much welcome Good morning commissioners. My name is David eight former developer of the LSBA director development of development director of the LSBA. I I've spoken at nauseam about the effects that the current traffic crisis has had on southern Residents we've taken our daughter out of school. I work fewer hours and it is it is unbearable We passed measure D two years ago We purchased our corridor six years ago and now we are assigning a ten-year lease with a freight company That promises to run excursion so we can Him maintain our corridor. We're not talking about solutions. We're talking about Prolonging the congestion And I think the 800 pound gorilla in the room was outlined recently in a good times article and then even prior to that in a good times article with a messy miller and he talks about Transit oriented development tells us what we need our housing units along our corridor and this this idea of up zoning so that we create a Transit corridor and then that enables us to create high density development on that So we're we're not we're we're talking about something much bigger than a train or a trail We're talking about the future character of Santa Cruz County, and I don't think people have been very forthcoming with that with that that issue that this is more of a Gateway a gateway vote into a much larger a much larger Scenario that will impact Santa Cruz County, and that's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you Hello, good afternoon. I guess it is afternoon. Nope. Hi. My name is Teenie Andrea And firstly, I live right across the street from the rail. I try to educate for keeping the rail line We have it in place It's the last open corridor in the county versus highway one I feel that every day we delay costs us more money And I'm really worried about also people and kids that are on the road If we don't have a separate corridor with the with the trail where kids can ride their bike and Where we and then at a later date soon that we put in a light a state-of-the-art High rail that will serve the whole county. I'm down in Aptos and Everyone I've talked to that lives down in South County in Watsonville I haven't met one person who does not support keeping the rail line in place I also feel because it's an inequity. I Feel that again every day is a delay and then lastly I've taken numerous times from Oxford, California to downtown LA they have a great rail line and People bring their wheelchairs strollers Bicycles into the first third of the of the right light rail. It's quiet then I Think it's fantastic. Do not please do not rip up the rail line. Thank you Thank you Good morning. My name is Laurie Negro. I am a fourth generation Santa Cruz native and the owner of Betty burgers I have three locations in Santa Cruz and a fourth opening in Aptos I also own the building on the corner of trout Gulch and Soquel where the railroad tracks have an easement through my property it was When I look at the size of the easement granted I see no room for a trail. Maybe I'm missing something I Also own property on 505 Seabright Avenue with a crossroad of Murray when the Christmas train ran a few years ago Working and dining at the location became almost intolerable with the blurring horns at the intersection Hiring and retaining employees in Santa Cruz as we all know has become extremely difficult not just for me It's across the board the idea of loud busy trains rolling through freight trains Rolling through the neighborhood will make it far worse having said that I believe a world-class trail would be an asset to all Obviously as a business owner along the rail corridor. I have a vested interest My understanding is that the Santa Cruz regional trans Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission Has owned the rail quarter for eight years. You would think they would be talking to property owners businesses Especially since Properties such as mine have the tracks on them. I have never heard from this organization who is really my neighbor It is difficult to understand how this organization can make long-term transportation investment plans without communicating with their neighbors Signing a long-term contract with an out-of-town railroad company is not in the best interest of our community I ask that you not approve the proposed train plan today, but ask RTC staff to reach out to its neighbors further Or reach out find a solution that works for all. I'm certainly willing to help. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your comments Welcome, Mr. Garrett. Thank you. I'm Brett Garrett from Santa Cruz I I strongly support doing the alternatives analysis that Metro has requested and I do strongly request that the analysis should include emerging Technologies such as personal rapid transit. I really appreciate the staff for expanding the recommendation to a more generalized high-capacity transit The phrase high capacity. I just want to emphasize at least my definition It needs to be a high-capacity system. It doesn't mean each vehicle needs to be high capacity We need high capacity in people per hour, which is not the same as a lot of people per vehicle I do want to suggest a couple of amendments to the proposed resolution and scenario Item 10 of the resolution authorizes the executive director to execute a license for progressive rail to run Excursion trains. I believe this goes well beyond what phase 2 requires I don't think excursion trains should be authorized until after the comprehensive Alternatives analysis is done It may be premature and dangerous to authorize the excursion trains because the contract basically says if the excursion train is Successful we won't have an option to run other forms of transit alongside or above the tracks Let's keep our options open to run a personal rapid transit system above the rail corridor PRT can coexist with railroad tracks and freight My other suggestion for amending the scenario goes with the recommendation from the campaign for sensible Sustainable transportation to remove the provisions for auxiliary lanes and HOV lanes. I do support bus on shoulder I think it can be done with minimal construction. It does not require the auxiliary lanes I support this CFST in their recommendation to not build the auxiliary lanes and HOV lanes. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir Morning, just a quick reminder. There's been some public Process regarding people's personal interest that I think is inappropriate. You're here to represent the public good Not a few people's quibble about trains in their backyard. If that doesn't work for them, they're welcome to move I think I wanted to recognize Commissioner Rodkins concerned PRT not being specifically mentioned here Just like ripping out rails failing to recognize something that could be useful in the future would be very short-sighted and counterproductive When I was born Los Angeles was tearing out rails now. They're spending hundreds of millions of dollars putting them back in You know, what's the problem if the rails seem compatible with bike trails pedestrian other uses and going back to PRT a Crucial link could be established between a train Let's say by the boardwalk parking lot and the metro center that would increase metro use it increased train use And be very small segment But a train that doesn't go anywhere people want to go really doesn't have much use and you won't get much Ridership so the PRT link could increase ridership metro feeding the train and from any Stop on the rail which would probably be the boardwalk down to the metro center This would be a pretty economical way to increase the feasibility of the rail much sooner than if there was not such a link So I'm just asking you know, I've asked you to build it tomorrow But let's be realistic don't preclude it ever being built at least by not mentioning it in your report. Thank you very much Thank you Welcome good morning commissures. My name is P. I canna from ecology action ecology action supports the staff draft preferred scenario But with the caveat that beyond the measure D approved auxiliary lanes We don't we don't support highway 1 projects that increase capacity car vehicle capacity Beyond public transit which reduce support on the highway So and then I did I wanted to also state Two specific things so one one request is in the resolution as it's worded now when they talk about bike lanes improvements on the Soquel freedom corridor I believe it's the wording is stated as buffeted versus protected and I would ask that Language to be insured that clearly states along this corridor that Protected bike lanes are preferred over buffeted Realizing that the full length of the corridor you can't have protected bike lanes but to prioritize those and clearly state that in the resolution and anywhere else in the UCS the state that that would that would be great and then also the second thing You know commissioner rockin brought up earlier About programs Programs can be implemented tomorrow They can help the RTC staff and partners can work with residents and work sites to make sure that what we have we can better utilize to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and Gasoline fueled drive-alone trips to reduce those those types of trips in Santa Cruz So it asks that that those those programs be better prioritized in the language So there's a way to insert text to say you know the RTC staff will work They're called transportation demand management programs that those be prioritized as something that they can be can be done tomorrow So a lot of these projects are going to take years to implement And we can prioritize some of those programs. I appreciate it. Thank you Hello, Mr. House. Good morning. My name is Yonika sauce and the executive director of bikes in a cruise County Today you have the opportunity to support sustainable progress Bicycling can provide the solution that we all seek a healthy and clean form of transportation for all Your decision today has the potential to give the green light to construct the rail trail and what mr. Preston says could take as little as 10 years Please support keeping the tracks so that we can build the rail trail as soon as possible The rail trail is not the only important project in the UCS Protected bike lanes on the Soquel freedom corridor have the potential to drastically reduce safety hazards and exponentially increase Ridership because they provide a physically separated facility on a major cross-county route Please update the resolution language to include protected and buffered bike lanes on the Soquel freedom corridor Lastly bike Santa Cruz County feels the evidence for passenger rail in our county is significant and we support continuing to consider passenger rail service options Please adopt the staff recommendation and thank you for your dedication and commitment to our community And thank you for your continued support of safe and comfortable bicycling in Santa Cruz County. Thank you Welcome Good morning. My name is Ed Porter, and I'm the president of Santa Cruz PRT We brought you a couple weeks ago in an electronic form this brochure about ATN personal rapid transit and automated transit networks And another paper copy today Which I hope you all received I was made slightly nervous by Kind of a key comment by staff as we started this item and that was the shovel ready reference Which I think started with President Obama And I would like to think maybe that was the area when that was the key consideration because shovel ready kind of excludes What I'm here to talk to you about today and that is elevated solar-powered PRT ATM And I'd really like to see a fresh and believable commitment from our RTC To reducing our Transportation CO2 emissions that's in the pie chart of all the CO2 emissions the biggest slice And something that we can really get at right now Whereas many of the others we can't do as much about but we can take a big chunk out of it With this kind of transportation and when you open the meeting with those young ladies from Sweden I wondered why why did they come to Santa Cruz and why are they telling this group about that subject and Saying that it's something that should be a top priority Is there a climate mandate for us on the RTC? I'm not sure But are we willing to forget about carbon emissions or are willing to or do we want to do something about them? Are we willing to forget about safety and the? 30 to 40,000 people killed on highways every year in the United States or the 8,000 people killed on so-called light rail every year in the United States I think we should have those in our top priorities and With PRT The record is it's 100% safe unheard of that's the light rail that we need. Thank you, sir Hello Hi Karina McFarlane live oak the morning I've despite my accent. I've lived in Santa Cruz for 20 years and in the States nearly 30 I Benefited from training with the Santa Cruz probation department in restorative justice to keep first-time offenders out of the criminal system So I'm very interested in models that help Get us to a place better than we are today each time and you know now I've submitted before the deadline and it's in the public record that we did actually go through a randomly select Citizens from all points of the county and take them through this dynamic Facilitation and the most profound thing for me that I want to share is that I've never been in a civic discourse Where I was silent for 11 hours. I was a silent witness So all of us who are training to do this dynamic facilitation Did not say a word and we watched these seven citizens come in and say well the trainer be nice And but I you know I read this and I read that and well, I don't know who the bad guys are and Some of that somebody's got to be the bad guy And but wouldn't that be nice and wouldn't this be nice and and and in the room It just shifted and shifted and shifted until they had this Wow, we have this incredible opportunity the coastal corridor and It could be rebranded and it could be like the Jack O'Neill wetsuit of before and the one-wheel Skateboard like the whole of the country could be looking look what Santa Cruz did with the the coastal corridor They did arrive at that they would like to see it rail banked and they would like to see it be the most phenomenal beyond what anyone's seen or been in Multimodality transport trip transit corridor. Thank you. Thank you Paul shell hammer the preferred scenario before you now accomplishes two important things First it puts the trail only concept behind us Allowing trail construction to proceed consistent with the