[14:49] All right, everybody, good
[14:53] morning. Welcome. Thank you for
[14:54] joining us for today's JANUARY
[14:56] 15th meeting of the sba board.
[14:57] For the record, my name is Bob
[15:00] Olson. I am the chair of sb
[15:01] 2026. MADAM Clerk, please
[15:03] facilitate the roll call.
[15:05] Director Rouse here. Director.
[15:08] Perotti here. Director. Patino
[15:12] here. Director. Mosby here.
[15:14] Director. Lee here. Director.
[15:17] Lavagnino. Director. Julian.
[15:19] Here. Director. Hartman here.
[15:21] Director. Clerk. Director.
[15:24] Capps here. Director. Brown
[15:26] here. Vice chair. Silva and
[15:29] chair Nelson here for you all.
[15:31] Please stand and join me to
[15:33] pledge allegiance to the flag.
[15:35] Ready to begin. I pledge
[15:37] allegiance to the flag of the
[15:39] United States of America. And
[15:41] to the Republic for which it
[15:44] stands. One nation under GOD,
[15:46] indivisible, with liberty and
[15:59] justice for all. Okay. Right to
[16:00] public comment. This is a
[16:02] public comment period for items
[16:04] not on today's agenda. Speakers
[16:05] have up to three minutes each
[16:07] with a total of 15 minutes
[16:08] allotted for public comment.
[16:09] MADAM Clerk, do we have any
[16:11] public comment here today? Yes.
[16:12] There are two requests to speak
[16:14] forms and for any members of
[16:15] the public on the zoom webinar,
[16:17] if you wish to speak, would you
[16:18] please use the raise Hand
[16:20] feature and I will call upon
[16:21] you. Our first speaker is Scott
[16:26] Wentz. Cars are sick. Welcome
[16:29] MR. Wentz. Happy New Year
[16:30] MISTER Chair. Members of the
[16:31] board Scott was representing
[16:33] Kaiser again. Happy New Year to
[16:36] all of you. I'm here to address
[16:39] the issue of Caltrans NOVEMBER
[16:42] comment about 154 and 246 cars
[16:45] are basic. Really, really
[16:47] objected to this. That was a
[16:49] project that was ill advised,
[16:51] has hurt people, had multiple
[16:53] damage, just had another
[16:55] rollover accident. There was an
[16:57] injection. This is a roundabout
[16:59] that has to be taken out
[17:00] because Caltrans played
[17:02] political games out of
[17:03] Sacramento. We have to have a
[17:06] roundabout. We gave Caltrans an
[17:07] alternative that would have
[17:10] cost him $650,000. It would
[17:13] have taken away the visual
[17:14] issue that was at that
[17:16] intersection, and it would have
[17:19] been worked fine. This has to
[17:22] stop the city of Lompoc and the
[17:25] city of Solvang using their
[17:28] sphere of influence, said to
[17:29] Caltrans. We do not want this
[17:33] roundabout here. You have more
[17:34] traffic, more commercial
[17:36] traffic on this road. Now,
[17:39] whenever Gaviota gets cut off,
[17:40] boom. Guess what? They come
[17:43] over. 154 you have the
[17:45] expansion of the casino. You
[17:48] have the expansion of of of
[17:51] residents in the area. This
[17:53] cannot continue and wait until
[17:55] the two reservation starts
[17:58] doing as Camp Ford. That is
[18:00] going to really add a lot of
[18:04] there. It was badly designed.
[18:07] It's badly run. Caltrans just
[18:08] admitted in NOVEMBER that they
[18:10] were going to fix the problem
[18:12] by doing more striping and
[18:14] putting lighting on there. You
[18:17] can't fix bad design. You can't
[18:21] fix what causes accidents. And
[18:22] this goes to the same thing
[18:24] that we have to say about La
[18:25] Purisima. You know, you already
[18:27] killed one firefighter over
[18:29] there under difficult
[18:31] circumstances, the people of
[18:34] the valley did not want this.
[18:36] Let me repeat that again. For
[18:37] anybody listening, the people
[18:40] of Valley did not want that
[18:41] roundabout. That roundabout has
[18:44] proven to be an absolute
[18:45] disaster. You need to use your
[18:47] authority and press on the
[18:48] state of California to get that
[18:50] damn thing out of there. And
[18:52] we'll give you our design,
[18:53] because Ceqa says if you have
[18:54] an alternative design that
[18:57] meets 90% of the issue you have,
[19:00] the government has to do that.
[19:02] Guess what? They played the
[19:04] forefinger discount. That's
[19:06] what they told cab. And that's
[19:07] what's causing the accidents in
[19:09] the valley. Thank you. Thank
[19:12] you, MR. Wentz. Our next
[19:25] speaker is Karen Hammerstein.
[19:28] Hello, County leaders, Karen
[19:30] Hauenstein from North County. I
[19:32] am born and raised in Lompoc
[19:35] and I live there now. I am here
[19:38] as a matter of public record,
[19:40] placing you on notice and
[19:45] informing you in 2023 inside
[19:48] the Lompoc Police Department,
[19:51] we had a suspicious death that
[19:54] has not yet been fully
[19:56] investigated. There's been an
[19:57] official complaint made to the
[19:59] police officer standards and
[20:01] training. You need to be aware
[20:04] of that and follow it through
[20:11] to its completion. Liliana
[20:15] Cecilia Zuniga. She was an
[20:18] abused woman who needs to be
[20:22] remembered by this county more
[20:24] than any other people who are
[20:25] just passing through. Karen.
[20:26] One second. MADAM Clerk, will
[20:27] you pause public comment for a
[20:30] moment? Karen, public comment
[20:31] when it comes to sb, cag needs
[20:33] to be on issues that are under
[20:36] our jurisdiction. Public safety
[20:38] in our county. We're
[20:40] transportation
[20:41] multi-jurisdictional agency for
[20:44] transportation. Okay. So so
[20:45] let's try to get our comments
[20:46] to something that's under the
[20:47] jurisdiction of this
[20:48] organization. I mean, what you
[20:50] had would have been perfect. So
[20:51] that would be okay. I'm just
[20:53] placing that on record. Yeah.
[20:54] Okay. Because you guys are the
[20:55] leaders of our county.
[20:57] Understood. But I want to focus
[20:58] general public comment. Okay.
[20:59] So then the under the
[21:01] jurisdiction of this body okay.
[21:04] So the the bridges across the
[21:06] Santa Ynez River that were
[21:08] promised to Lompoc to connect
[21:10] and start public comment again.
[21:12] Thank you. That would be for
[21:14] this place. Yes. Okay. Well,
[21:16] thank you for also letting me
[21:17] use the public comment to lodge
[21:19] my complaints and make sure
[21:21] they're followed up on publicly.
[21:24] Happy New year. Happy New year.
[21:25] If there are any other members
[21:27] of the public on the zoom
[21:28] webinar who wish to speak,
[21:30] would you please use the Raise
[21:31] Hand feature and I will call
[21:34] upon you. There are no speakers.
[21:35] All right. Well, that concludes
[21:37] public comment. That brings us
[21:39] to our consent calendar. MADAM
[21:40] Clerk, are there any changes to
[21:42] the consent calendar? There are
[21:44] no changes to the consent
[21:45] calendar. And there are no
[21:46] announcements for the consent
[21:48] calendar. All right. Are there
[21:49] any items on the consent
[21:51] calendar that members or
[21:52] directors would like to pull? I
[21:54] know that supervisor or sorry
[21:56] Director Hartman has pulled g.
[21:58] Anything else not seen up here
[21:59] in Santa Barbara? In Santa
[22:00] Maria? Are there any items that
[22:03] you wish to pull? I'd like to
[22:06] pull a okay, so that would be
[22:08] the approval of the minutes. So
[22:10] for Pitino and that's just
[22:12] that's just to to vote to
[22:14] abstain from them. That's not a
[22:16] discussion. Thank you, Director
[22:17] Pitino. We'll go ahead and make
[22:19] sure we have a separate vote on
[22:24] that. MADAM Clerk, is there any
[22:25] members of the public pulling
[22:27] any items on the consent
[22:28] calendar? Are there any members
[22:29] of the public on the zoom
[22:31] webinar who wish to speak? If
[22:33] so, please use the raise Hand
[22:34] feature and I will call upon
[22:38] you. There are no requests to
[22:40] speak. There is one in North
[22:44] County that is for right in 166.
[22:46] Which which item is that? That
[22:48] is later on in the agenda. Okay.
[22:50] Understand? Thank you. Before I
[22:53] move to ask for a motion
[22:54] supervisor Hartman, are you
[22:55] looking potentially for a
[22:56] separate vote on g or just want
[22:58] to pull it to discuss that?
[23:00] Okay. So let's go ahead and get
[23:02] a motion at least on the
[23:03] minutes. So if I can get a
[23:05] motion on item a, which is the
[23:07] approval of the minutes, the
[23:10] last motion to approve okay.
[23:12] Motion. Motion from Silva, a
[23:14] second from Perotti. MADAM
[23:16] Clerk, please do a roll call.
[23:18] Director. Rousse. Director.
[23:22] Perotti. Director. Pitino.
[23:26] Abstain. Director. Mosby. Hi.
[23:29] Director. Lee. Director.
[23:32] Lavagnino. Director. Julian. Hi.
[23:35] Director. Hartman. Director.
[23:38] Clerk. Director. Capps.
[23:40] Director. Brown. Vice chair.
[23:46] Silva and chair. Nelson, I. I
[23:48] assume the motion passes. All
[23:50] right, let's go ahead. And
[23:51] before I make a motion for the
[23:53] balance, let's go ahead and
[23:54] read into the record the item
[23:55] that's been pulled by
[23:57] supervisor department. If if
[23:58] it's everything's fine with
[24:00] that, then we'll just take a
[24:01] motion for the balance of the
[24:03] agenda. After that, Santa Ynez
[24:06] River valley, Santa Ynez Valley
[24:07] River trail contractor
[24:09] agreement to approve an
[24:10] authorized executive director
[24:12] to execute an agreement with
[24:14] Psomas similar to the attached
[24:15] and based upon review and
[24:16] concurrence by legal counsel
[24:18] for planning and engineering
[24:20] work associated with the Santa
[24:21] Ynez River trail project in an
[24:26] amount not to exceed of 796 638,
[24:27] with a period of performance
[24:29] extending between execution of
[24:31] the agreement and DECEMBER 31st,
[24:33] 2028. To authorize the
[24:34] Executive Director to approve
[24:36] immaterial amendments to the
[24:40] agreement. All right, Director
[24:42] Hartman, thank you. So I have
[24:45] several questions. The first
[24:47] has to do with timing. I see
[24:49] that it's this is expected to
[24:52] be done in two years. And I
[24:54] just wondered how that fits
[24:59] with the the atp grant state.
[25:01] We're trying to get this done
[25:04] to fit into the cycle for atp.
[25:07] And I, I think then we got to
[25:09] wait what, another two years or
[25:14] just Director Hartman, the atp
[25:16] cycle and you can correct me if
[25:17] I'm wrong, is accepting
[25:18] applications this summer for
[25:20] the next cycle. And then it's
[25:23] every two years. So two years
[25:24] from this coming summer would
[25:26] be the next cycle, which would
[25:27] be the one that would be aiming
[25:29] for for this project. Okay. So
[25:34] so that fits. And then first of
[25:35] all, I'm just really excited to
[25:38] see this. Let me the next
[25:41] question has to do with the
[25:42] federal grant and how that
[25:45] would fit with this contract.
[25:47] Very good question, Director
[25:50] Hartman. The federal grant was
[25:53] awarded to the Chumash Indians
[25:55] in the amount of $1.4 million,
[25:57] and it has a required match,
[25:59] which is this project. The
[26:00] match is what we're doing now.
[26:01] So we have been coordinating
[26:03] with the tribe. The tribe has
[26:04] been approached by the Federal
[26:06] Highway Administration, the
[26:08] grantor, and there's the
[26:12] current state is we've worked,
[26:14] Fred Luna and I, to work on the
[26:16] agreement between the tribe and
[26:20] FHWa. That goes back to FHWa.
[26:22] And once it's agreed upon, then
[26:24] the funds that agreement will
[26:26] run up the chain at FHWa for
[26:27] execution on their side. And
[26:29] assuming it does become
[26:30] executed, I think there's no
[26:32] guarantee but that right now it
[26:36] looks likely. Then in all
[26:39] likelihood, sba will take on
[26:40] the work for that, just as we
[26:43] did, because part of today's
[26:44] action is to approve an
[26:45] agreement with the contractor.
[26:47] But part of the funding behind
[26:48] that was awarded to the tribe,
[26:50] and it was probably about four
[26:51] months ago. We came and had an
[26:53] agreement between sb tribe for
[26:54] sb, kg to take on management of
[26:56] that grant, and that's what we
[26:57] expect to happen for this one
[26:59] as well. So when we advertise
[27:01] the work, there are a variety
[27:04] of optional tasks included in
[27:05] the agreement, which are the
[27:08] ones that would be filled in
[27:11] with the federal grant. So does
[27:13] it seem like this contractor
[27:15] would take it on or. We're not
[27:17] sure yet? That's a good
[27:18] question. Supervisor Hartman or
[27:21] Director Hartman, assuming we
[27:22] can negotiate in good faith
[27:23] with the contractor and come to
[27:26] an agreement on price. So it's
[27:28] part of today's agreement, says
[27:30] that the contractor would have
[27:33] to honor the same hourly rates
[27:35] that they're doing for the work
[27:36] that hopefully gets approved
[27:38] today. So if we can come to an
[27:40] agreement, we can amend it into
[27:41] the contract. Otherwise we'd go
[27:43] back out to bid for those
[27:48] optional tasks. So so we MAY
[27:50] just fold it in and not have to
[27:52] go out again through the
[27:56] process. If, if they can, if
[27:59] and once again if there's a
[28:00] there's a lot of moving pieces
[28:02] with this. One of them is that
[28:04] that grant award is federal.
[28:05] And all the other money that
[28:07] we've had to this point is
[28:08] either state or local, and
[28:09] there's different contracting
[28:10] requirements. So we would have
[28:14] to ensure that the ph is
[28:16] allowing us to to go this route.
[28:18] Otherwise we'd have to go out
[28:20] to bid to. I see okay. Thank
[28:23] you. And my final question, as
[28:25] I look to the environmental
[28:28] piece and the contract, it
[28:30] doesn't make any mention of the
[28:33] recreation master plan eir,
[28:35] which was designed to be
[28:37] programmatic and to tear off.
[28:40] So how will that work? Another
[28:42] great question, Director
[28:43] Hartman, for the environmental.
[28:45] So the agreement that's being
[28:46] approved today is a work
[28:48] package. One is 100% of the
[28:49] environmental work within the
[28:51] city of Buellton. So at the
[28:53] conclusion of this project, the
[28:54] trail will be construction
[28:56] ready for city of Buellton.
[28:57] Outside of the city, the
[28:59] environmental work is an
[29:02] optional task, and we are also
[29:03] we're paying attention to the
[29:04] county's process of the
[29:06] recreation Master plan. And
[29:08] when that is approved, then we
[29:10] could tear off of it. We can't
[29:11] tear off of in anticipation of
[29:13] it being approved. But that is
[29:15] certainly something that we are
[29:17] keeping our eyes on as this
[29:19] goes forward. It's coming soon.
[29:21] Thank you. And thank you for.
[29:25] And then the person for sb, k
[29:29] who is the contact for this for
[29:32] this work isn't your friend. Is
[29:35] that typical? No, it's Tom Vo
[29:37] who's sitting right back here.
[29:39] Tom works in planning Division
[29:40] under me. Okay, I'll be
[29:42] involved. Fred will be involved
[29:43] because this is a mix of
[29:45] planning and engineering. It's,
[29:47] you know, perhaps I can't be a
[29:49] good advisor on engineering
[29:50] aspect. And Fred can't be a
[29:52] good advisor on the planning
[29:53] aspect. So it's a team. And
[29:55] Tom's going to keep us
[29:56] organized and pointing in the
[29:58] right direction. Okay. Well,
[30:01] again, I'm I'm absolutely
[30:02] delighted to see this. Thank
[30:05] you. All right. Thank you,
[30:06] Director Patino, any other
[30:08] questions from board members?
[30:10] Public comment item item g, are
[30:12] there any members of the public
[30:13] on the zoom webinar who wish to
[30:15] speak on item g? Please use the
[30:17] raise hand feature and I will
[30:18] call upon you. There are no
[30:20] paper requests to speak forms
[30:21] and there are no attendees who
[30:24] wish to speak. Okay, supervisor
[30:25] Director Hartman, no reason for
[30:27] a different vote on that. So
[30:29] with that, I could get a motion
[30:30] for the balance of the agenda,
[30:32] which would be items four b
[30:36] through four. I moved by Brown.
[30:38] I need a second, second, second
[30:40] from Hartman. Can we please do
[30:41] a roll call? Vote. Director.
[30:44] Rouse. Director. Perotti.
[30:48] Director. Patino. I director.
[30:51] Mosby. Hey, director. Lee. Hi.
[30:53] Director. Lavagnino. Director.
[30:57] Julian. Hi. Director. Hartman,
[31:00] I director. Clark. Director.
[31:02] Capps. Director. Brown. Vice
[31:05] chair. Silva and chair. Nelson.
[31:08] Hi. Motion passes. All right.
[31:15] Thank you. We'll go ahead and
[31:16] move on to the discussion items.
[31:18] Item five a MADAM Clerk, will
[31:19] you please read that item to
[31:21] the record? Item five a sb 2026
[31:23] Committee appointments
[31:24] recommended actions one.
[31:25] Appoint one delegate an
[31:26] alternate to the California
[31:27] Association of Councils of
[31:29] Governments to appoint one
[31:30] delegate and an alternate to
[31:33] the Los Angeles, San Diego, San
[31:34] Luis Obispo Rail Corridor.
[31:35] Agency three appoint one
[31:36] delegate and alternate to the
[31:39] Coast Rail Coordinating Council.
[31:41] For appoint one member and one
[31:42] alternate to the Board of
[31:44] Directors. Five appoint members
[31:46] to the highway 154 Safety
[31:47] Committee six appoint members
[31:49] to the Executive Committee
[31:51] chair, vice chair, immediate
[31:53] past chair and chairs of North
[31:55] County and South Coast Regional
[31:57] seven. Appoint an sb, k board
[31:59] delegate to participate in the
[32:01] Central Coast Coalition.
[32:03] Sacramento Legislative Advocacy
[32:04] Day scheduled for MARCH 17th
[32:07] and 18th, 2026. Eight appoint
[32:09] the sb, k chair, Vice Chair and
[32:10] immediate past chair to serve
[32:12] as the Washington, dc
[32:13] legislative delegation
[32:14] representing sb kegs interest
[32:16] in Washington, dc the week of
[32:20] MARCH 23rd, 2026. All right.
[32:22] Thank you. So let's go.
[32:25] Director Kern, Liana went
[32:26] through the list of
[32:27] appointments. This is your
[32:29] annual chance to appoint your
[32:31] yourself or others to
[32:33] committees that meet throughout
[32:35] the year. I'd be happy to
[32:39] answer any questions about
[32:40] about the appointments or the
[32:42] committees, if you have any.
[32:43] But otherwise, normally we just
[32:45] go through the committees and
[32:46] ask for volunteers. Okay, great.
[32:48] Thank you. Thank you, Director
[32:50] Kern. And typically, you know,
[32:52] a lot of these committees,
[32:54] there's a bit of value in
[32:55] having some background in it.
[32:57] So those that are already in it
[32:58] are often, you know, favored by
[33:00] the board because they've got
[33:01] some that experience there.
[33:02] Although this is also the time
[33:04] for somebody that says, hey,
[33:05] that's something I would be
[33:06] interested in in the future. So
[33:08] it's also good for us to know
[33:10] that this is our opportunity to
[33:11] have those conversations. We'll
[33:12] go ahead and start off with Cal
[33:14] Cog. I'm the regular member and
[33:15] director. Patino is the
[33:18] alternate there this year. I
[33:20] have quite a bit of work on my
[33:21] on my calendar already on
[33:23] chairing this and other things
[33:25] throughout. I've talked to
[33:26] Director Silva about
[33:27] potentially being the regular
[33:28] member, and I think he's
[33:29] interested in that. I don't
[33:31] know if Director Patino would
[33:32] like to stay on as alternate
[33:34] for that. I'm happy to move to
[33:35] alternate position if she
[33:36] doesn't want that, but I'd be
[33:38] happy to let her stay there as
[33:39] well. Director Nelson, I would
[33:41] I would like to be the member
[33:43] on that because I've been the
[33:46] alternate. Okay, so. And maybe
[33:48] Director Silva would take the
[33:51] alternate. That works for me.
