[5:28] Okay. All right. Well welcome

[5:29] everyone and thank you for

[5:30] joining us for today's rainy

[5:32] FEBRUARY 19th sb board meeting.

[5:33] For the record, my name is

[5:35] David Silva and I'm the vice

[5:36] chair on the sb Kag board.

[5:38] MADAM Clerk, could you please

[5:40] facilitate roll call? Director

[5:44] Perotti here. Director Patino

[5:46] here. Director Mosby here.

[5:50] Director. Lee here. Director.

[5:52] Lavagnino here. Director.

[5:53] Julian here. Director. Hartman

[5:56] here. Director of Friedman here.

[6:00] Director. Clerk. Here. Director.

[6:03] Capps here. Vice chair Silva

[6:04] here. And Chair Nelson is

[6:07] absent. Great. Didn't hear my

[6:09] name. Oh, director Brown, my

[6:12] apologies. And Director Brown's

[6:14] here. If we could please stand

[6:18] for the Pledge of Allegiance.

[6:20] Ready again? I pledge

[6:22] allegiance to the flag of the

[6:24] United States of America. And

[6:26] to the Republic for which it

[6:29] stands. One nation under GOD,

[6:31] indivisible, with liberty and

[6:37] justice for all. All right,

[6:39] next up, we'll move into public

[6:40] comment for items not on

[6:41] today's agenda. Speakers have

[6:43] up to three minutes each with a

[6:44] total of 15 minutes allotted

[6:45] for public comment. Is there

[6:47] any public comment today? If

[6:48] there are any members of the

[6:50] public on the zoom webinar who

[6:51] wish to speak, would you please

[6:53] use the Raise Hand feature and

[6:55] I will call upon you? I do not

[6:57] have any paper request to speak

[6:59] forms, and there are no

[7:01] attendees on zoom who wish to

[7:03] speak at this time. Splendid.

[7:04] Moving along, we'll move on to

[7:12] approval of consent calendar.

[7:14] Oh. I'm sorry. First time

[7:16] caller, longtime listener. So

[7:17] is there any announcements for

[7:19] the consent calendar at this

[7:20] time? There are no

[7:22] announcements for the consent

[7:23] calendar. And did we receive

[7:24] any public comment on any items

[7:27] on the consent calendar? We do

[7:29] have one hand raised on zoom,

[7:30] and if there are any other

[7:32] attendees on the zoom webinar

[7:33] who wish to speak, would you

[7:35] please use the Raise Hand

[7:36] feature for the consent

[7:37] calendar and we will call upon

[7:41] you. Our first speaker is Barry

[7:44] Remus. If you can, please

[7:47] unmute yourself. Thank you.

[7:49] Good morning, Chair Silva and

[7:51] board members. My name is Barry

[7:53] Remus and I'm representing Move

[7:56] Santa Barbara County and we

[7:57] advocate and educate and

[8:00] encourage people who walk, bike

[8:01] and take public transit. Just

[8:03] want to to make a quick

[8:05] statement in support of item

[8:07] consent. Item number four f as

[8:11] in not a freeway. We would like

[8:14] to voice our support for the

[8:16] appropriation of the additional.

[8:19] The $100,000 in measure a

[8:22] funding for bike, ped and Safe

[8:23] Routes to school project for

[8:26] the Buellton highway 246

[8:27] improvements project for bike

[8:30] and pedestrian. This would be a

[8:32] reduction in lane width and

[8:34] addition of bike lanes with

[8:36] buffers and pedestrian safety

[8:38] amenities, and this would bring

[8:40] improved safety to the area,

[8:42] which, as we know along highway

[8:45] 246, is a fast moving corridor

[8:47] by avenue of the flags. And

[8:49] this would bring not only

[8:51] increased public safety for

[8:53] improvements for pedestrians,

[8:55] bicyclists and Ada access, but

[8:57] also economic vitality in

[8:59] making them a more welcoming

[9:01] environment that calms traffic

[9:03] and improves the area immensely.

[9:06] So we would certainly want to

[9:08] endorse the support of and

[9:11] support the appropriation and

[9:13] encourage your vote in support

[9:15] of the consent item. Thank you

[9:18] very much. Thank you very much.

[9:20] MR. Remus. Is there any other

[9:21] public comment at this time?

[9:22] Are there any other members of

[9:24] the public on the zoom webinar

[9:25] who wish to speak? Would you

[9:27] please use the raise Hand

[9:28] feature and I will call upon

[9:31] you. And there are no responses.

[9:33] Thank you. Would any any

[9:34] directors like to pull an item

[9:38] at this time? All right. If not,

[9:40] then I would look for a motion.

[9:42] Second, Hartman moves approval

[9:46] of the consent agenda. Second.

[9:47] Splendid. We have a roll call.

[9:51] Vote director. Perotti. Hi.

[9:54] Director Patino. Director Mosby,

[9:57] I, director. Lee. Hi. Director.

[9:59] Lavagnino. Hi. Director.

[10:01] Jillian. Director. Hartman. I

[10:04] director. Friedman. I director.

[10:09] Brown. Director. Clark. Hi. I

[10:11] director Clark. I believe I

[10:15] heard an I MR. Caps I and vice

[10:17] chair Silva I and chair Nelson

[10:20] is absent. Great. Now moving on

[10:21] to item five a MADAM Clerk,

[10:23] will you please read item five

[10:25] a into the record. Item five a

[10:26] expanded intercity passenger

[10:28] rail service recommended.

[10:30] Action one approve and

[10:30] authorize the Executive

[10:32] Director to execute a

[10:33] cooperative funding agreement

[10:34] with the Los Angeles, San Diego,

[10:38] San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor

[10:39] Agency, Lausanne with the

[10:41] Ventura County Transportation

[10:43] Commission ctc to provide

[10:44] expanded intercity passenger

[10:46] rail service to be negotiated,

[10:47] comparable to the attached for

[10:51] a 2,000,219 $240 with sb k

[10:53] contributing an amount not to

[10:56] exceed 1,109,620. Similar to

[10:58] the attached upon approval by

[11:00] legal counsel and two approving

[11:01] authorized Executive Director

[11:04] to take actions required to

[11:05] implement the agreement per

[11:10] article six. Great. And it

[11:11] looks like we have Whitney Rush

[11:13] to give the presentation. Yes.

[11:16] Good morning. Directors. In

[11:18] 2008, voters approved a measure

[11:20] a with a simple promise, a lane

[11:23] and a train. And today we are

[11:25] closer than we have been in

[11:26] years on finally delivering

[11:28] that train. My name is Whitney

[11:30] Rush. I'm a senior

[11:31] transportation planner in the

[11:33] Multimodal Programs division,

[11:34] and today I'm excited to

[11:36] present the next chapter in a

[11:38] story that has had a couple

[11:40] route adjustments, but one that

[11:41] we are genuinely excited to

[11:44] bring to you today about

[11:45] expanded intercity passenger

[11:48] rail service. This presentation

[11:50] very closely mirrors what

[11:51] Director of Multimodal Programs

[11:53] Erin Bonfiglio presented to the

[11:54] South Coast subregional last

[11:56] week. The subregional did

[11:58] approve both staff

[11:59] recommendations, and we're

[12:00] excited today to bring this

[12:03] item to the full board. Today's

[12:04] presentation will give a

[12:05] background on the project.

[12:06] We'll give a status update with

[12:09] key benefits and also seek your

[12:11] authorization for sb Executive

[12:13] Director to move into a

[12:14] cooperative agreement for this

[12:22] expanded intercity rail service.

[12:27] Q Lauren. Okay, fantastic. No

[12:28] better place to begin than at

[12:30] the beginning with measure a,

[12:33] it was passed in 2008 by voters

[12:36] with the goal of bringing

[12:39] increased rail service to the

[12:42] corridor. To reach that end, we

[12:44] would need a coordinated effort

[12:46] to expand service and

[12:48] operational plan cooperative

[12:49] agreements and eventually a

[12:52] pilot demonstration. In 2018,

[12:55] sb did launch a morning train

[12:57] and as you MAY recall in 2020,

[12:59] that train was canceled due to

[13:02] Covid and never resumed. Nearly

[13:04] three years ago, sb began the

[13:06] careful work to retrace these

[13:09] steps to provide expanded

[13:11] service and restore that

[13:15] service to our community.

[13:19] Lauren. So, as a reminder,

[13:21] measure a is a dedicated South

[13:23] Coast subregional project. When

[13:24] it was passed, it set aside

[13:27] dedicated funding of $25

[13:29] million over 30 years. This

[13:31] money could be used on things

[13:33] like reducing congestion,

[13:34] alternative to driving on

[13:36] highway 101, capital and

[13:38] operating costs and promotions,

[13:39] marketing and connecting

[13:41] service to make this a full

[13:43] mobility option for our

[13:49] commuters. Next, sb, cag

[13:51] recognizes that this is only

[13:53] possible through sustained and

[13:54] strong partnerships, in

[13:56] particular with Vctc, the

[13:57] Ventura County Transportation

[14:00] Commission, and the Los Angeles,

[14:02] San Diego San Luis Obispo Rail

[14:04] Corridor Agency that manages

[14:07] the Pacific Surfliner. Vctc in

[14:09] particular, has been a valued

[14:10] partner, and they have agreed

[14:13] to jointly fund this new pilot

[14:16] project. 50 over 50. Many

[14:17] pieces had to fall into place

[14:20] to make this moment possible,

[14:21] and over the past six months,

[14:23] many of them have made this

[14:25] option most feasible and better

[14:28] than all previous iterations.

[14:30] One was the state equipment

[14:31] redeployment, one of the

[14:33] biggest barriers in prior

[14:35] attempts to get the service

[14:36] going was that there just

[14:39] wasn't existing train equipment.

[14:41] Last year, the state redeployed

[14:43] train equipment from northern

[14:45] California to the corridor, and

[14:47] now Lausanne has the capacity

[14:48] to add this additional round

[14:51] trip service. Additionally,

[14:53] intercity ticket sales from Los

[14:54] Angeles clear through to San

[14:56] Luis Obispo will help offset

[14:59] the cost of this train. Also,

[15:01] by working directly with

[15:03] Lausanne, we have Union Pacific

[15:04] access. In previous attempts of

[15:06] this service that have been a

[15:07] large barrier, and so by

[15:08] working directly with Lausanne,

[15:10] we have that Union Pacific

[15:12] access. And probably one of the

[15:14] biggest benefits is that

[15:17] significantly reduces sb kags

[15:19] insurance risk by leveraging

[15:21] Amtrak's national agreements.

[15:24] And finally, the the goals set

[15:26] out by Lausanne are fulfilling

[15:28] a lot of the state rail plan

[15:30] goals for the region. So we're

[15:32] excited that a lot of pieces

[15:34] fell into place in the past six

[15:35] months to make this option not

[15:37] only feasible, but the best

[15:39] option possible. So let's get

[15:40] into the details and look at

[15:42] this proposed schedule for the

[15:44] new train. As I mentioned, it

[15:45] will start at Los Angeles Union

[15:50] Station at 5:13 A.M. Arrive at

[15:53] Moorpark at 6:31 A.M. And begin

[15:55] its Ventura County pickups.

[16:00] Camarillo 643, Oxnard, 657 and

[16:01] Ventura at the very easy to

[16:04] remember time of 711.

[16:06] Carpinteria 737 and arrive into

[16:07] Santa Barbara just before 8

[16:10] A.M. And Goleta at 811. The

[16:11] train will then continue on to

[16:13] San Luis Obispo, where it will

[16:15] turn around and provide a new

[16:18] midday southbound service. This

[16:20] service can work for tourists,

[16:22] those commuters with flexible

[16:23] schedules, or anyone who wants

[16:25] to get to downtown Los Angeles

[16:28] in time for dinner. However, sb

[16:30] Commute Focus will be on the

[16:31] currently existing southbound

[16:34] train 790, highlighted a little

[16:36] bit in red there on the right

[16:37] side. That train currently

[16:40] departs Goleta at 4:25 P.M.

[16:43] Santa Barbara at 440, and gets

[16:45] passengers into Ventura at 5:26

[16:51] P.M. Next slide Lauren. And to

[16:54] make this schedule a reality,

[16:57] we're asking you to approve sb

[16:58] Executive Director to enter

[17:00] into a cooperative agreement

[17:03] with Vctc and Lausanne. Some

[17:04] key elements of that

[17:07] cooperative agreement include a

[17:10] fixed fee agreement of about

[17:11] $2.2 million, again split

[17:14] evenly between sb and Vctc, so

[17:17] we would be in at $1.1 million.

[17:19] It's a 12 month service pilot,

[17:22] but it will run 365 days a year.

[17:23] This is not a Monday through

[17:24] Friday train. This does not

[17:26] take off for holidays. It will

[17:29] run 365 days a year. The

[17:30] estimated fare revenues are

[17:33] expected to be around $2.3

[17:35] million, and commuter tickets

[17:36] and passes will be available,

[17:38] including a subsidized ten ride

[17:41] pass and monthly pass. We're

[17:43] excited that this cooperative

[17:45] agreement has already been

[17:47] approved by the Ventura County

[17:48] Transportation Commission at

[17:49] their meeting on FEBRUARY 6th,

[17:51] and was just approved by the

[17:54] board two days ago on February

[17:55] 17th. So with this board's

[17:57] approval, it is the last and

[17:59] truly monumental step to make

[18:01] this schedule a reality. And

[18:02] with that, we can look to

[18:03] launch this service in late

[18:08] APRIL or early MAY. Lloyd. And

[18:09] so, just as a reminder for both

[18:11] of you to for all of you today,

[18:12] the two staff recommendations

[18:14] in front of you are to approve

[18:15] and authorize the Executive

[18:17] Director to execute a

[18:19] cooperative funding agreement

[18:21] with Lausanne and Vctc, and

[18:22] then to approve and authorize

[18:24] the Executive Director to take

[18:26] actions required to implement

[18:28] the agreement. With that, I

[18:30] thank you for your time, and

[18:32] I'm available for any questions.

