you All right, this is called this meeting to order. The Sacramento City Council. Please call the roll. Thank you. Councilmember Kaplan. Councilmember Dickinson. He's expected momentarily. Vice-Mirta Elementeis. Councilmember Pleckibaum. Councilmember Maple. Mayor Pratton-Garra's expected momentarily. Councilmember Jennings. Councilmember Vang. Mayor McCarty. Here. You have a quorum. Councilmember Vang, will you do the land acknowledgement and then Mr. Jennings the pledge? Yes. Please, Brian and PR table. Mr. Rangel, may I ask for the Nisenon people, the southern Maidu, Valigan, planes mewok, put win and win to peoples and the people of Wulton, Nigeria, sacraments, only federally recognized tribe. May we acknowledge and honor that it native people who can be for us and still walk besides us today on this ancestral land by choosing to gather today in the active practice of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's indigenous peoples, history, contributions, and lives. Thank you. Would you please remain standing for the pledge of allegiance? I'm going to do a final round of questions. So I'm going to do a final round of questions. I'm going to do a final round of questions. I'm going to do a final round of questions. I'm going to do a the pledge of allegiance. So, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. Or a nation of the power in the physical, but there's an interest as well. Thank you. So, Madam City Attorney, do you ever report out from closed session? Thanks, ma'am. Mayor and Councilman closed session to discuss one item related to the initiation of litigation and also to meet with their labor negotiators and there's nothing to report at this time. Thank you. Mayor we have one item on tonight's agenda which is Trucksville Bridge concept and feasibility study. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. There we go. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Fudolia Harris with your Public Works Department, better known as Sparky, and I am very happy to come to you today to talk a little bit more about the Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study. I'm going to try to stick to my notes so I can stay on track. But I'm here today seeking your approval for the concept and feasibility study that staff has prepared as well as staff's recommendation for preferred alternative. This effort was funded by a CalTrans grant awarded to the Sacramento Area Council of Governments on our behalf in partnership with the Sacramentoom Transit District. We work closely with several resource agencies to set the design parameters before developing four alternative concepts, which are analyzed for constructability, potential environmental effects, hydraulic impacts, and traffic impacts. Pamela from Dockin Engineering is here to answer questions. She managed the consultant team and will be available after the presentation. So I'll walk you through our process, but to spoil the ending, staff's recommendation is alternative 3B. So I just wanted to make that clear off the bat. It's important for us to understand the direction that staff was given in 2013 which was to further the implementation of an all modes crossing following the adoption of the American River crossings Alternative Study. This direction was included in our general plan in 2015, Saicog's Metropolitan Transportation Plan in 2017, and our general plan again in 2024. The concepts developed for this study were intended to satisfy the purpose statement adopted by Council in 2013, which was to provide local connectivity for local trips, to add capacity for multiple modes with an eye towards reducing vehicle miles traveled and emissions. To minimize cut through traffic. And to improve access to the parkway below. So let me walk you through the four alternative concepts that were developed. We weren't starting from scratch. Sacramento Regional Transit District had already started preliminary design for a Truxel Bridge crossing for the green line to the airport. And our first alternative concept was based on that design with the addition of cars to satisfy the purpose statement. This concept is an 84 foot standard cross-section with right of way for pedestrians, cyclists, cars, and transit grouped by direction on either side of the bridge. This alternative concept follows the original horizontal alignment developed by regional transit, which is shown in red. This alignment requires a building take at the end of Sequoia Pacific Boulevard, a new intersection, and the relocation of a high voltage PG&E tower. The rest of the alternatives follow the black alignment, which avoids these issues. The second concept was our attempt to design the narrow-wiz cross-section by running cars and transit in the same right of way and combining pedestrians and cyclists on a class one trail off to one side. Shoulders were required to accommodate breakdowns and a center turn lane, sorry, a center lane was required for emergency service vehicles. This concept came in at 69 feet. The third concept started with our attempt to group each mode by directionally as shown at the top of the slide. This concept was shared through our community engagement process and feedback received drove us to rearrange the concept placing transit in between the cyclists and cars to create a buffer. That's how we came up with alternative 3A. The result was a 90-foot cross section, as you see here. The previous concept also was designed to keep pedestrians and cyclists on the west side of the bridge to accommodate a west side connection down to the Jetsmith trail in the parkway. A fourth concept was developed to mirror that cross section to address a few issues and is being presented as staff's recommendation. One of our goals was to avoid property takes. So shifting the pedestrians and cyclists to the east side of the bridge made it easier to peel the right of way off of the bridge to connect to the Tour of Australia and Fitz Street as an alternative to continuing down Sequoia Pacific Boulevard where we were attempting to squeeze between two existing buildings. The thinking was that Fitz Street is transforming into a low-stress two-lane facility that will stretch from the American River all the way into Upper Land Park and the conversion of Fitz Street from one way to two way was recently completed through the Central City Mobility Project, leaving short segments in the River District and the rail yards to complete this corridor. Shifting cars to the west of the bridge also allowed us to accommodate regional transit's desire to reduce the number of times that transit has to cross over vehicle lanes. With this configuration, light rail can be extended from township 9 along Richard's Boulevard and turn north onto Sequoia Pacific Boulevard without crossing over Car lanes. A crossover would still be necessary near the intersection of Truxelon Garden Highway to shift the tracks into the middle of the road going north, but there's already an existing signalized intersection versus creating a new one. These concepts were developed with a great deal of community engagement over the last year. We began by meeting people where they were attending community events, presenting at neighborhood, associations, union headquarters, board meetings, and commission meetings. Our first formal presentation was a community conversation to drive awareness to clarify the purpose of the study we're in the early stages of developing the concepts. Over 40 people attended this meeting and provided valuable input on the early concepts and I'd like to point out that many of those folks are here today. Some of the questions we started with were who are you and how do you use the bridge? That meeting was followed by an online survey to gather feedback from folks that could join us in person. And that survey generated over a thousand comments that also helped us improve the concepts. The revised concepts were shared with a small focus group of advocates, community-based organizations, and other partners to review the changes that were made based on community feedback to see if we're going in the right direction. Additional revisions were made before the concepts and analysis were shared with the public at a community open house to gather thoughts regarding the final products before we came before council Over 140 people attended the open house and hard questions asked hard questions and provided feedback Some of the hard questions received from all of the engagement efforts are addressed in the next few slides. Concerns were expressed that a new bridge with cars would increase vehicle miles travel. But our consultant team ran the regional traffic model with and without the project and concluded that implementing the project would create a slight decrease in citywide VMT as we suspected since the existing trips between South and Thomas and the central city would be shortened with a more direct route. Traffic impacts were another concern. The project will generate additional trips on Trucks road but our consultant team concluded that the project does not contribute to cut-through traffic. The project changes local traffic patterns by providing more direct access to and from the downtown for many Natomas residents and businesses. Protecting cyclists was another concern. All of the alternatives were assumed to have a design speed of 30 miles per hour, which would warrant bike lanes, but anticipated traffic volumes of just over 17,000 ADT would warrant buffered bike lanes. The recommended alternative provides a step higher than that. It would separate bikeway, buffered by dedicated transit lanes. And finally, concerns were expressed by many regarding the inclusion of cars and the concepts. While a bridge for transit, pedestrians, and cyclists only is feasible, staff did not analyze a concept along these lines because it would not conform to the direction provided by city council and adopted it into our general plan, which anticipates a two-lane arterial crossing of the lower American river along the Truxel Road alignment. Cost is obviously a factor as we move forward. Staff's recommended alternative is 27% higher than the cheapest alternative and 23% lower than the most expensive. But given the trade-offs and the functionality of the concept, we believe that alternative 3B is in the city's best interest to pursue. Based on your action tonight, the next step for the project could be to begin the environmental clearance and preliminary engineering phase of preliminary engineering phase this year. Council approved staff's request to pursue federal grant funding for the next phase, and we should have an answer by this summer. That concludes my presentation, and I make a comment real quick before we get started? Yes, vice-member. So, if you're in the audience and you're signing up for public comment, thank you so much. Regardless of whether you support this project or you oppose this project, Sparky here has been working on it for 12 years. So can we just give him a round of applause for his hard work? Thank you. Yes, and just we have 50-plus speakers who want to speak. That's certainly what we're here for to hear everybody out both sides. We ask you to be respectful. If you can, if you heard an amazing speech and they said your exact words just before you spoke, you could go up there and say me too. So just a potential suggestion. Please begin. Thank you, Mayor. I don't have a call off a few names. Feel free to line up in the middle aisle too. Kurt Fierre, Arlet Hodell, Dan Allison, Chris Valencia. Please proceed. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, City Council Members. My name is Cliff Herrera. I'm a business agent for North Cal Carpenter's Union. I know the staff recommended option 3B in their report, and we are in favor of the staff's recommendation. But whichever option is selected, we as Carpenter's have our bags on and are ready to build the truck's little bridge. I'd like to see this project built tomorrow, but I understand there is a process. Whenever we get the green light, we will be ready to build. Most folks don't know it, but we don't only build buildings, but we also build bridges. When I worked in the field, I built plenty of bridges. We are looking for the opportunity where our local members can work on a project close to home. This would be a great opportunity. Can't wait for this bridge to be built. I will make it make my commute from work to downtown a lot shorter. I am sure everyone can appreciate a more accessible, shorter downtown commute. The North Cal Carbiter's union is particularly excited about the community benefits this project will bring. Additionally, the project provides a framework for future development, such as the ongoing construction of the Kaiser Permanente Medical Facility south of the river. This project is an investment to our community's future, promoting sustainable development, enhancing quality of life, and fostering economic growth. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your comments, Arlette. Good evening. Last Saturday, I led a group of 18 cyclists to Land Park and the Sacramento Zoo starting in North Atomas. The purpose was to show cyclists how to get to a downtown destination when discovery park is closed due to flooding and To showcase the city's cycleways and upcoming ride in March will show North Nautoma cyclists the best route to the downtown Saturday farmers market In North and South Nautomas We are growing a community of cyclists who prefer to drive less and ride more, who seek a healthy lifestyle and a cleaner planet, and who want the ability to access downtown destination safely on a bike. Adding fuel burning vehicles to the proposed Truxel Bridge does not meet these goals. I oppose the selection of option 3B and ask the city to provide us with the Truxel Bridge designed it does not include fuel burning vehicles. And just to thank you, a couple of thank yous here, to the City of Sacramento. The Pipe's Bridge is a great way to get downtown. In the past, it was avoided by many cyclists. Thank you for cleaning out the vast homeless encampment there. This has had a positive impact on our cycling route choices, especially when Discovery Park is closed. Also, thank you for the infrastructure improvements to 19, 21st P and Q streets and other streets. Creating these cycleways allows cyclists to make safer choices when navigating downtown streets. Thank you. Thank you for your comments, Dan Allison. Good evening, Dan Allison representing Sacramento Transit Advocates and Writers' Start. You'll hear many things about a desire to reject the staff proposal. So I'm not really speaking to that. What I want to talk about is the transit aspect of the bridge. The council members north of the river have said that they want BRT. SacrT is reconsidering BRT instead of light rail. And if there is not light rail across the river, then BRT can be served by running on the freeway. It's a small jog. It doesn't significant to LA, significantly to LA, BRT, and saves the money of building a bridge at all. I completely understand that a safe, flood-free crossing of the river is desired and necessary. And they'll discovery park floods easily. The other route across the river sometimes floods, sometimes it is not. I understand the need for that and I'm not discounting that, but there is an option to think about this as maybe we don't need the bridge, maybe BRT is gonna go on the freeway. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Chris Valencia, then Isaac Gonzalez. Good evening Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Chris Valencia and I'm here on behalf of the North State Building Industry Association. I'm here to express our support for the staff recommendation for the Troubleshoes Trucksville Bridge Project. This bridge will enhance access to the central city, including the rail yard development and revitalize waterfront, benefiting residents with easier routes to central services. Spiritual strength and access to job, healthcare and other critical services, improving quality of life across both sides of the river. Importantly, this project will also open the door for increased development and promote economic investment in the area. BIA continues to support investments that benefit all of our efforts to address the housing needs in the region. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Is it Gonzalez then Lambert? Good evening mayor and council members. My name is Is it Gonzalez and I serve as the vice chair of the act of transportation commission. Tonight's decision is the culmination of a process to begin a decade ago. Time when our city's priorities and our understanding of the street safety were very different. Since then, we've seen hundreds of lives lost of vehicular violence on our streets. A painful reminder would happen to when we design infrastructure with inherent conflicts between the most vulnerable road users and fast moving vehicles. I believe this bridge was an opportunity to build the city of tomorrow, a city that prioritizes safety, sustainability, and a future where people, not just cars, shape our public spaces. But I believe tonight will be an opportunity lost. Not just because of the vote I didn't think you'll take, but because we never even got the chance to have the debate we should have had. We were never given the chance to seriously compare a car free option. It was never on the table. And while I thank Sparky for all of his hard work and I have nothing but respect for him, that is the failure of this process tonight. So while tonight's vote may feel final, I ask you then to instead see it as a lesson for the future. That we must never again deprive ourselves of the ability to consider bold, transformative ideas. The next time that a major piece of infrastructure is proposed, or whenever we are rehabilitating an existing piece of infrastructure, we should have a real conversation about the kind of city that we are building. Not just for today, but for generations to come. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Lambert, Kevin Fiera, James Torres, Randy Rojas, Joe Contreras, and then MacWorthy like to get into the record that I don't think I've ever been down here where they didn't have a consent calendar and no public comments on the agenda. I know I would not have come down here today had I known that. But I did as a native wanted to comment on garden highway. That's a fascinating highway in many ways as a matter of fact. I would like to send a shout out to a business that's off of garden highway and also are in Fairford called Box Brothers, B-O-X, B-R-O-S. And the reason I've done business with them, they should get Moatime Million Dollar Contracts without bidding. There wouldn't be any conflicts that way. And also, I want to thank City Councilwoman Mai Vane, because they told me that she ordered a virgin pinion Kalada cheesecake from us, which is garden way and garden. And I wanted to thank you, because box brothers personally went out of their way to deliver that to you because I was out of town. And I would like to end by saying that, since we we don't have public comments and I did a dress guard in highway, I wanted to say to District 2, Mr. Dickerson and also the mayor and everyone else that during the Super Bowl and Valentine's, you now have a company in Sacramento that has gone viral in California. And it was very difficult to do that not getting any money from City Hall. Very few money. And we have had no scandals on us. We have had no scandals. You may not like me, but you cannot say that company is not clean. Thank you for your comments. Kevin, then hi, May Torres. Good evening, Mayor and City Council members. Kevin Ferrer, the Executive Director of the Sacramento Sierra Building and Construction Trades Council. I am the shorter Ferrerer here tonight. So the building trace council, we strongly support the Staff staff recommendation for this bridge. It will continue to partnership with the city and creating career opportunities into our apprenticeship programs and transforming lives and careers in construction. So we strongly urge your yes vote for the staff recommendation. Thank you so much. Thank you for your comments. Hi, my Tories. Randy Rojas. Joe Contravers. Oh, Mayor and City Council. So my name is Hamilton. Business representative with the Labor's Local 185. I am a resident of Northgate. If the city still calls it that. Some minor changes is calling it in the Thomas. Have 491 members that I actually represent that live in that neighborhood. Their drive, the air quality would improve if this project went through, not only for that project itself, but for the future projects that were currently engaged within downtown Sacramento. Some of these members actually have a difficult time with traffic actually backing up because of the flooding on 160 or the you know every day traffic of I-5 and this could actually just reduce field missions, be a safe or down to be in. We have an augmentation of hospitals going into downtown area and we're going to need this public safety to access this area. I've been side by side right next to somebody as paradise was burning down and there was one only one outlet to actually exit the town and the safety concerns of my coworker were severe as his family had to walk out and abandon the car and all their belongings because of that situation. So we need these alternative routes to actually have the public safety and have a situation where we can enjoy the city collectively. Thank you very much. Thank you for your comments Randy and Joe. Good evening mayor city council members. I am Randy Rojas business representative from IUPAT district council 16 carpet, carpet, linole, meso soft tile workers, local union 1237. And I'm also here as a board member on behalf of the Sacramento Central Labor Council, who represents over 100 union and 180,000 workers. This bridge, the central labor council supports a staff recommendation for the Truxel Bridge Project, including option 3B. The project will create hundreds of good paying union jobs for local workers. This is an investment in Sacramento's workforce providing a family sustaining wages, benefits, and apprenticeship opportunities for the next generation of skilled workers. It also includes infrastructure projects like this strength in our local economy and ensure that taxpayer dollar support workers rights here in our community. Thousands of workers who live in the north of the river but work downtown are stuck in traffic on I-5 and the Northgate bridge every day. The Truxville bridge will provide a direct reliable route and that reduces congestion, shortens commute times and meaning workers can spend less time in traffic and more time with their families and by improving transportation options whether by car, transit, bike or foot we're making it easier and safer for workers to get to their jobs. The bridge isn't just about mobility, it's about creating an opportunity, it connects people's to jobs, businesses, to customers, and communities to each other. It will support the future economic growth, including developments like the Kaiser Medical Facility, which will bring even more jobs to our region. In closing, the Sacramento Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO, the city council to approve the Truxel Bridge Project staff recommendation. It's a win for workers, it's a win for economic growth, and it's a win for Sacramento's future. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Joe Contreras, MacWorthy, then K. Crumb. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. My name is Joe Contreras. I'm an activist for the Garland Northgate area. I'm also a board member for the Garland Northgate neighborhood association and a newly appointed commissioner for district three. And I'm in favor of the staff recommendation on Northgate because in 2005 we passed, City Council passed the Northgate Master Plan, which you never got built, and that was, and also in 2023 we passed, the city council passed the Northgate Master Plan, which you never got built. And that was, and also in 2023, we passed the Northgate and the ability plan, which never got hasn't been built yet. And all this was created for traffic safety and comments on Northgate Boulevard. And with this bridge, that would highly change everything on Northgate Boulevard for traffic calming and safety for community and our children and our neighborhood. And we really need this bridge. And I think that it would be something that would really help the neighborhood of Northgate, Garland and the community for slowing down the traffic and keeping it safe. Thank you Thank you to your comments Mac worthy and Kay Crumb Michael Bevens Troy Wilkinson Good afternoon, I'm not here. I'm here. I'm here saying you don't need to stand for it Let's do an article to money that you have waste on this. People, the public information is a freedom of speech. And don't forget you by laying that when you can't make public comments on these issues. Well, it was especially me when this voice was introduced. I was here. Now, we see that this is going to be, and when we talk about block grants, 1981, I gave a presentation, 1981. Why, are we still at block grants? Fellow government, I'll be reading with some people who are a Republican party in a few days. No. No money going up, Reyes, when they felt got a grant, no. Cut that money. For sure to give people some jobs now. When the bridge is built, where you're going to cop, you're going to go to work then. It's a thing you got to think about. How you going to get here to work on the bridge if you're not in a highway? We wanna see what you spent an audit for studying this. We like to see an audit going to study of this and who got the money and you gotta quit lying people. Thank you for your comments. Kay Crum, then Michael Bevens. Hi, my name is Kay Crum. I'm a member of strong sack town, a resident of district six, and I frequently find myself in district four. I want to start with saying thank you very much, Sparky, and your team for working on this and putting everything together. I wanted to look at this financially, so the cost of a transit and active transportation option is estimated about 135 million, but including cars on that bridge would raise that to the 228 million. So that's almost double the price for adding two lanes. And what do we get for that extra money? Like you have to make sure that you're getting your money's worth. The proposed bridge estimates that there's going to be less than a 1% change in vehicle miles traveled And it's going to save less than or about five minutes of travel time for people And that's just seems like a lot of cash for very little payout Plus we lock ourselves into spending 15 million every 25 years just to resurface those lanes and future years So if my house is falling apart why would I spend the money to just add another room? If our roads are falling apart, why would we spend the money on a bridge that includes more road maintenance? The projected budget deficits make it clear that our city needs to start living within its means instead of relying on big projects and federal funds to make our city world class. What makes our city world class is our heart, our hustle, and our community. I don't want to leave without providing some sort of solutions though, so here's some small steps that maybe could help. I love transit. I'm a frequent rider, but I want to see if light rail to the airport actually works. We need actual ridership on bus 142, and that means more frequent and later service. If that works, then we can scale up, And if it doesn't, then we didn't spend millions on a project that doesn't pan out. I also want to suggest that every transportation project should include an accurate maintenance evaluation or only presented with the price tag at the beginning when the roads are built and they have to be maintained and we deserve to hear what that's going to be at the beginning. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Michael Bevin, and Troy Wilkinson, and Eric D'Shenko. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Paul Bevin's, and Troy Wilkinson, and Eric D'Shenko. Michael Bevin's right. Who's next? Correct. Okay. Hello. Michael Bevin's. I'm district two. So nearby this proposed area. I think this project was kind of doing from the start. The City Council directed Sparky to come up with a plan without cars as an option from the start. This was kind of dumb. There is no need for cars on this bridge. It's right next door to I-5, which again is a freeway, but I drove the other days to make sure you have your own Pacific lane. You get off on, get on, garden highway, cross the river, you do not have to merge on the I-5. You take the next exit, Richard's Boulevard, you have your own lane basically. And same way on the other direction. So there's, and whatever cars would benefit by going five, a few hundred feet further, is minimal at best. If you're in Chuxel Road and you're in a car and you wanna get over the bridge, A, if you came from someplace off the freeway to get to Chuxel Road, you made a wrong turn. But if you're in the neighborhood of the area, in the Thomas, or north or south in the Thomas, and you you go down Truxon you want to get over the bridge you got i5 right there it's a short little jog or better yet get out of your car and take the train that we built for you to go right to downtown better yet than that leave your car at home get on the new light rail train if it ever gets built that that will take you to downtown. That's our corridor to connect downtown to the neighbourhoods north. If you can avoid I-5, avoid the 160, take the train. That's what we're building it for. Also, if you want transportation dollars to fix what's already there, that's fixed garden highway, that's fixed north gate where it meets 160 160 so the existing car structure can get improved so the cars drivers can be happy too. Thank you. Chair commons. Troy Wilkinson. Eric D'Shanko. Hello. My name is Troy Wilkinson. I'm a district four constituent and member. I just think that a car accessible trucks will bridge the recommended one three B is unnecessary. It's way too costly when compared to a car free version of the road of the bridge and And honestly, I just think construction, there's so much construction, it takes so long. There are so many projects underway, running out of money, the budget, I don't think we'll be able to handle car accessible version of this bridge. Let's build something for transit, let's build something for bikes and people, and let's build it in an efficient way where we can actually see this completed in a feasible manner economically and time wise. So that's all I have to say. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you for your comments. Eric, then Jason Whitech. Good afternoon. I'm Eric. I live in District 3, Soft and Thomas. Practicing my entire life. I still live there. Go nighthawks. Despite the costs, I love the idea of the Green Line. I want to take light rail to work. Love the idea of going downtown. That way I can actually go drink my brother rather than being the designated driver. And I also like the idea of going to airport, primary so I don't have to drive my brother to airport. I love the idea of being able to safely bike at night to found my friend South of River. But when I went to Sac State,etalities near Sac State convinced me that it's unsafe to drive where there's a large amount of traffic rushing from point A to point B. And I'm worried that more traffic through Truxill and people have mentioned it as a way to bypass I-5, reduce congestion, that traffic will cut off softened tom slibrary and other points of interest. Trucks also cut by the Thomas High School. And as a kid, before school, I would cut across the street to a don't shop. And then after school, I'd go over to the softened home slibrary. That's also on the opposite side of Trucks of the Thomas High School. And today, I still like to be able to bite to South South and Tom's library, but there's a lot of traffic. I think I'm just going to have to be forced to drive and aren't to stay safe. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Jason, then by Joey Sousa. Mr. Mayor, City Council. My name is Jason Vittich. I'm the Executive Director for the South Tomas Trans-Tracian Management Association. And I'm here to voice our Director for the South of Thomas Trans-Ration Management Association and are here to voice our support for the proposed Trucks with Big Project. We feel that this is something that is long overdue and certainly much needed. We feel that it is a key component of the Transportation Demand Management Plan in the Greater Sacramento Region. We support it. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. But Joey's Tusa, Noah Mimane, Deb Banks, and then Emory. Hello, B. Joey Tusa here. I'm a resident of College Glen District 6. I'm really concerned about the maintenance costs that will be incurred for the city going forward when a RFA car option is available on the Truxel bridge. Building it would be our other speakers have spoke to how much more expensive it will be to build this bridge with cars on it and how it would be more expensive to maintain it. It's really frustrating. There's a lot of amazing projects that have been done for improvements in our neighborhoods and in redoing our roadways. If you look at the recommendations that were given and the goals of the project that Sparky presented, which was a really good thank you Sparky, it's hard to picture that the goals are in better met with an active transport only project. And I think that we deserve to have that recommendation part of here. So I'm calling on the council to ask for an active transport only version of the Truxel-Bridge to be evaluated. Thank you. Thank you Noah and Deb Banks. My name is Noah Mebbin. I'm an active member of the Boulevard Park neighborhood association although I'm not speaking on the behalf and I'm a District for constituent. I'd like to speak to oppose the Recommendation for alternative 3b and the reason is because in the recommendation as it was written They outlined 10 priorities that were came out of the general plan I mean, I'll list an abbreviated version of them which is that they want to prioritize pedestrian and bicycle transit over driving Foster active transportation and alternatives alternatives to automobiles, a finer grain network of streets and walking and bicycle connections, engage the community and decisions that affect mobility. They want to increase bike, bicycle and walking, city wide, prioritize designs that strengthen the protection of people bicycle, collaborate with SACRT to facilitate high frequency transit, coordinate with SACRT to plan for the extension of transit service, support implementation of transit only lanes, and seek funding for new bridges to improve multi-motor connectivity and provide for emergency evacuation routes. These are the all-ten of the items from the general plan that were listed in a recommendation, and I believe that all ten of those can be served better by a bridge that either by a bridge that only serves active transportation instead of vehicle transit or by having no bridge at all, especially if we're spending $250 million for a reduction of only 0.01 vehicle miles traveled as was in the presentation described. And also, given that, my understanding is that the bridge, as recommended, relies on federal funding funding has been reduced by 90% with the current administration. Therefore, it's much less feasible to actually happen at all. I believe that the Act of Transportation's Commission recommendation to at least explore an alternative bridge that does not have vehicle transit is the best option for it. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Deb Banks. Hi everybody. I'm Deb Banks. I'm the Executive Director of SABA. And I'm also on the Active Transportation Commission. Mayor, I'm going to take you up on some Me-2s. But first, Sparky, you are a rock star. You have done an enormous job on all of this work and has come before us time and time again. However, that said, and it's fantastic, Sabah does not support the 3B alternative because of course we are all in on a bridge that doesn't include vehicles for all the reasons. Me too to Isaac, Gonzalez, Me too to Kay Crom here to Me too's. And here's something else I would love to add that we't talked about yet, and that is the American River Parkway. The parkway will undergo some severe damage with the creation of this bridge, and not just during the building of the bridge, but long-term habitat damage to all the species, animals, wildlife, and then the people that make their time and love the parkway. So a better use of funds might be to look at that Northgate 160, Elevate, and rebuild the bridge over the parkway that's already there and needs significant help. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Annette Emory, then Eric Webb. Hi, I'm Annette Emory. I live in Northgate, but I'm here on my own. We've always heard that term if you build it, they will come, which is very aspirational. So when it comes to cars, it's a fact. You build it. Cars will come. And part of my concern is, is that you're saying be more traffic on Truxel, but I'm also concerned about other side streets. Cars will start using those side streets to get over there. That's just the way it is. Part of the state of goals is to reduce VMT and pollution. I just don't see it. I would really like to go and I'm going to mirror what the actor transportation commission said. And it's like looking at this, it'd be cheaper and faster. I know in Portland, they built a bridge and they found a lot cheaper, a lot faster. I just reading a story about Denver, where they're having so much, they're putting a lot of vouchers off from bikes. They're actually reducing about 400 cars on the road when it comes to pollution. The traffic's going faster and buses are going fast because there's just fewer people using cars. If we want to have aspirations of having clean air, a city that really welcomes active transportation uses transit. We need to go and put those infrastructures in place to do it. As a bike rider myself who rode the bus down here today, it's cars. I'm afraid of people. I'm afraid of the home. No, it is the cars that are the danger. So I understand that we'll fund or what they are'm just one of the people I would love to see a non-car option. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Eric Webb, then Jeffrey Peterson, then Alex Bink. Eric Webb, Vice Mayor and City Council. My name is Eric Webb. I'm a 50 year resident Sacramento.. Last 25 years I lived and worked in South Antomas. Recently I retired from the Sacramento Public Library. And I was in fact on staff when we moved the library to the new building where it stands now. I love Sparky. Very much. Good guy. I'm here to say that my family and many of my friends in Sacramento strongly oppose the Trucksville Bridge project. While other cities' hardscape are river fronts, they're river fronts. The American River Parkway sets us apart. The preservation of our unique natural assets should be top of mind when considering any such project. Numerous studies substantiate the fact that building automotive infrastructure gets more car trips and traffic and certainly disincentivizes alternative transportation including public transportation. We have learned a lot in recent years as a city. Aside from the increase in pedestrian fatalities, my colleagues in our local historical community, especially the center of Sacramento history, don't a remarkable job bringing to light the consequences of post-World War 2 redevelopment, most notably the displacements of our Japanese-American, African-American communities from the West End. During that era in the early 60s, the Neutradirectuary of Interstate 5 was a controversial topic. Elmer McClatchy famously opposed the current rot through downtown, and although she lost that battle, her conversations with President Candy resulted in the curve in the highway that preserved Old Sacramento. Let's honor her heroism by not compounding the mistake of I-5 with the parallel artery of automobile congestion. I strongly support public transportation and I believe we have a- Thank you for your comments. Your time is complete. Jeffrey Peterson, Alec Binks, and Morgan Murphy. Yes, I don't really have much to add. Well, I'm from District 1, so I'd be great to have that transit right by me. And I just, you know, support an alternative transportation route through there. That really helps to have a lot more options than the automobile. And so it just might be better, like, be nice to have a shaded area on the way there, too. Thank you for comments. Alex Bink. We have 36 more speakers after Alex is Morgan Murphy Hello, thank you I'm here representing myself strong sacked town and rewild sacrameno I'm a resident of midtown. I would like to ask the council to direct city staff to study a car free option for the proposed Truxel bridge as unanimously requested by the active transportation. I previously worked in South Natomas and drove for my job all over the city and crossed the lower American river in this area multiple times daily. Existing bridges easily and rapidly accommodated vehicle travel between these two regions. It is not worth hundreds of millions of dollars and millions more in ongoing maintenance as well as the destruction of one of the last remaining natural areas near the central city to provide a negligible improvement to commute times between these neighborhoods. Finally, I would like to echo the concerns that others have raised about inducing more vehicle travel into downtown by adding and locking us into more vehicle infrastructure. It is those cars in our city streets that make us unsafe and the only way to make us safer is to promote and put cyclists and pedestrians first as our plan directs us to do. Finally, I do want to emphasize that the numbers and the plan that's being sold to us assumes that the green line to the airport is going to be built. Well, let's be realistic right now. There's no plan. There's no funding to build that line. And while I would love if we did, we don't want to build this massive bridge for cars, you know, being sold that it's going to be a light rail bridge if that doesn't end up happening. So if the bridge cannot be built in a way that clearly and demonstrably improves safety, connectivity. being sold that it's going to be a light rail bridge if that doesn't end up happening. So if the bridge cannot be built in a way that clearly and demonstrably improve safety, connectivity, and environmental well-being, then funds and staff time are better spent on the numerous proposed and existing projects that do provide such benefits. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker is Morgan, then Andrew Pembunch. Morgan? Hi. My name is Morgan. I'm a member of Strong Sack Town. I live in West Sack, but I spend a lot of time in Sacramento as well. I want to say thank you to Sparky and everyone who put so much time and effort into this project. That being said, I am here because I am in favor of a car-free bridge option to kind of piggyback on what Alex was saying, pedestrian safety is of the most importance. vehicles just ends up being a hazard to our community. Also I moved here a few years ago from Boston and I wanted to note that there I saw firsthand that if the community is provided with the infrastructure that promotes active transportation they will use it. There were many pedestrian foot bridges and they were always full of walkers and bikers. A majority of my colleagues either walked or biked to work. And as a registered nurse in the community, I deeply care about public health, and as someone who wants to raise a family here, I deeply care about our future as a city. I think a pedestrian bridge would promote a healthier and safer Sacramento for our community. Thank you. Thank you for your comments, Andrew, then LC Hellwig. Hello, and thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak. I began driving at age 26. Hello, and thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak. I began driving at age 26 and when I began to be able to have the opportunity to grow up to that age to be able to do so because I have disabilities speak or Disabilities general cognitive disabilities and so it was scary for me to even consider driving. So for me, I was able to live most of my life without the need to drive. And with the bridge being built with the intention to support the driving means that for pedestrians and transit user is it makes it harder for them to commit to this lifestyle and it makes the city less safe for all of us and it makes it harder for everyone with disabilities to commute. For me, I still try and avoid driving as much as possible, mostly for financial reasons, but I still feel like I am asked most times the not to drive, and that is in part because driving has been promoted more so than public transit, despite the fact that history has shown that there is no benefits to necessarily promoting this driving lifestyle that weakens our cities and makes our community more susceptible to outward pressures. If I may ask, please consider a public transit option. Thank you very much. Thank you for your comments. LC Hellwig, then Eve Abrahams, then Troy Sankie, Alyssa Lee. Hi, my name is Elise Hellwig. I live in District 4. And I'm here today to weigh in on the options we are evaluating for the Truxel Bridge. I would like to thank Sparky for putting together that wonderful and informative presentation. However, I think unfortunately, it did not include one of the options and definitely the least expensive option, which is a car-free option. I'm not saying that we have to have a car-free option, but I find it very disingenuous that that wasn't even considered. And I would hope that especially given the current state of both the federal budget and the climate concerns going forward that we would in future times can always have a car-free option when considering these types of infrastructure investments, especially when we know that they are going to saddle us with ongoing costs for years into the future when there won't be public funding necessarily to provide the maintenance for those costs. Or to cover the cost of the maintenance, thank you. Thank you for your comments. Eve following Eve is Troy Sankie, then Alyssa Lee. Hi, my name is Eve Aververham. I live in South Natomas and have since 2003. I have been opposed to this bridge prior to the one to bring cars up there. Even the light rail makes absolutely no sense. When a couple blocks down in this direction we have north gate that runs directly to the light rail. Now they're putting a light rail station on 12th so it'll run directly into 12th. That bridge should be improved anyway. And north gate itself is a lane wider than troughsill. None of the homes along north gate even face the street along troughsill they all face the street. We have businesses along Northgate and apartment buildings who could definitely use the additional business. It will improve that community substantially whereas having traffic come up Truxill will reduce the value of the properties there and increase the value of the properties of Northgate because the small homes there have, some of them have no cars, garages and others have one car garages. The homes on North of Truxill have three car garages. We're not going to be using the light rail. So it's interesting how the same project in two different areas will either improve or decrease the value of the properties. As a realtor, that makes a difference to me. And the extra cars coming up, Truxill, it's just going to be crazy with all that traffic. Because people will move off of the freeway and come up Truxill. We will no longer be able to walk across the street to the park and to the library. Thank you for your time. I hope you reconsider this whole project and just improve the Northgate area for light rail. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Troy Sankie, Alyssa Lee, Ethan Kisak, Armon. Hi. My name is Troy, a D4 resident. I just want to start by saying thanks to everyone involved in this project. It's been a long time coming and thanks also Sparky and staff for always being cooperative and transparent. Some of the council members here as well. It's only been one year since I've been civically engaged on this bridge, but I know others have been engaged much longer. It's been such a long time, as far as I can tell, that a state law has been passed that dictates what this bridge carries, and that there have been countless commission and council meetings about this bridge over the last decade and a half But after all this community engagement I feel like staff haven't really thrown us a bone to evaluate a no-car bridge was all that we've been asking for this past year Not to mandate it How we can How can we know the cost difference if it isn't considered how can we know that the relative environmental impact how can we know the relative VMT change how can we know the cost difference if it isn't considered? How can we know that the relative environmental impact? How can we know the relative VMT change? How can we know what it will look like aesthetically? Why are we afraid of even considering it? Is it really due to a lack of federal funding for a car-free bridge? What if a cheaper bridge didn't need that funding? How can we possibly know if it isn't evaluated? If given a chance, a no-car bridge alternative would have easily achieved all of the stated goals of the project and the goals and indicators in the 2040 general plan that feels like such a loss. I'm here also to bring a strong town's perspective. The suburban experiment is a major root cause of our billion dollar unfunded maintenance liabilities and our structural deficit. If we keep building suburban serving infrastructure, we're going to keep incentivizing building new fiscally insolvent suburban development. There's a vicious cycle, but this feedback loop is longer than an elected term. So it's hard to see. We're here to help you see. Thank you for your comments. the next one. I'm not sure if you're going to see the next one. I'm not sure if you're going to see the next one. I'm not sure if you're going to see the next one. I'm not sure if you're going to see the next one. I'm not sure if you're going to see the next one. think there's so many reasons to say yes, and just make this vote happen tonight. It's clearly a project that has a lot of benefits. And I think as people sitting in those chairs making decisions, we have to think about what is this aspirational dream we have that we can spend money, that don't have? That we can spend That we can keep putting off maintenance and not consider it into the cost of the decision that we're making Clearly the outcomes of decades of that kind of decision-making are catching up to us We cut 66 million dollars in services last year. We're facing 77 million dollars of cuts this year And you know, I think about probably all the challenges you face as council members that you hear from your constituents. We want bike infrastructure, infrastructure. There's no money for it. We want to reduce the width of this road. We can't do that because there's certain amount of traffic already using this road and we can't do that. We want more funding for bus benches and all this stuff. Well, we don't have the money for it. And when we walk through places that are not enjoyable, that feel like a blight on the environment around us, it's because of planning decisions that were made in rooms like this. You know, you might not see out when those costs committed in this room catch up, but they are going to catch up because we cannot, I think just point blank we cannot afford to build more car serving infrastructure because it is just too expensive and it's not even the best option available to us and I think there's really no loss here to really consider that and to do things differently. I just want to add that we have of a $971 million that we have to spend over the next 10 years to get our pavements up to good from where they currently are. So just please keep that in your minds because that's. Thank you for your comments. Our next speaker is Ethan and Armand Doran-Buff. Thank you. My name is Ethan Kisic. I'm a resident of District 4, and I would like to speak about a study to see if we can do this bridge without the traffic, without the cars. I love Sacramento. There is so much to be proud of. And one of the things that I'm just most proud of is the American River Parkway. Almost every single day you will see me at the American River Parkway, either riding my bike or running. And one of the reasons that I just love it so much is it's one of the few places where I feel like I can ride safely. I have been hit by a car while running. And there are not a lot of places around that are truly accessible for anyone and everyone, even if you are not a driver. And the American River is one of those. It's also just such an incredibly beautiful place. Just the other day, I counted three sea lions up in Sacramento. You see coyotes, you see deer, you see all of these incredible ecosystem. And so I see we're going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build more car-dependent infrastructure on a place less than half a mile from a 10-lane car bridge. What about the bridges for people who don't want to drive, who want to just get out and enjoy the city? Enjoy what makes Sacramento so great. I want to stay in this city for a long time. I want this to be my home. And I encourage you to, at the very least, you don't have to make up your mind today. Just look at what it would mean if we built this, if we've built this without cars. If we try to make it easier to hit climate goals in the future. If we try to protect our ecosystems, that's all we're asking today. Just take a look at it. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Our next speaker is Armand. Following Armand is Michael Hutnik, then Armand Burnett. Good evening. My name is Armand Zarena Muff, executive assistant for the Sacramento Hospital Alliance. We are here on behalf of supporting the staff recommendation for the Trucksville Bridge project. Re-enforcing past perspectives on bridging both the communities in North Natalamus and Sacramento. Re-enforcing the idea that those who simply can have a Florida car are unable to have a car or simply prefer alternative methods of transportation. Such myself deserves to have access to essential services, healthcare, businesses throughout the city of Sacramento. Us at the Sacramento Housing Alliance believe that transit oriented development is the forefront of both affordable housing and opening up the floor for new developments that encourage transit orientedness as well as reinforcing the idea that both environmental mitigation for pollution as well as bridging the city's together is the forefront. Equity and accessibility should be at the forefront of our communities and should be taken into consideration for the future. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Michael Hutnik, Amanda Burnett, the Devon Strecker. Hello, Councilor Mayor. Michael Hutnik, District 5. I wanted to set the context for the comments that me and some of my friends and colleagues have given that we're in the middle of a climate emergency. We've just watched LA burn. That was amazing. That was like Hollywood level insanity and we just watched it happen. We had 27 disasters over a billion dollars last year or no actually that was, yeah 2024 numbers. And I think it was higher, slightly higher the previous year, for a total of $182 billion. And that's nationwide, but Sacramento is absolutely not immune from climate disasters. We have built the city on top of an old city that used to flood, but it is very likely to flood again. And so we need to be doing absolutely everything that we can to make sure that we're not putting ourselves in a worse place when we're talking about the climate. We don't want to make ourselves our own victims. Please don't build a bridge with cars on it. Please build a city. Follow Paris's lead. Paris has closed down the city to cars. Sacramento can do something like this. Make it serviceable from the outside by transit, make parking garages on the outside, and then put jump bikes there, put bike lanes through there, put light rail, put trolley's back through Oak Park. Please give us alternatives. Build a city of the future that's going to safeguard us against climate disasters and guess what? It's cheaper. Because as you saw, Sparky said he wasn't allowed to study a car-free bridge. But the ones that he was allowed to study were over $200 million. And the projection for a car-free bridge was $100 million. It's cheaper. It has less of an immediate environmental impact. It has less of a long term environmental impact. Please consider a car free option. Thank you for your comments. Amanda. Hello, Mayor and City Council. My name is Amanda Burnett. I am a South Natomas District 3 representative representing myself. So a lot of people, me too, me too, me too, what he said, me too. What I want to talk about is an idea that we haven't yet discovered. It's similar to the New York City Highline. The New York City Highline is a bridge that is a park. It is for people. It is not for cars. It brings in 8 million visitors to New York every year. That was in 2019. It has increased the medium household income of the surrounding area by 23% and overall New York City 7%. It has brought over $900 million in revenue. We can't afford that bridge with the cars. We could afford a bridge that was a park here in Sacramento that covers the most beautiful part of our city where the two red verse converge. People want to come, people come to Discovery Park for concerts. They could use the parkway as additional concert space. We could have this beautiful parkway that people could cross and that would bring money, people to us. Save us money and long run, not have vehicles. And all we want is for you to oppose this plan so that we can research if that's even a possibility and if it's a better possibility. Obviously a lot of us have opinions on it, but think about the money. You can make more money. Thank you. Your comments? Devon Strecker, then Luz Lim, then Steve Hansen. Good evening, Mayor Council. Thank you for this opportunity. I'm the executive director of the River District and a resident of District 4. In fact, I live about two blocks away from where this bridge would be built. We are here to support staff recommendation. Having said that, our number one priority is the extension of the Green Line light rail to the airport and bike and pedestrian safe connection between the river district and the communities to the north. But the one thing I want to say about cars and the whole question of whether there should be cars, we're thinking about cars right now, what cars are right now. But I think 10 years ago, it would have been hard for a lot of us to predict the proliferation of electric bikes, electric scooters, electric cars, autonomous vehicles. So when you're thinking about 50 years from now, are we saying that we want any type of vehicle, whether it's electric or not, to not be able to use this bridge? I think that would be short-sighted and we should consider the fact that we don't know what cars are going to look like in the future and so this needs to be studied further. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Luz Lim and Steve Hansen. Pauling. Hansen is Aaron Leslie and Robert Cux. Good evening everyone. My name is Lou Slim and on behalf of the Environmental Council of Sacramento I'd like to thank the staff for their work and efforts to move Sacramento away from car dependency and to develop transit friendly infrastructure, intentional planning and development will be necessary to achieve our regional climate and air quality goals. To that end, Ecos urges the mayor and council to strongly consider pursuing the Northgate Boulevard Improvement Alternative for this project. There are many reasons why this alternative makes more sense for development or redevelopment. For starters, Northgate Boulevard is known to have safety concerns, and it is already a focus area for redesign. The 2023 Northgate Boulevard Transportation Plan is a result of voiced community concern and promise to redevelop Northgate Boulevard into a multimodal corridor, although we did hear earlier from the gentlemen that that has not yet planned out as promised. There is demonstrated community support and investment there, and the web page for this project actually mentions that the staff for this project are considering the reconfiguration of the Northgate intersection in addition to the recommended Truxel Bridge. So efforts are already aligned. I echo the concerns of many others who have spoken regarding the impacts to the American River Parkway, doubts regarding the reduction of VMTs and the impacts to traffic patterns in South Nautomas. I respect the staff's work and know that we need multimodal transportation for the future of Sacramento. I just ask that you please vote for the project that will best address the region's transit needs. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Steve Hansen. Good evening, Marin Council. I am Steve. I'm a recovering politician and I'm here tonight to welcome you to Groundhog Day because in August of 2013, Mr. Harris gave a similar presentation to me when I sat where Council Member Pluckybaum is, and I believe then Council Member McCarty was also here just sitting where Mr. Gara would be. And we had a similar conversation. We looked at three alternatives. Putting bike lanes and pad access next to the I-5, redoing the 160 bridge, which are way past their useful life and adding this. Since then, and I am a little bit interested just to say that help I created the Active Transportation Commission, I did the parking protected bike lanes in Midtown. I created the Vision Zero Plan that we adopted. I did the Complete Streets Plan, but we always want to give people a choice. We want to give people a choice about how they're going to get from A to B. That might be from home to school with their kids and might be from work to church. It might be anywhere else. But when we close off options, we limit the city's economic mobility, we limit our residents' opportunities, and we force choices on them that are false choices. Now, after living in South Natomas for the last two years, an area I represented in a community I helped design, I see that when I-5 is shut down, you cannot get to downtown. I-5 has flooded before and it is at risk of flooding again. If you have an emergency like the West Al-Communial Bridge was shut down this weekend because yes, a car went off the bridge and closed the freeway, you could not get somewhere. Yeah, you can go to Garden Highway and some other workarounds, but we need emergency access from South Natomas to downtown. If we want the rail yards to flourish, we need that local access. But cities, great cities like ours have bridges, Portland, Pittsburgh, the Romans build bridges. This is what people do. I encourage you to talk about that for a minute. Thank you for your comments. Erin Leslie, Robert Cux, and Ontario. Hi, my I'm with the Sheetwell workers, local 104. The proposed trucks will create a vital new connection between north and south, sides of the American River. Currently residents living in the north of the river are only two options across the river. The new infrastructure will provide much needed alternative and significantly enhance the accessibility for our community. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Robert Cucks, then Ontario, River Splatcha. Good evening, Mayor, City Council members and City staff. I'd like to thank Sparky for his work on the project. I'm Robert Cooks with the She-Manor Workers Union Local 104. I appreciate the time here tonight. I'm going to meet two all of the comments for agreeing with the proposal. And I'd like to say that it's going to improve the opportunities for construction in the area. I'm also on the Sacramento Central Labor Council and the Sacramento Building Trades. So I represent over 100,000 members in being in those two bodies. So this is going to be great for our city. It's going to be great for transportation. And thank you very much. Thank you for your comments. Ontario, then Lori, Tenhoop. Mayor and council, I'm Ontario, River Splata. I live in district seven, so I guess I'm the first seven up. I'd like to thank the staff for all the work they did on this. However, I would suggest it would make a better approach to set aside the city's recommendations, city staff's recommendations, instead go with what other people have spoken. I'd like to echo all of the people who have been in opposition to the staff's recommendation. I think it makes a good idea, it's a very good idea to take a look at either another route for this crossing as they've talked about Northgate or to look at a pedestrian and transit only bridge rather than one that includes automobiles. I think there's good reasons to do both. For one, the VMT will go down if we look at a pedestrian and transit bridge. Definitely go down because it will provide another alternative for people going north south who are not using cars. And then secondarily, it's a good idea to do it because it will come up if you do the environmental impact report for this bridge, if indeed you go forward with the bridge. The environmental impact report is going to have to look at a variety of different alternatives and an alternative that cuts out cars that would be narrower, that would have a better opportunity to avoid the environmental damage to the parkway, would certainly be a good alternative to take a look at in the environmental impact report. I think also the no auto alternative would also perhaps reduce some of the opposition that you're seeing here tonight to what's been proposed. So in conclusion, I support the people who have been here in opposition and I would suggest taking a look at either no cars or another route. Thanks very much. Thank you for your comments. Lori Tenho, the NAMI Casarini, then Theresa Ortega. Hi, good evening. I'm Lori Tenho, I'm a resident of District 1. And I wanted to first thank staff for having some really good open forums that made it really clear what these different proposals were and allowed citizens to really understand the options and be able to participate in this process. I'm asking the City Council also to pursue a car-free alternative. Take a look at that option for the reasons that various people have stated. I think a car-free option would achieve several objectives that a car-oriented option will not. A car-free option could encourage increased cycling and pedestrian use for both recreation and commuting to the rail yards in downtown. It has the potential to decrease risk to cyclists and pedestrians and help Sacramento reduce the far-too-frequent accidents and deaths to bikers and walkers. I've become an enthusiastic cyclist in North Atomas and South Atomas. We have great trails, but when you try to connect into downtown, you really challenged if we have severe flooding and then accessing the River Parkway is a real challenge. Decrease traffic congestion downtown could be encouraged by having other modes of travel into the city so that there's less need for parking. Car-orient, car-free options could also facilitate the increased use of the American River Parkway as several people have stated. I also think that a car-free option has the potential to better highlight our wonderful river assets and showcase the river as a beautiful destination and not simply something to cross over. It's finally a car-free option has the potential to help the city meet its climate goals. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you for your comments. Nami and Ben Teresa. Hi, I'm Nami, and I'm a constituent of District 4 and a representative of strong sac towns. This meeting began with a land acknowledgement, and I'm really hoping those words weren't empty words, because Discovery Park, which the Truxel Bridge would cut through, is a site of a Nisan on Village that was destroyed by the growing community at Sutter's Fort during the Gold Rush. I'm saying this because first and foremost, we need to remember the history of the land we are on and the violence that has led to the collapse of most of the repairing ecosystem around the city of Sacramento. It's well documented that protecting green spaces is one of the most effective strategies at combating climate change. Much more so than the infinitesimal decrease in emissions that the current plan is projecting. As the effects of climate change worsen, these ecosystems become our last line of defense. To compromise them is to compromise the safety of its inhabitants, including us. I'd also like to point out that keeping the bridge transit only would ensure that taking transit across the river would be faster than driving, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We have neglected our responsibility to the ecosystem we belong to, the indigenous stewards we have displaced, and to future generations for too long. I'm asking that the city of Sacramento considers any of the alternatives presented by previous speakers. Thank you. Here are comments. Theresa Ortega, then Corey Brown. Hi, I'm Theresa Ortega from District 6. And I like all, I like all of the Active Transportation Commission would like to ask Council to direct staff to study a Truxel Bridge plan that's free of personal motor vehicles. Not everything needs cars. There is already a 10 lane freeway intersection a half a mile from the proposed bridge. Building a bridge with cars would be fiscally irresponsible. It would cost much more up front and much much much more in the long run. When the maintenance bills come due, we would be saddled with the debt of the maintenance costs. A car option would also result in immediate greater environmental impacts, threatening our wild and scenic American river and surrounding ecosystems and endangered species which we must protect and cherish. Worse still, expanding major roads for cars would incentivize suburban development in one of the highest-risk flood areas of the region, which would be terrible for our city's economy, environment, beauty, public health and public safety. We need to end sprawl and instead invest in infill development. We can have nice things. We can protect our rivers and ecosystems and encourage active transportation and invest in bus rapid transit or light rail expansion on a trucks all bridge. But we cannot afford nice things if we keep falling into the debt trap of car centric infrastructure and insolvent suburban development. I know some believe that we can't afford not to put cars on the bridge but I'd like to ask for you to please take a longer view. We need to account for the full balance of what a car bridge would cost. Fiscal insolvency is hardwired into car-centric infrastructure and further sprawl. Please protect our city's economic and environmental future and vote no to personal motor vehicles on Truxel Bridge. And last thing, electric cars are still dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists and way worse for the environment than walking by queenween or mass transit. Thank you. Forie Brown and Steffen Green. Forie Brown and Steffen Green. Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council, thank you for the opportunity to talk about the Trucksville River Bridge. I want to cover some of the points that weren't in your presentation today from Sparky who I've enjoyed conversations with, and were not made during the public presentations at the community meetings which I attended a few of. The first is that the city actually considered eight different alternatives in the 2013 American River Crossing study. If you look at this chart that was attached to my letter and passed out to you, you'll see that number three, the Trucksville River Bridge, was the most environmentally destructive of all the alternatives considered. I kind of akin it to the type of projects that used to be proposed in the 1950s before municipalities began caring about the environment. Number eight is one of the least environmentally damaging alternatives. That's raising Northgate Boulevard so it doesn't flood to make sure you've got access to downtown year round. It also potentially has some flood control benefits. We have greater benefits to communities to the east of Northgate and it would avoid almost all of the environmental impacts. If you combine that with fixing the 160 bridge, you can provide access to both eat north and towards downtown on Highway 160. CalTrans has determined that the 160 bridge has to be repaired because it doesn't meet current standards. That's explicitly stated in your 2013 American River Crossing report. The cost-effective thing to do is to fix it first. Raise Northgate so it doesn't flood and then you get the benefits out of that. If later you have the funding, you fix the SR 160 bridge because it has to be repaired anyhow because that's money you're going to have to spend some time in the future. Why waste your money on a new bridge for cars when you've got a fixed existing infrastructure that has very similar benefits and creates jobs to bring people in North Atomas? I want to discuss some additional reasons why the Truxel Bridge is a bad idea. First, as other speakers have- Thank you for your comments. Your time is complete. Our next speaker is Stefan Green, and Jesse Cohn. Mr. Mayor and members of council, my name is Steven Green. Since the or American River insurgency program was established under legislation by then Assemblymember Kevin McCarty, I have been the Senate's appointee to the advisory committee for that. It's very notable that the American River Parkway Plan does not allow a new motor vehicle bridge across the river between interstate five and SR 160. The American River Parkway Plan has been put into state law the Urban American River Preservation Act. That act says that actions of state and local agencies with regard to land use decisions shall be consistent with the American River Parkway Plan. Therefore, There's going to be no motor vehicle bridge in this area. It's very important, I think, that the focus of your public works agencies should be the deteriorating infrastructure here before we start building new projects. Telltran has said that SR 160 needs to be upgraded or replaced, and that should be the focus. It would be very easy then to have light rail through 160 and better and safer transportation areas for bikers and pedestrians. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Jesse Cohn, then chance chambers. Hello, I'm Jesse Cohn, resident of District 7. Good evening, City Council. I believe many of you support public transit and light rail expansion. but this bridge is not it. There's no guarantee that this bridge will ever give us light rail. It says so plainly in the proposal that Sparky is presented here. And I want to speak to the unions here. The fastest way to get any bridge is a car free option. As the previous speaker had mentioned, the American for Parkway Plan only authorized a car free bridge. We would have to amend that parkway plan, which is state law that would require county approval and federal approval. There's no guarantee the county will approve this. I was out of recent county transportation meeting and they said, fix it first. We're going to fix new stuff before building new bridges. That's what the county's policy on. So the county is not going to support this. And we don't have a money for this bridge. Trump reduced federal grant money by 90% so there's no guarantee that we'll ever get any sort of federal money for this at least for the next four years. The county currently spends $30 million just to maintain our roads in poor conditions. They're asking for $85 million to get them to good conditions. conditions. And so how is this project that costs 250 million is going to cross tens of million dollars every 25 years to maintain? Where are we going to get that money? We have a deficit in our city budget every year. So why are we going to set us up in the future to have even more deferred maintenance? This project will cost 250 million dollars to construct. A car free bridge will be almost half of that. And so to the unions here that want jobs, I support that. But the best way to do this is for a car-free option because we can actually get the money to build it instead of waiting for federal grant money that's never going to come. And also, this project is only going to reduce vehicle miles traveled by less than 1%. I mean, that's negligible. It's insanity. Like, LA is on fire right now. We're in a climate emergency. Electric cars kill people. Like, how many people have to die before we consider alternatives? So please consider a new car option. Thank you for your comments. Chance Chambers. Then, Halley German. Chance. Then, Halley German. then Simon Hyatt. Hello, my name is Chance Chambers. I'm from District 5. If the City of Sacramento wants to actually pride itself on being a more walkable and bikeable city quote from you guys's website I'd like it says on your website. Cars cannot be an option for this bridge. The presence of cars is not only harmful to the environment and the people walking alongside it but also as a reputation as a city. What kind of standard are we we setting while holding on to cars being on this bridge while being known as the city with bad drivers and terrible traffic? It says that we're a city that cares more about saving space for traffic lawyer billboards than it actually cares about the safety of its own citizens. When your own study says that there is, quote, no popularity or room within the budget to use eco-friendly options, then it should be clear that cars are the main glaring problem. But yet we continue to barrel through an ignore public opinion, and even the comment of our own public transportation committee, while our own mayor is on his phone while all of these people are talking. Adding more lanes is all to an already high-endery network with a 10 lane freeway, only a half a mile away, is exactly what creates creates more traffic, accidents and car related fatalities that we have a city have to deal with while the crumbling streets and highways that were already stuck on get ignored. The only solution to traffic is viable alternatives to driving and having a bridge up prioritizes transit and pedestrians over cars is a step in the right direction. We need to stop the expansion of car-centric infrastructure in Sacramento, because I for one, and sick and tired of seeing the city choose cars over its own citizens and the nature that we built ourselves upon, while running itself further into the ground with more debt making a bad problem even worse. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. I'd like to remind members of the audience to please be respectful of the speakers and refrain from calling out from the audience so they do have their time. I have 12 more speakers. So Halle, then Simon. Hi, good evening. My name is Haley Domen. I am a restoration biologist specifically in riparian areas. I'm not here to formally represent my organization, but I am a resident of District 1. I am here to talk about my opposition of this project, specifically about the environmental impacts that are associated with this. According to the environmental memo, this is supposed to take out about seven and a half acres of riparian forest. Additionally, that would be the removal of 800 to 1,000 trees. Those trees act as habitat for the state threat in Swanson's Hawk, the federally protected bald eagle. Additionally, what was failed to be mentioned was the 2015 record of the yellow-billed Kuku, which is a federally and state endangered species. So taking in consideration with just the amount of money that would take in permitting alone, it would need an incidental take permit, which are very expensive. I do not support the project itself as far as environmental impacts. Yeah, that's just what I'd like to say. Thank you for your comments. Simon Hyatt, Then, Recount Coren. Greetings, Council, Mr. Mayor. My name is Simon Hyatt. I'm a 20 year resident of Sacramento. I chose to settle here when I went to community college of Sacramento City College and the thing that enticed me about Sac City after I had done a year of travel abroad was that there was a light rail stop on campus. I thought that that was really cool and was gonna be able to save me a lot of money and gas to be able to just ride my bike to the light rail and get to get to campus that way. Later I went to Sac State and nine and a half years ago, as I was riding my bike home from work at the East Sacramento Trader Joe's, I was hit by a car. Broke my left patella, was hospitalized, lost my job, and now at only 39 years old I have arthritis in my left knee. So it's something that you continue to deal with. Years later from that first surgery had an additional surgery when the medical implants failed in my knee. I wanted to share that story because of how important the actual safety of our roads are. This is a public safety crisis. It's a public health crisis. You're more likely to get killed by a car in Sacramento than you are by homicide. I don't know if that's good or bad thing. Good thing that homicides are getting lower, but also really bad that it's so dangerous for us to ride our bikes or walk. Today I was just, I rode my bike from my home in River Park to Sac State to catch the 30 to come here. A cyclist had been hit on Carlson today at 430. This weekend, a scuderist in right across the river there was also hit and run over in campus commons. And then I'll just wrap it up there. Thank you. Please do not include cars on. Thank you for your comments. Raquel Korea, Sally Andreid, Arcadia Larson, Keon Bliss, Oli Duer Westrick, Ali Raquel. I don't see Raquel, Sally Andreid. Following Sally's Arcadia Larson, Keon Bliss, Allie Dewey Westbrook. Hi, I'm Arcadia. I live by Marshall School. I'm here to encourage the council to consider alternatives to consider the car free options. I'd like to ditto what everybody else said. And one of the things that I'm here to speak about, you know, that I particularly care about is I love the American River Parkway. I love walking there. I volunteer there. This is, it is one of those places that I find refuge in. And I think a lot of other people do. And I want, when I think about the future, I think about the places that I want to be in the decisions that I want. I hope people make. And I hope the council you know, makes a decision to think about the people of the city. And... And I hope the council makes a decision to think about the people of the city. And I want to be able, you know, in like 30 years, 40 years, you know, what I live here. And I'm hanging out with my friends and their kids and all of them and you'd be like, yeah, you know, we made the right decision here, you know, because we chose people over cars. So yeah, that's my piece. Thank you for listening. Thank you for your comments. Is Sally Andre here? I don't see Sally Keon Bliss. Allie Dewey Westbrook, Nikolai, and Teneer. Robin Kalsbeck. Do you. Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker that you all are actually listening to them. Not a majority of you. I'll give some of you that are new to the council benefit a doubt. But the vast majority of you, I don't believe that it has anything to do with cars, over people, or even the climate, or like you're even just the uncertainty of business. It has everything to do with money, namely money that goes into your campaign accounts when it comes time for election. And I counted the written and public statements that were coming here tonight with at least 60 people opposing this, or 60 comments opposing this council or cars being on this bridge, there's not only about 30 unique comments supporting it, most of whom came from moneyed interest or business interest, which total have given the majority of this council over 222,225 dollars. And majority of that has actually been coming in from some of the speakers tonight, namely members of the Sacramento Central Labor Council who have given over $50,000 to at least six of you. And of the Northern California Carpenter's Union as well, over $45,000. The Sheet Metal Workers Local Union, $33,000. And also the Sacramento Metro Chamber, which is very much in support of majority of you, are giving at least $38,000 to this. That's just the taste of the amount that I can see from public records on this. So I don't really think that it has anything to do with public comment or what is actually better for the community. It's really- Thank you for your comments, your time is complete. Thank you for your comments, your time is complete. Our next speaker is Ali, the Nikolai, then Robin. Please take your seat, your time is complete. Thank you for your comments. Ali? Thank you for your comments. Allie. Good evening mayor and councilmembers. My name is Allie Dar Westbrook. I'm a resident of District 4 in past year of the Active Transportation Commission which you've heard of this evening was in full support of a car-free option. I'm here today to encourage you all to be bold and imagine a Sacramento that doesn't continue to put us down an irreversible path of car dependency. For far too long, we've invested millions of dollars expanding our network of roads and bridges with devastating impacts on the environment, health and safety of our community. I appreciate the years of work and engagement that Sparky in particular and city staff have put into this project, but I found it really frustrating that we weren't even given an opportunity to analyze a car free option. As a community weren't given the option, you as council members weren't given that opportunity and I really think that we all deserve that. So please reject the staff recommendations for option 3B and bring this decision back for a vote when a sorry a vote, not a vote, when a car free option has been studied. Thank you for your time. Giveick a lie, then Robin, then Nicole. Good evening, city councilmembers. As someone who sold their car within a few months of arriving in Sacramento and thriving car free for a year now, I'm here to join strong sacked town and the community in demanding a trucks or bridge alternative that is free of personal vehicles. There are so many salient regions to reject the recommended alternative, fiscal perhaps being the easiest for you to get behind. Alternative 3B is the widest of the bridge layouts due to the space required by private vehicles increasing construction costs by over $100 million in the estimates that we heard. Roadways are constantly deteriorating, requiring frequent maintenance, which only grows exponentially as vehicles increase in size year over year or significantly increase in weight due to electrification. Sacramento is already egregiously behind in roadway maintenance with worse roads conditions than our pier California cities because doubling down on car dependence is absurdly expensive. According to the city's pavement condition report, we already have a growing backlog of unfunded repairs and ever worsening roadway conditions. Maintaining our below average streets at their current conditions is expected to cost $58 million per year and to repair them to good condition would