UnGovr Transcript
iHow this transcript is madeUnGovr transcribes the official recording with automated speech-to-text, separates speakers by voice, and matches voices to the seated roster. Names and attributions are AI estimates and may contain errors.Verify any quote yourself: click anywhere in the transcript and the official video jumps to that exact moment, so you can check any quote against the recording.0:14 – 0:2441 turns
All right everybody, good morning. Welcome thank you for joining us for today's January 15th meeting of the SB CAG board. For the record my name is Bob Nelson I am the chair of SB CAG for 2026. Madam Clerk please facilitate the roll call.
Roll call — called by City Clerk
Show transcript
Okay, right to public comment. This is a public comment period for items not on today's agenda. Speakers have up to three minutes each with the total of 15 minutes allotted for public comment. Madam Clerk do we have any public comment here today?
Yes there are two request-to-speak forms and for any members of the public on the Zoom webinar if you wish to speak would you please use the raise hand feature and I will call upon you. Our first speaker is Scott Wentz, Cars Are Basic
Welcome Mr. Wentz happy new year
I'm here to address the issue of a comment about 154 and 246. Cars Are Basic really, really objected to this. That was a project that was ill-advised, has hurt people, had multiple damage, just had another rollover accident there with an ejection. This is a roundabout that has to be taken out because Caltrans played political games out of Sacramento, we have to have a roundabout. We gave Caltrans an alternative that would've cost them $650,000. It would've taken away the visual issue that was at that intersection and it wouldn't work fine.
This has to stop. The city of Lompoc and the city of Solvang using their spear of influence said to Caltrans, we do not want this roundabout here. You have more traffic, more commercial traffic on this road now whenever Gaviota gets cut off boom guess what? They come over 154. You have the expansion of the casino you have the expansion of residents in the area This cannot continue and wait until the Chumash Reservation starts doing its Camp Ford.
That is going to really add a lot of there it was badly designed, it's badly run. Caltrans just admitted in November that they were going to fix the problem by doing more striping and putting lighting on there you can't fix bad design. You can't fix what causes accidents And this goes to the same thing that we had to say about La Parisma. You already killed one firefighter over there under difficult circumstances.
The people of the valley did not want this. Let me repeat that again for anybody listening, the people of the valley did not want that roundabout. That roundabout has proven to be an absolute disaster. You need to use your authority and press on the state of California to get that damn thing out of there and we'll give you our design because CEQA says if you have an alternative design that meets 90% of the issue, the government has to do that They played the four-finger discount.
That's what they told cab and that's what's causing the accidents in the valley. Thank you. Thank You, Mr. Wentz
Our next speaker is Karen Hamel Stein
Hello County leaders Karen Howen Stein from North County I'm born and raised in Lompoc, and I live there now. I am here as a matter of public record placing you on notice and informing you. In 2023 inside the Lompoc Police Department we had a suspicious death that has not yet been fully investigated. There's been an official complaint made to the police officer standards and training You need to be aware of that and follow it through to its completion.
Liliana Cecilia Zuniga, she was an abused woman who needs to be remembered by this county more than any other people who are just passing
through. Karen one second Madam Clerk will you pause public comment for a moment? Karen public comment when it comes to SB CAG needs to be on issues that are under our jurisdiction. Public safety. In our
county.
We're a transportation multi-jurisdictional agency for transportation.
Oh,
okay. Dominantly so let's try to get our comments to somebody that's under the jurisdiction of this organization I mean what you had would have been perfect So that
would be...
Okay, I'm
just placing that on record
Yeah, okay Because
you guys are the leaders of our county
Understood but I want to focus It's general public comment Okay, it is
But
under the jurisdiction of this body
Okay, so the Bridges across the Santa Ynez River that were promised to Lompoc. Go ahead and start public comment again. Go ahead Karen, thank you. That would be for this place? Yes. Okay well thank you for also letting me use the public comment to lodge my complaints and make sure they're followed up on publicly.
Happy New
Year.
If there are any other members of the public on the Zoom webinar who wish to speak would you please use the raise hand feature and I will call upon you There are no speakers.
All right, well that concludes public comment. That brings us to our consent calendar. Madam Clerk are there any changes to the consent calendar?
There are no changes to the consent calendar and there are no announcements for the consent calendar
all right. Are there any items in the consent calendar that members or directors like to pull I know that supervisor or sorry Director Hartman has pulled G anything else not seen up here in Santa Barbara in Santa Maria are there any items that you guys wish to pull
I'd like to pull A.
Okay so that was it would be the approval of the minutes so for you know
and that's just that's just to vote to abstain from them, it's not a discussion.
Thank You Director Patino we'll go ahead and make sure we have a separate vote on that. Madam Clerk is there any members of the public pulling any items on the consent calendar?
Are there any members of the public on the Zoom webinar who wish to speak? If so, please use the raise hand feature and I will call upon you. There are no requests to speak.
There is one in North County.
That is for item 166.
Which which item is that?
That is later on in the agenda.
Okay understand thank you. Before I move to ask for a motion Supervisor Hartman are you looking potentially for separate vote on G or just want to pull up to discuss that? Okay so let's go ahead and get a motion at least on the minutes. So if I can get a motion on item A which is the approval of the minutes. Motion
to approve
Item A. Motion from Silva, a second from Perotti. Madam Clerk please do a roll call.
Roll-call vote Passed 11–0 Motion from Silva, a second from Perotti. Madam Clerk please do a roll call.
Show transcript
I assume the motion passes all right let's go ahead and before I make a motion for the balance let's go ahead and read G into the record that item that's been pulled by Supervisor Hartman if it's Everything's fine with that then we'll just take a motion for the balance of the agenda. After that.
San Ynez River Valley, San Ynez Valley River Trail Contractor Agreement to approve an authorized executive director to execute an agreement with SOMAS similar to the attachment based upon review and concurrence by legal counsel for planning and engineering work associated with the San Ynez All right director Hartman.
0:24 – 0:3016 turns
Thank you so I have several questions. The first has to do with timing. I see that it's this is expected to be done in two years and I just wondered how that fits with the ATP grant state we're trying to get this done to fit into the cycle for ATP and I think then we've got to wait what another two years or just
Director Hartman, the ATP cycle is accepting applications this summer for the next cycle and then it's every two years so two years from this coming summer would be the next cycle which probably would be the one that would be aiming for for this project.
Okay so that fits. First of all I'm just really excited to see this. The next question has to do with the federal grant and how that would fit with this contract?
Very good question Director Hartman. The federal grant was awarded to the San Ynez Band Chumash Indians in an amount of one point four million dollars and it has a required match which is this project. The match is what we're doing now so we have been coordinating with the tribe who the tribe has been approached by the Federal Highway Administration the grant tour And the current state is we've worked, Fred Luna and I to work on the agreement between the tribe and FHWA.
That goes back to FHWA and once it's agreed upon then that agreement will run up the chain at FHWAY for execution on their side. Assuming it does become executed, I think there's no guarantee but right now it looks likely Then, in all likelihood, SBCAG will take on the work for that just as we did because part of today's action is to approve an agreement with a contractor. But part of the funding behind that was awarded to the tribe and it was probably about four months ago we came and had an agreement between SBCAG and the tribe for SBCAG to take on management of that.
And that's what we expect to happen for this one as well. So when we advertise the work, there are a variety of optional tasks included in agreement which are the ones that would be filled in with the federal grant.
So does it seem like this contractor would take it on or we're not sure
yet. That's a good question. Supervisor Hartman or Director Hartman assuming we can negotiate in good faith with the contractor and come to an agreement on price so it's part of today's agreement says that the contractor would have to honor the same hourly rates that they're doing for their work that hopefully gets approved today So if we can come to an agreement, we can amend it into the contract. Otherwise would go back out to bid for those optional tasks.
So so we may just fold it in and not have to go out again through the process if they And once again, if
what? There's a lot of moving pieces with this. One of them is that grant award is federal and all the other money that we've had to this point is either state or local and there's different contracting requirements so we would have to ensure that the FHWA is allowing us to go this route otherwise would have to go out the bid.
Thank you. And my final question, as I look to the environmental piece in the contract it doesn't make any mention of the recreation master plan EIR which was designed to be programmatic and to tear off so how will that work?
Another great question Director Hartman for the environmental. So the agreement that's being approved today as part of work package one is a hundred percent environmental work within the city of Builton. So at the conclusion this project, the trail will be construction ready for City of Builton outside of the city. The environmental work is an optional task and we are also were paying attention to the county's process of the recreation master plan And when that is approved, then we could tear off of it. We can't tear off of it in anticipation of it being approved but that is certainly something that we are keeping our eyes on as this goes forward. It's
coming soon. Thank you and thank you for...and then the person for SB CAG who is the contact for this work isn't your Fred. Is that typical?
No, it's Tom Vo who is sitting right back here. Tom works in planning division under me I'll be involved Fred will be involved because this is a mix of planning and engineering It's you know perhaps I can't Be a good advisor on the engineering aspect and Fred can't be a good advisor on the planning aspect So it's a team and Tom's gonna keep us organized and pointing in the right direction
Okay well again I'm absolutely delighted to see this. Thank you.
All right thank you Director Patino any other questions from board members? Any public comment on item G?
Are there any members of the public on the Zoom webinar who wish to speak on item G? Please use the raise hand feature and I will call upon you. There are no paper request-to-speak forms, and there are no attendees who wish to speak.
Okay. Director Hartman, no reason for a different vote on that. So with that I could get a motion for the balance of the agenda which would be items 4B through 4I. Moved by Brown. I need a second. Second from Hartman. Can we please do a roll call vote?
Roll-call vote Passed 13–0 Moved by Brown. I need a second. Second from Hartman. Can we please do a roll call
Show transcript
0:31 – 0:3831 turns
motion passes
all right thank you We're going to go ahead and move on to the discussion items. Item 5A, Madam Clerk will you please read that item into the record?
Item 5A, SB CAG 2026 Committee Appointments Recommended Actions 1.1 Delegate an alternate to the California Association of Councils of Governments 2.1 delegate and alternate to the Los Angeles San Diego San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency 3.1 delegate and alternate to the Coast Rail Coordinating Council 4.1 member and one alternate to the CalVans Board of Directors 5 appoint members to the Highway 154 Safety Committee 6. Appoint members to the SBCAG Executive Committee, Chair, Vice-Chair, Immediate Past Chair and Chairs of North County and South Coast Subregional 7. Appoint an SBCAG Board Delegate to participate in the Central Coast Coalition Sacramento Legislative Advocacy Day scheduled for March 17th and 18th, 2026 I'm going to call the meeting to order.
