Supervisors reject plans for Coastal Rail Trail segments
Staff `concerned about the future of the project'
>> A pair of segments from the highprofile Coastal Rail Trail project running through Santa Cruz's Mid County region are in limbo after the county Board of Supervisors rejected a majority of recommendations from its staff to move the project forward at its meeting Tuesday.
After a tense and extended board discussion and public comment period, the board refused to approve Segments 10 and 11 of the Coastal Rail Trail project even as staff cautioned that it may jeopardize critical funding and potentially the project as a whole.
“From a good faith standpoint, we don't know how the (California Transportation Commission) will react to this vote,” Santa Cruz County spokesperson Jason Hoppin told the Sentinel shortly after the vote. “At this point, I think we're just concerned about the future of the project.”
To help fund the segments, which stretch from 17th Avenue in Live Oak to State Park Drive in Aptos, the California Transportation Commission awarded the county $67.6 million in Active Transportation Program funds — the largest of its kind in state history, according to county staff. Prior to the vote, Rob Tidmore, a planner with the county, told the board that without formally accepting this grant at Tuesday's meeting and allowing staff to share its plans with the state agency in June, it could throw off the project timeline and put the grant at risk.
“If we don't make that deadline we have to request an extension from the (California Transportation Commission), which is not ideal. … We want to give the (California Transportation Commission) every indication that we're going to deliver on this project successfully,” said Tidmore, adding that he'd “highly recommend against” delaying that process.
Concerns primarily came from Supervisors Manu Koenig and Bruce McPherson who were joined by Supervisor Felipe Hernandez in approving an environmental impact report for the project but stopped short of approving designs and construction of the project itself. Board Chair Justin Cummings voted against the motion that only approved part of the staff recommendations while Zach Friend recused himself entirely from the proceeding because of a potential conflict of interest due to the fact that his home is in close proximity to the rail line.
One of the issues Koenig, who declared victory two weeks ago in his recent bid for a second term as supervisor, had with the project as recommended concerned forecast environmental impacts, saying they were inconsistent with the county's General Plan and Climate Action and Adaptation Plan.
“This is really an alarming amount of environmental damage,” said Koenig. “It's quite significant.”
One of the impacts cited by Koenig was tree removal. According to the staff report, the county's preferred “ultimate configuration,” which places the bicycle and pedestrian trail next to the rail line for which the county received much of the grant funding, would require removal of an estimated 803 trees of various sizes. If the county pursued a trail-only alternative where the trail went in place of where the tracks are, an estimated 288 trees would be removed. But if the county pursued an optional “interim configuration” by establishing the trail only and then later reestablishing the tracks and the trail next to them, the additional phases would result in 957 felled trees total.
According to the staff report, replacement trees are planned in each scenario, though these trees would inherently take years to mature.
Taking into account these and other factors such as aesthetics, greenhouse gas emissions and construction work, the impact report ordered by the county determined that the “ultimate configuration” was the environmentally superior option.
McPherson joined Koenig in voicing concerns about the project's financial headwinds. According to Tidmore, the updated cost estimate for the two segments was updated to $111.7 million, including a $27 million to $28 million funding shortfall.
“It's more about the environmental impact and the cost of it,” McPherson told the Sentinel after the vote. “I'm not comfortable with going ahead with this at this point.”
Hernandez, supported by Cummings, originally made a motion to approve all of the staff recommendations, but it failed to pass. He later joined Koenig and McPherson in voting to approve the impact report but not the final designs and subsequent coordination with state and regional authorities.
To backfill the funding gap, officials planned to reach out to the county's Regional Transportation Commission — which owns the rail corridor and is a critical driver of the rail trail effort — for help. McPherson was concerned that if the commission filled this funding gap, it would take money away from other important transportation initiatives.
Tidmore, attempting to reassure McPherson and others, said that because construction for these segments wasn't scheduled to begin until at least 2026, county staff essentially had two years to work alongside the commission in exploring other grant funding opportunities and collaborate with other local partners to cut the deficit.
“We're going to look for additional ways to save costs,” said Tidmore. “This just gets us to deliver the project and to move forward with grant funding in a way that doesn't, like many of you have said, risk our grant money.”
McPherson said he was eager to see results from a project concept report, ordered by the transportation commission in late 2022, that will share critical information about the feasibility of an electric passenger rail project. He said the report is expected in December and told the Sentinel that approving the two segments now would be putting “the cart before the horse.”
Cummings said he viewed the decision Tuesday, in part, through the prism of the 2022 Measure D initiative which was rejected by 73% of voters. The measure aimed to rewrite the county's general plan to favor a trail in place of where the rail line is, but many transportation leaders, including Koenig who was a strong supporter of the measure, viewed its overwhelming defeat as a clear message that voters wanted to explore a rail option.
“We really want to be respectful of the voters who voted on Measure D to move forward with the rail and trail option,” said Cummings. “I think it's really important and it's our responsibility to continue to honor and respect the vote that was made at that point in time.”
Additionally, Cummings continued, there are equity issues since many North County rail trail projects are already complete or underway, while areas in South County could face extended delays if the county loses the confidence of statewide authorities.
“If we jeopardize that (state) funding we will be putting to waste a lot of past funding that's been used on this project,” said Cummings, “it will jeopardize our ability to get future funding and I think that's a real concern when it comes to equity.”