We'll give a CTV a minute there. We have to be on open TV, I guess. Ian? Start. Are we ready to go? Yes, start. Okay, good morning, everybody. I'm calling, this is Supervisor Bruce McPherson calling to order the June 4th, 2020 meeting of the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. It's just at nine o'clock. Please call the roll, please. Commissioner Rockett? Here. Commissioner Gonzalez? Here. Commissioner Botsworth? Here. Commissioner McPherson? Here. Commissioner Leopold? Here. Commissioner Alternate Multern? Here. Commissioner Alternate Schifrin? Here. Commissioner Alternate Gregorio? Oh, Commissioner Kafeit, okay, great. Here. Commissioner Kaufman-Gomis? Here. Commissioner Johnson? Here. Commissioner Brown? Here. Commissioner Bertrand? Here. And Commissioner Locke? Okay, thank you. We have a quorum. We will go with item number two, oral communications. This is open to any member of the public who would like to address the commission on issues that are not on the agenda. The commission will listen and you have three minutes. Is there anybody that wants to address us in oral communication? I do. Dana Bagshaw. I do. So we put in here where we've got FDM and we've got all of our skills. It really works well in the sense of programs defining what are the requirements, right? What? And so, you know, it's for the specific. Who's that? I think it was talking. There's your audio, please. So I can essentially change the requirement. Can we mute you, Dana? Who's that? Speaking. That's right, people. Fine people, so I can recognize the voice. Okay. I have muted Mr. People, so we can go ahead with Dana. Dana, what was the last thing? Bagshaw. Okay. Dana, go ahead, please. Might want to unmute. Dana? You lost her. Bagshaw? Her microphone is off. It listed as off. Okay, am I muted now? Yes. Sorry, I lost it. Okay, so I just want to call your attention to a letter that I sent you and on Monday, I believe it was. Before we proceed with business as usual to take a look at the effect of this coronavirus on our infrastructure. So I'm really happy that I could zoom here today. We don't have to get in our cars anymore. We can just get right to the meeting, cut down on carbon emissions, and I can see your faces. And that's a real bonus when we're all covered with masks now. And it can, even when we're able to take off these masks, when and if, I think this Zoom communicating, this tele, it's called tele transportation, telecommunication, telecommuting, we're telecommuting. And I think that that's going to have a big impact on. You're cutting now. Dana, you just muted yourself. She, Dana, maybe we'll go and try to get her back on. Is there anybody else? Sorry, I'm here. It said that the host had unmuted me, had muted me, so okay. Anyway, to continue. So I'm just asking us to take a look at telecommuting and other things that have changed since the virus. We are walking more, we're riding bikes, sales are skyrocketing. Lots of things are changing. Schools are not in session. They're doing them online. Monterey Peninsula College and Hartnell College will be online this fall. All California State universities are going to have online courses. Courses of Cabrillo and UCSC are still deciding that. There's big changes. And of course, there's been the big challenge to the Metro. We're going to have to figure out what we're going to do about that. But I would like for us to really see the impact of this. We, common people are saying that traffic has been reduced by 50 to 60%. I'd like to see us do some research and confirm that. See what the resulting carbon emissions reduction has been. And maybe do some surveys. The Forbes magazine recently came out with a survey that said that 80% of the people were willing to make sacrifices like they have that they are now doing for the virus, for climate change. And 20% of them said that they would be willing to not use their cars. So, what were three minutes on it? All right, well, okay, so please just look at my letter. Let's put our heads together and see how we can really embrace these new trends with a new infrastructure led by RTC. Thank you very much. Thank you, Dan. Is there anyone else that would like to address us under oral communication? Michael St. Yes, good morning, commissioners. Michael St. with Campaign for Sustainable Transportation. Let us go back to February 26th, 2013, when Santa Cruz County approved the climate action strategy. Table three dash two entitled strategies for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from transportation. A year five goals were to reduce vehicle miles traveled through county and regional long range planning, increase bicycle and walking through incentive programs, investment in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, infrastructure to support zero and low emission vehicles, increase employee use of alternate commute modes and reduce county fleet emissions. Following that, you have three and a half pages of strategies listed to try to accomplish those five goals, not one time, does it mention highway widening or building parking garages or increasing the width of our streets to try to lower greenhouse gas emissions. Here's a list of projects being planned that are in direct conflict of our county climate action strategy. Jeep dealership, Soquel Avenue, 1605-25 is the address, possible 400 space, garage slash library between Lincoln and Cathcart, ox lanes between Soquel and Freedom Boulevard, 29% increase in vehicle miles traveled, sustainable Soquel project shuttled in favor of Nissan dealership, 41st and Soquel, Capitola Mall Town Square project, over 3,000 parking spaces induced demand, Kaiser Medical Center, 700 parking spaces induced demand, mid 10 project, which could possibly widen Capitola Road, highway one nine intersection, 10% increase in vehicle miles traveled. This huge gap in harmful projects versus environmentally sound projects is unsustainable. It takes courage and integrity to make decisions that are in best interest of a society as a whole. Our transportation decisions are being made to appease voters who haven't taken the time to learn the ill effects of climate change, nor just don't care. We implore you to help us fight this climate crisis and not add to it. Thank you for your time, commissioners. Thank you, Mr. Stain. Is Kristin Sandel the next one? Hello, Joseph. Hey, Lynn. Sorry I didn't say your last name correctly. That's all right. Hello all, my name is Joseph Henlein, and I am speaking as both a member of the Friends of the Rail and Trail Civic Engagement Committee as well as a soon to be college graduate from UC Santa Cruz, degrees in both politics and legal studies. In fact, I recently took a class with Mr. Trinity, which I very much enjoyed. I want to express my perspective influenced by both my youth and as a member of the community on the future of the coastal region as it joins the rest of the country and attempting to curtail its carbon footprint and prioritize the rehabilitation of our damaged environment. When seen through the framework of environmentalism, we can see this COVID-19 pandemic as a type of Pandora's box. The negative factor is that this terrible outbreak has incurred outweigh the perceived positive environmental effects to be sure. However, I see it as more than that. This pandemic's effect on our environment gave us hope. It allowed humanity to actually see across the LA skyline. It allowed the Himalayas to be visible from the heartlands of India, and it reduced China's carbon emissions by 25%. While a variety of factors caused these amazing spectacles, the main contributing factor is clear, a lack of automobile travel. This shift does not have to be temporary. We do not have to simply perceive this pandemic as a breach from the norm, which we'll return back to. We all have the choice to treat this pandemic as a catalytic event that exemplifies the value in beginning to transition to greener transportation technologies. With more public transit, wider streets and cleaner air will be our new reality rather than a strange side effect of this global tragedy. A more robust public transit system will save lives, make travel more pleasant and affordable for families, and ease the financial strain of so much public spending to prop up our dysfunctional cargo. Youth RTC have the ability to perceive this pandemic as a transitional state. Moving towards the green technologies, such as the implementation of an expansive light rail up and down the coast, surely constitutes a step in the right direction, and you would undoubtedly have the support of the younger population of this region in your attempts to modernize transit overall. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Joseph, I appreciate it. I don't see any other hands up at this moment. One of the students, Brian, was trying to... Oh, I see, Christian. Christian Sandel. Yeah. Hello, can you hear me? Yeah. Hi, yeah, I actually, my name is Christian Sandel and I'm a member of Extinction Rebellion Santa Cruz, although I'm speaking here as an individual. I wanted to speak in support of the rail project. Is that, can I do that now? Or should I wait? Well, we're going to be discussing that item later in the agenda. We're talking about some transit, alternative, corridor alternatives. It's a 930 public hearing, so. Okay, I can wait for that. Okay. All right, thank you. Was there one more or? I don't see anybody's hands up. I want to assume Brian, Pupils was trying to speak at some point, so we could write him finally, take his turn in the right order. I don't see his hands up. Why on the call? I'm not sure that's him. Okay, I'm sure that he might be saying something during the 930 public hearing, but okay, that's fine. I just wanted to, okay, we'll move on. Is there anybody else that's on under oral communications? We're clear, right? Okay. Are there any additions or deletions to the consent or regular agendas? There is a replacement agenda, as well as a replacement page for item number seven and a handout for item number 19. Okay. Okay, we will then move to the consent agenda. Items number four through 17, is there anyone who would, on the board who'd like to take anything off the consent agenda? Do I have a motion to approve the consent as proposed? We'll approve it. You won't ask for a public input, but you're right. Thank you, Mike. Is there any public comment on the consent items number four through 17? It's for my people's. Oh, there you go. Is this what you wanted to speak on, Brian, the consent agenda or was that oral communications? Consent agenda item number 16. Okay, please go ahead. I just like to thank Richard James for his efforts to point out this finding. I actually saw Richard with his wife writing their tandem bike the other day and he mentioned it to me. He was writing up Dicey. Oh, you know, it's really great when somebody, the public goes and highlights improvements and addresses issues. So I just wanted to thank Richard for that. That's all. Very well, thank you. Thank you, Brian. Is there any other public comment on the consent agenda items four through 17? I have Sally Arnold. Can you hear me? Did I get myself unmuted? Yes, yes, you're right. Thank you. So I'm Sally Arnold, board chair of Santa Cruz County Friends of the Rail and Trail and I wanted to comment on number eight on the consent agenda, the contract for vegetation control along the branch line. And I just want to say that we're obviously in great support of these maintenance contracts and the improvements that are going to be made to the corridor as a result of them. I know some of our members have been out and about watching the people doing some of the vegetation clearing out near sea bright and excitedly texting me photos about how happy they are to finally see that work being done. So we just want to say thank you. And of course, we support any further vegetation control along the rail corridor. It's very important. Very good. I just want to clarify too. We're not using any so-called roundup ingredient in that process. So just so the general public knows. Is there anyone else who would like to comment on the consent agenda? Michael St. Michael St. Unmute yourself, Michael. Yeah, I got it. Thanks, Mike. Just wanted to support also that gentleman's letter from Aptos. I live close to Aptos there and it's a very tight corridor and then eliminating some of the bike route is kind of ridiculous. I think it was in the plan to put bike lanes on both sides of Soquel Drive there. And I appreciate him writing that letter and just wanted to support him in that case. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Anyone else who wanted to make comments on public? You want to make comments on the consent agenda? I don't see no other hands raised. OK. I move approval of the consent agenda. I'll take a second. I'll second it. OK. Mike Rotkin moves. And I don't know who was first that maybe it was Greg Caput that seconded. There were several, I think. But Mike Rotkin. Yeah, I think it was. OK. Oh, do we have to go through a roll call here? I think we do. Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead. Go through the roll call. Commissioner Bertrand. Hi. Commissioner Brown. Hi. Commissioner Johnson. Hi. Commissioner Kaufman-Gomas. Yes. Commissioner Caput. Hi. Commissioner Alternate Schifrin. Hi. Commissioner Alternate Mulher. Hi. Commissioner Leopold. Hi. Commissioner McPherson. Hi. Commissioner Botorff. Hi. Commissioner Gonzalez. See. Hi. Commissioner Rotkin. Hi. I pass unanimously. We will move on to our regular agenda. We know we have a 9.30 public hearing scheduled. But commissioner reports, are there any orders from commission members of the commission? Bruce, this is Randy. Oh, Randy Johnson. Yes, go ahead. Well, I just want to respond a little bit to the people that are trying to say that because of this coronavirus, it's a good thing that we live in isolation, that people are living apart. Yeah, granted, there's fewer cars, fewer this, fewer that. But people are social animals. And they thrive in a social atmosphere and setting. So I just disavow any inclination that the coronavirus has really been a good thing for our community. It really has not been. Thank you. Thank you. Any other commissioner like to comment? Hi. Yeah, commissioner Brown here. Thank you. I just wanted to note that the city of Santa Cruz just completed work on enhanced bike lanes on Water Street. And if you haven't seen them, it's a really great example of the way we can make use of that extra space when it's available and put in these enhanced bike lanes with green striping, green bike boxes, extensive kind of conflict zone delineation between cars and bicycles. And so I just wanted to say that was something that the city was really proud to complete. OK, good job, city of Santa Cruz. Well done. It is impressive. Any other commissioner reports or comments? Chair? I'll make one. Oh, John, you go first. Chair, I just want to share with the commission that our board took action on Tuesday to turn parking lots into something else, allowing businesses to use their parking lots for outdoor dining and retail at their own lots and also looking at using county-owned lots to support local businesses during this COVID pandemic. It really could help us think about how we use our outdoor space a lot differently. And so I was glad the board voted unanimously to do that. Right. Thank you. Congratulations to this county of Santa Cruz. Mr. Bertrand? Thank you, Chair. Just want to report that our Bromer extension is in the works right now, and that's going to greatly improve the bike ride up to 41st between 3 and 41st. And we thank RTC for some of the money to support that grant. Also, I'd like to report that last night at the City Council special meeting in Capitola, we approved what we hadn't thought we'd be able to do because of financial issues, the closing of the lagoon. And we're going to do as we normally do for the beach. One of the comments that was received is that in terms of social distancing, with increased area on the beach, this will help that happen. As most beaches in this area and up and down California, I'm sure, have problems with enforcing social distancing, we hope this will aid our police and those who are on the beach to keep their social distancing. Thank you very much, Chair. Very good. Yes? Chair McPherson, if I could just add, this is Commissioner Brown again. I forgot one of the most important pieces of the Water Street Bike Lane project was the differential was covered through Measure D funds. And so that was really what allowed us to do that project in the way that we did. So I just wanted to let everybody know that it was the Measure D Active Transportation Plan program project funding. Thank you. Thank you, Santa Cruz County voters. Anyone else would like, Commissioner, like to give an oral report? OK, I think we have time to go through to the director's report, item number 19. Thank you, Chair McPherson and commissioners. Going to go off script a little bit at first. Where you see wrong and inequality or injustice, speak out, because this is your country. This is your democracy. Make it. Protect it. Pass it on. That's a quote from Thurgood Marshall, the late great Supreme Court Justice. I'm proud to work for a commission who takes social equity so seriously. We see it on our triple bottom line approach to transportation planning, where social equity is given equal footing. Unfortunately, we do not always see social equity in American culture. We see ongoing inequality and racism. Transportation is an area that this commission can change. I see it in our policies and our priorities. We need to stay strong to these values to ensure that the systems we promote and serve are for everybody, the select few. Often, our roads are repurposed for special events and activities. Yesterday, the Black Lives Matter organization used West Clip Drive for a peaceful march from the Dream Inn to the Surfing Museum and Lighthouse. I'm grateful for the community that I live in, as what I saw and heard was hopeful that we here in Santa Cruz County will rise above the injustices and be an inclusive society for all of humanity. Don't be afraid to say the name, George Floyd. With that, I'll go on to the main portion of my director's report. The other pandemic facing this country is COVID-19, and here is my update. RTC staff met with the RTC Budget Administration and Personnel Committee last week to propose a fiscal year 2021 Budget Amendment for anticipated decreases to the Transportation Development Act and measure D revenue, which is estimated at a 20% decrease from the fiscal year 1819 budget. Staff is adjusting the budget amendment based on the recommendation of the committee, which was centered around utilizing TDA reserve and delaying any replenishment of the reserve until revenues stabilize. Staff will propose a revised fiscal year 2021 budget at the RTC's June 29 meeting. Recipients are being kept informed of projections so that they can adjust their budgets accordingly. RTC's office continues to stay open to essential staff but will remain closed to public foot traffic until it is determined appropriate to start transitioning back on-site activities. RTC has had a relatively easy time with the remote activities, and I see no need in rushing increased activities at the office. Therefore, the majority of RTC staff will continue to work from remote locations until further notice. All RTC meetings will continue as currently scheduled using video conferencing. Moving on to the state and federal transportation funding, the California Budget. On May 14, 2020, Governor Newsom released the May revise. The May revise predicts that COVID-19 will have a $54 billion impact on the state budget, including a 27% drop in fiscal year 2021 sales tax statewide. The May revise estimates a $600 million drop in gas tax revenues in fiscal year 1920, another $602 million drop in 2021 with a total $1.8 billion drop in gas tax revenue over five years. The May revise assumes that some state revenue losses will be backfilled by a future federal stimulus. The proposed state budget maintains existing CalTran staffing levels in order to support delivery of currently programmed projects and to support project readiness if federal stimulus funds become available. However, gas tax funds to local jurisdictions will be lower than January projections. CalTran is currently analyzing what the impact, if any, may be to previously programmed state transportation improvement program and state highway operational and protection program projects. The Federal Heroes Act. On the federal side, the House approved the Heroes Act along party lines at the end of May while Senate Republicans initially said they would not approve another COVID-19 relief bill in the near term. Negotiations are underway. The House bill includes $15 billion in highway funds to states with some funding some allocated to regions via the surface transportation block grant program. 15.75 billion for public transit and $1 trillion in state and local aid including $187.5 billion each to cities and counties. We have requested revisions in the final act since the House bill restricted most of the transit funding to urbanized areas with populations of over 3 million and that's in concert with the recommendations by Santa Cruz Metro. We being a small county would not see any of that funding. The Invest Act on June 3rd, 2020, the chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee released a transportation reauthorization proposal called Investing in a New Vision for the Environment and Surface Transportation in America Act or the Invest Invest in America Act. Based on preliminary review of the 853-page bill, some highlights include, first it's a five-year $494 billion bill with 319 billion for highways, 105 billion for transit, 60 billion for rail, 10 billion for passenger and commuter safety vehicle. This is a modest increase over the existing Federal Transportation Act, also known as the FAST Act. The Surface Transportation Block Grant Program sub-allocation has not increased and remains at 55%. The bill includes two new grant programs, one focused on community transportation priorities and the other on carbon reduction grants. This is in addition to a carbon apportionment program that would be state directed. Transportation alternatives or TAP, which currently flows through the Active Transportation Program in California has increased significantly. Planning funding or PL to MPOs is significantly increased. The existing infra program is restructured to include transit, passenger rail and freight rail. Highway Safety Improvement Program or H-SIP funding also increases significantly and additional requirements are placed upon states that have higher rates of cyclists and pedestrian deaths and injuries. Moving on to the Santa Cruz Branch rail line and the emergency bridge repair, following the update that I provided at the May 7th RTC meeting regarding the emergency repair of the Kimbert-Tressel at post mile 4.87, the time and materials contract with industrial railways company was amended to include the remaining scope of the repairs for a value of $517, $208. The contractor has mobilized and began a construction of the repair which has anticipated to be complete in July. We are receiving the materials that we pre-ordered today. Highway 9 update, now trans is participating in a virtual town hall public meeting hosted by Supervisor Bruce McPherson on June 16th, 2020, to discuss progress made towards the early development of a project to enhance pedestrian access between Kirby Street and the San Lorenzo Valley School Complex in Felton. Caltrans is currently developing a project initiation document which entails preliminary design and environmental scoping required to secure state highway operation and protection program funding. At this meeting, Caltrans will share with the San Lorenzo Valley community the project purpose, need, challenges, alternatives and an estimated schedule for project delivery. The meeting will begin at 5 p.m. Tuesday, June 16th. Details on how to participate in the virtual community meeting will be found on the RTC website at sccrtc.org. We're still waiting for that information. We expect it to be posted shortly. Missioner Lowe is retiring from Caltrans. According to RTC's rules and regulations, the District Director of the State Department of Transportation District in which Santa Cruz County is located or the director's designee alternate shall serve as an ex-officio representative to the commission. Since 2007, Caltrans Deputy Director Eileen Lowe has served as Caltrans's ex-officio representative on the SEC RTC. Commissioner Lowe has recently announced that she will be retiring from Caltrans. On behalf of the RTC board and staff, I would like to appreciate her for her service on the RTC and her support of transportation projects in Santa Cruz County. Commissioner Lowe began working at Caltrans in 1987 and the Environmental Planning Department has served as the Deputy District Director for the Division of Transportation Planning and Local Assistance for Caltrans District 5 for over 13 years. Her dedication to long-range planning and engaging with partners has been instrumental in development of multimodal safety projects along Highway 9 through San Lorenzo Valley, multimodal projects on Highways 129 and 152 in Watsonville. The Highway 17 Wildlife Crossing Project and numerous planning efforts, including Highway 1 Corridor Plans, the Highway 17 Access Management Plan, the Highway 9 San Lorenzo Valley Corridor Plan, the Unified Corridor Investment Study, Advanced Mitigation Planning, the Highway 1 Scotts Creek Mitigation Project and the first Caltrans District Active Transportation Plan. As District 5's sustainability representative and an avid bicyclist, Eileen has worked to integrate sustainability and complete streets facilities into Caltrans projects. While some community priorities have been difficult to implement with Caltrans constraints, she has always emphasized partnerships as a key in overcoming the challenges. We appreciate her long-standing partnership with the RTC and wish her well in her future endeavors. We have an Appreciation Award posted on the screen right now and I'm sure all of the commissioners really appreciate Eileen and the service that she's provided to Santa Cruz Town. Thank you, Eileen.  That does complete my report. I just want to make a comment about Ms. Lowe. She has been a professional in every sense of the word. Her updated reports to us and her responses to our inquiries about what projects are going on, where and what stage they're at or what we can do to move them along more quickly. Just been outstanding. I wish we could be there to all say thank you in person. I know others do. I'd welcome any comments. She has been just a fantastic person to work with and a tremendous Caltrans representative as a deputy director for District 5. So thank you, Eileen, for everything that you have done for us and for the state of California. I don't know if there were some other commissioners or if I don't want to have other comments. This is John Leopold. And I want to express my appreciation to Ms. Lowe. She has been truly fantastic. Transportation can be one of our more controversial issues. She has been with us through lots of different discussions, disagreements and great successes. And she answers our questions every month. Sometimes we ask well-informed questions, sometimes not so in a well-informed, but she's always truly professional and getting information back to us and acting on other requests that we make. I will miss working with Eileen Lowe and I wish her great success in her retirement. Thank you, Mr. Hopkins. I would join John in his comments and ask if we might take the unprecedented move of having everyone unmute themselves for a quick moment of applause before we're muting. That's all right with the chair. Sure, let's all applaud her. I don't know if anybody else had a great idea, Mike. We should move on pretty soon to our public hearing time. Anybody else? I think everybody would agree with the comments that have been made. She's been truly fantastic. And I do want to say, I do have in response to what Mr. Preston said on the Highway 9 corridor, I want to just thank the county, the state, the school district and everybody for their cooperative effort to try it. We have gotten our act together to date to try to really make something very effective happen there and it's going to be critical for the Highway 9 corridor, especially in front of the schools that are there on Highway 9. Anybody else have any comments? Are there any public comments from any public comments? The directors report? Okay, I think we'll have to wait for the CalTrans report. I don't know if I'll be here today, in fact, but we have a public hearing scheduled for 9.30. I have a public comment, Commissioner McPherson. Pardon me? I have one public comment. I have Michael St. with his hand raised. For about the director's report? Yes. Okay, go ahead. Michael St. Yeah, thank you very much. I know we're a little short on time. I wanted to thank Director Preston for his earlier comments, concerning the things that are happening with social justice and racism. I thought that was very appropriate. And I also too would like to congratulate Aileen on her retirement. And that's about it. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public that wanted to comment? No, okay. We will move on to, we'll skip item 20, the CalTrans report right now to go to our 9.30 public hearing. On the transit corridor alternatives analysis, alternatives screening results and short list of alternatives. Ginger Dicar, Senior Transportation Planner. I think Brianna Goodman is also going to be making a presentation at Shannon Amunes, as well as Luis Mendez, but maybe it's only Ginger. I'm not sure. Ginger, go ahead. You start off, please. Morning, commissioners. This is Ginger Dicar. I'm a Senior Transportation Planner on your staff and on the project manager for the transit corridors alternatives analysis. The item on the agenda today is to seek your input and approval on the screening results, as well as the short list of alternatives for the transit corridor alternatives analysis on the Santa Cruz branch rail line. The RTC and Metro staff have been working closely together with HDR engineering consultants on this analysis. And we have Steve Decker today from HDR. He is the project manager at HDR and he will be presenting to you today. We also have Pam Yonkin, who's also from HDR online, who did lead the screening analysis and is available to answer any questions. So with that, I'll hand it off to Steve Decker. Okay, thank you, Ginger. Can you hear me? Yes. I did unmute successfully. Good. So we're going to provide a brief overview of the TCAA, the transit corridor alternatives analysis. My name is Steve Decker. I work with HDR. We're supporting Ginger at RTC and Metro in developing this plan. The agenda briefly, we'll go over it. We'll give you an overview of the TCAA, the study, define the evaluation framework, talk about the milestone number two, which is where we're at. And I'll get into that in a few minutes in terms of outreach, as well as then the screening analysis results that then lead to the recommended short list of alternatives. And then I'll pass it back to Ginger to talk about next steps for the study. So in terms of the overview of the study, we're looking at the railroad right away from Bajaro through Santa Cruz to evaluate a variety of transit options, alternatives. In this case, we looked at a large universe of options for the corridor. Once we went through the screening process development of that process, we wanna ensure that these alternatives integrate with the transit networks within Santa Cruz County and also external to the county, including rail options into and out of Northern to Southern California, Pajaro, Watsonville, into Monterey, North and out. And result of this process is we'll identify the locally preferred transit alternative that we wanna move forward to more project implementation tasks after this planning study. So briefly, the evaluation framework, we talked a little bit about it or at least guided earlier in terms of the triple bottom line approach that we use here in Santa Cruz County. We equally evaluate the economy, the environment and social equity in this triple bottom line approach. We also identified other opportunities to fit in with the economy, environment and social equity in that process. This framework was used to screen the universe of alternatives. And based on some goals and screening metrics that we've defined from the recently previous study, the unified corridor investment study in Santa Cruz, the RTP in Santa Cruz and in other state and federal measures that we are experienced in having developed similar studies. That feeds into the evaluation framework. And just briefly, there are several steps of that framework that we'll talk about. We'll start with the initial list of alternatives which we call the universe. I think we had about 18 and we have a listing of those at the end of this PowerPoint if people wanna understand those, but it included traditional bus, traditional rail, some technology-based alternatives and some non-traditional alternatives such as gondola, personal rapid transit, autonomous vehicles, those types of things. So we compiled that initial list and then this end result to this milestone was we did a high level screening of those alternatives to identify the next, the short list of alternatives that we wanna move forward for more detailed analysis. And we'll talk about the results of that process as well. Those recommended alternatives were there going to move into a more quantitative detailed analysis on performance measures to help define that locally preferred alternative that makes most sense in terms of post-effectiveness and benefit. So we talked about three different milestones. The first milestone was related to defining the goals, the screening criteria, the measures and the initial list of alternatives in March. This milestone where we are at is we screen those alternatives and develop the short list of alternatives to move forward into milestone number three which we will initiate at the conclusion of this milestone. Ginger? There is a little lag here so. About that, yeah, I'm trying to anticipate. No problem. So in terms of outreach for milestone two, fortunately we had planned the outreach for milestone two to be online. So we had set up a whole online system for this milestone. Previous milestone, we did a lot of in-person public meetings, stakeholder meetings. In this case, of course, we planned the online and it worked fairly well considering COVID in our current situation. We will have a milestone three outreach process that we'll probably need to refine based on the ongoing situation. It was planned to be in-person but we probably need to revisit that. But in support of milestone two, the screening analysis and the short list of alternatives, we had meetings with the ad hoc committee which is made up of members of RTC's commission, Metro's board. We've had meetings with the Metro board in RTC committees. We've had paid partner agency meetings and in all these cases they were online, Zoom and other types of meetings. We had an online open house, including a survey for about a month from April 13th to May 11th to get feedback from the public and other stakeholders. And we provided some outreach using social media, email, website, and other items for people to gather and obtain information about the study. So that- Can I just interrupt one thing? You had 900 visits online and 600 survey responses. Were you pleased? Is that a good response? Or what kind of response is that? I think that's a very good response. I mean, there's some studies within person notwithstanding the situation here where you don't get in-person meetings, don't get nearly that much. So the online really does supplement that. In this case, we had to do all online, but that's a very good response rate, especially the survey. We could see maybe a hundred, in some studies you could see 100, 150 participants in person. So this I thought was very good in terms of number. Ginger, is there anything you want to add to that? Let's see, am I muted here? Yeah, you're okay. Okay. We used to see maybe 100 to 200 responses on surveys, but I'd say over the last few years that has increased given the interest of our community on this project. But I feel really good about the number of responses that we did get and the number of people that went to the website and viewed the open house. And like Ginger said, I think that's been building here in Santa Cruz County. And I think not just in California, but nationally that online, social media-based outreach really has increased the level of activity participation to a great degree. And we see that here. I do. In terms of the screening analysis, we looked at 18 different alternatives from a series of bus, rail, alternatives. It looks like Mike Rodkin has his hand raised. Did you want to ask a question now, Mike? I did, if it's all right. This is not meant as a criticism because it's beyond your control, but I wonder to what extent having this online has on the question of social equity, disadvantaged people who don't have access to the kind of media that we're using here. And what we might do, as difficult as that is to try and correct to make sure that in, since we may be in this mode for a while, to make sure that we some augment in some way, just to make sure, for example, given the importance of Watsonville and the likelihood that some of the constituents there are more likely to be underrepresented in this response from the community, what we might be able to do to somehow enhance that. Again, it's not easy. I don't have an answer. It's not like I'm being critical, as much as trying to be thoughtful about how we might try and make sure we don't leave out a part of our community in this process. That's a very good question. And quite frankly, it's in most cases when we develop outreach programs for studies like this, that is one of the big issues. How do you get the reach? How do you serve the underserved? Or how do you get to the underserved who might not have access to phones, cell phones, or et cetera, or computers, internet? So typically we augment it with in-person and paper, newspaper, and other kinds of advertising for the meetings and the events. Obviously it's a little harder now because you can't get that in-person portion to augment this with those people who might not have access to the internet or cell phones. So I think we really need to evaluate that to really get to those underserved. And I think there's still some possibilities to maybe have online services at a library with scheduling where people can make an appointment and come in if we advertise it correctly. Something like that might be useful, but I think it's going to be a challenge to capture that market for sure. I think there's increasing evidence that low-income communities do have access to cell phones. Not quite as disproportionately as perhaps computers, for example, call. So there may be some where we might want to enhance our encouragement that people can call into these meetings as well as have a computer with a camera that would allow them to participate where most of us are. Right, and maybe applications or apps that connect to the internet with your phone that are easily used to provide that input. But that's certainly something we're all going to need to explore probably from now on based on what we have today. Not that this is going to continue forever, but I think we're going to have a lot of the augmentation of these kinds of outreach processes with online services just going to increase that much more. Thank you. Yep. I could just add to that, Steve. I realize your question, Commissioner Rodkin, was regarding how people would get information or provide input if they didn't have access. But I didn't want to bring up that materials online many of them were translated directly to Spanish materials and there was the translation on the website so that it could be translated. I know that's not always the most direct translation but there was a lot done to provide for our Spanish speaking community. And this also was available on a phone that could easily translate for a mobile device. And we do a lot of outreach to our connections in Watsonville to send information to their distribution lists. So just wanted to give you that point of interest that we really do think about the communities that are underserved and really do what we can during this pandemic to make sure that we're getting people to be able to provide the ability to provide input. Thank you. I'll make a comment, Supervisor Caput. Thank you for your reporting here. And yeah, Watsonville, South County District 4. We have a lot of undocumented families. We have families that are what I call blended families where some are documented and some aren't. And they do speak Spanish, a lot of them. So you did answer that. You do have a Spanish outreach, is that correct? Yes, that is correct, Commissioner Caput. We had, like I mentioned, many of the materials that were available on the open house were translated directly to Spanish. And then any that were not were easily changed and translated to Spanish through the website ability to just click on providing Spanish, providing the materials in Spanish. Yeah, the one thing with people that may not have documentation, there's a fear factor. They don't wanna speak out and draw attention to themselves, but they have the same needs and the same concerns as all of us. And they're working here and trying to survive with everything going on that we have right now, like with the pandemic and all the protesting and everything going on. So that's a tough job. Let's even look at the census right now. I don't know how they're able to count everybody. It's gonna be a real tough time here. Thank you. Okay, so I just, can I just give you a little quick input just for informational reasons. At the city council, we're adding now also our reports from the RTC to our agenda. So the community has access to those. Sometimes it's, they don't know how to go about finding that information. And so we've made it available to our community through our agenda. So the RTC highlights and agenda are now being posted on our agendas. Okay, continue on. I think we have some public comments, but I'd like to have you get through the presentation and then we'll go back and have the questions. Go ahead. Thank you. From directors, it's fine, or commissioners, it's fine. We'll get to that in a little bit later. In terms of the screening analysis, we looked at the 18 alternatives, evaluated the alternatives based on goals established for each of the three elements of the triple bottom line in another category for economy, equity, environment. And we went through an evaluation of that process in milestone one and got the approvals there to move forward with that process through the public stakeholders commission levels. We use that screening process to rate each of these goals by each of the economy, equity, environment and other categories of triple bottom line by most desirable, moderately desirable, least desirable. So for example, if it was cost, most desirable, desirable would be cost effective, lower cost than really high cost, which would be least desirable. And we went through that analysis for each of the goals by triple bottom line approach. And to do that, we use a variety of data. It was, while it was qualitative, it was very detailed in terms of backup of data from not only local sources like the UCS or the RTP or other studies, but also national sources and some of the collective experience from the team. And we have backup for all that