 to discuss the Jennings Avenue rail crossing. I am Natalie Rogers, the mayor of Santa Rosa, and I wanna thank all of you for joining us this evening, both in person and virtually via Zoom. We have live Spanish interpretation for tonight's meeting, and it can be heard through Zoom by clicking on the interpretation icon that resembles a globe in the Zoom toolbar on your screen. For those of you who are with us in person tonight, Spanish interpretation is available through the translation headsets, which we have available on the back table. A bit of housekeeping right through this door to my right are the restrooms. And also, before I introduce our wonderful panel, I would like to take the time to invite our translator, Charles Idyk, with the International Effectiveness Center to join me so he can translate everything I have just said. Charles, take it away. I don't think I need to say the last part, do I? Interpretation in Spanish. For this meeting, you can hear it through Zoom by clicking on the interpretation icon that resembles a globe in the Zoom toolbar on the screen. For those of you who are in person, Spanish interpretation is also available through the devices we have back here. And before... I don't think I need to say the last part, do I? You're just introducing me. I'm Charles and I interpret it here in person. Thank you. All right, thank you, Charles. I would like to take the opportunity to recognize our local dignitaries that we have in attendance. First, I would like to recognize Supervisor Corsi. Thank you for being here. And Council Member Chris Rogers, thank you for being here. We have four panelists for tonight's meeting that will be presenting and responding to your questions. From the city of Santa Rosa, we have Jason Nutt, Assistant City Manager and Director of Transportation and Public Works, and Rob Sprinkle, Deputy Director of Traffic Engineering, Transportation and Public Works. From Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit, also known as SMART, we have Eddie Cummins, General Manager and Bill Gallin, Chief Engineer. Thank you guys for being here. And Jason, the floor is yours. Thank you very much, Mayor Rogers. Thank you all for coming tonight. This has been a long road for us to get to a point where we're at, we can actually begin to make some final decisions on how we're gonna proceed with this particular project. And what we wanna do is provide an opportunity for both the city to express the project that it has designed and why that design occurred. We wanna give, we want SMART to have the opportunity to talk about that design and provide some comments about it and alternatives that are coming forward. There have been some questions about why Santa Rosa is interested in having this particular meeting. And the real reason is it has been a long path. It's been a long path and the two agencies, the city of Santa Rosa and SMART are still on a path of negotiation. And in that discussion, what we decided was we needed to spend a time with the community to better hear your interests as we want to proceed moving forward. From the city's perspective, the city remains committed to building the at grade crossing that we've pushed forward through the California Public Utilities Commission. We recognize that SMART as our partner in this has concerns and we've made attempts to address those concerns. And I think that's part of what SMART's team will describe tonight. What I want to do from the city's perspective is to go through a very brief history of how we got to the spot. I wanna talk about the, very quickly why an at grade crossing was chosen and what design considerations were put into place in an effort to meet the considerations of the California Public Utilities Commission. So that we, which caused us to get the authorization and the decision to proceed with that particular design. And then I'll hand it over to SMART at that point. So how this began is we were looking at the North Station Area Plan. As SMART was beginning its process of developing their rail service and where stations might be located, how and who they might be serving. There was an interest in this Northern area up near Gernville Road adjacent to Cottingtown Mall adjacent to some high density residential that was being planned and permitted in that area. And we had identified a particular location here where Jennings was, where people were crossing the tracks and so we did some investigating. And what we determined was that there's individuals, especially when you just look at this school's population that existed on both sides of the tracks. And there was a request to try to figure out, well, how could we, especially if this is gonna grow, we're gonna get more residential units. We're gonna see an increase in the number of opportunity sites. How could we best support those community members, especially for the school, for the shopping and to be able to access SMART's new station and platform. That was in about 2010 when we began that process and we entered into a joint partnership with SMART to look at how we could accommodate people crossing in and around this area because that was where we were both deciding there was a station that was intended to be planned. And that was in the 2012 era. And SMART actually took the leadership to begin looking at how and where alternative crossing locations could be for this population that we saw coming forward. Again, it was to the benefit of the North Station area planned to ensure that we had the best possible connectivity through the course of the next few years, different design alternatives started to cycle through and push out toward community conversation, conversation with the SMART Board of Directors as well as the city council. In the end, what we were asked to do is to perform an environmental impact report looking at a couple of various alternatives. And those alternatives included an above grade crossing, an at grade crossing where we're swapping with an existing crossing that existed in Red Road Square. The idea from the California Public Utilities Commission was no net new crossings. Or just simply going after a new crossing. And so that was what we initiated in 2013. In 2014, we pushed forward a request for MTC thinking that the over-crossing was going to be the feature of choice. We received funding from MTC to help build an over-crossing at this location. As we were concluding the EIR, city council provided alternative direction to city staff and requested that we focus in on an at grade crossing without any closure in the downtown which then resulted in the city giving the funding back to MTC for reprogramming elsewhere throughout the region. And in 2016, we submitted an application to the Public Utilities Commission for that at grade crossing. And it began this process and this journey. We were successful, the PUC granted our application in 2016 and they approved a new at grade crossing at Jennings Avenue. That particular design was a standard conform to FRA policy. And we received fairly positive feedback from the community during the public outreach process that we were in fact providing the service that they were looking for. In 2018, we were unsuccessful at that point in getting the crossing constructed. And we did find out that SMART at that point had made a decision that the at grade crossing was an area of concern and they were no longer going to support that crossing at that point. Through our continued negotiations, we were required to go for additional extensions of the crossing approval from the California Public Utilities Commission which we did in 2019. We did again in 2021 and we are trying to complete this before we have to go forward with another extension. Just to give you an idea of some of the quotes and feedback that were incorporated into the original decision that was approved by the Public Utilities Commission. And these are excerpts specifically from the language produced by the administrative law judge and approved by the commission members themselves is in essence, and I'm not gonna read all these, in essence that the crossing meets the guidelines and criteria that at that time, the SED or the Safety Enforcement Division arm of the California Public Utility Commission concluded that it met all of the criteria for a safe crossing. And that we met the needs of the community in the most appropriate design at that time. And so all of this is available online. We can provide this in the future. Again, I don't wanna read it all but it's just more consideration that we felt were important points on why the PUC approved that particular design. Following that decision, well, as a part of that decision, the Public Utility Commission asked us to look at a few additional safety potential measures. One might be to work with Helen Layman Elementary to put crossing guards at that location so that we made sure that the youth, which is an area of concern, youth unattended and there may be youth unattended that are accessing the school could avoid the safety features and get onto the track in an unsafe manner. And so the idea of a crossing guard was a way for us to be able to mix that. And the school wasn't opposed to doing that but we wanted to consider other alternatives along the way that didn't require the presence of a person because that only occurs during pickup and drop-off hours. It's not a 24-7 activity. So as we, as