 Good morning. Good morning. I think I'm on. Good morning and welcome to the March 1st meeting of the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. Could we start with a roll call? Commissioner Bertrand. Commissioner Brown. Commissioner Johnson. Commissioner Low. Commissioner Alternate Hearst. Commissioner Caput. Commissioner Coonerty. Commissioner Alternate Mulhern. Here. Commissioner Leopold. Here. Commissioner McPherson. Here. Commissioner Chase. Here. Commissioner Batur. Here. Having a quorum, we will move on and open oral communications. This is the time to address the Regional Transportation Commission about items that are under our purview. We'll have three minutes. Please come forward. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Michael St. from Aptos. In the first order of business is we are changing our name from campaign for sensible transportation to campaign for sustainable transportation. It's just to make a note of that and we'll get all that stuff spread out. Basically, the first thing I'd like to do is to again express CFST support for how much, how you're spending your major defunds on most of your projects. Primarily and also to remind you that we still have a strong opposition to the Oxlion project. We feel it's basically a waste of funds. We do mention SB1 a lot as a possible funding source from the state of California and actually some people have been basically calling this the road bill. That could be confusing but in actuality, the focus of SB1 is on roadway maintenance and not expansion. Basically, most of the funds will go for that purpose and only 5% of those funds will go for congestion relief. They've actually said that it excludes highway widening projects other than express lane or HOV lanes, which you actually have in the tier one thing but we all believe that are out of our ability to fund anyway. There's no mention of Ox lanes in the SB1 funding. By contrast, public transit is receiving 10% of SB1 funds. So with the SB1 road maintenance funds, cities across the state can use new local and regional funding measures, i.e. Measure D, for focusing on building a world-class regional transportation system which would provide mobility for our growing population. SB1 has moved us forward on a pathway to a more sustainable transportation, future for Californians. My question is why isn't the SCCRTC joining California on a sustainable path? One quickie here, I got a flip over my sheet. CFST is recommending moving funds from Ox lane projects to mass transit options, i.e. bus rapid transit, expand and assist metro in increasing its ridership and focus more on possible options for the use of the rail corridor. We also support the funds that you're going to talk about today and transferring it over to Metro for the electric bus. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Is there anyone else? Good morning. Hi, Gail McNulty. I am with Santa Cruz County Greenway but primarily my remarks today are those of a resident of the county more so than someone representing our group. Very little of this has been approved by my board just for the record. Yesterday's sentinel announced that the Santa Cruz City Council unanimously declared a fiscal emergency on Tuesday afternoon preparing to place a revenue raising sales tax measure before voters on the June ballot. The sales tax would funnel an estimated 3 million in new revenue annually into the city's general fund which primarily pays for services such as police, fire and parks. Kelpers, cities across California are scrambling to get out ahead of a looming budget deficits as employees' pension costs are expected to nearly double by the year 2025. Education, it's expensive to live here and our teachers are underpaid. Pajaro Valley teachers in particular need more money. These are just a few of the financial challenges that we're facing as a county and as cities. Santa Cruz County, Santa Cruz City, Watsonville, Capitola, Scotts Valley, none of these places have money to throw away. So why are we still talking about a train that we can't afford that won't help gridlock? I'm a teacher and I brought a bunch of handouts today. I'm going to pass these around. First of all, here's a picture. Transportation is rapidly evolving. We have a picture of Daisy, who we currently have on our tracks. We have a picture of Oli. Oli is the future of transportation. Oli is a point-to-point little thing that could probably coexist on the corridor with bicycles. It could be a small-scale transit option on the corridor that could get people to and from where they need to go. Here's a little graph of the places that support daily commuter rail systems. The majority of them, over half of them, over 3 million people. Then we get into a small amount here, 2 million people. Over here, we have a handful that are a million or at least a million, all connecting to major metropolitan areas. Then down here, we have Santa Cruz County. A train is never going to make fiscal sense for our community. We simply don't have the tax base to support it. It's also not going to help gridlock. Our own RTC studies say it's not going to do it. 50%, maybe 60% of people, according to Keltrans, when they're on Highway 1, they get to 17, they go over the hill to Silicon Valley. That train would not help any of those people. Campaign for Sustainable Transportation is working on their Transportation Justice Conference. This is just my personal thoughts about transportation justice in this county. My last job before this one was as a teacher at a staff school in the Bronx, and I cared very deeply about social equity. This is something I think a lot about. We need real solutions. Those people sitting in gridlock on the highway, they need real answers, not a fantasy train. We're going to get into rail banking later. It's something we want to seriously consider. We'll get into that later, but I'm going to hand all of this around to you. It's just food for thought. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address us in oral communications? Good morning. Marilyn Garrett, retired power of Valley teacher. I can sympathize with what the previous speaker was saying. However, I keep thinking of I said this yesterday at the board meeting and at prevalent in my mind. Often, the bumper sticker that said it will be a great day when the schools have all the money they need. And the Air Force has to have a bake sale to buy a bomber. When we look at the pie of federal money and where it's going, approximately half goes to the military. We need funds to be this pie needs to be shifted where social services, transportation, parks, schools, etc. have all the money they need. And we need it with a safe technology. I just got off the bus 71 bus coming here. And I must say the drivers of the bus are so skilled, not only in their driving and making sure the situation's safe, but in conversations with the riders. The driver today was just wonderful. There was an elderly man who was, you could tell he was not in very good shape. She had had previous conversations with him. It was a very sympathetic conversation. And he, you know, like doing, I mean, just being kind, she was, I was so impressed. Drivers also know what safe. And I want to tell you about an accident that occurred by Soquel Drive and Trout Gulch, a friend witnessed it and a bus driver reported on it at the metro meeting. And it was exactly what bus drivers have been saying to me when I talk to them and say, do you know they're planning to move the bus stop from where it is by Soquel Drive near Trout Gulch to the intersection before the intersection of Trout Gulch or heading towards Santa Cruz. Bus drivers, I wrote down some of the comments. One said that's not going to work. That's going to back up traffic even worse than it is. Another said people will be trying to go around the bus as it's at the signal stop. And it's illegal to turn right around the bus. Well, exactly. And bus drivers don't seem to be consulted very often on what's coming in the future. Sure enough, within the last week or two, this bus driver happened to know her for power of schools was turning right from Soquel Drive going up Trout Gulch and a Prius tried to turn right. And on the right side of her scrape, just what was predicted, I'm going to give you something on wireless technology, dangerous warnings from scientists going way back. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address us? Seeing none, I'll ask Mr. Dondero if there's any additions or deletions to the consent or regular agenda. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have handouts for item 16, the director's report and item 22, correspondence from the public. Okay, then I won't. No, we're not going to get into a debate about something said at oral calm. Okay, please make it brief. The bus, the bus that had an accident was a school bus had nothing to do with it. Metro Transit and nothing to do with the metro bus stop because of the intersection. Okay, well, now we'll move on to the consent agenda. I'll see if any members of the commission have any items that they want to pull or comment on. To my right. Now look to my left. Mr. Bertron. Well, that's on the regular agenda. That's on the right. We're doing the consent agenda. I'll see if there's any member of the public. Do you have a brief comment or would you like an item pulled? Actually, I have a brief comment. Thank you. First of all, measure D, Highway 9. I don't see a lot of details in terms of what's going to happen there, but I do hope that when we look at bicycle infrastructure and ways to improve Highway 9, we are thinking about actually separating bikes from cars physically. I know that in San Lorenzo Valley, parents in the community have opted to stop doing bike to school day because it's simply not safe to do it there. So we need some serious changes. Quite honestly, I think as a county, we should think about stopping doing these, you know, bike to school, bike to work days until we make it actually physically more safe to be biking around our county. Also, when it comes to measure D, please, I understand we need to do storm repair, things that are infringing on property owners. I would ask personally that you please do not put money into repairing the tracks at this time because that both symbolically and physically represents something that may or may not be what we consider to be the best use of the corridor at the end of the Unified Corridor Study. Also, I personally wish that the public with the Oversight Committee would have a chance to weigh in before the money was spent instead of after the fact. I know it's not maybe traditionally what happens, but it would be nice. I have some more handouts. I have lots of handouts today. Since the information items seldom contain things that are not with a pro-trained bias, I've brought some of my own information items. I don't know if there's a way to add it into the minutes or not, but there's an editorial. Okay, try to keep this to items that are on the consent agenda. Well, this is the information items. So it's an editorial. Do we want to refer to the specific item that you're commenting on? I have requested over and over again that we start adding some information items that are not simply pro-trained biased. So I've brought some of my own, may I please just say what they are? We have an oral communication portion. That is the time to talk about items that are not on the agenda. Okay, well, then I will just hand these around, but these are information items that should be taken into account because we need to be looking at things other than rail. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address us about consent items? Please let us know which consent item you're going to be speaking to. Item, I believe it's 12, miscellaneous communication. Okay. I assume that's on the consent agenda. It is. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Leopold and fellow commissioners. My name is Mark Masidi-Miller, and I'm here this morning representing the Friends of the Rail and Trail. I wanted to draw your attention to two letters that were submitted to you. Unfortunately, I missed the deadline last week. I thought we had an extra day because of the holiday, but anyway, I emailed those separately to you. They're also included in the additional packet here this morning. One of the letters has to do with Progressive Rail as a choice. You know, I've been looking into their business plan, and I continue to be impressed with the thoroughness of their due diligence. I trust I see you have a closed session later today. I encourage you to continue the negotiations with them. They look like a pretty stellar operation. The second one is this letter I wrote about the propane distribution facility. I was here at your last meeting speaking about this relative safety of rail versus highway transport, but I wanted to draw your attention to the fact that mountain propane here in Felton, a local propane provider in our county, has a propane distribution facility underway in Watsonville. And so the idea that this is some horrible thing that might happen in our county, it's the point is moot. Thank you for your time and service to our county. Thank you. Now I would entertain a motion about our consent agenda. Move approval of the consent agenda. Second by Rock and seconded by Coonerty. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. With that we will move on to the regular agenda. Item number 14 is commissioner reports on RTC related items. Are there commissioners who would like to address us? I will just briefly say that as I mentioned at our last meeting we are working on a number of study sessions for our commission. We have some people that we've identified and some that we are continuing to work with. Jeffrey Tumlin who's a principal at Nelson Nygaard Consultants. We'll be talking, I'm working on the final details, but transit, housing, the relationships, dynamics, densities, what's that's all about. We are working with the Rail to Trails Organization about a discussion about the rail banking, the process, the cost and requirements. We are likely, there is going to be a Santa Cruz Chamber of Commerce trip on May 11th to the smart train up in Marin in Sonoma. I would advise you to mark that date on your calendar because if you want to see what that trains about, this is an opportunity. I've gotten some suggestions about some trails that we're going to visit as well, but rather than organizing a separate RTC trip, we would join in with the Chamber and the RTC would pay the cost. So if you could mark that and as soon as we get the official information from the Chamber, we'll send it out and we'll ask for your participation or find out. We are going to be looking also at the future transportation funding, financing and fares and we're going to be looking about equity and planning decisions, integrated transport systems and also future transportation trends and first and last mile programs. So we're trying to find speaker or speakers who could address this and we'll hopefully have a full list by the end of this month. We're not going to be doing it on March 15th. Mr. Dondaro, did you want to add anything? Just wanted to clarify that I believe that your suggestion about going on the smart trip was directed towards the commission members and not towards the public at large. Yes, I appreciate the clarification. We're not paying for everybody's trip to this, but as I mentioned, since we're going to be making decisions at the end of this year, we're trying to help provide as much information possible about larger transportation policy issues and in specific, we know that people are interested in the rails question and the trails question and so we want to provide field trips and when we heard the Chamber was providing one to the smart train, thought that would be a good one for our commissioners to take advantage of. So if there's no one else to make a report, then we'll move on to item number 15, which is appointment of commissioners to the budget and administration and personnel committee. That's my report as well. The members who have expressed interest is myself, a supervisor friend, a supervisor, Coonerty, supervisor McPherson and councilmember Bertrand. So unless we have anybody else who's interested in being on there, that will be the committee. I don't think we need, we don't need to take any action. That's just an appointment. There is a, I forget what we're going to, that confirmation, which concurrence of the RTC. So would that be a motion? So I would be a motion. We accept the committee proposed by John Leopold. Second. Motion by Iraq and seconded by Brown. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Next we'll move on to item number 16, which is a director's report. Good morning, Mr. Dondaro. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and commissioners. A few items to share with you this morning. First item is regarding a economic study that just came out this week regarding the key economic impacts of Senate Bill 1. This was authored by the American Road and Transportation Builders Association. I won't read all of this information, but one of the key items here is that with Senate Bill 1, it's creating an average of 68,000 jobs per year for 10 years that will yield 3.3 billion in salaries for California workers each year. So, and then there's some other items there that you can read. And there's a link in here, and we can send you that as well, but it's to get the full report. It runs about 60 pages if you're interested in getting a copy or contact us and we'll get one to you. On February 20th, I attended Self Help Counties Coalition meeting in Sacramento. There are executive director Keith Dunn did a great job of running the meeting, getting us through various business and legislative items. I'm just I just sort of cherry-picked. These are just sort of random things from my notes. They're not necessarily connected, but just to give you a sense of what the meeting was about. The coalition has not had a dues change since 1992, and actually the annual conference provides most of the revenue that's needed to run the organization. Only about 20% of it comes from our dues. The 2018 conference will be in October in Riverside. We talked a bit about the coalition's good relationship with the California Transportation Commission, and they had held a town hall meeting with the CTC last year, and the CTC's expressed interest in doing another one this year, which is a good sign. It keeps the communication channels open with some of the key decision makers at the state level. As we approach the November elections, the fact that we'll be changing governors always has an impact on high-level positions in the state government. In transportation, Transportation Secretary Brian Kelly has already left, and Caltrans director Malcolm Docherty has also left his post, so we'll probably see a few more of those announcements. It's just it happens every six years. There was a lot of discussion about the current effort to repeal Senate Bill 1, and the study that I previously mentioned, the economic impact study, the coalition, the executive directors, including myself, voted unanimously to contribute $50,000 towards the cost of that study. That money comes from a reserve that accumulates from the conferences, so it does not come out of our dues money. Other organizations that are working to stop the repeal of Senate Bill 1 include CSAC, the state association of counties, the league of cities, and CalCOG, to name a few. Current efforts are really focused on the support of Proposition 69, which has a strong message of protecting the revenues generated under SB1 from being used for other than transportation purposes, and thereby building trust, transparency, and accountability with the voters. So that's sort of the first step that will be on the June ballot, Prop 69, and that will put a firewall basically between those revenues and any other uses. So we have several staffing items today. The first one is that Daniel Nakuna, our chief financial officer, has passed the 25-year mark for years of service to the RTC. Daniel's expertise in all things fiscal has kept the wheels turning and the audits admirable at the RTC over