All right, everybody, good
morning. Welcome. Thank you for
joining us for today's JANUARY
15th meeting of the sba board.
For the record, my name is Bob
Olson. I am the chair of sb
2026. MADAM Clerk, please
facilitate the roll call.
Director Rouse here. Director.
Perotti here. Director. Patino
here. Director. Mosby here.
Director. Lee here. Director.
Lavagnino. Director. Julian.
Here. Director. Hartman here.
Director. Clerk. Director.
Capps here. Director. Brown
here. Vice chair. Silva and
chair Nelson here for you all.
Please stand and join me to
pledge allegiance to the flag.
Ready to begin. I pledge
allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America. And
to the Republic for which it
stands. One nation under GOD,
indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. Okay. Right to
public comment. This is a
public comment period for items
not on today's agenda. Speakers
have up to three minutes each
with a total of 15 minutes
allotted for public comment.
MADAM Clerk, do we have any
public comment here today? Yes.
There are two requests to speak
forms and for any members of
the public on the zoom webinar,
if you wish to speak, would you
please use the raise Hand
feature and I will call upon
you. Our first speaker is Scott
Wentz. Cars are sick. Welcome
MR. Wentz. Happy New Year
MISTER Chair. Members of the
board Scott was representing
Kaiser again. Happy New Year to
all of you. I'm here to address
the issue of Caltrans NOVEMBER
comment about 154 and 246 cars
are basic. Really, really
objected to this. That was a
project that was ill advised,
has hurt people, had multiple
damage, just had another
rollover accident. There was an
injection. This is a roundabout
that has to be taken out
because Caltrans played
political games out of
Sacramento. We have to have a
roundabout. We gave Caltrans an
alternative that would have
cost him $650,000. It would
have taken away the visual
issue that was at that
intersection, and it would have
been worked fine. This has to
stop the city of Lompoc and the
city of Solvang using their
sphere of influence, said to
Caltrans. We do not want this
roundabout here. You have more
traffic, more commercial
traffic on this road. Now,
whenever Gaviota gets cut off,
boom. Guess what? They come
over. 154 you have the
expansion of the casino. You
have the expansion of of of
residents in the area. This
cannot continue and wait until
the two reservation starts
doing as Camp Ford. That is
going to really add a lot of
there. It was badly designed.
It's badly run. Caltrans just
admitted in NOVEMBER that they
were going to fix the problem
by doing more striping and
putting lighting on there. You
can't fix bad design. You can't
fix what causes accidents. And
this goes to the same thing
that we have to say about La
Purisima. You know, you already
killed one firefighter over
there under difficult
circumstances, the people of
the valley did not want this.
Let me repeat that again. For
anybody listening, the people
of Valley did not want that
roundabout. That roundabout has
proven to be an absolute
disaster. You need to use your
authority and press on the
state of California to get that
damn thing out of there. And
we'll give you our design,
because Ceqa says if you have
an alternative design that
meets 90% of the issue you have,
the government has to do that.
Guess what? They played the
forefinger discount. That's
what they told cab. And that's
what's causing the accidents in
the valley. Thank you. Thank
you, MR. Wentz. Our next
speaker is Karen Hammerstein.
Hello, County leaders, Karen
Hauenstein from North County. I
am born and raised in Lompoc
and I live there now. I am here
as a matter of public record,
placing you on notice and
informing you in 2023 inside
the Lompoc Police Department,
we had a suspicious death that
has not yet been fully
investigated. There's been an
official complaint made to the
police officer standards and
training. You need to be aware
of that and follow it through
to its completion. Liliana
Cecilia Zuniga. She was an
abused woman who needs to be
remembered by this county more
than any other people who are
just passing through. Karen.
One second. MADAM Clerk, will
you pause public comment for a
moment? Karen, public comment
when it comes to sb, cag needs
to be on issues that are under
our jurisdiction. Public safety
in our county. We're
transportation
multi-jurisdictional agency for
transportation. Okay. So so
let's try to get our comments
to something that's under the
jurisdiction of this
organization. I mean, what you
had would have been perfect. So
that would be okay. I'm just
placing that on record. Yeah.
Okay. Because you guys are the
leaders of our county.
Understood. But I want to focus
general public comment. Okay.
So then the under the
jurisdiction of this body okay.
So the the bridges across the
Santa Ynez River that were
promised to Lompoc to connect
and start public comment again.
Thank you. That would be for
this place. Yes. Okay. Well,
thank you for also letting me
use the public comment to lodge
my complaints and make sure
they're followed up on publicly.
Happy New year. Happy New year.
If there are any other members
of the public on the zoom
webinar who wish to speak,
would you please use the Raise
Hand feature and I will call
upon you. There are no speakers.
All right. Well, that concludes
public comment. That brings us
to our consent calendar. MADAM
Clerk, are there any changes to
the consent calendar? There are
no changes to the consent
calendar. And there are no
announcements for the consent
calendar. All right. Are there
any items on the consent
calendar that members or
directors would like to pull? I
know that supervisor or sorry
Director Hartman has pulled g.
Anything else not seen up here
in Santa Barbara? In Santa
Maria? Are there any items that
you wish to pull? I'd like to
pull a okay, so that would be
the approval of the minutes. So
for Pitino and that's just
that's just to to vote to
abstain from them. That's not a
discussion. Thank you, Director
Pitino. We'll go ahead and make
sure we have a separate vote on
that. MADAM Clerk, is there any
members of the public pulling
any items on the consent
calendar? Are there any members
of the public on the zoom
webinar who wish to speak? If
so, please use the raise Hand
feature and I will call upon
you. There are no requests to
speak. There is one in North
County that is for right in 166.
Which which item is that? That
is later on in the agenda. Okay.
Understand? Thank you. Before I
move to ask for a motion
supervisor Hartman, are you
looking potentially for a
separate vote on g or just want
to pull it to discuss that?
Okay. So let's go ahead and get
a motion at least on the
minutes. So if I can get a
motion on item a, which is the
approval of the minutes, the
last motion to approve okay.
Motion. Motion from Silva, a
second from Perotti. MADAM
Clerk, please do a roll call.
Director. Rousse. Director.
Perotti. Director. Pitino.
Abstain. Director. Mosby. Hi.
Director. Lee. Director.
Lavagnino. Director. Julian. Hi.
Director. Hartman. Director.
Clerk. Director. Capps.
Director. Brown. Vice chair.
Silva and chair. Nelson, I. I
assume the motion passes. All
right, let's go ahead. And
before I make a motion for the
balance, let's go ahead and
read into the record the item
that's been pulled by
supervisor department. If if
it's everything's fine with
that, then we'll just take a
motion for the balance of the
agenda. After that, Santa Ynez
River valley, Santa Ynez Valley
River trail contractor
agreement to approve an
authorized executive director
to execute an agreement with
Psomas similar to the attached
and based upon review and
concurrence by legal counsel
for planning and engineering
work associated with the Santa
Ynez River trail project in an
amount not to exceed of 796 638,
with a period of performance
extending between execution of
the agreement and DECEMBER 31st,
2028. To authorize the
Executive Director to approve
immaterial amendments to the
agreement. All right, Director
Hartman, thank you. So I have
several questions. The first
has to do with timing. I see
that it's this is expected to
be done in two years. And I
just wondered how that fits
with the the atp grant state.
We're trying to get this done
to fit into the cycle for atp.
And I, I think then we got to
wait what, another two years or
just Director Hartman, the atp
cycle and you can correct me if
I'm wrong, is accepting
applications this summer for
the next cycle. And then it's
every two years. So two years
from this coming summer would
be the next cycle, which would
be the one that would be aiming
for for this project. Okay. So
so that fits. And then first of
all, I'm just really excited to
see this. Let me the next
question has to do with the
federal grant and how that
would fit with this contract.
Very good question, Director
Hartman. The federal grant was
awarded to the Chumash Indians
in the amount of $1.4 million,
and it has a required match,
which is this project. The
match is what we're doing now.
So we have been coordinating
with the tribe. The tribe has
been approached by the Federal
Highway Administration, the
grantor, and there's the
current state is we've worked,
Fred Luna and I, to work on the
agreement between the tribe and
FHWa. That goes back to FHWa.
And once it's agreed upon, then
the funds that agreement will
run up the chain at FHWa for
execution on their side. And
assuming it does become
executed, I think there's no
guarantee but that right now it
looks likely. Then in all
likelihood, sba will take on
the work for that, just as we
did, because part of today's
action is to approve an
agreement with the contractor.
But part of the funding behind
that was awarded to the tribe,
and it was probably about four
months ago. We came and had an
agreement between sb tribe for
sb, kg to take on management of
that grant, and that's what we
expect to happen for this one
as well. So when we advertise
the work, there are a variety
of optional tasks included in
the agreement, which are the
ones that would be filled in
with the federal grant. So does
it seem like this contractor
would take it on or. We're not
sure yet? That's a good
question. Supervisor Hartman or
Director Hartman, assuming we
can negotiate in good faith
with the contractor and come to
an agreement on price. So it's
part of today's agreement, says
that the contractor would have
to honor the same hourly rates
that they're doing for the work
that hopefully gets approved
today. So if we can come to an
agreement, we can amend it into
the contract. Otherwise we'd go
back out to bid for those
optional tasks. So so we MAY
just fold it in and not have to
go out again through the
process. If, if they can, if
and once again if there's a
there's a lot of moving pieces
with this. One of them is that
that grant award is federal.
And all the other money that
we've had to this point is
either state or local, and
there's different contracting
requirements. So we would have
to ensure that the ph is
allowing us to to go this route.
Otherwise we'd have to go out
to bid to. I see okay. Thank
you. And my final question, as
I look to the environmental
piece and the contract, it
doesn't make any mention of the
recreation master plan eir,
which was designed to be
programmatic and to tear off.
So how will that work? Another
great question, Director
Hartman, for the environmental.
So the agreement that's being
approved today is a work
package. One is 100% of the
environmental work within the
city of Buellton. So at the
conclusion of this project, the
trail will be construction
ready for city of Buellton.
Outside of the city, the
environmental work is an
optional task, and we are also
we're paying attention to the
county's process of the
recreation Master plan. And
when that is approved, then we
could tear off of it. We can't
tear off of in anticipation of
it being approved. But that is
certainly something that we are
keeping our eyes on as this
goes forward. It's coming soon.
Thank you. And thank you for.
And then the person for sb, k
who is the contact for this for
this work isn't your friend. Is
that typical? No, it's Tom Vo
who's sitting right back here.
Tom works in planning Division
under me. Okay, I'll be
involved. Fred will be involved
because this is a mix of
planning and engineering. It's,
you know, perhaps I can't be a
good advisor on engineering
aspect. And Fred can't be a
good advisor on the planning
aspect. So it's a team. And
Tom's going to keep us
organized and pointing in the
right direction. Okay. Well,
again, I'm I'm absolutely
delighted to see this. Thank
you. All right. Thank you,
Director Patino, any other
questions from board members?
Public comment item item g, are
there any members of the public
on the zoom webinar who wish to
speak on item g? Please use the
raise hand feature and I will
call upon you. There are no
paper requests to speak forms
and there are no attendees who
wish to speak. Okay, supervisor
Director Hartman, no reason for
a different vote on that. So
with that, I could get a motion
for the balance of the agenda,
which would be items four b
through four. I moved by Brown.
I need a second, second, second
from Hartman. Can we please do
a roll call? Vote. Director.
Rouse. Director. Perotti.
Director. Patino. I director.
Mosby. Hey, director. Lee. Hi.
Director. Lavagnino. Director.
Julian. Hi. Director. Hartman,
I director. Clark. Director.
Capps. Director. Brown. Vice
chair. Silva and chair. Nelson.
Hi. Motion passes. All right.
Thank you. We'll go ahead and
move on to the discussion items.
Item five a MADAM Clerk, will
you please read that item to
the record? Item five a sb 2026
Committee appointments
recommended actions one.
Appoint one delegate an
alternate to the California
Association of Councils of
Governments to appoint one
delegate and an alternate to
the Los Angeles, San Diego, San
Luis Obispo Rail Corridor.
Agency three appoint one
delegate and alternate to the
Coast Rail Coordinating Council.
For appoint one member and one
alternate to the Board of
Directors. Five appoint members
to the highway 154 Safety
Committee six appoint members
to the Executive Committee
chair, vice chair, immediate
past chair and chairs of North
County and South Coast Regional
seven. Appoint an sb, k board
delegate to participate in the
Central Coast Coalition.
Sacramento Legislative Advocacy
Day scheduled for MARCH 17th
and 18th, 2026. Eight appoint
the sb, k chair, Vice Chair and
immediate past chair to serve
as the Washington, dc
legislative delegation
representing sb kegs interest
in Washington, dc the week of
MARCH 23rd, 2026. All right.
