[14:49] All right, everybody, good

[14:53] morning. Welcome. Thank you for

[14:54] joining us for today's JANUARY

[14:56] 15th meeting of the sba board.

[14:57] For the record, my name is Bob

[15:00] Olson. I am the chair of sb

[15:01] 2026. MADAM Clerk, please

[15:03] facilitate the roll call.

[15:05] Director Rouse here. Director.

[15:08] Perotti here. Director. Patino

[15:12] here. Director. Mosby here.

[15:14] Director. Lee here. Director.

[15:17] Lavagnino. Director. Julian.

[15:19] Here. Director. Hartman here.

[15:21] Director. Clerk. Director.

[15:24] Capps here. Director. Brown

[15:26] here. Vice chair. Silva and

[15:29] chair Nelson here for you all.

[15:31] Please stand and join me to

[15:33] pledge allegiance to the flag.

[15:35] Ready to begin. I pledge

[15:37] allegiance to the flag of the

[15:39] United States of America. And

[15:41] to the Republic for which it

[15:44] stands. One nation under GOD,

[15:46] indivisible, with liberty and

[15:59] justice for all. Okay. Right to

[16:00] public comment. This is a

[16:02] public comment period for items

[16:04] not on today's agenda. Speakers

[16:05] have up to three minutes each

[16:07] with a total of 15 minutes

[16:08] allotted for public comment.

[16:09] MADAM Clerk, do we have any

[16:11] public comment here today? Yes.

[16:12] There are two requests to speak

[16:14] forms and for any members of

[16:15] the public on the zoom webinar,

[16:17] if you wish to speak, would you

[16:18] please use the raise Hand

[16:20] feature and I will call upon

[16:21] you. Our first speaker is Scott

[16:26] Wentz. Cars are sick. Welcome

[16:29] MR. Wentz. Happy New Year

[16:30] MISTER Chair. Members of the

[16:31] board Scott was representing

[16:33] Kaiser again. Happy New Year to

[16:36] all of you. I'm here to address

[16:39] the issue of Caltrans NOVEMBER

[16:42] comment about 154 and 246 cars

[16:45] are basic. Really, really

[16:47] objected to this. That was a

[16:49] project that was ill advised,

[16:51] has hurt people, had multiple

[16:53] damage, just had another

[16:55] rollover accident. There was an

[16:57] injection. This is a roundabout

[16:59] that has to be taken out

[17:00] because Caltrans played

[17:02] political games out of

[17:03] Sacramento. We have to have a

[17:06] roundabout. We gave Caltrans an

[17:07] alternative that would have

[17:10] cost him $650,000. It would

[17:13] have taken away the visual

[17:14] issue that was at that

[17:16] intersection, and it would have

[17:19] been worked fine. This has to

[17:22] stop the city of Lompoc and the

[17:25] city of Solvang using their

[17:28] sphere of influence, said to

[17:29] Caltrans. We do not want this

[17:33] roundabout here. You have more

[17:34] traffic, more commercial

[17:36] traffic on this road. Now,

[17:39] whenever Gaviota gets cut off,

[17:40] boom. Guess what? They come

[17:43] over. 154 you have the

[17:45] expansion of the casino. You

[17:48] have the expansion of of of

[17:51] residents in the area. This

[17:53] cannot continue and wait until

[17:55] the two reservation starts

[17:58] doing as Camp Ford. That is

[18:00] going to really add a lot of

[18:04] there. It was badly designed.

[18:07] It's badly run. Caltrans just

[18:08] admitted in NOVEMBER that they

[18:10] were going to fix the problem

[18:12] by doing more striping and

[18:14] putting lighting on there. You

[18:17] can't fix bad design. You can't

[18:21] fix what causes accidents. And

[18:22] this goes to the same thing

[18:24] that we have to say about La

[18:25] Purisima. You know, you already

[18:27] killed one firefighter over

[18:29] there under difficult

[18:31] circumstances, the people of

[18:34] the valley did not want this.

[18:36] Let me repeat that again. For

[18:37] anybody listening, the people

[18:40] of Valley did not want that

[18:41] roundabout. That roundabout has

[18:44] proven to be an absolute

[18:45] disaster. You need to use your

[18:47] authority and press on the

[18:48] state of California to get that

[18:50] damn thing out of there. And

[18:52] we'll give you our design,

[18:53] because Ceqa says if you have

[18:54] an alternative design that

[18:57] meets 90% of the issue you have,

[19:00] the government has to do that.

[19:02] Guess what? They played the

[19:04] forefinger discount. That's

[19:06] what they told cab. And that's

[19:07] what's causing the accidents in

[19:09] the valley. Thank you. Thank

[19:12] you, MR. Wentz. Our next

[19:25] speaker is Karen Hammerstein.

[19:28] Hello, County leaders, Karen

[19:30] Hauenstein from North County. I

[19:32] am born and raised in Lompoc

[19:35] and I live there now. I am here

[19:38] as a matter of public record,

[19:40] placing you on notice and

[19:45] informing you in 2023 inside

[19:48] the Lompoc Police Department,

[19:51] we had a suspicious death that

[19:54] has not yet been fully

[19:56] investigated. There's been an

[19:57] official complaint made to the

[19:59] police officer standards and

[20:01] training. You need to be aware

[20:04] of that and follow it through

[20:11] to its completion. Liliana

[20:15] Cecilia Zuniga. She was an

[20:18] abused woman who needs to be

[20:22] remembered by this county more

[20:24] than any other people who are

[20:25] just passing through. Karen.

[20:26] One second. MADAM Clerk, will

[20:27] you pause public comment for a

[20:30] moment? Karen, public comment

[20:31] when it comes to sb, cag needs

[20:33] to be on issues that are under

[20:36] our jurisdiction. Public safety

[20:38] in our county. We're

[20:40] transportation

[20:41] multi-jurisdictional agency for

[20:44] transportation. Okay. So so

[20:45] let's try to get our comments

[20:46] to something that's under the

[20:47] jurisdiction of this

[20:48] organization. I mean, what you

[20:50] had would have been perfect. So

[20:51] that would be okay. I'm just

[20:53] placing that on record. Yeah.

[20:54] Okay. Because you guys are the

[20:55] leaders of our county.

[20:57] Understood. But I want to focus

[20:58] general public comment. Okay.

[20:59] So then the under the

[21:01] jurisdiction of this body okay.

[21:04] So the the bridges across the

[21:06] Santa Ynez River that were

[21:08] promised to Lompoc to connect

[21:10] and start public comment again.

[21:12] Thank you. That would be for

[21:14] this place. Yes. Okay. Well,

[21:16] thank you for also letting me

[21:17] use the public comment to lodge

[21:19] my complaints and make sure

[21:21] they're followed up on publicly.

[21:24] Happy New year. Happy New year.

[21:25] If there are any other members

[21:27] of the public on the zoom

[21:28] webinar who wish to speak,

[21:30] would you please use the Raise

[21:31] Hand feature and I will call

[21:34] upon you. There are no speakers.

[21:35] All right. Well, that concludes

[21:37] public comment. That brings us

[21:39] to our consent calendar. MADAM

[21:40] Clerk, are there any changes to

[21:42] the consent calendar? There are

[21:44] no changes to the consent

[21:45] calendar. And there are no

[21:46] announcements for the consent

[21:48] calendar. All right. Are there

[21:49] any items on the consent

[21:51] calendar that members or

[21:52] directors would like to pull? I

[21:54] know that supervisor or sorry

[21:56] Director Hartman has pulled g.

[21:58] Anything else not seen up here

[21:59] in Santa Barbara? In Santa

[22:00] Maria? Are there any items that

[22:03] you wish to pull? I'd like to

[22:06] pull a okay, so that would be

[22:08] the approval of the minutes. So

[22:10] for Pitino and that's just

[22:12] that's just to to vote to

[22:14] abstain from them. That's not a

[22:16] discussion. Thank you, Director

[22:17] Pitino. We'll go ahead and make

[22:19] sure we have a separate vote on

[22:24] that. MADAM Clerk, is there any

[22:25] members of the public pulling

[22:27] any items on the consent

[22:28] calendar? Are there any members

[22:29] of the public on the zoom

[22:31] webinar who wish to speak? If

[22:33] so, please use the raise Hand

[22:34] feature and I will call upon

[22:38] you. There are no requests to

[22:40] speak. There is one in North

[22:44] County that is for right in 166.

[22:46] Which which item is that? That

[22:48] is later on in the agenda. Okay.

[22:50] Understand? Thank you. Before I

[22:53] move to ask for a motion

[22:54] supervisor Hartman, are you

[22:55] looking potentially for a

[22:56] separate vote on g or just want

[22:58] to pull it to discuss that?

[23:00] Okay. So let's go ahead and get

[23:02] a motion at least on the

[23:03] minutes. So if I can get a

[23:05] motion on item a, which is the

[23:07] approval of the minutes, the

[23:10] last motion to approve okay.

[23:12] Motion. Motion from Silva, a

[23:14] second from Perotti. MADAM

[23:16] Clerk, please do a roll call.

[23:18] Director. Rousse. Director.

[23:22] Perotti. Director. Pitino.

[23:26] Abstain. Director. Mosby. Hi.

[23:29] Director. Lee. Director.

[23:32] Lavagnino. Director. Julian. Hi.

[23:35] Director. Hartman. Director.

[23:38] Clerk. Director. Capps.

[23:40] Director. Brown. Vice chair.

[23:46] Silva and chair. Nelson, I. I

[23:48] assume the motion passes. All

[23:50] right, let's go ahead. And

[23:51] before I make a motion for the

[23:53] balance, let's go ahead and

[23:54] read into the record the item

[23:55] that's been pulled by

[23:57] supervisor department. If if

[23:58] it's everything's fine with

[24:00] that, then we'll just take a

[24:01] motion for the balance of the

[24:03] agenda. After that, Santa Ynez

[24:06] River valley, Santa Ynez Valley

[24:07] River trail contractor

[24:09] agreement to approve an

[24:10] authorized executive director

[24:12] to execute an agreement with

[24:14] Psomas similar to the attached

[24:15] and based upon review and

[24:16] concurrence by legal counsel

[24:18] for planning and engineering

[24:20] work associated with the Santa

[24:21] Ynez River trail project in an

[24:26] amount not to exceed of 796 638,

[24:27] with a period of performance

[24:29] extending between execution of

[24:31] the agreement and DECEMBER 31st,

[24:33] 2028. To authorize the

[24:34] Executive Director to approve

[24:36] immaterial amendments to the

[24:40] agreement. All right, Director

[24:42] Hartman, thank you. So I have

[24:45] several questions. The first

[24:47] has to do with timing. I see

[24:49] that it's this is expected to

[24:52] be done in two years. And I

[24:54] just wondered how that fits

[24:59] with the the atp grant state.

[25:01] We're trying to get this done

[25:04] to fit into the cycle for atp.

[25:07] And I, I think then we got to

[25:09] wait what, another two years or

[25:14] just Director Hartman, the atp

[25:16] cycle and you can correct me if

[25:17] I'm wrong, is accepting

[25:18] applications this summer for

[25:20] the next cycle. And then it's

[25:23] every two years. So two years

[25:24] from this coming summer would

[25:26] be the next cycle, which would

[25:27] be the one that would be aiming

[25:29] for for this project. Okay. So

[25:34] so that fits. And then first of

[25:35] all, I'm just really excited to

[25:38] see this. Let me the next

[25:41] question has to do with the

[25:42] federal grant and how that

[25:45] would fit with this contract.

[25:47] Very good question, Director

[25:50] Hartman. The federal grant was

[25:53] awarded to the Chumash Indians

[25:55] in the amount of $1.4 million,

[25:57] and it has a required match,

[25:59] which is this project. The

[26:00] match is what we're doing now.

[26:01] So we have been coordinating

[26:03] with the tribe. The tribe has

[26:04] been approached by the Federal

[26:06] Highway Administration, the

[26:08] grantor, and there's the

[26:12] current state is we've worked,

[26:14] Fred Luna and I, to work on the

[26:16] agreement between the tribe and

[26:20] FHWa. That goes back to FHWa.

[26:22] And once it's agreed upon, then

[26:24] the funds that agreement will

[26:26] run up the chain at FHWa for

[26:27] execution on their side. And

[26:29] assuming it does become

[26:30] executed, I think there's no

[26:32] guarantee but that right now it

[26:36] looks likely. Then in all

[26:39] likelihood, sba will take on

[26:40] the work for that, just as we

[26:43] did, because part of today's

[26:44] action is to approve an

[26:45] agreement with the contractor.

[26:47] But part of the funding behind

[26:48] that was awarded to the tribe,

[26:50] and it was probably about four

[26:51] months ago. We came and had an

[26:53] agreement between sb tribe for

[26:54] sb, kg to take on management of

[26:56] that grant, and that's what we

[26:57] expect to happen for this one

[26:59] as well. So when we advertise

[27:01] the work, there are a variety

[27:04] of optional tasks included in

[27:05] the agreement, which are the

[27:08] ones that would be filled in

[27:11] with the federal grant. So does

[27:13] it seem like this contractor

[27:15] would take it on or. We're not

[27:17] sure yet? That's a good

[27:18] question. Supervisor Hartman or

[27:21] Director Hartman, assuming we

[27:22] can negotiate in good faith

[27:23] with the contractor and come to

[27:26] an agreement on price. So it's

[27:28] part of today's agreement, says

[27:30] that the contractor would have

[27:33] to honor the same hourly rates

[27:35] that they're doing for the work

[27:36] that hopefully gets approved

[27:38] today. So if we can come to an

[27:40] agreement, we can amend it into

[27:41] the contract. Otherwise we'd go

[27:43] back out to bid for those

[27:48] optional tasks. So so we MAY

[27:50] just fold it in and not have to

[27:52] go out again through the

[27:56] process. If, if they can, if

[27:59] and once again if there's a

[28:00] there's a lot of moving pieces

[28:02] with this. One of them is that

[28:04] that grant award is federal.

[28:05] And all the other money that

[28:07] we've had to this point is

[28:08] either state or local, and

[28:09] there's different contracting

[28:10] requirements. So we would have

[28:14] to ensure that the ph is

[28:16] allowing us to to go this route.

[28:18] Otherwise we'd have to go out

[28:20] to bid to. I see okay. Thank

[28:23] you. And my final question, as

[28:25] I look to the environmental

[28:28] piece and the contract, it

[28:30] doesn't make any mention of the

[28:33] recreation master plan eir,

[28:35] which was designed to be

[28:37] programmatic and to tear off.

[28:40] So how will that work? Another

[28:42] great question, Director

[28:43] Hartman, for the environmental.

[28:45] So the agreement that's being

[28:46] approved today is a work

[28:48] package. One is 100% of the

[28:49] environmental work within the

[28:51] city of Buellton. So at the

[28:53] conclusion of this project, the

[28:54] trail will be construction

[28:56] ready for city of Buellton.

[28:57] Outside of the city, the

[28:59] environmental work is an

[29:02] optional task, and we are also

[29:03] we're paying attention to the

[29:04] county's process of the

[29:06] recreation Master plan. And

[29:08] when that is approved, then we

[29:10] could tear off of it. We can't

[29:11] tear off of in anticipation of

[29:13] it being approved. But that is

[29:15] certainly something that we are

[29:17] keeping our eyes on as this

[29:19] goes forward. It's coming soon.

[29:21] Thank you. And thank you for.

[29:25] And then the person for sb, k

[29:29] who is the contact for this for

[29:32] this work isn't your friend. Is

[29:35] that typical? No, it's Tom Vo

[29:37] who's sitting right back here.

[29:39] Tom works in planning Division

[29:40] under me. Okay, I'll be

[29:42] involved. Fred will be involved

[29:43] because this is a mix of

[29:45] planning and engineering. It's,

[29:47] you know, perhaps I can't be a

[29:49] good advisor on engineering

[29:50] aspect. And Fred can't be a

[29:52] good advisor on the planning

[29:53] aspect. So it's a team. And

[29:55] Tom's going to keep us

[29:56] organized and pointing in the

[29:58] right direction. Okay. Well,

[30:01] again, I'm I'm absolutely

[30:02] delighted to see this. Thank

[30:05] you. All right. Thank you,

[30:06] Director Patino, any other

[30:08] questions from board members?

[30:10] Public comment item item g, are

[30:12] there any members of the public

[30:13] on the zoom webinar who wish to

[30:15] speak on item g? Please use the

[30:17] raise hand feature and I will

[30:18] call upon you. There are no

[30:20] paper requests to speak forms

[30:21] and there are no attendees who

[30:24] wish to speak. Okay, supervisor

[30:25] Director Hartman, no reason for

[30:27] a different vote on that. So

[30:29] with that, I could get a motion

[30:30] for the balance of the agenda,

[30:32] which would be items four b

[30:36] through four. I moved by Brown.

[30:38] I need a second, second, second

[30:40] from Hartman. Can we please do

[30:41] a roll call? Vote. Director.

[30:44] Rouse. Director. Perotti.

[30:48] Director. Patino. I director.

[30:51] Mosby. Hey, director. Lee. Hi.

[30:53] Director. Lavagnino. Director.

[30:57] Julian. Hi. Director. Hartman,

[31:00] I director. Clark. Director.

[31:02] Capps. Director. Brown. Vice

[31:05] chair. Silva and chair. Nelson.

[31:08] Hi. Motion passes. All right.

[31:15] Thank you. We'll go ahead and

[31:16] move on to the discussion items.

[31:18] Item five a MADAM Clerk, will

[31:19] you please read that item to

[31:21] the record? Item five a sb 2026

[31:23] Committee appointments

[31:24] recommended actions one.

[31:25] Appoint one delegate an

[31:26] alternate to the California

[31:27] Association of Councils of

[31:29] Governments to appoint one

[31:30] delegate and an alternate to

[31:33] the Los Angeles, San Diego, San

[31:34] Luis Obispo Rail Corridor.

[31:35] Agency three appoint one

[31:36] delegate and alternate to the

[31:39] Coast Rail Coordinating Council.

[31:41] For appoint one member and one

[31:42] alternate to the Board of

[31:44] Directors. Five appoint members

[31:46] to the highway 154 Safety

[31:47] Committee six appoint members

[31:49] to the Executive Committee

[31:51] chair, vice chair, immediate

[31:53] past chair and chairs of North

[31:55] County and South Coast Regional

[31:57] seven. Appoint an sb, k board

[31:59] delegate to participate in the

[32:01] Central Coast Coalition.

[32:03] Sacramento Legislative Advocacy

[32:04] Day scheduled for MARCH 17th

[32:07] and 18th, 2026. Eight appoint

[32:09] the sb, k chair, Vice Chair and

[32:10] immediate past chair to serve

[32:12] as the Washington, dc

[32:13] legislative delegation

[32:14] representing sb kegs interest

[32:16] in Washington, dc the week of

[32:20] MARCH 23rd, 2026. All right.

[32:22] Thank you. So let's go.

[32:25] Director Kern, Liana went

[32:26] through the list of

[32:27] appointments. This is your

[32:29] annual chance to appoint your

[32:31] yourself or others to

[32:33] committees that meet throughout

[32:35] the year. I'd be happy to

[32:39] answer any questions about

[32:40] about the appointments or the

[32:42] committees, if you have any.

[32:43] But otherwise, normally we just

[32:45] go through the committees and

[32:46] ask for volunteers. Okay, great.

[32:48] Thank you. Thank you, Director

[32:50] Kern. And typically, you know,

[32:52] a lot of these committees,

[32:54] there's a bit of value in

[32:55] having some background in it.

[32:57] So those that are already in it

[32:58] are often, you know, favored by

[33:00] the board because they've got

[33:01] some that experience there.

[33:02] Although this is also the time

[33:04] for somebody that says, hey,

[33:05] that's something I would be

[33:06] interested in in the future. So

[33:08] it's also good for us to know

[33:10] that this is our opportunity to

[33:11] have those conversations. We'll

[33:12] go ahead and start off with Cal

[33:14] Cog. I'm the regular member and

[33:15] director. Patino is the

[33:18] alternate there this year. I

[33:20] have quite a bit of work on my

[33:21] on my calendar already on

[33:23] chairing this and other things

[33:25] throughout. I've talked to

[33:26] Director Silva about

[33:27] potentially being the regular

[33:28] member, and I think he's

[33:29] interested in that. I don't

[33:31] know if Director Patino would

[33:32] like to stay on as alternate

[33:34] for that. I'm happy to move to

[33:35] alternate position if she

[33:36] doesn't want that, but I'd be

[33:38] happy to let her stay there as

[33:39] well. Director Nelson, I would

[33:41] I would like to be the member

[33:43] on that because I've been the

[33:46] alternate. Okay, so. And maybe

[33:48] Director Silva would take the

[33:51] alternate. That works for me.

