Good morning. We're going to get started right now, so please get to your seats. I'd like to welcome our folks up on the dais to also come up.
I'm going to turn to Doug Remedios for the role and directions.
Thank you, Chair.
Commissioner Bradshaw.
Commissioner Cruz.
Commissioner Brown-Hines.
Commissioner Eger.
Commissioner Elliott.
Vice Chair Falcone.
Commissioner Gardeno. Commissioner Lugo. Commissioner Lugo present online.
Thank you. Commissioner Mann. Here. Commissioner Tiffany. Chair Grisby. Present. Senator Cortese.
Here. Assemblymember Wilson. Chair we have a quorum. Thank you. Welcome to day two of the
of the December 2025 CTC meeting in Riverside.
The meeting agenda is located on our website
at www.catc.ca.gov.
Although presentations for today's meeting
are also available on the commission meetings page
of our website under the view download meeting materials tab.
Any document that CTC creates can be translated
into any language you need.
Simply email us at ctcatc.ca.gov and we'll have them return to you as quickly as possible.
American Sign Language Translation is being provided on the webinar for this meeting.
You should see the translators on your screen.
Live close captioning is also available.
Please select the show captions tab at the bottom of your screen.
There are a number of language options available there to choose from.
For presenters, if you're on the agenda to make a presentation, please do your best to be succinct.
Please remember to speak at a steady pace to allow our translating services adequate time for accurate translations.
If you're presenting remotely, we hope that you will turn on your camera during your presentation if you have one.
For the members of the public, we welcome comments from the public as part of each item at this meeting.
For those attending in person, please submit a speaker slip to the clerk, that's me,
at the front of the room to let us know you want to comment on an item.
And the speaker slips are available just outside the door where the agendas are.
For those attending by Zoom, you should see the webinar control panel,
likely located at the bottom of your screen.
There you'll find the raise hand and Q&A tabs.
We encourage you to use the raise hand feature as early into the item as you can
to give the system time to acknowledge.
Commissioned staff will let you know when it's your turn to make your comment.
Alternately, you may use the Q&A tab to submit your comment.
Please be sure to include the agenda item you are commenting on.
Commissioned staff will read the comment on your behalf.
As a reminder, each registered attendee is provided a unique link to access the webinar.
You should not be shared with other participants as they are registered under your name
and can create confusion for staff when you try to make your comments.
For all of our meeting attendees, when you make your comments, please do your best to be concise.
Please make sure that your comments add new information.
If you agree with the comments of a previous speaker, simply make that statement.
Please remember to speak at a steady pace
to allow our translating services adequate time for accurate translations.
Since we often have many speakers, we ask that you make your point in two minutes or less.
If for some reason we have many speakers on a single item, we reserve the right
to limit comments to one minute if needed.
Thank you for joining us again today.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Douglas.
Now we're gonna turn to item 70, Tim.
Good morning, commissioners.
Tab 70 is an action item
for four resolutions of necessity, or RONs,
and the RON hearings were requested by the property owner,
the Bauer Limited Partnership and their legal counsel
due to impacts to their properties
from an active transportation project
on State Route One in Mendocino County
in the community of Gualala.
Some of the main project features
our class two bike lanes, sidewalks,
crosswalks with flashing beacons,
a two-way left turn lane, and a radar feedback sign.
At this time, I'd like to ask if the property owners
or a representative are in attendance
or participating virtually.
There is a hand raised online.
Thank you, Doug.
Before making a recommendation
or hearing from the property owners or Caltrans,
I'd like to briefly cover what will be discussed today.
Under eminent domain law, a property owner whose property
is under condemnation consideration
has the right to appear before the commission
to question three of the four findings
that are required to be met per section 1245.23
of the Code of Civil Procedure prior to the commission
adopting a resolution.
The three findings are, does the public interest
and necessity require the proposed project?
Is the project planned and located in a manner
will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury and is the project
is the property necessary for the proposed project. The fourth finding requires that an
offer to acquire the property in accordance with government code section 7267.2 has been made to
the owner of record. It is the commission's understanding the department provided this offer
on may 1st 2025. The commission neither determines the amount of compensation for the property rights
to be acquired nor deals with any issue other than the first three findings.
Code of Civil Procedures section 1245.24 specifies eight affirmative votes are needed for commission
approval of a resolution of necessity.
As I mentioned, there are four resolutions of necessity being considered and they are
all owned by the Bauer Limited Partnership.
The reasons for the required areas for the parcels range from temporary construction
easements, drainage easements, land and fee and underlying land and fee. Caltrans
will will first provide a presentation covering the needs for all parcels and
then hear from the property owner or their attorney. Rizwan Tanvir is here
to provide the department's presentation. Good morning honorable
commissioners. I'm Rizwan Tanvir and I'm here to present the department's
request to approve the resolution of necessity for the Goa'lala downtown
streetscape enhancement project on state route SR1 in Mendocino County, Caltrans
District 1. I want to mention that some people in the community pronounce the
name as Goa'lala and some as Wa-la-la. I will pronounce it as Goa'lala. The
The subject parcels 13487-13490 belong to the Bauer Limited Partnership.
Next slide.
In my presentation, I will go over the project location, purpose and scope, how the department
meets the force statutory findings, property owner's contentions and department's responses,
and finally a summary of the force statutory findings.
Next slide.
The project is located at the southern end
of Mendocino County on SR-1 through the town of Guadalala,
which is about one hour and 30 minutes south of Fort Bragg.
Next slide.
The project location is shown here
in yellow on SR-1 in the town of Guadalala
from Old Stage Road to north of Ocean Drive.
Within the project limits, the segments of SR-1
is a two lane rural highway,
that consists of two 12 foot wide lanes
and two to 18 feet wide shoulders in each direction.
The posted speed limit is a 25 miles per hour.
Next slide.
The project requires partial acquisitions
from 18 parcels along the project limits.
14 of those have been acquired.
The remaining four parcel acquisitions
belong to Bower parcels, shown here in orange.
In the next slides, I will go over
each of the four acquisitions,
starting with parcel 13490 in the upper right side of the slide,
and then moving clockwise.
Next slide.
The parcel 13490, shown in orange,
is located on the west side of the project.
The total parcel size is 89,734 square feet.
The blue rectangular area
is a temporary construction easement, PCE,
which is 1,309 square feet,
and is approximately 1% of the total parcel size.
Next slide.
The parcel 13489 shown in orange
is located on the east side of the project.
The total parcel size is 39,640 square feet.
The blue rectangular area is a TCE,
which is 972 square feet
and is approximately 2% of the total parcel size.
The red rectangular area is a fee acquisition,
which is 1,332 square feet
and is approximately 3% of the total parcel size.
An underlying fee area shown with red boundary lines
is a portion of an ownership that is encumbered
by a public road easement and is 7,230 square feet.
Next slide.
The parcel 13488 shown in orange is located
on the east side of the project.
The total parcel size is 39.32 acres.
The blue rectangular areas are TCEs,
which are 1,074 square feet in total
and are approximately 0.1% of the total parcel size.
Next slide.
The parcel 13487, shown in orange,
is located on the west side of the project.
The total parcel size is 113,256 square feet.
The blue rectangular area is a TCE,
which is 2,421 square feet,
and is approximately 2% of the total parcel size.
The red sliver adjacent to TCE is a fee acquisition, which is 310 square feet, and is approximately
0.3% of the total parcel size.
So Rizwan, can I ask you just one favor?
Can we not use acronyms?
So what is a TCE?
Temporary construction easement, an underlying fee area shown with red boundary lines is
a portion of an ownership that is encumbered by a public road easement and is 7,768 square
feet in size.
The purple rectangular area on the left side of the picture is a permanent highway drainage
easement, which is 1,182 square feet and is approximately 1% of the total parcel size.
Next slide.
On the left, picture one, looking north, shows on-street parking in the shoulder that is
not permitted in accordance with the Goalala Town Plan and is blocking pedestrians and
cyclists from using the shoulders. And on the right, picture 2, looking north, shows
pedestrians crossing SR1 using an undefined pathway. Next slide. The project purpose is
to improve safety for pedestrians by providing ADA-compliant sidewalks, additional crosswalks,
and hardscape median refuge islands.
For cyclists, by providing class two bike lanes
in each direction, and for all modes of transportation,
by eliminating on-street parking that is not permitted
in accordance with the Gualala Town Plan.
Also, the project purpose is to improve traffic flow
by adding a 12-feet wide two-way left-on lane.
Furthermore, the project proposes to upgrade
existing drainage system to prevent localized flooding.
Next slide.
Without going into details I want to mention that Caltrans has worked closely with the
Guadalala community to shape this project through continuous public engagement, including
over 10 public meetings, open houses and presentations.
The department has listened to community concerns, incorporated their feedback into each design
iteration and refined the project to reflect the community's priorities. The current alternative
which does not include onsite parking because it is not permitted by the town of Goa Lala
has received strong local support. Next slide. Before presenting details of the proposed
project, I declare that the four findings needed for the commission to approve the resolution
necessity have been met. In the following slides, I will describe the facts how the
department has met these findings. Next slide. Related to the first finding, yes,
the public interest and necessity require the proposed project. The proposed project
addresses existing deficiencies which include gaps in the sidewalk along northbound SR1
seen in picture one and no sidewalk along southbound SR1 as seen in picture two. Causing
pedestrians to walk next to traffic. No bike lanes in each direction causing cyclists to
ride on SR1. No left turn lane causing traffic backup on SR1. No designated crosswalks causing
pedestrians to cross SR1 at undefined pathways. Informal on street parking not permitted in
in accordance with the Gualala town plan,
limiting site distance, causing traffic flow disruption,
and creating safety hazards for pedestrians and cyclists.
And an inadequate existing drainage system,
causing localized flooding,
thus these existing deficiencies
necessitate the proposed project.
Next slide.
Related to the second finding,
yes, this project is planned and located in a manner
that will be most compatible with the greatest public good
and least private injury.
The picture here is a visualized post-construction image.
The proposed project will improve motor safety
by eliminating on-street parking
and adding a 12-feet wide two-way left-hand lane
in the median.
pedestrian safety by providing ADA-compliant sidewalks
in each direction, hardscape, refuge islands in the median,
and additional crosswalks.
and cyclist safety by providing five-foot wide
class two bike lanes in each direction.
Next slide.
Regarding the least private injury,
the department has made changes to the project design
to minimize the acquisition throughout the entire project
as well as from the bower parcels.
The area in green shows the side slope that was steepened
from four to one to a non-standard two to one slope
by a design exception,
reducing the required right-of-way acquisition
by 1,854 square feet from all parcels
on the west side of SR-1.
The entire alignment of SR-1 was shifted four feet east,
reducing the total right-of-way acquisition
by another 3,960 square feet on the west parcels.
The area in light brown shows the width of northbound
and southbound through lanes that has reduced
from a standard 12 feet lane to 11 feet
by a design exception.
It reduced the required acquisition by 4,280 square feet
from all parcels.
The cross slope of the two way left turn lane
and northbound travel lanes was reduced
from a standard 2% to 0.3% by a design exception,
reducing the required acquisition by 682 square feet
on the east parcels.
Regarding the bower parcels,
the width of the northbound and southbound sidewalks
was reduced by a design exception
to reduce the required acquisition from the bower parcels
by 990 square feet.
And temporary construction easements from bower parcels
were reduced to the bare minimum areas
needed to construct the project.
In the next slides, I will go over the additional
acquisition reductions made for each Bowers parcel.
Next slide.
For Bowers parcel 13490, the temporary construction easement
shown in blue was reduced by 2,621 square feet
from the original to the current design
to avoid impacts to the onsite parking.
The owner will not lose any parking
during and after construction.
Next slide.
For Bower Parcel 13489,
the temporary construction easement shown in blue
was reduced by 686 square feet
from the original to the current design.
The owner will not lose any onsite parking
after construction.
To minimize impacts to the three parking spaces
in the temporary construction easement area
during construction,
The department will include a clause
in the construction contract to prioritize work
around the three parking spaces.
Next slide.
For Bower Parcel 13487,
the temporary construction easement shown in blue
was reduced by 883 square feet
from the original to the current design.
At this location, some of the owners on-site parking
will be disrupted during construction
for which the owner has been compensated
in the department's offer.
Although the temporary construction easement was acquired
for the duration of construction 12 months,
the work which requires the temporary construction easement
is expected to last only for two to three weeks.
Upon completion of construction,
the owner's onsite parking will be restored.
Next slide.
For Bauer parcel 13487, the fee acquisition shown in red
was reduced by 2005 square feet
from the original to the current design.
To avoid impacts to the onsite parking,
the owner will not lose any parking after construction.
To summarize it all,
the department has made efforts to minimize impacts
to onsite parking during construction
and the owner will not lose any onsite parking
after construction.
Next slide.
Related to the third finding,
yes, the property sought to be condemned
from Bower Parcel 13487 is necessary
for the proposed project.
In this slide, the orange line
shows the existing right-of-way line.
The red line shows the limits of the proposed right-of-way.
The pink line shows the drainage easement limit,
and the blue line shows the limits of the proposed TCE.
Picture one, looking north, on the left,
shows the fee acquisition area of 310 square feet
that is needed to construct an ADA-compliant sidewalk.
And a temporary construction easement area
of 2,421 square feet to provide a minimum space
for equipment access and safe construction.
