 Good morning, everyone. We'll just wait a couple more minutes to see if we can get a couple more commissioners up here. Okay, good to know. Morning, it is 903 Thursday, June 1st. And I will call to order the regular meeting of the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. Clerk, could we have a roll call please? Commissioner McClintock, Kelly McClintock, Commissioner Peterson. Present. Commissioner Sandy Brown. Here. Commission Alternate Dillis. Here. Commissioner Montecino. Here. Commissioner Hernandez. Here, yet, Commission Alternate Schifrin. Here. Commissioner Koenig. Here. Commissioner McPherson. Here. Commissioner Kristen Brown. Here. Commissioner Rotkin. Here. And you have a quorum. Thank you. And Commissioner McPherson, are you participating under a 2449 request today? Yes. And clarification, do we need to vote on accepting that request? Commissioner McPherson, if you can hear me, are you participating under the Just Cause one, which only allows you two per year or under the emergency circumstance? Both of them can relate to a medical condition. If it's emergency circumstance, then the board would entertain a motion to authorize the participation remotely. And then Commissioner McPherson can participate that way. For tomorrow, so that's why I'm not here today. So I don't know. So I would recommend that the commission do it as an emergency circumstance and then entertain a motion to authorize it. Emergency circumstances. Second. Second. Okay, motion by Commissioner Schifrin, second by Commissioner Sandy Brown. Any public comment on this? Seeing none, turn to the commission. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair, we actually need to do a roll call vote. Okay, sorry. We'll call vote then please. Commissioner Peterson. Aye. Commissioner Sandy Brown. Aye. Commissioner Alternate Dillis. Aye. Commissioner Montesino. Aye. Commissioner Alternate Schifrin. Aye. Commissioner Koenig. Aye. Commissioner McPherson. Aye. Commissioner Kristen Brown. Aye. Commissioner Rotkin. Aye. That passes unanimously. All right, thank you. Executive Director Preston, are there any changes to the agenda today? There are no changes. There's just a couple of handouts for items 22 and 28. All right, thank you. We'll now proceed with item four, oral communications. Any member of the public may address the commission on any item within the jurisdiction of the commission that is not already on the agenda. The commission will listen to all communication but in compliance with state law. It may not take action on items that are not on the agenda. It's because there are questions to state their name clearly so that it can be accurately recorded in the minutes of the meeting. If you'd like to address the commission here in Chambers, please approach the podium. All right, seeing no one here in Chambers, is there anyone on Zoom? Mr. Brian Peoples. Sharon, I'm getting up. Let me try and get that up. You're very good at that. So included in the handouts of the letter we sent to Supervisor Cummings and congratulating him for his appointment to the California Coastal Commission, what you're seeing in the way of the video is Manresa Beach where the railroad tracks travel within feet of the Pacific Ocean. There's multiple areas where the Coastal Corridor and the railroad tracks travel on our coastal block and basically what does not follow the Coastal Act approval to have a new passenger rail system here and our expectation is that Supervisor Cummings, being on the Coastal Commission, will educate us all and vote for no approval on the new passenger train as a board member for the Coastal Commission just as he did for the RV over night parking. Now a lot of people will say that the public voted for a train. Well, we disagree with that. They didn't vote for a train nor could they have a train along the Coastal Corridor and that's why the study is to look at horizontal and vertical blinders. And the fact is that the vote was very tainted, I'll say, by Warren Cairn. And if we all know and we understand that prior to that election, Supervisor Executive Director Guy Preston proposed the interim trail, there was huge backlash. It's very frustrating that this board members did not support the effort and that I was very embarrassed by that as a community member that this board did not support staffs' recommendation. They felt they actually agreed with Warren Camp and listened to the lives being placed on that. And so I'm hopeful that members of this board apologize to Mr. Preston for not supporting him on his guidance. So thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Pupils. Jack Nelson. Yes, good morning commissioners and RTC staff and members of the public. I'm Jack Nelson. I'm a retired land use professional and environmental planning professional. I'd like to suggest to your commission this morning that you have a responsibility that extends well beyond transportation. I think you realize how interconnected transportation is with other issues such as housing. I just like to bring back to your attention the question of climate destabilization and assert that you don't have the right to only think in a silo about transportation without addressing what's happening with greenhouse gas emissions. Well, I've tuned in lately to what climate sciences are saying in 2023. They're telling us in a very concise nutshell it's worse than we thought. So for instance, you have glaciologist Jason Box doing a talk at a college which you can find on YouTube with Jason Box, B.O.X. Telling us that on the Greenland ice sheet a lot of melting is happening due to factors that are not in the climate models that are currently being used to forecast sea level rise. What he's saying is we're behind the curve on understanding what's happening to our climate. As with the cryosphere, the frozen part of the planet is also with temperature rise. You may hear talk about keeping warming to 1.5 degrees, but that's global average. What's gonna happen here in Santa Cruz County or in California on land? Much greater temperatures. So I'm here to bring this to your attention. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Nelson. Mr. Barry Scott. I'm commissioner and chair of the clinic. This is Barry Scott. I live in Hattos and I wanted to speak briefly to the interim trail versus ultimate trail options that seem to apply to all upcoming segments and current segments. And I was reviewing past agenda minutes and I found some interesting points that I'd like to share. Sequel requirements is from June 3rd last year. Interim implies to be considered the cost of putting rails back. We have to make sure that every time comparisons are done that the interim trail is including those three phases, all three phases can compare phase one to a full project. And I think Sequel agrees. On April 21st, 2021, I've requested and clarified that a grant cannot cover both scenarios referring to, you know, an interim and an ultimate trail. And therefore, once we get to a grant phase, we have to, in my opinion, we have to stick with the ultimate trail. We know that, for example, rail banking removes a railroad. And so a multimodal program becomes a single-mode program. It's my opinion that the grants, the huge grants, and congratulations to RTC grant writers, the huge grants are largely because it's a multimodal program for trail segments. And finally, in 2018, $50,000 was dedicated, thank you Mike, Mike Rock, in for the motion. $50,000 dedicated to study a new crossing, a rail and trail bridge for Capitola later. That was, I think, in 2021, it was reallocated to an interim design and spent to study interim use of the existing bridges. I'd like to see that done. I think we need new bridges in Capitola or a new bridge. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Scott. Mr. Michael St. Yes. Okay, good morning, Chair Pominick and Commissioners. Michael St. Matt, trust, resident and CFS team member. I'd like to share with you my thoughts on an observation I made this last year concerning the RTC Commission. I realized that the Commission or has new members come in and over ones retire or lose their seats for whatever reasons. But what always seemed to be a constant was we will follow what the voters want us to do. This last year seemed to change after the 2022 measure D failed last summer. Although you followed the voters wishes and are studying the feasibility of passenger service on the rail corridor, it isn't without angst or criticism from some commissioners that this is a bad idea. I was shocked and just made that the commissioners during the first meeting after the measure D was defeated by a white margin were sowing the seeds of doubt and positioning themselves to support a trail only no matter what the voting base wants. What happened to Volter Mandate? The first measure D barely passed and that has been vehemently supported for the past that we made. On the other hand, we have the last year's measure D failing with 72% of the votes. And it seems certain commissioners are against passing new services on the rail corridor and will do what is necessary to make the project members see the larger day. The RTC is always banging the drum of we have a multi-mobile transportation project. Acting new service on the rail corridor is a big part of this multi-mobile project. What is left without the train possibility some painted bike lanes and protected bike lanes and ox lane with bus stuck in traffic and maybe a trail only which may be stopped at segment nine. I've put it as a rumor. If we are not wholly on board with projects that are voted on, they have a high likely possibility of failure. A commission divided is doomed to failure or at the very least will provide us with an inadequate transportation system. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Stain. We have one more speaker. David loves public transit. Yes. Hi, I'm David Van Rijn. I live in Santa Cruz. The voters will finally settle the first debate over rail versus trail by voting on measure T through the initiative in the June 7th election. Interim trail, ASRD, ultimate trail, no on D. I'm reading from one of the comments in the newsletter of April of last year. The voters will finally settle the first debate. After that is a fair amount of slanted but reasonably accurate description of the two options. I also recall Mr. Koenig reiterated here with great gusto. He didn't actually get his show on the table, but he did state quite forcefully this vote will settle the matter once and for all. Greenway saturated the media with information far outspending any opposition. Greenway controlled the timing, the messaging, the texts. Voters had more information about this issue than any other. Now, of course, there's an apparently newish American tradition of claiming that votes that votes we don't like didn't happen. It was rigged. People voted wrong or whatever. There was something in Washington D.C. a two, three years back. And for sure, there's votes that I wish I could just ignore. But that's not how it works. I was surprised last month when Mr. Koenig seemed to treat the temporary versus ultimate trail of question as not finally settled. Was I hearing election denial? I was surprised. I'm sure it was just a momentary forgetfulness. I know your train advocacy is just one item in a large portfolio of more important things. So I wish to kindly remind the gentleman from District One of his commitment to democracy, the outcome of the vote, which was not in question. And his stated enthusiasm to truly put this matter to rest. Let's move forward past non-existent controversy and trend the election denial. Let's build some bike paths like we all want to. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Van Brink. We do not have any more speakers. All right, we'll proceed with item five, which is action on the consent agenda. Or we'll proceed with the consent agenda. Are there any commissioners who wish to comment or have questions on the consent agenda? Yes, Commissioner McPherson. Yeah, I didn't just want to say I'm pleased to see item 11, the majority of men in the Highway 9 and the consent of the Complete Street Corridor Plan to fulfill the federal requirements. I just wanted to point out that it's on this consent agenda, fully supportive of it. And I know that the commission has been in the past and will too, but I think this is an important step forward. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner McPherson. Does any member of the public wish to comment on the consent agenda? Is there anyone here in chambers? Is there anyone online? We approve the consent agenda. We have Mr. Brian Peeples. Oh, sorry. Don't do too quick, sorry. Hi, this is Brian from Trail Now. I want to comment on the multiple items that discuss the cost of managing the Coastal Corridor or the Rail Corridor and the costs continue to rise. And this is a transportation asset that the community supported the purchase of. That's called a transportation asset and it's been sitting unused for a decade. You've built 1.2 miles of the trail over a decade. It's actually cost twice as much to build a 12-foot wide trail as it is to widen the highway. You're cutting down twice as many trees. The Coastal Commission will not approve a new rail system and you're holding up building the Coastal Trail because of this misguided understanding. Simply look at what the Coastal Commission did in the sense of approving the North Coast Trail. They didn't approve it. They only gave you a temporary trail, a temporary trail, temporary retaining wall. So what the costs that we're seeing on 13, 14 and 15 are not even included in the excessive cost of managing this property and we're asking for us to start using this property and look at opening it up today. Please focus on opening it as a transportation corridor. Thank you. Mr. Peoples. We do not have any other speakers. All right, I'll turn it to the commissioner. We have a motion from Commissioner Rodkin, second from Commissioner Schifrin. Any further discussion? Seeing none, roll call vote please. Commissioner Peterson. Aye. Commissioner Sandy Brown. Aye. Commission alternate Dillis. Aye. Commissioner Montecino. Aye. Commissioner Hernandez. Aye. Commission alternate Schifrin. Aye. Commissioner Koenig. Aye. Commissioner McPherson. Aye. Commissioner Kristen Brown. Aye. And Commissioner Rodkin. Aye. That passes unanimously. Thank you. Now we'll proceed with our regular agenda starting with item 25, which is commissioner reports. Is there any commissioner have a report to share? Seeing none, I'll proceed to item 26, director's report. Director Preston. Thank you, chair Koenig and fellow commissioners. I have a couple informational updates. First is regarding storm damage from March of 2023. As reported previously, RTC staff is working to address damage caused to the Santa Cruz branch rail line by the winter storms of January 2023 and is working with FEMA and Cal OES to secure reimbursement to the RTC for costs of cleanup, protection and repairs due to the January storms. Additional storms hit the area in March of 2023, which caused significant flooding in the town of Pajaro. The flooding caused some damage to the track in the town of Pajaro and the Santa Cruz. Big trees in Pacific Rale road or roaring camp made the repairs and restored freight service pretty quickly. So thank you to roaring camp for that. But the March 2023 storms also downed trees in the Harkinsloo area along San Andreas road south of Manresa and in the new Brighton beach area. RTC staff work with our tree contractor and all of the trees that came down during those storms have now been removed. RTC staff will submit a second request for public assistance to FEMA and Cal OES to recover the costs estimated at about $95,000 to remove trees in applicable staff time costs associated with the damage in March of 2023. And then one other update on what staff is working on. As you know, last month the commissioners amended staff on the competitive funding leverage with Measure D funds. Your entire staff contributed to this effort and deserves great recognition for the success of this organization. That said, we wouldn't be where we are today without the help of the voters who passed Measure D in 2016 providing strength of strategic leveraging to the commission's toolbox of strategic planning and project delivery. In 2020 RTC adopted the inaugural 2022 Measure D strategic implementation plan, the 2020, excuse me, Measure D strategic implementation plan. The plan is a requirement of the 2016 sales tax ordinance and serves as the guiding policy and programming document for the implementation of regional Measure D projects. The implementation plan is required to be updated at least every five years. This summer and into the fall, staff will be working on updating the Measure D strategic implementation plan, which we call the SIP. Staff will coordinate the efforts with this year's development of Measure D five-year plans, which we bring to you annually. As part of this work, staff will be looking closely at our matching commitments for reaching recent grant awards, maintenance commitments for the rail line and other expected expenditures. We will provide an update of the Measure D 30-year cash flow model for expected revenue and expenditures and better define our need to finance, to meet our financial commitments. We expect financing will be needed in the next couple of years to have enough cash on hand for all of our expected construction programs and other commitments. Finally, we will be engaging committees as we look to refine strategies to maximize the continued delivery of the Measure D regional expenditure plan. Although the SIP is only a snapshot in time, the timing is actually very ripe for an update and staff should be ready to present an updated plan to the commission to consider in November of this year. And that concludes my director's report. Thank you, Executive Director Preston. Are there comments or questions from commissioners? Seeing none, does any member of the public wish to comment on the director's report? Seeing no one here in chambers. Is there anyone online? We do not have any answers. All right. It's an information item only. So thank you. We'll proceed with item 27, which is the CalTrans report. Mr. McClendon. Good morning, Chair Kone. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Kelly McClendon. I'm in a temporary assignment as the deputy district director for District 5 for the deputy of planning. And I'm happy to be here this morning. I have a couple of updates on our construction projects and then one other general announcement. Starting with our Highway 1 auxiliary lanes construction project. Now that we are in the construction phase of this project, I wanted to remind the public in general and this commission that it will be the active and a dynamic construction zone throughout the next couple of years with completion anticipated for late 2025. So we wanted to remind everyone to keep on the lookout for upcoming news releases as the construction zone and different traffic management changes throughout that zone. We'll be releasing that information through our public information office through various news releases. So just a reminder about that. Other construction projects going on right now, mainly up in San Lorenzo Valley, Highway 9. There are many different storm damage related closures. There are no full closures. All of the closures are currently operating under one way reversing traffic control. And those mostly affect Highway 9 with many locations on Highway 9 as well as one location each at Highway 35 and Highway 236. The last announcement that I'd like to make is a general announcement about an upcoming event for the AIDS Lifecycle Charity Bike Ride. And that's a charity bike ride that moves from San Francisco to Los Angeles every year. The bike ride is over seven days and generally consists of over 2,000 riders and roughly 500 staff and volunteers. This will enter into Santa Cruz County on Sunday, June 4th, where the riders will be making the leg between San Francisco and then Santa Cruz and then also Monday, June 5th, where the riders will be making their way from Santa Cruz to King City. So please be mindful of the participants and keep an eye out for any news releases about road closures. And we wanted to remind the public to please anticipate for, especially for that Monday, please anticipate some disruptions in the normal traffic patterns to accommodate for the ride. And then also if anyone's interested in participating or attending the event, I know that that's something that's also encouraged about that bike ride. Those are my announcements and I'd be happy to take any questions. Thank you, Mr. McLendon. Other questions or comments from commissioners? Seeing none. Is any member of the public? Bruce has his hand up. I did have my hand up, I thought. Can you hear me all right? We hear you. I just wanted to thank you. Of course, the storms really slammed the Santa Ruins of Valley. And I want to just really huge thank you to Caltrans for its attention to Highways 9, 35 and 236. The big slide has been corrected and it took a lot of time, but the patience of the Santa Ruins of Valley residents is to be commended. It was a long time, but thank you very much for your direct attention on that. Appreciate it very much. And good work. We also had some communications with the Caltrans personnel on the report on the line of Highway 9 improvements from downtown Felton to the Santa Cruz, excuse me, Santa Ruins of Valley School Complex. And we'll be having some town hall meetings on that in the near future. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner McPherson. There's no other commissioner comments. Yes, commissioner Schiffen. Yes. As we're moving into the summer season, we're starting to get concerns about parking along Highway 1 on the coast of the county. Concerns are that we've heard in our office are where the Caltrans is really doing what it can to protect the right of way and protect public safety along that, particular areas and that area around. It's called Shark fin beach. So I ask you to really look into that, maybe coordinate with the CHP. It's only going to get more dangerous as we move into the Caltrans right of way. I know it's difficult to force on, but it's really critical in terms of... Thank you. I took a note and we'll follow up on it. Commissioner Schiffen. As you know, there are commissioner comments. Is there any member of the public that wishes to comment on the Caltrans report? Is there anyone here in chambers? Is there anyone online? Yes. We have Linda Wilscherson. Thank you. My name is Linda Wilscherson and I love them. Live Oak, can you hear me? We can. Okay. Thank you. I live in Live Oak and I was wondering if Caltrans, the Caltrans representative could let us know where we could sign up for email notifications about different phases of the construction project between SoCal and State Park. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Wilscherson. Go ahead. I'd have to double check to see if there's a distribution list sign up. I know what we're doing right now is sending out news releases to a distribution list that's subscribed to the news releases. So I'll double check to see if there's a general project distribution list. All right. Thank you. And if you let this commission know, I'm sure we can more widely distribute that to the public. Are there any online comments? We do not have any more comments. All right. Then we will proceed with item 28, our public hearing on the Highway 1 auxiliary lanes and bus on shoulder from State Park Drive to Freedom Boulevard and Coastal Rail Trail Segment 12 Project Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Assessment. I'll officially open the public hearing. Luis, did you want to make the announcement? Sorry, we have... Do we have our interpreter here yet? Yes. Okay. For all the people who occupy the Spanish interpretation for this... For now, we have an interpreter here in the room that can provide the interpretation services. Where is the interpreter? In the corner to your right side. Okay. When entering through the doors of the room, it would be on the left side. Left. So there you will find the interpreter if you occupy the services. And we are also offering those services if you are with us on Zoom. Please raise your hand and we will communicate with the person who is on Zoom. Thank you. I will proceed with a staff report by Senior Transportation Planner Sarah Christensen. Thank you, Commissioner. Here today to... Thank you. Can you do the presentation view? Thank you. This is a public hearing to give the commission and the public a opportunity to provide comment on the Highway 1 Auxiliary Lanes and Bus on Shoulder project, which also includes the Coastal Rail Trail segment 12. Sorry, real quick. Give us a second. Okay. I'm Sarah Christensen, RTC staff. I also have our professional engineering consultant project manager, Zach Sevilla here, who's going to be helping with the presentation today. Next slide. Okay. Thank you, team, for explaining the interpretation that's been made available for the Spanish-speaking community who has joined us today, both in person and virtually. A couple of housekeeping items this is purely an opportunity for the commission and the public to provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, Environmental Assessment. Caltrans is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, and they are the lead for the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, under delegated authority by the Federal Highway Administration. The RTC is responsible agency under CEQA because RTC has discretionary authority over a portion of the project, and that portion of the project is the RTC-owned coastal, or the Santa Cruz branch rail line corridor improvements, which is the coastal rail trail portion of the project. Just to be clear, no action is being taken today on the project by the RTC. Comments received today will be recorded. We have a court reporter present to transcribe the verbal comments for the record, and the comments will be responded to. Responses will be included in the final EIR EA. Next slide. Okay, a little bit of information about the project and the program. As you're all familiar, this is the third and final phase of the seven and a half mile long auxiliary lane and bus on shoulder facility proposed along Highway 1. This is a multimodal set of improvements. The first phase is under construction now. You should be able to see a lot of the activities out there if you drove through the corridor today. The second phase, which goes just to the south between the Bay Porter interchange and State Park Drive, will begin construction a little bit later this year. That's another three miles of the facility. And today the environmental review for the phase three project is underway. The pending availability