Recommendation to Approve the Draft Project List for the Alameda County Transportation Commission Call for Projects. (Transportation 287)
This list was approved by the Transportation Commission and recommended. There's also a named project and that an AC Transit lead project that we've participated as a partnership with AC Transit on. So these are the main projects. The question came up as to whether or not we should also be submitting a planning grant application related to a bike pedestrian bridge on the West End staff. Is not recommending that, did not recommend that to the Transportation Commission. And so why don't I go through why that is the larger issue. And I think everyone agrees and I think actually bike walk Alameda and staff now agree on a path forward and so you'll hear from them and from us and but we're in agreement now on how to proceed forward. We've been talking a lot over the last couple of weeks, but in general, we staff absolutely agrees that there's a strong need for better bike and pedestrian access on the West End and that the tubes and the small space that there is there is really not adequate and not inviting and conducive to bike and pedestrian access. And everyone agrees we have a history of studying this issue. There was a 29 asteroid crossing study that was done, hired a very prominent bridge, you know, engineering firm that specializes even in bridges, that looked at a number of different options. We'll talk about that. But it looked at a whole spectrum of different options that could try to improve this x ray crossing issue. The primary obstacle really is the Coast Guard navigational clearances that they need to come through this area. Solution, we believe, is a phased, multifaceted approach. And hopefully I'm not misspeaking, but I think bike walk, Aluminum City, we agree on that solution. Now, the 2009 estuary crossing study looked at 17 different options, including five different bridge options, including tube improvements, bus water shuttles. It was multijurisdictional included Caltrans, Coast Guard, Oakland, Alameda County Transportation Commission. It looked at near mid long term options that were study very comprehensive report in my opinion. The Council accepted that study in September 2009 estuary crossing recommendations that there was a top bridge option, a movable bike pad bridge, $75 million to construct a million and a half to operate annually. But the determination was made that it was practically infeasible. We've looked at this sense. Staff has we've talked with experts. We still believe, given the clearances of the Coast Guard, have determined that it is still practically infeasible, really significant technical challenges because of how tall you'd have to make it, how long you'd have to make it. Ultimately, if we built it to accommodate the clearances, the way that those clearances are defined now by the Coast Guard, it could be one of the longest movable bridges in the world. There'd be it would be very unpredictable. During peak hour, there'd be closure. Times would be unpredictable, causing significant crossing delays during peak hours, making an investment of $75 million and a million and a half to operate annually. Very questionable is whether or not, while we believe not practically and feasible to spend that kind of money and having that unpredictability and that type of engineering and technical bridge, and that was the termination of the study, but it was kind of practically infeasible. So it said only move forward. If you can address this Coast Guard navigational clearance issue city keep working with stakeholders. This discernment determine if we can change these restrictions, that we can adapt them. Can we move them in the short term, improve the posi tube? There have been some minor improvements made. We don't believe we agree with by Quoc Almeida. They are not. We don't see that is going to have much of an impact at all in terms of bike access and pedestrian access. But then some mid-term next steps, really the preferred kind of feasible mid-term option of developing a water shuttle taxi alternative. You'll see that that is one of the planning grants that we are wanting to submit to Ekedc. We have matching funds available from the developers or part of a real discussion to to look at that. And so we really would love to move that forward. We see that as a mid-term option, not not the ultimate solution that's going to solve all these problems and create, but a good mid-term option that has the potential of increasing bike access, not to where we'd ultimately like it to be, but a good next step. Since 2009. We did have an asteroid crossing shuttle that's established. It accommodates ten bicycles. Again, these aren't solutions that are saving the day, but they are incremental access. The Posey two walkway improvements were just finished. We've already talked about that. We have had discussions and the mayor has had discussions with the Coast Guard as well about navigational clearance is what they have told us is all those same criteria from 2009 are still in place. And we want you to know this is what they've said to us, that there is increased traffic. So not only do you have those same clearance issues, but we have more traffic coming through here which would make a bridge design the way, you know, what