the years. And we have a resolution here, which I would like to read, which we would hope you would approve. Whereas fiscal officer Daniel Nakuna began his career with the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission on January 19, 1993, whereas Mr. Nakuna has provided 25 years of dedicated and professional service to the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission and has demonstrated exemplary commitment to the Santa Cruz County community. Whereas during his 25-year tenure, Mr. Nakuna helped to establish the Regional Transportation Commission as a separate functional entity within the Santa Cruz County government structure after the RTC moved out of the Santa Cruz County Planning Department in 1992 and helped to establish the RTC as a completely separate agency after the RTC became autonomous from the county government structure in 2006, all the while ensuring that the RTC's fiscal processes and procedures secured sound audits. And I can personally test to that. His audits have, I mean, they're just, we all sleep better at night because Daniel produces good audits. Whereas Mr. Nakuna has served the RTC and Santa Cruz County community with unassuming distinction and whereas the commission and staff of the RTC would like to express their deep gratitude and appreciation to Mr. Nakuna for his years of service and commitment to the Regional Transportation Commission and the Santa Cruz County community. Therefore, be it resolved by the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission that in recognition of his many years of public service, the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission does hereby commend and I never learned how to pronounce your name correctly. Daniel is his, his native name is NZUZI. Did you print? Just rolls off the tongue. Zuzi. Okay. Daniel obviously is his taken American name for his efforts in advancing transportation in Santa Cruz County and expresses sincere appreciation on behalf of itself, RTC staff and all citizens of Santa Cruz County. I'd be happy to take a motion on this resolution. We actually approve this resolution. Motion by Rockin seconded by Chase, all in favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed? Carries unanimously 25 years gives you a chance to speak at the microphone. If there's a we've kept you pretty quiet for 25 years. Yeah, you know, this is your chance. Good morning, commissioners. I'm really so happy to end. Honored to get my 25 year resolution. My life has been interesting journey from a tiny village in Congo, Africa to here in Santa Cruz. Life can get in better than this. I'd like to thank George for your kind words and also the past executive directors who brought me on board. I would like to thank people I worked with. Cartrain District five, the folks at the county, especially the auditor's office. We have also I hope I also worked with people at the metro. Finally, but not least my colleague on staff has been just a great team and I'm happy to be a member of the team. I like my job and it was a pleasure. It has been a pleasure serving the community in Santa Cruz. Thank you. Thank you, Daniel. Good financial person is someone you never hear about at these meetings. And it's nice to recognize you for your 25 years of service. I've known you, I think almost that whole time because my wife used to work at the RTC probably 25 years ago. So I remember when Daniel came on board. Anything else, Mr. Dunder? Well, we have a couple more. Next, I'd like to introduce Shannon Muns. I'm proud to introduce Shannon Muns as the new RTC communication specialist. Shannon resides in Capitola and says her commute is much better now as she no longer has to make the daily drive to Stanford University. Shannon has over 11 years experience in public relations, strategic media cultivations and editorial expertise. Her previous employers include Stanford University, City of Palo Alto, AOLpatch.com, Commonwealth Club of California and media news in Los Gatos. She has a BA degree in journalism from San Francisco State University and her strengths include journalistic writing, public relations, marketing, creative problem solving, and project management. And I'm sure we're going to need all those skills in the future, Shannon. So welcome aboard. Shannon is behind the scenes, so she's not here. We'll hear from you in 25 years. Yeah, start writing now. Write that down. So final item in my report. Next month we'll mark my 12th year of service to the commission while we're counting years here, I guess. Rumors have been circulating about my pending retirement. Today I can confirm that there is some truth to these rumors. My exit will take place by the end of this calendar year. It has been a real privilege and honor to serve this community and to work with so many highly accomplished and professional staff and with the board that works diligently for the greater good of all members of the community. So thank you. Thank you, Mr Dondaro, and there will be plenty of time over this next year to recognize the many accomplishments that you've had and you've helped lead the RTC over these last 12 years. I want to express my appreciation for that work, that leadership, that consensus building, which has been really important most notably on the passage of Measure D. You came right after the defeat of the previous sales tax measure and you were given a charge to pass one and no one thought it could be done and because of the hard work that you put in with the staff, with this commission and with the community, we were successful and we'll always be grateful for that. So I look forward to the many ways in which we recognize your service over this next year. Thank you. So now we'll continue on with the meeting after that important news, recognizing service, recognizing new employees and getting important information. Number 17 is the Caltrans report. Good morning, Ms. Lowe. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, commissioners. Well, along those lines, I'd also like to state that Caltrans is also going through a change in leadership. Director Malcolm Docherty is leaving Caltrans after his 26 years' career with Caltrans and seven years as the director. Tomorrow is his last day and effective March 3rd, the appointee, the director appointee is Lori Berman. She comes into the position from now, she is the chief deputy. She has most recently been the district director of our district 11 office in San Diego. She has approximately 34 years of experience with Caltrans and is highly regarded and is a well-rounded professional. She'll do a great job leading the department. And then taking her chief deputy position will be Ryan Chamberlain. He is currently the district director of district 12, which is in Orange County. He also has a diverse career with Caltrans, has been with the department for about 20 years, has had positions in headquarters, including the chief of the division of transportation planning and has worked in a number of functions over the years. So there will be a new team at the helm and they're eager and ready to carry on the momentum that Malcolm and his team created and excited to shepherd in this new era under SB1. I would like to highlight the information that was provided in your packet regarding the SHOP program as you're becoming familiar with, we produce this information two times per year in tandem with the monthly update that you see that's produced with your agenda packet each month. The larger packet is what I would consider to be the most comprehensive listing of SHOP funded projects in the county. We select from those to report monthly based on your level of interest and need to coordinate activities. If there's something on this longer list you don't see on the monthly list, please let us know. We're happy to report on those. We like to manage the information so that we're not over communicating on lots of details. But we want to make sure that you are informed and that you know how we are taking care of the system and working to maintain and catch up on much of the deferred maintenance that now SB1 will allow us to do more of. Lastly, I would just like to point to a letter that was handed out in your dais. I'm sorry, it did not get into your packet on time. It's a letter dated February 27th signed out by our district director, Tim Goebbins. And it addresses comments and questions that were raised at prior board meetings. Mostly specific in regard to 152 and one question on State Park Road, which we're still looking into. Any questions? Are there questions for Ms. Lowe? Mr. Caput. Yeah, I want to thank you for your office taking the time, you know, getting back on different requests. I know you must get a lot of them because your district goes from what? Paso Robles all the way up to Santa Clara County, right? Our office includes Santa Barbara County and carries on up to Hollister and San Benito County as well. And so anyway, I really appreciate what you're doing and actually responding and trying to make something work. And as a reward for that, I'm going to have another list of requests to get to you in your office. But anyway, I think what we're looking at here is near that intersection where a woman actually died about six months ago. She was in the crosswalk, but the speed limit was pretty high coming up to that crosswalk. It actually had a light there or two. But I think better signage in that area is a step forward. And also, your concerns about crosswalks on Main Street, which are part of Highway 152, we actually fixed some of the visual part, making it easier to see people that were standing at the crosswalk, getting ready to go across. The other would be a roundabout that's on the schedule for 2020. Are there many roundabouts on actual freeways? I mean, I like the idea. I think it's worth the chance and everything. But I find it very unique that you're responding to the problem that we do have out there. It's near the fairgrounds. Mr. Caput, are you referring to the Highway 129 Lakeview intersection? Yes. Carleton, the one right below it, I believe. At Carleton Road, we're constructing a left turn