition plan, which I think was adopted in 2022, just to show that connection because there is such a prominent area of the city that is county.

Um and yeah, once we identify those projects, or with the projects have been identified, once we start to move to the next phase, then we will definitely be working with our county partners.

Yeah, and as far as the planning for those facilities, we certainly focused on the we certainly focused on providing the uh easiest connections within those facilities.

So if the county was providing for a separated bikeway, uh we certainly included a separated bikeway in the city site so that the user uh had an easy transition between the different facilities.

As far as funding, that plan identified some sources of funding.

Again, we try to match up all of the recommendations to make it easier for folks that really don't understand or really shouldn't understand uh city boundaries or uh jurisdictional boundaries.

So that was another portion of this plan.

Thank you.

I see no other commissioners chiming in.

May I have a motion and a moved?

I have a motion from Commissioner Gibson and a second from Commissioner Harris.

Uh will the clerk please call the roll for the vote.

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Harris.

Aye.

Commissioner Gibson.

Aye.

Commissioner Wadwani.

Aye.

Vice Chair Gonzalez is absent.

Commissioner Ha?

Yeah.

Aye.

Commissioner Hyatt.

Yes.

Commissioner Tao.

Aye.

Commissioner Moore?

Aye.

Commissioner Banks?

Yes.

And Chair Hodell.

Aye.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next item is item number four.

Connecting Howe Avenue, Safety and Mobility Mobility Plan.

Proposed alternatives.

Is there a staff presentation?

Chair Hodell, there is.

Thank you.

Isaac.

He's probably watching.

Allowed to watch.

Good evening, Commission.

I'm gonna do a slow introduction as Commissioner Gonzalez comes back into the room.

Um my name is Jennifer Donlin Wyatt.

I get to serve our city as the division manager for mobility and sustainability, and I'm filling in for Sharice Padilla, who is the project manager for this effort while she is out for a little bit.

So forgive me as I stumble through somebody else's presentation, but I think I got you.

So what we're here this evening to talk about is our how connecting how avenue um mobility safety mobility plan.

This is the phase two review of the alternatives.

Um and I'm gonna jump right in.

So I'm gonna go over why how what are our goals, what are the alternative concepts that we brought to the communities, and what do we did for community engagement and next steps?

So why Howe Avenue?

Some of you may know how really well.

Um Howe Avenue is a uh significant corridor.

It includes up at the north, Howe and Fair Oaks, commercial developments.

There is significant higher density residential communities such as Campus Commons, uh as well as commercial along the corridor, we cross the river, there's more homes, and then it's adjacent to Sack State.

Um it goes all the way south of Folsom Boulevard and it connects to the light rail station, our planning area there.

So we wanted to ensure connection to light rail.

It serves residents, many communities, SAC State, students, businesses, um, a lot of communities.

It's also can I go back?

Can I go back?

I might have skip that.

Is one of our Vision Zero top 10 corridors.

So one of the corridors in the city with the highest number of severe injuries and fatalities.

Our goal with this effort is to develop a data-driven community supported and infused vision plan for Howe Avenue to improve safety and mobility.

So what we're doing is I want to share with you the concepts that we provided to the public, and then get your input.

I will note that the public comment period actually is already closed, but but y'all don't meet in July.

So we are coming to you in this month to hear your input.

We did do a lot of community engagement throughout the summer.

So the concepts.

Again, we're we're we're trying to center mobility because Howe Avenue doesn't have continuous sidewalks, it has limited crossings, has inconsistent number of lanes, and it has currently minimum width bike lanes for portions of it, but not all of it.

And so alternative one includes signal operations and visibility, it adds visibility for signal heads, we have a lot of high speeds and curves with approach to intersections that make visibility a challenge.

It includes signalizing the crosswalks at the freeways, includes lowering speed limits.

Howe Avenue is one of our AB 43 corridors, looking at using state law to additionally lower speed limits.

We're looking at adding a small shared use path that would connect the sidewalk gap closure down to University Avenue to connect to the communities down there and make a connection to the American River Parkway.

The alternative one also includes removing the narrow bikeways on Howe Avenue and providing a wider sidewalk, including additional crosswalks, closing the west sidewide west side sidewalk gaps, and um closing the gaps for the overpass in the bridge.

So this is what the potential cross-section would be with alternative one.

I'm gonna give you a moment to look at it.

It was also in your staff reports, but I know that you all are busy folks, so this is alternative one.

Alternative two has a lot of the other things that we talked about earlier in alternative one, but also includes, I think, probably most significantly a shared use path on the east side of Howe Avenue.

That would provide an off-street connection for people walking, biking, uh, and and um and rolling.

It would add canal labored structures across the bridges because if you're familiar with the area, the the bridges are on Howe Avenue are narrow.

They actually have instead of three lanes in either direction, there are two lanes in either direction, and there are narrow sidewalks.

So, what we're talking about here is creating a space that can or levers off the bridge to provide that low stress connection for people walking, biking, and rolling.

Um, and then adding a landscape buffer with shades, trees, and lighting.

So this would be the cross section for proposed alternative two.

And as you can see here, it includes on the east side of the roadway a shared use path with a planning strip and separation with landscaping and ideally trees provide shade and separation for moving vehicles.

We did uh community engagement June 17th through July 21st.

We held a lot of meetings and even had a bonus community meeting to ensure that folks who live and work along the corridor can share their input and their thoughts.

Um we gone over, we had online presence, we did social media, the city's express blog posts, we did a lot to reach out to folks.

We went to events in the community and in the area to get input from folks.

We had virtual and in-person workshops and all of that great info.

Um of the things that I know is going to come up, so I'm just gonna preempt it and talk about it right now is why is there not a planned lane reduction on Howe Avenue?

It currently has, and I see the smiles, I know everyone's gonna ask that question, so I'm just gonna jump right into it.

Howe Avenue is, as I mentioned earlier, is predominantly three lanes in either direction with a pinch point over the bridge where there are two lanes in either direction.

Um and the reason why we in alternatives one and alternatives two, we do not include a lane reduction is for many reasons.

Um one of the reasons is that it's currently over 30,000 vehicles per day, and there are limited places north-south for the connectivity.

The general plan uh which guides not only the number of lanes every roadway has in the city, but also we did a pretty in-depth traffic analyses, projects that by 20 uh 40, 45, we're gonna have 50,000 vehicles per day on the corridor.

Um, however, we have heard loud and clear from our community.

So, this is something that you would like us, you is in the broad you uh like us to revisit.

So we're sharpening our pencils and looking at that evaluation now as we're developing the draft planning document, because we shared the alternatives, right?

They were just cross-sections with the description.

We're developing the plan right now.

That um, so so look for more information on that this fall.

Um, and our goal is is to do community engagement in the fall on the plan, come to you as a commission in January for your approval and council in February for their their adoption.

Uh, this is a grant funded project, which means that our timeline is very restricted.

Uh there's no flexibility in this grant in our schedule.

So we're moving as as quickly as we can while still also being as thoughtful as we can to gather your input and move something forward that is not only feasible but reflects um our community's vision.

So with that, I'm happy to take any questions that you may have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I have three speaker slips for this item.

Our first speaker is Michael Bevins.

Hello, Commissioners of Michael Bevins.

I'm in District 2.

I always forget to mention that.

Um I want to talk overview about this project, the one coming next, no wood, the one the streets for people, it's all it's all good mostly.

Um I just had to narrow it down to what to talk about, so I decided to talk about bike lanes.

And maybe not this is the best example because the bike lane proposed along the corridor of over the 50 and over the river is obviously protected because it's candid off the road.

But when it does come back into population around fair rooks.

Um it I think the design is limited.

Uh I I've I've gone to a whole bunch of these road design things, and every time I go into one, the first thing I do is I look at the poster and I look and see where's the bike line.

Okay, there is one.

Hey, it's painted green.

Okay, that's nice.

It's wide and it's got paint, and but uh it's not protected.

It's always the case, it's just a white line, it's just paint.

Um so I'm wondering if we're gonna design something for a plan that we should plan for it to be in a finished state.

If you're a bike rider and you get onto this corridor and it's not protected, it's that's a bad unfinished plan in my mind.

Um get lost here.

Uh so if slow speeds um uh a small barricade like a speed, we should have a uh separation.

Um if you're going really fast, you need a barricade of some kind to protect the biker from the the high speeds of car.

Um there's only really two ways to slow down to make traffic safe.

You either slow it down so if accidents happen, it's non-fatal, and or you separate traffic with barriers of some kind.

So if an accident does happen, and they will, the accident is contained inside those barriers.

That's why the bears are there.