Picture two, looking east in the middle,
shows the drainage easement of 1,182 square feet
that is needed to upgrade the community's drainage system,
protecting the town of Guadalala from localized flooding.
All temporary easements will be returned
to the property owner upon completion of construction.
All driveways will remain accessible
throughout construction.
Next slide.
Here, picture one, looking south,
shows two temporary construction easement areas,
highlighted in blue.
one is 939 square feet and the other is 135 square feet. These temporary construction easement areas
are needed from bower parcel 13488 to conform the owner's driveways. The department did not
receive any contentions from the property owner for these temporary construction easements.
All temporary easements will be returned to the property owner upon completion of construction
And the gas station will remain accessible throughout construction.
Next slide.
In this slide, picture one, looking north, shows the temporary construction area of 972
square feet from parcel 13489 highlighted in blue.
That is needed to construct an ADA sidewalk and conform owner's driveway.
A fee acquisition area of 1,332 square feet highlighted in red is needed to realign the
flow line of an existing stream.
The department did not receive any contentions from the property owner for temporary construction
easement and fee acquisition shown here.
All temporary easements will be returned to the property owner upon completion of construction
and the property will remain accessible throughout construction.
Next slide.
Here picture one looking south shows the temporary construction area of 1,309 square feet from
parcel 13490 highlighted in blue that is needed to construct an ADA sidewalk and confirm owner's
driveway.
The department did not receive any contentions from the property owner for this DCE.
All temporary easements will be returned to the property owner upon completion of construction.
The property will remain accessible throughout construction.
Next slide.
This slide reflects a continuous communication between Caltrans District 1 property owner
and their attorney when they have interacted via mail, e-mails, phone calls, and in-person
meetings over 25 times since the first written offer. The district is continuously working
with them to address their concerns. In the following slides, I will go over the property
owner's most pertinent contentions and the department's responses. Next slide. Property
owner contents. Removal of on-site, on-street parking could harm the surf market business
and should be mitigated by Caltrans.
Department's response, removal of on-street parking
is in accordance with Section G 3.6-12
of the Goalala Town Plan,
which is amended into the coastal element
of the Mendocino County General Plan and states,
no on-street parking shall be permitted on Highway 1.
Caltrans worked with the community
to develop two refined streetscape design plans
that allowed some on-street parking to remain.
However, California Coastal Commission
did not support an amendment to the Gualala Town Plan
to allow for any on-street parking to remain.
On-street parking reduces highway visibility
and pushes pedestrians and cyclists into traffic.
Owner asserts the state is obligated to compensate
for the loss of on-street parking.
The state disagrees with the owner's assertion
as SR1 is a designated state route
with full control and authority given to the state.
Nevertheless, the state understands the owner's concerns
and that the issue is ultimately a compensation question
that will be addressed through the court process.
Next, property owner contents.
Adding more crosswalks will cause traffic disruptions.
Can the number of planned crosswalk be reduced?
Department's response?
There is currently only one designated crosswalk
on SR-1 within the project limits.
To improve pedestrian safety and reduce jaywalking,
additional crosswalks are necessary.
The crosswalk locations were selected
using engineering judgment, guidance of the California
manual on uniform traffic control devices and mutcd and carefully evaluating driveway
locations, turning movements and truck access points. The goal is to optimize safe pedestrian
connectivity between businesses on both sides of SR1. Next slide. Property owner contents.
Relocating the existing crosswalk may cause issues since the community is familiar with
it's current location. The existing crosswalk needs to be relocated because the design standards
require pedestrian refuge islands for wide or multi-lane roadways. As illustrated in
the top right, picture one, if the new required pedestrian refuge island is constructed at
the existing crosswalk, it will block the new two-way left-hand lane. The vehicles shown
in red will make the left turn from the through lane, which will back up traffic in the northbound
lane, and that will negate traffic flow improvements. As illustrated in the bottom right picture
too, relocating the existing crosswalk south would clear the new two-way left-hand lane
and allow vehicles shown in green to make an unobstructed left turn into the
surf market parking lot. It will improve traffic flow by permitting northbound
through lanes to proceed without interruption. The new pedestrian
refuge island with relocated crosswalk will provide safer pedestrian
connectivity to retail, hotel and scenic overlook areas. Next slide.
Property owner contents. The bike lanes are unnecessary lead nowhere and do not connect to existing facilities
departments response
The proposed Guadalala bike lanes are not isolated as seen in picture one
Yellow circles are completed projects with bike lanes and blue circles are upcoming projects with bike lanes
The Pacific Coast bike route is being constructed in phases statewide and each project is a building block
towards a continuous coastal corridor.
The Gualala corridor is specifically
identified in the Gualala town plan and Caltrans district one active transportation plan.
As a safety gap with no shoulders, no bike lanes and high pedestrian and cyclist activity.
This project fills that gap and connects to future projects north and south.
Communities such as
Sea Ranch to the south and residential areas to the north rely on downtown
Guadalala for groceries and retail shopping, which necessitates
safe bicycle and pedestrian access along the corridor.
Even before full regional connection,
The proposed bike lanes will improve day-to-day safety for residents tourists and long-distance riders
Already traveling through the town of Guadalala
next slide
property owner contents the drainage modifications at the outlet of the south drainage system are
unnecessary
Claiming the addition of rock slope protection would trap sediment promote weeds and increase the fire risk
department's response
Guadalala's existing drainage system is inadequate for 25 year storms, causes localized flooding,
and thus needs to be upgraded.
After consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service, it was determined that
rock slope protection is the best solution for this site.
Rock slope protection is necessary to slow down water flow and reduce erosion.
It will prevent toxic chemicals of tire traffic on SR-1 from entering the Gollala estuary,
protecting endangered Coho Salmon.
To address the property owner's concerns, the rock slope protection length has been
reduced from 100 feet originally to 50 feet now.
However, the rock slope protection cannot be extended far enough to clear the surf market
building.
As shown in the picture, existing improvements such as the stairs, bridge and fencing on
both the east and the west sides of the building constrain the rock slope protection placement.
Caltrans maintenance will control vegetation to reduce potential fire risk.
Next slide.
Property owner contents.
Caltrans has not made the requisite Government Court Section 7267.2 offer.
The offer made does not comply
with the constitutional principles of just compensation
and does not offer compensation
for the property interests sought to be acquired.
Department's response, staff prepared an appraisal
establishing just compensation for the fee acquisition,
underlying fee drainage easement
and temporary construction easement approved on August 15, 2024.
The first written offer of just compensation was provided
the property owner's attorney on September 4th of 2024. A revised offer was provided
on May 1st, 2025. In accordance with the Government Code 7267.2, the offer meets all legal requirements,
department policies and procedures, and industry practices.
To summarize, I again declare that the department has met the four statutory findings needed
for the commission to approve this resolution of necessity. This concludes my presentation
to answer any questions I have here with me, the district's team.
Thank you, Rizwan. Before asking the property owner to speak, the Mendocino County of Governments
is here virtually to give the project sponsors perspective. I'm pretty sure it's Nafili Barrett.
Now I'm meeting them free to speak.
All right.
Good morning.
Thank you.
I'm Nafili Barrett.
I am the executive director of the Mendocino
Council of Governments.
And I want to thank you for this opportunity
to speak today about this important project.
Wallala is a small, unincorporated community
in rural Mendocino County.
Although small, it serves as a service center
for a larger geographic area that
includes parts of southern Mendocino County and northern
Sonoma County.
It's a popular destination for visitors, particularly during the summer when the downtown area can get very congested.
The Wallala Downtown Streetscape Project will provide bicycle and pedestrian facilities and safety improvements on State Route 1, which serves as Main Street through downtown.
It will create additional safer crossings and correct drainage problems and calm traffic.
There are currently no bike lanes in the project area, almost no sidewalks, and only one crosswalk.
Pedestrians are forced to weave around the parked vehicles,
resulting in unsafe conditions and conflicts between modes.
Without curb and gutter,
access on and off the highway for vehicles is uncontrolled.
This, combined with the visibility issues caused by vehicles
parked along the road, creates dangerous conditions
for pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers.
Ponding in the shoulder area during wet weather
makes walking and biking even more challenging.
The lack of facilities limits access
to important destinations within the project area,
such as grocery stores, a post office, community center,
transit and school bus stops, and job opportunities.
The new facilities on state route one
will intersect with the safe walking and biking networks
on side streets that connect residential neighborhoods.
The project originated through three rounds
of community planning efforts conducted by MCOG
and funded through state grants.
These plans, which included extensive public engagement,
consistently identified a strong need
for walking and biking infrastructure to enhance safety
in the Wallala community along the highway.
Residents reported that they relied on cars
even for short trips because they felt unsafe walking along
and crossing the highway with no sidewalks
and inadequate crosswalks.
These safety concerns were continually expressed
throughout project development,
including through use of the Street Story website,
where community members reported safety concerns.
Following these planning efforts,
MCOG approved regional improvement program funding
in 2013 for Caltrans to begin environmental work
on the current project.
EMCOG again awarded our very limited rip funding
for subsequent project components in 2017, 2019,
2021, and 2024.
The existing conditions and the safety improvements
that will be provided by this project
resulted in a successful application
to the highly competitive
active transportation program in 2022.
Throughout project development,
Caltrans as the implementing agency
in collaboration with MCOG, has engaged the community
to arrive at a project concept that met the needs
identified in the community plans.
Although there have been a few points
on which some community members didn't agree,
the overall project concept has been broadly supported
all along.
Caltrans has addressed this, but I do want to reiterate
that the Wallala Town Plan, which has been adopted
as part of the coastal element of the Mendocino County
General Plan and the local coastal program,
dictates some of the options for project design.
Regardless, this project will address deficiencies
and safety concerns currently experienced in the community,
close existing gaps,
and provide a connected non-motorized transportation network.
It will make travel in downtown Wallala safer for all users.
As is often the case with projects
in our rural coastal areas,
this project has been in development for many, many years.
Now that it's so close to the finish line,
we hope to see it move forward
so that the community can finally see the improvements
that they've been planning
and looking forward to for the last decade and a half.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak
and for your consideration.
Thank you.
I would like to now turn to the property owner
or the representative to give them an opportunity to speak.
If they could raise their hand online,
then we could give you that.
Yes, I see Stephen Johnson has raised their hand.
Stephen, you're now muted and free to comment.
Good morning, commissioner.
So my name's Stephen Johnson.
can you hear me?
Yes we can.
Yes.
Okay, thank you.
I represent Bauer Limited Partnership
which owns the real property
that is leased to the Surf Market.
The Surf Market is a grocery store
that is an essential public service
and basic industry that is vital to the area.
Bauer Limited Partnership also owns
approximately one half of the parcels
that will be impacted by this project.
I initially wish to point out
that the area that is used for on-street parking
owned by the Bauer Limited Partnership. Caltrans does not own or otherwise have a deeded easement
over the Bauer Limited Partnership property that the patrons of the surf market and the
public use for on-street parking. This project shall eliminate an estimated 92 publicly used
parking spaces on Highway 1 that are used for coastal access and recreation and such spaces
are also used by patrons of private businesses. Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure, Caltrans
must establish that the public interest and necessity require the project, that the project
is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good
and the least private injury, and the property sought to be acquired is necessary for the project.
This is a very high legal standard for this project, and the project does not comply with
these requirements. Public interest and necessity do not require the project.
There is no need to remove on-street parking. The public wishes to retain on-street parking.
During the public outreach plan, Caltrans stated that there were 10 meetings with the public,
and there were significant discussions with the public and that was much appreciated I believe
by the public. However, at the end of the process the public determined that they wanted to retain
on-street parking and they proposed plans that retained on-street parking or alternative plans
that were proposed and and effectively those proposals were not accepted due to actions
allegedly by the Coastal Commission which denied their request to retain on-street parking.
So although there was great outreach, the public's desires and requests were not actually adhered to
at the end of the project planning process. I would like to provide you with a quick general
overview of the present conditions that are found in Gualala. Gualala is a very small town,
approximately one mile long, overlooks the ocean, and it's built effectively on a bluff.
The area east of Highway 1 is generally steeper, hillside. There's very limited parking in Gualala,
And the majority of it is private parking, private parking for private businesses.
Generally, the public area for public parking is Highway 1. Additionally, Highway 1 consists of
long stretches that do not include bike lanes. And the people that do ride bikes on Highway 1,
I would expect our burst in riding in difficult conditions without bike lanes.
Additionally, given the steep nature of Guadalala, there's limited local use of bikes because
the hills are so steep and the town is so small. Presently, there is on-street parking permitted.
Let me restate that. Presently, there is on-street parking permitted.
this project will remove on-street parking. This project is the effect the effect of this project
is the removal of on-street parking. It's not and the in the Gualala town plan that calls
for no on-street parking has not been enforced. So effectively for 20 years when that was
effectively put into place it has never been enforced and and the removal of on-street parking
is effectively going to occur due to this project. As far as the discussions that have been had,
there's been no significant statements about safety issues involving bikes or pedestrians
other than the normal course based on my knowledge and discussion with the people that live there.
It's also important to point out that there's a coastal bluff trail
just to the west of highway one and that coastal bluff effectively runs through the west side of
of Lualah and there's an access point for that coastal bluff trail in the middle of town and
then there's also an access point just south of town. There's no discussion as to why the
elimination of such publicly used parking is not in conflict with chapter three of the Coastal
Commission public access and recreation policies. The Coastal Commission's major policy goals are
to enhance public access to the coast and to avoid negatively impacting the fragile environment
resources of the coast. The removal of effectively all the public parking in Guadalala, 92 parking
spaces, jeopardizes these policy goals and they must be properly addressed and mitigated.
