 Commissioner Bertrand, Commissioner Sandy Brown, Commissioner Johnson, Commissioner Montecino. I'm sorry, I see Commissioner Alternate Hearst. Right here. Commissioner Caput, Commissioner Alternate Hernandez, Commissioner Alternate Schifrin, Commissioner Koenig, Commissioner McPherson, Commissioner Kristen Brown, Commissioner Alternate Quinn, Commissioner Parker, Hearst, and Commissioner Rodkin. You have a quarrel. Thank you. We will now move on to all communications as a time for members of the public on items on today's agenda. Again, here. Yeah, my microphone is off. Is there a button in there? It says on Zoom that we're still in a practice session. I don't know because we're hybrid, if this is supposed to be. I'll use this time to say that this is our first hybrid meeting. And so we are working on logisticating and making sure the meeting runs smoothly. And so we'll do our best to keep things moving along. But we may we probably will learn some things along the way. Thank you for your patience. OK, so you. Yesenia's mic is muted now. So if you're still speaking, Chair Brown, we can't hear you. OK, and I don't know that I can. Can I do anything about that? Thank you. So now members out in the virtual audience can now hear me as well as members in the chambers. Great. OK. So speakers, you may come up and I'll ask that you just state your name clearly so it can be recorded accurately for the minutes. And we are using a system that is not totally within our control at the moment. So we are going to be doing two minutes for all communications. Thanks. Thank you. My name is Barry Scott. I live in Aptos and I'm just delighted to be back in person. And I thank the Commission for permitting hybrid meetings to continue to because we can't all all of us always get down here. It's great to see you all. I just wanted to speak to real briefly that the the defeat of measure D and the the implications of that and having to do with the trail, which I don't think is on the agenda anywhere. During the last open house that I attended at Live Oak Elementary, I several of us actually were asking about alternatives through Capitola only to be told that measure L prevents a lot of what might be better alternatives than the trail next to the tracks. For example, along Park Avenue, wouldn't it be wonderful to at least study widening Park Avenue to include a buffered microwave, a safe, separate at grade connecting to all the side streets, like way instead of forcing it down with the tracks, but measure D, measure L, Capitola measure L prevents that from being studied or considered. And with the 70, almost 75 percent defeat of the Greenway measure D, one wonders if we might not be able to launch an effort to undo Capitola measure L. How how sad that the capitol of voted itself into a position which actually removes options and they may suffer from having a much better trail because of that measure. So I hope I hope the community will think about ways to undo measure L. Thanks. Thank you. Welcome. Thank you. So great to be here. Good morning, RTC staff and commissioners. My name is Lonnie Faulkner and I'm the director of equity transit. And I live in District One. As this is the first regular RTC meeting after the June 7th election, I want to reflect that Greenway's measure D definitively lost the election. Despite confusing and misleading messages, our community became actively involved in understanding this ballot measure and our vote was decisive. The majority of people in our community do not want to eliminate rail from the general plan. We do not want to rip out our tracks. We do not want to trail only and we do not want adverse abandonment against Roaring Camp. What our county's clear opposition to Greenway's measure D does mean is that we absolutely do want clean light rail as soon as possible, easily accessible, dependable, frequent public transit services are way forward into the future we need right now. It is what we've needed for decades. Climate changes upon us and we need to get people out of their cars. The taxes we all pay to build roads and highways do not benefit all people in our communities equally, as many people cannot afford the high cost of driving a car. A lack of robust public transit in this country is the number one barrier to better education, better jobs, voting and overall access to opportunity. Light rail for our community will address unmet needs and equity in the environment and connect us to the California Rail Network, California State Rail Network. We appreciate the efforts of the RTC staff and commissioners to move forward in support of the mandate to set forth by our community, set forth by our community's majority vote. Thank you so much today. Thank you for your comment. I'll turn to you, Sonia, or do we have callers? Yes, we do. OK. And I'm not able to see whose hands are raised. So if you could just call those out, that would be great. I will say, well, oh, there we go, I can see them now. Thank you. So I just did want to say we do have an item later on on today's agenda on regular business about moving forward with an environmental impact report for the Santa Cruz branch rail line. And so well, that's people will have an opportunity to speak on that as well later today. And so again, oral communications, a time for items not on the agenda. And with that, I will call on Jack Nelson. OK, let me try that again. Good morning, commissioners and RTC staff, members of the public. I'm Jack Nelson. I'm a retired land use planner and environmental planner, local professional and I can't see you. I'm not in the room with you and I don't know if you can see me, but I hope you hear my voice in your August meeting now. We now have a tale of two measure D's, the measure D that was just defeated resoundingly on a pretty much single issue. And the voters I think are messaging you. Yes, we want to keep the rail option going, if not at least available, if not moving forward right now. But there's another measure D, as you know, that passed in 2016, the Transportation Sales Tax Measure. Now, I've heard some commissioners saying, well, we should proceed with widening Highway One because the voters approved measure D and told us they wanted. I'd like to point out that that measure D was quite a grab bag of mixed items and was not really marketed as widening Highway One. It did include on the list reducing Highway One congestion. But on my ballot, it started off saying safety, hot hall repair, traffic relief, transit improvement measure, and then a smaller print started off in order to improve children's safety around schools. So you get my point. There were a lot of reasons that people voted for that measure D. And some people I know told me who were bike advocates. They wanted the money for bike facilities that the Highway One widening was a better pill to swallow. So I suggest there is a limit on how much you can really say what was voted for on that measure D. Thank you. Thanks for listening. Thank you, Mr. Nelson. Our next speaker is Michael St. OK, thank you, Chair Brown, Michael St. with Campaign for Sustainable Transportation. I just wanted to remind everybody that CFST is not a litigious advocacy group in the 22 years of our being originally being sensible, transportation and switching to sustainable transportation. This is our second litigation and actually it also had to do with the Oxlain Projects back in 2010. Mr. St., I'm sorry to interrupt you. I know you're very familiar with the Oral Communications format. We do have this item on our agenda leader today. We will be revisiting the decision on the Highway Environmental Impact Report. OK, that was just my introduction. OK, sorry. Leah, I'll go to something not on the agenda. Go for it. Thank you. OK, no problem. We all know that car eccentric projects are going to fail. None of them meet any of the promises to get Santa Cruz moving. In the past few years, we've had experts that have spoken. This was called the Innovators in Transportation. We had four speakers. Nothing about highway widening was mentioned at that time. We also had a unified quarter investment study. The public spoke up there and chose Choice B, which was primarily mass transit. That was gutted by staff and replaced by staff's preferential choice, which put back in the car eccentric projects. We also had some a little bit of light to the day for the CFST people when they did the bus feasibility study back in 2016. We were so happy when a commissioner came to us with a report that the bus on shoulder was possible, especially four miles of the southbound shoulder, the RTC voted and put the bus project in the Oxlain project, making the bus on shoulder ineffective to relieve congestion. We need to bite the bullet and tell the truth about these projects that they will all fail. All of these studies and presentations, the RTC reverted back to Oxlain project and the future HOV EIR. All of these studies and presentations were to help Santa Cruz to get moving, but were ignored by the RTC. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. St. Okay, I see a member of the commission has a hand up and we are in oral communications right now. I will call on Commissioner Caput. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. I just wanted to say hello to Jack Nelson and we've got to get together again, okay? It's good to hear your back and participating in the community affairs. Thanks, Jack. Okay, yes, I agree. It's good to hear your voice, Mr. Nelson. Okay, we move on now. Do we have any item three as additions or deletions to our agenda? Do we have any additions or deletions? We have no additions or deletions, Madam Chair, but we do have some handouts. We have a handouts for items eight, 24 and 25 and those are all posted to our website. The handout for item 24 included a draft scope of work and I know there was a lot of public interest in that. There's also a replacement page for item 15. Thank you. Okay, we will now move on to our consent agenda. All items appear one moment. I see another hand up. I'll call on Commissioner Parker before we move on. Hi, thank you. You know, I'm not seeing anybody that's live. So when we just see Yesenia's. So when we hear voices, if we don't know who you're specifically referring to, then it's just, I mean, we can kind of guess who it is. So is there a way that they can either just say, hey, this is, you know, say their name or you can refer to them when you, when they answer. I'd really appreciate that. Unless there's some other way that I should be looking at it for this hybrid. I'll do my best to track that and. I appreciate that. Commissioners know who's speaking. Thanks. Thank you. We are working on the technical challenges. Okay. And yes, we are working on the technical challenges. So no criticism intended just trying to help the flow go. Thank you. Okay. This is Mike Rottgen. I do know there's technology that would allow us to have another camera that could then be integrated into this because I've been on a call where someone did that. So it's out there somewhere at least for future meetings. All right. We will, we will get there. We will definitely get there. Thank you for the recommendation. All right. So we will now move on to our consent agenda. This is items four through, I'm scrolling 19 on today's agenda. All items on the consent agenda are considered to be minor, will be acted upon in one motion. If no member of the RTC or public, which is an item to be removed and discussed on the regular agenda. So you may members of the commission may raise questions, see clarification and add direction to consent agenda items without removing them as long as no other commissioner objects to that change. So I will now open it up and ask if there are items that folks would like to have removed from the agenda. And I see Deputy Director Mendez has your, you have your hand up. Yes. I know, I've had a chair. One of the commissioners asked a couple of questions about one of the items on the consent agenda item 15, the channel performance artists and he asked me to say something about those questions. I was primarily having to do with the recommendations of the prior audits that one of the findings is that not all the recommendations were met during the audit period. And the reason for that was many timing. So the recommendations were met subsequently, but it was after the audit period. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. This is in a connection with item 15, the Transportation Development Act, fiscal years 2018-19 and 2020 through or to 2020-21 Triennal Performance Audit Report. Okay, thank you. Are there additional questions on items that are on our consent agenda and or commissioners who would like to pull an item? Okay. Seeing none, I will open up the floor for motion. When asked the public. Oh, thank you. I'm gonna get this down. I really am. So are there any members of the public who would like to speak on any items on our consent agenda? Seeing none in the audience. This is agenda second. Mike Rodkin second. We have an attendee, Brian Peoples. Okay, we have one public comment on the consent agenda and I will call on Mr. Peoples. Hi, this is Brian Peoples with Trail Now. Addressing item number eight in full support of RPC staff. They're basically dealing with progressive rail that is working hard to leave Watsonville because of the poor business opportunities for freight. They have limited business there. So I would expect that the Santa Cruz taxpayers may end up paying that bill, unfortunately. But I think we need to start realizing that there is no significant freight and that's why progressive rail is working hard to leave our Watsonville operations. Thank you very much, over. Thank you. Okay, returning back to the commission. I heard a motion and a second. Do we have a motion earlier? I'll make a motion to approve. We do have a motion, Commissioner Caput. The motion was made by Commissioner Schifrin, seconded by Commissioner Rockin, I believe, and we'll take a roll call vote on that. Commissioner Bertrand. I approve. Commissioner Sandy Brown. I. Commissioner Johnson. I. Commissioner Alternate Lowell first. I vote I. Commissioner Alternate Hernandez. You're muted, Felipe. Felipe, you're muted. Commissioner Alternate Schifrin. I. Commissioner Alternate Quinn. Yes. Commissioner McPherson. I. Commissioner Christian Brown. I. Commissioner Parker. Yes. And Commissioner Rockin. I. This is unanimously. And for the record, I. I'm sorry, Commissioner Koenig. Thank you. All right. So we will now move on to our regular agenda and we'll start with item 20, commissioner reports. Are there commissioners who have something to report or the commission and the public today? Okay. Seeing none, we'll move on to our director's report. This will be an oral report from Director Preston. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to start today with a little housekeeping. First, I'd like to thank our new transportation planner, Matt Schroeder and our more seasoned senior planner, Rachel Morakoni for this month's legislative update, which was item 13 on today's consent agenda. Within the report, it's a couple of items that I'd like to call your attention to. First, the Pajaro station project, including segment 20 of the rail trail was not awarded funding from the transit and inner city rail capital program or TERSP. We applied for that funding recently and the awards just recently came out. Staff has a debrief scheduled with CTC staff on why the project was unsuccessful and whether this project would be a good candidate for future rounds of TERSP funding or whether there will be more appropriate funding sources for these projects, which have strong community support. In addition to mentoring Matt on legislative issues and Rachel is also mentoring Amy Naranjo on programming, Rachel will be transitioning out of these two roles and leading RTC's upcoming equity planning efforts as a result of our successful Caltrans planning grant for the study. Next, I would like to thank our administrative staff led by Yuseni Oparo with assistance from Krista Corwin and Cindy Convisser on all their hard work throughout the pandemic and putting together our agenda packages, transitioning to 100% virtual meetings and now today transitioning to a hybrid meeting format. Our intent is to continue to make AB 361 findings so that we can continue to meet in this fashion. As of now, the only facility that could host RTC's hybrid meetings is county chambers which we are occupying today. So last week we had conflicts in booking this room but we are able to get those conflicts resolved and we'll be able to use this room for the remainder of this year's regular RTC meetings. We are currently working on next year schedule and I have more information as we get the PAC calendar booked. We're also working on changing the date of the next budget administrative and personnel committee meeting. I believe there's been some conflicts with some of commissioner calendars. I'd like to announce the segment 7 phase 2 groundbreaking. The city of Santa Cruz and RTC invite the community to celebrate the very exciting groundbreaking for the Coastal Rail Trail segment 7 phase 2 on Thursday, August 11th from 1215 to 1245 at Lob Barranca Park and that's at 700 Bay Street near the intersection of California Avenue. The project is the second phase of the rail trail project connecting the phase 1 trail that currently ends at the intersection of Bay and California and extending it down to the existing cycle track and pedestrian facilities at the Santa Cruz Wharf. Santa Cruz Mayor Sonia Bruner will preside at the event. Speakers include RTC chair and city council member, Sandy Brown and RTC commissioner and county supervisor, Ryan Coonerty amongst others. Free ballet service will be offered courtesy of bike Santa Cruz County and we do encourage people to bike to the event or walk if possible, but if it's not possible and street parking is not available, attendees may park free of charge at the United Methodist Church at 250 California Street and I hope to see you at the celebration. And then one last announcement, Santa Cruz Metro has hired a new general manager on Monday, April 25th, new general manager, Mike Tree took over the reins at Santa Cruz Metro. Mr. Tree has more than 27 years of experience in the public transit industry and local government management. This most recent experience has executive director of the Livermore Almond or Valley Transit Authority focused on increasing the agency's transportation options to improve ease of use and connectivity for riders. His leadership resulted in an increased number of rapid routes with 15 minute all day frequency as well as expanded travel options for passengers with disabilities. While executive director at Lafta Tree also served as executive director for the Tri Valley San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority a new rail authority created by the state of California to plan and deliver the 42 mile seven station valley link commuter rail project. Mike and I have met several times since his appointment Mike has offered his support for RTC's efforts to advance passenger rail and Santa Cruz branch rail line. And is also looking for opportunities to maximize the benefits of bus transit improvements that RTC is advancing on highway one and on Soquel Drive. We have toured the rail line together and met with key staff at Caltrans Division of Mass Transit and Rail to discuss rail transit funding options moving forward. Mike is here today and if acceptable to you, Madam Chair, I would like to invite him to the podium to say a few words about our plans to work collaboratively to improve transit options here in Santa Cruz. All right, thank you very much. With that, I would invite Mr. Tree up to address the commission. Welcome. Thank you. Great to have you on board. Appreciate it. It's been a whirlwind of three months and as soon as I got here, I had an opportunity to touch base with each of the board members at Metro. I'm excited for what lies ahead with Metro. I think there's lots of opportunities and many of them being really transformational. So I'm excited to be here, excited to work with you. I would like to tell you that I've been just really grateful for Guy Preston and for his staff. When I came on board, I asked for a quick meeting and the download on what projects of significance RTC was working on. And certainly your rail project was one of them. Guy took a whole day. And as he mentioned, we toured the line and I've never been so exhausted at the end of a day in my entire life. Matter of fact, I got on a weight loss program at Kaiser and have lost 23 pounds, Guy, since that day that we walked that line. But I'm excited to assist and really positive comments from Caltrans, from their division of mass transit and rail as we talked about upcoming projects. And in particular, your potential rail line. And I would just like to say that I fully support the recommendations that staff has before you today on your packet. And with that, I just want to appreciate the opportunity again to introduce myself and thank you, Guy. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Thank you for your work. And we look forward to moving forward on collaborating towards an integrated public transportation system in our community and all of the improvements that that entails. Okay. With that, we will move on to the item 22 is the Caltrans report. And I am not sure who is present to give that report. I only see certain faces on my screen. So- It's a brandy writer. Brandy writer. Hello, Brandy. Ms. Rider, you're up. Great. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, commissioners. Brandy writer here, office chief for transportation planning in Caltrans district five. I have a couple of announcements. The first one being, I'm sure many of you have already heard that Caltrans has a brand new director, Tony Taveras. He's coming from us or coming to us as our new director from district seven where he was district director. He's also been district director in our Oakland district as well. And as he joins us, he's bringing a, we recently introduced a fourth foundational principle for our agency, which is economic prosperity in our community. Caltrans knows that the compliance of jobs, housing, safety and a clean California as well as access helps deliver the infrastructure necessary for a community to thrive economically. Some of the areas that we continue to make a priority are SB1 projects as well as our small business and participation. We are looking, you know, in investing in transit and intercity rail program, active transportation and continuing our clean California initiative. Some other areas of priority for our agency, people experiencing homelessness and as well as the broadband middle mile initiative which is taken front and center with a lot of the new funding coming to us with broadband. I'd also like to announce some protect funding. So FHWA recently announced a new protect formula program which is bringing about 7.3 billion to communities to build resilient infrastructure with that funding are not only capital improvements but also planning dollars and Caltrans is going to be as part of our transportation planning program going to be augmenting that planning grant program with dollars that will focus directly on adaptation and resiliency planning efforts statewide. So as our transportation planning grant program is announced in the next coming months and all of the materials start to come out for workshops you'll see a very strong emphasis on resiliency statewide. And then finally, their FTA announced additional bipartisan infrastructure law funding to make public transportation and rail stations accessible for all. They've announced approximately 343 million available for the fiscal year 2022 in grants for all stations and accessibility program. The NOFO for that is going to has been released. And so we'll be working with your agencies on any letters of support or any materials as we proceed forward with a lot of these new federal funding programs. At that time I have availability to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you, Ms. Ryder. Are there questions from commissioners? I do see Commissioner Caput, you have your hand up. Thank you. I just wanted to thank Brandy for the work that has started over on Highway 152 and Hulahann at College Road in Watsonville. We've been waiting a long time for that and it's good to see the trucks out there and it'll be a great improvement for a South County at that intersection. It's not too far from the county fairgrounds. So thanks a lot. And I think Lowell sees the work going on out there also. And Ari, thank you. All right, thank you, Mr. Caput. I know that that's one that you definitely have been thinking of for a long time so I'm glad to hear it's moving forward. Are there any other commissioners with comments or questions for Caltrans? Okay, I will take it out to members of the public and I do see one hand raised. I think it's possible that Mr. Sandoval was planning to speak on an earlier item but if that's the case, please go ahead and do that now, Mr. Sandoval. And I apologize if I missed you. I'm sorry, we're having a little bit of trouble hearing you. You're not breaking up but a little bit muffled. Can you repeat that? We lost. Sorry, I didn't mean to raise my hand, thank you. Oh, okay, okay, wonderful. So we will move on now to our next item which is an update on Scotts Valley Projects and we will invite Chris Lamb from Scotts Valley Department of Public Works to give that update for us. I believe Mr. Lamb, you are on Zoom. So we'll make sure you're unmuted and you can go ahead, thanks. Great, thank you. Yes, Chris Lamb, city of Scotts Valley. I'm gonna share my screen real quick. I have a brief presentation. The chair, yes, thank you, chair and commissioners. They said Chris Lamb, public works director and city engineer. The city of Scotts Valley is an update on transportation items in Scotts Valley. So last spring, the city adopted an active transportation plan. There were over 70 projects identified in the transportation plan. And one of the activities that we went through in the development of our five-year capital program this last summer was looking at ways to identify how we can get a lot of those accomplished over the next five years. So I think we're happy to share that we've got a bunch of those projects included in our capital program. A lot of them are our striping projects that we're looking at ways to incorporate those improvements with other projects that are listed. We're also looking at updating our pavement management program inventory in the upcoming year. We have our last inspection was done in 2017. So we're at the time where we need to update that. Our CIP overall for it's pretty aggressive for Scotts Valley standards. We have over 11 and a half million program for this upcoming year. And we've gone through some activities to get staff some extra support to just the extra bandwidth to deliver those projects. So we have a number of on-call professional services agreements that we've executed this summer for engineering support, for project management support, for inspection support in order to get these going. We've also authorized the new FTE for this upcoming year and moving forward, which is the senior civil engineer. And so I'm happy to report that that individual will be starting with us next Monday. So they'll have a busy few weeks in getting up to speed and then a lot of work to get moving on. The 11 and a half million dollars, just wanted to give a quick breakdown of kind of where that money's being programmed in Scotts Valley. You can kind of see the breakdown of 21% over $2 million towards transportation projects. The transportation section, so these are the full five year list of the CIP projects in transportation. And I'll cover a little more detail on some of the ones that we have money programmed for in this upcoming or current fiscal year 2022-23. The first one that's kind of underway and near and completion of design is our Bean Creek Road rehabilitation project. So that's from Blue Bonnet Lane to Redwood Way. It's about a quarter mile of full depth rehab of existing pavement. We'll be striping and kind of really defining the traffic lanes at 10 feet. There's a number of drainage improvements that we're looking to make through this area. New guardrail and a sidewalk extension from Blue Bonnet up to Lakeview Drive, which is the entry to the Montevalley senior community and bike shares. And so we're expecting that this project will probably kick off construction in spring, just recognizing that where we are right now and the kind of the significant amount of work, probably not something that we want to risk trying to do over the winter. We also have a project Mount Herman corridor improvements that we have a number of transition development impact fees we've been collecting over the years for improvements on Mount Herman. So we have engaged with a traffic engineering firm to really scope out the types of projects that we need to improve access management, pedestrian safety, traffic congestion. We have a number of our ATP projects identified on Mount Herman through town. So we'll plan on using this project to really scope out those projects and then as matching funds to apply for various grants to make improvements on Mount Herman. Janice Way is a smaller road in a very industrial area in town. The pavement condition index as of 2017 was in the 20s. So really for pavement condition, we've done a few spot repairs over the years, but the whole roadway really needs to be completely reconstructed. Also experienced demand for sidewalk in this area and a number of employees in the area that would like a little more robust bike features that we wouldn't find on including bike sheriffs in this area. And then finally, our Granite Creek Overcrossing Project. So this was awarded a, and our, our stick grant last fall, this project would provide for the maintenance and upgrades to the Granite Creek Overpass. The Granite Creek is really the only crossing of 17 in Scott's alley that has any type of pedestrian facilities. So there's sidewalks or an asphalt path on one side of the road. We're experiencing some retaining wall failure that will be corrected as part of this project. We're planning on widening the shoulder and providing bike lane, class two bike lanes and enhancing the crosswalks on both ends of the scope of the project, which would be the portion that crosses Highway 17. And that's pretty much it for this first upcoming year. If there's any questions, I'm happy to take them or for any members of the public to have questions on what's going on in Scott's alley. My contact information is here attached. That's what I have. Thank you. Thanks so much. All right, thank you, Mr. Lam. Really appreciate those updates. It looks like some really great projects are going to be moving forward. Any members of the commission with questions for Mr. Lam? I see Commissioner Johnson. Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Chris, for the updates. You know, I'd like to emphasize just how important the ongoing remediation and thoughtfulness along Mount Herman Road. Why it's important is that it not only serves Scott's Valley, but it serves in many ways the Fifth District San Lorenzo Valley, which is a corridor where we get a tremendous amount of traffic and we're thankful for San Lorenzo Valley because they bring so much business to our city. They help maintain our businesses by their participation. And so I'm really thankful that Mount Herman is being attended to and looking for ways to improve that traffic flow each and every day. And again, thanks, Chris. Hey. Madam Chair. Commissioner Rockin. I also want to follow Randy's comments. It's also helpful to bicycle riders throughout the county. I use that route occasionally on my recreational rides. It would be very nice to have those improvements. Absolutely. Okay. I do not see any additional hands up on my screen and no one else in the public. So we will now move on to our next item, which is item 24. This is a request for proposals for professional engineering and environmental services for electric passenger rail transit and coastal rail transit project, the project between Pajaro Junction and Santa Cruz along the Santa Cruz branch line. And we have Sarah Christensen, senior transportation engineer to give us a report. Thank you, Chair Brown. Just a quick check to the Zoom folks. Can you see the PowerPoint? Not yet. Okay. I'll have to see it. There it is. See it now. We can see it in the chambers. If someone on the Zoom call, can you see it on Zoom? Yeah. It's been on the screen on the... Yeah. We got it. Okay. Okay, so Zoom folks can see it. Great. Okay. What's funny is you all can see it, but I can't. So that's okay. We'll test my eyesight. I see a small screen over here. So this item is staff's recommendation is to release a request for proposals or RFP to solicit professional engineering and environmental firms to submit proposals for a new project, the Electric Passenger Rail Transit and Coastal Rail Trail Project along the branch line. We do have a handout for this item. We included the draft scope of work from the RFP as a handout. So hopefully you could find that on our website. Next slide, please. Actually, let me see if this works. We found this in... Okay, if it works. I don't think it does. Okay. Let's try. So again, my staff's recommendation is to release the RFP with a commission concurrence today, hopefully, to initiate this important project. Next slide, please. So the project description is really to convert our single track freight line to a Electric Passenger Rail System. It's about 22 miles long between sorry, I'm having a hard time. Natural Bridges Drive and the Pajaro Junction, about 22 miles. It includes the construction of passing, siding, stations, operation maintenance and storage facilities along the line, all of the infrastructure required to have a operating system. This also will require either replacement or rehabilitation of major infrastructure along the branch line. We anticipate adjustments to horizontal and vertical alignment. And essentially, the project will connect to the future Pajaro station that is under development by the Transportation Agency for Monterey County or TMC. Another element of this project is staff felt that it was wise to include the remaining segments of the Coastal Rail Trail within the transit corridor. So as you're aware, there's many trail projects that are under development between Natural Bridges Drive and Rio del Mar. So staff's recommendation is to include the remaining segments from Rio del Mar south to Lee Road in Watsonville. That's segments 13 through 17, as well as potentially including portions of 18. And we haven't quite resolved or figured out between City of Watsonville and this project, whether those will be included or not, but definitely coordination will happen. There's also the segment 11 project that's currently under development by the County of Santa Cruz. That project, the ultimate configuration includes leaving a gap. So between the Cliff Drive parking lot and the Capitola Monterey intersection, there will be a gap. And that's because of the challenges associated with the replacement of the Capitola Trestle. So staff envisions that that project of replacing the Trestle, it will definitely be required for electric rail transit. Makes sense to also include the trail portion at that time, so closing the gap. So we're calling that segment 11 phase two. Also in the scope will be coordination with all of the ongoing trail projects that are under development. Next slide. The electric rail transit portion of the project is between the Pajaro Junction and Natural Bridges Drive. This is really the continuation of the refinement of what was identified as a locally preferred alternative in the Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis, which completed in 2021. This analysis, I encourage all who's not familiar and who's interested in the project to read through that study and the work by the selected consultant will essentially refine that locally preferred alternative and bring it forward into further development. Next slide. Here are some maps directly from the TCAA report. This first map is commuter rail transit. The locally preferred alternative included electric rail transit. So it could be commuter rail transit or light rail transit. This map is showing the commuter rail transit with 11 stations. Next slide. And here is the light rail transit option with the 15 stations. Next slide. Thank you. The Coastal Rail Trail, as I mentioned, here's a map showing the remaining sections of trail that are gonna be included in the project between Rail Del Mar and Lee Road, as well as potentially portions of segment 18 in Watsonville, segment 19, which is along Walker Street. And finally, segment 20, which goes over the Pahoe River Bridge and connects to the Pahoe Junction. And then in the top right corner, you could see the capital attressal. So this shows the gap closure that would be included in this electric rail transit and trail project as part of the replacement of that major structure. Next slide. So the scope of work is to develop the project concept report and come up with a very stable project definition. And this process staff envisions to have extensive outreach, community outreach, stakeholder outreach, coordination with local jurisdictions. This is a big project. It's gonna go through every jurisdiction in the county. There's gonna be a ton of coordination needed. There's some problems that are gonna need to be solved. Essentially, we're proposing to do a lot of the heavy lifting early. That way we have a stable project that we can move forward into more refined and detailed preliminary engineering and environmental analysis. And we find that it's really important to do that heavy lifting early because what we don't want to happen is to go down in more detailed engineering and environmental analysis. And somebody come up with another idea and then we have to take a step back and it kind of slows the process down. So we really wanna focus on this first step and it may take some time, but we really find that it's gonna be really important. Next slide. So the funding for this contract, we are not recommending to program any funding yet. That will happen at a subsequent recommendation at a subsequent meeting. But we are targeting competitive grant opportunities to fund this contract. The TCAA report, I believe, estimated this contract to be about $17 million. We don't have $17 million available currently locally. So we are targeting the state rail assistance program. They have a set aside for emerging corridors, such as ours that they haven't had a call for projects in quite some time. So we're hoping to compete for those funds in the next year or so. We are considering local funds as a match because most likely the state rail assistance funding is gonna be competitive. There's gonna be a local match required. And so staff is our working assumption is that a minimum of 20% is gonna need to be put forward from local funds. And we'll be programming or recommending programming those funds at a later time. And the other thing I just wanna mention is that because we have limited funding capacity, we really find that the prioritization of funding this contract is important. And so that might mean scaling back some of our preservation efforts for the time being until additional capacity becomes available. And so this is really kind of our overall strategy and we'll be bringing more information at future meetings. Next slide. Here's our current procurement schedule. If we're ready, we're ready to release RP as soon as the commission concurs as soon as today or tomorrow. We are gonna be soliciting proposals giving about five or six weeks for consultants to put together proposals. So those will be due probably in late September. During the month of October, we will be going through a selection process where we review the proposals. We'll have interviews of the shortlisted consultants. And then our current schedule, if we could get all of our ducks in a row will be to come to the November 3rd RTC meeting with the recommended contract to award to the selected qualified consultant for this work. Next slide. I think that's it. Yep. That concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Christensen. I will now take it out to members of the commission for questions. I see I didn't look to my right quickly enough to see who's hand was up first. I'll go with the commissioner Bertrand. We'll start there and then commissioner Rockin. Thank you, chair. I didn't look to my right either. We might have, okay. I have two questions, sir. One, I appreciate that you wanna do heavy lifting first so that later on, you won't have to go back and re-examine things to slow down the project. For the public safety in mind, can you give us a couple examples of what you mean by that? Cause I appreciate that. And my second question is, in terms of the engagement with the community, I totally appreciate that. I'm glad we're doing that. And we have done that in the past anyway. I just wanna get a timeline when they would be brought in and at what stage assuming this is granted. Thank you. Okay, so the first, the heavy lifting effort. So developing a project concept report is really gonna be taking the locally preferred alternative from the TCAA and refining that, doing more detailed ridership modeling. That's gonna be really important for the success of this project. There's gonna be some engineering done as well. We've never really had a consultant layout, how this is gonna look, where the passing sightings are gonna go in order to get, I think the TCAA said 30 minute headways. That means we need a certain number of passing sightings. Where are those gonna be located? Those are the kinds of questions that we hope to answer. And of course, the locations of stations is gonna be a very iterative process. There's many of them. It's gonna be multi-jurisdictional. So we anticipate those types of things being brought forward, bringing the information forward so that the community understands what the project is proposing. And this commission has sufficient information to... Yeah, like if we have good connections with Cabrillo College or Dominican, so passengers could get off that kind of thing. Yes, sure. And the other thing is the timeline that public would be involved. Are you thinking of different times as the project unfolds or at some point in the development after it's been granted? We don't really have a full blown strategy. What we're seeking from the professional consultants is obviously we want them to come up with somewhat of a strategy and an approach and obviously work with our staff and kind of refine that and figure out something that's gonna be appropriate for our community. Obviously our community is very engaged and sometimes other communities elsewhere may or may not. So every community is different and we staff plans to develop that outreach plan and strategy with the consultants hand in hand to come up with something that's really gonna work for us. Okay. Commissioner Rockin. Thank you. There are three issues. One, traditionally when RFPs are not sent out for massive public input, they're developed by staff and so forth, but the commission and the public have a right and appropriately to weigh in before you award the contract, which I think is an appropriate way to face this. I don't think any, there may be somebody, but most of us do not wanna start and like do another TCAA in order to get to the RFP and think we appreciate the way staff has sort of prioritized moving this forward quickly. So I just wanted to weigh in on that question. I do appreciate the staff having published the draft at least in its current state on the website. So members of the public can see that we're planning to put out an RFP that's a vigorous commuter passenger rail system and that's important I think to many members of the public. My second issue is sometimes