So protect uh a car going off the road doesn't take out somebody on a bike who's just riding by.

So anyway, that was a bunch of rambling, but thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker is Alyssa Lee.

Hi, um I'm Elisa, District 4.

Uh I admittedly have not walked or biked Howe Avenue, so I deferred all the community input.

Um, I'm just here to say that of the two alternatives, um, I would definitely choose alternative two.

I have other choices in mind, but um, I think um alternative two, I I can definitely see making a real tangible difference.

It's not enough to end vitalities.

Um, but I could see it being really a huge difference to the folks who do have to use it.

Um keeping the bike way, maintaining separation, and um uh reducing speed limits in any way I think is is always the key to reducing the fatality.

So separation, reducing speed limits.

I appreciate the uh the efforts for that in both alternatives.

I'm a little beaten down on this one because the ADT rule and it's it's a hard corridor to manage, but um, yep, go with two.

Oh, sorry, wait, I forgot the other thing, which is that I think there was some mention that there were maybe some um right-of-way issues with alternative two at one of the meetings.

Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Um so we wondered if there are if if that becomes an issue, can some would alternative one be used until right-of-way could be secured.

I I I don't know if I made that up.

So I guess if you could address like, are there any other implementation challenges with alternative two?

That'd be a great question.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker is Matt.

Good evening, everybody.

Happy to be here.

Matt Anderson, District 4.

Um this is not a great corridor.

There are no good answers here, unfortunately.

And um that's tough.

Uh I think anything that is trying to redesign this is gonna take a long time, a lot of effort, um, and really thinking through things.

I'm very much looking forward to uh additional analysis and potential future alternatives that come out later.

I'm gonna hold you to that one.

Um I also hope that uh if we're talking safety, it's a safety and mobility plan.

Um red light cameras are considered.

I know that well, I would just like to throw that one out there.

Um there are stats on when they first went in to Howe and Feroaks, and there was a I think 44% reduction in crashes from red light running, which is pretty significant.

So I hope non-infrastructure um options are looked at as well.

Um and also um I hope that more mobility research is done because I think there's a lot of potential for as Alisa mentioned, ADT is not a great metric to use.

And as an aside, if that's all we use to disqualify future options, we're just gonna keep building car infrastructure forever, and it's gonna get wider and worse and wider and worse.

Look at you know, 50 or 80 or any of our freeways for examples.

Um we really should look at mobility options there because uh I think you could do a lot with the turn counts, figure out where people are going, figure out ways to get them, what they need, and where they're going faster, better.

Um so I'm hoping that happens, and I'm very much looking forward to the analysis.

So thank you for your time, and I'll leave it there.

Thank you for your comment.

Chair, I have no more speakers.

Thank you.

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

Commissioner Gibson.

Uh, first of all, thank you uh for everybody working on this plan.

Uh no surprise, preference would be alternative two over one.

Um, I'll and I'll just say um although my dog can't speak for herself, she loves this area.

She spends a ton of time here, and she hates loud cars even more than I do.

So opportunities uh for shared use path away from loud cards.

Teddy Suba would be very appreciated.

Um just my one comment on the design.

Um there's the dog park right in the middle of the project.

Um we don't actually go there, but we go right around it.

Um there's a proposed pedestrian signal for a new shared um shared use path.

I don't know if that's actually necessary, at least in my experience, that's really low traffic, and every part of a design is one more cost in there.

So I am you know that's quite literally my only comment is that you know it in my experience it tends to be quite low traffic.

I don't know if traffic size if it's not on university boulevard.

So thank you.

Great, thank you, Commissioner Gibson.

And we'll evaluate when we go toward closure implementation, the specific type of crossing will be evaluated, and we have our standards for whether it's a mark crosswalk unto itself, whether it's a mark crosswalk with a rapid rectangular flashing beacon or a full signal, and we'll get to that in the design stage.

Thank you.

Commissioner Harris.

Poppy and I also love to walk on this area.

We'll have to look out for you and there.

Um, and it does have such amenities.

And and what strikes me about this corridor is um the challenges that it's right adjacent to the college, is right adjacent to one of the most beautiful walking areas um in the area in Sacramento.

I think there's lots of many one great ones.

That's the closest one for me to access from that that has the shade and the safety of the um pathway along the American River.

Um I am very aware of that curve.

It's terrifying to be on.

Um, and I was curious on whether any options to locate the pathway on the opposite side of that curveway were considered because the curve is only experienced in the danger on the east side.

If you were on that location, so if it was located on the west side, I don't think you would have the same experience of it being terrifying.

Is that something that was considered?

Commissioner Harris, when we were proposing the concept of a shared use path along how we looked at both the east and west side.

But the challenge with the west side is that there isn't the right-of-way.

So we had a community member comments about questions about right-of-way challenges.

It is a very short physical area before short sharp drop.

And so the costs and the uh challenges of implementation are immense to have that on the west side.

So the east side is more feasible for implementation.

Understood.

I mean, I think it's easy to say obviously uh uh for this group, we'd love to see a um separated path.

Um I guess my only added comment was there's quite a bit of change around um the how Fair Oaks Boulevard that's underway right now.

We've seen one major um intersection improvement.

Um, and then there's been a recent other one with the melt complex.

Um those of you know, I'm sure it has a real name, but that's that's the biggest sign.

Um and then this believe the city is looking to sell the vacant parcel um diagonal from the melt corner.

Um so I would just say, you know, it's a real opportunity to reimagine that corridor and and bring that um commercial opportunities um to a larger area, and however we can broaden this to make it a whole improvement, I think is a really exciting opportunity.

However, however.

Sorry.

No.

I couldn't help myself.

I'm sorry, Commissioner Harris.

Um I do want to share that many of you might not know because it's not a city project, but it is a county project.

The county has a complete streets project on Fair Oaks between Howe and Fulton, I believe, slash Monroe.

Um, and so that intersection is part of that project, and I believe it's mostly funded.

And so we will be seeing some changes there.

I don't know where the design is at.

It's been a while since I engaged in that project, but had initially included um separated bikeways on Fair Oaks, essentially between Howe and Monroe slash Fulton, um adjacent to the the access roads.

So there'll be some significant changes that I think are well in advance of our planning effort that are moving forward, but absolutely we want to provide connections to those key community destinations like the melt and urban plates and the relatively new railys, and uh there's Kaiser over there.

There's a lot of important destinations.

Um, and so providing that connection for the city is definitely important.

Thank you.

Absolutely.

Commissioner Banks.

While we're talking about dogs, Omar, the terrible and vicious starlicious also spend time in this area.

My dogs, this is my front yard, you guys, and so I spent a lot of time here.

Um I've given a lot of feedback already to the city, so I'm not gonna uh speak to that because I actually don't like one or two, two being better than one, but I don't like either of them.

Um I just want to mention that I think interim things that we can do, like lowering that speed limit from 50 miles an hour, which is egregious crazy, um, and maybe some signal timing would just be really great while we work out all the new alternatives and get to a final plan and then implementation and then building.

Thanks.

Commissioner Hyatt Thank you, Chair Hodell.

And thank you, uh Miss Gondlin Wine.

Um and I uh also would say that we shouldn't move forward with alternative one or alternative A, whichever one it's called, in any um potential that it doesn't seem to do much of anything.

Um I I like alternative B in some ways again, you know, I sympathize with what Commissioner Harris was saying about the um the side that it's on, particularly because of the um and I'm very familiar with this area, the connectivity between um the trail and uh University Commons to get to this, so you're still gonna have to cross six lanes of traffic to get to that, which uh uh the times that I've done it is extremely uncomfortable.

Um, Howe Avenue is absolutely one of the uh most dangerous streets in in that area.

Um the one question I have um is the part that's uh I guess it would be north of Fair Oaks.

Um is that county?

That is county.

So we're not gonna the city's not gonna be able to connect that part as well.

So this is kind of the only spot that the city is gonna have any authority on that.

Um thank you for that.

Um you you talked about why the we can't go to the the west side um versus the east side uh just to follow up on what Elisa asked.

Is are there any other implementation challenges with potential alternatives?

I think well, there's always implementation challenges, and we're we're up for those challenges, um, depending on how challenging they are.

Um I think that um even alternative two will have some challenges, maybe not right-of-way challenges, but just the complexities of the design and the cost and the funding.

So the cannon lever off the bridges, like that's gonna be incredibly expensive, however, less expensive than building a new bridge, um, or even a new bike pedrid, right?

Because those are costing 30 to 40 million dollars each now.

So it's still um complex, it's expensive, but of the realm of opportunities, I think that um alternative two is doable, knowing our city staff and what we can design and what we can get funding for.

Thank you for that.