[33:55] That sounds great. So any other

[33:56] not seeing anybody jump up and

[33:58] down here. Thank you, Director

[34:00] Patino for jumping up on that

[34:01] down in Santa Maria. And again,

[34:04] if any of these items that

[34:05] you're interested in Santa

[34:06] Maria, please don't hesitate to

[34:08] to to speak up. The next item

[34:11] here is Lausanne. I believe we

[34:15] got here. And currently we have,

[34:18] I believe, director and

[34:19] Director Lee as the regular

[34:21] alternate members. Are you both?

[34:23] I'd like to stay on Lausanne.

[34:25] I'm happy as alternate. Okay.

[34:27] Great. Seeing no objection,

[34:28] we'll keep moving on to the

[34:30] Crcc, which is the Coast Rail

[34:31] Coordinating Council. Currently

[34:33] we have Director Rousse. And as

[34:35] the regular member and director

[34:37] Brown as the alternate. I'm

[34:38] fine with the status quo. Okay,

[34:40] we got some thumbs up up here.

[34:42] Everybody good down there?

[34:44] Looks like it. Moving on to the

[34:46] California Vanpool Authority

[34:47] Caravans. Currently I'm a

[34:50] regular appointed member and

[34:51] director Julian is the

[34:52] alternate. It's a preference

[34:55] for me to stay on that. I am on

[34:56] the executive committee. I have

[34:57] stepped away from being the

[34:59] vice chair, which I had been

[35:00] for the last couple of years,

[35:01] but we're going through some

[35:02] major changes of management,

[35:04] happy to pass it on in the next

[35:06] year or two if somebody is

[35:07] interested, but I think I need

[35:09] to be on that for the purposes

[35:10] of the continuity, with no

[35:11] objections. And Director Julian,

[35:13] are you okay staying on as the

[35:15] alternate? I am, sir. Thank you,

[35:16] thank you. Moving along to the

[35:17] State Highway 154 Safety

[35:20] Committee, I think we have five

[35:23] directors on that at this point.

[35:26] Is that correct? That correct?

[35:27] Just for the record, that's

[35:28] that is Director Hartman,

[35:31] director Capps, director Prodi,

[35:32] director Silva and director

[35:33] Brown. So that's the kind of

[35:35] those areas, the second and

[35:36] third district of the

[35:37] supervisors and the three

[35:38] cities that are kind of

[35:41] impacted there as well. Are you

[35:42] guys all happy staying on that?

[35:44] Okay. So the direction of the

[35:45] board currently is to and the

[35:47] motion will make is to keep

[35:48] that the same status quo. The

[35:51] sb, cag Executive Committee,

[35:53] which is traditionally the

[35:56] chair and the vice chair and

[35:57] chair, vice chair, former past

[35:59] chair and the chairs of the

[36:00] subregional. So five five

[36:02] members. Okay. Any objections

[36:05] there. Yeah. Do we have the the

[36:07] Subregionals already voted on.

[36:08] Yes. Who are the chairs of the

[36:10] director Julian and Director

[36:16] Lee okay. Past chair is Rouse.

[36:18] Yeah. So be Rouse Nelson, Silva

[36:19] Julian and Lee for the

[36:21] executive committee. All right.

[36:23] Since Central Coast coalition

[36:25] state legislation, legislative

[36:30] advocacy day. Who wants to go

[36:33] to Sacramento. So how many how

[36:34] many numbers do we we send to

[36:36] this. We normally take one. At

[36:41] least one okay. I will be I

[36:42] think unavailable at that time.

[36:45] So I'm not able to do that or

[36:46] else I would volunteer. But is

[36:47] there anybody that's interested

[36:52] in potentially going to state?

[36:57] State Legislative Advocacy Day,

[37:00] MARCH? I might be unavailable

[37:04] as well. Okay. Can we, per the

[37:07] motion, make that a CHAIRMAN's?

[37:09] Can I appoint somebody at a

[37:10] later date? If you guys would

[37:12] make that part of the motion is

[37:14] I will appoint somebody to go

[37:15] to that. And once you guys

[37:17] check your schedules, you guys

[37:18] let me know and I'll find

[37:20] somebody. And we can take more

[37:21] than one if necessary. If more

[37:22] than one is interested. Okay.

[37:23] Thank you, Director Kern.

[37:25] Moving on to the Washington, dc

[37:25] legislative delegation.

[37:27] Typically, again, this is the

[37:28] former past chair, the current

[37:29] chair and the vice chair, which

[37:30] would traditionally be Rouse,

[37:32] Nelson and Silva. Everybody's

[37:37] good with that. Okay. MADAM

[37:40] Clerk, did you catch all that?

[37:44] Okay. Any discussions from

[37:45] anybody else that would like to

[37:47] you know, this is kind of speak

[37:49] now or forever hold your peace

[37:50] in Santa Maria. Any other

[37:52] thoughts? None up here. All

[37:54] right. Thank you, Director

[37:55] Patino. MADAM Clerk, is there

[37:57] any public comment? If there

[37:59] are any members of the public

[38:00] on the zoom webinar who wish to

[38:02] speak, would you please use the

[38:03] raise hand feature and I will

[38:05] call upon you. There are no

[38:07] paper requests to speak forms,

[38:09] and there are no attendees who

[38:10] wish to speak. Okay. MADAM

[38:13] Clerk, is it clear from the

[38:16] discussion up here if somebody

[38:20] says a motion to appoint the

[38:21] committees as discussed by the

[38:23] board, that that. Yes. Good

[38:25] enough for you on the motion,

[38:26] or do we need to rephrase the

[38:27] appointees and delegates the

[38:30] record. Okay, okay. We're good.

[38:32] Okay. So I'm looking for a

[38:34] motion of a slate of appointees

[38:35] based on the discussion we had

[38:38] up here just now, I got a move

[38:40] to approve. Okay. Motion from

[38:41] Brown, second, second from

[38:44] Silva. All right. Can we go

[38:46] ahead and do a roll call? Vote,

[38:47] please. Director. Rouse.

[38:48] Director. Perrotti. Hi.

[38:51] Director. Patino. Hi. Director.

[38:55] Mosby. Director. Lee. Director.

[38:59] Lavagnino. Director. Julian. Hi,

[39:01] director. Hartman, I. Director.

[39:03] Clark. Director. Capps.

[39:05] Director. Brown. Vice chair.

[39:08] Silva and chair. Nelson I.

[39:10] Motion passes. All right, just

[39:12] for a moment of agenda.

[39:13] Management is our is our

[39:15] presenter for five here. Okay.

[39:16] So we're gonna go ahead and

[39:18] move on to item five b. MADAM

[39:19] Clerk, would you please read

[39:21] that item into the record?

[39:22] Final state 166 comprehensive

[39:23] corridor study recommended

[39:25] actions one. Approve the final

[39:27] State Route 166 comprehensive

[39:29] quarter study and two direct

[39:30] staff to file a notice of

[39:31] exemption with the Santa

[39:33] Barbara County Clerk pursuant

[39:36] to section 15738b2 of the

[39:37] California Environmental

[39:42] Quality Act, Ceqa guidelines.

[39:43] All right. I guess staff will

[39:44] have a presentation for us.

[39:46] Thank you. Good morning, chair

[39:48] and directors and happy New

[39:51] year. I'm Michael Carney from

[39:54] sp, cag programing. And today

[39:58] we will be presenting the final.

[40:01] There you go. 166 Corridor

[40:06] Study. I will be using this I

[40:12] think. Okay. Sb cag has been

[40:14] working with Caltrans, City of

[40:17] Santa Maria, City of Guadalupe

[40:19] and the county to develop this

[40:23] study with our consultant dcs

[40:29] and Somas. As a reminder, the

[40:32] study focuses on State Route

[40:34] 166 between City of Guadalupe

[40:37] and City of Santa Maria, as

[40:41] well as the parallel facilities.

[40:42] Excuse me, Chair Nelson, could

[40:44] you ever speak up a little bit,

[40:47] please? Yes, yes. Is this okay

[40:51] if I bring it closer to me?

[40:55] Perfect. There is a little

[40:57] button on your right to raise

[40:59] the platform. Oh, this actual

[41:03] platform. Got it. Okay, let's

[41:05] do it. Okay. Does this help?

[41:07] Yeah. Do a test. All right. I

[41:09] just have to project. So I'll

[41:10] just go over this part real

[41:12] quick. As a reminder, the the

[41:15] study focuses on State Route

[41:17] 166 from Guadalupe to Santa

[41:18] Maria. And it includes the

[41:23] parallel facilities as well.

[41:26] Nope. Okay. The goal of this

[41:29] study is to develop a list of

[41:32] improvements to address the

[41:34] issues along the corridor.

[41:36] Examples of those issues

[41:39] include safety, congestion,

[41:42] goods movement, and multimodal

[41:44] connections. The study also

[41:48] helps us prepare for future

[41:50] funding and sets us up for

[41:52] future grants, competitive

[41:54] grants, and it also helps us

[41:56] identify any projects that we

[41:58] MAY want to include in our

[42:03] measure a renewal. So I'm going

[42:05] to pass it off to Jim Danko

[42:07] from dcs, who is helping us

[42:15] with the study. Oh, that's for

[42:24] you. Okay. MR. Chair, members

[42:26] of the board again, Jim, I'm a

[42:28] principal at dcs associates. We

[42:30] are also joined by Thomas

[42:31] Engineering for civil support

[42:33] to help support sb, cag in this

[42:36] study. I'll quickly go through

[42:37] the aspects of the study, the

[42:39] existing conditions analysis,

[42:41] our community engagement

[42:43] efforts, the performance

[42:44] assessment, and then quickly go

[42:46] through the the cip

[42:47] improvements that some of you

[42:50] have already seen and wrap up

[42:54] with implementation. So for

[42:56] existing conditions, we took a

[42:58] pretty deep dive. We looked at

[43:00] the socioeconomic

[43:01] characteristics of the area. So

[43:03] city of Guadalupe, Santa Maria,

[43:04] Orchard area, but also the

[43:05] socioeconomic characteristics

[43:08] of the users that are on 166 on

[43:10] a daily basis. We did that

[43:13] through cell data, big data. We

[43:14] looked at goods movement, we

[43:17] looked at operations. And in

[43:19] terms of delay and travel time

[43:21] reliability, which is kind of a

[43:22] new metric that is of key

[43:24] interest. Obviously, we looked

[43:26] at safety, looking at the

[43:28] collision history and where the

[43:30] hotspots tend to be. And we as

[43:32] part of that, we also performed

[43:34] a roadway or road safety audit,

[43:36] which is a method prescribed by

[43:38] Federal Highway Administration,

[43:39] which actually took our team

[43:41] out there and walked the

[43:42] corridor, took lots of

[43:43] observations, and that included

[43:45] staff from Guadalupe, Santa

[43:48] Maria, Caltrans, sb, cag, and

[43:50] the consultant team. We looked

[43:52] at multimodal access in terms

[43:55] of ped, bike and transit, and

[43:57] then looked at how stressful it

[43:59] is for those active

[44:00] transportation users within the

[44:02] corridor. As you might imagine,

[44:03] it's very stressful, which

[44:05] keeps people from wanting to

[44:07] bike or walk the corridor. And

[44:08] then finally we looked at we

[44:11] used a series of Caltrans

[44:14] website tools to look at equity

[44:16] and vulnerable network as it

[44:18] relates to extreme weather

[44:21] events. So in terms of our

[44:23] community engagement, we used

[44:26] all our our resources to make

[44:28] sure we did a good job of this.

[44:30] We had a project website. We

[44:31] had an interactive web based

[44:33] tool that allowed folks in the

[44:34] comfort of their own home to

[44:37] provide public input. We did a

[44:39] community survey, both online

[44:43] and in person, and a lot of

[44:45] collateral materials to make

[44:46] sure folks were aware of that

[44:49] the study was going on. We also

[44:52] did about five pop ups where we

[44:53] don't ask people to come to us,

[44:56] we go to where they are. I'm

[44:57] happy to say we exceeded our

[44:59] goals in terms of the number of

[45:01] community surveys that were

[45:04] performed by the public. We

[45:07] also the lion's share over 70%

[45:10] were done by Hispanic speakers.

[45:12] And we also shout out to the

[45:14] county who allowed us to use

[45:16] Promotoras, which are folks who

[45:18] speak Mexican, who that

[45:19] community does not have a

[45:21] written language. So the only

[45:22] way you can get their input is

[45:24] verbally. That was a really

[45:26] nice resource, and we did very

[45:28] well with our community

[45:29] engagement and exceeded our our

[45:30] community engagement goals. I

[45:32] think we got close to 500

[45:34] surveys filled out. And then in

[45:36] addition to that, we did go and

[45:37] hold two public workshops, one

[45:39] in Guadalupe, one in Santa

[45:40] Maria, where we asked folks to

[45:42] come and provide input on the

[45:44] improvement concepts that were

[45:45] under consideration. And then

[45:47] last but not least, we had

[45:49] meetings with our stakeholder

[45:52] advisory committee, with the

[45:53] subregional planning committee

[45:59] of sb, cag, as well as tac.

[46:00] Okay. The performance

[46:01] assessment. We did look at

[46:06] roughly 11 types of

[46:07] improvements in the world we

[46:09] live in in terms of federal

[46:10] grants. It's all performance

[46:12] based. So that's we're looking

[46:14] at not only the costs of the

[46:15] improvements, but also the

[46:16] monetized benefits of the

[46:18] improvements. And from that you

[46:19] can get a benefit cost

[46:20] assessment. It's not the only

[46:22] metric, but it's a key metric

[46:23] that drives a lot of funding

[46:24] decisions made by the

[46:26] California Transportation

[46:28] Commission and federal highways.

[46:30] So we looked at the benefits as

[46:31] it relates to collision

[46:33] reduction, delay reduction,

[46:35] travel time, reliability

[46:38] improvement, fuel use on road,

[46:40] mobile source emissions, so on

[46:43] and so forth. So we didn't we

[46:45] tried not to leave any rock

[46:46] unturned in terms of monetizing

[46:48] benefits. We didn't want to

[46:49] leave any on the ground or, you

[46:52] know, off the table. But there

[46:53] are some you can't capture all

[46:55] in one that the growers are

[46:56] Shippers Association pointed

[46:59] out that we could not be on the

[47:01] scope of our study, but we do

[47:03] recognize it is the cost of

[47:05] agriculture for transporting

[47:07] perishable goods every hour

[47:10] between cut and in the in the

[47:11] Coolidge storage is a day of

[47:13] shelf life that's lost. And

[47:14] that has economic implications,

[47:16] of course. So we we do talk

[47:18] about it, but we didn't

[47:20] monetize that, which basically

[47:21] means that our, our benefit

[47:24] cost ratio, which was very good

[47:26] 2.66 is probably underestimated.

[47:28] We didn't take that into

[47:30] account. But again freight

[47:33] movement is improved. Gross

[47:35] regional product in the region

[47:38] adds about $12 million. If the

[47:39] construction of these

[47:41] improvements takes place, and

[47:42] then that will create jobs as

[47:44] well. So a lot of economic

[47:46] benefit and then, you know,

[47:47] benefit cost is not the only

[47:49] thing. So we did look at policy

[47:51] consistency. Not only the local

[47:53] agency general plan policies.

[47:54] That's the city of Guadalupe

[47:56] and the city of Santa Maria and

[47:58] the county. And as well as the

[47:59] regional policies of sb, cag

[48:02] and their rtp, but also

[48:04] Caltrans. Of course, it's their

[48:05] facility. And so we looked at

[48:07] their climate change

[48:08] initiatives and their policies

[48:10] to see how congruent each of

[48:12] the projects were. And that's

[48:17] what this matrix shows. And in

[48:19] terms of we did have a public

[48:20] draft. It was released in

[48:21] OCTOBER. We did receive

[48:23] comments from Caltrans, sb, cag,

[48:25] the North County Subregional

[48:27] Planning Committee, as well as

[48:28] the stakeholder advisory

[48:30] committee. And just real quick,

[48:31] I'll just summarize those

[48:34] comments for you. So for sb and

[48:37] Caltrans, the typical editorial

[48:39] suggestions but in better

[48:40] resolution list of acronyms,

[48:42] which is now part of the draft.

[48:44] And then some clarifications on

[48:46] the performance assessment for

[48:47] Caltrans, the North County Sub

[48:50] Regional Committee, they desire

[48:52] to see a four lane widening 166

[48:54] as part of a aspirational list

[48:56] of projects that are longer

[48:58] term. This. The planning

[48:58] horizon for this study is

[49:01] roughly 20 to 25 years. So

[49:03] short term, if you will, when

[49:04] it comes to transportation

[49:06] improvements. But the longer

[49:08] term are equally as important

[49:10] because, of course, measure a

[49:13] will sunset in 2040. And if

[49:14] there's a renewal effort,

[49:15] there's a desire to have new

[49:16] regional improvements that can

[49:19] be made part of that referendum.

[49:21] They also suggested that the

[49:23] Bonita School Road or Bonita

[49:25] School itself should be

[49:28] relocated. We agreed with that

[49:30] as well as the stakeholder.

[49:31] Well, the stakeholder advisory

[49:32] committee strongly agreed with

[49:34] that as well. So that was an

[49:37] interesting input. And then

[49:39] just one good question was, was

[49:40] there any regional differences

[49:42] in the public input? In other

[49:44] words, do residents of City of

[49:45] Guadalupe have different

[49:47] opinions of what they'd like to

[49:48] see in terms of improvements

[49:51] and other aspects versus Santa

[49:52] Maria and orchid? So we did go

[49:54] back and take a look at that.

[49:56] For the most part, they were

[49:57] very congruent, but there was

[49:59] some differences. City of Santa

[50:02] Maria Orcutt were more pro for

[50:03] more enforcement in the

[50:07] corridor. They were also more

[50:08] advocating active

[50:09] transportation improvements

[50:11] versus the Guadalupe side,

[50:13] which they advocated more

[50:16] transit, which was interesting.

[50:19] And people in Guadalupe use 166

[50:20] a lot more than folks in Santa

[50:23] Maria. So that was a pretty

[50:25] clear from the separating those

[50:27] two. So that's now documented

[50:29] in the report. And then the

[50:30] advisory committee, I've

[50:31] already mentioned some of this.

[50:33] They wanted to see more

[50:34] operational improvements in

[50:35] lighting on bed Arabian Black

[50:38] Road as well as Black and Stole,

[50:41] which we incorporated also

[50:43] again, Bonita School location

[50:45] is problematic. And the reason

[50:46] that is, is that it's in the

[50:48] middle of the ag fields, and

[50:50] there's a lot of windblown

[50:51] particulates. Those

[50:52] particulates typically have

[50:54] pesticides, herbicides, and you

[50:55] have a sensitive receptive

[50:57] group with young children right

[50:58] in the middle of all that. So

[51:00] all the students come from

[51:01] Santa Maria. That's where

[51:04] they're they live. So it makes

[51:06] sense to possibly examine

[51:10] relocation of that school. And

[51:11] then again, recognition that

[51:12] the benefit cost does not

[51:17] reflect perishable goods. And

[51:19] so this is a a matrix of how

[51:21] our stakeholder advisory

[51:23] committee scored each of the

[51:24] improvements. And I'll walk

[51:25] through those pretty well. But

[51:27] for the most part there was a

[51:29] lot of support. They had the

[51:32] option of showing support,

[51:33] being neutral or indifferent to

[51:37] the improvement, or did not

[51:39] support and then support with

[51:41] the condition. And as you can

[51:42] see, there was only two

[51:43] improvements that they could

[51:45] not support or a few of them

[51:47] did not support. It was 5050.

[51:49] And that was the roundabout

[51:50] alternatives to some of the

[51:52] improvements. They preferred

[51:53] signalized intersections. And

[51:55] that's fine. We provide both

[51:57] options. And then the Santa

[52:00] Maria River levee Trail, about

[52:02] half the group were not very

[52:03] supportive of that improvement

[52:05] being included as part of the

[52:09] package. And then for the long

[52:12] term improvement, a couple as a

[52:13] condition of support, wanted to

[52:16] see the class one trail

[52:17] decoupled from the four lane

[52:19] widening. We included them as a

[52:22] couplet, so that would be a

[52:25] class one trail from connecting

[52:27] Santa Maria to Guadalupe

[52:28] bidirectional, and that would

[52:30] be on the south side of the

[52:32] facility. And then the widening

[52:35] of 166, which is very costly in

[52:36] the subregional planning

[52:37] committee, asked for a cost of

[52:40] that based on construction year

[52:44] of 2040. It's about $320

[52:50] million. So not cheap. So real

[52:52] quick, the improvement concepts.