I expect that the State of California has determined that the enforcement and implementation
of the Coastal Commission policies are in the best interest of the State of California,
and also in the public interest.
Mendocino County's Coastal Development Permit Report for this project states the following,
because portions of the proposed development are located between the public road and the sea or
or shoreline of any body of water,
the following additional finding must be made.
One, the proposed development is in conformity
with the public access and public recreation policies
of chapter three of the California Coastal Act
and the coastal element of the general plan.
Mendocino County's and Caltrans memorandums reports
and resolutions do not specifically address
the following public access
public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act and the
Coastal Element of the General Plan. And the project is in conflict with the
following reference policies. Article 2 of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal
Act addresses public access policies and is codified in the public resource code
section 30210 which states the following. In carrying out the requirement of
section 4 of article 10 of the California Constitution, maximum access, which shall
be conspicuously posted, and recreational opportunities shall be provided for all the
people consistent with public safety needs and the needs to protect public rights, rights
of private property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse. Additionally, public resource
Code section 30211 states the following development shall not interfere with the public's right
to access the sea where acquired through use or legislative authorization including but not limited
to the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation public
resource code section 30212 provides public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline
and along the coast shall be provided in development projects, except where it's
inconsistent with public safety, military, security needs, or the protection of fragile coastal
resources. Two, adequate access exists nearby, or three, agriculture would be affected.
Nothing in this division shall restrict public access, nor shall it excuse the performance of
duties, responsibilities of public agencies which are required by sections
66478.1 to 66478.14 inclusive of the Governor Government Code and by
section 4 of article 10 of the California Constitution. Public Resource
Code section 30212.5 provides, wherever appropriate and feasible, public
facilities including parking areas or facilities shall be distributed throughout an area so
as to mitigate against the impact social and otherwise of overcrowding or overuse by the
public of any single area.
Public resource code section 30214 subsection B provides it is the intent of the legislature
that the public access policies of this article be carried out in a reasonable manner that
considers the equities and that balances the rights of the individual property owner with
the public's constitutional right of access pursuant to Section 4 of Article 10 of the
California Constitution. Nothing in this section or any amendment thereto shall be construed as
a limitation on the rights guaranteed to the public under Section 4 of Article 10 of the
California Constitution. I know that I don't I don't want to waste your time with a lot of
of this but it's very important this is the law of California and you're
required to comply with these laws and Caltrans is and if you look at these
these presentations there's no discussion of them at all they're
overlooked if it's inherent to access the coast you must have the ability to
find provisions go to stores you probably if you're driving up and down
the coast you have the needs to go to a restaurant every once in a while. It's in the state of
California's interest to have tourism. It's highly in the in the interest of Guadalupe and the county
of Mendocino to have tourism because effectively that's the only type of income they have in that
area. It's very isolated and there's a long open stretch of highway one where there's no towns
and no available resources for anyone that wants to enjoy the coast.
And when they come to the town of Guadalala, that's their last opportunity
in Mendocino County, or perhaps their first, to stop
and obtain the provisions, to take a break,
to use the restroom, to look at the beautiful ocean,
go up and down the coastal path. And the state of California has
effectively established that it's in the state's interest and the public's
interest to have access to the coast. If there's no public parking available, then it makes it very
difficult for someone to leave their car for a long period of time in private parking and it's
going to create a conflict. Additionally, the on-street parking is used by large vehicles
such as trucks towing trailers up and down the coast. Excuse me. Are there any substantive
issues that you would like to recap or close with?
Stop sign of issues.
Yes, I would.
Thank you.
I'll move on.
But I think that is very important.
Additionally, the Coastal Act requires
that the essential services be evaluated
and the impacts on essential services be evaluated.
Additionally, there's an interest in retaining access
and parking in areas that are already developed,
such as towns, so that the fragile resources outside of towns aren't negatively impacted.
So this represents an opportunity to have on-street parking in the town without negatively
impacting the other areas along Highway 1.
Additionally, due to the fact that there is also worth pointing out as far as safety is
concerns. On-street parking I would like to reference you to traffic calming guide put
together by the California Department of Transportation, a compendium of strategies. It provides on
page 56 on-street parking. On-street parking consistent and can assist in achieving lower
operating speeds by constricting driver experience with increased friction. On-street parking
may also be used as a bikeway separation from the travel lane which enhances bicyclists comfort
by providing physical separation for motor vehicles as well as providing traffic calming.
And I think there's an argument to be made that by removing on-street parking it will increase
the speeds in the in the town and it will also make people less... Thank you. We're going to have
to move on. I think you're you're repeating what you already did.
Last save. Thank you. Thank you. Back to you, Tim.
Thank you. It's my understanding that the property owner may be on the line as
well. Yes, we have David Bauer on line. David,
you are now unmuted and free comment. This is this is also John Bauer, the
general partner of Bauer Limited Partnership.
Can you hear me well? Yes. Yes we can. Okay. David, my son is alongside here and he can add some
more if he wishes. I've been here in Walla for 77 years all my life and I've watched the town grow
and I've watched things happen but we have a town plan that you guys are depending on that has never
really been updated. It has not come up to the new standards of which we all look at, and our
community that we're dealing with trying to provide services for those that really need to
get to these services. Otherwise, they've got a two-hour drive to get to these services.
Campers with boats and trailers, they're not going to stop and wall again. That's it. They're
done. That's a sad event with this project. It needs to be reconsidered. Since the issue
severely impacts the parking in front of the surf market, it can and is most likely going to
create a very severe impact on the market sufficient to possibly cause it to
no longer survive. If that were to happen it would be a sad event not having the competition
of markets in town and of course Surf Market is one of the bigger employers in our entire community.
So if we can't find a way to get people to those these facilities including
all those at the sea ranch that are elderly and are very limited in their abilities to walk
long distances, which is what you've done by moving the crosswalk to the south.
That needs to be reviewed, it needs to be readjusted, and put back where it was.
This was the only crosswalk in town.
And it was a very good location to meet both sides of the streets, businesses.
Sorry that the left turn lane demands these both outs and
pedestrian protection zones, if that were not there,
it may be easier to put some of that back into the process.
But long-term is surf market has been a viable
grocery store for our community in excess of 50 years.
Let me think about this, probably in excess of 60 years.
and should be able to be maintained.
Without us removing any other structures on that parcel
and revamping the entire parcel for additional parking,
we're done.
And so if you go ahead with this project,
you have just created a very severe private enhancement
continuing. I'm sorry I'm getting word died here, but can you please look at this
and put us back into a better position, because we own a big percentage of the
street and it was never told to us that Caltrans was going to purchase all the
prescriptive easements in the street until recently, and
nobody's even talked to me about it. The other parcel, which
is almost three acres downtown, is ours. We own it. And we own
both sides of it. And we own where the sidewalks are going to
go. And we own where other things are going to go. And
none of that's been brought up to us. So we still need to sit
down and have a good reasonable discussion with this with Cal
Caltrans and we have yet to see that. Thank you. Back to Tim. Thank you.
Commission staff has reviewed the proposed RONs and concludes Caltrans has met the statutory
requirements and therefore recommends approval of all the RONs listed in the
book item. Alright, thank you Tim. Any public comment on this item? We do not
receive a request from the public to comment on the item. Thank you. Is there a
comment or emotion Commissioner Lee and eager I have a question about the parking issue so how many
parking spots will be affected for the TEC Caltrans is here to speak on that and did you can you repeat
the question did you did you ask about the temporary construction easements and how many parking spots
will be affected during the temporary construction thank you good morning commissioners thank you for
I'd like to thank you for
allowing me to answer some
questions. First of all, my
name is John Ballantyne. I
represent the right of way
division for Caltrans over the
northern 22 counties. And I
want to answer your question.
So we counted 15 impacted
parcel or parking slots during
construction. And those are
the ones that are on the
property. Those are the ones
located at the surf market or the adjoining owner parcel that's owned by the same property owner.
I think that's referred to as the surf center. Right. So those 15 plus however many usually
park on the street. What's the option for folks to park then during construction so that that
market can stay in business during that time period. So there are other parking areas within
that. We do recognize though that that may impact the market temporarily during that two to three
weeks that we think that they're going to be there. So we've offered compensation in in the form of
damages. We understand that that is going to be an impact. But no other place that they can park.
there's nothing on either side that can be used for temporary parking on either
side of that property on either side of that property properties owned by mr.
Bowers in that surf center there are other parking areas that can be utilized
then we get into adjoining other owned properties that's a great idea and we'll
look into do we want to do a shared parking we're not sure exactly how full
that parking is entirely all the time based on aerial photographs and property
views it doesn't look like the parking constrained within the surf center is
always a hundred percent full so not sure that that's necessary but I like
your thinking thank you. One more question so the attorney contends that
the on-street parking right in front and tell me if I'm wrong but I thought he
said that the Bowers owned that piece even though it's on street on Iowa 1.
You're not wrong that is what the attorney said and the attorney has Mr.
Johnson. Mr. Johnson has mentioned that in a number of occasions most recently
at the County of Mendocino appeal for the for the coastal development had
And I think he had discussed
that and said the same thing.
And it got me curious because
all of our records indicate
that no, his property ends west
of the Caltrans right of way
line.
And in fact, if we would like,
we can bring up slide 38 and I
can give you a little bit
better demonstration of that.
Okay.
Thank you.
You might have to help them with
the title of this slide because
we're going to add them to our larger deck.
Okay, it's beyond the presentation
about four slides beyond the last slide of the presentation.
So in the additional slides
and it shows the property boundaries.
So work great.
So what you see here is the surf market parcel
just to the north is part of the surf center
that's also owned by Mr. Bowers,
but they are two legal lots.
And so we'll focus on the surf market.
You see here a yellow line and a solid line
just to the left of that yellow line.
Hard to see, but you can see circles
at each of the corners.
Those are actually surveyed monuments of the property line.
Okay, so Mr. Bowers has had that property surveyed in 1977,
again in 1980.
These are survey records.
They're easily found at the county.
We've done a due diligence in looking at
not only our preliminary title reports,
litigation guarantees, but also going through
the county records and looking at all of that.
And this is the property line is the,
in fact, if you wouldn't mind going one slide up,
maybe two, I'll tell you in a moment,
You'll see in the property description, here we go,
the middle of that where the east,
we're traveling on the east along the westerly line
of said highway one.
So let me interpret that for you.
That is the east boundary of this surf market
is the westerly boundary of the highway.
Can we return to that slide, please?
So hard to see, but just to the right of that yellow line,
This is an on-street parked car,
and you will see that it is removed from the property.
It is outside of the surf market parcel.
After the county meeting on November 4th,
I did meet with the attorney, Mr. Johnson,
because I was confused.
confused. Where are you getting this information? And he did tell me that they had a consultant
that looked at it. He hadn't really looked at the deeds. I know he will. Great guy. He's
going to look at those deeds and he and I are going to talk more. But probably three
or four weeks ago is when he got to see this information. We just had to sit down and talk
about it. So I would say that the records, we have no records of anything
that indicates that they own within the highway State Route 1. So that begs the
question, well then why are we buying underlying fee? And we're buying
underlying fee because we're asked to presume that. Civil Code Section 831 asked
the department that anytime there's prescriptive right, presume that the adjoining owner owns
it and just go ahead and buy it so we perfect our rights. It does end by saying unless can
be proven otherwise. And I think in our case, we can prove it otherwise, but we just want
to do the benefit of the doubt and go ahead and purchase that underlying fee also. Did
that answer your question, Commissioner?
It did. Thank you.
Thank you.
Great thanks. I now recognize Commissioner Tiffany. Thank you, Chair Grisby. Just further
questions about parking here. The attorney references, the property owner references,
I think, if I recall, 94 on-street parking spaces that adjacent to Highway 1 that are
Going to be lost what i'm interested in is of those 94 how many are in front of surf market?
Or specifically in front of the property owners businesses?
I appreciate that question
Uh, so i've heard numbers from 94 92
We came up with 70 when we did some modeling of the whole project
But obviously there are some on-street parking that will go away
your specific question as to how much are in front of the specific surf center, that parcel.
We counted ten, five of which are in front of the surf market.
And I don't know if you can answer this, but how many spaces of that surf market
off-street parking is there, and do we have any sense of whether those are generally full?
And so there's overflow that has to go on-street. I'm trying to get a sense of how much the property
owner is losing in terms of, and then just to follow an additional question, the property
owner specifically mentions larger vehicles and vehicles with trailers and the fact that
those will not have any place to park. I'd like you to respond to that as well.
Sure. Thank you. So mentioned in front of the, or at Surf Market, let me go back and
do a little history here. When Surf Market was built in, I believe it was 1982, there
there were no parking requirements.
So number of parking per square footage of the building.
Subsequently, he has about 10 to 12,
depending on how you count where they're gonna park.
Today's requirement, if that were to be rebuilt,
today's requirement would require 37 on-site parking.
So with 10 to 12,
if you look at just the surf market,
It's probably more busy, obviously very few parking spots at the surf market, but a lot
of people, and if we want to bring up that slide again, number 38, it helps, but a lot
of people will park in the surf center versus the surf directly in front of the surf market.
