[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.