Good evening and welcome to the Thursday, June 18th, 2026 meeting of the City of Sacramento Active Transportation Commission.

The meeting is now called to order at uh 5 31 p.m.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Hodell.

Here.

Commissioner.

Commissioner Harris is absent.

Commissioner Gibson.

Here.

Commissioner Wadwani.

Here.

Commissioner Ratio Patel.

Here.

Commissioner Haupt.

Here.

Commissioner Tao.

Here.

Rubenstein.

Here.

Commissioner Moore.

Present.

Commissioner Amin is absent.

Commissioner Banks.

Here.

And Chair Gonzalez.

Here.

Thank you.

We have quorum.

Thank you.

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 before the item begins.

After the item is called, we will no longer accept any speaker slips.

And when you do come up, you have two minutes to speak once called upon.

We will now proceed with today's agenda.

And uh Commissioner Tao has been kind enough to lead us in today's land acknowledgement in honor of Sacramento's Indigenous Peoples and Tribal Lands.

To the original people of this land, the Sinan people, Southern Maidu, Valley and Plains, Miwok.

Sacramento is only federally recognized tribe.

We acknowledge and honor the native people who came before us and still walk beside us today on these ancestral lands, our choosing to gather today, an active practice of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's indigenous peoples.

Thank you.

Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which stands under God with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

First business of today is the Commission staff report.

Staff, you may proceed.

Thank you, Chair.

Um Jennifer Donlin Wyatt, Public Works.

I have no staff report this evening.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um just take this moment.

Any commissioners have a question before we move on?

Any speaker slips?

Oh, actually, no, so speaker slips on the staff report.

Um so we'll move on.

Next item is the approval of tonight's consent calendar.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I have none.

All right.

Um is there a motion or any commissioners that want to speak on the consent items?

I'm not hearing any.

Is there a motion to approve the consent calendar?

Moved.

I move to accept.

Oh, I second.

All right.

Uh can we call for a roll call on this?

Vote.

Thank you, Chair.

I'll do a roll call vote.

Uh Commissioner Hodell.

Aye.

Commissioner Harris is absent.

Commissioner Gibson.

Aye.

Commissioner Wadwani.

Aye.

Commissioner Ratio Patel.

Aye.

Commissioner Haupt?

Aye.

Commissioner Tao.

Aye.

Commissioner Rubenstein.

Aye.

Commissioner Moore?

Aye.

Commissioner Amin is absent.

Commissioner Banks.

Aye.

And Chair Gonzalez.

Aye.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

All right.

Well, proceed to today's discussion calendar.

Item three is the Art and Way Auburn Boulevard Mobility Plan Phase 2.

Is there a staff presentation this evening?

Hello.

Yes, there is a presentation.

Perfect.

Well, good evening, Commissioners.

Chair Gonzalez.

I'm Liza Welsh, Associate Transportation Planner in Mobility and Sustainability.

I'm here tonight to present phase two of the Art and Way Auburn Boulevard Mobility Plan.

This is the second time that this plan has come before this body.

It was previously before you in March for an introduction and a review of our phase one.

So tonight I'll give just a very brief review of the project and what we covered in phase one, and then an update on our phase two work, our draft concepts, and what's coming next.

Our study area for this project covers the Art and Way between Del Paso Boulevard to the east, or to the west, I'm sorry, and Ethan and Arden on the east.

It also covers Harvard Street and Auburn Boulevard all the way up to Marconi Avenue.

So this is quite a large study area.

It includes important commercial corridor around Arden Fair Mall as well as residential neighborhoods and some pockets with industrial land uses.

It also includes multiple RT light rail stations, RT tracks, UP tracks, and a major freeway interchange around IAD and 160.

The purpose of this project is to address multimodal connectivity and safety on these corridors through a safety and mobility plan with designs for safety and access improvements, a prioritized list of projects, and quick builds.

And this planning effort is made possible through a Caltrans Sustainable Communities grant.

So our phase one work looked at existing conditions.

We saw that this study area is part of the city's Vision Zero High Injury Network, with a portion of Ard and Way being a Vision Zero Top 10 corridor.

Pedestrians and cyclists represent an outsized proportion of these fatal and serious injury crashes.

And there are significant infrastructure gaps here, including sidewalk gaps, areas of limited lighting, challenges with road and ramp crossings, and inconsistent bicycle facilities.

Generally, these project corridors are uncomfortable and highly stressful, especially for cyclists and pedestrians.

However, also generally they are efficient for drivers despite very high traffic volumes.

The roadways are quite wide.

There's quite a few lanes, especially on the east side of Arden.

Generally, the intersections can accommodate the levels of traffic.

In our phase one, we brought these existing conditions to the community and received robust feedback, generally aligning with what we saw through our engineering analysis.

Phase one survey response here.

Arden Way prioritizes moving cars, not people's mobility outside of a car.

It's basically a mini freeway, and you have to cross so much to get to storefronts.

So in phase two, we were looking at how we can intervene to shift these conditions.

We assessed a range of different opportunities and developed three concepts.

We're currently evaluating those concepts so that later we can mix and match the elements that work, are feasible and are preferred by the community to develop draft alternative improvement.

So the range of opportunities considered include one-way separated bikeways, two-way separated bikeways.

These would need to be supported by roadway capacity reduction or road diet.

We also looked at concepts that do not include road diet and instead rely on something like a multi-use path.

I'm not going to describe all of the concepts in great detail here for the interest of time, however, they are described in detail in the staff report, and there are figures in the attachments to the staff report if you would like to see diagrams.

Generally, though, we have three concepts for art and way, representing that range of opportunities that I described, and two concepts for Harvard Street and Auburn Boulevard.

In addition to those continuous major infrastructure changes, we also developed a treatment toolbox.

This treatment toolbox can be mixed and matched with any concept and applied at various locations along the study corridor.

It includes crosswalk improvements for visibility to slow or stop traffic, median refuge so that folks have a safe space.

Also a variety of signal changes, bus stop amenities, lighting improvements, landscaping, accessibility improvements, and traffic signal enhancements.

So we took these concepts and that treatment toolbox to the community.

We hosted two focus group meetings, a community workshop, which we promoted pretty robustly.

We did direct outreach, flyers, social media, door hangers, and mailers.

The project team distributed the door hangers ourselves, which was beneficial and enjoyable.

You can see in the photo here.

We also conducted outreach to several neighborhood associations, including Woodlake, Ben Ali, Del Paso Heights, and Hagenwood.

And we spoke at the D2 Presidents Association meeting, presidents of all neighborhood associations in D2.

We hosted five pop-up events at three light rail stations, the celebrate Old North Sacramento Festival, and a mobile farmers market, which has just started up at the corner of Arden and Del Paso.

And then we had a virtual workshop on the Conveyo platform that ran for a month.

It's closing at the end of the day tomorrow.

And this virtual workshop allows you to pop in, review the boards from our community workshop and add comments anywhere on the board.

So far, we've received over 120 comments.

So we're still synthesizing everything that we've heard from the community, as well as what we'll hear from you tonight.

But this is a snapshot of what we've heard so far.

We've heard a lot of support for crosswalk improvements for widening sidewalks, for closing those sidewalk gaps, and for improving lighting, especially under the freeway interchange.