Liana went through the list of appointments. This is your annual chance to appoint yourself or others to committees that meet throughout the year I'd be happy to answer any questions about About the appointments or the committees if you have any but otherwise normally we just go through the committees and ask for volunteers
Okay, great. Thank you Director Kern and typically you know a lot of these committees there's a bit of value in having some background in it so those that are already in it are often favored by the board because they've got some that experience there although this is also the time for somebody that says hey that's something I would be interested in the future so it's also good for us to know that this is our opportunity kind of have those conversations we'll go ahead and start off with CALCOG my understanding right now I'm the regular member and Director Patino is the alternate there.
This year I have quite a bit of work on my, on my calendar already on sharing this and other things throughout the state. I've talked to Director Silva about potentially being the regular member and I think he's interested in that. I don't know if Director Patino would like to stay on as alternate for that? I'm happy to move to alternate position if she doesn't want that but I'd be happy to let her stay there as well.
Director Nelson, I would like to be the member on that beings I've been the alternate
Okay so
and maybe Director Silva would take the alternate.
That works for me
that sounds great so any other not see anybody jump up and down here thank you Director Patino for jumping upon that down in Santa Maria again if in these items that you're interested in Santa Maria please don't hesitate to speak up the next item here is low sand I believe we got here And currently we have, I believe Director Parodi and Director Lee as the regular and alternate members. Are you guys both?
I'd like to stay on Losan. I'm
happy as alternate.
Okay great. Seeing no objection we'll keep moving onto the CRCC which is the Coast Rail Coordinating Council. Currently we have Director Rouse and then as the regular member and Director Brown as the alternate. I
am fine with status quo.
Okay we've got some thumbs up here. Everybody good down there? Looks like it. Moving on to the California Vanpool Authority, Cal Vans. Currently I'm a regular appointed member and Director Julian is the alternate. It's preference for me to stay on that. I am on the Executive Committee. I have stepped away from being the Vice Chair which I had been for the last couple of years but we're going through some major changes in management. Happy to pass it on in the next year or two if somebody is interested but I think I need to be on that for the purposes of continuity with no objections and Director Julian are you okay staying on as the alternate?
I am sure, thank you. Thank you moving along to the State Highway 154 Safety Committee. I think we have five directors on that at this point. Is that correct? Just for the record, that is Director Hartman, Director Kaps, Director Parodi, Director Silva and Director Brown. So that's the kind of those areas the second or third district to the supervisors and the three cities that are kind of impacted there as well.
Are you guys all happy staying on that? Okay so the direction of the board currently is to and the motion we'll make is to keep that the same status quo. The SBCAG Executive Committee Which is traditionally the chair and the vice-chair.
Chair, Vice-Chair, former past chair and the chairs of the subregionals so five members.
Okay any objections there? Yeah do we have the sub regionals already voted on? Yes. So who are the chairs of the subregionals? It was Director
Julien and Director Lee
okay. Past chair is Rouse yeah so it'll be Rouse Nelson Silva Julian and Lee for the executive committee All right, Central Coast Coalition State Legislation latest lit of advocacy day. Who wants to go to Sacramento? So how many numbers we send to this?
We normally take one at least one.
Okay I will be I think unavailable that time so I'm not able to do that or else I would volunteer but is there anybody interested in potentially Going to state legislative advocacy day. March. OK, can we part of the motion make that a chairman's? Can I appoint somebody after at a later date if you guys would make that part of the motion is I will point somebody to go to that and once you guys check your schedules you guys let me know and I'll find somebody and we can take more than one if necessary or if more than one is interested.
Moving on to the Washington DC Legislative Delegation. Typically again this is the former past chair, the current chair and the vice-chair which would traditionally be Rouse Nelson Silva everybody's good with that okay Madam Clerk did you catch all that? Okay any discussions from anybody else I would like to you know just kind of speak now forever hold your peace in Santa Maria any other thoughts None up
here.
Thank you. All right, thank you Director Patino. Madam Clerk has any public comment?
If there are any members of the public on the Zoom webinar who wish to speak would you please use the raise hand feature and I will call upon you. There are no paper request-to-speak forms and there are no attendees who wish to speak.
Okay madam clerk is it clear from the discussion up here If somebody says a motion to appoint the committees as discussed by the board, that would be good enough for you on the motion?
Do we need to rephrase the appointees and delegates into the record?
Okay. We're
good.
So I'm looking for a motion of a slate of appointees based on the discussion we had up here just now. I got
it.
Motion from Brown. Second from Silva. All right, can we go ahead and do a roll call vote please?
Roll-call vote Passed 13–0 Motion from Brown. Second from Silva. All right, can we go ahead and do a roll call
Show transcript
0:39 – 1:0216 turns
Motion passes
All right, just for a moment of agenda management. Is our presenter for 5B here? Okay so we're gonna go ahead and move on to item 5B. Madam Clerk will you please read that item into the record.
Final State Route 166 Comprehensive Corridor Study recommended actions one approve the final state route 166 comprehensive corridor study and two direct staff to file a notice of exemption with the Santa Barbara County clerk pursuant to section 157 through 8b2 of the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA guidelines
All right, I guess staff will have a presentation for us.
Thank you. Good morning chair and directors and Happy New Year. I'm Michael Carney from SP CAG programming and today we will be presenting the final there you go 166 corridor study. I will be using this Okay. SBCAG has been working with Caltrans, City of Santa Maria, City of Guadalupe and the county to develop this study with our consultant DKS and Somis. As a reminder, the study focuses on State Route 166 between City of Guadalupe and City of Santa Maria as well as the parallel facilities.
Excuse me Chair Nelson could you have her speak up a little bit please?
Yes Director.
Is this okay if I bring it closer to me? Project.
There is a little button on your right To raise the platform
of this actual platform. Got it, OK?
Let's do it.
OK, does this help?
Yeah, do a test
alright I just have to project so I'll just go over this part real quick as a reminder the study focuses on State Route 166 from Guadalupe to Santa Maria and it includes the parallel facilities as well. Nope. Okay, the goal of this study is to develop a list of improvements to address the issues along the corridor. Examples of those issues include safety congestion goods movement and multimodal connections.
The study also helps us prepare for future funding and sets us up for future grants, competitive grants. And it also helps us identify any projects that we may want to include in our Measure A renewal. So I'm going to pass it off to Jim Dankovich from DKS who is helping us with the study.
Okay.
Mr. Chair, members of the board again Jim Damkiewicz I'm a principal at DKS Associates we are also joined by SOMAS engineering for civil support to help support SBCAG in this study. I'll quickly go through the aspects of the study the existing conditions analysis our community engagement efforts the performance assessment and then quickly go through the CIP improvements that some of you have already seen and wrap up with implementation So for existing conditions, we took a pretty deep dive. We looked at the socioeconomic characteristics of the area so City of Guadalupe, Santa Maria Orchid Area but also the socioeconomic characteristics of the users that are on 166 on a daily basis.
We did that through cell data big data We looked at goods movement, we looked at operations and in terms of delay and travel time reliability which is kind of a new metric that is of key interest. Obviously we looked at safety looking at the collision history and where the hot spots tend to be As part of that, we also performed a roadway or road safety audit which is a method prescribed by Federal Highway Administration which actually took our team out there, walked the corridor, took lots of observations and that included staff from Guadalupe, Santa Maria, Caltrans, SBCAG and the consultant team. We looked at multimodal access in terms of ped, bike and transit.
And then looked at how stressful it is for those active transportation users within the corridor as you might imagine it's very stressful which keeps people from wanting to bike or walk the corridor. And then finally we used a series of Caltrans website tools to look at equity and vulnerable network as it relates to extreme weather events. So in terms of our community engagement, we used all our resources to make sure we did a good job at this. We had a project website. We had an interactive web-based tool that allowed folks in the comfort of their own home to provide public input.
We did a community survey both online and in person. And a lot of collateral materials to make sure folks were aware that the study was going on. We also did about five pop-ups where we don't ask people to come to us, we go to where they are. I'm happy to say we exceeded our goals in terms of the number of community surveys that were performed by the public. The lion's share, over 70% were done by Hispanic speakers and we also shout out to the county who allowed us to use promotoras which are folks who speak Mexicatan who that community does not have a written language, so the only way you can get their input is verbally.
So that was a really nice resource and we did very well with our community engagement and exceeded our community engagement goals I think we got close to 500 surveys filled out And then in addition to that, we did go and hold two public workshops. One in Guadalupe, one in Santa Maria where we asked folks to come and provide input on the improvement concepts that were under consideration. And then last but not least, we had meetings with our Stakeholder Advisory Committee with the Subregional Planning Committee of SBCAG as well as TTAC.
Okay, the performance assessment. We did look at roughly 11 types of improvements in the world we live in terms of state and federal grants it's all performance based so that's what we're looking at not only the cost of the improvements but also the monetized benefits of the improvements and from that you can get a benefit-cost assessment. It's not the only metric but it's a key metric that drives a lot of funding decisions made by the California Transportation Commission and Federal Highways So we looked at the benefits as it relates to collision reduction, delay reduction, travel time reliability improvement, fuel use on road mobile source emissions so on and so forth. So we didn't we tried not to leave any rock unturned in terms of monetizing benefits.
We didn't want to leave any on the ground or you know, off the table. But there are some you can't capture all and one that the Growers and Shippers Association pointed out that we could not beyond the scope of our study but we do recognize it is the cost of agriculture for transporting perishable goods every hour between cut and in the Coolidge storage is a day of shelf life that's lost and that has economic implications, of course. So we do talk about it but we didn't monetize that which basically means that our benefit cost ratio which was very good 2.66 is probably underestimated because we didn't take to that into account but again freight movement is improved gross regional product in the region adds about $12 million if the construction of these improvements takes place, and then that will create jobs as well.
So a lot of economic benefit And then, you know benefit cost is not the only thing so we did look at policy consistency. Not only the local agency general plan policies that's the City of Guadalupe and the City of Santa Maria and the County as well as the regional policies of SBCAG and their RTP but also Caltrans of course it's their facility and so we looked at their climate change initiatives and their policies to see how congruent each of the projects were and that's what this matrix shows And in terms of we did have a public draft, it was released in October. We did receive comments from Caltrans, SBCAG, the North County Subregional Planning Committee as well as the Stakeholder Advisory Committee and just real quick I'll just summarize those comments for you.
So for SBCAG and Caltrans, typical editorial suggestions but in better resolution list of acronyms which is now part of the draft and then some clarifications on the performance assessment for Caltrans The North County Subregional Committee, they desire to see a four-lane widening of 166 as part of an aspirational list of projects that are longer term. The planning horizon for the study is roughly 20 to 25 years so short term if you will when it comes to transportation improvements But the longer term are equally as important because of course Measure A will sunset in 2040 and if there's a renewal effort, there's a desire to have new regional improvements that can be made part of that referendum. They also suggested that the Bonita School Road or Bonita School itself should be relocated We agreed with that as well as the Stakeholder Advisory Committee strongly agreed with that as well.