[52:55] This is an overall map. We do

[52:59] reflect the purple bubbles that

[53:02] that's the existing Gaps cap m

[53:04] project that is currently

[53:06] moving forward with planned

[53:09] completion by 20 2829. That

[53:11] includes a signalized

[53:14] intersections in Guadalupe, as

[53:17] well as some bike facility

[53:18] improvements within the city of

[53:20] Santa Maria. The green bubbles

[53:22] are those that were identified

[53:24] as part of this study, and I'll

[53:26] walk through those very quickly.

[53:31] So that's a rendition of the

[53:34] Gaps cap m project, which we

[53:36] did not reflect in the benefit

[53:37] cost, but we wanted to include

[53:39] because we're leveraging those

[53:40] improvements as part of this

[53:43] study. But as far as hours. So

[53:47] a signalization of the Cmis 166

[53:49] intersection, which additional

[53:51] channelization for operational

[53:56] and safety improvements. Some

[53:58] formalizing of the access to

[54:00] Bonita School Road from 166,

[54:01] again for safety and

[54:03] operational benefits, as well

[54:05] as formalizing the parking and

[54:08] some ingress egress

[54:09] characteristics going into the

[54:14] school itself. Ray Road in

[54:18] mainline. This is basically

[54:19] formalizing that stop

[54:23] controlled at the northbound to

[54:24] provide an extended right and

[54:26] left turn storage, because

[54:28] right now cuz pretty

[54:29] significantly causing a lot of

[54:31] delay. And that's also a safety

[54:32] improvement for improved sight

[54:33] distance for those turning left

[54:38] and right. Okay. This is for

[54:40] Hansen. And this is extending

[54:41] this is only in the westbound

[54:42] direction right now. The lane

[54:44] drop occurs roughly around

[54:46] Hansen. And but there's a lot

[54:48] of businesses on the on that

[54:50] north side with driveways. That

[54:52] causes a lot of friction

[54:55] turning movements that are are

[54:57] creating safety issues. So the

[54:59] idea here is that we extend

[55:02] that lane drop beyond Hansen

[55:03] and beyond where those

[55:05] driveways are. So it's a much

[55:07] smoother transition from 2 to 1

[55:11] lane. And then we also

[55:13] identified pave way or paved

[55:17] driveway aprons. And this is a

[55:18] safety because it adds traction

[55:20] to ingress and egress vehicles

[55:22] coming out of those driveways

[55:24] and those fields. But also it

[55:27] cuts down on dust and marine

[55:28] train road dust. So dust

[55:29] abatement strategy. And this

[55:31] was very popular among the

[55:35] stakeholder advisory group. And

[55:37] also the need for lighting. So

[55:38] we heard this loud and clear

[55:40] from the public and is an issue

[55:42] particularly around key

[55:43] intersections. So we identified

[55:47] additional lighting for various

[55:48] key locations within the

[55:51] quarter. And also on Betteravia

[55:55] Road. We also are advocating

[55:57] the purchase of 15 additional

[56:00] vans from Cal Van to provide

[56:01] exclusive service for ag

[56:04] workers. We work closely with

[56:06] Cal Vans to identify what the

[56:08] potential demand was for these

[56:11] added vehicles, and there is a

[56:12] demand there. Calvin's is

[56:14] already doing a lot of work in

[56:15] this corridor, but they

[56:16] recognize that it's not enough

[56:19] and they can do more. So we're

[56:21] advocating additional 15 cal

[56:23] vans and then also for Santa

[56:25] Maria Regional Transit, which

[56:26] has now assumed control of the

[56:28] Guadalupe Flier service between

[56:29] Guadalupe and Santa Maria to

[56:32] reduce those headways from 60

[56:33] minutes to 30 minutes. That's

[56:35] going to require a purchase of

[56:38] an additional 35 foot bus. And

[56:40] so transit service would be

[56:43] much more, I think, convenient,

[56:44] particularly for those

[56:46] residents in Guadalupe who rely

[56:49] on transit to go to Santa Maria

[56:52] and back. Okay, so this is the

[56:53] Surface Transportation

[56:55] Assistance Act Star. This is

[56:58] for truck circulation. And I

[57:00] just want to make it clear from

[57:01] the beginning the trucks are

[57:04] already out there. So so any of

[57:05] these improvements are not

[57:07] allowing trucks where they

[57:09] currently aren't operating.

[57:11] That that is a misconception.

[57:12] It's just trying to formalize

[57:14] the network for not only the

[57:16] truckers, but also for chp who

[57:19] must enforce the regulations

[57:22] and and also for the city of

[57:25] Santa Maria, who's trying to

[57:27] preclude the number of heavy

[57:29] duty trucks, five axle plus

[57:30] trucks that have to traverse

[57:33] through their downtown on 166.

[57:35] So and and we did find that not

[57:37] only are the trucks there, but

[57:39] they're growing in numbers and

[57:41] they're growing faster than the

[57:43] traffic overall is growing. So

[57:45] the mix of heavy duty trucks is

[57:48] increasing in this region. So

[57:52] we've identified stay signage

[57:53] improvements as well as some

[57:55] other safety improvements. But

[57:56] to formalize the network so

[57:58] truckers know where to go and

[58:00] where they should be. And we

[58:01] identified a number of

[58:03] alternative networks. There's

[58:05] roughly six that are shown in

[58:07] the report. I would say that

[58:09] the city of Santa Maria is

[58:12] advocating just bringing the

[58:14] star signage, allowing trucks

[58:18] to be on 166 up to Blosser Road

[58:21] rather than to 135. And there's

[58:23] various alternatives. And then

[58:24] the advisory committee really

[58:26] advocated, including Stoll Road

[58:32] as part of the network as well.

[58:33] And okay, so this intersection

[58:35] improvements at Betteravia and

[58:38] Mahoney, that's a very funky

[58:39] intersection today. It's a

[58:41] picture of it in the top right.

[58:43] But this is to make it more of

[58:45] a traditional intersection.

[58:46] This will facilitate goods

[58:48] movement trucks as well as

[58:50] safety for vehicular traffic.

[58:51] So this is the signalized

[58:53] version of the improvement. And

[58:55] we also included a roundabout

[58:57] version. You know folks have

[58:58] mixed feelings about

[58:59] roundabouts. And we heard that

[59:01] loud and clear from the

[59:03] advisory group as well as some

[59:04] others in the public. But those

[59:06] are options. And then last but

[59:09] not least, the us 101

[59:10] Betteravia interchange

[59:12] improvement. So this is

[59:14] changing the circulation of the

[59:16] northbound ramps, but also

[59:18] providing class one bike and

[59:20] pedestrian facilities, as well

[59:24] as intersection improvements at

[59:27] at Nicholson as well. And this

[59:29] is primarily driven by the need

[59:30] to make sure Betteravia is

[59:33] becoming a better Sta route.

[59:34] There's already a lot of trucks

[59:37] using it, so this will help

[59:38] formalize that, but also the

[59:40] city of Santa Maria, as part of

[59:41] their general plan update, are

[59:43] now targeting growth on the

[59:46] east side of 101. And so you

[59:47] you'll have residential and

[59:48] then all the shopping

[59:49] opportunities on the west side

[59:51] of Betteravia. So you want to

[59:52] make that more accessible to

[59:54] pet and bikes as well as to

[59:56] vehicles. And then the Santa

[59:58] Maria levee, River Levee Trail

[1:00:01] and that's included. This is a

[1:00:03] very popular improvement, I

[1:00:04] would say folks are concerned

[1:00:06] about undue detour. Does it

[1:00:09] really provide that that

[1:00:10] parallel connection between

[1:00:13] Santa Maria and Guadalupe? We

[1:00:16] feel it does. But our analysis

[1:00:18] did take into consideration the

[1:00:19] buffer distance that people

[1:00:20] would actually use this

[1:00:22] facility to make those

[1:00:24] connections. But make no

[1:00:25] mistake, we recognize that

[1:00:27] having a bike and ped facility

[1:00:31] along the 166 is is much more

[1:00:32] efficient, but again, it's much

[1:00:34] more costly. This improvement

[1:00:35] is moving along. It's already

[1:00:37] in its environmental phase. And

[1:00:38] so we're including it as part

[1:00:42] of our package. And then here's

[1:00:44] the, you know, the this the

[1:00:47] widening. There you go. You can

[1:00:49] see the bike path there, the so

[1:00:52] the the profile cross section

[1:00:53] in the middle. That's what

[1:00:55] exists today. And you can see

[1:00:57] the extent of what would be

[1:00:59] required in terms of right of

[1:01:01] way to make it a four lane

[1:01:04] facility. Caltrans will need a

[1:01:07] center median to a divider for

[1:01:09] this. For safety, folks felt

[1:01:12] from the stakeholder committee,

[1:01:13] they questioned the need for

[1:01:15] that. But I can guarantee you

[1:01:17] Caltrans is going to want that.

[1:01:20] And then the class one

[1:01:22] bidirectional trail south side

[1:01:25] of the state route 166. And

[1:01:27] again, it comes at a hefty

[1:01:30] price. So this is really only

[1:01:31] possible, I think, as part of a

[1:01:34] measure, a renewal package. And

[1:01:36] then in terms of our

[1:01:36] implementation, we looked at

[1:01:38] all the various funding sources.

[1:01:40] Again, as Maya said, we're

[1:01:42] targeting at least for the the

[1:01:43] package that we're identified

[1:01:46] for these next 20 years, state

[1:01:47] and federal grant funding to

[1:01:49] try to get these projects

[1:01:53] implemented. And then we phased

[1:01:54] the improvements from short

[1:01:57] term mid-term and then that

[1:01:59] longer term 20 plus years. And

[1:02:00] that's where you see the four

[1:02:02] lane widening, as well as the

[1:02:06] class one trail along 166. So

[1:02:08] with that, I'll open it up to

[1:02:11] questions. All right. Questions

[1:02:13] among directors I see. Director

[1:02:14] Lee, you have a question I do.

[1:02:16] So the levee trail that you

[1:02:17] spoke about, did you reach out

[1:02:20] to the local farmers impacted

[1:02:22] by that construction, or was

[1:02:25] there any feedback or any

[1:02:28] negative impacts to them? You

[1:02:32] know? Director Lee, the Levee

[1:02:33] Trail project is a county

[1:02:35] project. We've included it

[1:02:36] because it's moving forward.

[1:02:38] It's complementary. It's

[1:02:40] related to our study. So it's

[1:02:42] the county that is advancing

[1:02:44] the project. However, just on

[1:02:45] our stakeholder advisory

[1:02:47] committee, we did have

[1:02:48] representatives of the

[1:02:50] agricultural community that

[1:02:52] were involved in the process.

[1:02:54] And you did see on the when the

[1:02:55] stakeholder Advisory Committee

[1:02:57] took its support, don't support

[1:02:59] votes that this is one of the

[1:03:02] ones that had a couple do not

[1:03:03] supports. Okay. And so going

[1:03:06] back to the your study, did you

[1:03:07] consider the early morning

[1:03:09] traffic happens on the road?

[1:03:12] Because we did from 2 to 5 I

[1:03:14] believe it's like busy. Yes we

[1:03:17] did. And that was a so there

[1:03:19] was an early morning peak which

[1:03:21] is at early Age-related Peak.

[1:03:24] And we did the peak as well.

[1:03:26] Got it. And adjusted completion

[1:03:28] will help with that traffic

[1:03:29] burden. And the completion of

[1:03:32] this project will help with

[1:03:33] that. Yes, yes. And the the

[1:03:35] congestion that particularly in

[1:03:37] Santa Maria that backs up for

[1:03:40] that westbound trips in the Am

[1:03:41] that drove a lot of the

[1:03:43] improvements that you saw,

[1:03:45] especially that the extension

[1:03:48] of Hanson or 166 lane drop past

[1:03:50] Hanson. Okay. That's the

[1:03:52] benefit that issue as well.

[1:03:54] There's you know, when we look

[1:03:56] at the the congestion and the

[1:03:59] travel time variance, we saw

[1:04:03] that it was very unreliable on

[1:04:05] an ongoing, you know, it was

[1:04:06] reliably bad. That's what I'm

[1:04:07] trying to say, which you don't

[1:04:09] see very often. So it does

[1:04:10] indicate a really significant

[1:04:12] problem for that early morning

[1:04:13] ag commute. And during your

[1:04:15] study on the road, did you see

[1:04:17] anybody going off road to

[1:04:18] bypass the traffic? You know,

[1:04:20] our roadway safety audit, we

[1:04:21] did recognize that. But we

[1:04:23] heard that plenty from the

[1:04:24] public that folks use the

[1:04:25] shoulder as a bypass lane. And

[1:04:27] that's not good. So we we

[1:04:29] recognize that as a major issue.

[1:04:31] Thank you. Yeah. And I will say

[1:04:32] that the stakeholder advisory

[1:04:34] committee regarding the Santa

[1:04:36] Maria River Levee trail, one of

[1:04:38] the big concerns was, was there

[1:04:39] going to be adequate fencing to

[1:04:41] protect the ag fields from

[1:04:45] folks who are using the

[1:04:50] facility and cost estimates, as

[1:04:50] well as our description of the

[1:04:50] project is, yeah, it'll be two

[1:04:51] layers of fencing to keep folks

[1:04:56] from compromising or getting

[1:04:56] into the I believe I spoke to

[1:04:56] the farmers locally there and

[1:04:57] they are concerned about people

[1:04:58] that are going through the

[1:04:59] landfill. That's very important.

[1:05:01] Thank you for doing that. I

[1:05:02] agree, thank you. Director Lee,

[1:05:03] Director Hartman, director,

[1:05:04] then director Lavagnino. And

[1:05:07] then I'll go to Santa Maria. I

[1:05:09] was just curious about your

[1:05:13] analysis for benefit cost. So

[1:05:16] the cost takes in the entire

[1:05:19] set of projects, including the

[1:05:21] vans and the bus transit.

[1:05:23] Correct. And then describe more

[1:05:24] how you calculate the benefit.

[1:05:26] You said what wasn't part of it,

[1:05:29] but how do you how do you nail

[1:05:31] that down? Right. So yeah, you

[1:05:33] know, costing improvements

[1:05:35] that's been around for a long,

[1:05:36] long, long, long time.

[1:05:38] Engineers are very good at that.

[1:05:40] Monetizing benefits is really

[1:05:42] the the new aspect of of of all

[1:05:45] this. And it's all based on

[1:05:46] data that's published by

[1:05:47] Caltrans. It's called the

[1:05:49] societal costs. And they you

[1:05:51] know, there's there's value to

[1:05:54] time. So that value of time is

[1:05:56] incorporated into delay

[1:05:58] reduction travel time

[1:06:00] reliability because it's called

[1:06:02] buffer time. If you want to

[1:06:04] reach your destination 95% of

[1:06:06] the time, but because of the

[1:06:07] conditions of the facility,

[1:06:09] makes that very variable. And

[1:06:10] we have 12 months of data to

[1:06:12] show how variable it is. It's

[1:06:14] the amount of time people have

[1:06:15] to leave early to make sure

[1:06:17] they can get to their

[1:06:19] destination. 95% of the time,

[1:06:21] that's their time. So it can be

[1:06:21] monetized. You know, they'd

[1:06:23] rather be at home with their

[1:06:25] families than leaving early and

[1:06:27] maybe arriving work early, but

[1:06:29] maybe on time they don't know.

[1:06:31] So that can all be monetized by

[1:06:33] the value of time on road,

[1:06:36] mobile source emissions, all

[1:06:38] those, you know, criteria.

[1:06:39] Health based pollutants have a

[1:06:41] societal cost associated with

[1:06:42] them. That's all been developed

[1:06:46] by epa and Caltrans. And so we

[1:06:48] have a whole list of all those

[1:06:51] monetized costs that we can

[1:06:52] calculate the measure

[1:06:54] effectiveness and monetize that

[1:06:56] benefit. And and then could you

[1:06:58] elaborate on the gross regional

[1:07:01] product, the 12 million value,

[1:07:03] how that relates or doesn't. So

[1:07:04] that that is a good question.

[1:07:06] That is specific to the

[1:07:08] construction activity. So

[1:07:09] assuming that all the

[1:07:10] improvements get constructed,

[1:07:13] that's going to add jobs to the

[1:07:16] construction sector. Yeah.

[1:07:17] Thank you. All right. Thank you,

[1:07:18] Director Hartman. Director

[1:07:20] Lavagnino, thank you. And well,

[1:07:22] first I just want to thank sb,

[1:07:25] cag staff and the members that

[1:07:26] this is this is something

[1:07:28] that's been a long time coming.

[1:07:29] I mean, this we probably should

[1:07:31] have started this 15, 20 years

[1:07:32] ago so that we were actually

[1:07:33] doing work now instead of

[1:07:35] looking at what we could be

[1:07:36] doing. But, you know, we've got

[1:07:38] a lot of priorities in this

[1:07:39] county. So I understand. But

[1:07:40] it's I appreciate where we are

[1:07:42] right now. So can you just

[1:07:44] refresh my memory when when

[1:07:47] does measure a when do we

[1:07:50] finish measure a expires in

[1:07:51] 2040 okay. This board has

[1:07:54] directed to pursue a measure in

[1:07:57] 2032. Okay. Great. So so what

[1:07:59] I'm hearing is in that short

[1:08:00] term, those ones that you've

[1:08:01] identified, which two of them

[1:08:02] are actually construction on,

[1:08:04] the other two are, you know,

[1:08:05] kind of working around some,

[1:08:07] some issues we're anticipating

[1:08:11] we would do those before 2040

[1:08:13] with the current measure a,

[1:08:14] there is no measure a

[1:08:15] identified for this corridor at

[1:08:17] this point in time. So what

[1:08:18] we're saying is we could

[1:08:20] identify state funding and

[1:08:21] federal funding possibly to to

[1:08:23] to do these. It would be

[1:08:24] outside these other ones that

[1:08:26] are in the midterm. They would

[1:08:28] be a a wish list that we would

[1:08:29] send to voters that these are

[1:08:31] things that we would like to

[1:08:32] get done. And inside of that,

[1:08:34] are we or are we not. Do you

[1:08:36] anticipate now talking about

[1:08:37] widening to four lanes, or is

[1:08:40] that something outside of that?

[1:08:43] It's up to this board okay.

[1:08:46] Okay. So just I'm curious on

[1:08:47] these just on these even in the

[1:08:49] midterm ones, but on the even

[1:08:51] in the intersection lighting

[1:08:52] and the pavement driving is

[1:08:54] that 42 million seems pretty

[1:08:56] low to me, which it does. It's

[1:08:58] only because we deal with so

[1:09:00] many high numbers here. But is

[1:09:01] that actually have we looked at

[1:09:03] the right of way because some

[1:09:05] of those farms I mean, I know

[1:09:06] we're going to be taking

[1:09:08] anytime you do any work on the

[1:09:09] 166, you're talking about

[1:09:11] impacting Prime ag. And I'm

[1:09:13] just curious if we've done

[1:09:14] those studies, looked at that,

[1:09:16] we did for the lighting. You

[1:09:18] know, a lot of these are low

[1:09:20] cost improvement concepts. And

[1:09:22] so that's the beauty of it. But

[1:09:23] very astute observation. 42

[1:09:25] million in the big scheme of

[1:09:28] things is not that much. And so

[1:09:30] the lighting in terms of the

[1:09:32] cobra heads and the poles, a

[1:09:33] lot of that can be done within

[1:09:35] right of way. So there wouldn't

[1:09:38] be any take the driveway aprons.

[1:09:40] That's a mix. There probably

[1:09:42] will be some some right of way

[1:09:44] that's not Caltrans to make

[1:09:46] those effective. We think

[1:09:49] that's a good public private

[1:09:51] type of improvement that folks

[1:09:54] can rally behind. But we'll see.

[1:09:58] But I think most of the

[1:09:59] businesses, the ag, they would

[1:10:00] welcome that because it's a,

[1:10:02] you know, it's a safety issue

[1:10:03] for their people, their

[1:10:04] vehicles, their workers. And

[1:10:06] then final question, I guess,

[1:10:07] is so in your professional

[1:10:09] opinion, how do you think these

[1:10:11] midterm projects would rack and

[1:10:13] stack against, you know, as far

[1:10:16] as being able to actually see

[1:10:17] possibility of funding? Yeah,

[1:10:19] it depends on the program

[1:10:20] itself. One program that we

[1:10:22] highlight that we feel is

[1:10:24] probably the strongest is the

[1:10:25] Trade Quarter Enhancement

[1:10:28] program from Caltrans sb one,

[1:10:30] and that is a competitive

[1:10:32] program. I think we have a very

[1:10:35] competitive benefit cost. We

[1:10:36] have safety improvements. You

[1:10:38] know, we have a lot of a good

[1:10:40] mix of projects from transit

[1:10:43] vans, you name it, driveway

[1:10:44] aprons, which is very unique.