you're more successful at grants with over matching the local match. And I wonder whether there's any consideration of bonding the 8% that's in the 2016 measure D to bring forward to, for example, propose a 30% match as we go after this funding. I don't know enough about the details of whether this case we need to over match whether we're just, you know, where our project is so attractive that we can just, you know, we'd rather pay less if we can get away with it, but if it's, you know, consideration might be where there is lots of competition for this, we should think seriously about how we could, a 30% over a match might well be in our best interest. So certainly thinking about that question. Yes, actually, I think about that all the time, Commissioner Rockin, but we, you know, what we really need to do is get the cost proposals that's going to be informative because then we'll know 20% of what, right? So that will be important. But then the guidelines for the grant programs haven't come out. And so we don't know what the requirements are really going to be. We're just kind of trying to be proactive and plan ahead. And then finally looking at our pay as you go capacity in light of those two things, we're going to be making a recommendation at a future meeting, most likely to for pay as you go to find at least the first parts of the contract, whatever we could afford. And if we are at a point where, you know, the delivery of the project is put to a halt because we like run out of money or we're not successful in getting grants, I think that's the right appropriate time to start looking at potential financing options. And staff is always looking at that, but it's good to get this feedback so that we could bring this information when we are recommending programming for measure D for this contract. Thanks. And my final comment or question, it's a question really, we need to, the engineering study needs to look at the alignment of the track, both vertically, there's places where it's kind of underwater near Watsonville. And horizontally, which you've talked about both of these, there are places where a 10 mile an hour freight train fell off the line near the Selva beach in the past. So there's places where the curves are too sharp and need to be fixed for a rapid passenger service. But another consideration would be where are there places where the alignment could be adjusted so that trail would have more space for a wider trail or less constrained or make it cheaper or quicker to bring the trail in if the track were moved over slightly. And I'm wondering whether we're asking specifically in this engineering study for them to look at that consideration along with, it can't be the primary consideration, we have to make sure that passenger thing works, but, and this is not a proposal if you're out tracks, but it's a question of whether we might move that track over in a way that would help the trail project. Is that being under consideration as well? That absolutely is. And that's why we want to include the portions of the trail that are not under development to be included in the engineering work for this project. And then coordination with the projects under development, we obviously don't want to create more problems for ourselves by building one before the other. We want to coordinate, we want to make sure there's no throwaway costs or having to rebuild something that was just recently built. So these are all really good reasons why we should really get going on this engineering work so that we could solve all these issues. And you're right, it is smart to look at the whole corridor and fitting both in with all the alignment considerations. I mean, you're right, there's going to be some alignment corrections because our line is a 10 mile an hour freight line. It's not for high speed, light rail or commuter rail trains. So there's going to be quite a bit of alignment fixes. Thank you for your responses. Very helpful, appreciate it. Okay, I'm going to go next to commissioner Schifrin and I do see the hands raised in the zoom. So I just wanted to let you know commissioner McPherson and commissioner Quinn, you'll be up next. We have three quick questions. I have a new concern. I think it's going to be out of the. It's going to be out of the great easement. I'm sorry, maybe our microphone isn't on commissioner alternative Schifrin. Is this better? Yes, way better. Okay, sorry. I'm asking about the freight easement and there is a mention in the scope of work task one that's under the test that it will look at the freight and passenger rail operational capacities, but it isn't clear that the project is going to assume the retention of the freight easement. Is that the case? At this point, I think that question will be solved by the work that will be undertaken by the consultant and I don't know if Louisa or Gai want to add to that. Gal, I'll comment more on that. This is guy pressing if the video is not on me. This is a freight railroad. And so the going into this study, absolutely, this is going to be looked at as a rail facility that it would be capable of both freight and passenger rail systems. Saying that we do need to really understand what that means in terms of positive train control, system capacity and whether or not a temporal separation would be necessary to allow all that capacity on the line to be able to meet our performance measures. I understand that it's, there are issues, but I think it's important for the public to understand that this is not going to be an intent to a backdoor intent to get rid of freight. So, what happens through the process is going to look at a variety of alternatives, but there is no, as I'm hearing you, there is no intention to eliminate the freight easement as part of this process. That's correct. Okay, thank you. The second one is just to sort of clarify what you said about the Capitola trestle. As I understand it, and I think it makes sense to look at the trestle as a separate phase of the segment. I think that may be necessary with other portions of the different segments as well, given the complexity of some of the work that needs to be done. But I wasn't quite clear what that was being proposed. As I understood it, the phase two would look at having either replacing or repairing the trestle so that it could serve both rail and the trail. Am I understanding that correctly? Just one minor correction is that that the bridge needs to be replaced. I couldn't hear you. The bridge needs to be replaced. So there's no option to repair because of the rod iron section over the Soquel Creek that's really, it's over a hundred years old. I thought I'd try to slip that in. It's not the way it's been analyzed, but the real question is, will the project include both rail and trail? Yes. And then my third question, we've gotten requests that the commission that there's all sorts of can upgrade or not all sorts, but there is a possibility of construction funds to upgrade to track that the commission could be applying for. And my understanding is that one of the objectives of doing the study that's being proposed is that in order to really compete effectively for some of these construction funds, we need to have an EIR, we need to have a project defined so that when we go to the potential funders, they will know where we're going and there's a commitment to go there and there's an analysis that supports that. And I'm very cognizant of the limitations of our funding and the staff capacity of how much you can work on. So I think it makes sense to go in the direction you're talking about. But I also wanted to respond to that concern that there may be these other funds out there that we could get right away and make some major upgrades because my sense is, and that's what I'm asking you, is whether we really do need the environmental document and the project definition and some design in order to compete effectively for other funds beyond the emerging corridors fund that we are going for to help fund this project itself. Sure, that makes sense, my question makes sense. Okay. It does, and staff's approach to this electric passenger rail project is that this major capital project is gonna be competitive and eligible for outside funding. And that's really what we need in order to get anything done on this branch line. We need outside funding. We don't have enough funding locally to do all of the repairs to reactivate freight or have any kind of rail on this line. It's a fixer upper, if you will. So in order to be eligible for those funds, we need to prove project readiness. We need to make investments, smart investments in the local match amounts. And that's what we're proposing now. And there's this other kind of idea or strategy that I've seen a lot of the public comments about applying for say $25 million of funding for freight. And the program that comes to mind, we monitor pretty much every program and come up with strategies on how to get grants. We're pretty good at getting grants. The RTC staff is a planning group. It's really great at writing applications and getting ahead of these things. So the TSEP trade quarter enhancement program is a large program through SB1. And that is really focused around freight. We have looked at this program extensively, and this is just one example to kind of explain, further explain our strategy of moving forward with this option that we're proposing today. So the TSEP grant program, if we were to say apply for $25 million, for example, of TSEP funds, if you read through the guidelines, they require a 30% match. So 30% of $25 million is seven and a half million dollars. What's also challenging about this program is pre-construction phases of the project, which we would need another five to 10 million, depending on the project that's scoped. It's not an eligible component of the project. So we would also have to locally fund an additional five to 10 million dollars in pre-construction efforts to get this project eligible for these funds. So that's essentially emptying out all of our local capacity and potentially more in order to apply for a $25 million grant. And within the program years of that grant, it's only, they come in cycles, two-year cycles. So the program years are through 2025. So we'd have to start construction by 2025 and based on our local measure D capacity, the numbers just don't pan out. We don't have enough money to pay for pre-construction and the local match to do something like that. And so- Would the $25 million be sufficient to make the entire line of freight ready? Not necessarily. The capital attress alone, which is out of service and requires replacement is estimated between $15 and $30 million. So that's just one bridge. So even if we got the $25 million, it would not, and we spent all our local funds to move forward with the construction, it would not be sufficient to make the line usable for freight, let alone anything else. It may not be. And the way it's really interesting because I just see these numbers kind of just thrown out and the way that staff does it is we usually scope a project to come up with the cost and then we figure out how much money to go for. And it's kind of, I've seen ideas come out of just, you know, apply for $25 million. It's like, well, what are you gonna get for that? So I can't really answer that question because this is just kind of a conceptual idea of, you know, an interesting idea as to, you know, why we aren't pursuing the TSEP funds. And I think TSEP is a great program. I think that that is a program that we should be targeting in future cycles, but not for this cycle. So if I understand you correctly, the problem isn't so much that we don't have a project design or an environmental document. The problem is that if we, in order to get the program, we would exhaust all our funding. Right, and we couldn't move forward with this project. Yeah. Okay, thank you. That's helpful. Could I have something quickly doing that, Adam? Go ahead. I also would point out, because I look into this, there's a lot of letters from people asking us to consider it. My understanding is that we'd be in competition with people that are running active freight service right now and sort of the ability to sort of meet our existing customers. And we'd be putting in a bid for a project that might have potential future freight uses and where there's literally no interest currently. So I think we wouldn't compete very well even if we made everything else happen. So it's one more reason that this might not be a great time to apply for that money. That's what I found when I look into it. And I was advocating for it and pushing it. And that's what I sort of found by looking into the issue a little bit. Right, and just to add to that, the each grant program usually requires a cost-benefit analysis. And that benefit part of the cost-benefit analysis is how much freight demand do we have on the line? And if we, in Watsonville, we have freight and that's how we were able to be successful in getting a grant for the repair of the Pajaro River Bridge. But that's really the only area that we can compete for. And that's, yeah, you're right. One more reason. That's it. Okay. We will now move to commissioners joining us virtually and I'll call on Commissioner McPherson. Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I want to welcome and appreciate Metro GM Michael Tree being here and his expressed interest in cooperating with us in this rail adventure that we're about to get into. And I want to thank the RTC staff for bringing this recommendation forward. I have a couple of comments that I think just need to be clarified. Too often the RTC staff have been inappropriately maligned for not seeking grant money to proceed with the passenger rail project and that simply is not the case. Some people may say that the RTC staff is recommending this item now because of the outcome of the recent measure D. But that's not true either. The staff is bringing this forward now because they see a potential funding opportunity for an approved project on our unconstrained or unfunded list of projects. That is their job and they do it well. I'm going to support the staff recommendation because it's time we quit fighting over perceived facts. And that's what a lot of people have been throwing out there regarding the challenges and costs of building passenger rail service. On EIR now, I think we'll do enough to project design to identify all the issues and challenges with the associated costs included. The prior studies we have done, they've done more than ballpark costs and issues which unfortunately opened the door for radically different interpretations of the information provided that we've seen with the device in us within the community regarding passenger rail. So we need better answers and I hope the state will be willing to award the grant money for us to get the information we need to get this project moving to a feasible standard with accurate cost estimates and all of the challenges clearly identified if this project is moved forward. So again, I appreciate the staff and what it has done at the right time. And I just wanna say that they have done a great job under the circumstances under a very controversial issue. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you, Commissioner McPherson, Commissioner Quinn. Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Sarah, for addressing that so clearly. Following up on what the Commissioner McPherson said, there's a lot of selective interpretation of the data that's out there. And one of the pieces of data I didn't see mentioned in the proposal, but it's mentioned in a lot of the correspondence I poured over is greenhouse gas. And will some variable regarding greenhouse gas which has really been used by both sides in this dialogue be addressed at some stage in this so we can use it as a north star to help guide these decisions? Yes, the environmental analysis includes air quality studies and also, yeah, that would be where I'm just trying to think of if we could get that information sooner, but that would come through the environmental analysis process, the technical studies. Helpful, thank you. Okay, are there any other commissioners with questions at this time? Okay, so we'll take it out to the public and we will all invite members of the public who are present here to come on up and speak. You'll have two minutes to address the commission. And then we will, after we have members of the audience who are here in person, we'll go out to the callers. Okay, year up, Mr. Scott. Thank you, Barry Scott, I live in Aptos. And I think Andy, especially for the questions about freight, I noticed on page one of what was released on this item, freight in the city of Watsonville, including Walker Street seems to imply no freight on the rest of it. And I hope that the study includes freight capability that doesn't exclude freight capability at some point in the future because it's not just for freight movement, but it's also emergency response and recovery and the like. So I'm confident that we'll be wanting to keep the freight capability. I noticed in the slides that it named CRT, commuter rail transit and not light rail transit, but the TCAA suggested both and commuter is heavier and more expensive. And there's a little bit of concern on our rail supporting people that this may develop a project that's another $500 million project that's just a Cadillac compared to what could be possible like a light, rapid streetcar battery operated vehicles that are neither commuter rail nor traditional light rail. So I hope that we'll be looking at those technologies. I encourage, and I'm happy to see item eight and consent agenda work on the repairs as needed. And I hope that that continues. It's really important that we keep our rail line working. I hope that the study will include possibilities for a phased implementation and ways to fund something that can be done in pieces. Maybe Santa Cruz to Capitola while Murray Street bridges under construction. Expanding in both directions over time and maybe starting in Watsonville with the service that would take them to La Selva and the beach and maybe meet in the middle one day like we did with the transcontinental railroads. So it's one thing to study, what would it cost to do a big thing? And another to study, how can we actually get something happening and maybe sooner than later? Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Scott. All right, our next speaker, you're up. Hi, thank you. My name is Lonnie Faulkner, Director of Equity Transit and I'm from the Live Oak area. Thank you, Chair Brown commissioners and staff. I just wanted to mention my earlier comments since this is the first official meeting after the vote. That was a more general comment, but this is in regards to item 24. So thank you. Oh wow, we are absolutely thrilled that the RTC staff is taking step forward implementing passenger rail transit for our county and proposing to initiate the preliminary engineering and environmental review phase and proposing to initiate the environmental review phase as well as seriously seeking funding in support of this goal. We urge commissioners to vote yes on item 24. We are so excited also to hear that Mr. Preston and Mr. Tree are already working together on creating a robust transit system for our county. Our community members have been active participants alongside the RTC for over two decades, assisting in the purchase of our rail line, volunteering at rail and trail community meetings and events, getting involved with the myriad of studies required in bringing passenger rail service to our Santa Cruz branch line. And I might add working to initiate and support the development of a world-class trail. We look forward to and appreciate the opportunity to review and provide feedback on the scope of work and plans as this project moves forward and serve in partnership with the RTC in support of clean rail for our community that will connect us, not just between cities in the county, but will connect us to cities throughout the state of California via the state rail network integrated with our Metro bus system. Thank you so much for your work. Thank you, Ms. Faulkner. Our next speaker. Hi, I'm Sally Arnold and it's exciting to be here in person again. She's like, oh, it's like, I don't know, it's like, just very exciting. We're really pleased to see that the RTC staff have clearly been working over the summer on this big project and that we see that speedy response to what was really a landslide defeat of major D and really showed that despite, you know, there are a minority of people who, you know, hate the idea of a public transit on our tracks, the vast majority of people want it and it's an incredibly popular project and you have a chance to work on this really popular project. Now we're excited to see that you've worked so quickly. We're excited that the draft RFP has been made public and I was just looking at it for the first time as we sat here, but obviously we haven't had time to read it and I assume most of you haven't had time to read it either and that we probably all would like to read it carefully and offer comments and questions to, you know, because as many of you ask questions here, you know, it's like there's a lot we don't know yet because it just came out. So thank you very much for your work on this important document and I'm sure we will all be having comments and questions on this RFP and we're excited about the project moving forward. Thank you. Thank you. Hey, our next speaker, welcome. Good morning, I'm David Van Brink. I live in Santa Cruz. I'm gonna skip over some of this because Sally just said it all much better but I was going to work the phrase paper tiger somewhere into that. But to get to the end, please approve the staff recommendation, perhaps incorporating some of the wise suggestions offered by others of the public and commissioners to ensure a speedy and high quality and flexible product. Thanks. Thank you. I'll now call on members of the public who are signed on through their phone or through Zoom and it looks like our first virtual speaker will be Brian Trail Now. Hi, this is Brian from Trail Now. We oppose moving forward with the RFP because it's not realistic. We forward at you legislation from California Transportation Commission, Caltrims, California Coastal Commission with all strict policies addressing sea-level rising requirements and the restrictions on building on the coast. We're seeing existing rails in Southern California having to be moved. And so if you look at those regulations, you'll know that this proposed project will never be funded. It's not eligible for funding. We believe that this will delay, continue building of the trail that is vital to our community. Santa Cruz is not eligible for state funds to build a new fixed rail on the coastal corridor. The coastal corridor is 20 feet over by New Bright from the coast. In Manresa, it's falling into the ocean and the coastal commission is not allowing you. What we believe is the message from Measure D, 2022 Measure D, is that the community does not want trail only, but they want transit and trail. And there are much more effective ways to invest in the corridor than a fixed rail system and spending money on a fixed rail system that you will never get funding for by the state continues to delay the construction of the Santa Cruz Coastal Trail. Please don't go down this path because it's the wrong direction. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jack Nelson. Yes, hello, commissioners. Well, it's a joy to see this item on your agenda. And I urge your commission to vote yes on this. I'd like to mention I had a chance to ride the Coast Futura unit down the tracks. And that makes me think about how many people haven't had an opportunity to see this corridor and understand what a sleeping giant it is. And so I'd like to, during this item, just urge you to look for ways to get something on the tracks that people can ride as just as a kind of intro view of what we've got in this corridor. And when our planners and consultants are looking at things like where considings go, I'd like to see them also looking at the affordable housing opportunity sites along this rail corridor. Do I need to underscore the connection between affordable housing and access to a light rail station that takes people where they need to go for their employment and so forth? I'd also like to echo what Barry Scott said about let's keep in mind a kind of project that's in scale with our community. It doesn't need to be heavy. Let's not make it heavier duty than it needs to be. Let's keep this affordable light on its feet and perhaps ready to go sooner than later. And lastly, as a Sierra Club member, you may already be aware that local Sierra Club has steadily supported having rail transit on this corridor. The Sierra Club opposed the Greenway proposal, that measure D, and this is potentially a very environmentally friendly greenhouse gas reducing project. So I'm excited, please go for it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Nelson. Just before I start, I continue calling on members of the public with hands up. I just wanted to remind folks out there who are listening, if you'd like to speak on this item, item 24 on today's agenda, you can raise your hand by pressing star nine on your phone, if you're on your phone or the raise hand function on your Zoom and star six to unmute yourself or the mute button. Just as a reminder, and for those who are wanting to weigh in. Okay, our next speaker will be Michael St. Yeah, thank you, Chair Brown. Just a few comments, I'd like to thank Sarah, a director president and all the staff for really jumping on this issue quickly and wanting to get it underway. Also, I have a question basically, is there a chance of moving funds from some other projects that we have funding for? And of course, I'm going to go towards the Oxlion project where there's, most of the funding is going presently plus the California Transportation Commission awarded $107 million if we were to go for a less expensive project, i.e. Excuse me, just widening for the bus on shoulder only, that would leave maybe a several million dollars left over for the rail and trail. Also, is this EIR RFP item going to include study of the rail trail? Why can't we use some of the 17% left over from the measure D funds from 2016 for the rail study? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. St. Okay, our next speaker is Mark Johansson. Sorry, Louisa muted, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Chair Brown and commissioners. Just a couple of comments about the draft scope of work. When scoping the RFP, it's going to be important that the consultant would get all available rail transit options and funding mechanisms because as you know, the pass consultant used as an example heavy electric passenger train system which wouldn't be compatible with the Santa Cruz community or the shared use of the branch line and that led to this misleading or in $35 million cost estimate the consultant gave her rail system which would not be acceptable to the community. So the projects that work toward a system that fits the community's needs and is economically feasible and have a report that focuses on that and can be used to move the project forward which includes light rail, wireless rail options which will have an impact on the preliminary engineering analysis, system design, such as stations, signaling, sightings and others. Also, the ridership modeling which is part of the scope is not the same as the true ridership survey which would be a pridable, accurate projection of ridership. And be careful about over-engineering these projects. Commission should focus on a system that is cost-effective and compatible with the shared use of the branch line and can be implemented quickly. And also the consultant's shelf is built to look at a private partnership which can help with strategy and approach, funding options, it could drastically reduce the cost and staff time and also reduce the implementation timeline. This can be part of the conceptual cost in those testaments and risk analysis. So staff's estimate for the cost of this work is $17 million. To put that in perspective, that amount would buy eight of the wireless trams recently demonstrated on the branch line. It's about the cost of new track which would be needed along the entire line for a passenger rail system. And we'll also go toward a significant amount towards meeting the track. So excessive consultant costs have killed projects such as this. Consultants don't have a vested interest in project cost containment and that requires the commissioner and staff diligence. Finally, in selecting a commission with their value and a consultant who's worked on a similar project that was actually implemented. I'd be careful not to choose a consultant just because it's all a massive history with the RTC or staff. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is David Shonbrun. Good morning, I'm the president of the Train Riders Association of California. We are rail advocates and come to you today with a different point of view after hearing multiple mentions of RTC's fiscal constraints, track is the Train Riders Association of California. Track urges a low-cost path forward for rail implementation. We believe that path involves another source of funding namely a public-private partnership or PPP. That's why we are here today to oppose today's staff recommendation to proceed with studies. We think this delays rather than advances rail transit. I've been involved with public sector rail projects for over 20 years, including high-speed rail. I haven't seen successful projects come out of the public sector. My organization believes that private sector entities that are willing to invest their own capital represent a very different way forward, one that requires much less public sector funding. The good news is that the RTC is already aware of private sector interest in the branch line. Track my organization recently completed an economic study of the potential for a PPP here. We are convinced that the demand for access by tourists could power commuter rail on the branch line. We urge the commission to table the staff recommendation and substitute for it an invitation to private sector entities to submit proposals to RTC. I'd be happy to answer any questions. We recognize that this is off the beaten path kind of comment to you. Thank you, Mr. Shonbrun. Our next speaker is Mark Maceti Miller. Welcome, Mark. Good morning. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Great. Thank you. First of all, thank you, thank you. Thank you, Chair Brown, staff, missionaries. It is great to see this item on the agenda. Please move forward today. I want to respond to a couple of comments. First, I appreciate that you're trying to get the heavy lifting done first. And I suggest and recommend that you start the heavy lifting by seeking input from stakeholders on the scope of the work. Releasing a scope of work hours before this meeting is just doesn't give anyone a chance really to weigh in. And in that regard, I didn't see a lot of information in the scope of work about the trail. And the trail is going to be built before the rail. Passenger rail is instituted, and you need stakeholders from the trail community. I also was glad to see General Manager Tree making a presentation about collaboration, but I don't see any role in the scope of work for Metro. It seems like Metro would be an integral partner on this project, given that adding passenger rail will increase public transit radarship from 14,000 to 34,000 rides a day. Regarding funding, everybody's talking about the rail bucket, measure D, rail bucket, but there's a trail bucket that has money in it also. And that bucket was intended to pay for things like storm drainage improvements and topographic surveys and boundary surveys necessary to move forward and get the trail built ASAP. And so there's money there and that money should be allocated appropriately to this effort. Lastly, I really appreciate staff's focus on proving project readiness. That is an essential component of this effort. And I just want to remind everyone that the public is certainly united behind this effort. 73% of the voters that go, the naysayers are a small minority. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Masidi Miller. Our next speaker is Bruce saw Hill. Hello, can you hear me? Yes. All right. Hello chair, commissioners, staff. I've been involved in the Santa Cruz branch line one way or another for 18 years, mostly as the chair of Fort and in that time I put tens of thousands of words out into the conversation but today I'm not going to do that. Early on I felt like Jack LaLaine trying to pull a train with my teeth. And I found out that if you got a lot of other teeth involved and did it for a long time while trains are low friction and eventually they move and that's what's happening. So today no words, but I'd like to express myself musically in my sentiment about item 24. So I have a 25 second excerpt of music here that I will play. Thank you. That's all. Thank you, Mr. saw Hill was going to ask if it was dancing music, but now we know. Thank you. Chair next speaker is Joanna Lighthill. Good morning, commissioners. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you for considering my comments. I have, I echo some of the comments of the commissioners. I think that the voters really do want affordable transportation and transit in the corridor. I'm not sure if it meant rail, but if that's what you choose to go forward with, so be it. What I would like to do is ask the RTC before endeavoring into a big study and a very expensive study, very expensive projects to possibly just put a little bit of effort into it. I think there's a lot of important information there that was kind of overlooked about the benefits of the BRT or the bus transit on the corridor. This, of course, has been going on for years. The RTC studied an alternative analysis in 1998. It was called the major transportation investment study. And it was then that consultants recommended a busway on the corridor. The RTC dismissed the bus at that time and opted to look at a recreational rail. They did a couple of EIRs and they failed, or I'm not sure why the project was discarded, but there are two EIRs out there. That possibly we can look at to evaluate what's coming on this larger project. The TCAA, the BRT scenario in the TCAA had almost the same route that was recommended in 1998. It didn't use the entire corridor, but the advantages of the BRT were that they were able to evaluate but the advantages of the BRT were kind of downplayed in my opinion. I think that the scenario offered the highest frequency, more stops, it was more affordable, more funding. So I hope that before you jump off into this project you'll re-evaluate the BRT and maybe just take a quick look before spending so much money. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker is Kyle Kelly. I'll make it quick. Thank you all commissioners. I just want to say I support the staff's recommendation. I'm really glad that we've gotten to this point and that we can seek an RFP. And I think there's been enough other comments. So we're really expressing support. So I'll leave you to it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Okay, next up we have Sean. And Sean, you can press star six to unmute yourself or use your zoom. Got it. I'm taking a phased approach of building this system. You could target the Apple commuter benefits of these large companies that send the lux buses up to Santa Cruz. And UC and Cabrillo, they both have mandatory transportation fees that allows all their students a metro bus pass. So there's income right there, but it would also have to include the satellite extension in Watsonville, which would serve downtown Watsonville as a whole. The vision Santa Cruz County project let us know that the coastal zip codes through which the rail runs, there's a higher percentage of people living with disabilities. And that number is going up. If anybody thinks that there is going to be less of a need for accessibility in the future, we expect you to speak up and voice that opinion. Accessibility is not just about a ramp. It's about lighting. It's about the frequency of stops. It's about how early and late it runs. And accessibility all the way down to the stop. And also, and also para cruise. So you can stop cutting that and sending that money to roads and put it where it belongs in time. If cities want to, they can make a requirement that the last mile, instead of say being taken up by these companies that run the Lux buses, could be run by local companies if they like. Thank you for your comments. Our next speaker is Linda Wills-Husen. Hello. This is Linda Wills-Husen. Hi. Thanks for acknowledging that. You can hear me. This is Linda Wills-Husen. I'd like to thank the staff and the commission very much for moving forward with this key project for our county. I'd also like to echo earlier comments that it's very important to kick off this post measure D rail process with a commitment to adequate public review and comment at every stage. This includes making time this month for public comment on the draft scope of services for this RFP. Thank you. Thank you. Our next and final speaker. So if anybody out there is wanting to make a comment, please do raise your hand now. Otherwise this will be our final speaker on this item, Saladin Sale. Hi. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you, Saladin Sale. I live in the city of Santa Cruz. Thank you, Chair Burr, unhand commissioners. I want to also thank staff for moving forward decisively and in concert with the expressed feelings and desires of the citizens of the county. I support this proposal and encourage your yes votes today. I think the refinement of this project description will be as essential as it is the about to let an RFP for the largest infrastructure project in decades in Santa Cruz. So it's really worth getting it right. I want to echo Mr. Scott's suggestion to include an option for early incremental implementation of such a project. I think that getting something up and running between Capitola and Santa Cruz is imminently doable. And this doesn't have to only be considered in terms of the massive all in one project, which ultimately we'd aspire to. Also I'd like the idea of the South County leg from Watsonville perhaps up to La Selva. I'd also like to be sure that the conceptual proposal for service that was advanced last fall by Roaring Camp and TIGM and was not given much attention at the time be really looked at seriously as part of an incremental implementation strategy. There's I think working with a valuable long time local partner like Roaring Camp is really an essential part. So thank you all and looking forward to moving forward. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sale. Okay, I do see two more hands up. And so I'll call next on Casey Beyer. Thank you Chairman Brown and commissioners. I appreciate the opportunity to speak briefly. One, I worked on the 2016 measure D campaign to make sure that we had that those funds available for future transportation improvements throughout Santa Cruz County. And I'm delighted that the voters in 2022 have confirmed the efforts that took place in 2016. I've read the staff reports and I've been involved in many of the meetings over the last five plus six years. And I want to congratulate the staff for a report. I can look at it from a high perspective or dig into it, but I won't do that for this comment. I just want to thank the commission for taking this item up today. And I hopeful that you will vote in favor of moving it forward. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Beyer. Our next speaker and at this point final speaker is Gregory Becker. Good morning commissioners and staff. Thank you for item 24. Santa Cruz County needs a comprehensive plan for bringing rail with trail to Santa Cruz. The plan should detail the cost, benefits, environmental impacts, and funding feasibilities in a report that encompass the entire scope of project. Santa Cruz taxpayers need to know what they're committing to, how much it will cost, how long it will take, and what the impacts on our transportation and climate crises would be. Both train and trail supporters can support RTC agenda item 24. Environmental documentation for an electric rail transit and coastal rail project. This will be a necessary precursor for the tax increases and bonding. Thank you for your work and thank you for this item 24. Thank you, Mr. Becker. Okay, seeing no additional members of the public, I'm going to bring it back to the commission and I will call on Commissioner Schifrin raised his hand early. So I will call on Commissioner Schifrin and Commissioner Rockin. And then I'll get to members of the commission who are on our screen. I want to thank the staff for their presentation and work on this and the speed of their response to moving this forward. I would like to move the staff recommendation. I have some comments afterwards if I could make them assuming there's a second. I'll second and follow with comments after Mr. Schifrin. I wanted to ask a question of staff. One of the people who testified talked about, you know, working with the private sector. I wonder if that you see that as a potential part of the project in terms of and where in the process it could possibly occur. Sure. Yeah. The TCA and business plan did talk a bit about public private partnerships and it had that as one of the options for future delivery and operations. But really the first step of any path that we take really is to define the project and to complete the environmental review and then, you know, after that, we can look at other options like P3 and the reason we want to do that is so that this commission retains control over the project and we can define the project that this community needs. And then P3 is an option. So as I understand it, what you're saying is that as part of a construction financing process, looking at the option, trying to coordinate with potential private sector funding is certainly on the table. Sure. That and operations and if Guy, if you want to add anything more about or Luis about P3 and. Sure. I've done extensive investigations into public private partnerships, both here at RTC and my prior career. At high speed rail. Public transportation is not a profit making endeavor. It's highly subsidized. There's a lot of capital investment that's involved when we looked at it at high speed rail and was hoping to get some public money invested early in in the project. We found that the respondents stated that the initial capital cost would have to be invested first by the public agency and that the more appropriate time to involve a public entity would be as more of a concessionaire. To involve a private private entity. I'm sorry for misspeaking and thank you for correcting me. Would be more would be more at the end of the project approval when you're looking for a concessionaire to possibly run run the system. I don't know how popular that would be here. I've also talked to Mike tree at Metro about possibly running the service at a later time. There's definitely advantages to going private versus public. There's strong support by Metro to possibly work on a concessionaire sort of an agreement. But right now, I think we need to complete the environmental review and figure out how we're going to pay for the capital costs. When we received proposals in the past about privatizing this line. Last year. Those proposals were for the RTC to come up with the initial capital costs to do the big repairs. And that's kind of the linchpin and all of this and to get those repairs, we have to do the environmental document first. And then apply for state and federal grants. So there could be a role for public private partnership in the future, but it's not right now. And Sarah articulated really well. We want to be able to control the scope of this project moving forward. And that's, you know, a lot of the comments that I've heard about the scope of services and what's in it and what's not, that's still going to be negotiated out. And the commission's going to have another opportunity to see that as a final scope of services in a proposed contract. When we come back. We're trying to spell it all out now to a great amount of detail. You'll get proposers trying to play to that, you know, our, our ideas about how to do this is we really want to see the consultants come to us with their approach of how this is done. And then in that first task, which we spelled out, you know, I'm pretty, pretty comprehensively about what we're trying to accomplish. And that is a stable project definition. A lot of the comments that we've heard here today about what the system should really provide. What's the purpose and need of this project? What are we looking at in terms of service? Are we looking at 30 minute headways? Or are we looking at 15 minute headways? I've heard a lot of people say we should be delivering 30 minute headways, but do they understand that that means doubling the amount of passing sightings? 