[33:55] That sounds great. So any other
[33:56] not seeing anybody jump up and
[33:58] down here. Thank you, Director
[34:00] Patino for jumping up on that
[34:01] down in Santa Maria. And again,
[34:04] if any of these items that
[34:05] you're interested in Santa
[34:06] Maria, please don't hesitate to
[34:08] to to speak up. The next item
[34:11] here is Lausanne. I believe we
[34:15] got here. And currently we have,
[34:18] I believe, director and
[34:19] Director Lee as the regular
[34:21] alternate members. Are you both?
[34:23] I'd like to stay on Lausanne.
[34:25] I'm happy as alternate. Okay.
[34:27] Great. Seeing no objection,
[34:28] we'll keep moving on to the
[34:30] Crcc, which is the Coast Rail
[34:31] Coordinating Council. Currently
[34:33] we have Director Rousse. And as
[34:35] the regular member and director
[34:37] Brown as the alternate. I'm
[34:38] fine with the status quo. Okay,
[34:40] we got some thumbs up up here.
[34:42] Everybody good down there?
[34:44] Looks like it. Moving on to the
[34:46] California Vanpool Authority
[34:47] Caravans. Currently I'm a
[34:50] regular appointed member and
[34:51] director Julian is the
[34:52] alternate. It's a preference
[34:55] for me to stay on that. I am on
[34:56] the executive committee. I have
[34:57] stepped away from being the
[34:59] vice chair, which I had been
[35:00] for the last couple of years,
[35:01] but we're going through some
[35:02] major changes of management,
[35:04] happy to pass it on in the next
[35:06] year or two if somebody is
[35:07] interested, but I think I need
[35:09] to be on that for the purposes
[35:10] of the continuity, with no
[35:11] objections. And Director Julian,
[35:13] are you okay staying on as the
[35:15] alternate? I am, sir. Thank you,
[35:16] thank you. Moving along to the
[35:17] State Highway 154 Safety
[35:20] Committee, I think we have five
[35:23] directors on that at this point.
[35:26] Is that correct? That correct?
[35:27] Just for the record, that's
[35:28] that is Director Hartman,
[35:31] director Capps, director Prodi,
[35:32] director Silva and director
[35:33] Brown. So that's the kind of
[35:35] those areas, the second and
[35:36] third district of the
[35:37] supervisors and the three
[35:38] cities that are kind of
[35:41] impacted there as well. Are you
[35:42] guys all happy staying on that?
[35:44] Okay. So the direction of the
[35:45] board currently is to and the
[35:47] motion will make is to keep
[35:48] that the same status quo. The
[35:51] sb, cag Executive Committee,
[35:53] which is traditionally the
[35:56] chair and the vice chair and
[35:57] chair, vice chair, former past
[35:59] chair and the chairs of the
[36:00] subregional. So five five
[36:02] members. Okay. Any objections
[36:05] there. Yeah. Do we have the the
[36:07] Subregionals already voted on.
[36:08] Yes. Who are the chairs of the
[36:10] director Julian and Director
[36:16] Lee okay. Past chair is Rouse.
[36:18] Yeah. So be Rouse Nelson, Silva
[36:19] Julian and Lee for the
[36:21] executive committee. All right.
[36:23] Since Central Coast coalition
[36:25] state legislation, legislative
[36:30] advocacy day. Who wants to go
[36:33] to Sacramento. So how many how
[36:34] many numbers do we we send to
[36:36] this. We normally take one. At
[36:41] least one okay. I will be I
[36:42] think unavailable at that time.
[36:45] So I'm not able to do that or
[36:46] else I would volunteer. But is
[36:47] there anybody that's interested
[36:52] in potentially going to state?
[36:57] State Legislative Advocacy Day,
[37:00] MARCH? I might be unavailable
[37:04] as well. Okay. Can we, per the
[37:07] motion, make that a CHAIRMAN's?
[37:09] Can I appoint somebody at a
[37:10] later date? If you guys would
[37:12] make that part of the motion is
[37:14] I will appoint somebody to go
[37:15] to that. And once you guys
[37:17] check your schedules, you guys
[37:18] let me know and I'll find
[37:20] somebody. And we can take more
[37:21] than one if necessary. If more
[37:22] than one is interested. Okay.
[37:23] Thank you, Director Kern.
[37:25] Moving on to the Washington, dc
[37:25] legislative delegation.
[37:27] Typically, again, this is the
[37:28] former past chair, the current
[37:29] chair and the vice chair, which
[37:30] would traditionally be Rouse,
[37:32] Nelson and Silva. Everybody's
[37:37] good with that. Okay. MADAM
[37:40] Clerk, did you catch all that?
[37:44] Okay. Any discussions from
[37:45] anybody else that would like to
[37:47] you know, this is kind of speak
[37:49] now or forever hold your peace
[37:50] in Santa Maria. Any other
[37:52] thoughts? None up here. All
[37:54] right. Thank you, Director
[37:55] Patino. MADAM Clerk, is there
[37:57] any public comment? If there
[37:59] are any members of the public
[38:00] on the zoom webinar who wish to
[38:02] speak, would you please use the
[38:03] raise hand feature and I will
[38:05] call upon you. There are no
[38:07] paper requests to speak forms,
[38:09] and there are no attendees who
[38:10] wish to speak. Okay. MADAM
[38:13] Clerk, is it clear from the
[38:16] discussion up here if somebody
[38:20] says a motion to appoint the
[38:21] committees as discussed by the
[38:23] board, that that. Yes. Good
[38:25] enough for you on the motion,
[38:26] or do we need to rephrase the
[38:27] appointees and delegates the
[38:30] record. Okay, okay. We're good.
[38:32] Okay. So I'm looking for a
[38:34] motion of a slate of appointees
[38:35] based on the discussion we had
[38:38] up here just now, I got a move
[38:40] to approve. Okay. Motion from
[38:41] Brown, second, second from
[38:44] Silva. All right. Can we go
[38:46] ahead and do a roll call? Vote,
[38:47] please. Director. Rouse.
[38:48] Director. Perrotti. Hi.
[38:51] Director. Patino. Hi. Director.
[38:55] Mosby. Director. Lee. Director.
[38:59] Lavagnino. Director. Julian. Hi,
[39:01] director. Hartman, I. Director.
[39:03] Clark. Director. Capps.
[39:05] Director. Brown. Vice chair.
[39:08] Silva and chair. Nelson I.
[39:10] Motion passes. All right, just
[39:12] for a moment of agenda.
[39:13] Management is our is our
[39:15] presenter for five here. Okay.
[39:16] So we're gonna go ahead and
[39:18] move on to item five b. MADAM
[39:19] Clerk, would you please read
[39:21] that item into the record?
[39:22] Final state 166 comprehensive
[39:23] corridor study recommended
[39:25] actions one. Approve the final
[39:27] State Route 166 comprehensive
[39:29] quarter study and two direct
[39:30] staff to file a notice of
[39:31] exemption with the Santa
[39:33] Barbara County Clerk pursuant
[39:36] to section 15738b2 of the
[39:37] California Environmental
[39:42] Quality Act, Ceqa guidelines.
[39:43] All right. I guess staff will
[39:44] have a presentation for us.
[39:46] Thank you. Good morning, chair
[39:48] and directors and happy New
[39:51] year. I'm Michael Carney from
[39:54] sp, cag programing. And today
[39:58] we will be presenting the final.
[40:01] There you go. 166 Corridor
[40:06] Study. I will be using this I
[40:12] think. Okay. Sb cag has been
[40:14] working with Caltrans, City of
[40:17] Santa Maria, City of Guadalupe
[40:19] and the county to develop this
[40:23] study with our consultant dcs
[40:29] and Somas. As a reminder, the
[40:32] study focuses on State Route
[40:34] 166 between City of Guadalupe
[40:37] and City of Santa Maria, as
[40:41] well as the parallel facilities.
[40:42] Excuse me, Chair Nelson, could
[40:44] you ever speak up a little bit,
[40:47] please? Yes, yes. Is this okay
[40:51] if I bring it closer to me?
[40:55] Perfect. There is a little
[40:57] button on your right to raise
[40:59] the platform. Oh, this actual
[41:03] platform. Got it. Okay, let's
[41:05] do it. Okay. Does this help?
[41:07] Yeah. Do a test. All right. I
[41:09] just have to project. So I'll
[41:10] just go over this part real
[41:12] quick. As a reminder, the the
[41:15] study focuses on State Route
[41:17] 166 from Guadalupe to Santa
[41:18] Maria. And it includes the
[41:23] parallel facilities as well.
[41:26] Nope. Okay. The goal of this
[41:29] study is to develop a list of
[41:32] improvements to address the
[41:34] issues along the corridor.
[41:36] Examples of those issues
[41:39] include safety, congestion,
[41:42] goods movement, and multimodal
[41:44] connections. The study also
[41:48] helps us prepare for future
[41:50] funding and sets us up for
[41:52] future grants, competitive
[41:54] grants, and it also helps us
[41:56] identify any projects that we
[41:58] MAY want to include in our
[42:03] measure a renewal. So I'm going
[42:05] to pass it off to Jim Danko
[42:07] from dcs, who is helping us
[42:15] with the study. Oh, that's for
[42:24] you. Okay. MR. Chair, members
[42:26] of the board again, Jim, I'm a
[42:28] principal at dcs associates. We
[42:30] are also joined by Thomas
[42:31] Engineering for civil support
[42:33] to help support sb, cag in this
[42:36] study. I'll quickly go through
[42:37] the aspects of the study, the
[42:39] existing conditions analysis,
[42:41] our community engagement
[42:43] efforts, the performance
[42:44] assessment, and then quickly go
[42:46] through the the cip
[42:47] improvements that some of you
[42:50] have already seen and wrap up
[42:54] with implementation. So for
[42:56] existing conditions, we took a
[42:58] pretty deep dive. We looked at
[43:00] the socioeconomic
[43:01] characteristics of the area. So
[43:03] city of Guadalupe, Santa Maria,
[43:04] Orchard area, but also the
[43:05] socioeconomic characteristics
[43:08] of the users that are on 166 on
[43:10] a daily basis. We did that
[43:13] through cell data, big data. We
[43:14] looked at goods movement, we
[43:17] looked at operations. And in
[43:19] terms of delay and travel time
[43:21] reliability, which is kind of a
[43:22] new metric that is of key
[43:24] interest. Obviously, we looked
[43:26] at safety, looking at the
[43:28] collision history and where the
[43:30] hotspots tend to be. And we as
[43:32] part of that, we also performed
[43:34] a roadway or road safety audit,
[43:36] which is a method prescribed by
[43:38] Federal Highway Administration,
[43:39] which actually took our team
[43:41] out there and walked the
[43:42] corridor, took lots of
[43:43] observations, and that included
[43:45] staff from Guadalupe, Santa
[43:48] Maria, Caltrans, sb, cag, and
[43:50] the consultant team. We looked
[43:52] at multimodal access in terms
[43:55] of ped, bike and transit, and
[43:57] then looked at how stressful it
[43:59] is for those active
[44:00] transportation users within the
[44:02] corridor. As you might imagine,
[44:03] it's very stressful, which
[44:05] keeps people from wanting to
[44:07] bike or walk the corridor. And
[44:08] then finally we looked at we
[44:11] used a series of Caltrans
[44:14] website tools to look at equity
[44:16] and vulnerable network as it
[44:18] relates to extreme weather
[44:21] events. So in terms of our
[44:23] community engagement, we used
[44:26] all our our resources to make
[44:28] sure we did a good job of this.
[44:30] We had a project website. We
[44:31] had an interactive web based
[44:33] tool that allowed folks in the
[44:34] comfort of their own home to
[44:37] provide public input. We did a
[44:39] community survey, both online
[44:43] and in person, and a lot of
[44:45] collateral materials to make
[44:46] sure folks were aware of that
[44:49] the study was going on. We also
[44:52] did about five pop ups where we
[44:53] don't ask people to come to us,
[44:56] we go to where they are. I'm
[44:57] happy to say we exceeded our
[44:59] goals in terms of the number of
[45:01] community surveys that were
[45:04] performed by the public. We
[45:07] also the lion's share over 70%
[45:10] were done by Hispanic speakers.
[45:12] And we also shout out to the
[45:14] county who allowed us to use
[45:16] Promotoras, which are folks who
[45:18] speak Mexican, who that
[45:19] community does not have a
[45:21] written language. So the only
[45:22] way you can get their input is
[45:24] verbally. That was a really
[45:26] nice resource, and we did very
[45:28] well with our community
[45:29] engagement and exceeded our our
[45:30] community engagement goals. I
[45:32] think we got close to 500
[45:34] surveys filled out. And then in
[45:36] addition to that, we did go and
[45:37] hold two public workshops, one
[45:39] in Guadalupe, one in Santa
[45:40] Maria, where we asked folks to
[45:42] come and provide input on the
[45:44] improvement concepts that were
[45:45] under consideration. And then
[45:47] last but not least, we had
[45:49] meetings with our stakeholder
[45:52] advisory committee, with the
[45:53] subregional planning committee
[45:59] of sb, cag, as well as tac.
[46:00] Okay. The performance
[46:01] assessment. We did look at
[46:06] roughly 11 types of
[46:07] improvements in the world we
[46:09] live in in terms of federal
[46:10] grants. It's all performance
[46:12] based. So that's we're looking
[46:14] at not only the costs of the
[46:15] improvements, but also the
[46:16] monetized benefits of the
[46:18] improvements. And from that you
[46:19] can get a benefit cost
[46:20] assessment. It's not the only
[46:22] metric, but it's a key metric
[46:23] that drives a lot of funding
[46:24] decisions made by the
[46:26] California Transportation
[46:28] Commission and federal highways.
[46:30] So we looked at the benefits as
[46:31] it relates to collision
[46:33] reduction, delay reduction,
[46:35] travel time, reliability
[46:38] improvement, fuel use on road,
[46:40] mobile source emissions, so on
[46:43] and so forth. So we didn't we
[46:45] tried not to leave any rock
[46:46] unturned in terms of monetizing
[46:48] benefits. We didn't want to
[46:49] leave any on the ground or, you
[46:52] know, off the table. But there
[46:53] are some you can't capture all
[46:55] in one that the growers are
[46:56] Shippers Association pointed
[46:59] out that we could not be on the
[47:01] scope of our study, but we do
[47:03] recognize it is the cost of
[47:05] agriculture for transporting
[47:07] perishable goods every hour
[47:10] between cut and in the in the
[47:11] Coolidge storage is a day of
[47:13] shelf life that's lost. And
[47:14] that has economic implications,
[47:16] of course. So we we do talk
[47:18] about it, but we didn't
[47:20] monetize that, which basically
[47:21] means that our, our benefit
[47:24] cost ratio, which was very good
[47:26] 2.66 is probably underestimated.
[47:28] We didn't take that into
[47:30] account. But again freight
[47:33] movement is improved. Gross
[47:35] regional product in the region
[47:38] adds about $12 million. If the
[47:39] construction of these
[47:41] improvements takes place, and
[47:42] then that will create jobs as
[47:44] well. So a lot of economic
[47:46] benefit and then, you know,
[47:47] benefit cost is not the only
[47:49] thing. So we did look at policy
[47:51] consistency. Not only the local
[47:53] agency general plan policies.
[47:54] That's the city of Guadalupe
[47:56] and the city of Santa Maria and
[47:58] the county. And as well as the
[47:59] regional policies of sb, cag
[48:02] and their rtp, but also
[48:04] Caltrans. Of course, it's their
[48:05] facility. And so we looked at
[48:07] their climate change
[48:08] initiatives and their policies
[48:10] to see how congruent each of
[48:12] the projects were. And that's
[48:17] what this matrix shows. And in
[48:19] terms of we did have a public
[48:20] draft. It was released in
[48:21] OCTOBER. We did receive
[48:23] comments from Caltrans, sb, cag,
[48:25] the North County Subregional
[48:27] Planning Committee, as well as
[48:28] the stakeholder advisory
[48:30] committee. And just real quick,
[48:31] I'll just summarize those
[48:34] comments for you. So for sb and
[48:37] Caltrans, the typical editorial
[48:39] suggestions but in better
[48:40] resolution list of acronyms,
[48:42] which is now part of the draft.
[48:44] And then some clarifications on
[48:46] the performance assessment for
[48:47] Caltrans, the North County Sub
[48:50] Regional Committee, they desire
[48:52] to see a four lane widening 166
[48:54] as part of a aspirational list
[48:56] of projects that are longer
[48:58] term. This. The planning
[48:58] horizon for this study is
[49:01] roughly 20 to 25 years. So
[49:03] short term, if you will, when
[49:04] it comes to transportation
[49:06] improvements. But the longer
[49:08] term are equally as important
[49:10] because, of course, measure a
[49:13] will sunset in 2040. And if
[49:14] there's a renewal effort,
[49:15] there's a desire to have new
[49:16] regional improvements that can
[49:19] be made part of that referendum.
[49:21] They also suggested that the
[49:23] Bonita School Road or Bonita
[49:25] School itself should be
[49:28] relocated. We agreed with that
[49:30] as well as the stakeholder.
[49:31] Well, the stakeholder advisory
[49:32] committee strongly agreed with
[49:34] that as well. So that was an
[49:37] interesting input. And then
[49:39] just one good question was, was
[49:40] there any regional differences
[49:42] in the public input? In other
[49:44] words, do residents of City of
[49:45] Guadalupe have different
[49:47] opinions of what they'd like to
[49:48] see in terms of improvements
[49:51] and other aspects versus Santa
[49:52] Maria and orchid? So we did go
[49:54] back and take a look at that.
[49:56] For the most part, they were
[49:57] very congruent, but there was
[49:59] some differences. City of Santa
[50:02] Maria Orcutt were more pro for
[50:03] more enforcement in the
[50:07] corridor. They were also more
[50:08] advocating active
[50:09] transportation improvements
[50:11] versus the Guadalupe side,
[50:13] which they advocated more
[50:16] transit, which was interesting.
[50:19] And people in Guadalupe use 166
[50:20] a lot more than folks in Santa
[50:23] Maria. So that was a pretty
[50:25] clear from the separating those
[50:27] two. So that's now documented
[50:29] in the report. And then the
[50:30] advisory committee, I've
[50:31] already mentioned some of this.
[50:33] They wanted to see more
[50:34] operational improvements in
[50:35] lighting on bed Arabian Black
[50:38] Road as well as Black and Stole,
[50:41] which we incorporated also
[50:43] again, Bonita School location
[50:45] is problematic. And the reason
[50:46] that is, is that it's in the
[50:48] middle of the ag fields, and
[50:50] there's a lot of windblown
[50:51] particulates. Those
[50:52] particulates typically have
[50:54] pesticides, herbicides, and you
[50:55] have a sensitive receptive
[50:57] group with young children right
[50:58] in the middle of all that. So
[51:00] all the students come from
[51:01] Santa Maria. That's where
[51:04] they're they live. So it makes
[51:06] sense to possibly examine
[51:10] relocation of that school. And
[51:11] then again, recognition that
[51:12] the benefit cost does not
[51:17] reflect perishable goods. And
[51:19] so this is a a matrix of how
[51:21] our stakeholder advisory
[51:23] committee scored each of the
[51:24] improvements. And I'll walk
[51:25] through those pretty well. But
[51:27] for the most part there was a
[51:29] lot of support. They had the
[51:32] option of showing support,
[51:33] being neutral or indifferent to
[51:37] the improvement, or did not
[51:39] support and then support with
[51:41] the condition. And as you can
[51:42] see, there was only two
[51:43] improvements that they could
[51:45] not support or a few of them
[51:47] did not support. It was 5050.
[51:49] And that was the roundabout
[51:50] alternatives to some of the
[51:52] improvements. They preferred
[51:53] signalized intersections. And
[51:55] that's fine. We provide both
[51:57] options. And then the Santa
[52:00] Maria River levee Trail, about
[52:02] half the group were not very
[52:03] supportive of that improvement
[52:05] being included as part of the
[52:09] package. And then for the long
[52:12] term improvement, a couple as a
[52:13] condition of support, wanted to
[52:16] see the class one trail
[52:17] decoupled from the four lane
[52:19] widening. We included them as a
[52:22] couplet, so that would be a
[52:25] class one trail from connecting
[52:27] Santa Maria to Guadalupe
[52:28] bidirectional, and that would
[52:30] be on the south side of the
[52:32] facility. And then the widening
[52:35] of 166, which is very costly in
[52:36] the subregional planning
[52:37] committee, asked for a cost of
[52:40] that based on construction year
[52:44] of 2040. It's about $320
[52:50] million. So not cheap. So real
[52:52] quick, the improvement concepts.