SMART began to start operations, we approved with SMART, we all jointly agreed that we would fence off the crossing in the interim as a safety feature because trains were gonna be active on the line. And it made sense at that point in time because we thought we were on a path to be able to get this built. And so what you see in here in the red is the alternative path that was created to support access from side to side. And the city utilized this and made some improvements along that path to ensure that there was appropriate and reasonable lighting that the fencing along the creek or the ditch was put in place appropriately and that there weren't any sidewalk gaps so that we could ensure that folks had that safe passage to get around. I wanna just show you a couple of the examples from the 2015 EIR and why the at grade crossing was chosen. And this is a good snapshot that will then help in the description of where SMART may be making a presentation as well. So we did look at an over crossing. In order for that over crossing to be ADA compliant, it was roughly a quarter mile long. It extended and I apologize that there we go. It extended the entire length of Jennings Avenue between Dutton and the tracks. It looped down the tracks over and back in order to come back to grade on Jennings Avenue on the east side. And when we evaluated that and talked with our public safety team, there was the belief in the field that this posed a greater personal risk for the type of activities that could occur than those at the at grade crossing. And that conversation occurred in front of council and that's why council ultimately ended up making the recommendation to do the at grade crossing. I apologize, these big images, big images. So this is from the other side, from the western or the eastern side of the track. From an at grade perspective, the footprint is significantly smaller. It has a lot less space to cross. The reason you see a lot of yellow is, is there's a lot of investment that needs to be done outside of the tracks in order to complete the program, the bike and ped connection program that we had in mind, which included signal improvements and included street improvements. And whether there's an above grade crossing or a below or an at grade crossing, all of those improvements are still gonna be necessary. But you can see that the footprint is quite a bit smaller and the access across the tracks is direct is direct and fairly simple from a pedestrian and bicyclist perspective. There were a number of questions that came up during the course of the last five years as we've been working with SMART to try to arrive at a place where SMART would be comfortable to allow us to proceed with this. And so we hired an outside consulting firm to continue to help us look at other aspects of an at grade crossing for rail line that might be beneficial to safety. We looked at the concept of a channelization or Z crossing and it's a similar procedure that SMART has done at all of their crossings. It is a safe mechanism of forcing an individual who is crossing to look at the oncoming traffic before they continue and complete their path. This particular space is a little tight. So the dramatic Z that might occur is lessened at this spot but we made every design opportunity to try to make it as dramatic as we could. And so we did create some channelizing gates in an effort to force folks to look in the direction of the oncoming traffic before they crossed. Others as we are talking about contrasting pavements, you see that in various cities around the country where you've got different colors or you've got look signs or you've got other markings that help you differentiate or give you additional direction on things or areas of concern, enhance signage in the area, things that could be as much as a blank out sign or a lighted sign, something to draw attention if there's a train coming or if there's a feature that we wanted to have them point out and we did come up with a few additional ideas. We talked about the possibility of using wayside horns as a directional audible as opposed to, because we are in a quiet zone and so the trains don't audibly blow their horn unless they see a danger in and around the track area, but the wayside horn would be an automated component that would help alert individuals that trains are approaching. And then there's two or three other options that we looked at as just different types of symbolic or active signs in an effort to provide that dynamic approach to informing pedestrians and bicyclists wanting to cross. In the end, the design that we came up with and you can see there's a slight cant on the crossing itself, that is the component of Z crossing. You'll also see there's some fencing aspects to help guide and direct folks to give their direction, their direction, their visual direction in the point of the oncoming vehicles. And this was done purely in that way of trying to address some of the concerns we were hearing from SMART. Just to give you an idea, this starts to identify the path of travel. It identifies where those view corridors are, how we felt there was sight distance and reasonable sight distance, especially given the speeds of the vehicles that were approaching. And so this is the final design that we've put forth. We think that from the standpoint of crossings along the SMART line, this would be the safest of the at grade crossings that currently exist. It is an at grade crossing and that is our intent. We want a safe space. None of us wanna be dealing with concerns or articles about individuals being struck. And so we've gone to great lengths to try to incorporate design that reduces and minimizes any potential for an individual to access the tracks while a train is approaching. So that's where we're at. That's where the design is currently sitting. This is the proposal that we've got on the table right now and the proposal that we've been presenting to the California Public Utilities Commission during each of the extensions that we've made a request of. And we'll have another request coming later this year unless we're able to come to conclusion on how to proceed. And with that, I believe I'm gonna hand it over to Mr. Cummins. Good evening. My name is Eddie Cummins. I am the smart general manager. I've been with the agency for a little over a year or now. Before I get started, I want everyone to know how much we appreciate our relationship with the city of Santa Rosa. We've worked together on a lot of initiatives. We solved a lot of problems and we really have a great relationship. We continue to have dialogue with the city on the crossing at Jennings Avenue as well as looking at alternatives which we're here talking about tonight. This crossing at Jennings Avenue has been discussed for over a decade. Are you having a difficult time hearing me? Speak up. Okay, I'll try to speak up. Sorry about that, sir. I said this crossing at Jennings has been discussed for over a decade and I think it's important that we find a solution. When I arrived at SMART, the Jennings Crossing was one of the first things people wanted to talk to me about. Whether I was talking to staff elected officials or even the media, everyone wanted to talk about Jennings. Within the first couple of weeks of my arrival, I read a mountain of information to educate myself on the history of the proposed crossing. I also visited the site to better understand the proposed project. To be honest, the idea of this grade crossing scares me. At the end of the day, I agree with CPUC's rail safety staff at the rail safety division who stated that the proposed crossing presents a serious risk of harm to the public. I realized that is not what people want to hear, but I'm confident any railroad in the country would agree with me. The Federal Railroad Administration is very clear. They say the safest at grade crossing is one that doesn't exist. So the question is, why is the railroad industry so opposed to grade crossings? Is it because they're unreasonable or is it because they know what happens when a train strikes a car or even worse, a pedestrian? I want to be very clear. I agree that the grade crossing proposed by the city includes the available safety features. However, as the rail safety division has pointed out, you also have to take other factors into consideration, such as line of sight, location, risk, and especially the unpredictability of human behavior. Just a few weeks ago, SMART experienced a fatality at a grade crossing in Nevada. All crossing safety features work does design, but someone still lost their life. I'm here today to provide an alternative to an at grade crossing, but first, I think it's important to help the community understand why from a safety perspective, I don't recommend an at grade crossing at Jennings Avenue. In the following slides, I will address multiple concerns identified by the CPUC Rail Safety Division, and I will highlight a few of my major concerns to include risky human behavior, line of sight, double tracks, train meets, and the fact that a safer alternative exists. At the end, I will turn it over to Bill Gamlin, SMART's chief engineer, to show a concept of an elevated crossing over Jennings Avenue. I will start with the concerns identified by CPUC's Rail Safety Division. They stated Jennings Avenue location is a double tracked area, which creates a longer distance for