We've heard support for separated bicycle facilities, especially one-way facilities, but both support for and opposition to the lane reductions.

We've heard concern about traffic impacts and generating cut through traffic in neighborhoods.

And finally, we've received a number of comments highlighting the importance of an urban tree canopy to shade those bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and the community has expressed a desire for more street trees in this study area.

So tonight, staff are seeking your input on the improvements presented in the draft concepts and in that treatment toolbox.

We're going to return to our project design team with your feedback, the community's feedback, and conduct additional review of traffic impacts, so that we can really understand both what is wanted and what is feasible and put that together into a preferred alternative or the proposed improvement that we will bring forward in the final plan.

We'll bring that back in the fall with additional community engagement, presenting to this body again, and then develop our final plan and take it to the council for approval in early 2027.

So thank you.

That concludes this presentation.

This is the URL to our website.

It has that conveyo board.

So you have 24 hours for any final comments that folks would like to leave on that board.

This is my contact information and that of Nicole Zeeling Porter, who is the senior planner on this project.

And we're happy to take any questions at this time.

Thank you so much.

Wonderful report.

Thank you, Chair.

I have one speaker slip for item three, Dan Allison.

Good evening, Dan Allison, resident of District 4.

Um, I have not had a chance to look at in detail at the plan and then go out and look on the ground.

So I don't have very many specific comments.

I do note that the concern about traffic shifting onto neighborhood streets.

It won't happen because there aren't any parallel streets.

That's not the nature of street design in that part of Sacramento.

There are no parallel streets to shift traffic onto.

And I think graphic should be reduced.

So I will make the general comment that when I am in that area bicycling and walking, as I am moderately often.

I have a high tolerance for traffic danger, higher than almost anyone else.

And I don't see anybody else walking or bicycling there.

So I will say that whatever changes are made has to be a significant transformation to make it comfortable for people to walk and bicycle along those two arterials and to cross them.

For example, crossing to the mall, seems like it's a quarter of a mile just across Arden Way.

It's not a comfortable place to be for anybody, and therefore there isn't anybody there.

Thank you.

Dan, you said you had a high tolerance.

So what is your comfort level on Arden?

Well, we have a couple seconds left, quickly.

You said you had a high tolerance for traffic danger.

What what is your but what is your feeling on Arden?

Very quickly.

Uh my feeling is it's a high stress location.

Thank you.

All of those.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

I have no additional speakers on this item.

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

Vice Chair Gibson.

First of all, thank you all for addressing this.

Uh I'm a regular driver on here.

I haven't cycled because I don't have the stress tolerance as the public commenter a second ago.

Um as I know this, is there now a change in city policy for plans to consider lane reductions or road dialets uh on the number of daily traffic loads?

Because I used to believe there was a threshold before we consider lane reductions.

Is there no longer a threshold?

Because I see we have traffic volumes on one of the documents.

If you don't mind, I'll answer that question.

So there is that we do do traffic analyses, and so we will look at number of lanes, the volume, the queuing and level of service.

Level service is not a deciding factor, it's a considering factor.

We also look at a vehicle to capacity ratio.

There are many things which we consider how much queuing there is, how far does the queuing go back, and to what how many intersections back.

So there are a lot of factors that we do look at.

Um in a simple, uh more simple roadway, maybe that is more consistent along the corridor.

Uh, you know, a gut check and say, okay, 20,000 vehicles, we can have this number of lanes.

Arden is a lot more complex than that, so we're not able to make that simple answer to you.

All right.

Uh thank you very much because um the west side of Arden in this.

I definitely I would love to see a lane reduction to allow that space for um foliage, uh biking and cycling opportunities.

There for those people not for the community, there is a lot of actual infill housing going on there.

There's multiple like rail stops, um, and there's actually a lot of potential demand as the city tries to uh grow denser.

And when it comes to the uh uh east side of the project area, um, uh, it is really overbuilt.

Um, so I see that there is up to two a reduction of up to two lanes in one of the designs.

Is that true?

Um, yeah, because I've never experienced um slow down traffic just as somebody who would shop at Arden Fair Mall, and to second uh the public commenters' point about the walking distance, um pedestrian refuge islands.

I think it's uh something have to be included where there is a comfortable space.

Um, because I don't know how many people are comfortable walking for a whole minute through those traffic lights, and I know there's a lot of unhouse folks over there and people with special needs, especially as there's a medical complex real nearby, so pedestrian refuge islands in the east side of the project design.

I do just also recognize with the underpass under uh 160, if I got the bridge right, uh it's quite complicated uh to deal with.

I was when I was driving through last time, I was like, Oh, how can you get the smaller?

So, even considering that to be a um uh a mixed-use trail for cycling and walking, um, I really would love to see that because right now, currently traveling under that is impossible to do it safely and a lot of gaps in the sidewalk.

So I don't uh I know we didn't have the alternatives up on it, but those are kind of the general thoughts I had.

Thank you.

Understood.

That's definitely a major pinch point there at the freeway interchange, and something that our consulting engineering team is looking very carefully at.

Commissioner Moore.

Thank you.

My question really revolved around kind of what past and future traffic studies you are doing.

It sounds like Jennifer think you answered that.

It sounds like we haven't done that many yet.

Um, but a lot of these improvements seem to be um staking on the fact that we do need uh lane reduction, and so I'm curious if the city has any kind of input or uh vote of confidence given that you've already drafted concepts without having studied the traffic impacts on whether a lane reduction is feasible or not.

Commissioner Murray, I may have to say our team is very new, so I'm gonna jump in on occasion with you know how how we roll.

We did this project a little bit differently.

Um, and so we brought out concepts to get feedback on from the public at the same time as doing our traffic analyses.

So we are gathering this feedback, getting an understanding of community preferences, um, and that includes business community, right?

So working with the folks at the mall, the shopping plazas along there, um, the Harvard Harvard Park, is that what it's called?

Harvard Park uh center over there.

So we're doing a lot of that at the same time to see what we can make work with the understanding we kind of expected we understand what the community might want to see.

Thank you.

All right, I'm not seeing any other commissioners want to speak.

I just have a quick clarifying question.

Um I know this um outreach has been going on for a while.

I I do see that we have RRFBs here in the toolbox.

I don't see I saw that examples of treatments that can be used to not include RFFBs.

Can you please elaborate to me?

Are we using RFBs um as proposed treatments on this?

Hi, Chair.

Uh Jennifer Don Lewyatt, uh, mobility and sustainability.

Our team is still learning the toolbox that we we use.

RFBs are still in our toolbox in general.

Whether or not they are appropriate on Arden will be determined by how many lanes there are on Arden in the crossings that are moving in.

So it's still to be still to be determined.

I will just say that's counter to what we've heard in this room from other staff that our RFBs are no longer in the toolbox for the city of Sacramento.

Um so I'm a little disheartened to hear that they're back in the toolbox, especially for uh an artery like this where speeds are high.

Um, I believe they give a false sense of security that people think when they are blinking that they have the ability to cross the street safely, and that um I my observation is drivers ignore them.

There is no motor vehicle law, uh, that you are violating um beyond obviously the right to give the pedestrian the right away when it's blinking.

I don't see any enforcement of it.