So, that was an interesting input and then just one good question was there any regional differences in the public input? In other words do residents of City of Guadalupe have different opinions of what they like to see in terms of improvements and other aspects versus Santa Maria and Orchid. So we did go back and take a look at that for the most part they were very congruent, but there was some differences City of Santa Maria-Orchid were more pro for more enforcement in the corridor They were also more advocating active transportation improvements versus the Guadalupe side which they advocated more transit which was interesting and people in Guadalupe use 166 a lot more than folks in Santa Maria. So that was pretty clear from the separating those two so that's now documented in the report And then the advisory committee, I've already mentioned some of this.
They wanted to see more operational improvements in lighting on Bed Arabian Black Road as well as Black and Stoll which we incorporated. Also again, Bonita School location is problematic and the reason that is is that it's in the middle of the ag fields and there's a lot of windblown particulates those particulates typically have pesticides herbicides you know when you have a sensitive receptive group with young children right in the middle of all that. So, all the students come from Santa Maria. That's where they live so it makes sense to possibly examine a relocation of that school and then again recognition that the benefit cost does not reflect perishable goods And so this is a matrix of how our Stakeholder Advisory Committee scored each of the improvements and I'll walk through those pretty well, but for the most part there was a lot of support.
They had the option of showing support being neutral or indifferent to the improvement or did not support and then support with the condition. And as you can see there was only two improvements that they could not support or a few of them did not support it was 50-50 And that was the roundabout alternatives to some of the improvements. They preferred signalized intersections and that's fine, we provide both options.
And then the Santa Maria River levee trail about half the group were not very supportive of that improvement being included as part of the package And then for the long term improvement, a couple as a condition of support wanted to see the class one trail decoupled from the four lane widening. We included him as a couplet. So that would be a class one trail from connecting Santa Maria to Guadalupe, bi-directional and that would be on the south side of the facility. And then the widening of 166 which is very costly and the Subregional Planning Committee asked for a cost of that based on construction year of 2040 it's about 320 million dollars so not cheap So real quick, the improvement concepts. This is an overall map we do reflect in the purple bubbles that's the existing gaps cap M project that is currently moving forward with planned completion by 2028-29.
That includes a couple of signalized intersections in Guadalupe as well as some bike facility improvements within the city of Santa Maria. The green bubbles are those that were identified as part of this study and I'll walk through those very quickly. So that's a rendition of the CAHPS CAPM project which we did not reflect in the benefit cost, but we wanted to include because we're leveraging those improvements as part of this study. But as far as ours, so a signalization of the CMIS 166 intersection with additional channelization for operational and safety improvements Some formalizing of the access to Bonita School Road from 166, again for safety and operational benefits as well as formalizing the parking and some ingress egress characteristics going into the school itself.
Ray Road in Mainline this is Basically formalizing that stop controlled at the northbound to provide an extended right and left turn storage because right now it cues pretty significantly causing a lot of delay. And that's also a safety improvement for improved sight distance for those turning left and right. Okay, this is for Hanson and this is extending. This is only in the westbound direction right now the lane drop occurs roughly around Hanson And but there's a lot of businesses on that north side with driveways that causes a lot of friction turning movements that are Are creating safety issues so the idea here? Is that we extend that lane drop? Beyond Hanson and beyond where those driveways are So it's a much smoother transition from two to one lane.
And then we also identified paved driveway aprons, and this is a safety because it adds traction to ingress and egress vehicles coming out of those driveways in those fields but also it cuts down on dust and green train road dust so dust abatement strategy. And this was very popular among the stakeholder advisory group And also the need for lighting. So we heard this loud and clear from the public, lighting is an issue particularly around key intersections so we identified additional lighting for various key locations within the corridor and also on Better Ravia Road.
We also are advocating the purchase of 15 additional vans from CalVan to provide exclusive service for ag workers. We work closely with CalVans to identify what the potential demand was for these added vehicles, and there is a demand there. CalVans is already doing a lot of work in this corridor but they recognize that it's not enough and they can do more so We're advocating additional 15 Calvans and then also for Santa Maria Regional Transit, which has now assumed control of the Guadalupe Flyer service between Guadalupe and Santa Maria to reduce those headways from 60 minutes to 30 minutes. That's going to require a purchase of an additional 35-foot bus.
And so transit service will be much more I think convenient particularly for those residents in Guadalupe who rely on transit to go to Santa Maria and back. Okay, so this is the Surface Transportation Assistance Act STAA. This is for truck circulation and I just want to make it clear from the beginning the trucks are already out there. So any of these improvements are not allowing trucks where they currently aren't operating that is a misconception. It's just trying to formalize the network for not only the truckers but also for CHP who must enforce the STA regulations and and also for the City of Santa Maria who's trying to preclude the number of heavy-duty trucks, five axle plus trucks that have to traverse through their downtown on 166.
So, and we did find that not only are the trucks there but they're growing in numbers. And they're growing faster than the traffic overall is growing so the mix of heavy-duty trucks is increasing in this region. So we've identified STA signage improvements as well some other safety improvements but to formalize a network so truckers know where to go and where they should be And we identified a number of alternative networks.
There's roughly six that are shown in the report, I would say that the City of Santa Maria is advocating just bringing the STAA signage allowing trucks to be on 166 up to Blosser Road rather than to 135 and there's various alternatives and then the Advisory Committee really advocated including Stoll Road as part of the STA network as well And okay, so this intersection improvements at Bettoravia and Mahoney.
That's a very funky intersection today. It's a picture of it in the top right but this is to make it more of a traditional intersection. This will facilitate goods movement trucks as well as safety for vehicular traffic. So this is the signalized version of the improvement and we also included around about version you know folks have mixed feelings about roundabouts and we heard that loud and clear from the advisory group as well as some others in the public. Those are options and then last but not least, the US 101 Bed Arabia interchange improvement so this is changing the circulation of the northbound ramps but also providing class one bike and pedestrian facilities as well as intersection improvements at Nicholson as well And this is primarily driven by the need to make sure BetterAvia is becoming a better SDA route.
There's already a lot of trucks using it, so this will help formalize that but also at the City Santa Maria as part of their general plan update are now targeting growth on the east side of 101 and so you'll have residential and then all the shopping opportunities on the west side of BetterAvia So you want to make that more accessible to pet and bikes as well as two vehicles And then the Santa Maria levee river levee trail, and that's included.
This is a very popular improvement. I would say folks are concerned about undue detour does it really provide that parallel connection between Santa Maria and Guadalupe? We feel it does but our analysis did take into consideration the buffer distance that people would actually use this facility to make those connections. But make no mistake, we recognize that having a bike and ped facility along the 166 is much more efficient but again it's much more costly. This improvements moving along is already in its environmental phase and so we're including it as part of our package.
And then here's the widening. There you go, you can see the bike path there. So the profile cross section in the middle that's what exists today and you can see the extent of what would be required in terms of right away to make it a four lane facility Caltrans will need a center median to a divider for this, for safety. Folks felt from the Stakeholder Advisory Committee they questioned the need for that but I can guarantee you Caltrans is going to want that and then the class 1 bi-directional trail south side of the State Route 166 And again, it comes at a hefty price. So this is really only possible I think as part of the Measure A renewal package and then in terms of our implementation we looked at all the various funding sources again as Maya said were targeting at least for the the package that were identified for these next 20 years state and federal grant funding to try to get these projects implemented And then we phased the improvements from short term, midterm and then that longer term 20 plus years.
And that's where you see the four lane widening as well as the class one trail on 166. So with that I'll open up to questions.
1:02 – 1:1029 turns
All right questions among directors. I see Director Lee have a question?
I do so the levee trail that you spoke about Do you reach out to local farmers impacted by that construction? Or is there any feedback or any negative impacts to them?
Director Lee, the levee trail project is a county project. We've included it because it's moving forward. It's complimentary. It's related to our study so it's the county that is advancing the project however just on our stakeholder advisory committee we did have representatives of the agricultural community that were involved in the process and you did see on when the stakeholder advisory committee took its support don't support votes that this is one of the ones that had a couple Do not support
okay, and so going back to their study. Did you consider the early morning traffic that happens on the road? Because
we did
from two to five leaf
like really busy yes We did and
that was a So there was an early morning a.m.. Peak Which is that early ag related peak and then we did the commuter
am peak as well got it And we did address it in the completion will help with the traffic Pardon? And the completion of this project will help with that? Yes.
Yes, in fact the congestion that you see particularly in Santa Maria that backs up for that westbound trips and the AM that drove a lot of the improvements that you saw especially that the extension of Hanson or 166 lane drop past Hanson. That's to benefit that issue as well there's you know when we looked at The congestion and the travel time variance, we saw that it was very unreliable.
on an ongoing, you know it was reliably bad. That's what I'm trying to say which you don't see very often so it does indicate a really significant problem for that early morning ad commute.
And during your study on the road did you see anybody going off-road to bypass the traffic? You know our Roadway Safety
Audit we did recognize that but we heard that plenty from the public that folks used the shoulder as a bypass lane and that's not good. So we recognized that as a major issue.
Thank
you. Yeah And I will say that the Stakeholder Advisory Committee regarding the Santa Maria River levee trail, one of their big concerns was fencing. Was there going to be adequate fencing to protect the ag fields from folks who are using the facility? And the cost estimate as well as our description of the project is yes, it'll be two layers of fencing to keep folks from compromising or getting into the ag fields.
I spoke to the farmers locally there and they are concerned about people who are using that trail going on through the land. So, that's very important and thank you for doing that. I agree.
Thank you Director Lee. Director Hartman, then-elect Director Labadino and then I'll go to Santa Maria.
I was just curious about your analysis for benefit cost. So the cost takes in the entire set of projects including the CalVans and the bus transit? Correct. And then describe more how you calculate the benefit, you said what wasn't part of it but how do you nail that down?
Right, so yeah you know costing improvements that's been around for a long long long time. Engineers are very good at that. Monetizing benefits is really the new aspect of all this and it's all based on data that's published by Caltrans. It's called societal costs and they you know there is value to time. So they that value of time is incorporating into delay reduction travel time reliability because It's called buffer time. If you want to reach your destination 95% of the time, but because of the conditions of the facility makes that very variable and we have 12 months of data to show how variable it is.
It's the amount of time people have to leave early to make sure they can get to their destination 95 percent of the time. That's their time so it can be monetized. You know they'd rather be at home with their families than leaving early And maybe arriving work early, but maybe on time. They don't know so that can all be monetized by the value of time On-road mobile source emissions All those you know criteria health based pollutants have a societal cost associated with them That's all been developed by EPA and Caltrans and so We have a whole list of all those monetized costs that we can calculate the measure of effectiveness and monetize that benefit
And then could you elaborate on the gross regional product, the 12 million value? How that relates or
doesn't? So that is a good question. That is specific to the construction activity so assuming that all the improvements get constructed that's going to add jobs to the construction sector yeah.
All right thank You Director Hartman. Director Labanino.