the the constraints would make it more unpredictable because there would be more closures and it would make it less predictable. So essentially, that issue is gotten worse in some ways. We have sent a letter to Senator Boxer. I know there's folks that have come and spoke to the council about that. We were already working on that letter to Senator Boxer, a draft of that with our lobbyists before that meeting. But we're actively trying to seek our help from the delegation and our congressional delegation to help us, because we believe this Coast Guard issue is beyond we've talked to them a number of times. We do believe we need to bring that larger political involvement to help kind of try to see if there are solutions, creative solutions to this issue. So City's actions near term apply for the grant for funding for the water shuttle feasibility study. Encourage Caltrans to submit a planning grant application to AC DC. We do not believe they're going to do that. They have some detail that they've put together, but they our understanding is that they're not going to be submitting an application for this. They have not. They are still we've talked with staff. They're still committed to being involved and potentially seeking other funding to help move this issue along and explore positive improvements that actually open up the other side of on the other side of the walkway, we have some potential funding that we're looking at for that . Again, it wouldn't be the final solution, but you'd have maybe one way bike access and bike ped access on both sides. So it would double the space. Still certainly not the ultimate solution that we'd like out there, but it would make it better again, taking this kind of phased approach to the solution. Develop informational materials, describing all of these options. This would really be for kind of almost like a marketing piece so that we work with Bike Walk Alameda, developing something similar to what we actually did for at the Harbor Bay. Related to ferry access is starting to create a brochure almost of here are your. Options. And see if we could start to really educate folks about the options that do exist even if they're not perfect. So we are starting to do more of this informational marketing, part of transportation planning, and then a significant enhancement to the estuary crossing on the West End is going to be one of our long term solutions in the citywide transit. And TVM plan really is part of the team part. How do you get folks out of their car? Will you provide them with really easy ways to do that by allowing them to bike? And we believe you see this some of the data from the citywide tram plan, the number we believe one of the major issues there is that people commute to downtown Oakland by car. It's like 75% in drive alone trips to downtown Oakland. It's the number one and it's right across the estuary. So we believe that that is one of our major issues. If we're going to get people out of the tubes, it's going to be trying to get people out of their cars into other modes of travel to get to downtown Oakland for work or for BART. And so we absolutely agree there's a problem and that we need to try to solve it made it long term establish the water shuttle. We have developers on both sides of the estuary that are interested in doing that, willing to commit funds to working through this. The study that we would be going to act for would help us really plan where would the routes be, how would we phase those routes really work with the city of Oakland and with the developers on the other side to figure out how we would organize that, redesign the posi tube and approaches to better serve people walking, biking on both sides were actively doing this now with the city of Oakland and Ictsi. Once all the constraints are addressed and funding found, build a new put up bike, bicycle and pedestrian bridge. We're absolutely we believe that if it's not in our long term plans, then it's absolutely not going to get done. So we should have it as a vision and part of our plans, even if we don't have all the answers to how that's going to happen, because if we don't have it in our plans, it certainly is never going to happen. Advocate for a miller Sweeney Bridge replacement. We know this is not on the West End where we really want it, but it is. We think we should have dedicated bike lanes on a rebuilt Miller Sweeney Bridge. The county has some funding available for that already. That is more likely to get funded faster. Granted, it doesn't solve the West End and then keep those long term vision with if there is a potential BART station. Are there ways to create dual access between army to Oakland that could potentially also solve this bike pedestrian? So there's a lot of potential actions here. We're looking at all of them. The Transportation Commission recommendations some more this summer, sorry, supported the submittal of the seven grant projects. They asked us to send a letter to Caltrans to prioritize estuary crossing. They actually gave us explicit direction and discouraged us to include a bike ped bridge in the letter due to in feasibility, they felt very strongly and unanimously discouraged us from that. I think stuff we believe there there is this phase solution that we should be working with bike walk Alameda on and with all