I think it is a cheap, we get a grant, put it in fix that does nothing formative.

And I was heartened to hear from staff when they said we will not be using anymore.

I am um disheartened to hear that perhaps that is not the case any longer.

Uh we have uh Commissioner Banks now wishes to speak.

Thank you, sir.

I I just I know we've talked about this a little bit uh in the TAC or at some of our meetings.

I just want to make sure that we're really conscientious and forward thinking about how to help bikes and cyclists get off the levee through Cal Expo and get to Arden Fair, whether it's through CalExpo or what, but that's how typically people are doing it.

They're jumping down, going through the parking lot at CalExpo, and then making their way over to Arden Fair.

It's actually not that unsafe, but it there might be something better, signage, something that really helps direct people to Arden Fair and then away from Arden Fair.

So that's it.

All right, last chance, commissioners.

This item is receive and comment, so no vote is required.

Thank you very much.

Great work, and we look forward to seeing you back here again.

Thank you.

So we'll on to the next item.

Item four is the Fruit Ridge Safety and Mobility Plan proposed alternatives.

Is there a staff presentation?

Good.

Great.

Okay, good evening, commissioners.

My name is Virginia Morgan, associate planner with the transportation planning team with the city of Sacramento.

Um, I'm joined today by Adrian.

Sorry.

Okay.

Both.

How's that?

Hey, everything else down a little bit.

I think it's as down as can be.

I've got heels on.

Um, yeah, so I'm joined today by our consultant Adrian Engle, principal with Faron Pierce.

And today we'll be giving an update on the Fruit Richard Safety and Mobility Plan.

As a reminder, this plan was first brought before the commission in March of this year, just before the first phase of community engagement.

Today I'll be giving an overview of the project, a summary of the community engagement activities, and a discussion of the vehicle lane reduction or road diet scenarios, at which point I'll be handing it off to Adrian to discuss more about the traffic forecasting results and the specific design alternatives.

The project area is, or excuse me, the plan is a planning effort aimed at enhancing mobility, safety, and access for all roadway users.

The planning area is a four-mile stretch of Fruit Ridge Road from Riverside Boulevard to Stockton Boulevard.

The corridor was previously identified as a part of the city's high injury network, and the current vision zero update has identified it as a top 10 priority corridor.

You'll hear more about the vision zero updates during the next item on your agenda this evening.

Phase one for the planning phase one community engagement included both a focus group and general community workshop.

Some of the recurring themes we heard from this engagement phase were that all modes of travel felt unsafe to one degree or another, but with a particular emphasis for those walking and biking.

Folks shared that accessing public transit and other community services can be particularly challenging, and that safe routes to school was also a particular concern with over 12 schools on or near the corridor.

There are also some concerns around vehicle congestion challenges, especially turning onto the corridor from side streets.

Based on the feedback we heard during phase one, we've gathered input and developed a set of design alternatives, which we will then share for additional feedback from the community.

Community engagement kicked off this week for phase two.

On Tuesday, we had our second community advisory group meeting.

We are presenting to you all on the commission tonight.

And we'll have our second in-person community workshop on July 6th.

And likewise, our online community survey will run through about mid-July.

Now a bit about the road diet scenarios for the planning area.

For the purpose of this discussion, the project area has been divided into two segments with segment one on the west running from Riverside Boulevard to 24th, and segment two running from 24th to Stockton Boulevard.

Excuse me.

Existing conditions on the corridor generally include four lanes of vehicle traffic with two in each direction.

What we've called the half diet scenario includes a reduction in vehicle travel lanes from four down to two in the western segment of the corridor, as was previously approved in the city's 2040 general plan.

And what we've called the full diet scenario includes a reduction from four to two vehicle travel lanes for the entirety of the corridor.

I'll now invite Adrian to talk through the traffic forecasting results for each scenario and some more design specifics.

Thanks, everybody.

So first we want to just understand a little bit of the traffic behavior along the corridor.

We identified the purple area shown on the map as kind of the catchment area for Fruit Ridge Road, and tried to identify how much of the traffic was using it for their daily needs within that purple area or traveling through and around.

What we found was about 38% of the traffic that was on Fruit Ridge Road was not starting or stopping their trip within that purple area, so it's primarily just cut through traffic that was accessing one of the freeways or traveling through to get from one end to the other.

So we do think there's some room to consider the road diet as part of this, and we'll talk a little bit more about those specifics.

We've looked at the scenario in three different ways.

We'll first talk about the 2040 general plan condition.

So we wanted to quickly evaluate what the future growth was on the corridor to make sure that there wasn't future need that was unanticipated.

So the green volumes at the top show the counts that we've took last year along the corridor, three different spots.

The western end, somewhere between 20 and 25,000, and the eastern end closer to 30 or 37,000 cars per day.

In that 2040 condition, there's a minimal growth within most of the corridor with a little bit of a spike at the very eastern end near Stockton Boulevard, but generally the area around Fruitwood is built out, and we don't anticipate a higher need for traffic along this corridor.

In the half-road diet scenario, which was approved in the general plan.

Again, looking at the forecast volumes and comparing those two today's volumes, we see a slight reduction in volumes on the western half and a mixed mixed results on the east.

But generally the similar volumes that are out there today based on the capacity of the roadway with two lanes on the west and four lanes on the east.

And then finally looked at the full road diet scenario.

This we started seeing a little bit more squeeze of the traffic, especially on the eastern half, where we start seeing reductions in the magnitude of somewhere between five and uh 19,000 cars per day, unable to use Fruit Ridge Road due to the capacity decrease, especially around the 99 interchange.

So seeing some reduction there.

With these volumes, here they are compared together, really trying to think about what that means, but really it begs the question of where does that traffic go and where the trade-offs needed for the community as part of this project.

So we looked at both the half diet scenario here.

Blue lines based on color show volume reductions, where the orange lines show volume increases, the width of the lines show sort of order of magnitude.

As you can see on this map, the western half of Fruit Ridge Road has about a 15% reduction as previously discussed, and minimal changes on the eastern half.

We see a lot of that reduction, increase on I-5 on that western edge, and more traffic using the 43rd Avenue interchange off of I-5 to access some of those destinations where they may be using Fruit Ridge today.

So a little bit of a shift there, but generally a pretty minimal effect on the surrounding community related to the half-road diet.

As we look at the full road diet, we see a little bit more impact, especially near the 99 interchange, that decrease in volume, is shifting traffic onto the interchanges north and south on 99 Fruit Ridge.

So we're seeing an increase in Sutterville, 24th Street and Fruit Ridge to the north, and an increase to the south at 47th Avenue and Lemon Hill and those neighborhoods as well.

So splitting that traffic a little bit, whether their destinations are north or south of Fruit Ridge.

Brigan wanted to really evaluate the road diet as part of the project early on to understand how much opportunity there is for roadway improvements.

Here they are side by side.

With that, we were looking for roadway design alternatives.

So with that change in traffic, what can we achieve?

We're looking at three particular alternatives that are themes that we'll be bringing to the public next month.

All of them are focused on improving traffic safety and outcomes for all roadway users, improving light rail access to the Fruit Ridge light rail station, as well as the transit stops along the corridor.

All three alternatives are adding separated bikeways per the Streets for People plan with some different configurations that I'll talk about in a minute.