award-winning trail master plan you previously adopted This is important because this year is shaping up as the year of trail construction and we need to get on with that construction without further interruption and second it moves us forward toward having a real rail transit proposal to consider one with equipment and Frequency and stations specified One with so that we can look at specific costs and benefits up to now the rail transit debate has been a war of hypotheticals and fear mongers With a real CIR with a real sequel EIR out in public we will see for the first time Exactly what is being proposed and what the consequences would be? This will get us to a more informed more substantive and less emotional discussion Exactly where we need to be There are two cautions As to how you should proceed from here First you need to keep the tracks on this right away What you put on those tracks is a different question, but you need the tracks for two reasons You need tracks as a necessary part of not having to ship 15 million local dollars back to Sacramento and you need tracks to fully protect the Continuity of the right-of-way and your ownership of it Rail property easements are a miserably complicated subject and there is more than one way to end up With only bits and pieces of a right-of-way that do no one any good and second you need to make sure That the process of deciding between BRT and transit does not Does not metastasize into two full thank you sir alternative analysis with those cautions I urge you to support. Thank you the preferred scenario Hi, my name is Jessica Evans, and I live in Santa Cruz the city of Santa Cruz So you know that I support from past comments that I support Preserving the rail easement for future use and mass transportation I think potentially there could even be some freight shipping into North County at some point which would save a lot of co2 emissions because freight transport is safer and More efficient than truck freight But I'm really here speaking at this moment because I'm I'm actually Very concerned that the overall Unified corridor study came back and made a recommendation that doesn't seem to focus on reducing vehicle miles traveled I feel like having I don't quite understand what happened between scenario B and scenario preferred scenario which sort of shovels in a huge amount of freeway widening Possibly just so that everyone will feel like they got a piece of the pie There's no actual freeway widening potential before 2035 so how would congestion Be a thing that got relieved before 2035. There's no funding for anything before 30 25 So congestion relief wouldn't happen before 2035 and add to that, you know all congestion relief on freeways is temporary So what would we be buying by putting millions and millions of dollars into, you know, if we could get them I just don't understand it like how does it make sense to widen the freeway increase vehicle miles traveled? The plan to increase vehicle miles travel the plan to increase greenhouse gas emissions relative to baseline that we get from you know having Higher fuel standards We don't have any Actual source of funding for this like why do we have that in the unified quarter study? Thank you. Thank you There I had a slide And it says one minute for some reason I'm hoping I get to Mono Koenig Santa Cruz County Greenway. Good morning honorable commissioners I'm urging you to vote no on the preferred scenario and approving the UC UCS today because it does not include the necessary Economic and environmental analysis that was promised in measure D You can see here a quote from the measure D voter approved expenditure plan that promises those two things before we move forward with the corridor and Unfortunately the UCS lacks both environmental and economic analysis in terms of economic analysis There's not a cost benefit analysis the performance measures that were mentioned look only at benefits But not at cost and in fact when you divide the benefits of the preferred scenario by the cost it becomes anything but the preferred scenario Second you don't look at the most critical economic Piece of analysis, which is the cost per trip and when you use the numbers from the unified corridor study And again divide the number of users by the cost you can see that bike and pedestrian infrastructure Outperforms all the others hands down Maybe that's why communities all over the country indeed all over the world are investing so heavily in trail infrastructure And let's make no mistake This will reduce traffic on the highway as any of you who were driving last week noticed There was an eerie calm on Friday evening as you went south and that was because schools were out And so the trail will allow North County families to get off the roads and onto the trail so that South County breadwinners can get to work and what's as you can see here is that Rail doesn't make any sense and the thousand signatures that we collected on the Greenway Petitions stated not only that people wanted to trail But they don't think a train makes economic sense And I think you have the wisdom of the crowds evident here And so I'm worried that if we try to build the trail around the rail line. We are putting our best idea Hostage to our worst idea The other part is you haven't done the environmental analysis it was promised in measure D You're about to commit 15 million dollars to fix up the rail without the environmental or economic analysis promised. Thank you Thank you so much for listening to all of us And thank you for being well being willing to sit in your chairs of decision-making Responsibility I'm Jack Nelson. I'm a retired environmental planner and land use planner I'm a member of the campaign for sensible transportation. I'm also the chair of the Sierra clubs transportation committee I appreciate Jillian already sharing some of the Sierra clubs letter with you the this morning Within the preferred scenario, I'd like to zero in on one component which is widening of highway one and We've got a new document that was just released January 3rd I'm holding volume one of three main volumes before me. It's the highway one finally I are and It's it's been curious to me that in the past three years your commission has never had a study session on the draft EIR and I'm not sure how far you've cracked open this finally I are but here's one heart-stopping Item from within this first volume table three dash one Shows that with the HOV lanes preferred alternative that vehicle miles traveled would increase 2035 by 103 million vehicle miles per year This can only be a recipe for climate catastrophe Yes, you can get consultants who will torture the numbers efficiently so that they confess that There's going to be this Goldilocks world where traffic is going to flow at fuel-efficient speeds and Queenhouse gases despite all those vehicle miles will magically go down. I Don't believe it So and I'm also appreciating Gail McNulty Bringing in the Swedish 15 year old girl to talk to you this morning She's she's right You know, I've heard from some of you that you feel it's not politically feasible to do the right thing But it's your obligation. Thank you. Thank you Good morning again Michael St. Campaign for sustainable transportation I've changed my presentation four times over the last 45 minutes, so I'll get to it try not to repeat things Campaign for sustainable transportation does not support the preferred scenario in nor the 2035 and primarily for what people have said It's very car eccentric and after hearing Ginger die car present this morning. I understand the city of Santa Cruz would like More car eccentric Performance they want to move to the additional lanes over the bridge San Lorenzo River also the mission street intersection improvements And they even mentioned so Cal as more improvements So that moves three more car projects over to the scenario possibly Out of the 11 boxes that would be filled at that time five of them are automobile oriented and that's for our Since sensible or sustainable transportation people. That's way way over the board. We basically had supported be without any car Involvement at all. So that's where we are at this present time I also want to go back to 2003 and 4 when they were doing a study similar to this There was a comment made that to keep congestion from exceeding 15 percent Metro would have to increase to 8.5 percent of Carried in Pasadena for the trip for the county We're not even close to that actually the latest numbers I could get off the RTC website from 2011 and 12 cars are doing 85 percent Which is the heavy load walking 10 percent transit was as low as 1.8 to 3 percent And then they also had biking at around 3.2 percent So we haven't done anything and I think this scenario does not do much for transit You do have a bus on shoulders, but I believe that's in combination with cars on the ox lanes The time are my dad. Thank you. That was quick.  From an engineer's perspective your your study if you're gonna put PRT in there you have to include Using it as a trail. So we asked that Secondly Davenport to Wilder That's not part of the study Can we accept that you're not gonna have a train running up to Davenport from Wilder? So we're asking you and I just come from the farmers from the farmers that you do not include that Part of the giveaway to progressive rail ended at Wilder because that will ensure That we move forward with a trail because you are will likely lose the ten million dollar grant Because of the delays if we have to Go to court and fight we don't want that and that's gonna happen if you have a train You don't need the train Please pull that as part of the progressive the other thing I want to encourage is take a moment back and call CTC staff. I've been talking to them There's a lot of misconceptions of what's going on in the way of proposition 116 funds being returned You have the opportunity you should have your staff go talk to them and find out the true requirements They are actually surprised that you're not gonna go and ask for funding from SB one and self-help County With that new tier one Completion on highway one you are in a great position to get SB one self-help County to widen highway one and to throw the train as the priority now That's confusing to them Don't go and send the wrong message to them Please you need to go and talk to CTC staff before you approve this. Thank you. Thank you, Brian I am Steven Slade executive director of the land trust We only have an opinion on one aspect of this study, which is the trail I and we have an opinion on it because we committed five million dollars of matching funds we're funding partner and so far we've only raised three and a half million and Honestly, you cannot raise money for a project until this commission Settles the issue of are we building the rail trail according to the master plan or not? so I urge you to make a decision and I know it's confusing because we just heard from someone used to be trail now advocating for trail delay and Of course, the real issue here is the train not the trail We only care about the trail and building it as soon as possible. You have the plan We are willing to provide matching funds. Let's get it done. Thank you. Thank you, sir Good morning. My name is Bill Spence. I live in the silver beach the silver beach improvement association voted overwhelmingly in 2th October of 2017 to oppose rail in the corridor if the Commission votes to move ahead with phase 2 that Commits the county to rebuild rail on the quarter That is in direct opposition to the desires of the residents of the silver beach Further the rail right of way at the silver is one of the narrowest in the county the scenic trail master plan states that the right of Way is between 40 and 60 feet in this segment a physical measurement with a tape measure Shows that it's less than 30 feet that 10 feet is critical based on the details of the same plan a 30-foot Right-of-way would only support an 8-foot path. Is that acceptable the path is 12 feet everywhere else within the plan By forcing rail on to the quarter higher What I hear alternative higher density transportation such as carts and bikes That could leverage the quarter are going to be limited in our choices by that choke point But what if the Commission decides later than 8 foot path is too narrow after putting rail in the In the quarter what will the Commission do then will people on bikes be forced off the corridor of Manresa on to busy surface Streets like San Andreas to get around the problem just like Capitola La Silva Beach could not support the influx of people and traffic on our streets The corridor traffic must stay in the corridor through the silver beach as promised in the scenic trail master plan Otherwise it will destroy the fabric of our community The trestle of silver has a similar physical problem if the rail is not required The trestle could easily be converted to carry people and bikes over the drainage and stay in the corridor the rail on the quarter Rail on the quarter requires a completely new structure for people's and bikes to be built on the inland side of the trestle But where does it go? Having corridor traffic pushed on the silver streets and down into the drainage is not an option even if that's temporary Again the mass of people and traffic will completely disrupt our community and way of life. Thank you, sir Please keep people on the trail Ryan Sanataro live oak One of the most disturbing and annoying Parts of this debate is the fake news that you can have a trail and the train. I'm sorry It doesn't fit you got one or the other Assertions by organizations that are supported by the RTC at the ground breaking The other day. Oh, we're getting the trail now. No, you're not getting the trail now you're getting a path and That path is inadequate for the transportation needs of this county. It's inadequate for a vision of the future Really you the the fact that we've got to this point here and people are still saying oh you can have the rail and the trail We're the facts in this we do need to come if we don't have a common set of facts We're not going to be able to make a reasonable decision And it seems to me that there's enough people on this commission who are Laboring under this misconception that we can still have both we at some point It will be proven that we can't have both and if that's 30 years in the future or that's now It seems to me it would be much better for the decision to be made now to take those rails out and Exploit the opportunity that we have to turn the Santa Cruz rail