In fact, in front of the surf market, there's a barbecue that stands highly, highly.
I'm sure that the community appreciates it,
but it takes up a couple of parking spaces also.
So it really is difficult to talk about just the surf market
without talking about the surf center.
And that's part of the reason why,
when we looked at this whole parcel,
we looked at it in its entirety as parcel 1347,
because it's owned by the same.
And parking is wherever you want to park
within that surf center area.
sure if this gives a little bit of an indication you can see directly in front of the surf market there are about 10 to 12 in depending on how you count them and then you'll see parking in front of the surf center there where others park as well and certainly we've seen a lot of crossover
there it doesn't seem to have any defined lines.
And as far as larger vehicles.
So as far as larger vehicles, definitely I would look at,
likely to slip into the surf center.
There is also an area and the owner showed it to us
when we were out there.
I really appreciated the tour.
The owner does have area behind some existing buildings
that can be converted into additional parking.
That's gonna be a project.
That's gonna be quite the project.
So I know that the owner looked at,
Mr. Bauer looked at demolishing a building,
took out a coastal development permit,
was given a coastal development permit in 2007
to demolish one of the buildings in the surf center.
That was renewed in 2009, 2010 and 2011
and then it hasn't been completed.
So there is parking constraints here
this site the question of you know well what portion of that is on the state we
do we do many changes on the state highway we we have full control of the
state highway and sometimes we even move realign state highways or do a
bypass we've certainly done those too I think that there's a responsibility for
the property owners to make sure that they have sufficient on-street parking. In the end of the
day, we are adhering to the county requirements and we want to make sure that this project adheres
to what the county is asking us to do. Did that answer your question, sir? Yes, thank you.
Commissioner Bradshaw. I apologize, a couple quick things, and I have it here, but maybe for the
public, would it be possible to pull back up the picture that had the PG&E truck right at the
driveway. As we can see the car kind of in the aerial view but I'd just like to get a more
lifetime view of that shoulder. So that's if we're looking at that aerial view you go back
maybe I don't know how many feet but that's where that aerial shot of that car was right in that
area. Correct. Okay a couple things and always you know tough stuff here we're dealing with local
grown business and really supporting the community and all that but a couple things I'd like to
more on maybe on the technical side so some things were said and I didn't catch council's
name I apologize I don't want to say the lawyer no Stephen Johnson yeah Mr. Mr. Johnson and also
the owner had commented and stuff but a couple things that came out at least for this commissioner
if I misheard it folks can certainly correct me but that there was that there was no communication
said a few times and I know you had a chart here right that the owner had
mentioned had not been talked to and except for really recently etc so I
think it's important we go back to that and talk about the outreach the process
and all that would be important to Caltrans and to our team there was
also said that action taken to prove this we would be violating law I would
like that responded to as well.
So my recollection of the conversation that
was said by Mr. Johnson, there was no conversation
about the Caltrans acquiring property
within what's designated as State Route 1.
So yes, I did address that.
That took me a while to figure out
Where is the contention there?
Because we certainly own State Route 1,
but as other communication continued to happen,
I began to get a clearer picture
that he believes that the property owner
owns to the center line of the road.
His deed at easement says otherwise,
or his deed says otherwise, he does not.
And it's clear that where on-street parking is occurring
is well within the state highway.
We are so happy to have you
here.
Just to add a couple of things
because there were quite a few
contentions in terms of were
laws being broken.
I don't want to address them all
because I didn't catch them all
but I will address the largest
subset of them in the way that I
answer the question.
So we heard about the coastal
commission, the public utilities
Caltrans's process sits within a larger process
in the planning process.
So the process starts with the county's general plan.
The Coastal Commission and the Coastal Zone
are addressed in the county's general plan,
as well as the project that Caltrans is developing before us.
Some of the questions regarding parking
and compliance with the Coastal Commission,
I think we have to realize that Caltrans has worked
hand in hand with the Coastal Commission,
and the Coastal Commission does not support on-street parking.
So regardless of whether Caltrans wants to insert
on-street parking and keep the informal on-street parking
They cannot they will not get the permit from the Coastal Commission and that is an important factor here
And so when we talk about the parking the parking becomes an issue of compensation for a court
And not a question for the Commission because we cannot give them on street parking
Because that is not our authority that is the Coastal Commission in the County of Mendocino's Authority
In terms of public utilities code public resources code all of those things
Those are also addressed in the general plan process and to make sure that we're complying with all of the laws
across the entire county, across this city and town of Wallala.
And so Caltrans complies with those things
by complying with the Coastal Commission Act
and within the general plan itself.
And so it's this executive director's opinion
that there aren't violations of the law in terms
of these different actions because there
are many processes across many different things that
work to comply with those laws.
Thank you, Director Taylor. Commissioner Gresham.
Yeah, well, everyone you can see,
and I mean this with all sincerity,
Executive Director Taylor,
that's why you're the coach, Matt.
Honestly.
My thing, more to that,
probably more lower level, so to speak.
But, and hey, I understand motions,
and I understand bold words,
and I believe I understand advocacy too,
just speaking for myself.
But when I hear that, you know, you will break,
it's not that I have a doubt
that we followed the legal process,
but I think it's important for the conversation.
And frankly, Executive Director Taylor
pretty much covered that back to the,
I'm gonna call it in quotes, dispute of the property line.
I know you already covered this, but just for emphasis,
there was nothing found that lines up with that at all.
In fact, the surveys were done,
I forget what years you said,
but they're clearly marked,
benchmarks of survey lines are all there, right?
That's correct.
It's very clear and in addition to all the records
that I mentioned that we looked at,
I also had this reviewed by three engineers
to be sure that there was no question
about where the property line is.
Thank you.
And just say a couple more things in follow-up,
Commissioner Bradshaw, and I sure appreciate it.
Just to veer off a little bit into the personal,
Caltrans and especially right of way is my chosen career.
And one of the benefits that really attracted me to it
is the ability to work with property owners
and meet such great people.
And I have enjoyed very much working with the Bauer family
and in addition to their attorney.
So that's been a real joy for me.
But it's also a draw to Howtrans
is the well thought out projects
that are collaborative with the community
that bring such benefits to the community.
So I really appreciate that.
In my touring, walking of Walla La,
I was met by a property owner that said,
I know that on-street parking's going away
and I just want to tell you I support that.
My customers cannot see when they're trying
to get out the driveway.
It's very dangerous.
So that was a quote from another property owner,
another business owner, but where does that bring us to Mr. Bowers? Where does
that help Mr. Bowers? And one of the comments, and I appreciated him taking his
time to walk me around the property. I really do. And one of the comments
that he made was that most of his customers, he says, just want to pull in
along the side of the road, jump out, get a sandwich at Surf Market, jump back in
and keep going now first a side note is surf market really does have excellent sandwiches if
you get a chance to get there definitely try them but it was something that uh that i wanted us to
look at so i've asked design to see what can we do with his parking area that we might be able to
accommodate some of that and one we'd be willing to uh resurface it it's actually in pretty good
shape that looks nice when you resurface it, but then also restripe it. And we're
not able to get a lot more out of restriping, but we did find three
additional parking locations by restriping both the surf market and surf
center. But the piece that I really appreciated is that design came up with
a concept to do a half circular drive in the front allowing for folks to go
beyond that half-circular driveway,
find parking elsewhere if they plan on staying a while.
But that half-circular driveway allows people to pull in.
And then there are four parking locations
in front of Surf itself.
There's a total of five parking locations.
They can slip in, run in, get their sandwich,
come back out, and jump in their car and keep going.
And that allows for that half-circular drive
to not be blocked by people running in and getting the sandwich or a cold drink and I have presented that in a form of an informal letter and instructions to the to the attorney Mr Johnson to give me a call if this is something that he would consider.
Definitely will have a right of way agent out there, the next day with a contract and we can we can wrap this up.
Thank you for your time. Is there any other questions, Commissioner ego.
There we go.
As a recovering attorney, I appreciate your kind words
about the attorney that's been working on this case
and your ability to work with them.
I wanted to make it clear.
I don't feel that we need to address the part
about whether we're doing anything illegal
because we have a team at Caltrans
and we have a team at CTC and everyone looking
making sure that we're following those legal requirements. And so I have no doubt about that
piece that we're following the law. But I did want to just point out if it if I heard it correctly,
there's 10 spaces on the parking lot and nine of those will be affected during the TEC, correct?
So there's one that's maybe they could use. So I just wanted to make sure that during that time
period at least that we keep working with them to see if there's some sort of alternative so that
the people of that community can still go there if that's the only market in town you know that's
an essential business for that community and I know that's your role too is to make sure that
all of those options are are being looked at because sometimes we look at it and say oh they're
they're being compensated. That's okay. That might be okay for the property owner,
but it's not okay for the community that because they don't have any way to get
there. So I just wanted to make sure we put that at the top of the list,
that there's places for those folks to be able to,
whether it's to get a sandwich or buy milk for the kids that they could park
there. And that business can continue.
I appreciate that commissioner eager. Um, and duly noted. And yes,
you, you have my promise. We will continue to discuss this.
we will continue to work this out.
I do wanna mention when I said that there was 10
that will disappear or we're talking about onsite,
that was for the whole surf center.
So about five in front of the surf market
and the rest in front of the surf center
would be temporarily blocked for two to three weeks.
And yes, I will continue to work those, yes.
Thank you.
thank you. Commissioner Cruz. Thanks Mr. Chair. Just real quick, um
Mr. Tiffany brings up a good point and I spent a lot of time in that area growing
up especially Sea Ranch and a lot of folks camp up there and pull trailers
and other vehicles so I can see that that's a good spot to park your trailer
while you jump into the sandwich shop or the surf market and I know that when
and you're pulling a trailer,
it's difficult to turn them in tight spaces.
So, but then again, there's a lot of trade offs here,
we're improving walkability, obviously safety
as far as bikeability,
but looking at other options for folks who do travel
and use type of trailers would be good
if there's any options in place
to have that option available for folks who do that.
Yeah, thank you, I appreciate that.
there is another public parking just south of there
for people to pull off,
but I know that the community is talking
about public parking spaces
and converting vacant land into public parking.
Gentlemen from GMAC put together a whole
Wala municipal area council, advisory council,
work through. Um, put together
a whole plan of additional
parking in the community. So
this is a good thing that the
community is talking and
working on this and coming
together. And as far as Cal
transit our project, we will
continue to work on this. Thank
you. Thank you. Um, just a
personal note to your care
shows through your expertise
shows through. Just want to
thank you for your service to
Good motion to so I move by Commissioner Cruz is there seconded by Commissioner Bradshaw all those in favor
opposed
Abstentions motion is approved. Thank you
On to item 71 Ahmed
Good morning commissioners
Tap 71 is an action item requesting approval of the polling application for the state drop
241 and state dropped 91 Express Lane Connector project
The Foothill Eastern Transportation Corridor agency
Submitted the final tolling application on September 17th of this year with support of the Orange County Transportation
Authority and in coordination with the California Department of Transportation and the Riverside County
Transportation Commission
the application fixed authority pursuant to Assembly Bill
194 and
Inconsistence with Streets and Highway Code section 149.7
While Foothill Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency already has tolling authority for state
routes 133, 261, and 241, this request applies specifically to the new connector between
241 and 91 express lanes.
Foothill Eastern Transportation Corridor is electing to utilize AB194 as part of its compliance
with the term sheet agreed upon with its partner agency and to allow more flexibility
with excess revenue to provide additional collaboration across agencies.
State Route 241 is a toll facility extending from also Parkway Interchange in southern
Orange County to its northern terminus at State Route 91 in the city of Anaheim.
The 91 express lane operated by OCTA in Orange County and RCTC in Riverside County are four
lane high-occupancy toll facility located in the medium of state route 91, running just west of
state route 55 to just east of interstate 15. Although the existing state route 241 and 91
interchange provides access to the non-tolled general purpose lane of state route 91, there's
currently no direct connection between a state route 241 and 91 express lanes. The proposed
connector would provide this missing direct access between the two-tooled
system, and by doing so the project is expected to reduce weaving
movement on State Route 91, relieve afternoon peak hour queuing on State
Route 241, and improve overall corridor performance. With that I'll turn it over
to Ryan Chamberlain, executive director of TCA, who will provide a presentation
highlighting key project benefits and staff recommendation will follow the presentation.
Thank you Ahmed. Again, Ryan Chamberlain with the transmission quarter agencies and the chief
executive officer for TCA. Very happy to be here today to present related information to for the
federal eastern transmission quarter agencies 241-91 express connector project for our AB-194
toll application through the CTC. I'm joined in the audience by Miss Stephanie
Blanco our TCA Chief Capital Programs Officer and several others TCA team
members are in the audience. Before I jump into the project overview I want to
thank the Commission for the opportunity to be here today. We appreciate you and
your team's time today and the many many hours spent leading up to getting us all
here. It is very much appreciated. On behalf of TCA we appreciate the
leadership of the entire Foothill Eastern Transportation Quarter Agency
Board of Directors and moving this much-needed project forward. We would
not be here today if it wasn't for the partnerships that have been forged with
Riverside County Transportation Commission, Orange County Transportation
Authority, and the California Department of Transportation for many, many years in
the making. Their efforts in helping to move this project and many, many other
projects forward on State Route 241 and State Route 91 is also very much
appreciated by TCA and the public. Collectively, we are all helping to
achieve various mobility goals for each agency, but more importantly, we are
improving the lives of so many residents and visitors to and from Orange County
and the Inland Empire. Next slide please. Thank you. A little bit about TCA or
Transpatient Corridor Agencies, we are two two JPAs that share one staff, a
Fiddle Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency which collects tolls on State
Route 133, 241, and 261. And the San Joaquin Hills TCA which does the same for
State Route 73. Collectively or simply referred to as
the Transfer to Corridor Agencies or TCA so I'll probably use the acronym going
forward. Each JPA funded the construction of the
state routes using toll revenue and development impact fees. Once the roads
were constructed they were handed over to Caltrans with TCA having the authority
collect tolls to repay project debt. TCA is is not new to tolling. We have been in
operating, we have operated toll facilities for well over 30 years in
South Orange County. I mentioned prior we wouldn't be here today if it wasn't
for the partnerships listed on this slide in front of you.