of funding if we're successful in getting all the grants that we've applied for. We are on schedule to complete final design in 2025 and start construction around that same time. So the project improvements include auxiliary lanes and a bus on shoulder facility from State Park Drive to Rio del Mar and from Rio del Mar to Freedom Boulevard. It includes widening of the Aptos Creek Bridge, which is a Highway 1 bridge over the creek. And the project includes one and a quarter mile segment of the coastal rail trail which crosses Highway 1 twice and crosses over Soquel Drive twice as well. Next slide, please. And just to give a little bit of context and perspective for the coastal rail trail under development, there's several segments under development. This is just a map showing what's currently under development by the City of Santa Cruz which is segments eight and nine and that's between the Wharf Roundabout Pacific Avenue and 17th Avenue and then the County of Santa Cruz is working on the kind of early environmental phases of segments 10 and 11 of the coastal rail trail and that goes from 17th Avenue all the way to State Park Drive and finally segment 12 will meet up with this trail network and propose the coastal rail trail all the way through Aptos Village and down to Rio del Mar. The funding for this project, we almost have the funding. Hopefully we'll be successful in getting full funding soon but we have a very significant commitment of the Measure D Highway Quarters funds that this commission has committed to this project. We also, earlier this year, were notified that we were successful in being one of nine projects nationally awarded National Infrastructure Project Assistance Program or MAGA grant funds. A portion of that grant goes to this project and a portion of that grant actually goes to Metro for new buses for them so the total project is 180 million. Next slide. I'm gonna hand it over to Zach for the more detailed presentation. Thank you. Thanks, Sarah. Good morning, everyone. Happy to be here this morning. Real quick, I wanted to just also inform the commission that this is the third presentation that we've had on the project. We had two additional meetings a few weeks ago. One was virtual and we had a number of attendees and then we also hosted an in-person meeting as well. Next slide. So just to start off with a quick overview just looking a little more in detail at the project that Sarah described. So on the left side of the screen you'll see the State Park Drive interchange. North is up in this image and if we start along the main line of Highway 1 you'll see a few different colors. So what's shown in red, if you see at the State Park Drive interchange those areas identify where the bus on shoulder facility would be operating. So the bus on shoulder operates in between the on and off ramps at the interchange. As we continue to the right, you see the blue color that's on the outside of the freeway. That shows where the auxiliary lanes would be constructed and then in between the interchanges the bus actually operates in the auxiliary lane both northbound and southbound. Another thing to highlight on this image segment 12 of the Coastal Rail Trail is shown in that orange color and you see where that crosses over the main line at two locations and then the purple color denotes where there are structures. So segment 12 of the Coastal Rail Trail does have a few structures on it crossing over the main line as well as Aptos Creek and Valencia Creek. Another thing to highlight on this slide is right there where section AA is shown that's Moosehead Drive. Currently Moosehead Drive is located within the State's right-of-way. So as part of this project, Moosehead Drive does need to be relocated outside of the State's right-of-way. Next slide. So for this image, we're now picking up just where that last image left off. So Rio del Mar interchange is shown right there on the left side of the image. Again, you see the blue color denoting where the auxiliary lanes be constructed on the outside of the freeway. The red color shows where the buses would operate on the shoulder and then there's a rendering right there in the middle that shows how that would look. So you would have two travel lanes and then in between the interchanges the bus would operate in the shoulder. As we continue to the right, again you see the auxiliary lanes between Rio del Mar and Freedom Boulevard and then ultimately the project terminates at Freedom Boulevard. Next slide. So just to show the project in cross-section to give a little more clarity on the proposed improvements, the top two cross-sections shown there, section A and section B, those show where the auxiliary lanes would be constructed, where we're actually adding a lane in between the on and off ramps and then in that section the buses operate in the auxiliary lanes. Section C and section D show locations at the interchanges where the bus operates in the shoulder and the colors match the colors that were on that previous exhibit. Next slide. As we look at section 12 of the coastal rail trail we did want to show a few different sections again to highlight the proposed improvements. What is being proposed is a 16 foot wide trail, a 16 foot paved trail section and that's consistent through all of section 12 and then continuing across the structures as well. Next slide. We pulled together a few renderings again as a visual depiction to help show the proposed improvements for this one. This image is taken from the rail over crossing looking north toward the State Park Drive interchange. This is what the facility currently looks like today. If we go to the next slide. This is rendering showing the proposed improvements. So in this location there are auxiliary lanes that are built so that we would go from two lanes in each direction to three lanes in each direction. I do want to highlight that there was a tremendous amount of effort put into preserving trees along the corridor where possible. This is a very well-established corridor. There's a lot of mature trees along the outside of the facility. We did work with Caltrans to secure design exceptions for the median width so that we could preserve as much as possible. Next slide. This is another rendering we imagine we just moved south a couple hundred feet and we're looking at that over crossing that that last image was taken from. So this is again what the facility looks like today. And then next slide. And this shows the proposed improvements. The project does replace the existing rail over crossing that would construct new pedestrian over crossings for segment 12 of the coastal rail trail. Next slide. For this project we're looking north at the Freedom Boulevard over crossing. Again, the existing site today, two lanes in each direction. Go to the next slide. You see where the project does include the bus on shoulder enhancements. So in between the on and off ramps at the interchange, the bus operates in the shoulder. And then in between those interchanges, there is work in the shoulder to allow for the buses to operate in the shoulder. Next slide. And just to further clarify how the bus operates. So this is a unique operation. Santa Cruz County is the only entity in the state that has full legislative approval to operate buses on the shoulder. And then in between those interchanges the bus would drive in the auxiliary lane. Next slide. So just a little more project overview on segment 12 of the coastal rail trail. As I mentioned, there are a number of structures that need to be constructed with the project. So there's two over crossings of Highway 1. And then there are structures over Aptos Creek, Valencia Creek, and then also Soquel Drive. Next slide. For the structures that are crossing over the main line, what's being proposed are cast in place concrete structures similar to what would be constructed at Chanta Clear and then also at Mar Vista. We'll go through a more formal aesthetic design process on the look of those structures. This is just showing one potential rendering of what aesthetic enhancements are available with the project. For the bridges that cross over the creek, those would be prefabricated steel structures. That's done for a number of reasons. One is it helps minimize the amount of impacts that are in the waterways since those steel structures could be lifted from the adjacent roadways or banks and not have to have too much access into the creeks below. And again all of these structures would be 16 feet wide consistent with the rail trail itself. And this rendering is showing Soquel Drive out at Trout Gulch Road. In this location the trail would be built on the inland side of the rail line and that would be consistent throughout the segment 12. Can I ask a question on that? Yes. Can I ask a question on that last slide? Do you just hand? So there's a lot of parking there right now so that's going to have to be removed on the right hand side as we're looking into this photograph. Am I correct? Overall there are some proposed improvements that require parking removal and that is in the environmental document the it's a little bit more complicated here because the RTC owns this property and there's actually an encroachment there right now with parking but that's not really considered official parking so the the parking removal there's going to be some parking removal just I guess behind where this is looking on that parallel road Aptos Street but yeah there's a couple parking spaces. Okay thank you. I also wanted to add you know that the project is carrying forward and analyzing the optional first phase which is the interim trail and the reason that we are continuing to include that is because we are managing the delivery risks for the project so obviously there's the ultimate trail which is the trail off to the side which is all of the visuals that we've showed today but that requires acquisition of right-of-way and more involved permitting and environmental mitigation and so in order to manage those risks we have this optional first phase that would not require any right-of-way and would have less of an environmental impact however it still has because there are tree removals required for the optional first phase it's still a significant unavoidable impact overall for the project so just want to make sure that that's clear that that's included in the environmental analysis back to you Zach. So what we wanted to do next is just provide an overview of where we are in the environmental review process and a quick summary of what's included in the document next slide this just shows a timeline of the environmental review process for the project it started back in the fall of 2020 with the notice of preparation there was a public scoping meeting held in September to solicit comments from the community and then that also helps inform the technical studies that were done for the project ultimately that led to preparation of the draft EIR-EA which was distributed for public comment and that public comment period closes tomorrow following the public comment period we'll begin working on the final environmental impact report and then ultimately work towards approval in the later part of the summer 2023 next slide so a quick overview of the purpose of the EIR-EA it's a joint CEQA and NEPA document because there are federal funds allocated for the project the purpose is to identify and disclose the physical environmental effects of the project identify feasible mitigations or significant impacts assess cumulative and growth inducing impacts and then provide an opportunity for public input and outside agency coordination in this process next slide the technical topics that are included in the EIR are listed here on the screen they include evaluation of the coastal zone growth impacts traffic of transportation impacts visual aesthetics hydrology and floodplain impacts water quality and storm water runoff paleontology hazardous waste, air quality noise analysis energy analysis biological environment cumulative impacts and then also climate change so it is a very comprehensive review of the effects of the project of that analysis a number of resources were shown to have no impact or less significant impacts that includes land use impacts in the coastal zone parks and recreation facilities growth community character cohesion relocation and real properties environmental justice utilities traffic and transportation hydrology floodplain water quality hazardous materials air quality noise energy wild life and climate change so a number of resources were shown to be less than significant impacts next slide a few resources were shown to be less than significant with mitigation that includes cultural resources the mitigation measure is that if there are if there is anything discovered during construction that construction activity needs to pause and allow for people to evaluate what resources are discovered for paleontology includes the preparation of a paleontological mitigation plan and then for biology there's other mitigation measures included to reduce the amount of time that's spent in the creeks and that's done by looking at the construction alternatives and means that we have for building those bridges next to those sensitive habitats there was one significant and unavoidable impact noted as I mentioned there are a lot of mature trees along the corridor and even with the design changes that we implemented with looking at non-standard