pedestrians to cross to reach safety. They pointed out that SMART runs 38 trains a day through this area. Due to size, a train vehicle can appear to be moving slower than its actual speed. Trains travel through the Jennings location at speeds of 25 to 35 miles per hour, and can be up to 45 miles per hour. At these speeds, it takes about a third of a mile to stop the trains, and the trains cannot swerve to miss a human. The Rail Safety Division goes on to say the proposed location is near dense housing schools in adjacent preschool, and would be traveled by school-aged children and minors. The crossing is especially dangerous for children who may be inclined to take risk, such as when late for school or others who may simply just try to beat the train. Warning devices can be rendered less effective if pedestrians are using earbuds or cell phones that block sounds and create distractions. I think it's also important to note that the CPUC Rail Safety Division is still seeking to modify and reverse the decision authorizing the at-grade crossing. I share the Rail Safety Division's concerns, but moving forward, I wanna highlight some of my personal concerns and I'll start with risky behaviors. I've been in this business for a long time and I've dealt with more crossing fatalities than I like to admit. We all like to think that we won't make these risky mistakes, but it happens way, way too often. Looking at a cell phone, listening to music through earbuds, teenage dares, running late or simply just being impatient can lead to a serious incident. There are several grade crossing incidents I dealt with at the Utah Transit Authority documented on YouTube. I chose not to show any of those videos here tonight, but if you're interested, you can go to YouTube and in the search engine, in the search you can type in front-runner incident and you can see some of the issues and incidents and these risky behaviors that concern me. Some of these incidents were close calls and others were fatalities. I've seen the effects these incidents have on families, communities, our employees and I want to limit the risk to this neighborhood to the greatest extent possible. Line of sight is another challenge. As I illustrate in this video, there would be limited visibility of pedestrians at the proposed crossing location. This is a video that we shot just last week and I just want you to take a look. In this video, you are in the cab of the train headed southbound. Northbound train is arriving at the station. Southbound train is taking off. Obviously, just last week, so there's not a lot of leaves on the trees. It does concern me that this area would have less visibility in the summer months. You can see the train is really getting up to speed at this point and what I want to point out is how the engineer does not have visibility of people that would be at that crossing until the last second. So we'll just back it up a little bit and just stop. So at this point, at these speeds, the train can't stop. And if someone walked into the alignment, it would likely be fatal. The proposed grade crossing area is also double-tracked. The double-tracked area increases the risk associated with a grade crossing. In a double-tracked section, the distance from side to side is 45 feet versus 30 feet in a single-track section. This increases your crossing exposure by 50% and another big thing to keep in mind is that the trains are going both directions. One of my major concerns is the north and southbound trains meet at the Santa Rosa North Station. This creates a significant crossing risk. Someone could see one train pass, believe it is safe to cross, and unintentionally walk into an oncoming train. Currently 38 trains, 38 trains pass this location daily. 11 times per day, the northbound and southbound trains meet in the Jennings area. The lowest to current smart schedule and all blocks highlighted in yellow indicate the train meets and the blocks in red are within school commute times. The system is designed for the trains to meet at the Santa Rosa North Station. However, there are times that either the north or southbound train could be running a little late. This video was shot last week. In this particular case, the northbound train was a few seconds late and the trains met at Jennings Avenue. In this video, you will see the southbound train is accelerating while the northbound train is beginning to slow down for the upcoming stop. In the following slides, I wanna show the variable train meets at this location. The first animation is normal operations. This is if the trains actually meet at Santa Rosa North Station. You will see the arms come down for the northbound train. They will come up and then they'll go back down for the southbound train. Arms down, northbound train comes through. The arms come up. A few seconds later, they will come down. The southbound train would pass at that time. In this situation, the warning device would be activated for approximately 35 seconds for each train. Sorry. The next one would be the meets at Santa Rosa North Station. Here we go. Arms come down. They actually meet at Jennings Avenue. In this slide, truly, this is probably the safest situation because the date arms come down one time. The trains pass each other at that location. Arms come up, light stop blinking. It's safe to cross. But what happens when the northbound train is running a little late or the southbound train? My clicker is not working very well. Okay, here's the late train. Arms come down. One train comes by. This concerns me because somebody could think it's clear. But then here comes the northbound train coming through. In this situation, the gate arms would be down somewhere between 60 and 90 seconds. It's important to note that when the crossing arms are down, there will be lights and an audible sound. Part 49, go to the federal regulations, requires smarts grade crossing warning systems to activate at least 20 seconds before the train reaches the crossing. In a typical double track section near a station where trains meet, the bells and lights are activated from 35 seconds to as long as 60 to 90 seconds, depending on variations in train speed and location. Based on the current schedule, there would be at least 38 crossing activations per day between the hours of 446 a.m. and 915 p.m. And in the future, there may also be some late night train activations for our freight service. This is a pedestrian crossing at Runert Park. It looks similar to the city's design, but at a single track location. I wanna show the video for two reasons. One, I wanna show how it works and two, the sounds residents would hear at least 38 times per day. The bell volume is factory set at a minimum of 85 decibels and cannot be adjusted lower. I have personally received numerous emails and calls from residents along the smart line regarding the crossing bells and the bell on the train. I want the community to know in advance that these warning devices are CPUC required and smart cannot choose to turn them down or off. The bells start first and then the arms will come down. This location, the train is leading around the station in the south. It's on the horn there because there is a person standing next to it. Once the train clears, the bells will stop. The arms come up and when the lights stop flashing, that is when it's actually safe to go across the crossing. I know it may not be what some in this community want to hear, but a safer alternative already exists. It may not be more convenient, but it is safer. The pathway is paved and connects to the train, bus and bike lane. The channels pedestrians away from Grenville Road providing safe refuge from traffic and their signage indicating a route to Dutton Avenue. However, I will acknowledge that this alternative is 0.6 miles from to the other side of Jennings Avenue. There have been a lot of improvements over the years to crossing at Grenville Road, looks nothing like it did in 2015. There have also been pathway improvements, current treatments and lower train speeds at Grenville Road make this a much safer crossing. This is another photo showing some of the safety treatments on Grenville Road. You may notice in this area, the two tracks are further apart and there's a safe refuge in the center in case someone makes a mistake. Another alternative is for children to use a school bus for service to school based on our conversations with the school and most students are currently taking this bus. This method's convenient, it's fast and it's much safer than crossing a railroad grade crossing. This bus, this is on the east side of the tracks. The students getting on the bus and this is the school bus route overlaid at the top of map that was shown earlier this evening illustrates how the school bus served students who live furthest away from the elementary school. So although there is a safer alternatives already in place, I understand why people would find it convenient to cross Jennings Avenue. If the community desires a crossing at Jennings Avenue, SMART recommends an elevated crossing. SMART can make right away available and assist in securing funding. With that, I will turn it over to Bill Gamlin, SMART's chief engineer to talk about an alternative, elevated crossing over Jennings Avenue. Thank you, Eddie. So I know the city looked at an elevated crossing in 2015. It was generally an east-west configuration that