corridor into a world-class destination and a world-class personal transportation system personal transportation Infrastructure that will move more people than you could possibly Imagine will ever sit on a train subsidized by taxpayers on unhappy with their increased property taxes sales taxes and other bills, so please Reconsider thank you afternoon My name is Johanna Lai Hill. I live in Amptos I I've spoken before and I addressed you about the UCS and how I found that it was I I Sighted specific inconsistencies on tables and what have you today. I don't want to talk about that I understand it's a broad scope it focuses on the corridors just true to its name focuses on transportation between Watsonville Santa Cruz and and Not much in between and that's what I wanted to talk to you about they brought the study is a compilation of a lot of other studies and I went on the RTC website and found some of the studies they drew upon and one was the household California household travel survey of 2012 and they use these tables, but they didn't use the center table And I urge you to go look and what what specifically says is it in Santa Cruz County the trip lengths Two miles or less are 40% of all trips So that means people are not going very far and of course they do use the the highway and they will use the corridor, but 65% of all trips are five miles or less and I hope that you will consider that too Where I live I live within walking distance of a shopping center if I were to be able to access the trail If there's rail and trail there will be a huge fence That separates me from the trail I will have to walk a half a mile out of the way and then a half a mile back then the half a mile to the shopping center I I urge you to look at other people like me in communities How will this the projects affect people individually and how might they use? Inside their communities rather than from point A to point B. Thank you. Thank you Welcome missioners. My name is Gray Jameson. I live in live oak I'm a high school senior and I took the morning off school to be here today I'd like to speak to you about The unified quarter study because that's what we're all here for So the first thing that I have a big problem with about trail only is the weather today It's very rainy and I don't know how so many people got here I got here by driving a car because I had no other way that was feasible and I don't think that people will be riding bikes in this weather I could barely see driving with the windshield wipers at full blast So I don't think that biking in this weather as at all safe even on a protected trail And public transit is a much better option than that Secondly, I work at the boardwalk and I live within a 15-minute walk of The 41st Avenue rail junction that could be a station and I would ride that every day that I would have work And I hear from many of my colleagues at the boardwalk that they would do the same and many of them live in Watsonville and complain Constantly about the traffic situation that our county is facing I would also like to talk about the fact That Okay, I think your time you're doing good. Sure. Okay We need transportation options our county is barely holding on with its bus system like Alex Clifford said I try to take the bus as much as I can. I don't own a car. I don't plan to and Biking in this county is difficult. We support biking and we have fairly good bike infrastructure in many places But we don't have enough and we need to support that and we need to trail right now I was there at the groundbreaking and it was wonderful and I cannot wait to be able to ride my bike over that new bridge Because when I don't take public transit to get to work I bike and that bridge is the connection to my work. Thank you Thanks for coming up Good afternoon Keith Otto at the last meeting. I said we all have another think coming. Let's Think carefully Before decisions are made at the June meeting discussion among commissioners included the will of the people being mentioned multiple times And if or when phase 2 is affirmed, there's no mechanism for the RTC to exit the contract No exit this item alone should give us pause at the December meeting Commissioner staff the director described the preferred scenario as a list of potential projects that might be considered Not a commitment to any particular project the item before you today is very different Let's be very clear the grant of a phase 2 license very much Commits to the use of trains in the rail corridor for one It requires the RTC to repair the tracks from Buena Vista to Davenport Investments in rail train services are too costly to implement are too costly to maintain that maintenance being a forever liability I Support freight services in Watsonville increased investment in SC Metro increased investment in Highway 1 including HOV lanes to enable express bus service and promote ride sharing Many agree with my view, but not everybody does So let's vote to clearly determine the will of the people this will either confirm or Correct the RTC direction at some point the commissioner the commission is going to ask taxpayers for more funds You need overwhelming support. You need to get this right Let's vote vote no on the item today vote no on future investments in rail until the will of the people can be Determined thank you for your consideration in these very important. Thank you Good morning, Krishna director of public work city of Santa Cruz, and I want to thank ginger for bringing up the council action on December 11th I Wanted to emphasize a couple of things our projects that we are talking about are in the regional transportation plan It's important for the city that this the UCIS Doesn't preclude us from asking for federal and state funding for those projects in the future, and that's the primary point of that I Want to emphasize multimodal We do multimodal improvements and intersections. It's for everyone's use We want to make sure transit can get through emergency services goods and services are delivered and Biking pedestrian safety a project at an intersection where we add a protected left-turn lane who benefits from that Clearly, it's better access. It's better safety, but bikes and pedestrians on the parallel corridor Their safety is what's really improved with that it improves. It's amazing how much improves for bikes and pedestrians We want to make sure we're able to include the totality of the project Funded under any program, and that's the important part Again, it serves everyone transit emergency services goods and services bikes pedestrians Yes, and cars. So thank you very much. Thank you Good morning. My name is Ashley Wynn from Los Alva Beach I'm not going to belabor points. I've made in the past I do want to point out I want to raise a question that I would like to see addressed here and that is if the commission adopts the preferred scenario Does that foreclose the possibility of having hove lanes? sought sought after prior to 2035 The report of the staff clearly shows that The transit times with hove lanes is 32 minutes the transit time with bus on shoulders is 40 and Rail transit is 41 clearly Hov lanes are the superior option in the only way we get to a preferred solution in terms of people's Lifestyles and the quality of life Obviously hove lanes should require electric vehicles in the future to address climate change issues. I Heard the Watsonville City Council debate this they were very concerned about adding hove lanes And that's the only thing that's really going to help so my question to you as a board is Will adopting this preclude hove lanes Prior to 2035 or preclude the staff from seeking Hove lanes prior to 2035 if it does I urge you to reject it And I think the metro for imposing An important issue and that is whether environmental Electric buses small electric buses on the rail Corridor makes more sense Then the lunacy the economic lunacy of a train on tracks On us that sit on a cliff that won't be there in 60 years. Thank you, sir. Hello Peter Stanger again I just wanted to put my two bits in and ask that you not accept the preferred scenario for the UCIS I Really very much want to see Transportation in our county improved as a South County resident I Would like to see be able to get on a bus and get up to Santa Cruz without having to fight the traffic Yeah, I own two cars, but yeah, I also prefer bicycling. I Would like to see our bicycle Infrastructure made safe. I mean we're leading the state in deaths With bicyclists and injuries with bicyclists. There's nothing to be proud about and If we embark on the train scenario as being put out here today Most of the money is going to be going right away to improving those tracks and so we can get our ducks in a row and Start moving ahead with a rail That's really not what we need right now. What we need is transportation What we need is base is safe bicycling and I urge you to keep that in mind. Thank you. Thank you Berry Scott apt us. Sorry. I'm late. What did I miss? Yeah, really, you know, I want to thank the commissioners the this is such a a The process is is the kind of thing that if we had young voters following it They might might get discouraged from voting, but it takes a lot of it does it takes a lot of homework and a lot of research and a lot of work on all of your parts to To make a decision on something so huge and that's why we have studies and that's why we have a process How many studies have we had and at a certain point you have to have faith in that process? I have faith in that process I've been waiting for for years for something to come out and I I Suspected that rail, you know a rail line that's been there 143 years already for good to say And and the success of rail around the world. We already have a rail line I was pretty sure that the studies would conclude that this is what we need to do That doesn't make it easy to do though. It's an expensive thing and there's it's an unpopular thing To some people so you know what do you do? But but be careful, you know Bill Monning came to a small group and he spoke about votes that he had and he said you know The one thing I never did was was vote to make sure that I would be reelected So I always had to vote for the right thing. That's what he said. I believe that Can't be always easy to do it can't always be the popular thing to vote for the right thing to do And I'll say this because I know there's a big call for it. Let's put it to the public to a vote Ask yourself. What would have happened during the the civil rights era? If school for school for you know equal education for everyone had been put to the to the popular vote Don't don't don't plan that way. Follow the process. You have consultants You have planners you have the rest of the world to look at for the success of rail transit I I hope that you'll vote yes on the resolution I hope that you'll get a progressive rail phase two. Thank you. Thank you, sir Hi, and thank you again for your attention and receptiveness.  We have to get people out of cars It's that that's a fundamental issue and there's gonna be a resistance Of course, and we all know this and you're hearing a lot of it today From what I can from what I can tell not just from today But from reading the papers and talking to people a lot of it is natural fear of change And that's completely understandable and then a big chunk of it too is protecting interests and I've heard that today at times and I urge you to resist Those two sources of resistance because they're based on fear and greed If we were gonna do what's right, and we know what's right is to get people out of cars We have to have an alternative, and I'm open to anything anything But this does seem like the best one we have the land we have tracks the technology is old But the science isn't putting a large vehicle that can house Lumber of people and bicycles and a lot of things in it on smooth metal Physics is is in a favor of this idea There are other ideas out there, and I welcome them I've heard a few today, and that's great that we're considering them But at the same time of course you guys all have to be practical So we need an alternative and this does seem like the best one It does come with risks, and I and I'm afraid of them too just like a lot of other people And I do think we need to very closely examine costs There are legitimate concerns that I've heard about ridership and about erosion And but I know we have a lot of professionals looking at this all day long now for years I urge you to do the right thing and to be courageous You got to push through this resistance. Thank you sir. Hi Hello, I'm Sean from I'm an advocate for the disabled and special needs community Every vision Santa Cruz County meeting and workshop had the same first concerns traffic homelessness crime and mental health crises Many attendees meant those that they could see people get stuck downtown when arrested suspects are brought downtown Then release downtown many are without support And who does anyone go to when they need help to their friends if you need mental or physical health care It's on Emeline Street Watsonville only serves traffic or small claims court Cases once a week City of Watsonville is treated like a child by Santa Cruz The Santa Cruz Watsonville divide started when the railroad was first planned on our coast There were different plans in competition and since then someone has always profited from encouraging an Imaginary divide of race and culture and the disability community needs people movers 19 of a hundred Americans lives with a disability We all have the same needs Disabled people are doing everything that you are and some locals are doing things that no one else in the world is doing Jeff Denholm leases a fleet of fire engines to our state forestry service and brought some market a biodegradable fire retardant already Stock piled around the state before the campfire the most expensive natural disaster in history Foster Anderson broke his neck in a motorcycle accident then moved across the country to serve the needs of the disabled Santa Cruz community for 30 years. I Develop adaptive athletic teams and find them full funding for US and Hawaiian events the technologies that allow mobility Are not coming in 2035. They're here now and the train is one of them. We're supposed to be helping one another That's the reason we're all here today Please do not delay to meet the needs of all of our community members cooperation is what makes America great Thank you Commissioners Lowell Hurst from city of Watsonville I think you've heard it all today and