Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG)

All right, well welcome everyone and thank you for joining us for today's rainy February 19th SB CAG board meeting. For the record my name is David Silva and I am the vice chair on the SB CAG board. Madam clerk could you please facilitate roll call?

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. I do not have any paper request-to-speak forms and there are no attendees on zoom who wish to speak at this time.

Splendid moving along we'll move on to approval of consent calendar Oh I'm sorry, first time caller long-time listener. So is there any announcements for the consent calendar at this time?

There are no announcements for the consent calendar

and did we receive any public comment on any items on the consent calendar?

We do have one hand raised on zoom and if there are any other attendees on the Zoom webinar who wish to speak would you please use the raise hand feature for the consent calendar and we will call upon you our first speaker is Barry Remus If you can please unmute yourself.

Thank you, good morning Chair Silva and board members my name is Barry Remus and I'm representing MOVE Santa Barbara County and we advocate and educate encourage people who walk bike and take public transit just wanted to make a quick statement in support of item consent item number 4F as in not a freeway Um, we would like to voice our support for the appropriation of the additional. The 100000 dollars in measure a funding for.

Bike pad and safe routes to school project for the built in. Highway 246 improvements project for bike and pedestrian. This would be a reduction in lane width, an addition of bike lanes with buffers and pedestrian safety amenities. And this would bring improved safety to the area which as we know along highway 246 is a fast moving corridor by avenue of the flags. And this would bring not only increased public safety for improvements for pedestrians, bicyclists and ADA access but also economic vitality in making a more welcoming environment that calms traffic and improves the area immensely. So we certainly want to endorse the support of and support the appropriation and encourage your vote in support of the consent item. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much Mr. Remus, is there any other public comment at this

time? Use the raise hand feature and I will call upon you and there are no responses thank you

would any director any directors like to pull an item at this time all right if not then if we I would look for a motion second

Hartman moves approval of the consent agenda Patino second

splendid we have a roll call vote

Item 5a expanded inner city passenger rail service recommended action one approve and authorize executive director to execute a cooperative funding agreement with the Los Angeles San Diego San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency LOSAN with the Ventura County Transportation Commission VCTC to provide expanded inner city passenger rail service to be negotiated comparable Great and it looks like we have Whitney Rush to give the presentation.

Yes, good morning directors in 2008 voters approved to measure a with a simple promise Elaine and a train. And today we are closer than we have been in years on finally delivering that train my name is Whitney rush I'm a senior transportation planner in the multimodal programs division. And today I'm excited to present the next chapter in a story that has had a couple route adjustments but one that we are genuinely excited to bring to you today about expanded inner city passenger rail service.

This presentation very closely mirrors what Director of Multimodal Programs Erin Bonfilio presented to the South Coast Subregional last week. The subregional did approve both staff recommendations and we're excited today to bring this item to the full board. Today's presentation will give a background on the project, we'll give a status update with key benefits and also seek your authorization for SPCAG's Executive Director to move into a cooperative agreement for this expanded inner city rail service.

Okay fantastic no better place to begin than at the beginning with Measure A. It was passed in 2008 by voters with the goal of bringing increased rail service to the corridor. To reach that end we would need coordinated effort to expand service, an operational plan, cooperative agreements and eventually a pilot demonstration In 2018, SPCAG did launch a morning train and as you may recall in 2020 that train was canceled due to COVID and never resumed.

Nearly three years ago, SPCAG began the careful work to retrace these steps to provide expanded service and restore that service to our community. Lauren? So as a reminder, Measure A is a dedicated South Coast sub-regional project. When it was passed, it set aside dedicated funding of $25 million over 30 years. This money could be used on things like reducing congestion, alternative to driving on Highway 101, capital and operating costs, and promotions marketing and connecting service to make this a full mobility option for our commuters.

SBCAG recognizes that this is only possible through sustained and strong partnerships, in particular with VCTC, the Ventura County Transportation Commission, and LOSAM, the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency that manages the Pacific Surfliner. VCTC in particular has been a valued partner, and they have agreed to jointly fund this new pilot project 5050.