Thank you and well first I just want to thank SB KEGG staff and I just want to remind the members that this is this is something's been a long time coming, I mean this we probably should have started this 1520 years ago so that we were actually doing work now instead of looking what we could be doing. But you know we've got a lot of priorities in this County so understand but it's appreciate where we are right now.
So can you just refresh my memory when when does measure a. Okay, great. So what I'm hearing is in that short term those ones that you've identified which two of them are actually construction and the other two are kind of working around some issues we're anticipating that we would be able to do those before 2040 with current Measure A
There is no Measure A identified for this corridor at this point in time. So
what we're saying is we could identify state funding and federal funding possibly to do these. And then these other ones that are in the midterm, that they would be a wish list that we would send to voters that these are things that we would like to get done. And inside of that, are we or are we not, do you anticipate now talking about widening to four lanes? Or is that something outside of that?
It's up to this board.
Okay, okay. So just I'm curious on these just on these even in the midterm ones but on that even in the intersection lighting and the pavement driving is that for 42 million seems pretty low to me which it does it's only because we deal with so many high numbers here but is that actually if we looked at the right away because some of those farms I mean I know we're going to be taking Anytime you do any work on the 166, you're talking about impacting prime ag. And I'm just curious if we've done those studies looked at
that? We did so for the lighting, a lot of these are low cost improvement concepts and so that's the beauty of it but various suit observation 42 million in the big scheme of things is not that much And so the lighting in terms of the cobra heads and the poles, a lot of that can be done within right away. So there wouldn't be any take. The driveway aprons, that's a mix. There probably will be some right away that's not Caltrans to make those effective. We think that's a good public private type of improvement that folks can rally behind but we'll see But I think most of the businesses, they would welcome that because it's a safety issue for their people, their vehicles or workers.
And then final question I guess is so in your professional opinion how do you think these midterm projects would rack and stack against as far as being able to actually see possibility of funding?
Yeah, it depends on the program itself. One program that we highlight that we feel is probably the strongest is the Trade Quarter Enhancement Program from Caltrans SB1. That is a competitive program. I think we have a very competitive benefit cost. We have safety improvements. You know, we have a lot of good mix of projects from transit vans you name it driveway aprons which is very unique as the first quarter study that I've been a part of I've been part of too many but that driveway aprons was even an improvement so it's kind of unique. So my fondest aspiration is that we can compete well for the trade quarter enhancement program.
Another good one is HSIP, Highway Safety Improvement Program.
1:11 – 1:2727 turns
I have a correction. There is a project in the measure current Measure A program that's the BetterAvia 101 project that is funded through the Measure A that we will be applying for additional funds to implement that project but it's not on the 166 so thank you. All
right, thank you. I'm gonna go to Santa Maria for some comments or questions and I'm gonna come back up here then for Director Silva
Thank you. And I know this is about the Benita school and I know we've had discussions about this before and Director Nielsen, I can't remember exactly what but I know that property was deeded only to be used as a school And so there's just a lot of problems getting into what happens. And I know the school district spoke to us several years ago and you probably know more about it than I do, but it's really a challenge to have to deal with that and of course those students do come from Santa Maria and they are bused out there.
ask about I really want to confirm that the time, the peak hour study again because you've got Black and Bed Arabia. You've got Black and Stoll and you've got Blosser that concern us but what time was that peak hour study?
So the what we're calling their early a.m. I believe is from 5 to 6 And then the commuter AM is the typical 7, you know 8 to 9 or 730 to 830. I'll have to check and then the traditional p.m.. Peak is 435 30
Okay, because that five o'clock is it's really important eight o'clock nine o'clock. It doesn't really matter because that's not when it that is so impacted there on Blosser and 166 we really need them to left turn northbound lanes going east going north And I didn't see that there. So, that's something that we need then coming down Blosser and going west on 166 again that left turn pocket gets packed it just gets packed the it is probably bumper to bumper from Main Street all the way up to probably Better Avia.
I know Pastel So that's really an impact. And so I know when we went through the roundabout issue and we did the signalized intersection at 166 and Black, that went on for years. And I went to all those meetings with focus groups Not one person, not one person at that time ever spoke in favor of a roundabout. And yet we spent years going through that and it was like Caltrans was trying to push that on us and everyone was saying that it doesn't work. So I just think those kinds of things are important.
I'm thinking of the day that we were out on 166th and Black and celebrating the intersection. And, I'm sitting there watching and there's CHP there and a car runs the red light. And and then a little while later, a truck runs the red light. So it is a very very dangerous road and during those peak hours it's four lanes and not two lanes so it's something that we between Guadalupe and Santa Maria we do care about there's a lot of accidents out there all the time And I want to ask you and Margie, maybe you know this but I heard on the radio that California has the most unsafe. We're number one in the most unsafe roads and I didn't know what study that was done Anyway our public works director is here if he would like to comment on anything
Thank you all right Director Pitino do you have a question for him that you'd like to have answered? I
just wanted to make those comments.
Okay, thank you and if you'd like to speak during public comment we'll absolutely give him that opportunity too or the directors up here or down there will have some questions for him. We'll make sure that's available.
Okay and I'm sure Director Julian has things to say. Thank you.
I'm sure he is.
Yes, thank you for the update and one of the one of the things that local residents are looking at CHP. I know that there was a study with about a quarter of the CHP ticketing and that is a big issue we still have people especially if you're not going to four lane for decades or ever We need CHP doing more of the you know roads routes out in that area. You know trucks are not a problem maybe because we're used to that truck slow people down to 55 miles an hour so trucks, we have a good relationship with the truckers.
And one of the things too, and I know that Director Nelson is on CalVans but when people from Santa Maria go to San Luis County across the bridge, Santa Maria River Bridge there's a lot of development not a lot of development, a lot of grow right after the bridge on the north side of the Santa Maria River. I know that there's a call for more CHP. Calvins that's a good that's a that's really necessary but what we need to do in terms of what loop is to make I don't I see very few And if we're having 15 additional fans, we really need to do our homework and make sure that the local farm workers know that it's there for their use. Also the increase in road trips from an hour to 30 minutes to and from Santa Maria is really helpful for the community of Guadalupe.
And then in the future, we've got another 18 acres of commercial that hopefully will be developed where people don't have to go to Santa Maria for everyday shopping in terms of groceries And again, most of our people are employed in Santa Maria. So it really makes a difference in making improvements on this Highway 166. Thanks for the report.
Thank you Director Julian. Director Silva?
Thank you. Just kind of piggybacking off of what Director Hartman mentioned with a societal benefit I just was curious, I don't know if it's the factoid of you saying one hour equals one day of shelf life considering the fact that we have a traffic issue going on right now. I was curious if you could maybe walk through do we anticipate while we're looking at a 20-year construction plan or whatever that looks like exasperating the traffic issue and was that analyzed in the cost of the project or are we I just don't know how you would mitigate that. Are we possibly as a body, just so that we're aware, are we going to have to expect that there will be delays by the nature of construction taking place and that could impact the transportation going on and what that has been studied or what that looks like?
Okay, two questions. The first question is that the existing conditions analysis was and the public input predicated our selection of the improvements but the performance analysis of those improvements was based on future conditions and so we relied on SBCAGS travel demand model and other resources to know how much traffic was going to grow. So when these improvements were operational open to the public and the traveling public That benefit was derived from future demand.
address your first question. The second question, can you repeat it? I'm sorry.
It's really just understanding in once these improvements start taking place do we have an understanding of if we would anticipate delays that will have economic impact is there ways that we have gone through with how we're going to mitigate that. I just wasn't sure exactly being mindful of actions taken it's not saying we don't need to solve the problem but there's always that when you're solving a problem, you know the treatment can often cause some issues while we're going through that. I just curious what that looks like or if we've done that study?
No good question construction phasing and delays associated with the construction of improvements um that is not incorporated into our study uh like i said before the good news is that many of these are not significant in terms of disruption to existing traffic in my opinion The experience at 166 and Black Road, I don't know what the history when that project was implemented to install a signal but it would be similar to that is a good analogy in terms of disruption to traffic. Now of course that longer term improvement That's going to be significant and construction phasing will be pretty complicated on how we can keep the traffic moving on 166 while that's being constructed, if it ever does.
Yeah.
All right. Director Prodi?
Thank you Chair. Going back to Director Patino's question about the schools, what is the issue at the school? Is it traffic getting into the class, into school by parents? Is that kids walking, biking, buses? What's their concern and I'm assuming you've gone to the school and talked with the parents.
Yeah, so there's a number of issues that go on. So during school let out there is the queuing of the buses and our road safety audit was out there to witness that firsthand and it's messy all those buses they queue up there's not enough storage for them In terms of the internal circulation where they pick up the kids on campus, and then they're all making a left because they all go to Santa Maria. 100% of the student body kids are living in Santa Maria. Strangely most if not all the faculty come down from the north because they live in Nipomo and elsewhere, and they use Santa Benita School Road.
And so it just is kind of a confluence there. So there's no formalized parking really on campus. So there's no stalls, white lines, painting, striping. So we put a lot of thought into that but you know that's just a concept. You know do you want diagonal parking? Do you want you know... There's all these different variables but so that's an issue in terms of just the circulation The student body, you know the parents drive their kids too. And so there's just a confluence of the vehicles from the employees to the students and then that school let out time with the queuing up the buses.
Okay I was just curious about what the problem was there?
Yeah this stakeholder advisory committee advocated really putting in a much more prominent right turn channelization for westbound traffic, and that's mentioned in our report. It's not technically included in the improvement but I think that had a lot of merit so we included it by reference.
Thank you Director Parodi and I'd actually like to speak to the school issue just for a moment something that I've always kind of been tracking as well. The issue is it's four miles from the nearest house to the school, which is all through this entire traffic areas there's nobody riding their bikes there's nobody walking there and it is a traffic issue You mentioned the pesticide issue. I think that was inappropriate, you know that site has been tested for the last few years and they've had a zero detect for pesticides so I know there's always that concern out there. I think it's the bigger concerns probably be cooler with the ammonia than there is actually pesticides. There's really a great amount of responsible use of pesticides in that area and you know in general but specifically because near school So they've had it again zero detect so actually no pesticides in the actual regions Sensor that's put out by Department of State pesticide regulations is on the fence line of the playground and again It's 0 D tech.
So just want to make sure that was you talk about that that you don't spread any false assumptions or rumors about that.
No, I totally appreciate that and that's great news to hear. I would just say fine particulates with no herbicides or pesticides attached to them is not a good thing
so it's still a health-based issue. Absolutely but i do think that the big issue for that for a long time has been the traffic issue you know there's this is the most early on when i started working for the county i heard from CHP's officer they said It's the most unmanned vehicle accidents in the state are all on this. And I go, what do you mean unmanned? Because there's accidents and they show up and there's nobody there. And so they have the cars that are there. So it's definitely a corridor with many, many accidents. Obviously we've been talking about significantly The traffic issues my son actually works at a farm 166 in Black Road. And so, you know, he spends he lives five miles away and it's a 3030 minute plus drive for him to get there so I see this and it impacts so many of our residents especially those who have the least time to share on a commute.