inside shoulder medians we still did have a significant and unavoidable impact with visual aesthetics and that's primarily due to the loss of trees along the corridor so where we are in the process we are soliciting comments the comment period closes tomorrow all comments need to be submitted in writing to Laura Pertania who is a senior environmental planner at Caltrans District 5 so her email address and contact information is shown here on the screen does that appear on our website that email so if the numbers can be worded it's on the project website and then just a quick overview of the project scheduled we are currently in the environmental clearance process which is shown to wrap up later this year in 2023 we have initiated some final design activities but that will continue through the spring of 2025 and depending on funding the construction is anticipated to start in the summer of 2025 and that is that concludes our presentation today and we just to note we have some project information the project boards and some information about the environmental process over on the right side of the room here so with that we also have quite a robust team of professionals who are working on this project who are available online if we have questions about technical topics so thank you thank you for the presentation and now just to clarify you've mentioned that comments should be submitted in writing as my understanding was we do have a court reporter here today so any comments made verbally by members of the public or the commission will be written down and submitted in writing correct that is correct great we'll begin with comments or questions from the commission Commissioner Schifrin I just have a question about the process normally in these kinds of EIR hearing there isn't responses to questions by consultants this is the time for members of the public or commission to how does that work if there's a question and a consultant replies are those replies also part of the final EIR because I think it's normally as I remember that's really not the case thank you Commissioner alternate Schifrin this is a really good point and the verbal comments made today will be recorded we as a project team will do our best to clarify or answer questions to provide that information to the commission and to the public however responses will be officially in writing in the final EIR so our verbal answers I guess aren't necessarily going to be exactly verbatim the written response in the final EIR I just wonder if there's any concern about having differences between today and what said in the final EIR response causing confusion you're talking as the project team the project team ultimately is not the environmental consultants I don't think and also the project team is in Caltrans which is the agency that is responsible for the EIR so I'm just a little concerned about having different participants who really don't have a role in at least at this stage in terms of Caltrans and Roger and myself my point is really based on trying to avoid confusion so that members of the public will not think oh well that answers my question and in fact not really answer the question legally needs to be answered in the final EIR or responded to so I don't know maybe our attorney to this because I just want to avoid confusion around what needs to happen so the consultants that are online are available to answer questions for the record itself and the final EIR will have formal responses to all of the comments that are identified through this public learning process so there may be additional information that would be included in the final EIR that would be part of the response today thank you sorry and so I do think if the commission has clarifying questions which I think was the point that Sarah was getting to that the team Sarah and the team can answer those today but any public comments that come in on the EIR if you will in particular to the adequacy of the environmental analysis will in fact be addressed as part of the final EIR in writing I assume that any responses to public comments would also be part of the administrative record should there be a legal challenge to the EIR that is correct any comments made by the staff, by commissioners by members of the public today as part of this public hearing are part of the administrative record for the EIR commissioners will you please ensure that your mics are on it looks like people on zoom are having a hard time hearing you alright if you do have comments just tap it before you make a comment and that way we know you're mic'd any comments, other comments or questions from commissioners I can't see the online Commissioner McPherson at the moment okay I do have one did Commissioner McPherson did you have a question no, okay I did have one question and maybe you could bring up the Mr. Zaviglia the slide that shows the lane widths I think it's 9 or 10 there yeah so my question is about the bus on shoulder facility where I think many of us here on the commission particularly those of us who sit on the metro board as well are excited about the bus on shoulder portion of this project and I personally would also like to maintain the option to extend that bus on shoulder facility into the actual shoulder that we're constructing on the rest of the project which at this point it shows the specific bus on shoulder facility that we're building today as you can see in the red there is 12 feet wide whereas the new shoulder that we're constructing adjacent to the auxiliary lane is 10 feet wide is there the option in the future to pursue a project where the bus would run would run in the shoulder next to the auxiliary lane yes that is a possibility in the future however we would have to work with Caltrans to get approval for most likely reducing the traveling widths from 12 feet to 11 feet to free up another 2 feet on the outside that has a process to go through and Caltrans approval which isn't always easy so we definitely see this as kind of a first phase and there's many many other enhancements that could be made later as future projects and I've actually been working with our planning team to hopefully get some eventually get some additional planning done to expand this bus on shoulder facility and enhance it and we definitely also have been working with Metro staff because they have a desire to improve this but we gotta show some proof of concept and build something it's an innovative facility it's the first in the state of a true bus on shoulder facility it wasn't easy getting approvals just it was very challenging so this is the first phase we're kind of shifting to being more multimodal and hopefully give it a little time and it will catch on and become a more regular thing statewide as well as here in Santa Cruz with enhancements so hopefully that answered your question it does yeah I was a little concerned to hear that we were already reducing the center median width because that might limit the options but I mean as long as you know in order to make the next step obviously something that as you said would have to do hand in glove with Caltrans I just want to have to rebuild the retaining wall in the future to get there so agreed glad to hear it if there's no other questions or comments from commissioners then I'll open it for the public anyone here in chambers wishes to address us on this item please approach the podium good morning my name is Charlie Wilcox and I'm here on behalf of the C. Cliff business partnership and the C. Cliff community C. Cliff business partnership is basically the Merchants Association in C. Cliff good to see you all I'm really happy to see a lot of these things finally happening I remember discussions with Guy when he first came on about bus on shoulder and I'm excited to see some of those things happen and see all of this happening I'm really glad to see action it's been years Sarah seems like you're doing a strong job with that thank you I'm writing I'm here specifically with the concern about the certain aspects of the EIR draft and adequacy mostly regarding stormwater and stormwater drainage through C. Cliff and the impacts of these projects and related and concurrent projects Caltrans has project in doing drainage and other improvements on highway one as well as the other auxiliary lane project that's happening there and these bus on lane projects and in the EIR it seems as though the cumulative effects were not really well backed up or factually the findings of low impact were not really factually addressed we're providing written comments with more detail about this which we hope to have addressed I just wanted to raise awareness around that our particular concern is with increased flow through potential open channels and public danger that that can create particularly with having a trail right near that and kids going to school that's one of the worst things we can possibly imagine that's really the concern we wanted to raise but really glad to see all of this moving forward in the hard work of this group being successful look forward to talking to you more and hearing the responses from our written comments thank you Mr. Wilcox anyone else here in chambers please approach the podium good morning chair Koenig and commissioners speaking today for friends of the rail trail I'm going to address two items we raised in a letter to you on May 29th the first is our concern that the interim trail is in our opinion improperly treated as a distinct alternative the optional first phase interim trail is simply one portion of the entire plan for the rail trail project and the impacts assigned to the interim trail should reflect the cumulative impact of all phases of the project therefore any impact from the ultimate trail configuration should be common to the interim trail and we've raised specific issues around relocations and property acquisition and secondly utilities and emergency services with a more detailed description of our concerns in our May 29th letter lastly I'd like to speak about the regulatory regulatory requirements not noted in the draft EIR the interim trail requires the approval of abandonment by the surface transportation board and a negotiated agreement with the freight carrier of record before a certificate of interim trail use can be assigned can be issued additional approval by the California public utility commission also is likely to be required these approvals and requirements should be noted as an additional requirement under the optional first phase interim trail Sally Arnold in respect for the two minute limit is going to address the third topic in our letter so I'm going to turn it over to you and try and respect the two minute limit thank you thank you Mr. Farrell thank you I'm Sally Arnold also on the board of Friends of the Rail and Trail and I just want to say how exciting it was to see those renderings of a 16 foot wide trail going through Aptos that's fabulous and I know that's an incredibly wide bike and pedestrian trail unusual in our state to be that wide Paul we're reviewing the draft EIR related documentation we did notice some conclusions that were made one was that the auxiliary lane project has substantial environmental impacts some of with no chance of mitigation including the removal of over a thousand trees and over 2.6 mile stretch of highway and permanent impacts to grasslands live oak woodlands and coastal riparian zones it also noted that the auxiliary lane project the track for operations report showed that the morning commute on highway one will be made slightly worse by this project and that while the evening southbound commute will be improved in the near term by 2045 the southbound commute will be just as bad as it is now and this is because of the well documented phenomenon of induced travel colloquially if you build it they will come you've built a lane they're gonna fill it up with more cars the total cost of the highway widening project included and related projects is already known to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars and it might approach a billion dollars by the time this whole thing is completed we're raising these points to highlight that the common criticisms of rail proposed rail transit in Santa Cruz County are really just general criticisms of infrastructure development and are in no way unique to zero emission rail transit and trail projects all infrastructure projects are expensive they all have environmental impacts and none of them will eliminate traffic all we can do is offer people choices to get out of the traffic we cannot stop that traffic however it seems like some commissioners sometimes hold different projects to different standards and we hope that you will note that these are three problems common to all infrastructure projects and you will hold all projects to the same standards thank you thank you miss Arnold good morning RTC commissioners my name is Susan Cavallieri I want to remind you that the weather events of the recent past severe drought followed by multiple atmospheric rivers of this past winter will worsen in intensity as greenhouse gas emissions increase according to the 2022 Santa Cruz climate action and adaptation plan passenger cars contribute about 51.2% of county emissions reducing this traffic is essential for emissions reduction unfortunately widening highway 1 by adding auxiliary lanes will promote induced travel eventually increasing the number of cars on the road leading to more