Many pieces had to fall into place to make this moment possible and over the past six months many of them have made this option most feasible and better than all previous iterations. One was the state equipment redeployment. One of the biggest barriers in prior attempts to get this service going was that there just wasn't existing train equipment. Last year, the state redeployed train equipment from Northern California to the Losan Corridor and now Losan has the capacity to add this additional round-trip service.

Additionally, inner city ticket sales from Los Angeles clear through to San Luis Obispo will help offset the cost of this train Also, by working directly with LOSAN we have Union Pacific access. In previous attempts of this service that had been a large barrier and so by working directly with LOSAN we have that Union Pacific access. And probably one of the biggest benefits is that significantly reduces SB CAGS insurance risk by leveraging Amtrak's national agreements.

And finally, the goals set out by LOSAN are fulfilling a lot of the state rail plan goals for the region. So we're excited that a lot of pieces fell into place in the past six months to make this option not only feasible but the best option possible. So let's get into the details and look at this proposed schedule for the new train. As I mentioned it will start at Los Angeles Union Station at 513 AM arrive at Moore Park at 6.31am and begin its Ventura County pickups, Camarillo 643, Oxnard 657 and Ventura at the very easy to remember time of 7-11 Carpinteria 737 and arrive into Santa Barbara just before 8am in Goleta at 811.

The train will then continue on to San Luis Obispo where it will turn around and provide a new midday southbound service. This service can work for tourists, those commuters with flexible schedules or anyone who wants to get to downtown Los Angeles in time for dinner. However, SPCAG's commute focus will be on the currently existing southbound train 790 highlighted a little bit in red there on the right side. That train currently departs Goleta at 425 p.m., Santa Barbara at 440 and gets passengers into Ventura at 526 p.

And to make this schedule a reality, we're asking you to approve SPCAG's executive director to enter into a cooperative agreement with VCTC and Losan. Some key elements of that cooperative agreement Include a fixed fee agreement of about 2.2 million dollars again split evenly between SB CAG and VCTC so we would be in at 1.1 million dollars it's a 12 month service pilot but will run 365 days a year this is not a Monday through Friday train this does not take off for holidays, it will run 365 days a year The estimated fare revenues are expected to be around $2.3 million and commuter tickets and passes will be available including a subsidized 10-ride pass and monthly pass.

We're excited that this cooperative agreement has already been approved by the Ventura County Transportation Commission at their meeting on February 6th and was just approved by the LOSAN board two days ago on February 17. So with this boards approval, it is the last and truly monumental step to make this schedule a reality. And with that we can look to launch this service in late April or early May.

And so just as a reminder for both of you to, for all of you today the two staff recommendations in front of you are to approve and authorize the executive director to execute a cooperative funding agreement with Losan and VCTC. And then to approve and authorize the executive director to take actions required to implement their agreement. With that I thank you for your time and am available for any questions.

Thank you very much. Are there any questions for staff at this time? Okay, Director Lee. We'll go remote first. Let's go for that down in Santa Barbara. So Director Lee. Thank

you. Thank You Chair, Vice-Chair De Silva. So the question is the Ortega-Salih railing on Padero, that project does it have any effect on this commuter rail approval? Will it delay it or affect it anyway?

As I understand it, no. The Ortega Siding Project will not have any effect on this train coming online and will not impact the schedule as proposed to us by LOSAN.

Got it that's my question.

Thank you Director Lee.

Any further questions down in Santa Barbara? Okay we'll bring it up here at Santa Maria. Director Patino?

Yes could you go back to the slide on the schedule yes of course Okay I don't see Guadalupe in there. It's not going to stop in Guadalupe?

It is this doesn't include, there's a lot of stops between Los Angeles Union Station and Moorpark and a lot of stops between Goleta and San Luis Obispo we can provide directors with the full schedule but yes it will stop in Guadaluable Surf

Because I don't think the people in Santa Maria even know that they can drive out to Guadalupe to get on the train. In fact, I was talking to some people yesterday about it because I was at Vandenberg and say when you take the train from Guadalupe to Santa Barbara it's just a beautiful ocean view that you don't get any other way other than the train.