these other stakeholders and continue to work with Caltrans on that. But I wanted we wanted to be transparent with you about the Transportation Commission recommendation as well. And then send a letter to the county to prioritize the multimodal lifeline Miller Sweeney retrofit. So what are we recommending tonight? Certainly we want to move forward with our grant list that's in there. That's our priority. Those grants are due the end of this month. We want to continue to work with collaborating with Caltrans on them, taking the lead to further evaluate the feasibility of the bike PED Bridge crossing. Potentially. There's some other sources of funds we've identified that we might be able to help support that effort, engage a consultant, either a bridge engineer, probably. I think what bike walk Alameda would like is a maritime engineer that really looks more closely because there were some kind of doors left open in the study about if you could look at the way the clearances get structured and the depth of the estuary that there might be a. Way to interpret some of the clearances that would give us some other options. We are prepared to move if the Council's direction is to do that is to move forward with contracting with a maritime engineer, to review those potential options, and then working with a bridge engineer to evaluate that and see if that would change dramatically or, you know, create a feasible option that we could continue to pursue. We don't think this is a big expenditure. We think we can do this relatively inexpensively without a lot of staff or time or financial time. So we're happy to do that. Continue to engage the Coast Guard on a political level with support from the congressional delegation, and then develop that next step, the next steps document, which is was kind of built off the white paper that was attached to your to your council report and kind of bring that back and parcel this informational item as well. I think Bike Walk Alameda had sent you a letter and an email. We are applying with all of their recommendations. I think you'll see that they're very similar. We're happy to just adopt the bike walk Alameda recommendations. If that's the council's direction. We certainly want to move forward with our grant lists and that's how we're going get the money. But in addition to that, to adopt those recommendations from Bike Walk, we're happy to do that. So just to be clear. So if we move forward on some kind of additional study, that would be outside of the money that we're seeking through the grants? That's correct. Basically, general fund money or maybe something. I don't think we would recommend general fund money. I think we would I think bike walk. I mean, the sources we've looked at, I mean, given the amount of it, there's some potential sources that we're reviewing. Caltrans might have some other ideas. So our hope is you know, and you'll see in the bike walk Alameda email what they say is we should do all these other kind of smaller things and then only then should we engage the Coast Guard when we have a we have a better proposal to them that we can really instead of just asking them the same question again, which we honestly think is going to get the exact same answer as let's do a little homework, let's hire some engineers, see if we can find a creative solution or some other ideas. Once we have that information, then let's go back. Then let's all approach them with Caltrans support. We think Caltrans honestly should play a more prominent role as the lead. They've demonstrated an interest in doing that because we think as at the state level, they'll have a better chance of working with the federal government than little Alameda will be there kind of behind the scenes, pushing it along. And then we would go back to the Coast Guard with some proposal, a proposal that, hey, look, we actually have experts here have looked at this. We think we can work with your clearances or if you tweak it a little, you know, I don't know what that will say. And to be honest, it could say that there's nothing we can do. I mean, we have to be honest about that, too, that that we might not come up with a solution where our hope is that we will, and then we would approach the Coast Guard. And if they're at that point, we feel like there's a real need and desire and we think it makes sense, then we would we would look for those other funding sources to potentially do a much broader, bigger technical study on those options. That's good. Well, thank you. I mean, thank you for taking the time to find that path. Yes, we're happy to do it. So clarifying questions. Council member Odie. I said one question. It's kind of tangentially related in exhibit to one of the input from the community was bike sharing. And I mean, is there going to be an update on that? Because I think we had a discussion on that a few months ago and I didn't see anything. Yeah, we we can have an update on that. Yes, we we are there. The bike share. We are doing a loner bike program in Alameda Point. It's not part of the regional bike share. There was a grant recently. We can come back and kind of do a report at some point on that. It was very the amount of grant was like a minimum of $500,000 is a huge program. And one of the real issues is even if we got the capital dollars to do that, there's