Thank you. So let's go.
Director Kern, Liana went
through the list of
appointments. This is your
annual chance to appoint your
yourself or others to
committees that meet throughout
the year. I'd be happy to
answer any questions about
about the appointments or the
committees, if you have any.
But otherwise, normally we just
go through the committees and
ask for volunteers. Okay, great.
Thank you. Thank you, Director
Kern. And typically, you know,
a lot of these committees,
there's a bit of value in
having some background in it.
So those that are already in it
are often, you know, favored by
the board because they've got
some that experience there.
Although this is also the time
for somebody that says, hey,
that's something I would be
interested in in the future. So
it's also good for us to know
that this is our opportunity to
have those conversations. We'll
go ahead and start off with Cal
Cog. I'm the regular member and
director. Patino is the
alternate there this year. I
have quite a bit of work on my
on my calendar already on
chairing this and other things
throughout. I've talked to
Director Silva about
potentially being the regular
member, and I think he's
interested in that. I don't
know if Director Patino would
like to stay on as alternate
for that. I'm happy to move to
alternate position if she
doesn't want that, but I'd be
happy to let her stay there as
well. Director Nelson, I would
I would like to be the member
on that because I've been the
alternate. Okay, so. And maybe
Director Silva would take the
alternate. That works for me.
That sounds great. So any other
not seeing anybody jump up and
down here. Thank you, Director
Patino for jumping up on that
down in Santa Maria. And again,
if any of these items that
you're interested in Santa
Maria, please don't hesitate to
to to speak up. The next item
here is Lausanne. I believe we
got here. And currently we have,
I believe, director and
Director Lee as the regular
alternate members. Are you both?
I'd like to stay on Lausanne.
I'm happy as alternate. Okay.
Great. Seeing no objection,
we'll keep moving on to the
Crcc, which is the Coast Rail
Coordinating Council. Currently
we have Director Rousse. And as
the regular member and director
Brown as the alternate. I'm
fine with the status quo. Okay,
we got some thumbs up up here.
Everybody good down there?
Looks like it. Moving on to the
California Vanpool Authority
Caravans. Currently I'm a
regular appointed member and
director Julian is the
alternate. It's a preference
for me to stay on that. I am on
the executive committee. I have
stepped away from being the
vice chair, which I had been
for the last couple of years,
but we're going through some
major changes of management,
happy to pass it on in the next
year or two if somebody is
interested, but I think I need
to be on that for the purposes
of the continuity, with no
objections. And Director Julian,
are you okay staying on as the
alternate? I am, sir. Thank you,
thank you. Moving along to the
State Highway 154 Safety
Committee, I think we have five
directors on that at this point.
Is that correct? That correct?
Just for the record, that's
that is Director Hartman,
director Capps, director Prodi,
director Silva and director
Brown. So that's the kind of
those areas, the second and
third district of the
supervisors and the three
cities that are kind of
impacted there as well. Are you
guys all happy staying on that?
Okay. So the direction of the
board currently is to and the
motion will make is to keep
that the same status quo. The
sb, cag Executive Committee,
which is traditionally the
chair and the vice chair and
chair, vice chair, former past
chair and the chairs of the
subregional. So five five
members. Okay. Any objections
there. Yeah. Do we have the the
Subregionals already voted on.
Yes. Who are the chairs of the
director Julian and Director
Lee okay. Past chair is Rouse.
Yeah. So be Rouse Nelson, Silva
Julian and Lee for the
executive committee. All right.
Since Central Coast coalition
state legislation, legislative
advocacy day. Who wants to go
to Sacramento. So how many how
many numbers do we we send to
this. We normally take one. At
least one okay. I will be I
think unavailable at that time.
So I'm not able to do that or
else I would volunteer. But is
there anybody that's interested
in potentially going to state?
State Legislative Advocacy Day,
MARCH? I might be unavailable
as well. Okay. Can we, per the
motion, make that a CHAIRMAN's?
Can I appoint somebody at a
later date? If you guys would
make that part of the motion is
I will appoint somebody to go
to that. And once you guys
check your schedules, you guys
let me know and I'll find
somebody. And we can take more
than one if necessary. If more
than one is interested. Okay.
Thank you, Director Kern.
Moving on to the Washington, dc
legislative delegation.
Typically, again, this is the
former past chair, the current
chair and the vice chair, which
would traditionally be Rouse,
Nelson and Silva. Everybody's
good with that. Okay. MADAM
Clerk, did you catch all that?
Okay. Any discussions from
anybody else that would like to
you know, this is kind of speak
now or forever hold your peace
in Santa Maria. Any other
thoughts? None up here. All
right. Thank you, Director
Patino. MADAM Clerk, is there
any public comment? If there
are any members of the public
on the zoom webinar who wish to
speak, would you please use the
raise hand feature and I will
call upon you. There are no
paper requests to speak forms,
and there are no attendees who
wish to speak. Okay. MADAM
Clerk, is it clear from the
discussion up here if somebody
says a motion to appoint the
committees as discussed by the
board, that that. Yes. Good
enough for you on the motion,
or do we need to rephrase the
appointees and delegates the
record. Okay, okay. We're good.
Okay. So I'm looking for a
motion of a slate of appointees
based on the discussion we had
up here just now, I got a move
to approve. Okay. Motion from
Brown, second, second from
Silva. All right. Can we go
ahead and do a roll call? Vote,
please. Director. Rouse.
Director. Perrotti. Hi.
Director. Patino. Hi. Director.
Mosby. Director. Lee. Director.
Lavagnino. Director. Julian. Hi,
director. Hartman, I. Director.
Clark. Director. Capps.
Director. Brown. Vice chair.
Silva and chair. Nelson I.
Motion passes. All right, just
for a moment of agenda.
Management is our is our
presenter for five here. Okay.
So we're gonna go ahead and
move on to item five b. MADAM
Clerk, would you please read
that item into the record?
Final state 166 comprehensive
corridor study recommended
actions one. Approve the final
State Route 166 comprehensive
quarter study and two direct
staff to file a notice of
exemption with the Santa
Barbara County Clerk pursuant
to section 15738b2 of the
California Environmental
Quality Act, Ceqa guidelines.
All right. I guess staff will
have a presentation for us.
Thank you. Good morning, chair
and directors and happy New
year. I'm Michael Carney from
sp, cag programing. And today
we will be presenting the final.
There you go. 166 Corridor
Study. I will be using this I
think. Okay. Sb cag has been
working with Caltrans, City of
Santa Maria, City of Guadalupe
and the county to develop this
study with our consultant dcs
and Somas. As a reminder, the
study focuses on State Route
166 between City of Guadalupe
and City of Santa Maria, as
well as the parallel facilities.
Excuse me, Chair Nelson, could
you ever speak up a little bit,
please? Yes, yes. Is this okay
if I bring it closer to me?
Perfect. There is a little
button on your right to raise
the platform. Oh, this actual
platform. Got it. Okay, let's
do it. Okay. Does this help?
Yeah. Do a test. All right. I
just have to project. So I'll
just go over this part real
quick. As a reminder, the the
study focuses on State Route
166 from Guadalupe to Santa
Maria. And it includes the
parallel facilities as well.
Nope. Okay. The goal of this
study is to develop a list of
improvements to address the
issues along the corridor.
Examples of those issues
include safety, congestion,
goods movement, and multimodal
connections. The study also
helps us prepare for future
funding and sets us up for
future grants, competitive
grants, and it also helps us
identify any projects that we
MAY want to include in our
measure a renewal. So I'm going
to pass it off to Jim Danko
from dcs, who is helping us
with the study. Oh, that's for
you. Okay. MR. Chair, members
of the board again, Jim, I'm a
principal at dcs associates. We
are also joined by Thomas
Engineering for civil support
to help support sb, cag in this
study. I'll quickly go through
the aspects of the study, the
existing conditions analysis,
our community engagement
efforts, the performance
assessment, and then quickly go
through the the cip
improvements that some of you
have already seen and wrap up
with implementation. So for
existing conditions, we took a
pretty deep dive. We looked at
the socioeconomic
characteristics of the area. So
city of Guadalupe, Santa Maria,
Orchard area, but also the
socioeconomic characteristics
of the users that are on 166 on
a daily basis. We did that
through cell data, big data. We
looked at goods movement, we
looked at operations. And in
terms of delay and travel time
reliability, which is kind of a
new metric that is of key
interest. Obviously, we looked
at safety, looking at the
collision history and where the
hotspots tend to be. And we as
part of that, we also performed
a roadway or road safety audit,
which is a method prescribed by
Federal Highway Administration,
which actually took our team
out there and walked the
corridor, took lots of
observations, and that included
staff from Guadalupe, Santa
Maria, Caltrans, sb, cag, and
the consultant team. We looked
at multimodal access in terms
of ped, bike and transit, and
then looked at how stressful it
is for those active
transportation users within the
corridor. As you might imagine,
it's very stressful, which
keeps people from wanting to
bike or walk the corridor. And
then finally we looked at we
used a series of Caltrans
website tools to look at equity
and vulnerable network as it
relates to extreme weather
events. So in terms of our
community engagement, we used
all our our resources to make
sure we did a good job of this.
We had a project website. We
had an interactive web based
tool that allowed folks in the
comfort of their own home to
provide public input. We did a
community survey, both online
and in person, and a lot of
collateral materials to make
sure folks were aware of that
the study was going on. We also
did about five pop ups where we
don't ask people to come to us,
we go to where they are. I'm
happy to say we exceeded our
goals in terms of the number of
community surveys that were
performed by the public. We
also the lion's share over 70%
were done by Hispanic speakers.
And we also shout out to the
county who allowed us to use
Promotoras, which are folks who
speak Mexican, who that
community does not have a
written language. So the only
way you can get their input is
verbally. That was a really
nice resource, and we did very
well with our community
engagement and exceeded our our
community engagement goals. I
think we got close to 500
surveys filled out. And then in
addition to that, we did go and
hold two public workshops, one
in Guadalupe, one in Santa
Maria, where we asked folks to
come and provide input on the
improvement concepts that were
under consideration. And then
last but not least, we had
meetings with our stakeholder
advisory committee, with the
subregional planning committee
of sb, cag, as well as tac.
Okay. The performance
assessment. We did look at
roughly 11 types of
improvements in the world we
live in in terms of federal
grants. It's all performance
based. So that's we're looking
at not only the costs of the
improvements, but also the
monetized benefits of the
improvements. And from that you
can get a benefit cost
assessment. It's not the only
metric, but it's a key metric
that drives a lot of funding
decisions made by the
California Transportation
Commission and federal highways.
So we looked at the benefits as
it relates to collision
reduction, delay reduction,
travel time, reliability
improvement, fuel use on road,
mobile source emissions, so on
and so forth. So we didn't we
tried not to leave any rock
unturned in terms of monetizing
benefits. We didn't want to
leave any on the ground or, you
know, off the table. But there
are some you can't capture all
in one that the growers are
Shippers Association pointed
out that we could not be on the
scope of our study, but we do
recognize it is the cost of
agriculture for transporting
perishable goods every hour
between cut and in the in the
Coolidge storage is a day of
shelf life that's lost. And
that has economic implications,
of course. So we we do talk
about it, but we didn't
monetize that, which basically
means that our, our benefit
cost ratio, which was very good
2.66 is probably underestimated.
We didn't take that into
account. But again freight
movement is improved. Gross
regional product in the region
adds about $12 million. If the
construction of these
improvements takes place, and
then that will create jobs as
well. So a lot of economic
benefit and then, you know,
benefit cost is not the only
thing. So we did look at policy
consistency. Not only the local
agency general plan policies.
That's the city of Guadalupe
and the city of Santa Maria and
the county. And as well as the
regional policies of sb, cag
and their rtp, but also
Caltrans. Of course, it's their
facility. And so we looked at
their climate change
initiatives and their policies
to see how congruent each of
the projects were. And that's
what this matrix shows. And in
terms of we did have a public
draft. It was released in
OCTOBER. We did receive
comments from Caltrans, sb, cag,
the North County Subregional
Planning Committee, as well as
the stakeholder advisory
committee. And just real quick,
I'll just summarize those
comments for you. So for sb and
Caltrans, the typical editorial
suggestions but in better
resolution list of acronyms,
which is now part of the draft.
And then some clarifications on
the performance assessment for
Caltrans, the North County Sub
Regional Committee, they desire
to see a four lane widening 166
as part of a aspirational list
of projects that are longer
term. This. The planning
horizon for this study is
roughly 20 to 25 years. So
short term, if you will, when
it comes to transportation
improvements. But the longer
term are equally as important
because, of course, measure a
will sunset in 2040. And if
there's a renewal effort,
there's a desire to have new
regional improvements that can
be made part of that referendum.