OCTA and RCTC are the operators of the State Route 91 express lanes and are
both county transportation agencies for their respective counties. Caltrans as
you know is the owner operator of the state highway system. Caltrans will
advertise, award, and administer the construction phase of this project. Per
AB 194, a JPA seeking toll authority must gain consent from a County
Transportation Commission for the jurisdiction to which the transportation
project is developed, and Ahmed Ahmed had already addressed that we have received
consent from OCTA to move forward with this request. Next slide, please. I'll try
and go as quickly as I can through this, but this slide paints the regional
context of the Connector project that Ahmed introduced earlier. The main point of this
slide is to talk about that regional context and how the 241-91 express connector is connecting
two separate distinct toll facilities. The picture on the left highlights the Foothill
Eastern Transportation Corridor colored in magenta and again these are State Route 241,
133, and 261. It also highlights SR-91 in blue which serves as the main east-west connector
linking Orange County and Riverside County to the Inland Empire and back.
OCTA operates the 9-1 express lanes in Orange County, Riverside County
Transformation Commission operates the 9-1 express lanes in their respective
county of Riverside. RCTC also operates the 1591 express connectors and express
lanes north and south on Interstate 15. Also I will note that OCTA operates the
express lanes on the west side of Orange County on Interstate 4 or 5. I call out
the four or five because that was the first project to come through your
commission for AB 194 toll authority and both CEO Mr. Dale Johnson at OCTA and I
introduced that item many many years ago in 2016 so happy to be back for a TCA
request as well. Between all three of these operators all three of the
operators there's a vast amount of expertise and experience in tolling and
this was leveraged in developing a path forward on the 240 191 Express Connector.
The call-out circle that you see on the slide further highlights the
connectivity between SR 241 to the 91 and SR 91 to Interstate 15. State Route 91
has both general purpose lanes and two express lanes in the corridor. SR 241 is
a toll facility fence-to-fence, so not just express lanes, but all lanes are
told on State Route 241 and all the toll roads that TCA operates. For those
unfamiliar with the existing 901 express lanes, they run generally between
State Route 55 on the left side to the west in the county and in shortly after
the 15 on the east end of the 9-1 corridor that we're talking about today.
Access to the express lane facilities is allowed at just three points along the
17-mile system, generally in the vicinity of SR-55, in the vicinity of
the 241-91 interchange at the Orange Riverside County line, and in the
far east end of the corridor near Interstate 15. On an average
weekday, SR-91 corridor carries about 320,000 trips per day. Approximately a
quarter of those trips going eastbound on the 91 come from state route 241 and just over 50% of
those trips coming from the 241 to the 91 continue all the way through the 15 and beyond. Next slide
please. So this slide depicts the existing degraded condition on state route 241 where it connects to
state route 91. I will try and be extremely brief on on this one but what you're looking at on this
on the call out box to the right is facing southbound on the 241, but sort of the bottom
end of that picture would be northbound towards the 91. You'll notice there's a queue on
the right side of the northbound direction of the 241. For those that haven't had the
unpleasant experience of being stuck in that queue, congratulations, you're very lucky.
For those that were traveling out here on Wednesday night for the CTC reception, many
of us were probably stuck sitting in that queue. On your typical Thursday and Friday
afternoon in the super peak periods we're talking between two and say six o'clock, that
queue can be up to five or six miles in length and adding substantial time to your commute.
I'd be remiss if I didn't call out what those arrows are depicting and you're going to have
to squint your eyes and look really close. Some vehicles are scoff-law type folks that
that are trying to jump the queue and save some time.
What's happening there is they are heading in
on the two lanes towards the center median,
traveling at a high rate of speed,
getting to the front of the line, slamming on their brakes
and trying to merge in to save 45 minutes in time,
which really upsets those that are being patient,
waiting for their time to get into the 91.
That does cause a safety concern for TCA,
for Caltrans and CHP.
We are taking some measures to mitigate that
with putting delineators up on that corridor temporarily
to try and prevent that,
but all that did is shove that cue jumping farther upstream.
You will also notice there is one vehicle
that's merging over and a box truck is right behind them.
So that is one thing that we're hoping that our project
will try and resolve a portion of that safety challenges
that might be going on the corridor.
The picture on the left is the 91 corridor
facing towards the east.
This is typically in an early before you get to it right about when you're getting to a peak period not necessarily a super peak
What you will notice is you've got gypsum cannon road
Which is a local arterial street to on on ramps getting on the 91 that are feeding into the 91 GP GP lanes
We've got significant weave movements that happen to that location
You also see on the far right the northbound 241 general purpose line connector
Or that's a two-lane dropping the one that also merges in right about county line
For those that are familiar with this area and in our industry call this affectionately the mixing bowl on the 91
Because you have a lot of movements coming on to the 91 you also have some movements for those that want to get off
To get to the 71 or to Green River off-ramp. That's why we call it the mixing ball
You will notice that the 91 Express lanes. They are operating in a free flow condition cars are traveling at
55 60 65 miles an hour. There is some capacity there that can be utilized
next slide, please
So that brings us to the project that we're here to talk about today.
The new connector will take off in the center median of the 241 and land directly in the
median of the 91 and the 91 express lanes.
This slide highlights a few key features of the new project.
I will highlight the last bullet regarding how we will use progressive demand management
to control volumes on the connector.
This was an important discussion and challenge that all of our technical experts from RCTCO,
state Caltrans and TCA had to resolve,
we knew we did not want to further at all degrade mobility
and movement on the 91 express lanes.
We certainly don't want to degrade movement
on the 91 GP lanes.
And so what we realized very quickly is that
during the super peak periods when demand is so high,
we simply can't have an unrestricted new connection
to the 91 that will drop a vast amount of trips
during the super peak periods in the 91 express lanes.
it would simply just bottleneck up and slow mobility
throughout the corridor.
So we're utilizing tools that we call progressive demand
management.
And I'll equate this to if you have a water faucet
and you've got a cup or a sink, you can turn that faucet on,
and it's flowing as much water as possible during the off
peak.
It's unrestricted.
When we're in the super peak and we
have to restrict trips hopping into the 91 Express lanes
to make sure it continues to operate effectively,
we're effectively turning that faucet down turn by turn.
Each turn is a different mode in progressive demand management.
we start with using pricing dynamic pricing pricing goes up theoretically
demand for that connector and utilization go down there is so much
demand out there it may be that pricing becomes inelastic in the super peak
periods meaning pricing doesn't have as much of a fact as we would hope it would
and so in order to stay within a threshold in the super peak period what
we're doing is restricting volume further we very likely are going to have
to turn on a ramp meter that has people stopping at the connector and then taking
off again that slows that progression down a bit that only saves us about 20
minutes or so before that cues up on the 241 that's a bad situation we don't want
to be in and so it's very likely in that scenario we would have to go to HOV 2
plus mode which means anybody that has two people or more in their car can
still utilize that connector with using pricing and potentially the ramp meter
but all single occupancy vehicles will be restricted from using that connector
so effectively kicking out some of that volume using the connector. If we still
have to further restrict traffic flow and vehicles entering the 91 we will go
of three plus mode. And then the last step, which the modeling depicts that we likely
will never have to get there, knocking on wood in front of you today, would be transit
only mode where it's only transit buses will be utilizing the facility. So that's a very
long conversation about progressive demand management. This has not been done anywhere
that we're aware of in the nation. So certainly innovative and a big testament to all of the
innovative thinkers that have worked on this project with us. Next slide, please.
Okay, so I'll call your attention to just three of the six minimum eligible criteria under
Section 149.7, first and foremost being improved quarter mobility.
The project study area spans across the 91 from the 55 to the 15 and encompasses the
eastern transportation quarter, again, which is the 133, 261, and 241.
The project has brought in regional benefits for all drivers, including those who choose
not to pay a toll.
average time savings of 20 minutes of travel time depending on the time of day
and the day of the week you're traveling. We may see up to a 50% reduction in the
general purpose lane connector queue that you saw in the pictures on prior
slides. That's not a guarantee. That's a modeled average that we expect to see.
The direct connector reduces weaving across five lanes in the general
purpose traffic on the 91, which may mitigate the occurrence of side swipes
and potential rear end collisions on the 91 corridor. This project benefit, the
The project benefits are backed by years of technical modeling and coordination with our
partner agencies.
I will say I've been in transportation for a very long time, and this project has been
modeled more than any project I have ever seen in my career.
Okay, agency cooperation, I had mentioned this before.
We mentioned our key partners earlier in the presentation.
Most recently, the successful partnership has been evidenced by the approval of our
master and operating agreements for the project by the TCA, OCTA, and RCTC boards
of directors that happened many months ago. These agreements represent years of
hard work to analyze and develop delivery and operational terms among the
four partner agencies. I'll talk lastly about the complete funding plan. I'll be
remissed if I didn't say that TCA has not used a dime of state or federal
funding to construct the toll roads, the initial toll road system that we have
today and we don't intend to use state or federal dollars or any of the funds
to build the 241-91 express connector project ever. Project development costs
were fully funded by an internal loan with no risk to the state and to
taxpayers. Project has been verified by the CTC's own financial consultant as
median CTC's AB 194 guidelines in terms of financial feasibility. Next slide
please. In addition to the minimum eligibility criteria the project has met
Additional requirements for consideration of tolling authority contain and streets and highways code 149 point seven
I'll highlight the public hearing requirement on October 1st CTC held a public hearing in Yorba Linda near the project location
Thank you to the commissioners that participated online and at the event was very much appreciated
All partners our partner agencies presented remarks endorsing the project and an interagency cooperation and coordination that has been brought that it brought us here today
public comments were in support of the project. Comments in support of the
project including remarks from labor organizations, Chamber of Commerce, local
and state elected officials, and a former CTC commissioner. In addition to the
public meeting comments, I'm proud to say that TCA has received over 50 support
letters from various elected officials, industry organizations, more chambers and
businesses, labor groups, and local public agencies. In addition to the most
recent public hearing, the public has had the opportunity to provide input on this
project for well over three decades. The project has been in a planning
documents for over 30 years. It is currently included in all required
planning documents, TCAs capital improvement plan, OCTA and RCTC's 91
implementation plan, OCTA's long-range transportation plan and SCAGS RTP SES.
Public has been asking for this connection for many many years and we're
happy we're finally here to deliver it. Over a hundred and fifty opportunities
for formal public input from the original EIR EIS in 1994 through this public hearing.
TCA and the project partners have worked for years to address any public or agency concerns
and as a result of that effort, it is reflected in the fact that we are here and we didn't
hear any opposition at the public hearing.
Next slide please.
To summarize key takeaways, this project improves operations of the existing corridors for all
users.
use or commitment of state and federal funds on this project. There is a broad
public support for the project that this tolling authority creates an opportunity
for broader investment of tolling revenue of tolling revenue in projects
and programs that benefit the corridors and continue to enhance multimodal
transportation solutions for many many years to come. On behalf of the Foothill
Eastern Transportation Corridor I respectfully ask for your ye vote on the
item today. This concludes my presentation and I hand it back to Ahmed.
Thank you, Ryan. Okay commissioners, in light of the projects demonstrated
benefit and broad stakeholder support, staff recommends the Commission to
approve the tolling application and grant tolling authority for the state
route 241-91 Express Connector project through 2067. Thank you. Thank you, Ahmed.
I-66 in Northern Virginia has some similar attributes.
Any public comment?
Yes, we do have some requests to comment on the item.
First, I'd like to call on Patrick Sarmiento.
Patrick, you should be able to mute yourself and comment.
I will come back.
Patrick, I'd like to call on Carlos Leon.
Hi, good morning, everybody.
Thank you, Chair Grisby and commissioners.
This is Anaheim Council Member Carlos Leon,
this project. I'm also a board
member of O C. T. A. The 91 is
one of the most challenging
corridors in Southern
California. And every day that
congestion hurts families,
workers and businesses in
Anaheim and across the region.
The 241 91 Express Connector is
a long planned fix that will
finally eliminate that bottleneck
at the county line and give
drivers a safer, more reliable
connection between the two
systems. This project improves
daily life, faster commutes less
multiple agencies have worked for years to make sure this solution works for
everyone who depends on that corridor and I urge you to please approve this
request and help us deliver the relief our residents and commuters have been
waiting for thank you Patrick did submit a written comment which I will read on
their behalf Patrick writes these toll agencies say they are helping reduce
traffic and making the roads safer but if that's true why are the regular lanes
and still packed every day.