[52:55] This is an overall map. We do
[52:59] reflect the purple bubbles that
[53:02] that's the existing Gaps cap m
[53:04] project that is currently
[53:06] moving forward with planned
[53:09] completion by 20 2829. That
[53:11] includes a signalized
[53:14] intersections in Guadalupe, as
[53:17] well as some bike facility
[53:18] improvements within the city of
[53:20] Santa Maria. The green bubbles
[53:22] are those that were identified
[53:24] as part of this study, and I'll
[53:26] walk through those very quickly.
[53:31] So that's a rendition of the
[53:34] Gaps cap m project, which we
[53:36] did not reflect in the benefit
[53:37] cost, but we wanted to include
[53:39] because we're leveraging those
[53:40] improvements as part of this
[53:43] study. But as far as hours. So
[53:47] a signalization of the Cmis 166
[53:49] intersection, which additional
[53:51] channelization for operational
[53:56] and safety improvements. Some
[53:58] formalizing of the access to
[54:00] Bonita School Road from 166,
[54:01] again for safety and
[54:03] operational benefits, as well
[54:05] as formalizing the parking and
[54:08] some ingress egress
[54:09] characteristics going into the
[54:14] school itself. Ray Road in
[54:18] mainline. This is basically
[54:19] formalizing that stop
[54:23] controlled at the northbound to
[54:24] provide an extended right and
[54:26] left turn storage, because
[54:28] right now cuz pretty
[54:29] significantly causing a lot of
[54:31] delay. And that's also a safety
[54:32] improvement for improved sight
[54:33] distance for those turning left
[54:38] and right. Okay. This is for
[54:40] Hansen. And this is extending
[54:41] this is only in the westbound
[54:42] direction right now. The lane
[54:44] drop occurs roughly around
[54:46] Hansen. And but there's a lot
[54:48] of businesses on the on that
[54:50] north side with driveways. That
[54:52] causes a lot of friction
[54:55] turning movements that are are
[54:57] creating safety issues. So the
[54:59] idea here is that we extend
[55:02] that lane drop beyond Hansen
[55:03] and beyond where those
[55:05] driveways are. So it's a much
[55:07] smoother transition from 2 to 1
[55:11] lane. And then we also
[55:13] identified pave way or paved
[55:17] driveway aprons. And this is a
[55:18] safety because it adds traction
[55:20] to ingress and egress vehicles
[55:22] coming out of those driveways
[55:24] and those fields. But also it
[55:27] cuts down on dust and marine
[55:28] train road dust. So dust
[55:29] abatement strategy. And this
[55:31] was very popular among the
[55:35] stakeholder advisory group. And
[55:37] also the need for lighting. So
[55:38] we heard this loud and clear
[55:40] from the public and is an issue
[55:42] particularly around key
[55:43] intersections. So we identified
[55:47] additional lighting for various
[55:48] key locations within the
[55:51] quarter. And also on Betteravia
[55:55] Road. We also are advocating
[55:57] the purchase of 15 additional
[56:00] vans from Cal Van to provide
[56:01] exclusive service for ag
[56:04] workers. We work closely with
[56:06] Cal Vans to identify what the
[56:08] potential demand was for these
[56:11] added vehicles, and there is a
[56:12] demand there. Calvin's is
[56:14] already doing a lot of work in
[56:15] this corridor, but they
[56:16] recognize that it's not enough
[56:19] and they can do more. So we're
[56:21] advocating additional 15 cal
[56:23] vans and then also for Santa
[56:25] Maria Regional Transit, which
[56:26] has now assumed control of the
[56:28] Guadalupe Flier service between
[56:29] Guadalupe and Santa Maria to
[56:32] reduce those headways from 60
[56:33] minutes to 30 minutes. That's
[56:35] going to require a purchase of
[56:38] an additional 35 foot bus. And
[56:40] so transit service would be
[56:43] much more, I think, convenient,
[56:44] particularly for those
[56:46] residents in Guadalupe who rely
[56:49] on transit to go to Santa Maria
[56:52] and back. Okay, so this is the
[56:53] Surface Transportation
[56:55] Assistance Act Star. This is
[56:58] for truck circulation. And I
[57:00] just want to make it clear from
[57:01] the beginning the trucks are
[57:04] already out there. So so any of
[57:05] these improvements are not
[57:07] allowing trucks where they
[57:09] currently aren't operating.
[57:11] That that is a misconception.
[57:12] It's just trying to formalize
[57:14] the network for not only the
[57:16] truckers, but also for chp who
[57:19] must enforce the regulations
[57:22] and and also for the city of
[57:25] Santa Maria, who's trying to
[57:27] preclude the number of heavy
[57:29] duty trucks, five axle plus
[57:30] trucks that have to traverse
[57:33] through their downtown on 166.
[57:35] So and and we did find that not
[57:37] only are the trucks there, but
[57:39] they're growing in numbers and
[57:41] they're growing faster than the
[57:43] traffic overall is growing. So
[57:45] the mix of heavy duty trucks is
[57:48] increasing in this region. So
[57:52] we've identified stay signage
[57:53] improvements as well as some
[57:55] other safety improvements. But
[57:56] to formalize the network so
[57:58] truckers know where to go and
[58:00] where they should be. And we
[58:01] identified a number of
[58:03] alternative networks. There's
[58:05] roughly six that are shown in
[58:07] the report. I would say that
[58:09] the city of Santa Maria is
[58:12] advocating just bringing the
[58:14] star signage, allowing trucks
[58:18] to be on 166 up to Blosser Road
[58:21] rather than to 135. And there's
[58:23] various alternatives. And then
[58:24] the advisory committee really
[58:26] advocated, including Stoll Road
[58:32] as part of the network as well.
[58:33] And okay, so this intersection
[58:35] improvements at Betteravia and
[58:38] Mahoney, that's a very funky
[58:39] intersection today. It's a
[58:41] picture of it in the top right.
[58:43] But this is to make it more of
[58:45] a traditional intersection.
[58:46] This will facilitate goods
[58:48] movement trucks as well as
[58:50] safety for vehicular traffic.
[58:51] So this is the signalized
[58:53] version of the improvement. And
[58:55] we also included a roundabout
[58:57] version. You know folks have
[58:58] mixed feelings about
[58:59] roundabouts. And we heard that
[59:01] loud and clear from the
[59:03] advisory group as well as some
[59:04] others in the public. But those
[59:06] are options. And then last but
[59:09] not least, the us 101
[59:10] Betteravia interchange
[59:12] improvement. So this is
[59:14] changing the circulation of the
[59:16] northbound ramps, but also
[59:18] providing class one bike and
[59:20] pedestrian facilities, as well
[59:24] as intersection improvements at
[59:27] at Nicholson as well. And this
[59:29] is primarily driven by the need
[59:30] to make sure Betteravia is
[59:33] becoming a better Sta route.
[59:34] There's already a lot of trucks
[59:37] using it, so this will help
[59:38] formalize that, but also the
[59:40] city of Santa Maria, as part of
[59:41] their general plan update, are
[59:43] now targeting growth on the
[59:46] east side of 101. And so you
[59:47] you'll have residential and
[59:48] then all the shopping
[59:49] opportunities on the west side
[59:51] of Betteravia. So you want to
[59:52] make that more accessible to
[59:54] pet and bikes as well as to
[59:56] vehicles. And then the Santa
[59:58] Maria levee, River Levee Trail
[1:00:01] and that's included. This is a
[1:00:03] very popular improvement, I
[1:00:04] would say folks are concerned
[1:00:06] about undue detour. Does it
[1:00:09] really provide that that
[1:00:10] parallel connection between
[1:00:13] Santa Maria and Guadalupe? We
[1:00:16] feel it does. But our analysis
[1:00:18] did take into consideration the
[1:00:19] buffer distance that people
[1:00:20] would actually use this
[1:00:22] facility to make those
[1:00:24] connections. But make no
[1:00:25] mistake, we recognize that
[1:00:27] having a bike and ped facility
[1:00:31] along the 166 is is much more
[1:00:32] efficient, but again, it's much
[1:00:34] more costly. This improvement
[1:00:35] is moving along. It's already
[1:00:37] in its environmental phase. And
[1:00:38] so we're including it as part
[1:00:42] of our package. And then here's
[1:00:44] the, you know, the this the
[1:00:47] widening. There you go. You can
[1:00:49] see the bike path there, the so
[1:00:52] the the profile cross section
[1:00:53] in the middle. That's what
[1:00:55] exists today. And you can see
[1:00:57] the extent of what would be
[1:00:59] required in terms of right of
[1:01:01] way to make it a four lane
[1:01:04] facility. Caltrans will need a
[1:01:07] center median to a divider for
[1:01:09] this. For safety, folks felt
[1:01:12] from the stakeholder committee,
[1:01:13] they questioned the need for
[1:01:15] that. But I can guarantee you
[1:01:17] Caltrans is going to want that.
[1:01:20] And then the class one
[1:01:22] bidirectional trail south side
[1:01:25] of the state route 166. And
[1:01:27] again, it comes at a hefty
[1:01:30] price. So this is really only
[1:01:31] possible, I think, as part of a
[1:01:34] measure, a renewal package. And
[1:01:36] then in terms of our
[1:01:36] implementation, we looked at
[1:01:38] all the various funding sources.
[1:01:40] Again, as Maya said, we're
[1:01:42] targeting at least for the the
[1:01:43] package that we're identified
[1:01:46] for these next 20 years, state
[1:01:47] and federal grant funding to
[1:01:49] try to get these projects
[1:01:53] implemented. And then we phased
[1:01:54] the improvements from short
[1:01:57] term mid-term and then that
[1:01:59] longer term 20 plus years. And
[1:02:00] that's where you see the four
[1:02:02] lane widening, as well as the
[1:02:06] class one trail along 166. So
[1:02:08] with that, I'll open it up to
[1:02:11] questions. All right. Questions
[1:02:13] among directors I see. Director
[1:02:14] Lee, you have a question I do.
[1:02:16] So the levee trail that you
[1:02:17] spoke about, did you reach out
[1:02:20] to the local farmers impacted
[1:02:22] by that construction, or was
[1:02:25] there any feedback or any
[1:02:28] negative impacts to them? You
[1:02:32] know? Director Lee, the Levee
[1:02:33] Trail project is a county
[1:02:35] project. We've included it
[1:02:36] because it's moving forward.
[1:02:38] It's complementary. It's
[1:02:40] related to our study. So it's
[1:02:42] the county that is advancing
[1:02:44] the project. However, just on
[1:02:45] our stakeholder advisory
[1:02:47] committee, we did have
[1:02:48] representatives of the
[1:02:50] agricultural community that
[1:02:52] were involved in the process.
[1:02:54] And you did see on the when the
[1:02:55] stakeholder Advisory Committee
[1:02:57] took its support, don't support
[1:02:59] votes that this is one of the
[1:03:02] ones that had a couple do not
[1:03:03] supports. Okay. And so going
[1:03:06] back to the your study, did you
[1:03:07] consider the early morning
[1:03:09] traffic happens on the road?
[1:03:12] Because we did from 2 to 5 I
[1:03:14] believe it's like busy. Yes we
[1:03:17] did. And that was a so there
[1:03:19] was an early morning peak which
[1:03:21] is at early Age-related Peak.
[1:03:24] And we did the peak as well.
[1:03:26] Got it. And adjusted completion
[1:03:28] will help with that traffic
[1:03:29] burden. And the completion of
[1:03:32] this project will help with
[1:03:33] that. Yes, yes. And the the
[1:03:35] congestion that particularly in
[1:03:37] Santa Maria that backs up for
[1:03:40] that westbound trips in the Am
[1:03:41] that drove a lot of the
[1:03:43] improvements that you saw,
[1:03:45] especially that the extension
[1:03:48] of Hanson or 166 lane drop past
[1:03:50] Hanson. Okay. That's the
[1:03:52] benefit that issue as well.
[1:03:54] There's you know, when we look
[1:03:56] at the the congestion and the
[1:03:59] travel time variance, we saw
[1:04:03] that it was very unreliable on
[1:04:05] an ongoing, you know, it was
[1:04:06] reliably bad. That's what I'm
[1:04:07] trying to say, which you don't
[1:04:09] see very often. So it does
[1:04:10] indicate a really significant
[1:04:12] problem for that early morning
[1:04:13] ag commute. And during your
[1:04:15] study on the road, did you see
[1:04:17] anybody going off road to
[1:04:18] bypass the traffic? You know,
[1:04:20] our roadway safety audit, we
[1:04:21] did recognize that. But we
[1:04:23] heard that plenty from the
[1:04:24] public that folks use the
[1:04:25] shoulder as a bypass lane. And
[1:04:27] that's not good. So we we
[1:04:29] recognize that as a major issue.
[1:04:31] Thank you. Yeah. And I will say
[1:04:32] that the stakeholder advisory
[1:04:34] committee regarding the Santa
[1:04:36] Maria River Levee trail, one of
[1:04:38] the big concerns was, was there
[1:04:39] going to be adequate fencing to
[1:04:41] protect the ag fields from
[1:04:45] folks who are using the
[1:04:50] facility and cost estimates, as
[1:04:50] well as our description of the
[1:04:50] project is, yeah, it'll be two
[1:04:51] layers of fencing to keep folks
[1:04:56] from compromising or getting
[1:04:56] into the I believe I spoke to
[1:04:56] the farmers locally there and
[1:04:57] they are concerned about people
[1:04:58] that are going through the
[1:04:59] landfill. That's very important.
[1:05:01] Thank you for doing that. I
[1:05:02] agree, thank you. Director Lee,
[1:05:03] Director Hartman, director,
[1:05:04] then director Lavagnino. And
[1:05:07] then I'll go to Santa Maria. I
[1:05:09] was just curious about your
[1:05:13] analysis for benefit cost. So
[1:05:16] the cost takes in the entire
[1:05:19] set of projects, including the
[1:05:21] vans and the bus transit.
[1:05:23] Correct. And then describe more
[1:05:24] how you calculate the benefit.
[1:05:26] You said what wasn't part of it,
[1:05:29] but how do you how do you nail
[1:05:31] that down? Right. So yeah, you
[1:05:33] know, costing improvements
[1:05:35] that's been around for a long,
[1:05:36] long, long, long time.
[1:05:38] Engineers are very good at that.
[1:05:40] Monetizing benefits is really
[1:05:42] the the new aspect of of of all
[1:05:45] this. And it's all based on
[1:05:46] data that's published by
[1:05:47] Caltrans. It's called the
[1:05:49] societal costs. And they you
[1:05:51] know, there's there's value to
[1:05:54] time. So that value of time is
[1:05:56] incorporated into delay
[1:05:58] reduction travel time
[1:06:00] reliability because it's called
[1:06:02] buffer time. If you want to
[1:06:04] reach your destination 95% of
[1:06:06] the time, but because of the
[1:06:07] conditions of the facility,
[1:06:09] makes that very variable. And
[1:06:10] we have 12 months of data to
[1:06:12] show how variable it is. It's
[1:06:14] the amount of time people have
[1:06:15] to leave early to make sure
[1:06:17] they can get to their
[1:06:19] destination. 95% of the time,
[1:06:21] that's their time. So it can be
[1:06:21] monetized. You know, they'd
[1:06:23] rather be at home with their
[1:06:25] families than leaving early and
[1:06:27] maybe arriving work early, but
[1:06:29] maybe on time they don't know.
[1:06:31] So that can all be monetized by
[1:06:33] the value of time on road,
[1:06:36] mobile source emissions, all
[1:06:38] those, you know, criteria.
[1:06:39] Health based pollutants have a
[1:06:41] societal cost associated with
[1:06:42] them. That's all been developed
[1:06:46] by epa and Caltrans. And so we
[1:06:48] have a whole list of all those
[1:06:51] monetized costs that we can
[1:06:52] calculate the measure
[1:06:54] effectiveness and monetize that
[1:06:56] benefit. And and then could you
[1:06:58] elaborate on the gross regional
[1:07:01] product, the 12 million value,
[1:07:03] how that relates or doesn't. So
[1:07:04] that that is a good question.
[1:07:06] That is specific to the
[1:07:08] construction activity. So
[1:07:09] assuming that all the
[1:07:10] improvements get constructed,
[1:07:13] that's going to add jobs to the
[1:07:16] construction sector. Yeah.
[1:07:17] Thank you. All right. Thank you,
[1:07:18] Director Hartman. Director
[1:07:20] Lavagnino, thank you. And well,
[1:07:22] first I just want to thank sb,
[1:07:25] cag staff and the members that
[1:07:26] this is this is something
[1:07:28] that's been a long time coming.
[1:07:29] I mean, this we probably should
[1:07:31] have started this 15, 20 years
[1:07:32] ago so that we were actually
[1:07:33] doing work now instead of
[1:07:35] looking at what we could be
[1:07:36] doing. But, you know, we've got
[1:07:38] a lot of priorities in this
[1:07:39] county. So I understand. But
[1:07:40] it's I appreciate where we are
[1:07:42] right now. So can you just
[1:07:44] refresh my memory when when
[1:07:47] does measure a when do we
[1:07:50] finish measure a expires in
[1:07:51] 2040 okay. This board has
[1:07:54] directed to pursue a measure in
[1:07:57] 2032. Okay. Great. So so what
[1:07:59] I'm hearing is in that short
[1:08:00] term, those ones that you've
[1:08:01] identified, which two of them
[1:08:02] are actually construction on,
[1:08:04] the other two are, you know,
[1:08:05] kind of working around some,
[1:08:07] some issues we're anticipating
[1:08:11] we would do those before 2040
[1:08:13] with the current measure a,
[1:08:14] there is no measure a
[1:08:15] identified for this corridor at
[1:08:17] this point in time. So what
[1:08:18] we're saying is we could
[1:08:20] identify state funding and
[1:08:21] federal funding possibly to to
[1:08:23] to do these. It would be
[1:08:24] outside these other ones that
[1:08:26] are in the midterm. They would
[1:08:28] be a a wish list that we would
[1:08:29] send to voters that these are
[1:08:31] things that we would like to
[1:08:32] get done. And inside of that,
[1:08:34] are we or are we not. Do you
[1:08:36] anticipate now talking about
[1:08:37] widening to four lanes, or is
[1:08:40] that something outside of that?
[1:08:43] It's up to this board okay.
[1:08:46] Okay. So just I'm curious on
[1:08:47] these just on these even in the
[1:08:49] midterm ones, but on the even
[1:08:51] in the intersection lighting
[1:08:52] and the pavement driving is
[1:08:54] that 42 million seems pretty
[1:08:56] low to me, which it does. It's
[1:08:58] only because we deal with so
[1:09:00] many high numbers here. But is
[1:09:01] that actually have we looked at
[1:09:03] the right of way because some
[1:09:05] of those farms I mean, I know
[1:09:06] we're going to be taking
[1:09:08] anytime you do any work on the
[1:09:09] 166, you're talking about
[1:09:11] impacting Prime ag. And I'm
[1:09:13] just curious if we've done
[1:09:14] those studies, looked at that,
[1:09:16] we did for the lighting. You
[1:09:18] know, a lot of these are low
[1:09:20] cost improvement concepts. And
[1:09:22] so that's the beauty of it. But
[1:09:23] very astute observation. 42
[1:09:25] million in the big scheme of
[1:09:28] things is not that much. And so
[1:09:30] the lighting in terms of the
[1:09:32] cobra heads and the poles, a
[1:09:33] lot of that can be done within
[1:09:35] right of way. So there wouldn't
[1:09:38] be any take the driveway aprons.
[1:09:40] That's a mix. There probably
[1:09:42] will be some some right of way
[1:09:44] that's not Caltrans to make
[1:09:46] those effective. We think
[1:09:49] that's a good public private
[1:09:51] type of improvement that folks
[1:09:54] can rally behind. But we'll see.
[1:09:58] But I think most of the
[1:09:59] businesses, the ag, they would
[1:10:00] welcome that because it's a,
[1:10:02] you know, it's a safety issue
[1:10:03] for their people, their
[1:10:04] vehicles, their workers. And
[1:10:06] then final question, I guess,
[1:10:07] is so in your professional
[1:10:09] opinion, how do you think these
[1:10:11] midterm projects would rack and
[1:10:13] stack against, you know, as far
[1:10:16] as being able to actually see
[1:10:17] possibility of funding? Yeah,
[1:10:19] it depends on the program
[1:10:20] itself. One program that we
[1:10:22] highlight that we feel is
[1:10:24] probably the strongest is the
[1:10:25] Trade Quarter Enhancement
[1:10:28] program from Caltrans sb one,
[1:10:30] and that is a competitive
[1:10:32] program. I think we have a very
[1:10:35] competitive benefit cost. We
[1:10:36] have safety improvements. You
[1:10:38] know, we have a lot of a good
[1:10:40] mix of projects from transit
[1:10:43] vans, you name it, driveway
[1:10:44] aprons, which is very unique.