[1:10:45] This is the first quarter study

[1:10:47] that I've been a part of. I've

[1:10:49] been part of too many. But that

[1:10:50] driveway aprons was even an

[1:10:51] improvement. So it's kind of

[1:10:55] unique. So my my aspiration is

[1:10:56] that we can compete well for

[1:10:57] the trade quarter enhancement

[1:11:00] program. Another good one is

[1:11:01] highway Safety Improvement

[1:11:03] program. Okay. Thank you. By

[1:11:05] the way, that was former sb

[1:11:08] member Larry Lavagnino calling.

[1:11:10] I have a correction. There is a

[1:11:11] project in the current measure,

[1:11:14] a program that's the Betteravia

[1:11:15] 101 project that is funded

[1:11:16] through the measure a, that we

[1:11:18] will be applying for additional

[1:11:20] funds to implement that project,

[1:11:22] but it's not on the 166. So

[1:11:23] thank you. Thank you. All right.

[1:11:25] Thank you. I'm gonna go to

[1:11:26] Santa Maria for some comments

[1:11:28] or questions. Then I'm going to

[1:11:30] come back up here for then for

[1:11:31] Director Silva. Thank you. And

[1:11:34] I know this is about the Bonita

[1:11:37] Bonita school. And I know we've

[1:11:38] had discussions about this

[1:11:39] before. And Director Nelson, I

[1:11:41] can't remember exactly what,

[1:11:44] but I know that property was

[1:11:46] deeded only to be used as a

[1:11:49] school. And and so there's just

[1:11:52] a lot of problems getting into

[1:11:53] what happens. And I know the

[1:11:55] school district spoke to us

[1:11:56] several years ago, and you

[1:11:57] probably know more about it

[1:12:00] than I do, but it's it's really

[1:12:02] a challenge to have to deal

[1:12:03] with that. And of course, those

[1:12:05] students do come from Santa

[1:12:06] Maria and they are bust out

[1:12:11] there. I want to ask about I

[1:12:14] really want to confirm the the

[1:12:16] time, the peak hours study

[1:12:19] again, because you've got black

[1:12:20] and betteravia, you've got

[1:12:22] black and stole and you've got

[1:12:25] Blosser that concern us. What

[1:12:30] time was that peak hour study?

[1:12:32] So the the what we're calling

[1:12:38] the early am, I believe is from

[1:12:41] 5 to 6 and then the commuter Am

[1:12:44] is the typical seven, you know,

[1:12:47] 8 to 9 or 730 to 830. I'll have

[1:12:48] to check. And then the

[1:12:50] traditional pm peak is 435

[1:12:55] three. Because that 5:00 is

[1:12:57] it's it's really important.

[1:12:58] 8:00 9:00 it doesn't really

[1:13:00] matter because that's not when

[1:13:05] that is so impacted there. On

[1:13:07] Blosser and 166 we really need

[1:13:10] the two left turn northbound

[1:13:15] lanes going east, going north.

[1:13:17] And I didn't see that there. So

[1:13:19] that's something that we need.

[1:13:21] Then coming down Blosser and

[1:13:24] going west on 166 again that

[1:13:26] left turn pocket gets gets

[1:13:28] packed. It just gets packed.

[1:13:30] The it is probably bumper to

[1:13:32] bumper from Main Street all the

[1:13:35] way up to probably betteravia.

[1:13:38] I know pastel so that's really

[1:13:40] an impact. And so that I know

[1:13:42] when we went through the

[1:13:45] roundabout issue and we did the

[1:13:50] the signalized intersection at

[1:13:52] 166 and black, that went on for

[1:13:55] years. And, and I went to all

[1:13:56] those meetings with focus

[1:13:59] groups. Not one person, not one

[1:14:01] person at that time ever, ever

[1:14:04] spoke in favor of a roundabout.

[1:14:06] And yet we spent years going

[1:14:08] through that. And it was it was

[1:14:11] like Caltrans. Caltrans was

[1:14:13] trying to push that on us, and

[1:14:14] everyone was saying that it

[1:14:16] doesn't work. So I just think

[1:14:17] that those kinds of things are

[1:14:22] important. The I'm thinking of

[1:14:25] the day that we were out on 166

[1:14:27] in black and celebrating the

[1:14:28] intersection, and I'm sitting

[1:14:30] there watching and there's chp

[1:14:32] there, and a car runs the red

[1:14:35] light and and then a little

[1:14:37] while later, a truck runs the

[1:14:39] red light. So it is a very,

[1:14:42] very dangerous road. And during

[1:14:44] those peak hours it's four

[1:14:46] lanes and not two lanes. So

[1:14:49] it's something that we between

[1:14:50] Guadalupe and Santa Maria we do

[1:14:52] care about. There's a lot of

[1:14:53] accidents out there all the

[1:14:56] time. And I want to ask you and

[1:14:57] Margie, maybe you know this,

[1:14:59] but I heard on the radio that

[1:15:00] California has the most unsafe.

[1:15:03] We're number one in the most

[1:15:05] unsafe roads. And I didn't know

[1:15:10] what study that was done.

[1:15:12] Anyway, our public works

[1:15:13] director is here. If he would

[1:15:19] like to comment on anything.

[1:15:21] Thank you. All right. Director

[1:15:22] Patino, do you have a question

[1:15:24] for him that you'd like to have

[1:15:27] answered? Or you? I yes, for

[1:15:28] you. I just wanted to make

[1:15:30] those comments. Okay. Yeah.

[1:15:31] Thank you. And if you'd like to

[1:15:32] speak during public comment,

[1:15:33] we'll absolutely give him that

[1:15:35] opportunity to or the directors

[1:15:37] up here or down there will have

[1:15:38] some questions for him. We'll

[1:15:39] make sure that's available.

[1:15:40] Okay. And I'm sure Director

[1:15:42] Julian has things to say. Thank

[1:15:43] you. I'm sure he has director

[1:15:46] Julian. Yes. Thank you for the

[1:15:47] update. And one of the, one of

[1:15:49] the things that local residents

[1:15:51] are looking at, chp, I know

[1:15:53] that there was a study with

[1:15:57] about a quarter of the chp

[1:15:58] ticketing, and that is a big

[1:16:00] issue. We still have people,

[1:16:01] especially if you're not going

[1:16:02] to have a four lane for for

[1:16:05] decades or whatever. We need

[1:16:07] chp doing more of the, you know,

[1:16:09] roads, routes out in that area.

[1:16:12] You know, trucks are not a

[1:16:13] problem. Maybe because we're

[1:16:15] used to that. Trucks slow

[1:16:17] people down to the 55 miles an

[1:16:19] hour. So trucks, we have a good

[1:16:20] relationship with the truckers.

[1:16:22] And one of the things too, and

[1:16:24] I know that director Nelson is

[1:16:27] on caravans, but when people

[1:16:29] from Santa Maria go to San Luis

[1:16:31] County, across the bridge,

[1:16:32] Santa Maria River bridge,

[1:16:35] there's a lot of development,

[1:16:36] not a lot of development, a lot

[1:16:39] of grow. Right after the bridge

[1:16:41] on the on the north side, north

[1:16:44] side of the river, literally

[1:16:46] hundreds of cars are there. And

[1:16:49] we need to. And especially

[1:16:50] Guadalupe. I know that there's

[1:16:54] a call for more chp or Caltrans.

[1:16:56] That's a good that's a that's

[1:16:57] really necessary. But what we

[1:16:59] need to do in terms of

[1:17:01] Guadalupe is to make I see very

[1:17:03] few caravans, vehicles in the

[1:17:05] city of Guadalupe. And if we're

[1:17:07] having 15 additional fans

[1:17:09] really need to do our homework

[1:17:11] and make sure that the local

[1:17:13] farmworkers know that that's,

[1:17:14] you know, that's there for

[1:17:15] their use. Also, the increase

[1:17:18] in road trips from an hour to

[1:17:19] 30 minutes to and from Santa

[1:17:21] Maria is is really helpful for

[1:17:23] the community of Guadalupe. And

[1:17:25] then in the future, we've got

[1:17:27] another 18 acres of commercial

[1:17:28] that hopefully that'll be

[1:17:29] developed to where people don't

[1:17:31] have to go to Santa Maria for

[1:17:32] every everyday shopping in

[1:17:35] terms of groceries. And and

[1:17:38] again, our most of our people

[1:17:39] are employed in Santa Maria. So

[1:17:41] it really makes a difference in

[1:17:42] making improvements on this

[1:17:43] highway. 166 so thank you for

[1:17:46] the report. All right. Thank

[1:17:47] you. Thank you, Director Julian.

[1:17:49] Director Silva, thank you. Just

[1:17:51] kind of piggybacking off of

[1:17:52] what Director Hartman mentioned

[1:17:53] with societal benefit. I just

[1:17:54] was curious. I don't know if

[1:17:56] it's the factoid of you saying

[1:17:57] one hour equals one day of

[1:17:59] shelf life, considering the

[1:18:00] fact that we have a traffic

[1:18:02] issue going on right now. I was

[1:18:03] curious if you could maybe walk

[1:18:05] through, do we anticipate while

[1:18:06] we're looking at a 20 year

[1:18:07] construction plan, whatever

[1:18:09] that looked like, exacerbating

[1:18:10] the traffic issue? And was that

[1:18:12] analyzed in the cost of the

[1:18:14] project, or are we I just don't

[1:18:15] know how you would mitigate

[1:18:17] that. Are we possibly as a body

[1:18:18] just so that we're aware? Are

[1:18:20] we going to have to expect that

[1:18:21] there will be delays by nature

[1:18:23] of construction taking place,

[1:18:25] and that could impact the

[1:18:25] transportation going on and

[1:18:27] what that has been studied or

[1:18:30] what that looks like. Okay. Two

[1:18:32] questions. The first question

[1:18:34] is that the the existing

[1:18:36] conditions analysis was and the

[1:18:39] public input predicated our

[1:18:40] selection of the improvements.

[1:18:41] But the performance analysis of

[1:18:43] those improvements was based on

[1:18:45] future conditions. And so we

[1:18:48] rely on sb travel demand model

[1:18:50] and other resources to know how

[1:18:52] much traffic was going to grow.

[1:18:55] So when these improvements were

[1:18:56] operational, open to the public

[1:18:58] and the traveling public, that

[1:19:00] that benefit was derived from

[1:19:02] the from future demand. So I

[1:19:04] think that address your first

[1:19:07] question. The second question,

[1:19:09] can you repeat it? I'm sorry.

[1:19:10] It's really just understanding

[1:19:12] in in once these improvements

[1:19:14] start taking place, do we have

[1:19:16] an understanding of if we would

[1:19:17] anticipate delays that will

[1:19:19] have economic impact? Is there

[1:19:21] ways that we have gone through

[1:19:22] with how we're going to

[1:19:23] mitigate that? I just wasn't

[1:19:24] sure exactly of being mindful

[1:19:26] of actions taken. It's not

[1:19:27] saying we don't need to solve

[1:19:28] the problem, but there's always

[1:19:30] that when you're solving a

[1:19:31] problem, you know, the

[1:19:32] treatment can often cause some

[1:19:33] issues. While we're going

[1:19:34] through that, I just curious

[1:19:36] what that looks like or if

[1:19:37] we've done that study. No. Good

[1:19:38] question. Construction, phasing

[1:19:39] and delays associated with the

[1:19:40] construction of improvements

[1:19:42] that is not incorporated into

[1:19:44] our study. Like I said before,

[1:19:45] the good news is that many of

[1:19:47] these are not significant in

[1:19:50] terms of disruption to existing

[1:19:53] traffic. In my opinion, the

[1:19:55] experience that 166 and Black

[1:19:58] Road, I don't know what the

[1:20:00] history when that project was

[1:20:02] implemented to install a signal,

[1:20:05] but it would be similar to that

[1:20:07] is a good analogy in terms of

[1:20:09] disruption to traffic. Now, of

[1:20:11] course, that longer term

[1:20:12] improvement that's going to be

[1:20:14] significant and construction

[1:20:16] phasing will be pretty

[1:20:17] complicated on how we can keep

[1:20:19] the traffic moving on. 166

[1:20:21] while that's being constructed,

[1:20:25] if it ever does. Yeah, right.

[1:20:27] Director Perotti. Thank you.

[1:20:31] Chair. Going back to Director

[1:20:32] Pitino's question about the

[1:20:35] schools, the school. What's the

[1:20:36] issue at the school? Is it

[1:20:39] traffic? Getting into the class,

[1:20:41] into school by parents? Is that

[1:20:45] kids walking, biking busses?

[1:20:48] What what's their their concern?

[1:20:49] And I'm assuming you've gone to

[1:20:51] the school and talked with the

[1:20:53] parents. Yeah. So there's a

[1:20:56] number of issues that go on. So

[1:20:58] during school let out, there's

[1:21:00] the queuing of the busses. And

[1:21:02] our road safety audit was out

[1:21:04] there to witness that firsthand.

[1:21:06] And it's messy. All those

[1:21:08] busses they queue up, there's

[1:21:10] not enough storage for them in

[1:21:11] terms of the internal

[1:21:12] circulation where they pick up

[1:21:14] the kids on campus, and then

[1:21:15] they're all making a left

[1:21:16] because they they all go to

[1:21:18] Santa Maria, 100% of the

[1:21:21] student body kids are living in

[1:21:23] Santa Maria. Strangely, most,

[1:21:26] if not all, the faculty come

[1:21:27] down from the North because

[1:21:30] they live in Nipomo and

[1:21:32] elsewhere, and they use Santa

[1:21:34] Benito School Road. And so it's

[1:21:36] just it's kind of a confluence

[1:21:38] there. So there's no formalized

[1:21:39] parking really on campus. So

[1:21:42] there's no stalls, white lines,

[1:21:44] painting, striping. So we put a

[1:21:45] lot of thought into that. But

[1:21:47] you know that's just a concept,

[1:21:49] you know, do you want diagonal

[1:21:50] parking. Do you want you know

[1:21:51] there's all these different

[1:21:52] variables. But so that's an

[1:21:54] issue in terms of just

[1:21:57] circulation of the student body.

[1:21:59] You know, the parents drive

[1:22:01] their kids to. And so there's

[1:22:03] just a the the confluence of,

[1:22:04] of the vehicles from the

[1:22:06] employees to the students. And

[1:22:07] then that school let out time

[1:22:09] with the queuing of the busses.

[1:22:10] Okay. I was just curious about

[1:22:12] what the problem was there.

[1:22:14] Yeah. The stakeholder advisory

[1:22:16] committee advocated really

[1:22:18] putting in a a much more

[1:22:21] prominent right turn

[1:22:23] channelization from for

[1:22:24] westbound traffic. And that's

[1:22:26] mentioned in our report. It's

[1:22:28] not technically included in the

[1:22:29] improvement, but I think that's

[1:22:31] had a lot of merit. So we

[1:22:33] included it by okay. Thank you

[1:22:35] reference. Thank you, Director

[1:22:36] Parodi. And I actually would

[1:22:37] like to speak to the school

[1:22:39] issue just for a moment,

[1:22:40] something that I've always kind

[1:22:41] of been tracking as well. The

[1:22:43] issue is it's four miles from

[1:22:44] the nearest house to the school,

[1:22:46] just all through this entire

[1:22:47] traffic areas, there's nobody

[1:22:48] riding their bikes, there's

[1:22:49] nobody walking there. And it is

[1:22:52] a traffic issue. I know you

[1:22:53] mentioned the pesticide issue.

[1:22:55] I think that that was

[1:22:56] inappropriate. You know, that

[1:22:57] site has been tested for the

[1:22:59] last few years and they've had

[1:23:00] a zero detect for pesticides.

[1:23:03] So I know there's always that

[1:23:04] concern out there. I think it's

[1:23:05] the bigger concern is probably

[1:23:06] the cooler with the ammonia

[1:23:07] than there's actually

[1:23:08] pesticides. There's a really a

[1:23:10] great amount of responsible use

[1:23:11] of pesticides in that area. And,

[1:23:13] you know, in general, but

[1:23:14] specifically because it's near

[1:23:16] a school. So they've had a

[1:23:17] again, a zero detect. So

[1:23:19] actually no pesticides in the

[1:23:21] actual regions. Sensor that's

[1:23:23] put out by Department of

[1:23:25] Pesticide Regulations is on the

[1:23:27] fence line of the playground.

[1:23:28] And again the zero detect. So

[1:23:29] just want to make sure that was

[1:23:31] you talk about that that you

[1:23:33] don't spread any false

[1:23:34] assumptions or rumors about

[1:23:36] that. So no I totally

[1:23:37] appreciate that. And that's

[1:23:38] great news to hear. I would

[1:23:40] just say fine. Particulates

[1:23:42] with no herbicides or

[1:23:43] pesticides attached to them is

[1:23:44] not a good thing. So it's still

[1:23:46] a health based issue.

[1:23:47] Absolutely. But I do think that

[1:23:49] the big issue for that for a

[1:23:50] long time has been the traffic

[1:23:51] issue. You know, there's this

[1:23:53] is the most early on when I

[1:23:54] started working for the county,

[1:23:56] I heard from chp officer. They

[1:23:59] said it's the most unmanned

[1:24:01] vehicle accidents in the state

[1:24:03] are on this. And I go, what do

[1:24:04] you mean unmanned? Because

[1:24:05] there's accidents and they show

[1:24:06] up and there's nobody there.

[1:24:08] And so they have the cars that

[1:24:10] are there. So it's definitely a

[1:24:11] corridor with many, many

[1:24:12] accidents. Obviously we've been

[1:24:14] talking about significantly the

[1:24:16] traffic issues. My son actually

[1:24:19] works at a farm at 166 in Black

[1:24:21] Road. And so, you know, he

[1:24:22] spends he lives five miles away

[1:24:24] and it's a 30 minute plus drive

[1:24:26] for him to get there. So I see

[1:24:28] this and it impacts so many of

[1:24:30] our residents, especially those

[1:24:31] who have the least time to

[1:24:34] share on on a commute. So a

[1:24:35] couple a few things I just

[1:24:37] wanted to. Also, did you guys

[1:24:38] look at Black Road with the

[1:24:39] flooding that happens there?

[1:24:41] Did that? You know, you talked

[1:24:42] about extreme weather events,

[1:24:45] black road floods significantly,

[1:24:46] multiple feet of water. Did you

[1:24:48] guys kind of look at that as

[1:24:50] part of the study? It was

[1:24:52] brought to our attention in

[1:24:54] terms of the vulnerability to

[1:24:56] extreme weather events. I think

[1:24:59] that's a chronic issue. But we

[1:25:02] do identify quite a swath of

[1:25:04] area that is subject at risk,

[1:25:08] vulnerable to flooding. But

[1:25:09] yeah, that that did come into

[1:25:11] play. We did not explicitly try

[1:25:15] to address the, you know, the

[1:25:17] the flooding issue that

[1:25:19] currently happens at that

[1:25:22] location. You also went through

[1:25:23] the truck routes, and I think

[1:25:25] that got a lot of people's

[1:25:26] attention. What's the next

[1:25:28] steps on truck routes and that

[1:25:29] conversation? Because I think,

[1:25:30] you know, you presented a lot

[1:25:31] of different options. I don't

[1:25:32] know who makes those decisions,

[1:25:33] whether that's our board or

[1:25:35] that's someone else. I think

[1:25:37] also the city of Santa Maria,

[1:25:38] with the potential of the

[1:25:40] Amazon Center in stool that

[1:25:41] plays into it, you know, what

[1:25:43] are all those things that we're

[1:25:44] looking at. So who who makes

[1:25:46] those next decisions on truck

[1:25:49] routes. So. Well, I'll just say

[1:25:52] it varies across the state.

[1:25:53] Typically I think what's

[1:25:55] typical they allow it to

[1:25:57] organically happen. So it comes

[1:26:00] from the, the the property

[1:26:01] owners and the business owners

[1:26:04] that they request through their

[1:26:07] local agency or member regional

[1:26:10] agency to ask Caltrans formally

[1:26:12] designate and test it. So most

[1:26:14] of the state does that. But

[1:26:15] there are jurisdictions that

[1:26:17] are more proactive. And I would

[1:26:18] say this kind of a proactive

[1:26:20] step that, hey, there's there's

[1:26:23] there's no Sta routes east west,

[1:26:25] that's a huge issue. And

[1:26:26] everybody that we talked to

[1:26:28] from the growers and shippers

[1:26:30] and chp, it just has never

[1:26:32] really formally been looked at.

[1:26:34] And it's an issue because the

[1:26:38] chp will not enforce the Sta

[1:26:39] regulations because really the

[1:26:40] truckers don't have any choice.

[1:26:42] There's no signage, there's no

[1:26:44] navigation. So they'll just go

[1:26:46] where Siri tells them to go.