And really trying to improve some access and multimodal connections through both the interchange at I5 and 99 with some ramp modifications and some other safety improvements there.

Alternative one is a bike forward or sort of base level of design.

Alternative two, we're calling our ped forward or enhanced design that really looks at enhancing the ped environment in addition to the bike environment.

And then alternative three looks at a half road diet and what that would take to only do the lane reduction on the western half.

As was mentioned, the corridor's over four miles long, so we have a number of different conditions along the corridor.

The western half is a four-lane with attached sidewalks, relatively narrow right-of-way.

Through the middle portion of the roadway, we have a number of frontage roads.

So we have some opportunities to utilize parts of that space to create enhancements.

And then on the eastern half of the project, between 24th Street and Stockton Boulevard, we have a five-lane road segment here that has some opportunities for improvements as well.

So with those three alternatives, alternative one again was looking at a full road diet.

We're reducing the number of travel lanes along the entire corridor, maintaining a two-way left turn lane in the middle for a fire access, as well as to achieve some of the access on and off the corridor and that separated bikeway.

With this, we're maintaining existing curb and gutter and developing a more low-cost bikeway implementation.

For alternative two, similar roadway configurations, but uh proposing to reconstruct the entire curb gutter and sidewalk and raise the bikeway up to sidewalk grade.

This also gives us some opportunity for some additional planting along the uh eastern two-thirds of the corridor and some additional enhancements there.

And then finally, the road diet scenario with the half-road diet on the eastern half, uh similar bikeway conditions with a separated bikeway, but this may require some right-of-way or some improvement behind the back of walk in the existing right-of-way within the the space that's there.

So a little bit more expensive for a little bit less um improvement, but be able to maintain those four lanes.

So, with that happy to answer questions.

Thank you for the presentation.

Is there any members of the uh public who wish to speak on this item?

Thank you, Chair.

I have no speaker slips for this item.

Oh, are there any commissioners who wish to speak?

Uh Commissioner Rico Patel.

Uh, thank you for the presentation.

I have a few questions.

Um I wanted to know like how your team decided which segment would have a two-lane reduction or a four-lane reduction in that um like the half um road diet.

Is it more about speed reduction, volume reduction, or is there more or less bike ped use on one segment versus another?

So bicycle pedestrian use and the collision results of those users is very high along the corridor, but especially on the east end.

So we think there's a demand for uh good bicycle and pedestrian enhancements along the entire corridor.

The reason we chose the division between the half and the full road diet scenario was 24th Street because that's what was pre-approved in the general plan already.

So, as was asked on the previous presentation about thresholds, the western half of the project sort of falls within that typical threshold for daily volumes for a four to three road diet, where the uh eastern half is above that threshold and needs additional technical study that we've performed.

So required some additional analysis.

Uh, okay, thank you.

I have a two more questions.

So um we saw in some of the uh projections that some of the surrounding roads would kind of um absorb that volume uh of the traffic volume.

So are there I guess more of a question for this for City of Sacramento staff, um, are there future plans to analyze or look at improvements to those areas where we see um where we're gonna see that increase, particularly the 99 interchange, 47th Street?

Hi, Commissioner Jennifer Donlaway at Public Works.

Um at this time, neither one of those corridors um are on our transportation priorities plan priority list for us to look at.

However, when we develop those plans, this concept, this level of work had not yet been done.

So depending on how this project moves forward, if there is a ripple effect and we need to look at um either corridors to the north or south, we can and we'll put it in the priorities plan to see what that happens.

Uh, we'd like to avoid uh significant interchange improvements, they are incredibly expensive and take a very long time to do.

Um but other improvements, maybe smaller scale things might be possible.

But it really depends on how this project moves forward.

It's a little alarming just to see like a hundred and sixty plus percent increase.

So I mean that's why I raise that concern.

Um also, also so my last question would be um in the PED forward um, and also the the bike forward um road diet.

Uh, are those five foot bike lanes wide enough?

I think that in this commission we've heard from members of the public, we've also discussed it that like I think a comfortable width would be more like nine to eleven feet, um, if I'm not mistaken.

So uh why the five?

Yeah, so in the locations where we're having less than an eight-foot bikeway, which is the city standard for a separated bikeway to meet the sweeper needs, um, we were utilizing the space to its utmost in those narrower sections of the roadway.

Um, again, these are themes at this point.

We haven't done a uh detailed corridor design.

We will look for opportunities to make it as wide as possible in the given space that we have.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Rubenstein.

Hi, thank you for your report.

Um I actually wanted to echo Commissioner Recio Patel's comment on number two.

Looking at some of these traffic displacement projections, I had the same thought.

Um, I don't want us to, I'm trying not to be paranoid and say, well, we're just shuffling fatalities and serious injuries around.

But when I see an increase of, you know, of traffic of over 100% of some of these segments or intersections on other streets, I think it would be helpful in the future to maybe have an appendix of sports where we get to see what the condition of that street is, and that would make me more comfortable in supporting um some of these alternatives on Fruit Ridge Road.

Thank you.

And I will I will say to that we do have additional figures that we'll include in the traffic study that compare volumes instead of percentages, and so many of those places where you're seeing a high percentage are relatively low volumes for for the roadways that those those links represent in the model.

Um, I think the bigger changes are along the freeway and some of those interchange connections where we'll see most of most of that.

Thank you.

Commissioner Tao, please.

Thank you, Chair Gondales, and thank you so much for the presentation.

Um I just have some concerns over the half diet, um, because uh Fruit Ridge Road touches a lot of different neighborhoods.

Uh my fear is the perception around what you know that the neighborhoods that this road touches, um, once we get to some neighborhoods that are less resourced than maybe South Land Park, um, the option for road diet becomes too much of a cost um compared to maybe some neighborhoods that might be more resourced like South Land Park.

Um so I'm just concerned about the perception that we're willing to um move forward with um perhaps ideas that might um costs a lot, but there's the perception around um the cost being too great when it comes to some neighborhoods that might uh be a little more under-resourced economically.

So just wanted to point that out.

Commissioner Wawali?

Thank you very much for the presentation.

Just a question about the um bicycle and pedestrian improvements along the um freeways essentially at 99 and 5.

Uh is that not really in the conceptual issues you're dealing with now, or do you have a little bit more information about what those crossings will look like and how safety, if we're encouraging bicyclists and pedestrians to use these stretches, what those will look like?

Yeah, absolutely.

We know the 99 um interchange is probably the biggest barrier to Eastwest travel along this corridor.

We are looking at concepts for squaring up those ramps and maybe even signalizing those ramp intersections and removing the slip ramps that are out there today, um, having some specific work done by Mark Thomas on that interchange as part of the project, just not in this presentation, but it will be by the time we come back, we'll have designs for the entire corridor, including both the I5 interchange off ramps and the 99 slip weights.

Thank you.

Commissioner Rachel Patel.

Thank you, Chair.

Um sorry, I just wanted to kind of uh circle back to one of my points and also um echo what Commissioner Tao said.

You know, uh the cost of a road diet, it's gonna be expensive either way.

Um, my concern is that I'm I'm really stuck on these five foot bike lanes.