actually operating expenses related to bike share. And that was really actually where we got tripped up was are we ready for a $500,000 program where we're not sure where the operating dollars are going to come from? We're still looking at it. I'm not say and but we kind of we think that a better a little more a little smaller more incremental approach might be better. But we're still evaluating that and we can come back to you. In fact, we could even do it as part of our TDM plan. When we come back to you later this year as part of that and talk about it a. Little bit, that'll be fine then. Thank you. Member Ashcraft. Thank you for your report. I missed that. And is there a meeting tomorrow night that some people might be interested in attending? Thank you. Tell us a little bit about it. Yes, absolutely. Sure. So we are this is the NEC. We are doing a community holding a community workshop. As for the Trans Citywide Transit and TDM plans, we're calling it transportation options. Makes it sounds a little better than transit and team plans is. Not everyone knows what that means but transportation options plan where we're actually getting into a lot of detailed strategies. So this is really the meet, you know, before we were doing existing conditions, this is our proposed solutions to some of these issues and that is a committee workshop starting at 630. Mastic Senior Spastic Senior Center. Thank you. Sorry. And so it's a really great opportunity to come and talk about some transportation solutions and what we do. And we've broken them down by problem. So how do we address this downtown Oakland problem? How do we address the commute to San Francisco? How do we address the issues within Alameda and then a whole host of prioritized projects for each of those problems? So I think it's very common sense in my mind. So we'd love to get feedback from folks tomorrow. Thank you. All right. So clarifying questions I have. I wanted you to clarify the navigational uses. There has been some discussion in regards to the Coast Guard island where it's located, but it's my understanding that their recommendation is actually in regards to all vessels that use the estuary, not just their vessels. Can you clarify? But the the specs are based on. They are recommending. You know, I don't have the I can look at that. I don't have them right in front of me. But my understanding is the primary issue is the Coast Guard vehicles or, you know, fleet, but that they have other specifications for other. Boats, but. That their main issue is their own Coast Guard vehicles. But I don't have that right in front of me. What about crane barges? That was one of the one of the things in there. So we can look at that more closely. I just want to clarify and I can speak to that later. For the committee to understand but but it's based on a letter to regional leaders. There's a letter to Barbara Boxer. Is there a reason why we're not actually seeking to persuade and get assistance from other regional leaders? We will. We will and we can yes, we can talk. I think that's a great idea. And we can talk with Congresswoman Barbara Lee and we could look at Feinstein as well. Thank you. Okay. Now I'll call our speakers, Lucy, Julie, Denise Trapani, and then Barbara Bryant McGuire. You guys can go in any order you want. Thank you, councilmembers and mayor, for hearing my comments this evening. I want to start by saying thank you to staff for being so open to our input. For those of us advocating for active transportation choices, as you all know, the West End will soon be seeing a significant increase in residents, with the tubes being the only option we have for 24 seven on and off the island. The traffic and congestion issues are only going to get worse. We fully understand that the obstacles, specifically the Coast Guard requirements to building a bicycle pedestrian bridge are very large and that this is not an easy or short term fix. But it's also not something that Alameda Alameda needs to fix on its own. This is a regional transit issue. We appreciate that staff and hopefully council recognize that we have to start doing something now to solve our West End egress. Egress issues, especially for those of us choosing active transportation options. We just don't have anything right now. The white paper presented by staff and the actions recommended in it are an excellent first step towards working through the nitty gritty details of the technical requirements provided by the Coast Guard in the 2009 feasibility study. That study noted and specifically stated that the horizontal clearance constraint essentially is essentially what made the bridge and a bridge infeasible. But the study also noted that further investigation was needed, and I'm quoting here that if the channel were too shallow to navigate across the entire estuary, the Coast Guard would consider reducing the horizontal clearance. And that's on page 69 of the study. So I'm just going to keep it short. I'm here to respectfully ask council to please continue to support staff's work on this critical infrastructure project and to prioritize it to address the not only the traffic but the health and safety and the environment of the West end by addressing the Coast Guard requirements. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Lucy G. I'm with Bike Walk Alameda. 