And uh I'll just follow up on the um access between say getting across finding the ways that those intersections um can be you know made especially safe, you know, having the cars have to stop far further behind um a crosswalk, for example, ensuring that there's enough time to cross and any other uh uh engineering ways that we can uh ensure that it's people are able to get to and from the uh University Commons and the trail ultimately Guy West and SAC State uh to get to that trail.

That is great.

Thank you, Commissioner Hayat.

And so for for those of you that are in the Dells of us working through these types of planning grants, we can't get into that level of design through this grant.

Um, but we endeavor to get our engineers to bring them back to you when they are in that design phase where you get to weigh in.

So when we Jeff and I and Chris and I and Camille and I are bringing our partner engineers with those projects that are in design, that is the absolute great time to note that you want the stop bar or the back further or the mark crosswalk to have for further separation.

Well, I'm I typed it in my notes for sure, but also I encourage you to review those plans when they come before you and make those comments at that point as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Moore.

Thank you for the presentation.

Um I'm curious if uh in the alternatives analysis a lane reduction from three to two was actually analyzed though.

Yes, Commissioner Moore, we've analyzed it about three times.

Okay.

And what were some of the impacts to either LOS or maybe Q lengths?

If you have those are specific numbers, you don't have them off the top of your head.

I do not have them off the top of my head.

Um we we did get the analysis, it did not pass the the sub with the support of our traffic engineering teams.

Okay.

Um we are we have sharpender pencils and we are going back.

Okay.

I I asked part particularly for from the general plan, right?

And I don't want to throw this back, but uh policy M1.5, the city shall maintain street design and operation standards that prioritize comfort and travel time for walking, bicycling, and transit while managing vehicle speeds and traffic volumes, updating them as best practices evolve.

And so I am curious uh kind of where the tension or like where the quantitative tipping point is between a policy like that and the general plan and uh the results of the alternatives analysis are shifting things.

Yeah, and I think that's uh it's a it's a moving effort right now.

So the general plan is a little over a year old when that policy was adopted.

How do we operationalize that and this type of work we're still figuring out?

Uh I can assure you that your planning teams are pushing to operationalize that as much as we can.

I trust you, and this is all just a back you up.

My other question, uh because the alternatives do look very much like other existing conditions that you are making great efforts and strides to shift to all ages and abilities.

And so I'm curious where the ADT along a roadway like this, that is 30,000 approaching 4550 in future conditions.

Where does the current conditions of ADT exist against something like Stockton or Broadway where you are having the use really significantly in reductions?

Well, that's right.

That's a really great question.

So I think one of the things we have to think about is like why are we roadiding Stockton when that has comparable volumes?

Um and but has a very different land use, it has a very different context, it has different connectivity, and it has more frequent reliable transit.

Um, there are no plans for increasing at this point transit along how the land uses are less dense than they are on Stockton Boulevard.

So those are the types of things we consider.

Um are there parallel routes?

How close are the parallel routes?

So, like when we road diet, decided to road diet Broadway, right?

Immediately south of downtown.

It was a pinch point, it was something that we were uncomfortable with.

It wasn't our standard.

Uh, and that was before I joined the city, that was right as I was joining it.

And the reason why we were able to move that forward is because we have WX to take on that volume.

The reason why we're comfortable with Stockton Boulevard is that it has the highest ridership and 15-minute headways of the RT system, really.

So it's something that we get, yes, it's gonna hurt, it's gonna be painful, but we're gonna look at that road diet, put in a bus lane, and then for emergency services, they can use the bus lane and and it should work out well.

We look at something like Howe Avenue, the things that we consider well, where will that traffic go?

Because there aren't really a lot of other opportunities.

So the next one over is going to be Watt, which is a bit over.

And so it's not the same.

And so that's one of the things that we think about.

We are very invested in expanding transit use in our city.

We have ambitious goals by 2030 to get to 11% transit mode chair from less than 3% now.

And 2030 is like tomorrow.

And how do we get there?

Um, and these are the things that we're all thinking about figuring out how can we do that with the resources that we have to achieve these very ambitious but important goals.

Got it.

Okay.

Uh appreciate it again.

Um it's it's nuanced to to say people have the full choice to choose where they want to live.

There are cost associations, part of me uh feels like if you want to live in a place that does not have uh land use diversity or transit options, part of that is it's gonna take you longer to drive to your single vehicle occupancy home by nature of that, right?

Again, there's a lot of nuance to that.

I'm not subjecting everybody to the same uh housing affordability conditions.

But uh I do feel like similarly uh there are not a lot of parallel alternatives for cyclists or pedestrians to get across, right?

You the other alternative is Watt, which is exponentially higher for cyclists, and to the west is Guy West Bridge, which is a little bit closer, but not really feasible for any cyclist that's really just making their commute trip from A to B.

They're not going that far out of the way.

And so I think we can um again, I trust you all, I know that you your efforts are in the best places, um, but a similar logic can be applied to um disvaluing the opportunities for actual transportation.

Last comment, higher level, not pertaining to this necessarily, but in general, I think there have been a number of these presentations that have come forward where they kind of miss um ADT or the posted speed limits, or I think there could be challenges with being as forthright with 85th percentile speeds, but 85th percentile speeds also being included.

I think that would really help the conversation because ultimately we're in discussion talking about how avenue.

However, the conditions of six travel lanes, 85th percentile speeds that are probably in the 50 range, is more almost freeway.

And so the reality of like having that extra information that is missing from these and other presentations would just help, I think, more accurately set the context for the conversations that we're having and the the constraints that you all face, absolutely, but also what we're missing and the alternatives that that are presented.

So that would just be appreciated, I think, in future efforts.

But thank you.

I I don't again envy you.

I feel like I say that almost every meeting.

I don't envy your effort to have to improve this, but uh yeah, would love to see something else.

Appreciate it.

Banks.

Yeah, thanks.

Um the speed thing, just everybody, so you do know six lanes of speed.

The speed limit is posted at 50, which means people are going 60, plus you're going up to the bridge.

So you're either revving up down towards Fair Oaks or revving up to get over the bridge.

So it's very loud, I'll just say.

I live inside of Campus Commons, buried in the middle of it to offset some of that sound.

That was a purpose where I decided to live when I rented in campus commons.

I was right against how, and it was really, really loud.

So sound is a huge issue.

So those lane reductions would be amazing.

What I wanted to ask about though is something that we haven't talked about, and that is the bike path and the power in light rail station, which is vastly, vastly underused.

And so you have to go over the bridge, over the freeway, and then over Folsom, which turns into like the Jackson Highway to get to power in.

I'm curious.

I we glossed over it.

Can you talk a little bit about what that plan is?

Because that's gonna be huge if we can get more people onto light rail.

It would be great.

Well, that was the goal, Commissioner Banks, to the reason why we actually included and went to the light rail station is to get folks there.

We just have a high level concept at this point of well, yeah, we think we can get a shared use path, a low stress all abilities bike way to the light rail station.

But given the amount of funding that this grant provides and the time and resources and the amount of engineering we can do, we can't give you a design right now.

But it is something that we find of a value and importance because again, uh we cannot meet our community goals, whether it be for active transportation or climate or air quality, without getting more people on transit.

And so one of our our guiding principles is how can we support transit, Commissioner Harris?

Unpopular opinion, um, but I do feel like we are veering into reimagining what HAW is.

It is effectively a freeway.

It was what it was designed to be.

I commute on it both to get to work and to get to my favorite walking spots.

Um it can be all very well and good to talk about what it should be, but in the same way of people choosing it is as Commissioner Banks said, a freeway, and she moved around it.

So I I am all for us making improvements.

I think that personally, we should be very careful about assuming that there's going to be a mode shift and that we can speak.

I hope there's more density.

We're talking about putting, I think there's um two low-income transitional housing that's been approved on the um on how I believe um towards the light rail station.

I could be mistaken.

I think they were um former hotels.

Um, and I hope we see more density, but more density, even if it continues to go towards transit biking, um does likely still mean more cars, and I I just have to point out there is a very good alternative for the bikes.

It's the American River bike path, and we actually have a very close crossing to SAC State, which isn't great for everyone, doesn't get you to the light rail station, but I want us to be clear that there are options, and this is a road that was designed to be effectively a freeway, and I would love for it to be safer, but I think we need to be thoughtful personally, that there's a lot of people that cannot bike.

I will I live two and a half miles away from work.

I do not have a bike lane to get there.

I have to take how.

So my thoughts.

Vice Chair Gonzalez.

Thank you.

Uh I'll be brief.

My other commissioners have already covered so much.

I just want to say that you know, uh, Howe Avenue is has a lethal legal speed limit for anyone who is riding a bicycle or walking if they were to have a collision with a motorized vehicle.