[18:33] Thank you very much. Are there

[18:35] any questions for staff at this

[18:39] time? I do or okay. Director

[18:41] Lee we'll go. We'll go remote

[18:42] first. Let's go for that down

[18:43] in Santa Barbara. So, director

[18:46] Lee, thank you. Thank you.

[18:48] Chair. Vice chair Silva. So the

[18:51] question is the Ortega railing

[18:53] on that project? Does it have

[18:54] any effect on this commuter

[18:56] rail approval. Well, it delay

[19:00] it or affected in any way as I

[19:01] understand it, no. The Ortega

[19:03] siding project will not have

[19:06] any effect on this train coming

[19:07] online and will not impact the

[19:09] schedule as proposed to us by

[19:11] Lausanne. Got it. That's my

[19:13] question. Thank you, director

[19:16] Lee. Any further questions down

[19:19] in Santa Barbara? Okay. We'll

[19:21] bring it back here to Santa

[19:22] Maria. Director Patino. Yes.

[19:24] Could you go back to the slide

[19:35] on the schedule? Yes. Of course.

[19:36] Okay. I don't see Guadalupe in

[19:38] there. It's not going to stop

[19:40] in Guadalupe. It is. This

[19:42] doesn't include. There's a lot

[19:43] of stops between Los Angeles

[19:44] Union Station Moorpark and a

[19:46] lot of stops between Goleta and

[19:49] San Luis Obispo. We can provide

[19:50] directors with the full

[19:51] schedule, but yes, it will stop

[19:53] in Guadalupe serve, because I

[19:55] don't think that. I don't think

[19:56] the people in Santa Maria even

[19:58] know that they can drive out to

[20:00] Guadalupe to get on the train.

[20:02] Yeah. In fact, I was talking to

[20:03] some people yesterday about it

[20:04] because I was at Vandenberg and

[20:07] say, when you drive the take

[20:08] the train, say Guadalupe to

[20:09] Santa Barbara, it's just the

[20:11] beautiful ocean view that you

[20:12] don't get any other way other

[20:14] than the train. It is so

[20:15] beautiful. And yes, we can

[20:16] definitely look into increasing

[20:17] our efforts, especially the

[20:18] Santa Maria. Again, this is

[20:20] really focused on connecting

[20:21] Ventura County and Santa

[20:22] Barbara County, but more people

[20:23] on the train throughout the

[20:28] corridor is our goal. Thank you.

[20:30] Any other questions here? I had

[20:32] a couple. I just wanted to know.

[20:34] I was just curious. I know this

[20:35] is a 12 month service pilot

[20:36] program that we're looking at,

[20:38] and that this is being split

[20:41] between the vc, vc and sb. Cag,

[20:43] get all my acronyms correctly.

[20:44] Will there be a chance after

[20:46] that 12 months to know how many?

[20:48] You know, I think about like

[20:49] there's other agencies that are

[20:50] benefiting from this rail as

[20:52] well. So I think it's going

[20:53] into the San Luis Obispo County

[20:55] and it's going down to la. Will

[20:56] we be able to know how many

[20:58] like how those agencies are

[20:59] also participating in this or

[21:00] utilizing this? Because I would

[21:02] think that there might be a

[21:03] discussion about funds sharing

[21:04] after the 12 months, seeing how

[21:06] it might be more agencies who

[21:07] MAY want to participate in the

[21:09] cost sharing of this, if those

[21:10] agencies are also benefiting

[21:11] from this. Yes, of course, the

[21:13] benefits will extend throughout

[21:14] the corridor. I believe you MAY

[21:15] be able to answer. I can answer

[21:17] that. I was looking to see if

[21:19] you wanted me to. Well, the

[21:20] goal is to have it state funded

[21:22] from after this pilot project,

[21:23] which is it was in the

[21:24] statewide rail plan to have

[21:26] this route start, but we're

[21:28] starting it a year early. So

[21:30] we're providing subsidy at this

[21:32] time to get it started. But

[21:33] ultimately, it's hoped that it

[21:35] will be covered by the

[21:37] statewide budget for rail from

[21:39] San Luis Obispo all the way to

[21:40] San Diego. So that's the goal.

[21:43] But you're right. If that is

[21:44] not achieved, then we'll be

[21:46] looking at other agencies,

[21:47] possibly participating. If we

[21:49] wanted to continue with this

[21:51] service at at subsidizing it

[21:52] with our local dollars. But we

[21:53] would have to answer that

[21:56] question probably six months

[21:57] before the end of the pilot

[22:01] project. So yes. Thank you.

[22:03] Director Brown. In that same in

[22:06] that same fashion, do you have

[22:09] any partnerships established or

[22:12] proposed with employers that

[22:15] would benefit from this? Yes.

[22:16] I'm very excited to talk about

[22:18] those opportunities. We

[22:19] recognize that the train won't

[22:21] be a success without that last

[22:23] first mile, last mile options.

[22:24] So the things that we're

[22:25] looking to complement the

[22:27] service are free shuttles to

[22:28] and from the train station to

[22:31] employer sites, bicycle lockers

[22:33] at Carpinteria, Santa Barbara

[22:36] and Goleta, and bicycle trials,

[22:37] the bike share system in

[22:39] downtown Santa Barbara. And

[22:40] then as part of getting the

[22:42] word out about the train and

[22:43] all these complimentary

[22:44] programs, we're looking to host

[22:46] an employer forum and really

[22:47] engage and really lean on those

[22:48] strong relationships that we

[22:50] have with employers throughout

[22:52] the South Coast. So, yes,

[22:54] working with large employers is

[22:56] one of our largest outreach

[23:00] efforts. Yeah, it looks like we

[23:01] have a few more questions

[23:04] possibly. Or. Oh, okay. Perfect.

[23:07] Vice chair. Vice chair. Silver.

[23:10] Yes. Director. Caps. I just

[23:11] wanted to build on Director

[23:12] Brown's question because that

[23:14] that was my nature of questions

[23:17] to just again, I applaud the

[23:19] pivot from the original or the

[23:21] first plan to this plan. And I

[23:22] know that the original plan had

[23:23] a lot of outreach with

[23:25] employers, and I just am

[23:28] wanting to hear a bit more on

[23:30] the assurances with the, the

[23:32] the change in sort of this plan

[23:35] b of those communications. It

[23:36] sounds like they're happening.

[23:37] I just want to hear that

[23:39] fleshed out a bit more to make

[23:40] sure that passengers get on

[23:44] these trains. Yes, 100%. It is

[23:45] the same outreach. If not, it's

[23:48] been expanded. There is some

[23:50] simplicity in this being a low

[23:51] San Amtrak Pacific Surfliner

[23:53] train. Before we are looking at

[23:55] Metrolink in the morning,

[23:56] Amtrak in the afternoon. How do

[23:58] we message this to commuters?

[24:00] This is a lot more digestible

[24:01] for commuters, and we're

[24:03] planning a large employer forum

[24:05] where we will invite all the

[24:06] employers that we have these

[24:08] relationships with to really

[24:10] highlight the benefits of

[24:11] making this a possibility for

[24:14] their employees. We have

[24:15] numerous email lists that we

[24:17] will lean on. We're also

[24:21] developing a program to give

[24:25] $50 train ride passes to

[24:26] employees. And then as they use

[24:27] them, they have the potential

[24:30] to earn additional ones. So yes,

[24:31] we are working with employers

[24:33] throughout the South Coast.

[24:34] We're planning a lot of

[24:36] outreach events, and I'll let

[24:38] Lauren speak to any others that

[24:39] we're planning on. When you

[24:41] talk about the ctc effort,

[24:42] which we didn't have in the

[24:44] last. Yeah. Go ahead. Yes.

[24:47] We're excited with ctc being

[24:48] such a valuable partner and

[24:50] being even more engaged this

[24:51] time around. We're looking at a

[24:53] lot of events in Ventura County.

[24:55] In previous years, a lot of our

[24:56] efforts focused on Santa

[24:57] Barbara. But of course the

[24:58] commuters live in Ventura and

[25:00] they work here. And so Ventura

[25:01] County is planning on

[25:03] presenting at all their boards,

[25:04] all their commissions, getting

[25:05] out in the farmers markets,

[25:07] meeting with all their

[25:09] employers so that we're not

[25:10] just targeting the employers

[25:11] here in Santa Barbara and then

[25:13] relying on them to pass the

[25:14] word on. We're really working

[25:17] with ctc to reach the people in

[25:18] Ventura County that can most

[25:22] benefit from this train. Yes,

[25:24] please. Lauren, I just wanted

[25:26] to add just one more thing is

[25:27] that it's a coordinated

[25:29] marketing and outreach effort.

[25:31] So it's Lausanne, sb, cg, and

[25:33] ctc all working together to

[25:35] work on shared resources both

[25:37] with our collateral materials

[25:40] as well as our outreach. And so

[25:42] those are regular meetings that

[25:44] we are having and instituting.

[25:46] And yes, it is a similar

[25:48] marketing effort that we had

[25:49] planned with the previous

[25:51] service that we're just kind of

[25:53] working with this better and

[25:56] more commuter friendly

[26:00] opportunity. Director Hartman,

[26:01] last time we did this, that is

[26:03] when we had first inaugurated

[26:05] the train. One of the key

[26:07] concerns was reliability. Would

[26:09] it be on time? And we worked

[26:11] hard to get a bus to pick up

[26:13] the slack when the train wasn't

[26:15] there. What do we anticipate

[26:17] this go around? Yes, we

[26:20] recognize that that was one of

[26:21] the largest barriers to the

[26:23] train that launched in 2018 was

[26:25] its reliability with this

[26:26] service. Yes, it does still

[26:28] begin in Los Angeles Union

[26:29] Station. But not only is this

[26:31] service an hour later coming in

[26:34] the train surrounding it on the

[26:35] corridor have also adjusted.

[26:38] Before, there was a lot of

[26:39] negotiations that had to happen

[26:41] with freight service, but Union

[26:42] Pacific has adjusted their

[26:44] freight schedules. All the host

[26:46] schedules on the corridor have

[26:47] adjusted so that we are

[26:48] anticipating significantly

[26:50] higher reliability. With this

[26:51] morning train coming in the

[26:53] spring. So that will be

[26:55] something I think key to

[26:58] communicate. Yes. And that will

[27:01] be part of one of our hopeful

[27:02] audiences, of course, are those

[27:03] that really love the 2018 train

[27:05] but stopped because of

[27:06] reliability. And we know that

[27:07] question will come up and we

[27:09] have the assurances from all

[27:10] the host railroads that this

[27:12] one will be significantly more

[27:15] reliable. Right before going to

[27:17] public comment, I want to check

[27:18] and make sure there's no one

[27:20] Santa Barbara with any further

[27:22] questions. Okay. Do we have any

[27:23] public comment on this item?

[27:24] There are any members of the

[27:26] public on the zoom webinar who

[27:28] wish to speak. Would you please

[27:29] use the raise Hand feature and

[27:33] I will call upon you? We did

[27:35] not receive any public comment

[27:37] for this item in advance, and

[27:38] there are no attendees on zoom

[27:40] who wish to speak. All right.

[27:41] We'll bring it back to the

[27:42] board for discussion and a

[27:46] possible motion. Chair. Vice

[27:49] chair Silva, this is pretty

[27:51] high. When you're ready for the

[27:54] motion, I. I'd be honored to to

[27:56] make that motion since I sit on

[27:58] the Lausanne board and I tried

[28:02] to make that motion when the

[28:03] whole board was present. And I

[28:05] will tell you, they're all very

[28:06] enthusiastic about this service,

[28:08] and and I missed my chance. I

[28:11] guess I was, too, to slow in

[28:13] raising my hand. So. Well, then

[28:15] we'll do a very slow, dramatic

[28:16] pause so you can make the

[28:18] motion at this time for you.

[28:19] Director Paradiso, would you

[28:20] like to make the motion? I

[28:23] would thank you and Hartman

[28:25] seconds. And I just want to say,

[28:26] I thought that was a really

[28:29] well done staff report. Yes.

[28:30] Great. If we could have a roll

[28:34] call. Vote director. Perotti, I

[28:36] director Patino. I director

[28:40] Mosby. Director. Lee I director

[28:43] Lavagnino. Director. Julien.

[28:45] Director. Hartman I director

[28:49] Friedman. I director. Clark. I

[28:52] director. Capps I director.

[28:55] Brown. I vice chair. Silva I

[28:57] and chair. Nelson. Absent

[28:59] motion passes. Yes. Thank you

[29:00] to the staff for that

[29:01] presentation. And thank you to

[29:02] Director Perotti for making the

[29:03] motion and making sure that's

[29:05] on the record for that. I look

[29:06] forward to us all becoming

[29:08] ambassadors for the train to

[29:09] make sure that we get people on

[29:11] to that. Moving on. We'll move

[29:13] to item b now and our staff

[29:14] presentation. Oh I'm sorry.

[29:15] Read into the record item five

[29:16] b please. Sustainable community

[29:17] strategy planning process and

[29:18] potential reform update

[29:20] recommended action. Receive a

[29:21] presentation on the planning

[29:22] process for the Sustainable

[29:24] Community Strategy and the

[29:25] current efforts to reform the

[29:27] associated law. All right.

[29:28] Thank you very much, MR. Becker.

[29:30] All right. Thank you, chair and

[29:31] directors. I'm Mike Becker of

[29:33] Staff. And this morning I'm

[29:35] going to provide a presentation

[29:37] on Senate Bill 375, which is

[29:39] the Sustainable Communities and

[29:40] Climate Protection Act and how

[29:47] that impacts sb. In 2006,

[29:49] Governor Schwarzenegger signed

[29:51] Assembly Bill 32, the Global

[29:53] Warming Solutions Act, and ab

[29:56] 32 changed California and began

[29:57] a coordinated effort to reduce

[29:59] greenhouse gas emissions across

[30:01] all sectors. Senate Bill 375,

[30:05] or sb 375, followed the visible

[30:08] or tangible part of sb 375 is

[30:09] the Sustainable Community

[30:11] Strategy, which is included

[30:13] within each regional

[30:14] transportation plan. Today,

[30:16] I'll touch on why the law

[30:17] matters, how it impacts our

[30:19] region, and reform efforts that

[30:23] are underway across the state.