1700 people have signed a petition asking for. A West End estuary crossing that's safe and convenient for biking and walking walk. Oakland Bike. Oakland Bike. East Bay Assembly Member Bond Oakland Council members. Those are just a very initial list of supporters. So now is the time that. We are asking. The city to take. The next steps. That. Have been mentioned in the. 2009. Estuary crossing feasibility. Study. We know that it's a regional issue. And we know that little Alameda. Isn't going to solve it on. On. Its own. So we're. Asking. The city council because we've been asked to recommit. To taking the next steps to. Prioritize the asteroid crossing study and recommit. To saying that. Yes, stakeholders come together with us and. Try and solve. The problem. And we really. Appreciate the diligence of staff and working. Through and creating a. Next step plan. And working with Caltrans and the Transportation Alameda County Transportation. Commission. To find a leading agency and funding sources to keep taking those. Next steps. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. I'll just kind of follow up and reiterate some of what Denise and Lucy said. We appreciate council members and staff who have been helping us and been working on with us on on moving this forward. We also had a very productive meeting with our Assembly member last week who I think it's safe to say, supportive and ready to help us find the best way forward. We think this is the best option. To address this gap and will have a transformative effect for residents and businesses on both sides of the estuary. We know there are significant hurdles to achieving this, which is why we're not asking you to spend $50 million tonight on a bike and pad bridge. But we do want to pick up where the 2009 estuary crossing study left off. It identified four areas that might make a bridge infeasible. And I know Ms.. Spoke about this. But the bottom line, not surprisingly, is it comes down to horizontal clearance. Horizontal clearance, if we can make progress on that, would greatly mitigate the other three issues listed as problems vertical clearance. If you have a drawbridge as opposed to a lift, vertical clearance goes to infinity or a swing bridge, etc. Costs come down and I forget what the other item was. But anyway, so the horizontal clearance is the big one there. The 2008 study didn't 29 study did not evaluate any bridge options with a span of less than 600 feet, a movable span. So when Ms.. Art speaks about the weaknesses in the, quote, top bridge option, she's not really referring to what we think. And what, you know, practically speaking, is the bridge that we would have in mind if and when we get to that point. We agree with staff that we need political support to make headway if we keep working on the issue, building political support and making the small investments needed to flesh out what the bridge would look like and cost if we succeeded in reducing those horizontal clearances. I think we can, you know, build that political pressure to hopefully make progress with the Coast Guard. And I think it's easier when we have a a more developed project to sort of aim at as opposed to just sort of knocking on the door with very little detail . So, you know, we'd like the city to pass a resolution renewing that this is almeida's preference for resolution, regardless of the fact that we know there's hurdles. This is the best solution, and we want Alameda to show commitment for that. And we also think you should give clear direction to staff to continue working with us and other stakeholders to fund and find a lead agency to conduct the engineering feasibility study proposed by Caltrans. And just one other kind of side note. No offense to the Transportation Commission, but I think they were focusing on this on the, you know, call for projects list and this kind of got put in front of them and they weren't necessarily all the way up to speed, I would say, on on some of this stuff. And I think they got a little out over their skis when they were given some of their direction that night. Thanks. Thank you. All right. Counsel, comments. Questions. I wanted to ask real quick about the prioritized order, but that means on this draft grants list on page two does. And where I see estuary water shuttle feasibility study is number two. But in regards to where is the what we're speaking about, trying to figure out how to ride a bike across the estuary. At all hours. When will that happen? But that's not on the priority list at all. Right. So will that be worked on independently? Yes. But it is being worked on. It's not as though we have to get through all these other items before we start focusing on that. So I want to clarify that. And I think I defer to the city attorney. But, you know, we don't obviously have a resolution attached, but it seems like by motion, in addition to hopefully moving forward with the grant lists, we could, you know, give direction to staff by motion to continue to work with the michoacana meat on the items specified in their email . We're happy to do that. We agree with that and and are supportive of that. And what I heard was to work with Bike Walk, Alameda and all stakeholders. Absolutely. So that the list of items that they had in their email that they sent to council, we could