I think you've heard it all over the months and over the years and actually over the decades as Well, you guys should be experts on this already and I think you are let's move forward. Let's be bold. Let's be brave Let's be smart Don't wimp out Do the right thing. Thank you. Thank you And on that note, I'm gonna go ahead and close the public comment period I'll bring it back one one thing I wanted to say before we the commissioners decide on this is We have two recommendations in front of us as you can see on the staff report One and two one considers the final draft of the unified quarter study and two is granting of st Paul the license I'm gonna split those up into two separate votes So we're gonna have two items to talk about so first item We're gonna talk about is consider the finding of the final draft unified quarter study. I'm gonna start with Commissioner Leopold Chair are we making motions? Are we just taking comments? What what's this is we're gonna have the conversation at a motion This is this is that where we this is what we've all been waiting for Okay. All right. Well, thank you chair and thank you for everyone's participation Today and through the many months in which we've had this discussion, you know, the unified quarter study Started about a year ago In the terms of a public process there were public meetings held there was tremendous amount of outreach there were requested meetings There were additional meetings added. There were focus groups with stakeholders We've heard hours of public testimony. We scheduled a special meeting in the evening to hear public testimony Where we heard more? Testimony we've received emails letters. Many of us have received visits It's a dense report that has a lot of information some of which is easily Acquired and some which takes a lot of work to understand what exactly it means We've had lots of chances to ask questions And I think it's If we had everybody stand up we could this commission could probably tell you where everybody in this room stands on this Because we've heard from you a bunch of times The one thing that we learned in the in the conversation That led to the successful passage of measure D is that we as a community don't want just one thing We want many things we we care about a multimodal future Because we we choose to get around in different ways some choose to get around in cars some on bikes Some would like other alternatives And some get around on buses and one thing I know Because I spent a lot of time help the helping us acquire the rail corridor is that there was a Commitment from this commission and a and a requirement from our funders to look at transit on that corridor They won a train and for a long time it seemed like that would be the only thing we would consider and But during this process we've taken a look at a number of different things. We've Heard from our transit partner in the transit district about doing an alternative analysis in which we are going to take a look at the different Transportation Alternatives that could go on there But the fact remains is that we're going to have transit on the rail corridor In the future and we're going to have a path That it's going to be mainly 12 feet wide there might be some places where it's only eight feet wide But we will have an opportunity to have a 32-mile path that's protected from Traffic and That will serve in the needs of people and we have already started construction Just last week we started construction on on a small piece But later on this year the city of Santa Cruz is going to start on segment 7 Hopefully in 2020 we'll have completed the work to start the five miles on the north coast Either this year or next year we start design work on a segment 9 which was connects see bright to To 17th Avenue And once the design work is done we can start construction there So we're underway with the construction of this trail The the recommendation that's before us Is a good recommendation It doesn't mean that everything is my preference I'm not a great fan of putting more concrete on the highway But I do think that if we want to could seriously consider bush on shoulder We've done the analysis there isn't the the possibility of doing that with our existing concrete And if we add the auxiliary lanes, which there are some who consider that to be important for their for their car That also provides a great opportunity for us with the bus and we've one thing that we've heard and it may be a Unifying factor in our transportation discussions is people like our transit district and they want better options on For our transit district and so making sure that we have the infrastructure to be able to support our transit district becomes important so I think that this recommendation helps us add that infrastructure to be able to Support the bus on shoulders and it help increase the reliability Of getting the bus to and from north and south county or vice versa I think the issue of of bicycle travel is really important and one of the things we know in creating the the Monterey Bay Sanctuary scenic trail or the rail trail Is that having it separated from cars makes it a lot safer and which we believe and Most of the bicycle people that I talked to say will encourage people to actually ride We shouldn't think that that's the only place where Protection from vehicles is is a great idea and if I find fault in this recommendation And I would suggest that we make changes and prioritize Protected bike lanes rather than simply buffered bike lanes where that is Possible Yeah It's it's it's really critical that people feel safe on their bike and any but any of us who've ridden a bike on Soquel Drive or freedom or As some streets, it's it can be terrifying and if you have children with you all the more so so and Whatever we can do to promote and prioritize protected bike lanes seems much better than buffered on the I'll just add my comments about the rail is We made a commitment when we purchased this line to have some kind of rail service on there We tried to make it Make the requirements as least impactful as possible but what we thought we needed to have the conversation with the public but we do have requirements there and Since we're going to be maintaining that that corridor for transit We should continue our Our contract with progressive rail who is shown to be so far a good partner With us on the rail line that's currently open and we should complete the repairs of the rail line and allow them to to seek Freight service on the North County Because when they are if they are successful that does take trucks off the roads and that's safety and congestion relief And if excursion service works That's a benefit because one of the pillars of our economy is tourism So I think it's important for us to move forward. It does not preclude us looking at other things on that corridor for transit but for those who think it's It's going to be easy to extricate ourselves from having a rail line I as someone who was very involved in just acquiring the rail line Even when we were purchasing the rail line under the exact same conditions that the previous owner had It took a long time just to get that through the STB and that was that was not making any changes The last thing I'll say is that for those people who think that we should have direct democracy on this and just vote on something The the history is not great When when this commission in 2004 decided that they would primarily Put a measure they would put a measure on the ballot that primarily had HOV lanes required a two-thirds vote and It got 47% So when we put a multimodal measure on there that addressed many different needs We got the necessary two-thirds so Putting something on there without the adequate information doesn't necessarily mean that we'll get a good sense of what people want and We have spent so much time so much energy. We have received so much testimony that there are 12 Representatives most of us elected To be able to sort through that and and make a decision we are representatives of the people So I don't support going out and and just trying to say yay or nay on a particular point of view So I would be prepared to move the recommendations and the change the resolution just to put protected bike lanes instead of buffered or protected bike bike lanes In this resolution Is there a second? Okay We also like that. I'll start down this end. Mr. Cap. I was gonna mention that At one point every all of you in order to get to this position We're allies There's people that are for the bike. There's people for the trail people for the rail rail line and so I'm I'm for all three of them and I know there are people that say if you're all for all three of them They're all gonna fail. I don't think so. I'm ready to move forward I think we if somebody said hey, we're gonna move forward and we're gonna drop the bicycle path I would be against that I would say no we have to have the bicycle path if they said we're not gonna have a walking trail But we're gonna go for rail and bike. I'd say no And if you say you're gonna have the bike and the walking trail only and not have rail I would say no So what I'm saying is saying is we were allies at one point and we should be allies right now We want to go forward doing nothing is really not an option We can't just sit here and not do anything with it. We have to move forward I think what we're voting on today is we're gonna be moving forward I did hear one comment that You know farmers are for the bikes and for the walking trail There are farm farmers that are only for the rail line and passenger services, okay, and freight services, okay They don't want people on bikes going through their farmland. They don't want people walking through their farmland because of when they do pesticide and You know putting Pesticide out on their fields so they don't want to be have people exposed to that, but we purchased a rail line when I first got on the board of the supervisors and I Remember it clearly it said we're purchasing a rail line. We can't just now say we're changing the deed I think that deed has strong limitations on what we can do We can't just discard the the rail line. It's it runs with the land it runs with the Purchase it's part of the contract and is there any clarification on that am I correct? If we said we're not going to do anything with the rail We're just going to do a bike trail and a walking trail Would we be violating the contract and maybe conditions that are running and with the lands? I'm going I'm going to read directly from a letter that we received from the California Transportation Commission As you are aware proposition 116 funds must be used for rail projects within Santa Cruz Which facilitate recreational commuter inner-city and inner-county travel? Okay, and then I'll close out by saying this I've heard about banking But to me the problem with the word banking it sounds like you can go and make a deposit and then Within a day or two if you need money you can go and make a withdrawal When you bank a rail line You're only banking it and you're not going to be able to get it back I mean it's not that easy we're talking about years once it's banked and it's paved over you don't just go and Bring it back without a huge delay and a huge amount of money So anyway, I'm just making that clear. So I'm ready to vote on this and well I want to hear from every other committee. I agree I'll second the motion though. The motion has been second. I'll go to Commissioner Bertrand. Yeah, thank you I'll be honest My Christmas had sort of a pale over it After we decided to put off our vote and move to now In general, I think public is in a similar situation We've been asked to make a decision that we know is going to come back to us in the form of a tax rate increase Maybe some other kind of thing like for property owners Levy on their property What are the issues that's bothered me is trying to make sense of What the proposals are there in all these different scenarios and how they best Meet the needs of this community That's why I jumped on to the RTC because I thought the UCS would provide that I'm a little more confused Yes, SB 1 says we need to look at all these different categories and those are addressed in the UCS and So we're following the law But it doesn't leave me with the clear feeling That we can afford it So I have an MBA I was the city treasurer Capitola and I started focusing on What is feasible? There's a lot of aspirational goals that we have. I would love to remodel my house if you saw it You could tell why I? Would love to do all sorts of other things My car is a wreck. I just got him one. Maybe I should get another one because it doesn't look nice Or I would love to put my kids through better schools But those are aspirational things and you do what you can do Based on what your income is in this case, it's the income that Santa Cruz residents through commercial activity Whether it's wage or whether its visitors Can afford us in terms of tax revenues so my earlier comments was Talking about metros Take on this And I was very happy to see What I think is a change in the direction of the RTC if metro says that we're Almost at the brink of being able to provide decent service Many of us were in the room when we heard people from transportation Areas of this country talk to us about what makes sense is a decent metro system decent fares best able to expand and contract as needed but when metro comes to us and says We need to look carefully at what the options are and do what I think a lot of us think of When we're trying to make a decision that's a financial decision is a cost-benefit analysis of what we're going to get for the Dollars we're going to spend I was very encouraged. I met with guy. I was very encouraged to hear him say That this is something that I would like to move forward on It's in our resolution Not the way I would write it, but it's the same content and I don't want to put words in the RTC's mouth But my sense is that we're not going to move forward on things that we can't afford. I Hope that's correct the proposals that the RTC will get as they make Recommendations will be proposals that come to us and we'll have to make decisions on that So some of those are going to be in the future But also as it says in the resolution that we don't have a preferred solution right now We don't have preferred ways to move forward because we're going to evaluate To me this is what you need to do When you determine that you're going to take the best use of public dollars The best use of public