Where our commuter is still dealing with so many accidents,
it has been 15 years and traffic has not improved.
It has not gotten safer.
Has the commission done any real safety review?
The public deserves to know how these projects are judged
and whether anyone is holding these agencies accountable.
Why aren't these toll agencies using the money
they collect to fix the free lanes
or to find better ways to get people
from San Bernardino to Orange County?
And with the state facing a budget deficit,
spending half a billion dollars on this really on this is really the best choice
only 300 to 700 cars will use this connector during the worst traffic hours
is that really a good use of public money how much of these whole agencies
actually spent to improve the free lanes for everyday drivers we received one
other written comment from Carlos Sutliff they write I'm here today as one
of the hundreds of thousands of working people who use the 91 freeway every day
We do not use it because we want to, we use it because we have to. This is how we
earn a living and feed our kids. I leave my house before sunrise to get to work.
I sit in traffic for hours each day and move only a few miles. I do not get to
have breakfast with my kids and I rarely make it home for dinner. The 91 toll
lanes take that time away from me. I miss life. What hurts the most is watching car
after car fly past in the tolling. The system is set up to exclude the people
who work the longest hours and earn the least.
The wealthy get to cut in line ahead of us
while working people are stuck trying to get home.
I've heard many times that it is a choice, but it is not.
The cars in the toll lane do not disappear at the end.
They simply get to jump ahead of everyone else.
Toll lanes have become a system
where the wealthy move freely while the rest of us,
including nurses, teachers, warehouse workers,
and single parents sit in traffic
like second-class citizens.
We are forced to watch our time, our gas,
and our peace of mind drain away.
I've had to pull over and cry more than once.
Not because of the traffic itself,
but because of what it represents.
It is a daily reminder that if you do not have money,
you do not matter.
Is this the kind of society we want to build?
A society where the only roads that actually move
are no longer truly public.
This is not freedom.
We should all be asking who owns the land
these lanes are built on.
We should also ask why the state cannot invest
in the transit we actually need
in the places where it matters most
and where it is needed right now.
I believe that concludes the written comment.
Yes, we do have one additional hand raise.
Michael Stevens, you're free to unmute yourself
and comment at this time.
There seems to be a technical issue
with the ability to unmute, unable to determine
if it's on or under theirs.
Michael Stevens, if you are unable to unmute yourself,
please do so at this time.
Perhaps we can ask Michael to send a written comment
and we can come in and he just did.
So I will read that on their behalf from Michael Stevens.
I'm a local commuter advocate
here representing the 10 to thousands of commuters
from Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties.
I've heard from a lot of government agencies
in support of this project
which taxes the commuters of this corridor.
I've also heard from unions which temporarily benefit
from constructing the project.
Unfortunately, most of the traveling public
is stuck at work, stuck in traffic,
instead of being here to make it common
against the continued cash grab from desperate commuters
and those who can afford to pay
while commuters that can't afford
are stuck in the non-told lanes of the 91 freeway,
and ultimately stuck with paying for the result
of this project for decades to come.
Instead of TCA's CEO name calling his facility users,
scofflaws, they should extend the connector lane
once it gets on the 91 instead of taking their money
and making them sit in the long lanes
waiting to get on the 91.
I've heard multiple times from the presenters
that the project will alleviate 50%
or more of the traffic from the existing connector.
However, it was stated by TCA CEO
that the new connector will be demand metered
to a trickle by pricing during the vehicle type restrictions
during peak time when it is needed most.
These restrictions will be regularly implemented
because of the heavy daily traffic.
As such, the project will fail to meet the 50% metric.
This means more cars sitting in traffic polluting our air
on the regular connector in the 91 freeway.
The rest of TCA toll roads provides no incentive
for carpoolers on the rest of the facility.
Pardon me, additional.
Stuck on paying for all the projects
that for decades to come instead of the TCACO name call.
Hold on, apologies.
Right now it feels like the free lanes
are being left to fail so more drivers feel forced to pay.
This is not public service, this is exploitation.
It creates a system where people are separated by income
and the ones who cannot pay are punished.
This is how it starts.
They divide us by wealth, make life harder for working people,
just trying to get to their jobs, and then call it choice.
Time's expired.
Thank you for your comment.
We have one other attendee with her hand raised at this time,
like calling Jim Davis.
Jim Davis, you're free to meet yourself
in common at this time.
All right, I will read Jim Davis' written comment.
I drive the 91 freeway every day,
just like millions of others who are trying to get to work,
care of our families and do the right thing. What is frustrating is not only the traffic,
but also the toll system that punishes the very people who are trying to help reduce traffic.
Carpooling and vanpooling are supposed to be part of the solution, yet carpool and vanpool
vehicles are forced to pay on many toll roads. There are no discounts for carpools or vanpools
on the 133, 241 or 261, or on any of the roads operated by the transportation corridor agencies.
This makes no sense. If the real goal is to reduce traffic, cut emissions, and promote shared rides,
then carpools and vanpools should be allowed to use toll roads for free at a minimal cost.
Do the toll roads offer any discount for carpools and vanpools? The answer is no.
The Commission says it wants fewer cars on the road and better air quality,
but it still allows these agencies to penalize people who are carpooling by making them pay
to use toll lanes that were presented to the public as lanes meant to encourage carpooling.
Meanwhile, solo drivers who can afford it simply pay their way through.
This is not transportation equity, it's a toll system that serves the rich to squash the poor.
I know people in van pools who squeeze together every day to save on gas, reduce traffic and
avoid the mental strain of driving, yet they are still required to pay tolls.
If even they do not receive a break, what message is this Commission sending?
If the true intent were to promote carpooling and clean commuting, every carpool and every
Every van poll will be allowed to use these toll roads for free with no exceptions.
This is not just a policy issue, it is an equity issue.
It is about whether the Commission is using public money, which is our money, to support
systems that help everyone.
I've heard multiple times from the presenters that the project will alleviate 50% of more
the traffic from the existing connector by TCAC, you'll bet the connector will be demanded
and mere to a trickle by pricing during the vehicle type restrictions during peak time
when is needed most. These restrictions will be regularly. That's time. Okay. And I believe
that concludes all written received comments. Thank you so much. And now we're going to
turn to the dais. I see commissioner eager. Yes. Thank you, chair. And this commissioner
has sat on in on many of these discussions about this particular
project. I want to first thank our CTC staff for hiring the outside accounting
firm because that was certainly an issue we wanted to make sure that this was
financially viable going forward so we certainly appreciate you hearing us and
and doing that moving forward. As someone who has driven this road many a
time. You know one of the things that's really important to talk about is that
safety issue and people coming off of that 99 and crossing over to try to get
to the left lane. I have had to slam on my brakes many times to let folks come
across there so I think this is really an important project to look at from
that safety standpoint and and certainly we can talk about the equity issues and
And if people can afford to pay and bringing them off of the lanes that are free, to free
up some of those lanes for people to get across there, that's an important issue too.
So in moving forward, I certainly appreciate all of the hard work that got us to this place.
For those of you who had been working on this for years and years, I know that there were
some discussions over the years on how do we get here so the fact that you all
came together that you all support this when we get to that place I would
certainly like to make that motion one of the things I have taught my grandkids
over and over again is not to say the word hate to say I don't particularly
care for so I don't particularly care for those folks who cheat and try to get
in front of me as I'm trying to get over there so if we could have that on
You have to have the skill to
make sure that you have the
skills that you need to make
sure that you don't have the
skills that you need to make
sure that you have the skills
that you need to make sure that
you have the skills that you
need to make sure that you have
the skills that you need to make
sure that you have the skills
that you need to make sure that
you have the skills that you
need to make sure that you have
the skills that you need to make
sure that you have the skills
that you need to make sure
that you have the skills that
you need to make sure that you
have the skills that you need
to make sure that you have the
skills that you need to make
sure that you have the skills
that you need to make sure that
you have the skills that you
need to make sure that you have
item is were we to approve it, it would be saying that the tolling application is in
alignment with what was it, SB 94?
That's correct.
Yeah.
And we're not approving funding for the construction.
We're simply saying that the application has been submitted and is approved based on the
requirements. That is accurate. Okay, just wanted to check on that. I really just want to recognize
the frustration that people were sharing in comments. I think the pain of being stuck in
traffic is a huge problem in the state of California and I've heard all of the commissioners
acknowledge that in the past, but I feel that the comments in particular from, I believe
her name was Kayla, very much conveyed the frustration of time lost with family. Ironically,
because you're working so hard to take care of your family. And so I just really wanted
to acknowledge and honor that that time lost is something that we really want to be able
to rectify with our transportation systems and, and it's imperfect. And I think it would
be great for information about relief to working families that has been designed into this
tolling system. So if there's any information about that that can be shared, that'd be great.
Can we call you back up to answer that question? Thank you.
And again, Ryan Chamberlain, TCA CEO, if I understood the question right, is to comment
on what type of relief commuters or users may see because of our project.
The short answer is about 20 minutes in travel time savings for those that are using the
corridors of 2 foot 1 to the 91.
That's on average.
The 50% reduction in Q is in addition to that.
That's not just for those who choose to pay for the new connector.
That's also those that are waiting in the general purpose link connector as well.
and I certainly would be remissed if I didn't say
that this is just one project on a whole bunch of projects
that are slated to improve mobility in the 91 corridor
that OCTA and RCTC have been working on for many years.
If commuters and commenters today want to take a look
at the State Route 91 implementation plan,
it identifies both the projects
that have been done more recently
in the 91 capital improvement program from RCTC's side
include some of the
information. We will be
talking about some of the
things that we will be
talking about some of the
things that we will be
talking about some of the
things that we will be
talking about some of the
things that we will be
talking about some of the
things that we will be
talking about some of the
things that we will be
talking about some of the
things that we will be
talking about some of the
things that we will be
talking about some of the
things that we will be
talking about some of the
things that we will be
talking about some of the
things that we will be
talking about some of the
things that we will be
talking about some of the
things that we will be
talking about some of the
things that we will be
talking about some of the
and is there an equity program for low-income commuters as part of this?
Yeah, so, Chair Grisby, great question. There is not an equity program built into
the 2419 Express Connector Project for the practical reason that we are just
connecting to existing established facilities. We have two distinct
different operating rules and business practices. Some provide some discounts
for HOV, some don't. The tolls are different prices, some are dynamically priced, some
our price to pay off bond debt like we are. What I will say is in our master
agreement with three agencies and Caltrans we do have a governance
structure set up in place where we have a forum where if all of our parties want
and see that there are areas for additional improvement like potentially
setting up an equity type program that is the avenue that we could get all three
of the toll operators and our strong partners in Caltrans at the table
talking about it so we can implement solutions that are holistic in nature so
we don't have a one-off for a connector but not for the facilities on both the
upstream and downstream side. This is very much a corridor or corridors that
we need to make sure all of the partners are on the same page with how we're
implementing business processes and practice and operational strategies. So I
would say there is a good opportunity in the future certainly when it comes to
the expenditure plan side. If this project generates an
that excess revenue as you know that revenue can be reinvested in multimodal
options in the corridor and that certainly is on the lens of my board and
the little Eastern Board of Directors thank you any other questions from the
dice I will make some comments at this point so clearly this application from
my point of view should be approved based on the criteria however there has
been some very clear class issues raised by folks who commute in the corridor
And, you know, I've been educated over the years about the importance of not having one size fit all and that's usually when it comes to people who want transit, bike and ped trying to apply that everywhere.
I think this is a case in the opposite direction, with 300,000 commuters using this quarter daily and extra half million people move into Western Riverside County, the problem only get worse.
uh, so is there a motion to approve?
Okay.
Thank you.
Uh, so moved by commissioner Eager.
Is there a second second by commissioner Brown Heinz?
All those in favor?
I all those post abstentions motion is approved.
Thank you very much.
All right.
Moving on to item 72, Taylor.
Thank you commissioners.
I'm pleased to present to you tab 72 and informational item, the summary
of Vehicle Weight Safety Study Task Force Findings,
Assembly Bill 251.
These findings are the final product
of a series of five public meetings
of the Vehicle Weight Safety Study Task Force,
the last meeting of which was held in November 13th.
Next slide, please.
Today, we will discuss the background of the study,
the summary of task force findings, and next steps.
Next slide.
In 2022, the Commission recommended the legislature
authorize a study on the implementation
of weight-based passenger vehicle fee
to account for the impacts of larger vehicles
on vulnerable road user injury and fatality rates.
Following the Commission's recommendations,
the legislature passed AB 251 in 2023,
requiring the Commission to convene a task force,
and the Commission submit a report to the legislature.
I wanna draw your attention to this slide,
which shows the typical passenger vehicle classes
considered in the study,
including not only internal combustion engines
or gas vehicles as we think of it,
but also battery electric and hybrid electric vehicles,
which are heavier in weight across all vehicle classes,
makes and models.
Next slide, please.
Task Force members comprised of representatives
from the organizations listed here
as approved by the commissioners in December of 2024.
Next slide.
As I previously mentioned,
five task force meetings were held
from June through November, 2025.
The topics described here cover the requirements
of the legislation.
Next slide, please.
Prior to holding task force meetings,
commissioned staff contracted
with UC Berkeley's Institute of Transportation Studies
to conduct research on the topics identified
in the legislation.
Each task force meeting included
this general structure shown here.