just essentially adopt that by motion to direct staff. And I'd also like to include that we increase the advocacy to all regional leaders. Great number, Ashcraft. Yeah, I was just going to say that some of us have already been doing that and by bike, Alameda is doing a commendable job and working with staff and this, you know, it's you want things to be done right now this is a big project, this proposal and it's going to take time to get it right into as I told them, sometimes you pick the low hanging fruit first. In this one, we better pick the high hanging fruit because we do need to clear some of those hurdles with the Coast Guard. But it's right. It it's been said this is not just falling on Alameda shoulders. It's a regional issue. And we do have regional partners that we're already talking with. So I would support the idea of also including a resolution of support for the bike walk Alameda email direction. And I really commend staff for for working with this important advocacy group to like a motion so we can kick things. Yes, that's what I thought you were going to be make well. So I would first move that we. Are sorry to interrupt. We had another speaker that apparently had the wrong item listed so we could have that speaker. So. Oh. It's okay. Come on up. Helen, it's Helen's. US. I'll change this to five. The steps that the city is making to address our island mentality is really exciting. Alameda Home Team has been talking for some time about the fact that the developments on either side of the estuary, their drawings end at the water's edge and it doesn't take in what each of us are doing across the channel. So we've developed a. Proposed Cross channel. Panel. Discussion with the developer between the developers on either side of the estuary, which will be held December 1st. It'll be free. It'll be open to anyone that wishes to attend. I must say Auckland has been rather excited about the idea of talking just informally about how the developers might work together, how they might jointly apply for grants that would benefit both of our projects. And the city has its planning staff, which will participate participate in the panel as well. And so we'll be getting a notice out, inviting everybody to come. And. Attend this discussion and the steps that Jennifer and the staff are taking to develop issues that will address our problems. It's just really remarkable. It's delightful to see how far ahead you all are. Thank you. Can you clarify real quick the time that it's December? The meeting is December 1st. You know the time and place at this point. Oh, we'll get back to it. All right. Thank you. It's going to be in Alameda. Okay. And it will be where we can see the water. Right. Okay. Thank you very much. Right. So she's our last speaker. So remember Ashcraft. Okay, so I move the recommendation to approve the draft project list for the Alameda County Transportation Commission. Call for projects. As well as direction to staff. To continue to pursue the items. Listed in the backpack Alameda correspondence dated October 13, 2016. And I would say including but not limited to because we don't want to foreclose any options and this is a regional issue communicating with Caltrans. This is a bicycle pedestrian bridge that staff hire a maritime engineer to get more information and to work with a coalition of federal, state, county, local partners, engage the Coast Guard. And again, all that and more toward the goal of a bike walk excuse me, a bicycle pedestrian bridge on the west end of Alameda. I have a. Second. I have a question in regards to item number three, to hire a maritime engineer. Is that that's something that would come back to us where we would. Only if it's over 75,000. Oh, okay. Diane, so. Are you over to. No, we don't. Okay. So any other questions or comments? I'm ready. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a quick comment. Thank you to staff and Mike walk alameda for all your hard work on this. As you did say, it is a regional transit issue. And I think it's important that as we asked to spend money on this, that we seek out regional partners to share the cost to this. I mean, I'm all for it. And if we can also make sure that in our motion, as you go forward with this, we try to identify funding sources. I know ARM three is something that they're debating in the next year, and that may be a good funding source, whether there's a baseball stadium at Jack London or whether we do some type of enhanced retail on our waterfront. I mean, just to add, examining potential funding sources and making sure that if it is, say, item three, that we're in on the ground floor and in the beginning to try and pursue those those sources of a friendly amendment. Well, yeah. And I think that was that's it's good to identify those. I think that was also subsumed in including but not limited to in the room three. You're referring to Ms. Gerrity, would that be regional measure three, an additional bridge toll? Yes, that might be on the 2018 ballot. We're hoping. It is. Yes. Okay. Vice Mayor. I do think it needs to be explicit that the funding needs to be identified because whatever the $45 million price tag and I think given. Bridge construction that we've seen on on the east bay span. It's going to be expensive and there is no way that Alameda and shoulder