congestion and more emissions adding public transit to this plan will not encourage bus ridership as the bus will not encourage bus ridership because the bus will have access to a bus lane for a short distance before moving back into traffic this is not true bus on shoulder where the bus has its own dedicated lane and is not impeded by congestion as the bus is a better option drivers will opt to take the bus instead of driving you may be aware that LA is looking to pilot congestion pricing on roadways to include a section of freeway which would and I quote reduce harmful air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions by pushing more commuters to use public transit please prioritize true bus on shoulder for highway 1 to provide similar benefits for those who use our highway and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions at this critical time for our future thank you thank you miss cavalry is anyone else here in chambers that wish to address us I see you sir but if there's anyone else please go ahead and form a queue so we can get through the comments efficiently hi I'm Dan Holdren I've lived in sea class since 1960 I was instrumental in putting together the village plan we have a severe drainage problem that was tried to be addressed here and it hasn't been addressed as of yet my neighbor who's upstream from me Brad had to be on a jury today but the erosion is bigger than a car in many many places and it's collapsing I'd like to see this rail trail continue and I'm very supportive I just would like to see the downstream person be looked at because it's really affecting us as it is now the local motto is think local and I'm very blessed to have Mary Ann's as an anchor tenant they've been in business for over 70 years I'd like to see everything continue thank you thank you Mr. Holdren good morning everyone my name is Saladin Sayl I'm a resident of Santa Cruz I applaud the commission and staff for the remarkable progress that's been occurring since last year's crushing defeat of the Greenway proposal to permanently kill rail transit I wish to comment on the draft EIR last year's measure D election was hailed as finally putting a question of rail transit to a vote of the people unfortunately the same diehard anti rail zealots who promoted measure D are now suggesting the election results are not to be believed because the poor voters were confused if there was and remains any confusion about their failed trail only proposal it's because of the continued efforts to promote the so-called interim trail as a viable alternative to the ultimate trail next to electric light rail transit there is only the ultimate trail and the no build alternative the interim trail is a fantasy because federal approval to tear out tracks over the objections of a working railroad has no precedent the STB won't isolate roaring camp by allowing the removal of the tracks it needs to access the national rail network especially in the face of the opposition of 73% of the voters in the impacted area approval of the California PUC is also likely to be required and unlikely to be obtained the interim trail is thus not a viable option and would only mean stopping all the progress on rail or trail and entering a long legal fight for nothing more than the faint hope the property owners of the rail corridor might hit the jackpot with a payout for renegotiating rail easements to become trail easements the requirements of approval and abandonment are unique to the optional first phase interim trail s.7 needs to be revised to note these approvals and agreements thank you thank you mr. sale is there anyone else here in chambers seeing none is there anyone online Mr. Brian Peeples hi it's Brian from trail nail I want to I've already submitted our comments but I want to address the specific question that missioner rocken asked about parking lot ownership and Sarah statement was not correct and the property owners lawyer that property has sent multiple letters to the RTC commission and the specific legal ownership is by the property owner there RTC only has an easement and that easement specifically says freight train only you can't have a passenger train you can't even have a trail so it's important that staff be clear on that because it was very confusing that that was communicated that it's owned by the RTC it's not owned by the RTC there was actually a title error when the RTC purchased it the title company made an error and the new owner title company came back and showed the true record that it's an easement and it's freight train old so the likelihood of getting a trail taking out all that parking is not very likely this is just another example of how it's unrealistic to have a train and a trail going along the coast of corridor and this is why it's costing us so much time and so much money it's taking decades and it costs twice as much to build a trail as wide in the pipe so I encourage you to be look at that specific requirement on legal ownership of that parking lot thank you Mr. Peeples Jack Nelson Mr. Nelson yes I was just finding the on mute button there I'm Jack Nelson and so what about the environmental impact of continuing to widen highway 1 well let's start with the private passenger vehicle is the most energy intensive transportation mode and what's out there on the highway today is fossil fuel powered vehicles it's not electric cars which do also have their own high energy demand so in the time of climate change which the UN Secretary General calls a quote code red for humanity Santa Cruz County is spending a large portion of funds expanding the wrong transportation mode even though as other speakers have pointed out the commute will not be fixed so what might a moral philosopher say about this situation well, Ethlene D. Moore was in that role as a professor at Oregon State University and she's written several books on these environmental and moral questions and I think she might say that spoils down to a single sentence it's wrong to wreck the world now what will future human inhabitants of this planet say well, facing climate chaos and the possible breaking down of civilization I think they might be saying that expanding the global greenhouse is a crime against humanity and yet commissioners you have in front of you alternatives to address the public's money in getting us out of cars and onto other transportation modes you have that power, you're the decision makers where are you why aren't you speaking up about this climate crisis please understand, look see, have a heart thank you thank you Mr. Nelson Mr. Michael St. thank you Commissioner Koenig Michael St. here with CFST as you already know the Oxlame project has always been a bonap contention or CFST as well as other advocacy groups in Santa Cruz and I'll first start out my comments have already gone into Loris I'm not going to repeat what other people have been saying this is not a true bus on shoulder by any means the reason you say it's the only one, it's actually a hybrid system and it's never been tried anywhere before and there's a reason for that because no one really thinks it's going to work as designed I suggest, and we're not the only ones in the state, I would suggest you google San Diego's bus on shoulder project to see a true bus on shoulder which we aren't doing also there's been no alternative study done on this segment 12 as well as any other the Oxlame projects you're only comparing to no build alternative so that's a weakness in the EIR I would also like to remind all commissioners that we are supposed to be using the new CEQA guidelines which this EIR follows that it has to be under we are no longer required to use level of service which was the old way of doing planning CEQA guidelines include presently limiting vehicle miles traveled and thus lowering greenhouse gas emissions for transportation projects this EIR on this segment does none of that so our comments are in, I hope you take it seriously and the last word has not been said that's all I can say take care, bye bye thank you Mr. Sain Jean Brockelbank and then my husband Michael will also want to speak from this screen I thought this was a hearing on the environmental impact report but many speakers are using this as an opportunity to talk about everything but the inadequacy or inadequacy of the EIR as a document decision document I would like to make a correction a speaker earlier referred to the interim trail as an alternative in the EIR this is not true there is only one official alternative in this EIR to the proposed project and that is the no build alternative there is no interim trail alternative this is this is the basis of our complaint the EIR assumed there would be two bridges at each of two crossings over highway 1 there was no alternative that would have had only one bridge at both of those two crossings over highway 1 also we have submitted our formal comments already Caltrans has them the RTC has them and all of you commissioners now have them I will repeat the speaker before me and encourage you to take the time to read them they are in pdf form there is only two or three pages and we made some really excellent points on the adequacy excuse me of this environmental impact report the EIR does not pass muster thank you very much thank you Ms. Backelbank Mr. Michael Lewis yes thank you we have studied this very thoroughly over the past couple of weeks and it is very clear that the segment 12 component of this project was inadequately covered there are no plans for the segment 12 there are no plans that show the trees there is no tree inventory for segment 12 the segment 12 has gotten a short shrift in this there is no vigorous analysis of segment 12 in this EIR it is a very important insufficiency of this EIR it is clear that there are two projects there is segment 12 and then there is a highway they have different objectives they have different needs and they should be separated and conducted as two separate EIRs it was very puzzling why this was done but now after hearing the presentation tonight I come to understand that the segment 12 was added to the highway project in order to call this a multimodal project and that way have access to greater funding that is not adequate because of the nature of the two projects that are different there can be no reasonable alternative to the proposed project that covers both of those components of the project if you were to have a trail only alternative it would not apply to the highway part of the project so therefore you could not have an alternative that covers both segments both components of the project adequately so we suggest very strongly that you restructure this EIR so that highway one project is separated from the segment 12 project so you can do a rigorous analysis of both individually and come to conclusions of environmental impacts related to those specific projects, thank you thank you Mr. Lewis Mr. Rick Longinati I remunerate good morning commissioners I'm submitting comments on behalf of the campaign for stable transportation not to inform you of some of what those comments are about the EIR draft EIR is tiered from the tier one EIR that was completed in 2019 and that EIR was invalidated in court last summer as you might recall so if you're tiering from an EIR that was invalid you're not going to have a valid tier two EIR and the draft EIR as another speaker has said doesn't provide doesn't analyze project alternatives there's only the build alternative and the no build alternative and this is a violation of CEQA you need to analyze possible alternatives that would meet the objectives of the project and most egregiously the draft eliminates what it calls bus on shoulder only from further study that's genuine bus on shoulder that's a bus in its own lane on the highway and that was eliminated from further study unjustifiably the draft it tries to make an end run around the vehicle miles traveled analysis that's mandated by CEQA it's claims that these auxiliary lanes are exempt from that analysis and also exempt from mitigating increases in vehicle miles traveled so what we have here is a very badly flawed EIR that puts the other projects in jeopardy that are you know bike pedestrian and and transit projects that are part of the thrust of this of this effort as another speaker has said congested relief benefits will be non-existent in the morning direction and short lived in the afternoon peak direction thank you thank you Mr. Longinati Mr. Barry Scott that's her last speaker right thank you commission I am happy to see the documents made available and I want to say that I'm a supporter of the full project in its ultimate trail configuration even though I may not support highways as a rule that section is extremely narrow and it just makes sense to even out the width of the highway corridor I am opposed to single passenger vehicles but I'm happy that a third lane can be later committed to transit only or HOV or other greener uses but we need to straighten out the problem in Aptos and I support the full project that keeps the rail builds new rail bridges and keeps the ultimate trail deficiencies that I find in the EIR R2 even though it said that only one alternative and no build alternative is mentioned when I look at the summary cover summary and table content section I see for example summary of potential impacts from alternatives they mentioned build alternative optional first phase next to build alternative ultimate trail