[1:26:47] And sometimes they find

[1:26:48] themselves on roadways that

[1:26:49] were never designed to

[1:26:50] accommodate those vehicles. And

[1:26:52] you can see the damage at

[1:26:54] intersections from the the

[1:26:55] light poles and all that. They

[1:26:57] have visible damage from the

[1:26:58] trucks off tracking and not

[1:27:00] being able to accommodate that

[1:27:02] sharp of a turn. But I'll pass

[1:27:04] it over to Margie. Sounds like

[1:27:05] this is a perfect issue for sb

[1:27:07] to take up at some point, maybe

[1:27:08] within the North County

[1:27:09] subregional, because we have

[1:27:11] all the different parties that

[1:27:12] are going to impact so so that

[1:27:14] we can come up with something

[1:27:17] to advocate to Caltrans to

[1:27:19] formalize. So the steps in the

[1:27:21] planning process is this is a

[1:27:22] study and we incorporate it

[1:27:23] into our regional

[1:27:23] transportation plan. So it

[1:27:25] could be an action item in our

[1:27:26] next regional transportation

[1:27:28] plan to identify a truck route

[1:27:30] and working with Caltrans. So

[1:27:32] all right. And just one thought

[1:27:33] I had on the paved driveways.

[1:27:34] You know, that seems like

[1:27:36] that's a great public private

[1:27:37] partnership opportunity. I

[1:27:39] think if we gave encroachment

[1:27:41] permits, many of those

[1:27:42] landowners would actually

[1:27:43] install those for us, which

[1:27:45] would be a huge cost savings,

[1:27:46] I'd imagine. So, you know,

[1:27:48] could be one of those things

[1:27:49] where the local jurisdictions

[1:27:50] helped them with the permitting.

[1:27:52] You know, that's our cost and

[1:27:54] investment in those those farms

[1:27:56] would put in the paving. I mean,

[1:27:57] they're they have construction

[1:27:57] material. They're able to do

[1:27:59] those types of things. I know

[1:28:01] that a lot of this is going to

[1:28:02] be potentially on their

[1:28:03] property as well. So I'm just

[1:28:05] going to throw that out there

[1:28:06] as a concept that I think would

[1:28:08] be embraced. And then my last

[1:28:10] final thought on this is that I

[1:28:11] think that this is a great

[1:28:13] start, but I think this needs

[1:28:15] to be kind of a living document

[1:28:16] for us, because there's other

[1:28:17] things coming down the line. I

[1:28:19] don't think Betteravia is a

[1:28:20] settled idea of what is

[1:28:21] proposed here. I think this is

[1:28:23] just a concept. So I think

[1:28:24] there's greater discussion

[1:28:25] there. The city of Santa Maria

[1:28:27] is looking at McCoy interchange,

[1:28:28] what happens there and how that

[1:28:29] impacts everything. And they

[1:28:30] also are looking at bringing

[1:28:32] McCoy out to Mahoney. You know,

[1:28:33] the county at some point is

[1:28:35] looking at Uni Valley Parkway

[1:28:36] out to highway one. And so

[1:28:37] having additional corridor

[1:28:38] routes in the future and how

[1:28:39] those all kind of play into

[1:28:41] future investments, I think are

[1:28:42] really important. So I think

[1:28:44] that this is something we

[1:28:44] should probably bring back

[1:28:46] every couple of years and, and

[1:28:47] maybe amend the study to the

[1:28:48] current circumstances and the

[1:28:49] current planning. You know, the

[1:28:51] city of Santa Maria moves

[1:28:52] forward, the Amazon Center.

[1:28:54] Then this is this changes a lot

[1:28:55] of things here. And we're going

[1:28:57] to have to go refresh that as

[1:28:59] well. So I just want to kind of

[1:29:00] throw that out there for all of

[1:29:02] us is to think about that. This

[1:29:04] is a start. But we should

[1:29:05] probably be, you know,

[1:29:06] refreshing this on a on a

[1:29:07] semi-regular basis for the

[1:29:08] corridor chair. Nelson, when

[1:29:10] you don't speak into the mic,

[1:29:11] we can't hear you up here. I

[1:29:13] apologize there, Director

[1:29:14] Patino. I was trying to hide it

[1:29:15] from you anyway, so it's all

[1:29:17] good. All right, so, MADAM

[1:29:18] Clerk, do we have any public

[1:29:20] comment on this item? Chair,

[1:29:21] I'm confirming written public

[1:29:22] comment was received for this

[1:29:24] item in advance. The comments

[1:29:24] were uploaded online and

[1:29:26] provided to the board, and

[1:29:27] those comments were received

[1:29:29] from Guthrie Leonard, Timothy.

[1:29:31] Mahoney, Jeffrey. Jeffrey.

[1:29:33] Wheeler. And if there are any

[1:29:34] members of the public who wish

[1:29:36] to speak on the zoom webinar,

[1:29:37] please use the Raise Hand

[1:29:39] feature and I will call upon

[1:29:40] you. We do have one request to

[1:29:42] speak in Santa Barbara and

[1:29:44] three up north in Santa Maria.

[1:29:45] And so our first speaker in

[1:29:46] Santa Barbara is Barry. Remus.

[1:29:49] If you can please come up to

[1:29:55] the podium. Good evening.

[1:29:57] Excuse me. Good afternoon,

[1:29:58] Chair Nelson and directors. My

[1:30:00] name is Barry Remus and I'm

[1:30:03] with Santa Barbara County. We

[1:30:07] countywide empower, educate and

[1:30:08] advocate for those who walk,

[1:30:10] bike and use public transit. So

[1:30:12] what a perfect opportunity to

[1:30:15] address the route 66 multimodal

[1:30:16] corridor. And we really do want

[1:30:18] to highlight the fact that

[1:30:20] multimodal has been emphasized

[1:30:23] or highlighted in the study

[1:30:26] numerous times. And while we do

[1:30:27] realize that this is clearly

[1:30:29] going to be a large balancing

[1:30:33] act of numerous priorities, and

[1:30:34] recognizing the immense benefit

[1:30:36] that this agricultural corridor

[1:30:38] provides for everybody, we also

[1:30:40] want to emphasize as well, that

[1:30:41] it's more than just a truck

[1:30:44] route, and that we fully

[1:30:47] support the opportunity here,

[1:30:48] and it certainly is an

[1:30:49] opportunity. And also, Chair

[1:30:51] Nelson, as you mentioned, to be

[1:30:52] able to treat this as a living

[1:30:54] plan that obviously will need

[1:30:56] to be reevaluated and

[1:30:57] reassessed as the years go on

[1:30:59] and some things are going to

[1:31:00] take a lot longer than others.

[1:31:02] But while we certainly support

[1:31:03] the class one multi-purpose

[1:31:04] path that

[1:31:06] would be fully

[1:31:07] separated and protected for

[1:31:10] active transportation users,

[1:31:11] bike riders, pedestrians, and

[1:31:13] also the ever growing bike

[1:31:14] riding population, that is also

[1:31:16] a lot of commuters. That would

[1:31:17] probably be going back and

[1:31:19] forth between farms as e-bikes

[1:31:21] become more affordable. But

[1:31:24] also and we're also on record,

[1:31:26] supporters of the Santa Maria

[1:31:29] levee Trail as and we

[1:31:30] understand that there's the

[1:31:31] balance between that, too. But

[1:31:32] we feel that there are ways to

[1:31:34] be able to work that

[1:31:36] arrangement out, to be able to

[1:31:38] provide protected space for the

[1:31:40] agricultural owners, while also

[1:31:42] providing a good alternative

[1:31:44] route for active transportation

[1:31:46] users from and to Guadalupe and

[1:31:49] Santa Maria, but also the

[1:31:50] agricultural workers and the

[1:31:51] commuters, the farm workers

[1:31:53] that depend upon transit, and

[1:31:56] so that idea of increasing the

[1:31:59] caravans opportunities and also

[1:32:00] increasing the headways for

[1:32:04] smart transit all, all, all are

[1:32:05] wonderful ways that through

[1:32:07] funding availability can be

[1:32:09] more near-term solutions to be

[1:32:12] able to address the county's

[1:32:14] climate action plans, reducing

[1:32:16] emissions, reducing vehicle

[1:32:19] miles traveled, and also to be

[1:32:20] able to provide for so many of

[1:32:22] the agricultural workers coming

[1:32:24] out of Guadalupe. To Director

[1:32:27] Julian's points, to be able to

[1:32:28] provide that opportunity for

[1:32:29] them to get there safe routes

[1:32:31] to school is paramount for us,

[1:32:32] and we appreciate Director

[1:32:34] Perotti's questions and MR.

[1:32:36] Nelson's questions about the

[1:32:37] school, any amount of dust

[1:32:39] mitigation and the particulate

[1:32:40] matter for the safety and the

[1:32:42] future health of our children

[1:32:44] is, is, is is an excellent idea

[1:32:47] that the paved driveway aprons

[1:32:49] as well. And just lastly also

[1:32:51] going to point out that for the

[1:32:51] Guadalupe side, we had to

[1:32:53] highlight that Caltrans is

[1:32:54] holding a community meeting

[1:32:57] next Wednesday, the 21st, to

[1:33:00] highlight Guadalupe oriented

[1:33:02] action projects as well. So we

[1:33:04] want to bid you all a Happy New

[1:33:06] Year. And thank you very much.

[1:33:08] Thank you. Our next speaker is

[1:33:09] Claire Weinman, followed by

[1:33:25] Brett Fulgoni. In Santa Maria.

[1:33:27] Claire, you're up. We can't

[1:33:31] hear you yet. Now we can now,

[1:33:34] please. Good morning. My name

[1:33:35] is Claire Wyman. I'm the

[1:33:37] PRESIDENT Of the Grower Shipper

[1:33:37] Association of Santa Barbara

[1:33:39] and San Luis Obispo counties.

[1:33:41] We appreciate the opportunity

[1:33:42] to serve on the advisory

[1:33:43] committee, and it's always a

[1:33:44] pleasure to work with the sb,

[1:33:47] cag team. This is an essential

[1:33:48] corridor for safe and efficient

[1:33:50] and effective movement of

[1:33:52] people, equipment and fresh,

[1:33:55] perishable produce. Agriculture

[1:33:56] drives employment and

[1:33:57] businesses that many rely on.

[1:34:00] In North County. We've provided

[1:34:01] detailed comments throughout

[1:34:02] the process and would like to

[1:34:04] highlight a few key points

[1:34:08] before approval today. First,

[1:34:11] our number one ask is widening

[1:34:12] 166 to 4 lanes in a modest,

[1:34:14] compact design. We're sensitive

[1:34:16] to the cost and complexity of

[1:34:18] pursuing a very wide design and

[1:34:20] would look to a modest and

[1:34:21] achievable design which would

[1:34:23] better suit the location and

[1:34:25] use needs through a design

[1:34:28] variance. As many of you are

[1:34:29] already aware, we strongly

[1:34:31] oppose the Santa Maria River

[1:34:32] Levee Trail due to the

[1:34:34] significant food safety and

[1:34:36] operational concerns with that

[1:34:38] specific location. As mentioned,

[1:34:40] the majority of the advisory

[1:34:41] committee also did not support

[1:34:44] the trail at that location and

[1:34:46] asked it to be removed from

[1:34:50] this package. Many of you are

[1:34:51] also aware of our concerns

[1:34:53] about roundabouts and areas

[1:34:54] frequented by agricultural

[1:34:56] equipment, and specifically the

[1:34:58] mix of vehicle types, and would

[1:35:00] oppose roundabouts at Mahoney

[1:35:02] Road and Betteravia and 101

[1:35:05] favor Signalization for these

[1:35:08] locations. Finally, we strongly

[1:35:10] support a variety of east west

[1:35:11] travel corridors for trucks.

[1:35:13] This would provide resiliency

[1:35:15] and reduce undue pressure on

[1:35:18] any one pathway. We strongly

[1:35:19] support maintaining Main Street

[1:35:22] to 101 and further support

[1:35:24] additional options for highway

[1:35:26] one and semis, as well as Stoll

[1:35:28] Road, Union Valley Parkway and

[1:35:31] Clark. This would most closely

[1:35:32] align with the modified

[1:35:33] alternative five and six, and

[1:35:35] would like to remain very

[1:35:38] engaged in this process. We

[1:35:39] appreciate your attention and

[1:35:41] leadership to these important

[1:35:42] details, and look forward to

[1:35:44] continuing to serve our

[1:35:45] community as these move forward

[1:35:47] as projects. Thank you. Thank

[1:35:50] you, MISS Wyman. And our next

[1:35:52] speaker is Brett Fulgoni,

[1:35:56] followed by Maribel Aguilera.

[1:35:58] Good morning, Chair Nelson,

[1:36:00] directors Brett Fulgoni, public

[1:36:01] works director for the City of

[1:36:03] Santa Maria. And first of all,

[1:36:06] thank you all very much for the

[1:36:08] work that went into this, this

[1:36:09] study. A couple of things I

[1:36:11] just wanted to comment on. I

[1:36:13] recall back in NOVEMBER, there

[1:36:15] was some discussion about and

[1:36:18] you did listed in the the

[1:36:19] comments that that you took

[1:36:21] that information in. I didn't

[1:36:25] see it analyzed in the options

[1:36:28] analysis. So black and

[1:36:31] betteravia stolen black. And

[1:36:33] then also very importantly the

[1:36:34] two the two left hand turn

[1:36:38] lanes eastbound eastbound 166

[1:36:40] onto northbound Blosser in

[1:36:41] earlier Jim I heard talking

[1:36:44] about the the am peak which I

[1:36:46] think you nailed but I wasn't

[1:36:49] sure about that pm peak. And we

[1:36:51] see anecdotally the peak we

[1:36:53] think is probably around 3 to 4

[1:36:55] P.M. At that location where you

[1:36:57] get that left hand turn

[1:36:59] movement onto northbound. So

[1:37:02] really stacking up west. So we

[1:37:03] just want to make sure that

[1:37:05] that, that that gets addressed.

[1:37:06] Anecdotally we looked at it

[1:37:08] through engineering on our team.

[1:37:10] If we had four 11 foot lanes

[1:37:11] through there, which would

[1:37:13] require Caltrans design

[1:37:14] exception, we think we could

[1:37:16] get two left hand turn lanes

[1:37:18] onto that northbound Gloucester

[1:37:20] corridor. And so, you know,

[1:37:21] perhaps a short term solution

[1:37:23] could be a design exception

[1:37:24] through 11 foot lanes. Then as

[1:37:27] we move toward the medium, the

[1:37:29] medium term, we could widen

[1:37:31] that back out if needed because

[1:37:32] of the truck traffic. Although

[1:37:34] we do have many 11 and ten foot

[1:37:35] lanes throughout the city of

[1:37:38] Santa Maria on truck routes or

[1:37:41] unofficial truck routes. Let's

[1:37:43] see if I have anything else. So

[1:37:45] yeah, I just want to make sure

[1:37:46] that those intersections were

[1:37:47] fully studied that I mentioned

[1:37:48] and that we've captured the

[1:37:52] correct pm peak on that

[1:37:54] eastbound 166 to block. Thank

[1:37:57] you. Thank you Brett. And our

[1:38:00] next speaker is Maribel

[1:38:07] Aguilera. Chair and chair and

[1:38:09] members of the board I'm

[1:38:10] Maribel Aguilera, Santa Maria

[1:38:12] city council. I strongly

[1:38:15] support the final State Route

[1:38:16] 166 Comprehensive Corridor

[1:38:18] Study and urge approval today,

[1:38:19] with a further consideration to

[1:38:21] include the widening of the 166

[1:38:23] to 4 lanes. The people of Santa

[1:38:25] Maria Guadalupe deserve a safe,

[1:38:27] reliable corridor connecting

[1:38:29] our communities. Every day,

[1:38:31] Guadalupe residents travel the

[1:38:33] 166 to reach medical

[1:38:35] appointments, go shopping, get

[1:38:37] to work and access essential

[1:38:38] services in Santa Maria and

[1:38:40] Santa Maria. Residents depend

[1:38:41] on this same corner to reach

[1:38:43] the coast. Some work in

[1:38:45] Guadalupe, visit family and

[1:38:46] support businesses throughout

[1:38:48] the region. For too long, our

[1:38:50] families have navigated roadway

[1:38:52] plagued by safety concerns,

[1:38:55] heavy agricultural traffic,

[1:38:57] limited visibility, congestion

[1:38:59] and inadequate infrastructure

[1:39:01] at key intersections. We've had

[1:39:03] far too many serious accidents

[1:39:04] on this road over the years.

[1:39:06] The study represents years of

[1:39:08] thoughtful collaboration

[1:39:10] between sb, cag, Caltrans,

[1:39:12] Santa Barbara County and both

[1:39:13] cities of Santa Maria Guadalupe,

[1:39:15] and I am encouraged by the

[1:39:16] strong community engagement.

[1:39:18] Nearly 500 survey responses,

[1:39:20] with outreach in both English

[1:39:22] and Spanish at events such as

[1:39:24] Mexican Independence Day

[1:39:26] celebrations to our Parade of

[1:39:27] Lights, and with the benefit

[1:39:30] cost ratio of 2.66, this is

[1:39:33] clearly a sound investment. The

[1:39:35] identified improvements signal

[1:39:37] signalization at Siemens Road,

[1:39:39] enhanced lighting, intersection

[1:39:41] safety upgrades and

[1:39:42] transcendent Katzman's will

[1:39:44] provide real safety and

[1:39:46] operational benefits. However,

[1:39:48] I do want to address the timing

[1:39:51] and I do appreciate the request

[1:39:53] for four lane widening because

[1:39:54] that's really shouldn't be for

[1:39:56] long term planning because the

[1:39:59] need is now. During peak

[1:40:01] traffic times, it takes 45

[1:40:02] minutes to get from Santa Maria

[1:40:04] to Guadalupe. So I'd really

[1:40:06] encourage us to look at that

[1:40:07] and widening the road and

[1:40:10] looking at peak times 5 to 6

[1:40:13] A.M. And 3 to 4 P.M. As someone

[1:40:14] who has spent over a decade

[1:40:16] serving our region's families

[1:40:17] on the Planning Commission and

[1:40:19] City council, I know firsthand

[1:40:21] how critical this corridor is

[1:40:22] to our community's well-being

[1:40:25] and economic vitality. I ask

[1:40:26] that you include the four lane

[1:40:29] widening now, not as a long

[1:40:31] term goal, because the families

[1:40:32] of Guadalupe and Santa Maria

[1:40:34] need that today. Thank you.

[1:40:37] Thank you, COUNCILWOMAN. There

[1:40:38] are no further requests to

[1:40:40] speak. All right. Any other

[1:40:42] questions from directors in

[1:40:48] Santa Maria? Or comments? Did

[1:40:50] you have a comment? No, I have

[1:40:52] a comment on the comprehensive

[1:40:55] corridor study that is part

[1:40:58] part of the the River trail. I

[1:40:59] should say the River trail is

[1:41:02] part of that. That

[1:41:08] comprehensive corridor study.

[1:41:11] Director Patino, the the trail

[1:41:12] along the levee is a county

[1:41:13] project that was included in

[1:41:18] the the study. Okay. And that

[1:41:20] was already agreed to and

[1:41:22] passed. But four years ago or

[1:41:24] five years ago, I believe it's

[1:41:25] my understanding that the

[1:41:26] county agreed to fund certain

[1:41:29] segment or certain phases. I

[1:41:30] believe the environmental phase,

[1:41:34] which is currently ongoing.

[1:41:36] Thank you. All right. Any other

[1:41:38] questions or comments? Santa

[1:41:41] Maria? Yes. Yes there is.

[1:41:44] Please. I've got a comment here.

[1:41:46] What I made before and it's in

[1:41:48] regards to the trail. I know

[1:41:50] the county is well aware that

[1:41:51] they have a superior court

[1:41:53] ruling about introduction of

[1:41:55] people and pests into

[1:41:56] environmentally sensitive

[1:41:57] habitats, and how would you be

[1:41:58] getting around the Superior

[1:42:01] Court ruling by obviously

[1:42:02] introducing people and pets

[1:42:04] into environmentally sensitive

[1:42:07] habitats, agriculture, as it's

[1:42:08] recognized in the Superior

[1:42:10] Court ruling. So it seems to me

[1:42:11] that you're doing kind of the

[1:42:13] opposite of mandates that

[1:42:14] you've done in other areas of

[1:42:17] the county. But buyer beware

[1:42:19] with a trail, because I can

[1:42:20] guarantee what's going to

[1:42:21] happen. You might as well just

[1:42:22] call it the strawberry picking

[1:42:24] trail or something like that.

[1:42:25] But I've advised before that if

[1:42:27] you want to see what happens

[1:42:28] when you put trails in these

[1:42:30] type of areas, come to Lompoc.

[1:42:31] There's plenty of video that

[1:42:34] show out what happens there.