So I want to encourage the reduction of speed on there by law, but also um encourage that if AB 1379 uh makes through, I know, right?

AB 1379 is actually uh assembly member wins uh bill that would add Sacramento to the is it is it dead in the water?

It's dead.

All right.

Well, I will ask us to continue to push for um in future sessions automated enforcement of speed limit laws because red light camera is not well red light camera, I'm talking about speed cameras.

Um so uh to continue to push to be entered into the speed safety pod program or a new program because as creative as even I can be, I can't think of many um design elements that could be added to Folsom Boulevard, especially over the river, that would decrease speeds naturally as much as I'll love to see the lane diet uh happen, but if we could just enforce a 35 or 40 mile per hour limit because we do see people traveling well in excess of the already way dangerous 50 miles per hour, I think that'd be great.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair Gonzalez.

Um, I want to make sure that the commission knows that um through the state legislature a couple years ago, AB 645 and allowed a pilot of speed safety cameras in California.

We were not one of the selected cities, six cities that were um uh selected to participate in that pilot.

City of Sacramento as an agency has continued to advocate for us to be added to that pilot.

We've been unsuccessful.

We will continue to advocate for that to have automated speed enforcement.

So that's one of the key things that we are looking at and trying to work at the state level and uh to to move that forward.

The other thing regarding the Senate Bill 720, which is red light cameras, which is sponsored by Senator Ashby, former council member.

That is moving through, and that's a red light camera, which is different, but similar in addressing some safety concerns.

We are actively watching that and engaged with that and are looking forward to its continued success.

Thank you.

As I read through the this item and the staff report, several things triggered me, and it's like, no, you can't choose alternative one.

You can't take bikeways away.

If if walking and biking is prioritized over traffic, and alternative one is taking away bikeways, I just find that unacceptable.

Also limiting crosswalks to only the west side or even closing walking access will always be a big no for me.

So for me, alternative two is the one, the only one that we can really choose.

Um, but I'm very curious to see uh what additional improvements are possible as alluded to by Commissioner Banks.

So just my opinion.

Thank you.

Um let's see.

This is just a review and comment, so no vote is required.

So in that case, we will move on to the next item number five, the Norwood Mobility Project proposed alternatives, and there is a staff presentation.

Hi, thank you, Chair.

Hello, everybody.

Jennifer Donlin William, division manager for mobility and sustainability.

Again, filling in for Sharise Badilla, who is out for a little bit.

Um, so I will do my best to address the presentation and the questions, but also feel free to ask.

And if I can't answer this evening, I will follow up.

Similarly, the public comment period for this one also closed, similar timeline for engagement, and um, but we wanted to make sure the ATC had opportunity to weigh in.

So while I'm gonna go over similar why Norwood, our planning goals, the concepts, and then community engagement and next steps.

So why Norwood?

I I hope all of you have been to Norwood as much as you've been to Howe Avenue, because going to North Sacramento is a great thing.

Uh Norwood Avenue is a high priority project in the transportation priorities plan known as the TPP.

Um, it is on the Vision Zero High Injury Network, and it has so much going on around it.

It is a place that really serves our communities.

There is one school, only one school directly on the corridor, but there are about four other schools that are immediately off the corridor.

Um, there is a significant low-income population around here.

There are local businesses.

There is the Robertson Community Center.

Uh, there's a lot happening here, and it's right at the Robertson Community Center.

One of the things we talk about is the safe routes, the taco truck, because it is a very popular destination across the street from the community center, and how can we get folks across to the taco truck?

Um, so again, similarly, it's a data-driven effort that is really we want to facilitate community vision while improving safety and mobility along the corridor with a feasible project that we can fund and move forward.

Um again, tonight I'm going to be going over the alternatives and the concepts for the corridor.

I am sorry, I don't have the Commissioner Moore ADTs and posted speed limits in my back pocket, but if we need to, I can look those up.

Um, and the goal is to make see Commissioner your input, your thoughts, and see how we move forward in going into the draft plan.

So the alternative concepts, we've got more concepts here.

This is a definitely a more in-depth effort.

Um for context, Norwood Avenue is mostly a five-lane roadway with two lanes in either direction, a center turn lane, intermittent sidewalks, and inner intermittent bikeways.

Um, and so what we're recommending is adding sidewalks where they are missing, signalizing again the crosswalks at high demand locations and at the freeway crossings, lowering the speed limits again through the tools that we have at the state legislature through AB 43.

Um we have a while a low frequency bus service.

We have community members who are very enthusiastic about that bus service and would like to see better shelters that protect them.

The corridor runs north-south, the shelters run north-south, and they don't really protect you from the elements, and uh they'd like some improvements to that.

Um we also including south of Bell Avenue, there is um on-street parking, and the result of the on-street parking is that uh we have uh higher density apartment housing, and people are parking on the other side and crossing five lanes uh outside of an intersection to get to their apartments, and so we want to get to a better solution for that and find additional parking for them not on this major street.

Um we're not proposing any new bikeways other than the existing ones, and we want to provide a widened sidewalks on the west side of the roadway.

So, this is what alternative two looks like in the existing and then the proposed, so it's not significant difference.

You'll notice that the alternative one or the minor type of improvements as we move on to alternative two, you'll see greater investment.

So, moving to alternative two, it includes nearly everything that we talked about in one, except this one includes a lane reduction.

Um, it includes a separated bikeway in either direction, landscape buffering and lighting, and roundabouts for traffic homing.

So that looks like this, um, alternative two A, which includes that lane reduction, a separated bikeway, um, some lighting, a small landscape strip of a you know, uh maybe three feet to get in some lighting and some vegetation, but it's not wide enough to have trees.

Um, but so this is one alternative.

Alternative two B includes um separated bikeways, a wider sidewalk on one side of the street that would allow for some trees, uh planting and provide shade.

One of the things that we heard, so we worked a lot with a lot of the community-based organizations, Mutual Assistance Network and Hai Pooh, which I'm blanking on what I high po stands for now.

Mmong, youth, and parents united, I believe it stands for.

We worked a lot with them, and the communities told us they need trees, they want trees.

They would not only want it for air quality benefits, uh, they want it for shade benefits.

They have a lot of elders in the community who walk who don't drive and they want to be shaded when they're they're walking.

The elders walk the kids to school and they want shade for that.

Um, and so we part of our effort going through these alternatives how can we get the trees into this right of way?

So 2B has the trees, and we can only fit it on the west side, and then 2C includes um uh similar lane reduction, a um a cycle track or a shared, not a serious path, a class four bikeway adjacent to a sidewalk.

Um, and again, we can only through the right-of-way challenges fit get trees on one side of the street, but still provide off-street travel for this community, which is one of the other priorities that they had told us.

Um, then there's alternative three, which includes a shared use path on the west side, a cantilevered structure across the freeway, um, and landscape buffer with lighting and trees and roundabouts for traffic coming.

And so, this is alternative three.

Um, I think it's pretty self-explanatory with a shared use path for people walking and biking on the west side, and then a standard sidewalk of planner on the east side.

And we're also, you know, we all know that roundabouts are great traffic coming.

Our challenge is when we looking at our designs, can we make them fit?

We have a lot of offset intersections like you see here, and so how can we work out a conceptual concept, a concept, not a conceptual concept, a concept that we think that can work in here.

And so we have a couple that we're looking at at Bell, Maury, and Silver Eagle.

Um, we want to reduce conflicts intersections, and we also want to calm the traffic along the corridor.

And so we went through uh a comparison of analysis to say how does it meet the community goals for wider sidewalks, new crossings, parking removal to improve safety, but still ensuring there's parking for those higher density apartments, transit shelter improvements, lighting, traffic calming through roundabouts and reducing vehicle lanes, landscaping, all the things that the communities wanted.

And so we during the summer we went to a lot of community events to the communities in their neighborhood in their backyards to hear what they wanted to hear, or they thought of the process.

And so we did that online, and we did community pop-ins and virtual meetings, all the things that we normally do working closely with our community partners who have deep relationships in the communities.

Similar to Howe Avenue, and we're working on a tight timeline, and we are um we want to hear your comments this evening.

We are currently developing that draft plan document that we will be bringing out to the public this fall.

Our goal is to bring this to you in January for your vote to approve to recommend to council so we can go to council in February so we can meet our grant timelines.

Um, and hoping that we have uh that we're meeting your goals, we're going through the vision uh of how the commission would like to see this document move forward.

So, with that, I am happy to take any questions that you may have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh, are there any uh members of the public who wish to speak?

Thank you, Chair.

I have no speakers list for this item.