configuration and then the no build so I'm seeing three alternatives and the optional first phase should be treated differently it should include the full impact of all phases you can't just pretend there's an optional first phase and that's all there's going to be the other problem is an optional first phase would require rail banking and when I get down to the S7 page S12 the section S7 necessary permits and approvals I don't see the CPUC or the surface transportation board mentioned if you do anything if the RTC or Caltrans does anything that involves removing the rail line you've got to get those approvals so that's a second deficiency inclusion of the surface transportation board as a necessary approving agency that's all thank you thank you mr. Scott Paula Bradley Bradley sorry about that thank you I'm Paula Bradley I'm a Capitola resident and I would like to support proceeding with the final EIR EIR EA without further delay consistent with for the ultimate trail consistent with the will of the voters I prefer that the bus auxiliary lane be dedicated to public transportation not shared with vehicles resulting in inefficient public transportation with the buses stuck in gridlock with the vehicles I'd also like to thank the RTC staff who've done an outstanding job of obtaining funding to proceed with the project into the construction phase job well done thank you thank you miss Bradley Sean Sean are you there in addition to the lack of noting the cost of rail banking service show that the majority of the of the morning traffic is going beyond Watsonville Watsonville bears the brunt of the smog the wear and tear on the roads because all sources of pollution caused by drivers and just the increasing costs of repairing the infrastructure RTC is for the county so it's not just about Santa Cruz's needs and what some people like to refer to as Santa Cruz leaving out Watsonville and the only reason we talk about interim trail is because of the the Greenway board members on the RTC the language interim trail was because it was something that was you know continued to be put up as a as a possible alternative that that has been answered over and over again it's not an option the RTC is wasting money and time which is to the benefit and caused by the Greenway members on the RTC we need them forward and speak about things that you know our reality and are becoming a reality funded you know for those good reasons thank you Sean Diana D good morning I just wanted to um can you hear me yes yep we can hear you okay thank you there you go um good morning I just wanted to reiterate many of the comments that others in support of the ultimate trail have made um but I won't list all of those you've heard a lot of them you're getting a lot of letters and comments on this project I am in full strong support of like 73% of my the rest of my county in keeping the option for rail is not in the distant future we need to get this thing built and all these delays that have been caused by bringing up so called alternatives like the interim trail is wasting a lot of our money our staff time and we need to just move ahead with what the community wants and what the climate needs I don't need to go into that uh I really hope that you will recognize that both the federal and state government will be funding projects like this for a long time because that's what we have to do for the future of our county and for the world please keep that in mind thank you thank you Miss Diana that was our last speaker chair alright I'll turn to the commission item I don't know if there's any final comments or questions that have come up yes just one follow-up from one of the speakers who stated that this EIR is being tiered off the HOV EIR that was not my understanding my understanding is that this is a totally separate EIR is that correct you are correct in that it is a separate standalone for environmental analysis thank you very much alright seeing no other comments or questions from commissioners we'll close the public hearing thank you staff and consultant Mr. Zaviglia for the presentation thank you excellent presentation we'll now proceed with item 29 which is the potential Ghost Santa Cruz County Bicycle Incentives and for a presentation on this item we have Amanda Moreno and Amy Naranjo for the transportation planners I just have to share it on this side I'm not sure your mic's on alright good morning commissioners and members of the public my name is Amanda Moreno and I'm a transportation planner for the RTC I'm here today to provide an update on the proposed bike incentives pilot program and this is a part of the RTC's TDM program for Ghost Santa Cruz County the proposed purchase incentives included to low income individuals to assist them with purchasing regular bikes, electric bikes and also e-bike sharing services some of the reasons for developing the bicycle incentive pilot include helping people replace car trips with regular bike and e-bike trips to reduce VMT increasing access to bicycles for all income levels and reducing greenhouse gas emissions staff presented the proposed pilot program first shared with the commission back in April to the bicycle advisory committee and the interagency technical advisory committee the following slides incorporate updated criteria for the proposed pilot that was received by the RTC advisory committees, partner agencies and members of the public to participate in the program applicants should be 18 years or older and staff are considering including community serving organizations as eligible applicants this would potentially allow community serving organizations like shelters and job placement programs to initiate their own bike lending fleets incentives would be limited to one per individual or potentially a community organization applicants must live or work in Santa Cruz County and must provide proof of enrollment in a verifiable low income assistance program and lastly applicants must complete an online bike safety course along with a baseline survey applicants may request also a free helmet and light set with their voucher after completing the bike safety course and the baseline survey staff are recommending the following point of sale vouchers for the proposed incentive program a $300 point of sale voucher to purchase a regular bike $800 for a class 1, 2 or 3 e-bike and $1200 for a cargo or adaptive e-bike vouchers could be redeemed by any participating local Santa Cruz County bike retailer staff are recommending the inclusion of class 3 electric bikes to the list of eligible bikes class 1 includes pedal assist with a max assisted speed of 20 miles per hour class 2 is throttle assist with max assisted speed of 20 miles per hour and class 3 is a pedal assist without a throttle and a max assisted speed of 28 miles per hour to reduce the additional upfront cost eligible applicants whose employers are enrolled in ecology actions employer membership program can apply for a zero interest bike loan to cover the remaining upfront cost of purchasing a regular bike or an electric bike in addition, Bay Federal and Santa Cruz County credit union offer low interest bike loans to qualified applicants for the purchase of a new e-bike or regular bike and several local bike retailers also offer a ride now pay later deferred interest financing the regional electric bike share program is scheduled to launch later this month the city of Santa Cruz and UCSC it will then expand to Capitola Watsonville and the unincorporated parts of the county including Cabrillo College in early 2024 the county-wide working group leading the bike share efforts consists of representatives from the cities of Santa Cruz Capitola Watsonville the county UCSC and Cabrillo College were able to negotiate discounted annual membership rates with B-Cycle for UCSC students and affiliates staff are looking into ways to collaborate with the regional bike share working group as bike share expands throughout the county and potentially offer discounted annual or monthly memberships for low income individuals we'll have more information on this potential incentive in the coming months the pilot bike share program is likely to be funded through a combination of sources staff are preparing an application for the AB 2766 emissions reductions grant program to submit to the Monterey Bay Air District staff intends to request the maximum funding per project application which is $400,000 staff will also apply for the regional competitive funds from the RTC in the fall these funds could be used to supplement the potential funding from the AB 2766 grant program and help make bike voucher program available to more participants vouchers will be offered on a first come first serve basis until all funds are exhausted the more funding that the RTC can secure the greater number of vouchers that will be provided to the community funding for discounted rates for income funding, qualifying individuals for the regional electric bike share program is still to be determined to line up with the timing for the county wide launch to promote the pilot program staff are considering using a combination of bilingual online and offline marketing tactics this includes bilingual go Santa Cruz County bike incentives page and a new web page for the pilot program bilingual collateral materials including brochures and posters promoting the program at various local community events and festivals advertising the program through our various mailing lists social media channels and online ads partnering with local retailers to promote the program in store reaching out to local media outlets to generate buzz and awareness about the program furthermore staff is working to prioritize outreach efforts in south county to promote the go Santa Cruz County program and the bike pilot voucher program and areas were likely to be more income qualified individuals staff met with the city of Watsonville to collaborate on outreach efforts and strategize ways to engage with south county residents activities under development include signage for the Watsonville transit center go Santa Cruz County banner over main street in the Plaza we're also considering tabling advertising at the following events in south county which include the L. Mercado farmers market at Ramsey Park the Watsonville flea market local grocery stores affordable housing developments for example mid pen housing and Eden housing the Santa Cruz County Fair and the national night out staff recommends that the RTC direct staff to seek grant funds for a pilot bicycle incentive voucher program focused on lower income individuals to assist them with purchasing regular bikes e-bikes and e-bike sharing services thank you and that concludes my presentation thank you miss marina other comments or questions from commissioners commissioner shifrin as I remember there was a problem last time with the AB 2766 grant because of the concern that it didn't provide documentation that would reduce vehicle miles traveled what's being done to respond to that concern this time around yeah our our platform using cruise 5 1 1 we do have the capability to to get that data that they're looking for including carbon reductions and the vehicle miles traveled numbers that we that would reduce so that's that's what we're going to be included including in our grant application how will you do that so we'll be encouraging individuals who once they've received their vouchers to track their trips in our in our platform and so we have our commute rewards that are just kind of constantly encouraging incentivizing individuals to log those trips but we're also at the beginning of the voucher program we have a baseline survey that will then establish what are some of the their existing travel their travel behavior and then following up their follow-up survey so usually either at a six month and a year follow-up to try to figure out how they're riding their bike what they're using it for in getting some of those those metrics as well thank you that I think that's great and very going to be very important I'm very supportive of this whole effort and I think particularly that aspect of it that would provide discounted rates for the bike share program to people given as I think was mentioned before that for many individuals living in small units it's hard to store an electric bike or even regular bike so being able to use the bike share program at a affordable rate which may be a challenge is important so I'm definitely supportive of moving ahead as staff recommends thank you commissioner shifrin commissioner dois thank you chair I have two questions first if other incentives are available for folks that qualify for the voucher program can you stack those different incentives yes yes glad to hear that my other question is is the application process simple for both the the individual and for the business that might be selling the bike locally we yeah that the goal is to make it as simple as possible it'll be administered by ecology action and they have this process set up with the city of santa cruises program but that's our goal we really want to make it simple and provide materials that are easy to understand and very straightforward so that's our goal is to do that and this would cover the entire county yes yes thank you and excuse me commissioners if I may add part of our intent to is to make sure they provide assistance to applicants and completing applications and to include providing that assistance