cost $97 million per year for a decade. Now is the time for Sacramento to be funding repairs to our existing street wet network, non-investing an extra 100 million into an unnecessary car component, rather than prioritizing active transportation and transit crossing. Best case scenario, this bridge is going to open in about 15 years. What kind of city do you envision for your constituents more than a decade from now? What kind of city are you building for our children and descendants? One with more parking lots and more traffic with works, roads, and more potholes, where we continue to just hope for zero traffic deaths every time we cross the street of our city, instead of investing in Vision Zero as a vital priority. Or do you like me and Vision a beautiful and green city with vibrant and bustling local shops with the robust transit and bike network with the unique connections to nature we are so lucky to enjoy. I hope we share that vision of a beautiful and strong Sacramento. A car for you. Thank you for your comments. Your time is complete. I have four more speakers. Robin, I have four more speakers. Robin calls back. Nicole Porter, Marbella Salah and Z. Good evening. My name is Robin Kalsbeak. I'm a resident of Fair Oaks and a board member of Family Free Ride. I'm representing Family Free Ride myself in my one year old son. Family Free Ride is a not-for-profit organization with the mission of getting more kids on bikes. We maintain Mountain Bike Park, lead youth cycling classes and events and advocate for bicycling infrastructure. We are frequent users of the American Bike Trail and Parkway and the Parks that line it. I urge you to reconsider the development of Truxel Bridge or at the very least, planet as a pedestrian and cycling bridge only. As an advocate for protecting natural areas, particularly for future generations, I fear the long term negative impacts of yet another massive auto-centric infrastructure project and not just from the financial aspect. I'm confident that our children, as they look around at our built up and concrete environment, will not regret the pause and discontinuation of an auto-centric bridge. Instead, they will regret that we continue to destroy natural green areas that inspire awe, instill curiosity, teach community and respect, and allow for wonderment and play. They will regret that we didn't do everything we can today to protect the natural areas we still have. Please reconsider the need for another bridge. I oppose the alternative 3B and request City Council to conduct a study on a cyclist in pedestrian only bridge. Thank you. Nicole Porter. Nicole, Marbella and Z. Good evening, mayor and council. I'm Nicole. I'm a resident and recent homeowner here in Sacramento. And today I'm urging you to please oppose the Truxel Bridge design being considered. I'd like to ask that you direct city staff instead to develop a bridge design alternative that serves only public transit, pedestrians, and bicyclists. For those of you that have traveled to other cities, states, or luckily enough, other countries, I'd like to ask that you think back and think back to those trips and consider what made those places so special. Was it the sound of cars and trucks honking on the freeway? Was it the smog coming from traffic congestion? Was it the polluted rivers and trails that you traveled through? I'm guessing probably not. So why would we wish to continue this pattern of poor urban planning here in Sacramento? Our city has a very unique opportunity to design a bridge that contributes to a safe, walkable, and very vibrant public realm, so please don't waste it. You can design a car-free bridge to accommodate emergency vehicle access and evacuation routes that are activated only when needed. And a bridge does not have to allow for continuous car traffic to meet these specific safety needs. Documents can be easily amended. Bridges, not so much once they're built. In April of 2019, at a general planned community meeting, South Natomas community members specifically asked for more frequent transit service, safety improvements for bikes and pedestrians, less emphasis on car travel, more accessible transit systems, and less pollution along the American River Parkway. So I'll conclude with this. The overall cost of this Trucksle Bridge is posted on the city's website to be expected to exceed $500 million. Yet we are still waiting for the final funding necessary to construct the I Street bridge, which was finalized more than six years ago. There has been no federal funding allocated to the next phase of this project, so what is the rush? Please, direct staff to take a few more months to develop a car-free bridge design and see what differences in cost, vehicle miles traveled and emissions reductions and improved mobility come from it. This is a chance to truly rethink how we approach planning for the best version of our city. Thank you. Good comments. Marbella. Good evening mayor and council. I'm Marbella I'm President of Garland, Northgate neighborhood association, and I am literally the minority in this room. So most of the people speaking and supporting no cars on this bridge don't live in our community. Garland, Northgate, I live in this community and there were several people that live in this community that a couple of them that left because it was the first time coming to speak and I think it may have been intimidated by all of what was being said and what I want to just argue is our community is a working class hard working brown and black community. They will need to travel. They do travel by car. It is a luxury to say, okay, I'm gonna use my bike, and I'm gonna walk across, and I'm gonna have to work, and on the weekends, our people don't have time. Most of the people that live in Garland, and Northgate work two jobs. They don't have time to be walking and using the bikes. And what I want to ask everyone that's saying exclude cars is why are you excluding our hard-working community? The bridge has everyone included. Bikes, walking, bus, and cars. That's inclusive of everyone's needs and where everyone is at. Our community is not at the place to ride bikes and walk. They're not there. The reality is that they need cars to get to work. Mainly to support all of everything that's going to happen here, that all of the people want to enjoy. Our people are going to be working doing that, and they're going to need a car. And our people are going to need to get to the hospital. And they're not going to ride a and walk across to get to the hospital or emergency room. So, at Northgate, please stop picking on Northgate. We are one of the last, we were redlined and we are the last, one of the last community that has limited information. Thank you for your comments. Your time is complete. Our final speaker is Z. Good evening, council. I work for climate plan, an organization that can be in the statewide network of transportation advocates around climate, public health and equity. I can appreciate what Marbeque was saying. I'm also an organizer with Sunrise Movement Sacramento and here to echo the comments made by a strong SAC town, made by your own Active Transportation Commission. More importantly, I'm a lifelong Sacramento who grew up in District 6 along the American River Parkway. But rather than making use of that parkway in bike trail, I spent my weekends as a child visiting my cousins in Atomis the only way that my family felt was safe by getting on the freeway. Drivers in Atomis in the central city already have an adjacent way to cross the river and back. Walkers and bikers do not. Staff did not consider or analyze an option with no cars because it wasn't within the direction that council provided to staff. Direct quote. So please provide direction to analyze a no car option. Let's practice government responsibly by acting informed by evidence and analysis. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Let's. Mary have no more speakers on this item. Thank you. Thank you. Let's give you all a round of applause for a very civil debate. Yes. I will say this is my 10th council meeting and I keep saying one of these council meetings is going to be a big debate with 50 plus speakers and tonight's tonight. So thank you so much for coming out and sharing your perspective. We all heard you. There are two different views. I know our council members are going to have a wavy discussion right now led by the people that represent these districts, but this is a citywide issue. It impacts every district in the city of Sacramento and of course being the city wide. Leader, I want to start tonight by just maybe asking Sparky our lead staff to come back up to the podium and enlighten us on some key issues that I heard over and over. So I had some questions myself. So I have five or so questions that maybe you can help us and frame the rest of the debate tonight amongst the council. So first, as Mr. Hanson did note, this was 15 years ago. And I don't remember the details like then Councillor Hanson did, but I do remember you coming up here and then Councillor McCone helping lead the discussion on Basically, do we need to cross the American River again and what would that look like? So maybe you can start with this first question and in 2013 it was alluded that Set in motion only this option a Car and bike ped bridge So at this point, why are we not pursuing two options, a car-free bridge and a complete street bridge with cars, bikes and pedestrians? I will try my best. The American River Crossing study actually started with a long series of meetings with our community, what we call it at the time. Community planning team I believe it was, almost 30 individuals and organizations that got together to develop the purpose and need statement. If I were called, it was at least five meetings just to come up with that need and purpose statement. Those debates are really what framed what the potential future crossing was going to accomplish. There was plenty of opportunity in those meetings for people to say all we need this bridge to do is get people over the bridge, or over the river on bike or on foot or on transit. That group decided to move forward with a purpose and need statement that called for all modes over this bridge. So when that was formalized in the resolution in 2013, the decision that council made was to actually go with three of the alternatives. Number one, number three, and number eight. Number one was improvements to I-5, which would include some kind of bike and ped facilities on a state highway, Truxel Bridge, all modes, and also an all weather north gate that would connect areaally to State Route 160. Those two options on the end are both state facilities, So we haven't progressed on either one of those yet. There's still in the works, but we haven't done it yet. The reason why we moved forward on this one is this is the only option that was a completely city-led effort. And I mean, just frankly, Council gave us direction to pursue funding to move this one forward. So that's why we're only looking at all modes options because that was the direction from Council based on the purpose and need statement that was put together by this collective group. Okay, thank you. So the next issue that we hear is that if you pursue a car free bridge versus having a complete street bridge that would limit us on applying for and obtaining federal and state money. So in your view, is it viable to proceed with a car free bridge and still have a realistic expectation of receiving state or federal money for such bridge. That's a difficult question as well. Bridge of this magnitude that didn't have cars on it, but kept transit would be a transit bridge with ancillary uses, including bicycles and pedestrians. The city doesn't build transit bridges. So that responsibility would fall to Sacramento Regional Transit to lead that effort and partnership with the city. Obviously we work very closely with them and we would do what we could, but it would be a regional transit bridge with our help. There's obviously state and federal funding that's available to transit districts. Actually some pots that aren't even available to us. But again, that would be something that would be led by the transit district and not by the city of Sacramento. In staff's opinion. Come back. Yeah. Can we go now to the issue with the American remember Parkway? So it was alluded that any additional crossing over the American River would be in violation of law of the Parkway Act, whether it's a, and I'm kind of confused because there's some advocates here that just want a bike and ped bridge over the river. And if that's the case, it potentially still would be in violation of the idea that set forth that no bridge is over the river is lawful. So can you engage us here about your understanding of any additional crossings of American river? Sure. To make it perfectly clear, the American River Parkway plan in the Discovery Park section includes a transit bridge over the American River that includes bikes and pets. It also includes language that says, if car bridges are ever considered, the preference is to add the car capacity to an existing bridge rather than build a new bridge. So our thinking moving forward with this Truxel bridge was if the transit bridge is already coming in, this is how we satisfy the requirements of that parkway plan is by putting the cars on that bridge versus trying to build something else next to it, which is exactly the direction in the American River Parkway plan. We still have to go back and amend the parkway plan in order to allow cars on that facility, but staff is currently working on that right now. And then you briefly address this in question number one but the Northgate option and it was alluded to that's already a bridge and has some opportunity to have increased by pedestrian access and there's some need a need for an improvements on the Northgate section. I think you said that those are two state highway still and there's and that the Northgate where it gets to 160 correct. Northgate is not a state highway. Northgate gets to 160. It gets to 160. It would actually connect up and based on the concept plans that we did ten years ago. Yes, it would connect into a state highway in the air. It was one of the, I think it was the most expensive alternative of the eight, but it did accomplish a lot of the same goals that we were trying to get here. But maybe you just explained why Northgate was, Northgate slash 160 in your view is not a viable option. I don't believe it's not a viable option. I believe that council direction 10 years ago was to focus on all three. Staff asked for permission to move forward with funding for one of them, which is the Truxel Bridge option that we're talking about right now. The other two are still on the table to seek funding for with the caveat that we have to have a partnership with CalTrans on either one of those because they are not our facilities. Yeah, we can't control it like we could control. No, we can't. Truxel Bridge is the only one that's completely under our control and then lastly can you can you help me understand and lighting that Can you bring your your visual up again? Is that possible? I think so It has the 8b the preferred route with a little 3b yeah So essentially what's coming up, we heard from many people that it's not safe writing your bike in Sacramento, which I concur. Councilmember Plucki-Bomber and I wrote our bikes this weekend and crossed Carl's foot and Jay. And it was dicey and I saw it firsthand that like, it's a real thing that we hear from people out there. I get it That that being said One of the issues was that that people wouldn't feel safe crossing this Bridge that has cars on it But as the bridge is designed Aren't the car aren't the bikes and pedestrians completely separate from where the cars and transit would be so So in essence, it is a bike-pred bridge, bike-pred bridge because you're nowhere near where the cars and light rail would be. Is that accurate based upon this image here? I would agree with you. My primary mode of transportation is bike as well. And this is exactly the type of facility that I would want to see because I would ride on it So again just to clarify This is a completely separate bike and pedestrian route from The cars there's in between them is the two light rail Ralph Two transit lanes that would have anywhere between 15 and 30 minute service. So majority of the time. Yeah. There's going to be nothing. Yeah, I think this makes a compelling case. And I'm inclined to be open to what you're hearing, you're outlining tonight. Donate here hear from our other council members as well. And it's a, you know, we focus extensively on let's fix our streets. We talked earlier about Fruit Ridge Road. We wanna make these complete streets. So this would be, it's a complete bridge. So it's automobile, transit, and a separate area for bike and pedestrian's in. I agree, that was the goal. Yeah, I think we hit it. And then the last question before I get to the others is on this, is this accurate that the Truxel route was the most questionable as far as environmental impact? For that study, yes. We have to keep in mind that that was a high-level environmental analysis that was a qualitative comparison of the eight alternatives. There was no sequel level analysis. It was really an opportunity for us to get in front of council and basically say this one's a little bit better, this one's a little bit worse. The real analysis gets done when we launch Sequin Nipa, which would be the follow-up to this action. So essentially, if you had a bridge at Truxel, it was complete bike and pad, just bike and pad car free, or a complete street bridge, which is automobile, bike pad and transit, you'd have the same environmental impact next to that bridge. I'm not asking you, everybody else. If you're a bridge, I mean, the width would be different. Would be you're still having the same footings. Yes. So how is the environment impact different if it's still? The construction impacts will be virtually the same. Yeah, because you're building the bridge, not just for cars, but also for the light rail trains across. You need the same footings underneath the water. you need the same impacts on each side of the bridge as well. All that would be very comparable. I know that several have mentioned a bike and ped only bridge. That might have a construction profile that's you know a little bit different but as soon as you put transit on it it's going to be very comparable to anything that we've put here. Now the ongoing environmental impacts are going to be a little bit different based on, you know, 24 hour car service on it, light, glare, shade, all of those things. But again, those are the things that will be analyzed in a sequinipa study. And if there are significant impacts, appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for entertaining that. I think that helps set the stage. Vice Mayor Talamontes. Thank you so much, Mayor. You took a lot of my questions. So I had to modify my little script. I just want to thank all the speakers that came out tonight. I also want to thank all the people that have participated in the community conversations, people that submitted e-comment, the letter support and support, or against the project. I think Mayor McCarty said the best. It's so important to have these healthy conversations as a city. And I love to see some of you people engaged. This project has been such a long time in the making. I watched the August 8, 2013 city council meeting just a few nights ago to understand the sentiment now versus then. And honestly, it remains pretty the same. It's frickey was there 12 years ago, but I made that point earlier. I have more here, right now. Excuse me. One of the speakers there at that meeting was the former president of June and A, who had a business on Northgate. And he said, hey, we're finally here in 2013. This idea originated in 1990s when we bought our home. And at that time, former council member Steve Cohn, who was here earlier of District 3, made the motion. And our now senator, Angelique Ashby, the only council member at that time living north of the river, seconded it. So what was the reasoning behind this logic in 2013? Public safety for ambulance services, flood control, emergencies, connectivity to downtown, and building more bridges was a priority for the council. Like Sparky said, there was eight options at the time, and it got narrowed down to three, and now we're here with the truck so bridge. So what was most important to the people at that time was form modes of transportation for the community. So 12 years later, we're here. And we're picking the design of the bridge. It's taken a long time. And you're probably asking, geez, 12 years why does it take us so long? And it's, and I asked for Archaeus earlier, is because staff has to continue to apply for grants to be able to continue doing the work that they're doing. So keep in mind that as we move forward, we might, you know, there might be questions about like, will do you start over? Yes. You'd be starting all over. And I don't know what year that would take us to. Even our bridge now takes us to 2039. And we still have to secure federal funding and everything else that comes with it. What's important to me as a council member representing the communities living north of the river is connectivity to downtown and our rail yards. I feel like my community always feels excluded or they feel like we're not part of Sacramento and honestly we're making so many investments in downtown and our rail yards. The new kais are coming in, the concert, soccer. So many investments in downtown in our rail yards. The new kaiser coming in, the concert, soccer. So many investments in downtown. And I want my community to be able to take part of that. Right now, I'm part of the rail yards EIFD. And I asked the staff, okay, tell