[30:25] So, onto why it matters. The

[30:28] original intent of sb 375 was

[30:29] good, though whether or not it

[30:32] has achieved its objectives

[30:34] remains to be seen. And this

[30:35] matters to you for a variety of

[30:37] reasons. When the law first

[30:39] passed, there was no tie to

[30:40] funding. That changed with

[30:42] Senate Bill one, which now

[30:43] requires a compliant,

[30:44] sustainable community strategy

[30:46] to be eligible for certain

[30:48] funding programs. In addition,

[30:50] there's ties between sb 375 and

[30:56] Rina, sb 375 and Sequa. There

[30:59] are good aspects of the

[31:01] requirements related to sb 375,

[31:03] including planning, land use

[31:05] and transportation in tandem,

[31:06] though this is good practice

[31:12] with or without that law. I

[31:14] mentioned that ab 32 became law

[31:18] in 2006. Ab 32 focused on

[31:19] reducing greenhouse gas

[31:23] emissions across all sectors.

[31:25] Sb 375 was passed in 2008, two

[31:27] years later, with a focus on

[31:29] light duty vehicles, so to

[31:31] reduce greenhouse gas emissions

[31:33] from light duty vehicles, which

[31:35] I describe as the types of cars

[31:37] or trucks that you or I would

[31:40] drive. Therefore, sb 375

[31:43] implements one component or one

[31:46] aspect of the much broader ab

[31:50] 32. The California Air

[31:53] Resources Board, by the powers

[31:55] given to them by sb 375, sets

[31:57] greenhouse gas emission

[31:58] reduction targets for each

[32:01] region in California. For sb kg,

[32:04] our current target is 17% below

[32:07] 2005 levels for target year

[32:09] 2035, and that is on a per

[32:12] capita basis. The target is

[32:15] achieved or not through a

[32:16] combination of laying out land

[32:17] use development patterns, as

[32:19] well as the transportation

[32:20] projects and policies included

[32:22] within the Regional

[32:24] Transportation plan. The per

[32:26] capita point is important to

[32:29] highlight for two reasons

[32:31] primarily, but number one, as a

[32:33] per capita target, greenhouse

[32:35] gas emissions in theory could

[32:37] rise in aggregate and the law

[32:40] still be satisfied. And number

[32:43] two, the per capita aspect

[32:44] enables us to tackle it or

[32:46] address it from two different

[32:48] angles. First, we have an

[32:51] existing population that lives

[32:52] in existing land use,

[32:53] development patterns and so

[32:55] forth that we can try to

[32:57] influence their travel

[32:59] behaviors to a more sustainable

[33:01] manner. So that's one way to

[33:02] address the law. The other is

[33:04] to focus on the growing aspect

[33:07] of the region. As we grow, we

[33:08] can grow more sustainably so

[33:10] that that new population has

[33:12] less of a transportation impact

[33:13] compared to the existing

[33:17] population. The law requires us,

[33:20] sb, cag to lay out a variety of

[33:22] scenarios, and those are

[33:23] combinations of land use

[33:24] development patterns as well as

[33:27] the transportation projects and

[33:30] policies. We take that through

[33:31] a public process. And

[33:32] ultimately, this board selects

[33:34] the scenario that is included

[33:35] within the Sustainable

[33:37] Community Strategy. And the

[33:38] Regional Transportation plan is

[33:40] built around. You can expect to

[33:44] do that next in 2028. For our

[33:50] 2029 plan. This is what a jobs

[33:51] housing imbalance looks like on

[33:53] a chart. A few long commutes

[33:55] can outweigh almost all of the

[33:59] short ones. The dark bars are

[34:01] the share of commuters by the

[34:03] distance buckets on the bottom.

[34:05] So the far left is, you can see

[34:07] less than a half mile commute.

[34:09] And then the lighter bars are

[34:12] the the resulting vehicle miles

[34:16] from that population. The left

[34:17] side of the chart shows we're

[34:19] doing a great job in terms with

[34:20] a lot of our population. They

[34:22] have short commutes, MAY use

[34:23] alternative modes of travel,

[34:25] and have little transportation

[34:27] impact. The right side shows

[34:30] the imbalance. When we have a

[34:31] portion of our workforce that

[34:34] we need to import, or that have

[34:36] very long commutes, it makes it

[34:40] much more difficult to address

[34:43] the requirements of sb 375. You

[34:45] have the 5% associated with

[34:48] that longest commuting cohort

[34:49] is produces the same vehicle

[34:52] miles as the 86% that's

[34:53] included within all but the

[34:55] last two bars. So just that

[34:57] final bar equals 86% of the

[35:04] commuting population. Through

[35:06] our experience, we've developed

[35:07] for sustainable community

[35:09] strategies since the law came

[35:10] into effect. And we found that

[35:12] we cannot achieve the

[35:15] requirements of sb 375 without

[35:16] addressing the jobs housing

[35:18] imbalance. The bars on the

[35:20] right are there for a variety

[35:21] of reasons, including the lack

[35:23] and unaffordability of housing.

[35:25] A friend of mine was a founder

[35:26] of a tech company in Goleta,

[35:28] and conversations with him,

[35:30] I've learned that that company,

[35:31] as well as other companies are

[35:33] founded here, begin to grow

[35:34] here, but then forced to grow

[35:35] elsewhere, which then exports

[35:39] the economic benefit. I do want

[35:42] to transition to some of the

[35:42] challenges that are related

[35:46] with Senate Bill 375. They're

[35:47] divided into four categories

[35:50] land use, economics and

[35:52] politics, population, jobs and

[35:54] housing. And then finally,

[36:00] recognizing that change is slow.

[36:01] Where people live, work and

[36:03] play creates demands on the

[36:05] transportation system. So

[36:06] therefore land use is central

[36:08] to understanding travel

[36:10] patterns. The image on this

[36:12] slide shows Levittown, which is

[36:14] among the first postwar suburbs

[36:16] in the United States. And since

[36:18] that was built, we've had about

[36:19] 75 years of building in similar

[36:22] manner. And the vast majority

[36:23] of that housing stock still

[36:25] exists. That type of growth is

[36:28] not conducive to successful

[36:30] transit services. It separates

[36:32] all land uses, so every trip

[36:34] requires a vehicle and so on.

[36:35] But the point is, is we have a

[36:37] built environment that produces

[36:40] travel behaviors that are very

[36:43] difficult to change. And I will

[36:45] point out that sb 375 requires

[36:47] us to lay out a land use

[36:48] development pattern for the

[36:50] region. However, sb 375

[36:52] explicitly gave us no land use

[36:58] authority. When economic

[36:59] development and housing

[37:00] development do not keep pace

[37:03] with one another, problems are

[37:04] created in our region. That

[37:06] problem is a jobs housing

[37:07] imbalance. The point that I

[37:09] want to make with this slide is

[37:11] on the lower left, and this is

[37:12] related to how I described.

[37:13] There's two ways to addressing

[37:15] it, either through changing

[37:17] travel patterns or travel

[37:20] behaviors, or by growing in a

[37:22] more sustainable manner. Last

[37:24] week at the subregional, we

[37:26] presented the draft Regional

[37:28] Growth forecast and region wide

[37:30] or county wide. We expect the

[37:32] population to grow by about 10%

[37:37] out to 2060. If you said all of

[37:39] that new growth had just half

[37:40] of the transportation impact of

[37:42] the existing population, that

[37:43] would only reduce greenhouse

[37:45] gas emissions, or vmt, which is

[37:48] the proxy by about 2.8%, our

[37:58] target 17%. Yeah. And it really

[37:59] highlights that it puts us in

[38:02] this difficult situation where

[38:05] it's we're challenged to change

[38:07] existing travel behaviors while

[38:08] also not being able to rely

[38:10] heavily on new growth to bring

[38:14] down the per capita aspect.

[38:15] When you walk out of your front

[38:17] door and go somewhere, there's

[38:18] a high likelihood that you're

[38:20] either going to spend money or

[38:21] going to make money. And by

[38:23] definition, that is economic

[38:26] activity. Economic activity is

[38:28] directly related to travel. And

[38:31] sb 375 asks us to push back

[38:33] against that a little bit. The

[38:35] cost of travel MAY affect

[38:37] travel behaviors. Californians

[38:39] pay about 150% of the national

[38:42] average for gasoline. Yet the

[38:44] last time I was in Los Angeles,

[38:47] the 405 was still packed. There

[38:49] are when they're not convenient

[38:50] and easy alternatives, people

[38:53] will choose what works for them.

[38:54] And I highlight, prior to

[38:56] coming to sb kg in 2014, I

[38:57] worked for about eight years

[38:59] for the mpo in the Philadelphia

[39:01] region. I think I drove to work

[39:03] twice. I would walk to the

[39:05] train station, ride the train

[39:08] to the city, walk to my office.

[39:10] What was different? It was

[39:11] quicker to take the train and

[39:13] it was cheaper because I didn't

[39:16] have to pay $20 a day to park a

[39:19] car in the center city, but it

[39:21] just highlights that transit

[39:23] can be effective when the

[39:26] conditions align. But really,

[39:28] the point that I want to make,

[39:30] there's a lot that goes into

[39:32] defining the behaviors of the

[39:33] traveling public that do not

[39:35] come to this board for a

[39:38] decision yet sb 375 kind of

[39:40] holds us to account for those

[39:41] decisions, or the lack of

[39:47] decisions. Okay, so sb 375 asks

[39:49] us to reduce greenhouse gas

[39:50] emissions from light duty

[39:52] vehicles by 2035. The good news

[39:54] is, is the transportation

[39:55] projects that we have in the

[39:56] land use developments in the

[39:58] region can bend the curve. The

[40:00] bad news is that doesn't happen

[40:02] overnight. A couple of

[40:03] rhetorical questions. Director

[40:05] Friedman. There are two Macy's

[40:06] sites in the city of Santa

[40:07] Barbara with significant

[40:09] housing developments proposed.

[40:11] It was three and a half years

[40:12] ago that actually right here in

[40:13] this room, we were talking

[40:15] about a specific plan for one

[40:16] of them. When will the

[40:18] residents move in? Director

[40:20] Hartman, how long have we been

[40:21] trying to get a trail across

[40:23] the Santa Ynez Valley? Director

[40:25] Patino. The city of Santa Maria

[40:27] is redeveloping its downtown.

[40:29] When will that be complete?

[40:31] It's. We are making progress.

[40:33] But these things are slow. The

[40:35] 101 is almost done. It was

[40:37] about 20 years ago that the

[40:39] first shovel went into the

[40:42] ground. So we are doing a good

[40:44] job of advancing the projects

[40:46] that support more sustainable

[40:47] travel and travel behaviors.

[40:49] But they do not happen as fast

[40:53] as sb 375 wants. And one other

[40:55] point on this slide that I'd

[40:57] like to make is a lot of the

[40:58] major transportation projects

[41:00] that we advance and the ones

[41:02] that are supportive of

[41:04] sustainable travel require the

[41:06] use of competitive grant funds.

[41:08] Those funding programs are

[41:10] extremely oversubscribed. And,

[41:11] for example, the state's active

[41:13] transportation program has

[41:20] roughly a 20% success rate. So

[41:23] Ab32 became law in 2006. Sb 32

[41:24] followed in 2008, and since

[41:26] then there's been a variety of

[41:27] other laws and regulations that

[41:29] came on line that are trying to

[41:31] achieve the same objectives as

[41:34] sb 375, and they define how we

[41:37] plan regionally with or without

[41:41] sb 375. For one, the arena

[41:43] process, how we allocate

[41:45] housing across the region has a

[41:47] series of five statutory

[41:48] objectives that we must follow.

[41:51] We're required to follow,

[41:52] however, they're aligned with

[41:55] sb 375. So we would be

[41:57] allocating consistent with this

[41:59] law with or without the law.

[42:01] Senate Bill 743 changed the

[42:03] California Environmental

[42:04] Quality Act, the transportation

[42:06] impact aspect of it, to align

[42:10] it with Senate Bill 375. The

[42:12] state was trying to reduce

[42:14] greenhouse gas emissions by

[42:15] electrifying the vehicle fleet

[42:17] that's currently on hold. But

[42:19] ultimately, it would negate

[42:21] Senate Bill 375. And finally,

[42:24] by way of executive orders, the

[42:26] state has the Climate Action

[42:27] Plan for transportation

[42:29] infrastructure as well as

[42:31] Caltrans System Investment

[42:33] Strategy, which essentially

[42:34] focused transportation

[42:35] investments consistent with

[42:38] Senate Bill 375. And all these

[42:40] things would happen with or

[42:45] without that law. So on to

[42:49] reform. When Senate Bill 375

[42:50] first became law, there were

[42:54] two target years 2020 and 2035.

[42:56] 2020 is in the past, 2035 is

[42:58] not too far away for a variety

[43:00] of other challenges. There are

[43:01] efforts across the state to

[43:04] reform the law. First, sb, kg

[43:06] partnered with the San Luis

[43:07] Obispo Council of Governments,

[43:10] or sacog the staff there to

[43:12] write a white paper which was

[43:13] attached to your staff report.

[43:15] The paper lays out many of the

[43:17] issues I spoke of and lays out,

[43:18] or suggests a better way

[43:20] forward, but what does that

[43:21] better way forward look like?