Okay.

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

Commissioner Wadwani.

Thank you very much for the presentation.

I think this is a question more than a comment.

Given what to me seems like this significantly greater desirability of alternatives two and three compared to one.

What would be the reasons that's the alternative one might be recommended?

Is it simply a cost issue?

Is it opposition to going from two lanes in each direction to one?

Um what have you been hearing from the community?

Yeah, I think one of the reasons why we have alternative one moving forward, although it might not be the favorite of this commission is we want to be respectful of this community and see okay, well, we'll have some impacts with the lane reduction.

But you're not gonna, you'll it won't get us great benefit in walking, biking in the trees that you wanted.

So presenting to them the benefits and the challenges with with every design.

Um alternative one was not what we heard as a priority for the community.

Um but we want to make sure that we do our due diligence and provide them with all the alternatives we think might be feasible, but it wasn't their preferred.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Commissioner Moore.

ADT 85th, go just kidding.

Um I I think this is great on its surface.

I did not spend as much time looking at this one as as how, admittedly, but uh I think you presented all on this project before this commissioner.

It looked familiar, and I remember providing comment that Civic Thread had done a number of engagement efforts in this area and along this corridor.

Uh and a lot of the feedback centered around the need for um pedestrian crossings that were kind of midwalk, and the two you had in that southern portion near the Robertson, I think community center, both of those locations came up repeatedly.

So love to see that that was there.

Uh speeding drivers was another significant one.

So obviously lean towards uh the various options too uh and shade again, significant.

Um I'm curious on the it was I don't think I could tell on the plans with this shade, would the trees be on the northbound or southbound side?

Southbound.

Okay.

Um I guess on the west side of the street, so that would be so.

I guess the issue I would have, I guess morning time, a little cooler temperatures, sun's probably casting the shadow over the sidewalk, but in the evening time you have the sun coming the other way, and now the shade is in the street.

Um and so I'm curious if there are opportunities to move the trees to the east side of my uh you know, sun metrics are correct.

Uh the east side would put the shade for people walking uh on the sidewalk or rolling on the sidewalk in the evening time when it's maybe needed most.

So only comment there.

Um love to see the roundabouts.

I think that was a really it shouldn't be ambitious, but love.

I would not expect that.

And so it was really cool to see that in there.

But overall, uh really appreciate the effort on that.

Commissioner Harris.

I was gonna ask the same question, but I actually like it on the west side, but whatever the community sense, thinking that the heat island effect to keep the pavement cooler during the entire um time as it shades, but I'm not an expert on shade there, and I did wonder if there were any locations where the community identified if it maybe it has to switch back and forth.

That's a little bit confusing.

Um and um obviously if there's only the path on one side that precludes that option.

Um if it's a larger one-sided, I can't remember which all the alternatives were.

Whichever the one was that had the divided path to C.

If I can go back.

I don't remember.

There's the shared use path in three and then in two C.

Had more, and so obviously that might not be pop anyway.

I didn't know if that was a case.

I was curious also a question between 2B and 2C.

Could you go what the how do you get the extra shade space?

Where does the space come from?

The space is we were just reorganizing the shared use, that's not a shared use path.

We have the people biking closer to the street, and the sidewalk, there's a landscape strip between the biking people and the walking people.

So I think the shape's great.

I guess the um other question, um, I guess two part when I've driven this boulevard, it's very um I use the word flat.

There's not much visual presence.

So I I like the um you know the visual barriers and the placemaking that that gives.

I think that's really exciting.

Um, and I was curious to that um North Sacramento doesn't have a ton of roundabouts yet.

Um very helpful.

Um, and I I just wanted to hear what the community had talked about.

It looked like that was all of the alternatives had roundabouts except for maybe one.

Um and was that something that was supported by the community and um are it I know we're early in the planning phases, but does that have some potential to reduce um traffic that might be because you won't have as much stopping for lights theoretically?

Does that have any or cross traffic?

Does that have any positive benefits?

Yeah, so um to your question about the first question how did the community feel about the roundabouts?

It was they were comfortable with it.

I don't think that there was a resounding enthusiasm for that, but I think that there was something that they understood for it would be traffic coming benefits, uh, so they appreciated that.

Um so the benefits of roundabouts, they do help, I think all around with flow of traffic and calming of traffic.

Um, because you can proceed at a more steady pace through the corridor as opposed to stopping at signals when when you get to them, but it also keeps drivers at the appropriate speed as they're traveling through the corridor.

So that's one of the great, and from the city's purpose perspective, it's less infrastructure to maintain because our signals are not only expensive to buy, they come with a grant, but they don't come with ongoing maintenance dollars.

And so roundabouts have a lower ongoing maintenance cost, which is why something that we're we're looking into them as a great tool for us.

I think this is a really exciting plan.

Thank you for the work.

And I know the community appreciates you know this hard look at this pretty ugly street.

So this is gonna be amazing no matter what's selected.

And uh well, I know for sure we'll be taking the plan back out to the public at my most favorite of the entire city.

I'm sorry, entire city, but the Harvest Festival every October, uh, which happens at the Robertson Community Center uh every October.

It is the best.

So if you have not been, I'm just gonna do a plug for it because it's a great community event.

The best commissioner Banks.

Thanks for the presentation.

Uh Jennifer, as always.

Can you push to the next slide?

I think it's 2C.

Yeah, thanks.

Uh I'm all in on these days.

I'm feeling very Parisian, even though I haven't been there lately.

Um, but I love the idea of getting bikes out of the street.

So I love the multi-use sidewalk and getting bikes out of the street, out of the gutter, which is where they often end up, and up um out of the lane of travel and up on the uh road.

It's easier for I think bikes and pedestrians to manage each other than bikes and cars.

Um, so that's one thing.

That's very small.

So I'm all in favor with that.

And then the other one is just very small.

The map that has Norwood, and then it looks like very parallel and not too far away, is the Sacramento Northern Bike Trail.

So my question is about wayfinding.

Will there be any addition of some wayfinding to help people get off Norwood and onto the bike trail or onto the bike trail and over to Norwood?

Yeah, well, not tomorrow, but I think that is our goal.

Um we have been, I I think there's opportunity with this project when it moves forward to implementation to have some wayfinding there.

If you have not met Jeff Gelsma, wayfinding is like his thing.

Yes, and we've been trying unsuccessfully to get funding to do a wayfinding plan.

Um, but it is something that because it's great to do one offs, right?

When we do our project wayfinding to whatever that project or off to a near destination, but having a more comprehensive approach uh will get us to better outcomes and ensure that we have community engagement to be like, hey, Commissioner Harris, you're district two.

What are the key key destinations around there?

Um and making sure we do that and do it well.

Um, but absolutely there's opportunity as we get closer.

Um yeah.

Great question, thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Hyatt.

Thank you, uh Chair Hodell, and thanks, Jennifer, for the presentation.

Um, and I I like a lot of these.

Um just to start real quick at 2B.

Um I would say pretty much anything from 2B down, I would I would support the um the reason I wouldn't go with 2A is because the lack of um the lack of shade.

So 2B uh has yep, so that's the one, and this is this is the one with shades, so I like this.

Um the I would say uh the one the trouble uh with the separated bikeways.

We've heard that there's um uh maintenance costs with cleaning the the bike bikeways, and I know that that's a challenge for the city.

Um so that's one in addition to safety, uh an additional reason that I would support um getting the the next one at 2C.

Um the thing I like about this, we still have shade, unfortunately, shade only on one side.

Um one thing I really like though is that they're uh the the bike lanes are on both sides of the road.

Um the next option of three, uh, which is wonderful shade on both sides, separated bikeway.

The the the one thing I don't like about this side, this one is that um you the cyclists are forced onto one side of the street.

Um, and you know, as we were talking in the previous presentation about uh the uh at Howe Avenue, the trouble with just crossing a street to get to um to get to your lane.

So I would favor um probably the the 2C option.

Um unfortunately it doesn't have as much shade as I would like.

Um, but I I think that it provides the safety and security that everybody needs um while maintaining uh a pathway on both sides of the road.

Thank you, Commissioner Hyatt.

One thing I neglected to note in my overview is that uh our goal is as much as possible to get in large canopy trees.

In order to get large canopy trees, we need a wider landscape strip, a minimum of eight feet.

Anything less than eight feet most likely means that we will have medium canopy trees.

And so um those are the things we think about when we're going through this iterative process.

So how I our ultimately our goal is large canopy trees, but also we have a puzzle to fit in as many things as possible into one piece.

And the other point I also neglected to mention is that we did hear from the community that they do like the bikeways on either side of the street to access the key destinations that they want to get to as opposed to the shared use path and option C three.