in Spanish to anyone who might be interested in using the program that cannot communicate well in English great thank you deputy director mendez commissioner hernandez so am I correct that the ETA for the rollout for south county is 2024 like is that summertime or the beginning of 2024 yeah they have I don't think they have a specific date but early 2024 I think is what they're shooting for but yeah they didn't have a specific time frame just that it'll be in 2024 but hopefully early 2024 okay I think you answered one of my questions who's going to administer the program is it going to be ecology action in south county as well yeah yes okay yeah there's probably two areas that are probably good to promote this when it rolls out in south county and there's the fiestas patrias which is two different dates May 5th and September 16th thousands of people go like seven eight thousand people probably more than the story festival for both those dates and mostly Spanish speakers and the other one is the you mentioned cabrillo but specifically working with the Watsonville campus too with the students there and also just working with the bike shop there I think we got one bike shop in the Watsonville Watsonville cyclary so it would be good working with them as well and that's it those are my only questions thank you Commissioner Hernandez Commissioner Rockin well I'm away for the public comments I just got to make a motion to realize that I was premature yeah I have a couple comments first of all I just want to applaud staff for the program and for us today in advance of this I was reviewed a document to talk about some of the best practices of these kinds of programs and I'm seeing them represented here including the fact that we're moving from a rebate to a voucher so that it's a lot easier for someone low income to take advantage of and also that we're focusing the program on low income individuals those are both cited as best practices and so I'm excited to see them incorporated here I had let's see it's also great that we're creating this centralized program the question I had is if we have over subscription or more applications then we can handle how might we prioritize folks to receive vouchers would it be based on lowest income first would it be on longest trips that they can solve for any sense of how we prioritize yeah I think we've generally been looking really at the first come first serve aspect there's just so many coming in and we're trying to do a balance of getting as many vouchers as possible while limiting the amount of administrative oversight that goes into something like this and so the more criteria we add the more review we're adding we're then taking money away from that program and putting it into staff time and so we're really just focusing on the distribution of first come first serve while also on the back and just kind of doing an inventory as far as where are these applicants coming from and making sure that we're addressing that saying if all of these applicants are still coming in from maybe the Santa Cruz area and we're really trying to do outreach in South County then that will tell us then that we need to up our game more in South County to get more applicants coming in okay great yeah I think that's a sound strategy to try to keep overhead low and ultimately get as much of this funding as possible into the hands of the people that need the vouchers my other question actually rather than for staff is sort of directed at Commissioner McPherson if he's online and I can't see his screen so I can't tell if he's perking up or not but it's related to central coast community energy I know that they had originally offered a bike rebate and as far as I'm aware they no longer are offering that rebate I was just curious if there has been any discussion with the policy board for central coast community energy of bringing that back because of its popularity I know that with the AMBAG or Moner Bay Air Resources District they had staff I think was recommending to get rid of their e-bike voucher program but then it was so popular and there was so much support from the rest of their board that they continued it so maybe I'm wondering if there's a potential to instigate the same sort of situation with 3CE since they do have some resources so Commissioner McPherson any where's the discussion? We did apply some of that we are going to have enough dated I can't remember when we have the executive board meeting later today but that would be decided then we will discuss further what we are going to do for such allocations in the near future but I can't give any specifics at this point Good to know that the discussion is happening I would certainly be in favor including in our action today just some communication with the Central Coast Community Energy Board officially speaking I know that you are a great representative on that board but just saying that we are taking best practices from these kinds of programs around the country trying to create a consolidated and easy to use program and we would appreciate any additional funding that Central Coast Community Energy can contribute to these kind of electric bike vouchers It's a good suggestion I think it would be great if the RTC sent a letter to triple CE to say what we have done and the program that we are promoting here and send it to 3CE and say that we would certainly love to have some financial support for this from triple CPE I think that would be a great I can recommend that we do that, I think that would be really great if we could Okay, sounds good We can address that when we bring it back to the commission For now I would like to open it up to public comment If you have a comment here in chambers please approach the podium Hello, good morning Good morning chair and commissioners I'm Claire Glogley, I'm the transportation planner for the City of Santa Cruz and we administer the Go Santa Cruz downtown program We have been operating our e-bike rebate program this is modeled off of for the last almost a year now and it's been incredibly successful We have a tiered rebate program that offers e-bike only rebates to both income qualified and non-income qualified individuals Our program is a little bit different in that since it's focused on downtown and focused on commuters our primary goal is to get as many people on bikes as possible and limit the barriers to entry We've heard incredible feedback about the point of sale system that it's a voucher, not a rebate and the degree of certainty that folks have using that The ability to stack these vouchers with other rebates that are available has been something that's led people to get deeper levels of discounts and lead them to purchase these bikes that are an investment but also lead to bigger changes in travel behavior And so we're really excited that the RTC is moving forward with this We're looking forward to partnering and continuing to promote this We have over 600 people that we have denied from our program who are not located within the downtown So there is an incredible latent demand outside of downtown for people who would immediately be willing and excited to jump on to this program To Commissioner McPherson's point the City of Santa Cruz would also love to write a letter to 3CE supporting expansion of their program And finally on a personal note with the help of two young kids my family has a cargo e-bike and we take our two kids to two different schools day care and elementary school and then to work frequently and those trips would just not be possible without having an e-bike and the ability for me to jump on with a one year old and an almost eight year old and be able to get from the west side to Seabright to downtown twice a day is something that makes our trips so I'm looking forward to seeing more people have that ability and looking forward to seeing this program roll out so thank you very much Thank you Ms. Gorgley Anyone else here in chambers? Yeah please approach the podium Good morning chair and commissioners I'm Joanna Edmonds I'm the transportation coordinator at the City of Santa Cruz but today I wanted to speak as a live oak resident and a recipient of one of the Go Santa Cruz e-bike rebates as well as I was lucky to be still operating there so I got to use both This made a huge impact on our daily commutes I'm a very experienced bike commuter and a regular bike I started riding my bike to school in middle school as a student at UCSC and as an adult in this community I've tried to ride my bike as much as possible whenever I could fit that in as an alternative to driving and I've had many times where I was out of transportation and I had no car even with all that experience and being in this field of work I hit a road block with bike commuting when I became a mother having two little kids like others have experienced having daycare and schools in different locations it's very challenging with a regular bike and as your kids grow they can't fit in the trailer anymore and they get heavier so I first heard about e-bikes and cargo e-bikes that you could fit one or two kids on the back and with the assistance of the electric battery you would be able to ride a bike much easier with all that extra weight on the back however for my family it wasn't financially attainable until I was able to get these bike rebates and the zero interest loan for those bike shops as well as through ecology action so last year when I was able to get these rebates and that loan it changed everything for our commutes now I have an e-bike I can fit my 2 year old and my 6 year old on the back of it I can easily go to multiple places with them and drop them off before I get to work this morning for example I dropped both kids off at different locations in Live Oak and I was able to get here in less than 30 minutes and it would have been a long time as it would have been in a car purchasing an e-bike has been a game changer for us and in the last nine months since we've had the e-bike including as we're all aware lots of rainy months when riding an e-bike wasn't really possible because we would get soaked we've still been able to clock 400 miles almost on our bike odometer without ever having to get in a car for those 400 miles so that's a huge difference please continue your support of this program and expanding it so other county residents can also benefit from it the rebate program is an effective way to lower the barriers to e-bike ownership for people who just wouldn't be able to afford it otherwise and it's a really easy way for you to make an immediate impact to reducing drive alone trips in our county at a time when that's so important to our community thank you I'm Sally Arnold and I want to say that I'm on the bicycle advisory community to the RTC and we really enjoyed the presentation that was done a couple of weeks ago about this and I just really wanted to thank the staff I see that they really incorporated a lot of the suggestions that were made at the time and it's nice to feel like our participation was valued one of the things that came up in our discussion at the BAC was the idea about this the importance of including some subsidy for people who might want to try the bike share program and it is partly we thought it was a good idea partly for the reasons that Mr. Schifrin presented about places to store something safely so it's not going to get stolen that's not always available to everybody but also for people who are like I don't know about the biking thing they can try it with a bike share and if they learn to like it then they might be willing to move to bike ownership a transitional kind of low barrier to entry way for people who are not confident about how biking might be useful to them and you know like other people here I bike for a lot of my trips I bike down here today and it's really it's just a great way to move around the county and I think it's great that you guys are considering making it available and encouraging more people to do it thank you thank you Ms. Arnold good morning chair again from friends of the rail and trail we just want to thank commission staff and those working on bike share county wide for bringing this proposal forward we think as you develop infrastructure in the community like the rail trail encouraging use of bicycles across class race and gender is a very important part of that activity so thank you for considering this program thank you Mr. Farrell alright so no one else here in chambers is there anyone online who should address us ecology action good morning confirming you can hear me yes hi good morning everyone this is Matt Miller with ecology action I'm a senior program specialist over there and help run the city of Santa Cruz go Santa Cruz e-bike rebate first just want to thank everybody Amy and Amanda for making quick work of this over the last couple of months taking this around and collecting feedback and incorporating it very actively so above all else I just want to you know once again commit my support for this type of program the level of interest and impact we've seen from the very small downtown parking district program has been incredible and like Claire mentioned we're well over 700 people now who are sitting in the denied category who are not eligible and we think that's probably a fraction of the overall interest across the county so we could be looking at potentially thousands of people who are lining up to get an e-bike incentive so this is a great