[1:10:45] This is the first quarter study
[1:10:47] that I've been a part of. I've
[1:10:49] been part of too many. But that
[1:10:50] driveway aprons was even an
[1:10:51] improvement. So it's kind of
[1:10:55] unique. So my my aspiration is
[1:10:56] that we can compete well for
[1:10:57] the trade quarter enhancement
[1:11:00] program. Another good one is
[1:11:01] highway Safety Improvement
[1:11:03] program. Okay. Thank you. By
[1:11:05] the way, that was former sb
[1:11:08] member Larry Lavagnino calling.
[1:11:10] I have a correction. There is a
[1:11:11] project in the current measure,
[1:11:14] a program that's the Betteravia
[1:11:15] 101 project that is funded
[1:11:16] through the measure a, that we
[1:11:18] will be applying for additional
[1:11:20] funds to implement that project,
[1:11:22] but it's not on the 166. So
[1:11:23] thank you. Thank you. All right.
[1:11:25] Thank you. I'm gonna go to
[1:11:26] Santa Maria for some comments
[1:11:28] or questions. Then I'm going to
[1:11:30] come back up here for then for
[1:11:31] Director Silva. Thank you. And
[1:11:34] I know this is about the Bonita
[1:11:37] Bonita school. And I know we've
[1:11:38] had discussions about this
[1:11:39] before. And Director Nelson, I
[1:11:41] can't remember exactly what,
[1:11:44] but I know that property was
[1:11:46] deeded only to be used as a
[1:11:49] school. And and so there's just
[1:11:52] a lot of problems getting into
[1:11:53] what happens. And I know the
[1:11:55] school district spoke to us
[1:11:56] several years ago, and you
[1:11:57] probably know more about it
[1:12:00] than I do, but it's it's really
[1:12:02] a challenge to have to deal
[1:12:03] with that. And of course, those
[1:12:05] students do come from Santa
[1:12:06] Maria and they are bust out
[1:12:11] there. I want to ask about I
[1:12:14] really want to confirm the the
[1:12:16] time, the peak hours study
[1:12:19] again, because you've got black
[1:12:20] and betteravia, you've got
[1:12:22] black and stole and you've got
[1:12:25] Blosser that concern us. What
[1:12:30] time was that peak hour study?
[1:12:32] So the the what we're calling
[1:12:38] the early am, I believe is from
[1:12:41] 5 to 6 and then the commuter Am
[1:12:44] is the typical seven, you know,
[1:12:47] 8 to 9 or 730 to 830. I'll have
[1:12:48] to check. And then the
[1:12:50] traditional pm peak is 435
[1:12:55] three. Because that 5:00 is
[1:12:57] it's it's really important.
[1:12:58] 8:00 9:00 it doesn't really
[1:13:00] matter because that's not when
[1:13:05] that is so impacted there. On
[1:13:07] Blosser and 166 we really need
[1:13:10] the two left turn northbound
[1:13:15] lanes going east, going north.
[1:13:17] And I didn't see that there. So
[1:13:19] that's something that we need.
[1:13:21] Then coming down Blosser and
[1:13:24] going west on 166 again that
[1:13:26] left turn pocket gets gets
[1:13:28] packed. It just gets packed.
[1:13:30] The it is probably bumper to
[1:13:32] bumper from Main Street all the
[1:13:35] way up to probably betteravia.
[1:13:38] I know pastel so that's really
[1:13:40] an impact. And so that I know
[1:13:42] when we went through the
[1:13:45] roundabout issue and we did the
[1:13:50] the signalized intersection at
[1:13:52] 166 and black, that went on for
[1:13:55] years. And, and I went to all
[1:13:56] those meetings with focus
[1:13:59] groups. Not one person, not one
[1:14:01] person at that time ever, ever
[1:14:04] spoke in favor of a roundabout.
[1:14:06] And yet we spent years going
[1:14:08] through that. And it was it was
[1:14:11] like Caltrans. Caltrans was
[1:14:13] trying to push that on us, and
[1:14:14] everyone was saying that it
[1:14:16] doesn't work. So I just think
[1:14:17] that those kinds of things are
[1:14:22] important. The I'm thinking of
[1:14:25] the day that we were out on 166
[1:14:27] in black and celebrating the
[1:14:28] intersection, and I'm sitting
[1:14:30] there watching and there's chp
[1:14:32] there, and a car runs the red
[1:14:35] light and and then a little
[1:14:37] while later, a truck runs the
[1:14:39] red light. So it is a very,
[1:14:42] very dangerous road. And during
[1:14:44] those peak hours it's four
[1:14:46] lanes and not two lanes. So
[1:14:49] it's something that we between
[1:14:50] Guadalupe and Santa Maria we do
[1:14:52] care about. There's a lot of
[1:14:53] accidents out there all the
[1:14:56] time. And I want to ask you and
[1:14:57] Margie, maybe you know this,
[1:14:59] but I heard on the radio that
[1:15:00] California has the most unsafe.
[1:15:03] We're number one in the most
[1:15:05] unsafe roads. And I didn't know
[1:15:10] what study that was done.
[1:15:12] Anyway, our public works
[1:15:13] director is here. If he would
[1:15:19] like to comment on anything.
[1:15:21] Thank you. All right. Director
[1:15:22] Patino, do you have a question
[1:15:24] for him that you'd like to have
[1:15:27] answered? Or you? I yes, for
[1:15:28] you. I just wanted to make
[1:15:30] those comments. Okay. Yeah.
[1:15:31] Thank you. And if you'd like to
[1:15:32] speak during public comment,
[1:15:33] we'll absolutely give him that
[1:15:35] opportunity to or the directors
[1:15:37] up here or down there will have
[1:15:38] some questions for him. We'll
[1:15:39] make sure that's available.
[1:15:40] Okay. And I'm sure Director
[1:15:42] Julian has things to say. Thank
[1:15:43] you. I'm sure he has director
[1:15:46] Julian. Yes. Thank you for the
[1:15:47] update. And one of the, one of
[1:15:49] the things that local residents
[1:15:51] are looking at, chp, I know
[1:15:53] that there was a study with
[1:15:57] about a quarter of the chp
[1:15:58] ticketing, and that is a big
[1:16:00] issue. We still have people,
[1:16:01] especially if you're not going
[1:16:02] to have a four lane for for
[1:16:05] decades or whatever. We need
[1:16:07] chp doing more of the, you know,
[1:16:09] roads, routes out in that area.
[1:16:12] You know, trucks are not a
[1:16:13] problem. Maybe because we're
[1:16:15] used to that. Trucks slow
[1:16:17] people down to the 55 miles an
[1:16:19] hour. So trucks, we have a good
[1:16:20] relationship with the truckers.
[1:16:22] And one of the things too, and
[1:16:24] I know that director Nelson is
[1:16:27] on caravans, but when people
[1:16:29] from Santa Maria go to San Luis
[1:16:31] County, across the bridge,
[1:16:32] Santa Maria River bridge,
[1:16:35] there's a lot of development,
[1:16:36] not a lot of development, a lot
[1:16:39] of grow. Right after the bridge
[1:16:41] on the on the north side, north
[1:16:44] side of the river, literally
[1:16:46] hundreds of cars are there. And
[1:16:49] we need to. And especially
[1:16:50] Guadalupe. I know that there's
[1:16:54] a call for more chp or Caltrans.
[1:16:56] That's a good that's a that's
[1:16:57] really necessary. But what we
[1:16:59] need to do in terms of
[1:17:01] Guadalupe is to make I see very
[1:17:03] few caravans, vehicles in the
[1:17:05] city of Guadalupe. And if we're
[1:17:07] having 15 additional fans
[1:17:09] really need to do our homework
[1:17:11] and make sure that the local
[1:17:13] farmworkers know that that's,
[1:17:14] you know, that's there for
[1:17:15] their use. Also, the increase
[1:17:18] in road trips from an hour to
[1:17:19] 30 minutes to and from Santa
[1:17:21] Maria is is really helpful for
[1:17:23] the community of Guadalupe. And
[1:17:25] then in the future, we've got
[1:17:27] another 18 acres of commercial
[1:17:28] that hopefully that'll be
[1:17:29] developed to where people don't
[1:17:31] have to go to Santa Maria for
[1:17:32] every everyday shopping in
[1:17:35] terms of groceries. And and
[1:17:38] again, our most of our people
[1:17:39] are employed in Santa Maria. So
[1:17:41] it really makes a difference in
[1:17:42] making improvements on this
[1:17:43] highway. 166 so thank you for
[1:17:46] the report. All right. Thank
[1:17:47] you. Thank you, Director Julian.
[1:17:49] Director Silva, thank you. Just
[1:17:51] kind of piggybacking off of
[1:17:52] what Director Hartman mentioned
[1:17:53] with societal benefit. I just
[1:17:54] was curious. I don't know if
[1:17:56] it's the factoid of you saying
[1:17:57] one hour equals one day of
[1:17:59] shelf life, considering the
[1:18:00] fact that we have a traffic
[1:18:02] issue going on right now. I was
[1:18:03] curious if you could maybe walk
[1:18:05] through, do we anticipate while
[1:18:06] we're looking at a 20 year
[1:18:07] construction plan, whatever
[1:18:09] that looked like, exacerbating
[1:18:10] the traffic issue? And was that
[1:18:12] analyzed in the cost of the
[1:18:14] project, or are we I just don't
[1:18:15] know how you would mitigate
[1:18:17] that. Are we possibly as a body
[1:18:18] just so that we're aware? Are
[1:18:20] we going to have to expect that
[1:18:21] there will be delays by nature
[1:18:23] of construction taking place,
[1:18:25] and that could impact the
[1:18:25] transportation going on and
[1:18:27] what that has been studied or
[1:18:30] what that looks like. Okay. Two
[1:18:32] questions. The first question
[1:18:34] is that the the existing
[1:18:36] conditions analysis was and the
[1:18:39] public input predicated our
[1:18:40] selection of the improvements.
[1:18:41] But the performance analysis of
[1:18:43] those improvements was based on
[1:18:45] future conditions. And so we
[1:18:48] rely on sb travel demand model
[1:18:50] and other resources to know how
[1:18:52] much traffic was going to grow.
[1:18:55] So when these improvements were
[1:18:56] operational, open to the public
[1:18:58] and the traveling public, that
[1:19:00] that benefit was derived from
[1:19:02] the from future demand. So I
[1:19:04] think that address your first
[1:19:07] question. The second question,
[1:19:09] can you repeat it? I'm sorry.
[1:19:10] It's really just understanding
[1:19:12] in in once these improvements
[1:19:14] start taking place, do we have
[1:19:16] an understanding of if we would
[1:19:17] anticipate delays that will
[1:19:19] have economic impact? Is there
[1:19:21] ways that we have gone through
[1:19:22] with how we're going to
[1:19:23] mitigate that? I just wasn't
[1:19:24] sure exactly of being mindful
[1:19:26] of actions taken. It's not
[1:19:27] saying we don't need to solve
[1:19:28] the problem, but there's always
[1:19:30] that when you're solving a
[1:19:31] problem, you know, the
[1:19:32] treatment can often cause some
[1:19:33] issues. While we're going
[1:19:34] through that, I just curious
[1:19:36] what that looks like or if
[1:19:37] we've done that study. No. Good
[1:19:38] question. Construction, phasing
[1:19:39] and delays associated with the
[1:19:40] construction of improvements
[1:19:42] that is not incorporated into
[1:19:44] our study. Like I said before,
[1:19:45] the good news is that many of
[1:19:47] these are not significant in
[1:19:50] terms of disruption to existing
[1:19:53] traffic. In my opinion, the
[1:19:55] experience that 166 and Black
[1:19:58] Road, I don't know what the
[1:20:00] history when that project was
[1:20:02] implemented to install a signal,
[1:20:05] but it would be similar to that
[1:20:07] is a good analogy in terms of
[1:20:09] disruption to traffic. Now, of
[1:20:11] course, that longer term
[1:20:12] improvement that's going to be
[1:20:14] significant and construction
[1:20:16] phasing will be pretty
[1:20:17] complicated on how we can keep
[1:20:19] the traffic moving on. 166
[1:20:21] while that's being constructed,
[1:20:25] if it ever does. Yeah, right.
[1:20:27] Director Perotti. Thank you.
[1:20:31] Chair. Going back to Director
[1:20:32] Pitino's question about the
[1:20:35] schools, the school. What's the
[1:20:36] issue at the school? Is it
[1:20:39] traffic? Getting into the class,
[1:20:41] into school by parents? Is that
[1:20:45] kids walking, biking busses?
[1:20:48] What what's their their concern?
[1:20:49] And I'm assuming you've gone to
[1:20:51] the school and talked with the
[1:20:53] parents. Yeah. So there's a
[1:20:56] number of issues that go on. So
[1:20:58] during school let out, there's
[1:21:00] the queuing of the busses. And
[1:21:02] our road safety audit was out
[1:21:04] there to witness that firsthand.
[1:21:06] And it's messy. All those
[1:21:08] busses they queue up, there's
[1:21:10] not enough storage for them in
[1:21:11] terms of the internal
[1:21:12] circulation where they pick up
[1:21:14] the kids on campus, and then
[1:21:15] they're all making a left
[1:21:16] because they they all go to
[1:21:18] Santa Maria, 100% of the
[1:21:21] student body kids are living in
[1:21:23] Santa Maria. Strangely, most,
[1:21:26] if not all, the faculty come
[1:21:27] down from the North because
[1:21:30] they live in Nipomo and
[1:21:32] elsewhere, and they use Santa
[1:21:34] Benito School Road. And so it's
[1:21:36] just it's kind of a confluence
[1:21:38] there. So there's no formalized
[1:21:39] parking really on campus. So
[1:21:42] there's no stalls, white lines,
[1:21:44] painting, striping. So we put a
[1:21:45] lot of thought into that. But
[1:21:47] you know that's just a concept,
[1:21:49] you know, do you want diagonal
[1:21:50] parking. Do you want you know
[1:21:51] there's all these different
[1:21:52] variables. But so that's an
[1:21:54] issue in terms of just
[1:21:57] circulation of the student body.
[1:21:59] You know, the parents drive
[1:22:01] their kids to. And so there's
[1:22:03] just a the the confluence of,
[1:22:04] of the vehicles from the
[1:22:06] employees to the students. And
[1:22:07] then that school let out time
[1:22:09] with the queuing of the busses.
[1:22:10] Okay. I was just curious about
[1:22:12] what the problem was there.
[1:22:14] Yeah. The stakeholder advisory
[1:22:16] committee advocated really
[1:22:18] putting in a a much more
[1:22:21] prominent right turn
[1:22:23] channelization from for
[1:22:24] westbound traffic. And that's
[1:22:26] mentioned in our report. It's
[1:22:28] not technically included in the
[1:22:29] improvement, but I think that's
[1:22:31] had a lot of merit. So we
[1:22:33] included it by okay. Thank you
[1:22:35] reference. Thank you, Director
[1:22:36] Parodi. And I actually would
[1:22:37] like to speak to the school
[1:22:39] issue just for a moment,
[1:22:40] something that I've always kind
[1:22:41] of been tracking as well. The
[1:22:43] issue is it's four miles from
[1:22:44] the nearest house to the school,
[1:22:46] just all through this entire
[1:22:47] traffic areas, there's nobody
[1:22:48] riding their bikes, there's
[1:22:49] nobody walking there. And it is
[1:22:52] a traffic issue. I know you
[1:22:53] mentioned the pesticide issue.
[1:22:55] I think that that was
[1:22:56] inappropriate. You know, that
[1:22:57] site has been tested for the
[1:22:59] last few years and they've had
[1:23:00] a zero detect for pesticides.
[1:23:03] So I know there's always that
[1:23:04] concern out there. I think it's
[1:23:05] the bigger concern is probably
[1:23:06] the cooler with the ammonia
[1:23:07] than there's actually
[1:23:08] pesticides. There's a really a
[1:23:10] great amount of responsible use
[1:23:11] of pesticides in that area. And,
[1:23:13] you know, in general, but
[1:23:14] specifically because it's near
[1:23:16] a school. So they've had a
[1:23:17] again, a zero detect. So
[1:23:19] actually no pesticides in the
[1:23:21] actual regions. Sensor that's
[1:23:23] put out by Department of
[1:23:25] Pesticide Regulations is on the
[1:23:27] fence line of the playground.
[1:23:28] And again the zero detect. So
[1:23:29] just want to make sure that was
[1:23:31] you talk about that that you
[1:23:33] don't spread any false
[1:23:34] assumptions or rumors about
[1:23:36] that. So no I totally
[1:23:37] appreciate that. And that's
[1:23:38] great news to hear. I would
[1:23:40] just say fine. Particulates
[1:23:42] with no herbicides or
[1:23:43] pesticides attached to them is
[1:23:44] not a good thing. So it's still
[1:23:46] a health based issue.
[1:23:47] Absolutely. But I do think that
[1:23:49] the big issue for that for a
[1:23:50] long time has been the traffic
[1:23:51] issue. You know, there's this
[1:23:53] is the most early on when I
[1:23:54] started working for the county,
[1:23:56] I heard from chp officer. They
[1:23:59] said it's the most unmanned
[1:24:01] vehicle accidents in the state
[1:24:03] are on this. And I go, what do
[1:24:04] you mean unmanned? Because
[1:24:05] there's accidents and they show
[1:24:06] up and there's nobody there.
[1:24:08] And so they have the cars that
[1:24:10] are there. So it's definitely a
[1:24:11] corridor with many, many
[1:24:12] accidents. Obviously we've been
[1:24:14] talking about significantly the
[1:24:16] traffic issues. My son actually
[1:24:19] works at a farm at 166 in Black
[1:24:21] Road. And so, you know, he
[1:24:22] spends he lives five miles away
[1:24:24] and it's a 30 minute plus drive
[1:24:26] for him to get there. So I see
[1:24:28] this and it impacts so many of
[1:24:30] our residents, especially those
[1:24:31] who have the least time to
[1:24:34] share on on a commute. So a
[1:24:35] couple a few things I just
[1:24:37] wanted to. Also, did you guys
[1:24:38] look at Black Road with the
[1:24:39] flooding that happens there?
[1:24:41] Did that? You know, you talked
[1:24:42] about extreme weather events,
[1:24:45] black road floods significantly,
[1:24:46] multiple feet of water. Did you
[1:24:48] guys kind of look at that as
[1:24:50] part of the study? It was
[1:24:52] brought to our attention in
[1:24:54] terms of the vulnerability to
[1:24:56] extreme weather events. I think
[1:24:59] that's a chronic issue. But we
[1:25:02] do identify quite a swath of
[1:25:04] area that is subject at risk,
[1:25:08] vulnerable to flooding. But
[1:25:09] yeah, that that did come into
[1:25:11] play. We did not explicitly try
[1:25:15] to address the, you know, the
[1:25:17] the flooding issue that
[1:25:19] currently happens at that
[1:25:22] location. You also went through
[1:25:23] the truck routes, and I think
[1:25:25] that got a lot of people's
[1:25:26] attention. What's the next
[1:25:28] steps on truck routes and that
[1:25:29] conversation? Because I think,
[1:25:30] you know, you presented a lot
[1:25:31] of different options. I don't
[1:25:32] know who makes those decisions,
[1:25:33] whether that's our board or
[1:25:35] that's someone else. I think
[1:25:37] also the city of Santa Maria,
[1:25:38] with the potential of the
[1:25:40] Amazon Center in stool that
[1:25:41] plays into it, you know, what
[1:25:43] are all those things that we're
[1:25:44] looking at. So who who makes
[1:25:46] those next decisions on truck
[1:25:49] routes. So. Well, I'll just say
[1:25:52] it varies across the state.
[1:25:53] Typically I think what's
[1:25:55] typical they allow it to
[1:25:57] organically happen. So it comes
[1:26:00] from the, the the property
[1:26:01] owners and the business owners
[1:26:04] that they request through their
[1:26:07] local agency or member regional
[1:26:10] agency to ask Caltrans formally
[1:26:12] designate and test it. So most
[1:26:14] of the state does that. But
[1:26:15] there are jurisdictions that
[1:26:17] are more proactive. And I would
[1:26:18] say this kind of a proactive
[1:26:20] step that, hey, there's there's
[1:26:23] there's no Sta routes east west,
[1:26:25] that's a huge issue. And
[1:26:26] everybody that we talked to
[1:26:28] from the growers and shippers
[1:26:30] and chp, it just has never
[1:26:32] really formally been looked at.
[1:26:34] And it's an issue because the
[1:26:38] chp will not enforce the Sta
[1:26:39] regulations because really the
[1:26:40] truckers don't have any choice.
[1:26:42] There's no signage, there's no
[1:26:44] navigation. So they'll just go
[1:26:46] where Siri tells them to go.