[43:22] Essentially, it's moving from

[43:24] an idealistic law to a

[43:29] pragmatic law. We suggest that

[43:30] targets should consider

[43:32] expected population growth

[43:32] because, as I mentioned,

[43:34] there's two ways to address the

[43:37] greenhouse gas emissions. We

[43:39] would like to keep the focus on

[43:41] the decisions that this board

[43:43] has authority to make, and not

[43:44] hold us to account for

[43:45] decisions that this board

[43:48] doesn't make. In addition, the

[43:50] state should provide the level

[43:51] of funding necessary to

[43:54] implement a state law and to

[43:56] reduce the heavily, heavily

[43:57] quantitative aspects of the law

[44:01] to get more into a softer

[44:03] analysis, and finally, to

[44:04] improve the required

[44:05] collaboration with the

[44:07] California Air Resources Board.

[44:08] So that's the white paper which

[44:11] is attached. There's also

[44:15] another effort across the state.

[44:19] So the largest four MPOs in the

[44:22] state came together to develop

[44:24] a draft proposal. The draft

[44:25] proposal does share some

[44:27] similarities to ours, and much

[44:29] of it would be a benefit. I

[44:30] don't want to say the whole

[44:33] thing would, but much of it

[44:36] would be an improvement. They

[44:38] want to focus more on

[44:39] implementation. They would like

[44:40] to move from a four year to

[44:44] eight year cycle, and another

[44:45] important component is they

[44:47] want MPOs to be able to take

[44:49] credit for all things that

[44:50] reduce greenhouse gas emissions

[44:52] from light duty vehicles. For

[44:53] instance, we get zero credit

[44:54] for the electrification of the

[44:58] vehicle fleet, which by itself

[45:00] is extremely effective at

[45:01] reducing greenhouse gas

[45:05] emissions. So that's the big

[45:07] four proposal. So the next

[45:08] steps in a minute you'll hear

[45:11] from Gus Corey and see that sb

[45:13] 375 is included in our draft

[45:14] legislative platform. And Gus

[45:15] MAY have other comments on the

[45:18] law. We will keep you informed

[45:21] of proposals, including if they

[45:22] impact your city council or

[45:24] Board of Supervisors role, and

[45:25] when there are concrete

[45:26] proposals, we will return to

[45:29] seek your direction on how to

[45:31] address those or to try and

[45:33] influence those. With that, I'm

[45:36] happy to take any questions.

[45:37] All right. Do we have any

[45:39] questions from director,

[45:40] director Brown? Director

[45:44] Hartman, go first. Thank you

[45:46] for it's good report, but I

[45:50] find that some of the I think

[45:53] we skew the the statistics

[45:55] significantly. Solvang.

[45:59] Particularly with where we have

[46:00] almost everybody coming in

[46:02] through we have over a million

[46:04] visitors a year. And I promise

[46:06] you, most of them are spending

[46:07] more than an hour on the road

[46:10] to get there, but they're not

[46:14] part of our population or per

[46:17] capita, I guess. So I'm seeing

[46:20] skews in that way. If I

[46:23] understand your statistical

[46:25] model correctly. Right. Good

[46:27] question, Director Brown. So

[46:29] the the chart that I showed was

[46:31] focused just on the journey to

[46:32] work. But we are responsible

[46:35] for most travel is included

[46:39] within the umbrella of sb 375.

[46:42] There are differences and I

[46:45] can't speak completely on

[46:47] whether or not the trip starts

[46:48] outside of our region or it

[46:49] just passes through our region.

[46:50] Like for instance, if somebody

[46:52] was coming up from Los Angeles

[46:54] to go visit Solvang, we would

[46:56] probably only be taking credit

[46:58] for from the county line of

[46:59] Carpinteria up to Solvang in

[47:02] terms of the miles. But yes, I

[47:03] hear you. And that's actually

[47:06] an interesting point, is if you

[47:07] have this law, that's a state

[47:10] law that's asking people to

[47:11] essentially trying to get

[47:14] people to drive less. Yet, you

[47:16] know, we still very actively

[47:18] promote tourism and so forth

[47:20] that encourages people to drive

[47:24] more. And it's not just solving,

[47:25] it's also the casino and many

[47:29] other entities that are

[47:31] inviting Santa Barbara. So if

[47:33] those if the tourism to the

[47:35] city of Solvang, the casino or

[47:36] wherever else the tourists are

[47:38] going in Santa Barbara County

[47:39] continues to grow, it just

[47:41] makes our challenge even harder

[47:42] because we're focused on a per

[47:44] capita basis, so that the total

[47:45] number of miles is divided by

[47:47] the population. Population

[47:49] stays stagnant and the miles

[47:52] grows. So your your proposed

[47:53] solution is a modification of

[47:58] sb 375. Sb 375 is going to

[47:59] change whether we influence it

[48:01] or not. There's enough motion

[48:03] behind it that it's it's going

[48:04] to change probably in the

[48:05] current legislative session.

[48:07] Gus can add more to that, but

[48:09] there's a variety of things we

[48:12] want to do. Like, for instance,

[48:14] there's a lot that impacts

[48:16] travel behavior like tourism,

[48:18] that there's no question that

[48:19] ever comes to the board that

[48:22] says yes or no. It's happening

[48:24] outside of the purview of sb,

[48:26] kg, yet we are the ones

[48:27] responsible for it. So to kind

[48:29] of focus it more on what this

[48:32] board controls rather than

[48:35] travel behavior in general. And

[48:37] the same goes for land use that

[48:40] we lay out a regional land use

[48:42] development pattern. We have no

[48:43] land use authority. The cities

[48:45] and the county can do what they

[48:48] please. Yet we're kind of held

[48:49] to account for if it doesn't

[48:53] happen. Through the chair.

[48:55] Director Brown, I think the

[48:56] point that we're trying to make

[48:59] is sb, cag has been doing the

[49:02] the spirit of 375 for the last

[49:03] 20 years. I mean, the one on

[49:06] one is an hov lane. We've been

[49:07] promoting bicycle, we've been

[49:09] promoting regional transit. So

[49:11] we're doing 375 regardless of

[49:15] the law. If the law is making

[49:18] it a challenge for for me as an

[49:19] executive director of this

[49:21] agency, of being able to

[49:23] continue to do those good

[49:25] things when if we don't meet

[49:27] the target, I, we as an agency

[49:29] MAY get punished and not be

[49:31] eligible for funding at the

[49:32] state level because of it. And

[49:35] that's a problem when when as a

[49:37] region, you know, we're not

[49:38] growing. So that per capita,

[49:41] the the delta of that change is

[49:44] mathematically impossible to

[49:45] achieve the 17% reduction

[49:47] because we're not growing

[49:51] enough. Yeah. So it it's a it's

[49:55] a it's a conundrum. Right. So

[49:57] so my goal here is to make the

[50:00] law the spirit of the law,

[50:02] which was good to balance

[50:04] transportation and housing and

[50:06] funding in one document, which

[50:09] is good, but not punish people

[50:12] for not because we have other

[50:13] goals. Reducing greenhouse

[50:15] gases is not your only goal of

[50:17] this agency. It's providing

[50:19] transportation for the

[50:20] traveling public. It's really

[50:23] our goal. So again, I'm trying

[50:24] to I know we didn't get it

[50:26] really into the nitty gritty.

[50:27] And you don't want to because

[50:29] this is a very bureaucratic law.

[50:32] It's from my perspective. And

[50:34] working with it is very

[50:36] challenging to achieve the

[50:38] goals like we just achieved. In

[50:40] your last item of getting a

[50:42] train started, you know, it's

[50:44] it's not it's not helping the

[50:46] cause. It MAY be hurting our

[50:49] cause. These are unintended

[50:52] consequences. And our

[50:53] accountability is it doesn't

[50:56] reflect our engagement. Correct.

[50:58] And this bill MAY make sense in

[50:59] the larger areas where they

[51:00] have more tools and more growth

[51:03] and more or more incentives for

[51:05] funding and funding different

[51:06] things. It MAY make more sense

[51:08] in the bigger areas, but for a

[51:11] rural county like ours or

[51:12] semi-rural, it, it's not

[51:15] working. So somebody has to say,

[51:17] time out here, we need to do

[51:18] something different. And this

[51:19] is our our communication of

[51:21] that. Thank you, Director

[51:24] Hartman. Yeah. Listening to you,

[51:27] i mean, it's hard to think of a

[51:31] regional agency in the county

[51:32] that could pull the various

[51:36] entities together. So. So if

[51:38] you don't do it here, you know,

[51:39] where would you do it? That's.

[51:42] I think that is the conundrum.

[51:43] I just wanted to ask for the

[51:49] regional land use development.

[51:51] Pattern. If you're working with

[51:54] Lafco. Lafco just got a major

[51:57] grant from the sustainable

[51:58] agricultural community, and

[52:00] they have a process to try to

[52:03] figure out where where should

[52:06] growth occur around cities and

[52:09] where not because of

[52:12] environmental or other reasons.

[52:14] So I just wanted to make sure

[52:16] that, you know, it's important

[52:19] that we collaborate and have

[52:20] consistency to the extent that

[52:23] we can. So that's the other

[52:25] regional entity that's trying

[52:27] to struggle with this, and I

[52:29] did. That's actually exciting

[52:30] to hear that they got their

[52:31] grant because I did contribute

[52:32] to their application. And I

[52:34] when I did, I mentioned if you

[52:36] get funded please include me in

[52:39] your. Okay. Well, those of us

[52:40] who serve on the board,

[52:41] Director Nelson and I and

[52:44] Director Patino will carry that

[52:46] message back. But you know now

[52:53] to thank you, Director Mosby.

[52:56] As an alternate here. I think

[52:58] you did. You guys did a great

[53:00] job with arena. And I think the

[53:02] complexity of arena is it just

[53:04] sticks on that top circular

[53:07] layer. And this is a spiraling

[53:08] tornado. So it goes down

[53:10] historically through time. And

[53:12] what you're focused on housing,

[53:13] you're missing one of the

[53:15] aspects of the jobs housing

[53:17] imbalance. And that's the jobs.

[53:20] So as an example in the

[53:21] community of Lompoc, what has

[53:24] happened? Well, land is zoned

[53:25] pcd, planned commercial

[53:26] development going to housing,

[53:29] land zoned ppe, going to

[53:31] housing. We have

[53:32] recommendations for churches to

[53:35] be torn down for housing,

[53:36] restaurants torn down for

[53:38] housing, other social halls

[53:41] converting to housing. And the

[53:43] complexity is, is, is people at

[53:44] the higher level who don't live

[53:46] in the community, who don't

[53:48] understand the community, are

[53:49] making decisions for the

[53:51] community. You know, somehow

[53:53] the agricultural protectionism

[53:54] has gotten to the point that

[53:57] that housing is an endangered

[53:59] species. Broccoli isn't, but

[54:01] broccoli is treated more

[54:02] importantly than than quality

[54:05] housing for the people. But at

[54:06] Multilayers it goes down.

[54:10] People say, well, exasperating

[54:11] those mileage aspects of it is

[54:13] the community of Lompoc. You

[54:15] know, we're over 10,000 people

[54:17] leave the town all the time to

[54:18] go find a job. I think it's

[54:20] well over 60% of the people. If

[54:22] you have a job, you commute for

[54:25] that job. So you said it's it's

[54:26] difficult for you to get to

[54:28] that answer. We can't get there.

[54:30] But I think it's important,

[54:32] which I get chastised for, for

[54:33] bringing up historical

[54:35] components and how we got where

[54:37] we are. And it's understand the

[54:38] balance that you have to have

[54:40] to get through, but it needs to

[54:42] be based on not just the top

[54:43] layer. And I'll give you an

[54:45] example. In one step, the

[54:47] county eliminated 7642 home

[54:50] sites around the city of Lompoc,

[54:52] eliminated 292 acres of light

[54:54] industrial and commercial

[54:55] properties around Lompoc. And

[54:57] all of a sudden, you wonder why

[54:59] a town can't feed itself. And

[55:00] then you get way overly complex

[55:02] and long term plans that were

[55:04] this bp zoned land that was

[55:07] going to bring jobs. But now

[55:08] we're going to build housing

[55:10] and we're going to be the

[55:11] solution. I've been told by

[55:12] South County people they would

[55:13] support workforce housing for

[55:15] us. What does that exacerbate

[55:17] the jobs if it's workforce

[55:19] designed for South County? Now

[55:21] the complexity is we don't

[55:22] necessarily get to harvest all

[55:24] the jobs that are at the base,

[55:25] which hits the 135 out here.

[55:27] You go out here and there's an

[55:28] hour wait because we haven't

[55:30] built it. Last year we built

[55:32] zero homes. Year before that,

[55:34] we built two homes. We built a

[55:36] built a number of low income

[55:38] stuff. So you want to redirect

[55:40] people who don't have jobs to a

[55:41] community that doesn't have

[55:44] jobs. And then you thus

[55:45] exasperate. And it's the way

[55:47] this has to be lifted up. You

[55:49] know, we need to bring the jobs

[55:51] as you guys did. Thank you for

[55:53] the above moderate component so

[55:54] we can try to bring that. And

[55:55] this year we should be looking

[55:58] at 350 houses built this year.

[56:00] And we're directing that more

[56:01] towards bringing the people

[56:03] working at the base to the

[56:04] community. But I think when you

[56:06] guys mentioned the jobs housing

[56:07] imbalance is also to look at

[56:09] the job component, but also

[56:10] historically, how did

[56:12] communities get designed? If

[56:14] you look at the 5859 general

[56:16] plan maps and zoning maps of

[56:18] the community, you'll see the

[56:19] complexity that happened to the

[56:20] community of Lompoc and the

[56:22] Lompoc Valley. And I think I

[56:23] brought it to you guys

[56:24] attention before. But studies

[56:26] from 1968 said Lompoc, by the

[56:29] year 2020 would be 196,000

[56:32] people. And you wonder what

[56:35] happened. You wonder why we are

[56:37] where we are and why you have

[56:38] the conundrum of trying to

[56:39] solve the problem. And it is

[56:41] very complicated. And it can't

[56:42] just be on a simple arena

[56:44] without storing the deep

[56:45] analytics of how we got where

[56:47] we are. And you guys are doing

[56:51] a great job, I get it, but

[56:52] remember, it's it's like I said,

[56:54] in the case of Lompoc, it's a

[56:57] spiraling downward tornado. And

[56:59] it's got us where it's a much

[57:01] more complicated than. And I

[57:03] think Director Levin brought

[57:04] something up very important

[57:06] about 6 or 7 years ago. And as

[57:09] the success of Rina and we do

[57:11] all this studies, do all these

[57:12] analytics, we put something

[57:13] together. And then what happens

[57:14] now? This time the state's

[57:16] trying to put a few more teeth

[57:17] in it and change rules. But

[57:19] these rules are going to

[57:21] exacerbate the problem. They

[57:22] really are that people can

[57:25] blindly just, you know, convert

[57:27] land how it wants to in such

[57:29] the way they do, or the states

[57:30] will mandate or they'll come in.