me, they were talking about transportation plans for downtown and East Sack and you know the different places in downtown Of how people are gonna get to the stadium and I asked what the plan was for my community and they said well right now It's getting on the i5 getting on Richards and parking and parking structure in the rail yards That's not acceptable when I'm like a rock still in a way and I can hear the noise from the rail yard concerts My community deserves to be connected to downtown and the investments that we're doing here in downtown. So a community survey showed that people travel downtown for healthcare services since all our hospitals are downtown. People travel downtown for work and for entertainment. This bridge is going to help us with connectivity and access. It's also going to produce high-wage jobs, quality jobs. And I've read the e-commerce, I've got an e-mails, and tonight we've heard a lot of comment about the desire to have an option that does include cars. And Sparky mentioned it a little bit. One of the main reasons why we need to include cars because it expands a number of funding sources available to us. So my question to RT, I think RT is here. RT, can I please have you come up and introduce yourself because I want to piggyback off of a question that Mayor McCarty had. What does the capacity, sorry, actually I'm waiting for you to introduce yourself. Give me everyone Kevin Trader, I'm the senior planning for SEC RT. I'm also the Green Line Manager, a project manager. Wonderful. So for RT, what does your capacity look like to construct and move this bridge forward? What's some funding sources you have allocated to it? And where does it fall on your list of priorities? So, as to piggyback on what Sparky said, if we were to take up this project on ourselves, it wouldn't have to be a no-car bridge. How other funding sources, one of them, would be new starts, for example. That would allow us the ability to do that. However, that comes with a major caveat that we do have to pick a locally preferred alternative, which is why we're here tonight to try to figure that out. The funding plan would be required for this, and that doesn't just mean how to build it. That means how to operate the bridge and then it would need a local funding measure. So the city, the county would have to step up and create a funding measure that we could use for going after state federal funds and again, operation of the system. And then lastly, it would require the city, the county, and say COG to make this almost your number one priority moving forward so that we could access these funds, project priority. Thank you so much, appreciate it. So former council member Steve Hansen who bit gave public comment earlier was said, don't let the perfect be a land of me the good And for me it's important to have this bridge Because if we don't allow to put cars on it I don't know where it's gonna fall on the priority list for other agencies Right now the city of Sacramento can continue to apply for grants to be able to move forward with funding and I as a council member just can't have that especially right now with all the natural disasters happening around us. Many of you alluded to that earlier. And I think about evacuation plans for my community, living north of the river, over 130,000 people live north of the river, and we're continuing to grow as a city. And I remember two years ago, we had a major thunderstorm, and Northgate and I-60 was flooded, so you can't get through. And there was a big rig that had overturned on the I-5. So the city of the city of the city. I've been to the city of the city of the city of the city. I've been to the city of the city of the city. I've been to the city of the city of the city. I've been to the city of the city of the city. I've been to the city of the city. I've been to the city of the city. in emergencies, in invacuations, fires, floods, you just never know. In my community deserves that. We're continuing to grow as a city, and for me it's also important to have a connection to the airport. To be a major class city, when you go visit other cities, you take public transit to downtown, where typically you're staying in your hotel room. And we don't have that right now. I mean, I was at the airport during Golden Sky Weekend, and there was a, you know, to get to downtown. And for me, this is like one step in the right direction. And I do want to know that many of our transit agencies support this project, including Jive, who's our North Atomas TMA, are South Atomas TMA, Regional Transit, Sacramento Area Council of Governments, and our City of Sacramento General Plan. As we move forward on this project, I want to make sure that there's a road diet on Truxel, which reduces the number of lanes to be able to slow down traffic. Do a subcommittee for the design and the name of the bridge, and ask my colleagues to humbly vote yes on Truxel Bridge 3B to be able to move my community forward, allow us to be connected and honestly for emergency reasons. Thank you. Councillor Pellock-Ebaugh. Thank you, Mayor. Bridges are more than just technology to overcome obstacles. There are symbols. There are commitment between communities that share common values and economic opportunities and lives. And as our values change and as our modes of transportation change, these bridges are going to need to change to reflect those different values. Sparky, if we build the bridges currently designed and the future, is there anything that would prohibit us from repurposing the car lanes for some other purpose? The first constraint that comes to mind is the color of money that's used to build it. I could see some constraints in terms of useful life if federal funds were used. You know, there may be a certain number of years where you just have to stick with whatever they funded. I don't know exactly what that time frame could be. But other than that, functionally, no, I don't. But I do think the funding would be a huge concern. However this vote goes tonight, I hope the folks that are here tonight advocating for active transportation for pedestrian and bike use will continue to work with us, work with RT and advocate for a source of funds for the kinds of transportation access that we're all seeking. The principal's points of conflict here are I think can be summarized by the location and the modalities. And the location of the bridge may not be perfect, but it is the one that we control and it's the opportunity that presents itself to us as the nearest term solution for us to create another crossing north of the river. The modalities I think is an interesting discussion that isn't a one and a not. I think we'll have an opportunity to seek federal funds for this bridge is currently designed in the future if we want to come back and reevaluate the use of some of this or all of this capacity. We can have that discussion and debate as we move forward. But today as we sit here to let the council member tell them on to said let the perfect be the enemy of the good I think would be a mistake and a disservice to the councils and the folks that have come before us and to the future that is expecting us to provide Something rather than nothing. So I'll be supporting staff's recommendation Councillor Kaplan Thank you mayor want to thank sparky and city staff. This is decades in the works You know whatever council tonight, and if by some miracle federal funding is received if a federal government still exists in a couple of years, I'm supportive of its construction by our union brothers and sisters without a doubt. That is the only way we should do public infrastructure. With that, I want to ask a couple of questions, which my staff give you heads up on a couple of these. So when was the last time that council made a decision publicly in a direction on this bridge? In 2020, 2013, indirectly, 2024, by approving the general plan that included this Tulane arterial bridge over the American River So but it didn't include all eight options that were included in the 2020 10 2013 analysis that that came to Did it came to council? I just want to call that out well our was a council member at that time, none of us sat here. And while I respect those that have come before us, it is something. I don't just stand on principle of what was decided 12 years ago when there are eight of us who can look differently and see things differently. Even though it may not be the best decision as everybody agrees or disagrees on it. When the American River Crossing Alternative Study was completed in 2013, has that data been updated that was used in that study since 2013? Only with the information for this bridge itself. No additional analysis has been done on the other seven options. So the 160 or anything else, there is no other. Not to the best of my knowledge. So I know that we are looking for this to be constructed estimated by 2039, but it took 13 years almost to get to this point and this is just the planning stages. Have we identified where federal funding will come from? It's an ongoing process. We We did submit a grant application for the next phase, which would be the preliminary engine or sorry environmental determination and preliminary engineering. That is a federal grant. Well, here by this summer, whether we got that or not, but we do these things in stages. The concept and feasibility report includes a financing strategy in it that lists all of the programs that we knew about at the time, about a month or two ago. All of those may be completely different by the time we get to those next phases. But yeah, once you finish one, are you getting towards the end, you start to strategize about what are the other pots, both federal, state, well, add regional available, and then you start to chase those funds as well. But at least for the next phase, we've got a pretty solid plan for moving forward. And just is this considered part of our what we're looking at for future transportation needs with the city of Sacramento for our unfunded liabilities with infrastructure or is this separate so it would be on top of the you know potential $ billion dollars in projects that the city has identified in our transit transit priority plan. That's a good question. I mean since the bridges in the general plan I would assume that our unfunded needs would include future things that we've already planned for but I can't answer that with certainty. Then that brings into mind if we have a transportation priority plan, where does this bridge fall and what projects will get moved up or down that something that council should decide as we look at this of where do we apply for federal funding? Again, as you've said, if federal funding even exists. The next couple of years will be interesting. And we just heard, which I appreciate regional transit being here. I had to go refresh my memory. The discussion began in 1991 when Anne Ruden was mayor with the green line of how do we get the green line from downtown to the airport? I moved to South Natomas in 2001 and that discussion was going on and houses were gonna be bought up and here we are 24 years later and still wondering when the green line is coming. Any update? For me. I'd have to defer to second original transit on that. Coming soon. Okay. Curiosity is are we waiting for the EIR for an updated traffic study of the impact of the bridge on Truxel? Waiting for an EIR for the... Or do we have an impact study on the impact this bridge will have on Truxel in the surrounding area? Air quality, everything else? Traffic analysis, yes we've done. We've run the regional traffic model within without this project, so we know all of the impacts. It's hard to summarize on paper because it covers the entire region. So yes, we do know the impacts, and I did summarize some of those in my presentation. When it comes to air quality, no, we haven't gotten there yet because that will be analyzed in the sequin nipa process. And then as the vice mayor talked about and this has been a discussion for a while, when is the plan to do the road diet on Truxel? I just checked. Just checked the the MTPSES and it did say it was scheduled to be completed between, or before, 2035. I mean, I would defer to our engineers internally, but my understanding just based on that is that road diet, at least in the MTP, is scheduled to be completed before the bridge of scheduled would be completed. And again, it's dependent on how many grants and federal funding we get, because Sacramento has turned down transportation funding, correct? Separate transportation funding, outside of federal. Turned down? No, no. Oh, the voters, yes. The voters, yeah, that's not really my area of expertise, but yes, additional funding would be required. And then I just want to bring back up on the Urban American Parkway Preservation Act. Is there any additional feedback or information available regarding the concerns that the community has received that the bridge does not align with the policies on the American River Parkway? We've been in conversation with Sacramento County for at least nine months. On this project I've presented to the American River Parkway Foundation. I've presented to the County's Parks and Recreation Commission. We are currently working with county staff to do the environmental analysis to determine what level of CEQA analysis is necessary to amend the American River Parkway Plan. And the only amendment that we need to make is what's called a map amendment. And if you actually read the Parkway plan and the county staff agrees with us as well, what's needed to make that change is a vote at the county supervisor's level only. We know that EIR is coming. And then the EIR will look at the environmental impact to the protected species, Swanson Hawk, Cooper Hawks, Egritz and others. Absolutely. And we've started to do some of that analysis with this concept and feasibility study just to have an idea of the magnitude of those impacts. Once we get into the sequinepodocumet, we'll really dig into it, but we at least wanted to know so that we could start early conversations about mitigation. We didn't want to leave this to the Sikwa Nipa process. And that, I mean, to go a step further, you would do outreach to any existing Native American tribes in the Sikwa Nipa study. We've started that now. We've already had conversations with the United Auburn Indian Council to let them know this is coming, talk to them about what mitigations they could potentially ask for so that we could put that into our cost analysis and not get a surprise later that they wanted all of these things that we haven't budgeted for. So yes. And that's good to hear. I think the most part, those are my questions. So last council decision was in 2013. I'm always open that council can change directions. So even if council moves forward with this, if there's a possibility of partnering with CalTrans and raising Northgate, that could still move forward, correct? Absolutely. That's still council direction. Thank you. I appreciate your questions. So I come from this from a slightly different point of view. My first house that I was lucky enough to buy was a couple of blocks from Garden Highway and less than half a mile from where this new bridge is being proposed. South Natomas is an amazing majority minority community. A majority whom are a lower income and live in apartments that attend our South Natomas schools where approximately 80% of the students qualify for free and reduced lunch. Somebody talked about biking as a luxury and I do take offense to that. From 2001 to 2004, I scrimped and saved because while I went to law school, I decided to inter public service. And that doesn't necessarily afford you a lot of extra money. And so when I worked in the capital from 2001 to 2004, I rode my bike downtown through Discovery Park when it was not flooded and over 160 risking my life when it was. However, I will tell you, some days I felt like I was snow white, singing to the deer's, the birds, the quails, the coadies, the skunks, the foxes, the geese, the eagreets, and other animals, I consistently rode by six o'clock in the morning, five o'clock at night at some time at night. I did that because I didn't have a luxury. I had no ability to pay for car parking. And when I did have to park, I'd figured out a couple places. Can't park there now, but I did, where I parked a mile from the capital because I could park there for free, and I walked a mile in. So I could afford that. I did this out of necessity. And now 20 years later, I still look fondly at that time as to how easy it was to access discovery park bike lanes and just ride my bike three miles to my job. Hit 24 hour fitness, shower, change, go in. You could also earn very little money and buy a house back then. Still a goal that our younger generation deserves to have that I had in my 20s. My husband and I chose our house in North Natomas, which is on the very edge of the city, because guess what? I get a walk out and I still get to go see Coyotes, Foxes, Egritz, Swanson Hawk, because I live on the very edge of the city in the county next to open space. That is important to me and my family. My girls ride their bikes, but guess what? Our trails don't fully connect, so they ride on the sidewalks, because my child's safety is more important, and I've taught them to pull over for pedestrians walking on the sidewalks, because our streets are not safe to ride your bike. North Natomas was master plan to connect. We need safe bike lanes, and we need increased transit options. When I was on Sacramento RT that is something I've been amply argued for, I did get a promise whether it's followed through or not that the executive director would put in a grant to look at the green line to change it from light rail to bus rapid transit. We've been talking about light rail for decades. For too long. I do not know where the billions of dollars are going to come from. And it would be full hearted to continue to discuss the green line when we've been discussing this since 1991. Some people have passed away. We've been discussing it so long. The only way to meet our climate goals is to remove vehicles from the road. We know that, studies know that, Sacramento studied that. We've passed reports here at City Council. That is what our own Climate Action Plan that we've passed with our-40 general plan last year says. We saw this was possible. Do you all remember when COVID hit and cars were not on the road? And the air in Sacramento was the cleanest it had been in decades? That happens when we get cars off the road. And it happens when people see other options that are viable, bus rapid transit, when we build bridges, cars will come and that will not get us where we need to go. Because when we think of our communities and what they need, we think of affordable homes, good schools, grocery stores, parks, safe streets, not wide towering highways, not bridges is over ourways. In the past 70 years nationally, highways have dictated community development in urban centers. They've torn through low income communities of color, displacing families, homes, and businesses. We know that. My eyes were opened and changed. If you've not read city limits, infrastructure, inequality, and the future of America's highways by Megan Kimball and what it did to Texas and to communities of colors, read it. Racism underlayed the highway development in I-5 through downtown, dividing Japan town. We've had it here in Sacramento. In 2019, the city council adopted the 2040 general plan vision in guiding principles. And the guiding principles reaffirm the city's commitment to take bold action to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 and becoming a leading voice in the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate We've watched what Paris has done, what other cities across the world have done in removing vehicles and increasing the ability for bikes and safe bike routes. We've started that downtown. My community in North Natomas deserves safe routes, dedicated bike lanes. I would ride my bike down here if it was safe. Thank you, Arlette, my Transportation Commissioner. I'm glad she does it. I've been one too many close calls in accidents, and I guess is a mom of young kids. I look at things a little differently. So we need more public transportation options. We need more biking options. I don't see how this aligns with our streets for people. I agree with our vice mayor. We need access to emergency and hospitals in North Natomas. We deserve those things in North Natomas. 