that helped us to find most desirable, moderately desirable, least desirable for each of the goal categories, those metrics. From that process, we identified four alternatives moving forward with a short list and from today to about two months ago, we went through that process and went through stakeholder, public and a variety of meetings to hone those, the results and to respond to comments. So the recommended short list would be bus rapid transit, which would include portions of the roadway network as well as portions of the right of way, electric light rail and electric commuter rail, which would use largely the right of way and autonomous road train, which is a rubber tire, you know, autonomous vehicle that is very similar to light rail, but also has components of say BRT because it's rubber tire. And that would use mostly components of the rail right of way as well. So those were our four recommended short list of the alternatives. And just some information about each in terms of the benefits that we had presented previously, certainly for BRT, the capital costs are relatively lower than other modes. Level boarding was a big deal in our stakeholder and public involvement process, outreach process to define as a metric to support equity. I think it was equity or some of the triple bottom line elements. Certainly the ability to integrate with the overall transportation system within Santa Cruz, Metro Bus, for example, other systems like Highway 1 or the interactions between systems and also the integration to other systems outside of Santa Cruz, such as, you know, a potential rail from Pajaro up and down the coast. And certainly BRT provides an opportunity to adapt to future technologies, new technologies, that system, and it of course supports transit oriented development, which was a big deal in our, which came up a lot and it was a big deal in our public and stakeholder outreach efforts. And obviously there are a few more benefits, but those are the keys. In terms of the autonomous road train, which is gonna be unpaved rubber wheels, definitely strong, hands of ridership potential, lever boarding is a typical component. It is supportive of greenhouse gas emission reduction goals. It's, you know, will be automated electric or cell or battery-based. Travel time could be reliable and it also supports transit oriented development. So a lot of these alternatives moving forward or recommended to move forward provide very similar benefits. In terms of light rail, certainly strong ridership potential, travel times will be reliable. There will be continuity with the rail right of way. It'll be supportive of GHG reduction goals. We are going with electric vehicle versus diesel. So that sort of supports the GHG reduction goals. Level boarding, similar to the other alternatives is certainly part of the benefits here. Compatibility with the freight rail, even though they'll be separated by time of day in terms of when light rail and freight rail operate. And it also supports transit oriented development. And we're trying to align the benefits with the goals, you know, the positive goals here for, in the triple bottom one. Certainly commuter rail provides those reliable travel times, drawing ridership and supportive GHG reduction goals, especially with an electric propulsion, certainly supports transit oriented development and provides continuity with the ride away, especially the freight operations, level boarding and certainly the, you know, the co-mingling of freight rail and commuter rail is a common practice, certainly here in California and elsewhere. And that's commuter rail supports that. So those are some of the benefits of the four alternatives recommended to move forward. And Ginger, I was going to pass this over to you to talk about the next steps. Yeah, I'll take it from here. So let's see, the next steps after this meeting today is to dig into the performance measure analysis on the short list of alternatives. And we're aiming for September to bring this information and go towards stakeholders to receive input on the analysis results, as well as the draft locally preferred alternative. We would like to present to the RTC on these results in the locally preferred alternative in October at the October RTC meeting. As more of an information item, and then come back in November. So there's time for the commissioners to take in this information and think about the analysis results and the staff recommendation, but then come back in November to seek approval on this locally preferred alternative. And our deadline is January, 2021 for the final report as well as a business plan that will be presented to the RTC based on this locally preferred alternative to bring for your approval in January, 2021. With that, I just want to remind the commissioners that the staff recommendation today is for the commission to review and approve the alternative screening results, which is an attachment one of the packet, as well as the draft short list of alternatives, which is attachment two with the transit corridor alternatives analysis of the high capacity public transit with the Santa Cruz branch line. I'm glad happy to take any questions and comments. Okay, thank you for that very professional report. Moving right along, we're getting there to January, 2021. We have any comments from the commissioners? I do have proof. This is Randy. Randy, go ahead. Commissioner Johnson. Yeah, thank you very much. So with a triple bottom line, one of the components is the economy. And embedded in the economy portion of your analysis is fiscal feasibility. So my question is among the four alternatives, what is the price tag of each? I mean, fiscal feasibility is probably one of the most important components. So what I'm looking for is for you, which you obviously must have done because it's such an important component to attach a price tag to each of these alternatives. So what are they? Don't you have an estimate of per mile or go ahead? So I can get started here and then hand it off to Steve, but the transit corridor alternatives analysis has two different phases. We have the initial list of alternatives that we started with, and then we're in the process of screening those down to a shorter list of alternatives. There was some higher level estimates that were used for the cost based on some of the previous studies, you know, by Carter study, the rail transit feasibility study, but also national information on some of these other alternatives that our commission has not provided a detailed, a more detailed analysis on, but the phase two is going to bring you very much more detailed costs on all of this information, both capital costs as well as operations and maintenance costs. But if, but if part of the criteria is feasibility and you've just said that, you know, we've gone through and eliminated other types of projects and the economy and the amount of fiscal feasibility, don't you have to kind of know that ahead of time instead of saying, no, we're going to do that in, on level two and level three, and we'll think about that later. Isn't that really one of the most important components and weighing whether or not these particular projects should make the final four? I'd say a way, a ways in very heavily commissioner Johnson and I'm right now for the screening criteria, you know, we were looking at 18 different alternatives to really dial down into real a lot of detail on what those costs would be is a substantial level of effort we, we provided a three different brackets for the, for the capital costs, costs that are less than 20 million per mile costs that are between 20 and 40 million per mile and costs that are greater than 40 million per mile as a way to reduce down the list. And the capital costs as well as the operations and maintenance costs were evaluated in the screening criteria as well as a number of other metrics. I think the list is probably about 20, 20 different criteria that were brought together to come down to this short list of alternatives. Well, let me hand it off to Steve and then Pam Yanukin is also on the phone and she brought a lot of this information together. Do you want to add to that Steve? Sure. So, so Ginger, just pivoting from what Ginger said, we certainly looked at costs, not only capital but also operating costs. And we, because we have these 18 different strategies or alternatives, we looked at those in different cutoffs like Ginger said, 20 million, 20 to 40 million per mile and then over 40 million. So that helped us define, you know, at this stage of the screening process, you know, what is most desirable, least, moderately desirable and least desirable? Of course, 40 million per mile or above showed up as least desirable. Those would be the more expensive systems. And the data is pretty extensive and if needed, Pam can walk through some of that data. We also did operating expenses in terms of operating and maintenance, you know, dollars per mile, per passenger mile. And we sort of had the same cutoffs, obviously $1, $1 to $2 and then over $2 per passenger mile costs. So we did get some extensive data on that, but the detail will come in when we look at those four alternatives and we're honing in on that now in an analysis of, you know, more than this mile, you know, cost per mile for the four alternatives. We're doing that now, which will inform the detailed performance analysis of each of the four in, you know, milestone number three. So we do have quite a bit of data and have done quite a bit of work to support the fiscally feasibility of each of these alternatives. And of course, the four that we identified sort of, you know, they don't all show up as the best, but certainly they are relatively cost competitive.  So these are just two of the measures operating in capital costs that we use. While important, there are other measures that we use to support this analysis. Ginger, I don't know. I think you had that in the alternative scoring results on the economy, basically, but there's more to do. Okay. Any other questions from commissioners? Hi, I have one, Bruce. Go ahead. Yeah, thank you. With part of the outreach process, how would a Spanish speaker find the translations on the internet? I mean, I know that when you're doing the outreach, how are we actually getting them to, on the internet with the Spanish translation? So that, Commissioner Caput, if you go to the online open house, so it is closed now, it was open from April 13th to May 11th, I believe, on the dates. When you get to the website, you get into the open house, you can click on, there's a Spanish bar that says, if you want the materials in Spanish, click here. And so all of the outreach materials, like the fact sheet, the frequently asked questions, were available, were all translated directly to Spanish. And then there's also on the website, when you get into the various different stations, it has the ability to, you can click on the button to translate from English to Spanish. There was, in order for people to realize that the open house was available, we did have lots of outreach through social media, direct hard copy newspapers, lots of different ways that we outreach for in both English and Spanish. Okay, thank you. So that's limited only on the open house. One time only, I mean, you're still getting there into it, are you not, are you? We typically are trying, we're seeking input for the various different milestones. And so this is milestone number two. We had a time window of stakeholder input for milestone one, and then we had the window for milestone two. So, you know, we're always willing to take public comments. We have a email that people can respond, provide information at any time, but as far as influencing the next decision point, we, that was up until, you know, this meeting June 4th, and then we'll move on to the next decision point, which will be milestone three. But people are always encouraged to write an email and provide it to us. And we provide all of those, that email information on our websites so that commissioners can see the input that we're receiving, as well as the whole project team to review that and consider all of the input for, as we move forward in these various different stages of the project. Okay, any other commissioner questions on the analysis? Chair, I have a question, please. Yes. Identified. Oh, I'm sorry. This is a commissioner alternate Mollern. Yes. Just briefly, in the list of benefits for the two rail projects that were different from the sort of the rubber wheel alternatives was that the corridor would be at less risk of losing continuity for the two rail projects, but not for the two rubber wheel projects. I understand that corridor preservation and continuity are important. What I don't understand is why rail banking wasn't mentioned at all in your report, which would mitigate any concerns about loss of the freight easement. But more importantly, why rail in pavements wasn't concerned for both of those projects? When we initially discussed the unified corridor study, Metro's sort of back of the envelope project considered paving portions of the rail right of way that would be used for bus rapid transit and maintaining the rails in the pavement. We have, I mean, it's a very common in urban freight systems, even in Watsonville, for example, we have rails in the road right of way. So why wasn't that considered a mitigation for this concern about loss of continuity? I can get started with that. Certainly it is something that we could consider to keep the rails in the roadway that would make a more expensive system. We will look to your direction for that. The project team has not been considering at this point to keep the rails in the roadway, except for maybe certain locations. There may be an area around the why that we would consider for a warring camp to continue access. A lot of these questions are gonna come up over the next couple of months. My concern is that the two rubber wheeled projects are already being put at a disadvantage in our calculations because I think it's spurious, this concern that we can't maintain the freight easement with a rubber wheeled transit mode. I think that's something that we could consider. And the next step of this project is go through a value engineering process. What I would like is for those benefits to be struck from the report for the rail options because it's not actually a valid threat. Yeah, that would be fine. That would, so I think that what you're recommending is for the bus rapid transit and the autonomous road train so that when we consider those options to keep the tracks in place for those systems, that's correct