[57:33] And, you know, in our case,

[57:34] land, it was zoned bp is not

[57:36] going to have 80 houses on

[57:40] instead of 350 jobs. How do you

[57:44] solve that? Yeah. Thank you.

[57:46] Any questions down in Santa

[57:51] Barbara for staff. Okay. I just

[57:54] had one. I was just curious.

[57:55] The only piece that I feel like

[57:57] maybe is a blinder. Maybe this

[57:58] isn't the appropriate place to

[57:59] do it, but I was wondering.

[58:01] There's no mention about kind

[58:02] of the infrastructure support

[58:04] that we can provide for, like

[58:05] telecommuting, which I feel

[58:07] like is a position that a lot

[58:08] of solutions are available for

[58:09] shrinking the vmt. I know that

[58:11] I, you know, I'm on the high

[58:13] chart. I drive more than 32

[58:14] miles for my job when I go. And

[58:16] so I just was wondering, is

[58:17] there a means of advocacy about

[58:19] counting a means of decreasing

[58:21] vmt from providing the

[58:22] infrastructure to provide more

[58:24] tele telecommuting jobs

[58:24] available? Is that something

[58:26] that's available or that we can

[58:28] advocate for? Yes, a very good

[58:30] question. So we do take credit

[58:32] for telecommuting and the

[58:33] pandemic. One of the benefits

[58:35] that came out of that is we see

[58:36] much higher levels of

[58:38] telecommuting post-pandemic.

[58:40] And then on the sb side, what

[58:42] can we do to promote that? Two

[58:43] things. Number one, we have a

[58:45] travel demand management

[58:46] division, the multimodal

[58:48] programs that works. And that's

[58:50] Whitney to connect people with

[58:51] sustainable modes of

[58:54] transportation or things that

[58:58] reduce trips. So therefore,

[59:01] working at home and also

[59:02] started with Margie and then

[59:04] went through planning. And now

[59:05] it's with project delivery as

[59:07] the broadband aspect of trying

[59:08] to build out a broadband

[59:10] network that fully enables

[59:12] remote work. Thank you,

[59:16] Director Hartman. I think what

[59:19] Director Moseby says is, is

[59:21] really important. And I keep

[59:24] thinking, what is sb k's role

[59:26] in economic development and job

[59:31] creation? And I wonder if one

[59:33] thing we could do is invite

[59:35] reach to make a presentation.

[59:37] I'm not sure that all the

[59:39] directors are are as involved

[59:41] in that as some of us. And I

[59:45] think they're looking both at

[59:48] slo County and Santa Barbara

[59:50] County as a whole. And and I

[59:54] think it might at least

[59:56] generate some, some new ideas.

[59:58] So I would put that forward as

[1:00:02] a recommendation. Okay. Any

[1:00:06] further questions? Okay. Do we

[1:00:07] have anyone else presenting on

[1:00:09] this time. No. Next is the next

[1:00:11] item okay. Is there any public

[1:00:13] comment on this item? Are there

[1:00:14] any members of the public on

[1:00:15] the zoom webinar who wish to

[1:00:17] speak? Would you please use the

[1:00:18] raise Hand feature and I will

[1:00:21] call upon you? We did not

[1:00:22] receive any public comment for

[1:00:24] this item in advance, and there

[1:00:26] are no members of the public

[1:00:28] who wish to speak. Okay. Seeing

[1:00:29] no further comments from the

[1:00:31] board, we'll go. This is just a

[1:00:32] presentation only, no action.

[1:00:34] So we will move on to item five.

[1:00:36] C could you please read that

[1:00:37] into the record item five c

[1:00:39] draft 2026 State and federal

[1:00:41] Legislative Platform

[1:00:42] recommended actions one.

[1:00:44] Receive and file a report from

[1:00:46] sb federal lobbyist Dawn

[1:00:48] Gilchrist of Thomas Walters and

[1:00:49] Associates, Inc. To receive and

[1:00:51] file a report from sb state

[1:00:53] lobbyist Gus Corey of Corey

[1:00:55] Consulting. Three approve sb

[1:00:57] Cags 2026 federal and state

[1:01:00] legislative platforms and four

[1:01:01] authorize the sb Executive

[1:01:02] Director to execute any

[1:01:04] necessary documentation to add

[1:01:06] sb kg. As a signatory to the

[1:01:09] California's federal Surface

[1:01:11] Transportation Reauthorization

[1:01:13] Principles. Thank you very much.

[1:01:15] Thank you, and good morning,

[1:01:17] everyone. For the record, my

[1:01:19] name is Lauren Bianchi, Clemen,

[1:01:20] director of Government affairs

[1:01:22] and public information for sb

[1:01:24] cag. Today, I'll be presenting

[1:01:27] the agency's 2026 state and

[1:01:28] legislative platforms. These

[1:01:31] definitely guide our advocacy

[1:01:32] efforts in Sacramento and

[1:01:34] Washington, dc, to secure

[1:01:36] funding and advance policies

[1:01:37] for high priority

[1:01:40] transportation projects and

[1:01:42] measure a investments when

[1:01:43] major funding decisions are

[1:01:45] made by the state and federal

[1:01:46] governments, regions that speak

[1:01:49] clearly and consistently

[1:01:51] compete well for those funds.

[1:01:53] So our platforms are how our

[1:01:54] cities and the county can

[1:01:56] coordinate in one regional

[1:01:58] voice. These platforms are

[1:02:00] updated annually and input from

[1:02:02] and contain input from our

[1:02:04] advisory committees, transit

[1:02:06] partners, advocates, our

[1:02:08] legislative advocates, regional

[1:02:09] associations, associations like

[1:02:12] the California Association of

[1:02:14] Council of Governments. I also

[1:02:16] want to recognize the sb case

[1:02:18] management team. We meet

[1:02:20] annually in the fall to kind of

[1:02:22] set our priorities and look at

[1:02:23] what the region's needs are. So

[1:02:25] they really help shape these

[1:02:26] platforms that are before you

[1:02:29] today. So before you take

[1:02:30] action on the platforms, you

[1:02:33] will hear from our federal.

[1:02:34] You'll hear about our federal

[1:02:37] and state outlooks. And and

[1:02:38] they will help provide context

[1:02:40] for what we're proposing this

[1:02:42] year. You'll first hear from

[1:02:44] Don Gilchrist of Thomas Walters

[1:02:46] and Associates, followed by Gus

[1:02:49] Corey of Corey Consulting. Also

[1:02:51] included in your action today

[1:02:54] is allowing sb cag to join in

[1:02:57] the Statewide Reauthorization

[1:03:00] Principles document or support

[1:03:02] the state's efforts on that.

[1:03:03] And that's consistent with sb

[1:03:07] cag reauthorization priorities.

[1:03:08] This is an important time to do

[1:03:10] that, because Congress is

[1:03:11] renewing the federal

[1:03:14] transportation law that funds

[1:03:17] highways, bridges, transit, and

[1:03:19] programs nationwide. So that

[1:03:21] current law expires on

[1:03:22] SEPTEMBER 30th of this year.

[1:03:24] And so being at that forefront

[1:03:26] and lending our voice not just

[1:03:27] only with our priorities, but

[1:03:29] with the state, is an important

[1:03:31] path forward. So the draft

[1:03:33] platforms are attached to your

[1:03:35] report. It's included a track

[1:03:37] changes version that documents

[1:03:39] what's been changed since last

[1:03:42] year, and a clean copy for your

[1:03:43] consideration. So with that,

[1:03:46] I'm going to pause and welcome

[1:03:48] Don Gilchrist to talk about our

[1:03:51] federal outlook. And then after

[1:03:52] his, we can have a discussion

[1:03:54] on the federal platform and

[1:03:58] then move on to the state.

[1:03:59] Thank you. And good morning,

[1:04:01] Vice Chair Silva. Members of

[1:04:02] the board, Don Gilchrist, I'm

[1:04:04] PRESIDENT Of Thomas Walters and

[1:04:06] Associates. And I do want to

[1:04:08] just give you a little bit of

[1:04:10] an update on the federal

[1:04:11] legislative situation. As you

[1:04:14] look at the platform real

[1:04:17] briefly. Last year was a very

[1:04:20] interesting year. We

[1:04:22] surprisingly, there was an

[1:04:23] incredible number of executive

[1:04:24] orders that came out of the

[1:04:27] white House that really shaped

[1:04:30] things and shook things up. I

[1:04:31] think that's going to continue

[1:04:34] this year. Last year it seems

[1:04:36] like a distant memory, but H.R.

[1:04:37] One, the Budget Reconciliation

[1:04:40] Act, was signed into law in

[1:04:42] JULY, and that has huge impacts

[1:04:46] for sba. It unfortunately took

[1:04:47] away some of the opportunities

[1:04:49] and options for you to pursue

[1:04:51] renewable energy incentives and

[1:04:54] things like electric vehicle

[1:04:55] charging infrastructure. Many

[1:04:57] of those incentives were

[1:05:00] repealed in H.R. One and then

[1:05:02] appropriations. Always a

[1:05:03] difficult thing for Congress to

[1:05:05] do to get the appropriations

[1:05:07] bill signed into law. We had

[1:05:09] that really long shutdown in

[1:05:11] OCTOBER and NOVEMBER. So it was

[1:05:13] a very difficult year. But as

[1:05:16] of FEBRUARY 3rd, 11 of the 12

[1:05:18] bills have been signed into law,

[1:05:20] including the transportation

[1:05:21] bill. And that's the one that

[1:05:24] really counts a lot for you. As

[1:05:27] part of that, $1.5 million has

[1:05:29] been signed into law for the

[1:05:30] Cabrillo Project, and this was

[1:05:31] something that Representative

[1:05:33] Carbajal worked very hard on.

[1:05:36] He requested this for sb, kg,

[1:05:37] and his support was

[1:05:39] instrumental in that being

[1:05:40] included. And then, as Lauren

[1:05:44] said, we are looking for a new

[1:05:46] reauthorization for the Surface

[1:05:47] Transportation Program

[1:05:49] legislation. And last year we

[1:05:50] started to lobby on that to get

[1:05:52] ahead of the curve. And so it

[1:05:54] was a very busy year. If we go

[1:05:56] to the next slide, I did want

[1:05:58] to talk a little bit more about

[1:05:58] the transportation

[1:05:59] appropriations bill, since

[1:06:01] that's so important for you.

[1:06:02] Essentially, this is a

[1:06:04] compromise. Some of the

[1:06:05] reductions that PRESIDENT Trump

[1:06:08] was proposing were included in

[1:06:11] this legislation. And notably,

[1:06:12] there were there was a

[1:06:13] rescission of funding for the

[1:06:15] electric vehicle infrastructure

[1:06:17] program, also a really big

[1:06:18] rescission of funding for high

[1:06:21] speed rail projects. But by and

[1:06:24] large, the cuts that he was

[1:06:25] proposing were rejected. And

[1:06:27] the news is generally good for

[1:06:29] sb, kg. Most of your funding

[1:06:31] comes through the highway and

[1:06:33] transit formulas, and they were

[1:06:34] fully funded. And there are

[1:06:36] some other opportunities in the

[1:06:37] legislation for competitive

[1:06:38] grants. What I wanted to make

[1:06:41] sure to mention is that this is

[1:06:43] the final year of the

[1:06:45] additional funding for

[1:06:46] transportation programs that

[1:06:48] was provided by the

[1:06:49] Infrastructure Investment and

[1:06:51] Jobs Act. That is, in addition

[1:06:53] to funding that is enacted

[1:06:54] through the appropriations

[1:06:56] process. And so as that comes

[1:06:57] to an end, that just highlights,

[1:07:00] again, how important the

[1:07:01] reauthorization will be as we

[1:07:03] work through this year. If we

[1:07:05] go to the next slide, I do want

[1:07:06] to just talk about that process

[1:07:09] a little bit. Just first of all,

[1:07:11] how important this is was

[1:07:13] demonstrated during that long

[1:07:15] government shutdown. There was

[1:07:17] no interruption to the highway

[1:07:18] program. There was no

[1:07:19] interruption to the transit

[1:07:21] program. And that was because

[1:07:22] of funding that was enacted

[1:07:24] through the infrastructure law.

[1:07:25] And that illustrates how

[1:07:27] important this is for you to

[1:07:30] provide not only a robust

[1:07:33] funding, but reliable funding.

[1:07:35] The big challenge, how are we

[1:07:37] going to pay for it? The

[1:07:40] Highway Trust Fund will be

[1:07:42] insolvent by 2028. That's

[1:07:44] because motor fuels taxes are

[1:07:47] not keeping up with spending.

[1:07:48] So that's a big challenge to

[1:07:50] getting the next surface

[1:07:51] transportation bill put

[1:07:55] together for you. We're really

[1:07:57] emphasizing increasing the size

[1:08:01] of the formula programs and

[1:08:02] allocating as much of that

[1:08:04] funding down to your level as

[1:08:06] possible. And there's a number

[1:08:07] of other programs that we're

[1:08:09] working on, the metropolitan

[1:08:10] planning programs, very

[1:08:12] important for you, passenger

[1:08:14] rail, transit, active

[1:08:16] transportation, all those are

[1:08:18] part of our lobbying effort.