dollars is an enormous responsibility Because every time we decide to spend money on something we're taking money away from something else We have huge needs in this community Educate our children You can't walk almost anywhere in cap in in capital or partially but in Santa Cruz and see homeless issues housing The rose aren't just bad on how we won there hot there bad all up and down the valley. I was in San Lorenzo Valley We have huge needs in this area So in terms of a cost-best analysis, how much money we're going to take away from the public purse and spend on something That's in the quarter To some extent is aspirational, but we need that analysis to figure out if it's still something that's possible Few other points. I am for protective bike lanes. I've Done cross-country biking having a truck go by you semi is not fun I Look in terms of the Excursion rail. I would love to start talking with roaring camp and encourage this excursion rail up north I'm not sure where it should end, but I think that is a high possibility For success. I think it's been said Bruce just mentioned that one of the main aspects one of the main stool seat One of the main Things that support this area in terms of economic activity is tourism I was on focus ag and I talked to people up in Davoport. They would love to have people come up that way I'm very very very very happy to see That part of this is going to be an integrative approach to how we're going to how we're going to plan our Transportation we're going to have buses. How are they going to link into something that's potentially on the quarter How are we going to link with you see how we're going to link with the bus schedules of stuff like that? We had someone very articulately Detail how we have so many problems right now with Metro I'm from Capitola try to get a connection at our bus terminal from Santa Cruz to somewhere else. It's very on You just can't predict it. This is not working So I'd like to close with this you did hear some comments from mr. Woodside who was part of the smart Effort that's seemingly successful and Marin Sonoma And I think his comments have to be taken very seriously We need The the base to support any kind of effort that's going to demand an economic Excuse me an economic draw in terms of taxes They have it in Marin they have it in Sonoma So what are we going to do that? Somehow solves our transportation issues, but still within our budget still within our means to do it And that's what I'm looking forward to in this analysis that I hope we provide It was also said earlier that provide that information to the public in ways. They can understand it Ultimately we just talked about direct election Ultimately if the public cannot understand the information given to it You're not going to get the support The ultimate here is the ballot box Thank you Commissioner Kaufman Gomez Thank You chair I Want to be clear that this resolution is to maximize the benefits for safety efficient mobility health equity Natural environment and economic vitality All of these have been brought up as concerns from everybody that has spoke at the podium here as well as what we've done here as commissioners to read through the materials Listen to what RTC has been providing us with documentation and substantiating that documentation from outside agencies and I just want to be very crystal clear that my vote today is Based off of all of the information I'm collecting all of the discussions I've had with you that have had an opportunity to meet with me one-on-one or the Infamous emails where we're all been going through as well I've made a dedicated effort to make sure that I was able to go out there to meet with you to do my due diligence To read everything Into research as much as I can especially being one of the newest commissioners here with quite a large learning curve I know that there's also a lot of misinformation that's out there and it's been really frustrating to hear What's going on with cherry picking and and and the like which is another reason why I Don't take it from what the print is telling me But to make sure from where the agency resource comes from that's giving us the information We're using for this report Before I'm even reaching to any conclusions This vote is to represent Watsonville Those are the residents that I'm here representing Those are the ones that are concerned the most especially when we're in that highway one parking lot and the kind of relief efforts that they're after And we know that we have to make compromises. This isn't a perfect plan or perfect solution This is something for us to move forward with we still have to do a lot more analysis work We have to still deal with the environmental issues the the issues with where money is going to come from I mean we're dealing with We and we expect the RTC to just roll over every rock they possibly can find to find out where this money is going to come from for these projects and Leverage what we possibly can with the measure D funds because obviously measure D funds are barely a down payment for Getting any of these projects started let alone To be to be completed we know that this is a live planning document and It's to help us set the course for what we want to do for transportation needs I mean most of you don't even know what you're gonna plan for dinner and yet We're doing something here for the next 20 or 30 years out There's a lot involved in this we don't need to rule out things that haven't had a full Process to make use of what we have we have limited resources here Not only a funding, but we also have limited land resource uses that are here We have the density that's going on we have very little in terms of what to work with to make it flexible We can't add these other lanes that can't exist because we financially can't do that and we don't have the land space for doing it We have to be as creative as possible This particular resolution Gives us that with guidelines in order to achieve those the criteria that we need here We're getting things in here that are buffered and protected. We definitely understand The safety component vision zero is what Watsonville's adopted and we're looking at having this plan Seriously integrate a lot of what that vision is that we have for Watsonville we've heard from Metro as you know several of us are commissioners with Metro and We've heard the word cannibalization We certainly aren't up here to make a vote on something that's going to do any type of devastating damages For what infrastructure we have out there now? We wanted to work cohesively we want to work collaboratively We want to make sure that again It's a highest and best efficient use and resource and also the time it takes Because we do know that there's a huge divide at this county in terms of the resources that we have how they're being spent and the cost to the quality of life of many people that are in this community and the Frustrations because there's a tremendous amount of frustration when it comes time to Planning your life on what you can do and the sacrifices you make to get the wages that you need for your family to be able to come home And put food on the table and for the cost of living that we have in this community I want to have something moving forward. We don't need to delay this We're hearing you're rushing this through work. This is not a rush job We know that we still need to be very thorough and very Set on on making sure that we're stewards of the taxpayers money We need to decide which wheels to move forward with in this corridor I think that this is a little bit of a sidestep to say mass transit versus the train So that part has been listened to from what the recommendation was initially So we will go through the due diligence process of finding out the highest and best use of what wheels will need to go in that particular corridor Based on the history lesson which Gives us a direction. We need to look at train, but we'll get to the outcome once we're thorough with that type of research Again the message that I have from Watsonville is that they want the train for the mass public Corridor but our patient to go through the process to see what the outcome is going to be on that one and They know what we all know that we need to have the patients on on reaching that threat and our patients is right at the threshold at This point. We've waited a really long time We've talked about the public safety for the bicycles and pedestrians But they're not the primary modality. We're going to find from Watsonville coming to mid to North County It's it's to complement what we need to on the modalities The first mile last mile is a big piece of that and how Metro can complement that I want to see that we can get more of our youth to those education Resources that we have mid in North County and I think transportation is a huge factor in doing that We know we found money 115 million dollars for the fish hook mission project money can be found it's the RTC's responsibility and Assignment to find the resources we need for that because I'll tell you South County is looking at $115 million being spent at the North County and they're saying where is it at the out the south end for this relief We're told that even every project that works its way south will help Watsonville But every single project that works its way south is just still providing a Neutral relief as we get more people on that that corridor so Watsonville still doesn't see the relief that every single one of these ancillary lanes has When it comes to the time We measure D took two years 2016 we passed it barely with two-thirds We had to compromise to put something on the ballot to make that happen We're still not going to see tires on pavement likely for one of the auxiliary lanes until maybe 2022 We're talking six years to have some relief of something that the voters have decided on We know that even if this train was going to be here a decade in the course of land use planning and transportation planning It's probably a short window, but we have to realize that we've been working on this since the 90s on what to do with the corridor and the transportation needs Greenhouse gas emissions we've talked about that and again We we're looking at the overall equity and the health of everything and all of the components that go with that and it will Be the responsibility of the RTC staff to work with us to make sure each of those goals are achieved and That we work through that process to make that efficiency And the selection of the projects and prioritizing the projects that we can do to make that happen And as a representative for Watsonville, it's my obligation representing my constituents to prove the resolution and Instruct the RTC to take this action to be thorough to be transparent to be inclusive to be creative and productive and in achieving the projects that we can successfully Accomplished that are on this list of of items here, and that's where I'm coming from in what my message is Thank you Commissioner Johnson. Thank you chair. Excuse me. So I had a quick question about Working jointly with Metro on this process. So does that mean that they will have a person at the table that kind of Takes in this information side-by-side with people from the RTC Absolutely, okay, because I think that's important to get on bias and and fair statement. So I Think you know at the core of my concern is Cost versus benefits and costs always has to enter the equation because it's been mentioned That's why we tax ourselves because we tax ourselves for things that we think are going to be important Measured was part of to quote get this Santa Cruz County moving again hasn't happened and I keep hearing things like 10 years hence We're going to start moving and this is going to happen. That's going to happen I'm not afraid of the future But at the same time I respect the past and one of the things I think when we pay attention to the past history We don't want to exclude things that show us in detail What's real and what isn't? If you look at history And one of my concerns with train of course is you keep you keep hearing that 3000-4000 people on this rail line will make it feasible But if you talk to people who do trains, it's more than 12,500 to 15,000 people On daily trips that make things work and even then sometimes it's a little iffy the The rail feasibility study Excuse me as you can tell I have a cold in 19 and 2016 was very very very Iffy in terms of supporting rail and that kind of is the core to what my concerns are You know Bruce and I live in Fifth District, Scotts Valley All the way up through San Lorenzo Valley We don't take we don't take advantage of these things Okay, but we were willing to support parts of measure D because we know for example that Why in the highway will in fact work? Okay for those people who are concerned about greenhouse gases You talk about having a train that you'll drop in a electric Motorized by electricity But the same thing is going to happen in Five ten fifteen years for cars you see more and more and more every company is moving towards electrified vehicles You know, I'm glad that the the commission is pumping the brakes a little bit in terms of you know looking at Alternative analysis Bill smallman Bill smallman was here from San Lorenzo Valley I believe talking about a benefit of a corridor that would allow water to be moved at a fraction of the cost That's innovative to me Okay, so the more we kind of push forward in a rush Kind of obviates the the process of us being able to analyze what other benefits might arise Out of the process that we're trying to pursue, you know I heard a woman talk about 20 cars that were signed. Okay at Flee markets or wherever, but there were 10,000 signatures signed That wanted a trail only I think that trail only is is migrating more towards incorporating other aspects Maybe bus rapid transit and so forth and to me that's important. Okay, so I'm not opposed to You know What what works but I do want us to be very realistic and you know, there are things on on this Here that I like certain things that I don't like but I'm willing to listen to the people I'm willing to talk to them. I'm willing to have an open mind, but I don't want to ignore history and History has shown that Expensive rail systems you have to be pretty sure that they're gonna work and a lot of times they don't And that's my only concern. Thank you. Thank you Commissioner Mohr Okay, I just wanted to make a You know to get back to measure these very briefly things have happened that wouldn't have happened