They also suggested that the
Bonita School Road or Bonita
School itself should be
relocated. We agreed with that
as well as the stakeholder.
Well, the stakeholder advisory
committee strongly agreed with
that as well. So that was an
interesting input. And then
just one good question was, was
there any regional differences
in the public input? In other
words, do residents of City of
Guadalupe have different
opinions of what they'd like to
see in terms of improvements
and other aspects versus Santa
Maria and orchid? So we did go
back and take a look at that.
For the most part, they were
very congruent, but there was
some differences. City of Santa
Maria Orcutt were more pro for
more enforcement in the
corridor. They were also more
advocating active
transportation improvements
versus the Guadalupe side,
which they advocated more
transit, which was interesting.
And people in Guadalupe use 166
a lot more than folks in Santa
Maria. So that was a pretty
clear from the separating those
two. So that's now documented
in the report. And then the
advisory committee, I've
already mentioned some of this.
They wanted to see more
operational improvements in
lighting on bed Arabian Black
Road as well as Black and Stole,
which we incorporated also
again, Bonita School location
is problematic. And the reason
that is, is that it's in the
middle of the ag fields, and
there's a lot of windblown
particulates. Those
particulates typically have
pesticides, herbicides, and you
have a sensitive receptive
group with young children right
in the middle of all that. So
all the students come from
Santa Maria. That's where
they're they live. So it makes
sense to possibly examine
relocation of that school. And
then again, recognition that
the benefit cost does not
reflect perishable goods. And
so this is a a matrix of how
our stakeholder advisory
committee scored each of the
improvements. And I'll walk
through those pretty well. But
for the most part there was a
lot of support. They had the
option of showing support,
being neutral or indifferent to
the improvement, or did not
support and then support with
the condition. And as you can
see, there was only two
improvements that they could
not support or a few of them
did not support. It was 5050.
And that was the roundabout
alternatives to some of the
improvements. They preferred
signalized intersections. And
that's fine. We provide both
options. And then the Santa
Maria River levee Trail, about
half the group were not very
supportive of that improvement
being included as part of the
package. And then for the long
term improvement, a couple as a
condition of support, wanted to
see the class one trail
decoupled from the four lane
widening. We included them as a
couplet, so that would be a
class one trail from connecting
Santa Maria to Guadalupe
bidirectional, and that would
be on the south side of the
facility. And then the widening
of 166, which is very costly in
the subregional planning
committee, asked for a cost of
that based on construction year
of 2040. It's about $320
million. So not cheap. So real
quick, the improvement concepts.
This is an overall map. We do
reflect the purple bubbles that
that's the existing Gaps cap m
project that is currently
moving forward with planned
completion by 20 2829. That
includes a signalized
intersections in Guadalupe, as
well as some bike facility
improvements within the city of
Santa Maria. The green bubbles
are those that were identified
as part of this study, and I'll
walk through those very quickly.
So that's a rendition of the
Gaps cap m project, which we
did not reflect in the benefit
cost, but we wanted to include
because we're leveraging those
improvements as part of this
study. But as far as hours. So
a signalization of the Cmis 166
intersection, which additional
channelization for operational
and safety improvements. Some
formalizing of the access to
Bonita School Road from 166,
again for safety and
operational benefits, as well
as formalizing the parking and
some ingress egress
characteristics going into the
school itself. Ray Road in
mainline. This is basically
formalizing that stop
controlled at the northbound to
provide an extended right and
left turn storage, because
right now cuz pretty
significantly causing a lot of
delay. And that's also a safety
improvement for improved sight
distance for those turning left
and right. Okay. This is for
Hansen. And this is extending
this is only in the westbound
direction right now. The lane
drop occurs roughly around
Hansen. And but there's a lot
of businesses on the on that
north side with driveways. That
causes a lot of friction
turning movements that are are
creating safety issues. So the
idea here is that we extend
that lane drop beyond Hansen
and beyond where those
driveways are. So it's a much
smoother transition from 2 to 1
lane. And then we also
identified pave way or paved
driveway aprons. And this is a
safety because it adds traction
to ingress and egress vehicles
coming out of those driveways
and those fields. But also it
cuts down on dust and marine
train road dust. So dust
abatement strategy. And this
was very popular among the
stakeholder advisory group. And
also the need for lighting. So
we heard this loud and clear
from the public and is an issue
particularly around key
intersections. So we identified
additional lighting for various
key locations within the
quarter. And also on Betteravia
Road. We also are advocating
the purchase of 15 additional
vans from Cal Van to provide
exclusive service for ag
workers. We work closely with
Cal Vans to identify what the
potential demand was for these
added vehicles, and there is a
demand there. Calvin's is
already doing a lot of work in
this corridor, but they
recognize that it's not enough
and they can do more. So we're
advocating additional 15 cal
vans and then also for Santa
Maria Regional Transit, which
has now assumed control of the
Guadalupe Flier service between
Guadalupe and Santa Maria to
reduce those headways from 60
minutes to 30 minutes. That's
going to require a purchase of
an additional 35 foot bus. And
so transit service would be
much more, I think, convenient,
particularly for those
residents in Guadalupe who rely
on transit to go to Santa Maria
and back. Okay, so this is the
Surface Transportation
Assistance Act Star. This is
for truck circulation. And I
just want to make it clear from
the beginning the trucks are
already out there. So so any of
these improvements are not
allowing trucks where they
currently aren't operating.
That that is a misconception.
It's just trying to formalize
the network for not only the
truckers, but also for chp who
must enforce the regulations
and and also for the city of
Santa Maria, who's trying to
preclude the number of heavy
duty trucks, five axle plus
trucks that have to traverse
through their downtown on 166.
So and and we did find that not
only are the trucks there, but
they're growing in numbers and
they're growing faster than the
traffic overall is growing. So
the mix of heavy duty trucks is
increasing in this region. So
we've identified stay signage
improvements as well as some
other safety improvements. But
to formalize the network so
truckers know where to go and
where they should be. And we
identified a number of
alternative networks. There's
roughly six that are shown in
the report. I would say that
the city of Santa Maria is
advocating just bringing the
star signage, allowing trucks
to be on 166 up to Blosser Road
rather than to 135. And there's
various alternatives. And then
the advisory committee really
advocated, including Stoll Road
as part of the network as well.
And okay, so this intersection
improvements at Betteravia and
Mahoney, that's a very funky
intersection today. It's a
picture of it in the top right.
But this is to make it more of
a traditional intersection.
This will facilitate goods
movement trucks as well as
safety for vehicular traffic.
So this is the signalized
version of the improvement. And
we also included a roundabout
version. You know folks have
mixed feelings about
roundabouts. And we heard that
loud and clear from the
advisory group as well as some
others in the public. But those
are options. And then last but
not least, the us 101
Betteravia interchange
improvement. So this is
changing the circulation of the
northbound ramps, but also
providing class one bike and
pedestrian facilities, as well
as intersection improvements at
at Nicholson as well. And this
is primarily driven by the need
to make sure Betteravia is
becoming a better Sta route.
There's already a lot of trucks
using it, so this will help
formalize that, but also the
city of Santa Maria, as part of
their general plan update, are
now targeting growth on the
east side of 101. And so you
you'll have residential and
then all the shopping
opportunities on the west side
of Betteravia. So you want to
make that more accessible to
pet and bikes as well as to
vehicles. And then the Santa
Maria levee, River Levee Trail
and that's included. This is a
very popular improvement, I
would say folks are concerned
about undue detour. Does it
really provide that that
parallel connection between
Santa Maria and Guadalupe? We
feel it does. But our analysis
did take into consideration the
buffer distance that people
would actually use this
facility to make those
connections. But make no
mistake, we recognize that
having a bike and ped facility
along the 166 is is much more
efficient, but again, it's much
more costly. This improvement
is moving along. It's already
in its environmental phase. And
so we're including it as part
of our package. And then here's
the, you know, the this the
widening. There you go. You can
see the bike path there, the so
the the profile cross section
in the middle. That's what
exists today. And you can see
the extent of what would be
required in terms of right of
way to make it a four lane
facility. Caltrans will need a
center median to a divider for
this. For safety, folks felt
from the stakeholder committee,
they questioned the need for
that. But I can guarantee you
Caltrans is going to want that.
And then the class one
bidirectional trail south side
of the state route 166. And
again, it comes at a hefty
price. So this is really only
possible, I think, as part of a
measure, a renewal package. And
then in terms of our
implementation, we looked at
all the various funding sources.
Again, as Maya said, we're
targeting at least for the the
package that we're identified
for these next 20 years, state
and federal grant funding to
try to get these projects
implemented. And then we phased
the improvements from short
term mid-term and then that
longer term 20 plus years. And
that's where you see the four
lane widening, as well as the
class one trail along 166. So
with that, I'll open it up to
questions. All right. Questions
among directors I see. Director
Lee, you have a question I do.
So the levee trail that you
spoke about, did you reach out
to the local farmers impacted
by that construction, or was
there any feedback or any
negative impacts to them? You
know? Director Lee, the Levee
Trail project is a county
project. We've included it
because it's moving forward.
It's complementary. It's
related to our study. So it's
the county that is advancing
the project. However, just on
our stakeholder advisory
committee, we did have
representatives of the
agricultural community that
were involved in the process.
And you did see on the when the
stakeholder Advisory Committee
took its support, don't support
votes that this is one of the
ones that had a couple do not
supports. Okay. And so going
back to the your study, did you
consider the early morning
traffic happens on the road?
Because we did from 2 to 5 I
believe it's like busy. Yes we
did. And that was a so there
was an early morning peak which
is at early Age-related Peak.
And we did the peak as well.
Got it. And adjusted completion
will help with that traffic
burden. And the completion of
this project will help with
that. Yes, yes. And the the
congestion that particularly in
Santa Maria that backs up for
that westbound trips in the Am
that drove a lot of the
improvements that you saw,
especially that the extension
of Hanson or 166 lane drop past
Hanson. Okay. That's the
benefit that issue as well.
There's you know, when we look
at the the congestion and the
travel time variance, we saw
that it was very unreliable on
an ongoing, you know, it was
reliably bad. That's what I'm
trying to say, which you don't
see very often. So it does
indicate a really significant
problem for that early morning
ag commute. And during your
study on the road, did you see
anybody going off road to
bypass the traffic? You know,
our roadway safety audit, we
did recognize that. But we
heard that plenty from the
public that folks use the
shoulder as a bypass lane. And
that's not good. So we we
recognize that as a major issue.
Thank you. Yeah. And I will say
that the stakeholder advisory
committee regarding the Santa
Maria River Levee trail, one of
the big concerns was, was there
going to be adequate fencing to
protect the ag fields from
folks who are using the
facility and cost estimates, as
well as our description of the
project is, yeah, it'll be two
layers of fencing to keep folks
from compromising or getting
into the I believe I spoke to
the farmers locally there and
they are concerned about people
that are going through the
landfill. That's very important.
Thank you for doing that. I
agree, thank you. Director Lee,
Director Hartman, director,
then director Lavagnino. And
then I'll go to Santa Maria. I
was just curious about your
analysis for benefit cost. So
the cost takes in the entire
set of projects, including the
vans and the bus transit.
Correct. And then describe more
how you calculate the benefit.
You said what wasn't part of it,
but how do you how do you nail
that down? Right. So yeah, you
know, costing improvements
that's been around for a long,
long, long, long time.
Engineers are very good at that.
Monetizing benefits is really
the the new aspect of of of all
this. And it's all based on
data that's published by
Caltrans. It's called the
societal costs. And they you
know, there's there's value to
time. So that value of time is
incorporated into delay
reduction travel time
reliability because it's called
buffer time. If you want to
reach your destination 95% of
the time, but because of the
conditions of the facility,
makes that very variable. And
we have 12 months of data to
show how variable it is. It's
the amount of time people have
to leave early to make sure
they can get to their
destination. 95% of the time,
that's their time. So it can be
monetized. You know, they'd
rather be at home with their
families than leaving early and
maybe arriving work early, but
maybe on time they don't know.
So that can all be monetized by
the value of time on road,
mobile source emissions, all
those, you know, criteria.
Health based pollutants have a
societal cost associated with
them. That's all been developed
by epa and Caltrans. And so we
have a whole list of all those
monetized costs that we can
calculate the measure
effectiveness and monetize that
benefit. And and then could you
elaborate on the gross regional
product, the 12 million value,
how that relates or doesn't. So
that that is a good question.
That is specific to the
construction activity. So
assuming that all the
improvements get constructed,
that's going to add jobs to the
construction sector. Yeah.
Thank you. All right. Thank you,
Director Hartman. Director
Lavagnino, thank you. And well,
first I just want to thank sb,
cag staff and the members that
this is this is something
that's been a long time coming.