channelization. OK. And will that be a roundabout on the Lakeview one? Yes. That's going to help a lot. And I really appreciate you're looking at that. Great. Because it is, both of those intersections are very dangerous. Thank you. Thank you for acknowledging that. We appreciate it. OK. I had one question. This morning, we woke up to hear the news about the Board of Equalization not increasing the gas tax by $0.04. And I'm wondering what effect that will have on any of these projects or CalTrans-related activity. Are you from? Do you hear that? Commissioner Leopold, I'm not familiar with that. So I'll have to get some information and get back to you on that. Yeah. I'd appreciate that. Then the 2010 gas tax swap, the Board of Equalization was given the authority to approve gas tax increases. This would be the last time that they would be able to do it before it's taken away because the Board of Equalization is changing. And they voted down the increase in the gas tax. So it's fortunate that we have SB1, but every little bit helps. OK. Next, we'll move on to item 18, which is Senate Bill 1, Updates and Position. Looks like Ms. Marconi is our speaker. Good morning, commissioners. I was rapidly trying to email our legislative assistant in Sacramento to find out about the BOE information. I'm not sure what the answer is. And I probably won't in the next 15 minutes. But we'll talk about the things I do know about, which are Senate Bill 1. And as the commission knows, since last April, when the state legislature and the governor approved Senate Bill 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, we have discussed this bill and what it means for our community as well as the entire state several times. Director Dondaro also referenced this earlier in his director's report. And at your legislative, at your board meeting last month, you approved the 2018 legislative platform, which includes and has included for several years identifying as priorities for this board to make sure that we are maintaining transportation funds where they are in existence, making sure that they're not diverted to other uses. We've had this problem over the last decade, especially where some state transportation funds have been used for non-transportation purposes or to repay bond debt service that was expected to be repaid through general funds. And we've also advocated for more funding in recognition that our county, just on the local street and road system, has over a $300 million backlog of needs in order to get our roads in good condition. And so we were all welcoming Senate Bill 1 when it came to fruition. Last April, it took a lot of negotiations and conversations at the state level, coordination with local agencies, Caltrans, partners throughout the state to bring this bill to fruition. The California State Association of Counties, the League of Cities, so many partners participated in making sure that bill went into effect. And many of us were concerned and reluctant because of the history of some transportation funds being diverted. And because of that, the legislature, in addition to approving Senate Bill 1, approved a sister bill called ACA 5, Assembly Constitutional Amendment 5, which was to firewall the funds. That is now on the June ballot as a constitutional amendment that voters will consider as Proposition 69. And so today we are recommending that the Board take an official position on Proposition 69, recognizing our support for ensuring that transportation dollars remain dedicated for transportation purposes. Just as a reminder, Senate Bill 1 is the first significant stable investment in transportation since the mid-1990s. It's a long time coming. And as our vehicles become more fuel efficient, which is outstanding, in many ways it doesn't reduce how much we're using our road system, how much we're wanting to use our transit system, our bicycle and pedestrian facilities. And so there's been this vacuum of funding needs. And so finally, Senate Bill 1 is helping us to address at least some of the deferred maintenance that exists. In Santa Cruz County, Senate Bill 1 is expected to bring about $10 million a year of formula funds, as well as about $10 million a year through the state highway operations and protection program to address safety and maintenance needs on our state highway system. Additionally, we're going to be able to compete for over a billion dollars a year in transportation funds for transit projects, rail projects, highway projects, local bicycle and pedestrian projects. So far, since Senate Bill 1 was approved, the cities of Watsonville and Santa Cruz have received $1.5 million through the active transportation program for safety projects on San Lorenzo River and near Watsonville High School. So we're already seeing these funds come to our county. For the cities, there's in the county, it's bringing in about $7 million a year for local street and road operations and maintenance projects filling potholes. But our local jurisdictions are also using those funds on bicycle and pedestrian projects as well. And within the staff report there's an attachment that shows the list of projects that local jurisdictions have approved at their board meetings. It's a very transparent public process on how they intend to use those Senate Bill 1 funds. Again, at the state level, the California Transportation Commission has discretion over a lot of these funds. And they have established a lot of safeguards to make sure that everyone's accountable on how these funds are used, that they're put on projects that have been selected through community processes. And so I feel like it's a really strong bill and should be protected. Unfortunately, some people in the state are reluctant. We're all concerned with having to pay more at the gas pump or through our vehicle registration fees. But there's just been such a huge backlog and underfunding with the gas tax not having been indexed since the mid-1990s that Senate Bill 1 is really, as gas prices fluctuate, you know, 20 cents within a month, this small increase is really not over the whole year not a huge impact on folks. And so we are recommending that we oppose efforts to repeal this. This includes Assembly Bill 1756 by Republican Borough. It's unlikely to move through the legislature. But again, it's good for us to just go on record as opposing any efforts to repeal. There's also been an initiative that has been circulated. It is most likely going to be on the November 2018 ballot to repeal the Senate Bill 1 revenues and require that any future taxes or fees go through a vote of the electorate, which really impacts our ability to address transportation needs on an ongoing basis and just recognize when inflation has happened and that costs do go up. So we are joining the Fix Our Roads Coalition, which has made up our of the California Council of Governments, which we're a member of, as well as the California State Association of Counties, the League of Cities, the California Transit Associations, business groups throughout the state, including the Santa Cruz area chamber who and our local jurisdictions who have several of our local jurisdictions whoever they take in positions or will be considering positions to support Proposition 69 and oppose repeal efforts of Senate Bill 1. So in your packet, there is a resolution that we do recommend. You go officially on record taking those positions. I also just wanted to highlight that even with Senate Bill 1, there still remains a backlog of transportation needs in our community. And that gasoline taxes are not sustainable, especially as we convert to an all-electric or more electric vehicle fleet or more hybrid vehicles. And so we also continue to support efforts to look at other alternative options to the gasoline tax. The state's been doing analysis of what a vehicle mile per fee make more sense or what a vehicle registration fees, what are all the different options? And so we continue to support those efforts. And then on the federal level, we are monitoring proposals both from President Trump as well as congressional members on ways to address the fact that the federal gasoline tax hasn't been raised since the mid-1990s either. And so we continue to monitor that and support efforts at the federal level, which will ensure that more funding comes back to address our transportation needs here in Santa Cruz County. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. But again, my staff recommendation is for the commission to approve the resolution that support, takes position to support Proposition 69 and oppose efforts to repeal this new funding. Thank you for the report. Are there questions? Oh, all right. Ms. Johnson. Yeah, thank you. So Rachel, after the commission considers this action and assumes that the commission approves it as our legislative platform, do you coordinate with all the other jurisdictions in the county to communicate with them? Because the county, of course, and the cities all have legislative platforms. And they all have lobbyists. So you let them know what we've approved and encourage them to. Yes, and already Santa Cruz Metro and the city of Santa Cruz have already taken these positions. Watsonville and Scotts Valley will be considering it, I believe, at their March meetings. We've shared sample resolutions. They are also hearing from League of Cities and the California State Association of counties as well. So we discuss this at our agency technical advisory committee meetings as well. Yeah, great. So one last question. So sometimes League of Cities and CISAC aren't aligned. They are on this one. Absolutely. OK, great. Thanks. Other questions, Mr. Herbst? Just a comment, if I might. I just want to say that City of Watsonville is very appreciative of the additional resources that we've received and the essentialness of maintaining highways and roadways and streets and sidewalks and bike paths. And this enables us to have a much better and safer city. And so I want to thank you. And I also want to thank Caltrans for their focus on the three state highways that bisect Watsonville as well. Thank you for your service. All right. Well, now