And uh option two C is the only one that provides for that um the large canopy uh trees because it has that eight feet.

So um I would favor option two C, and it's also in the two area, which is less expensive than three.

And thank you.

Thank you.

Uh alternative one, no good.

There's no improvement to bikeways.

I mean, everything's getting improved, but not the bikeways, so no.

Um alternative two, A, B, and C are all good, but it bothers me when excellent bicycle infrastructure meets a freeway over crossing or undercrossing and the infrastructure disappears.

So here you've got people coming in both directions, and they get to that freeway crossing, and they are abandoned.

Highly dangerous.

So to me, uh three is the only one that contains the uh safe crossing on an overpass.

So to me, three is the is the one that I like the best.

Chair Hodel, if we were able to get a canile in option to C.

Is that something that you would support?

I certainly would.

Of course.

Throwing around cantilevers.

Cut them all in my pocket.

Yeah, do you you have to work, I assume, with Caltrans on a project.

Oh, absolutely.

Any of them, I well, you know, but I think we want to I want to hear your preference and design because it doesn't have to be one, two A, B, or C or three.

It could be three plus two B mushed together to get to the outcome that you would like.

And so I heard that you like two C, but you don't like giving up at the freeway interchange.

That's why I asked.

Yeah, and I just asked the commissioners to support three so that we so everybody can get across the freeway safely.

So I think it contains all the other elements of the of the other options, so that's my opinion.

Okay.

Uh this item is review and comment, so no vote is required.

And we will move on to item number five, active transportation commission 2025 annual report, and there is a staff presentation.

All right, hello, good evening, commissioners.

Jeff Chalzma again here to present on the 2025 annual active transportation commission annual report.

So a quick overview of the report and the commission.

So the um to reiterate the purpose of the ATC is to provide advice and strategies related to people walking and bicycling and rolling in the city.

Um there are seven powers and duties for the commission.

So we're mostly talking about the seventh or the G duty, which is the duty that pertains to the requirement to report annually to council regarding the status of walking and bicycling and rolling in the city, as well as the activities of the commission.

And then that will be approved and forwarded to the personnel and public employees committee, who will then approve and forward to city council at a date to be determined sometime next year.

So a quick uh recap of the uh recommendations from last year's report.

So there were six total recommendations.

Um the first recommendation and these are all in priority of importance.

So the first recommendation was to increase funding for accident infrastructure projects.

So the ATC is requesting a double the average match amount for active transportation grants, um local match amount, um, in order to make the city more competitive for grant funding in the future.

This amount would increase by 10% each year thereafter.

Um number two was to expand the speed management program.

So the HC requested to increase the current budget for the speed lump program and imply those treatments equitably and distribute them across the city, as well as uh requesting the application of other traffic calming treatments um outside of the speed lumps to be used for that traffic calming toolbox that is um identified in the neighborhood connections plan.

Umber three was to create a quick build bikeways program.

Um so the AT requested to create a quick quick build bikeways program and implement those citywide.

Number four was to re-establish the slow and active streets pilot with up to five miles of slow streets citywide.

Um to develop a citywide safe route to school program.

So yeah, self-explanatory.

And then number six was to finalize the construction detour policy.

So in summary, um it was six um recommendations total, totally around four and a half additional staff, full-time um additional staff, and um the year one estimate was around 8.1 million with recurring costs of around 8.4 and increasing their offer.

So for the 2025 report, um, we will follow this same template that we've used last year.

Um this is coming from the clerk's office, so we will continue with that um same format, uh, with the contents being the introduction, the purpose and powers and duties, um, the message from the chair, which could change depending on um the wishes of the chair and the commission, highlights and accomplishments from the year, um, as well as the resources expended to um facilitate the commission, and then the recommendations to council.

So for tonight, um this is a review and comment of the of the um report.

So um I hope to re uh have a discussion around those new recommendations, keeping removing um changes to existing, the message from the chair, and then highlights and accomplishments we would like to put in the report.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I have two speaker slips for this item.

Our first speaker is Alyssa Lee.

Hi everyone.

Um I'm very excited about these recommendations and the pivot to really hone in on what's most likely to get passed and funded.

Um I'm gonna go a little bit fast, but I do have a list of other things that I think are potential opportunities for low to no cost, well, no, low cost, low cost things that I think um could be in the realm for the ATC to recommend.

So I really support um something that'd been echoed in the Streets for People uh comments around um a lowered speed limit to 20 miles per hour in business activity districts, local streets, and senior zones.

I think that might be already being considered.

Um so I don't know if it should be in this report.

Um I know this might bristle some hairs, but citywide speed limit reduction to 35 miles per hour, something to consider.

Um uh initiate a study for investigating no right turn on red since the comments in the streets for people plan said it wasn't in the current work plan.

Um signal timing changes.

I know these are underway and and planned for early next year, but specifically looking at leading pedestrian intervals, of course.

Um this was cited in um as being one of the most uh uh effective and cheap ways uh of all the ways that could be considered to reduce pedestrian fatalities in um that one city in New Jersey.

Excuse me, it's escaping me.

Um I would love to see an expansion of the creative crosswalks program that exists in the city.

Um when it comes to a citizen or civilian community quick build program.

I know that's hard to imagine.

Um Fayetteville, Arkansas, Burlington, Vermont, and Snellville, Georgia all have uh civilian quick build programs, and um uh Pittsburgh also has civilian nominated quick build programs.

I think we could start with a crosswalks program and just painting crosswalks um through Hoboken, New Jersey.

That's what it was, was one of the huge things that supported ending pedestrian fatalities.

Uh redefining the ADT rule and one other thank you for your comment.

Your time is now up.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker is Matt.

Good evening again.

That was parking benefit districts for anyone who didn't catch the last bit.

Uh Matt Anderson, uh, District 4.

Uh, just want to say congratulations on getting some of the recommendations moving on this last annual report.

That's great.

It's also great to see you all getting things to council.

I'm I'm excited to have them discussing some of these active transportation items on a larger body.

Um a lot of things were already mentioned too, I'd like to put forth, and honestly, I think it's a good idea to keep the list short.

So if you don't add anything that was just mentioned, not gonna be salty at all, but uh mentioned red light cameras earlier.

I think at least exploring that option is is worth it.

Um I think people have varying opinions on them, but uh statistically I think at least some people have found them effective.

Um, also the community supported programs.

You just recommended a great streets for people plan, but it's also two billion dollars and no money to implement it.

So um finding ways to implement that, I think is gonna be really important.

Neighborhood connections, you know, pilot programs for modal filters, doing temporary installations that um community supported, and I know if there are any engineers watching that staff time, it's gonna have to review this and make sure they're appropriate and compliant and all of that, but um I I do think at least pursuing some of these options uh would be great because I don't see a lot of other uh low cost options for doing some of this.

Um anyway, that's two options I'd like, I hope you would consider, and uh I hope you all have a great night.

Thank you for your comment.

Chair, I have no more speakers.

Thank you.

We are at 713.

We have just 17 more minutes.

Um, and we still have to go through to the discussion here.

So I think I would right now like a motion to extend our meeting by one hour.

I believe that means if we don't get a motion question, then the meeting ends at 7:30.

Sapphire okay.

I'll make the motion for an hour extension.

Thank you.

I have a motion from Vice Chair Gonzalez.

I'll second it, but half hour would be great.

Yeah, half hour.

But yeah, second.

A second from Commissioner uh Moore.

Would you please call the roll?

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Harris.

I Commissioner Gibson.

Imissioner Wadawani.

I.

Commissioner Ha.

I, but in the hopes we don't need a whole hour.

Commissioner Hyatt?

Yes.

Commissioner Tao.

I.

Commissioner Moore.

Oh boy, yes.

Commissioner Banks.

I guess we have to.

It's your hotel.

Yes.

Thinking the motion passes.

Now, before we continue on, there's another another issue that's come up, and that's the formation of an ad hoc committee, which we can do.

But there are advantages and disadvantages to uh accepting or I mean to have an ad hoc or not.

And it has to do with the timeline and when we want this to go to council.

So would you share with us how this would work with and without an ad hoc?

Absolutely, Chair Hodell.

Um so, commissioners, if you choose to form an ad hoc committee, you get together without staff, you work independently, you write the staff report, and then staff bring that into our super cool staff report system, and it is processed.

However, our staff report system has a lengthy process.

So, for example, we are meeting this evening.

Um, oh of course I just lost it.

Um, for the September meeting, which is our next meeting, there are seven days until we need to submit our staff report into the system.

So you would have to, if you want to move with expediency, and that's consistent through the rest of the end of the calendar year because of the way that our system works.