started at Dutton Avenue and headed east across the tracks. We've come up with a concept for an elevated crossing that might fit into the SMART right away, perhaps would be a little more less intrusive and a little more compact than what was earlier envisioned. So to orient everybody to this slide, the right side of the graphic is north. The two tracks are located in the center. The green boxes represent SMART trains for a sense of scale on the track. To the right would be up towards Gernville Road and the north Santa Rosa station and to the left would be to the downtown SMART station. The orange that's shown represents what could be an elevated crossing. It would be sort of a U shape that would head south in the SMART right of way, would gradually elevate and then cross the tracks about 400 feet south of the Jennings Avenue and then work its way back to Jennings Avenue on the east side. We can also see the existing pathway that SMART constructed in 2016 and it would tie in nicely with that as well. Today, that pathway that Eddie touched on goes from Jennings Avenue up to Gernville Road, back down Dutton, it's approximately 0.6 miles long. We think that a elevated structure that we've described would reduce that dramatically down to about 0.22 miles, about two thirds less of the distance. The red line on the graphic represents that path of travel up and over an elevated structure and over to Dutton Avenue. The elevated crossing, as I've mentioned, we would envision being within the SMART right of way. It would be fully compatible with the Americans with Disabilities Act. It would be a gentle slope with landings along the way. It would be a Southern alignment from Jennings South towards College Avenue. It would be enclosed for safety and we believe there would be opportunities for artistic designs on that that could make it more interesting and more aesthetically pleasing. The alignment would allow for a smaller and potentially more aesthetically appealing design than what's been envisioned in the past. And as we just looked at, the distance would be reduced by about 0.38 miles. So we've put a rendering together for this. This is a very crude rendering. We have not designed this structure. We have not worked out the details. This is merely a concept that we've come up with that could fit in this location. We've included the train in the photo here to give a sense of scale. The height on this, it would be about 25 feet from the top of rail to the bottom of the structure and the structure itself would probably be about 10 feet tall. So it is not a small structure. Here it's kind of envisioned in concrete with concrete columns, certainly it could be other materials as well. So again, just a concept that we're putting out there that we would be willing to work with the city on to implement. And with that, I'm gonna turn it back to the general manager. Thank you, Bill. As I said in the beginning, this conversation's been going on for over a decade. I'm sure there's some strong feelings in this room about this topic. And honestly, I'm not sure I properly communicated how risky a grade crossing would be at this location. The idea of a grade crossing in this area does scare me. Smart wants to be supportive, but we don't want to see any injuries or fatalities. As previously stated, I truly believe an upgrade crossing at Jennings Avenue is an unnecessary risk. My recommendation is either continue using the alternative path or build an elevated crossing. If an elevated crossing is pursued, Smart will assist in securing funding and work with the city to construct it. With that, I'll turn it back to Jason. Thank you, Eddie and Bill. At this point, what we wanted to accomplish was to demonstrate what's been designed, the concerns that Smart has, and the alternative that Smart is asking for feedback on. And this is really an opportunity now for us to hear any questions that you might have, if there are any comments or thoughts. But I think both organizations are committed to trying to find a solution, even though we may have completely, we may have different views on what the solution is. We're at a place where we need to hear from you. And so at this point, I'm gonna open this up to questions and what I'll do is I'll go ahead and facilitate who's speaking and we'll do our best to have a Q and A, right? Hey, Jason, real quick. I'm gonna, I got a microphone. So since it's on Zoom, I'll come around and get the microphone to make sure everybody can hear it. So for those of you who don't know, this is Lon Peterson. He works with the cities and our Intergovernmental, Communication and Intergovernmental Relations Officer. It's a long title. It is, I'm gonna shorten it. Bye. Thank you. My name's Julie and I live around the corner. And I just wanted to start with thank you so much for doing this presentation. This is the first time we've seen smart here along with the city and talking about what you're, both of your points of view are. It's been so straightforward this time. I think it's very nice to hear. So thank you very much. Yes, I'm hard of hearing. So I don't know if I'm talking loud enough. If I'm not, please tell me questions about your suggested over-crossing design. Is it a straight run or does it double back on itself on both sides? The over-crossing concept would be a U shape that would double back on it as you refer to. So it would go down the right of way across the tracks and back. No, I'm sorry. I'm not making my question clear. If a person walking on the west side of Jennings to cross over to the east side of Jennings, do they walk south and then back to the north and then go over the tracks? Or do they walk south and go over the tracks and then walk north again to the east side of Jennings? They would walk south, then across the tracks, then north back to Jennings. So there would be no switchbacks. It would be a straight run all the way to the top and then all the way back down again. Yeah, basically a U configuration down, across, and back is what we've conceptualized. And this would be an 8% grade? It'd be a maximum one and 12th slope, an 8% grade, yes. And they would have resting areas? They would have landings, yes. But your proposal has the crossing of the track on the south rather than across Jennings Avenue. Correct. It'd be about 400 feet south of the Jennings location. Would the east side be situated over the parallel pathway? In other words, would your columns be over the pathway on the east side? We think the columns could all fit within the smart right-of-way. Some of the structure might overhang over the pathway. And again, we haven't worked out any details on this. And what do you anticipate the projected cost would be? We haven't put cost figures to it. Based on the overcrossing in the past, this is probably in the neighborhood of $15 to $20 million. What would you estimate the construction time to be? Because you have trains running and sometimes we have rain here. Yes, excellent point. The presence of the train operation would make construction take longer. We have not estimated a time frame for construction. Yes, the 2014 draft AIR suggested that the construction with trains running could last for six months plus. We haven't put time frames to it. So this is just a concept at this point? Totally just a concept. Thank you so much. Yep. Is there any questions on there? Yeah, at this time we have three people with their hand raised for Zoom. Maybe we can alternate between audience and Zoom. Absolutely. The first person with their hand raised is Michael LePelt. And I'll go ahead and click Allow to Talk. Michael, once you unmute yourself, you can ask your question. Yeah, could everybody hear me? Yes, we hear you. Oh, OK. Michael LePelt, I'm a volunteer with Bikeable Santa Rosa, a grassroots organization that really advocates for safe protected bike pedestrian networks that connect neighborhoods to their daily needs. And I have a few questions. One, regarding the elevated structure, this U-form, conceptually what I see, it's a pretty much a right angle. How wide is the path going to be? And it looks like by the conceptual design, you can't ride a bike on that. The width of the structure envisioned is around 10 feet, perhaps 12 feet. Again, we haven't worked out the details on that. I suppose you could ride a bike. The slope wouldn't be that steep, but we would probably put signage up to encourage people to walk bicycles on this type of structure. OK, so that answers my question. And the other part of it is, kind of from our resident's point of view, the frustration that we all feel when a project is needed and talked about and on some levels agree to. And then it's put on hold, negotiations go back and forth. And at a certain stage, there's somewhat of an agreement. And then time passes. And then another option is placed forward. So we have a conceptual idea. And it just continues to prolong these projects. And it's so frustrating. The one piece, the last comment that I'll make was the current situation where you detour to Guerneville Avenue, it makes more sense to have connectivity from Jennings Avenue to the 101 overcrossing that is in its later stages and proceeding forward after many, many years of negotiations. Because in the past, bike pedestrian has been done in isolation and there's not conductivity. So I have a problem with that in terms of connecting, using the detour, and even with