[1:08:20] And then there's the broadband

[1:08:21] component that was included in

[1:08:23] the infrastructure law. And we

[1:08:25] want to see that continue if

[1:08:27] possible. That's a little bit

[1:08:28] controversial, but we're hoping

[1:08:30] that something can be done for

[1:08:32] that. I think what we're going

[1:08:35] to see is a House bill come out

[1:08:37] in the spring, and that's going

[1:08:39] to give us a lot of help

[1:08:40] understanding where this is

[1:08:41] going. Is it going to be a

[1:08:43] Partizan bill that the

[1:08:44] committee chair puts together,

[1:08:47] or is he going to keep it a

[1:08:49] bipartisan process? And then a

[1:08:50] little bit later, closer to the

[1:08:53] summer, I think the Senate will

[1:08:54] show their hand on what they're

[1:08:57] going to be doing. This slide

[1:08:59] just gives a summary of the

[1:09:01] federal platform that's in your

[1:09:03] packet. We'll just say there's

[1:09:05] a lot of continuity with the

[1:09:09] previous year. I think we've

[1:09:11] updated it in a few places just

[1:09:15] to account for the status of

[1:09:18] legislation, but I'm

[1:09:20] recommending that sb, cag again

[1:09:23] come to dc this time in MARCH,

[1:09:25] with board members and staff to

[1:09:27] be able to lobby on your

[1:09:29] federal platform. I think that

[1:09:30] would be a great time for you

[1:09:32] to be there. It's going to be

[1:09:33] an interesting year again, a

[1:09:35] difficult year with lots of

[1:09:36] challenges. But I think if you

[1:09:38] think see how the

[1:09:39] appropriations process in

[1:09:41] particular came together, it

[1:09:43] does show that an aggressive

[1:09:45] advocacy program does make a

[1:09:47] difference. And some of these

[1:09:49] things are important enough. We

[1:09:50] can fight these battles and we

[1:09:52] can win these battles. So I'll

[1:09:54] pause there to see if I can

[1:09:56] respond to any questions you

[1:09:57] have. But I'm looking forward

[1:09:58] to working with you throughout

[1:10:01] the rest of this year. Thank

[1:10:02] you very much. I ask Director

[1:10:06] Hartman, why is broadband

[1:10:07] controversial? Just sort of

[1:10:09] public private responsibilities,

[1:10:13] or does it go deeper? It's

[1:10:14] certainly been targeted by the

[1:10:18] Trump administration. The the

[1:10:22] criticism that they levied was

[1:10:23] that all this money has been

[1:10:26] spent and no results have been

[1:10:27] accomplished. I don't think

[1:10:29] that's a fair assessment. I

[1:10:32] don't think it is everything

[1:10:33] that they're thinking about.

[1:10:34] Broadband is just the most

[1:10:37] convenient thing to say, but it

[1:10:39] is definitely an area where

[1:10:41] this additional funding that

[1:10:43] was provided through the

[1:10:45] infrastructure law isn't

[1:10:46] necessarily going to be that

[1:10:47] easy to replicate this time

[1:10:52] around. Republicans in Congress

[1:10:54] do have an interest in this,

[1:10:55] but we've seen that they have

[1:10:59] been not that excited about

[1:11:00] going against the white House.

[1:11:02] So we'll see how this goes, how

[1:11:03] this plays out. No one really

[1:11:05] has a really good feel for how

[1:11:07] this is going to happen in the

[1:11:10] area of broadband yet. Yeah, I

[1:11:11] guess I don't understand. I

[1:11:13] mean, I think of freeways and

[1:11:15] railroads and there's always

[1:11:18] been a huge federal investment,

[1:11:19] government investment, along

[1:11:21] with private money if we want

[1:11:24] to make a difference. So I'm

[1:11:25] and a lot of the money was

[1:11:27] never even allocated. It's not

[1:11:29] like it got rolled out the door.

[1:11:35] So I'm still puzzled. I am too.

[1:11:36] Any other questions up here in

[1:11:40] Santa Maria? Any questions down

[1:11:45] in Santa Barbara? Okay. Not

[1:11:47] seeing. Thank you very much.

[1:11:48] Great. So before we move on to

[1:11:50] the state, I did want to

[1:11:51] highlight that we are now that

[1:11:53] the 101 is almost done using

[1:11:55] this opportunity on our federal

[1:11:56] platform to raise awareness

[1:11:58] about the final four measure a

[1:12:00] projects. So that is one of the

[1:12:01] big changes that you see in the

[1:12:02] legislative platform. And one

[1:12:04] of our big efforts. We're

[1:12:05] really looking forward to kind

[1:12:06] of talking about those final

[1:12:07] four projects, giving fact

[1:12:09] sheets, raising awareness so

[1:12:11] that it can help prepare us for

[1:12:13] the funding, future funding

[1:12:15] that we'll need on those

[1:12:17] projects and any questions. And

[1:12:19] so and so that's it for the

[1:12:21] federal platform. So with that,

[1:12:23] it is my pleasure to invite Gus

[1:12:26] Corey up to talk about our

[1:12:30] state outlook. Good morning

[1:12:31] directors. Pleasure to be here.

[1:12:32] Gus Corey state legislative

[1:12:34] advocate for sb, cag. Have a

[1:12:35] very short PowerPoint

[1:12:37] presentation here. Exciting

[1:12:39] times in Sacramento, as you

[1:12:41] would expect. Maybe not as

[1:12:45] exciting as D.C. But. Just to

[1:12:47] briefly look at our

[1:12:48] accomplishments, just to have

[1:12:49] perspective. And so we talk

[1:12:51] about the one on one being

[1:12:52] almost done from the

[1:12:53] construction side. From the

[1:12:54] funding side, I think we're

[1:12:56] done, knock on wood. So just to

[1:12:58] give some perspective, the hard

[1:13:00] work that this body did to get

[1:13:03] measure a approved, we've

[1:13:05] leveraged more than six times

[1:13:05] the amount of money that the

[1:13:08] measure provides in order to

[1:13:12] make the 101 a reality. And so

[1:13:14] $916 million has been secured

[1:13:18] since 2016, $400 million for

[1:13:21] rail for sb, cag and Lausanne,

[1:13:23] including getting the rail

[1:13:26] station funded. This was thanks

[1:13:27] to Director Kern and her

[1:13:29] leadership and staff, all the

[1:13:30] great applications that we put

[1:13:32] in and our advocacy, we were

[1:13:33] able to help create some of

[1:13:36] these programs to make this a

[1:13:38] reality. So active

[1:13:39] transportation, there's been

[1:13:40] less funding, but we've been

[1:13:43] very successful over $102

[1:13:44] million that's been secured

[1:13:47] since 2017. So as director said,

[1:13:49] we've been throwing the kitchen

[1:13:51] sink at trying to provide a

[1:13:54] truly multi-modal region. This

[1:13:56] is, you know, whether or not sb

[1:13:58] 375 or any other state law was

[1:14:00] even being contemplated. So cap

[1:14:04] and invest, this was previously

[1:14:05] monikered as the cap and trade

[1:14:08] program that was extended. We

[1:14:10] had a significant role in

[1:14:12] moving the ball forward on this.

[1:14:13] Senator lemon was the author of

[1:14:15] one of the bills that had the

[1:14:16] expenditures in there. What

[1:14:19] they did is there used to be

[1:14:20] continuous appropriations based

[1:14:22] on a percentage share for

[1:14:23] transit and housing. They now

[1:14:25] made those line items. So it'll

[1:14:25] be a little bit more

[1:14:26] challenging. I'll talk about

[1:14:28] that in a second. But it did

[1:14:30] retain funding for some

[1:14:31] affordable housing, sustainable

[1:14:33] Community strategies funding

[1:14:34] and then for transit capital

[1:14:37] and operations. And then the

[1:14:38] reprogram this was supplemental

[1:14:39] funding for you guys to be able

[1:14:41] to build affordable housing in

[1:14:44] the region. And so we fought to

[1:14:45] protect against some of the

[1:14:48] cuts that Governor Newsom had

[1:14:49] proposed last year. He wanted

[1:14:51] to cut about $300 million. We

[1:14:54] were able to save, recoup about

[1:14:55] 250 million of that. So out of

[1:14:58] a $600 million program, we kept

[1:15:00] intact, 550 and that protected

[1:15:02] 772 units in the county. Next

[1:15:04] slide. So opportunities and

[1:15:08] challenges $18 billion versus a

[1:15:09] $2.9 billion general fund

[1:15:11] deficit. That's the $18 billion

[1:15:12] the Leos estimate. The

[1:15:15] governor's estimate is 2.9.

[1:15:16] It's based upon the fact that

[1:15:18] the Leo factors in, hey, we

[1:15:19] predict that the stock market's

[1:15:21] going to go down by 20%. We

[1:15:23] literally rely on the stock

[1:15:25] market. It's capital gains,

[1:15:26] personal income tax and

[1:15:28] corporate taxes that fund the

[1:15:30] general fund. The good news is

[1:15:32] that we're fairly insulated

[1:15:34] from that conversation, because

[1:15:35] transportation relies on the

[1:15:37] gas tax and then vehicle

[1:15:39] registration fees for the most

[1:15:41] part. But we get stung anytime

[1:15:42] that we rely on the general

[1:15:44] fund. So when there was a

[1:15:45] surplus a couple years ago and

[1:15:46] the legislature had approved

[1:15:49] Senate Bill 125, we got a $53

[1:15:52] million formula, formulaic

[1:15:55] share of a 5.1 statewide pot.

[1:15:56] We have not received the full

[1:15:58] balance of that money. And

[1:15:59] what's happened is it was a

[1:16:01] general fund obligation. It got

[1:16:02] moved over into the greenhouse

[1:16:04] gas reduction fund. Legislature

[1:16:05] said, hey, we need to fund Cal

[1:16:08] Fire. So we're going to it

[1:16:10] creates less capacity. So we're

[1:16:11] still waiting on about $14

[1:16:13] million worth of funding to

[1:16:14] help out with our transit

[1:16:15] operations and capital needs in

[1:16:18] the county, and then on air

[1:16:21] equality, as MR. Becker's

[1:16:23] presentation pointed out, just

[1:16:24] context there. So there has

[1:16:26] been legislation that was

[1:16:27] introduced a couple days ago,

[1:16:30] Senate Bill 1087 by Senator

[1:16:32] Cabaldon. He represents Yolo

[1:16:35] County. It's just it's been a

[1:16:36] one size fits all approach,

[1:16:37] which has been really

[1:16:38] frustrating. And MR. Becker

[1:16:39] would tell you and Director

[1:16:42] Kern would tell you that 87% of

[1:16:43] the state's population lives in

[1:16:45] the big four mpo. So Sacramento,

[1:16:48] San Diego, Scag region and the

[1:16:50] Bay area mtc. So that leaves 14

[1:16:52] other MPOs having to try to

[1:16:55] address vehicle miles traveled

[1:16:58] where the the mission doesn't

[1:17:00] always befit the practicality

[1:17:02] of our uniqueness as a as a

[1:17:03] region. So if you're able to

[1:17:05] build more housing, you get

[1:17:06] dinged because you're creating

[1:17:07] a new hot spot, because there

[1:17:09] isn't money to have transit

[1:17:10] oriented development, because

[1:17:13] they've cut funding for rail or

[1:17:16] for or for transit. 40% of our

[1:17:17] economy, at least along the

[1:17:19] Central Coast, relies on

[1:17:23] tourism. When 5 or 99 shut down

[1:17:24] due to inclement weather, the

[1:17:26] one on one becomes your only

[1:17:27] north south connector in the

[1:17:28] state. And it's been an

[1:17:30] evacuation route, as we've seen

[1:17:32] time and time again. So those

[1:17:33] conversations need to be

[1:17:35] factored in. So what the bill

[1:17:36] currently does right now, it's

[1:17:39] going to change, I'm sure of it.

[1:17:41] And we're fortunate that

[1:17:42] Senator Lindeman is now the

[1:17:44] Senate PRESIDENT Pro tem of the

[1:17:45] Senate. So we have a strong

[1:17:50] advocate there. But it delays

[1:17:52] it, gives sb, cag more time in

[1:17:53] order to put the Sustainable

[1:17:55] Community Strategies plans

[1:17:56] together, which is fine,

[1:17:57] because we get into this

[1:17:58] redundancy of just doing plan

[1:17:59] after plan, but then they're

[1:18:01] trying to fix some money to

[1:18:03] their endeavor because us

[1:18:05] coming out of pocket again for

[1:18:06] unfunded state mandate doesn't

[1:18:07] seem quite fair. So we're

[1:18:08] trying to see how that shakes

[1:18:11] out. So conversations will be

[1:18:13] ongoing. Will be we'll play a

[1:18:14] large role in that conversation.

[1:18:17] And then the gas tax conversion,

[1:18:20] this has been an ongoing thing.

[1:18:22] The last time Senate Bill one

[1:18:24] was sort of a band aid. It was

[1:18:26] one time funding at the time

[1:18:28] where we thought, hey, we can

[1:18:29] increase the gas tax, have a

[1:18:30] registration fee, and then

[1:18:32] we'll convert over to something

[1:18:33] else. Well, we haven't done

[1:18:34] that since 2017. And so prior

[1:18:37] to 2017, the last time that we

[1:18:38] increased funding for

[1:18:40] transportation was 1994. So

[1:18:42] there's some misinformation on

[1:18:44] the the road user charge or vmt

[1:18:46] fee, however you want to refer

[1:18:49] to it. And it's it is a

[1:18:50] conundrum. It's a dichotomy

[1:18:52] because the state wants to

[1:18:53] reduce vehicle miles traveled,

[1:18:54] yet they're trying to possibly

[1:18:55] rely on vehicle miles traveled

[1:18:57] to fund our infrastructure.

[1:18:58] You're going to wind up having

[1:19:00] the same problem as the gas tax.

[1:19:01] It's a declining revenue source

[1:19:02] because people telecommute more.