30 minute headways is three passing sightings. 15 minute headways, you may be looking at possibly double tracking the entire line. So if you go too far down doing your analysis and then you come back and you say, well, you can double your ridership if you have 15 minute headways. Well, that's a different project, you know, and that's why this first stage is really important and the process is going to be extremely valuable so that this commission can truly understand the project that it's looking to move forward with or not. Thank you for more than answering, Michael. And one other thing if I may, this isn't the new project per se. It's been in our RTP for quite some time. The majority of it is on the unconstrained list. So we are going to need to receive additional funding, but this is a project that's been contemplated for a long time. And, you know, there's still going to be a lot of hurdles moving forward, but it is going to show a commitment to funding the project by coming forward with these initial steps. And there were also really great comments about, you know, how are we going to be looking at greenhouse gas emissions and, you know, what would we do in the first stages of this project to kind of dispel some of the mess? And, you know, I heard comments about tying this to housing and transit oriented development. And we included that in our scope of services because it's important in understanding what the ridership potential really is. And that would really then determine what your greenhouse gas savings would be by building a project of this nature. So Commissioner Rod, can you have said you wanted to make comments? I'll give you that opportunity now. Several short, thankfully, I think short ones. First of all, the public can certainly give staff and I would assume that the commissioners would be copied on it. Input on the RFP that they've seen on the website. I don't think, I'll speak for myself, I want to say what everybody wants. I don't want to see a start a whole other study process that takes this backwards in which we hold public hearings and, you know, do a follow up on the TCAA to figure out all over again, restudy the question of whether a bus or, you know, project would be a better project. I don't think that's helpful at this point. I'm excited that our staff are moving forward with a light rail project that I think most people have in mind and that I assume the commissions will at least be at least the investigation of which the commission will support at this point. Second point, when people talk about PPP, private, you know, public projects, that's essentially in most cases an anti-union proposal. And it's going nowhere in this county. We couldn't even run the paratransit service, which was originally in the private sector without bringing it inside of the transit district where they have union drivers. And so people need to understand that, you know, one of the ways those projects pencil out and look effective or look like it's a great idea is by underpaying the people that do the work. And I don't think that's going to be accepted in this county. I could be wrong, but I'm not saying we shouldn't look at private, you know, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there's going to be some unionized or highly paid without unionized for that matter and, you know, well-benefited system of private involvement. But I'm skeptical about it. And people under, I should understand what when people talk about PPP that that's really what they're talking about is making it on the cheap by not paying the people to do the work adequately. On the question of freight, it's tempting to think about building this system adequate for light rail and not to carry heavy freight. But the fact of the matter is whether you support rail banking or don't support rail banking, it's not likely to happen in the short term. And I don't think we're going to adverse abandonment at this point. We looked at that earlier and it was not a exactly a positive response from the public to that. And so we basically have a right of way in which part of it is owned by the people would have underlying fee ownership. And if you don't want to trigger a bunch of taking suits, you better keep moving ahead with planning this at the level of freight. Now, again, there may be some ways to sort of in the interim build stuff at less than full freight capacity. But if you build something that needs to be torn out later in order to bring back freight, you're probably triggering a taking suit. And I'm not saying anything everybody doesn't understand. Certainly the attorneys that are out there are already fishing for customers to sue us over this issue, understand that fully. And I'm not giving anything away by pointing this out. So this is going to have to, again, how freight will integrate with passenger service? Totally unclear. Probably has to be temporal separation if nothing else. But we can't afford to build a bridge that will carry a very light train over it and stuff. And then have it trigger suits that have us lose the right of way for both the rail and the trail. It wouldn't be smart. The, I guess, my last comment and my, I hope the most important of these, I am so excited at what our staff has brought us today. I think we made such a great decision when we hired Guy Preston for this job. I think that staff that work with them, Sarah Christensen or engineering services that she brings us and all the rest of the staff. It's, I'm just so pleased that this is in front of us and that we have this moving forward in a vigorous way. It's, this is a watershed moment. And I think people will look back in the future and see that this was the moment where we really decided to move ahead with a public transit system that's vigorous enough to really make a difference in terms of climate change issues. And that's not to say we still have other don't have other options in terms of both on shoulder and other things going on and this is really an important project for this County. And I'm, you know, I've been in public life. Let's say I was, since I was elected to the city council in 79, it's a while ago. I can't think of a meeting that I've been at where a more important decision has been made than the one that's in front of us today. I mean that quite seriously. This is, you know, I think we have in front of us the possibility, again, it may not pan out. Sometimes you make decisions and turns out the final cost comes together and it's not feasible. And none of us are going to vote for something that's stupid and doesn't work. But to investigate this possibility to move forward with it vigorously in a positive way, hoping that the outcome will be positive. I can't think of anything that's been more exciting to me in all my years of public service. So I want to thank our staff for having brought this to us today. Thank you, Commissioner Rodkin. Commissioner Caput, you're up. Thank you. Yeah, I also wanted to thank Guy Preston for a very sensible plan and also thank Chevra for your presentation. We're talking about actually going forward and that's what's so important about this vote today. We've done about two to three years worth of talking and now we're actually deciding. And I do like the comments of, you know, it's going to be done in stages. It's going to be done in phases. And the only way to go forward is to approve this proposal. And we'll work out all the details later as best we can. But and if there's been a motion and a second, there has we have a motion second. I'm sorry, Commissioner Caput or we have two commissioners who are quite. Who made the second? I did. How about this, Mike? Let me do the second. I'll be happy to, sir, I'll be happy to remove my second and have a great capital substitute for me. Thank you. For the minutes we can give Commissioner Caput credit for the second on that. Our previous second is amenable. Thanks. Okay. And I just wanted to clarify, I believe Commissioner Caput that your appreciation was intended for Sarah Christensen. Yeah. Okay. Our senior engineer. Okay. Our next up, Commissioner Brown, Kristen Brown. Thank you, chair. And of course, thank you to our staff and director Preston for all of the work on this and all of the items that you put forward before us, always appreciated. I don't think it's a big secret that I since joining the RTC board have been somewhat skeptical of rail transit in our community. And I'm still not completely convinced of the feasibility or practicality, but that being said, I think if there's anything that we can do to help those who have heard about this, especially in the last few weeks, it showed that the, those who showed out to vote have very strong opinions on what should be done with our rail line. And I feel like it's my responsibility as an elected official to do what I can to represent those who have made their voices known, especially in that particular vote. And so, you know, with that being said, I am prepared to support staff recommendation and the motion that's on the floor. Okay. Thank you. Our next speaker, commissioner, Shabra Calendari Johnson, you're a member of the community, and I think that's a very important thing. And I think that's a very important thing. And I think that is, you know, feasible and practical for our community as we move forward into the future. And I think that's a very important thing. Thank you, chair. Shabra Calendari Johnson, you're up next. Go for it. Thank you, chair. My name is Shabra Calendari Johnson and I do serve as an alternate for the metro board on the RTC, but not needed as an alternate today. So I'm speaking as a community member. I also want to thank the RTC staff and the commission for bringing this forward and for the support that they've provided to the community. I'm also really glad to see our new general manager Michael Tree here today and engage in this conversation because I think we really will need a cross-system approach and collaboration to ensure that the project that we move forward with is successful. And I know this isn't before us today and it may seem far off, but to the point that Sarah made and was in the agenda today, I would like to thank the commission for providing support for the operations of the rail line. Once we have a rail line to make sure it's affordable for everyday people. Again, it may seem far off, but we should start thinking about that and I would support the RTC exploring that when the time is appropriate. So thank you again and thanks for giving me the opportunity to chime in. All right. Next up. Commissioner Quinn. Commissioner Quinn is not an official, but as Bill Nye, the science guy says, what data would change your mind? And if the answer is none, then it's not worth having the conversation. So I very much look forward to getting some data that is spun either way and gives us some real clear compass points in which to navigate going forward. Chair Brown. Yes. Okay. So I don't believe we'll ever be able to create modern passenger rail service on an old single track freight line, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. And I certainly believe in democracy and the voters have made themselves very clear that they're not ready to leave the rail option behind. So I fully support this effort to get more information for voters about the type of service we'll be able to make. And I think that's one of the things that I think it will take to deliver a project. And if I'm proven wrong, I would honestly be overjoyed because I want nothing more than to see carbon-free, effective public transit in this community. And one way or another, we're going to work together to get that done. And if in fact passenger rail is not feasible, then I hope it will at least be a reductionist. And so again, in this period of moving forward together, I fully support the staff recommendation. Thank you. Thank you. I see Commissioner Randy Johnson. Thank you, chair. I do think that the vote on measure D allows us to kind of take a second look at rail in honesty, being forthright, and actually looking at the data that emerges from this. I think our response should be measured and look for facts as they come forward. Is this kind of a the starting point expensive? Well, I would have to look at that, see what kind of RFPs come back to whether or not to see if they're worth the cost of investing in something like this. So, you know, I'm I would caution the commission, however, that, you know, when I speak of honesty, there was so much alacrity with progressive rail and every instance in which people kind of said, is there really enough business there? Should we actually invest in that? Is this the right partner? And those people who put up a little bit of, I guess, interference, if you will, that maybe we shouldn't go ahead with progressive rail. We're kind of put down as you're being obstructionist and you're not listening to the facts. Well, progressive rail is a total adjunct failure. And I just want people to kind of, given that fact, that we when things fail and have the possibility failing, we're at least honest enough to recognize that and admit that to the public that this really is not the case. And perhaps in that, I think moving forward with at least a preliminary and seeing what is offered with an RFP, I can support that. Thank you. Thank you. Call the question, I guess. Okay. If I could, as a chair, make a couple of comments before we take the vote. I just want to, so most of my questions are all my questions said and my questions asked and answered. But I did just want to say a couple of things. I had the privilege of serving on this commission. I came in right after the 2016 measure devote and I have been able to, and it's been great to serve on a commission where we've had for the first time in a long time, resources to expand transportation, infrastructure, services and really have funding to do a lot of the things we know are needed in our community or wanted in our community around active transportation, etc. And, so it's been wonderful. I've been supportive of moving forward in the direction we are about, I believe, take a vote on to move forward today. Since I came on to the commission, I had hoped that this decision would be made sooner. But here we are and it is a really momentous decision to be taking this step. I do think that success or failure is contextual and so I'm looking forward to getting additional information. I'm looking forward to getting the information we need and that is needed really to bring trust in our community by outside funders from the state and federal government and other possible funding sources to make this happen. I do think we will need a local funding source at some point as Commissioner Alternate Calendary Johnson suggested and so I look forward to those conversations. I wanted to ask and then I also really want to thank staff. I mean, you have been through this. You've been working really hard to deliver projects for our community and it's not easy and it's made more difficult when our issues are very contentious in our community and I think you've really kind of rolled with the punches and I appreciate all the work you've put in to get us to this point today. I have a lot of tremendous amount of respect and appreciation for your work. So I do have one last question that I just wanted to raise because it came up a couple of times in public comment and I've heard it before related to and I know we're not there today but I just wanted to ask related to the local match and the potential for future actions on the commission to come back and where that local match money might come from being Measure D. Do you anticipate that given that the trail is being incorporated into that funding from Measure D's the other bucket might be we might be able to use that as well or is all there seems to be a suggestion that would be the the rail portion of the Measure D funds that would be used but is there possibility for using another bucket to help support that in some way I'm really I ask this because I'm very much concerned about preservation and maintenance on the rail line and I recognize the challenge that we have there and I've also talked with Director Preston about you know really making me aware of how problematic it is when we the deferred maintenance right and so I just wanted to ask that question real quickly before we take the vote. Sure so in the SAF report we do actually talk about the rail portions of the contract being funded by Measure D active transportation which is for the trail active transportation category also can be used for maintenance such as drainage maintenance vegetation and dealing with encroachments property management issues and all of that so those two funding sources are available to us but caution both are very impacted we have a very robust coastal rail trail program and we just made a big programming decision back in May and so we will take it back to the drawing board and program as much as appropriate for between trail and rail but ideally we get most of this funded by the state and other outside sources so absolutely and I do recognize that both of those pots of funding are limited I just wanted to make that clarification now. And if I can clarify a little bit more too the first task the concept report is going to be pretty much rail oriented so we do expect it to be more heavily funded from the rail pot than the trail we think there's only so far we're going to be able to get with our local funding source we do plan to come back to the commission with request for programming for the rail pot we have not had our public hearing this year yet on the rail five year plan we have on the trail and we may have to amend that if we're going to fund some of it as we get the scope of services locked down when we see the proposals when we can see the hours allocated to the various tasks we can better determine what that split would be. Thank you and that lastly I'll just say for members of the public who have asked to have some input into the scope of work in the RFP process I think we've heard from staff about the kind of the rationale behind how we're moving forward but I will say given that the scope of work was just made available and I myself have only had a chance to pass my eyes over it if you do have questions I will just offer that I'm willing to try to get your questions answered if you want to contact me directly I tend to be more rapidly responsive to communications that are addressed to me directly rather than ones that come to the commission and then we see them in the log so I'll just say that for members of the public I will try to help you get questions answered as we move through this and with that I will call for a vote Commission Alternate Schifrin I Commissioner Koenig I Commissioner Sandy Brown I Commissioner Bertrand I Commissioner Rotkin I Commissioner McPherson I Commissioner Alternate Quinn Yes Commissioner Kristen Brown I Commissioner Caput I Commissioner Parker Yes Commissioner Herst I I and Commissioner Johnson I That was unanimous And you did here Commissioner Parker I did, okay Great so thank you everyone we will now move on to our final item for today that is item 25 a response to the court ruling on a sequel challenge of the highway one tier one high occupancy vehicle lanes project and Sarah Christensen is back at back to give us a report thanks never looked thanks no PowerPoint so that's a good thing here today to recommend that the RTC authorize an amendment to a consultant contract to provide technical support to address the court ruling which is attached to the staff report on the sequel challenge to the EIR for the highway one HOV lanes analysis part of the recommendation is to program and budget in this current fiscal year to grant funds and exchange those funds for regional state transportation program exchange or RSTPX funds in this current fiscal year to fund this contract amendment as well as project management services and efforts to complete the work so just a little bit of background here this was pretty major effort in the years by this commission and partnership with Caltrans to prepare this EIR it was circulated in 2015 and into 2016 and finally certified in 2019 the sequel document was challenged and we've been staying tuned on the court process there was a lot of delays through the court process because of the pandemic but there was a hearing that happened and the ruling came out so the ruling on the challenge by the campaign for sustainable transportation who was a plaintiff against the EIR was denied in part and successful in part the court rejected the majority of the claims and the ruling addresses really the programmatic level analysis for the HOV lanes if you recall there's the project level analysis that's required for any project to move forward into implementation and then there's also a programmatic level analysis that could happen that sets the vision the long-term vision for the quarter