[1:42:36] But just for the record, I it

[1:42:38] just very curious how the

[1:42:40] county in one area can say no

[1:42:43] to recreation and trails in one

[1:42:44] area, but another area they can

[1:42:46] just turn a blind eye to it,

[1:42:48] even when the people owning the

[1:42:49] property around are saying no

[1:42:53] and it moves forward. All right.

[1:42:55] Thank you. Director, can I. Can

[1:42:57] I answer that? Sure. Yeah,

[1:42:58] absolutely. Director. So as far

[1:43:00] as calling it a blind eye,

[1:43:02] we've studied this thing upside

[1:43:03] down, backwards and frontwards.

[1:43:07] It has had plenty of public

[1:43:10] comment. The project that is

[1:43:13] that there is really no even

[1:43:15] we're in the very beginning

[1:43:16] stages of this. We all

[1:43:17] understood the reason why it's

[1:43:20] not done right now is because

[1:43:22] of the farmers input, and we

[1:43:23] realize that we can't do it

[1:43:24] without a huge investment that

[1:43:29] would include lighting, fencing,

[1:43:33] paving, all kinds of

[1:43:34] engineering to keep people out

[1:43:36] of those fields. So staffing,

[1:43:39] staffing, if if we had turned a

[1:43:40] blind eye, we would have said,

[1:43:42] okay, here's a Santa Maria

[1:43:43] River levee trail and it's open

[1:43:45] and all hell would have broke

[1:43:47] loose. So because of the input

[1:43:49] of the farmers and our ability

[1:43:51] to then dial it way down and

[1:43:53] say, okay, this obviously is an

[1:43:56] area of concern. I got to be

[1:43:57] honest, I think it has not been

[1:43:59] in blind eye. We've gone in

[1:44:00] with eyes wide open and tried

[1:44:02] to listen to what the comments

[1:44:05] were and change what even the

[1:44:07] proposal is. That's why it's

[1:44:09] not going to happen tomorrow.

[1:44:10] It's not going to happen next

[1:44:12] Friday. It is a long term

[1:44:14] project that is going to take a

[1:44:15] lot of funding to do it the

[1:44:18] right way. So the reason why

[1:44:19] it's going to take a long time

[1:44:22] is because we have decided to

[1:44:23] really implement everything

[1:44:24] that we've heard from the

[1:44:27] public. So, you know, I think

[1:44:29] it's easy to throw rocks at

[1:44:32] this and act like nobody's

[1:44:34] paying attention to it when the

[1:44:36] exact opposite is true.

[1:44:37] Everybody's paying attention to

[1:44:38] it. We're on top of it, and

[1:44:40] we're really analyzing it. So I

[1:44:41] just want the public to

[1:44:43] understand that this is not

[1:44:45] just a Wild West, free for all

[1:44:46] trail running through ag

[1:44:47] property. All right. I want to

[1:44:49] kind of bring this back though.

[1:44:51] So this is just referenced in

[1:44:53] the study. And today all we are

[1:44:54] doing is receiving and filing

[1:44:56] the study. Right. We're not

[1:44:57] actually adopting these

[1:44:59] projects any of these designs.

[1:45:01] We're just hearing a

[1:45:02] presentation on what we paid

[1:45:05] for. We are asking for the

[1:45:08] board approval as a study. And

[1:45:09] then it gets incorporated into

[1:45:10] the plan as priorities as we

[1:45:12] move forward. So the board will

[1:45:14] have discretion on what

[1:45:15] priorities get incorporated

[1:45:16] into the regional

[1:45:17] transportation plan as we move

[1:45:19] forward. But this is just basic

[1:45:21] information to inform your

[1:45:22] future decision making, right?

[1:45:24] So no actual decisions will be

[1:45:26] made on projects or designs at

[1:45:27] this point. Correct? Correct. I

[1:45:29] just want to make sure I think

[1:45:31] it's a good, good discussion

[1:45:32] debate, and it's good to get

[1:45:33] information out there. I

[1:45:34] appreciate both perspectives

[1:45:35] and having that opportunity to

[1:45:37] say that, but I do want to get

[1:45:38] us moving along towards

[1:45:39] finishing up this item so we

[1:45:41] can get this meeting finished

[1:45:42] in a timely manner. So with

[1:45:44] that supervisor sorry, Director

[1:45:49] Hartman. Go ahead. Okay. All

[1:45:52] right. So not seeing too many

[1:45:54] other lights up here. Any other

[1:45:56] lights again that could get us

[1:45:58] back to this item is to receive

[1:46:00] this study. The action on the

[1:46:02] agenda is to approve the final

[1:46:04] study, the comprehensive

[1:46:05] corridor study, and to direct

[1:46:07] staff to file a notice of

[1:46:07] exemption with the Santa

[1:46:10] Barbara clerk for a sequa. So

[1:46:12] the study is not an

[1:46:13] environmental document, though.

[1:46:15] It's it's exempt from

[1:46:16] environment because it's just a

[1:46:17] study. You're not making

[1:46:18] official decisions or

[1:46:20] priorities. It's information

[1:46:22] for your future decision making

[1:46:23] okay. We're not making those

[1:46:26] decisions today. All right. So

[1:46:28] I just need a motion to that

[1:46:29] motion okay. Motion from

[1:46:32] Hartman and a second from Silva.

[1:46:33] Further discussion. Supervisor

[1:46:36] or director Patino. Yes. I

[1:46:38] would really like to go on

[1:46:39] record saying I do oppose the

[1:46:41] River trail being in on that

[1:46:43] study. And I know we've gone

[1:46:44] through it over and over. I

[1:46:46] don't think that people realize

[1:46:48] the impact and the challenges

[1:46:50] to the growers in our community,

[1:46:52] and they are extremely

[1:46:54] important. Ag is the the engine

[1:46:57] that fuels our community. And i

[1:46:59] just I didn't like it when it

[1:47:01] was passed and I don't like it.

[1:47:03] I don't like it now. I just I

[1:47:04] don't think people realize that

[1:47:06] even with birds going into

[1:47:09] fields and contaminating

[1:47:11] whatever is going in the fields

[1:47:13] makes those fields unusable.

[1:47:14] And, and I think when you've

[1:47:16] got people going down the levy

[1:47:17] on their bicycles and they have

[1:47:19] their dogs with them, and I

[1:47:20] realize we have in here is

[1:47:22] going to do fencing, but

[1:47:24] somehow we go down the road and

[1:47:26] things get turned around. And

[1:47:28] so I would love to see if that

[1:47:30] could be removed from this

[1:47:32] study, the approval of the

[1:47:36] study. Thank you. Other

[1:47:37] comments on the motion that we

[1:47:41] have right now. Okay. I see no

[1:47:43] additional comments on the

[1:47:44] motion. MADAM Clerk, can you

[1:47:47] please have a roll call? Vote.

[1:47:49] Director. Rouse. Director.

[1:47:55] Perotti. Director. Patino. No.

[1:47:58] Director. Mosby. No. Director.

[1:48:02] Lee. Hi. Director. Lavagnino.

[1:48:06] Director. Julian. Hi, director.

[1:48:09] Hartman, I. Director. Clark.

[1:48:12] Director. Capps. Director.

[1:48:14] Brown, I vice chair. Silva, I

[1:48:17] and chair. Nelson, I. Motion

[1:48:21] passes. 11 two. Do you mind

[1:48:22] calling out just the number for

[1:48:24] the public? Was that what it

[1:48:26] was? Yes, it was 11 to 2. Thank

[1:48:28] you. All right. We're moving on

[1:48:31] to our final discussion item,

[1:48:33] item five c. MADAM Clerk, would

[1:48:34] you please read that into the

[1:48:36] record? Expanded peak hour

[1:48:38] intercity rail service update.

[1:48:40] Recommended actions, received

[1:48:40] presentation and provide

[1:48:42] direction to staff regarding

[1:48:43] the proposal by the Los Angeles,

[1:48:46] San Diego, San Luis Obispo Rail

[1:48:48] Corridor Agency to operate

[1:48:49] expanded intercity passenger

[1:48:50] rail service between Ventura

[1:48:53] and Santa Barbara counties. MR.

[1:49:00] Bonfiglio, please. Good morning.

[1:49:03] All right. Good morning, MR.

[1:49:05] Chair. Board of Directors. For

[1:49:06] the record, my name is Aaron

[1:49:07] Bonfiglio, director of

[1:49:10] multimodal programs for sb cag.

[1:49:11] And with me today is Jason

[1:49:13] Jewell from the Rail Corridor

[1:49:14] Agency, the managing director,

[1:49:19] to help with the presentation.

[1:49:21] So today's presentation and

[1:49:22] we'll try to move through it

[1:49:24] quickly. I don't want to stand

[1:49:26] between you all and lunch. It's

[1:49:29] a hard place to be. We'll

[1:49:30] provide you all with a quick

[1:49:31] background of this project

[1:49:34] where we are with regard to Los

[1:49:36] Angeles and board direction. As

[1:49:38] far as their updated proposal

[1:49:39] is concerned, because there was

[1:49:41] some action at the recent board

[1:49:43] that has triggered some new

[1:49:44] information. And then next

[1:49:54] steps with regard to timeline.

[1:49:56] Okay. We'll try again. All

[1:49:58] right. New clicker. So as the

[1:50:02] board will recall in 2018 sb

[1:50:05] cag began a service with the

[1:50:06] Pacific Surfliner, the rail

[1:50:09] corridor agency, to operate

[1:50:10] additional train service from

[1:50:12] the south into Santa Barbara

[1:50:13] County to address the peak hour

[1:50:15] morning commute period. This is

[1:50:17] a long standing commitment that

[1:50:19] sb cag has made to the voters.

[1:50:21] The Lane and a train was part

[1:50:24] of the 2008 measure, a renewal

[1:50:27] or push for the current local

[1:50:29] self-help sales tax measure

[1:50:32] that's here today, and we've

[1:50:33] achieved much of the lane and

[1:50:35] had fits and starts with the

[1:50:37] train. So as it relates to our

[1:50:39] ongoing efforts, I'm here to

[1:50:40] tell you that we have some good

[1:50:42] news. Over the past two years,

[1:50:43] we've been working very closely,

[1:50:45] both with Lausanne and our

[1:50:46] partners in Ventura County, but

[1:50:48] also with the regional Rail

[1:50:49] Authority in Southern

[1:50:51] California, Metrolink, to come

[1:50:52] up with a solution to help

[1:50:54] expedite additional train

[1:50:57] service. Over the years. We had

[1:50:59] a discussion with this group

[1:51:02] that effectively was to provide

[1:51:05] on loan a slot from the Rail

[1:51:06] Corridor Agency that they have

[1:51:09] track access to. With the Union

[1:51:10] Pacific right of way. It's very

[1:51:12] important. U.P. Is the owner of

[1:51:15] the tracks from for much of our

[1:51:17] area as far north as the Bay

[1:51:19] area, and in order to operate

[1:51:21] trains, Union Pacific must

[1:51:23] provide that access and we must

[1:51:26] reimburse them. Lausanne has

[1:51:27] access as well as Metrolink

[1:51:28] throughout the Southern

[1:51:30] California area, but

[1:51:31] effectively Lausanne was unable

[1:51:33] to provide the additional train

[1:51:34] service when we went back to

[1:51:37] them in 2022, in early 2023,

[1:51:39] and creatively, they suggested

[1:51:40] that, you know who does have

[1:51:41] train equipment that could

[1:51:42] operate this service. Well,

[1:51:44] maybe they don't have access is

[1:51:46] Metrolink. And so we began on

[1:51:47] an effort to work with both

[1:51:49] Metrolink and Lausanne in our

[1:51:50] in our partners in Ventura

[1:51:52] County to establish a set of

[1:51:54] agreements that would allow for

[1:51:56] Metrolink to temporarily use

[1:51:58] Lausanne's track access for a

[1:51:59] period of time until such time

[1:52:01] that Lausanne could operate

[1:52:03] additional Pacific Surfliner

[1:52:04] services funded by the state,

[1:52:06] and through the additional

[1:52:07] equipment that they would need

[1:52:09] in order to operate. We got

[1:52:11] very far along and earlier this

[1:52:12] summer approached Union Pacific

[1:52:15] with approximately eight months

[1:52:16] to go before our anticipated

[1:52:19] start date. Union Pacific was

[1:52:21] initially receptive to the idea

[1:52:23] and began to review some of the

[1:52:25] internal or the initial

[1:52:26] documents, preliminary

[1:52:28] schedules and so forth. But but

[1:52:30] the bottom line was, is that

[1:52:31] Union Pacific has a process

[1:52:32] that it must go through, and

[1:52:33] that Lausanne's agreement with

[1:52:36] U.P. Specifically identified

[1:52:37] Amtrak as the operator of

[1:52:39] record on any of the Up

[1:52:41] corridor north of Moorpark

[1:52:43] station. In addition to

[1:52:45] Metrolink and Ventura County,

[1:52:47] in order to utilize Lausanne's

[1:52:49] agreement, an additional

[1:52:51] agreement with U.P. Would be

[1:52:52] required. And while U.P. Was

[1:52:54] receptive and eager for

[1:52:58] business, they had to let us

[1:53:00] know in no uncertain terms that

[1:53:01] they had other priorities, and

[1:53:03] in particular, their merger

[1:53:05] with Norfolk Southern was

[1:53:06] underway, and there was quite a

[1:53:07] bit of scrutiny that they had

[1:53:09] to address and would be able to

[1:53:11] review our proposal and our

[1:53:13] agreement options in the

[1:53:16] beginning of 2026. As I

[1:53:17] mentioned, this is an effort

[1:53:19] that to put this train into

[1:53:20] service with additional train

[1:53:22] service since 2008, if not

[1:53:24] prior to that. I think the

[1:53:26] first study I read, looking at

[1:53:27] train service in the corridor,

[1:53:30] was done by Scag in 1998, if

[1:53:32] not a little bit earlier than

[1:53:33] that. The final report before

[1:53:35] both Santa Barbara and Ventura

[1:53:37] counties around that time, and

[1:53:39] at that time, and most recently

[1:53:43] in 2000, seven studies were

[1:53:45] done that showed that Lausanne

[1:53:47] was ultimately the best

[1:53:48] available operator to operate

[1:53:50] additional peak hour service.

[1:53:52] Because a simple retiming, or

[1:53:53] what we presume would be a

[1:53:54] simple retiming, would be the

[1:53:56] best way to go, as there is

[1:53:57] already a state supported

[1:53:59] service. So we did that in 2018

[1:54:01] and unfortunately, during the

[1:54:03] pandemic, due to declining

[1:54:04] ridership and some changes with

[1:54:05] the availability of train

[1:54:06] equipment, we were unable to

[1:54:08] reestablish that service. Hence

[1:54:11] the Metrolink expansion option.

[1:54:13] As I mentioned, U.P. Responded

[1:54:15] to Lausanne this summer and a

[1:54:16] little bit after our last

[1:54:17] presentation, which was in

[1:54:20] AUGUST of 2025, to the board,

[1:54:21] that they would be able to

[1:54:24] begin on that agreement in 2026.

[1:54:28] Unfortunately, Union Pacific

[1:54:30] had indicated to both Lausanne

[1:54:32] and Metrolink that there'd be

[1:54:33] some additional requirements or

[1:54:34] potentially new requirements on

[1:54:36] Lausanne Agreement with them,

[1:54:37] which opens up a new can of

[1:54:38] worms where Lausanne previously

[1:54:40] already has access to that

[1:54:43] service. In NOVEMBER of 2025,

[1:54:46] Lausanne's board took action to

[1:54:49] prioritize their Amtrak Pacific

[1:54:50] Surfliner service as the

[1:54:52] temporary period of time, which

[1:54:53] we envisioned Metrolink to

[1:54:55] operate was quickly coming on

[1:54:59] to the horizon. So effectively,

[1:55:01] Lausanne had seen some

[1:55:02] expansion or, excuse me,

[1:55:04] increase in their train

[1:55:06] capacity, their train equipment

[1:55:07] capacity. They had ability to

[1:55:09] operate additional services.

[1:55:10] We're looking towards expansion

[1:55:12] in the near term. And

[1:55:14] Metrolink's proposal, which was

[1:55:15] still yet to be determined and

[1:55:17] finalized with Union Pacific,

[1:55:19] calls for two conflicting

[1:55:22] efforts. And where we are today

[1:55:23] is to bring you that update on

[1:55:25] how Lausanne's board saw fit to

[1:55:27] work with sb cag in Ventura

[1:55:30] County to still achieve that

[1:55:32] expansion, but to do so with an

[1:55:33] alternative proposal. And so

[1:55:35] here with me today, I mentioned

[1:55:36] Jason Doyle. He's going to

[1:55:37] bring you some additional

[1:55:39] information regarding the

[1:55:41] latest Lausanne board activity,

[1:55:42] as well as briefly describe

[1:55:45] some of the proposal. It's down

[1:55:53] to click forward. Great. Gets

[1:55:57] set up real quick. Great. Thank

[1:55:59] you Aaron and good morning

[1:56:00] Chair Nelson and members of the

[1:56:01] board. As Aaron mentioned my

[1:56:03] name is Jason Jewell. I'm the

[1:56:04] managing director of the

[1:56:05] Lausanne Rail Corridor Agency.

[1:56:07] And I wanted to mention that I

[1:56:08] am a ucsb graduate and started

[1:56:10] my career in government service

[1:56:12] many moons ago with the County

[1:56:13] of Santa Barbara, right here in

[1:56:15] this building. And I don't want

[1:56:17] to age myself. But that was

[1:56:18] back when Congressman Salud

[1:56:20] Carbajal worked for First

[1:56:21] District Supervisor Naomi

[1:56:23] Schwartz. And the reason why I

[1:56:24] mentioned this is because I

[1:56:26] used to take the Amtrak Pacific

[1:56:29] Surfliner train to Santa

[1:56:30] Barbara, back to my home in

[1:56:32] Ventura County. And I also used

[1:56:34] to drive the 101 many times to

[1:56:36] get to and from home. So I

[1:56:38] recognize the importance of

[1:56:40] having multiple transportation

[1:56:41] options for the region. And I'm

[1:56:43] here today representing the

[1:56:44] Lausanne Rail Corridor Agency,

[1:56:46] of course. And we also

[1:56:48] recognize the importance of

[1:56:49] alternative transportation

[1:56:51] options and specifically

[1:56:53] intercity rail options as

[1:56:54] transportation focal point of

[1:56:56] ours. And I wanted to just take

[1:56:58] a few minutes to give you a

[1:56:59] little bit of background on the

[1:57:01] Lausanne Rail Corridor Agency.

[1:57:03] We are a joint powers authority

[1:57:05] with nine member agencies

[1:57:07] comprised of regional

[1:57:08] transportation and planning

[1:57:09] agencies, as well as rail

[1:57:11] owners and operators spanning

[1:57:13] six counties from San Diego all

[1:57:15] the way up to San Luis Obispo.

[1:57:18] And sb 1225 is really the

[1:57:19] legislation that paved the way

[1:57:21] for the Lausanne Agency to

[1:57:22] manage the Amtrak Pacific

[1:57:23] Surfliner intercity rail

[1:57:25] service, which we have been

[1:57:27] doing successfully since 2015.

[1:57:29] Now we have an 11 member board

[1:57:31] and which I'd like to recognize

[1:57:33] and thank director Perotti for

[1:57:35] her representation and support

[1:57:38] on our board, as well as

[1:57:40] Alternate Director Lee, and

[1:57:42] touch upon the intercity rail

[1:57:43] corridor and the service itself.

[1:57:45] Real quickly. The Amtrak

[1:57:47] Pacific Surfliner service spans

[1:57:49] the entire length of the

[1:57:51] corridor, which is 351 miles

[1:57:54] long. We currently stop at 29

[1:57:56] stations, and it is the

[1:57:57] nation's second busiest

[1:57:59] intercity rail corridor in

[1:58:00] terms of ridership outside of

[1:58:03] the Northeast Corridor. The

[1:58:05] corridor itself is very unique.

[1:58:07] It has seven right of way track

[1:58:09] owners, two freight operators,

[1:58:12] a Up and bsf, as well as two

[1:58:14] commuter regional rail services.