or rail bank, which would remove the tracks but preserve the freight easement for some future rail use as you well know. So currently the project team was looking at the rail banking option, but if we hear direction from the commission to also evaluate keeping the rails in place and a system that would have pavement, that would be good information to know. Thank you then. I would ask that we make that recommendation for the next phase of the study. Okay, maybe we can include that in if there would be a motion to come a little later. Any other comments from commissioners on the analysis? This is a commissioner Leopold. I'm just, I'm not tracking this conversation about the loss of easement and the concerns about the right-of-way. It would be great to hear from Mr. Mattis or Mr. Preston about the issue of easements and whether there's a risk of losing them or not. I mean, I know we've talked about this extensively and I, the first speaker, Commissioner Johnson was worried about cost and the second speaker is asking us to consider something that's a lot more expensive. So it's tough to track what the direction is from the commission about cost and then the concerns about the right-of-way. So thank you, Commissioner Leopold for and also commissioners Mulhern and Johnson for your questions and comments. We did not wanna go into this study by eliminating rubber tire options moving forward. We all know that the freight easement and the commentary or requirements that are created by this being a freight line are protected by the surface transportation board, which is a federal board. They very much resist eliminating freight at all possible. So when we went forward with this analysis, we decided that there is a means to preserve the easements on the line and Commissioner Mulhern brought that up. If you were to remove the tracks and pay over it, you could preserve the easements by rail banking. But we all also know that there's no guarantee that the SDP would approve a public service abandonment under the conditions of rail banking. It's certainly a possibility. And so we didn't feel as if it was appropriate to eliminate those options. Moving into this analysis and at this early stage, and we are still very much at an early stage, we were brought forward the criteria that we should be considering. And one of the criteria that was brought forward was to make sure that the line was available for freight purposes and also for other uses by railways on this line. And at one of the previous meetings, Roaring Camp Railroad spoke and talked about their desire to be able to still be connected to the main system. So we included that criteria in terms of continuing the line on there. Now, if we need to modify how we approach this criteria for phase two, we certainly can, but I don't think it would change any of the four options moving forward. So it would be good to hear from the commission as how they would like us to continue on into phase three of this analysis with respect to preserving the continuity of the rail lines. Just one other, I appreciate that information, Mr. Preston. Thank you for sharing it. And as always, there's cost with everything. The other question I had is the participation of the Metro. As a member of the ad hoc committee, I know that we've done extensive communication with the Metro and they've been involved in every stage of this project. And it would be great to hear from them, but my belief is that this bus proposal meets their needs in terms of serious consideration. So I think that we have a balanced set of proposals here to take a deeper dive into. And I don't wanna exclude any of those pieces so we can get to the decision, which I'm sure everybody wants to get to by the first of the year or roughly around the first year. So this is Mike Rotkin. I'll save my general comments still after we hear from the public, but on this particular issue that Patrick Moharn raised, obviously if we select one of the rubber-tired alternatives to the process we're engaged in, we're gonna have to figure out how we make sure we maintain our ownership of the right-of-way for any kind of public service and not have to find ourselves rebinding land that we already have access to otherwise. So I'm in favor of Guy Preston's comments that in fact that as we get further into the process, we may need to do additional study about the right-of-way protection issues, but I'm not in favor of what I believe Patrick was arguing here, which is that we should take out the question of the virtues of the rail. No, no, I just wanted the buses to not be penalized. Yeah, as I said, well, the issue would be we're gonna look at all four of these seriously in terms of their cost and their issues and so forth. And at some point, if the buses start to rise up in the level of being more of the one or two top considerations on the quantity of study, we're gonna need to look at the issues that you raised. And I think that those are totally appropriate kinds of things to be looking at later in the process, but I don't wanna change the way they've looked at this otherwise. And I'm gonna save my other comments till I have to be here for the public, okay? Any other commissioner would like to make a comment? Hi, this is Commissioner Brown. I actually have questions now and I do wanna hear from the public, but I do have some questions on the scoring. And first of all, I wanna thank the staff and commissioners who participated in this process as well as our consultants. A lot of work clearly went into making these decisions and doing the research and finding the data. So my questions about scoring, so as I reviewed the spreadsheets, much of it really made sense kind of intuitively. And I know you gathered the best available data to rank the various options, but in some areas, the scores didn't seem as intuitive to me. And so I'm just trying to sort through that in an area that I have some specific interest in. And I know there are community members who have been working very diligently to get us to consider personal rapid transit. So I just have just a couple of questions about the, in the areas of economy and environment, those ratings. You could just talk a little bit about how you came to them. And the ones that I'm most interested in because I don't wanna ask you to go through the thought process for each and every one of these, just to get a sense of how it is that the cost per passenger mile for capital and operating were ranked so low for PRT. Everything I've heard is that it actually would be more cost effective. And then also in the area of environment, the question about reduction of, let's see, it was the potential to reduce vehicle miles traveled. So that was a C, these are all areas where the PRT got a C and it just seems, that seems low to me. So if you could just talk about that a little bit, that'd be great. I can get started. Appreciate your questions, Commissioner Brown. The, and then I'll hand it off to the technical team, both Steve and Pam. But we were really fortunate to have HDR on the project because they have a contract with the PRT system in Morgantown, Virginia at the University of Virginia. And the reality with that project is, is the cost came in at about 560 million per three and a half miles of a PRT system. And that's at an upgrade system. So the costs are extraordinarily high. And when you get to an elevated system, if that's something that we would consider, it can often be 10 times the cost of an upgrade system. So I mean, that in and of itself would put PRT as according to the project team, you know, out of the running for some of a system that would be set up for this 20 mile corridor that we're looking at for Santa Cruz County. PRT is also really an unknown system. There's very limited examples around the globe. So it's really hard to get a sense of what exactly it would do based on previous systems because there's just not a lot of information that's out there. You know, a lot of the examples that are out there are much shorter in length than our 20 mile system. You know, they typically are more on the range of two or three miles type of thing. And the right-of-way requirements are significant. I think one of the things that really came out of, in my mind from this analysis, is the smaller capacity of a vehicle that you have, the more you need to lean towards a two-way system versus a one-way system. A train that has a lot more capacity can be on a one lane, one set of tracks with sidings where the passing will occur at those sidings. If you have vehicles that are much smaller in capacity, then they need to pass more regularly and that passing requires width. Also for PRTs at the stations, those stations are often very wide because there's a lot that needs to happen there for storage of the vehicles as well as the ability to turn those vehicles around. And, you know, to get at your environment question for the greenhouse gas emissions, that was very much based on the projected, the thought about what the ridership would be. And again, you know, with the limited capacity in each different vehicle, as well as the number of vehicles that you could move through a system, that there was some potential ridership challenges with a personal rapid transit. You know, another big issue that comes up with personal rapid transit, if it's an upgrade system, is how you're gonna cross at the roadways. That's something that we really need to be taking a close look at on this corridor because there's so many roadway crossings. The expense of a system is most likely gonna be an upgrade system, but you start getting to a smaller capacity vehicles. You're gonna have a lot more crossing needs. And if it's not a system that has the ability to have a priority for a crossing, then you're gonna be increasing your travel time substantially. But with that, I'd like to hand it over to, on our Steve, if you wanna take the next discussion point or Pam, you wanna speak up about a personal rapid transit and why it did not make the staff recommendation for the short list. Sure. I think, Ginger, you hit many of the key components, especially related to the cost, but part of the question and the VMT reduction part of the question, which is tied to ridership potential, which was lower than other alternatives. That's why it would reduce, have a less capacity or opportunity to reduce the vehicles, autos on the road kind of thing. But Pam, the other thing I do wanna mention before I turn it over to Pam, if she has anything to add is the $560 million for a three and a half mile system in West Virginia was $20.20 and West Virginia dollars. So obviously we wanna weigh that compared to California and a cruise, but it's a very expensive system, but that's just one component that you ask for. And that's the only system online right now that we know of in the US. So anyway, Pam, is there anything you wanna add to the detailed discussion here, especially about the costs and or VMT reduction? Not really, I'll be honest. I mean, I think you and Junior covered a lot of it. Okay, good. We'll go on to other questions. I don't mind if you have your hand raised, but I just, well, go ahead. And then I'm just, this will mean I don't have to talk probably after the public talks. Cause my issue was about PRT and everything I'm talking about in public. Let me just say quickly, I raised this issue at the transit, at Metro bought the issue about personal rapid transit. It was in the context of thinking about the COVID crisis and the extent to which people are traveling in smaller units. And therefore not that this pandemic is gonna go on forever, but we probably see more of them. And there are issues about also just in terms of public acceptance and people sort of liking to ride with a small group of their family or friends in a car that holds four or six or something rather than a train or a bus that holds more. There are a lot of issues, I have to say, at the transit, at Metro, I didn't get many people very interested in the topic. It didn't, there was not a lot of discussion and it was not like I'm coming here saying, Metro wants to do this. That was not the case at all. But I think the problem in the metrics here are that the Morgan County system, which is the accurate system is an incredibly expensive system. It raises all the problems that were raised by the staff and by a consultant. And that has the crossing issues and so forth. I don't think anybody in Santa Cruz is interested in an accurate PRT system, it makes no sense. So the issue is whether an elevated system of some kind does make sense where it goes over all the intersections and therefore it has no impact, but less impact than any of our other alternatives at the intersections. And the cost of saying that generally it's, elevated systems are 10 times more expensive. That's the case if you're thinking about going from an upgrade to a model rail. But if you're thinking about a system that's relatively lightweight based on towers that are constructed and so forth. And they're, you know, this is looking at work that's been done in Sweden and some other places. And again, that even in the whole world, there's not a lot of big operating systems like this. So I don't want to misrepresent this. But I do wonder whether it doesn't make sense for us to think about adding to the four alternatives that we're going to look at added more detail to really think outside the box for a moment because of the particular moment that we're in around the crisis we're having with, you know, people gathering together in large groups in public, both in terms of acceptance of a mode of transit the desire for people to drive alone in their cars or even, you know, in small groups that we might want to look seriously at this at least take the time to put a, I'm not going to bump one of the other four alternatives but to think there's some more cost involved to look at it simply and then not forget the upgrade at an elevated PRT system to look at how that might actually work and begin to address some of these issues. Now, I want to say there's some other negatives. One of them has to be the visual. Even though most people who live in an urban environment don't think twice about the idea of a slightly elevated, you know, system where these cars are running along the road. A lot of these, this right away runs behind people's backyards and these things would be 15 to 30 feet in the air. So there would be some concerns about privacy and visual impact and so forth. That's a negative about this. But on the more positive side, there are a lot of people out there who are beginning to ask this question. I think it's, we need to hear from the public rather than having a discussion about what- Anyway, I just wanted to raise those issues as something that might want to seriously consider it. I'll stop there, thank you. Thank you. Any other member of the commission? Okay, we'll go to the public. Commissioner McPherson, how much time would you like to give the public? We have quite a few hands up and answer two. Let's just, let's try to keep it not more than a minute if we can. Well, that's probably pretty tight. Two minutes and then let's see what they have to say. How many do we have? We have about 10. We have 12 hands up at this point. Okay, try to keep it at a minute if you would from the public. Okay, so we have Mr. Alex Clifford that also wanted to make a comment before the, well, he's wanting to make a comment. And then would you like me to call the names of the attendees for you? That's okay.  