[1:26:47] And sometimes they find
[1:26:48] themselves on roadways that
[1:26:49] were never designed to
[1:26:50] accommodate those vehicles. And
[1:26:52] you can see the damage at
[1:26:54] intersections from the the
[1:26:55] light poles and all that. They
[1:26:57] have visible damage from the
[1:26:58] trucks off tracking and not
[1:27:00] being able to accommodate that
[1:27:02] sharp of a turn. But I'll pass
[1:27:04] it over to Margie. Sounds like
[1:27:05] this is a perfect issue for sb
[1:27:07] to take up at some point, maybe
[1:27:08] within the North County
[1:27:09] subregional, because we have
[1:27:11] all the different parties that
[1:27:12] are going to impact so so that
[1:27:14] we can come up with something
[1:27:17] to advocate to Caltrans to
[1:27:19] formalize. So the steps in the
[1:27:21] planning process is this is a
[1:27:22] study and we incorporate it
[1:27:23] into our regional
[1:27:23] transportation plan. So it
[1:27:25] could be an action item in our
[1:27:26] next regional transportation
[1:27:28] plan to identify a truck route
[1:27:30] and working with Caltrans. So
[1:27:32] all right. And just one thought
[1:27:33] I had on the paved driveways.
[1:27:34] You know, that seems like
[1:27:36] that's a great public private
[1:27:37] partnership opportunity. I
[1:27:39] think if we gave encroachment
[1:27:41] permits, many of those
[1:27:42] landowners would actually
[1:27:43] install those for us, which
[1:27:45] would be a huge cost savings,
[1:27:46] I'd imagine. So, you know,
[1:27:48] could be one of those things
[1:27:49] where the local jurisdictions
[1:27:50] helped them with the permitting.
[1:27:52] You know, that's our cost and
[1:27:54] investment in those those farms
[1:27:56] would put in the paving. I mean,
[1:27:57] they're they have construction
[1:27:57] material. They're able to do
[1:27:59] those types of things. I know
[1:28:01] that a lot of this is going to
[1:28:02] be potentially on their
[1:28:03] property as well. So I'm just
[1:28:05] going to throw that out there
[1:28:06] as a concept that I think would
[1:28:08] be embraced. And then my last
[1:28:10] final thought on this is that I
[1:28:11] think that this is a great
[1:28:13] start, but I think this needs
[1:28:15] to be kind of a living document
[1:28:16] for us, because there's other
[1:28:17] things coming down the line. I
[1:28:19] don't think Betteravia is a
[1:28:20] settled idea of what is
[1:28:21] proposed here. I think this is
[1:28:23] just a concept. So I think
[1:28:24] there's greater discussion
[1:28:25] there. The city of Santa Maria
[1:28:27] is looking at McCoy interchange,
[1:28:28] what happens there and how that
[1:28:29] impacts everything. And they
[1:28:30] also are looking at bringing
[1:28:32] McCoy out to Mahoney. You know,
[1:28:33] the county at some point is
[1:28:35] looking at Uni Valley Parkway
[1:28:36] out to highway one. And so
[1:28:37] having additional corridor
[1:28:38] routes in the future and how
[1:28:39] those all kind of play into
[1:28:41] future investments, I think are
[1:28:42] really important. So I think
[1:28:44] that this is something we
[1:28:44] should probably bring back
[1:28:46] every couple of years and, and
[1:28:47] maybe amend the study to the
[1:28:48] current circumstances and the
[1:28:49] current planning. You know, the
[1:28:51] city of Santa Maria moves
[1:28:52] forward, the Amazon Center.
[1:28:54] Then this is this changes a lot
[1:28:55] of things here. And we're going
[1:28:57] to have to go refresh that as
[1:28:59] well. So I just want to kind of
[1:29:00] throw that out there for all of
[1:29:02] us is to think about that. This
[1:29:04] is a start. But we should
[1:29:05] probably be, you know,
[1:29:06] refreshing this on a on a
[1:29:07] semi-regular basis for the
[1:29:08] corridor chair. Nelson, when
[1:29:10] you don't speak into the mic,
[1:29:11] we can't hear you up here. I
[1:29:13] apologize there, Director
[1:29:14] Patino. I was trying to hide it
[1:29:15] from you anyway, so it's all
[1:29:17] good. All right, so, MADAM
[1:29:18] Clerk, do we have any public
[1:29:20] comment on this item? Chair,
[1:29:21] I'm confirming written public
[1:29:22] comment was received for this
[1:29:24] item in advance. The comments
[1:29:24] were uploaded online and
[1:29:26] provided to the board, and
[1:29:27] those comments were received
[1:29:29] from Guthrie Leonard, Timothy.
[1:29:31] Mahoney, Jeffrey. Jeffrey.
[1:29:33] Wheeler. And if there are any
[1:29:34] members of the public who wish
[1:29:36] to speak on the zoom webinar,
[1:29:37] please use the Raise Hand
[1:29:39] feature and I will call upon
[1:29:40] you. We do have one request to
[1:29:42] speak in Santa Barbara and
[1:29:44] three up north in Santa Maria.
[1:29:45] And so our first speaker in
[1:29:46] Santa Barbara is Barry. Remus.
[1:29:49] If you can please come up to
[1:29:55] the podium. Good evening.
[1:29:57] Excuse me. Good afternoon,
[1:29:58] Chair Nelson and directors. My
[1:30:00] name is Barry Remus and I'm
[1:30:03] with Santa Barbara County. We
[1:30:07] countywide empower, educate and
[1:30:08] advocate for those who walk,
[1:30:10] bike and use public transit. So
[1:30:12] what a perfect opportunity to
[1:30:15] address the route 66 multimodal
[1:30:16] corridor. And we really do want
[1:30:18] to highlight the fact that
[1:30:20] multimodal has been emphasized
[1:30:23] or highlighted in the study
[1:30:26] numerous times. And while we do
[1:30:27] realize that this is clearly
[1:30:29] going to be a large balancing
[1:30:33] act of numerous priorities, and
[1:30:34] recognizing the immense benefit
[1:30:36] that this agricultural corridor
[1:30:38] provides for everybody, we also
[1:30:40] want to emphasize as well, that
[1:30:41] it's more than just a truck
[1:30:44] route, and that we fully
[1:30:47] support the opportunity here,
[1:30:48] and it certainly is an
[1:30:49] opportunity. And also, Chair
[1:30:51] Nelson, as you mentioned, to be
[1:30:52] able to treat this as a living
[1:30:54] plan that obviously will need
[1:30:56] to be reevaluated and
[1:30:57] reassessed as the years go on
[1:30:59] and some things are going to
[1:31:00] take a lot longer than others.
[1:31:02] But while we certainly support
[1:31:03] the class one multi-purpose
[1:31:04] path that
[1:31:06] would be fully
[1:31:07] separated and protected for
[1:31:10] active transportation users,
[1:31:11] bike riders, pedestrians, and
[1:31:13] also the ever growing bike
[1:31:14] riding population, that is also
[1:31:16] a lot of commuters. That would
[1:31:17] probably be going back and
[1:31:19] forth between farms as e-bikes
[1:31:21] become more affordable. But
[1:31:24] also and we're also on record,
[1:31:26] supporters of the Santa Maria
[1:31:29] levee Trail as and we
[1:31:30] understand that there's the
[1:31:31] balance between that, too. But
[1:31:32] we feel that there are ways to
[1:31:34] be able to work that
[1:31:36] arrangement out, to be able to
[1:31:38] provide protected space for the
[1:31:40] agricultural owners, while also
[1:31:42] providing a good alternative
[1:31:44] route for active transportation
[1:31:46] users from and to Guadalupe and
[1:31:49] Santa Maria, but also the
[1:31:50] agricultural workers and the
[1:31:51] commuters, the farm workers
[1:31:53] that depend upon transit, and
[1:31:56] so that idea of increasing the
[1:31:59] caravans opportunities and also
[1:32:00] increasing the headways for
[1:32:04] smart transit all, all, all are
[1:32:05] wonderful ways that through
[1:32:07] funding availability can be
[1:32:09] more near-term solutions to be
[1:32:12] able to address the county's
[1:32:14] climate action plans, reducing
[1:32:16] emissions, reducing vehicle
[1:32:19] miles traveled, and also to be
[1:32:20] able to provide for so many of
[1:32:22] the agricultural workers coming
[1:32:24] out of Guadalupe. To Director
[1:32:27] Julian's points, to be able to
[1:32:28] provide that opportunity for
[1:32:29] them to get there safe routes
[1:32:31] to school is paramount for us,
[1:32:32] and we appreciate Director
[1:32:34] Perotti's questions and MR.
[1:32:36] Nelson's questions about the
[1:32:37] school, any amount of dust
[1:32:39] mitigation and the particulate
[1:32:40] matter for the safety and the
[1:32:42] future health of our children
[1:32:44] is, is, is is an excellent idea
[1:32:47] that the paved driveway aprons
[1:32:49] as well. And just lastly also
[1:32:51] going to point out that for the
[1:32:51] Guadalupe side, we had to
[1:32:53] highlight that Caltrans is
[1:32:54] holding a community meeting
[1:32:57] next Wednesday, the 21st, to
[1:33:00] highlight Guadalupe oriented
[1:33:02] action projects as well. So we
[1:33:04] want to bid you all a Happy New
[1:33:06] Year. And thank you very much.
[1:33:08] Thank you. Our next speaker is
[1:33:09] Claire Weinman, followed by
[1:33:25] Brett Fulgoni. In Santa Maria.
[1:33:27] Claire, you're up. We can't
[1:33:31] hear you yet. Now we can now,
[1:33:34] please. Good morning. My name
[1:33:35] is Claire Wyman. I'm the
[1:33:37] PRESIDENT Of the Grower Shipper
[1:33:37] Association of Santa Barbara
[1:33:39] and San Luis Obispo counties.
[1:33:41] We appreciate the opportunity
[1:33:42] to serve on the advisory
[1:33:43] committee, and it's always a
[1:33:44] pleasure to work with the sb,
[1:33:47] cag team. This is an essential
[1:33:48] corridor for safe and efficient
[1:33:50] and effective movement of
[1:33:52] people, equipment and fresh,
[1:33:55] perishable produce. Agriculture
[1:33:56] drives employment and
[1:33:57] businesses that many rely on.
[1:34:00] In North County. We've provided
[1:34:01] detailed comments throughout
[1:34:02] the process and would like to
[1:34:04] highlight a few key points
[1:34:08] before approval today. First,
[1:34:11] our number one ask is widening
[1:34:12] 166 to 4 lanes in a modest,
[1:34:14] compact design. We're sensitive
[1:34:16] to the cost and complexity of
[1:34:18] pursuing a very wide design and
[1:34:20] would look to a modest and
[1:34:21] achievable design which would
[1:34:23] better suit the location and
[1:34:25] use needs through a design
[1:34:28] variance. As many of you are
[1:34:29] already aware, we strongly
[1:34:31] oppose the Santa Maria River
[1:34:32] Levee Trail due to the
[1:34:34] significant food safety and
[1:34:36] operational concerns with that
[1:34:38] specific location. As mentioned,
[1:34:40] the majority of the advisory
[1:34:41] committee also did not support
[1:34:44] the trail at that location and
[1:34:46] asked it to be removed from
[1:34:50] this package. Many of you are
[1:34:51] also aware of our concerns
[1:34:53] about roundabouts and areas
[1:34:54] frequented by agricultural
[1:34:56] equipment, and specifically the
[1:34:58] mix of vehicle types, and would
[1:35:00] oppose roundabouts at Mahoney
[1:35:02] Road and Betteravia and 101
[1:35:05] favor Signalization for these
[1:35:08] locations. Finally, we strongly
[1:35:10] support a variety of east west
[1:35:11] travel corridors for trucks.
[1:35:13] This would provide resiliency
[1:35:15] and reduce undue pressure on
[1:35:18] any one pathway. We strongly
[1:35:19] support maintaining Main Street
[1:35:22] to 101 and further support
[1:35:24] additional options for highway
[1:35:26] one and semis, as well as Stoll
[1:35:28] Road, Union Valley Parkway and
[1:35:31] Clark. This would most closely
[1:35:32] align with the modified
[1:35:33] alternative five and six, and
[1:35:35] would like to remain very
[1:35:38] engaged in this process. We
[1:35:39] appreciate your attention and
[1:35:41] leadership to these important
[1:35:42] details, and look forward to
[1:35:44] continuing to serve our
[1:35:45] community as these move forward
[1:35:47] as projects. Thank you. Thank
[1:35:50] you, MISS Wyman. And our next
[1:35:52] speaker is Brett Fulgoni,
[1:35:56] followed by Maribel Aguilera.
[1:35:58] Good morning, Chair Nelson,
[1:36:00] directors Brett Fulgoni, public
[1:36:01] works director for the City of
[1:36:03] Santa Maria. And first of all,
[1:36:06] thank you all very much for the
[1:36:08] work that went into this, this
[1:36:09] study. A couple of things I
[1:36:11] just wanted to comment on. I
[1:36:13] recall back in NOVEMBER, there
[1:36:15] was some discussion about and
[1:36:18] you did listed in the the
[1:36:19] comments that that you took
[1:36:21] that information in. I didn't
[1:36:25] see it analyzed in the options
[1:36:28] analysis. So black and
[1:36:31] betteravia stolen black. And
[1:36:33] then also very importantly the
[1:36:34] two the two left hand turn
[1:36:38] lanes eastbound eastbound 166
[1:36:40] onto northbound Blosser in
[1:36:41] earlier Jim I heard talking
[1:36:44] about the the am peak which I
[1:36:46] think you nailed but I wasn't
[1:36:49] sure about that pm peak. And we
[1:36:51] see anecdotally the peak we
[1:36:53] think is probably around 3 to 4
[1:36:55] P.M. At that location where you
[1:36:57] get that left hand turn
[1:36:59] movement onto northbound. So
[1:37:02] really stacking up west. So we
[1:37:03] just want to make sure that
[1:37:05] that, that that gets addressed.
[1:37:06] Anecdotally we looked at it
[1:37:08] through engineering on our team.
[1:37:10] If we had four 11 foot lanes
[1:37:11] through there, which would
[1:37:13] require Caltrans design
[1:37:14] exception, we think we could
[1:37:16] get two left hand turn lanes
[1:37:18] onto that northbound Gloucester
[1:37:20] corridor. And so, you know,
[1:37:21] perhaps a short term solution
[1:37:23] could be a design exception
[1:37:24] through 11 foot lanes. Then as
[1:37:27] we move toward the medium, the
[1:37:29] medium term, we could widen
[1:37:31] that back out if needed because
[1:37:32] of the truck traffic. Although
[1:37:34] we do have many 11 and ten foot
[1:37:35] lanes throughout the city of
[1:37:38] Santa Maria on truck routes or
[1:37:41] unofficial truck routes. Let's
[1:37:43] see if I have anything else. So
[1:37:45] yeah, I just want to make sure
[1:37:46] that those intersections were
[1:37:47] fully studied that I mentioned
[1:37:48] and that we've captured the
[1:37:52] correct pm peak on that
[1:37:54] eastbound 166 to block. Thank
[1:37:57] you. Thank you Brett. And our
[1:38:00] next speaker is Maribel
[1:38:07] Aguilera. Chair and chair and
[1:38:09] members of the board I'm
[1:38:10] Maribel Aguilera, Santa Maria
[1:38:12] city council. I strongly
[1:38:15] support the final State Route
[1:38:16] 166 Comprehensive Corridor
[1:38:18] Study and urge approval today,
[1:38:19] with a further consideration to
[1:38:21] include the widening of the 166
[1:38:23] to 4 lanes. The people of Santa
[1:38:25] Maria Guadalupe deserve a safe,
[1:38:27] reliable corridor connecting
[1:38:29] our communities. Every day,
[1:38:31] Guadalupe residents travel the
[1:38:33] 166 to reach medical
[1:38:35] appointments, go shopping, get
[1:38:37] to work and access essential
[1:38:38] services in Santa Maria and
[1:38:40] Santa Maria. Residents depend
[1:38:41] on this same corner to reach
[1:38:43] the coast. Some work in
[1:38:45] Guadalupe, visit family and
[1:38:46] support businesses throughout
[1:38:48] the region. For too long, our
[1:38:50] families have navigated roadway
[1:38:52] plagued by safety concerns,
[1:38:55] heavy agricultural traffic,
[1:38:57] limited visibility, congestion
[1:38:59] and inadequate infrastructure
[1:39:01] at key intersections. We've had
[1:39:03] far too many serious accidents
[1:39:04] on this road over the years.
[1:39:06] The study represents years of
[1:39:08] thoughtful collaboration
[1:39:10] between sb, cag, Caltrans,
[1:39:12] Santa Barbara County and both
[1:39:13] cities of Santa Maria Guadalupe,
[1:39:15] and I am encouraged by the
[1:39:16] strong community engagement.
[1:39:18] Nearly 500 survey responses,
[1:39:20] with outreach in both English
[1:39:22] and Spanish at events such as
[1:39:24] Mexican Independence Day
[1:39:26] celebrations to our Parade of
[1:39:27] Lights, and with the benefit
[1:39:30] cost ratio of 2.66, this is
[1:39:33] clearly a sound investment. The
[1:39:35] identified improvements signal
[1:39:37] signalization at Siemens Road,
[1:39:39] enhanced lighting, intersection
[1:39:41] safety upgrades and
[1:39:42] transcendent Katzman's will
[1:39:44] provide real safety and
[1:39:46] operational benefits. However,
[1:39:48] I do want to address the timing
[1:39:51] and I do appreciate the request
[1:39:53] for four lane widening because
[1:39:54] that's really shouldn't be for
[1:39:56] long term planning because the
[1:39:59] need is now. During peak
[1:40:01] traffic times, it takes 45
[1:40:02] minutes to get from Santa Maria
[1:40:04] to Guadalupe. So I'd really
[1:40:06] encourage us to look at that
[1:40:07] and widening the road and
[1:40:10] looking at peak times 5 to 6
[1:40:13] A.M. And 3 to 4 P.M. As someone
[1:40:14] who has spent over a decade
[1:40:16] serving our region's families
[1:40:17] on the Planning Commission and
[1:40:19] City council, I know firsthand
[1:40:21] how critical this corridor is
[1:40:22] to our community's well-being
[1:40:25] and economic vitality. I ask
[1:40:26] that you include the four lane
[1:40:29] widening now, not as a long
[1:40:31] term goal, because the families
[1:40:32] of Guadalupe and Santa Maria
[1:40:34] need that today. Thank you.
[1:40:37] Thank you, COUNCILWOMAN. There
[1:40:38] are no further requests to
[1:40:40] speak. All right. Any other
[1:40:42] questions from directors in
[1:40:48] Santa Maria? Or comments? Did
[1:40:50] you have a comment? No, I have
[1:40:52] a comment on the comprehensive
[1:40:55] corridor study that is part
[1:40:58] part of the the River trail. I
[1:40:59] should say the River trail is
[1:41:02] part of that. That
[1:41:08] comprehensive corridor study.
[1:41:11] Director Patino, the the trail
[1:41:12] along the levee is a county
[1:41:13] project that was included in
[1:41:18] the the study. Okay. And that
[1:41:20] was already agreed to and
[1:41:22] passed. But four years ago or
[1:41:24] five years ago, I believe it's
[1:41:25] my understanding that the
[1:41:26] county agreed to fund certain
[1:41:29] segment or certain phases. I
[1:41:30] believe the environmental phase,
[1:41:34] which is currently ongoing.
[1:41:36] Thank you. All right. Any other
[1:41:38] questions or comments? Santa
[1:41:41] Maria? Yes. Yes there is.
[1:41:44] Please. I've got a comment here.
[1:41:46] What I made before and it's in
[1:41:48] regards to the trail. I know
[1:41:50] the county is well aware that
[1:41:51] they have a superior court
[1:41:53] ruling about introduction of
[1:41:55] people and pests into
[1:41:56] environmentally sensitive
[1:41:57] habitats, and how would you be
[1:41:58] getting around the Superior
[1:42:01] Court ruling by obviously
[1:42:02] introducing people and pets
[1:42:04] into environmentally sensitive
[1:42:07] habitats, agriculture, as it's
[1:42:08] recognized in the Superior
[1:42:10] Court ruling. So it seems to me
[1:42:11] that you're doing kind of the
[1:42:13] opposite of mandates that
[1:42:14] you've done in other areas of
[1:42:17] the county. But buyer beware
[1:42:19] with a trail, because I can
[1:42:20] guarantee what's going to
[1:42:21] happen. You might as well just
[1:42:22] call it the strawberry picking
[1:42:24] trail or something like that.
[1:42:25] But I've advised before that if
[1:42:27] you want to see what happens
[1:42:28] when you put trails in these
[1:42:30] type of areas, come to Lompoc.