already Without measure D. I mean you can see the construction process going on and the major Recipient of those funds 30% of them was for local roads and I think people throughout this county have seen Improvements been make to made to local roads since measure D was passed 2016. So it's it's paying dividends as we speak I just want to make clear that we're the These are two motions and I'm just going to speak to the first one at this point that I really appreciate the language and the staff recommendation that positively Responds to the request made by the Metro board to analyze all transit options and I want to thank our new director guy Preston for recognizing the importance of the Existing transit system that need to have a deeper understanding Of the capital operational and financial needs of that system relative to how we ultimately Decide the use of the rail corridor. So that's what I see as The first item that we're going to vote on and that's the only comments that I would like to make toward that in I just wanted to echo some of the comments that were already made in particular as a Metro rep really appreciating the change in the language that Was made to really address the concerns of Metro I do want to clarify that the motion that was made at the Santa Cruz City Council in December My understanding is that that is potentially not necessary for us to make any modifications because those items will be considered as part of The projects and Could you clarify that? Yes The projects at the city of Santa Cruz would want to move forward with I've heard from from the city and the city Engineer spoke to us today It does not preclude Any funding to be put towards those projects in the future. This is a planning a regional corridor planning study So all of the funding Mechanisms that the city had been considering For their projects are still available some funding sources Okay, and I just want to clarify too that in our discussion at council We really did focus on multi multimodal. So it wasn't just around the vehicle Accommodations and projects related to that but we really did emphasize that the improvements really would need to be focused on multimodal Transportation and then I'll just wrap up by saying a lot of people were thinking that I wasn't going to be here today Because the date got moved and I'm glad that I am because I've been a part of years of listening to folks and I think that this Commission has been responsive to things. We've modified and changed based on the feedback We've heard and so I'm happy to be here to finalize the vote today Based on the feedback that we've heard. So thank you First of all, I want to appreciate everybody's comments on the tone of people's comments today It's much better than some past meetings that we've had and I never take that for granted I don't think anybody that spoke today has got some bizarre narrow interest that makes it inappropriate for their comments So, you know people I think honestly are trying to express their concerns about things and there are many Contradictions in what we're trying to do here that make it that you know comment that I might go Well, I have an answer to that and believe me people have been in meetings with me before no I listened to what everybody said I could answer almost every point that people made my colleagues don't have the patience for that So I'm not going to do it Thank you. So I I just want to say that I think that the decision to have a preferred rail Option that however makes clear that that doesn't prohibit a serious study of what the mode will be on the On the rail quarter is the appropriate balance That's achieved in the resolution that's in front of us. I think that's a little tricky seems like a preferred Choice means the decisions been made clearly has not been made the rest of the comment I want to make has to do with the Difficulty in being in a situation where you have to face the reality of other Agencies that have control over your decision and ultimately you don't control everything So when people raise concerns, you know, well, why would we keep these rails in place? Everybody knows that whatever rail thing we end up with for passenger rail in the end if it's passenger rail Or certainly if it ends up being a bus thing of some kind or a PRT The these that we wouldn't be using these rails You'd be using continuously welded modern rail system of some kind The reason for keeping the rails in just to be clear that which my vote is based on has to do with Making sure not only that we don't lose the 10 or 11 or maybe somebody said 15 But I think it's more like 11 million bucks of the 116 money It has much more to do with preserving our ownership of this right away that you know We need more information about it But it's like the idea that somehow we would tear the rails out and then hope that the CTC would you know Not only would they let us keep the money In the scheme of these things ten million dollars is a massive amount of money But it's nothing really in terms of what we're doing overall But but the idea that the property owners would all be suing us immediately for their right underlying land And we might lose the whole thing would be a complete disaster from my point of view So that's one of the reasons why I'm willing to keep the current rail in rather than pull it out for a rail banking scheme or Aside from the fact that rail banking has never actually happened anywhere where it came back, but That could change I wouldn't base everything just on that But the idea that we would risk this corridor after we've finally got it after all this work Would that be a disaster? I think there has to be public transit.  I have a motorcycle a bicycle and a bus pass and that's how I get around I rent cars if I have to go somewhere far away that you can't get to with a I don't want to ride my motorcycle over highway 17 but Despite my you know love of bicycling and riding up to UCSE and all this other stuff We need to move a lot of people and it's not realistic to think that people are really Weather aside going to ride their bicycles not I don't care how electric they are from Watsonville to Santa Cruz for a job in Our town it's not going to happen. It happened for some people I would do it, but you're not going to persuade any modal shift to happen on that basis So we need some form of public mass mass transit on this quarter, and I want to make sure that that happens The final thing I want to talk to him is Actually two more things the auxiliary lanes. I like what John Leopold had to say about that I I'm not a fan of auxiliary lanes. I don't think I do believe in induced traffic I don't think in the end you're going to reduce the congestion We had a public speaker that came in our series that told us in fact two of them told us this But one guy was really clear about it. Nothing you can do will deal with congestion You can provide people alternatives to ways to get somewhere without being stuck in the congestion But whatever expansion of highway space you give people will take it up and you did as it shows our own studies Eventually you'll lose the benefit of having done it, but as John pointed out We don't have a place to run buses our buses are stuck in the traffic right now and the idea of those auxiliary lanes I don't know that I'll ever be able to persuade others to join this vision But at some point I'd love to see those auxiliary lanes take the cars off of them and make it into a pure bus lane that runs down there That's not the current view I'm willing to take the risk that I won't be successful and the buses will have to share that lane with some cars, but nonetheless Having some way for buses to get here rather than being stuck in the traffic with all the cars is absolutely essential We send three or four sometimes even five buses Between Santa Cruz and Watsonville for a route would take one bus if it could could get back quickly enough to be used again But there's three of them out there on the highway waiting to come back And so the cost to the district of having buses stuck in traffic is huge in terms of Unless not just the buses the drivers and their salaries are stuck out there as well So as somebody who doesn't like widening highways I still support this auxiliary lane plan just because I think in the long run it's part of what we need to do to get where we have to be Finally People asked a very reasonable question Why would we make a contract with a company that's focuses on freight and Maybe excursion services even they don't even provide that they're gonna find a subcontractor to do excursion service But why would we make a contract with these guys when what we really want is some form of passenger service You know, that's not an excursion thing on the weekend or something The answer that has to do once again with these the pragmatic reality of Showing the CTC that we're moving forward with train. They've if I don't know why they think having freight service and Excursion service is a mark of our commitment to eventually have rail You can make an argument that that's not the best way to go that the freight is really in a way Almost competes with the passenger stuff and we shouldn't be going there But I've really looked into this carefully and really tried to understand it and my view is that we need to do this We're not gonna have passenger service on this on this route before the serious passenger service and again It's not a we're not talking about a diesel train. It's some kind of a battery Battery operated trolley or tram or something that that's what I'm looking. That's what we that's what we can afford And that's what we probably would carry the passengers we need here given our population But my view is this is a way to get to where we need to be that's always hard the public Don't always appreciate that People want why can't we get this doing going now? Can't we have to train tomorrow and stuff? Unfortunately, I was spent 26 years on the Santa Cruz City Council. I know that you don't get anything tomorrow I mean things take time to happen and a public transit corridor that goes between two different cities and requires federal and state funding It takes time. It's gonna be but it would be irresponsible of us to go Well, it's gonna take too long and therefore let's just come up Let's do a bike path now and we could have that would give a lot of some people would get on the bike path and ride it From Watsonville to Santa Cruz, but we have to plan for the future. That's that's our obligation as a commission We're not we're providing the actual service The transit district does that but we have to plan for how we actually will solve these problems And if they could be solved in 10 years my god I would be so happy 10 years is optimistic and that's just the reality of the world that we live in But if we don't make these commitments now, we'll be in big trouble and I think if we don't sign this contract Or allow the contract to continue as we had planned with the the folks from Minnesota I think in the end we would lose this right of way. We'd have other kinds of problems Understand there's gonna save me speaking on the next one. That's all I just want to stay on topic So I just want to say I think that the preferred scenario is a reasonable scenario. It doesn't give me It's not the one I would pick if I got the vote if I were the czar here or something It's the one this community will support and it's the best we can do and I think it's pretty good I don't feel like it's oh have to suffer through it. It's all we can afford. No, it's not a bad plan It's a very good plan given what our real constraints are and I'm gonna support it Sure First of all I want to like Mike recognize the tone and the quality of the comments from both sides Dare I say that maybe we forced you all through so many painful meetings that Friendship and respect is beginning to develop between everyone but But I but I think we're there's been a real improvement So what I mean, there's a couple big picture things that I want to focus on in my hopefully brief remarks first Is that while we're spending an inordinate amount of time on the? rail corridor One thing to remember is that we have all these other corridors And we actually have agreement the first time my lifetime that we have an agreement on what we're gonna do next on highway One there's an agreement for how we want to work with the metro that Agreement for what we want to do on to the Soquel corridor and that and because of the voters for the first time in my Lifetime, there's actually money to do it or at least part of it That is a big it's not universal agreement as we heard but that is a major step forward for this community and really hopefully bridging some of the divisions that have that have hurt this county and most importantly the residents in this community For a long long time, and so I'm really optimistic about all the other all this Recommendations in the plan and getting to implement them The second piece is what I it sounds like based on where the commissioners are voting today Is we're really moving forward with a commitment in the corridor to a trail and transit and What that's from the beginning what's been important to me is to recognize that we retain the optionality as Transportation is going through a real revolution and whether it's e-bikes or electric cars Self-driving cars light rail all these things that we preserve our ability for future generations To figure out how best to move across this county in the in the most in the best way possible with the most equity and Lowest carbon footprint possible, and I think that is where we're going and finally We've got a public referendum. I think that's always a possibility in California. Let me just say We spent a lot of time debating and talking to each other You will have two ballot questions one ballot questions We'll say do you want to build a world-class trail through the county and people will say yes And the other ballot question will say do you want to give back 20 million dollars and delay a trail for ten years and and And rip out the tracks and people will say no and then we'll spend another four years arguing about what those results meant So let's not waste our time and effort And let's start moving forward and today We also need to recognize that this organization all of our cities and county has a limited amount of time And resources and money and we need to start getting to projects right now That will improve the quality of life for people right now that would reduce our carbon footprint right