And so there is about seven days from when you meet and you present and you discuss and you want to weigh in with the full group to turn that around into a staff report that our team can then get into the system.

So that means that either you have the ability to work very quickly, or that the process is delayed, and that that we move into you don't meet in December, um, so then we move into the next calendar year for your discussions and your approval, which will then delay our process, staff's process to go to P and PE of council and then full council.

So if we go into the new calendar year for your approval in January, February, um, I know often your goal has been to get to council in advance of their budget discussions, that it's not likely that you'll be able to do that if you are unable to turn it around quickly within seven days of every commission meeting over the next two to three months.

So I wanted to make sure that that was apparent to you all.

So thank you.

I'm happy to answer any questions that anybody may have.

So if you want an ad hoc committee, you've got seven days if you want it to go before the budget, right?

Is determined.

So I would like to hear from you.

Do we form a an ad hoc committee under the time constraints or not?

Uh do you wanna sign in here on your cue sheet and to share?

Commissioner Harris.

I think that there is a question before that, which is are we looking to vastly change our report, or are we looking to make minor changes?

Because that may determine our path forward.

Good point.

Commissioner Wadwani.

Clarification for me.

Um we're talking about a 2024 report.

Is that right?

So those of us who are not on the commission are not part of this report.

Is that correct?

This report is for this calendar year of 2025.

So you wrap up the 2025 year report of like we voted on these things, we recommended these things.

Um, and so it summarizes this calendar year and goes to council in early 2026.

Got it.

Okay.

And I think the sticking point is what recommendations, if we need additional recommendations or how yeah, like Commissioner Harris was saying.

Um I think the process worked quite well last year, and I think given the time constraints, it probably makes sense to place the burden on Jeff again to come up with the draft that we all can comment on.

I just think the time constraints are really rough.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Gonzalez.

Thank you, Chair.

Um I also wonder how much uh change we're gonna have, and I ask uh question of staff to look in the crystal ball and tell us what the agendas kind of look like for the next few months.

Like, do we have enough time within the meeting limits to suss out any changes that we did have a significant change or two without having to create an ad hoc?

Yeah, I can answer that.

Um I know for a fact next month is is busy, similar to this agenda uh four four items um for Nov or for October and November, not so much at the moment, but that could change.

All right, well, that that would that would lean me to say like we don't need an ad hoc right now, but I would say, hey, we can do ad hocs.

Let's not forget that.

There's other items that may not be as pressing as the um annual report, including I know I've heard here a couple times.

Can we nominate like a active transportation champion within the community?

That might be a good um opportunity for ad hoc.

Commissioner Banks.

Yeah, I like the idea of using an ad hoc for something that Commissioner Gonzalez just said, I don't think we need ad hocs for this, because my bet would be with with Commissioner Harris that there's not a lot that we should change here.

Commissioner Harris.

I want to clarify.

I actually want to change the whole thing and get rid of it, but um, that's not my decision to make.

I I'm actually very uncomfortable with the plan, and I don't think we should ask for any money because I don't think there is any money.

But um, I want to ask that wasn't my my point.

So uh what I wanted to say was those are there are several people on this group who have not are not clear what the non ad hoc committee path forward is, so we should clarify what that path would look like so people can make an informed decision on what that development would look like.

Um, and I also want to recognize that the meeting the budgetary timeline for this report only matters if we plan on asking for money, and there's probably no money to ask for the budget is pretty bleak.

The budget is pretty bleak.

So I I'm not saying we shouldn't do that, but I want to be clear that the deadline to meet the budget cycle is so we can ask for money that may not exist.

And can you were you mentioned the budget, like what the projection is for the next budget, and it's would you mind sharing that?

There is a significant projected deficit.

I don't know.

Bigger than I don't know what the number is where it we're at now, but it's bigger than this current year, and it's projected to grow more each year.

Unlikely that we will find any place in the budget.

Uh Commissioner Gibson.

I like the second uh Commissioner Harris's point.

Um I would actually would my preference for this report is to um start from scratch for asked that are either ways to raise revenue, um, cost very little money, such as staff time or things that can be uh community led.

Um so my preference would be start over and for those new commissioners about process.

Oh, I actually was relatively happy with our process last time, but before we decide to do an ad hoc or not, I think uh main goal for tonight is as a group to agree what the process should be moving forward and not get into specific recommendations unless people want to be very brief just to respect time because I do have a hard stop.

Commissioner Banks.

I just want to make a point out that while this list uh looks like it's got a lot of money attached to it, creating a Sacramento quick build bike waste program at one point roughly five million dollars was done this year with a higher price tag than what we asked for.

So I think that even though we're in a budget deficit, there is ways and space and energy to get some of the things we want.

Um, and I don't want to let that get lost.

Commissioner Tao.

Um I'm trying to understand it a little bit more.

Um I think that if our big ask is going to be for more funding, it would make sense for us to get this in time for the budget discussions, and if I'm understanding it right, the only way we can do that is to form the ad hoc.

So not form the ad hoc.

Yeah, uh just to clarify.

So um the process that we had last year is this would be a standing agenda item.

So I would bring it back to the commission pending comments um and actions that the commission would want to either add or omit certain things from the report, add cost estimates, etc.

Um, and this would just be a conversation that we have at commission until we come to a resolution.

Um the ad hoc would be uh not in the commission itself, it would be an ad hoc committee of less than six members of the committee or the commission um to discuss the annual report and then bring it back to the commission at some point to get it finalized.

And Jeff, on your timeline, when is the last month for our discussion so that you meet your goal or your report creation goals or submission goals?

I am a humble servant of the AHC.

Um, and so this is purely up to you all in terms of that.

Um we do need to report at some point to um council, but there isn't like a you have to be here at this date.

But to meet before the budget.

I mean, that that was our goal last year.

And so is it November, the last time we can have input?

Yeah, yeah, November would be the last date because we don't meet in December.

Um and so in order to get it agendized um for council to see it and go to a budget and audit, then yeah, no.

Okay, so the vote would be in November.

Correct.

Okay.

So we have like three meetings for input, I guess.

Okay.

Commissioner Moore.

I was just gonna say I'm in favor also of exploring opportunities for um generating revenue within kind of existing structures.

I think one of the that there are probably a number outside of this short list we have here, but expanding the speed management program is probably one of those opportunities where it has um been done thoughtfully and as equitably as it I think can be, um, where enforcement of speed uh has been able to both pay for itself and generate revenue.

And so I think that there are some opportunities, maybe just that one in here to use to kind of think more creatively about not just the impacts to speed and safety, but also maybe fund some of these other opportunities.

I am a fan of I don't really want to lose all of this.

I mean, if we don't ask for it, we won't get it.

If we do ask for it, still probably won't get it, but I don't think that we're losing a lot of value in um presenting these even in a budget deficit.

Vice Chair Gonzalez.

Chair, is your question at hand right now?

Whether not we're creating an ad hoc.

Are you still is that still an open question?

The question is do we form an ad hoc or not?

So when this when everyone's done, I'm just gonna go to the case.

To me, it kind of sounds like we're not.

I know I would like to to you know put a lid on it.

Like one way, are we doing an ad hoc before we get into more details about policy?

All right, are we or aren't we?

Do I mean I'm asking the commission, not just the chair.

So it's not an action item.

It's just a discussion here.

So like me personally, like I don't see the need right now.

Is there a go is there an overwhelming desire to create an ad hoc for this year's ATC report?

I'm not seeing any hands.

So it looks like we're not creating anything.

We're not that's that was my sense of things also.

It was my sense too, but I just it had the question had not been asked, and we were starting to move into policy considerations.

Oh, yeah.

It feels like that was unsettled.

So now it's okay, right?

So now we're not gonna do an ad hoc, and now we're going to talk about the recommendations, unless you all want to adjourn in the next two minutes.

Talk about the recommendations that or give feedback to Jeff for the rec uh regarding the recommendations.

What I'm hearing from Commissioner Harris is we should dispense with the budget considerations.

So that's the first one on the list.

Uh Commissioner helped it.

Goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway.

We can drop the uh construction detour policy, which takes effect next month.

And was a seven-year effort.

As we proceed for every item, I because this is like the third year we're kind of recommending the same things.

I'd like to know what progress have we made with those items.

For example, we have success with construction detour policy.

Um I always think of Commissioner Gibson when it like people are dying, and over the years, is that number coming down or is it still going up?

So I'd like to see progress for each of the items over time if we can address that.

Come vice chair Gonzalez.

Thank you, Chair.

Um I just want to say uh for things here that might have a hard cost, not just an aspirational goal.