I think that'd be right. I would show Mr. Clifford, CEO of the, or general manager of the Metro. Let's give him more than two minutes if he needs it. Yeah. Okay. Well, good morning. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Oh, super. Yeah, I don't think I need anything more than two minutes. I was just going to respond to Commissioner Leopold's question about Metro participation. This has been a highly collaborative process. RTC has involved Metro. We've had staff assigned to it all through the process and we're really satisfied with the outcome at this point. And of course, selfishly, the bus rapid transit or the BRT concept is still in play. So we're extremely pleased about that. And I would be happy to answer any questions. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your brief comments. Okay. Next. Is it Mike Opposer? It's Brian Peoples had his hand up. Oh, excuse me. Brian Peoples. Brian Peoples trail now. I did provide some visuals if you're able to post them up. First of all, the public view is that you're going down very biased towards large trains and big vehicles. There is no freight north of Lee Road in Watsonville. So that should not be a requirement. And actually the RTC has paid for studies to show that you would be able to abandon it through the STB. Roaring camp connection to the main line, essentially a private operator, amusement park ride. There is no legal requirement and that should not be a requirement. Basically deciding on our transit system for a private operator is not good. We are asking that you include the micro-shadows as part of us down select because the alternative scoring matrix is very subjective. The ridership numbers for rail were extremely high, but that's not what we see such as with the smart brain and the West commuter. The two comic strips that we provided are to illustrate the shortcomings of the study. First of all, the wall represents a fence that will be constructed along the entire corridor. To support fast moving trains. And you're actually not meeting the federal guideline requirements of 25 feet separation for trains that are going 45 miles an hour. So it's not truly, you're not looking at that requirement. And then secondly, you're not looking at the impact of roaring camp actually at the boardwalk. It's not included in there of how you're gonna be operating trains, 60 trains a day. And how is that going to impact roaring camp? So again, we ask that you include the micro-shadows as one of the down selected items. Thank you. Thank you. Hey, we have Brett Garrett. Good morning, this is Brett Garrett. I'm advocating for personal rapid transit. I thank commissioners Rotkin and Brown for speaking in favor of looking at personal rapid transit. I don't think we need to look at the autonomous road train. It's basically tearing out the tracks to build something that works like a train, but it's less efficient. I don't think anyone really believes the autonomous road train is better than a light rail. So it seems to me that that would be one that, if you wanna keep it within four alternatives, I don't think the autonomous road train is necessary. I wanna respond to Ms. Dicar's comments about the width required for two-way travel. You can have a two-way PRT system within 15 feet. So it's, you know, narrow vehicles don't require much width for two-way traffic. PRT is the system that allows social distancing. It can work during a pandemic. Pod cards can self-disinfect after passenger, after every passenger that can be designed to do that. The city of Oakley has signed a memorandum of understanding. They're looking to build a PRT system for the operational next year. Looks like Tesla and the boring company are building an underground PRT system in Las Vegas that will be operational next year. So those are two systems that we'll be able to look at very soon, relatively nearby. I do believe, I've sent a lot of documentation explaining why I think many of the scores for PRT were too low. PRT provides on-demand service, no waiting half an hour for the train. It's the most efficient transit, low energy use per passenger. I would argue it is the mode that allows the highest ridership. Obviously I'm disagreeing with the consultant on that, but that is my belief based on my research. PRT can provide direct service to UCSC, the Cabrillo College, downtown Santa Cruz. PRT could circle around Watsonville, providing much better access for various parts of that city. An elevated PRT will provide incredible views of the Monterey Bay and the mountains. PRT is fully compatible with freight because you can leave the existing tracks in place and build PRT above. Please take your time. Please include some form of personal rapid transit in the next phase of the alternatives analysis. Thank you. Okay, the next person doesn't have a name, but their number is 818-3660. Hi, my name is Mark Concedy Miller. I'm a 37 year resident of Santa Cruz and a professional civil engineer. As an engineer, I took a keen interest in the results of the online open health survey. What I found was the evidence indicates a very strong community preference for using the rail corridor for either of the passenger rail options, rather than either of the bus options. With regards to the two rail options, the survey results indicated a slight preference for light rail over commuter rail. On average, twice as many survey respondents indicated the rail options would meet their needs when compared to the bus options for every one of the 11 individual metrics in the survey. With regards to the question, would you choose to live near a transit station? 61% indicated they would choose to live near a rail transit station compared to only 35% going to live near a bus station. That difference may not sound like much, but the raw numbers are impressive. Given a total of 600 people responded to the survey, 210 indicated they would choose to live near a bus station, but 156 more people, a total of 366 people would choose to live near a rail station. Similarly, regarding the question, would you choose to work near a transit station? 65% indicated they would choose to work near a rail transit station compared to only 37% going to work near a bus station. In raw numbers, 222 would choose to work near a bus station, but 168 more for a total of 390 people would choose to work near a train station. As far as other alternatives, respondents indicated they were willing to live and or work near the next two most popular choices were both rail options, namely train, trams, trolleys, street cars, and the inner city rail option. The community has spoken loudly and decisively using the rail corridor for passenger rail transit is clearly the community's preference. I know each of you are listening. Thank you. Kristen Sandel. Yes, can you hear me? Yes. Yes. Okay, hi. My name is Kristen Sandel. I'm a member of Extinction Rebellion Santa Cruz, but I'm speaking here only for myself and I wanted to briefly speak in support of the rail trail project because it's been clear for decades that we do not have the capacity on our roads to handle the number of commuters from North to South County and vice versa. Rail transit is much more efficient. It doesn't compete with cars for road space and it would significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. If the system is well implemented, it could take thousands of cars off the roads every day. So it needs to be easy to access for commuters, people with mobility issues. It needs to have multiple connecting points and be able to handle bicycles on board. I think it's also a matter of environmental and social equity to provide quality, fairly priced public transit, which is available to everyone. So we need to choose an option that people will actually use with enough capacity to be useful and enough flexibility to be appealing. We can't meaningfully address the huge issue of climate change without providing a more environmentally sound alternative to cars. I think rail transit can be an important part of that choice for Santa Cruz County. Thank you. Thank you. Micah? Micah? Hello, my name is Micah Posner. I'm the chair of the Sierra Club, the local Sierra Club. We have 3,000 members in Santa Cruz County. We're glad you're looking to make in the list shorter because the Sierra Club is acutely aware that we have nine years to do something with regard to transportation in our county to reduce our greenhouse gases. So we're glad you're not gonna keep studying some of the alternatives that are a little out there or difficult to or untested. And that includes PRT. We're glad you're making the list shorter. We don't feel like you need to study PRT. And the reason we're weighing in at this point is because even though, you know, the staff are gonna keep studying things, we hope that as elected officials that you'll start leading the staff towards what the community wants. And we know what we want. We've thought about it enough and we really read the excellent materials your staff have provided. So the Sierra Club is in support of some kind of passenger rail in addition to the trail. And we have three reasons. One is that we really support the trail. And I think the whole community is there's consensus on it. And if you engage in ripping up the tracks, I think it will delay the construction of the trail because there'll be a protracted legal matter with regard to rail banking. I think we'll get it. I don't think we'd lose the alternative, but I think it could take many years to sort out legal issues. And in the meantime, we could be building the trail. That's our first point. Our second point is that rail has a much better effect on land use because when transportation is congregated in stations along a particular line, then the type of development that happens is the type of development where people can walk and ride their bikes and have options other than driving. This isn't just theoretical. This is how the world works in Japan and Europe and other places where partially because of a train system, a rail system, people feel less need to be mobile. They walk more, they live in more dense areas.  Minutes are done. Okay, so one more reason is that we think people just prefer trains over buses. And especially people that have options, people that own cars. In fact, my personal recommendation is as you consider studying this, some kind of poll for people that have the option to drive a car, would you rather take some kind of bus or some kind of passenger rail because you're trying to get people to choose to use the system, not just have to use it. So thanks for all your work so far. And the Sierra Club looks forward to working with you in creating a rail and trail system for Santa Cruz County. Thank you. We have Michael St. Okay, thank you commissioners. Campaign for Sustainable Transportation. I just wanted to reinforce our position and we actually do support a goal of having transit on the rail corridor, but basically have not come to a consensus on what that might be. From a personal standpoint as a citizen, I attended a webinar hosted by a Monterey group that is developing their future plan for rail, not only in the Tri-County area, but also hooking up with Caltrain to take us to other destinations. The only option they used was light rail. They mentioned no other alternatives. My question would be to either Steve or Ginger or the board and the commission, how much influence does the Monterey County preferred mode of light rail have on our alternative choices? Thank you for your time. We have Matt Barrell. Thank you. I'm here today on behalf of the Transportation Commission's Bicycle Advisory Committee. At our April meeting, the committee voted to support rail transit, the electric commuter and light rail alternatives for the Santa Cruz branch line. The committee discussed the potential for a higher bicycle capacity and faster travel times between Watsonville and Santa Cruz. We urge you to consider ease of use for bicyclists in any future transit alternatives that moves forward. Thank you. Natalie Olivas. Hi, my name is Natalie. I'm here on behalf of Rehreneracion Pajara Valley Climate Action out of Watsonville. We support the rail transit option, rather than the bus option on the rail corridor, based off of our 2018 community survey done in the Pajara Valley in both English and Spanish. Out of 318 respondents, we found that our South County citizens strongly support electric rail options for modernizing our transit system. We support the rail over bus options because they will result in a more rapid reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, greater use of public transportation and superior bike transit options. Rail transit is predicted to double the use of public transportation countywide. It would allow for people to use a combination of bicycles and electric transit as rail provides a maximum amount of bike storage. Rails provide about 20 spaces where buses can only carry about three bikes. And according to our 2018 survey, bus riders showed strong support for a rail system. 