I mean, this we probably should
have started this 15, 20 years
ago so that we were actually
doing work now instead of
looking at what we could be
doing. But, you know, we've got
a lot of priorities in this
county. So I understand. But
it's I appreciate where we are
right now. So can you just
refresh my memory when when
does measure a when do we
finish measure a expires in
2040 okay. This board has
directed to pursue a measure in
2032. Okay. Great. So so what
I'm hearing is in that short
term, those ones that you've
identified, which two of them
are actually construction on,
the other two are, you know,
kind of working around some,
some issues we're anticipating
we would do those before 2040
with the current measure a,
there is no measure a
identified for this corridor at
this point in time. So what
we're saying is we could
identify state funding and
federal funding possibly to to
to do these. It would be
outside these other ones that
are in the midterm. They would
be a a wish list that we would
send to voters that these are
things that we would like to
get done. And inside of that,
are we or are we not. Do you
anticipate now talking about
widening to four lanes, or is
that something outside of that?
It's up to this board okay.
Okay. So just I'm curious on
these just on these even in the
midterm ones, but on the even
in the intersection lighting
and the pavement driving is
that 42 million seems pretty
low to me, which it does. It's
only because we deal with so
many high numbers here. But is
that actually have we looked at
the right of way because some
of those farms I mean, I know
we're going to be taking
anytime you do any work on the
166, you're talking about
impacting Prime ag. And I'm
just curious if we've done
those studies, looked at that,
we did for the lighting. You
know, a lot of these are low
cost improvement concepts. And
so that's the beauty of it. But
very astute observation. 42
million in the big scheme of
things is not that much. And so
the lighting in terms of the
cobra heads and the poles, a
lot of that can be done within
right of way. So there wouldn't
be any take the driveway aprons.
That's a mix. There probably
will be some some right of way
that's not Caltrans to make
those effective. We think
that's a good public private
type of improvement that folks
can rally behind. But we'll see.
But I think most of the
businesses, the ag, they would
welcome that because it's a,
you know, it's a safety issue
for their people, their
vehicles, their workers. And
then final question, I guess,
is so in your professional
opinion, how do you think these
midterm projects would rack and
stack against, you know, as far
as being able to actually see
possibility of funding? Yeah,
it depends on the program
itself. One program that we
highlight that we feel is
probably the strongest is the
Trade Quarter Enhancement
program from Caltrans sb one,
and that is a competitive
program. I think we have a very
competitive benefit cost. We
have safety improvements. You
know, we have a lot of a good
mix of projects from transit
vans, you name it, driveway
aprons, which is very unique.
This is the first quarter study
that I've been a part of. I've
been part of too many. But that
driveway aprons was even an
improvement. So it's kind of
unique. So my my aspiration is
that we can compete well for
the trade quarter enhancement
program. Another good one is
highway Safety Improvement
program. Okay. Thank you. By
the way, that was former sb
member Larry Lavagnino calling.
I have a correction. There is a
project in the current measure,
a program that's the Betteravia
101 project that is funded
through the measure a, that we
will be applying for additional
funds to implement that project,
but it's not on the 166. So
thank you. Thank you. All right.
Thank you. I'm gonna go to
Santa Maria for some comments
or questions. Then I'm going to
come back up here for then for
Director Silva. Thank you. And
I know this is about the Bonita
Bonita school. And I know we've
had discussions about this
before. And Director Nelson, I
can't remember exactly what,
but I know that property was
deeded only to be used as a
school. And and so there's just
a lot of problems getting into
what happens. And I know the
school district spoke to us
several years ago, and you
probably know more about it
than I do, but it's it's really
a challenge to have to deal
with that. And of course, those
students do come from Santa
Maria and they are bust out
there. I want to ask about I
really want to confirm the the
time, the peak hours study
again, because you've got black
and betteravia, you've got
black and stole and you've got
Blosser that concern us. What
time was that peak hour study?
So the the what we're calling
the early am, I believe is from
5 to 6 and then the commuter Am
is the typical seven, you know,
8 to 9 or 730 to 830. I'll have
to check. And then the
traditional pm peak is 435
three. Because that 5:00 is
it's it's really important.
8:00 9:00 it doesn't really
matter because that's not when
that is so impacted there. On
Blosser and 166 we really need
the two left turn northbound
lanes going east, going north.
And I didn't see that there. So
that's something that we need.
Then coming down Blosser and
going west on 166 again that
left turn pocket gets gets
packed. It just gets packed.
The it is probably bumper to
bumper from Main Street all the
way up to probably betteravia.
I know pastel so that's really
an impact. And so that I know
when we went through the
roundabout issue and we did the
the signalized intersection at
166 and black, that went on for
years. And, and I went to all
those meetings with focus
groups. Not one person, not one
person at that time ever, ever
spoke in favor of a roundabout.
And yet we spent years going
through that. And it was it was
like Caltrans. Caltrans was
trying to push that on us, and
everyone was saying that it
doesn't work. So I just think
that those kinds of things are
important. The I'm thinking of
the day that we were out on 166
in black and celebrating the
intersection, and I'm sitting
there watching and there's chp
there, and a car runs the red
light and and then a little
while later, a truck runs the
red light. So it is a very,
very dangerous road. And during
those peak hours it's four
lanes and not two lanes. So
it's something that we between
Guadalupe and Santa Maria we do
care about. There's a lot of
accidents out there all the
time. And I want to ask you and
Margie, maybe you know this,
but I heard on the radio that
California has the most unsafe.
We're number one in the most
unsafe roads. And I didn't know
what study that was done.
Anyway, our public works
director is here. If he would
like to comment on anything.
Thank you. All right. Director
Patino, do you have a question
for him that you'd like to have
answered? Or you? I yes, for
you. I just wanted to make
those comments. Okay. Yeah.
Thank you. And if you'd like to
speak during public comment,
we'll absolutely give him that
opportunity to or the directors
up here or down there will have
some questions for him. We'll
make sure that's available.
Okay. And I'm sure Director
Julian has things to say. Thank
you. I'm sure he has director
Julian. Yes. Thank you for the
update. And one of the, one of
the things that local residents
are looking at, chp, I know
that there was a study with
about a quarter of the chp
ticketing, and that is a big
issue. We still have people,
especially if you're not going
to have a four lane for for
decades or whatever. We need
chp doing more of the, you know,
roads, routes out in that area.
You know, trucks are not a
problem. Maybe because we're
used to that. Trucks slow
people down to the 55 miles an
hour. So trucks, we have a good
relationship with the truckers.
And one of the things too, and
I know that director Nelson is
on caravans, but when people
from Santa Maria go to San Luis
County, across the bridge,
Santa Maria River bridge,
there's a lot of development,
not a lot of development, a lot
of grow. Right after the bridge
on the on the north side, north
side of the river, literally
hundreds of cars are there. And
we need to. And especially
Guadalupe. I know that there's
a call for more chp or Caltrans.
That's a good that's a that's
really necessary. But what we
need to do in terms of
Guadalupe is to make I see very
few caravans, vehicles in the
city of Guadalupe. And if we're
having 15 additional fans
really need to do our homework
and make sure that the local
farmworkers know that that's,
you know, that's there for
their use. Also, the increase
in road trips from an hour to
30 minutes to and from Santa
Maria is is really helpful for
the community of Guadalupe. And
then in the future, we've got
another 18 acres of commercial
that hopefully that'll be
developed to where people don't
have to go to Santa Maria for
every everyday shopping in
terms of groceries. And and
again, our most of our people
are employed in Santa Maria. So
it really makes a difference in
making improvements on this
highway. 166 so thank you for
the report. All right. Thank
you. Thank you, Director Julian.
Director Silva, thank you. Just
kind of piggybacking off of
what Director Hartman mentioned
with societal benefit. I just
was curious. I don't know if
it's the factoid of you saying
one hour equals one day of
shelf life, considering the
fact that we have a traffic
issue going on right now. I was
curious if you could maybe walk
through, do we anticipate while
we're looking at a 20 year
construction plan, whatever
that looked like, exacerbating
the traffic issue? And was that
analyzed in the cost of the
project, or are we I just don't
know how you would mitigate
that. Are we possibly as a body
just so that we're aware? Are
we going to have to expect that
there will be delays by nature
of construction taking place,
and that could impact the
transportation going on and
what that has been studied or
what that looks like. Okay. Two
questions. The first question
is that the the existing
conditions analysis was and the
public input predicated our
selection of the improvements.
But the performance analysis of
those improvements was based on
future conditions. And so we
rely on sb travel demand model
and other resources to know how
much traffic was going to grow.
So when these improvements were
operational, open to the public
and the traveling public, that
that benefit was derived from
the from future demand. So I
think that address your first
question. The second question,
can you repeat it? I'm sorry.
It's really just understanding
in in once these improvements
start taking place, do we have
an understanding of if we would
anticipate delays that will
have economic impact? Is there
ways that we have gone through
with how we're going to
mitigate that? I just wasn't
sure exactly of being mindful
of actions taken. It's not
saying we don't need to solve
the problem, but there's always
that when you're solving a
problem, you know, the
treatment can often cause some
issues. While we're going
through that, I just curious
what that looks like or if
we've done that study. No. Good
question. Construction, phasing
and delays associated with the
construction of improvements
that is not incorporated into
our study. Like I said before,
the good news is that many of
these are not significant in
terms of disruption to existing
traffic. In my opinion, the
experience that 166 and Black
Road, I don't know what the
history when that project was
implemented to install a signal,
but it would be similar to that
is a good analogy in terms of
disruption to traffic. Now, of
course, that longer term
improvement that's going to be
significant and construction
phasing will be pretty
complicated on how we can keep
the traffic moving on. 166
while that's being constructed,
if it ever does. Yeah, right.
Director Perotti. Thank you.
Chair. Going back to Director
Pitino's question about the
schools, the school. What's the
issue at the school? Is it
traffic? Getting into the class,
into school by parents? Is that
kids walking, biking busses?
What what's their their concern?
And I'm assuming you've gone to
the school and talked with the
parents. Yeah. So there's a
number of issues that go on. So
during school let out, there's
the queuing of the busses. And
our road safety audit was out
there to witness that firsthand.
And it's messy. All those
busses they queue up, there's
not enough storage for them in
terms of the internal
circulation where they pick up
the kids on campus, and then
they're all making a left
because they they all go to
Santa Maria, 100% of the
student body kids are living in
Santa Maria. Strangely, most,
if not all, the faculty come
down from the North because
they live in Nipomo and
elsewhere, and they use Santa
Benito School Road. And so it's
just it's kind of a confluence
there. So there's no formalized
parking really on campus. So
there's no stalls, white lines,
painting, striping. So we put a
lot of thought into that. But
you know that's just a concept,
you know, do you want diagonal
parking. Do you want you know
there's all these different
variables. But so that's an
issue in terms of just
circulation of the student body.
You know, the parents drive
their kids to. And so there's
just a the the confluence of,
of the vehicles from the
employees to the students. And
then that school let out time
with the queuing of the busses.
Okay. I was just curious about
what the problem was there.
Yeah. The stakeholder advisory
committee advocated really
putting in a a much more
prominent right turn
channelization from for
westbound traffic. And that's
mentioned in our report. It's
not technically included in the
improvement, but I think that's
had a lot of merit. So we
included it by okay. Thank you
reference. Thank you, Director
Parodi. And I actually would
like to speak to the school
issue just for a moment,
something that I've always kind
of been tracking as well. The
issue is it's four miles from
the nearest house to the school,
just all through this entire
traffic areas, there's nobody
riding their bikes, there's
nobody walking there. And it is
a traffic issue. I know you
mentioned the pesticide issue.
I think that that was
inappropriate. You know, that
site has been tested for the
last few years and they've had
a zero detect for pesticides.
So I know there's always that
concern out there. I think it's
the bigger concern is probably
the cooler with the ammonia
than there's actually
pesticides. There's a really a
great amount of responsible use
of pesticides in that area. And,
you know, in general, but
specifically because it's near
a school. So they've had a
again, a zero detect. So
actually no pesticides in the
actual regions. Sensor that's
put out by Department of
Pesticide Regulations is on the
fence line of the playground.
And again the zero detect. So
just want to make sure that was
you talk about that that you
don't spread any false
assumptions or rumors about
that. So no I totally
appreciate that. And that's
great news to hear. I would
just say fine. Particulates
with no herbicides or
pesticides attached to them is
not a good thing. So it's still
a health based issue.
Absolutely. But I do think that
the big issue for that for a
long time has been the traffic
issue. You know, there's this
is the most early on when I
started working for the county,
I heard from chp officer. They
said it's the most unmanned
vehicle accidents in the state
are on this. And I go, what do
you mean unmanned? Because
there's accidents and they show
up and there's nobody there.