[1:58:16] In addition to that, the us

[1:58:17] Department of Defense has

[1:58:19] identified it as part of the

[1:58:20] Strategic Rail Corridor network

[1:58:22] for its access to the Marine

[1:58:24] Corps Base Camp Pendleton down

[1:58:26] in San Diego, as well as the

[1:58:28] Port of San Diego. So I wanted

[1:58:30] to dive a little deeper into

[1:58:32] the effort that Aaron had been

[1:58:34] talking about, that we have

[1:58:36] before you today, as we have

[1:58:38] been working to expand

[1:58:40] intercity rail service. And I

[1:58:41] wanted to start off by thanking

[1:58:43] both the sb, cag team as well

[1:58:46] as the ctc teams for their

[1:58:47] coordination and support

[1:58:49] through this effort. But most

[1:58:52] of all, their patients. As as

[1:58:53] mentioned, this has been a long

[1:58:55] time coming. This started off

[1:58:58] as a request several years ago

[1:59:00] from sb, cag, and vtc to the

[1:59:02] Lausanne Agency to support

[1:59:03] restoring peak period service

[1:59:06] to the regions, and at that

[1:59:07] time, we did not have the

[1:59:09] equipment, resources available

[1:59:11] or the funding available to run

[1:59:13] the service. However, it has

[1:59:14] always been the intent and

[1:59:15] included in the plans of the

[1:59:17] Lausanne Agency to implement

[1:59:19] expanded service to Goleta as

[1:59:21] well as San Luis Obispo, which

[1:59:22] is included in our annual

[1:59:25] business plans for fiscal year

[1:59:26] 2627 and consistent with State

[1:59:29] Rail Plan goals. So, as Aaron

[1:59:31] mentioned, together we explored

[1:59:33] the possibility of

[1:59:34] subcontracting the service to

[1:59:36] Metrolink and allowing them to

[1:59:38] temporarily utilize the

[1:59:40] Lausanne Agency's track access

[1:59:41] rights that we currently have

[1:59:43] with Union Pacific. We have

[1:59:44] this access agreement directly

[1:59:46] with Union Pacific, which

[1:59:48] currently allows us to run the

[1:59:49] Amtrak Pacific Surfliner

[1:59:52] service. So the Lausanne sb,

[1:59:54] cag, ctc and Metrolink teams

[1:59:56] worked together on this path

[1:59:57] when really two major milestone

[1:59:59] or events happen that created

[2:00:01] the opportunity that we

[2:00:02] currently have before us. And

[2:00:04] these events do tie into the

[2:00:06] Lausanne board direction to

[2:00:07] prioritize the intercity rail

[2:00:09] service expansion that I will

[2:00:11] get into. The first is really

[2:00:13] in the JULY time frame. The

[2:00:15] Lausanne Agency, as Aaron had

[2:00:17] mentioned, had learned that Up

[2:00:19] would require a completely new

[2:00:20] operating agreement between the

[2:00:23] Lausanne Agency and up and up

[2:00:25] to identify Metrolink as an

[2:00:27] alternative operator. This

[2:00:28] requirement became necessary

[2:00:30] for Union Pacific because

[2:00:32] Metrolink transitioned from

[2:00:33] contracting directly their

[2:00:35] operations, with Amtrak over to

[2:00:37] Alstom. Up also communicated,

[2:00:38] as Erin had mentioned, that

[2:00:39] given their resources being

[2:00:41] fully dedicated to their work

[2:00:43] on their national merger, that

[2:00:44] as soon as they could provide a

[2:00:46] draft agreement for us to

[2:00:48] review would be q1 of 2026. And

[2:00:50] of course, once received that

[2:00:52] draft agreement, we would need

[2:00:54] to that agreement would need to

[2:00:55] be reviewed and negotiated,

[2:00:57] which really made the timing of

[2:00:59] the Metrolink subcontract

[2:01:01] really time uncertain. So the

[2:01:03] second major event was really

[2:01:06] the clarity around equipment

[2:01:08] availability. Equipment

[2:01:09] availability has been one of

[2:01:10] the primary constraints for the

[2:01:12] Lausanne Agency to be able to

[2:01:13] implement additional service

[2:01:15] north of Los Angeles, but in

[2:01:18] late SEPTEMBER, we received a

[2:01:19] Pre-award authority letter from

[2:01:21] the Federal Railroad

[2:01:23] Administration committing to

[2:01:24] $27 million in a Restoration

[2:01:26] and Enhancement Grant award to

[2:01:29] the Lausanne Agency to support

[2:01:31] intercity rail service

[2:01:32] restoration. And I'm proud to

[2:01:35] say that this is the first

[2:01:36] federal grant awarded to the

[2:01:38] Lausanne Agency, and it

[2:01:39] supports the full restoration

[2:01:42] of pre-covid service levels by

[2:01:44] restoring the 11th, 12th and

[2:01:46] 13th round trips between la and

[2:01:48] San Diego. We were running 13

[2:01:51] round trips pre-covid, and I'm

[2:01:52] pleased to share that we have

[2:01:54] already implemented the 11th

[2:01:56] and 12th round trips and just

[2:01:57] announced this week our plans

[2:01:59] for the implementation of the

[2:02:01] 13th round trip between la and

[2:02:04] San Diego starting JANUARY 26th.

[2:02:06] So to support this service

[2:02:07] restoration, Caltrans and the

[2:02:11] three California Jpas agreed on

[2:02:13] a redeployment plan to be able

[2:02:15] to redeploy equipment from the

[2:02:17] Northern California fleet down

[2:02:18] to the Lausanne Agency to be

[2:02:21] ready for service restoration.

[2:02:22] This equipment that is needed

[2:02:24] for our service restoration for

[2:02:26] the 13th round trip will also

[2:02:28] provide sufficient capacity to

[2:02:29] allow for service expansion in

[2:02:31] the North. So with these

[2:02:33] developments back in NOVEMBER,

[2:02:35] the Lausanne Agency Board

[2:02:36] directed staff to prioritize

[2:02:39] efforts to pursue the Pacific

[2:02:41] Surfliner service expansion,

[2:02:42] including the six round trip to

[2:02:43] Goleta and the third round trip

[2:02:45] to San Luis Obispo as the

[2:02:47] pathway to provide additional

[2:02:50] service. So I know Aaron will

[2:02:51] dive into a little bit more of

[2:02:53] the details on the next slide.

[2:02:54] As far as the expanded service

[2:02:56] pilot proposal itself, however,

[2:02:58] I did want to mention that we

[2:02:59] do view this as a great

[2:03:01] opportunity to advance State

[2:03:03] Rail plan goals, maximize the

[2:03:05] investment the state has made

[2:03:07] in the U.P. Owned territory,

[2:03:08] provide not only greater

[2:03:10] regional benefits, regional

[2:03:12] rail benefits by providing peak

[2:03:14] period service to Ventura and

[2:03:16] Santa Barbara, but also

[2:03:17] expanding service along the

[2:03:20] entire corridor with a midday

[2:03:21] departure southbound from San

[2:03:24] Luis Obispo just after the 12

[2:03:26] P.M. Slot. This will also

[2:03:28] provide additional rail service

[2:03:30] options for the World Cup

[2:03:32] coming up very soon. And so we

[2:03:35] are proposing a 12 month pilot

[2:03:37] utilizing temporary funding

[2:03:39] from both Vctc and sb cag, as

[2:03:42] well as a portion of Lausanne

[2:03:43] Agency's estimated operational

[2:03:45] budget savings. To fund this

[2:03:47] pilot, the Lausanne Agency

[2:03:48] intends to continue to include

[2:03:50] the proposed service in our

[2:03:51] annual business plan and

[2:03:54] funding request to the state.

[2:03:57] However, given the state's

[2:03:59] outlook on the the next budget

[2:04:01] proposal, we will also be

[2:04:03] working with stakeholders to

[2:04:05] identify and pursue any federal

[2:04:07] funding sources or any other

[2:04:08] funding sources that MAY be

[2:04:10] able to sustain the service

[2:04:12] after the 12 month period. So

[2:04:13] we're going to be taking the

[2:04:15] lead on on doing that to make

[2:04:16] sure that we can identify

[2:04:18] funding to be able to sustain

[2:04:20] this service beyond the 12

[2:04:22] months. So now I will hand it

[2:04:24] back over to Aaron to provide a

[2:04:26] little bit more details on the

[2:04:27] Amtrak Pacific Surfliner

[2:04:29] service proposal itself, as

[2:04:31] well as as it relates to

[2:04:37] Metrolink's proposal. Jason.

[2:04:40] All right. So much of the

[2:04:41] proposal by Lausanne is

[2:04:43] actually quite like what we've

[2:04:44] seen from Metrolink already.

[2:04:46] And in fact, the timetable

[2:04:48] northbound is nearly identical

[2:04:49] to what was previously

[2:04:50] presented to the board. And

[2:04:53] I'll show that in just a moment.

[2:04:54] So specifically, the train will

[2:04:56] travel north from La Union

[2:04:58] Station through the area of

[2:04:59] Ventura County and into Santa

[2:05:00] Barbara County, getting to

[2:05:02] Goleta at approximately the

[2:05:03] same time. From there, it'll

[2:05:05] continue north into San Luis

[2:05:06] Obispo. And as Jason mentioned,

[2:05:08] we'll return south, providing a

[2:05:10] corridor wide train. There are

[2:05:11] cost savings associated with

[2:05:13] this proposal that were not

[2:05:14] previously available under the

[2:05:15] Metrolink, and that is

[2:05:16] specifically because we're able

[2:05:18] to help we're able to leverage

[2:05:20] Lausanne's buying power and and

[2:05:21] ability to work with Amtrak,

[2:05:23] but also that their r&d grant,

[2:05:25] this federal grant that they

[2:05:26] received, we're able to

[2:05:27] leverage that with the advent

[2:05:29] of the additional train

[2:05:30] equipment. So there's some

[2:05:30] significant cost savings that

[2:05:33] are coming, not to mention the

[2:05:34] increase in passenger fare

[2:05:36] revenue that's anticipated for,

[2:05:38] in particular, that southbound

[2:05:39] train that is a bit more

[2:05:40] productive, as it will head

[2:05:42] from all the way from San Luis

[2:05:44] Obispo to San Diego. So there's

[2:05:45] additional fare revenues or

[2:05:46] operating revenues that will be

[2:05:47] borne as a result of this

[2:05:49] additional service. And then

[2:05:51] lastly, as a as a buyer of

[2:05:52] services from Metrolink

[2:05:54] separate from their existing

[2:05:56] jpa, both Vctc and sb, cag

[2:05:58] would have to wholly fund their

[2:05:59] entire cost of the project,

[2:06:01] which would include their

[2:06:02] self-insured retention policy,

[2:06:05] which was a significant cost

[2:06:06] associated with the service.

[2:06:08] Approximately $5 million

[2:06:16] self-insured retention pool would be made available if,

[2:06:17] in fact, Metrolink were to

[2:06:18] proceed forward, and so there's

[2:06:21] some expedited in scheduling

[2:06:22] that's anticipated to. As a

[2:06:25] result, with regard to the

[2:06:26] schedule, these are the two

[2:06:27] trips that would be added

[2:06:29] highlighted in yellow. You'll

[2:06:31] notice the time into Goleta is

[2:06:33] is close to, if not the same as

[2:06:35] what was previously presented.

[2:06:37] There have been some minor time

[2:06:38] adjustments by the host

[2:06:40] railroad in particular, which

[2:06:41] would have been true whether or

[2:06:42] not it was Metrolink operating

[2:06:44] on the corridor or Lausanne.

[2:06:45] These are the exact same trip

[2:06:46] times that are feasible given

[2:06:48] the existing slot. The

[2:06:50] southbound trip, which, as

[2:06:51] Jason mentioned, will begin

[2:06:53] just after noon in San Luis

[2:06:54] Obispo, will travel the whole

[2:06:56] corridor and through Union

[2:06:58] Station at approximately 5:50

[2:07:04] P.M. And further south. So what

[2:07:05] are some of the next steps? As

[2:07:07] Jason mentioned, the the

[2:07:09] agreement or rather the the

[2:07:11] proposal is before sb, cag and

[2:07:12] Vctc. Right now we're in

[2:07:14] negotiations. The the final

[2:07:16] draft proposal we hope to bring

[2:07:18] back to the board in FEBRUARY.

[2:07:20] There is the expectation that

[2:07:21] the state's approval process

[2:07:23] will be completed by then. We

[2:07:25] hope that that will be positive.

[2:07:27] But ultimately this is a state

[2:07:28] supported service, and so they

[2:07:30] have to sign off on any

[2:07:31] expansion. So there is there is

[2:07:33] that waiting period where we're

[2:07:34] looking forward to the state's

[2:07:36] review of this, where before we

[2:07:37] come back to you in FEBRUARY,

[2:07:39] we anticipate getting that that

[2:07:42] green light following the board

[2:07:43] approvals. We'll begin on the

[2:07:45] concerted marketing efforts

[2:07:46] between Ventura County and

[2:07:48] Santa Barbara County. Largely

[2:07:49] speaking, Ventura will work

[2:07:50] with its residents and

[2:07:51] constituencies in the South,

[2:07:53] and we'll work with the

[2:07:54] employers and the larger

[2:07:55] organizations here in the North

[2:07:57] to make sure that word is out

[2:07:58] and that all of the available

[2:08:00] riders know of the service and

[2:08:01] are ready to use it. We also

[2:08:02] have some additional grant

[2:08:04] funds that were awarded to sb,

[2:08:05] cag previously by the state

[2:08:06] that were made available

[2:08:08] specifically to assist with the

[2:08:09] the ticket pricing with regard

[2:08:11] to Amtrak Pacific Surfliner,

[2:08:12] which will go into effect as

[2:08:14] well. And we'll be helpful in

[2:08:15] buying down the fares and

[2:08:17] making costs affordable to the

[2:08:19] riders. So I mentioned the

[2:08:20] timeline ahead, and with that,

[2:08:22] I'd be happy to answer any

[2:08:24] questions. All right. Questions

[2:08:26] from directors I see Director

[2:08:28] Capps. And then I'll come to

[2:08:33] Director Hartman over. Sorry

[2:08:36] about that. Just a little cozy

[2:08:40] down here in Goleta. Well,

[2:08:43] thank you for this. And I just

[2:08:46] applaud the the plan b, and

[2:08:48] although I know our high hopes

[2:08:52] are have been dashed, it's not

[2:08:54] for lack of all of the work

[2:08:55] that this agency went into. You

[2:08:57] did everything. You lined up

[2:08:59] the funds, the operator. And

[2:09:00] it's really the stumbling block

[2:09:02] that I understand has been in

[2:09:04] place for a long time. So I

[2:09:05] just before I ask about that.

[2:09:07] And MR. Jewell, thanks for

[2:09:09] being here. Welcome back to the

[2:09:12] county. I just kind of want to

[2:09:14] get my head around a little bit

[2:09:16] with Union Pacific. They just

[2:09:19] basically said we're we can't

[2:09:21] we're too busy with our merger

[2:09:24] to focus on this. Is that is

[2:09:26] that the understanding? You

[2:09:28] know, I will have to defer to a

[2:09:30] managing director, Jewell, with

[2:09:31] regard to the specific response

[2:09:33] from Union Pacific. But that's

[2:09:34] our understanding, is that they

[2:09:36] would be able to begin working

[2:09:37] on the agreement. Mind you,

[2:09:39] just starting off on that

[2:09:40] process at about this time or

[2:09:41] sometime between now and the

[2:09:43] end of the first quarter. And

[2:09:44] so because they own the tracks,

[2:09:47] they essentially control the

[2:09:48] timeline of when this would

[2:09:52] have gone forward. Okay. But so

[2:09:54] again, just just trying to

[2:09:56] clarity but because there's

[2:09:57] already agreement with Lausanne,

[2:09:58] it can be expanded without

[2:09:59] having to go through all of

[2:10:02] that process with with them.

[2:10:03] That's my understanding. For

[2:10:04] that, I'll defer to Jason on

[2:10:06] the exact number of trips, and

[2:10:07] I just want to. So the nature

[2:10:09] of my question is just to say,

[2:10:11] like, are we are we on a good

[2:10:13] path here? It sounds like with

[2:10:15] the tone of your voice is very

[2:10:16] optimistic. But again, we we

[2:10:18] had a lot of optimism here for

[2:10:20] the other plan. Yeah. Through

[2:10:22] the chair, Director Capps. Yes,

[2:10:24] we do have, as I mentioned, our

[2:10:26] direct access agreement with Up.

[2:10:28] It provides us two additional

[2:10:30] train slots on the north end of

[2:10:32] the corridor that we have

[2:10:34] access to. So this would

[2:10:35] utilize one of those train

[2:10:37] slots moving forward. We do

[2:10:39] have plans long term,

[2:10:40] consistent with our state rail

[2:10:42] plan, long term goals to

[2:10:44] fulfill that second slot and

[2:10:45] provide an additional service

[2:10:47] beyond the six round trip to

[2:10:48] Goleta and third round trip to

[2:10:50] San Luis Obispo. But to

[2:10:52] directly answer your question,

[2:10:53] yes, Upea has confirmed that

[2:10:55] under our current agreement

[2:10:57] with them, there's no other

[2:10:58] additional amendments or

[2:11:00] anything necessary. We have the

[2:11:02] rights to to utilize those

[2:11:03] slots and to utilize them as

[2:11:07] soon as we want to. Okay, so so

[2:11:10] no more additional funding

[2:11:12] commitments are needed. Again,

[2:11:13] I just you know, what the

[2:11:15] reason, the nature of my

[2:11:16] questions is that, you know,

[2:11:17] we've all been dealing with the

[2:11:19] 101, all of the implications.

[2:11:20] We don't need to go through

[2:11:22] them. But from a computer

[2:11:23] perspective, the impacts that

[2:11:25] has on people's lives and also

[2:11:26] our climate and Union Pacific

[2:11:28] has been such an incredible

[2:11:29] roadblock. And now here we are

[2:11:30] with all this excitement about

[2:11:32] this Metrolink plan and all the

[2:11:34] work. I just want to I just

[2:11:37] want to hear what potential

[2:11:39] challenges lay ahead. But so

[2:11:41] far you haven't outlined any

[2:11:42] serious ones that this board

[2:11:44] needs to be concerned about at

[2:11:46] this point. Right. The only

[2:11:47] other potential challenge as I,

[2:11:51] as I alluded to, is future

[2:11:53] funding. Okay. This is being

[2:11:55] proposed between the three

[2:11:57] stakeholders as a 12 month

[2:12:00] pilot, really, to not only

[2:12:01] understand the demand and the

[2:12:04] trends and look at how the

[2:12:06] train performs, but also

[2:12:07] because this, as Aaron

[2:12:09] mentioned, our intercity rail

[2:12:10] service has historically been a

[2:12:13] state funded program. The state

[2:12:16] has signaled that the interest

[2:12:17] that the state budget as a

[2:12:19] whole, but particularly the

[2:12:21] intercity rail budget moving

[2:12:22] forward, they have concerns

[2:12:23] about. So we will continue to

[2:12:25] work with them through our

[2:12:26] annual budget requests that we

[2:12:28] do through our annual business

[2:12:29] plan submittal with them, as

[2:12:30] well as, as I mentioned, look

[2:12:32] for other funding opportunities

[2:12:35] that can help sustain not only

[2:12:36] this pilot program moving on

[2:12:38] into the future, but also our

[2:12:41] our intercity rail program. So

[2:12:43] the funding in the future is

[2:12:45] always a concern of ours when

[2:12:46] we hear about the state budget

[2:12:47] outlook. And that's something

[2:12:49] that we do work with the state

[2:12:51] on, on an annual basis. So I'm

[2:12:53] sure you're all aware of the

[2:12:57] the governor's address for the

[2:12:59] the governor's address and some

[2:13:01] of the state budget concerns

[2:13:03] that are lying ahead. So, like

[2:13:04] I mentioned, we will continue

[2:13:06] to work with the state on that

[2:13:08] funding and do everything we

[2:13:11] can to ensure not only that our

[2:13:13] intercity rail services, our

[2:13:14] baseline services, can be

[2:13:16] funded, but also that this 12

[2:13:18] month pilot program can be

[2:13:21] sustained as well. Thank you

[2:13:23] again. I just applaud the

[2:13:25] tenacity and trying to just to

[2:13:27] look for another plan when this

[2:13:29] one, the first one that we all

[2:13:30] voted for and we had a lot of

[2:13:32] enthusiasm, didn't pan out and

[2:13:34] I expressed just my frustration

[2:13:36] towards Union Pacific for,

[2:13:38] again, just being such a block

[2:13:39] on something that all of us

[2:13:42] wanted to do. So thank you.

[2:13:43] Thank you, Director Caps,

[2:13:44] Director Hartman, I'm just

[2:13:46] trying to be clear in my own

[2:13:47] mind about the number of trips.

[2:13:51] I think you said that 11 and 12

[2:13:52] pre-covid have been restored,

[2:13:55] and 13 is about to come. I

[2:13:58] heard advertisements on on the

[2:14:00] radio today about expanded

[2:14:02] service. And so what you're

[2:14:04] talking about is additional.

[2:14:06] Could you lay that out for me?