I just want to make sure that we're adjusting the numbers every year to ensure that they're still um relevant if there are any just for inflation and the rise of costs for goods.

Um in regards to the budget question, or or are are we asking money out of a budget that may be bleeding um bleeding the stone?

I don't really care if we don't have any money or not, because we have millions of dollars.

I'm gonna let the politicians make the decision whether or not we spend that money where I think we should spend it, which is for safety.

I you can cry me a river about whether we have or don't have money.

We have lots and lots and lots of money.

The city makes decisions every day.

Those decisions becomes our priorities.

So I will always ask for more and more and more money.

This was a compromise.

I don't even like asking for just three million.

That should be 30 million dollars annually, as far as I'm concerned.

So I would if we were having that discussion with all due respect to my commissioners, which I have a great deal of respect for.

We asked for money.

Money is power, money is policy, money is how you implement things.

Those are things asking.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Do you want to go ahead?

Oh, I just wanted to follow up on the cost estimates of I think these would need to be uh re-evaluated because these were from 2023, I believe.

So, yeah, to adjust for the inflation and rising costs of everything.

They have to be reevaluated at some point.

I think including a request for to be a part of for money is encouraging the council to recognize that active transportation is important.

And if we can ever get even a symbolic tiny little slice of the budget, it would show us and all the people that active transportation is important to the council members and the people of the city of Sacramento.

Commissioner Gibson.

Um I don't want to get into specific recommendations now, but I want today to agree on a process um because we have three new commissioners that haven't gone through the process before.

Um from what I recall last time, you know, we throw out some ideas.

Um Jeff, you know, says whether these will be cost and kind of what it would be flesh out such as FTEs, and then we um narrow down those on the second or third meeting.

Um so if our goal is a timeline for budgetary ask of done by November, we need to have effectively a finalized report in October.

Um so that gives us next month next month to put all of our ideas out.

And then um, would that be two meetings?

That would be September where we all agree on let's say ten things, and then October, those final ten things would be there, and we would either keep all 10 or take stuff down, but we really couldn't add um for that because just to respect kind of how the reports were in.

Is that correct?

Yeah.

Yeah, so the October one would be when you would want to come to some kind of consensus, and then November would be approval.

Okay.

Thank you.

I'm not the chair or vice chair, but um for process.

Um I don't know if today is actually a good day to talk about all the individual ones.

Obviously, I think we heard a lot of different perspectives on that, which is a great place to start.

Um but maybe next meeting we all come up with our individual list of which ones we share because we have to respect the Brown Act.

Um, saying, hey, these are all the ideas, especially we have some new commissioners and want them to have not their voices not crowded out because um I have some cool ideas, but I don't want to be the only voice in the room saying there's some cool ideas that may be low cost and probably keep in um costs.

Isaac, you made a compelling point.

So um I'm now gonna ask for some money.

I like that plan.

Uh Commissioner Hyatt.

Thank you, Chair Hodell.

And um actually, Commissioner Gibson just cleared up a lot of things as one of the three uh commissioners that wasn't here last year.

Um that that clears up a lot of what I was going to ask because I wasn't sure if we were supposed to be providing policy priorities now uh or what.

But so now we we I have some understanding that we're gonna be um doing that over the next coming meetings.

Um and then I also um share the uh the feelings of Vice Chair Gonzalez that uh budgets uh reflect values, and so um you know we're here to to make our city a safer place for people to walk and and roll um and uh uh experience our city, and so what the the politicians do with that that's their choice.

But uh, you know, we should absolutely make all the the the hard asks that we can and and be creative as well.

Thank you.

So what I'm hearing, checking for understanding here, um we're all coming with ideas at the next meeting for either changes or adaptations to what's there or even new new ideas um to for the rest of us to consider.

Commissioner Harris.

So do we need to submit those to Jeff in the next seven days to get them brought in to be agendized, or can we just I I remember we had to like create some topics last time, send them to you, then you put them in a thing, and I I'm just a little unclear whether we do it out loud or yeah, I'm just I timelines matter for getting you ideas.

I just want to make sure we're being respectful of your time and that people in this group, including myself, understand the cutoff for getting idea the method and the ways to get them to you.

Yeah, um, so from last year it was the message message from the chair, I think you're referencing to where um Commissioner Gibson wrote some pieces of it as well as Chair Hodell and we kind of Frankenstein did together to make the the chair message.

Um the actual recommendations that was a discussion that we had um at commission, so they weren't necessarily sent to me and then um put into the document.

That was all a discussion that we had.

But there was also very few new ideas.

Last time we were really just refining the same report, so I just didn't know if that changed how you know should everyone be sending them via email so that they can be put up or not.

I'm just no so we because we want to make sure this is a transparent process that happens at the dais in a public forum.

So come with your own personal list and we will record all of your comments, and that gives us an opportunity for us to ask you all to work with each other on the merits and the support for them.

So and we want to try to avoid emailing staff a bunch of ideas that we then have to figure out.

Do we include them all?

Are we coming to you next month with like 37 recommendations?

And so I think it'd be easier for us to keep it all to public forum.

Thank you for the clarity.

Commissioner Wadbani.

And still trying to make sure I understand this.

The table that you put up, is that the starting point?

Were those recommendations from 2024 and we're building on that?

We want to.

If we want to, we have complete flexibility to start from scratch or use these ideas or build on these ideas or come up with something new.

Yeah, that's correct.

Yeah, I just used it as a starting point.

Um, by no means do we have to use these or the commission doesn't have to use these?

Uh, it's just a place to start the conversation.

Thank you.

That's helpful.

I don't see any more speakers.

So the next item is public comments, matters not on the agenda.

Clerk, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on public comments matters not on the agenda?

Thank you, Chair.

I have no speaker slips for this item.

Thank you.

Yes, there are.

Commissioner Gibson.

Since our last meeting two months ago, there have been at least six um fatalities of, I think this was everybody as pedestrians.

Then on Auburn and Watt Boulevard, a woman 43 from a hidden run uh died in a collision around 1220 a.m.

on August 2nd.

Um then there was a another collision for a man who was uh 54 years old on July 25th on Northgate Boulevard near State Route uh 160.

Um that collision took place around 116 p.m.

or sorry, 1116 p.m.

of July 25th.

Um then there was another collision of an uh 78-year-old man near Lawrence Park at 12 uh 45 p.m.

on um July 10th.

Um then uh a man uh Paris Winnham on Del Paso Road and uh Town Center Drive around 2 a.m.

uh was hit from a suspected DUI hidden run.

And then the uh other person was a woman who was 60 years old on June 30th at around 9 30 p.m.

and about a half a block from the Fruit Ridge light rail station um was hit in a hidden run, and arrest has been made on that.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Gonzalez.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh, I just want to give kudos to staff.

We have been working on a quick build project at the uh intersection of 2nd Avenue and uh 59th Street for going on three years.

Um and it was installed since the last time we've met and met with lots of enthusiasm from very many members of the public, who of which may have bombarded the mayor, their council members and staff with their encouragement for that because of maybe some uh coaxing by me.

But I'm glad to have done it because uh we're seeing more and more treatments like this.

I know there's also some treatments it's very similar that just went up by Crocker Riverside on Sutterville.

Really remarkable to see these things going in because they make their monsters of changes to built environment and the behaviors of those drivers that are transversing them.

They make the roads more comfortable for those that are on foot or on wheels, and um I hope to see more and more and more of them.

But I have heard anecdotally that when they're installed, sometimes the loudest and most frequent um voices contacting the city are those that are confused, upset, uh, or rather would not see these things happen.

Maybe they even consider them as I've heard an eyesore, uh, which I think a plastic vertical delineators, not an eyesore, um, a mangled body at the side of the road is, and we like to prevent that more.

So that's my plea to all of you to talk to your um networks, your friends and neighbors that when these elements are going in, and especially in your communities, encourage your neighbors to tell staff how much they like them and how much they would like to see more of them.

It's very important that that's that that information gets back to staff.

Thank you.

Commissioner Hyatt.

Thank you, Chair Hodder.

Thank you, Chair Hodel.

And um, real quick, I know we honored uh Kemi, uh, my friend who I was in the city management academy with last year.

I'm thrilled that she's joining the Department of Public Works.

Uh we almost lost her in this city.

Uh if uh if she didn't uh if she didn't choose to accept this job or or if the city didn't take her, uh she was gonna be leaving Sacramento.

So we get to keep Kemi and not only that, but we've got her on uh staff here, which is really exciting time.

So thanks for um staying with us, Kemi, and I look forward to working with you over the next coming years.

Thank you.

This concludes today's agenda.

Thank you, everyone, for your participation.

The meeting is adjourned.

We didn't get allowed programs.