It is so beautiful and yes, we can definitely look into increasing our efforts especially to Santa Maria. Again this is really focused on connecting Ventura County and Santa Barbara County but more people on the train throughout the corridor is our goal. Thank you

Any other questions here? I had a couple I just wanted to know. I was just curious, I know this is a 12-month service pilot program that we're looking at and that this is being split between the VCTC and SBCAG get all my acronyms correctly will there be a chance after that 12 months to know how many you know I think about like there's other agencies that are benefiting from this rail as well so I think it's going into the San Luis Obispo County and it's going down to LA will we be able to know How many like how those agencies are also participating in this or utilizing this because I would think that there might be a discussion about funds sharing after the 12 months seeing how it might be more agencies who may want to participate in the cost sharing of this if those agencies are also benefiting from this.

Yes, of course the benefits will extend throughout the corridor I believe Margie may be able to answer

that. Well the goal is to have it state funded from after this pilot project which is, it was in the statewide rail plan to have this route start but we're starting at a year early so we're providing subsidy at this time to get it started but ultimately it's hoped that it will be covered by the statewide budget for rail from San Luis Obispo all the way to San Diego. So that's the goal But you're right, if that is not achieved then we will be looking at other agencies possibly participating if we wanted to continue with this service subsidizing it with our local dollars.

We would have to answer that question probably six months before the end of the pilot project so yes. Thank

you. Director Brown? In that same fashion Do you have any partnerships established or proposed with employers? that would benefit from this?

Yes, I'm very excited to talk about those opportunities. We recognize that the train won't be a success without that last first mile last mile options so the things that we're looking to complement the service are free shuttles to and from the train station to employer sites bicycle lockers at Carpinteria Santa Barbara Angolita and B-cycle trials the bike share system in downtown Santa Barbara And then as part of getting the word out about the train and all these complimentary programs, we're looking to host an employer forum and really engage and really lean on those strong relationships that we have with employers throughout the South Coast. So yes working with large employers is one of our largest outreach efforts.

It looks like we have a few more questions possibly or oh okay

perfect. Vice Chair Silver?

Yes

I just wanted to build on Director Brown's question because that was my nature of questions too. Just again, I applaud the pivot from the original or the first plan to this plan and I know that the original plan had a lot of outreach with employers and I just am wanting to hear a bit more on the assurances with the change in sort of this Plan B of those communications. It sounds like they're happening, I just want to hear that fleshed out a bit more to make sure that passengers get on these trains.

Yes, 100 percent. It is the same outreach if not it's been expanded there is some simplicity in this being a low sand Amtrak Pacific Surfliner train before we are looking at Metrolink in the morning Amtrak in the afternoon how do we message this to commuters? This is a lot more digestible for commuters and we're planning a large employer forum where we will invite all the employers that we have these relationships with To really highlight the benefits of making this a possibility for their employees we have numerous email lists that we will lean on or also developing a program.

To give $50 train ride passes to employees and then as they use them, they have the potential to earn additional ones. So yes we are working with employers throughout the South Coast were planning a lot of outreach events and I'll let Lauren speak to any others that we're planning on.

Why don't you talk about the VCTC effort which we didn't have in the last. Yes, go

ahead. We're excited with VCTC being such a valuable partner and being even more engaged this time around. We're looking at a lot of events in Ventura County. In previous years a lot of our efforts focused on Santa Barbara but of course the commuters live in Ventura and they work here And so Ventura County is planning on presenting at all their boards, all their commissions getting out in the farmers markets meeting with all their employers. So that we're not just targeting the employers here in Santa Barbara and then relying on them to pass the word on. We're really working with VCTC to reach the people in Ventura County that can most benefit from this train.

Yes please Lauren.

I just wanted to add just one more thing is that it's a coordinated marketing and outreach effort. So it's LOSAN, SBCAG and VCTC all working together to work on shared resources both with our collateral materials as well as our outreach. And so those are regular meetings that we are having and instituting and yes it is a similar marketing effort that we had planned with the previous service So I think it's really important that we're just kind of working with this better and more commuter friendly opportunity.