Presentation of UC Berkeley's academic research,
task force round table discussion
regarding research key takeaways presented,
and public comment on each of these items.
A summary of task force meetings was presented,
sorry a summary of each task force meeting was presented at each subsequent
meeting for further feedback and refinement from both task force members
and the public. These summaries were then rolled up into the summary of task force
findings that are being presented today. The task force process aimed to
summarize the breadth of task force perspectives rather than build consensus.
Next slide. The remaining slides identify key takeaways from the University of
California Berkeley's research and feedback from task force members and the
public covering the following topics. Before discussing the key takeaways just
want to provide a high-level overview of what was revealed through the research
and the task force discussions. Although the research did identify clear trends
in growing vehicle size across all classes and vehicle weight and increase in injuries
and fatalities of vulnerable road users since 2010, it did not identify a clear causal relationship
between these two trends presented. This is due to the difficulty in isolating any singular
variable in a crash among many variables as a primary factor. Task Force members also
offer different perspectives on the academic research presented, particularly regarding
a weight-based passenger vehicle fee. Next slide.
Regarding California vehicle trends, since the 1980s, passenger vehicle weight continues
to increase across all vehicle classes and fuel types. SUVs are expected to overtake
sedans as the most registered vehicle in California. That includes urban, rural, and suburban areas.
are holding on to their vehicles longer which can delay the adoption of newer vehicles with
improved safety features such as advanced driver assistance systems. Next slide. Regarding
California injury and fatality trends, sedans cause the majority of pedestrian bicyclist
fatalities and serious injuries in urban and rural areas. Sedans are the most registered
vehicle type in California. SUVs are the fastest growing vehicle type involved in crashes involving
vulnerable road users. And this chart shown here shows vehicle collision trends since 2010 related
to vulnerable road users. Pedestrian fatalities have increased by 71 percent, bicyclist serious
injuries have increased by 20%. Pedestrian serious injuries have
increased by 44% and bicyclist fatalities have remained constant.
Task force members question the degree to which other factors may or may not
influence collision trends presented such as road user behaviors,
distractions, licensing standards, vehicle age, rideshare service, and autonomous
vehicles. Next slide. Regarding potential regulatory responses, historically passenger
vehicle safety has focused on protecting vehicle occupants as to as opposed to those outside of a
vehicle. Countries similar to United States require vehicle testing for pedestrian collision outcomes.
Task force members discuss other aspects of the safe systems approach such as improving
infrastructure, driver licensing standards, and education, traffic safety laws, and enforcement
that might also reduce fatalities and serious injuries of vulnerable road users. Next slide.
Regarding potential built environment responses, risk and severity of crashes involving vulnerable
road users could be reduced by emphasizing the safe system approach, effective roadway design,
and investment in infrastructure barriers to infrastructure improvements for vulnerable road
users includes limited funding implementing projects at scale and jurisdictional challenges
inequities resulting from investments in the built environment may include less funding and
disadvantaged or rural areas accelerated and gentrification and displacement as a result of
investments. Next slide. Regarding vehicle weight and road degradation, passenger
vehicles, including battery, electric, and fuel cell engines, have a very minor
effect on pavement damage and rehabilitation costs when compared to
large multi-axle commercial vehicles. So much so that they are excluded from
consideration, meaning the passenger vehicles mentioned, those are
excluded from consideration from Caltrans pavement damage calculations. Therefore, incremental
increases in passenger vehicle weight are not anticipated to have a significant impact
on road degradation. Next slide. Regarding potential weight-based fee responses,
weight-based passenger vehicle fee could most easily be structured as an annual vehicle
registration fee or levied at the time point of purchase. The same across all
vehicles or different based on various factors such as fuel type, occupation of
the driver, disability and income status. Some task force members supported a fee
to fund safety improvements for vulnerable road users or to subsidize
lighter weight vehicles bicycles and transit. Some task force members did not
support a fee citing the lack of a strong causal relationship between
vehicle weight and negative safety outcomes for vulnerable road users as
well as affordability concerns and political feasibility. Next slide.
Regarding consumer behavior response, consumer purchase behavior could change
in response to a larger well it could change more I should say in response to
a larger one-time fee than a smaller annual fee. This could include a steeper
decline in the heaviest passenger vehicles purchased across all fuel types.
It could generate more revenue and consumers could switch to lighter
vehicles or hold on to their current vehicles longer to avoid the fee.
Exemptions from a fee could substantially lower revenues. Task Force members discuss how a fee
may or may not address the goals of the study. Next slide. After this presentation today,
we will present the task force findings to the Transportation Policy and Program Guidance
Subcommittee of the Interagency Equity Advisory Committee on December 12th for further feedback.
thereafter we will begin development of the draft report to the legislature. In 2026 we expect to
release the draft report to the legislature and gather additional feedback on the draft.
The final report will be presented to the commission for adoption and submission to the
legislature later in 2026. With that, that concludes my presentation. Looking forward
to your feedback and any questions you have. Thank you so much. First we'll go to
public comment. Yes we do have one attendee with her hand raised at this time led to call on
Sophia Raficova. Hello good morning commissioners Sophia Raficova the coalition for clean air thank
you for this opportunity to provide feedback we want to align our comments with those submitted
by the task force member Mark Wuxivich and urge the ctc to recommend that the legislature implement
a vehicle waste weight-based fee and use that revenue to fund pedestrian safety projects
and incentivize the purchase of smaller vehicles.
It is a known phenomenon that vehicles in the United States
have been getting bigger over time.
In the last 30 years, the average vehicle
has become 1,000 pounds heavier and eight inches taller.
At the same time, California faces
the highest pedestrian fatality rates in the nation,
with over 1,000 pedestrians being killed
in vehicle collisions each year.
And studies have shown that these two things
are interrelated.
Larger vehicles with elevated front ends
are 45% more likely to result in pedestrian fatalities.
With the raising the car just 4 inches, increasing the fatality risk by 22%.
On the other hand, replacing all light trucks with smaller cars would avert over 8,000 pedestrian deaths nationwide.
If left unregulated, this arms race to own the largest vehicle will continue to pose a significant risk to pedestrian safety and will also contribute to increased road maintenance costs.
an average Chevy Tahoe causes 10 times as much road damage compared to Prius
simply by weighing an extra 2,500 pounds. This fee represents an opportunity for
the CTC to influence human behavior. Even the smallest priced weight fee would
encourage consumers to think twice when considering the purchase of a larger
vehicle while still generating over a billion in revenue per year that could
be spent offsetting social harms of larger vehicles on safety and road wear.
As such, we urge the CTC to recommend a vehicle-weight-based fee and paired with incentives
that offset the cost of purchasing smaller vehicles, such as smaller zero-mission vehicles
and e-bikes.
Thank you.
We do not receive any other requests to comment on this item.
Okay, thank you so much.
Now we're going to turn to the dais to see if there's any questions or comments.
I see Mr. Tiffany trying to get in, so I'll let you in.
Thank you, Chair Grisby.
I really I think have mainly comments as many of you some of you may know my past life I
was a Ford dealer for many years and so I do have some experience with quite a bit of
experience with buying habits I think that my comment would be I think it's very unlikely
that a fee would change buying behavior significantly.
That is assuming that it wasn't some, I guess,
ridiculously large amount, which I don't think would be fair.
I do think that there should be some fee applied because I think
that the fees could be used toward helping prevent some
of the pedestrian accidents and other kinds of accidents,
maybe from an infrastructure standpoint.
The problem is, is in the United States,
and certainly this is true in California,
but it's true throughout the US, we
are in love with large SUVs and trucks.
I mean, anyone who goes to Europe
can see the dramatic difference.
And it's just, it's the way we, you know, our society is.
And one can argue that we shouldn't be that way,
but that's the reality.
And unfortunately, with the very recent directive
by, from Washington, with the potential reduction
of federal mileage guidelines,
we're gonna only see, if anything,
more of a movement by manufacturers
to go to more SUVs and trucks.
And there's a number of manufacturers,
including the manufacturer I used to sell for,
Ford Motor Company, that don't even sell sedans anymore,
other than Mustangs.
So my point being is that I think that I find the report very interesting.
It's interesting that there's not much of an impact on the roads that it's and I can see where that is, is that with the larger trucks, that's really where we're we're looking at a big difference.
But anyway, my, you know, and I don't have anything to support this other
than my 30 plus years of experience.
I think it's like I said, unlikely that a fee will change buying behavior,
but I do think it's something to explore so that funding can be obtained
to use toward infrastructure changes to help with the impact
to these larger vehicles that have on smaller vehicles
and particularly on pedestrians and bicyclists.
Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner.
I see Vice Chair Falcone.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the presentation, Kayla.
As we're looking at how we're packaging this work
to the legislature, discussions within the task force,
What are the distinctions that you
can highlight between regulatory responses that
may inform driver behavior versus a response
through potential fees that would impact, or improve,
or make modifications to the built environment that would
also potentially inform driver behavior.
Can you kind of like?
I can say that the feedback is recorded
in the task force findings document.
It listed a number of regulatory
and built environment considerations
brought forward by the task force,
but we're awaiting after this presentation,
our presentation EAC on December 12th
to call out and begin to think through those specific
recommendations that we might include our study.
So I think there's a lot of content to explore
in all those avenues that you mentioned
from the task force findings that we will consider further.
Are there any areas where, through this work
that you think that we need further research
or areas that we need to look into
as we, again, package something to the legislature
for consideration.
I'd frankly have to sit down
and think through that a bit more.
I do think that there's potentially a lot of,
there's a lot of the areas in the discussion
where there could be.
So there's not a couple even of very clear areas
where I felt like this in particular
stands out as for further study I think that that could potentially be the case
for a number of things that came out of the discussions from the task force
directed Taylor maybe to add a couple of things to what Kayla has said is that
some of the things that we're preliminary finding that are in those
summaries that are that are within this book item include the magnitude of the
fee matters in terms of what we're talking about in terms of changing
people's behavior and when we're talking about a fee which we're not proposing a
fee here. But that's the focus of the study is what could a fee do potentially? And, you
know, will it impact people's behavior? But reality is we have to consider a fee, not
an isolation, but across all costs and how it impacts consumers and whether it achieves
the outcome we seek that fee to achieve. And so as Kayla and the team are reconciling what
we should be recommending, one of those questions is going to be what will actually change the
behavior what will potentially provide safer opportunities. It may be something that is
not a fee. It may be a combination of a fee and something else. And that's the work that
we are looking at right now to develop those recommendations on what should we be telling
the legislature coming out of this report based on what we learned from the research
that we've done.
All right. I'd like to move back to public comment now and call upon Eli Lippmann. You
you can come up here.
Nice to see you.
Good morning, commissioners.
Eli Lippmann representing Move California.
Thank you for being here.
In Riverside, I'm really glad to see the results
of this study task force.
We've been working with our partners around the state.
I would quibble with what was said earlier
by Commissioner Tiffany.
There's several, if you just Google,
a surge in smaller vehicles.
Americans are tired of paying more for their vehicles
in insurance and costs of repair,
and in the cost of the vehicle itself,
they've now averaged over 50,000.
So in the first half of this year,
sales of sub-side SUVs surged by 20%.
So I think Californians and Americans
are very much cost-sensitive,
and I think this is an opportunity
to address the characteristics
Of these larger vehicles and the profile that they create and the harm that they create, you know
How many people died in LA County last year from traffic fatalities? Can you take a guess?
711 people in one year. We actually put out all the chairs in Caltrans district 7 and could not fit them in the plaza
In front of Caltrans district 7 that's a big plaza
so we had we had a
Press conference about it and we had partners
From across the state and I do think that it really is time to take a look at this
I support the
Comments made by mark Vukovic in writing from streets for all a two-tiered system makes sense
this could be a funding source obviously for
Electric vehicles and the electric vehicle incentive program. I think it's actually pretty politically saleable
And this is how the way that I would sell it
But I would call it the cyber truck tax because I don't know that many people, except for
the people who drive cyber trucks who actually like cyber trucks, I don't drive one.
I drive an EV.
But I think there is a way to sell this.
And I think that people respond, especially when they know people in their community who've
been killed because of these.
Thank you so much.
I'm not seeing any other hands raised on my screen.
We can.
Thank you, Kayla.
on to item 73. Matthew. Forgive me. Sorry about that. We are still in mourning, so
good morning commissioners. Tab 73 is an information item providing an update on
the 2026 SB1 competitive program guidelines development process. This will
be the fifth SB1 programming cycle. I'd like to briefly recap where we are on
the process and highlight some of the key policy areas we'll be exploring in
months ahead. On November 20th, we held our All SB1 Program Kickoff Workshop for Cycle 5,
which launched the Public Guidelines Development Process for the Local Partnership Program,
the Solutions for Congested Cordores Program, and the Trade Cordore Enhancement Program.
This workshop introduced the overall timeline, and we previewed several policy areas we'll be
addressing through upcoming program-specific workshops. The virtual workshop was attended
by nearly 250 stakeholders and members of the public and the presentation and recording
are currently available on the Commission's workshop webpage.
As with previous cycles, this process is grounded in stakeholder engagement and lessons learned
from prior rounds.
Our SB1 team will bring potential guidelines revisions to the public workshop setting in
an effort to build consensus around these revisions and ultimately incorporate them
into the draft set of each program's guidelines.
Our team is aiming to bring draft guidelines to the Commission at its June 2026 Commission
meeting with final guidelines for commission adoption and a call for projects anticipated
in August 2026.