[2:14:09] Sure. Definitely. So yes. So we

[2:14:12] have restored our 11th and 12th

[2:14:14] round trips between Los Angeles

[2:14:15] and San Diego. As I mentioned,

[2:14:16] pre-covid, we had 13 round

[2:14:19] trips between la and San Diego,

[2:14:21] so we restored 12 of those just

[2:14:23] about to be 13 later this month.

[2:14:27] So north of la, we have

[2:14:28] historically ran five round

[2:14:30] trips to Goleta and two to San

[2:14:32] Luis Obispo. So this expansion

[2:14:34] would essentially expand to six

[2:14:36] round trips to Goleta and three

[2:14:38] round trips to San Luis Obispo.

[2:14:40] So the advertisement on the

[2:14:43] radio today was San Diego to

[2:14:47] slo. Is is what they said. So

[2:14:48] to clarify, yes, that third

[2:14:51] round trip to San Luis Obispo

[2:14:53] would actually span the entire

[2:14:56] corridor. Yeah, okay. Thank you,

[2:15:02] Director Brown. I'd like to go.

[2:15:04] You had mentioned the $27

[2:15:07] million grant for equipment. Is

[2:15:08] that for new rolling stock, or

[2:15:10] is that rehabilitation of

[2:15:12] existing stock and where's that

[2:15:15] stock coming from? Yeah. And to

[2:15:17] clarify the $27 million grant

[2:15:18] award, the federal Fra

[2:15:20] Restoration Enhancement Grant

[2:15:21] award, it's actually

[2:15:23] specifically for operations. So

[2:15:24] unfortunately not for capital,

[2:15:26] only for operations, and

[2:15:28] specifically only to restore

[2:15:30] our pre-covid service levels.

[2:15:32] So it cannot be used for any

[2:15:35] type of expansion beyond that

[2:15:37] baseline pre-covid service

[2:15:40] levels, which is 13 round trips.

[2:15:41] So that's specifically what

[2:15:44] they approved the award for.

[2:15:45] All right. Thank you, Director

[2:15:46] Brown, I've got a quick

[2:15:48] question here. I'll take chair

[2:15:49] prerogative to ask. So the

[2:15:50] funding that's coming from sb

[2:15:52] cag is funding. That's part of

[2:15:54] the South County region. I just

[2:15:55] want to make sure I clarified

[2:15:57] that. Yes, that's correct. It's

[2:15:59] through the the South Coast

[2:16:01] program, the inter-regional or

[2:16:02] passenger rail program. All

[2:16:04] right. So there's not any North

[2:16:05] County funds that are going

[2:16:06] towards this this project. Nope.

[2:16:08] The South County funds will run

[2:16:10] the train north to to San Luis

[2:16:12] Obispo on the South County.

[2:16:13] Okay. Just wanted to clarify

[2:16:18] that. Sorry, director Silva, I

[2:16:20] think I just so I can further

[2:16:21] understand the timeline because

[2:16:22] there's a lot going on there.

[2:16:24] So just so I understand so that

[2:16:26] we can explain it, because I

[2:16:27] know we were all very excited

[2:16:29] when we voted last year to

[2:16:30] bring Metrolink to it. So we

[2:16:31] approved Metrolink. We want to

[2:16:33] enter into that agreement. We

[2:16:34] knew there were some risks

[2:16:35] involved. There was mergers and

[2:16:37] corporate things taking place

[2:16:39] and all that. In JULY, we

[2:16:41] become aware that it might be

[2:16:43] more complex, there might be

[2:16:44] new agreements needed to be

[2:16:45] done. And then I'm just trying

[2:16:48] to understand that from JULY on,

[2:16:50] was it that we were trying to

[2:16:52] figure out how to make

[2:16:53] Metrolink work, or were we

[2:16:55] operating under trying to find

[2:16:57] the most easy solution, looking

[2:16:58] for alternatives? I'm just

[2:16:59] trying to know what the

[2:17:01] timeline was for the pivot and

[2:17:03] are for the sake of clarity.

[2:17:05] It's just I want to make sure

[2:17:06] we're making the decision to

[2:17:07] support the project that is

[2:17:09] best for the commuting

[2:17:11] experience and the the customer,

[2:17:12] and not the most convenient one.

[2:17:14] I just was curious if you could

[2:17:15] elaborate the timeline of how

[2:17:16] this all fell into place,

[2:17:18] because I know it took a long

[2:17:20] time to get Metrolink going. Is

[2:17:21] this just path of least

[2:17:22] resistance, or is this the

[2:17:23] ideal option that we can

[2:17:26] provide? So to the first

[2:17:27] question, the the response from

[2:17:29] Union Pacific in the summer was

[2:17:30] simply that we would need a new

[2:17:32] agreement later in the fall.

[2:17:33] They let us know that that

[2:17:35] timeline would be to begin

[2:17:37] working on it sometime this

[2:17:40] quarter. So we knew at about

[2:17:41] mid-OCTOBER that the pivot MAY

[2:17:43] be necessary. Los Angeles

[2:17:45] credit went to the board, asked

[2:17:48] for authorization to prepare an

[2:17:50] alternative proposal and work

[2:17:51] with the stakeholders sb, cag,

[2:17:54] and Vctc on a potential

[2:17:56] alternative. Later that year,

[2:17:59] in NOVEMBER, they got the

[2:18:01] direction to proceed with that

[2:18:03] proposal in prioritize it over

[2:18:05] other options that might be

[2:18:07] coming. With regard to the

[2:18:09] convenience factor, I mean,

[2:18:10] ultimately, Union Pacific is

[2:18:12] the track owner. And so there

[2:18:13] is a there is a lead time

[2:18:15] concern. No matter what we do

[2:18:16] when it comes to working with

[2:18:18] the host railroads. But but

[2:18:19] specifically the agreement

[2:18:21] previously with Metrolink was

[2:18:22] that we would have them prepare

[2:18:24] a startup plan, working with

[2:18:26] the host railroads. That was

[2:18:28] simply just a plan to prepare

[2:18:30] operations. And that low sand,

[2:18:31] through its work with Metrolink,

[2:18:33] would come up with a

[2:18:34] subcontractor or operations and

[2:18:36] maintenance program that was

[2:18:37] still going to be Pacific

[2:18:39] Surfliner service, just

[2:18:41] subcontracted with Metrolink.

[2:18:43] So while it was a metrolink

[2:18:44] train, the tickets were going

[2:18:46] to be through Amtrak. The

[2:18:47] schedule was going to be within

[2:18:49] the Amtrak schedule of service.

[2:18:51] And the the passenger, for all

[2:18:52] intents and purposes, will be

[2:18:54] getting on another Pacific

[2:18:55] Surfliner train as it relates

[2:18:58] to the northbound commute. So

[2:18:59] from a rider mystique

[2:19:01] standpoint, helping to explain

[2:19:02] that to the riders, it's

[2:19:03] actually a bit simpler when

[2:19:05] you're talking about having one

[2:19:07] type of trainer, one railroad

[2:19:09] operator on the corridor. Add

[2:19:11] to that that the cost is

[2:19:12] considerably lower. We

[2:19:15] anticipate approximately 30 to

[2:19:18] 50% less costly to sb and ctc.

[2:19:21] The the. It's not only more

[2:19:21] convenient both to the rider,

[2:19:23] but potentially more efficient

[2:19:25] for sb, cag standpoint to be

[2:19:26] able to proceed forward should

[2:19:29] this pilot continue. And then

[2:19:30] my only other question is I

[2:19:32] maybe it's because I when we

[2:19:33] looked at the Metrolink

[2:19:35] agreement back in the day with

[2:19:36] the afternoon one, I believe it

[2:19:38] was we were leaving Goleta. I

[2:19:40] had the notes here, so we would

[2:19:42] have left Goleta around 1035

[2:19:44] and gotten to Union Station

[2:19:47] about 230. And now we have the

[2:19:50] new plan of, oh, I'm sorry, we

[2:19:51] left 1035 and would have gone

[2:19:53] to the station at 130. And the

[2:19:54] new afternoon plan is we leave

[2:19:56] Goleta at 233, and we get to

[2:19:58] Union Station at 5:50 P.M. The

[2:19:59] morning route. It's only about

[2:20:00] eight minutes. Inconsequential,

[2:20:01] really, when you think about

[2:20:02] that. I guess it feels like

[2:20:05] this new plan. I don't know any

[2:20:06] commuter who's like, boy, I've

[2:20:07] been wanting to get to Union

[2:20:10] Station at 5:50 P.M. And so I

[2:20:11] just was trying to understand

[2:20:14] when we say that this is a more

[2:20:15] beneficial route to get from

[2:20:17] San Luis Obispo to that, it

[2:20:19] just I don't understand what's

[2:20:20] the market question for me, I'm

[2:20:22] confused by the market decision

[2:20:24] of who's the customer who needs

[2:20:25] to get out of Goleta at 230,

[2:20:26] because it doesn't match with

[2:20:27] our early train route. You're

[2:20:29] not a worker who's coming into

[2:20:30] Goleta at 8:00, likely needing

[2:20:32] to leave at 230. So I just

[2:20:34] wasn't sure. Again, what's the

[2:20:35] anticipated benefit or who's

[2:20:36] the target market we're trying

[2:20:39] to capture here? Certainly. So

[2:20:41] as as the board MAY recall, in

[2:20:42] 2008, the target market and has

[2:20:44] always been the case to try and

[2:20:45] alleviate the congestion headed

[2:20:46] northbound during peak hour, as

[2:20:48] well as the southbound during

[2:20:50] the peak hour on the south

[2:20:52] coast. So that would be in the

[2:20:53] afternoon going southbound. And

[2:20:54] in fact, this additional train

[2:20:56] from San Luis Obispo will

[2:20:57] operate through the Santa

[2:20:59] Barbara area in that afternoon

[2:21:01] period. So it does add some

[2:21:03] capacity in the afternoons as

[2:21:04] well, which we don't presently

[2:21:06] have. The 10:30 A.M. Southbound

[2:21:07] trip under the Metrolink

[2:21:09] proposal was simply to get that

[2:21:10] train back into revenue service

[2:21:12] in the in the Metrolink service

[2:21:13] area. Okay, so that original

[2:21:15] one was not the idea of having

[2:21:16] a the original plan was not

[2:21:18] about the benefit being getting

[2:21:20] someone down from mid-morning

[2:21:22] to la and back. It's really we

[2:21:23] were just trying to get the

[2:21:25] train back down there. And this

[2:21:26] proposal is just saying if we

[2:21:27] need afternoon traffic, the

[2:21:29] idea is that there might be

[2:21:31] people who need to get down to

[2:21:32] la in that 230 to 5:00 benefit.

[2:21:34] So we weren't trying to do a

[2:21:36] round trip. This is just send

[2:21:38] it back down and call it a day.

[2:21:39] Precisely. And in fact, to try

[2:21:40] and get people to Ventura

[2:21:41] County, specifically in the

[2:21:43] afternoon at about 330 4:00.

[2:21:45] But between the hours of and, I

[2:21:46] can tell you that there's a

[2:21:48] peak hour, much like with the

[2:21:49] the ag community, that actually

[2:21:50] precedes what is the typical

[2:21:52] peak hour in the South coast.

[2:21:54] So if you look on the roads at

[2:21:55] any given afternoon from

[2:21:56] between 230 and say, four,

[2:21:58] there's quite a few cars on the

[2:21:59] road headed south. So this this

[2:22:01] is an additional trip that

[2:22:02] should provide benefit there as

[2:22:04] well. Thank you. Okay. Thank

[2:22:06] you, Director Silva. Any other

[2:22:07] questions? Any questions on

[2:22:12] Santa Maria for the presenters?

[2:22:13] Yes, sir. This is Julien.

[2:22:16] Director Julien on the

[2:22:17] schematic in terms of time and

[2:22:20] and the expanded route to San

[2:22:22] Luis Obispo, it mentions Goleta

[2:22:25] to slow. What about Guadalupe?

[2:22:26] The train will be stopping at

[2:22:27] all the stations, including the

[2:22:29] Lompoc station, as well as

[2:22:31] Guadalupe. Yes. Okay, good. All

[2:22:35] right. Thank you. Thank you,

[2:22:36] Director Julien. Anything else

[2:22:39] down there or up there? Okay.

[2:22:40] Seeing none. MADAM Clerk, do we

[2:22:42] have any public comment on this

[2:22:43] item? Are there any members of

[2:22:45] the public on the zoom webinar

[2:22:46] who wish to speak? Would you

[2:22:47] please use the raise hand

[2:22:49] feature and I will call upon

[2:22:50] you. There are no paper

[2:22:51] requests to speak forms that

[2:22:52] were received. However, we did

[2:22:54] receive one public comment for

[2:22:55] this item in advance, and the

[2:22:57] comment was uploaded online and

[2:22:58] provided to the board. And that

[2:23:00] comment was received from

[2:23:02] Claudia Show, and there are no

[2:23:04] attendees on the line who wish

[2:23:05] to speak. All right, back to

[2:23:07] the board. This is to receive

[2:23:09] the presentation and direction

[2:23:11] to Staff Director Kern. What

[2:23:12] kind of direction are you

[2:23:14] looking for from us? I'm hoping

[2:23:16] that you're supportive of this

[2:23:18] new direction, and that your

[2:23:19] direct us to bring a operating

[2:23:20] agreement back to the board,

[2:23:23] hopefully in FEBRUARY. Okay. So

[2:23:25] I'm going to ask for a motion

[2:23:27] to receive the presentation and

[2:23:28] request staff to bring back an

[2:23:33] operating agreement in FEBRUARY.

[2:23:35] I'd like to make that motion.

[2:23:37] Second. Okay. Motion from Brody

[2:23:39] and a second from Hartman. Also

[2:23:40] make a comment. Yeah,

[2:23:41] absolutely. And so any further

[2:23:43] comment on the motion, director

[2:23:44] Brody? Thank you. I just want

[2:23:47] to acknowledge all the work

[2:23:49] that was put into this by the

[2:23:54] Scag board. Ctc. They're

[2:23:56] working on the agreement with

[2:23:59] them. And then how excited we

[2:24:00] were that we thought it would

[2:24:03] work out in OCTOBER. And I know

[2:24:06] that there was there was

[2:24:08] excitement from the community

[2:24:09] as well, thinking that it was

[2:24:12] coming back. So it was a great

[2:24:15] pivot, as you put it. In fact,

[2:24:17] an alternative way around this,

[2:24:20] thing, situations changed and I

[2:24:23] look forward to having this

[2:24:24] happen sooner than later, as

[2:24:27] soon as we can. Because, you

[2:24:28] know, we have a train station

[2:24:31] and Goleta now almost ready to

[2:24:32] go. So we want those trains

[2:24:34] rolling through. Thank you.

[2:24:35] Thank you, Director Perotti,

[2:24:36] any other comments on the

[2:24:39] motion? Seeing none. MADAM

[2:24:40] Clerk, will you please call the

[2:24:43] roll director. Rousse. Director.

[2:24:46] Perotti. Director. Patino. Hi.

[2:24:48] Director. Mosby. By director.

[2:24:51] Lee. Director. Lavagnino.

[2:24:54] Director. Julian. Director.

[2:24:56] Hartman. Director. Clerk.

[2:24:58] Director. Capps. Director.

[2:25:01] Brown. Vice chair. Silva and

[2:25:03] chair. Nelson. Aye. Motion

[2:25:05] passes unanimously. All right.

[2:25:06] Let's keep moving this thing

[2:25:07] along. And now we'll move to

[2:25:09] Caltrans. Caltrans director

[2:25:11] report from Veronica Lazara,

[2:25:14] Caltrans branch chief. Oh,

[2:25:16] sorry, did I skip you,

[2:25:18] executive director, just real

[2:25:20] quick. Absolutely. Yeah. It's

[2:25:22] all good. It's one item I would

[2:25:24] like to announce. I would like

[2:25:25] to introduce our newest

[2:25:28] employee, Naomi Compton. She

[2:25:30] joined the agency as an account

[2:25:31] technician with experience in

[2:25:33] the public sector finance. And

[2:25:35] she's back here in the back

[2:25:38] corner. She will help us with

[2:25:40] finance, procurement and

[2:25:41] administrative support. She's

[2:25:42] originally from the Houston

[2:25:43] area and holds a master's

[2:25:44] degree in finance and

[2:25:45] previously worked for the

[2:25:47] University of Houston in

[2:25:48] supporting their accounts

[2:25:50] payable accounting and payroll

[2:25:52] and tax information. She said

[2:25:54] she was drawn to sbf by its

[2:25:56] focus on public service and the

[2:25:57] opportunity to support projects

[2:25:58] that improve communities, so

[2:26:00] please join me in welcoming

[2:26:02] Naomi to the team. So thank you.

[2:26:04] And that concludes my report.

[2:26:06] Welcome, Naomi. As long as

[2:26:08] you're not an Astros fan okay.

[2:26:12] Moving along to Caltrans now,

[2:26:15] directors and chair Nelson

[2:26:16] again. Veronica. Veronica, on

[2:26:18] behalf of District Director

[2:26:21] Scott Eads, I have a couple of

[2:26:23] announcements this afternoon.

[2:26:26] First, starting with the some

[2:26:28] exciting news to start off the

[2:26:31] new year. Really right. Hot off

[2:26:32] the press. Wanted happy to

[2:26:34] announce that Highway one

[2:26:37] through Big Sur has reopened.

[2:26:39] Actually, it opened yesterday.

[2:26:41] That is about three months

[2:26:43] ahead of schedule. We wanted to

[2:26:46] extend an appreciation to local

[2:26:47] business owners, residents and

[2:26:48] visitors, as well as those

[2:26:51] other agencies who were

[2:26:52] responsible and involved in the

[2:26:55] success of that reopening.

[2:26:56] Second, Caltrans will host an

[2:26:58] important public meeting next

[2:27:02] week on JANUARY 21st from 530

[2:27:04] to 7 P.M. At the Guadalupe City

[2:27:06] Hall. This meeting is in

[2:27:10] relation to the Waterloo area

[2:27:12] projects. My team and I walk

[2:27:14] through the city of Guadalupe

[2:27:16] last week and provided some

[2:27:17] information to the public, so

[2:27:19] it was nice to hear how excited

[2:27:21] the community is about these

[2:27:23] future investments in the area.

[2:27:25] And that concludes my report.

[2:27:26] Happy to take any questions

[2:27:28] that the board MAY have. Thank

[2:27:30] you. Any questions for MISS

[2:27:34] Lizama from Caltrans. Or for

[2:27:36] Director Kern, based on the

[2:27:38] Executive Director's report,

[2:27:38] anything in Santa Maria either

[2:27:42] for either party? Nothing here.

[2:27:43] Okay. Great. Thank you. So

[2:27:45] we'll go ahead and move on to

[2:27:47] committee meetings. First one

[2:27:49] up is myself and Caverns.

[2:27:51] Caverns is plugging along.

[2:27:52] We're looks like we're gonna

[2:27:53] have some leadership changes on

[2:27:55] executive director there who

[2:27:57] just actually resigned

[2:27:58] yesterday. So we've got some

[2:28:00] changes ahead of us, but we're

[2:28:04] confident that we're putting a.

[2:28:05] Pieces in place to move the

[2:28:07] organization forward. You know,

[2:28:08] people know that there was a

[2:28:10] prop for allocation to caravans,

[2:28:11] and that's going to be an

[2:28:12] important part of moving

[2:28:14] caravans into the future. And

[2:28:15] so we're we're excited about

[2:28:16] those opportunities as well.

[2:28:18] Expanding service, whether it's

[2:28:20] on the 166 or anywhere else

[2:28:21] throughout the state of

[2:28:22] California, we are navigating

[2:28:25] some of the changes in the

[2:28:27] landscape around field work and

[2:28:29] farm labor, and most of our

[2:28:31] users are actually farm labor

[2:28:32] contractors and h-2a workers

[2:28:33] throughout the state of

[2:28:34] California. And so those

[2:28:35] changing programs are going to

[2:28:36] impact caravans over the next

[2:28:37] couple of years. So we're

[2:28:39] trying to be attentive and and

[2:28:40] look over those things as they

[2:28:43] proceed through. So that's my

[2:28:47] report on caravans as far as

[2:28:48] Lausanne director Lee, I think

[2:28:50] you had your report. I think

[2:28:54] the report. Okay. And now one

[2:28:57] minute reports, any brief

[2:28:58] announcements from any of my

[2:29:00] colleagues not seeing any down

[2:29:02] here in Santa Barbara, any

[2:29:03] announcements in the Santa

[2:29:07] Maria board hearing room? None

[2:29:08] here. Thank you. Thank you,

[2:29:10] Director Patino. Okay, we'll go

[2:29:11] ahead and adjourn today's

[2:29:12] meeting. The next meeting will

[2:29:16] be on FEBRUARY 19th, 2026, in

Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG)

Agenda

Transcript