Last time we did this, that is when we had first inaugurated the train one of the key concerns was reliability would be on time and we worked hard to get a bus to pick up

Yes, we recognize that that was one of the largest barriers to the train that launched in 2018 was its reliability. With this service yes it does still begin at Los Angeles Union Station but not only is this service an hour later coming in the trains surrounding it on the corridor have also adjusted Before there was a lot of negotiations that had to happen with freight service, but Union Pacific has adjusted their freight schedules. All the host schedules on the corridor have adjusted so that we are anticipating significantly higher reliability with this morning train coming in the spring.

So that will be something I think key to communicate?

Yes and that will be part of one of our Hopeful audiences of course are those that really love the 2018 train but stop because of reliability and we know that question will come up and we have the assurances from all the host railroads that this one will be significantly more reliable.

All right before going to public comment just want to check and make sure there's no one in Santa Barbara with any further questions? Okay do we have any public comment on this item?

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 We did not receive any public comment for this item in advance and there are no attendees on zoom who wish to speak.

All right we'll bring it back to the board for discussion and a possible motion

Thank you. Vice chair vice chair Silva. This is pretty high. When you're ready for the motion I'd be honored to to make that motion since I sit on the low sand board and I tried to make that motion. When the whole board was present and I will tell

Well then we'll do a very slow dramatic pause so you can make the motion at this time for you. Director Perotti, would you like to make the motion?

I would. Thank you.

And Hartman seconds and I just want to say I thought that was a really well done staff report.

Yes. Great if we could have a roll call vote.

motion passes.

Yes, thank you to the staff for that presentation and thank you to Director Pierotti for making the motion and making sure that's on the record for that. I look forward to us all becoming ambassadors for the train to make sure that we get people onto that. Moving on, we'll move to item B now in our staff presentation. Oh, I'm sorry read into the record item 5B please.

Sustainable Community Strategy Planning Process Potential Reform Update Recommended Action receive a presentation on the planning process for the sustainable community strategy and the current efforts to reform the associated law

Thank you very much, Mr. Becker.

All right thank you Chair and Directors I'm Mike Becker of staff and this morning I'm going to provide a presentation on Senate Bill 375 which is the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act and how that impacts SBCAG In 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act. And AB32 changed California and began a coordinated effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors. Senate Bill 375 or SB375 followed.

The visible or tangible part of SB375 is the sustainable community strategy which is included within each regional transportation plan. Today I'll touch on why the law matters, how it impacts our region and reform efforts that are underway across the state. So onto why it matters. The original intent of SB 375 was good though whether or not it has achieved its objectives remains to be seen and this matters to you for a variety of reasons.

When the law first passed, there was no tie to funding that changed with Senate Bill one which now requires a compliant sustainable community strategy to be eligible for certain funding programs. In addition, there's ties between SP three seventy five and Rena between SP three seven seventy five and sequel. There are good aspects of the requirements related to SB 375, including planning land use and transportation in tandem. Though this is good practice with or without that law.

I mentioned that AB 32 became law in 2006. AB 32 focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors. SB 375 was passed in 2008, two years later with a focus on light-duty vehicles so to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from light duty vehicles which I describe as the types of cars or trucks that you or I would drive Therefore, SB 375 implements one component or one aspect of the much broader AB 32. The California Air Resources Board by the powers given to them by SB 375 sets greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for each region in California.

For SPCAG, our current target is 17% below 2005 levels for Target Year 2035 and that is on a per capita basis. The target is achieved or not through a combination of laying out land use development patterns as well as the transportation projects and policies included within the Regional Transportation Plan. The per capita point is important to highlight for two reasons primarily, but number one as a per capita target greenhouse gas emissions in theory could rise an aggregate and the law still be satisfied.

And number two, the per capita aspect enables us to tackle it or address it from two different angles. First we have an existing population that lives in existing land use development patterns and so forth that we can try to influence their travel behaviors to a more sustainable manner. So that's one way to address the law. The other is to focus on the growing aspect of the region As we grow, we can grow more sustainably so that new population has less of a transportation impact compared to the existing population.

The law requires us SB CAG to lay out a variety of scenarios and those are combinations of land use development patterns as well as the transportation projects and policies We take that through a public process and ultimately this board selects the scenario that is included within the Sustainable Commute Strategy, and the Regional Transportation Plan is built around.