and so the challenge and the ruling were both about the programmatic level for HOV lanes along Highway 1 which was selected as the preferred alternative for the project the court orders a recirculation of a focus CIR to address three topics one being the HOV lane baseline year of 2035 updates to the project description and then including health effects for mobile source air toxics or mSATS as it relates to the HOV lane project so very focused areas that need to be recirculated for public review and comment to address the court's order so in order to do that the arrangement for this project just to jog your memory the RTC is the implementing agency for the EED phase or the project approval environmental documentation phase of the project so we're responsible for doing the work preparing the document we hired consultants to do the work previously and Caltrans role is they serve as the sequel lead for the project so they're the ones doing the certification and they also provide oversight so we work hand in hand and our technical consultants prepare to review it and essentially adopt it so our recommendation is to authorize an amendment for the technical work to proceed and work with Caltrans to comply with the court's order and just a few other notes just based on concerns that that's been circulating around out there but by recirculating the focus CIR and going through this effort it doesn't guarantee or mandate that HOV lanes will be built it doesn't approve the project to move forward any project that is implemented needs a project level analysis so if at some point the commission decided to do HOV lanes or anything else on the corridor a project level environmental documentation would need to go forward and be completed so another point is we have a cooperative agreement with Caltrans we're the implementing agency we need to prepare the information work with Caltrans and that's why we're recommending to to partner with Caltrans and finish the job this was a big investment by the commission took many many years to complete and we want to complete that so with that staffs recommending to following the court order and honoring our cooperative agreement with Caltrans and with that that concludes my presentation ready for any questions thank you okay I did see Commissioner Schifrin asked to be called on for questions and then I don't see any hands on the screen I'll go to Mr. Rodkin next Mr. Bertrand thank you the staff report recommends using STBG funds for the $250,000 I have a couple questions about that one can STBG funds be used for projects other than highway projects yes question two why is the recommendation for STBG funds as opposed to measure D highway funds so STBG funds are discretionary they're up to this commission to program we usually go through a process every couple years to distribute these funds and the reason we're not recommending at this time to program measure D is because the measure D program in the expenditure plan does not explicitly call out HOV lanes so it does talk about congestion reduction but we don't want to leave any gray area and so we're recommending this STBG source of funds for this work so you're saying that measure D funds couldn't be used for an HOV project under measure D I I'm not going to say they could not be used but staff's recommendation is to because it's not explicitly stated in measure D which was voted upon we're not recommending to use measure D for that reason because it's not explicitly called out are all the auxiliary relaying projects that we're pursuing called out explicitly in measure D yes they are because the original measure D passed with ox lanes between Soquel Drive and State Park Drive and then if you recall in February of 2020 we went through a process of amending the expenditure plan to explicitly add between State Park Drive and Freedom Boulevard and those are the entire extent of all the ox lanes in our development so is there anything that would prevent the commission from amending the expenditure plan to explicitly include funding for the EIR recirculation from measure D funds for that HOV project? That's a possibility but that's not today's recommendation there's a process I think it's about a month and a half or two month process to do that and we want to get going before that let me ask what's since there's no funding for the HOV project itself what's the rush and especially if I'm remembering correctly it took about 10 years to get the original EIR done for that project what's the hurry of I'm just a little concerned I guess I should be clear using funding that could be available for other kinds of projects besides highway projects when we have what is it what's the percentage of measure D that goes for highway projects I mean it's the biggest percentage and or one of the biggest percentages it's certainly bigger than the percentages for the projects that I'm most interested in taking money from a pot that could be used for those other projects for a long-term highway project if it's ever going to be built just doesn't seem reasonable to me when it would be possible to take that money out of the measure D highway fund simply by doing what we've done before which is adding it to the expenditure plan those are my questions thank you we could consider bringing this back at a future meeting if that's the way that the commission wants to go is we were wanting to move forward a little sooner but if that's what we want to do and preserve the SCBG for other uses we'll take that direction obviously thank you hey commissioner rockin well first of all I'm sympathetic to the concerns that nandy shifrin raised I don't know if the public follows this exactly I actually I read every word of the legal decision by the court frankly it's one of the more bizarre I'm not an attorney but it's one of the more bizarre decisions I've ever read because what it says if I understand it I'll be corrected please if I've got it wrong is that you don't really have to fix you have a project in which you have a tier one project which is the vision of 2035 of an HOV project which I don't know that we're really committed to and that we're not told it wasn't impossible but they wasn't emphasized in any way whereas the auxiliary lanes were and the court decision is go ahead with the tier two project which is build the auxiliary lanes and you don't need to fix the underlying the court recommends that we fix the tier one environmental work but you don't need to do that to go ahead with your auxiliary lanes which I always think if you have but if you tier a second tier off of the first tier you got to fix the first tier for you can do the second tier but the court says no you don't need to do that it's a little bizarre but if I understand it that's what they're telling us $250,000 is not chump change it's a significant amount of money and as someone who does not support who supports the auxiliary lanes I don't like them I don't think they're going to be that effective but the public asked us to spend the money on that and I think we should always spend the money on what the public tells us to so I'm in support of the auxiliary lanes but I'm not in support of the HOV lanes the public turned down a chance to support those in the past on a vote it's a half a billion dollars for that project in the end you have to fix every bridge on the way to make it happen and as Sarah Christensen just told us we would still have other decisions to make before you could actually build that HOV project so it sounds like what the court's saying is we'd like you to kind of fix the environmental stuff and the other thing you don't really need to have in order to move ahead with any of the practical things you really want to do so Andy's suggestion and on the other hand CalTrans wants us to do it I understand and the court said we'd like you to do it as well although they don't order us to do it to do anything we want to do so what were the consequence I'm not asking this as a question in my head I'm asking this question what would the consequence be of just not doing not spending the money not doing the environmental work and the projects we want to actually do short of that since we want to be partners with CalTrans and we don't want to have a fight with them about stuff and we need to work and they've been very good about working with us cooperatively on things we care about Andy's suggestion that at least we pay for this out of highway money and not out of things we could spend on other things we care about it's very attractive to me and I would like to get a my question in the end of all this is is it possible to put this off until our next meeting to get a sense of whether we could take an action it wouldn't be just to have a big discussion but to have in front of us the option of possibly funding this out of highway money rather than these other more fungible more open-ended kinds of possible funding that's my question really so I'm going to reiterate some of the things that that Sarah mentioned and it's certainly possible to amend the expenditure plan to add HOV lanes to it but there also could be unintended consequences associated with that there's a lot of people that don't support HOV lanes and then you'd be adding it to the expenditure plan I understand the concerns about spending money on this that could be spent on something else at this particular time we feel we got one ruling from the court and it told us to recirculate the document and provide additional information to the public to cure the document it's a fairly inert cure and it's something that can be done and it would provide additional information and show the court that we're committed to following their order we think that that's in our best interest at this time we we can certainly look at other avenues moving forward but to really ensure that there's no issues with this ruling whatsoever we think it's best that we move forward and honor what the court asked us to do and that we show them that commitment today that's it Commissioner Bertrand did you have questions? A question. First of all, thank you for reading emails from the public and you did answer my first question I read the decision we're sort of talking about whether we should comply with the ruling so I was trying to understand some of the points so the baseline issue came up in my mind and I was just wondering if you could explain that to me a little bit better than I was able to understand it so I'll paraphrase and try to explain the way that I understand it is in the draft document there was a baseline year identified for the HOV lanes which I believe was the same as what you would typically do for a project level analysis so say it was 2015 at that time and then between the draft and the final and the reason for that changes because HOV lanes are not approved to move forward and they are considered a long-term project the baseline year for HOV lanes should really be considered at a more realistic year to when they're actually implemented which was 2035 so the issue is not the concept of that but the fact that we had one piece of information in the draft and then it switched on us and was changed to a different year for the final and the fact that the public did not have the opportunity to comment on that baseline year and so basically we take what was in the final document put it out to the public solicit input get comments on that and then we're done I mean that resolves the issue really did that answer your question I see commissioners Quinn and then Commissioner Parker you'll be up next but I'll call on Commissioner Quinn Thank you two quick comments number one I want to endorse what Mr. Preston said about responding to court I think that's important number two I want to just comment on Mr. Schifrin's comment about projects he likes or doesn't like I assume my appointment is to advocate on behalf of the regional including Aptos Biked, carpooled and driven from Aptos to Dominican hospital for 25 years it is untenable and there's a lot of rhetoric about the highway good or bad, train or good or bad I would urge us to avoid the rhetoric and the opinions and look at the data and the cost of the people from Watsonville and Aptos who spend hours on highway one because there's no other way to go and should a train come it's still years away so I believe as a commission you're failing the constituents at least in Aptos who are sitting on that highway burning gas day after day Commissioner Parker Thank you Can you hear me? I agree with Guy Preston and everything he says I was looking very seriously not only at this one but our previous item about what a staff is talking about and it's really about the focus of moving forward addressing these issues as quickly as possible to keep the conversation going it's not whether there's going to be a magical HOV you know happening tomorrow next week but Caltrans wants us to move forward in the sense that they want communication out to the public I appreciate the explanation and the clarification in regards to the 2035 new deadline or new opening deadline so I'm in favor of this I'm not in favor of putting it off and changing its categorization possibly based on what I heard I'm just in favor of moving it forward and finding out facts as we go and finding out from the people of today what they think about this information and especially from South County I think Dr. Quinn mentioned exactly what's going on and after my entire life of going back and forth between Watsonville and Santa Cruz on the freeway whether it's going to happen immediately or not and whether light rail will happen ever here or 50 years from now or 20 years from now 10 years from now we're going to explore all the options and getting our clean metro buses over there whether it may be an auxiliary or HOV I think it's really important for us to understand we need to keep moving forward which is why we had a unanimous vote on our last item so I'd like to move forward with that on this one and I appreciate the time thank you I'll call on Commissioner Hernandez next on clarification you know I think that honestly with the HOV lanes I'm not sure which direction the Caltrans or the Federal Highway is going but I'd like to know find out from our director or maybe our Caltrans rep that's here what they think future funding for HOV is in addition on some of the comments that Commissioner Rockin made about we need to make this decision for our auxiliary lanes because I think that that was pretty clear here in South County for that decision from the court order for us to do the EIR for the HOV to move forward so those two things I wanted to ask about so thank you Commissioner Hernandez there are more challenges today than there have been in the past in funding HOV lanes the wholesale widening of freeways those days are not not what we're experiencing today those projects are having a harder time finding funding sources I do think that the court provided us a ruling that discussed both the tier one and the tier two project and it was one ruling and I think it's a little bit dangerous picking and choosing parts of the ruling that we like and parts of the ruling that we don't like and I think it's important for us to move forward and respect the court's decision because it allows us to move forward with the auxiliary lands that was supported by the voters and supported by this commission if we move forward and recertify the document for HOV lanes we're going to be providing the public with additional information that will be valuable for future decision makings but it would not be approving a project level document at this time okay thank you do we have any additional questions from commissioners or we take it out to the public okay so I will now call on members of the public who would like to comment on this item and we'll begin with members who are present in the chambers and you're up hi my name is Rick Longinati I'm the chair of the campaign for sustainable transportation and chair of the sera club transportation committee and I thought I was going to have three minutes so ask me any questions about our intentions for appealing this after I'm done because I don't know that I'm going to get through all of there was a slide presentation in the meantime I want to say that we are in agreement with the staff's understanding of the court decision that the auxiliary lanes can move forward we're not happy about that part of the decision but that's what the judge said our appeal if we decide to take it and we haven't decided to take it would be partly based on that if you have a tier one project that's in ballot how can you go forward with a tier two project that's based on the tier one we think the judge got it wrong but we're not sure if we want to appeal it partly it depends on what you do today we have the slides up yet they're coming and I will say Mr. Longinati given that and we had spoken previously and I had intended to give three minutes for public comment today so if you go over I'll just try to there's one part of the staff interpretation decision we did not agree with maybe you read about it in the judge's decision but there are fundamental flaws regarding the project description and the baseline and this requires recirculation of the entire EIR and I believe Caltrans has agreed with that point so I think the staff report is inadequate on that what that means is that the $250,000 is very likely and underestimated of what it would cost to do this next round of work you might want to figure four times that amount and I would appreciate a question from the commissioners to how much we've already spent on this EIR and we don't want to follow in the trap of the you know the sunk cost fallacy because I know it was 13 million on the draft EIR I don't know what it was for the final but since we already spent so much money that means we need to spend more money that's in vernacular that's throwing good money after bad we have the slides yet we do okay great okay I'll ask if you can advance so you can go back one slide please okay so this is a photo artist depiction of the HOV dream that looks really enticing next slide please next slide the reality is that the full funding will be implemented after 2035 you want to data there it is after 2035 and you know your people that know what that really means which is maybe never the operational reality of expanding highways we know that there's a consensus a scientific opinion there's not a dispute about this that adding capacity of roadways fails to leave a congesture for long because it actually increases vehicle miles travel this is Susan who came to Santa Cruz a few years ago next slide so if the draft EIR is recirculated none of the things that I have to do is comply with new secret regulations which require analyzing vehicle miles traveled next slide including induced travel okay so Caltrans is now saying induced travel is for real back when they did the draft EIR or the EIR that we're talking about today they were not considering several aspects of induced travel they're going to have to go back and do that next slide they will require to mitigate increases in vehicle miles traveled the EIR says the increase in vehicle miles traveled of the HOV project would be 29% it will be much more than that once Caltrans uses their new metrics counting induced travel so we have to mitigate how do we mitigate that I think that's a question you really want to answer don't you unless if you're going to spend money on a new project like how are you going to do this next question so yes that's my conclusion the idea that EIR can be easily fixed is mistaken so we're talking a lot more than 250,000 here next slide does the community want the HOV project Mr. Rockin already replied next slide we had the vote in measure J it was a needed a two thirds vote it got 43% next slide so this is the what I hope the commission will adopt as your policy time to tell the voter's truth about congestion is use travel means we can't reduce congestion beyond the short term we can't do it with with new lanes we can't do it with new bus lines we can't do it with transit on the quarter we can't do it with bus on shoulder not to say that those projects are not good projects because they give people alternatives but they're not going to reduce congestion on the highway it's physics right next slide George Chander was at this meeting with Susan Handy he asked the most important question there he said so what can we do for South County commuters who are stuck in traffic next slide Susan said give them alternatives so we're not going to tell them they're going to have congestion really we give them alternatives next slide I think the RTC staff understand that I've had conversations with them and that's why they talk about moving people and not cars so whether we appeal what can I say about that I'd love to I can't say I can't speak for the Sierra Club or the campaign for stable transportation I can speak for myself but I'd love to see something happen today and if nothing happens today what choices do we have next slide I'm just going to ask you to wrap it up I think I'm done any questions I'll be here alright our next speaker I thank you again Lonnie Faulkner equity transit and thank you for your time I just want to back up Rick Lunginati who provided the wonderful data looking forward to no sooner than 2035 do we really want to spend funds these STGP funds that can be used for other more pressing pertinent projects whether they be supporting bus metro the rail projects that we're looking at and whatever other projects that are really pressing currently so I would like to recommend that the commissioners decline item number 25 today and think about better uses for those funds thank you my name is Micah Posner I've been fighting highway widening as an activist for about 20 years because I think it's an ethical and unreasonable to widen highways in the face of global warming and I don't think it works to help anyone I was convinced early on by Tony Compos actually that if I don't want to widen the highway that I need to support