4.1 out of five showed support for rail over buses. Finally, we are also concerned about environmental justice in our county and C. Low Income South County residents benefiting more from the rail transit. Rail transit offers South County riders the same access to improve public transportation as North County riders whereas buses do not. And this is important because many of our citizens use public transportation to get to work from Watsonville to Santa Cruz. So 2020 is projected to be the warmest year on record and we need to make decisions today that will lead to rapid reduction of emissions. The city of Watsonville has made a commitment to strengthen climate action by greening our energy sources and making our infrastructure efficient and low impact. And we hope that the rest of the county can follow suit. I commend this board for focusing goals on a triple bottom line. So I hope to support the environmental and equitable options of rail transit. We cannot have a prospering economy without the health of our people and planet. Thank you. Gina Cole. Gina Cole. Yesenia, this is Krista. Gina, she had the older version of Zoom. I think she might be trying to update her Zoom. So let's call on her later. Okay. Veronica, Elsie. Good morning, commissioners. And thank you for giving us this chance to talk to you. I am currently serving as a chair of your Elderly and Disabled Transportation Advisory Committee. It was a little unclear in our minutes. So I did want to state that at our April meeting, the committee did vote to support the rail options. Some of it was partly based on the discussion of not tearing up the rail that you had earlier. We're also very concerned about the capacity for users who board with wheelchairs that the bus would limit the number of that. And we're looking at not only level boarding, but the ability to turn around and the wide entrances with no barriers. So the committee definitely does support the rail options. I also thought I would just add in further outreach, please don't forget, we now have several really good local radio stations that would be really useful in bringing people on so that there's a dialogue and there's nothing like hearing dialogue to get people involved. So that would be a good way to engage your South County residents. Thank you. Yeah. Okay, we have a phone number of 840-1884. All right, that's Gina Cole. Thank you. By Santa Cruz County, I'm Gina Cole, the director at By Santa Cruz County and By Santa Cruz County wishes to convey our support for utilizing rail service on the rail trail line. We believe that a rail option is essential to support a sustainable and safe way through the county from a cyclist perspective, safe means separate from automobiles. And the rail trail is currently proposed offers this kind of safety. To quote one committee member, brain don't swerve. As for sustainability, keeping the tracks does not put the trail at risk. However, removing the tracks does. Not only does keeping the rail intact save the trail, it saves time and valuable resources. In order to sustain the trail, we must firmly support preserving the rail. By Santa Cruz County has always advocated for bike friendly infrastructure that increases the ability of people to use a bike for daily trips, to use a bike for recreation, to use a bike for increased physical and mental health and wellbeing. We will continue to advocate for safe routes for cyclists and we'll continue to push for a trail that is at a minimum 12 feet in width to protect both cyclists and pedestrians. While we are not transit experts, we do offer perspective as active bike commuters and recreational riders. And it's in the spirit that we support the rail as a clear choice for public transportation along the transit corridor. Thank you. Keith Otto? Yeah, so sound check. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Keith Otto County resident. I hope that the commissioners went through the survey themselves and then talk to their neighbors and friends and constituents about that experience, right? In short, the survey is incomplete in registering what Santa Cruz County wants. 600 surveys may sound great, but we have a population of 275,000. There was 163,000 voters. On top of that, the participants were given the choice between one of four bad choices. There was no none of the above option. Last question, question 18 asked for other comments. Participants were not able to answer that question without saying they supported one of the previously defined options. So how complete is that? What do we really know as a result of this survey? Well, here are some things we do know. We know that SMART, Sonoma Moran Area Rail Transit, has been a reference for decisions made by the RTC and items there are not going well. SMART has not delivered on what they promised their voters in 2008, their sales tax measure to extend their 20 year sales tax to support SMART. An additional 30 years was voted down in March. All of that was before the current shutdown and economic downturn with the current pandemic. Funds are going to be flowing less freely from federal and state sources for projects. If somehow we're able to build something like a train, how will it be maintained? County public works told the RTC some time ago, right? To create new things when we can't afford to maintain what we already have, we think that's the wrong way to go. My ask is to be realistic and practical. Let's do things like invest in a trail only approach to the rail corridor. Let's invest in SC Metro. You've heard from folks in my community, young adults who don't have a car, seniors who no longer drive, saying where is our bus service? It was discontinued in 2016. No site to its return is no, is not in sight. Let's invest in bus on shoulder. Let's invest in express bus. These types of projects might be not as fun and fancy and might not command then these huge budgets, but that's exactly why those investments make sense and need to be a priority. Thank you. Rebecca Downing. Good morning. Rebecca Downing. I live along the corridor in Seacliff. And if a goal of this project is to decrease traffic on highway one, which we know that's one of the goals. And when spending so much money, you must evaluate the integrity of the process. So regarding the survey, a lot of people take surveys when they're invested in the outcome of the survey. So my questions are, how many times did people take the survey? What mechanisms do you have in place to make sure that more than one survey wasn't taken by one person? Another concern I have is regarding outreach to South County. You have to survey and seek those who commute to learn if they will give up their car or either mail or bus. We have to ask them that. And I don't think this survey did and the process didn't. We know there's a lot of people coming from the county who need their cars and they go to places that neither the bus nor the rail will reach in a timeframe that meets their commuter needs. So South County outreach really needs to find the people where they live and not rely on them to take the initiative to find the survey online. They're probably not always able to do so. So please do that outreach. Take the time with this much money involved before you move forward to your next phase. Thank you. Sally Arnell. Can you hear me okay? Yes, great. Okay, I'm Sally Arnell and board chair of the Santa Cruz County Friends of the Rail and Trail and we're really pleased to see the TCA moving forward even in these challenging times. And we thank the RTC staff for their community outreach. And oh my gosh, what outreach? Just was already discussed. There was a lot of survey response. And this is an issue that the community cares deeply about. And some people have mentioned that the survey was challenging or limiting in some ways for some people. And I think that may have been true, but people were also invited to write letters in which they could say anything they want. And since you received about 200 letters, I'm gonna assume you may not have had time to study them all carefully. So we took the time to read them all and tally them up and here's a summary. 85% of the letter writers indicated a preference for rail transit on the corridor, 85%. 10% or 20 people said they want no public transit on the corridor. 2%, four people said they want bus rapid transit, bus or bus, any kind of the bus transit choices. It's four people wanted the bus. Two people wanted personal rapid transit and four people just made some general comments. So in summary, that's 167 out of 197 written comments want passenger rail transit on the corridor. That's a mandate. And we really suggest that the commissioners listen to their constituents. And I also want to take a moment to just lift up a couple of the varied voices that I saw in the letters submitted. Here's one from somebody named Kaki. Having safe, reliable, fast transportation to and from South County is critical to bringing our communities together on equal terms. Do the right thing go rail. And somebody named Judy wrote, it seems completely illogical, destructive and enormously expensive and wasteful to eliminate the existing tracks. So if you have time, you might want to read them. There are some very interesting letters in there. Please listen to your constituents study the rail options this summer. Thank you. Susan Cavallari. Susan, okay. David Van Brink. Good morning, this is David. Can you hear me? Yes. Great. At first I just want to say I've been watching the progress on the West Side Trail and it's so exciting to see that happening. So my comment is I'm a resident of Santa Cruz City. The TCAA calls out that the two rail alternatives minimize risk of easement loss. And I think some of the conversation earlier today confirms that that's an actual issue. Some other things seem like they might be in play as well. The MBSST master plan would need major revision and any EIR steps would need revisiting. And of course these revisions and others have real implications on the timeline. A tenure delay is not inconceivable and at a very modest inflation rate of two or 3% that would raise the cost potentially of just the trail portion by nearly $100 billion. So these sorts of aspects should be well considered in the ongoing analysis. Thank you. Okay. I think Susan might be ready to speak. So Susan, okay. We'll go. Oh, hello. Hi Susan. You're on. Okay. I'm sorry. If you have to, can you have your phone in your tablet? Yeah. Can I have one? Can I talk? Okay. I'm sorry. I didn't say I could. Hello commissioners. I am a member of the Santa Cruz Climate Action Network. We are concerned about the climate crisis and advocate for a just climate for all people and for biodiversity. We advocate for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from all sectors in Santa Cruz County. Because transportation is a largest contributor to these climate warming emissions, we strongly support maintaining a public transit option on the rail trail, but do not endorse a specific alternative at this time. Public transit will promote the reduction of vehicle miles traveled, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote equity and hopefully reduce sprawl to maintain open space and biodiversity. We will not recover from the worsening climate crisis. We as a county must do our part to reduce emissions. We need public transit along with bicycles and pedestrians along the Santa Cruz County rail trail. Thank you so much. Colin. Jess up. Mr. Jess up. Okay. We'll wait for him. Barry Scott. Good morning, commissioners and staff. This is Barry Scott, Coastal Rail Santa Cruz located in Aptos. We are supportive of light rail provided it includes street cars which are available now to operate wirelessly and up to and over 50 miles an hour. And as a second option, BRT provided it doesn't prevent use of the rail line. There's something about rail banking, which is that while preservation of the corridor in the right away is one consideration, the real problem with rail banking is that it doesn't bank anything. It what it would do if you can imagine removing tracks and completely reconfiguring the landscape, what you're doing is you're tripling or quadrupling the cost of doing rail at some later time. So for those reasons, it should really be taken off the table and not considered at all. Rail transit of some form would be by far the quickest to implement because the tracks are already there. The rail line is already permitted. I wanted to say something quickly about the triple bottom line and the cost of things. We've got to consider the cost of doing nothing. If we provide minimal transit, people still have to travel and what we're doing is that we're transferring the cost to individual travelers who have to buy a car, who have to buy insurance. And this disproportionately impacts working class people in the poor. So transit is a good thing. If it costs money, then let's find a way to do it. I think we've heard from other groups that rail is overwhelmingly supported by the public, but moreover, we have done multiple studies including the 2015 rail passenger feasibility study. In 2018, we had the UCIS that pretty much came back in favor of rail. And we have the state rail plan funding package that was announced in 2018. And now we're at the TCAA, which identified two forms of rail among the 18 that were begun that were considered from the beginning. So one study after another indicates rail transit. Let's remember that new technologies, including street cars, battery operated street cars, lighter than light rail, coming in at a lower cost than is probably been considered even in this study. Mr. Scott, your time is up. And I thank you for your time. Thank you. We do not have any more speakers, Commissioner McPherson. Okay, thank you. Thank you, public, for your input. We appreciate that. We'll return it to the commission for discussion and what we want to do in the future. Is there any commissioners who would like to speak? Chair, this is Supervisor Leopold. I want to thank the staff and the consultants who've actually did a good process to try to incorporate a lot of different ideas identified by the public through community meetings that happened before COVID that allowed us to look at a broader list of projects. And then when the COVID pandemic hit us, worked aggressively to get people to respond to the survey. And although there are some who are still hoping that we can rerun the entire Unified Corridor Study, then our unanimous decision to commit to some kind of transit on this branch line we are fulfilling the commitment that we made to the community by doing this transit corridors alternative analysis. I think it's gonna be helpful for us all to study these four options carefully. And I would like to move the recommended actions on this item. Second. I guess second that. But can I comment? Sure. Yeah, first, I'd like to thank Reconelación, the city of Watsonville. I'm also staff for their report and their good work and the consultants. But I'd like to really reach out to the Reconelación and the city of Watsonville. From their indication, they did a survey of 300 people and they're well connected within our community and they're a good voice for our community. And when they speak, they are really talking through the community and with the community. So I really hold them in high regards. So it was really good to hear from them. And I hope they continue to come and speak on behalf of the community and what the community of the city of Watsonville would like to see. So those are my comments. Mr. Schifrin. Yes, thank you. I tried to second the motion by Commissioner Leopold but I think I was a little too slow. But I agree with his comments. I don't think it makes sense to relive the unified corridor study as we're asked to do at every one of our meetings. That was a decision that the commission unanimously agreed on. And I think what it led us to is what's be for us today, which is how can we have public transit on the corridor? The commission hired a consultant firm, they've been working with staff. This is a cooperative effort with the transit district. We've been working. There's a subcommittee that I'm on that's been working very closely with the consultant and staff and represents both commissioners from the transit district and our commission. I think it's been a very extensive process. It's no surprise that not everybody agrees. I mean, I'd be stunned if everybody did agree. But I think we're heading in a direction towards trying to get an option that uses, maintains the corridor for public transit that is financially feasible, that is supported by the transit district and a significant number of the members of the public. I think the four alternatives that are before us are reasonable ones. And I support moving forward with a more detailed analysis to find out where they in fact are feasible. We have a limited amount of money that we've gotten from the Caltrans grant. And I think it would, and a limited amount of time to try to fulfill that grant requirement. So I think it would be a mistake to try to start adding things that are just going to increase time and cost. So I just wanted to support the staff recommendation and consultant report and see if we can move forward with this very important process. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments by commissioners? I do. I have this one. This is Randy. Awesome. Commissioner Johnson. Thank you, Chair. So this was an extensive study and my compliments to the consultant on doing a good job. I do, however, have to point out that we have a tendency on the RTC to be enthralled with process and studies and commissioning all sorts of things. All sorts of things, but we don't really kind of honor things like outcome and results. I would remind the commission that it was four years ago, essentially when measure D passed. And the expectation was that things were gonna happen. And right now we're in a position where we're gonna do further studies on in my mind options that are infeasible. And don't really hold any, especially with the economic situation we're in right now, does not hold out any hope in terms of really being implemented. All you have to do is, if you're really interested in knowing if these ideas are interesting and supported by the public, let's have a vote on a spending plan. Let's get it out there and see if any of these things comport with the will of the people. I don't think they do. I think we're looking at options that are old, that are not feasible, that have no real possibility of ever happening. I look at Bikes Santa Cruz County. To me, Bikes Santa Cruz County should be in love with the idea of a trail, especially now where the world is pivoting, okay? Thousands and thousands and thousands and millions really of more bikes than people interested in using bikes. Think about the possibilities of having a trail essentially from Watsonville to Santa Cruz that people could use, not 10 or 15 years from now, but maybe two or three years from now. But that's not really an option because we're still in love with the process and the idea of trains and things that don't work. Santa Ana said it, those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it. We've seen smart train in Marin County. It's not working. Promises were made that it would take lots of traffic off of 101. It didn't happen. It's failing economically. So, you know, Ford, I guess, decent options out there. They're nice and shiny and sound good and whatever, but we have to be embedded in practicality. And again, we're so enthralled in love with process and this dynamic and that dynamic. We never really look about what will work and what will not work. And there's no way I'm gonna support, you know, further time spent on these options and money spent on these options. Again, you know, Steve, Decker, you did a good job with what you were given. I'm not complaining about so much the process, but that road really leads nowhere.  There's no money, okay? The state is down $58 billion. The federal government has lost during this coronavirus, not the federal government, but our economy close to $8 trillion. Where's the money gonna come from? So, okay. Okay, thank you, Mr. Johnson. You're welcome, chair. This is Mike Rodkin. Yes. First of all, I respectfully disagree with everything that Mandy just had to say. On the one hand, calling for speed things up, and then yet asking us to go back a year and a half to undo a decision that was made unanimously by this commission in terms of how we move forward. In terms of getting the trail done, it's under construction right now and there's no faster path to getting it done and continue on the current course we're on. I wanna agree with everything that John, Leopold and Andy Schiffin said without repeating any of it. I think they made the argument pretty clearly in favor of the motion that's before us. The only other comment I wanna make is to thank our public for their input today. It was extremely thoughtful and articulate. People disagree, had different points of view and everybody was respectful and I don't have to tell the county board of supervisors how nice it is to come to a meeting where people speak on topic, are respectful, make points with support and arguments and statistics and support of their position. So, I really, it's a pleasure to live in Santa Cruz County and in the city where the mayor and the chief of police take a knee in respect to dealing with the issue of racism and where our public comments in a meeting like this are so thoughtful in terms of the general public's input. That's my only comment, thank you. Thank you, well said. Any other commissioner who wanna make a comment? We do have a motion on the floor. Commissioner Kaufman Gomez would like to speak. Okay. Yes, thank you. Yes, thank you. I will support this motion and there's a few reasons why. I have gone out, we have gone out in the public and we have spoken with the folks that are gonna be needing this service, have been asking for this service and many of which are very impatient because they've been waiting quite a long time in order to have some relief that we see here getting ourselves moved around this county as a community for this county. I respect the fact of all of the details and the consultants and the staff working really diligently on all of the study part of things of the accrual of the data and giving us information about the resources and the alternatives that we have here. And we do have a lot of grassroots efforts that are helping along with the RTC to get this information out to the public. And so for those agencies, I thank you for stepping up and coming out to helping us. We have really tried to push as much of this information out there as we possibly can in Watsonville. I think that that has been a gap that we've had in communication on the South End for quite a bit of time. Aurelia and I, we've talked back and forth about this and we're very happy to see that we're including it in with our council materials. We're making sure that we make, this is a public discussion in our council meetings. Materials are there. We had a very robust workshop, unfortunately COVID hit afterwards, but we are really encouraging everybody to know that this is a big decision. And it's a lifelong decision that we're having for the future. And we are seeing a lot of participation and support from the South County to continue moving forward, particularly with the rail option, since we do have the freight that's here there. It's an impact of many of our businesses in the community. And we have to think beyond just the myopic approach that this is Santa Cruz County. This is a connectivity beyond just the Santa Cruz County and there's bigger robust plans for the entire Bay and also the connectivity to get us beyond even that. I know that Monterey County is ahead of us when it comes to getting at least from Salinas to San Jose. And this also provides that option for people in our corridor to get that resource also that may need to be looking to do some commuting otherwise over Highway 17. So I support this to move this forward, to get it refined, to decide what we need to do. We know that anything is gonna be at a cost and we will need to know more about what that looks like and where we're gonna go for the resources for the funding. So thank you again for all of the information that we're putting together for this project. It's a very valuable project for our community and we will support at the South County. I believe we're actually putting a letter together of support for the rail corridor for a couple of the options there in the near future from our city to the RTC for a letter. So thank you for your time, the support of this and I will, I'm gonna say yes to this motion. Thank you. Thank you. Any other commissioners, any other commissioners have a comment? Okay, we do have a motion. Commissioner, it looks like we have an attendee who would like to speak. I know we've closed the public session so just let him unit. Give that person one minute and we've got a motion on the floor to just identify himself and say briefly what's your point. Okay, Brian, Brian. Yes. Yes. You have one minute. Hi there, thanks for the time. I really appreciate this discussion and allowing the public to comment and in concern to feasibility and what the analysis has shown that even the cheapest cost is probably be prohibitively expensive for the next foreseeable future with what the current climate is. And I'm just curious if there's been any discussion about providing access to the rail and a temporary modular system that would allow the rail to be used for a bike path. Well, we're not gonna go into it, open a discussion. I just got your point that you don't think that none of these are probably financially feasible. That's the main point, I think.  They're not feasible, but in the interim when we discuss this for the next foreseeable future could there be an ongoing discussion about how the public can activate this corridor and as this continues and as we review the feasibility. We're continuing it as we speak. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. Sorry to cut you off, but the motion's on the floor. There's been a second. And what we're doing now is we're moving the short list of four on to further study for analysis and results for a draft of preferred alternatives in September and then in October there were presentation before this commission on the analysis and results of the preferred alternatives. So please, that's the motion on the floor. Please call the roll, please. Commissioner Rotkin. Aye. Commissioner Gonzales. Aye. Commissioner Batorov. Aye. Commissioner McPherson. Aye. Commissioner Leopold. Aye. Commissioner Alternate Mulherr. Aye. Commissioner Alternate Schifrin. Aye. Commissioner Alternate Gregorio. Oh, you're back. Commissioner Caput. Yeah, I. Commissioner Kaufman-Gomez. Commissioner Johnson. No. Commissioner Brown. Aye. Commissioner Bertrand. Aye. And that was all. Thank you, sir. That vote is 12 to one or something that passes. No, one no vote. One no vote. Mr. Johnson. Okay, we will move to our last item that we had to skip over because of the scheduled public hearing. The Caltan's report, I hope that Eileen is here or communicate with us is she online or? She is. Great. Hey, it's worth the wait, Eileen. You've had some great praise, well deserved from everyone. And thank you again for everything. And I guess this will be your last report to us. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner McPherson. And yes, can you hear me okay? Yes. Oh, great. Okay, yes. Thank you so much for those kind words. I wasn't expecting that. I don't have a video camera today, but it just as well, you would have seen me a little missy eyed there. It's really been an honor and a privilege to serve Caltrans and to serve this commission in the exhibition role. I really have been in both professionally and personally from my experience. I've really enjoyed the dialogue and the richness of the debates that you all have in Santa Cruz. And so it's been great to be a part of that. So thank you again. And I also wanna thank you, Commissioner McPherson for hosting the town hall on June 16th about highway nine. This isn't part of a routine process for us to do the outreach at this stage at the project initiation document stage on a typical safety project. But we feel like this is a really important time and an important step to take. And so we really appreciate your partnership in doing that. And so we look forward to a good meeting on the 16th. I hope folks can tune in. And lastly on the highway one work, the curb ramp work is nearly all wrapped up there on 41st Avenue and Morrissey. The detours should, with the curb ramp and some of the drainage work that's happening that the pedestrian detours should disappear by next week. There'll be some cleanup work and punch list items but I think you should see things in a better condition out there. Thank you again. Any questions? Any questions, Ms. Coffman-Gomez? Yes, the roundabout Lakeview and Riverside, it says 2020, but I don't know what time since we're halfway through this year do we have a start date for that project? I will look into that and get that information out to you. Any other questions for Ms. Moe? Just thank her for her years of service. Yeah, I remember the commission feels that way. So thank you again, see no other questions of Ms. Moe and we wish you a joyous retirement. We'll go now to the next meetings of the RTC. The next scheduled one is a special meeting on Monday, June 29th and it will be by teleconference as well. The next scheduled RTC meeting is Thursday, August 6th at 9 a.m. teleconference. Well, it will be maybe from Scotts Valley City Council Chamber, I'm not sure how that's gonna work but the next meeting of the RTC is a special meeting on Monday, June 29th and it will be by teleconference and I assume it will start at nine o'clock in the morning. With that, we will be adjourned.