You can expect to do that next in 2028 for our 2029 plan. This is what a jobs housing imbalance looks like on a chart. A few long commutes can outweigh almost all of the short ones. The dark bars are the share of commuters by the distance buckets on the bottom. So, the far left is you can see less than a half mile commute and then the lighter bars are the resulting vehicle miles from that population. The left side of the chart shows we're doing a great job in terms with a lot of our population. They have short commutes may use alternative modes of travel and have little transportation impact.

The right side shows the imbalance. When we have a portion of our workforce that we need to import or that has very long commutes, it makes it much more difficult address the requirements of SB 3.75 you have the 5% associated with that longest commuting cohort is produces the same vehicle miles as the 86% that's included within all but the last two bars so just that final bar equals 86% of the commuting population Through our experience, we've developed four sustainable community strategies since the law came into effect and we found that we cannot achieve the requirements of SB 375 without addressing the jobs housing imbalance.

The bars on the right are there for a variety of reasons including the lack and unaffordability of housing. A friend of mine was a founder of a tech company in Goleta, in conversations with him I've learned that that company as well as other companies are founded here begin to grow here but then forced to grow elsewhere which then exports the economic benefit.

I do want to transition to some of the challenges that are related with Senate Bill 375 They're divided into four categories, land use, economics and politics, population jobs and housing. And then finally recognizing that change is slow Where people live, work and play creates demands on the transportation system. So therefore land use is central to understanding travel patterns.

The image on this slide shows Levittown which is among the first post-war suburbs in the United States and since that was built we've had about 75 years of building in similar manner And the vast majority of that housing stock still exists. That type of growth is not conducive to successful transit services, it separates all land uses so every trip requires a vehicle and so on but the point is we have a built environment that produces travel behaviors that are very difficult to change.

And I will point out that SB 375 requires us to lay out a land use development pattern for the region. However, SB 375 explicitly gave us no land-use authority. When economic development and housing development do not keep pace with one another problems are created in our region. That problem is a jobs, housing imbalance. The point that I want to make with this slide is on the lower left and this is related to how I described there's two ways of addressing it either through changing travel patterns or travel behaviors or by growing in a more sustainable manner Last week at the sub regionals we presented the draft regional growth forecast and region-wide or county wide, we expect the population to grow by about 10% out to 2060.

If you said all of that new growth had just half of the transportation impact of the existing population that would only reduce greenhouse gas emissions or VMT which is the proxy by about 2.8%, our target 17%. Yeah, and it really highlights that. It puts us in this difficult situation where we're challenged to change existing travel behaviors while also not being able to rely heavily on new growth to bring down the per capita aspect.

When you walk out of your front door and go somewhere, there's a high likelihood that you're either going to spend money or going to make money. And by definition that is economic activity. Economic activity is directly related travel and SB 375 asks us to push back against that a little bit. The cost of travel may affect travel behaviors. Californians pay about 150% of the national average for gasoline Yet the last time I was in Los Angeles, a 405 was still packed.

When there are not convenient and easy alternatives people will choose what works for them. And I'd highlight prior to coming to SBCAG in 2014, I worked for about eight years for the MPO in the Philadelphia region. Think I drove to work twice. I would walk to the train station, ride the train to the city, walk to my office. What was different it was quicker to take the train and it was cheaper because I didn't have to pay $20 a day to park a car in this center city.

But that just highlights that transit can be effective when the conditions align. But really the point today, I want to make there's a lot that goes into defining the behaviors of the traveling public that do not come to this board for decision yet SB 375 kind of holds us to account for those decisions or the lack of decisions. Okay, so SB 375 asks us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from light-duty vehicles by 2035. The good news is the transportation and projects that we have in the land use developments in the region can bend the curve. The bad news is that doesn't happen overnight A couple of rhetorical questions. Director Friedman, there are two Macy's sites in the city of Santa Barbara with significant housing developments proposed.