opportunity to meet current demand let alone demand that could be created as a result of a program that comes online a couple things that I want to point out that was from the presentation I think making truck tracking work as a requirement would be really great just to fully understand and appreciate the impact and since the program since the tracking through cruise 501 and ride amigos is in place I think that would be a great compliment in addition to baseline and purchase surveying at multiple stages I also want to point out that Jules Mondihano who's the owner of Watsonville Cyclery is primed on this program and is excited about it has already been thinking about reaching out to additional e-bike manufacturers to carry other brands so big picture I think this is a great idea looking forward to having conversations and trying to support the rollout countywide thanks everyone thank you Mr. Miller Ms. Jean Brockelbank hi this is Michael Lewis this time while I'm a strong supporter of encouraging bicycling throughout the county can you hear me? okay while I'm a strong supporter of bicycling throughout the county I have a perspective to offer some cautions for getting more people on bicycles especially the electric motorized bicycles Jean and I walked through out the county on sidewalks in the neighborhoods from 41st avenue to downtown Santa Cruz and we frequently encounter bicycles bicyclists riding on the sidewalk and recently we've encountered motorized bicycles on the sidewalk consider that class 2 bicycles can travel at 20 miles per hour and class 3 consider bicycles can travel at 28 miles per hour if you're driving in a car that seems like that's pretty slow but if you're on foot that's terribly fast and the bicycles on the sidewalk especially the big motorized bicycles are threatening to motorists not only just fear but for physical the possibility of physical injury we recently encountered a motorized bicycle on the sidewalk that had we been a few seconds earlier it would have struck us because it was on a corner where we couldn't be seen so we're asking that not only to promote bicycles but we also want to promote a county-wide ordinance to prohibit e-bikes and all of their bicycles from sidewalks in the county just as the case is in Watsonville and as the case in commercial areas in Santa Cruz if we're going to encourage walking in our community as well as bicycling we need to make sure that it is safe for pedestrians to walk on the sidewalks without fear of being struck by a fast-moving bicycle a heavy, wide fast-moving bicycle that could offer severe injury and potentially even death to pedestrians thank you very much thank you Mr. Lewis P. at Cannon good morning Commissures and staff and commission for looking at these programs to get more people on electric bikes and regular bikes and bike share bikes it's just so crucial and I encourage you to put as many resources towards this program one of the reducing VMT and these programs are showing that they do reduce VMT there's a program in Denver that just started about a year ago and they've already had 6,000 people that have purchased electric bikes through that program and their data today shows that those people each individual uses on average 26 miles a week a bike and they take 3.4 trips per week and those are trips that are replacing hard-to-go bikes we'll watch you for a second but I think you're back okay sorry about that and so you know Ecology Action actually administered the program way back when in early 2000s for e-bike incentive program that the RTC ran and we did baseline surveys we did follow-up surveys at least two follow-up surveys of the participants 100 people participated in that program so that was successful in the day when the electric bikes weren't that good so I just want to say moving forward to work with you know the experts or the experienced folks in the field to advance this program and to do it so we can reach the people who need it the most you know that are burdened by the high cost of transportation and this is the way to reduce so and one last thing about safety the Ecology Action program has a safety component built into it so participants are asked to take a short safety class and get quizzed on it to verify they took that class so we have a safety element built into it so thank you very much thank you Mr. Cannon and our last speaker Sean you might have hung up Sean if you're there go ahead I think we lost him here we go here give me one second there's another hand up Sean Sean we cannot hear you alright there we go alright yeah go ahead if looking for if you want to help that program grow as far as giving giving deep discounts for bicycles and e-bikes I suggest reaching out to a local non-profit BiviCart with two V's excuse me BiviCart helps provide bikes and sometimes carts for at-risk and homeless veterans they could definitely use some partners to help to help reach more people they've got plenty of equipment they could use some mechanics but they also are looking for more clients to get more stuff away to I have one question during the presentation I heard the phrase adaptive bikes so I'm wondering if that's hand cycles I'm wondering if that's for people with disabilities to use and some years ago the RTC announced a partnership with a a Monterey program to help provide 2,000 bicycle parking spaces including including lockers so seeing how these projects have been successful and this one's anticipated to be even more successful that might be an option for the future if we can show that it's needed I can see how that would help if along the rail line for instance those bicycle parking spaces and lockers were populated as well as parks and other frequently visited places that was our last speaker would staff be able to comment what's meant by an adaptive bike yes so an adaptive bike would be used by someone with disabilities so it could be any sort of bike like that okay great thank you Grisha Rackett so first to comment when you got 6 or 700 people stacked up that are waiting for this thing to happen it's absolutely critical that the advertising program you have which is a really good one in Watsonville particularly happened for a couple of weeks or something before you open the date because otherwise bam 600 people will do it and that's the end of Watsonville so that's just one suggestion I think really strongly after that I will move the staff recommendation direct staff to write a letter to 3CE requesting their participation in support of the program I'll stop there go ahead okay we have a motion by Commissioner Rodkin a second by Commissioner Schifrin I will just point out I think typically like a letter would be written from the commission itself rather than staff so coming from the chair of the board as a representative my motion to reflect that okay thank you I have a couple of comments suggestions while I can really appreciate a first come first serve approach administratively I think since there is a desire to really spread these around and the city of Santa Cruz has such an advantage because of the programs it had it may make sense to allocate a certain proportion of the funding to other areas of the county particularly in the south county the second thing I wanted to suggest the discussion about having this bike share program countywide has been going on since before the pandemic it's very complex because the unincorporated area is very large and where you store the bikes how you get the bikes it's been a difficult problem to solve and I think it's become it's been so difficult to solve that the city of Santa Cruz and the university which have the experience with this program have really just said okay we're moving ahead and I guess my suggestion both to staff and maybe representatives from Watsonville and maybe Capitola is that they really talk to their staffs about moving forward more quickly with a program within their own communities they're much more bounded it's much more easy to control and they I remember the staff report it was going to be later in 2023 that we're going to have the countywide and this is just at the Board of Supervisors we've been getting reports over the years about how this contract is working out it's a tricky contract and it's understandable why it's taking so long but it seems a shame that the city of Santa Cruz is going to be able to move forward the staff is moving forward with obtaining funding for it and yet some of the cities which are sort of the where population is concentrated are not moving forward with their own program so I think it's worth considering that working with the public works directors in the cities to see if there's some way to kick start the program within their communities while we wait for the countywide one which hopefully will be coming forward in the not too distant future so I support the motion okay thank you and just to clarify I mean my staff is welcome to clarify but my understanding is we've signed a single contract as a unified group of cities and county with B-Cycle as the bike share operator and so the phase roll out I think it's just in some respects was part of that contract already and part of negotiations to just ensure the smoothest roll out possible and I agree I'm certainly eager to see it rolled out in the unincorporated area but I respect the complexity of the contract Jack has a comment thank you as representative from scott's valley I have a strong interest in participating in the bike sharing program but I understand we just got so much going on but there's some interest there so and we certainly have a growing bike community I am wondering the grant funds that are being sought particularly for the bike sharing program the staff what it looks like in your comments look like that's all about helping the folks get that would ride the bikes the e-bikes I'm wondering is any of that money available for what I'll call the infrastructure that needs to go in to accommodate the bike sharing so at the moment the grants that we're going to be applying for are just going to be for the point of sale vouchers for the e-bikes regular but in purchasing the bikes and not not for the e-bike sharing program so we want to work with the workgroup to kind of to find out what exactly would we're going to be offering and then we're going to have to go seek separate things or maybe from the RTC discretionary funding in the fall so we don't have that funding yet but we'll definitely be updating the commission on once we have that in details so we could be part of that discussion and obviously so yeah okay and just to be clear I'm very supportive of the motion so thank you thank you Commissioner Tullis, Commissioner Rockton just to clarify the motion this motion leaves staff some discretion in terms of how they roll this program out Andy's suggestion earlier for example Commissioner Schiffern's suggestion that you know because Santa Cruz has such a head start on this we have to and I made the comment about advertising it before you let it loose nothing prohibits you from holding back a certain number of these and stuff to see you know what happens with folks in Watsonville and so forth what it doesn't do is the you know let's start figuring out people's income levels and who you know as your argument was let's not spend our energy and money and time on staff to process this whole thing so it doesn't open that possibility but you have a lot of discretion about the way this actually gets rolled out and I didn't set a timeline on how much how long it has to be advertised in Watsonville before you can open it up to the public and so forth so that that's up to staff to work those details out you for the clarification you've got some clarification I maybe misheard what staff said about the funding that's being applied for my understanding was that it was going to be applied for both the voucher program and the bike share program is that correct yeah it's generally it's where we're trying to figure out what that fund amount we would be we would be offering for the bike share membership so as part of the whole negotiations that the working group did to get those discounted rates for UCS students they had they're working together had some years of negotiations there RTC wasn't involved in those conversations or wasn't a part of that and so trying to go in now into this it's going to take some time to figure out how we can get those discounted memberships and so we're trying to align that and potentially have this entire pot of funding for these different elements okay their response earlier was to the question of whether we would spend this money to subsidize the actual racks and placements of the bicycles themselves and that's done by the private sector I think my question is in the grant application to the Air Board will part of the funding be that's being applied for be available for the bike share program that's our intent okay that's all I'm concerned about thank you thank you Commissioner Schifrin alright if there are no other comments or questions we have a motion from Commissioner Rock in the second by Commissioner Schifrin for adoption of the recommended actions with additional direction for the chair to send a letter to 3CE encouraging them to continue offering funding for these sorts of voucher programs if there's no further discussion roll call vote please Commissioner Peterson Commissioner Sandy Brown I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I