Um, if the bike facilities aren't gonna be comfortable enough, are they going to, like, is this gonna have the impact that we want it to?

Is it going to encourage um more users?

Is it gonna keep current users protected and safe?

Um, it just seems like you know, there's already gonna be a high price tag um associated with this.

I think we'd want to make the most out of our, you know, you know, we're gonna be pissing off a lot of people, pardon my French, um, and you know, causing a little bit of a um a stir.

Uh I just like you know, I want to make sure it's worth it.

Understood.

Commissioner Hodell.

Um, it would be great to see this kind of analysis for uh Arden Way, the traffic analysis, because that's a major corridor, and who knows what how the displacement's gonna look like.

Um I like option number two, because uh all too often projects that come here, uh improvements for the roadway, vehicle drivers, improvements for bikes, and then pedestrians are left off the table.

So I really like the PED-forward one.

Um my question there is: if you're going to improve the sidewalks, who's bearing that?

Well, how how many homeowners are impacted?

Are they going to bear the cost of improving the sidewalk in front of their and did you have any right-of-way issues for improving the sidewalk with homeowners?

So the cost to be borne, like most of the other transportation projects within the city through grant funding and and future future.

So there is no plan to, as far as I know, to charge the individual households for the project from that standpoint.

Related to right-of-way, um, all of the current designs fit within the existing right-of-way.

Um that's along the corridor.

We do know that um the current back of walk tobacco walk dimension and the western half is about 76 feet.

We know the ride of ways 80 feet wide through there.

So there's an additional four feet that's undeveloped behind the walk to get the bike way to fit to even be a reasonable size.

We have to push the improvements into that space.

So there may be some utility relocations and some encroachment by um commun uh neighborhoods that have moved into that space unknowingly thinking it was part of their yard.

We're currently designing or constructing Franklin Boulevard right now, which had similar issues that we're able to take advantage of, but also avoid some of the biggest impacts as well.

Thank you.

Commissioner Banks.

Thanks.

Thanks, Adrian, for the presentation.

It's really interesting to see what's gonna happen.

We don't know yet.

But I have a question, it's about the the map with the purple, which were sort of the catchment areas.

And I understood um the catchment areas to the north, but the catchment areas on the south end are really small.

I understand the airport, but there's like two kind of communities just to the west of those areas, is that right?

That are kind of narrow.

Why is that?

Where are those people?

How are they?

So two things.

One is the catchment areas were based on the traffic impact zones identified in the model already, so we didn't split zones.

Secondly, there's an interchange just south of uh CMIS 43rd, which serves that community.

So we tried to split the difference between interchanges, and there's two very closely spaced interchanges there, so not seeing any other commissioners.

Uh, I just have uh a statement, um maybe two statements.

Uh, number one, um, I don't know if in your modeling you had an opportunity to to consider the very real possibility that the Sacramento Executive Airport will probably be mothballed at some point.

We have one of the largest infill development projects in Sacramento's history there.

It's not happening now, so you probably didn't, and that's fine, but just something to consider.

Uh, number two, receiving some messages from people watching at home.

Um, inspired me to say this.

Uh we have a model scenario here that shows the full diet and the reduction in car traffic.

It'd be nice to see the reduction in KSI.

Um if this happened.

I mean, we talk about you know, we make choices, we decide what our priorities are right here.

This map shows us that our priority is talking about vehicle traffic, but why not consider the impact of human beings?

One of the greatest consequences of congestion is safety.

People don't hit.

Huh?

Yeah, I just ran a query on the county's website, and there are twenty-seven fatalities listed on um that on Fruit Ridge from 2021.

Some are outside the project area, but that is averaging five to six a year.

I mean, our first our first fatality of 2026 was on fruit road within this project area.

So I know congestion will uh piss people off, as we said earlier.

Um, but it might also keep some people alive.

I really have a lot of pissed people off and a lot of people with heartbeats.

Thank you.

Thank you for the presentation.

Appreciate you very much.

Alright, we're on item five of the vision zero action plan update draft plan.

Is there a step presentation?

Okay, exactly.

Well, hello, Vice Chair.

Hi.

Okay, hi everybody.

Jennifer Donlin Wyatt, division manager for mobility and sustainability within the public works department and also project manager for update to our vision zero action plan.

Um I just want to correct one thing on the last item.

Um, it's we don't think that there are we're not proposing five-foot bike lanes, that's the existing conditions, not the proposed.

Just so we're all clear on the situation there.

Um, but I'm here to talk about vision zero action plan update, which I'm really excited to be here for.

Um we are in a phase three of this work.

We came before you in um February uh earlier this year to share with you the draft high injury network, well, concepts of how we build it, as well as um the draft actions.

And so we're here to show you the plan as we come out.

So tonight I'm gonna go over like what is the vision zero, what is the update, overview, quick overview of the schedule, gonna highlight everything that's in the draft plan, it's a lot, and then talk about engagement opportunities because we just kicked it off this week and we just released the plan this week.

I know you all know this, but just to make sure you all really know what it is.

What is Vision Zero?

It is our commitment, our collective commitment together to eliminate transportation deaths and serious injuries on our streets by working together through through infrastructure, collaboration, engagement, um, to foster safer streets for everyone for all street users in the city of Sacramento.

Um, and we've done a lot of work since we did our first plan in 2018, and we're excited to continue moving forward through the 2026 plan.

Um we began this planning work in early 2025.

We formed a task force, which some of you are members of, which was represent community organizations to help advise us throughout the development of the plan.

We've come to you a number of times.

We're about two-thirds of the way in.

Our goal is to have this uh council approval before the end of the calendar year.

Um, the reason why we need an updated plan is in order to be eligible for federal funding, we need an updated plan.

Our current plan is not in compliance.

It is not only out of date, it doesn't have some elements that were uh new new rec new requirements that were uh administered by uh the Biden administration.

So we need to update the plan to make sure that we're compliant.

We can get those monies to make those improvements.

Um let's see.

We obviously did a lot of data analysis, and you've heard from a lot of folks from advocates, from community members, from city staff that uh we did a 10-year analysis of data through 2025 through 2024.

There were over 22,000 injury collisions, uh, over 1,600 severe or fatal collisions, and many of those were people walking and biking.

Um, and so we want to address that.

Our goal is to improve transportation safety for all through our data analysis.

Unsurprising, we talked about this a lot already.

Um, there are a number of key factors driving at unsafe speeds.

If we can reduce speeds, crashes may still happen.

Um, but there are survival crashes, and ultimately that's our goal.

Uh, people do not follow the rules of the road, is another big factor that we're looking at.

Um, and then impaired driving.

Uh, everyone, please drive sober so that we can uh all reach the destinations that we are going to.

So, as I mentioned, in January, February, we came to you, we talked about the high injury network, we brought you the draft actions, we were on a road show.

Uh we did a lot of community engagement.

We went to, not only did we host workshops, work with our task force, but we went to our communities in their neighborhoods and at their events because that's where you get a lot of the richest engagement.

And we also engaged youth.

That was a big part of the work that we did, and it was super fun.

We worked with the Improve Your Tomorrow organization and talked to a lot of high school students about their neighborhoods and their needs.

And then ultimately, as part of this engagement process, if you remember back then, we wanted to know how should we develop the high injury network, and you told us, and we went to council and then gave us a blessing.