[1:42:31] There's plenty of video that
[1:42:34] show out what happens there.
[1:42:36] But just for the record, I it
[1:42:38] just very curious how the
[1:42:40] county in one area can say no
[1:42:43] to recreation and trails in one
[1:42:44] area, but another area they can
[1:42:46] just turn a blind eye to it,
[1:42:48] even when the people owning the
[1:42:49] property around are saying no
[1:42:53] and it moves forward. All right.
[1:42:55] Thank you. Director, can I. Can
[1:42:57] I answer that? Sure. Yeah,
[1:42:58] absolutely. Director. So as far
[1:43:00] as calling it a blind eye,
[1:43:02] we've studied this thing upside
[1:43:03] down, backwards and frontwards.
[1:43:07] It has had plenty of public
[1:43:10] comment. The project that is
[1:43:13] that there is really no even
[1:43:15] we're in the very beginning
[1:43:16] stages of this. We all
[1:43:17] understood the reason why it's
[1:43:20] not done right now is because
[1:43:22] of the farmers input, and we
[1:43:23] realize that we can't do it
[1:43:24] without a huge investment that
[1:43:29] would include lighting, fencing,
[1:43:33] paving, all kinds of
[1:43:34] engineering to keep people out
[1:43:36] of those fields. So staffing,
[1:43:39] staffing, if if we had turned a
[1:43:40] blind eye, we would have said,
[1:43:42] okay, here's a Santa Maria
[1:43:43] River levee trail and it's open
[1:43:45] and all hell would have broke
[1:43:47] loose. So because of the input
[1:43:49] of the farmers and our ability
[1:43:51] to then dial it way down and
[1:43:53] say, okay, this obviously is an
[1:43:56] area of concern. I got to be
[1:43:57] honest, I think it has not been
[1:43:59] in blind eye. We've gone in
[1:44:00] with eyes wide open and tried
[1:44:02] to listen to what the comments
[1:44:05] were and change what even the
[1:44:07] proposal is. That's why it's
[1:44:09] not going to happen tomorrow.
[1:44:10] It's not going to happen next
[1:44:12] Friday. It is a long term
[1:44:14] project that is going to take a
[1:44:15] lot of funding to do it the
[1:44:18] right way. So the reason why
[1:44:19] it's going to take a long time
[1:44:22] is because we have decided to
[1:44:23] really implement everything
[1:44:24] that we've heard from the
[1:44:27] public. So, you know, I think
[1:44:29] it's easy to throw rocks at
[1:44:32] this and act like nobody's
[1:44:34] paying attention to it when the
[1:44:36] exact opposite is true.
[1:44:37] Everybody's paying attention to
[1:44:38] it. We're on top of it, and
[1:44:40] we're really analyzing it. So I
[1:44:41] just want the public to
[1:44:43] understand that this is not
[1:44:45] just a Wild West, free for all
[1:44:46] trail running through ag
[1:44:47] property. All right. I want to
[1:44:49] kind of bring this back though.
[1:44:51] So this is just referenced in
[1:44:53] the study. And today all we are
[1:44:54] doing is receiving and filing
[1:44:56] the study. Right. We're not
[1:44:57] actually adopting these
[1:44:59] projects any of these designs.
[1:45:01] We're just hearing a
[1:45:02] presentation on what we paid
[1:45:05] for. We are asking for the
[1:45:08] board approval as a study. And
[1:45:09] then it gets incorporated into
[1:45:10] the plan as priorities as we
[1:45:12] move forward. So the board will
[1:45:14] have discretion on what
[1:45:15] priorities get incorporated
[1:45:16] into the regional
[1:45:17] transportation plan as we move
[1:45:19] forward. But this is just basic
[1:45:21] information to inform your
[1:45:22] future decision making, right?
[1:45:24] So no actual decisions will be
[1:45:26] made on projects or designs at
[1:45:27] this point. Correct? Correct. I
[1:45:29] just want to make sure I think
[1:45:31] it's a good, good discussion
[1:45:32] debate, and it's good to get
[1:45:33] information out there. I
[1:45:34] appreciate both perspectives
[1:45:35] and having that opportunity to
[1:45:37] say that, but I do want to get
[1:45:38] us moving along towards
[1:45:39] finishing up this item so we
[1:45:41] can get this meeting finished
[1:45:42] in a timely manner. So with
[1:45:44] that supervisor sorry, Director
[1:45:49] Hartman. Go ahead. Okay. All
[1:45:52] right. So not seeing too many
[1:45:54] other lights up here. Any other
[1:45:56] lights again that could get us
[1:45:58] back to this item is to receive
[1:46:00] this study. The action on the
[1:46:02] agenda is to approve the final
[1:46:04] study, the comprehensive
[1:46:05] corridor study, and to direct
[1:46:07] staff to file a notice of
[1:46:07] exemption with the Santa
[1:46:10] Barbara clerk for a sequa. So
[1:46:12] the study is not an
[1:46:13] environmental document, though.
[1:46:15] It's it's exempt from
[1:46:16] environment because it's just a
[1:46:17] study. You're not making
[1:46:18] official decisions or
[1:46:20] priorities. It's information
[1:46:22] for your future decision making
[1:46:23] okay. We're not making those
[1:46:26] decisions today. All right. So
[1:46:28] I just need a motion to that
[1:46:29] motion okay. Motion from
[1:46:32] Hartman and a second from Silva.
[1:46:33] Further discussion. Supervisor
[1:46:36] or director Patino. Yes. I
[1:46:38] would really like to go on
[1:46:39] record saying I do oppose the
[1:46:41] River trail being in on that
[1:46:43] study. And I know we've gone
[1:46:44] through it over and over. I
[1:46:46] don't think that people realize
[1:46:48] the impact and the challenges
[1:46:50] to the growers in our community,
[1:46:52] and they are extremely
[1:46:54] important. Ag is the the engine
[1:46:57] that fuels our community. And i
[1:46:59] just I didn't like it when it
[1:47:01] was passed and I don't like it.
[1:47:03] I don't like it now. I just I
[1:47:04] don't think people realize that
[1:47:06] even with birds going into
[1:47:09] fields and contaminating
[1:47:11] whatever is going in the fields
[1:47:13] makes those fields unusable.
[1:47:14] And, and I think when you've
[1:47:16] got people going down the levy
[1:47:17] on their bicycles and they have
[1:47:19] their dogs with them, and I
[1:47:20] realize we have in here is
[1:47:22] going to do fencing, but
[1:47:24] somehow we go down the road and
[1:47:26] things get turned around. And
[1:47:28] so I would love to see if that
[1:47:30] could be removed from this
[1:47:32] study, the approval of the
[1:47:36] study. Thank you. Other
[1:47:37] comments on the motion that we
[1:47:41] have right now. Okay. I see no
[1:47:43] additional comments on the
[1:47:44] motion. MADAM Clerk, can you
[1:47:47] please have a roll call? Vote.
[1:47:49] Director. Rouse. Director.
[1:47:55] Perotti. Director. Patino. No.
[1:47:58] Director. Mosby. No. Director.
[1:48:02] Lee. Hi. Director. Lavagnino.
[1:48:06] Director. Julian. Hi, director.
[1:48:09] Hartman, I. Director. Clark.
[1:48:12] Director. Capps. Director.
[1:48:14] Brown, I vice chair. Silva, I
[1:48:17] and chair. Nelson, I. Motion
[1:48:21] passes. 11 two. Do you mind
[1:48:22] calling out just the number for
[1:48:24] the public? Was that what it
[1:48:26] was? Yes, it was 11 to 2. Thank
[1:48:28] you. All right. We're moving on
[1:48:31] to our final discussion item,
[1:48:33] item five c. MADAM Clerk, would
[1:48:34] you please read that into the
[1:48:36] record? Expanded peak hour
[1:48:38] intercity rail service update.
[1:48:40] Recommended actions, received
[1:48:40] presentation and provide
[1:48:42] direction to staff regarding
[1:48:43] the proposal by the Los Angeles,
[1:48:46] San Diego, San Luis Obispo Rail
[1:48:48] Corridor Agency to operate
[1:48:49] expanded intercity passenger
[1:48:50] rail service between Ventura
[1:48:53] and Santa Barbara counties. MR.
[1:49:00] Bonfiglio, please. Good morning.
[1:49:03] All right. Good morning, MR.
[1:49:05] Chair. Board of Directors. For
[1:49:06] the record, my name is Aaron
[1:49:07] Bonfiglio, director of
[1:49:10] multimodal programs for sb cag.
[1:49:11] And with me today is Jason
[1:49:13] Jewell from the Rail Corridor
[1:49:14] Agency, the managing director,
[1:49:19] to help with the presentation.
[1:49:21] So today's presentation and
[1:49:22] we'll try to move through it
[1:49:24] quickly. I don't want to stand
[1:49:26] between you all and lunch. It's
[1:49:29] a hard place to be. We'll
[1:49:30] provide you all with a quick
[1:49:31] background of this project
[1:49:34] where we are with regard to Los
[1:49:36] Angeles and board direction. As
[1:49:38] far as their updated proposal
[1:49:39] is concerned, because there was
[1:49:41] some action at the recent board
[1:49:43] that has triggered some new
[1:49:44] information. And then next
[1:49:54] steps with regard to timeline.
[1:49:56] Okay. We'll try again. All
[1:49:58] right. New clicker. So as the
[1:50:02] board will recall in 2018 sb
[1:50:05] cag began a service with the
[1:50:06] Pacific Surfliner, the rail
[1:50:09] corridor agency, to operate
[1:50:10] additional train service from
[1:50:12] the south into Santa Barbara
[1:50:13] County to address the peak hour
[1:50:15] morning commute period. This is
[1:50:17] a long standing commitment that
[1:50:19] sb cag has made to the voters.
[1:50:21] The Lane and a train was part
[1:50:24] of the 2008 measure, a renewal
[1:50:27] or push for the current local
[1:50:29] self-help sales tax measure
[1:50:32] that's here today, and we've
[1:50:33] achieved much of the lane and
[1:50:35] had fits and starts with the
[1:50:37] train. So as it relates to our
[1:50:39] ongoing efforts, I'm here to
[1:50:40] tell you that we have some good
[1:50:42] news. Over the past two years,
[1:50:43] we've been working very closely,
[1:50:45] both with Lausanne and our
[1:50:46] partners in Ventura County, but
[1:50:48] also with the regional Rail
[1:50:49] Authority in Southern
[1:50:51] California, Metrolink, to come
[1:50:52] up with a solution to help
[1:50:54] expedite additional train
[1:50:57] service. Over the years. We had
[1:50:59] a discussion with this group
[1:51:02] that effectively was to provide
[1:51:05] on loan a slot from the Rail
[1:51:06] Corridor Agency that they have
[1:51:09] track access to. With the Union
[1:51:10] Pacific right of way. It's very
[1:51:12] important. U.P. Is the owner of
[1:51:15] the tracks from for much of our
[1:51:17] area as far north as the Bay
[1:51:19] area, and in order to operate
[1:51:21] trains, Union Pacific must
[1:51:23] provide that access and we must
[1:51:26] reimburse them. Lausanne has
[1:51:27] access as well as Metrolink
[1:51:28] throughout the Southern
[1:51:30] California area, but
[1:51:31] effectively Lausanne was unable
[1:51:33] to provide the additional train
[1:51:34] service when we went back to
[1:51:37] them in 2022, in early 2023,
[1:51:39] and creatively, they suggested
[1:51:40] that, you know who does have
[1:51:41] train equipment that could
[1:51:42] operate this service. Well,
[1:51:44] maybe they don't have access is
[1:51:46] Metrolink. And so we began on
[1:51:47] an effort to work with both
[1:51:49] Metrolink and Lausanne in our
[1:51:50] in our partners in Ventura
[1:51:52] County to establish a set of
[1:51:54] agreements that would allow for
[1:51:56] Metrolink to temporarily use
[1:51:58] Lausanne's track access for a
[1:51:59] period of time until such time
[1:52:01] that Lausanne could operate
[1:52:03] additional Pacific Surfliner
[1:52:04] services funded by the state,
[1:52:06] and through the additional
[1:52:07] equipment that they would need
[1:52:09] in order to operate. We got
[1:52:11] very far along and earlier this
[1:52:12] summer approached Union Pacific
[1:52:15] with approximately eight months
[1:52:16] to go before our anticipated
[1:52:19] start date. Union Pacific was
[1:52:21] initially receptive to the idea
[1:52:23] and began to review some of the
[1:52:25] internal or the initial
[1:52:26] documents, preliminary
[1:52:28] schedules and so forth. But but
[1:52:30] the bottom line was, is that
[1:52:31] Union Pacific has a process
[1:52:32] that it must go through, and
[1:52:33] that Lausanne's agreement with
[1:52:36] U.P. Specifically identified
[1:52:37] Amtrak as the operator of
[1:52:39] record on any of the Up
[1:52:41] corridor north of Moorpark
[1:52:43] station. In addition to
[1:52:45] Metrolink and Ventura County,
[1:52:47] in order to utilize Lausanne's
[1:52:49] agreement, an additional
[1:52:51] agreement with U.P. Would be
[1:52:52] required. And while U.P. Was
[1:52:54] receptive and eager for
[1:52:58] business, they had to let us
[1:53:00] know in no uncertain terms that
[1:53:01] they had other priorities, and
[1:53:03] in particular, their merger
[1:53:05] with Norfolk Southern was
[1:53:06] underway, and there was quite a
[1:53:07] bit of scrutiny that they had
[1:53:09] to address and would be able to
[1:53:11] review our proposal and our
[1:53:13] agreement options in the
[1:53:16] beginning of 2026. As I
[1:53:17] mentioned, this is an effort
[1:53:19] that to put this train into
[1:53:20] service with additional train
[1:53:22] service since 2008, if not
[1:53:24] prior to that. I think the
[1:53:26] first study I read, looking at
[1:53:27] train service in the corridor,
[1:53:30] was done by Scag in 1998, if
[1:53:32] not a little bit earlier than
[1:53:33] that. The final report before
[1:53:35] both Santa Barbara and Ventura
[1:53:37] counties around that time, and
[1:53:39] at that time, and most recently
[1:53:43] in 2000, seven studies were
[1:53:45] done that showed that Lausanne
[1:53:47] was ultimately the best
[1:53:48] available operator to operate
[1:53:50] additional peak hour service.
[1:53:52] Because a simple retiming, or
[1:53:53] what we presume would be a
[1:53:54] simple retiming, would be the
[1:53:56] best way to go, as there is
[1:53:57] already a state supported
[1:53:59] service. So we did that in 2018
[1:54:01] and unfortunately, during the
[1:54:03] pandemic, due to declining
[1:54:04] ridership and some changes with
[1:54:05] the availability of train
[1:54:06] equipment, we were unable to
[1:54:08] reestablish that service. Hence
[1:54:11] the Metrolink expansion option.
[1:54:13] As I mentioned, U.P. Responded
[1:54:15] to Lausanne this summer and a
[1:54:16] little bit after our last
[1:54:17] presentation, which was in
[1:54:20] AUGUST of 2025, to the board,
[1:54:21] that they would be able to
[1:54:24] begin on that agreement in 2026.
[1:54:28] Unfortunately, Union Pacific
[1:54:30] had indicated to both Lausanne
[1:54:32] and Metrolink that there'd be
[1:54:33] some additional requirements or
[1:54:34] potentially new requirements on
[1:54:36] Lausanne Agreement with them,
[1:54:37] which opens up a new can of
[1:54:38] worms where Lausanne previously
[1:54:40] already has access to that
[1:54:43] service. In NOVEMBER of 2025,
[1:54:46] Lausanne's board took action to
[1:54:49] prioritize their Amtrak Pacific
[1:54:50] Surfliner service as the
[1:54:52] temporary period of time, which
[1:54:53] we envisioned Metrolink to
[1:54:55] operate was quickly coming on
[1:54:59] to the horizon. So effectively,
[1:55:01] Lausanne had seen some
[1:55:02] expansion or, excuse me,
[1:55:04] increase in their train
[1:55:06] capacity, their train equipment
[1:55:07] capacity. They had ability to
[1:55:09] operate additional services.
[1:55:10] We're looking towards expansion
[1:55:12] in the near term. And
[1:55:14] Metrolink's proposal, which was
[1:55:15] still yet to be determined and
[1:55:17] finalized with Union Pacific,
[1:55:19] calls for two conflicting
[1:55:22] efforts. And where we are today
[1:55:23] is to bring you that update on
[1:55:25] how Lausanne's board saw fit to
[1:55:27] work with sb cag in Ventura
[1:55:30] County to still achieve that
[1:55:32] expansion, but to do so with an
[1:55:33] alternative proposal. And so
[1:55:35] here with me today, I mentioned
[1:55:36] Jason Doyle. He's going to
[1:55:37] bring you some additional
[1:55:39] information regarding the
[1:55:41] latest Lausanne board activity,
[1:55:42] as well as briefly describe
[1:55:45] some of the proposal. It's down
[1:55:53] to click forward. Great. Gets
[1:55:57] set up real quick. Great. Thank
[1:55:59] you Aaron and good morning
[1:56:00] Chair Nelson and members of the
[1:56:01] board. As Aaron mentioned my
[1:56:03] name is Jason Jewell. I'm the
[1:56:04] managing director of the
[1:56:05] Lausanne Rail Corridor Agency.
[1:56:07] And I wanted to mention that I
[1:56:08] am a ucsb graduate and started
[1:56:10] my career in government service
[1:56:12] many moons ago with the County
[1:56:13] of Santa Barbara, right here in
[1:56:15] this building. And I don't want
[1:56:17] to age myself. But that was
[1:56:18] back when Congressman Salud
[1:56:20] Carbajal worked for First
[1:56:21] District Supervisor Naomi
[1:56:23] Schwartz. And the reason why I
[1:56:24] mentioned this is because I
[1:56:26] used to take the Amtrak Pacific
[1:56:29] Surfliner train to Santa
[1:56:30] Barbara, back to my home in
[1:56:32] Ventura County. And I also used
[1:56:34] to drive the 101 many times to
[1:56:36] get to and from home. So I
[1:56:38] recognize the importance of
[1:56:40] having multiple transportation
[1:56:41] options for the region. And I'm
[1:56:43] here today representing the
[1:56:44] Lausanne Rail Corridor Agency,
[1:56:46] of course. And we also
[1:56:48] recognize the importance of
[1:56:49] alternative transportation
[1:56:51] options and specifically
[1:56:53] intercity rail options as
[1:56:54] transportation focal point of
[1:56:56] ours. And I wanted to just take
[1:56:58] a few minutes to give you a
[1:56:59] little bit of background on the
[1:57:01] Lausanne Rail Corridor Agency.
[1:57:03] We are a joint powers authority
[1:57:05] with nine member agencies
[1:57:07] comprised of regional
[1:57:08] transportation and planning
[1:57:09] agencies, as well as rail
[1:57:11] owners and operators spanning
[1:57:13] six counties from San Diego all
[1:57:15] the way up to San Luis Obispo.
[1:57:18] And sb 1225 is really the
[1:57:19] legislation that paved the way
[1:57:21] for the Lausanne Agency to
[1:57:22] manage the Amtrak Pacific
[1:57:23] Surfliner intercity rail
[1:57:25] service, which we have been
[1:57:27] doing successfully since 2015.
[1:57:29] Now we have an 11 member board
[1:57:31] and which I'd like to recognize
[1:57:33] and thank director Perotti for
[1:57:35] her representation and support
[1:57:38] on our board, as well as
[1:57:40] Alternate Director Lee, and
[1:57:42] touch upon the intercity rail
[1:57:43] corridor and the service itself.
[1:57:45] Real quickly. The Amtrak
[1:57:47] Pacific Surfliner service spans
[1:57:49] the entire length of the
[1:57:51] corridor, which is 351 miles
[1:57:54] long. We currently stop at 29
[1:57:56] stations, and it is the
[1:57:57] nation's second busiest
[1:57:59] intercity rail corridor in
[1:58:00] terms of ridership outside of
[1:58:03] the Northeast Corridor. The
[1:58:05] corridor itself is very unique.
[1:58:07] It has seven right of way track
[1:58:09] owners, two freight operators,
[1:58:12] a Up and bsf, as well as two
[1:58:14] commuter regional rail services.
[1:58:16] In addition to that, the us
[1:58:17] Department of Defense has
[1:58:19] identified it as part of the
[1:58:20] Strategic Rail Corridor network
[1:58:22] for its access to the Marine
[1:58:24] Corps Base Camp Pendleton down
[1:58:26] in San Diego, as well as the
[1:58:28] Port of San Diego. So I wanted
[1:58:30] to dive a little deeper into
[1:58:32] the effort that Aaron had been
[1:58:34] talking about, that we have
[1:58:36] before you today, as we have
[1:58:38] been working to expand
[1:58:40] intercity rail service. And I
[1:58:41] wanted to start off by thanking
[1:58:43] both the sb, cag team as well
[1:58:46] as the ctc teams for their
[1:58:47] coordination and support
[1:58:49] through this effort. But most
[1:58:52] of all, their patients. As as
[1:58:53] mentioned, this has been a long
[1:58:55] time coming. This started off
[1:58:58] as a request several years ago
[1:59:00] from sb, cag, and vtc to the
[1:59:02] Lausanne Agency to support
[1:59:03] restoring peak period service
[1:59:06] to the regions, and at that
[1:59:07] time, we did not have the
[1:59:09] equipment, resources available
[1:59:11] or the funding available to run
[1:59:13] the service. However, it has
[1:59:14] always been the intent and
[1:59:15] included in the plans of the
[1:59:17] Lausanne Agency to implement
[1:59:19] expanded service to Goleta as
[1:59:21] well as San Luis Obispo, which
[1:59:22] is included in our annual
[1:59:25] business plans for fiscal year
[1:59:26] 2627 and consistent with State
[1:59:29] Rail Plan goals. So, as Aaron
[1:59:31] mentioned, together we explored
[1:59:33] the possibility of
[1:59:34] subcontracting the service to
[1:59:36] Metrolink and allowing them to
[1:59:38] temporarily utilize the
[1:59:40] Lausanne Agency's track access
[1:59:41] rights that we currently have
[1:59:43] with Union Pacific. We have
[1:59:44] this access agreement directly
[1:59:46] with Union Pacific, which
[1:59:48] currently allows us to run the
[1:59:49] Amtrak Pacific Surfliner
[1:59:52] service. So the Lausanne sb,
[1:59:54] cag, ctc and Metrolink teams
[1:59:56] worked together on this path
[1:59:57] when really two major milestone
[1:59:59] or events happen that created
[2:00:01] the opportunity that we
[2:00:02] currently have before us. And
[2:00:04] these events do tie into the
[2:00:06] Lausanne board direction to
[2:00:07] prioritize the intercity rail
[2:00:09] service expansion that I will
[2:00:11] get into. The first is really
[2:00:13] in the JULY time frame. The
[2:00:15] Lausanne Agency, as Aaron had
[2:00:17] mentioned, had learned that Up
[2:00:19] would require a completely new
[2:00:20] operating agreement between the
[2:00:23] Lausanne Agency and up and up
[2:00:25] to identify Metrolink as an
[2:00:27] alternative operator. This
[2:00:28] requirement became necessary
[2:00:30] for Union Pacific because
[2:00:32] Metrolink transitioned from
[2:00:33] contracting directly their
[2:00:35] operations, with Amtrak over to
[2:00:37] Alstom. Up also communicated,
[2:00:38] as Erin had mentioned, that
[2:00:39] given their resources being
[2:00:41] fully dedicated to their work
[2:00:43] on their national merger, that
[2:00:44] as soon as they could provide a
[2:00:46] draft agreement for us to
[2:00:48] review would be q1 of 2026. And
[2:00:50] of course, once received that
[2:00:52] draft agreement, we would need
[2:00:54] to that agreement would need to
[2:00:55] be reviewed and negotiated,
[2:00:57] which really made the timing of
[2:00:59] the Metrolink subcontract
[2:01:01] really time uncertain. So the
[2:01:03] second major event was really
[2:01:06] the clarity around equipment
[2:01:08] availability. Equipment
[2:01:09] availability has been one of
[2:01:10] the primary constraints for the
[2:01:12] Lausanne Agency to be able to
[2:01:13] implement additional service
[2:01:15] north of Los Angeles, but in
[2:01:18] late SEPTEMBER, we received a
[2:01:19] Pre-award authority letter from
[2:01:21] the Federal Railroad
[2:01:23] Administration committing to
[2:01:24] $27 million in a Restoration
[2:01:26] and Enhancement Grant award to
[2:01:29] the Lausanne Agency to support
[2:01:31] intercity rail service
[2:01:32] restoration. And I'm proud to
[2:01:35] say that this is the first
[2:01:36] federal grant awarded to the
[2:01:38] Lausanne Agency, and it
[2:01:39] supports the full restoration
[2:01:42] of pre-covid service levels by
[2:01:44] restoring the 11th, 12th and
[2:01:46] 13th round trips between la and
[2:01:48] San Diego. We were running 13
[2:01:51] round trips pre-covid, and I'm
[2:01:52] pleased to share that we have
[2:01:54] already implemented the 11th
[2:01:56] and 12th round trips and just
[2:01:57] announced this week our plans
[2:01:59] for the implementation of the
[2:02:01] 13th round trip between la and
[2:02:04] San Diego starting JANUARY 26th.
[2:02:06] So to support this service
[2:02:07] restoration, Caltrans and the
[2:02:11] three California Jpas agreed on
[2:02:13] a redeployment plan to be able
[2:02:15] to redeploy equipment from the
[2:02:17] Northern California fleet down
[2:02:18] to the Lausanne Agency to be
[2:02:21] ready for service restoration.
[2:02:22] This equipment that is needed
[2:02:24] for our service restoration for
[2:02:26] the 13th round trip will also
[2:02:28] provide sufficient capacity to
[2:02:29] allow for service expansion in
[2:02:31] the North. So with these
[2:02:33] developments back in NOVEMBER,
[2:02:35] the Lausanne Agency Board
[2:02:36] directed staff to prioritize
[2:02:39] efforts to pursue the Pacific
[2:02:41] Surfliner service expansion,
[2:02:42] including the six round trip to
[2:02:43] Goleta and the third round trip
[2:02:45] to San Luis Obispo as the
[2:02:47] pathway to provide additional
[2:02:50] service. So I know Aaron will
[2:02:51] dive into a little bit more of
[2:02:53] the details on the next slide.
[2:02:54] As far as the expanded service
[2:02:56] pilot proposal itself, however,
[2:02:58] I did want to mention that we
[2:02:59] do view this as a great
[2:03:01] opportunity to advance State
[2:03:03] Rail plan goals, maximize the
[2:03:05] investment the state has made
[2:03:07] in the U.P. Owned territory,
[2:03:08] provide not only greater
[2:03:10] regional benefits, regional
[2:03:12] rail benefits by providing peak
[2:03:14] period service to Ventura and
[2:03:16] Santa Barbara, but also
[2:03:17] expanding service along the
[2:03:20] entire corridor with a midday
[2:03:21] departure southbound from San
[2:03:24] Luis Obispo just after the 12
[2:03:26] P.M. Slot. This will also
[2:03:28] provide additional rail service
[2:03:30] options for the World Cup
[2:03:32] coming up very soon. And so we
[2:03:35] are proposing a 12 month pilot
[2:03:37] utilizing temporary funding
[2:03:39] from both Vctc and sb cag, as
[2:03:42] well as a portion of Lausanne
[2:03:43] Agency's estimated operational
[2:03:45] budget savings. To fund this
[2:03:47] pilot, the Lausanne Agency
[2:03:48] intends to continue to include
[2:03:50] the proposed service in our
[2:03:51] annual business plan and
[2:03:54] funding request to the state.
[2:03:57] However, given the state's
[2:03:59] outlook on the the next budget
[2:04:01] proposal, we will also be
[2:04:03] working with stakeholders to
[2:04:05] identify and pursue any federal
[2:04:07] funding sources or any other
[2:04:08] funding sources that MAY be
[2:04:10] able to sustain the service
[2:04:12] after the 12 month period. So
[2:04:13] we're going to be taking the
[2:04:15] lead on on doing that to make
[2:04:16] sure that we can identify
[2:04:18] funding to be able to sustain
[2:04:20] this service beyond the 12
[2:04:22] months. So now I will hand it
[2:04:24] back over to Aaron to provide a
[2:04:26] little bit more details on the
[2:04:27] Amtrak Pacific Surfliner
[2:04:29] service proposal itself, as
[2:04:31] well as as it relates to
[2:04:37] Metrolink's proposal. Jason.
[2:04:40] All right. So much of the
[2:04:41] proposal by Lausanne is
[2:04:43] actually quite like what we've
[2:04:44] seen from Metrolink already.
[2:04:46] And in fact, the timetable
[2:04:48] northbound is nearly identical
[2:04:49] to what was previously
[2:04:50] presented to the board. And
[2:04:53] I'll show that in just a moment.
[2:04:54] So specifically, the train will
[2:04:56] travel north from La Union
[2:04:58] Station through the area of
[2:04:59] Ventura County and into Santa
[2:05:00] Barbara County, getting to
[2:05:02] Goleta at approximately the
[2:05:03] same time. From there, it'll
[2:05:05] continue north into San Luis
[2:05:06] Obispo. And as Jason mentioned,
[2:05:08] we'll return south, providing a
[2:05:10] corridor wide train. There are
[2:05:11] cost savings associated with
[2:05:13] this proposal that were not
[2:05:14] previously available under the
[2:05:15] Metrolink, and that is
[2:05:16] specifically because we're able
[2:05:18] to help we're able to leverage
[2:05:20] Lausanne's buying power and and
[2:05:21] ability to work with Amtrak,
[2:05:23] but also that their r&d grant,
[2:05:25] this federal grant that they
[2:05:26] received, we're able to
[2:05:27] leverage that with the advent
[2:05:29] of the additional train
[2:05:30] equipment. So there's some
[2:05:30] significant cost savings that
[2:05:33] are coming, not to mention the
[2:05:34] increase in passenger fare
[2:05:36] revenue that's anticipated for,
[2:05:38] in particular, that southbound
[2:05:39] train that is a bit more
[2:05:40] productive, as it will head
[2:05:42] from all the way from San Luis
[2:05:44] Obispo to San Diego. So there's
[2:05:45] additional fare revenues or
[2:05:46] operating revenues that will be
[2:05:47] borne as a result of this
[2:05:49] additional service. And then
[2:05:51] lastly, as a as a buyer of
[2:05:52] services from Metrolink
[2:05:54] separate from their existing
[2:05:56] jpa, both Vctc and sb, cag
[2:05:58] would have to wholly fund their
[2:05:59] entire cost of the project,
[2:06:01] which would include their
[2:06:02] self-insured retention policy,
[2:06:05] which was a significant cost
[2:06:06] associated with the service.
[2:06:08] Approximately $5 million
[2:06:16] self-insured retention pool would be made available if,
[2:06:17] in fact, Metrolink were to
[2:06:18] proceed forward, and so there's
[2:06:21] some expedited in scheduling
[2:06:22] that's anticipated to. As a
[2:06:25] result, with regard to the
[2:06:26] schedule, these are the two
[2:06:27] trips that would be added
[2:06:29] highlighted in yellow. You'll
[2:06:31] notice the time into Goleta is
[2:06:33] is close to, if not the same as
[2:06:35] what was previously presented.
[2:06:37] There have been some minor time
[2:06:38] adjustments by the host
[2:06:40] railroad in particular, which
[2:06:41] would have been true whether or
[2:06:42] not it was Metrolink operating
[2:06:44] on the corridor or Lausanne.
[2:06:45] These are the exact same trip
[2:06:46] times that are feasible given
[2:06:48] the existing slot. The
[2:06:50] southbound trip, which, as
[2:06:51] Jason mentioned, will begin
[2:06:53] just after noon in San Luis
[2:06:54] Obispo, will travel the whole
[2:06:56] corridor and through Union
[2:06:58] Station at approximately 5:50
[2:07:04] P.M. And further south. So what
[2:07:05] are some of the next steps? As
[2:07:07] Jason mentioned, the the
[2:07:09] agreement or rather the the
[2:07:11] proposal is before sb, cag and
[2:07:12] Vctc. Right now we're in
[2:07:14] negotiations. The the final
[2:07:16] draft proposal we hope to bring
[2:07:18] back to the board in FEBRUARY.
[2:07:20] There is the expectation that
[2:07:21] the state's approval process
[2:07:23] will be completed by then. We
[2:07:25] hope that that will be positive.
[2:07:27] But ultimately this is a state
[2:07:28] supported service, and so they
[2:07:30] have to sign off on any
[2:07:31] expansion. So there is there is
[2:07:33] that waiting period where we're
[2:07:34] looking forward to the state's
[2:07:36] review of this, where before we
[2:07:37] come back to you in FEBRUARY,
[2:07:39] we anticipate getting that that
[2:07:42] green light following the board
[2:07:43] approvals. We'll begin on the
[2:07:45] concerted marketing efforts
[2:07:46] between Ventura County and
[2:07:48] Santa Barbara County. Largely
[2:07:49] speaking, Ventura will work
[2:07:50] with its residents and
[2:07:51] constituencies in the South,
[2:07:53] and we'll work with the
[2:07:54] employers and the larger
[2:07:55] organizations here in the North
[2:07:57] to make sure that word is out
[2:07:58] and that all of the available
[2:08:00] riders know of the service and
[2:08:01] are ready to use it. We also
[2:08:02] have some additional grant
[2:08:04] funds that were awarded to sb,
[2:08:05] cag previously by the state
[2:08:06] that were made available
[2:08:08] specifically to assist with the
[2:08:09] the ticket pricing with regard
[2:08:11] to Amtrak Pacific Surfliner,
[2:08:12] which will go into effect as
[2:08:14] well. And we'll be helpful in
[2:08:15] buying down the fares and
[2:08:17] making costs affordable to the
[2:08:19] riders. So I mentioned the
[2:08:20] timeline ahead, and with that,
[2:08:22] I'd be happy to answer any
[2:08:24] questions. All right. Questions
[2:08:26] from directors I see Director
[2:08:28] Capps. And then I'll come to
[2:08:33] Director Hartman over. Sorry
[2:08:36] about that. Just a little cozy
[2:08:40] down here in Goleta. Well,
[2:08:43] thank you for this. And I just
[2:08:46] applaud the the plan b, and
[2:08:48] although I know our high hopes
[2:08:52] are have been dashed, it's not
[2:08:54] for lack of all of the work
[2:08:55] that this agency went into. You
[2:08:57] did everything. You lined up
[2:08:59] the funds, the operator. And
[2:09:00] it's really the stumbling block
[2:09:02] that I understand has been in
[2:09:04] place for a long time. So I
[2:09:05] just before I ask about that.
[2:09:07] And MR. Jewell, thanks for
[2:09:09] being here. Welcome back to the
[2:09:12] county. I just kind of want to
[2:09:14] get my head around a little bit
[2:09:16] with Union Pacific. They just
[2:09:19] basically said we're we can't
[2:09:21] we're too busy with our merger
[2:09:24] to focus on this. Is that is
[2:09:26] that the understanding? You
[2:09:28] know, I will have to defer to a
[2:09:30] managing director, Jewell, with
[2:09:31] regard to the specific response
[2:09:33] from Union Pacific. But that's
[2:09:34] our understanding, is that they
[2:09:36] would be able to begin working
[2:09:37] on the agreement. Mind you,
[2:09:39] just starting off on that
[2:09:40] process at about this time or
[2:09:41] sometime between now and the
[2:09:43] end of the first quarter. And
[2:09:44] so because they own the tracks,
[2:09:47] they essentially control the
[2:09:48] timeline of when this would
[2:09:52] have gone forward. Okay. But so
[2:09:54] again, just just trying to
[2:09:56] clarity but because there's
[2:09:57] already agreement with Lausanne,
[2:09:58] it can be expanded without
[2:09:59] having to go through all of
[2:10:02] that process with with them.
[2:10:03] That's my understanding. For
[2:10:04] that, I'll defer to Jason on
[2:10:06] the exact number of trips, and
[2:10:07] I just want to. So the nature
[2:10:09] of my question is just to say,
[2:10:11] like, are we are we on a good
[2:10:13] path here? It sounds like with
[2:10:15] the tone of your voice is very
[2:10:16] optimistic. But again, we we
[2:10:18] had a lot of optimism here for
[2:10:20] the other plan. Yeah. Through
[2:10:22] the chair, Director Capps. Yes,
[2:10:24] we do have, as I mentioned, our
[2:10:26] direct access agreement with Up.
[2:10:28] It provides us two additional
[2:10:30] train slots on the north end of
[2:10:32] the corridor that we have
[2:10:34] access to. So this would
[2:10:35] utilize one of those train
[2:10:37] slots moving forward. We do
[2:10:39] have plans long term,
[2:10:40] consistent with our state rail
[2:10:42] plan, long term goals to
[2:10:44] fulfill that second slot and
[2:10:45] provide an additional service
[2:10:47] beyond the six round trip to
[2:10:48] Goleta and third round trip to
[2:10:50] San Luis Obispo. But to
[2:10:52] directly answer your question,
[2:10:53] yes, Upea has confirmed that
[2:10:55] under our current agreement
[2:10:57] with them, there's no other
[2:10:58] additional amendments or
[2:11:00] anything necessary. We have the
[2:11:02] rights to to utilize those
[2:11:03] slots and to utilize them as
[2:11:07] soon as we want to. Okay, so so
[2:11:10] no more additional funding
[2:11:12] commitments are needed. Again,
[2:11:13] I just you know, what the
[2:11:15] reason, the nature of my
[2:11:16] questions is that, you know,
[2:11:17] we've all been dealing with the
[2:11:19] 101, all of the implications.
[2:11:20] We don't need to go through
[2:11:22] them. But from a computer
[2:11:23] perspective, the impacts that
[2:11:25] has on people's lives and also
[2:11:26] our climate and Union Pacific
[2:11:28] has been such an incredible
[2:11:29] roadblock. And now here we are
[2:11:30] with all this excitement about
[2:11:32] this Metrolink plan and all the
[2:11:34] work. I just want to I just
[2:11:37] want to hear what potential
[2:11:39] challenges lay ahead. But so
[2:11:41] far you haven't outlined any
[2:11:42] serious ones that this board
[2:11:44] needs to be concerned about at
[2:11:46] this point. Right. The only
[2:11:47] other potential challenge as I,
[2:11:51] as I alluded to, is future
[2:11:53] funding. Okay. This is being
[2:11:55] proposed between the three
[2:11:57] stakeholders as a 12 month
[2:12:00] pilot, really, to not only
[2:12:01] understand the demand and the
[2:12:04] trends and look at how the
[2:12:06] train performs, but also
[2:12:07] because this, as Aaron
[2:12:09] mentioned, our intercity rail
[2:12:10] service has historically been a
[2:12:13] state funded program. The state
[2:12:16] has signaled that the interest
[2:12:17] that the state budget as a
[2:12:19] whole, but particularly the
[2:12:21] intercity rail budget moving
[2:12:22] forward, they have concerns
[2:12:23] about. So we will continue to
[2:12:25] work with them through our
[2:12:26] annual budget requests that we
[2:12:28] do through our annual business
[2:12:29] plan submittal with them, as
[2:12:30] well as, as I mentioned, look
[2:12:32] for other funding opportunities
[2:12:35] that can help sustain not only
[2:12:36] this pilot program moving on
[2:12:38] into the future, but also our
[2:12:41] our intercity rail program. So
[2:12:43] the funding in the future is
[2:12:45] always a concern of ours when
[2:12:46] we hear about the state budget
[2:12:47] outlook. And that's something
[2:12:49] that we do work with the state
[2:12:51] on, on an annual basis. So I'm
[2:12:53] sure you're all aware of the
[2:12:57] the governor's address for the
[2:12:59] the governor's address and some
[2:13:01] of the state budget concerns
[2:13:03] that are lying ahead. So, like
[2:13:04] I mentioned, we will continue
[2:13:06] to work with the state on that
[2:13:08] funding and do everything we
[2:13:11] can to ensure not only that our
[2:13:13] intercity rail services, our
[2:13:14] baseline services, can be
[2:13:16] funded, but also that this 12
[2:13:18] month pilot program can be
[2:13:21] sustained as well. Thank you
[2:13:23] again. I just applaud the
[2:13:25] tenacity and trying to just to
[2:13:27] look for another plan when this
[2:13:29] one, the first one that we all
[2:13:30] voted for and we had a lot of
[2:13:32] enthusiasm, didn't pan out and
[2:13:34] I expressed just my frustration
[2:13:36] towards Union Pacific for,
[2:13:38] again, just being such a block
[2:13:39] on something that all of us
[2:13:42] wanted to do. So thank you.
[2:13:43] Thank you, Director Caps,
[2:13:44] Director Hartman, I'm just
[2:13:46] trying to be clear in my own
[2:13:47] mind about the number of trips.
[2:13:51] I think you said that 11 and 12
[2:13:52] pre-covid have been restored,
[2:13:55] and 13 is about to come. I
[2:13:58] heard advertisements on on the
[2:14:00] radio today about expanded
[2:14:02] service. And so what you're
[2:14:04] talking about is additional.
[2:14:06] Could you lay that out for me?