So couple of few things I just wanted also did you guys look at Black Road with the flooding that happens there? Did that, you know, you talked about extreme weather events. Black Road floods significantly multiple feet of water. Did you guys kind of look at that as part of the study?
It was brought to our attention in terms of the vulnerability to extreme weather events. I think that's a chronic issue, but we do identify quite a swath of area that is subject at risk vulnerable to flooding. But yeah that did come into play. We did not explicitly try to address you know, the flooding issue that currently happens at that location.
You also went through the truck routes and I think that brought up got a lot of people's attention. What's the next steps on truck routes in that conversation? Because I think, you know, you presented a lot different options. I don't know who just makes those decisions whether that's our board or that someone else. I think also the City of Santa Maria with the potential of their Amazon Center that they're gonna have on Stowell that plays into it. You know what are all those things that we're looking at so who makes those next decisions on truck routes?
So, well I'll just say it varies across the state. Typically, I think what's typical they allow it to organically happen so it comes from the property owners and the business owners that they request through their local agency or member regional agency to ask Caltrans to formally designate and test it So most of the state does that but there are jurisdictions that are more proactive and I would say this is kind of a proactive step. That hey, there's no STA routes east-west. That's a huge issue and everybody that we talked to from the growers with shippers and CHP it just has never really formally been looked at and it's an issue because the CHP will not enforce the STA regulations because really the truckers don't have any choice. There's no signage, there's no navigation so they'll just go where Siri tells them to go and sometimes they find themselves on roadways that were never designed to accommodate those vehicles and you can see the damage at intersections from the light poles and all that.
They have visible damage from the trucks off-tracking and not being able to accommodate that sharp of a turn, but I'll pass it over to Margie.
1:27 – 1:338 turns
It sounds like this is a perfect issue for SBGAG to take up at some point maybe within North County Subregional because we have all the different parties that are going impacted so that we can come up with something to advocate to Caltrans to formalize?
So the steps in the planning process is this is a study and then we incorporate it into our regional transportation plan so it could be an action item in our next regional transportation plan to identify a truck route and working with Caltrans. All
right, and just one thought I had on the paved driveways you know that seems like that's a great public-private partnership opportunity. I think if we gave encroachment permits, many of those landowners would actually install those for us which would be a huge cost savings I'd imagine so you know it could be one of those things where the local jurisdictions help them with the permitting You know that's our cost and investment into those farms would put in the paving. I mean they have construction material, they're able to do those types of things. I know that a lot of this is going to be potentially on their property as well so just kind of throw that out there as a concept that I think would be embraced. And then my last you know kind of final thought on this is that I think that this is a great start but I think it needs to be kind of a living document for us Because there's other things coming down the line.
I don't think BetterAvia is a settled idea of what is proposed here, I think this is just a concept so I think there's gonna be greater discussion there. The City of Santa Maria is looking at McCoy interchange what happens there and how that impacts everything and they're also looking at bringing McCoy out to Mahoney you know the county at some points looking at Union Valley Parkway out to Highway 1 and so having additional corridor routes in the future And how those all kind of play into future investments I think are really important. So, I think that this is something we should probably bring back every couple years and maybe amend the study to the current circumstances in the current planning. You know if the City of Santa Maria moves forward at the Amazon Center then this changes a lot of things here and we're gonna have to go refresh that as well so I just want to kind of throw that out there for all of us is to think about that this is a start but we should probably be you know refreshing this on a semi-regular basis for the corridor
Chair Nelson, when you don't speak into the mic we can't hear you up here.
I apologize there Director Patino. I was trying to hide it from you anyway so it's all good. All right um so Madam Clerk do we have any public comment on this item?
Chair, I'm confirming written public comment was received for this item in advance. The comments were uploaded online and provided to the board and those comments were received from Guthrie Leonard Timothy Mahoney Jeff Jeffrey Willer And if there are any members of the public who wish to speak on the zoom webinar Please use a raised hand feature and I will call upon you We do have one request to speak in Santa Barbara and three up north in Santa Maria And so our first speaker in Santa Barbara is Barry Remus if you can please come to the podium
Good evening, excuse me good afternoon Chair Nelson and Directors. My name is Barry Remes and I'm with MOVE Santa Barbara County. We countywide empower educate and advocate for those who walk bike and use public transit so what a perfect opportunity to address the Route 66 multimodal corridor and we really do want to highlight the fact that multimodals been We have emphasized or highlighted in the study numerous times. And while we do realize that there's this is clearly going to be a large balancing act of numerous priorities and recognizing the immense benefit that this agricultural corridor provides for everybody, emphasize as well that it's more than just a truck route and that we fully support the opportunity here. And it certainly is an opportunity, and also Chair Nelson as you mentioned to be able to treat this as a living plan that obviously will need to be re-evaluated and reassessed as the years go on and some things are going to take a lot longer than others but While we certainly support the class one multi-purpose path that would be fully separated and protected for active transportation users, bike riders, pedestrians and also the ever growing ebike riding population.
That is also a lot of the commuters that would probably be going back and forth between farms as ebikes become more affordable but also And we're also on record supporters of the Santa Maria River levee trail as and we understand that there's the balance between that too. But we feel that there are ways to be able to work that arrangement out, to be able to provide protected space for the agricultural owners while also providing a good alternative route for active transportation users from and to Guadalupe and Santa Maria. But also the agricultural workers and the commuters, the farm workers that depend upon transit. And so that idea of increasing the Caltrans opportunities and also increasing the headways for smart transit all are wonderful ways that through funding availability can be more near-term solutions to be able to address County's climate action plans, reducing emissions.
Reducing vehicle miles traveled and also to be able to provide for so many of the agricultural workers coming out of Guadalupe to Director Julian's points to be able to provide that opportunity for them to get there. Safe routes to school is paramount for us and we appreciate director Perotti's questions and Mr Nelson's questions about the school Any amount of dust mitigation in the particulate matter for the safety and the future health of our children is an excellent idea, that the paved driveway aprons as well. And just lastly also going to point out that for the Guadalupe side you had a highlight that Caltrans is holding a community meeting next Wednesday the 21st to highlight Guadalupe oriented action projects as well so I want to bid you all a Happy New Year and thank you very much.
Thank you
Our next speaker is Claire Weinman followed by Brett Felgoni.
1:33 – 1:4012 turns
In Santa Maria, Claire you're up. We can't hear you yet. We can now please.
Good morning, my name is Claire Weinman. I'm the president of the Grower Shipper Association of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties. We appreciate the opportunity to serve on the advisory committee and it's always a pleasure to work with the SBCAG team. This is an essential corridor for safe and efficient and effective movement of people equipment in fresh perishable produce.
Agriculture drives employment and businesses that many rely on in North County We've provided detailed comments throughout the process and would like to highlight a few key points before approval today. First, our number one ask is widening 166 to four lanes in a modest compact design. We are sensitive to the cost and complexity of pursuing a very wide design and would look to a modest and achievable design which would better suit the location and use needs through a design variance.
As many of you are already aware, we strongly oppose the Santa Maria River levee trail due to significant food safety and operational concerns with that specific location. As mentioned the majority of the advisory committee also did not support the trail at that location and asked it to be removed from this package. Many of you are also aware of our concerns about roundabouts in areas frequented by agricultural equipment and specifically the mix of vehicle types, and would oppose roundabouts at Mahoney Road and Better Avia and 101 and favor signalization for these locations.
Finally, we strongly support a variety of east-west travel corridors for trucks. This would provide resiliency and reduce undue pressure on any one pathway. We strongly support maintaining Main Street to 101 and further support additional options for Highway 1 in Seamus as well as Stoll Road, Union Valley Parkway in Clark. This would most closely align with the modified Alternative 5 and 6 and would like to remain very engaged in this process.
We appreciate your attention and leadership to these important details and look forward to continuing to serve our community as these move forward as projects. Thank you.
Thank You Ms. Wyren.
And our next speaker is Brett Fulgoni followed by Maribel Aguilera
Good morning Chair Nelson, Directors. Brett Fulgoni Public Works Director for the City of Santa Maria and first of all thank you all very much for the work that went into this study. A couple things I just wanted to comment on. I recall back in November There was some discussion about, and you did list it in the comments that you took that information in. But I didn't see it analyzed in the options analysis.
So black and bed Arabia stolen black and then also very importantly the two left hand turn lanes Eastbound 166 on the northbound Blosser. And earlier, Jim I heard you talking about the AM peak which I think you nailed but I wasn't sure about that PM peak and we see anecdotally the peak we think is probably around 3 to 4 pm at that location where you get that left-hand turn movement on to northbound Blosser really stacking up west. So we just want to make sure that that gets addressed. Anecdotally, we looked at it through engineering on our team if we had four 11 foot lanes through there which would require a Caltrans design exception, we think we could get two lefthand turn lanes onto that northbound Blosser corridor and so you know perhaps a short-term solution could be a design exception through 11 foot lanes and then as we move toward the medium term, we could widen that back out if needed because of the truck traffic.
Although we do have many 11 and 10 foot lanes throughout the City of Santa Maria on truck routes or unofficial truck routes. Let's see if I have anything else? So yeah, I just want to make sure that those intersections were fully studied that I mentioned and that we've captured the correct PM peak on that eastbound 166 to Blosser turn movement. Thank you. Thank you Brett.
And our next speaker is Maribel Aguilar.
Chair and members of the board, I'm Maribel Aguilera, Santa Maria City Council. I strongly support the final State Route 166 Comprehensive Corridor Study and urge approval today with a further consideration to include the widening of the 166-4 lanes. The people of Santa Maria and Guadalupe deserve a safe, reliable corridor connecting our communities Every day Guadalupe residents travel the 166 to reach medical appointments, go shopping, get to work and access essential services in Santa Maria. And Santa Maria residents depend on this same corner to reach the coast some work in Guadalupe visit family and support businesses throughout the region For too long our families have navigated a roadway plagued by safety concerns, heavy agricultural traffic, limited visibility congestion and inadequate infrastructure at key intersections.
We've had far too many serious accidents on this road over the years This study represents years of thoughtful collaboration between SBCAG, Caltrans Santa Barbara County and both cities of Santa Maria and Guadalupe. And I am encouraged by the strong community engagement nearly 500 survey responses with outreach in both English and Spanish at events such as Mexican Independence Day celebrations to our Parade of Lights.
And with a benefit cost ratio of 2.66 this is clearly a sound investment. The identified improvements signalization at Seamus Road, Enhanced Lighting Intersection Safety Upgrades and Transient Enhancements will provide real safety and operational benefits. However I do want to address the timing and I do appreciate the request for four lane widening because that's really shouldn't be for long-term planning, because the need is now.