I'm gonna talk about that a little bit more, but it's we ended with council on March 17th, where they gave us direction on how to do the network.

So the high injury network.

Traditionally, the high injury network is a set of streets within the city with the highest frequency and severity of crashes.

It's pretty self-explanatory.

In the past, we only use crash data to evaluate how we develop our high injury network.

However, new state law allows us to consider two other factors.

One is vulnerable road users.

And by vulnerable road users, state defines that as people walking, people bicycling, youth and older adults.

State law also allows us to consider sensitive areas such as near schools and in disadvantaged communities.

We when we came to you in February, you said use it all.

We said great.

Communities really said the same thing as well.

We went to council in March, and they said yes, use all these conditions.

So when we're developing the high injury network, that is what we consider.

I know this is a lot.

This breaks all the rules of our PowerPoint presentation slide of what you should and should not include.

But we wanted to show you the breadth and depth of the work that we had done in the traffic and the analysis that we have done.

So we have a new high injury network that includes all the things that we talked about.

So severity and frequency of crashes, considerations for vulnerable road users and sensitive areas.

And coming out of that, we have a new top 10 corridors.

So we had our vision zero top-down corridors in 2018, which we've made significant progress on.

And now we have the new top 10.

And so those include El Camino, Rio Linda, Fruit Ridge, Norwood, West El Camino, Del Paso, CRB, J Street, and there's a little typo in the graphic.

Apologies number nine is Struxel.

Can't see that there, but it's there.

And number 10 is 16th Street.

We also heard loud and clear from you and many members in the community that we shouldn't just focus on corridors, that we should focus on intersections.

So we identified the top 20 intersections in the city for severe and fatal crashes, which are listed here.

It's a lot, I'm not going to read them off, but you can see them here.

They're also illustrated on the map.

What might be unsurprising to many of you is the majority of these are in our under-resourced and disadvantaged communities.

So we took that, and that's so you heard your input, we had the draft map, and we are going to be asking folks what they think about it.

Similarly, back in February, we brought you the draft actions.

We brought many to many of our communities these draft actions and said, What do you think?

These are actions for the city to do and to work with our partners to advance the goals of eliminating traffic fatalities on our streets.

What can we do to make that happen?

And so we heard from you and we revised them.

I'm going to highlight some key pieces.

I have way too many slides.

And they're prioritized into high priority, medium priority, and low priority just because the reality of resources that we have available to us, but we considered how effective they are at reducing fatal and severe crashes.

The level of partnerships required, because to be honest, partnerships take a little bit more time, and so it just doesn't mean that we wouldn't move forward with them right away, but we recognize they may take more time to implement.

And then the cost to implement, recognizing that our transportation funding is limited and most of it comes through competitive grants.

So the higher the cost of an action, the lower the priority it might be.

Not necessarily will be, but might be.

So we would summarize the high priority actions, gonna be high, medium, and low, and a quick summary.

Some of the high priority actions are continue to incorporate safety improvements into our normal transportation work that we do.

Update the city guidance for street design standards, our traffic signal operations manual, and our project report template, which is a super wonky thing we do internally, but that would center safety in the work that our engineers do.

Streamlight lighting improvements to address funding challenges, street changes are obviously improvements on our high priority corridors, complete sidewalk gaps, implement lower posted speed limits, implement the red light camera program, and continue with our traffic safety quick build team.

It has a number of names.

It's called the tag team, that's just the quick build team, but you've all heard about it and know it and love it.

Our medium priorities are fire ground guidance and how we reduce conflicts and speeds, update our data and dashboards, have regular vision zero community meetings, gatherings, work with transit stop placement so that we have transit stops and crossings at the same locations to work together.

Continue to build the plans that we have, obviously, with those street changes.

Something that is not physical but works with our streets is our signal timing to encourage slower driving by our drivers and also separate movements so that left turners, left turning drivers are not in conflict with through moving drivers.

And then continue to advocate for automated speed enforcement in the city of Sacramento.

We are not one of the pilot cities in California, and we have been advocating to be part of that legislation, but have not been successful in moving that forward.

And then lower priority ones, not that they are not important, but maybe they don't require as much to move forward or do require a lot to move forward.

So continue to have an annual report on our action plan, develop curb management strategies.

We have a new curb management team working with them because as we think about our transportation network companies, like the Ubers and the Lyfts and autonomous vehicles are testing here right now.

We want to make sure that how we manage the curb is done with recognition of new mobility, how we have people biking, and how do we manage all of that together?

And then study like big data.

One of the things that I think it'll help us move forward is looking at how people travel and using and having access to that big data to understand where are these travel patterns?

Where do we have hard breaking, for example, at intersections near signals?

If we have an understanding of hard breaking, maybe we need some signal timing changes at those locations to address the yellow time, for example.

Great.

So we have the draft plan out right now.

It came out on Monday.

We're really excited.

The engagement period is through August 17th.

We have five workshops, three of which are in person, two are virtual.

We start next week at the Hart Senior Center right here on the grid.

We will hold two virtual ones, one on June 25th and one June 29th.

You can register at VisionZeroSAC.org.

July 1st, we're in North Sacramento at the Robertson Community Center.

July 30th, we're at La Familias, Maplewood Maple Neighborhood Center.

They're all from 530 to 7.

And we also have a road show.

So I'm gonna be like at the Meadowview Neighborhood Association.

We're going to South Atoma Street Eats.

We're gonna be at a lot of different places over the next two months, so I'm sure we will see you out in Sacramento as we table and engage with folks.

And with that, I'm happy to take any questions.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for the great presentation.

Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this item tonight?

Thank you, Chair.

I have two speaker slips for this item.

Our first speaker is Dan Allison, followed by Mark Harman.

Good evening again, Commissioners.

Dan Allison from District 4.

Positive comments about the plan.

Overall, it's a great improvement over the 2018 plan for its detail and paying attention to other things.

The added focus on the top 20 intersections is great because that's where the most uh crashes occur.

And they're also in the areas of prominent persistent poverty, and that was a major weakness of the 2018 plan.

Prioritization of vulnerable users in sensitive areas.

I support.

The plan recognizes that arterials are the real problem.

I know that everybody complains about safety in their neighborhood, but where the deaths and severe injuries are occurring is on arterials.

I particularly like high priority action in H7, which is taking action on 10 priority intersections.

Things I'd like to see.

Case studies on completed corridor projects showing the change since completion, so that we know how much of an effect we're having.

Identifying which of the top 20 intersections are good candidates for quick build.

Some of them would be.

Some of them are probably so bad that a quick build is not going to improve them and it needs a major project.

And the 20 intersections should be explicitly added to the transportation priorities plan.

Two negatives.

One is the rejection of using city's general fund on page 66 of the plan is a mistake.

City staff and the city manager should promote the use of general funds to address this safety issue, and the council needs to provide leadership in order to solve this problem.

If we don't have the money, it's going to stretch things out by decades.

Because traffic signals are so expensive, a million a piece, new signals should be removed from this plan.

Thank you for your elements.

Your time is complete.

Our final speaker is Mark Harmon.

Hello, my name is Mark Harman, and I'm a resident of Sacramento.

I live in District 7.