now And we've done a lot of planning and we've done a lot of conversations But we need to start having a bias towards action For both for all the environmental reasons and the climate change But also for the quality of life of people who are trying to get back and forth to work to jobs to schools back to their families We we have we have a lot of opportunities. We have a lot of small Programs that can make a big difference in cumulative and I think that's our that's a big opportunity and I'm excited to be moving forward Thank you commissioner Brown So I just want to The outset express my appreciation for all the folks who have been involved in this really long somewhat daunting process of So staff fellow commissioners members of the public who have read Copious amounts of materials. I mean with thousands of pages. I looked at the stack on my floor in my office Yesterday and it was you know this high and that just doesn't even include most of the the materials that we've we've received and and sifted through over the the course of this planning process and I really appreciate staff for making the you know really difficult challenging information accessible to us answering our questions and to those of you in the community who you know have engaged and really Demonstrate that you care very much about how we Make decisions for the future how we make decisions now that will Effect our future And so you know I would just say as a commissioner. I feel quite I know I have my You know own preferred scenario I could come up within my mind And then I could convince myself that there are all kinds of problems with that. This is a really complex Set of projects and considerations that we we're looking at here, you know as commissioners I think we're obligated to look at the big picture and To weigh diverse sometimes competing interests and demands at least with with respect to or certainly with respect to funding priorities And to make our best assessments around some Overarching questions, and I just want to organize my brief comments in those areas. So one it does the UCS Improve transportation options for residents of the county one speaker suggested that Scenario be cannot be reconciled, but I think the same could be said of any Scenario and any or any constellation of priorities and Projects that we we put together So the question is how do we put together a package that that does meet those best meet those priorities and expectations? And needs of the community and you know, I would I would add Because it is significant the voters who agreed to be taxed to support these multimodal transportation options Does the decision we make today constrained future decision making and if so how you know We a lot people come to us and tell us we're locking ourselves in to future Planning and you know future, you know the major commitments of funding that we're precluding certain possibilities And I think it's our responsibility to make decisions now that that do not constrain The possibilities for the future given that new technologies will be coming before us I mean will be think you know the future commissioners and the public that sits here You know decades from now will be making decisions based in a completely in a world that we can't even imagine in terms of new Technologies and you know the way some of this plays out with the regulatory environment funding possibilities, etc So we want to pave the way for that future and you know be ready for taking some action now and so Also, I think that we have a responsibility to You know be good stewards of the public public resources public dollars and I believe that making these decisions now Are in the best interest for the future also? You know we have this this all of these environmental concerns public safety concerns You know health equity that we need to weigh you know those perspectives need to be To wade and we have to make our again our best assessments of how the decisions we make now Will meet those priorities So and I think that we've on balanced on a pretty good job I mean you know it's it's not easy to to sift through all this information and and really You know understand it and digest it. It's not easy to You know to weigh all of those competing interests my I personally I'll say a few things about the you know, I do appreciate first of all the the language changes related to high-density transit and Protected bike lanes. Those are big priorities for me So I appreciate that those have have been included here for our consideration today. I personally believe in induced demand, so I don't think that The and I don't think that anything I've read convinces me that What we've read in terms of some of the whereas is in this resolution that I am you know going to support us moving forward with that That we've identified Benefits certain benefits of auxiliary lanes and metering on ramps to improve safety and traffic flow I don't believe that but it's in here and On balance. I think that the the plan does a lot of things that I like So I also don't think that we have seen that the unified corridor investment study recognizes long-term benefits of high occupancy vehicle lanes on highway one And I don't you know, I don't know. I don't know the answer to that. I'm not saying I disagree, but I don't know and you know and also that Highway widening is going to be the solution. So, you know, I disagree with that I think it's our responsibility to stay that even when we are being asked to Potentially pave the way for some of those projects. So that being said, I I want to just reiterate my my gratitude for all of the time that people spent and You know, it's it's it's daunting to be making this decision today in some ways, but it's also Kind of feels anticlimactic because we're We're really just this is the culmination of something but it's actually really just the starting point for the future. So Thank you all for Being here and participating. I look forward to the future Thank you Okay, the good news is I'm the last speaker and I'm gonna be short Somebody mentioned that that depends on which side you're on out there and My experience over the past two years of this is this not you guys are not like a side. You're like a salad Okay, it's not just the train or the bike. It's so many different things Okay, and I know much more about PRT than I ever knew existed. Okay, so So the dilemma comes to us is you know, we're sitting here trying to figure out what's best for us and and you know I share some of the concerns of the fellow commissioners for me I'm here as a Capitola City Councilman, which gets me nominated to the metro board that gets me selected to be on the RTC So I'm coming from Capitola. It's a town that had vision Capitola And we just had the measure L that that that that lost I come from a town that doesn't want to train And then I go to Metro and I'm working on trying to deliver the best possible bus service We can do and we have a CEO that's motivated to provide good things and I'm thinking what's best for Metro Is it best for Metro to run on an HOV lane or bus on shoulder down highway one or on or on the trail? And I personally think that the best place for it to be is on highway one in some expeditious manner And then I come here as an RTC commissioner Trying to be inspired by by transportation, which I am by by all the staff here because you can't be around them and not be inspired So I think what what helps me try to take what we're going to do here is is we're going to pick a preferred scenario And we're going to use it as a guideline to give us at least some place to move forward because I'm for The with the language in here high capacity public alternatives Because I'm going to tell you the way the future is changing so fast somebody made a comment about how it's going to change We have to be open to what it's going to do the corridors there So many other good uses on it. I don't know what that transportation mode is going to be on there But I think we should continue looking at it and and and maybe as we're doing the other projects It'll present itself. So with that, uh, I'm going to be supporting the the uh, the preferred scenario And I'm ready to have a roll call vote if if you would go ahead and do that This is just on item one Well, my motion was was the recommended actions and and the resolution Well, we're going to take the resolution with that with the exception of item 10 would not be on there and item two would not be on there I stated out at the beginning that that we're only going to vote on I took that as as uh, as That's what we're going to have. We're going to talk about it But I made a motion that that was inclusive of everything You can divide a question if you want Yeah, I I think I clearly stated in beginning that it was only going to be on item one And I preclude anybody if I'm talking on item two because we're just going to vote on that So if you want to re amend your motion to just include item one Well, you don't you don't have to change the chair you should just divide the motion I did that I did that already and I just I just want to make sure the commissioner leopold's clear that we're just voting on item one And the resolution would include the resolution could be divided if I'm correct into Nine items and then item 10 would be one of its own Yes, you can do that Thank you I'll hold before before we call it shall we clear with that Let's go ahead and go with a uh, uh, a roll call vote on on item one commissioner chase Commissioner rotkin. Hi commissioner coonerty. Hi commissioner leopold. Hi commissioner brown. Hi commissioner botorf. Hi commissioner mcpherson Commission alternate mullhorn. Hi commissioner johnson. Hi commissioner kaufman gomez. Hi commissioner burtrane. Hi commissioner cap it Amazing that is a unanimous vote I think it sends a great message to the community and to staff So with that, uh, let's move on to item two, which is a uh item to grant st. Paul railroad a license to use the Santa Cruz branch rail And I'm going to start with commissioner mcpherson Yeah, I know that uh, we were going to combine these but, um I'd like to make a recommendation on number two And I know there's going to be moments and groans we've been talking about this for a couple of years now But we have a deadline of march 15th And the motion i'm going to make is is certainly not To be negative reflection on the progressive rail because Their freight service to watserville. They've done what they've said they're going to do But uh, I strongly recommend that this commission needs additional information Regarding the phase two contract and if you could say well, what in the world could that be? Some of it's been somewhat more clarified About the full scope of options with caltrans or the california transportation commission And the surface transportation board, but i'm concerned about the exposure to litigation For one and what this impact might be if we move on this the way it is And I know that progressive knows it It has It earlier it has access to watserville and a seven mile radius or so now with The storm damages that is north of watserville right now. So I I do not think that that's going to make them pull out of this or anything I think that they would be a good partner if they should if we should move along with this So I would like to um, and I know I I'm not one to say just do it study it again, but for me. I need more information about some of Basic issues on this a few of which I've named and so I'd like to just Delay a decision on this until our march 15th me or whatever that meeting date is that's coming up in march that we had We delay this decision on the preferred scenario until our march meeting The license excuse me to uh until our march meeting Second second ocean second by commissioner mulher and i'm going to start on this end Like i'll be really brief. I don't support the motion I think we have the information that we need to make the decision now And if I thought if we had more time would really give us different information or allow us a Different kind of a contract that would somehow give us more flexibility I would support the motion, but I don't think that's really likely So I'm going to vote no on this motion. I hope we can actually decide this today. Thank you Yeah, based on my other comments, I guess time for us to make decision and move forward Commissioner leopold, I don't I don't support the motion. I understand the need That people have for additional information this change of common carrier. It should have been an administrative function and we we tried to make lots of ways to Address people's concerns and give plenty of time to answer questions The progressive rail has done everything they said they were going to do And uh, I'm ready to move forward with it Thank you. Commissioner brown comment Thank you, mr. Mulher Commit if we were to initiate phase two of this contract It will commit the rtc to an aggressive capital program that isn't currently envisioned in any of our plans As per the contract phase two this agreement We will pay for our cause payment for repairs from milepost seven to milepost 31.39 So the entire Length of the rail corridor will need to be reconstituted within the next three years I'm sorry. That's been feasible I also believe that there are some other questions about our rights and responsibilities Within this rail corridor that haven't been answered For example, what would happen where we to allow progressive rail to maintain their freight easement and their freight operations But not improve the rail corridor north of milepost seven It's a question that hasn't yet been asked or answered and I think that is a legitimate question What our liabilities might be should we not continue with phase two? It's just been Assumed that we would continue with Transportation services on the corridor which I might add to all of our rail advocates out there only encompasses excursion rail and Which actually satisfies the requirements of prop 116 Which our project was only envisioned to be a dinner train from Santa Cruz to Davenport And in fact the ctc waived the commuter rail requirements of prop 116 So that they could approve our project of a dinner train from Santa Cruz to Davenport So I think that there are there's a big gap between The approved project and the intent to continue with some sort of commuter rail project on the rail line And I think that there are a lot of questions that remain unanswered regarding our liabilities and responsibilities So I will be supporting the motion Mr. Dott Well, excuse me. I