It was three and a half years ago that actually right here in this room we were talking about a specific plan for one of them. When will the residents move in? Director Hartman, how long have we been trying to get a trail across the San Ynez Valley? Director Patino, the city of Santa Maria is redeveloping its downtown. When will that be complete? We are making progress but these things are slow. The 101 is almost done.

It was about 20 years ago that the first shovel went into the ground. So we are doing a good job of advancing the projects that support more sustainable travel and travel behaviors, but they do not happen as fast as SB 375 wants. And one other point on this slide that I'd like to make As a lot of the major transportation projects that we advance and the ones that are supportive of sustainable travel require the use of competitive grant funds. Those funding programs are extremely oversubscribed, and for example, the state's active transportation program has roughly a 20% success rate.

So AB 32 became law in 2006, SB 32 followed in 2008 and since then there's been a variety of other laws and regulations that came on line that are trying to achieve the same objectives as SB 375. And they define how we plan regionally with or without SB 3 75 for one The RENA process, how we allocate housing across the region has a series of five statutory objectives that we must follow. We're required to follow.

However they are aligned with SB 375 so we would be allocating consistent with this law whether without the law. Senate Bill 743 changed the California Environmental Quality Act, the transportation impact aspect of it to align it with Senate Bill 375 The state was trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by electrifying the vehicle fleet that's currently on hold but ultimately it would negate Senate Bill 375.

And finally, by way of executive orders the state has the Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure as well as the Caltrans System Investment Strategy which essentially focused transportation investments consistent with Senate Bill 375 and all these things would happen with or without that law So on to reform. When Senate Bill 375 first became law there were two target years 2020 and 2035. 2020 is in the past, 2035 is not too far away for a variety of other challenges their efforts across the state to reform the law At first, SBCAG partnered with the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments or SLOCOG. The staff there to write a white paper which is attached to your staff report. The paper lays out many of the issues I spoke of and suggests a better way forward but what does that better way forward look like?

Essentially it's moving from an idealistic law to pragmatic law We suggest that targets should consider expected population growth because as I mentioned there's two ways to address the greenhouse gas emissions. We would like to keep the focus on the decisions that this board has authority to make and not hold us to account for decisions that this board doesn't make.

In addition, the state should provide the level of funding necessary to implement a state law And to reduce the heavily quantitative aspects of the law, to get more into a softer analysis. And finally, to improve the required collaboration with the California Air Resources Board. So that's the white paper which is attached. There's also another effort across the state.

Largest four MPOs in the state came together to develop a draft proposal. The draft proposal does share some similarities to ours and much of it would be a benefit. I don't want to say the whole thing would, but much of it would be an improvement. They want to focus more on implementation. They would like to move from a 4-year to 8-year cycle Another important component is they want MPOs to be able to take credit for all things that reduce greenhouse gas emissions from light-duty vehicles. For instance, we get zero credit for the electrification of the vehicle fleet which by itself is extremely effective at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

So that's the big four proposal. So the next steps in a minute you'll hear from Gus Corey and see that SB 375 is included in our draft legislative platform, and Gus may have other comments on the law. We will keep you informed of proposals including if they impact your city council or board of supervisors role. And when there are concrete proposals we will return to seek your direction on how to address those or to try and influence those.

With that I'm happy to take any questions.

All right do we have any questions from Director Brown, Director Hartman?

Go first.

Thank you for this good report but I find that some of the I think we skew the statistics significantly solving particularly with where we have Almost everybody coming in through we have over a million visitors a year and I promise you most of them are spending more than an hour on the road to get there. But they're not part of our population or per capita, I guess so I'm seeing skews in that way if I understand your statistical model correctly

Right, good question Director Brown. So the chart that I showed was focused just on the journey to work but we are responsible for most travel is included within the umbrella of SB 375. There are differences and I can't speak I'm not going to get into the details of that. But I can give you an idea. Completely on whether or not the trip starts outside of our region or just passes through our region like for instance, if somebody's coming up from Los Angeles to go visit Solvang we would probably only be taking credit for from essentially the county line of carpentry up to solving in terms of the miles.