Uh vision zero plan needs some teeth.

Vision zero should not simply state or say we want fewer killed or seriously injured.

It should tell the public how the city is going to get there, who is responsible, how progress will be measured, and what will be funded, and when the residents should expect to see safer streets.

Responsible, the responsible department, the funding status, the timeline, and the progress.

And a higher priority for project evaluation so that the city measures whether the completed projects are actually reducing crashes.

That's all I have.

But thank you for all your time and all your hard work.

Thank you for your comments.

Chair, I have no more speakers on this item.

Thank you.

Any uh commissioners wish to speak on this item, please.

None.

All right.

Well, Commissioner's Dow.

Thank you so much for that presentation.

I was just wondering for some of the areas that are technically outside of the city limits, but are adjacent to perhaps some of the neighborhoods that are within city limits, do we put information together on that?

And if we do, I do think that might be helpful to kind of paint a picture of how some of those neighborhoods interact with the roads there.

Commissioner, that's a great question.

We only look at the city of Sacramento streets because we only have control and management of what happens on city streets.

However, let's say, for example, we have a street like Fruit Ridge Road that crosses city and county boundaries, and we are able to move that forward as a corridor study plan, which our team is doing right now.

So we do include ours in our study the portion of Fruit Ridge that is within the county, and we work closely with our county partners as we move forward the design.

So when we get closer to a design or some sort of implementation, and it is at a county border, we will work with the county to see how we can collaborate and move something forward.

Commissioner Banks.

Thank you.

Thanks, Jennifer, for the presentation.

Seems like it's moved along since uh last TAC meeting.

I'm with Mark Carmen and others around the valuation side of things and not so much accountability, although yeah accountability is an important thing.

But our numbers aren't going down.

Dangerous by design just came out.

People for bikes city street stuff has just come out.

We're we're not we're not getting there and my obviously my question is will this help us get there?

And I don't know that it will or not a plan is a plan.

We get to implement it.

But I I feel like it's missing some teeth around either targets, we're really shooting to lower on these top 10 corridors or on these top 20 intersections and what does that look like?

We're missing that.

Maybe we can't get see it but I think it needs to be um mentioned in the report and then also I think that a lot of the strategies you know I'm looking at them and I'm thinking about them one at a time and I think it's systemic issue right not just one strategy is gonna do it.

Lowering speed limits we talk about lowering speed limits and we know lowering speed limits is not gonna get us to vision zero but what's the combination of things?

What cluster or or set of low, medium and high could get us there.

And then of course I want to know how much that's gonna cost.

So there's no cost um affiliated with this I'm kind of curious about that as well and in my head I'm seeing a matrix of low medium high of strategies by cost low medium high and filling that out and helping us to see systemically what we could implement that could really bring that number down to zero.

There's not a question in there necessarily there might be I'm not sure if there is Commissioner Banks thank you.

If there is a question I'm happy to answer it.

More comments okay thank you.

Vice Chair Gibson please.

First of all thank you to you and your staff for all the efforts on this it's definitely a major improvement from the document I looked at for 2018.

So I just want to first acknowledge that some things I just want a specific call outs for policy areas that I uh like them glad list them as high are it's just um implementation of Senate Bill 720 the running red light cameras one listing that's high and also for the city to advocate for being included in the potential to do automated speed enforcement for that because I know we're limited on that right now so just want to thank you for those ones.

This is nitpicky but we're here for this meeting.

M16 high visibility campaigns to lower driver speeds um I not against it but I would move that to a low priority just to get more limited on funds.

And then M15 is the published annual port to measure progress against action goals I would move that to a high priority.

So that um just is because it's supposed to um I think that'd be valuable pardon me and then to piggyback off of Commissioner Banks one is um efficacy of interventions specifically the speed lump program I think that's the one that we've spent uh I don't know but I know it's in the millions of dollars since the program's been implemented um to spend a portion of that uh to commission a study to see what the efficacy is I I could come up with an idea in my head um but I'm not uh a transportation expert about how to study that but we have enough data you know over a hundred individual interventions a long time period um even though there would be a lot of noise in that data um I still think that would be useful because if it does show that there's efficacy in it then that would be really happy to see us to not just have that program continue but to grow but as long as we choose to be constrained in our transportation funding um we have to make hard choices um and then speaking of the hard choices right now, again, the language right now in it.

Oh, before I get to that comment.

Here's a question.

Sorry uh on page 61, there is improvements uh improving safety with traffic signals page um it lists a few interventions with those, such as leading pedestrian intervals uh predicted left turn phasing um for these specific call-seven call-outs, are these things that we would have to devote additional staff time to implement with everybody that needs to be involved for those, or are these things that we can do relatively quickly?

I'm just first of all curious about that one because those are great things I would love to see us happen.

Vice Chair, yes.

So, yes, they would require staff time to do and to manage.

And in some cases, with our traffic signals, I like to joke that some of them are older than me.

And the technology in their controller boxes can't do some of the things we'd like them to do.

So there'd be an associated cost with those changes.

So, yes, but they are less expensive than a complacent project that might come 40 to 80 million dollars for the project.

So, what's one of the things that we thought about when developing this plan?

What sort of things can we do in infrastructure?

What can we do changes in time?

Signal timing.

I wish I was a signal timing engineer.

I think it's beautiful.

Um, you're really managing space and time and how people travel through it, and so that's one other way that is new to this plan of how we really think about improving safety, and that's through signal operations.

Uh thank you very much.

And then the last is the comment, and again, I recognize this is not a decision of staff, but on the sprawled by the public commenter in the second to last page about um the city general fund.

Uh, just to just to quote the last half of it, the general fund is not typically used for transportation.

Instead, we leverage gas and sales tax contributions towards competitive grants.

Um, and if the city leadership chose to fund uh capital improvements for transportation, they would have the prerogative too.

Right.

Great, thank you.

Commissioner Moore.

Thank you.

Uh trend line didn't go in the direction we wanted, unfortunately.

Um that said, I want to genuinely extend my appreciation and gratitude to the planning staff at the city.

I think you all have done everything that you can with the very limited resources that you all have, and that extends to both past and current staff.

Um, so truly thank you for the work I think you've been doing.

It is noticeable.

It's unfortunately taken a long time to actually I think see results in that.

The biggest um hurdle, I think, in our way comes from, as others have said, city leadership and the uh lack of willingness to apply real funding dollars to the improvements that are outlined in the various planning documents.

So just thank you.

Hoping city leadership can step up in that way.

Uh the two questions I have.

We have some new candidates uh on the top 10 list.

Is that because uh previous ones improved in their safety outcomes, or because safety outcomes got worse in these roadways, or is it the relationship with some of the new factors around vulnerable road users and disadvantaged community criteria?

Commissioner, all the above.

So for our new top 10 corridors, we excluded the original top 10 because we're already working on all of them.

One of the things I like to wave my flag of being proud about is that we identify the top 10 corridors, we have completed plans for nearly all of them, or are working on them, and some of them have moved to quick build implementation.

So if you have not spent, we don't have Commissioner Harris here today, but if you have not been up to District 2 and checked out our Mary'sville quick build project, where we still haven't gotten the funding for the full corridor project, but what we did was we got really creative with our paving money, and we did a lane reduction just south of Grand Avenue, it's right by the Greater Urban League, it's right by Grant High, and so we just finished implementation of that roadway.