[1:19:04] There are more electric

[1:19:05] vehicles, although there's such

[1:19:07] a small segment of the current

[1:19:08] fleet that's out there, they're

[1:19:11] about 7%. There's 32 million

[1:19:12] registered cars in the state.

[1:19:14] So we need something that's

[1:19:15] more sustainable. Our

[1:19:16] suggestion was maybe just

[1:19:19] converting over to a vehicle

[1:19:20] registration fee, which already

[1:19:22] exists. It's progressive. Cars

[1:19:23] depreciate, you pay less. It's

[1:19:25] stable, predictable funding.

[1:19:27] You can have people save money

[1:19:30] there too. So that's an ongoing

[1:19:31] conversation that we're happy

[1:19:33] to engage the board on. And

[1:19:34] then next slide please. So our

[1:19:37] state platform protect and

[1:19:40] acquire state funding a focus

[1:19:42] of ours is on the broadband

[1:19:44] piece. So sb cag was a

[1:19:46] recipient. It was one time

[1:19:47] funding that we received from

[1:19:50] the feds where we have a $15

[1:19:52] million share. We've received

[1:19:55] about $4 million. There's about

[1:19:56] 11 million outstanding of the

[1:19:58] puc owes us. So we want to talk

[1:20:00] to Senator Assemblymember Hart

[1:20:03] and others about trying to get

[1:20:04] the full balance of that to

[1:20:05] drive down vehicle miles

[1:20:07] traveled to provide more

[1:20:08] accessibility to others, you

[1:20:10] know, within the region to work

[1:20:12] from home, study from home,

[1:20:14] whatever it is with the

[1:20:15] Olympics. I know that we had

[1:20:18] the picture earlier with

[1:20:20] Director Comey. I know Director

[1:20:21] Kern's been working with him.

[1:20:22] So however, we can collaborate

[1:20:24] and looking for resources to

[1:20:26] help out with logistics and

[1:20:27] facilitating a successful event.

[1:20:29] And what we expect to be, a lot

[1:20:31] of people are going to want to

[1:20:32] come up this way to see what

[1:20:34] the Central Coast has to offer

[1:20:35] enhancing transit services,

[1:20:36] trying to get the full balance

[1:20:40] of our 125 funding, expanding

[1:20:42] passenger rail service. That's

[1:20:43] there's a gap in service.

[1:20:45] Really low end terminates in

[1:20:48] San Luis Obispo. And then

[1:20:49] you've got Cap corridor and

[1:20:51] others that terminate in San

[1:20:53] Jose. So there's about a 153

[1:20:55] mile gap. If we clear that gap

[1:20:57] you'd probably help encourage

[1:20:59] mode shift. There's more

[1:21:00] discretionary riders along the

[1:21:02] coast and then addressing

[1:21:03] climate change excess revenues.

[1:21:05] So there was discussion when we

[1:21:07] passed the cap and Invest

[1:21:09] program that because of the

[1:21:10] market stability, that there

[1:21:12] would be excess revenues

[1:21:13] produced through the auctions.

[1:21:15] If so, we'd like to see that

[1:21:17] augmented towards transit,

[1:21:19] whether that's operations and

[1:21:21] capital, maybe even active

[1:21:22] transportation, because that's,

[1:21:23] you know, been dwindling. If

[1:21:24] that's something that the sb

[1:21:26] cag wants to pursue and then

[1:21:29] House money is reap was one

[1:21:30] time funding. We need more of

[1:21:32] it clearly because otherwise

[1:21:34] your arena documents are just a

[1:21:36] concept that you can't really

[1:21:38] execute on. So we're looking

[1:21:39] for some assistance there. And

[1:21:41] maybe the sb 375 exercise will

[1:21:42] help provide some clarity on

[1:21:44] that. So that concludes my

[1:21:46] report. And I think the

[1:21:47] trapdoor is going to open if i

[1:21:49] go longer. So I'll take any

[1:21:51] questions. Director Lavagnino

[1:21:52] thank you, MR. Chair. So I want

[1:21:54] to go back to the gas tax

[1:21:56] because seems like a lot of

[1:21:57] concern in the community. And I

[1:21:59] think a lot of it is there's

[1:22:02] just because it just gets a lot

[1:22:03] of misinformation out there

[1:22:06] right away. So first off, how

[1:22:07] much per gallon are we paying

[1:22:09] just in like a state gas tax,

[1:22:12] sb one attached to it. So all

[1:22:14] in it and it's adjusted for

[1:22:15] inflation. Every single year we

[1:22:20] pay 61.2 cents. And then if

[1:22:22] we're talking about a vmt or

[1:22:24] what I like better is your idea

[1:22:26] of a registration. And I'd like

[1:22:28] to see how far that idea is if

[1:22:29] that's getting any traction.

[1:22:33] But is that in lieu of or in

[1:22:34] addition to the $0.61 that

[1:22:36] we're paying the the road user

[1:22:38] charge or vmt charge would be

[1:22:40] in lieu of the gas tax. And so

[1:22:41] currently it's being tested at

[1:22:43] two and a half cents. That was

[1:22:45] the most recent pilot. And so

[1:22:47] it's the gas tax generates

[1:22:50] about $8.1 billion per year. So

[1:22:51] that's the nut that they have

[1:22:52] to kind of crack right. Going

[1:22:54] forward. Kind of got to work it

[1:22:55] backwards a little bit. Yes

[1:22:57] okay. So I mean there's a lot

[1:22:58] of reasons and I've heard a lot

[1:23:01] of them why vmt is is just kind

[1:23:04] of a bad tool. It kind of just

[1:23:06] it's a disadvantage to people

[1:23:07] in rural communities, those

[1:23:09] types of things. So I like the

[1:23:13] idea of, of of moving to it. So

[1:23:15] how would the registration EVs

[1:23:16] they register the same? I don't

[1:23:18] have one, but they register the

[1:23:20] same as every other car. Yeah.

[1:23:22] So what currently happens is

[1:23:23] it's called the transportation

[1:23:25] improvement fee. So there's

[1:23:27] it's a tiered flat fee based on

[1:23:29] the valuation of your vehicle.

[1:23:30] And so I think it's gone up.

[1:23:32] It's like $33 if your car is

[1:23:34] worth less than 5000, which is

[1:23:36] about 41% of all cars in the

[1:23:38] state, believe it or not. And

[1:23:40] then another 30% are cars that

[1:23:42] are 25,000 or less. They pay

[1:23:45] about $66, and so only 3% of

[1:23:46] cars in the state are worth

[1:23:49] over $60,000. And so but cars

[1:23:50] depreciate, so you pay less.

[1:23:51] But that revenue source has

[1:23:53] been going up because it's

[1:23:55] indexed for inflation. So in

[1:23:57] 2018 it generated 1.7 billion.

[1:24:00] And now it generates over $2.5

[1:24:01] billion. The electric vehicles.

[1:24:02] It's interesting how those are

[1:24:04] treated. So in Senate Bill one

[1:24:06] there was a new fee they pay in

[1:24:07] addition to the registration

[1:24:09] fee, a fee just for electric

[1:24:11] vehicles. And so there's about

[1:24:13] 2.5 million, but not all of

[1:24:16] them pay it. It was all it was

[1:24:19] cars after 2020. And there were

[1:24:21] about 700,000 of them in

[1:24:24] existence before 2020. And so

[1:24:27] that's about $121 annually that

[1:24:28] they pay. So I think there's a

[1:24:30] way to just have all 32 million

[1:24:33] cars pay. Or if you wanted to

[1:24:35] do it by by driver, I guess you

[1:24:36] could do that. But it's

[1:24:37] probably better per vehicle.

[1:24:39] And then it would reduce the

[1:24:40] amount if you convert over from

[1:24:42] what people currently pay from

[1:24:43] a gas tax. And the current

[1:24:44] registration fee is, is there

[1:24:46] anything out there that tells

[1:24:47] you what the average person

[1:24:49] pays in gas tax year? I'm just

[1:24:50] trying to think of how many

[1:24:52] gallons I go through and what

[1:24:53] that would look like on a

[1:24:54] registration. So the rough, the

[1:24:56] rough math is and I'd have to

[1:24:58] defer to Caltrans or to others,

[1:25:00] but all we can go off of is

[1:25:03] what's published. So the

[1:25:04] California Department of Tax

[1:25:05] and Fee Administration

[1:25:06] publishes the amount that's

[1:25:08] generated for the gas tax. And

[1:25:09] then the Energy Commission

[1:25:10] publishes the amount of gallons.

[1:25:12] And so the rough estimate is

[1:25:18] that it's about $291 per driver

[1:25:21] and per vehicle. It's about

[1:25:25] $270 or so. Okay. Yeah. Yeah.

[1:25:27] The only I like the

[1:25:29] registration idea. I mean,

[1:25:30] theoretically your gas prices

[1:25:32] would drop, but then you'd also

[1:25:34] but in lieu of that, you're

[1:25:36] being hit with this other fee.

[1:25:38] I'm curious if there's any talk

[1:25:39] of the thing is, when you're

[1:25:40] buying gas, you're buying it

[1:25:42] once a week or whatever, you

[1:25:44] spread it out as opposed to you

[1:25:45] get this big bill one at, you

[1:25:47] know, in APRIL and it says, hey,

[1:25:49] you owe x. I could see that

[1:25:51] being a problem for people, but

[1:25:52] I'm sure they're looking at

[1:25:54] that. They are. And I think the

[1:25:56] method of collection, I think

[1:25:57] is to be determined. But

[1:25:58] there's nothing to preclude the

[1:25:59] legislature from saying, hey,

[1:26:00] let's collect this monthly. I

[1:26:02] think that was the intention

[1:26:03] with the road user charge.

[1:26:05] That's going to be a little bit

[1:26:07] trickier. I think just some of

[1:26:08] the backlash has been, well,

[1:26:09] it's a privacy concern. People

[1:26:11] don't really want the

[1:26:12] transponder. Although our cell

[1:26:14] phones and our cars have gps. I

[1:26:15] think it's just it's more overt

[1:26:17] for some. So legislators

[1:26:18] haven't wanted to touch that.

[1:26:20] It is a fairness issue, the

[1:26:22] rural versus urban dynamic, you

[1:26:24] know, that kind of a thing. But

[1:26:25] so where are we at on this? I

[1:26:26] mean, like what's kind of

[1:26:28] timeline or is it just going to

[1:26:30] fade away and we're going to be

[1:26:32] paying gas tax? My fear, my

[1:26:33] fear is that there has been

[1:26:34] misinformation about the road

[1:26:36] user charge. Doing nothing is

[1:26:37] the absolute worst option,

[1:26:39] because we're projected to lose

[1:26:41] about $5 billion in gas tax

[1:26:43] revenue over the next decade.

[1:26:44] So we have to do something. And

[1:26:46] if we don't do something under

[1:26:47] this current administration,

[1:26:48] which I know it's his last year

[1:26:50] governor, Governor Newsom, the

[1:26:52] new governor, is going to not

[1:26:53] going to want to do this in

[1:26:55] their first year, either. It's

[1:26:56] going to take a while and who

[1:26:58] knows what their priorities are

[1:26:59] going to be. So, you know,

[1:27:01] we're happy to come back and

[1:27:02] give more of a deeper dive, you

[1:27:06] know, on this. But I think the

[1:27:07] Road User Task force has been

[1:27:09] looking at this for 12 years,

[1:27:10] and they haven't moved the

[1:27:11] needle on the conversation. So

[1:27:13] it's time to look at different

[1:27:14] alternatives. And we already

[1:27:15] collect the vehicle

[1:27:16] registration fee. And it's not

[1:27:17] something that you really hear

[1:27:19] much about. And again cars

[1:27:20] depreciate so you wind up

[1:27:21] paying less which is kind of

[1:27:23] the beauty of it. So it's

[1:27:24] progressive and there's a way

[1:27:26] for people to save especially

[1:27:28] on the lower end. So it kind of

[1:27:30] checks the box on affordability.

[1:27:32] Thanks. Of course, Director

[1:27:35] Mosby, I'd be more apt to

[1:27:38] support a vmt. I have eight

[1:27:40] vehicles that I have, but each

[1:27:41] vehicle is used for different

[1:27:43] purposes and different reasons.

[1:27:45] They have it so you'd be paying

[1:27:48] an increased dmv charge for

[1:27:49] registering a vehicle that's

[1:27:52] parked, you know, six out of

[1:27:56] seven days. It's kind of a I

[1:27:57] guess you can blame it because

[1:27:59] somebody has the ability to own

[1:28:00] more vehicles. That's more fair

[1:28:03] to to burden them than somebody

[1:28:04] who's actually using the roads

[1:28:05] in the driving. And like you

[1:28:08] say, the vehicles are already

[1:28:09] watched significantly all the

[1:28:12] way around. So one of the

[1:28:13] aspects that you didn't put up

[1:28:14] there, some states are able to

[1:28:16] build asphalt for significantly

[1:28:18] less. I think Texas was, what,

[1:28:21] three a third as much per mile

[1:28:23] or something. I'm trying to

[1:28:25] remember my visit there, but I

[1:28:27] mean, if you could maybe find

[1:28:29] ways to be call it efficiency

[1:28:32] or whatever it is, but other

[1:28:33] states are able to do this and

[1:28:35] save a significant amount of

[1:28:39] money by. Multiple different

[1:28:41] ways. And that wasn't one of

[1:28:42] your things is how can we how

[1:28:44] can we do it more efficiently?