And so they have the cars that
are there. So it's definitely a
corridor with many, many
accidents. Obviously we've been
talking about significantly the
traffic issues. My son actually
works at a farm at 166 in Black
Road. And so, you know, he
spends he lives five miles away
and it's a 30 minute plus drive
for him to get there. So I see
this and it impacts so many of
our residents, especially those
who have the least time to
share on on a commute. So a
couple a few things I just
wanted to. Also, did you guys
look at Black Road with the
flooding that happens there?
Did that? You know, you talked
about extreme weather events,
black road floods significantly,
multiple feet of water. Did you
guys kind of look at that as
part of the study? It was
brought to our attention in
terms of the vulnerability to
extreme weather events. I think
that's a chronic issue. But we
do identify quite a swath of
area that is subject at risk,
vulnerable to flooding. But
yeah, that that did come into
play. We did not explicitly try
to address the, you know, the
the flooding issue that
currently happens at that
location. You also went through
the truck routes, and I think
that got a lot of people's
attention. What's the next
steps on truck routes and that
conversation? Because I think,
you know, you presented a lot
of different options. I don't
know who makes those decisions,
whether that's our board or
that's someone else. I think
also the city of Santa Maria,
with the potential of the
Amazon Center in stool that
plays into it, you know, what
are all those things that we're
looking at. So who who makes
those next decisions on truck
routes. So. Well, I'll just say
it varies across the state.
Typically I think what's
typical they allow it to
organically happen. So it comes
from the, the the property
owners and the business owners
that they request through their
local agency or member regional
agency to ask Caltrans formally
designate and test it. So most
of the state does that. But
there are jurisdictions that
are more proactive. And I would
say this kind of a proactive
step that, hey, there's there's
there's no Sta routes east west,
that's a huge issue. And
everybody that we talked to
from the growers and shippers
and chp, it just has never
really formally been looked at.
And it's an issue because the
chp will not enforce the Sta
regulations because really the
truckers don't have any choice.
There's no signage, there's no
navigation. So they'll just go
where Siri tells them to go.
And sometimes they find
themselves on roadways that
were never designed to
accommodate those vehicles. And
you can see the damage at
intersections from the the
light poles and all that. They
have visible damage from the
trucks off tracking and not
being able to accommodate that
sharp of a turn. But I'll pass
it over to Margie. Sounds like
this is a perfect issue for sb
to take up at some point, maybe
within the North County
subregional, because we have
all the different parties that
are going to impact so so that
we can come up with something
to advocate to Caltrans to
formalize. So the steps in the
planning process is this is a
study and we incorporate it
into our regional
transportation plan. So it
could be an action item in our
next regional transportation
plan to identify a truck route
and working with Caltrans. So
all right. And just one thought
I had on the paved driveways.
You know, that seems like
that's a great public private
partnership opportunity. I
think if we gave encroachment
permits, many of those
landowners would actually
install those for us, which
would be a huge cost savings,
I'd imagine. So, you know,
could be one of those things
where the local jurisdictions
helped them with the permitting.
You know, that's our cost and
investment in those those farms
would put in the paving. I mean,
they're they have construction
material. They're able to do
those types of things. I know
that a lot of this is going to
be potentially on their
property as well. So I'm just
going to throw that out there
as a concept that I think would
be embraced. And then my last
final thought on this is that I
think that this is a great
start, but I think this needs
to be kind of a living document
for us, because there's other
things coming down the line. I
don't think Betteravia is a
settled idea of what is
proposed here. I think this is
just a concept. So I think
there's greater discussion
there. The city of Santa Maria
is looking at McCoy interchange,
what happens there and how that
impacts everything. And they
also are looking at bringing
McCoy out to Mahoney. You know,
the county at some point is
looking at Uni Valley Parkway
out to highway one. And so
having additional corridor
routes in the future and how
those all kind of play into
future investments, I think are
really important. So I think
that this is something we
should probably bring back
every couple of years and, and
maybe amend the study to the
current circumstances and the
current planning. You know, the
city of Santa Maria moves
forward, the Amazon Center.
Then this is this changes a lot
of things here. And we're going
to have to go refresh that as
well. So I just want to kind of
throw that out there for all of
us is to think about that. This
is a start. But we should
probably be, you know,
refreshing this on a on a
semi-regular basis for the
corridor chair. Nelson, when
you don't speak into the mic,
we can't hear you up here. I
apologize there, Director
Patino. I was trying to hide it
from you anyway, so it's all
good. All right, so, MADAM
Clerk, do we have any public
comment on this item? Chair,
I'm confirming written public
comment was received for this
item in advance. The comments
were uploaded online and
provided to the board, and
those comments were received
from Guthrie Leonard, Timothy.
Mahoney, Jeffrey. Jeffrey.
Wheeler. And if there are any
members of the public who wish
to speak on the zoom webinar,
please use the Raise Hand
feature and I will call upon
you. We do have one request to
speak in Santa Barbara and
three up north in Santa Maria.
And so our first speaker in
Santa Barbara is Barry. Remus.
If you can please come up to
the podium. Good evening.
Excuse me. Good afternoon,
Chair Nelson and directors. My
name is Barry Remus and I'm
with Santa Barbara County. We
countywide empower, educate and
advocate for those who walk,
bike and use public transit. So
what a perfect opportunity to
address the route 66 multimodal
corridor. And we really do want
to highlight the fact that
multimodal has been emphasized
or highlighted in the study
numerous times. And while we do
realize that this is clearly
going to be a large balancing
act of numerous priorities, and
recognizing the immense benefit
that this agricultural corridor
provides for everybody, we also
want to emphasize as well, that
it's more than just a truck
route, and that we fully
support the opportunity here,
and it certainly is an
opportunity. And also, Chair
Nelson, as you mentioned, to be
able to treat this as a living
plan that obviously will need
to be reevaluated and
reassessed as the years go on
and some things are going to
take a lot longer than others.
But while we certainly support
the class one multi-purpose
path that
would be fully
separated and protected for
active transportation users,
bike riders, pedestrians, and
also the ever growing bike
riding population, that is also
a lot of commuters. That would
probably be going back and
forth between farms as e-bikes
become more affordable. But
also and we're also on record,
supporters of the Santa Maria
levee Trail as and we
understand that there's the
balance between that, too. But
we feel that there are ways to
be able to work that
arrangement out, to be able to
provide protected space for the
agricultural owners, while also
providing a good alternative
route for active transportation
users from and to Guadalupe and
Santa Maria, but also the
agricultural workers and the
commuters, the farm workers
that depend upon transit, and
so that idea of increasing the
caravans opportunities and also
increasing the headways for
smart transit all, all, all are
wonderful ways that through
funding availability can be
more near-term solutions to be
able to address the county's
climate action plans, reducing
emissions, reducing vehicle
miles traveled, and also to be
able to provide for so many of
the agricultural workers coming
out of Guadalupe. To Director
Julian's points, to be able to
provide that opportunity for
them to get there safe routes
to school is paramount for us,
and we appreciate Director
Perotti's questions and MR.
Nelson's questions about the
school, any amount of dust
mitigation and the particulate
matter for the safety and the
future health of our children
is, is, is is an excellent idea
that the paved driveway aprons
as well. And just lastly also
going to point out that for the
Guadalupe side, we had to
highlight that Caltrans is
holding a community meeting
next Wednesday, the 21st, to
highlight Guadalupe oriented
action projects as well. So we
want to bid you all a Happy New
Year. And thank you very much.
Thank you. Our next speaker is
Claire Weinman, followed by
Brett Fulgoni. In Santa Maria.
Claire, you're up. We can't
hear you yet. Now we can now,
please. Good morning. My name
is Claire Wyman. I'm the
PRESIDENT Of the Grower Shipper
Association of Santa Barbara
and San Luis Obispo counties.
We appreciate the opportunity
to serve on the advisory
committee, and it's always a
pleasure to work with the sb,
cag team. This is an essential
corridor for safe and efficient
and effective movement of
people, equipment and fresh,
perishable produce. Agriculture
drives employment and
businesses that many rely on.
In North County. We've provided
detailed comments throughout
the process and would like to
highlight a few key points
before approval today. First,
our number one ask is widening
166 to 4 lanes in a modest,
compact design. We're sensitive
to the cost and complexity of
pursuing a very wide design and
would look to a modest and
achievable design which would
better suit the location and
use needs through a design
variance. As many of you are
already aware, we strongly
oppose the Santa Maria River
Levee Trail due to the
significant food safety and
operational concerns with that
specific location. As mentioned,
the majority of the advisory
committee also did not support
the trail at that location and
asked it to be removed from
this package. Many of you are
also aware of our concerns
about roundabouts and areas
frequented by agricultural
equipment, and specifically the
mix of vehicle types, and would
oppose roundabouts at Mahoney
Road and Betteravia and 101
favor Signalization for these
locations. Finally, we strongly
support a variety of east west
travel corridors for trucks.
This would provide resiliency
and reduce undue pressure on
any one pathway. We strongly
support maintaining Main Street
to 101 and further support
additional options for highway
one and semis, as well as Stoll
Road, Union Valley Parkway and
Clark. This would most closely
align with the modified
alternative five and six, and
would like to remain very
engaged in this process. We
appreciate your attention and
leadership to these important
details, and look forward to
continuing to serve our
community as these move forward
as projects. Thank you. Thank
you, MISS Wyman. And our next
speaker is Brett Fulgoni,
followed by Maribel Aguilera.
Good morning, Chair Nelson,
directors Brett Fulgoni, public
works director for the City of
Santa Maria. And first of all,
thank you all very much for the
work that went into this, this
study. A couple of things I
just wanted to comment on. I
recall back in NOVEMBER, there
was some discussion about and
you did listed in the the
comments that that you took
that information in. I didn't
see it analyzed in the options
analysis. So black and
betteravia stolen black. And
then also very importantly the
two the two left hand turn
lanes eastbound eastbound 166
onto northbound Blosser in
earlier Jim I heard talking
about the the am peak which I
think you nailed but I wasn't
sure about that pm peak. And we
see anecdotally the peak we
think is probably around 3 to 4
P.M. At that location where you
get that left hand turn
movement onto northbound. So
really stacking up west. So we
just want to make sure that
that, that that gets addressed.
Anecdotally we looked at it
through engineering on our team.
If we had four 11 foot lanes
through there, which would
require Caltrans design
exception, we think we could
get two left hand turn lanes
onto that northbound Gloucester
corridor. And so, you know,
perhaps a short term solution
could be a design exception
through 11 foot lanes. Then as
we move toward the medium, the
medium term, we could widen
that back out if needed because
of the truck traffic. Although
we do have many 11 and ten foot
lanes throughout the city of
Santa Maria on truck routes or
unofficial truck routes. Let's
see if I have anything else. So
yeah, I just want to make sure
that those intersections were
fully studied that I mentioned
and that we've captured the
correct pm peak on that
eastbound 166 to block. Thank
you. Thank you Brett. And our
next speaker is Maribel
Aguilera. Chair and chair and
members of the board I'm
Maribel Aguilera, Santa Maria
city council. I strongly
support the final State Route
166 Comprehensive Corridor
Study and urge approval today,
with a further consideration to
include the widening of the 166
to 4 lanes. The people of Santa
Maria Guadalupe deserve a safe,
reliable corridor connecting
our communities. Every day,
Guadalupe residents travel the
166 to reach medical
appointments, go shopping, get
to work and access essential
services in Santa Maria and
Santa Maria. Residents depend
on this same corner to reach
the coast. Some work in
Guadalupe, visit family and
support businesses throughout
the region. For too long, our
families have navigated roadway
plagued by safety concerns,
heavy agricultural traffic,
limited visibility, congestion
and inadequate infrastructure
at key intersections. We've had
far too many serious accidents
on this road over the years.
The study represents years of
thoughtful collaboration
between sb, cag, Caltrans,
Santa Barbara County and both
cities of Santa Maria Guadalupe,
and I am encouraged by the
strong community engagement.
Nearly 500 survey responses,
with outreach in both English
and Spanish at events such as
Mexican Independence Day
celebrations to our Parade of
Lights, and with the benefit
cost ratio of 2.66, this is
clearly a sound investment. The
identified improvements signal
signalization at Siemens Road,
enhanced lighting, intersection
safety upgrades and
transcendent Katzman's will
provide real safety and
operational benefits. However,
I do want to address the timing
and I do appreciate the request
for four lane widening because
that's really shouldn't be for
long term planning because the
need is now. During peak
traffic times, it takes 45
minutes to get from Santa Maria
to Guadalupe. So I'd really
encourage us to look at that
and widening the road and
looking at peak times 5 to 6
A.M. And 3 to 4 P.M. As someone
who has spent over a decade
serving our region's families
on the Planning Commission and
City council, I know firsthand
how critical this corridor is
to our community's well-being
and economic vitality. I ask
that you include the four lane
widening now, not as a long
term goal, because the families
of Guadalupe and Santa Maria
need that today. Thank you.