the conceptual idea of walking your bike is, I believe, a hindrance for others with strollers. So I'll leave it at that. I'm frustrated that there's no time frame. We can look at this going down the road another 10 years. Who knows? So thanks for all your work. Thanks for the presentations. Really appreciate it. Thank you. My name is Eris Weaver. I'm the executive director of the Stone County Bicycle Coalition. And we have been supporting the upgrade crossing along. As a cyclist and as a pedestrian, I cross the tracks every day in multiple different locations. And I hear the concerns about safety. I, of course, am concerned about safety of all different modes of transportation. I was trying to look up statistics on my phone. I didn't get a good enough signal. But just the ones that I know about, the number of people who are struck by trains compared to the number of pedestrians and cyclists we have had killed by people driving motor vehicles, far surpasses how many people are struck by trains. And there are with 38 trains and how many thousands of cars there are on Steele Lane, on College Avenue, and on some of the alternatives, there are far more opportunities for injury than there are crossing the train tracks, in my opinion. And I would love to see those. I'm sure there must be some national statistics somewhere of comparison of highway, street collisions, to train collisions per whatever unit you want. But there are just so many more people killed in other forms of transportation. I also had some concerns about the U-shape, very narrow, going up and around those right angle turns. And I will confess, I hate those Z-gates with my bike, but I know I have to slow down and walk through them. But then there's also the issue of if it's all straight up, a little turn in all straight down, and it's only 10 feet wide, conflict between different users. If somebody is tempted to fly down the downslope when there's people or cyclists coming up the upslope, that doesn't sound particularly great either. And I don't know what else you would do about that. But I'll stop at this point. I know this gentleman has been waving his hand for a while. Can I respond to that? We're going to respond to that. We're going to go back and forth to the audience, but go ahead. Thank you. Aris, I hear you. You know I do. And statistics are great until it's your family member. I don't want to overdramatize this, but I've probably dealt with this more than anybody in this room. It happens. And the things that I've seen, the things where I've seen people walk in front of trains, just normal people, people that ride every day and just walk in front of a train, make a mistake. People that have earbuds in, they're looking at their phone and they walk in front of a train. I've seen kids jump over the fences and run across. There's people that dare each other. You can't beat that train, right? These things happen. And so statistics, yes, we can pull statistics. They're out there. They're on the Federal Railroad Administration. But I'm telling you, when this hits home for you, it's completely different. It's completely different. That's it. I've had my fair share. Brian, do you have the next person on Zoom? Yeah, next person on Zoom is Luna Wintergreen. Luna, you can unmute yourself and ask your question or comment. Hi, thanks so much for presenting, everybody. I especially enjoyed what you were saying, Eddie. I think Dean made some really good points. I wanna say that I live right next to where it would be. My apartment door faces their train tracks. So I'm really not looking forward to the idea of hearing 85 decibels, 38 times a day, starting at 4.30 in the morning. I'd love to bring to light the concerns of noise pollution and how stressful that can be, especially for kids who are studying, they're needing to get their sleep so they can grow and for people working from home, the community in general. And I totally agree with you, one person's life, if just one person died in the next 40 years or this train tracks crossing was put in, it wouldn't be worth saving thousands of people four minutes of their time. Like, it's an inconvenience for sure, but safety should come first. And I don't wanna see this put at the end of my street. So can I tell them about the lighting? Oh, and then just one more thing really quickly. I have the floor. I wanna bring to, I have a question, which is about do you have any statistics about how this could potentially increase crime because this is gonna create another throughway? And unfortunately we do have a bit of a problem with homeless people on the side by Jennings by the apartments. And so the lighting and it might be dark, and I'm just concerned about that as well. Thank you. Yeah, I don't have those statistics of what that would look like in front of me, but I would say in a structure like this, I would wanna see it lit up and I'd also advocate that we have cameras that could be monitored. All right, we're gonna take a question. Richard Heinberg, Jennings Avenue. I just wanna point out a contradiction in the presentations this evening. Assistant city manager, Jason Knutt, said that according to the city's analysis, this would be the safest at-grade crossing in Santa Rosa. So that suggests that the existing situation with crossings at college and Gernville Road are less safe. And that the existing situation where people have to detour to take those crossings rather than crossing at Jennings is a less safe situation than we would have with an at-grade crossing at Jennings. And we can talk about the possibility of someone dying, but that exists at the two locations that are already there. We would not be adding to the unsafe situation because we wouldn't be increasing the traffic just providing a safer opportunity. If I could just address, my statement was that the devices that we would be putting on this particular location would be a culmination of increase and enhanced safety above other crossings at that location that we would see in Santa Rosa. So the devices that we were looking at, it is above the standard in an effort to try to further enhance to the best of our ability to safety at this location. And I don't want to argue with the city. I would just point out that there's a big difference between the train running 25 to 35 miles an hour and the train coming to a stop or just getting started. There's a difference. All right, let's take a question from Zoom. Next question from Zoom is Barbara Moulton. Barbara, you can unmute yourself and ask your question. Thank you very much. It is frustrating to be back here after all these years. I remember testifying at the hearing at the school years ago and the CPUC making its decision in favor of the grade crossing. And indeed in January of 2018, I had a communication from the smart board member Deb Fudge and I quote, I don't know anyone who doesn't support that crossing, meaning the at grade crossing. All of the smart board did, not just Shirley, we as a rail company let the CPUC know of our support. Now, going to the merits of the question, I can understand Mr. Cummins' concern. Nobody wants to see an accident on a rail line. Nobody wants to see a bicycle accident between a car and a bicycle. There's lots of risks out there and it's really understandable for smart not to want to have them on their property, but they will go someplace else if you don't allow people at this at grade crossing. Some of the risks are simply that it's the lost opportunity for more active transportation. Kids taking the bus to school is not as great a solution as kids walking to school. I think we can make it safe. And it's also been pointed out that cars are risky. Another thing is about the over crossing. It's a long tunnel with no escape. It's not a place where I would want to be alone at night. You can't really see, I'm pretty sure that the design will not allow for you to be able to see the entire thing. And even if you could see it when you started up it, you can't tell who's going to be approaching from the other side or following you and then being potentially trapped. I think it will go underused adding that kind of length imagine and also the elevation gain. Imagine being elderly or disabled and negotiating that it's a discouragement. You might be able to do it, but will you then choose maybe some other not great alternative. I'm wondering if in designing the at grade crossing you can use a solid gate. Rather than a simple arm. I think I have seen those elsewhere. Thank you very much. She was. Sorry. Actually she was first. So just so long before you move on just in response. The concept of utilizing a solid gate was evaluated as well. There were. Concerns and that was part of the discussion that we had with smart and it was actually decided that a gate arm with a with a skirt on the bottom of it, which is what we've proposed. Is actually better in some regards because there's less. Because there's other opportunity for escape as opposed to. The solid gate, but, but it was something that we contemplated and considered. And we did work collaboratively with smart on that. Take another question from the audience. I've lived in the neighborhood for 50 years. When smart came in, they said they would give us an over-crossing. And it's frustrating because it gets shelved. It gets shelved. And then there's no response. And it. We are being inundated with all new apartments