[1:28:45] What is their trigger there to

[1:28:48] be able to do it? I know a lot

[1:28:49] of the answer that's there, but

[1:28:51] people hate to say that as many

[1:28:52] times we spend more money

[1:28:53] studying a problem than fixing

[1:28:56] the problem. And like you

[1:28:56] mentioned, sometimes it can

[1:28:59] take ten years to get a project

[1:29:01] up and going. And again, we

[1:29:03] just sit there and study, study,

[1:29:05] study. Or I've seen it. When we

[1:29:06] send people out to study a

[1:29:07] project, you might have 15

[1:29:09] people coming out looking at

[1:29:10] the white line on a street, but

[1:29:12] maybe there's ways that we can

[1:29:13] get more efficient with this

[1:29:14] and save a significant amount

[1:29:17] of money. Right? Yeah, I think

[1:29:19] the legislature's open. They

[1:29:20] don't have a good solution. And

[1:29:23] so they're open. It's just so

[1:29:24] far the road user charges has

[1:29:26] not resonated. It hasn't had

[1:29:29] any any traction. So but doing

[1:29:30] nothing is absolutely the worst

[1:29:35] option. Any questions down in

[1:29:41] Santa Barbara. Okay. So just

[1:29:43] aside from that, MR. Vice Chair,

[1:29:44] we look forward to hosting you

[1:29:46] on MARCH 18th for the Central

[1:29:48] Coast Coalition Legislative day.

[1:29:49] So we go up to Sacramento every

[1:29:51] single year. We work with Santa

[1:29:53] Cruz on down to meet with, you

[1:29:54] know, the entire delegation,

[1:29:56] and we'll meet with the policy

[1:29:57] committee chairs and such. And

[1:29:59] so look forward to having a

[1:30:00] productive day. Thank you so

[1:30:03] much. All right. So we talked

[1:30:05] about the actions before you

[1:30:06] today. So it's approving the

[1:30:08] state and federal legislative

[1:30:09] platforms. We can certainly

[1:30:11] follow up with some additional

[1:30:12] opportunities for the board. If

[1:30:14] you want to do a deep dive a

[1:30:16] little bit more on the road

[1:30:17] user charge and some things

[1:30:20] that are happening around there,

[1:30:22] and then with that, looking to

[1:30:24] get some authorization from you

[1:30:26] for to sign on to the state

[1:30:28] federal reauthorization

[1:30:30] principles. And that's before

[1:30:32] you. Thank you very much. Is

[1:30:33] there any public comment on

[1:30:35] this item? There are any

[1:30:36] members of the public on the

[1:30:38] zoom webinar who wish to speak?

[1:30:39] Please use the raise Hand

[1:30:41] feature, and I will call upon

[1:30:45] you. We did not receive any

[1:30:47] public comment for this item in

[1:30:48] advance, and there are no

[1:30:50] attendees on zoom who wish to

[1:30:51] speak. Okay, we'll bring it

[1:30:53] back to the board for

[1:30:54] discussion and a possible

[1:31:02] motion. Not hearing much

[1:31:04] discussion. Is there anyone who

[1:31:05] would like to make a motion?

[1:31:07] I'll move one through four. In

[1:31:10] today's staff report, I have a

[1:31:11] first from Director Hartman. Do

[1:31:14] we have a second? Second with

[1:31:15] the second from Director Patino?

[1:31:17] If we could do a roll call.

[1:31:19] Vote, please. Director Perrotti

[1:31:22] I, director Patino. I director

[1:31:27] Mosby I director Lee I director

[1:31:29] lavagnino. Director. Julian.

[1:31:31] Director. Hartman. Director.

[1:31:35] Friedman I director Clark. I

[1:31:38] director. Capps I. Director.

[1:31:41] Brown. I, vice chair. Silva and

[1:31:43] chair. Nelson is absent. Motion

[1:31:45] passes. Wonderful. We'll now

[1:31:47] move on to our executive

[1:31:48] director report by Director

[1:31:49] Kern. Thank you, MR. Vice

[1:31:50] Chairperson, members of the

[1:31:53] board. First of all, I want to

[1:31:54] thank you for approving the

[1:31:55] Intercity passenger Rail

[1:31:57] Service agreement. This is a

[1:31:59] major accomplishment for this

[1:32:01] agency. And I also want to

[1:32:02] acknowledge the major

[1:32:03] accomplishment of the

[1:32:05] multimodal divisional staff.

[1:32:07] Aaron Bonfiglio couldn't make

[1:32:09] it today. He's in la for a

[1:32:10] meeting on the Low Sand

[1:32:12] Corridor working group, so he

[1:32:14] felt he needed to represent sb

[1:32:15] cag down there. But Whitney

[1:32:17] Rush has been actively involved

[1:32:19] in the the development of the

[1:32:21] agreements and the negotiations

[1:32:22] throughout. So I just really

[1:32:24] want to thank them for all

[1:32:26] their efforts to get us to this

[1:32:28] place. It's been a long,

[1:32:30] frustrating road, but the

[1:32:31] change in direction just

[1:32:33] happened a few months ago, and

[1:32:35] here we are today approving

[1:32:37] this new agreement and

[1:32:38] hopefully starting rail service

[1:32:39] in the next month or so. So

[1:32:41] thank you. Thank you for that.

[1:32:43] I also want to thank Gus and

[1:32:44] Don for their presentations and

[1:32:46] their work representing sb, cag

[1:32:48] at the state and federal level.

[1:32:50] We have two legislative visits

[1:32:51] coming up, which they mentioned

[1:32:52] the first in Sacramento with

[1:32:55] the Central Coast Coalition and

[1:32:57] director, excuse me, vice Chair

[1:32:58] Silva has volunteered

[1:32:59] graciously, graciously

[1:33:01] volunteered to represent sb cag

[1:33:03] on that day. So thank you for

[1:33:05] committing to that trip. And

[1:33:08] then our dc trip with Chair

[1:33:09] Nelson, Vice Chair Silva and

[1:33:10] Director Rouse will happen as

[1:33:13] well. Later this month, Cal cog

[1:33:14] is hosting the Regional

[1:33:16] Leadership Forum in MARCH as

[1:33:18] well, and Director Pitino is

[1:33:19] representing sb cag on this

[1:33:21] board, so she'll be attending

[1:33:22] the board meeting as well as

[1:33:24] attending the conference itself.

[1:33:27] And then last but not least,

[1:33:29] measure a citizens advisory

[1:33:31] committee will be meeting on

[1:33:32] MARCH 4th to review the annual

[1:33:34] report and an update on the

[1:33:35] train schedule and from Ventura

[1:33:38] to Goleta. So it will be a very

[1:33:40] full agenda. And MARCH is going

[1:33:44] to be a very busy month for us.

[1:33:45] So with that, I'll pass it over

[1:33:48] to the chair. Vice chair, thank

[1:33:51] you very much. Caltrans

[1:33:54] Director of Planning and Modal.

[1:33:56] Thank you. Chair or vice chair

[1:33:58] and directors brandy rider.

[1:34:00] Just for the record planning

[1:34:03] and modal deputy for district

[1:34:04] five. I just really have only

[1:34:05] one announcement today.

[1:34:08] Caltrans recently announced a

[1:34:09] $25 million Community Cleanup

[1:34:11] and Employment Pathways grant.

[1:34:14] We had four awards in district

[1:34:17] five and one award here in

[1:34:18] Santa Barbara County with

[1:34:21] Guadalupe received about

[1:34:24] 280,000 for a City of Guadalupe

[1:34:25] beautification project. So

[1:34:28] we're excited to see a local

[1:34:30] agency get that funding. And

[1:34:31] with that, I don't really have

[1:34:33] any other updates, but I'd be

[1:34:34] happy to answer any questions

[1:34:40] of the board. Any questions?

[1:34:44] Anyone in Santa Barbara? All

[1:34:46] right, we're moving right along.

[1:34:49] Okay. Next up, we will go to

[1:34:51] our committee meeting. Report

[1:34:52] updates. Director Patino, do we

[1:34:54] have anything from Cal Cog? Yes.

[1:34:56] Thank you very much. This is my

[1:35:00] first meeting and there was an

[1:35:02] exploration of establishing a

[1:35:05] 500 and 1c3. It's right now it

[1:35:07] operates with 500 1c4. And so

[1:35:09] there was discussion and

[1:35:10] information on that. We

[1:35:12] discussed the regional

[1:35:14] leadership forum which will be

[1:35:15] coming up MARCH 11th, ninth

[1:35:18] through 11th and got an update

[1:35:20] on the state legislature, which

[1:35:23] is what we're talking about, a

[1:35:24] 2.9 billion deficit. We'll see

[1:35:28] what the MAY revise is. Then we

[1:35:31] had a brief discussion on sb

[1:35:33] 375. Today was much more

[1:35:34] clarified. Thank you, MR.

[1:35:37] Becker, for that. And then

[1:35:38] they're looking for a vice

[1:35:40] PRESIDENT Nomination and nobody

[1:35:41] volunteered. And that's about

[1:35:45] it. Thank you. Great. Okay. And

[1:35:46] then we'll go to Director

[1:35:47] Perrotti to provide an update

[1:35:51] on Lausanne. Thank you, vice

[1:35:53] Chair Silva. Well, the main

[1:35:56] topic of that meeting was the

[1:35:59] extended rail service. And it

[1:36:00] was met with a lot of

[1:36:04] excitement and and positive

[1:36:06] responses. We also talked a

[1:36:08] little bit about we got a

[1:36:12] briefing on the draft business

[1:36:14] plan. I was able to get in two

[1:36:17] edits and it'll come back for a

[1:36:19] vote next, next meeting. And

[1:36:22] the edits were that we would

[1:36:27] make sure that was critical to.

[1:36:31] The and the critical need for

[1:36:35] service to continue via state

[1:36:37] support. So we we talked about

[1:36:39] making sure that that was in

[1:36:40] there, that the necessary

[1:36:42] funding from state be provided

[1:36:45] to ensure we have not have to

[1:36:49] reduce service and risk long

[1:36:51] losing out on the benefits of

[1:36:53] that. This particular service

[1:36:56] will provide to San Luis from

[1:36:58] la to San Luis Obispo,

[1:37:00] especially with the Olympics,

[1:37:02] you know, coming. So it does

[1:37:04] benefit the whole corridor. So

[1:37:06] that was that's end of my

[1:37:08] report. Thank you very much,

[1:37:09] director and director Perotti,

[1:37:11] for those reports. We'll now go

[1:37:12] to any one minute reports.

[1:37:13] Anyone have anything they'd

[1:37:16] like to. Oh doctor Julian I do

[1:37:19] three three quick items. One is

[1:37:20] thank you Caltrans for the for

[1:37:21] the funding. It's very

[1:37:23] important to us. And then

[1:37:25] Senator Schiff was here in

[1:37:26] Guadalupe and other other areas,

[1:37:28] and they helped support the

[1:37:29] learning center in Guadalupe

[1:37:31] and also the senior center. And

[1:37:33] then lastly, I'd like to thank

[1:37:35] Lauren and Margie for braving

[1:37:38] the winter, the snowstorm, the

[1:37:39] hurricanes to meet with me this

[1:37:40] morning. So appreciate that

[1:37:43] update. Okay. Thank you.

[1:37:44] Director Patino, did you have

[1:37:46] an update you wanted? No I do

[1:37:49] okay, perfect I. Director Mosby.

[1:37:51] Yeah. Just will probably

[1:37:53] announce we're in Lompoc. Going

[1:37:56] to try to put a half cent

[1:37:59] asphalt tax on me, MR. Anti-tax,

[1:38:00] but we're reaching out trying

[1:38:02] to piggyback and piggyback

[1:38:04] match what you guys and your

[1:38:06] success that you did with MR. A,

[1:38:07] and we have $70 million of

[1:38:09] deferred maintenance in our

[1:38:11] town with the pci. I think

[1:38:13] we're like 54. I mean, it's

[1:38:15] just falling and falling. So we

[1:38:17] have to do something and I will

[1:38:18] brag about the successes and

[1:38:20] the leveraging that you've done

[1:38:23] with MR. Right now, the county

[1:38:24] is trying to give me measure a

[1:38:26] on this for the ballot. And I'm

[1:38:28] like, no, no, give us something

[1:38:29] else. Right? I mean, I don't

[1:38:31] want to steal your thunder and

[1:38:32] stuff, but if any of the

[1:38:34] directors want to get on board

[1:38:35] and help support that, it can

[1:38:37] help me sell this measure. I'd

[1:38:38] appreciate it, Director Hartman.

[1:38:39] Oh, just a question. So, is it

[1:38:41] a special tax or general

[1:38:43] general tax? Special tax for

[1:38:45] asphalt sidewalks and storm

[1:38:47] drains. That's a supermajority,

[1:38:50] right? Yes. Two thirds like you

[1:38:53] got 79% that you passed with

[1:38:55] MISS Reyes. I think we have a

[1:38:56] really good chance. When I

[1:38:57] pulled it out, 80% of the

[1:38:59] people felt a need to fix the

[1:39:00] streets in town. It's driven

[1:39:02] down enough that it. I think we

[1:39:04] have a really good chance to do

[1:39:06] this. I don't trust City Hall

[1:39:07] with a general tax. We we did

[1:39:09] that already and they already

[1:39:12] spent all the money. So thank

[1:39:13] you very much. Are there any

[1:39:15] one minute reports down in

[1:39:20] Santa Barbara? I do Perotti.

[1:39:23] I'd just like to report that

[1:39:24] the two roundabouts that are

[1:39:27] part of the Project Connect are

[1:39:29] scheduled to open to traffic by

[1:39:31] the the morning of MARCH the

[1:39:34] 2nd. And I only laugh because I

[1:39:36] think our phones will start

[1:39:38] ringing again. But we're doing

[1:39:40] a massive outreach to help

[1:39:42] people understand how you

[1:39:44] navigate. If you've never done

[1:39:45] a roundabout or a double lane

[1:39:47] roundabout, how you navigate

[1:39:49] that. So but we're looking

[1:39:52] forward to it finally becoming

[1:39:55] available. Thank you. All right.

[1:39:58] Anyone else in Santa Barbara?

[1:39:59] Okay. Well then we the next

[1:40:01] meeting will be MARCH 19th,

[1:40:03] 2026, in Santa Barbara. And we

[1:40:04] will adjourn this meeting at

[1:40:05] this time. Thank you all for

[1:40:23] your time. Thank you.

Board of Directors SM - Feb 19 2026

Agenda

Transcript