2039 is still a long ways away and in the meantime we should be supporting and fast-tracking the development of hospitals north of the river and Access that and building bike lanes and safeways for people to get to and from and remember that Writing a bike isn't a luxury sometimes. It's a necessity for those that have no other option and cannot pay for vehicles So I can support additional bike lanes upgrades to 160, maybe a dedicated bike lane over I-5 for when Discovery Park floods. I'm pretty sure this is going to pass by my council members. I'm okay with that. I have to stand on principle what I believe is for the betterment of what 20, 30, 40 years. We want our city to be and I just can't support another bridge with vehicles but you've done great works, parking. Thank you. Thank you. Council member Gera. I think you may appreciate. First, let me just think I think a tremendous new organization that's over the last few years has really grown a movement and that's a strong, strong Sacramento, sorry about that. And strong Sacramento, yes, sorry. And it is, oh my gosh, it is terrible, it's terrible. But, but in more or so to say that I've never seen in this time frame, and maybe Sparky, like, have you in your career how many folks, professional folks are involved in transportation policy? And I started my career in the transportation laboratory, and to see this is actually uplifting. So I think they deserve a big round of applause, because let's give them a big round of applause, because they've actually done a lot of this hard work. And particularly, I want to recognize Ali Westbrook who's also a commissioner, and she's been our lead chair in our California Clean Air Day and making sure that we're looking at every option to improve our air. So, you know, one of those, I do appreciate the level of engagement and activity. I also want to thank, you know, our Sacramento engineering staff and Sparky Union, particularly because when we started this conversation, I was not happy with the options that were presented and I appreciate you going back and forth and bantering with me and getting straight down to the numbers and the facts and the engineering on this design. because it is, as my colleague mentioned, fundamental belief that there are certain infrastructure projects that have been created over the years that have caused significant harm. And I look at some of those, such as Hazel Avenue, or Watt Avenue, the way that they had to come in with multimillion dollars to fix it to make it viable for biking afterwards. And let alone the 99 and the way that it affected Oak Park and the roadway projects. So those are real true facts. And going through this debate, I appreciate you giving me some of these numbers to think about and still having me on the fence. I the fence. But I will tell you, I think that the two individuals most recently that made it clear for me. One was constituent of mine, Melissa Meng from Jive, whose motto is walkbike and bus. And the fact that they were looking, that she commutes at times has tried to commute from her bike in District 6 south of the river to North Natomas. And even today, if you're driving out there right now, you know, the discovery park is flooded. So, there are very few options in the times that I've tried to cross the river. You know, Guy West Bridge is one of the few options that are in the city that are safe to cross. I've gone on the bike on how I have a new to try to cross over on that sidewalk, it's pretty gnarly. So I think the fact that the jib has looked at this and said, you know, we are looking for a way that addresses the multiple needs. And I think about the issues about paratransit and the shuttle services and we're not building in this consideration of this bridge, we're not looking at building another hazel avenue. We're not looking at creating another what avenue. We're not looking at another how I would do. And definitely another I-5. So this is trying to produce an option. And if this is to scale of I doubt it's to scale But if it's to scale it's it's slightly over predominantly active transportation And what it really has come at least the conversation between you know the comments made by jive and then those by Marvella Salas Who I've been working actively working actively, and for those who criticize her, she's been one of our leads on the outreach on the E-bike program. And the E-bike voucher program to be able to encourage more people to actually use bicycle transportation. And as evolution goes, yes, there will be, I think, more people who will be looking at that as a viable transportation option. And to looking at cycling as that in the future. And one of the things that, you know, this, the documents don't do is just this, but I appreciate, you know, Sparky walking me through how the ends of the bridge intersect and how these bike routes actually connect and mend with the neighborhood. Because that's not the case in most of our city. Many times our bike lanes end up in no place. If you're going down Stockton Boulevard, you might have a bike lane, class two bike lane when someone's going 40 miles an hour next to you. And then it disappears once you cross Broadway. You know, so I do appreciate the care taken. And I think it's only happened because I want people in this public to know that we have traffic engineers here in the city who believe in the same concepts. I mean, you heard today like our traffic engineers are cycling all the time. They are in the streets. They are seeing this physically. They're not behind just some office or some cubicle or some laptop working on things. They're actually engaged in this. And I believe that that's come about in this analysis after this presentation. The last thing that I will say is that one point that Madhavi Asal is mentioned is that, you know, particularly like if you're using pair of using pair of trends, or you're trying to get from South Potomac to the other side of the river, it just takes you longer. And why is it that with low income families, we never value their time, okay? That to me, I've always found, you know, very frustrating where we don't look at, okay, how do we address their issues with time? And if it, if I, if I was close or another area is close, I do think that the shuttle service issue is a problem. And this is where the turning point was in thinking about, does this, you know, Tulane option address that point? There are, this bridge is attempting to do a lot of things. A couple of comments were made about, you know, should we build this because it's the way to get federal funding. Well, I, you know, I think one we should never, never chase the money and build a project based on how we look at money. Now I do disagree with the characterization for this project on that because I think there was some forethought with vision about what their components are. But that is an important piece. And then the second piece that I've heard is that, well, this is just a rubber stamp from 2013. Well, as a recovering engineer, I would say, one thing that we must always do, and I think we're doing it tonight, and I appreciate the extra amount of time we took together, is that we should always continue to evaluate and challenge the fundamentals of why we're doing something. That will continue and come again because what we're voting on today is not the funding of this project. We're not voting on a contractor for this project. We're voting on the feasibility study that'll get us to a sequel in NEPA, where we're going to look at the IR and then see if in fact it achieves the assumptions that you've made. And the assumptions that you made are changes in traffic pattern and more importantly, an induction that I would think and I would hope it would make, and more active transportation, along with changes in traffic pattern and more importantly an induction that I would think and I would hope it would make and more active transportation along with changes in traffic pattern that move people You know that need that access so I will I will say that I want to thank everyone for there's so much engagement in this but more so also for just those in the in the South and Tommas community and and our engineers for for into this. And Mr. Mayor, I'll be supporting the motion to look at the feasibility study. And we will probably have the same debate as no one's made a motion. Yeah, good. Yeah, but I'll be supporting motion made by Vice Mayor Tallah Montez, second by Mr. Garret. Okay, there, oh, Phil's seconded. Phil's seconded. This is this report. And I will say we will probably be debating this again. Now the question of whether it should be built at all. I think that's a viable question. But whether it has cars or doesn't have cars, I think those are, you know, when I looked at the analysis about whether the peer and pedestal are going to be, the impact, you know, just that of a gut sense will be the same, but we will get to decide that again when we have to review the EIR report on the sequinepad documents. And I look forward to that discussion, Mr. Sparky. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Councilmember Dickinson. Thank you, Mayor. Let me start, Sparky, just with, or maybe this is actually a question for the city attorney as well, that extends on the point that Councillor Mellord got out was just, I think, emphasizing. And that is that whatever we do tonight in terms of selecting an alternative, that really only serves as an indication of a preferred alternative with respect to the environmental analysis, the EIR and EIS, that will hopefully not instrumentable future follow. Is that correct? That is correct. given given public comment and testimony and by the way I too want to join in thanking all of those who have commented whether tonight or online or otherwise not just over the last few weeks or the last many years on this issue. That analysis, it seems to me, would have to include an assessment of a bridge without any motor vehicle available lanes or availability. That a question? Yeah. Okay. I am not a secret attorney. I do know that you need to evaluate alternatives to your preferred alternative within the secret and the documents. The extent of those alternatives I think is determined during the notice of preparation. If anybody from the city wants to chime in I believe that is the process at least that's what I've experienced through my career. Yes, Councillor Member Dickinson. That would be included in the sequel review that's done as this project progresses further. And so I think the point that Councillor Member Gator was making and that I would just underscore in this regard is this won't be the last conversation about the shape and nature of this bridge I suspect. I have to confess that I'm in a position that I don't usually find myself which is significantly conflicted about what we're considering tonight. And only to amend Councilmember Kaplan's statement about the earliest consideration of this, extending the green line, wasn't called the green line to Sacramento Metro Airport at the time, was actually more like in 1989, 1989, 1990, and I was involved in that as a member of the regional transit board. I am a staunch advocate and have been for all those years and continue to be of our need to extend light rail to our airport Sacramento International Airport. It may be that an interim use of something like bus rapid transit is what is required in an interim, but my experience has shown me that if we want transit to our airport to be successful, and I hope we would all agree on that, that it needs to be on rails because people will get on things that are on rails because they're pretty sure the rails aren't going to move. They get on things with rubber tires and they're not sure exactly where it might go. And that's why if you look at airports around this country and indeed the world, it's rail that runs to them. And connects those airports to city centers, to regional centers, which is why the route that we have always considered, and by the way, going over the river via Northgate, going over the river via I-5 has been analyzed in past years. The route that has always been settled on, because it provides the best connection, the most direct connection, and the best alternative, is the route that we're looking at, which is the extension of the green line to the river district and then across the river uptruxel, across the I-80 bridge, which by the way, the bridge at Truxel in I-80 is constructed to accommodate light rail. That was one thing we did along the way. And of course securing the right-of-way and the alignment availability through North Notomas and even Greenbrier and Metro Air Park. Greenbrier before was ever built out. Whatever. What's it called today? Okay. So this is not something that is particularly new to say the least. And I as I said a moment ago remain absolutely committed to us seeing that we get light rail to the airport. In fact in the early 2000s former council remember Ray Truthway and I pulled together a group of community leaders to try to boost the prod- In fact, in the early 2000s former council member Ray Tuthway and I pulled together a group of community leaders to try to boost the project and give it a push along the way. When both of us at that time were also serving on the regional transit board and I believe it was during the time when President Obama was in office, we actually looked at submitting our tea, I should say, when I say we in this context, submitting a new starts proposal. But I'll tell you what the sticking point was. We couldn't get over the river and make it work to meet federal standards criteria. We have got to get over the river. We've got to get a bridge built. Now I have always been one who has thought that bridge should be transit and active transportation only. I have felt that principally because I felt that way principally because I think we're likely to see a significant use of trucks in the case that this bridge carries cars and trucks as a cut through. And there's some indication of that in the analysis. There's some movement of vehicles by the analysis as I as I read it off of I-5 and presumably on to on to trucks but the analysis doesn't indicate necessarily that it's particularly significant but I'm not sure the analysis in this respect gets that entirely right particularly with the development of the rail yards in in the river district that I hope and expect to see as time goes by. Nonetheless, even with my preferred alternative, looking at what this council has chosen as its direction over the years. I also feel if not an obligation, at least some sense of responsibility to honor that direction as well. And so as you can see, I find myself in a bit of a quandary, it's why I thought actually the second preference, or alternative two, I guess I should say, with rail running in street, which was less expensive, and I thought actually could serve to some extent as a form of traffic calming in its way, might be actually a preferable alternative. Understand that that's would not be the operational preference of regional transit. But then I go back to the days when we built light rail in this town and 60% of our original light rail line was single track and somehow we managed to operate it on time on schedule and pretty successfully So I know and we experience every day in this town. Yes, we have our interruptions with in-street running on On 12th Street, but we are and some of the other downtown streets, but we operate pretty successfully overall Regardless of what we do tonight, and I, truthfully, I'm still weighing that at this point. We need to have, I'm my judgment, a full analysis of the no motor vehicle alternative. We need to get a bridge built and we need to work as aggressively as possible both through the city and with regional transit as well as all the other partners we have in the region, including STA, including Sae Cog, including CalTrans, the whole list to accomplish this purpose of getting light rail to our airport. And the voters want it. The voters may have rejected our recent attempts at tax increases to finance, transportation improvements, but the polling has always shown that light rail to the airport has been among the top of those projects that they support, that the voter support. So there is strong public support. I don't think that has diminished. I think it not only makes sense to people, but it makes sense to increase and improve mobility in our region. It makes sense to provide it as a means of making our town and our region more attractive to those who come to visit us. And we certainly want as many more of those folks as we can get. So the bottom line for me is to move this on. And I will vote as you will all figure out when I do as we get to that point in time. But it doesn't foreclose. The point and important points for me is it doesn't foreclose the discussion of alternatives and it serves the purpose of getting us to a point where we have to reach and that's with a bridge over the river. Thanks. Thank you, Councillor Member. Councillor Maple. Thank you, Mayor. And I can say, you know, being not having been here for any of these previous discussions, and I thought that was a great point, Councilmember Kaplan. Most of us have not, but it's been really great actually hearing some of the historical context of my colleagues are mayor and Councilmember Dickinson and others. I just really appreciate it because it's really helped me. I came in with an open mind, still do, but it's really helped me wrap my mind around all of the options that are on the table, and that's what we my team moving forward. I think that one thing that we can all agree on though, that I heard from virtually everyone here is that Spark you've done a really great job. And at risk of saying it for the umpteenth time, I just, I think it's really important when you put that much time and energy and work of you and your whole team into this, that we acknowledge that that. It's not just the work of the actual planning and the documents and everything that's gone into the grant applications. But it's also working with the community, right? That's what I heard when I listened to your presentation was, it was in partnership with a lot of people over a long period of time, both through surveys and in-person meetings, meetings with organizations to figure out that purpose statement and the need. And so I really want to acknowledge that work and everyone who's contributed to that because we may be in the future now, but that work is led up to where we are. I do have a couple questions. One of the questions that I have is around the process. So for example, one of the things that was brought up several times tonight is that there wasn't a consideration because you weren't given direction to do so of course of a transit pedestrian-only option. If that's something that the council wanted to move forward on, what would go into that? What would the steps look like? What would the timeline look like? And to the best of your ability, what would the cost look like? Because obviously we've already spent money to date on what we've done in the past. I'll start with the latter. I have no idea what the cost would be. Just to put in perspective, with the grant we received from CalTrans to do this analysis was about $500,000. So we'd have to go back and spend some portion of that to look at another option. I think that the actions that council would have to take would be to rescind the resolution from 2013, I believe, since that's kind of the standing direction for staff at this point That would put us in kind of a quandary because now we'd be studying something that's inconsistent with our adopted general plan So I would have to look to the city attorney's office to see Is that okay or do we need to amend the plan first or is since it's just an analysis is that okay? I don't I't answer that. Madam City Attorney I don't know if there's any thoughts. So the question is what would we have to amend our general plan? I think the answer to that is yes. Okay. Yeah. And then on timeline of course there's a lot a lot of ifs that go into this, but I'm assuming based on the fact that it's been, you know, 12 years to get here, we're probably looking at maybe something similar. It's hard to say because, I mean, obviously we had COVID in there. It depends on what kinds of grant opportunities are out there, how competitive we are in getting those grant opportunities. So I don't know if it's safe to say it's the same. It's just, you can't predict. You really can't. No, that makes sense. And I know that we're putting you on the spot here tonight with a lot of potentials. And this also, that would also assume that even, like obviously Calchans, a word is a grant to do this feasibility study. But that doesn't mean that they would order a grant to do something else. We could submit an application, and they could say no. They said no to this one the first time. We actually had to apply twice to get funding for this one. And SECOG actually applied on our behalf. OK, that's actually really helpful information. And then another question I have is I heard a few speakers say, mention an estimate for a potential cost for a pedestrian transit only bridge at 100 and something million. I heard a few times. Is there anything like that that exists that you're aware of? It's my knowledge. I mean, I've heard that number. I know what went into the cost estimates that Doc can put together for us. I would love to get their performance, so we can figure out if they looked at all of the elements about soft and hard costs that go into building a bridge, because it's amazing how many details go in there, especially when you start adding up contingency on specific elements and then bottom line contingency on top of that, it adds up very quickly. And I haven't dug into their numbers to know what they've used. Absolutely. Okay. And then one, this might think we'll do my last question, is maintenance cost was brought up quite a bit. And obviously, I think that's top of mind for a lot of us, given that we have so much deferred maintenance. It's a huge problem, you know that better than most of us, right? Is there any analysis thus far about maintenance costs, or is that something that happens later on in the process? That'll definitely happen later on in the process, but a finer point that I want to put on that is any bridge that you build is going to need maintenance. Yeah. Planets on pool. Which makes sense, right? Even if you had a transit and pedestrian bridge, you'd still need to maintain it. Even a bike-ped bridge is going to need maintenance. Okay, that's really helpful. Thank you very much. For me, I think a lot about our city and how we're at the convergence of two rivers. gets one of the most unique and wonderful things about Sacramento. I also know that I love the travel and one of the other speakers had mentioned this. If you and there have been studies on this as well, if you look at cities our size with less rivers than we have, they have way more bridges. It's just a fact. It is a reality that we need ways for people to get around our city, to get across our rivers, and to connect our city better. And I think that especially, you know, sitting