and condos. Gernville road, West college. We, there are apartments going up everywhere. The old G and G safe way, huge apartment complex. Where are all these people going to go? Because a lot of them are going to walk. Bike. And I feel it's been a big disservice to the West side. And it's just to the gentlemen from smart in the middle who said, Oh, there's a tree there. That's kind of dangerous when there's leaves on it will trim it. I mean, really, I mean, this is so easy. We need a crossing, a safe crossing as anybody walked down Gernville road and walked on the pathway on the left on the north side where it's filled with brambles and thorn bushes that the city doesn't take care of. Have you walked on the pathway? Down Gernville road where that there are some trees that are still burned from the Tubbs fire and they're hanging over this, the Gernville road. There's eucalyptus trees. I mean, there's a lot of work that needs to be done, but nothing's getting done. And it's an insult to us because you shelve the plan. I mean, I think the city needs to look at Gernville road also and trim it up because it's a hazard also. And it's just frustrating. We like our West side, especially most of us here. I think have been here a long time. There are no young people here. Our kids have all grown up here. We all have grandchildren. So it's time to take care of us and build a damn walkway for us. Okay. Brian, let's take another question from zoom. Next up on zoom is Jack Swarington. Jack Swarington. You've been allowed to talk. You can unmute yourself and ask your question. Thank you. Can you hear me all right? Yes, we'll hear you just fine. All right. I really appreciate the civil tone. Of a very, very deeply felt. Project and. Framework and the whole situation. I don't see a whole lot of happy smiles from the fourth of the bench, but I do see a determination to be civil. I just want to do it. Do you know that I appreciate it? So. Let me, let me say that. These were talking about trains. And pedestrians and cyclists. They're all the same crossing. And each has their own particular. Needs and risk and. Get along. So this is, as I understand it. This is part of the East West cross Santa Rosa. Bike route. Because biking on Grenville or college across town is a no, no, just, I mean, it's a lot of different things. But I think that if you're a cyclist, you're a cyclist, you're a cyclist for cyclists, then crossing the tracks is for a child. I think. You've heard a lot about that. So let's talk about the needs of all three. And I can't really speak for all three, but I can tell you that a year ago, up until a year ago, I was cycling. Actively. Around West County. And through the city, by the way. I was cycling across the city off of Grenville or college. Until you get to. Senator's Avenue, you basically are on the streets. So. Let's talk about seconds for a minute, because when I tried to cross Herne Avenue. A year ago. Off the bike path and across her and I suddenly was faced with a dog leg. Getting onto the sidewalk. That startled me. I wasn't looking far enough ahead. And I fell onto the street from the bike path and broke three vertebrae. And my doctor said, don't write anymore. So as a result of the bike path. I don't want to ride a bike. I'm doing something far less interesting, which is a treadmill. Well, the scenery never changes. It's not as good. But I need my point, I guess, is I want as you're in your effort to look at this as broadly as you can try to look at the perspective of all three. Users of the facility. And my points have already been made. It's a long. Fence tunnel. For. Nefarious activities. It's not very suitable for bicycles, especially dog legs and. And riding all turns. And I can attest. So keep that in mind. And. I guess just continue to look for the. As, as you settle on the best possible alternative here. Be sure that you look at the interests and needs of all three users. And you are all needs to the sense because you want to be safe. You want to be safe. You want to be safe. You want to be safe. Cross it every day. Everybody in the podium here wants this to be a safe crossing. The city does. And it's not surely does. So. Thank you. My point is continue to be broad and continue to be amenable. I'm going to take another question from the audience. I don't know if I'll really need a mic. Can you hear me? Okay. All right. How was that? Well, I would like to make several points. First of all, that to remind us all that the California public utilities commission has exclusive authority over rail crossing safety. And they've had that authority for over a hundred years in the entire state. The California public utilities commission CPUC has already ruled five times about the Jennings crossing. Not just ruling in favor of an at grade crossing, but ruling very explicitly and conclusively against an elevated over crossing. They published multiple opinions about that or decisions. And they were very, very clear in their many objections to an over crossing. They were very clear that they were not just evaluating the safety of an at grade crossing, but the relative risks and safety of two types of crossing systems. And based on all that, they ruled against an over crossing, not just for an at grade. They, one of those decisions was in an appeal by their own rail safety division, which appealed against the ruling for an at grade crossing. And it's important to remember that the rail safety division is just that it is a division. And that the commission in its entirety overruled the RSD, which used to be called SCD, safety and enforcement division now rail safety division. So that's already been overruled. So we've, we've had rulings five times now. For an at grade crossing and against an elevated crossing. And I would like to know, by the way, I distributed a handout with extensive excerpts. From the CPUC decisions in the matter. And there are many reasons for being concerned against an over crossing. I would like to know why smart is continuing to dispute the CPUC is authority in the matter. And I would like to add that. If as is rumored, the problem really is in patching a new crossing into an existing complicated signal system. With all the computers and fiber optics, cables and stuff. Then I would urge smart to bring in some more advanced technical consultants to help figure out what to do about that. Thank you. So I got to be honest here. Number one, we're not ignoring CPUC's ruling. I am voicing my concerns though I am expressing my concerns. And I'm going to be honest with you. Obviously I can't go back in time and be a part of any of the conversations that happened years ago. I do think though that I would be a responsible. If I look at this situation with my background and experience and I see that there's challenges here. If I didn't bring those up. And say, hey, please take a second look at this. I wouldn't be doing my job. And I, and I want everybody to know I'm not here as a stall tactic. I know that there's some that think that I read the op-ed in the paper, right? This isn't a stall tactic. This is me evaluating it based on my background and experience in this, in this, in this field and saying, there's concerns here. You're right. The rail safety division is, is just a division. I don't, I don't dispute that. And I don't dispute the CPUC's ruling, but I would caution people just to think about it, that the people who are truly the rail experts, the ones that have that background are voicing concerns and that's smart. And the rail safety division. So I'm not saying anybody's wrong. I'm just saying that we should take a look at this. We should think it through and make sure that it's as safe as we can possibly make it. So that, that's my angle. That's my position. It's not a stall tactic. It's just simply expressing our concerns on that. And making sure that we make this decision. So I appreciate your, your input. Brian, do we have any. Else. Somebody on zoom. Yes. Next on zoom is Colin. Tom. Colin, go ahead. My name is Colin. I am assistant change. I have a kit. With disabilities. And it goes on. I do share the concern. I do share the concern. I do share the concerns. Of an accurate crossing. So people with disabilities. They may not be able to see a train. At you, when the end. Of James Avenue. They may be in between the tracks. And I hear a fee for train. That's going in a direction of travel. I'll be able to move out of way. Of finished crossing safely. To avoid the train. They also may take longer. To cross the tracks. That's playing. That's playing them at. Potential conflict. With a train. So with that being said. I do prefer. And the race crossing. The path as it is. Thank you. Thanks. Question. Thank you everybody for. Coming to present today. Mr. Cummins. I just wanted to say, I actually wrote you a letter. Early on in the year to congratulate you and invite you to walk the path with me. I guess you did, but you didn't invite me. So. Anyway. I, I understand your concerns. I mean, I live real. My name's Janet. Baraco, by the way. And I live on Jennings Avenue. And yeah. I'm going to go ahead and share with you. I'm going to go ahead and share with you. I'm going to go ahead and share with you. I'm going to go ahead and share with you. I'm going to go ahead and share with you. I'm going to go ahead and share with you. I'm going to go ahead and share with you. And yeah. I, I