Thank you, COUNCILWOMAN. There
are no further requests to
speak. All right. Any other
questions from directors in
Santa Maria? Or comments? Did
you have a comment? No, I have
a comment on the comprehensive
corridor study that is part
part of the the River trail. I
should say the River trail is
part of that. That
comprehensive corridor study.
Director Patino, the the trail
along the levee is a county
project that was included in
the the study. Okay. And that
was already agreed to and
passed. But four years ago or
five years ago, I believe it's
my understanding that the
county agreed to fund certain
segment or certain phases. I
believe the environmental phase,
which is currently ongoing.
Thank you. All right. Any other
questions or comments? Santa
Maria? Yes. Yes there is.
Please. I've got a comment here.
What I made before and it's in
regards to the trail. I know
the county is well aware that
they have a superior court
ruling about introduction of
people and pests into
environmentally sensitive
habitats, and how would you be
getting around the Superior
Court ruling by obviously
introducing people and pets
into environmentally sensitive
habitats, agriculture, as it's
recognized in the Superior
Court ruling. So it seems to me
that you're doing kind of the
opposite of mandates that
you've done in other areas of
the county. But buyer beware
with a trail, because I can
guarantee what's going to
happen. You might as well just
call it the strawberry picking
trail or something like that.
But I've advised before that if
you want to see what happens
when you put trails in these
type of areas, come to Lompoc.
There's plenty of video that
show out what happens there.
But just for the record, I it
just very curious how the
county in one area can say no
to recreation and trails in one
area, but another area they can
just turn a blind eye to it,
even when the people owning the
property around are saying no
and it moves forward. All right.
Thank you. Director, can I. Can
I answer that? Sure. Yeah,
absolutely. Director. So as far
as calling it a blind eye,
we've studied this thing upside
down, backwards and frontwards.
It has had plenty of public
comment. The project that is
that there is really no even
we're in the very beginning
stages of this. We all
understood the reason why it's
not done right now is because
of the farmers input, and we
realize that we can't do it
without a huge investment that
would include lighting, fencing,
paving, all kinds of
engineering to keep people out
of those fields. So staffing,
staffing, if if we had turned a
blind eye, we would have said,
okay, here's a Santa Maria
River levee trail and it's open
and all hell would have broke
loose. So because of the input
of the farmers and our ability
to then dial it way down and
say, okay, this obviously is an
area of concern. I got to be
honest, I think it has not been
in blind eye. We've gone in
with eyes wide open and tried
to listen to what the comments
were and change what even the
proposal is. That's why it's
not going to happen tomorrow.
It's not going to happen next
Friday. It is a long term
project that is going to take a
lot of funding to do it the
right way. So the reason why
it's going to take a long time
is because we have decided to
really implement everything
that we've heard from the
public. So, you know, I think
it's easy to throw rocks at
this and act like nobody's
paying attention to it when the
exact opposite is true.
Everybody's paying attention to
it. We're on top of it, and
we're really analyzing it. So I
just want the public to
understand that this is not
just a Wild West, free for all
trail running through ag
property. All right. I want to
kind of bring this back though.
So this is just referenced in
the study. And today all we are
doing is receiving and filing
the study. Right. We're not
actually adopting these
projects any of these designs.
We're just hearing a
presentation on what we paid
for. We are asking for the
board approval as a study. And
then it gets incorporated into
the plan as priorities as we
move forward. So the board will
have discretion on what
priorities get incorporated
into the regional
transportation plan as we move
forward. But this is just basic
information to inform your
future decision making, right?
So no actual decisions will be
made on projects or designs at
this point. Correct? Correct. I
just want to make sure I think
it's a good, good discussion
debate, and it's good to get
information out there. I
appreciate both perspectives
and having that opportunity to
say that, but I do want to get
us moving along towards
finishing up this item so we
can get this meeting finished
in a timely manner. So with
that supervisor sorry, Director
Hartman. Go ahead. Okay. All
right. So not seeing too many
other lights up here. Any other
lights again that could get us
back to this item is to receive
this study. The action on the
agenda is to approve the final
study, the comprehensive
corridor study, and to direct
staff to file a notice of
exemption with the Santa
Barbara clerk for a sequa. So
the study is not an
environmental document, though.
It's it's exempt from
environment because it's just a
study. You're not making
official decisions or
priorities. It's information
for your future decision making
okay. We're not making those
decisions today. All right. So
I just need a motion to that
motion okay. Motion from
Hartman and a second from Silva.
Further discussion. Supervisor
or director Patino. Yes. I
would really like to go on
record saying I do oppose the
River trail being in on that
study. And I know we've gone
through it over and over. I
don't think that people realize
the impact and the challenges
to the growers in our community,
and they are extremely
important. Ag is the the engine
that fuels our community. And i
just I didn't like it when it
was passed and I don't like it.
I don't like it now. I just I
don't think people realize that
even with birds going into
fields and contaminating
whatever is going in the fields
makes those fields unusable.
And, and I think when you've
got people going down the levy
on their bicycles and they have
their dogs with them, and I
realize we have in here is
going to do fencing, but
somehow we go down the road and
things get turned around. And
so I would love to see if that
could be removed from this
study, the approval of the
study. Thank you. Other
comments on the motion that we
have right now. Okay. I see no
additional comments on the
motion. MADAM Clerk, can you
please have a roll call? Vote.
Director. Rouse. Director.
Perotti. Director. Patino. No.
Director. Mosby. No. Director.
Lee. Hi. Director. Lavagnino.
Director. Julian. Hi, director.
Hartman, I. Director. Clark.
Director. Capps. Director.
Brown, I vice chair. Silva, I
and chair. Nelson, I. Motion
passes. 11 two. Do you mind
calling out just the number for
the public? Was that what it
was? Yes, it was 11 to 2. Thank
you. All right. We're moving on
to our final discussion item,
item five c. MADAM Clerk, would
you please read that into the
record? Expanded peak hour
intercity rail service update.
Recommended actions, received
presentation and provide
direction to staff regarding
the proposal by the Los Angeles,
San Diego, San Luis Obispo Rail
Corridor Agency to operate
expanded intercity passenger
rail service between Ventura
and Santa Barbara counties. MR.
Bonfiglio, please. Good morning.
All right. Good morning, MR.
Chair. Board of Directors. For
the record, my name is Aaron
Bonfiglio, director of
multimodal programs for sb cag.
And with me today is Jason
Jewell from the Rail Corridor
Agency, the managing director,
to help with the presentation.
So today's presentation and
we'll try to move through it
quickly. I don't want to stand
between you all and lunch. It's
a hard place to be. We'll
provide you all with a quick
background of this project
where we are with regard to Los
Angeles and board direction. As
far as their updated proposal
is concerned, because there was
some action at the recent board
that has triggered some new
information. And then next
steps with regard to timeline.
Okay. We'll try again. All
right. New clicker. So as the
board will recall in 2018 sb
cag began a service with the
Pacific Surfliner, the rail
corridor agency, to operate
additional train service from
the south into Santa Barbara
County to address the peak hour
morning commute period. This is
a long standing commitment that
sb cag has made to the voters.
The Lane and a train was part
of the 2008 measure, a renewal
or push for the current local
self-help sales tax measure
that's here today, and we've
achieved much of the lane and
had fits and starts with the
train. So as it relates to our
ongoing efforts, I'm here to
tell you that we have some good
news. Over the past two years,
we've been working very closely,
both with Lausanne and our
partners in Ventura County, but
also with the regional Rail
Authority in Southern
California, Metrolink, to come
up with a solution to help
expedite additional train
service. Over the years. We had
a discussion with this group
that effectively was to provide
on loan a slot from the Rail
Corridor Agency that they have
track access to. With the Union
Pacific right of way. It's very
important. U.P. Is the owner of
the tracks from for much of our
area as far north as the Bay
area, and in order to operate
trains, Union Pacific must
provide that access and we must
reimburse them. Lausanne has
access as well as Metrolink
throughout the Southern
California area, but
effectively Lausanne was unable
to provide the additional train
service when we went back to
them in 2022, in early 2023,
and creatively, they suggested
that, you know who does have
train equipment that could
operate this service. Well,
maybe they don't have access is
Metrolink. And so we began on
an effort to work with both
Metrolink and Lausanne in our
in our partners in Ventura
County to establish a set of
agreements that would allow for
Metrolink to temporarily use
Lausanne's track access for a
period of time until such time
that Lausanne could operate
additional Pacific Surfliner
services funded by the state,
and through the additional
equipment that they would need
in order to operate. We got
very far along and earlier this
summer approached Union Pacific
with approximately eight months
to go before our anticipated
start date. Union Pacific was
initially receptive to the idea
and began to review some of the
internal or the initial
documents, preliminary
schedules and so forth. But but
the bottom line was, is that
Union Pacific has a process
that it must go through, and
that Lausanne's agreement with
U.P. Specifically identified
Amtrak as the operator of
record on any of the Up
corridor north of Moorpark
station. In addition to
Metrolink and Ventura County,
in order to utilize Lausanne's
agreement, an additional
agreement with U.P. Would be
required. And while U.P. Was
receptive and eager for
business, they had to let us
know in no uncertain terms that
they had other priorities, and
in particular, their merger
with Norfolk Southern was
underway, and there was quite a
bit of scrutiny that they had
to address and would be able to
review our proposal and our
agreement options in the
beginning of 2026. As I
mentioned, this is an effort
that to put this train into
service with additional train
service since 2008, if not
prior to that. I think the
first study I read, looking at
train service in the corridor,
was done by Scag in 1998, if
not a little bit earlier than
that. The final report before
both Santa Barbara and Ventura
counties around that time, and
at that time, and most recently
in 2000, seven studies were
done that showed that Lausanne
was ultimately the best
available operator to operate
additional peak hour service.
Because a simple retiming, or
what we presume would be a
simple retiming, would be the
best way to go, as there is
already a state supported
service. So we did that in 2018
and unfortunately, during the
pandemic, due to declining
ridership and some changes with
the availability of train
equipment, we were unable to
reestablish that service. Hence
the Metrolink expansion option.
As I mentioned, U.P. Responded
to Lausanne this summer and a
little bit after our last
presentation, which was in
AUGUST of 2025, to the board,
that they would be able to
begin on that agreement in 2026.
Unfortunately, Union Pacific
had indicated to both Lausanne
and Metrolink that there'd be
some additional requirements or
potentially new requirements on
Lausanne Agreement with them,
which opens up a new can of
worms where Lausanne previously
already has access to that
service. In NOVEMBER of 2025,
Lausanne's board took action to
prioritize their Amtrak Pacific
Surfliner service as the
temporary period of time, which
we envisioned Metrolink to
operate was quickly coming on
to the horizon. So effectively,
Lausanne had seen some
expansion or, excuse me,
increase in their train
capacity, their train equipment
capacity. They had ability to
operate additional services.
We're looking towards expansion
in the near term. And
Metrolink's proposal, which was
still yet to be determined and
finalized with Union Pacific,
calls for two conflicting
efforts. And where we are today
is to bring you that update on
how Lausanne's board saw fit to
work with sb cag in Ventura
County to still achieve that
expansion, but to do so with an
alternative proposal. And so
here with me today, I mentioned
Jason Doyle. He's going to
bring you some additional
information regarding the
latest Lausanne board activity,
as well as briefly describe
some of the proposal. It's down
to click forward. Great. Gets
set up real quick. Great. Thank
you Aaron and good morning
Chair Nelson and members of the
board. As Aaron mentioned my
name is Jason Jewell. I'm the
managing director of the
Lausanne Rail Corridor Agency.
And I wanted to mention that I
am a ucsb graduate and started
my career in government service
many moons ago with the County
of Santa Barbara, right here in
this building. And I don't want
to age myself. But that was
back when Congressman Salud
Carbajal worked for First
District Supervisor Naomi
Schwartz. And the reason why I
mentioned this is because I
used to take the Amtrak Pacific
Surfliner train to Santa
Barbara, back to my home in
Ventura County. And I also used
to drive the 101 many times to
get to and from home. So I
recognize the importance of
having multiple transportation
options for the region. And I'm
here today representing the
Lausanne Rail Corridor Agency,
of course. And we also
recognize the importance of
alternative transportation
options and specifically
intercity rail options as
transportation focal point of
ours. And I wanted to just take
a few minutes to give you a
little bit of background on the
Lausanne Rail Corridor Agency.
We are a joint powers authority
with nine member agencies
comprised of regional
transportation and planning
agencies, as well as rail
owners and operators spanning
six counties from San Diego all
the way up to San Luis Obispo.
And sb 1225 is really the
legislation that paved the way
for the Lausanne Agency to
manage the Amtrak Pacific
Surfliner intercity rail
service, which we have been
doing successfully since 2015.