I'll see if there's members of the public who want to address us about the SB1 repeal. Seeing none, I would. Approval second. Motion by Coonerty, seconded by Rockin. All in favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously and be ready to fight for this one come the fall. Yeah, and just to clarify, we're not telling others how to vote. We are just taking a position of support. Just wanted to clarify that. Well, then we'll move on to item number 19, which is state funding updates. So next up is the state transport. I wanted to talk a little bit and give you an update on the state transportation improvement program. As the commission may recall, you are responsible for selecting projects to receive these state funds, which, because of Senate Bill 1, the state transportation improvement program has stability for the first time in as long as I can remember because it's replacing that fluctuating gasoline tax with a per gallon fee. In the past, the gasoline tax has fluctuated that goes into the stip is fluctuated from nine cents a gallon to 22 cents a gallon, and now it's set at 17 cents a gallon based on inflation rates. So the California Transportation Commission estimates that over the next five years, there's going to be $17.5 million available for projects in Santa Cruz County. Our board selected projects following a public hearing in December for those funds. We also switched around some funds that were previously approved for projects or approved for regional surface transportation program funds that are a little more flexible than stip funds with stip funds to focus these stip funds on some of our larger projects in our county. But knowing that any decision of this board is subject to concurrence by the CTC in December, we also approved some best case, mid case, and worst case scenarios where what if the CTC didn't approve all of the stip funding requests that we proposed. Well, I have really good news. Last night, the CTC staff released their staff recommendations for the 2018 step and they match up with their preliminary staff recommendations in that for the first time in at least 15 years, they are recommending every single project that we have proposed to be included in the step. So this is really a good thing. We're really excited. Actually, Metro had three projects in there. They were willing to postpone one of them if there wasn't enough money in 1819. The CTC staff recommendations, which I haven't even told Metro staff yet, are to include all three projects in fiscal year 1819. So this is really exciting. We're going to be able to accelerate a lot of transportation projects that have been on the list for a while. So I just wanted to provide you an update on that and let you know what I think is really good news. It's very uncommon that the CTC would not approve its own staff recommendations. And so I expect as of March 21st, we'll be able to give the green light to everyone to start implementing their projects quickly. So that's really great. You missed Mr. Clifford's broad smile that broke out upon the news of that. Are there questions or comments from members of the commission? Mr. Caput. Yeah, I'll make this actually quick. We've requested, I guess, a grant for Hulahann and Highway 152. Highway 152. And I think we're actually going forward, and it looks very good. I hate to say that, knock on wood, right? Yeah. So another project that the commission did approve funds for back in December. There was about $700,000, $800,000 from our regional surface transportation program funds. But we're also seeking a competitive grant that's provided through Senate Bill 1 from the local partnership program. We're able to compete for those funds only because we have Measure D in our county. We wouldn't even be able to submit an application if we didn't have Measure D. So, yes, we've been working with Commissioner Caput's staff as well as CTC staff to really advocate that we're able to get the final million and a half that's needed for that project through that competitive program. We will know the results and what the CTC staff recommendations are and what their recommendations are in April with CTC Board Action in May. So we're still on hold to know if it actually does get funded, but I really appreciate the work that your staff has done to collect support letters and reach out to the California Transportation Commission. So hopefully that will get fully funded. Thank you also. And I believe it was rated very high on the request list. It meets a lot of the criteria for the local partnership program. I think it's a very good candidate. Thank you. That said, I can't guarantee because LA County requested a billion dollars. Yes. Other comments or questions? I'll just say that it makes a difference to have resources to take care of our transportation infrastructure. And this is a good sign with the passage of SB1 that we actually have resources to take care of many different things. You know, when we came up with our regional transportation plan and look out about what our needs are and the gulf between what we have and what we need, it's still great. So the SB1 really provides a tremendous amount of money. And it's great to see the CTC agreeing to all of our requests and thank you for your work on that. Now I'll see if there's any member of the public who'd like to address us about this item. Seeing none, it's not really an action item. We don't require any action. It's a status report. So thank you for the report. If they had said they didn't want to recommend any of our things, then I wanted to have this on the agenda in case I needed some last-minute action from you, all of you. Well, the world has changed a little bit. It has. You can sit down and figure out what happened with the Board of Equalization. We'll move on to item 20, which is the early mitigation for transportation improvements in Santa Cruz County, the MOU approval. Mr. Dandero. Yes, good morning again, commissioners. Keeping in our theme with the long view of transportation, this is an item that was actually brought to you back in 2009 or 2010, I believe. And we were the first agency to actually approve this MOU. But since then, it went through some gyrations, and some of the wording changed. And I don't think any of you except maybe Mr. Johnson was on the commission at that time. Don't rub it in. And I'm sure. If it was 9 or 10, I was here. Oh, maybe you were. OK, so we had two commissioners here and Mr. Rockin. So at any rate, to explain briefly what this is, is that any time we do a construction project in transportation, part of the environmental process is to identify any impacts on the environment. And that can sometimes mean removal of trees or taking of some wetlands or impacting a variety of things that include natural features. And so the mitigation that has to be done has to be locked in, funded, and all the agreements have to be signed for that mitigation project before the actual construction project can go forward. And we went through that fire drill when we built the auxiliary lane project on Highway 1 a few years ago. And we were frantic to get this mitigation project in place because the clock was ticking to get the construction contract signed. Otherwise, we were going to lose the state bond money from the CTC. So it can be a real critical part of a project, but it's a hidden part that most of us don't really notice most of the time. And so this grew out of an effort that goes back to the early 2000s in Monterey County. Elkhorn Slough, which many of you are familiar with, an MOU was signed around preserving much of the property there and some of the sensitive habitats and actually banking some of this land for future use as mitigation for future transportation projects. And it was done through a very collaborative process. And Caltrans was one of the major players in this. And so was the Resource Conservation District. And so after that was signed, the RCD came to us and said, we think this model could work in Santa Cruz County. In fact, we think it could work in a lot of places. And actually their vision was preemptive of actual trend right now statewide amongst Caltrans and at the federal level to do exactly what this MOU is saying. So in a sense, we were predicting the future and now we're catching up with the current state of affairs. It's a great model because what it does is it builds trust between agencies that traditionally don't always work that well together. If you look at the attachment, excuse me, there's 13 agencies that are signing on to this. And that's what's caused the delay in getting this agreement signed. My colleague from the Resource Conservation District, Chris Coburn, is here today. And I'd like to ask Chris to step up and just say a few words because he has been a prime mover in getting this document through the approval process of all 13 of these agencies. When I say 13, that includes their legal departments. And that was quite often, I think, the sticking point. So Chris, why don't you share a little bit of your perspective on this? Thanks, George. And I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this briefly today. And I would like to take credit for the foresight for this initiative. Unfortunately, I'd have to give that credit to not fortunately, but Karen Christensen with the RCD really worked with George initially in envisioning this new type of partnership for the way in which natural resources can be protected and the way in which natural resource agencies can be working with transportation agencies. Because really what we're talking about are public values and public resources, even though we might not be talking about fish or frogs necessarily, when we're talking about transportation projects, those are public resources that need to be considered as well, too. And so when the public is investing and investing significantly in these projects, it doesn't make sense for them to get held up by mitigation requirements and other complications with projects. George stole a little bit of my thunder with respect to the auxiliary lane project because that was the prime example for this partnership where