this. No way. Right. And I think that's the practical side that I want to make sure is explicit in here. And I also don't want it to suck funds away from Central Avenue the Cross. So I think that that has to be clear, because that's the real bottom line. Practical. Right. Can I. Finish. The practical impracticality? And it also makes the case better with the Coast Guard is if we've got funding in hand to construct the bridge some commitment, then there's I think there's more room to negotiate. And if we don't. We I want to make sure that our clerk is keeping track of this. That's not an amendment. That's a comment. That's a. Comment. Okay. Part of the discussion of a moved and seconded and yours. Was also just which is. Well, it was to include. Right. Yes, include. Potential funding sources in pursuing those. So he has a friendly amendment and you're accepting that. I need to make sure that we're all seeing the. Same position, put in an explanation and underline on it, because. However. He did have a friendly amendment, so I want to make sure that that's confirmed as part of the motion. Councilmember De Soto. Member Ashcroft it's your motion, right? It is. So procedurally, he makes a friendly amendment. You need to accept it or not, you need to weigh in. And I would just note for the record, cities don't build bridges anyway. That comes from Caltrans, it comes from the feds. It comes from things like arms. Three. I don't think the hang up with the Coast Guard was over us wanting them to pay for it. But gosh, if they have funds, I would take them. But I think it's you know, we've got good direction to staff. And yes, I mean, the more the merrier as far as this goes. I just but that wasn't the point. I mean. I'm sorry. I mean, the point was to make sure that we we started the ground floor. It was not to ask the Coast Guard to pay for it. But I. In my. Mind that we make that we, in addition to doing the study that we share with others, the county, Oakland, others, that we also start identifying ways to pay for it. I mean. And that's a friendly amendment. What I've heard is that you do accept that. MEMBER Well, absolutely. All right, then I'm going to read the email. I think it's I think it's we're. Making a motion. You know, there's a way we need to do it. Unfortunately, we've had a problem in the past where we all thought we understood. And I want to make sure we do this correctly at this point. I'm going to circle now to please member de sog. Thank you. Thank you. I think there will be plenty enough time for our inner Scrooge to come out, but I think for tonight, it definitely is time to dream. It's time to dream not just about the ski bike bridge, but also the fact that, you know, we're moving ahead with the citywide transit strategy. And that's why the decision tonight is absolutely critical to move forward. The list that with special thank you to the Transportation Commission that the Transportation Commission had helped put us put together for us. So for that we are definitely thankful and for it to the bike walk Alameda we are also doubly thankful for you know, encouraging us to keep dreaming. You know, there's plenty of times to, you know, put those accountant's hats on, but but not tonight. So let's move forward. All right. So we have a motion with two friendly amendments that were accepted. I also want to thank staff our transportation commission bike walk Alameda and I looked for I pulled this item intentionally because this is very important to our community. It's critical that we do come up with a better way to cross the estuary. And actually, I would say it's a bit bicycling and for pedestrians. So I appreciate all of this effort. All those in favor. I motion carries unanimously. Thank you. All right. Our next item. Is six d. Recommendation to authorize the city manager to enter into a citywide project stabilization agreement on public works or improvement contracts valued at over $1,000,000 awarded by the City of Alameda with the Building and Construction Trades Council of Alameda County. Hello. If you want to speak on this item, please submit your slip. Jeremy Mayor, council members. Jennifer Basri is transportation planning director. Okay, I can I'll just start. We're here to start recommending a citywide project stabilization agreement on city. Let projects over $1,000,000. I'm not alone here tonight. We have a lead negotiator to the city attorney's office, Mike Fleming, who specializes in negotiating these agreements that we worked as a team very closely on this. And then we also have members of the Building Trades Council, Carpenters Union, a number of different union representatives here as well that we have worked with over a number of months to bring this to you tonight. There is a lot of history. I actually have, you know, gone back and over a number of times actually to kind of see there's been a lot of history of multiple city council referrals, hearings and direction over the last six years to negotiate a project stabilization agreement starting, I'm sure, probably even before this. But the ones I could find were starting September 2010. There were also efforts in September 2013, September and December 2013, and then more recently, September 2015. So we're here really all of that direction and those hearings and ultimately negotiated an agreement.