So we are really I'm really proud of the work that we've moved out of planning into to implementation.

So to the so and then we didn't consider the original top 10 in the new top 10.

Um, and then guess it in part changes because the criteria change from the old plan to the new plan, so this is why we've identified this new set of corridors.

And then my additional question can you speak to the update on the street design standards?

I think that is a really big element of what can improve safety on a more systemic and fundamental.

Yeah, great question, Commissioner Moore.

So, one of the challenges we face at the city is that we don't we have more work than is possible at the city to for staff to move forward on.

Um, it is not for generally not for a lack of us not wanting to work on something, it's our capacity to move something forward.

And so with a number of staffing vacancies that occurred over the last couple of years, we have not been able to move our street design.

We paused our street design standards update.

Um, principal planner Chris Darty, who is still in the house.

Yes, there he is.

He is in the final stages of renegotiation with our consultant on that contract because we paused for so long.

We wanted to re-scope it a little bit and add some additional budget so that we can make up for lost time.

So Chris should be moving that forward pretty soon.

Thank you.

Look forward to an impassioned speech, I'm sure coming forth.

Not seeing any of the commissioners.

Thank you, Jennifer, for the wonderful um uh presentation.

Thank you for the draft report.

Um, people do have to take the time to um read it and comment between now and August 17th.

Um notice the report itself, second page.

Crash has affected all of us, 332 people have died on Sacramento Streets since 2015 to 2024.

So thank you for including that.

It's in a very important figure.

Um, but it's such a large number, and I just said it so quickly, that I think we forget the gravity of what that means.

And um, I noticed that the draft plan has, you know, the first few pictures are from Slowdown Sacramento Memorial, um, that we held every year in Fremont Park, in which we read the names of every single person who has died in the year prior.

So I would recommend that this plan include the names of those 332 people in it.

I think we own that.

When the first uh vision zero plan was written, um I was there.

I was I was part of that work group.

I remember it very much.

It was one of the first projects in active transportation I got to work with with Walk Sacramento.

I remember being the Bill College Library.

I have a picture on Facebook.

First meeting, Vision Zero Working Group.

I was at it.

And I remember then thinking, like, what a lofty idea.

Zero.

But it can't happen.

It does happen.

City's doing.

Rema Rain, Maria Tittman, Kristen Flores, Muniz Quinnier, Paris Johnson, Ronald Howard, Kayla Fernandez, Josephisa Guzman, Dwayne Henderson, Dominic Gross, Jabia Safi, Miguel Ramirez Badilla, William Range, Rule Smith, David Meyer, Forrest Coss, Lou Powell, Trevin Hayes, Derek Williams, two other unidentified people, and of course nine-year-old of Anna Hill have all died on our streets this year.

This year, since January 1st.

It's 2122 names.

And when I say 22, it's easy to say.

And when I say all those names, it's not easy to say.

And when I go to Fremont Park every year and say all those names, it's not easy to say.

And it's uncomfortable to think about the idea of putting 332 names in a report.

It should make us all feel uncomfortable.

Because that is the level of the work we're trying to achieve.

And it's not aspirational and it is possible.

So thank you.

Staff and everyone in this room who works on this.

But let's get to an uncomfortable place with this conversation, because comfort allows us to brush it aside as a thing that may not happen one day or may happen one day.

But for all those people's names I just read and all their families, it happened.

Thank you.

All right.

Next up, um, is member committee, uh, comments ideas, questions?

Any commissioners who wish to speak.

Vice Chair Gibson, thank you.

Um uh Chark Gonzalez, you said that better than I could, but um, I just I don't have the names of all the people, um, have just different sources.

Uh from our last meeting, uh 22-year-old man, or sorry, 28-year-old man on foot on southbound, um, uh one or southbound uh road 51 near El Camino was struck on May 22nd.

Uh on May 27th, a 75-year-old man near Stockton Boulevard and Fruit Road Roads near the intersection was struck and killed um on June 2nd uh on Marysville Boulevard.

Uh a 50, sorry, 69 year old man was struck and killed while cycling.

Um June 6th on 28th Avenue in Stockton Boulevard, a 67-year-old man was um on foot and struck and killed, and as um Turkins also mentioned uh Aviana Hill, a nine-year-old girl was struck and killed on June 11th in the Oak Park neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair, uh Commissioner Banks.

Uh on a brighter note, um, there is a new bicycle bridge that's about to be open uh over the American River, which is fantastic because cyclists don't have a lot of ways to get across that river.

There's a problem with it though.

If for those of you that don't know about it, it's attached to business 80, and it'll be uh looks like our own little causeway bridge.

Um I bet it will go from basically around the two rivers um trail on the ARBT across over and drop you right over towards um Cal Expo.

Here's the problem.

Caltrans, and I'm not sure if it's Caltrans flood control, the city, the parks, I'm not sure who is putting up a gate.

So if you are coming up the levee, um, if you're coming if you're on the levee at high and you look down onto Caltrans or onto um Cal Expo, etc.

and you're heading towards the freeway, you're gonna make a sh uh an easy left-hand turn and you're at the plane level of the bike bridge, and you just get on the bike bridge and go across.

That entry is going to be gated and closed.

Instead, um, you will you need to be down on the river trail, the American River Bike Trail, and work your way up.

There's a small little switch back that gets you up to the grade level of the levee, and then you can get on and enter there.

Doesn't make sense to me that there's a fence to close off the natural at plane level.

If you guys are following my hand signals, um, and why not allow both enter entries onto this bicycle bridge?

I'm not sure who is obviously Caltrans is doing this, it's part of um the managed uh 80 issues, but I'm curious about the parks department and the city because this is still city area, flood control.

Why not get all together in a room and figure out how best to keep all of that open for ease and flow of bicycle traffic?

Uh, because my senses, and we saw this a lot during COVID, is that when things get gated off, people um easily find their ways to find their way in.

You want to speak to that?

Commissioner Banks, are you talking about the north side of the river or the south side of the river?

I believe it's the north side of the river.

Okay, the north side of the river is not city, it's county.

Um, and so that touch point would be a conversation with Caltrans and Sacramento County.

And flood control because it's on the levee.

Probably, yes.

Yeah, thank you.

It's gonna be great when it's open.

Any other commissioners?

All right, um last item tonight is sorry, I'm sorry, Commissioner Rubensign.

Sorry for that last minute hand raise.

Um, just a general reminder, effect of Wednesday, July 1st or Monday, July 6th.

The supermajority of state workers will be returning to the office four days a week.

Um, so be extra vigilant down here.

There'll be an increase in traffic and people walking and biking, parking, and so on, and I would hate for the return to office to be the reason why there is a raise in the fatalities and serious injuries.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Not seeing anyone else.

The last item is public comments matters on the agenda.

Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on matters on an agenda?

Thank you, Chair.

I have no speaker slips for matters not on the agenda.

All right, wonderful.

Well, everybody have a safe rest of your June and Fourth of July.

We are back July 16th.

Thank you very much.

No, August.

What was I thinking?

Why is it my calendar?

We'll back.

August 20th, friends.

We'll see you.

Have a great summer.