now on the Saicog board, being on RT, being on the Transportation Authority, we're a lot of different hats. And that we really need something that connects people in a real way. And for me, that means that maybe it doesn't have to be something perfect. And I know that's been said a lot tonight, but I want to just really acknowledge the amount of work that's gone into the planning so far. This has been over a decade in the making. And that we still have opportunities. One of the things that actually compelled me the most as I sat here today was the comments by Council Member Gara about process and how we still have a lot of opportunity to find out. We don't even know what we don't know at this point, right? So we're going to need to complete that study to be able to seek one and be able to say, is this something that we actually want to do? Does it make sense? Is it going to impact our life? Does it actually do the things that we've seen in terms of you know, T that we're guessing, does it actually do that so that we can make decisions? So there's still opportunities, but my fear is that in this search of perfection, that we're going to stop it from happening at all. And that, to me, I think that would be a disservice, that would be a disservice to community members that are living in the North Lake Ardenland community that I was really compelled by Council and Ritala Montez comments. Being able to have an escape route is real. It is very real and I look around, I saw the footage of the wildfires, of floods. It's very real and I think that people need a way to get around. And that goes back to our need for more bridges. I'd love to see more in general. But I also really want to acknowledge the concerns from the advocates around wanting a car free bridge. That is 100%. I think the future that we should be hoping for. But we also, for me, it doesn't recognize the reality of where we are today too, and all of the planning that's gone into it. And then the last thing I'll note is around what Calton River Dickinson mentioned, which is the green line. I think it was mentioned in 1991, was when it was envisioned at RT. That was the year I was born. And so for me, that is very visceral, but also I have hope. I very much have hope. And I want to see, I am also a staunch advocate that we have a dedicated light rail to the airport and I'm going to dedicate my time and energy and resources to making sure that we have a transportation measure that allows us to get there Because that's what we're ultimately going to need and so one last thing I wanted to know is I saw the support letters here I saw Sakhar tea I saw say cog I saw, I saw, and I saw Countdowns in the city working together. Having all four of these entities working towards one mission and goal is pretty rare, right? For me, I think that would be a missed opportunity to not do this. And I was really compelled also by the sketches showing that we're protected by clanes and people away from cars. And I'm going to be supporting the motion on the table today, but also reserving the opportunity once we see the sequin, you put studies to reassess as needed. And I just thank you again for your work. Thank you. I also remember Vang. Thank you. Okay. Oh my god, 30. We're doing great. Okay doing great. Okay, hi everyone. Sparky, thank you so much for your presentation. And I echo all my colleagues on just mentioning the year's amount of work that you put into this project. And very similar to a few of my council members, the first time council provided direction on this. I was in kindergarten. And then when council provided direction again in 2012, I was just returning back home from college. So it's definitely been a long time coming. So, you know, first I want to thank you, Sparky. You think you just, you know, for the incredible work that you've done in the city. And then I want to take this moment to really think all the advocates, everyone who came to speak in support and opposition. I appreciate your continued advocacy to make sure that you hold this council accountable and also just sharing your lived experience and your insight. So I really want to say thank you. And then to our labor partners, you know, whether it's a bridge that prioritized our residents and transit only or whether it's a bridge that allows for all modes I think for me No matter what the bridge is ensuring that those jobs are union is important to me because we want to make sure that our workers can afford to Live in the city. So I just want to share that as well. I think I find myself very similar to councilmember Dickinson and being conflicted and I kind of want to just share why because I think it's important because we're going to take our vote and we have to explain to our voters why we're voting yes or no we're abstaining. I don't know how I'm going to vote on this yet. I am still debating inside and I'm going to talk about my thought process right now as I'm speaking. So one big thing is that, you know, I often think about the policy decisions that we make and how those decisions informs public health. And for me, oh my God, I'm wearing my public health sweater actually, how funny. Public health for me is about changing the social conditions so that people can make healthier choices. And as policymakers, that's kind of our responsibility, is to create policies that change those social conditions so that we can help people make healthier behaviors, right? And so, you know, so I just want to put that out there. And I think oftentimes I find myself on every vote, it could be this vote or any vote, asking myself, do I want to be taking a vote that I'm going to regret 10, 20 from now and I made a decision that actually really harmed communities, right? I often think about that when I have to take a controversial vote. So I'm struggling with that right now and thinking that piece through. I also just want to uplift Marbella's point and I want to say to her point that she's absolutely right but actually not but and I want to add to her point that she's absolutely right, but actually not but and, I wanna add to her comments that yes, Marbella is right, but I also want to just hold another truth and that is, there is a reason why communities of color are disproportionately affected by these challenges. Why many of them use cars instead? My family, mini low income folks in district 8. And I say that because our system is actually intentionally designed this way. And the reason why we have to access, like our people access have cars is because we have limited access to reliable transportation. There are systemic barriers that often force communities for us to rely on cars. Actually, it makes it more difficult for us because we're already broke. We still got to pay for car insurance, we can't pay for gas and lean, we got to pay for. So if anything, it actually adds a layer of inequity for our communities. So I just want to acknowledge that as well. But unfortunately, that's a system that we're in. And so black and brown folks do find ourselves having to take cars, right? Because of time, because time is precious. And so I want to acknowledge that truth. I think that's important to acknowledge as we're having this conversation about race, right? And black and brown folks is to see the complexity of how these outcomes, these are the outcomes of a system that is constructed this way. And so I want to acknowledge that. Oftentimes, and I'm struggling because I often defer to the council member of the area, she's done probably more work than all of us up here has. And, you know, because I'm not in district three and she speaks to her residents every day and I'm sure she heard from many constituents about tonight's item. And I do want to make sure that her community is connected to downtown because so many investment happens there. I feel that in South Sacramento as well. And then something that she brought up today, which I appreciate here bringing it up, is the ability to have access to hospital in case of emergency, right? And so I'm grappling with that, just speaking my heart out loud. At the same time though, you I want our council to have that option in front of us. That what if we went with only a pedestrian and transit bridge? What would that look like? What is the cost, right? I don't have that in front of me. So I think that's also something I want to just name as well. I also want to name that. You spent over 12 years on this project, right? And that's why we're here today. Actually, you know, hearing the concern from Vice Mayor Tallah Montez, I'm actually more concerned about not just this bridge, but like we should be worried about like, what are the emergency routes for D3 residents now? Because I was thinking about that for all of our residents, like something we should consider. I want to make sure that, you know, because if we do vote this tonight and let's say we get the grant funding and it happens 2030, what are we doing now to improve access to downtown for D3 residents, right? Those are things that I'm thinking about as well. Like it shouldn't just be up to Vice Mayor Talimons just to be fighting for her communities, but we all should be thinking about that for her district. And then, again, even with this vote, what I'm hearing is that we don't know if we're even going to get the federal funding for it, right? This is just... thinking about that for her district. And then, again, even with this vote, what I'm hearing is that we don't know if we're even going to get the federal funding for it, right? This is just to tee it up. And so these are all the thoughts that I'm thinking through. I'm processing. Still don't know how I'm going to vote tonight. But I think, at the end of the day, I have to ask myself, as policymakers, We do hold the responsibility of passing policies, passing items that have impacts and implications for years to come. And I often ask myself 20 years from now, 30 years from now, is that going to be a vote that we're going to regret because we're actually causing more harm? that's something that I just want all of my colleagues to think through it. I'm sure that we do this all the time, but I think that's really important. And especially a city that has, you know, our firm, our, our firm, our commitment to addressing climate change, to reducing vehicles, miles, travel, you know, projects like this will continue to come to us. And we are going to have to really take a bold position on how we move forward. And so with that, I'll end my comments. We're really, Ms. Barkley, thank you so much for your advocacy and we'll see how everyone goes tonight. Thanks. Thank you, Councillor Irvinge. Mr. Harris, can you maybe enlighten us on where we go from here? So we have a motion a second. I'm not sure how it's going to play out, but assuming that motion and a second does pass. So your staff report asks us to do three things. Except the Chuxel bridge concept report, alternative three as preferred alternative and three direct city manager or does a need to identify an action plan moving forward. So we were last year 12 years ago and this bridge would be completed 12 years plus from now 14 years from now. So I'm not going to be here then. And I hope that you're not going to be here either, Sparky. I definitely will not. Yes. So assuming, and I think too, maybe giving a clear direction if this pass, what it would look like? Because there are some glimmers of hope of what it would look like to potentially think about car-free bike and pet. So if this passes, what are the next steps? Because usually we're here, we vote to approve the development plan in a safe way. And then 16 months from now, you see a bulldozer moving dirt around. This is many, many years. And so he can use walk through what this means for the big picture for the City of Sacramento. Okay, the way that I see it, some of those next steps are already in process. As I mentioned, we're already working with the County of Sacramento to amend the American River Parkway plan. If we were to get a yes vote on staff's recommendation today, we would continue that analysis. We would finish that up. Go to the County Board of Supervisors to amend that plan. Hopefully get the federal funding that we pursued to do the next phase of analysis. I believe we have local funds to do that if that federal funding does not come through. So we could keep moving with that process knowing that that's going to take roughly three years to get through. And in that process, get teed up to go after funding for the next phase. So it would really just be a progression of the progress that we've made. And the one thing that I really want to clarify is I haven't been working on this for 12 years straight. There was a nice hiatus in there where we were trying to figure out how to fund it, what to do with it, but I appreciate the sentiment. Hopefully we're not going to have another gap like that again. I think the way that we get this done is to keep the pressure on. We've already gotten very good attention from our federal representatives that want this move forward. Saikog has already listed this project as the regional priority for raise, now build, planning grant. So this is the one application that we went after region wide for that funding. So we've got the attention. I think we need to keep our foot on the gas. Sorry. Keep our feet on the pedals. To keep this project moving and not lose momentum, or else we could find ourselves in another gap. So if the next phase, the environmental phase is three years, how is 2039? That's the complete, that's the completion, not the beginning of the construction, right? That's the completion. And when would the beginning of the construction start? The beginning of the construction would be roughly 2034, 35? That's still 10 years, so I'm missing seven years now. Oh, three years of planning. This is 2025. Three years of environmental analysis and preliminary engineering, then right of way acquisition, and then three years of design, and then three, four or five years of construction. Instruction, this is okay. It's a couple of presidents from now. Exactly. So that being said, maybe some clarity on the construction. Okay, it's a couple of presidents from now. Exactly. So that being said, maybe some clarity on the construction elements of this. Is it 100% federal or would they be a potential for state money as well? Because the ice free bridge for example is state money involved in that project. So the best of my knowledge is the federal government doesn't fund anything 100%. So it would have to be a mixture of federal, state, regional, local, new measure, whatever it is. But yes. OK, thank you. For other questions or comments, seeing none, we have a motion by Vice Mayor Tala Montes, a second by Council Member Pluckybaum. Please call the roll. Thank you. Councilmember Kaplan. Councilmember Dickinson. Aye. Vice Mayor Talimantes. Aye. Councilmember Pluckybaum. Aye. Councilmember Maple. Aye. Mayor Pro Temgara. Aye. Councilmember Jennings. Yes. Councilmember Vang. pro tem gatta aye councilmember Jennings yes councilmember vang I'm gonna have stain And mayor McCarty aye that motion passes Thank you Thank you. Okay. Ideas announcements, reports from council members. Council member Jennings. There's no public comment tonight's a special meeting so by council rules there is no public comment. We had public comment in the to a clock meeting. Should I wait a couple minutes? Yeah. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to conduct this evening. Thank you. Okay, to my colleagues and anybody in the audience and all those who are watching on television. A couple of announcements for you to note. I'm asking you to join us at the Elk's Lodge for an evening of delicious seafood and great company at the Crack Crab and Seafood Broil. Market calendars for February to 22nd at 6 p.m. Tickets must be purchased in advance and you can reserve your spot by calling 916-422-6666. Once again, that number is 916-422-6666. And after you've gone to the crack crab and seafood boil, there'll be an opportunity for you to get rid of some of those pounds. And that'll be at the Del Real Trail cleanup. We're asking you to join the Southland Park Neighborhood Association, the Zebert Park neighbors, the Del Real Trail enthusiasts, the pocket area churches together, and the City of Sacramento, youth, parks and community enrichment department, and Parks Commissioner Joe Flores from my office and put in your sweat equity and clean up the lawn road and pocket road sections of the Del Rio Trail. That's going to take place on Saturday, March the 8th at 9 a.m. More information about both of these announcements are on my Facebook and Instagram page. That concludes our announcements. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Kaplan. Thanks, Mayor. This Saturday from 10 to noon at Autumn Meadows Park. We are planting a total of 29 trees. You can sign up to help us plant 29 additional trees in North Natomas on my social media side. And then very on Saturday, March 1st. We are holding the official ribbon cutting for the new West Shore park that has been constructed. The grass is laid. It is set. I do know I think kids have broken through the gates and are playing basketball but the official time the gates are coming down are March 1st so come out and join us. Councilman Ravane. Thanks. Just wanted to take this moment to give a shot out to over 50 plus volunteers that came out this past weekend at our Steve Jones Park with hosted by Rewild, Sacramento and Yopsey to plant trees along with Sacramento Tree Foundation. So really just want to give a shot out to to all of the amazing volunteers. So sad that I wasn't able to make it because I was at home sick. But really just want to give a shout out to all the volunteers that came out. And then also just wanted to share that February 19th, that's actually tomorrow. There's a revitalized South SAC summit that is happening. It's actually happening at the Green Haven Public Library off of Gloria Drive, 7335 and that's from 9 to 5 p.m. So encouraging folks who live in South Sacramento to come and join us And then also wanted to share that we are still in the midst of black history month And there is a black history month expo for freedom a freedom festival at any arc progressive church Happening this Saturday from 11 to 5 o'clock, that is at 2650 Amherst Street, and so there will be vendors, exhibits, music, information, so encouraging folks to come out to that. And then just wanted to share asking folks to save the date for our annual community conversation meeting, happening on March 15th from 10 to 1 p.m. We usually change the location annually. This year it's going to be at Union House Elementary. That's at 7850 Derrick Creek Way. Please come join us. You'll learn about all the progress happening in our neighborhoods across the district. On going projects, future projects. Various city departments will be there as well to answer any questions. So encouraging all of my residents to come out and food will be provided. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. No more comments? Well, we have an adjournment of memory. Thank you, Mayor. I'd ask that we adjourn this evening in memory of grant high School football coach, truly a legend throughout Sacramento, not just in North Sacramento, Mike Albergini, who we lost last week at the age of 78. And I want to give you a little bit of a taste of just what this great great coach had accomplished but also what he meant to the community. Five state or area halls of fame inducted him. He won seven CIF section championships, eight, ten and O, regular seasons during the course of his career, 17 league championships. Now, most people think it was a football coach, but he was a baseball player coming up, growing up, and coached baseball at Grant for, I think, 30, 20 plus years, at least, he won 502 games as a baseball coach, head coach at grant, 282 football wins, which is a record in the Sacramento region. One led grant to the 2008 state open championship, this open championship. Now to division, we have someone who will appreciate this different, the Open Championship, and I certainly have a very sharp and fond memory of that celebration afterwards. And his last best team was in 2014 at Grant, which the team went 14 and one. Not a bad, not a bad little roster. But more than the numbers, I want to share a little bit of the character of Coach Al. Everyone knew him, simply as Coach Al. There's a street name for him and Del Paso and Nuevo. There's a football field name for him at Grant. He called the girls sweetie and the guy's brother. And no one drove more kids home from school after practice. He said once, in some ways I'm everyone's only father figure or reliable uncle. Grant Kidd's are my kids. He urged his players to stop any bullying on campus. He said, you're a grant pacer. Take pride in that. Be a leader everywhere. A long time principal at Grant High School, who has since retired, Craig Murray, said in 2012, owls our school's godfather. There's just one of him. I don't think the school would still be standing if he wasn't here. And I think in many ways, Coach Ow Al summed it up best himself. He said, it's why you coach to help out, to be there for young people. When I think about it, I know I was really fortunate to be in the right place, the right school for me, the right kind of kids. I loved to coach and needed to coach. A lot of great times and people and memories. I'll remember that most. I'll remember it until the day I die. I know that he will be deeply missed, but forever appreciated, honored, for all the contributions he made. And we certainly expressed an extent to condolences to his family and all of Pacer Nation. Yes. Well said, well, adjourned in memory of Mr. Pacer for life. We're adjourned. Mr. Pacer for life. Very good. [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUT