Board of supervisors fails to approve two sections of Coastal Rail Trail

The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors failed on Tuesday to approve a 4.5-mile stretch of the Coastal Rail Trail project through Eastside Santa Cruz and Mid-County, with some supervisors citing environmental concerns and questions surrounding project costs and funding shortfalls. 

The board was split 2-2 on county staff’s recommendation to approve the next steps toward drafting final designs and eventually breaking ground on Segments 10 and 11 of the project, between 17th Avenue in Live Oak and State Park Drive in Aptos. 

The Coastal Rail Trail envisions 32 miles of continuous pedestrian and bike trail through Santa Cruz County from Davenport to Watsonville running the length of the former Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line. The project is divided into 20 segments, which are in various states of approval and construction. The Regional Transportation Commission is also working to establish plans for an electric rail line between Watsonville and Santa Cruz. 

Justin Cummings and Felipe Hernandez voted in favor of pushing ahead with project approvals while Manu Koenig and Bruce McPherson voted against the staff recommendations, largely due to concerns about removing trees and an estimated $28 million funding shortfall caused by rising construction costs. Zach Friend recused himself due to a conflict of interest because he lives near the project site.

McPherson said he was worried about the consequences of the county’s recommended plan, which involved asking the Regional Transportation Commission to pay for the expected shortfall.

The county estimates that constructing the two segments could cost almost $112 million. It has budgeted nearly $85 million toward the project, including a 2022 state grant for $67.6 million. But that would leave it around $28 million short. County staff had recommended asking the RTC to make up the difference, which would amount to about 40% of the agency’s Measure D funds. The 2016 ballot measure added a half-cent sales tax to pay for transportation projects around the county.

Putting that much Measure D funding toward this stretch of the trail would mean less money for future segments of the project, particularly in South County, McPherson said, along with fewer funds for maintenance and repairs along the trail. 

Koenig agreed, arguing that the prospect of cost overruns on Segments 10 and 11 raised the risk that other segments of the trail might not get built if the county runs out of Measure D funds for those parts of the project. 

“We talk a lot about equity, and I think everyone in this county expected they were getting a trail,” Koenig said, “and you’d have a lot of people who would be pretty shocked to find out that they’re paying the tax like everyone else and are now not going to have [a trail] near their house.” 

A county environmental impact report for Segments 10 and 11 considered multiple options for a trail: an “ultimate” option that would build the trail alongside the existing train tracks and an “interim” option that would build the trail on top of the tracks. The county has said its preferred option is the “ultimate” trail design, while some opponents of rail have argued in favor of the “interim” configuration. Voters in 2022 rejected a ballot measure that would have allowed for a trail-only option with no train.

On Tuesday, Koenig pointed out that an “ultimate” trail configuration would cause “an alarming amount of environmental damage,” particularly the destruction of native trees. “It’s really in direct contradiction to our general plan, to our climate action adaptation plan … it’s quite significant,” he said.

A staff presentation showed that the “ultimate” option would remove 803 trees, 400 of which are native trees, compared to 288 trees under the “interim” option — though it added that if the interim trail is eventually removed to make way for a future train, the county would have to cut down more than 950 trees. 

County park planner Rob Tidmore urged the board to vote in favor of asking the RTC to fund the budget shortfall, saying that the county had planned to go to the California Transportation Commission in June with updates that are part of the process to receive the $67.6 million grant from the state. 

That grant expires in the summer of 2026. With the project not scheduled to start construction until 2026, delays could mean the county risks losing that state funding, Tidmore warned. He added that the county expected to seek additional grants along with Measure D funds, so that not all of the shortfall would come from the RTC’s Measure D funding.

Cummings agreed, saying that the county needs to show state agencies that it can use their funding successfully. He added that construction costs aren’t going to fall, either.

“If we delay these decisions, it means the cost of everything is going to go up at the same time,” he said. “So, if we’re saying we don’t have enough money right now, the costs are just going to continue to go up over time.”

Supervisors eventually voted in favor of an alternate motion by McPherson that approved an environmental impact report for the project and also recommended that county staff explore additional options to cut costs, reduce the trail size at Escalona Gulch to avoid having to remove trees and other landscaping, and ask the RTC to analyze the impact of the county’s funding request on Measure D funds. That motion ended up passing, with only Cummings voting against it.

About 40 minutes of public comment showed that many residents still have their own reservations about the project. Most of them were those living within the project area, concerned with the potential impacts of the build on their properties.

County staff said there are mobile home parks encroaching on RTC property within the project area, such as Blue and Gold Star Mobile Homes and Castle Estates, which means building the trail could affect residents of those parks. 

Christine McGill, who lives in Castle Estates, said that she did not know that her home was on RTC property, and the uncertainty over what could happen with the trail is stressful.

“I can’t afford to lose my home and I can’t sell it under the circumstances. Where are we supposed to live when you split our homes down the middle and move them?” she asked. “I urge you to postpone this item to give myself and the park owners more time to deal with this.”

Jeff Perry spoke on behalf of his brother, Gold Star resident Christopher Perry, who is developmentally disabled. He said that their father helped purchase the home for Christopher, but similarly was never told that the homes were encroaching on RTC property.

“We can’t afford to sell it or buy another mobile home,” he said, adding that moving the home would come with similar hardships. “What would we do? Where would my brother go? How would I pay for it? I need more time and I hope the RTC will build the interim trail [built on top of the rail line] for Segment 10.”

Proponents of a train told the meeting that delaying will only allow construction costs to increase more over time and that the environmental benefits are badly needed. They also said that the interim trail option of building on top of the rail line is a bad idea, because it could jeopardize the potential for passenger rail.

“The single most environmentally wise thing we can do with that corridor is implement passenger rail as quickly as possible, which means if we’re going to have a trail, it needs to be located adjacent to the rail,” said transit advocate Lani Faulkner, who ran unsuccessfully against Koenig in the March primary election. 

Alexandra Fischer said that she has talked to many people, particularly young adults, who view a train as “common sense.” She added that a train option would both get people to their destinations faster than cars and cut down on the county’s carbon footprint: “There was a lot of talk about the environmental impact of the rail trail just now from the supervisors, and I would just like to reiterate that cars and massive highways are way worse for the environment than the rail trail will ever be.”

Staff will need to return to the board of supervisors at a later date for approval before going to the California Transportation Commission, which means it’s likely that county staff will need to wait until at least the CTC’s August meeting and hope that the project timeline is not delayed too severely.

Only a fraction of the Coastal Rail Trail is completed — just Segment 7 from Natural Bridges Drive to California Street in Santa Cruz and Segment 18 in Watsonville from Lee Road to Walker Street. A large section from Rio Del Mar Boulevard in Aptos to Watsonville is under development, as is the final stretch of Segment 7 from California Street to the Santa Cruz Wharf. Segment 5 from Davenport to Wilder Ranch, Segments 8 and 9 from the wharf to 17th Avenue, and Segments 10 and 11 in question are funded, with the exception of the shortfall addressed in Tuesday’s meeting.

Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.