was present. I was there when someone was killed on a motorcycle at the Gernville. Crossing. There have been people at crossings that have been killed. And I, it's a horrible, horrible thing. And there are also people that. Cross, not at crossings. And I know there's a risk. At the same time. I think that's been a great. By the CPUC. We've been in this. A lot of us in this room for a long time, a lot longer than I was. And. It's very frustrating as people have expressed. To just have this go on. I have concerns about the elevated crossing. I don't have concerns. I mean. There's always going to be risk. So yeah, with the upgrade, but it looks very safe. It's already been. The Elevated Crossing, I have a couple of several concerns, one being the posts, I know it's just a concept, but I don't even know how to put this, but if street people are on the tracks, they're gonna have actually more areas to kind of hide behind if people are interested in that. They seem to be worried about people hanging out. And it's kind of a monstrosity looking thing to me, I think it's very intrusive in the neighborhood. I think as a woman, I can tell you, I'm not walking on that thing after dark. And I don't think people that I know that are in wheelchairs are gonna go there. I don't think the mothers that go in front of my house with strollers are gonna necessarily wanna walk on an over-crossing. So we've gone through all this about over-crossing concerns and Jason knows a lot of those. I'm wondering though, one of my questions is, who has liability on the over-crossing if something happens? Is that smart or the city or both? Or is it different from an at-grade liability? I think we would have to have those conversations and work through those details as we work through that project. Okay. And I agree that we're not at that point to be able to understand where liability or ownership lies at this point. And thus my concern, I'm in my late 60s. It'd be great to see this before I die. And I think a lot of us would like that. And one other question, well, just a concern, there are many businesses over the tracks and a lot of apartment buildings. And our neighborhood, as this lady expressed on the West, we're divided, our neighborhoods are divided. And we really need this at-grade crossing. It's been okayed. And I just wanna let you know once again that I would feel very unsafe on that elevated. And I just feel like it's already been shown that it's very unsafe. And also the bells, the other question was, do we have bells and all on the Gernville crossing already? So the woman that lives near Jennings probably gets to hear those signals as well. So she's already got that. I mean, what's a little extra, you know? I mean, it's already there. I mean, I grew up, maybe it's just me, but I grew up with a train in Louisiana and we love the sound of the bells. So anyway, thank you. I'm very frustrated though. I may not look that way, but I feel like this is gonna go on and on and on. It's gonna cost a lot more than the at-grade. And it's just, I feel like we're just being kind of tossed around, nothing personal to you. But I feel on the West side, well, both sides, I feel like we're being just jerked around to be really honest with you. So I'll just leave you with that thought. Brian, do we have any? Next up on the Zoom side is Victor Dalpano. Go ahead, Victor. Hi everyone. I just wanted to say that it seems that we've been discussing a lot and we've been analyzing a lot the risks of building an at-grade crossing and we're dissecting every possibility. And there's always a chance that something goes wrong with that, but we haven't put nearly any attention to the risk of not acting, of not building something, which also comes with risks. So you don't build an at-grade crossing there. That means pedestrians are gonna go through College and Gurnville, which it sounds like the city has already determined that those would be more dangerous crossings. So there's increased risk there. Also that area is not pedestrian friendly, that means that people are gonna choose to drive instead of walking, which is for safety, sort of for health, it's for the environment. And even in an overpass, it's not very pedestrian friendly. People don't feel safe going over them. They are underutilized as a resource for walking. And in general, that's just gonna add cost, that's gonna add construction time. And in the meantime, that just means that people are not gonna have a pedestrian friendly neighborhood. They're not gonna choose to walk over driving. You can tell people, yeah, just walk a mile and a half instead of 0.3 miles, but they're likely not gonna do that. So I think we should consider the risk of not acting or thinking too much about every single risk. And there might be a tragedy happening at an upgrade crossing at Jennings, but if that prevents three tragedies happening at College and Gurnville, I think it's worth it. All right, I'm gonna take a question from the audience. I'll be right with you next. Yeah, Steve Burlbow and I was involved in this proceeding with the Public Utilities Commission. I just wanna read a little bit of what the Public Utilities Commission said, the staff said about their recommendation that there be a grade separation or that they wanted to protest the upgrade. Part of my recommendation was based on the fact that the city took that recommendation to heart and applied for a grant for a grade separated structure. And I believe it's the MTC thought it wasn't important enough, it was important enough of a project to give the city $8 million to build that structure. And then the city, after all, decided that it would to not build a structure and go at grade. And that is mainly the basis for my protest. And then later on, he was asked, how many grade crossings do we have, roughly 60? Well, yes. So you indicated that allowing another one would serve as a precedent. Well, yes, that's a concern because I mean we have our policy, we try to adhere to our policy of no new grade crossings. And then we have a big case and it comes up and it turns out, oh, well, they got there at grade crossing, now we want ours, and it's just going to make it that much harder to push for a grade separation. So there is a sense that the grade separation is a little more safe than a grade crossing, but the issue with the Public Utilities Commission, in this case, is that this is a bad precedent. We have a problem there right now because people are going over the fence or they're going through the fence or they're going under the fence. A few days after the fence was put up, I was over there just looking at it. And this gentleman about 35 or 40 years old comes along, he's in a sport jacket and he looks both ways. He says, what is this? And they said, well, it's being fenced. I was outside the fence, he was inside it and he looks both ways. He reaches up, he grabs the top of the fence, he puts his foot against it and he was over that fence in about 15 seconds. People are going over their fence, they're going through it. A few days later, I was over there and there were two teenagers inside the fence and there were two teenagers outside the fence. And they looked a little embarrassed. I chatted with them for a minute and then I drove around and came down Dutton Avenue and all four of them were crossing Dutton Avenue. So they jumped over two fences and we're heading over to Safeway or something like that. I think we need to get to this problem and fix it. And I think one of the problems that the ALJ saw was that people who want to follow a line of sight as pedestrians do will continue to go over and under and through fences when you build a crossing. And that's certainly not safe. So I think Public Utilities Commission, sure, they feel that their policy is great separation whenever possible and they regard this as a challenge to their precedent. Anywhere is a bad person. Brian, do you have any other people on Zoom? Next up on Zoom is Luna Wintergreen. Luna, go ahead. I just wanted to clarify that. I absolutely cannot hear any trains right now. And again, I live probably closer than anybody here because the parking lot that's adjacent to where I live is right next to the train. And so, yeah, I have a pretty big stake in this. Julie again. What I don't understand is that the CPUC has said that they've given us the go ahead to have an at-grade crossing. I mean, I just do it, you know? And I don't understand how come SMART gets to say, makes me a little uncomfortable, you know? I don't get it. So if you guys could explain that to me, I'd love to hear. Honestly, there's an appeal process. There's a process you can go through and that's what we've done. We've taken it, I won't say taken advantage of that but there is a process to extend and refile and ask questions and that's what's happened. Just to be honest with you, there's things that we've come back. There's also been things at the rail safety division. It's not just SMART and I don't wanna put anything on the rail safety division because I'm here to speak to you based on me, right? But it has been SMART voicing concerns about the grade crossing and it's also been the rail safety division who's the division of the CPUC voicing those concerns. And so it's gone back several times. And I really, I truly want to find a solution. I really do. I wanna find a solution. I wanna be safe about it though. And I can