Now we have an 11 member board
and which I'd like to recognize
and thank director Perotti for
her representation and support
on our board, as well as
Alternate Director Lee, and
touch upon the intercity rail
corridor and the service itself.
Real quickly. The Amtrak
Pacific Surfliner service spans
the entire length of the
corridor, which is 351 miles
long. We currently stop at 29
stations, and it is the
nation's second busiest
intercity rail corridor in
terms of ridership outside of
the Northeast Corridor. The
corridor itself is very unique.
It has seven right of way track
owners, two freight operators,
a Up and bsf, as well as two
commuter regional rail services.
In addition to that, the us
Department of Defense has
identified it as part of the
Strategic Rail Corridor network
for its access to the Marine
Corps Base Camp Pendleton down
in San Diego, as well as the
Port of San Diego. So I wanted
to dive a little deeper into
the effort that Aaron had been
talking about, that we have
before you today, as we have
been working to expand
intercity rail service. And I
wanted to start off by thanking
both the sb, cag team as well
as the ctc teams for their
coordination and support
through this effort. But most
of all, their patients. As as
mentioned, this has been a long
time coming. This started off
as a request several years ago
from sb, cag, and vtc to the
Lausanne Agency to support
restoring peak period service
to the regions, and at that
time, we did not have the
equipment, resources available
or the funding available to run
the service. However, it has
always been the intent and
included in the plans of the
Lausanne Agency to implement
expanded service to Goleta as
well as San Luis Obispo, which
is included in our annual
business plans for fiscal year
2627 and consistent with State
Rail Plan goals. So, as Aaron
mentioned, together we explored
the possibility of
subcontracting the service to
Metrolink and allowing them to
temporarily utilize the
Lausanne Agency's track access
rights that we currently have
with Union Pacific. We have
this access agreement directly
with Union Pacific, which
currently allows us to run the
Amtrak Pacific Surfliner
service. So the Lausanne sb,
cag, ctc and Metrolink teams
worked together on this path
when really two major milestone
or events happen that created
the opportunity that we
currently have before us. And
these events do tie into the
Lausanne board direction to
prioritize the intercity rail
service expansion that I will
get into. The first is really
in the JULY time frame. The
Lausanne Agency, as Aaron had
mentioned, had learned that Up
would require a completely new
operating agreement between the
Lausanne Agency and up and up
to identify Metrolink as an
alternative operator. This
requirement became necessary
for Union Pacific because
Metrolink transitioned from
contracting directly their
operations, with Amtrak over to
Alstom. Up also communicated,
as Erin had mentioned, that
given their resources being
fully dedicated to their work
on their national merger, that
as soon as they could provide a
draft agreement for us to
review would be q1 of 2026. And
of course, once received that
draft agreement, we would need
to that agreement would need to
be reviewed and negotiated,
which really made the timing of
the Metrolink subcontract
really time uncertain. So the
second major event was really
the clarity around equipment
availability. Equipment
availability has been one of
the primary constraints for the
Lausanne Agency to be able to
implement additional service
north of Los Angeles, but in
late SEPTEMBER, we received a
Pre-award authority letter from
the Federal Railroad
Administration committing to
$27 million in a Restoration
and Enhancement Grant award to
the Lausanne Agency to support
intercity rail service
restoration. And I'm proud to
say that this is the first
federal grant awarded to the
Lausanne Agency, and it
supports the full restoration
of pre-covid service levels by
restoring the 11th, 12th and
13th round trips between la and
San Diego. We were running 13
round trips pre-covid, and I'm
pleased to share that we have
already implemented the 11th
and 12th round trips and just
announced this week our plans
for the implementation of the
13th round trip between la and
San Diego starting JANUARY 26th.
So to support this service
restoration, Caltrans and the
three California Jpas agreed on
a redeployment plan to be able
to redeploy equipment from the
Northern California fleet down
to the Lausanne Agency to be
ready for service restoration.
This equipment that is needed
for our service restoration for
the 13th round trip will also
provide sufficient capacity to
allow for service expansion in
the North. So with these
developments back in NOVEMBER,
the Lausanne Agency Board
directed staff to prioritize
efforts to pursue the Pacific
Surfliner service expansion,
including the six round trip to
Goleta and the third round trip
to San Luis Obispo as the
pathway to provide additional
service. So I know Aaron will
dive into a little bit more of
the details on the next slide.
As far as the expanded service
pilot proposal itself, however,
I did want to mention that we
do view this as a great
opportunity to advance State
Rail plan goals, maximize the
investment the state has made
in the U.P. Owned territory,
provide not only greater
regional benefits, regional
rail benefits by providing peak
period service to Ventura and
Santa Barbara, but also
expanding service along the
entire corridor with a midday
departure southbound from San
Luis Obispo just after the 12
P.M. Slot. This will also
provide additional rail service
options for the World Cup
coming up very soon. And so we
are proposing a 12 month pilot
utilizing temporary funding
from both Vctc and sb cag, as
well as a portion of Lausanne
Agency's estimated operational
budget savings. To fund this
pilot, the Lausanne Agency
intends to continue to include
the proposed service in our
annual business plan and
funding request to the state.
However, given the state's
outlook on the the next budget
proposal, we will also be
working with stakeholders to
identify and pursue any federal
funding sources or any other
funding sources that MAY be
able to sustain the service
after the 12 month period. So
we're going to be taking the
lead on on doing that to make
sure that we can identify
funding to be able to sustain
this service beyond the 12
months. So now I will hand it
back over to Aaron to provide a
little bit more details on the
Amtrak Pacific Surfliner
service proposal itself, as
well as as it relates to
Metrolink's proposal. Jason.
All right. So much of the
proposal by Lausanne is
actually quite like what we've
seen from Metrolink already.
And in fact, the timetable
northbound is nearly identical
to what was previously
presented to the board. And
I'll show that in just a moment.
So specifically, the train will
travel north from La Union
Station through the area of
Ventura County and into Santa
Barbara County, getting to
Goleta at approximately the
same time. From there, it'll
continue north into San Luis
Obispo. And as Jason mentioned,
we'll return south, providing a
corridor wide train. There are
cost savings associated with
this proposal that were not
previously available under the
Metrolink, and that is
specifically because we're able
to help we're able to leverage
Lausanne's buying power and and
ability to work with Amtrak,
but also that their r&d grant,
this federal grant that they
received, we're able to
leverage that with the advent
of the additional train
equipment. So there's some
significant cost savings that
are coming, not to mention the
increase in passenger fare
revenue that's anticipated for,
in particular, that southbound
train that is a bit more
productive, as it will head
from all the way from San Luis
Obispo to San Diego. So there's
additional fare revenues or
operating revenues that will be
borne as a result of this
additional service. And then
lastly, as a as a buyer of
services from Metrolink
separate from their existing
jpa, both Vctc and sb, cag
would have to wholly fund their
entire cost of the project,
which would include their
self-insured retention policy,
which was a significant cost
associated with the service.
Approximately $5 million
self-insured retention pool would be made available if,
in fact, Metrolink were to
proceed forward, and so there's
some expedited in scheduling
that's anticipated to. As a
result, with regard to the
schedule, these are the two
trips that would be added
highlighted in yellow. You'll
notice the time into Goleta is
is close to, if not the same as
what was previously presented.
There have been some minor time
adjustments by the host
railroad in particular, which
would have been true whether or
not it was Metrolink operating
on the corridor or Lausanne.
These are the exact same trip
times that are feasible given
the existing slot. The
southbound trip, which, as
Jason mentioned, will begin
just after noon in San Luis
Obispo, will travel the whole
corridor and through Union
Station at approximately 5:50
P.M. And further south. So what
are some of the next steps? As
Jason mentioned, the the
agreement or rather the the
proposal is before sb, cag and
Vctc. Right now we're in
negotiations. The the final
draft proposal we hope to bring
back to the board in FEBRUARY.
There is the expectation that
the state's approval process
will be completed by then. We
hope that that will be positive.
But ultimately this is a state
supported service, and so they
have to sign off on any
expansion. So there is there is
that waiting period where we're
looking forward to the state's
review of this, where before we
come back to you in FEBRUARY,
we anticipate getting that that
green light following the board
approvals. We'll begin on the
concerted marketing efforts
between Ventura County and
Santa Barbara County. Largely
speaking, Ventura will work
with its residents and
constituencies in the South,
and we'll work with the
employers and the larger
organizations here in the North
to make sure that word is out
and that all of the available
riders know of the service and
are ready to use it. We also
have some additional grant
funds that were awarded to sb,
cag previously by the state
that were made available
specifically to assist with the
the ticket pricing with regard
to Amtrak Pacific Surfliner,
which will go into effect as
well. And we'll be helpful in
buying down the fares and
making costs affordable to the
riders. So I mentioned the
timeline ahead, and with that,
I'd be happy to answer any
questions. All right. Questions
from directors I see Director
Capps. And then I'll come to
Director Hartman over. Sorry
about that. Just a little cozy
down here in Goleta. Well,
thank you for this. And I just
applaud the the plan b, and
although I know our high hopes
are have been dashed, it's not
for lack of all of the work
that this agency went into. You
did everything. You lined up
the funds, the operator. And
it's really the stumbling block
that I understand has been in
place for a long time. So I
just before I ask about that.
And MR. Jewell, thanks for
being here. Welcome back to the
county. I just kind of want to
get my head around a little bit
with Union Pacific. They just
basically said we're we can't
we're too busy with our merger
to focus on this. Is that is
that the understanding? You
know, I will have to defer to a
managing director, Jewell, with
regard to the specific response
from Union Pacific. But that's
our understanding, is that they
would be able to begin working
on the agreement. Mind you,
just starting off on that
process at about this time or
sometime between now and the
end of the first quarter. And
so because they own the tracks,
they essentially control the
timeline of when this would
have gone forward. Okay. But so
again, just just trying to
clarity but because there's
already agreement with Lausanne,
it can be expanded without
having to go through all of
that process with with them.
That's my understanding. For
that, I'll defer to Jason on
the exact number of trips, and
I just want to. So the nature
of my question is just to say,
like, are we are we on a good
path here? It sounds like with
the tone of your voice is very
optimistic. But again, we we
had a lot of optimism here for
the other plan. Yeah. Through
the chair, Director Capps. Yes,
we do have, as I mentioned, our
direct access agreement with Up.
It provides us two additional
train slots on the north end of
the corridor that we have
access to. So this would
utilize one of those train
slots moving forward. We do
have plans long term,
consistent with our state rail
plan, long term goals to
fulfill that second slot and
provide an additional service
beyond the six round trip to
Goleta and third round trip to
San Luis Obispo. But to
directly answer your question,
yes, Upea has confirmed that
under our current agreement
with them, there's no other
additional amendments or
anything necessary. We have the
rights to to utilize those
slots and to utilize them as
soon as we want to. Okay, so so
no more additional funding
commitments are needed. Again,
I just you know, what the
reason, the nature of my
questions is that, you know,
we've all been dealing with the
101, all of the implications.
We don't need to go through
them. But from a computer
perspective, the impacts that
has on people's lives and also
our climate and Union Pacific
has been such an incredible
roadblock. And now here we are
with all this excitement about
this Metrolink plan and all the
work. I just want to I just
want to hear what potential
challenges lay ahead. But so
far you haven't outlined any
serious ones that this board
needs to be concerned about at
this point. Right. The only
other potential challenge as I,
as I alluded to, is future
funding. Okay. This is being
proposed between the three
stakeholders as a 12 month
pilot, really, to not only
understand the demand and the
trends and look at how the
train performs, but also
because this, as Aaron
mentioned, our intercity rail
service has historically been a
state funded program. The state
has signaled that the interest
that the state budget as a
whole, but particularly the
intercity rail budget moving
forward, they have concerns
about. So we will continue to
work with them through our
annual budget requests that we
do through our annual business
plan submittal with them, as
well as, as I mentioned, look
for other funding opportunities
that can help sustain not only
this pilot program moving on
into the future, but also our
our intercity rail program. So
the funding in the future is
always a concern of ours when
we hear about the state budget
outlook. And that's something
that we do work with the state
on, on an annual basis. So I'm
sure you're all aware of the
the governor's address for the
the governor's address and some
of the state budget concerns
that are lying ahead. So, like
I mentioned, we will continue
to work with the state on that
funding and do everything we
can to ensure not only that our
intercity rail services, our
baseline services, can be
funded, but also that this 12
month pilot program can be
sustained as well. Thank you
again. I just applaud the
tenacity and trying to just to
look for another plan when this
one, the first one that we all
voted for and we had a lot of
enthusiasm, didn't pan out and
I expressed just my frustration
towards Union Pacific for,
again, just being such a block
on something that all of us
wanted to do. So thank you.