But yes, I hear you and that's actually Yet, you know we still very actively promote tourism and so forth that encourages people to drive more. And

it's not just Solvang, it's also the casino and many other entities that are inviting Santa

Barbara. So if those, if the tourism to the city of Solvang the casino or wherever else the tourists are going in Santa Barbara County continues to grow it just makes our challenge even harder Because we're focused on a per capita basis so that the total number of miles is divided by the population. Population stays stagnant and the miles grows.

So your proposed solution is a modification of SB 375?

SB 375 is going to change whether we influence it or not, but there's enough motion behind it that It's going to change probably in the current legislative session. Gus can add more to that, but there's a variety of things that we want to do like for instance. There's a lot that impacts travel behavior like tourism that there's no question it ever comes to the board that says yes or no.

It's happening outside of the purview of SPCAG yet we are the ones responsible for it so to kind of focus it more on what this board controls rather than travel behavior in general. And the same goes for land use that we lay out a regional land use development pattern, we have no land use authority, the cities and the county can do what they please yet we're kind of held to account for if it doesn't happen.

Through the chair, Director Brown. I think the point that we're trying to make is SPCAG has been doing the spirit of 375 for the last 20 years. The 101 is an HOV lane. We've been promoting bicycle. We've been promoting regional transit so we're doing 375 regardless of the law The law is making it a challenge for me as an executive director of this agency of being able to continue to do those good things when if we don't meet the target, I, we as an agency may get punished and not be eligible for funding at the state level because of it. And that's a problem.

When as a region you know we're not growing so that per capita, the delta of that change is mathematically impossible to achieve this 17% reduction because we're not growing enough. So it's a conundrum, right? So my goal here is to make the law the spirit of the law which was good. To balance transportation and housing and funding in one document which was good but not punish people for because we have other goals.

Reducing greenhouse gases is not your only goal of this agency. It's providing transportation for the traveling public, it's really our goal so again I'm trying to I know we didn't get it really into the nitty gritty and you don't want to because this is a very bureaucratic law from my perspective and working with it is very challenging to achieve the goals Like we just achieved in your last item of getting a train started, it's not helping the cause. It may be hurting our cause.

These are unintended consequences and our accountability doesn't reflect our engagement.

Correct. And this bill may make sense in the larger areas where they have more tools and more growth and more or more incentives for funding and funding different things it may make more sense in the bigger areas but for rural county like ours Semi-rural, it's not working. So somebody has to say time out here we need to do something different and this is our communication of that.

Director Hartman?

Yeah listening to you I mean it's hard to think of a regional agency in the county that could pull the various entities together so So if you don't do it here, where would you do it? I think that is the conundrum. I just wanted to ask for the regional land use development pattern. If you're working with LAFCO, LAFCO just got a major grant from the sustainable agricultural community and they have a process to try to figure out where should growth occur Around cities and where not.

because of environmental or other reasons. So I just wanted to make sure that you know it's important that we collaborate and have consistency to the extent that we can so that's the other regional entity that's trying to struggle with this.

And I did, it's actually exciting to hear that they got their grant because I did contribute to their application and when I did I mentioned if you get funded please include me in your

Okay well those of us who serve on the board, Director Nelson and I and Director Patino will carry that message back but you know now too.

Director Mosby?

As an alternate there... I think you guys did a great job with ARENA and I think the complexity of ARENA is it just sticks on that top circular layer. And this is a spiraling tornado so to say goes down historically through time and while you're focused on housing, you're missing one of the aspects of the jobs housing imbalance and that's the jobs. So as an example in the community of Lompoc what has happened?

We have recommendations for churches to be torn down for housing. Restaurants torn down for housing other social halls converting to housing and the complexity is people at the higher level who don't live in You know, somehow the agricultural protectionism in Lompoc has gotten to the point that housing is an endangered species. Broccoli isn't. The broccoli is treated more importantly than quality housing for the people.

But at multi-layers it goes down and people say well I mean exasperating those mileage aspects of it is a community of Lompoc You know we're over 10,000 people leave the town all the time to go find a job. I think it's well over 60% of the people if you have a job you commute for that job so you said it's difficult for you to get to that answer. We can't get there but I think it's important which I get chastised for bringing up historical components and how we got where we are And it's understand the balance that you have to have to get through but needs to be based on not just the top layer.