[2:14:09] Sure. Definitely. So yes. So we
[2:14:12] have restored our 11th and 12th
[2:14:14] round trips between Los Angeles
[2:14:15] and San Diego. As I mentioned,
[2:14:16] pre-covid, we had 13 round
[2:14:19] trips between la and San Diego,
[2:14:21] so we restored 12 of those just
[2:14:23] about to be 13 later this month.
[2:14:27] So north of la, we have
[2:14:28] historically ran five round
[2:14:30] trips to Goleta and two to San
[2:14:32] Luis Obispo. So this expansion
[2:14:34] would essentially expand to six
[2:14:36] round trips to Goleta and three
[2:14:38] round trips to San Luis Obispo.
[2:14:40] So the advertisement on the
[2:14:43] radio today was San Diego to
[2:14:47] slo. Is is what they said. So
[2:14:48] to clarify, yes, that third
[2:14:51] round trip to San Luis Obispo
[2:14:53] would actually span the entire
[2:14:56] corridor. Yeah, okay. Thank you,
[2:15:02] Director Brown. I'd like to go.
[2:15:04] You had mentioned the $27
[2:15:07] million grant for equipment. Is
[2:15:08] that for new rolling stock, or
[2:15:10] is that rehabilitation of
[2:15:12] existing stock and where's that
[2:15:15] stock coming from? Yeah. And to
[2:15:17] clarify the $27 million grant
[2:15:18] award, the federal Fra
[2:15:20] Restoration Enhancement Grant
[2:15:21] award, it's actually
[2:15:23] specifically for operations. So
[2:15:24] unfortunately not for capital,
[2:15:26] only for operations, and
[2:15:28] specifically only to restore
[2:15:30] our pre-covid service levels.
[2:15:32] So it cannot be used for any
[2:15:35] type of expansion beyond that
[2:15:37] baseline pre-covid service
[2:15:40] levels, which is 13 round trips.
[2:15:41] So that's specifically what
[2:15:44] they approved the award for.
[2:15:45] All right. Thank you, Director
[2:15:46] Brown, I've got a quick
[2:15:48] question here. I'll take chair
[2:15:49] prerogative to ask. So the
[2:15:50] funding that's coming from sb
[2:15:52] cag is funding. That's part of
[2:15:54] the South County region. I just
[2:15:55] want to make sure I clarified
[2:15:57] that. Yes, that's correct. It's
[2:15:59] through the the South Coast
[2:16:01] program, the inter-regional or
[2:16:02] passenger rail program. All
[2:16:04] right. So there's not any North
[2:16:05] County funds that are going
[2:16:06] towards this this project. Nope.
[2:16:08] The South County funds will run
[2:16:10] the train north to to San Luis
[2:16:12] Obispo on the South County.
[2:16:13] Okay. Just wanted to clarify
[2:16:18] that. Sorry, director Silva, I
[2:16:20] think I just so I can further
[2:16:21] understand the timeline because
[2:16:22] there's a lot going on there.
[2:16:24] So just so I understand so that
[2:16:26] we can explain it, because I
[2:16:27] know we were all very excited
[2:16:29] when we voted last year to
[2:16:30] bring Metrolink to it. So we
[2:16:31] approved Metrolink. We want to
[2:16:33] enter into that agreement. We
[2:16:34] knew there were some risks
[2:16:35] involved. There was mergers and
[2:16:37] corporate things taking place
[2:16:39] and all that. In JULY, we
[2:16:41] become aware that it might be
[2:16:43] more complex, there might be
[2:16:44] new agreements needed to be
[2:16:45] done. And then I'm just trying
[2:16:48] to understand that from JULY on,
[2:16:50] was it that we were trying to
[2:16:52] figure out how to make
[2:16:53] Metrolink work, or were we
[2:16:55] operating under trying to find
[2:16:57] the most easy solution, looking
[2:16:58] for alternatives? I'm just
[2:16:59] trying to know what the
[2:17:01] timeline was for the pivot and
[2:17:03] are for the sake of clarity.
[2:17:05] It's just I want to make sure
[2:17:06] we're making the decision to
[2:17:07] support the project that is
[2:17:09] best for the commuting
[2:17:11] experience and the the customer,
[2:17:12] and not the most convenient one.
[2:17:14] I just was curious if you could
[2:17:15] elaborate the timeline of how
[2:17:16] this all fell into place,
[2:17:18] because I know it took a long
[2:17:20] time to get Metrolink going. Is
[2:17:21] this just path of least
[2:17:22] resistance, or is this the
[2:17:23] ideal option that we can
[2:17:26] provide? So to the first
[2:17:27] question, the the response from
[2:17:29] Union Pacific in the summer was
[2:17:30] simply that we would need a new
[2:17:32] agreement later in the fall.
[2:17:33] They let us know that that
[2:17:35] timeline would be to begin
[2:17:37] working on it sometime this
[2:17:40] quarter. So we knew at about
[2:17:41] mid-OCTOBER that the pivot MAY
[2:17:43] be necessary. Los Angeles
[2:17:45] credit went to the board, asked
[2:17:48] for authorization to prepare an
[2:17:50] alternative proposal and work
[2:17:51] with the stakeholders sb, cag,
[2:17:54] and Vctc on a potential
[2:17:56] alternative. Later that year,
[2:17:59] in NOVEMBER, they got the
[2:18:01] direction to proceed with that
[2:18:03] proposal in prioritize it over
[2:18:05] other options that might be
[2:18:07] coming. With regard to the
[2:18:09] convenience factor, I mean,
[2:18:10] ultimately, Union Pacific is
[2:18:12] the track owner. And so there
[2:18:13] is a there is a lead time
[2:18:15] concern. No matter what we do
[2:18:16] when it comes to working with
[2:18:18] the host railroads. But but
[2:18:19] specifically the agreement
[2:18:21] previously with Metrolink was
[2:18:22] that we would have them prepare
[2:18:24] a startup plan, working with
[2:18:26] the host railroads. That was
[2:18:28] simply just a plan to prepare
[2:18:30] operations. And that low sand,
[2:18:31] through its work with Metrolink,
[2:18:33] would come up with a
[2:18:34] subcontractor or operations and
[2:18:36] maintenance program that was
[2:18:37] still going to be Pacific
[2:18:39] Surfliner service, just
[2:18:41] subcontracted with Metrolink.
[2:18:43] So while it was a metrolink
[2:18:44] train, the tickets were going
[2:18:46] to be through Amtrak. The
[2:18:47] schedule was going to be within
[2:18:49] the Amtrak schedule of service.
[2:18:51] And the the passenger, for all
[2:18:52] intents and purposes, will be
[2:18:54] getting on another Pacific
[2:18:55] Surfliner train as it relates
[2:18:58] to the northbound commute. So
[2:18:59] from a rider mystique
[2:19:01] standpoint, helping to explain
[2:19:02] that to the riders, it's
[2:19:03] actually a bit simpler when
[2:19:05] you're talking about having one
[2:19:07] type of trainer, one railroad
[2:19:09] operator on the corridor. Add
[2:19:11] to that that the cost is
[2:19:12] considerably lower. We
[2:19:15] anticipate approximately 30 to
[2:19:18] 50% less costly to sb and ctc.
[2:19:21] The the. It's not only more
[2:19:21] convenient both to the rider,
[2:19:23] but potentially more efficient
[2:19:25] for sb, cag standpoint to be
[2:19:26] able to proceed forward should
[2:19:29] this pilot continue. And then
[2:19:30] my only other question is I
[2:19:32] maybe it's because I when we
[2:19:33] looked at the Metrolink
[2:19:35] agreement back in the day with
[2:19:36] the afternoon one, I believe it
[2:19:38] was we were leaving Goleta. I
[2:19:40] had the notes here, so we would
[2:19:42] have left Goleta around 1035
[2:19:44] and gotten to Union Station
[2:19:47] about 230. And now we have the
[2:19:50] new plan of, oh, I'm sorry, we
[2:19:51] left 1035 and would have gone
[2:19:53] to the station at 130. And the
[2:19:54] new afternoon plan is we leave
[2:19:56] Goleta at 233, and we get to
[2:19:58] Union Station at 5:50 P.M. The
[2:19:59] morning route. It's only about
[2:20:00] eight minutes. Inconsequential,
[2:20:01] really, when you think about
[2:20:02] that. I guess it feels like
[2:20:05] this new plan. I don't know any
[2:20:06] commuter who's like, boy, I've
[2:20:07] been wanting to get to Union
[2:20:10] Station at 5:50 P.M. And so I
[2:20:11] just was trying to understand
[2:20:14] when we say that this is a more
[2:20:15] beneficial route to get from
[2:20:17] San Luis Obispo to that, it
[2:20:19] just I don't understand what's
[2:20:20] the market question for me, I'm
[2:20:22] confused by the market decision
[2:20:24] of who's the customer who needs
[2:20:25] to get out of Goleta at 230,
[2:20:26] because it doesn't match with
[2:20:27] our early train route. You're
[2:20:29] not a worker who's coming into
[2:20:30] Goleta at 8:00, likely needing
[2:20:32] to leave at 230. So I just
[2:20:34] wasn't sure. Again, what's the
[2:20:35] anticipated benefit or who's
[2:20:36] the target market we're trying
[2:20:39] to capture here? Certainly. So
[2:20:41] as as the board MAY recall, in
[2:20:42] 2008, the target market and has
[2:20:44] always been the case to try and
[2:20:45] alleviate the congestion headed
[2:20:46] northbound during peak hour, as
[2:20:48] well as the southbound during
[2:20:50] the peak hour on the south
[2:20:52] coast. So that would be in the
[2:20:53] afternoon going southbound. And
[2:20:54] in fact, this additional train
[2:20:56] from San Luis Obispo will
[2:20:57] operate through the Santa
[2:20:59] Barbara area in that afternoon
[2:21:01] period. So it does add some
[2:21:03] capacity in the afternoons as
[2:21:04] well, which we don't presently
[2:21:06] have. The 10:30 A.M. Southbound
[2:21:07] trip under the Metrolink
[2:21:09] proposal was simply to get that
[2:21:10] train back into revenue service
[2:21:12] in the in the Metrolink service
[2:21:13] area. Okay, so that original
[2:21:15] one was not the idea of having
[2:21:16] a the original plan was not
[2:21:18] about the benefit being getting
[2:21:20] someone down from mid-morning
[2:21:22] to la and back. It's really we
[2:21:23] were just trying to get the
[2:21:25] train back down there. And this
[2:21:26] proposal is just saying if we
[2:21:27] need afternoon traffic, the
[2:21:29] idea is that there might be
[2:21:31] people who need to get down to
[2:21:32] la in that 230 to 5:00 benefit.
[2:21:34] So we weren't trying to do a
[2:21:36] round trip. This is just send
[2:21:38] it back down and call it a day.
[2:21:39] Precisely. And in fact, to try
[2:21:40] and get people to Ventura
[2:21:41] County, specifically in the
[2:21:43] afternoon at about 330 4:00.
[2:21:45] But between the hours of and, I
[2:21:46] can tell you that there's a
[2:21:48] peak hour, much like with the
[2:21:49] the ag community, that actually
[2:21:50] precedes what is the typical
[2:21:52] peak hour in the South coast.
[2:21:54] So if you look on the roads at
[2:21:55] any given afternoon from
[2:21:56] between 230 and say, four,
[2:21:58] there's quite a few cars on the
[2:21:59] road headed south. So this this
[2:22:01] is an additional trip that
[2:22:02] should provide benefit there as
[2:22:04] well. Thank you. Okay. Thank
[2:22:06] you, Director Silva. Any other
[2:22:07] questions? Any questions on
[2:22:12] Santa Maria for the presenters?
[2:22:13] Yes, sir. This is Julien.
[2:22:16] Director Julien on the
[2:22:17] schematic in terms of time and
[2:22:20] and the expanded route to San
[2:22:22] Luis Obispo, it mentions Goleta
[2:22:25] to slow. What about Guadalupe?
[2:22:26] The train will be stopping at
[2:22:27] all the stations, including the
[2:22:29] Lompoc station, as well as
[2:22:31] Guadalupe. Yes. Okay, good. All
[2:22:35] right. Thank you. Thank you,
[2:22:36] Director Julien. Anything else
[2:22:39] down there or up there? Okay.
[2:22:40] Seeing none. MADAM Clerk, do we
[2:22:42] have any public comment on this
[2:22:43] item? Are there any members of
[2:22:45] the public on the zoom webinar
[2:22:46] who wish to speak? Would you
[2:22:47] please use the raise hand
[2:22:49] feature and I will call upon
[2:22:50] you. There are no paper
[2:22:51] requests to speak forms that
[2:22:52] were received. However, we did
[2:22:54] receive one public comment for
[2:22:55] this item in advance, and the
[2:22:57] comment was uploaded online and
[2:22:58] provided to the board. And that
[2:23:00] comment was received from
[2:23:02] Claudia Show, and there are no
[2:23:04] attendees on the line who wish
[2:23:05] to speak. All right, back to
[2:23:07] the board. This is to receive
[2:23:09] the presentation and direction
[2:23:11] to Staff Director Kern. What
[2:23:12] kind of direction are you
[2:23:14] looking for from us? I'm hoping
[2:23:16] that you're supportive of this
[2:23:18] new direction, and that your
[2:23:19] direct us to bring a operating
[2:23:20] agreement back to the board,
[2:23:23] hopefully in FEBRUARY. Okay. So
[2:23:25] I'm going to ask for a motion
[2:23:27] to receive the presentation and
[2:23:28] request staff to bring back an
[2:23:33] operating agreement in FEBRUARY.
[2:23:35] I'd like to make that motion.
[2:23:37] Second. Okay. Motion from Brody
[2:23:39] and a second from Hartman. Also
[2:23:40] make a comment. Yeah,
[2:23:41] absolutely. And so any further
[2:23:43] comment on the motion, director
[2:23:44] Brody? Thank you. I just want
[2:23:47] to acknowledge all the work
[2:23:49] that was put into this by the
[2:23:54] Scag board. Ctc. They're
[2:23:56] working on the agreement with
[2:23:59] them. And then how excited we
[2:24:00] were that we thought it would
[2:24:03] work out in OCTOBER. And I know
[2:24:06] that there was there was
[2:24:08] excitement from the community
[2:24:09] as well, thinking that it was
[2:24:12] coming back. So it was a great
[2:24:15] pivot, as you put it. In fact,
[2:24:17] an alternative way around this,
[2:24:20] thing, situations changed and I
[2:24:23] look forward to having this
[2:24:24] happen sooner than later, as
[2:24:27] soon as we can. Because, you
[2:24:28] know, we have a train station
[2:24:31] and Goleta now almost ready to
[2:24:32] go. So we want those trains
[2:24:34] rolling through. Thank you.
[2:24:35] Thank you, Director Perotti,
[2:24:36] any other comments on the
[2:24:39] motion? Seeing none. MADAM
[2:24:40] Clerk, will you please call the
[2:24:43] roll director. Rousse. Director.
[2:24:46] Perotti. Director. Patino. Hi.
[2:24:48] Director. Mosby. By director.
[2:24:51] Lee. Director. Lavagnino.
[2:24:54] Director. Julian. Director.
[2:24:56] Hartman. Director. Clerk.
[2:24:58] Director. Capps. Director.
[2:25:01] Brown. Vice chair. Silva and
[2:25:03] chair. Nelson. Aye. Motion
[2:25:05] passes unanimously. All right.
[2:25:06] Let's keep moving this thing
[2:25:07] along. And now we'll move to
[2:25:09] Caltrans. Caltrans director
[2:25:11] report from Veronica Lazara,
[2:25:14] Caltrans branch chief. Oh,
[2:25:16] sorry, did I skip you,
[2:25:18] executive director, just real
[2:25:20] quick. Absolutely. Yeah. It's
[2:25:22] all good. It's one item I would
[2:25:24] like to announce. I would like
[2:25:25] to introduce our newest
[2:25:28] employee, Naomi Compton. She
[2:25:30] joined the agency as an account
[2:25:31] technician with experience in
[2:25:33] the public sector finance. And
[2:25:35] she's back here in the back
[2:25:38] corner. She will help us with
[2:25:40] finance, procurement and
[2:25:41] administrative support. She's
[2:25:42] originally from the Houston
[2:25:43] area and holds a master's
[2:25:44] degree in finance and
[2:25:45] previously worked for the
[2:25:47] University of Houston in
[2:25:48] supporting their accounts
[2:25:50] payable accounting and payroll
[2:25:52] and tax information. She said
[2:25:54] she was drawn to sbf by its
[2:25:56] focus on public service and the
[2:25:57] opportunity to support projects
[2:25:58] that improve communities, so
[2:26:00] please join me in welcoming
[2:26:02] Naomi to the team. So thank you.
[2:26:04] And that concludes my report.
[2:26:06] Welcome, Naomi. As long as
[2:26:08] you're not an Astros fan okay.
[2:26:12] Moving along to Caltrans now,
[2:26:15] directors and chair Nelson
[2:26:16] again. Veronica. Veronica, on
[2:26:18] behalf of District Director
[2:26:21] Scott Eads, I have a couple of
[2:26:23] announcements this afternoon.
[2:26:26] First, starting with the some
[2:26:28] exciting news to start off the
[2:26:31] new year. Really right. Hot off
[2:26:32] the press. Wanted happy to
[2:26:34] announce that Highway one
[2:26:37] through Big Sur has reopened.
[2:26:39] Actually, it opened yesterday.
[2:26:41] That is about three months
[2:26:43] ahead of schedule. We wanted to
[2:26:46] extend an appreciation to local
[2:26:47] business owners, residents and
[2:26:48] visitors, as well as those
[2:26:51] other agencies who were
[2:26:52] responsible and involved in the
[2:26:55] success of that reopening.
[2:26:56] Second, Caltrans will host an
[2:26:58] important public meeting next
[2:27:02] week on JANUARY 21st from 530
[2:27:04] to 7 P.M. At the Guadalupe City
[2:27:06] Hall. This meeting is in
[2:27:10] relation to the Waterloo area
[2:27:12] projects. My team and I walk
[2:27:14] through the city of Guadalupe
[2:27:16] last week and provided some
[2:27:17] information to the public, so
[2:27:19] it was nice to hear how excited
[2:27:21] the community is about these
[2:27:23] future investments in the area.
[2:27:25] And that concludes my report.
[2:27:26] Happy to take any questions
[2:27:28] that the board MAY have. Thank
[2:27:30] you. Any questions for MISS
[2:27:34] Lizama from Caltrans. Or for
[2:27:36] Director Kern, based on the
[2:27:38] Executive Director's report,
[2:27:38] anything in Santa Maria either
[2:27:42] for either party? Nothing here.
[2:27:43] Okay. Great. Thank you. So
[2:27:45] we'll go ahead and move on to
[2:27:47] committee meetings. First one
[2:27:49] up is myself and Caverns.
[2:27:51] Caverns is plugging along.
[2:27:52] We're looks like we're gonna
[2:27:53] have some leadership changes on
[2:27:55] executive director there who
[2:27:57] just actually resigned
[2:27:58] yesterday. So we've got some
[2:28:00] changes ahead of us, but we're
[2:28:04] confident that we're putting a.
[2:28:05] Pieces in place to move the
[2:28:07] organization forward. You know,
[2:28:08] people know that there was a
[2:28:10] prop for allocation to caravans,
[2:28:11] and that's going to be an
[2:28:12] important part of moving
[2:28:14] caravans into the future. And
[2:28:15] so we're we're excited about
[2:28:16] those opportunities as well.
[2:28:18] Expanding service, whether it's
[2:28:20] on the 166 or anywhere else
[2:28:21] throughout the state of
[2:28:22] California, we are navigating
[2:28:25] some of the changes in the
[2:28:27] landscape around field work and
[2:28:29] farm labor, and most of our
[2:28:31] users are actually farm labor
[2:28:32] contractors and h-2a workers
[2:28:33] throughout the state of
[2:28:34] California. And so those
[2:28:35] changing programs are going to
[2:28:36] impact caravans over the next
[2:28:37] couple of years. So we're
[2:28:39] trying to be attentive and and
[2:28:40] look over those things as they
[2:28:43] proceed through. So that's my
[2:28:47] report on caravans as far as
[2:28:48] Lausanne director Lee, I think
[2:28:50] you had your report. I think
[2:28:54] the report. Okay. And now one
[2:28:57] minute reports, any brief
[2:28:58] announcements from any of my
[2:29:00] colleagues not seeing any down
[2:29:02] here in Santa Barbara, any
[2:29:03] announcements in the Santa
[2:29:07] Maria board hearing room? None
[2:29:08] here. Thank you. Thank you,
[2:29:10] Director Patino. Okay, we'll go
[2:29:11] ahead and adjourn today's
[2:29:12] meeting. The next meeting will
[2:29:16] be on FEBRUARY 19th, 2026, in