tell by a lot of the comments that I've heard that I obviously didn't do a great job of communicating of how much this concerns me, but that's okay. It is what it is and go ahead, sorry. But there's a lot of other people who have other concerns. And so how come you count 100 and we only count one? That's fair. Brian, do we have any other comments, questions on Zoom? No, at this time there are no more hands raised on Zoom. Okay, anybody else? Okay. Just another word. I'm just concerned about the timeline on this. Well, first of all, it was okay. The other thing was okay. So I guess when things get okayed then somebody like, they can just say, oh, it's not okay. We're gonna go do this again. Is that the appeal process? I mean, is that what you're talking about? I don't wanna be confronted, but we were told it was okayed. So I guess I'm naive. It's like, no, it's not okay. So if it's not okay and there's a whole new process, I really don't believe that this is gonna happen in the next 10 years. Cause that thing costs twice as much that's being proposed. It's gonna be dangerous. You're gonna find a lot of dangers about it. Way more than the at grade where you can see who's coming. And you guys are all men and I hate to make this a gendered thing, but as a woman, I will tell you, put yourself in our shoes for a minute. Would you want your daughter walking across that thing at night? That tunnel, even with lights? But the at grade is you can see, you can trim the trees. I'm a landscaper. I'll do it. You know, I mean, there's stuff we can do. I wanna apologize if I forgot to identify myself when I spoke earlier, but Johanna James and I live on Landstrive a few blocks from the Jennings Crossing and I've been there for 45 years now. I know I don't look old enough to have been there for 45 years. But, and Eddie, I do wanna thank you. I appreciate the sincerity of your concerns and that you're obviously a very warm person concerned for others and that I happen to disagree with you in this matter weighing everybody's concerns. But I do wanna acknowledge you and your concerns. Thank you. Brian, any other still, okay. Now, so I just have a couple of questions about what happens next, right? So way back when, when there was the, an agreement about what was going to be built and who was gonna be paid for it. And now we're in this interim space and who gets to decide what happens next? Does the city get to decide? Does smart get to decide? If are we going back to court about that? If, if it, you know, is decided it's gonna go with the bigger project that's gonna cost more, who's gonna pay for it? If the city is gonna, you know, do something different than what they had committed to paying for, is smart gonna pay for the difference? Just, you know, what's, what's next? You know, who's in charge, I guess is the question. So I would just say, and I think Jason will agree with me but we're partners in this deal. We're working on it. That's why we're here tonight. I know that it hasn't met everybody's timeline. And I get that, right? That's fair. But we are trying to work on this. We are having conversations. Smart did have an alternative that was different than what was proposed years ago. We wanted to bring that to the public. We wanted to get feedback. And now we move forward and we continue those conversations. And Jason, I don't know if you see it the same way or not. Yeah, I mean, it, it's smart's property. We have, smart needs to be a partner moving forward in this. And it's important for us to do it collaboratively and together in order to ensure that project that gets implemented meets the needs to the best possible extent that we can within the conditions of the guidelines from the FRA. And so where we go next is exactly what Eddie said. It's getting back to the drawing board. How do we get there? This was an effort for the community to be able to provide feedback on an alternative that we hadn't explored before because it is different in certain respects than what the city had proposed back in 2015. The city remains committed to the direction provided by our city council, which is the at-grade crossing. We believe that it still provides the service that the community wants. However, again, it's our job to work with our partner to try to come up with that final solution. And so the feedback you've provided, I think we both would agree is very helpful. And this won't be the last time the community will hear from us because we do want to bring this to conclusion so that we can get something, we can get some final decision made. Any other questions before we close up? Brian, do you have a Zoom question? Yeah, we have a next up on Zoom is Tom Helm. Thank you, it's Tom Helm. And I think a big part of the issue is how to make a decision here. We have three options. The over-crossing, the detour up to Gernvill Road and at-grade crossing. I would suggest that each of them have factors involved that favor and I would suggest to get some kind of scoring system where you include factors like safety and perception of safety and inconvenience along with just the straight physical characteristics of how far the detour would be or how long the over-crossing would be. You get a scoring system to help you decide to help you come together and make a decision. Because I think what we hear now I don't see how you can come to any middle ground. You're not gonna build half on over-crossing. And another thing is maybe there's more information needed, but I'm wondering, we're only talking about the traffic pedestrian and bike traffic on Jennings. Between Jennings and Gernvill Road, there's quite a stretch. And I'm wondering if those, the existing detour path now serves the area that it goes through. Do people north of Jennings can they access the path? That would influence looking at the traffic that has to go one way or the other. People have to get onto the path halfway up to Gernvill Road. They have to decide, well, we'll go back down to Jennings or we'll go up to Gernvill Road. It's a piece of information that might be useful. But generally, I think the first step is to come up with some kind of grading system that would help you come to a decision. Thank you. Next up on Zoom, we do have Barbara Moulton. Barbara, go ahead. Thanks. I wanna just follow up on what Tom Helm just said. I like the idea of scoring. And one of the things that should be considered beyond the immediate area is how does each solution contribute to the overall goal of having a bikeable and walkable Santa Rosa? How does it fit into our overall transportation plan? We've built this lovely train, but if we make it hard for pedestrians and bicyclists to use it, we build bike paths, but they don't connect well. There's a lot of moving pieces here, making it work for the whole system is really important. Thank you. Brian, any other Zoom comments, questions? Seeing none. Sure. Hi, Ann Lynette. I just wanted to comment on that Zoom caller that talked about a grading system and that just run real true to me in terms of if you do like an RFP or any kind of request for a proposal, for a project that you're going to fund, you know, you get a proposal in, you have a grading system, you select the group that's going to grade it, it's going to be on the same page in terms of how they look at different questions in terms of how you give certain weights to certain questions. And then you go through that RFP or that proposal and you grade it and you come up with a winner. I just mix, I mean, with all of these people talking about this and that and what if that? And I agree with, you know, being a woman and not wanting to walk up something like that at night, let alone day, if you just look at all of those points and just come up with a winner. So that's my two cents. No more on Zoom. Any other comments this evening? Anyone before we close this out? I just want to ask real simple. If we had built that grade five years ago, would we be here today talking about closing it up and redoing something different? So why can't we just build it? Any last questions? I want to just say thank you from those of us here on the panel and I'll let Eddie also express appreciation but thank you for coming out. This is a very important project and your passion and many of your faces I've seen for the last several years as we've been going through this, we're getting closer to having a conclusion, whatever the conclusion may end up being. And so this was an important piece and I really appreciate the time. I appreciate your effort smart. I appreciate your presence and being here and the fact that you gave us the opportunity to have a hybrid meeting which brought in additional folks. So thank you for being part of this and we will reconvene at a future date with hopefully a solution that we all intend to be moving forward with. And I just say thank you, really appreciate hearing from the community. Again, appreciate the relationship we have with the city and we'll continue to work on this. And again, just thank you very much for coming out. It's good to hear from the public. So thank you. Just real quick for those who couldn't make it tonight, the city does have a website that you can visit to complete the online form for feedback. That will be open until March 9th. That is on the city's website, srcdu.org slash Jennings crossings. And with that, we will conclude our meeting. Thank you, everybody.