the RCD and a lot of these agencies listed in the document partnered with the RTC to find a mitigation opportunity that satisfied the needs for the transportation projects but also really restored and protected a significant resource down in Watsonville in terms of water quality and other habitat. And that's really the model that we're working on here is how do we more effectively implement transportation projects while protecting natural resources? So as George mentioned, this has been a long time in coming. You announced your retirement today, so I'm glad we've got it in before then. I wasn't so sure for a while. Yeah, unfortunately, when you do interact with a number of the attorneys and legal departments that are involved with these agencies, it does get a little bit tricky. But we've made it through. And I think this is a really unique opportunity in Santa Cruz County. It's a biodiversity hotspot. We have tremendous natural resources. Protecting those resources and hoping to enhance those, we've developed programs like the integrated watershed restoration program, which has implemented over 150 restoration projects over the last decade in Santa Cruz County. So we're talking stream restoration, dam removal, amphibian pond creation, erosion control, all types of projects that are protecting our natural environment. We have a document produced by the Land Trust of Santa Cruz County, the conservation blueprint, which really provides us, no pun intended, but a roadmap for how and where we should be protecting natural resources in the county. And I see this MOU is another piece in the puzzle to help us really more effectively mitigate for those transportation related impacts. So I just wanted to, again, thank the commission for consideration of moving into this type of model. I think, as George mentioned, the Manabé or the wetlands project down in Watsonville for the auxiliary lands, we're also working not directly related to this, but with the county, with the RTC, the coastal conservancy, the coastal, well, all the signatories here as well as Caltrans on a project up on Scots Creek where it really sort of exemplifies this new approach to transportation planning where we're looking at, how do we restore the lagoon and marsh ecosystem there at Scots Creek, which has been so heavily impacted by the bridge that was put in place there in the 1950s, 1960s, I can't remember the date, but we're looking at it as a lagoon and marsh restoration project. NOAA Fisheries has highlighted that project as the most important project for recovery of Coho on the central coast of California. And so we're looking at that project as restoration. Oh, by the way, it's also going to have a transportation related improvement. We're going to hopefully replace the bridge there and improve safety on the transportation corridor through there, improve public access, and restore the system. And so these types of things, I hope, we'll see more of. MOU helps us get there, and I appreciate the effort that we've all put into persevere, I guess, is what I'm trying to say all these years. So thank you. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you for your work. Oh, yes. Thanks, Chris. I'll see if there is any questions from members of the commission. Seeing none, I'll see if there is any comments from members of the public. Marilyn Guerra, retired teacher from Pajaro Valley Schools. And many times, I took my classroom children on a field trip to the Elkhorn Slow wonderful place. And I hope this memorandum of understanding, I haven't read through it in detail, but it actually does protect and restore the natural resources because, and then I have a question at the end of my comment, because over the years, of course, transportation projects and freeways destroy the natural environment and communities. And one of the things I and others tried to do some years ago when Ellen Peary and Mark Stone were on the board of supervisors, Marty Warmhouse too, I think, at that time. Ellen Peary and Mark Stone together got together and had a change in policy to stop roadside spraying of Roundup on the county roads. Used to just be a blight area. And we tried to get Caltrans included, as in, I think, Mendocino and Humboldt County, where they stopped this destructive to the environment, to wildlife. It's, I think, Roundup's categorized as a carcinogen now. So a major way to restore and protect the natural resources as much as possible, because I think it might be kind of an oxymoron where you have highways and transportation and protecting resources. My question is, are you still spraying Roundup on the roads or for anything? Because, of course, the mechanical means of cutting and non-toxic methods of weed control should be used, not toxic herbicides. So that's what I want to know. And I want to add one thing when I would set the bus stop today at Redwood Heights Road and Freedom Boulevard. It looked to me like just a little bit of grass around the bus stop. Looked like that. It had been sprayed. I'd like to know what that was, because, of course, it goes into the water system. We're breathing it. I'd like to see a non-toxic world, wouldn't you? Thank you. OK. Was anybody else like to provide testimony about the MOU? Yeah. Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the commission. Mr. Hurst. I think it's quite an accomplishment to involve this many agencies and trying to get agreement and establish these kind of partnerships is phenomenal. And so I say thank you to the Resource Conservation District and this body and every other body who is signed onto this. It's monumental. Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Chris. Thank you, George. And let's thank Karen too. Yeah. Mr. Coonerty. Sure. So I just want to, I'll move approval because this is a really exciting effort. And I want to thank Chris for this effort and then for mentioning the potential restoration of Scott Creek, which would be an amazing opportunity. And it's only going to happen with this kind of collaboration across many different agencies. So there's a motion by Coonerty seconded by Chase. I'll just say thank you. Yeah, thank you. I realized that it also involved Monterey County, Santa Cruz County Cooperation on both of it. And a lot of the dirt that's being used came from the sediment removal from the Pajaro River project about three years ago. So it's good to see that actual soil going to a place where it's actually, where it's going to help the habitat. Thank you. Ms. Brown. I just want to make a brief comment. First, thank you for all the work that you've done. And it is exciting to think about all of these agencies actually cooperating and communicating and managing the process of offsite compensation mitigation, early mitigation efforts. I'm not a big fan of offsite compensation as we know. I think it's pretty clear that valuation of ecosystem services is tricky. It's pretty subjective most of the time. And so I feel I have mixed feelings about it, but I do appreciate the effort to make this work. And given that the courts have deemed offsite compensation appropriate and legal, I think this is absolutely the best case scenario for ensuring the most sustainable process moving forward. So thanks. Thank you. Mr. Bertrand. When we lived in Boulder Creek, our house and property got flooded. It took us two and a half years to get all the permissions. And that involved the feds, the state, and the county. The actual project to do the mitigation took three months. To get the approval took over two years. So this is an immense accomplishment. Seeing no one else, I would just say that it's a good example of it takes a lot of work to work together, but collaboration is usually a better strategy than confrontation. And this will really help us on these projects as we seek to build them. There's been a motion by Mr. Coonerty and seconded by Ms. Chase. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. And with that, we get to the last item, which is review of items to be discussed in closed session. Mr. Mendes. Yes, we're just going to have one item under the closed session this morning. It'll be the conference real property negotiator for your personal government code section 54956.8, the property in question, Sanctuary branch rail line, and the agent negotiators are George Sandero, Mendes, and the negotiation are the RTC and progressive rail. The negotiations is price in terms. The labor negotiated item will not be needed this morning. Okay. And we don't expect that there'll be anything to report. There'll be no report out of closed session. This is an opportunity for anybody to discuss anything that's on the closed session agenda. Chair. Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Chair. So I've received a number of emails with respect to progressive rail and the negotiations that are going on. And I think people want reassurances that because everything else is waiting for the corridor study that any sort of agreement that would happen would happen after that study is completed. So could you just speak a little bit about that so you can kind of reassure people that there's no closed or agreements that are going to be signed? This is a real estate negotiation, which has to be, you have to do that not in the public eye before you actually take the action. No, I realize that. I'm just talking more or less about the timing. This is actually what we would like to talk to you about in the closed session. And it was the direction of the commission to enter into these negotiations but make the long-term commitment. So if there is anyone else who would like to address us, seeing none, we will move to closed session. Oh, yeah, public members. Oh, I thought that's what I were not sure about. I apologize. Hi, Gail McNulty. Again, speaking more as an individual than representing Greenway on this particular topic, the fact that RTC staff endorsed a 10 to 20-year tourist train contract at the January 18 meeting sent a pretty strong signal that their goal is to keep the tracks in place no matter what. This does not bode well for the fairness of the Unified Corridor study, which is currently considering non-rail options for people who are desperate or for people who are desperately looking for alternatives to gridlock. A tourist train with tickets that would likely be $30 to $50 per person, per Craig McKenzie of the CEO of Progressive Rail, may bring a bit of tourist money to our county, but it would not help to reduce gridlock. And it is no way an equitable solution. I want to thank the commissioners for recognizing that entering into a tourist train, the tourist train portion of this contract prior to the end of the Unified Corridor study would not be fair. I also want to thank commissioners Bertrand, McPherson, and Johnson for voting against entering negotiations in January when things were moving very quickly. Since January, the public has learned a lot of new information. We've learned about Progressive Rails business practices in Wisconsin and Minnesota. I've personally spoken to people in these communities where Progressive Rail is currently operating, and I am personally incredibly afraid of the idea of bringing them to our county and signing a contract with them. We've learned about Progressive Rail's very strong ties to the oil and gas industry, and we've learned the public. This is something that perhaps the RTC was aware of, but the public has learned about the Federal Railroad preemption loophole, that the oil and gas industry is exploiting to circumvent local zoning and environmental regulations and build massive industrial complexes and establish or continue their other unwanted activity along rail corridors in communities all across the United States. Some short-line railroads that were losing money in past decades are now finding it extremely profitable to keep running as long as they can figure out a way anyway to partner with an oil and gas firm. As you all know, the oil and gas industry is booming in the United States like never before. The federal government is currently working to encourage offshore drilling and new drilling sites on public land. As a North Coast resident, I wonder about Coast Aries. Who knows? There's a growing demand to ship Bacom Crude out of North Dakota. We've all heard about the pipeline. Well, they're producing more than they know what to do with. So they can't fit it all into the pipeline. They're sending it out on trains as fast as possible. Our little branch line, our little branch line is shown as a potential crude oil route on FrackTrucker.org. So I have more handouts. I have contact information for people in Minnesota. And I also have general stuff about what I just mentioned. So thank you. Please come forward if you'd like to address us about items in the closed session. Hello, I'm Ryan Sarnataro, Santa Cruz resident. I wanted to speak about the idea of having some terms in the contract that separate out the rights of the rail operator or the rights of progressive to actually block any kind of future solution that might be decided upon through the public and through the study that's coming out later this year. I had a little bit of back and forth with Craig Mackenzie by email about this. And I suggested that something be put in the contract that nothing be in the contract that forces the hand of the county in terms of being required to keep rails in place or even fix up the rail corridor for this tourist train until that study is done and until the public has had a chance to actually work with the possibilities that are out there. I think that it's really important that options remain open until information is in. There's a distinction between what happens on the portion of the corridor that could be used for rail, which is the proportion into Watsonville, and then the coastal area which is what could be used for a trail in the future. And so, again, I suggested that progressive actually take the lead in making this differentiation in the contract so that the county of Santa Cruz would not have the kind of disturbance that it would have if that option is taken off the table now. That's all I'd like to say. Hope you guys go for that. Thank you. Good morning. Back at Steinbrunner Resident of Aptos. I want to support rail. I do. But I want it to be good for the county and I want it to be something that really is going to offer an alternative solution for our people to get around in addition to bringing in tourist money. I was at the meeting when the CEO of Progressive Rail got up and there were some things that he said that bothered me a bit that I haven't seen any answers for. And mostly that he wanted to bring in the freight and revitalize rail for agricultural use primarily. But he said he had already talked with existing freight rail customers. But he didn't specify who that was. It sounds like he's trying to bring in some business for Watsonville, which would be great. But who are those customers? And that's the question I have. Who are they and what do they ship on the rail? What would they warehouse in Watsonville? And how would that impact going from that rail hub if there were truck lines that needed to take it to other areas where there is no rail? How would that impact our transportation system in the county? It seems like it's moving very fast and it was only, it seemed like short weeks from the time Iowa Pacific announced they were backing out before boom, before you was Progressive Rail. What I have not been able to figure out either is who's gonna be responsible for repairing the tracks that were storm damaged in the San Andreas, the slu areas. So I wanna side with the speakers that I've heard so far. I apologize for coming in late. But I have concerns, but I do support rail. And I do think there's a space for everybody, rail and trail. I'd like to see the trail get going right now, but go with caution with the rail because of some of these issues that I've raised before you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning. My name is Barbara Rettger. I'm a resident of Santa Cruz City. And I just wanna ask you all, what's the rush in doing this? The unified quarter study has not been concluded yet. You're going into another closed door session and to negotiate the property. I can guarantee you that if the citizens of Santa Cruz knew all the implications that comes with using our rail corridor as a depot for petrol chemicals and long-term storage of natural gas and oil stored in park train cars, they would be up in arms. Yet decisions are going to be made behind closed doors today by you guys. And when people voted on Measure D, I don't think they were thinking about, I think they were thinking about alternatives to our transportation system that will reverse greenhouse gases and our problem with climate change that's on us now. Forget the debate about the safety of rails moving fracked gas or trucks moving fracked gas. It's about keeping it in the ground. And with this current administration wanting to do offshore drilling, approving a plan to use freight cars to store and transport oil and gas is just playing into their plan. They just wanted to go and get every last drop. And this is a time to take bold decisions on which way we're going. And it is a big picture. And I don't think the picture people were thinking of was using our rail corridor, which is right along the water is a parking lot for trains holding oil and gas. And what that all comes with in the big picture. As you know, we don't really have the funds to run a train. It would require new taxes, new grants, federal and state and that haven't even been approved. So now is the time to wait for the corridor study to come through and bank the rails. It doesn't mean that there'll never be a train, but for our generation right now, we don't have the money and there isn't really a need. I'm pretty sure the corridor study is going to show it's not going to stop gridlock to have a passenger train running on the rail and just wait for that corridor study to come out. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning, RTC, how are you doing? Good, good, excellent. My name is Drew Glover, I am a city resident here in Santa Cruz. I come just to express some concern. I know that the rail trail is a really controversial topic within our community and our county with regards to what is the best way to go. I've had passionate people from both sides of the argument come and talk to me about their position and what they think should happen. So today I'm going to talk less about whether there should or should not be a train and talk more about the issues what the train could be used for as kind of being echoed by or echoing some of the things we've already heard from people. What's being planned with the tourist train is problematic on many levels and that can be a whole another conversation but what I came today to talk about specifically is the idea of freight agreements with progressive rail. So there's lots of different community members on both of the different positions that have approached me that are concerned about what's going on, the speed at which it's happening and the lack of community input that they feel is being taken into consideration with the construction or the molding of this contract. And I have to agree that I've had an immense amount of trouble getting information from your offices with regards to your stances on the contract and reassuring me that in the contract negotiations that are taking place, you are taking strong and firm stands to make sure that there is no possibility that the transportation of oil or noxious chemicals throughout county will be taking place. Now I know that there's the development of the propane facility in Watsonville which could be a shadow or foreshadowing of things to come with regards to what the rail could be used for but I haven't gotten a clear answer from any of the offices especially because I've only spoken predominantly to your staff. I haven't gotten through to a lot of you individually to be able to talk about your specific positions but I haven't gotten any kind of confirmation that you're taking this into consideration or that it is something that you will vehemently oppose if it is included in the negotiations. Other things that are kind of concerning is that these conversations are happening behind closed doors. Now I know that it was mentioned that these are real estate conversations and so there's some legalities of confidentiality but it just seems from the comments that have been made from people so far and from my own experiences of trying to get information that there is very little being communicated to the public when they express these concerns or inquire about information. Another thing is the time of the meetings. I mean nine o'clock in the morning is a really hard time for people that are working class to be able to come and voice their opinions about these kinds of situations or stay up to date about what's going on. So you may want to take into consideration opening up some other public sessions that are broadly broadcast to the community so that they can get involved and get engaged. I haven't taken a stance personally on the rail or the trail like I've mentioned before because I'm also waiting on a unified corridor study which a lot of your staff said you're waiting on before you make any official statements as well even though you're already negotiating this contract so thank you. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Bill Cook. I live in Santa Cruz. Thank you all for your work. It's unimaginably hard. I could never manage a day in your lives I don't think. The Surface Transportation Board is an adjudicatory board that succeeded the Interstate Commerce Commission and to my largely uninformed observation they have a lot to say about what happens in rail corridors and the board has wide discretion through its exemption authority from federal, state and local laws to tailor its regulatory activities to meet the nation's changing transportation needs. I'm not reassured from that perspective that we have any control over the rail corridor. I believe the only thing that I don't see any good things that can come from embracing progressive rail or any other railroad rail and oil are synonymous. They're two names for the same entity. They serve each other extremely well in our nation. And under the auspices of the Surface Transportation Board which is not subject to federal, state or local laws. I think we're exposing ourselves to a lot of problems and a lot of expense unnecessarily. If we want to control the corridor I believe that rail banking will not serve that abatement is the only process that by which we can gain any control over the corridor so that we can use it to our own purposes and our own values. Progressive rail is antithetical to the values of our community. We went to a great deal of work, suing oil companies to try to get control over the fracking issue and our exposure. Not to mention the Monterey Bay Sanctuary. I'm at Silver Paints to understand why we're entertaining this option. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Leopold and fellow commissioners. My name's Mark Maceti Miller. I'm a professional civil engineer and a 35-year resident of the city of Santa Cruz. I just want to bring up a couple of points about progressive rail and the pending contract negotiations you're entering into freight operations are essential and vital to the economic health of our community. There's a number of operators in Watsonville that are taking advantage of this right now. There's a new biofuels facility, Agron, that's coming online. Agron's going to be producing, that facility in Watsonville will be producing 15 million gallons per year of biodiesel. Biodiesel has a greenhouse gas footprint of 50% of regular diesel. It's produced from soybean oil, which is a sustainable practice and resource in our community. So they're meeting the needs of that. I'm impressed with progressive rail's idea of enhancing freight transfer by building a transloading facility. Either the Coastal Commission, you may have seen their February 5th letter to Ambeg. The Coastal Commission points out that getting every truck off the road is worth, I mean every rail car is worth about three trucks on the road. Rail is extraordinarily efficient in moving freight and it's safer. It's about number studies, 15 to 17 times safer than moving by highways. It gets trucks off the road, which preserves capacity for our highways, which have limited capacity. And it's improved safety. So we're all for it. As far as the passenger rail, progressive rail's proposal for a tourist train is wonderful. It is in keeping with the tourist economy of our county. I don't know where tourism ranks in the county as a revenue producer for the people who live here, but it's gotta be pretty high. So we support that. I also wanted to point out in the California Coastal Commission letter that preservation of our rail and enhancement, amplification of passenger rail service is in keeping with the sustainable community strategy, which is in place for all of California. So I hope you keep those things in mind as you negotiate with progressive rail and keep in mind that you are currently obligated to provide a rail operator for this branch line and you're obligated under the terms under which you accepted the money to buy this rail to provide some kind of passenger rail in line. Thank you very much. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning. My name is Nancy Connelly. I'm a resident. My name is Nancy Connelly and I'm a resident city of Santa Cruz. And I'm speaking today to ask, you are elected officials to slow down with this process for a commission that I've seen sometimes work at glacial speed on issues. You seem to have reversed roles with this one and you're working with a very divisive issue, the issue of the rail. And for someone who really wants to trust my public officials, I'm struggling with this one because this is a very important issue for our community. And I've seen the issue of agriculture being used as a reason for why we need rail. I work in agriculture for a very well-established company and I know from what I've heard there is no need for that. And so when you talk of bringing a whole another industry, the industry of gas and chemicals, as a member of the board of director of Save Our Shores that also raises concern for me as it's an environmental issue and granted there's petrol being moved along our highways, along our rail that needs sufficient improvements, it's a concern. So I do ask that you be as transparent as possible with the community. I think you owe it to us to be as transparent as possible to slow down, to keep in mind that unified core study is still in the works. Hopefully that is being as unbiased as possible that I just simply ask you to slow down and communicate as much as possible with us, your constituents. Thank you. Thank you. Many thanks to the speakers who've addressed this issue of progressive rail and given some of the history. I've learned a great deal. I had no idea about and I'm recalling that Supervisor Leopold, you really led the way on having banning fracking in Santa Cruz County as I recall and the idea that progressive rail potentially would bring in these toxic materials and involved in various aspects of the fracking process is quite appalling and definitely not in keeping with the values of our community. I also know being 76 years old and over the years reading about toxic pesticides and spills that we have a precious research of an agricultural area in the Paro Valley as you well know and to be adding to the mix of dangerous chemicals and disaster for a major growing area is unacceptable. Entering into any contract, you know how we hear look before you leap, step in, what is it, a stitch in time, says nine. Do not rush into this, examine what has been presented here in terms of the documentation and the potential harm and I had no idea if there were plans for also big development along these rail trails. Horrific. Anyway, those are my comments. Much appreciation to the speakers here who gave the critique of progressive rail. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Diana Adamic. I'm a city Santa Cruz resident and I'm not opposed to freight on the tracks. I'm not opposed to passenger rail but I don't think that all tracks are appropriate for freight and not all tracks are appropriate for passenger. We have to kind of consider each track separately and that's part of what I have an issue with here is I don't really see a clarification on any of that and I also agree with everybody else with their rush to this and the fact that we're gonna be locked into this long-term contract and with the idea that so much is going to change in the city in five years, even more so in 10 years and to be locked into this for 10 years is quite frightening and I really hope you would consider slowing down a little bit and taking a little more into consideration because along with a part of my issues with the passenger rail and being kind of siding more with Greenway is that the passenger rail hasn't even been considered all the details or at least the public hasn't been informed a lot of that so my issue with this particular issue is at the rush so thank you very much. Thank you. How many more people left or Jackie? Okay, you might be the last one. All right. Hi, I'm Jackie Nunez, long-time resident Santa Cruz and volunteer for Save Our Shores and founder of the Las Plastics Draw. So this issue is really important to me because I really feel my duty to protect the marine sanctuary. As a sanctuary steward, I take that very seriously and this would just be yet another threat. I think I'm really concerned about this partnership with this rail company and the history that they have with the fossil fuel industry and just some of the things that I've read into it so I do, I implore you like everyone else to just slow down, take a look at everything and I don't really understand the rush in this when we don't even have the study out so I'm just seconding, thirding, whatever, fifth the motion and to please be as transparent as possible with us. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no one else, we will adjourn to closed session. I think we're going in the room next door. Are we staying here? Yeah. Okay.