think freight service from mile post three, which Serves Watsonville is important and keeping that intact Allows us to do this with this measure. So I'll I'll support the measure Commissioner Coffman Gomez Probably haven't witnessed the majority of the activity with the progressive in Watsonville Um, I'm not quite clear on what kind of litigation or potential litigation as a result of the initial Contract for the phase two to just be rolled in I'm still going to be listening to weigh in a little bit more about how I'm going to decide on this particular item for the vote Thank you Commissioner, we're trying um, I'm supportive versus motion and I've long contended that Our main focus should be on Watsonville. I'm not certain certainly we haven't had Train activity going north for a long time The idea that it's all of a sudden going to develop I think we should sit back and figure out a little bit more what this contract means But more importantly, I'd like to give room to our new executive director to determine that I think that we've recognized already that there's a new person at the helm And this is a contract that is going to influence how we proceed for the next 10 20 years We we have no idea at this point. I think for the person at the helm They should be the ones that make those recommendations Make themselves satisfied that for this agency. It is a good contract. So I totally agree with bruce We need that room Thank you Commissioner cap it if you can just clarify the motion Right right now in front of us is item number two Which is grant st paul and pacific rarity license to use the santa cruz branch rail line to provide excursion service In addition to freight service as specified under 2.4 1 of the administration of coordination license agreement So we're voting on that agreement and and and what commissioner mcpherson has asked for is To postpone the vote to allow more time to look into some concerns that's been brought up by Various members on the panel and allow the new executive director to have conversation with Agencies that might be able to make people understand and feel more comfortable before they vote Yeah, I'll uh, I'll be against the motion because I'm ready to vote on going forward Thank you Well, I actually have a question because I um to um I'm a little bit conflicted here about the need to move forward today And that's kind of information that we might be able to get In order to make this decision. I'm not necessarily opposed to moving forward but I would like to know based upon um, maybe commissioner mcpherson the kinds of questions that you have and commissioner mollern the questions related specifically to Potential legal challenges how realistic is it that will get additional information some of my colleagues seem to think not and Others do and so i'm feeling a bit conflicted here about how to proceed so it would be helpful to hear from staff in response to the The idea that we we might have some additional data gathering to do the reality of that Well, I can certainly try. Um, I've contacted the ctc this week. Um, I've also received letters from them. Um, they seem pretty Um, pretty certain that We would have to pay back the funding if we didn't continue with rail Now that said, you know, what does that mean with respect to this contract and excursion rail and and is there a nexus between the two? They are not as clear when when those questions are asked I don't know that if I asked them again and present to them in a different way if they would be more clear Or not The surface transportation board. Um, I have less confidence in being able to get answers from from them. They seem to be pretty Non-committal and hard to get in touch with but I can certainly try I can also, you know approach progressive rail and see, um, you know, what their feelings are about You know backing out of this agreement if if if we were not to to grant a transportation easement I do want to remind, um the commission that you know, we I plan on being Very serious about my fiduciary responsibilities One of the first things I asked, um when I came on board was, you know, what really is our financial liability towards Um, You know the progress rail agreement, you know, and I've looked at the cost estimates of trying to get the rail line Between zero and seven um To a point where they could do excursion travel and I've also looked at it from seven to, you know, 31 Point whatever It is to the end And you know, I have my own concerns about putting together a funding plan to do that Sort of work And I've contacted our legal counsel and said, you know, if I cannot afford to do all these repairs As far as I can tell and looking at the agreement is there a penalty or You know, some sort of damages against the rtc and the way the contract's written. There is not You know, and this kind of goes back to commission or brettrans, um Concerns regarding the capitol attressal. Um, you know, I take that very seriously too safety is is my utmost importance There is no way that we are going to put a train over a bridge that is unsafe That said, I don't have the funding to do major capital repairs on a bridge of that nature but if I've got An opportunity to apply for state funding to do repairs on the capitol attressal Then I might have the ability to do that sort of work, but If the ctc Looks at me and says well, you put in an application to repair the capitol attressal, but you have no train service Why would I possibly spend money on the capitol attressal that I put myself between a rock and a hard place I don't see them as looking towards making capital improvements on a line that there's no rail on So I can ask the questions and I certainly will go back and try to provide an offer, you know a way of Presenting this differently if you think that that will be helpful and if this motion does pass But I'm not sure that there's going to be a whole lot more information available On February 7th or at our march. I think march 15th meeting, but before you vote. I would like to also Make sure that we provide clarification that our next meeting is February 7th and not in march Because I would like if this motion was to pass. I would like to come back February 7th and not wait till march If I may add one one clarification because it was a common made that the California transportation commission waved the requirement for passenger rail on the line And this might help to to also clarify why the ctc is so firm and in its letters that we've been we've been receiving now proposition 116 state law The state law will pass by the voters so the language in that state law states that There was 11 million dollars available to santa cruz county For for two possibilities one was intercity passenger rail projects connecting the city of santa cruz and the city of wassenville or Other rail projects in santa cruz county which facilitate recreational commuter intercity or intercounty travel So it is written state law That the rtc had that option in order for the rtc to have that option to use recreational rail service to access that money The rtc had to match the prop 116 money dollar for dollar So this agency did approve 10 million dollars in 2000 Towards both the purchase of the rail line and improvements on the rail line and also counter in san far Secured a million and a half dollars towards the project So that that was how this rtc then was able to buy to match the The prop 116 funny and have that option to acquire this line With recreational rail service and not just regular intercity passenger rail service So the this so it's it wasn't a ctc guideline that they could waive it's state law So if and part of what the ctc has told us If you want to have approval of using that money for something that isn't a rail project because it is state law passed by the voters The legislature can the state legislature can change that it is written into the prop 116 But it's not it's not a simple majority of the state legislature. It's it's a super majority So thank you. I'm gonna go to commissioner cooner. Sure. I have two questions So in general when we're under threat of litigation We should move into closed sessions. So my answer my question to the attorney is Are we under credible threat of litigation that it would warrant a closed session discussion So I think at this time we don't we haven't done an analysis to support that today we could enter into closed session Um, I think that what's being requested is that we do an analysis to determine whether in our opinion There's a significant threat that we would be facing litigation if we didn't proceed with a phase two License part of that would likely involve the executive director's communications with progressive to determine whether that's a likely outcome Thank you. Uh, then the second question I have is for the executive director. So Uh To commissioners Bertrand's point Um, this was your recommendation under your signature To enter into this con phase two of the contract. So um, uh, there's been a point that you need to go out and get more information and and Be made more comfortable in your decision. But uh the report Today before us was your recommendation to us that we should move forward. So Is there something that we don't know that is causing you to change that recommendation or Or did what you tell us today is you you believe we need to move forward? I still believe the right decision is to move forward with the The recommendation that was provided in the staff report Because there's really no Penalty written in the contract with respect to if we cannot complete the repairs So if the the repairs on the line exceed the funding available to us, then I don't see Any plan being provided by Progressive rail for for a portion of the rail line that cannot be funded and brought up to Class one standard is something that this I would recommend approval of in the future So I don't I see it as an opportunity to have a rail provider on the line To be able to maintain the line and help maintain the line for us And also meeting the ctc's requirement so that I can apply for additional funds to continue to maintain that rail line Okay My comments on ours is you know, we we just got done passing the unified course studied by an anavis vote And I think that sends a strong message My concern as the chair is that I've got concerns from other members Who have wanted to ask for time another 30 days possibly to make sure some things are fully vetted I think at this point after doing this for as long as we've all done this I don't see how that can be detrimental to make sure that we make possibly the same kind of vote So I will be supporting the measure also. So at this point, I'm going to go ahead and call for a roll call vote Oh Commissioner rotkin. No commissioner coonerty. No commissioner leopold. No commissioner brown Commissioner botorf. Yes. Commissioner McPherson. Yes. Commissioner alternate milhorn. Yes. Commissioner johnson. Yes commissioner kaufman gomez No Commissioner Bertrand. Yes commissioner cappett. No Motion passes six to five. Is that my correct count? I'm sorry the motion fails six to five. Sorry I wouldn't move that we I move that we approve the staff recommendation for item number two second Is there any further discussion on that from anyone? If I don't know it's just because I think we should I'm just not as comfortable as I should be and I think I could I could be more comfortable in 30 days So I'm going to be voting no Any other comments commissioner kaufman gomez Regardless of the outcome the information I think is still worthy of of receiving to the commission So please let's have that information be made available to us No objection to any other comments We'll go ahead with the roll call vote Commissioner rotkin. I commissioner coonerty. Hi commissioner leopold. Hi commissioner brown. Hi commissioner botorf. No Commissioner mcpherson. No commissioner milhurt alternate mulher. No commissioner johnson. No commissioner kaufman gomez Commissioner bertrand Yes, commissioner cappett. So I decided to get in here. No I mean, I'm sorry. Yes You knew you had all the fame there that motion passes six to five with that we're in a time deadline. So we're gonna Yeah Okay, thank you for the correct number that passes seven to four um, let's move on to the Last item on our agenda, which is Find the agenda again that item 21. Does there a staff report? Is there a staff report on item 21? You should make it really short. We did read the report Yes, this is just Could I ask people to please be quiet as you're leaving the room so we can hear. Okay. Thank you So it's recommended you actually make a determination that convened bidding for railroad crossing signal work on the sankers branch rail line Would be unavailing would not produce An advantage and would not be in the public interest and to authorize the executive director to enter into a prevailing wage No bid contract agreement with progressive rail So last single pacific railroad in the amount of eighty one thousand three hundred seventy three dollars to complete Railroad crossing signal repairs at beach street in wassenville Which resulted is because the signal crossing was hit by a by a truck that was delivering at a local a local business We do have footage of that and the art staff Learned in December 2018 and not what like the staff report says December 2017 That io pacific actually did not File a claim against the insurance company for that truck trucking firm So staff and the guild council are working to get the information necessary to do that So it is the so that the and were to try to Recover all the costs associated with that repair in the meantime the repairs need to be made and the rtc has the option To enter into a no bid Pre-gaining wage agreement with regressive rail To do that so Depending any staff or cut any public comments. I moved the staff recommendation second any questions The comment that i want to make Sorry this thing back and forth The staff had told me to make sure that we've got them included in the loop of the repairs So that our public works is involved in the process and whatever permits or anything else that you may need On behalf of the city of wassenville. That's correct. We receive that communication as well Any other comments anyone from the public like to weigh in on this topic Thank you commissioners lowell her city wassenville is very important that we move forward with these repairs. Thank you. Thank you, sir With that we'll go for a vote all in favor. I opposed Motion carries unanimously and we are adjourned to the next meeting