During peak traffic times it takes 45 minutes to get from Santa Maria to Guadalupe so I'd really encourage us to look at that and widening the road and looking at the peak times 5 to 6 a.m. and 3 to 4 p.m., As someone who has spent over a decade serving our region's families on the Planning Commission and City Council, I know firsthand how critical this corridor is to our community's well-being and economic vitality.
I ask that you include the four lane widening now not as a long term goal because the families of Guadalupe and Santa Maria need that today. Thank you.
Thank You Councilwoman.
There
are no further requests to speak
All right, any other questions from directors in Santa Maria? Or comments?
Did you have a comment? I have a comment. On the comprehensive corridor study that is part of the river trail. I should say the river trail is part of that comprehensive corridor study
1:41 – 1:4721 turns
Director Patino, the trail along the levee is a county project that was included in the study.
Okay and that was already agreed to and passed what four years ago or five years ago?
I believe it's my understanding that the county agreed to fund certain phases, I believe the environmental phase which is currently ongoing.
Thank
you. All right. Any other questions down or comments in Santa Maria?
Yes, there is
please. I've got a comment here when I made before and it's in regards to the trail. I know the county is well aware that They have a Superior Court ruling about introduction of people and pests into environmentally sensitive habitats. And how would you be getting around the Superior Court ruling by obviously introducing people and pets into environmentally sensitive habitats agriculture as it's recognized in the Superior Court ruling? So, seems to me that you're doing kind of the opposite of mandates that you've done in other areas of the county but I've advised before that if you want to see what happens when you put trails in these type of areas, come to Lompoc. There's plenty of video that show up what happens there.
But just for the record I did is very curious how. The county in one area can say no to recreation and trails in one area but another they can just turn a blind eye to it even when the people owning the property around are saying no and it moves forward.
All right. Thank you director must be
Thank you. Thank you. The project that is that there is really no even we're in the very beginning stages of this. We all understood the reason why it's not done right now is because of the farmers input and we realize that we can't do it without a huge investment that would include lighting fencing paving All kinds of engineering to keep people out of those fields. Staffing? If we had turned a blind eye, we would have said okay here's a Santa Maria River levee trail and it's open and all hell would have broke loose so because of the input of the farmers and our ability to then dial it way down and say okay this obviously is an area of concern I got to be honest I think it has not been in blind eye. We've gone in with eyes wide open And so the reason why we're doing this is because we want to make sure that people are listening.
And try to listen to what the comments were and change what even the proposal is that's why it's not going to happen tomorrow, it's not going It's going to take a long time is because we have decided to really implement everything that we've heard from the public so. You know I think it's easy and act like nobody's paying attention to it when the exact opposite is true. Everybody's paying attention to it, we're on top of it and we're really analyzing it so I just want the public to understand that this is not just a Wild West free-for-all trail running through ag properties.
All right I want to kind of bring us back though um so this is just referenced in the study and today all we are doing is receiving and filing the study right? We're not actually adopting these projects any of these designs We're just hearing a presentation on what we paid for.
We are asking for the board approval as a study and then it gets incorporated into the plan as priorities as we move forward so the board will have discretion on what priorities get incorporated into the regional transportation plan as we move forward but this is just basic information to inform your future decision making
right so no actual decisions will be made on projects or designs at this point correct
correct
I want to make sure I think it's a good discussion debate and it's going to get information out there. I appreciate both perspectives and having that opportunity to say that but I do want to get us moving along towards finishing up this item so we can get this meeting finished in a timely manner. So with that Supervisor, sorry Director Hartman.
Go ahead.
Okay all right so not seeing too many other lights up here or any other lights again could get us back to this item is to receive the study
The action on the agenda is to approve the final study, the comprehensive corridor study and to direct staff to file a notice of exemption with the Santa Barbara clerk for CEQA.
So the study is not an environmental document though. It's
exempt from environment because it's just a study you're not making official decisions or priorities, its information for your future decision-making.
Okay we're not making those decisions today all right so I need to see a motion to make that motion. Motion from Hartman in a second room Silva further discussion supervisor Petino or Director Petino?
Yes, I would really like to go on record saying I do oppose the river trail being in on that study and I know we've gone through it over and over. I don't think that people realize the impact and the challenges to the growers in our community and they are extremely important. Ag is the engine that fuels our community and I didn't like it when it was passed and I don't like it now. I just, I don't think people realize that even with birds going into fields and contaminating whatever is growing in the fields makes those fields unusable and I think when you've got people going down the levee on their bicycles and they have their dogs with them and I realized we have in here is gonna do fencing but somehow We go down the road and things get turned around.
And so I would love to see if that could be removed from this study, the approval of this study. Thank you.
1:47 – 1:558 turns
Other comments on the motion that we have right now? Okay there I don't see no additional comments on the motion. Madam Clerk can you please have a roll call vote?
Roll-call vote Passed 11–2 motion. Madam Clerk can you please have a roll call
Show transcript
Motion passes
11-2. Do you mind calling out this number for the public? Was that what it was?
Yes, it was 11-2
Okay thank you All right we're moving on to our final discussion item Item 5C Madam Clerk will you please read that into the record
Expanded peak hour inner city rail service update recommended actions receive presentation and provide direction to staff regarding the proposal by the Los Angeles San Diego San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency LoSan to operate expanded inner-city passenger rail service between Ventura and Santa Barbara counties.
Mr. Bonfilio, please
All right Good morning Mr. Chair, Board of Directors for the record my name is Aaron Bonfilio Director of Multimodal Programs for SB CAG and with me today is Jason Jewell from the Los Angeles Corridor Agency the Managing Director to help with the presentation So today's presentation and we'll try to move through it quickly I don't want to stand between you all in lunch It's a hard place to be We'll provide you all with a quick background of this project, where we are with regard to Losian's recent board direction as far as their updated proposal is concerned because there was some action at the recent Losian Board that has triggered some new information and then next steps with regard to timeline.
Okay I will try again All right, new clicker. So as the board will recall in 2018 SBCAG began a service with Pacific Surfliner, the rail corridor agency to operate additional train service from the south into Santa Barbara County to address the peak hour morning commute period. This is a long-standing commitment that SBCAG has made to the voters The Lane and a Train was part of the 2008 Measure A renewal or push for the current local self-help sales tax measure that's here today.
And we've achieved much of the lane and had fits and starts with the train so as it relates to our ongoing efforts I'm here to tell you that we have some good news over the past two years, we've been working very closely both with Losan and our partners in Ventura County but also with the Regional Rail authority in Southern California Metrolink to come up with the solution to help expedite additional train service.
Over the years, we had a discussion with this group that effectively was to provide on loan a slot from the Low Sand Rail Corridor Agency that they have track access to with the Union Pacific right away. It's very important UP is the owner of the tracks for much of our area as far north as the Bay Area and in order to operate trains, Union Pacific must provide that access and we must reimburse them Losan has access as well as Metrolink throughout the Southern California area, but effectively Losan was unable to provide the additional train service when we went back to them in 2022 and early 2023.
And creatively they suggested that you know who does have train equipment that could operate this service while maybe they don't have access is Metrolink And so we began on an effort to work with both Metrolink and Losan in our partners in Ventura County, to establish a set of agreements that would allow for Metrolink to temporarily use Losan's track access for a period of time until such time that Losan could operate additional Pacific Surfliner services funded by the state and through the additional equipment that they would need in order to operate.
We got very far along and earlier this summer approached Union Pacific with approximately eight months to go before our anticipated start date. Union Pacific was initially receptive to the idea and began to review some of the internal or the initial documents, preliminary schedules and so forth But the bottom line was that Union Pacific has a process that it must go through and that Losan's agreement with UP specifically identified Amtrak as the operator of record on any of the UP corridor north of Moore Park Station in addition to Metrolink and Ventura County.
In order to utilize Losan agreement, an additional agreement with UP would be required and while UP was receptive and eager for business they had to Let us know in no uncertain terms that they had other priorities and in particular their merger with Norfolk Southern was underway and there is a quite a bit of scrutiny that they had to address and would be able to review our proposal and our agreement options in the beginning of 2026.
As I mentioned, this is an effort to put this train into service with additional train service since 2008 if not prior to that. I think the first study I read looking at train service in the corridor was done by SCAG in 1998 if not a little bit earlier than that. The final report went before both Santa Barbara and Ventura counties around that time And at that time and most recently in 2007, studies were done that showed that LOSAN was ultimately the best available operator to operate additional peak hour service because a simple retiming or what we presume would be a simple retiming would be the best way to go as there is already a state supported service. So we did that in 2018 and unfortunately during the pandemic due to declining ridership and some changes with availability of train equipment, we were unable to reestablish that service.
Hence the Metrolink expansion option. As I mentioned UP responded to Low Sand this summer and a little bit after our last presentation which was in August 2025 to the board that they would be able to begin on that agreement in 2026. Unfortunately Union Pacific had indicated to both Losan and Metrolink that there be some additional requirements or potentially new requirements on Losan's agreement with them, which opens up a new can of worms where Losan previously already has access to that service.
In November of 2025, Losan's board took action to prioritize their Amtrak Pacific Surfliner Service as the temporary period of time which we had envisioned Metrolink to operate was quickly coming onto the horizon. So effectively, Losan had seen some expansion or excuse me increase in their train capacity. Their train equipment capacity they had ability to operate additional services we're looking towards expansion in the near term and Metrolinx proposal which was still yet to be determined and finalized with Union Pacific cause for two conflicting efforts And where we are today is to bring you that update on how Los Angeles Board saw fit to work with SBCAG and Ventura County to still achieve that expansion, but to do so with an alternative proposal.
And so here with me today I mentioned Jason Jewell he's going to bring you some additional information regarding the latest Los Angeles Board activity as well as briefly describe some of the proposal.
1:55 – 2:041 turns
Let's set up here real quick. Great, thank you Aaron and good morning Chair Nelson and members of the board. As Aaron mentioned my name is Jason Jewell I'm the Managing Director for Los Angeles Corridor Agency and I wanted to mention that I am a UCSB graduate and started my career in government service many moons ago with the County of Santa Barbara right here in this building. And I don't want to age myself but that was back when Congressman Salute Carbajal worked for First District Supervisor Naomi Schwartz And the reason why I mentioned this is because I used to take the Amtrak Pacific Surfliner train to and from Santa Barbara back to my home in Ventura County. And I also used to drive the 101 many times to get to and from home, so I recognize the importance of having multiple transportation options for the region And I'm here today representing the Los Angeles Corridor Agency, of course.
And we also recognize the importance of alternative transportation options and specifically intercity rail options as a transportation focal point of ours. And I want to just take a few minutes to give you a little bit of background on the Los Angeles Corridors Agency. We are a joint powers authority with nine member agencies comprised of regional transportation and planning agencies, as well as rail owners and operators spanning six counties from San Diego all the way up to San Luis Obispo. And SB 1225 is really the legislation that paved the way for the Losan Agency to manage the Amtrak Pacific Surfliner Intercity Rail Service which we have been doing successfully since 2015.