a train and other alternatives for people from South County so I've also been doing that for 20 years because it does matter if we do need to support the people in South County but not with something that's ruins the world's climate and it doesn't really help for more than a few years so I'm here to ask you to please just stop with the HV lanes we've wasted like 13 million dollars it's never going to pass like you need local money you already we already voted not to give it to the commission and the state money as your executive director so honestly said it's getting harder and harder and harder to get you know that you're never going to widen you're never going to put in the HV lanes I mean whether you want to or not you disagree with me you know that I mean I would imagine if I was sitting up there that I would want to spend the $250,000 just because you might be pissed it's like you're getting sued and blah blah and you have this project but I'm asking you to have some humility and just admit that it's not going to happen and not spend money that you could spend on things that can happen that you do have consensus for the community that can really make a difference I know it's easy for me to ask you to have humility when I you know whatever I'm just fighting the highway for 20 years so I thought as a symbol I would just kneel down and say please please just stop it just I'm going to do that I'm going to say like please stop this this crazy battle that's been going on for decades just just stop you know we don't have to agree but anything happening anyways and this is money that can be used for things we can agree on just stop it okay thank you I do not see any other members of the public in the chambers who which wish to speak so I'm going to take it out to callers and our first caller is Brian from trail now hey this is Brian from trail now we absolutely support staff recommendation we need to widen the highway to keep big heavy traffic on that highway corridor so they're not driving through our neighborhoods which they're doing now actually because of the delay more carbon dioxide has been impacting the environment with all of the delays it's interesting that they're saying we'll never get it until 2035 while at the same time you're going off and doing a major train study and investment that you won't get until 2045 and studies have shown that will have zero impact on traffic the way you manage traffic is you understand that it's a surge that comes through highway one right you have to have the capacity to do that and then you apply policies like you know toll roads and hov and car pooling and bus pooling and you allow metro to run buses on that we absolutely need the corridor opened now when I hear the train advocates complain that we need a solution well the solutions right in front of our eyes it's the Santa Cruz coastal corridor and we continue to delay the opening of it that corridor needs to be open and that's really an alternative that we need done as soon as possible looks like the clock is keep slowing down so I'm feeling like you're giving me more time but I won't take up more time there you go anyway so we support it moving forward and we support hov lanes and we mostly of support opening the Santa Cruz coastal corridor as a transportation resource for active transportation let's stop delaying this 2035 that the train advocates are complaining about well you're just imposing that on us now on the coastal corridor so thank you for your time thank you our next speaker is Michael St can you hear me chair Brown yes okay I do have a slide presentation also but your timing thing is right in the middle of my slides so I'm not sure how we can fix that okay thank you I appreciate it go ahead and watch the timer okay it's worthwhile to consider the information in making the decision that you have before you today next slide please bus the definition of bus on shoulder is a dedicated bus lane as you can see here next slide please the current plan is not a true bus on shoulder the bus only segments are only under the overpass next slide please the buses will operate in locks lanes with other traffic next slide congestion benefit of ox early lanes are none congestion the ox lane alternative would slightly worsen traffic operations in southbound peak commute hours next slide please there is no safety benefit the total accident rates overall would be the same as the accident rates for the no build alternative next slide here are the results from the poll the RTC commissioned in 2016 the weak support for the ox lanes would be even weaker if the question contained accurate information the EIR stated there would not be enough congestion relief to attract vehicles that had diverted to the local street system back to the freeway next slide please imagine express buses in dedicated lanes next slide please the 91 express bus makes good times after the morning commute during commute times a dedicated bus on shoulder will be better than what actually automatic wheels will be able to do next slide Mr. St. your time is up so I just want to ask you if you can quickly finish up this is the last slide but you threw the timer in the middle of it again I'll just keep talking there you go the 91 express bus makes good times in the morning commute and as we said during commute times a dedicated bus on shoulder would be better and this slide goes to my wife commuted to her job in stanford on the highway 17 bus express but she had to drive to either Santa Cruz or Scotts Valley to catch this bus it is very easy for me to imagine good ridership on a highway 17 express directly from either Watsonville also Aptos or the Capitola transit center please help us today by voting no on agenda item 25 and bring us closer to a 21st century transportation system the voters mandate was to get Santa Cruz moving not necessarily widening the highway for more cars thank you thank you our next speaker jack nelson you're up sorry I needed to unmute now here I am jack nelson so Mr. Longinati raised an important question can Caltrans and the RTC only produce a focused revised EIR and circulate that that only addresses a few questions or does it need to recirculate the entire EIR my read of the court decision is it's not that clear but nowhere in that decision can you search the PDF and find the word focused or focused EIR so maybe your commission should at least wait until the court and the litigants come up with the follow up instructions that are maybe more explicit about this I'd also like to underscore what Mr. Longinati said about these funds that are proposed to be used are being stolen from Metro, from Paratransit, from Potholes from anything else that you could beneficially use these funds for and your it's proposed you're going to take these and waste them on an EIR for a project that would never be built so can't we do better than that lastly I do think it's time for a state change in the RTC's thinking and to finally and forever leave behind this combustion friendly morality in which it's okay to expand the greenhouse gas combustion the greenhouse gas production machine in order to vainly try to fix congestion and what it's really going to do is continue to burn down our planet that's you know if you don't believe me listen to the climate scientists all over the world who are telling us we're looking down the barrel of a very big crisis so let's do this right please please thank you thank you our next speaker is Jacqueline Griffith and you can go ahead and press star six to unmute yourself or use your mute button go yes unmute we hear you Jackie you can hear me okay thank you for the chance to speak on this I support the things that Rick Longianotti was saying I do not think I do not want you to go forward and commit this $225,000 under the all the circumstances that people have brought up faulty on this that may take four times as much to do it if it's so we should wait until we can clarify that just before this you pass this thing to find out about rail about the rail trail and if what we can do there so that's an excellent reason to wait because you don't know what your situation is either from what the EIR is or from other opportunities we can hope for everything says that widening the highway anything you do to the highway doesn't really get people off the other streets and it doesn't help the traffic in fact it increases it and good grief you know we're so lucky here where it isn't so hot most of the country is in drought terrible drought and terrible heat and this is only going to increase are things like Kentucky where everybody's underwater I just don't see that this is the direction that funding is going to go in the future I think that work patterns may change in order to reduce traffic on the highway there may be things that we can do but building out a freeway with extra lanes the bus only lane that makes a lot of sense and that would really help for Watsonville people coming and going to work it may be it's only during certain hours I don't know okay that's my time thank you for the chance to speak thank you Ms. Griffith next up is Adam Miller Ball welcome thank you Chair Brown thank you commissioners can you hear me yes thank you my name is Adam Miller Ball I'm a resident of Santa Cruz I'm also a professor of planning and I teach about transportation and climate change and I'd like to make two major points first of all we just can't build ourselves out of congestion and traffic in the region is already going in the wrong direction I just saw an analysis from the state resources board which showed that vehicle travel has increased 13% in the region per capita over the 10 years to 2019 so even before we start building new highways that's already going in the wrong direction building more highways is going to only add fuel to that and highway one would be just as congested as before because of induced travel we'd have exactly the same congestion in the long run but with more climate pollution this project isn't consistent with the counties and the region's environmental plans and then the second key point as many speakers have raised there's no funding on the horizon to actually build this project anyway so since highway expansion even Caltrans admits that highway expansion is coming to an end since it's an environmental and a fiscal non-starter why should we throw huge money after bad why plan for a project why do more analysis in a project that isn't going to happen so it's time to take a break if not to pull the plug on this project altogether and I realize that technically this item isn't a decision on highway expansion itself but if you aren't committed to highway expansion why spend this money and so I urge commissioners to reject the staff recommendation and to not do or to shelve analysis on the AR or at least to follow commissioner Schifrin's suggestion to use highway funds to the analysis rather than the STBG thank you very much for your attention thank you okay our next speaker is Ron Swinson and I believe Mr. Swinson is here in person and on the line so come on up good to see you if you only get to talk once though the phone will stay muted here thank you very much for the opportunity here to speak I was had the great good fortune in 1966 as I was a young teacher at San Jose State instructor I heard Bucky Fuller visit the class I was teaching for two months and after two months he got it because he said it over and over again we must save our oil for a rainy day you have heard that the United States is doing better than ever in being the largest producer of oil but let me tell you we're scraping the bottom of the barrel we're talking about this as a celebration it is not I just the other day that James Loughlock the guy that invented the hypothesis said my main reason for not relaxing into a contented retirement is that like most of you I'm deeply concerned about the probability of massively harmful climate change and the need to do something about it now Mr. Koenig, Commissioner Koenig you mentioned getting off the fossil fuels we can't just do it with electric cars that's not going to solve the problem I hear very clearly those of you who are traveling from Watsonville or places between here and there where you get this congestion clearly we have to rethink this problem I am not an advocate I'm a builder my grandfather built a Palomar hotel and you all know how many other buildings we've put here in many years I can help you build I can be a contractor and help you build a system that will work you just have to give me a call when you're ready thank you thank you Mr. Swenson no wasting money I will next for folks who are out there in the audience if you do want to speak on this item please get your hand up otherwise this will be our last speaker Barry Scott welcome thank you this is Barry Scott in Aptos in Aptos and I want to thank first of all Director Preston for pointing out that highway widening projects are harder and harder to fund indeed it's Caltrans itself has expressed the concern with induced demand it's not just Susan Handy at UC Davis anymore and I think as you all know Governor's Office of Planning and Caltrans is leaning more toward anything that reduces vehicle miles travel I have in front of me a page from the 2015 EIR for the tier one project it shows and you know these tier two projects are all incremental toward this gigantic eight lane highway I'm not kidding you if I'm looking at the Rio del Mar overpass after the tier one is completed this project is just a part of the overall larger project but eight lanes is just never going to happen I wonder and I remember that a motion was made at a meeting some months ago to move funds from metro to road repairs Commissioner Koenig made the motion and it passed one or two million dollars and so I wonder as we move ahead if we might not consider this kind of moving funds I know that Measure D of 2016 had its allocations and only 8% even though it started off higher than 8% it started off 20% and then was 15 and 14 dropped down to 8% per rail that's unfortunate but I hope we will keep in mind the potential for shifting funds from one bucket to another as long as we're getting to something that will really provide relief and less dependency on automobiles thank you thank you our next speaker is Casey Byer thank you Chairman Brown and commissioners I'll be brief in 2004 there was an initiative that went to the ballot in Santa Cruz County that was opposed by the people that are suing you and Caltrans have filed the legal suit they were then called the committee for sensible transportation at that time and they opposed HOV lanes which was included in that ballot measure it failed miserably we fast forward to 2016 we learned a couple of lessons one HOV lanes were not going to be part of the future of that rail of that corridor even though people want it so Measure D in 2016 did not include HOV lanes it did include the auxiliary lanes whether they're the right end result for moving transportation or not but that's what was in the measure I'm just making this point that this is both a legal challenge for the RTC and Guy I think you got it right Mr. Press I think you got it right you kind of got your hands tied behind your back and you're trying to move forward with transportation improvements throughout the county in the different buckets and then secondly this is a political conversation and I hate to get political but if you go through with the HOV lane plan and do the EIR and it has some type of simability that it could be potentially a possible I guarantee you there will be an initiative on the ballot to kill it so just bear in mind that you're in a rock and hard spot and I recommend that the staff move forward in its proposal thank you very much thank you okay I do not see any additional hands up virtually and I think we are we've completed our public comment from speakers in the room and so I will bring it back to the commission for deliberation and action and I'm looking for comments and or a motion Mr. Bertrand a motion that we accept staff's recommendation okay we have a motion and a second that was Commissioner McPherson was the second Commissioner Hernandez I see your hand up yeah you know you know personally I don't think that HOV lanes or highway widening are something that is going to be funded or you know now or in the near future and especially in 2035 and you know the I think what the last speaker was referring to I think you know really hit hits the nail have a nail about you know it's really confusing that we have to do this level of an EIR for this project when it's something that you know we're not really tied to what I wanted to ask is what I wanted to ask staff is can we use whatever criteria or standards that we used for the EIR that we used from Soquel to the Fish Hook can we use that level of standards or criteria even though it might be less then but still use it for the EIR that we're doing just to be on the safe side even though it might be to a lesser standard of an EIR but also just to incorporate it just to fulfill the court ruling and to fulfill any future endeavors that we have you know I think any projects that we have to be feasible financially and I think also we have to make sure we do more sustainable options too so that was my question about putting different lesser standards on the EIR that will fulfill lesser projects Thank you Commissioner Hernandez I think Sarah, Ms. Christensen you're here to respond did you get that question? Yeah I'm not aware of an approach that would use like a lesser standard the way that this court ruling is being interpreted by Caltrans is that it is a very focused circulation so it's not opening up the entire document and having to redo an extensive amount of work it's not even really performing any additional analysis it's going through the process to allow public comment on information that's readily available responding to those comments and then recertifying so I suppose I I'm not aware of any lesser standard that we can do that too but you know Well I'm referring to whatever was used from like Tier 2 or from the project for the auxiliary lanes from SoCal to the fish hook for that EIR for example I don't understand So Commissioner Hernandez I'm hearing Ms. Christensen isn't clear about the question are you you're talking about for the EIR the portion that is ox lanes rather than HOV? Correct Okay so does that help clarify? So just to remind Commissioner Hernandez the court order is really focused on the Tier 1 and so there's not a lot of content that we could pull from other parts of this document or any other document for that matter because it is somewhat of a unique analysis being programmatic so I'm not aware of anything we can kind of cut and paste and so what I think I'm hearing is Not necessarily cut and paste but I mean so if we do this and then not go forward with HOV lanes we basically waste 250 I mean is that what I'm hearing? I mean it'd be good if we could use it for future endeavors or future projects I think Commissioner Hernandez providing the public with the information that the court order that has to do is is important and I wouldn't necessarily refer to it as wasted money I actually really appreciate your thinking outside the box we've done a lot of that too but unfortunately if we were to move forward with a separate project we'd be looking at a separate document and that is the Tier 2 document so we do still recommend that we move forward following what the court asked us to do and provide the recirculation of the document that he asked us to recirculate so if we start to try to do something different I fear that we may get ourselves into trouble and that could affect our ability to move forward with the rest of the program so I are you in front of me but I'd like to speak yeah gotcha thank you okay so next up Commissioner Parker thank you I'm gonna support this because it moves things forward and it is about the public getting from the courts a direction the public needs to have this accessible again to make comments to be understood because of whatever they found all I see this is moving this forward and the staff says we should do it it will create less complications in all areas as we move forward then we need to do this and all this rhetoric about wasteful let's just move forward staff knows what they're doing on this just like they did on before they're moving projects forward with opportunities they're complying with what the courts asked so let's just move it forward thank you thank you okay so I'm gonna call on Commissioner Schifrin next and I just wanted to say I'm getting used to trying to track the screen versus hands raised and so if I do miss you I forget just remind me as Commissioner Schifrin just did so go ahead here next and I'll come back around thank you a couple of things the staff report is in two recommendations or the staff recommendation is in two parts the first part is to authorize moving forward with the recirculation of the EIR for the HOV and the second part is to take the money to do that out of surface transportation block grant funds there's an irony that strikes me in our discussion of this and that is thinking about people who are HOV skeptics that we're hearing today and people who are rail skeptics and a lot of the discussion is very similar to my thinking there are people who think we will never be able to do rail it's just not going to be feasible it's not going to be fundable and there are people who believe we're never going to be able to do the HOV project Caltrans doesn't want to do it I'll never be the money in listening to what we've mostly heard about over time the rail skeptics is sort of like I don't feel very comfortable about projecting the future there's a constituency that feels strongly that rail is potentially feasible and we need to pursue it there's a constituency that feels we really need to widen the highway and we need to move forward to do that when we when Measure D was put together in 2016 it was a compromise it was a compromise about those people who really