Thank you, Director Caps,
Director Hartman, I'm just
trying to be clear in my own
mind about the number of trips.
I think you said that 11 and 12
pre-covid have been restored,
and 13 is about to come. I
heard advertisements on on the
radio today about expanded
service. And so what you're
talking about is additional.
Could you lay that out for me?
Sure. Definitely. So yes. So we
have restored our 11th and 12th
round trips between Los Angeles
and San Diego. As I mentioned,
pre-covid, we had 13 round
trips between la and San Diego,
so we restored 12 of those just
about to be 13 later this month.
So north of la, we have
historically ran five round
trips to Goleta and two to San
Luis Obispo. So this expansion
would essentially expand to six
round trips to Goleta and three
round trips to San Luis Obispo.
So the advertisement on the
radio today was San Diego to
slo. Is is what they said. So
to clarify, yes, that third
round trip to San Luis Obispo
would actually span the entire
corridor. Yeah, okay. Thank you,
Director Brown. I'd like to go.
You had mentioned the $27
million grant for equipment. Is
that for new rolling stock, or
is that rehabilitation of
existing stock and where's that
stock coming from? Yeah. And to
clarify the $27 million grant
award, the federal Fra
Restoration Enhancement Grant
award, it's actually
specifically for operations. So
unfortunately not for capital,
only for operations, and
specifically only to restore
our pre-covid service levels.
So it cannot be used for any
type of expansion beyond that
baseline pre-covid service
levels, which is 13 round trips.
So that's specifically what
they approved the award for.
All right. Thank you, Director
Brown, I've got a quick
question here. I'll take chair
prerogative to ask. So the
funding that's coming from sb
cag is funding. That's part of
the South County region. I just
want to make sure I clarified
that. Yes, that's correct. It's
through the the South Coast
program, the inter-regional or
passenger rail program. All
right. So there's not any North
County funds that are going
towards this this project. Nope.
The South County funds will run
the train north to to San Luis
Obispo on the South County.
Okay. Just wanted to clarify
that. Sorry, director Silva, I
think I just so I can further
understand the timeline because
there's a lot going on there.
So just so I understand so that
we can explain it, because I
know we were all very excited
when we voted last year to
bring Metrolink to it. So we
approved Metrolink. We want to
enter into that agreement. We
knew there were some risks
involved. There was mergers and
corporate things taking place
and all that. In JULY, we
become aware that it might be
more complex, there might be
new agreements needed to be
done. And then I'm just trying
to understand that from JULY on,
was it that we were trying to
figure out how to make
Metrolink work, or were we
operating under trying to find
the most easy solution, looking
for alternatives? I'm just
trying to know what the
timeline was for the pivot and
are for the sake of clarity.
It's just I want to make sure
we're making the decision to
support the project that is
best for the commuting
experience and the the customer,
and not the most convenient one.
I just was curious if you could
elaborate the timeline of how
this all fell into place,
because I know it took a long
time to get Metrolink going. Is
this just path of least
resistance, or is this the
ideal option that we can
provide? So to the first
question, the the response from
Union Pacific in the summer was
simply that we would need a new
agreement later in the fall.
They let us know that that
timeline would be to begin
working on it sometime this
quarter. So we knew at about
mid-OCTOBER that the pivot MAY
be necessary. Los Angeles
credit went to the board, asked
for authorization to prepare an
alternative proposal and work
with the stakeholders sb, cag,
and Vctc on a potential
alternative. Later that year,
in NOVEMBER, they got the
direction to proceed with that
proposal in prioritize it over
other options that might be
coming. With regard to the
convenience factor, I mean,
ultimately, Union Pacific is
the track owner. And so there
is a there is a lead time
concern. No matter what we do
when it comes to working with
the host railroads. But but
specifically the agreement
previously with Metrolink was
that we would have them prepare
a startup plan, working with
the host railroads. That was
simply just a plan to prepare
operations. And that low sand,
through its work with Metrolink,
would come up with a
subcontractor or operations and
maintenance program that was
still going to be Pacific
Surfliner service, just
subcontracted with Metrolink.
So while it was a metrolink
train, the tickets were going
to be through Amtrak. The
schedule was going to be within
the Amtrak schedule of service.
And the the passenger, for all
intents and purposes, will be
getting on another Pacific
Surfliner train as it relates
to the northbound commute. So
from a rider mystique
standpoint, helping to explain
that to the riders, it's
actually a bit simpler when
you're talking about having one
type of trainer, one railroad
operator on the corridor. Add
to that that the cost is
considerably lower. We
anticipate approximately 30 to
50% less costly to sb and ctc.
The the. It's not only more
convenient both to the rider,
but potentially more efficient
for sb, cag standpoint to be
able to proceed forward should
this pilot continue. And then
my only other question is I
maybe it's because I when we
looked at the Metrolink
agreement back in the day with
the afternoon one, I believe it
was we were leaving Goleta. I
had the notes here, so we would
have left Goleta around 1035
and gotten to Union Station
about 230. And now we have the
new plan of, oh, I'm sorry, we
left 1035 and would have gone
to the station at 130. And the
new afternoon plan is we leave
Goleta at 233, and we get to
Union Station at 5:50 P.M. The
morning route. It's only about
eight minutes. Inconsequential,
really, when you think about
that. I guess it feels like
this new plan. I don't know any
commuter who's like, boy, I've
been wanting to get to Union
Station at 5:50 P.M. And so I
just was trying to understand
when we say that this is a more
beneficial route to get from
San Luis Obispo to that, it
just I don't understand what's
the market question for me, I'm
confused by the market decision
of who's the customer who needs
to get out of Goleta at 230,
because it doesn't match with
our early train route. You're
not a worker who's coming into
Goleta at 8:00, likely needing
to leave at 230. So I just
wasn't sure. Again, what's the
anticipated benefit or who's
the target market we're trying
to capture here? Certainly. So
as as the board MAY recall, in
2008, the target market and has
always been the case to try and
alleviate the congestion headed
northbound during peak hour, as
well as the southbound during
the peak hour on the south
coast. So that would be in the
afternoon going southbound. And
in fact, this additional train
from San Luis Obispo will
operate through the Santa
Barbara area in that afternoon
period. So it does add some
capacity in the afternoons as
well, which we don't presently
have. The 10:30 A.M. Southbound
trip under the Metrolink
proposal was simply to get that
train back into revenue service
in the in the Metrolink service
area. Okay, so that original
one was not the idea of having
a the original plan was not
about the benefit being getting
someone down from mid-morning
to la and back. It's really we
were just trying to get the
train back down there. And this
proposal is just saying if we
need afternoon traffic, the
idea is that there might be
people who need to get down to
la in that 230 to 5:00 benefit.
So we weren't trying to do a
round trip. This is just send
it back down and call it a day.
Precisely. And in fact, to try
and get people to Ventura
County, specifically in the
afternoon at about 330 4:00.
But between the hours of and, I
can tell you that there's a
peak hour, much like with the
the ag community, that actually
precedes what is the typical
peak hour in the South coast.
So if you look on the roads at
any given afternoon from
between 230 and say, four,
there's quite a few cars on the
road headed south. So this this
is an additional trip that
should provide benefit there as
well. Thank you. Okay. Thank
you, Director Silva. Any other
questions? Any questions on
Santa Maria for the presenters?
Yes, sir. This is Julien.
Director Julien on the
schematic in terms of time and
and the expanded route to San
Luis Obispo, it mentions Goleta
to slow. What about Guadalupe?
The train will be stopping at
all the stations, including the
Lompoc station, as well as
Guadalupe. Yes. Okay, good. All
right. Thank you. Thank you,
Director Julien. Anything else
down there or up there? Okay.
Seeing none. MADAM Clerk, do we
have any public comment on this
item? Are there any members of
the public on the zoom webinar
who wish to speak? Would you
please use the raise hand
feature and I will call upon
you. There are no paper
requests to speak forms that
were received. However, we did
receive one public comment for
this item in advance, and the
comment was uploaded online and
provided to the board. And that
comment was received from
Claudia Show, and there are no
attendees on the line who wish
to speak. All right, back to
the board. This is to receive
the presentation and direction
to Staff Director Kern. What
kind of direction are you
looking for from us? I'm hoping
that you're supportive of this
new direction, and that your
direct us to bring a operating
agreement back to the board,
hopefully in FEBRUARY. Okay. So
I'm going to ask for a motion
to receive the presentation and
request staff to bring back an
operating agreement in FEBRUARY.
I'd like to make that motion.
Second. Okay. Motion from Brody
and a second from Hartman. Also
make a comment. Yeah,
absolutely. And so any further
comment on the motion, director
Brody? Thank you. I just want
to acknowledge all the work
that was put into this by the
Scag board. Ctc. They're
working on the agreement with
them. And then how excited we
were that we thought it would
work out in OCTOBER. And I know
that there was there was
excitement from the community
as well, thinking that it was
coming back. So it was a great
pivot, as you put it. In fact,
an alternative way around this,
thing, situations changed and I
look forward to having this
happen sooner than later, as
soon as we can. Because, you
know, we have a train station
and Goleta now almost ready to
go. So we want those trains
rolling through. Thank you.
Thank you, Director Perotti,
any other comments on the
motion? Seeing none. MADAM
Clerk, will you please call the
roll director. Rousse. Director.
Perotti. Director. Patino. Hi.
Director. Mosby. By director.
Lee. Director. Lavagnino.
Director. Julian. Director.
Hartman. Director. Clerk.
Director. Capps. Director.
Brown. Vice chair. Silva and
chair. Nelson. Aye. Motion
passes unanimously. All right.
Let's keep moving this thing
along. And now we'll move to
Caltrans. Caltrans director
report from Veronica Lazara,
Caltrans branch chief. Oh,
sorry, did I skip you,
executive director, just real
quick. Absolutely. Yeah. It's
all good. It's one item I would
like to announce. I would like
to introduce our newest
employee, Naomi Compton. She
joined the agency as an account
technician with experience in
the public sector finance. And
she's back here in the back
corner. She will help us with
finance, procurement and
administrative support. She's
originally from the Houston
area and holds a master's
degree in finance and
previously worked for the
University of Houston in
supporting their accounts
payable accounting and payroll
and tax information. She said
she was drawn to sbf by its
focus on public service and the
opportunity to support projects
that improve communities, so
please join me in welcoming
Naomi to the team. So thank you.
And that concludes my report.
Welcome, Naomi. As long as
you're not an Astros fan okay.
Moving along to Caltrans now,
directors and chair Nelson
again. Veronica. Veronica, on
behalf of District Director
Scott Eads, I have a couple of
announcements this afternoon.
First, starting with the some
exciting news to start off the
new year. Really right. Hot off
the press. Wanted happy to
announce that Highway one
through Big Sur has reopened.
Actually, it opened yesterday.
That is about three months
ahead of schedule. We wanted to
extend an appreciation to local
business owners, residents and
visitors, as well as those
other agencies who were
responsible and involved in the
success of that reopening.
Second, Caltrans will host an
important public meeting next
week on JANUARY 21st from 530
to 7 P.M. At the Guadalupe City
Hall. This meeting is in
relation to the Waterloo area
projects. My team and I walk
through the city of Guadalupe
last week and provided some
information to the public, so
it was nice to hear how excited
the community is about these
future investments in the area.
And that concludes my report.
Happy to take any questions
that the board MAY have. Thank
you. Any questions for MISS
Lizama from Caltrans. Or for
Director Kern, based on the
Executive Director's report,
anything in Santa Maria either
for either party? Nothing here.
Okay. Great. Thank you. So
we'll go ahead and move on to
committee meetings. First one
up is myself and Caverns.
Caverns is plugging along.
We're looks like we're gonna
have some leadership changes on
executive director there who
just actually resigned
yesterday. So we've got some
changes ahead of us, but we're
confident that we're putting a.
Pieces in place to move the
organization forward. You know,
people know that there was a
prop for allocation to caravans,
and that's going to be an
important part of moving
caravans into the future. And
so we're we're excited about
those opportunities as well.
Expanding service, whether it's
on the 166 or anywhere else
throughout the state of
California, we are navigating
some of the changes in the
landscape around field work and
farm labor, and most of our
users are actually farm labor
contractors and h-2a workers
throughout the state of
California. And so those
changing programs are going to
impact caravans over the next
couple of years. So we're
trying to be attentive and and
look over those things as they
proceed through. So that's my
report on caravans as far as
Lausanne director Lee, I think
you had your report. I think
the report. Okay. And now one
minute reports, any brief
announcements from any of my
colleagues not seeing any down
here in Santa Barbara, any
announcements in the Santa
Maria board hearing room? None
here. Thank you. Thank you,
Director Patino. Okay, we'll go
ahead and adjourn today's
meeting. The next meeting will
be on FEBRUARY 19th, 2026, in