Now we have an 11 member board and which I'd like to recognize and thank Director Perotti for her representation and support on our board as well as alternate director Lee. And to touch upon the Intercity Rail Corridor and the service itself real quickly, the Amtrak Pacific Surfliner Service spans the entire length of the Los Angeles Corridor which is 351 miles long. We currently stop at 29 stations and it is the nation's second busiest intercity rail corridor in terms of ridership outside of the Northeast Corridors.
The corridor itself is very unique. It has seven right-of-way or track owners, two freight operators, a UP and BNSF as well as two commuter regional rail services. In addition to that the U.S. Department of Defense has identified it as part of the Strategic Rail Corridor Network for its access to the Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton down in San Diego as well as the Port of San Diego.
So I wanted to dive a little deeper into the effort that Aaron had been talking about that we have before you today, as we have been working to expand inner city rail service. And I wanted to start off by thanking both the SP CAG team as well as the VCTC teams for their coordination and support through this effort, but most of all their patience. As Erin has mentioned, this has been a long time coming. This started off as a request several years ago from SB CAG and VCTC to the Lausanne Agency to support restoring peak period service to the regions and at that time we did not have the equipment resources available or the funding available to run the service However, it has always been the intent and included in the plans of the Losan Agency to implement expanded service to Goleta as well as San Luis Obispo which is included in our annual business plans for fiscal year 26-27 and consistent with state rail plan goals.
So as Aaron mentioned, together we explored the possibility of subcontracting the service to Metrolink and allowing them to temporarily utilize the LOSAN agency's track access rights that we currently have with Union Pacific. We have this access agreement directly with Union Pacific which currently allows us to run the Amtrak Pacific Surfliner Service. So the Low Sand, SBCAG, VCTC and Metrolink teams work together on this path when really two major milestone or events happen that created the opportunity that we currently have before us. And these events do tie into the low sand board direction to prioritize the inner city rail service expansion that I will get into.
The first is really in the July time frame, the Losan Agency as Erin had mentioned had learned that UP would require a completely new operating agreement between the Losan Agency and UP to identify Metrolink as an alternative operator. This requirement became necessary for Union Pacific because Metrolink transitioned from contracting directly their operations with Amtrak over to Alstom UP also communicated as Erin had mentioned that given the resources being fully dedicated to their work on their national merger, that the soonest they could provide a draft agreement for us to review would be Q1 of 2026. And of course once received that draft agreement we would need to...that agreement would need to be reviewed and negotiated which really made the timing of the Metrolinx subcontract really time uncertain.
So the second major event was really the clarity around equipment availability. Equipment availability has been one of the primary constraints for the Losan Agency to be able to implement additional service north of Los Angeles, but in late September we received a pre-award authority letter from the Federal Railroad Administration Committed to $27 million in a restoration and enhancement grant award to the Losan Agency to support intercity rail service restoration. And I'm proud to say that this is the first federal grant award to the Losan Agency And it supports the full restoration of pre-COVID service levels by restoring the 11th, 12th and 13th round trips between LA and San Diego. We were running 13 round trips pre-COVID and I'm pleased to share that we have already implemented the 11th and 12th round trips and just announced this week our plans for the implementation of the 13th round trip between LA and San Diego starting January 26.
So to support this service restoration, Caltrans and the three California JPAs agreed on a redeployment plan to be able to redeploy equipment from the Northern California fleet down to the Lausanne Agency to be ready for service restoration. This equipment that is needed for our service restoration for the 13th round trip will also provide sufficient capacity to allow for service expansion in the north.
So with these developments back in November, the Losan Agency Board directed staff to prioritize efforts to pursue the Pacific Surfliner service expansion including the six-round trip to Goleta and the third round trip to San Luis Obispo as the pathway to provide additional service So I know Aaron will dive into a little bit more of the details on the next slide as far as the expanded service pilot proposal itself. However, I did want to mention that we do view this as a great opportunity to advance state rail plan goals maximize the investment the state has made in the UP owned territory And provide not only greater regional rail benefits by providing peak period service to Ventura and Santa Barbara, but also expanding service along the entire corridor with a midday departure southbound train from San Luis Obispo just after the 12 p.m.
slot This will also provide additional rail service options for the World Cup coming up very soon. And so we're proposing a 12-month pilot utilizing temporary funding from both VCTC and SPCAG, as well as a portion of Losan Agency's estimated operational budget savings to fund this pilot. The Losan Agency intends to continue to include the proposed service in our annual business plan and funding requests to the state. However, given the state's outlook on the next budget proposal we will also be working with stakeholders to identify and pursue any federal funding sources or any other funding sources that may be able to sustain this service after the 12-month period. So we're going to be taking the lead on doing that to make sure that we can identify funding to be able to sustain this service beyond the 12 months.
So now I will hand it back over to Aaron to provide a little bit more details on the Amtrak Pacific Surfliner service proposal itself as well as as it relates to Metrolinx proposal.
2:04 – 2:1417 turns
All right, so much of the proposal by Losanna is actually quite like what we've seen from Metrolink already and in fact the timetable northbound is nearly identical to what was previously presented to the board. And I'll show that in just a moment. So specifically the train will travel north from LA Union Station through the area Santa Barbara County Association of Governments meeting and ability to work with Amtrak but also that there are any grant this federal grant that they received we're able to leverage that with the advent of the additional train equipment. So, there's some significant cost savings that are coming not to mention the increase in passenger fare revenue that's anticipated for in particular that southbound train that is a bit more productive as it will head from all the way from San Luis Obispo to San Diego so additional fare revenues or operating revenues that will be born as a result of this additional service.
And then lastly, as a buyer of services from Metrolink separate from their existing JPA both VCTC and SPCAG would have to wholly fund their entire cost of the project which would include their self-insured retention policy which was a significant cost associated with the service approximately five million dollar self-insured retention pool fund would be made available if in fact Metrolink were to proceed forward So as I mentioned the Union Pacific Agreement already exists with Los Angeles so there's some expedited in scheduling that's anticipated to as a result.
With regard to the schedule, these are the two trips that would be added highlighted in yellow. You'll notice the time into Goleta is close to if not the same as what was previously presented. There have been some minor time adjustments by the host railroad in particular which would have been true whether or not it was Metrolink operating on the corridor or LOSAN. These are the exact same trip times that are feasible given the existing slot. The southbound trip which as Jason mentioned will begin just after noon in San Luis Obispo will travel the whole corridor and through Union Station at approximately 5 50 p.m. and further south So what are some of the next steps? As Jason mentioned, the agreement or rather the proposal is before SB CAG and VCTC right now.
We're in negotiations. The final draft proposal we hope to bring back to the board in February. There is the expectation that the state's approval process will be completed by then We hope that will be positive, but ultimately this is a state supported service and so they have to sign off on any expansion. So there is there is that waiting period while we're looking forward to the state's review of this where before we come back to you in February, we anticipate getting that green light.
I'm following the board approvals will begin on the concerted marketing efforts between Ventura County in Santa Barbara County largely speaking ventura will work with its residents and constituencies in the south. And we'll work with the employers and large organizations here in the north to make sure that word is out and that All of the available riders know of the service and are ready to use it. We also have some additional grant funds that were awarded to SBCAG previously by the state, that were made available specifically to assist with the ticket pricing with regard to Amtrak Pacific Surfliner which will go into effect as well and will be helpful in buying down the fares and making costs affordable to the riders.
So I mentioned the timeline ahead and with that I'd be happy to answer any questions. All right,
questions from directors? I see Director Caps and then I'll come to Director Hartman.
We're a little cozy down here in Goleta. Well thank you for this and I just applaud The plan B and although I know our high hopes are have been dashed. It's not for lack of all of the work that this agency went into you did everything you lined up the funds they operator and it's really the stumbling block that I understand has been in place for a long time.
So I just before I ask about that and Mr. Joel thanks for being here welcome back to the county. I just kind of want to get my head around a little bit with Union Pacific. They just basically said we can't We're too busy with our merger to focus on this. Is that the understanding?
You know, I will have to defer to Advancing Director Jewell with regard to the specific response from Union Pacific but that's our understanding is that they would be able to begin working on the agreement mind you just starting off on that process at about this time or sometime between now and the end of the first quarter
And so because they own the tracks, they essentially control the timeline of when this would have gone forward. Okay. So again I'm just trying to get some clarity but because there's already agreement with LOSAN it can be expanded without having to go through all that process with them.
That's my understanding for that I'll defer to Jason on the exact number of trips.
The nature of my question is just to say like are we, are we on a good path here? It sounds like with the tone of your voice is very optimistic but again we had a lot of optimism here for the other plan.
Yeah through the chair Director Capps Yes, we do have as I mentioned our direct access agreement with UP. It provides us two additional train slots on the north end of the corridor that we have access to so this would utilize one of those train slots moving forward. We do have plans long term consistent with our state rail plan long-term goals to fulfill that second slot and provide even additional service beyond the six round trip to Goleta and third round trip to San Luis Obispo But to directly answer your question, yes UP has confirmed that under our current agreement with them there's no other additional amendments or anything necessary. We have the rights to utilize those slots and to utilize them as soon as we want to.
Okay, so no more additional funding commitments are needed. Again I just you know what the reason with the nature of my questions is that you know we've all been dealing with the 101 and all the implications we don't need to go through them but from a commuter perspective all the impacts that has on people's lives and also our climate and Union Pacific has been such incredible roadblock and now here we are With all this excitement about this Metrolinx plan and all the work. I just want to hear what potential challenges lay ahead but so far you haven't outlined any serious ones that this board needs to be concerned about at this point?
Right, the only other potential challenge as I alluded to is future funding. This is being proposed between the three stakeholders as a 12-month pilot really to not only understand the demand and the trends and look at How the train performs but also because this as Erin had mentioned our inner city rail service has historically been a state funded program. The state has signaled that the interstate that the state budget as a whole, but particularly the inner city rail budget We will continue to work with them through our annual budget request that we do through our annual business plan submittal with them, as well as I mentioned look for other funding opportunities that can help sustain not only this pilot program moving on into the future but also our Intercity rail program.
So the funding in the future is always a concern of ours when we hear about the state budget outlook and that's something that we do work with the state on an annual basis, so I'm sure you're all aware of the governor's address. the governor's address and some of the state budget concerns that are lying ahead. So like I mentioned, we will continue to work with the state on that funding and do everything we can to ensure not only that our intercity rail services, our baseline services can be funded but also that this 12-month pilot program can be sustained as well.
Thank you again I just applaud the tenacity and trying to look for another plan when this one, the first one that we all voted for and had a lot of enthusiasm didn't pan out. And I expressed my frustration towards Union Pacific for being such a block on something that all of us wanted to do so thank you.
Thank you Director Capps.