cared about widening the highway and those people who really cared about metro who really cared about the rail trail who really cared about the rail itself and it passed because there was that willingness by everyone to compromise and I think part of that compromise for me meant going along with those people who really felt strongly that it was necessary to pursue highway widening and it was important to do it and we should do what we could to make it happen whether it's going to happen or not there are skeptics and those skeptics might turn out to be right and I probably am one of them but there are also well meaning and reasonable skeptics about rail and I'm not one of those so my sense is we should move forward with this I am willing to support and I think it's important to support the commission with the project that the commission has been pursuing for decades and which has the commission has been pursuing at a very high cost just in terms of the environmental document so I support the first staff recommendation but just like the the recommendation on item number 24 which was to move forward with rail planning the cost of that is going to come out of the measure D rail funds and I think that's appropriate I don't think anybody raised the concern oh well we should figure out how we could take it out of some other source that doesn't reduce our very limited money for rail as we know it is limited and one of the concerns that staff raised was by moving forward with the rail plan some of the preservation work is not going to be able to happen or it's going to get delayed well I think that despite the fact that I wish we could there was another source of funds and maybe the STBG funds could be used for the rail plan it didn't come up and staff didn't recommend it and I don't know whether it's possible or not I do think that it's legitimate when we're talking about a project that is to related to widening the highway to ask that that fund the funding for that come out of measure D now it seems to me that if the commission agrees to a majority of the commission agrees to move forward with recommendation number one that's going to be sending the message to the court and to the community that the court's ruling is going to be responded to that the EIR is going to be recirculated and hopefully will meet the court standard so I think approving recommendation one is possible is sends the message that needs that staff the saying needs to be sent or at least should be sent I don't think that's that approving recommendation number two for where the funds come from undermines that just because it means putting off for a few months the amendment of the expenditure plan that would allow for using these funds using the measure D funds for this again prepare to support recommendation one I think the commission should support it but I would like to make a motion to amend the motion on the floor to revise recommendation number two to provide a direction to staff to return to the commission with funding for the recirculation of the EIR to come from measure D highway funds second that's what Mike Rockin seconded we have a motion to amend part two of the main motion which is the staff recommendation and a second by commissioner Rockin and I still have a comment by the way I know that we're coming back around here because we do now have another item and I see that miss Christensen is at the podium that means you want to respond to this no it's just that there's a process for that so it might not be immediate or it might not just be a one month kind of old there's a process to amend the expenditure plan that could take if we don't move forward on this item today it would be coming back to the next meeting being September 1st and then there's the 45 day process after that so just keep that in mind that that would be 30 days plus 45 days okay approximately thank you for clarifying that okay so I'll come back around now commissioner Rockin commissioner Bertrand so the first comment is that because of the court ruling taking longer does not delay in any way the construction work and environmental and construction work on the auxiliary lane projects would be a different argument of like while we're messing around with this court question and stuff we have to tie up our ongoing projects the court was very explicit in the decision that we can go ahead with those projects so I'm not clear what the cost of the delay is as Andy pointed out that we might take a little longer to make it happen but we're going to comply with it my bigger question is I'd like to get some kind of response to Rick Lanjanotti's only one of those points that the new first part of the question is if we recirculate the public have a right to comment on the recirculation I assume and therefore they will make those comments in response and his argument and I don't know if it's a valid one his are we going to be our secret requirements going to be such that we're going to have to explain what the mitigation is for adding more vehicle miles and the greenhouse gas production that that leads to will we have to do that in which case $250,000 is not going to do it that's a huge mitigation I can't even imagine that there is one but maybe there is I don't know so trying to understand even if we do minimal work it doesn't take that much to sort of recirculate it be clear put out the information this is what's correct and so forth but don't the public get to then respond and don't we have to do something else about that or would they then sue us if we don't do something else I'm not sure what the process is there so the process that I understand because we've you know Keltran staff you know this is a very unique one this is not we can't just take some kind of template off the shelf and go through a process that is already done because this is out of the box programmatic documents are not commonly prepared for Keltrans projects we're pretty unique Santa Cruz but when we recirculate the EIR my understanding of how this will work is that we recirculate the document but we only solicit comments on the very focused areas that the court is directing us to recirculate on so those three very focused areas being the baseline year the project description and the MSAT the air quality health effects and so members of the community may choose to make comments on the whole document but the court is only ordering us to respond you know take comments and circulate on those very focused items but if the response to if the response to recirculated items is the question of the new standard about like what the increased vehicle miles traveled isn't I don't know that it's automatic but wouldn't that given a pretty big opening for any of the public or a member of the public or group to say well they haven't said how they're going to mitigate this new thing that this information now reveals clearly in a way that it wasn't revealed clearly in the first circulation sure I can respond to that so the the petitioner did make claims about the vehicle miles traveled for the project and the greenhouse gas emission analysis and the court rejected all of that thank you that's very helpful and also just to continue the discussion about VMT it is very important for this community that this commission to reduce vehicle miles traveled to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and our program this commission should really be proud of our program of projects we are extremely multi-modal and we are at the forefront of on a statewide level of delivering projects that are multi-modal that address the governor's executive orders for adopting the climate change and so you know it's a moving target though so you know there's been a new sequel requirement you know past you know when our project was going through the analysis since then there's a VMT requirement now for projects our projects have been setting VMT since before long before it was required and that's just because of the fabric of this county we're very environmentally conscious and multi-modal and so there is actually a VMT analysis we weren't even required to do it it was in the document the court threw out the claims about it so could I try to help with the EIR question because I teach a class on CEQA and this issue of what will be recirculated is there are lots of examples if Caltrans would recirculate the entire EIR then the public could comment on everything if Caltrans only circulated that those portions of the EIR that the judge found inadequate the public can only comment on those portions when the university adopted its EIR or they had a draft EIR for an earlier LRDP they decided because they hadn't analyzed the potential effects on Highway 1 that they would only recirculate that section on Highway 1 that was all the public could comment on it didn't reopen the Holy EIR so I think there's been some confusion in how it's been presented should the Holy EIR be recirculated and I don't remember the court's opinion act clearly Mr. Longinati seemed to imply that they required that the entire EIR be recirculated if that's not the case and only those sections that the judge found inadequate were need to be corrected then it's totally appropriate for the lead agency and the commission paying for what is done to just recirculate those sections and the public can only comment on those sections and the judge will then if that's then challenged determine whether the the EIR has adequately responded to the concerns that the judge raised so I hope that helps in terms of what gets commented on and what doesn't get commented on. It does and staff has continued to work with Caltrans on this and it's we don't have all the details figured out obviously we need the technical support in order to kind of get into the details and figure out a really solid approach and so that's why we're making the recommendation today to do that but let me just say that to the extent it is legally possible to just recirculate those sections that were the judge didn't approve it will save a lot of money time and grief to just recirculate those sections. I agree, thank you. Director Preston did you I thought maybe you were going to make a comment. Yeah I was just going to elaborate a little bit on what Sarah was saying with regards to analysis of vehicle miles traveled Senate Bill 741 is the legislation that the state passed that changed the way we analyze traffic impacts instead of looking at level of service which was the old method of continuing to try to build our way out of traffic we now look at vehicle miles traveled and so the legislation didn't require that every project comply with SB 741 from the day that it was implemented it had a kind of rolling out of one projects would have to comply and it was based on when the environmental document started and this project started well before that legislation was passed the court did not rule in the favor of the plaintiffs with respect to the MP analysis we were asked to go back and do that part of the project and we don't intend to Sarah is correct that we did go over and beyond what the requirements were for this project and doing a VMP analysis and we did provide that for public comment. Okay so I'm going to come back around to here I believe Commissioner Bertrand you're up next before before you thought so but now I don't know okay thank you again I'm trying to track Commissioner McPherson you're up. Yeah a lot of things have been said that I would have clarified I guess they have on this complex subject but along short of it is I think that we should follow the initial motion that I seconded supporting what the court directed and what the staff has recommended and destroyed okay so we are we have an amendment that we're going to just to clarify what we're doing next we do have an amendment to the main motion which we will vote on now and that is to related to the funding source for this recirculation so I'm going to make a quick comment about that before we take that vote and then we'll proceed to vote on the main motion so you know I just wanted to say you know I recognize that there are potential challenges with and a lengthening of the time frame for recirculating if we were to identify and utilize a different funding source but I given that I you know I'm a skeptic I'm one of those who's a serious skeptic of the feasibility both financial and kind of practical feasibility of highway widening to say nothing of the climate change challenges that we face and that we absolutely have a responsibility to be addressing now and and not kind of dancing around and pretending we're going to do something down the road that is is not does not look feasible and is going to be really detrimental to our climate with the increase greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled as a result so I don't believe that we should be spending money that can be spent on other other projects that people want that can be delivered sooner and that can can actually be delivered and that will help us achieve our climate goals so I support trying to use a different source of funding I wanted to ask a quick question because I recognize that we are the implementing agency and Caltrans is the lead agency and it's been sort of referenced that Caltrans you know are implied I guess that Caltrans wants us to do this and so I guess I just wonder if we ought not to be asking Caltrans to fund this it's just I'm going to put out there it's maybe perhaps a rhetorical question but if there is any insight on the whether or not that's even something we could ask them just throw it out there before we take a vote on shifting to measure D rather than the RSTPX exchange funds So we did ask Caltrans whether they could fund this they don't have a funding source available to fund this it would have likely have been the STIP funds but back when they redirected STIP funds to the regions we became in control of that money and we programmed our STIP funds already for something different so the only fund source we could come up with without amending the expenditure plan for measure D is the STBG RSTPX funds to amend the expenditure plan we would have to put a notice in the paper let people know we're extending planning on amending the expenditure plan to add HOB lanes which may come across as being a little unusual we would have to then come back to the commission and then notify the local agencies Thank you okay and I will I do want to acknowledge that point but also say that in from my perspective if we're worried about what the voters might think about spending money to recirculate an EIR over HOB lanes then I think we have a lot more to worry about down the road with the potential to actually ever fund this project so but I do appreciate your thinking on that so I'll go ahead and I don't see any other hands up so we'll go ahead and call a vote on the amendment to the main motion and we'll do a roll call Commission alternate Schifrin Hi Hi Commission Sandy Brown Hi Commissioner Bertrand No Commissioner Rotkin Hi Commissioner McPherson No Commissioner Alternate Quinn No Commissioner Kristen Brown No Commissioner Caput Yes Commissioner Parker No Commissioner Alternate Hearst No Commissioner Johnson Johnson We have six no's Okay so that means that the the motion fails and so we will now move on to consider the main motion and I wanted to ask because we got kind of talking about the amendment so if does anybody have any comments you'd like to make before we take a vote on the main motion Commissioner Schifrin Yes with some trepidation I'm going to support the main motion but I would like to add a request to the staff that when they return with contract for the rail project that was approved in item number 24 that they also include some discussion of possible other funding sources for that project that are under our local control because we've been acting as if only measure D funds could be spent for the rail project but here we're seeing that for the highway projects it's not just measure D funds it's also things like STBG and I don't know whether there might be some way of making that rail project and STBG project as well so it could provide some of the support for that but I would like that to be part of the staff report when the contract returns as I said I think in good faith based on the compromise that was reached with measure D in 2016 I will support as I have supported and supervise our commissioner Coonerty has supported highway widening projects over the last six or seven years as part of the compromise and recognizing that there's a real problem on highway one and it's important to try to respond to it so I will support the motion I'll call next Commissioner Hernandez I will support the motion too and I really want to echo Commissioner Schifrin's comments as well again I'm one of the non-believers of the HOV lanes but when it comes to I think the auxiliary lanes I think we have to listen to some of the voters and some of the folks in South County as well so thank you thank you are there any additional comments by members of the commission already has her hand up oh there we go Commissioner Parker you're up thank you I just want to follow up with Schifrin's comment the STGV funds or block grant funds if we're just going to find out what they can be used for maybe that's a better way to have that report brought back to us what can they be used for and then we have a more we have a clear understanding of whether it's metro auxiliary lanes rail you know whatever it may be used for and then Director Preston can give that clarity to all of us I think that would be great thank you I I just want to make one more comment before we move forward with the vote so I you know all of these all these thoughts running through my head things that I have heard said today and you know I'm in agreement with much of it I and I'm but I'm going to speak frankly now I have made comments at this commission over the years that I do not believe that highway widening is going to it's going to address the problems that commuters that the very real problems that commuters face and I I have a hard time if I may be unresponsive to those concerns because they're very real and you know working families people need to be able to get to and from work in a timely manner people are suffering I recognize that but and I have made comments that I don't believe that highway widening is going to address those those challenges because of induced demand I believe that the modeling that's done the projections and I believe that a lot of the research that has come out suggests that induced demand is real and that this will not provide relief so I've said that I've talked about my concerns about continuing to spend a lot of money on infrastructure that is car centric and I have also voted as part of that agreement that compromise that was made around measure D I have voted to support my colleagues and what I hear from members of the public you know that they want to see the highway widened and but I can't do that today I can't do that because I think we're at a point now where we've made it clear that we're going to move forward with the ox lanes which I also didn't support but I have agreed to to support because I know that's what my colleagues are asking for and I will just quickly say I've been saddened that many of my colleagues have not had the same spirit of compromise with respect to the rail and moving forward with environmental review for rail planning and so today I think that the challenges are too great climate change is real we are heading towards and already in a major catastrophic change that has to be addressed by reducing greenhouse gases and this is the single largest greenhouse gas emitting project of any that I've ever seen during my time in Santa Cruz and my time in office and I can't support recirculating an EIR and spending money that could be spent on other matters that are much more immediate and are possible to achieve more in the future. So I think that's what I'm going to do right now and if it were to come from highway funds perhaps I could have taken a different view today but I'm not going to be able to support the main motion and with that I didn't mean to have the last word but in my role as chair that's kind of what happens sometimes so I'll go back. Commissioner Sandy Brown? No. Commissioner Bertrand? I agree. Commissioner Rockin? No. Commissioner McPherson? No. Commissioner alternate Quinn? Yes. Commissioner Kristen Brown? Aye. Commissioner alternate Hernandez? Aye. Commissioner Johnson? That passes. That vote passes. I will go ahead now and actually I see a comment. Nope, never mind. My hand up yes. Commissioner Hernandez go ahead. Commissioner Schiff's request I don't know if we need to put that as a future request or something but looking at different funding sources whether it's the STG or the the different STPX different sources that we can look at for rail as well. Director Preston already indicated that he was going to do that I think. Yeah, I think. Sorry you're not in the room so you don't see the heads nodding but we will that will be forthcoming. Okay, so we are now at the end of our meeting our next meeting will be a transportation policy workshop meeting I'm scrolling to make sure I get the date right I believe that will be Thursday August 17th and our next regular commission meeting will be the first Thursday in September. Thank you all for your participation and your support with the logistics and getting this meeting happening this first hybrid meeting and we'll look forward to more see you at the next meeting take care. What is it again? Our next we have a transportation policy workshop which will be via zoom on August 17th Wednesday August 17th Thursday August 18th I'm sorry I'm trying to scroll and it's not happening there we go we're having a policy workshop and now likelihood that that meeting will be cancelled okay it's a placeholder at this so then I thought it was only on here when it was for sure happening okay so our next meeting will be September first Thursday first Thursday in September thank you