I'm just trying to be clear in my own mind about the number of trips. I think you said that 11 and 12 pre-COVID have been restored, and 13 is about to come. I heard advertisements on the radio today about expanded service. And so what you're talking about is additional? Could you lay that out for me?
Sure, definitely. So yeah so we have restored our 11th and 12th round trips between Los Angeles and San Diego as I mentioned pre-COVID we had 13 round trips between LA and San Diego. So we restored 12 of those just about to be 13 later this month. So north of LA we have historically ran five round trips to Goleta And two to San Luis Obispo. So this expansion would essentially expand to six round trips to Goleta and three round trips to San Luis Obispo.
So the advertisement on the radio today was, San Diego too slow is what they said?
So to clarify yes that third round trip to San Luís Obispos would actually span the entire corridor yeah.
Okay thank you Director Brown
2:14 – 2:2221 turns
I'd like to go, you had mentioned the $27 million grant for equipment. Is that for new rolling stock or is that rehabilitation of existing stock and where's that stock coming from?
Yeah, and to clarify the $27 million grant award of the Federal FRA Restoration Enhancement Grant Award. It's actually specifically for operations so unfortunately not for capital only for operations and specifically only to restore our pre-COVID service levels. So it cannot be used for any type of expansion beyond that baseline pre-COVID service levels which is our 13 round trips.
So that's specifically what they approved the award for
All right, thank you Director Brown. I've got a quick question here and I'll take the chair prerogative to ask. So the funding that's coming from SBCAG is funding that's part of this South County region? And I just wanna make sure I clarify that. Yes,
that's correct. It's through the South Coast program, the inter-regional or passenger rail program. Right, so there's not any North County funds that are going towards this project? Nope, these South County funds will run the train north to San Luis Obispo on the South County. Okay, just wanted to clarify that.
Super sorry, Director Soba.
I think just so I can further understand the timeline because it's there's a lot going on there. So just so I understand that we can explain it because I know we were all very excited when we voted last year to bring Metrolink to it. So we approved Metrolink. We wanted to enter into that agreement. I'm just trying to understand that from July. On was it that we were trying to figure out how to make Metro link work or where we operating under For the sake of clarity, it's just I want to make sure we're making the decision to support the project that is best for the commuting experience and the customer and not the most convenient one. And I just was curious if you could elaborate the timeline of how this all fell into place because I know it took a long time to get Metrolink going.
Is this just path of least resistance or is this the ideal option that we can provide?
So to the first question, the response from Union Pacific in the summer was simply that we would need a new agreement. Later in the fall they let us know that timeline would be to begin working on it sometime this quarter. So we knew at about mid-October that a pivot may be necessary. Los Santos Credit went to the board, asked for authorization to prepare an alternative proposal and work with the stakeholders SBCAG and VCTC on a potential alternative.
Later that year in November they got the direction to proceed with that proposal in prioritize it over other options that might be coming. With regard to the convenience factor, I mean ultimately Union Pacific is the track owner and so there is a lead time concern no matter what we do when it comes to working with the host railroads but specifically the agreement previously with Metrolink was that we would have them prepare a startup plan working with Losan and the host railroads That was simply just a plan to prepare operations and that LOSAN through its work with Metrolink would come up with a subcontractor or operations and maintenance program. That was still going to be Pacific Surfliner Service, just subcontracted with Metrolink.
So while it was a Metrolink train, the tickets were going to be through Amtrak. The schedule was going to be within the Amtrak schedule of service and that the passenger for all intents and purposes will be getting on another Pacific Surfliner train as it relates to the northbound commute. So from a rider mystique standpoint helping to explain this to the riders, it's actually a bit simpler when you're talking about having one type of train or one railroad operator on the corridor Add to that that the cost is considerably lower we anticipate approximately 30 to 50 percent less costly to SPCAG and BCTC.
It's not only more convenient both for the rider but potentially more efficient from an SBCAG standpoint to be able to proceed forward should this pilot continue
And then my only other question is I maybe it's because I when we looked at the Metrolink agreement back in the day with the afternoon one, I believe it was. We were leaving Goleta had the notes here so we would have left Goleta around 1035 and gotten to Union Station about 230 and now we have the new plan of Oh, I'm sorry. We left 1035 and you would have gone to Union Station at 130. The new afternoon plan is we leave Goleta at 233 and we get to Union Station at 550 p.m.. The morning route it's only about eight minutes inconsequential really when you think about that but I guess it feels like this new plan...I don't know any commuter who's like boy I've been wanting to get to Union Station at 550 p. m. And so um I just was trying to understand when we say that this is a more beneficial route to get from San Luis Obispo to that it just I don't understand what's the market question for me.
I'm confused by the market decision of who's the customer who needs to get out of Goleta at 2 30 because it doesn't match with our early train route you're not a worker who's coming into Goleta 8 o'clock likely needing to leave at two thirty so I just wasn't sure again what's the anticipated benefit or who's the target market we're trying to capture here?
Certainly. So as the board may recall in 2008, the target market and has always been the case to try and alleviate the congestion headed northbound during peak hour as well as the southbound during the peak hour on the South Coast so that would be in the afternoon going southbound. And in fact this additional train from San Luis Obispo will operate through the Santa Barbara area in that afternoon period. So it does add some capacity in the afternoons as well which we don't presently have The 10 and 30 a.m. southbound trip under the Metrolink proposal was simply to get that train back into revenue service in the in the Metrolink service area
Okay, so that original one was not the idea of having them. The original plan was not about the benefit being getting someone down from mid-morning to LA and then back it's really we were just trying to get the train back down there in this proposal is just saying if we need afternoon traffic. The idea is that there might be people who need to get down to La in that 2.30 to 5 o'clock benefit. We weren't going to a round trip. This is just send it back down and call today.
Precisely and in fact to try to get people to Ventura County specifically in
the
afternoon
at about 3.30, 4 o'clock.
But between the hours of and I can tell you that there's a peak hour much like with the ag community that actually precedes what is the typical peak hour in the South Coast so if you look on the roads at any given afternoon from between 2.30 and say four there's quite a few cars on the road headed south. So this this is an additional trip that should provide benefit there as well.
Thank you.
Okay thank you Director Silva. Any other questions? Any questions down in Santa Maria for the presenters
Yes sir, this is Director Julian. On the schematic in terms of time and the expanded route to San Luis Obispo it mentions from Goleta too slow what about
Guadalupe? The train will be stopping at all the stations including the Lompoc station as well as Guadalupe yes.
Okay
good alright thank you.
2:22 – 2:2925 turns
Thank You director Julian anything else down there or up there? Okay seeing none Madam Clerk do we have any public comment on this item?
Are there any members of the public on the Zoom webinar who wish to speak? Would you please use the raise hand feature and I will call upon you. There are no paper request-to-speak forms that were received, however we did receive one public comment for this item in advance and the comment was uploaded online and provided to the board and that comment was received from Claudia Sho.
And there are no attendees on the line who wish to speak.
All right, back to the board. This is to receive the presentation and provide direction to staff. Director Kern what kind of direction you're looking for from us?
I'm hoping that your supportive of this new direction and that your direct us to bring a operating agreement back to the board hopefully in February.
Okay so I've been asked for a motion to receive the presentation and request staff to bring back an operating agreement in February.
I'd like to make that motion. Second.
Okay, so a motion from Parodi and a second from Hartman. Can I
also make
a comment
real quick?
Yeah absolutely and so any further comment on the motion Director Parodi
Thank you. I just want to acknowledge all the work that was put into this by the SBCAG board, CTCT they're working on the agreement with them and then how excited we were that we thought it would work out in October and I know that there was excitement from the community as well thinking that it was coming back. So, it was a great pivot as you put it and found an alternative way of around this thing situations changed and I look forward to having this happen sooner than later as soon as we can because you know we have a train station in Goleta now almost ready to go so we want those trains rolling through thank you
Thank you Director Pierotti. Any other comments on the motion? Seeing none, Madam Clerk will you please call the roll?
Roll-call vote Passed 9–0 motion? Seeing none, Madam Clerk will you please call the roll?
Show transcript
Motion passes unanimously.
All right let's keep moving this thing along and now we move to the Caltrans director report from Veronica Lozama, Caltrans branch chief Oh sorry did I skip you? Executive Director.
Just real quick,
absolutely
yeah it's all good one item I would like to announce I would like to introduce our newest employee Naomi Compton she joined the agency as an account technician with experience in the public sector finance and she's back here in the back corner She will help us with finance, procurement and administrative support. She's originally from the Houston area and holds a master's degree in finance and previously worked for the University of Houston in supporting their accounts payable accounting and payroll and tax information. She said she was drawn to SPCAG by its focus on public service the opportunity to support projects that improve communities so please join me in welcoming Naomi to the team. So thank you and that concludes my report.
Welcome Naomi As long as you're not an Astros fan. Okay, moving along to
Caltrans. Directors and Chair Nelson again Veronica Lizama on behalf of District Director Scott Eades I have a couple of announcements this afternoon first starting with some exciting news to start off the new year really right hot off the press happy to announce that Highway 1 through Big Sur has reopened actually it opened yesterday that is about three months ahead of schedule. We wanted to extend an appreciation to local business owners residents visitors as well as those other agencies who were responsible and involved in the success of that reopening second Caltrans will host an important public meeting next week on January 21st from 530 to 7 p.m. at the Guadalupe City Hall This meeting is in relation to the Guadalupe area projects.
My team and I walked through the city of Guadalupe last week and provided some information to the public, so it was nice to hear how excited the community is about these future investments in the area. And that concludes my report. Happy to take any questions that the board may have.
Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Lozama from Caltrans? or for Director Kern based on the executive director's report. Anything in Santa Maria on either, for either party?
Nothing here.
Okay great thank you so we'll go ahead and move on to committee meetings first one up is myself and Caltrans. Caltrans is plugging along looks like we're gonna have some leadership changes on our executive director there who just actually resigned yesterday so we've got some changes ahead of us but we're confident that we're putting pieces in place to move the organization forward. You know, many people know that there is a Prop 4 allocation to Caltrans and that's going to be an important part of moving Caltrans into the future and so we're excited about those opportunities as well expanding service whether it's on the 166 or anywhere else throughout the state of California We are navigating some of the changes in the landscape around fieldwork and farm labor.
And most of our users are actually farm labor contractors and H-2A workers throughout the state of California, so those changing programs are going to impact Cal BANs over the next couple years. So we're trying to be attentive and look over those things as they proceed through. So that's my report on Cal BANS. As far as Losan, Director Lee. I think you had a report. I think the report OK.
And now one minute reports any brief announcements from any of my colleagues? Not seeing up down here in Santa Barbara. Any announcements and the Santa Maria Board hearing room?
None here
thank you. Thank you director Patino. OK we'll go ahead and adjourned today's meeting. The next meeting will be on February 19th 2026 in Santa Maria.