There are several overarching topics we'll be exploring this cycle, including for the
Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure 2.0 implementation in line with Commission
resolution G2531 approved at the March 2025 Commission meeting. We're working to integrate
relevant CAPTI 2.0 strategies into each program's guidelines. This includes strategy 2.3, which
would be updating the trade corridor enhancement program guidelines to clarify that goods movement
projects which mitigate their passenger vehicle miles travel impacts will be more competitive
for funding. Strategy 2.4, continuing the solutions for congested corridor programs
emphasis on prioritizing projects that reduce VMT with the goal of achieving a VMT neutral
suite of investments. And strategy 3.1, strengthening all the SB1 program guidelines to better account
for environmental justice impacts while building on our existing equity evaluation criteria
and tools. We're also planning to address workforce development. We'll be collaborating
with stakeholders, commissioners, and other state agencies like the California Workforce
Development Board to strengthen how workforce and job quality considerations are reflected
in evaluation criteria. In equity and community engagement, we're planning to build on past
efforts and we'll be working with the Interagency Equity Advisory Committee and our stakeholders
to improve both the community engagement evaluation criteria and the SB1 program's transportation
equity supplement. In land use efficiency and pro-housing, through a partnership with
the department for housing and community development, we'll continue refining and improving the
land use efficiency evaluation criteria and its accompanying supplement, as well as honing
how pro-housing principles are integrated into our land use evaluation criteria and
the solutions for congested corridors and local partnership competitive programs.
And lastly, I want to say for medium and heavy duty zero emission vehicle infrastructure
in the trade corridor enhancement program, we're aiming to provide more tools and guidance
for streamlining our consideration of that type of zero emission vehicle infrastructure
permitting. We plan to enhance the existing zero emission vehicle sub
criteria to ensure that applicants demonstrate a proven track record of
delivery, clearly identifies your emission vehicle equipment needs and
associated procurement risks and to document the financial capacity of
private partners. And lastly, we would like to provide more guidance on ways
zero emission vehicle applicants can demonstrate
great throughput, velocity, and reliability benefits.
That covers my brief preview of some areas
we'd like to consider revisions
in the SB1 program guidelines for cycle five,
which we will continue bringing
to our public guidelines development workshops.
On that note, we've already posted a save the date
containing dates, times, and registration links
for our next workshops in January.
And as always, we'll continue to refine these concepts
to craft guidelines revisions
that preserve the statutory objective
and framework of each program
while working towards a consensus of stakeholder input
and the evolving statewide priorities.
That concludes my remarks
and I would be happy to take any questions or comments.
Thank you, Matthew.
Any public comment on this item?
We have not received any request to comment on this item.
Thank you so much.
Now we can turn to the dais and I see Commissioner Eger.
There we go.
Thank you, Matthew, for that presentation.
And I really wanna thank you for highlighting
community development and housing,
economic development and workforce development
because all of those things intertwine with transportation
and we can't do any of it without really focusing
on all four of those entities.
So thank you for bringing that forward
and I'm looking forward to your response
as we move forward with this on how we integrate that
in our programs going forward.
All right, thank you commissioner and thank you.
We're gonna move on to the next item
not seeing any additional commissioners.
Item 74, Laura.
Commissioners tab 74 is an action item
to accept the environmental document
and approve future consideration of funding
for the Hazel Avenue US 50 interchange project
in Sacramento County.
The Lead Agency adopted an environmental impact report
and a statement of overriding considerations
for this project.
Finding benefits outweigh the impacts.
Staff has reviewed this request
and recommends your approval.
Thank you, any public comment?
We never receive a request comment on the item.
Thank you, any questions or comments from the dais?
Hearing none, is there a motion?
So I move by Commissioner Tiffany,
seconded by Commissioner Cruz.
All those in favor?
Aye.
Opposed?
Abstentions?
Motion is approved.
We will now take a 10 minute break by our brick.
See you shortly.
Man, talent.
All right, we're gonna take items 75 through 78 together.
Tim.
Thank you, yes, we'll take 75 through 78.
They're all action items
and we'll take them with a recommendation at the end.
Tab 75 and 76 are shop projects
with at least one phase requesting initial allocations
that exceed the programed amount by more than 20%.
Tab 75 is a bridge replacement project
on state route one in Marin County.
And tab 76 is a regional transportation management center
improvement project in Los Angeles County.
These initial allocations total approximately 39 million,
which includes an amount of approximately 13 million
over the programmed amount for those phases.
Tab 77 is a supplemental funds allocation request
to complete the right-of-way support phase
for a shop emergency restoration project in Lake County.
And tab 78 is a supplemental fund allocation request
to complete the right-of-way support phase
for a shop bridge replacement project
in Los Angeles County.
Staff has reviewed the projects and the book items
for tabs 75 through 78 and recommends approval.
Thank you, Tim.
Any public comments?
We have not received any request to comment
on the listed items.
Thank you.
item. I'll turn it over to the
commissioner to ask for a
question, comment or a motion
from the dais. So moved by
commissioner Tiffany seconded by
vice chair. All those in favor.
Opposed. Abstentions. Motion is
approved. Now taking tabs 79
through 84 Tim. Thank you. Tab
79 through 84 all action items
for shop allocations and will be
item as noted on the change list. Tab 79 is a supplemental fund allocation
request for an additional twelve million six hundred and forty thousand in right
away capital to complete construction for mitigation project near Gleason
Beach in Sonoma County. Tab 80 is a supplemental fund allocation request for
nine point eight million in construction capital and five million in construction
support to complete construction for a roadway rehabilitation and multimodal
corridor enhancement project utilizing the design build project design build delivery method
in Sacramento County. Tab 81 is a supplemental fund allocation request for 2.19 million in
construction capital and 1.6 million in construction support to complete a construct complete
construction for a bridge seismic retrofit project in Los Angeles County and tabs 82 through 84 are
Our supplemental fund allocation requests
for construction capital to close out construction
for a bridge project, collision severity reduction project,
and for a drainage system restoration project.
These allocations total approximately 38 million
over the previously allocated amounts for these phases.
These increases do not account for any prior supplemental
or delegated G-12 funding already received
for these phases.
Before giving my recommendation for these items,
I would like to summarize the total shop increases.
The total increases related to initial allocations
that exceed the program amount by 20%
and supplemental fund requests from the shop
at the December CTC meeting is approximately 52 million.
Cumulatively for this fiscal year,
the total increases is approximately $412 million.
Staff has reviewed the projects and the book items
for tabs 79 through 84 and recommends approval.
Thank you, Tim.
Any public comment?
Would not receive any request to comment
on the listed items.
Thank you.
Question, comment, or motion from the DICE.
So moved by a commissioner's committee.
Oh, I got a comment.
Okay, questions.
Thank you, Chair.
This is maybe a question for someone from Caltrans.
I specifically wanted,
I had a few questions, regards to item 779 the first item.
And I'm not sure who I'm, am I asking you, Tim?
Or should I-
There are a couple Caltrans members that are here.
Good morning.
I think it's morning, so okay.
Are we still morning?
Good morning.
Yeah, barely.
Yeah, good morning.
I'll try to make this quick.
I'm just, we approve a lot of things up here, of course,
But the concern I have is the very large additional amount
of money here for mitigation.
And I'm just curious about,
maybe you can talk a little bit more about the process.
And I understand that the mitigation
it wasn't expected to be this extensive.
And so this is kind of a maybe after the fact situation.
which makes it more difficult. But when a mitigation is nearly as much or maybe more,
I'm not quite sure as the project itself, it's of course concerning whatever the reasons for.
So maybe you can touch on that a little bit. Sure. So this is Gleason Beach. Well, first off,
I guess I should say I'm David Ambiel. I'm our acting district director in district four.
Gleason Beach, you know, it was groundbreaking first of its kind
sea level rise project on a resource-rich portion of the Sonoma coast. It was a very
complicated permitting process as noted. We had extensive environmental permitting from
California Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Army Corps, National Marine Fish
Service, California Coastal Commission, Regional Water Quality Control Board as
well as to we did consultations with two tribal nations. The initial mitigation
costs were developed in 2019 for the project. They were underestimated. As we
We got our coastal development permit in all of our permits in December of 2020 and then
the project CTC allocated funds for the construction the very next month, January of 2021.
We started construction June of 2021.
The construction completed in December of 2024.
process. The permit required us
to do mitigation and monitoring
plan. That mitigation monitoring
plan did not get finalized
until May of 2025. After the
construction was actually
completed, it took that long to
work out the approval of this
plan with the California Coastal
acreage, increased from 23 to 40 acres. That was due to higher mitigation ratios
and those anticipated prior to the permitting and allocation. There were
also some additional impacts during construction. We had to realign and
access road, do some drainage changes. Those had some minor mitigation
implications as well. But then we also had upland habitat plantings that need
to be done. 450,000 seedlings to be planted. So there was very complicated permitting process.
It took a long time to get the mitigation and monitoring plan approved. And so now we're
paying for the mitigation with today's dollars, comparing to, you know, 2019 when we originally
estimated this. We underestimated that because there were no mitigation bank credits available
at that time and so we had to mitigate through this conservation easement. Something else that
should be noted, you know Michael Johnson yesterday talked about we've been playing defense on the
the coast, right? We've been doing these emergency projects, putting in some
retaining walls, doing some grout injection into the roadway to keep it
solid, keep it there, so different different techniques for that. This is
the first project we've had in 10 or so years that is not an emergency project
on the Sonoma coast up there. So now we're paying for some of the mitigation
from the previous 10 years of playing defense as well. So that was part of the
initial cost. That's really those are really the big items that drove the
cost. Well thank thank you and I are there any I guess are there any lessons
that might be learned from from this or maybe anticipated or I mean I guess the
the broader concern that I have is not this specific project but when
mitigation is so large, whether it be for something coastal or
other mitigation for projects, particularly when we're in, you
know, reduction in funding throughout the state. It's
concerning because obviously this is money that we'd like to
have go toward alternative, you know, transportation projects, or
other things that we could use in the state and so anyway I'm just curious any
lessons learned and yeah I appreciate your your comments thank you. Sure
lessons learned absolutely I mean specific lessons I think from from
Gleason where that we need to increase the engagement with resource agencies
when they are not responding timely we cannot wait we need to ensure that funds
and methods for plant establishment are in place prior to going out to
construction. We also need to ensure fish passage needs are identified and
addressed in the work plans so that would they don't have to be change
orders. So there were a number of items like that. Some of the things that we're
actually doing now, you know, more substantial and early planning, earlier
engagement with our partners and resource agencies, I think a really big
one is pursuing advanced mitigation and we're looking down the road years ahead
for other coastal projects within our district and we're already starting on
the advanced mitigation with the Coastal Commission. So this yes Gleason
itself is a very challenging project but it allowed us to create a strong
partnership and start focusing on okay what are we gonna do in the future
because they learned some lessons as well it was their very first one that
they went through. The Coastal Act was enacted, I think, almost 50 years ago, didn't anticipate
sea level rise. So they had some real challenges trying to permit this for us as well.
So great. So it sounds like you're trying to go on the offense. Yes, absolutely. Thank
you very much. Appreciate your comments. Thank you, Dr. Taylor.
Just one thing I want to add, I'm not a question, but maybe maybe a challenge for Caltrans,
because what I heard you talk about, Dave,
is that it took you about five years
to get that mitigation and monitoring reporting plan done.
And I want to challenge you all
to move a little expeditiously and faster on those things
because I think some of that could have been mitigated
by getting that plan done
and nailing down those specific mitigation measures.
And I don't think it's not unique to this project
how we work with those resource agencies
and different things.
And so that's gonna be my challenge to the department.
Right, thank you, David.
Thank you.
is there a motion to approve?
So moved by commissioner Tiffany is there a second?
Second.
Second by commissioner Bradshaw, all those in favor?
Opposed?
Stentions?
Motion is approved.
Moving on to items 85 through 88, Brandi.
Good morning commissioners.
Tabs 85 through 88 are action items
requesting $11,102,000 in supplemental funds
for various phases of four transit
and inner city rail capital program projects.
For a point of clarification, on tab 87,
the PSNE completion date shown on page two
under reasons for the cost increase,
and on page two under consequences,
let me restart that if I could please.
Okay, so the PS&E completion date,
shown on page two under reasons for the cost increase
is in the fourth sentence,
and on page two under consequences,
the PS&E completion date is in the last sentence.
Both of those sentences will be removed.
The reason for this change
is that a time extension is pending,
and if that time extension is approved,
the dates will then be corrected.
changes will be reflected in the final actions taken report. Staff has reviewed these requests
and finds them consistent with the program's allocation policy, the program update, and the
changes that I just listed. Staff recommends approval of tabs 85 through 88. Thank you,
Brandi. Any public comment? Thank you. We have not received any requests to comment on these items.
Thank you. Question, comment or a motion from the dais.
So moved by Commissioner Bradshaw, seconded by Commissioner Tiffany. All those in favor.
I apologize. Should you want to correct the record on that one or are you okay with it?
Okay. Okay. All those in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? Motion is approved.
All right moving on to items 89 and 90. Tim yes tabs 89 and 90 are action items to amend the
2024 shop and will be taken together and with a recommendation at the end. Tab 89 is an action
item to approve amendments to the 2024 shop and please note that there are a couple revisions to
the book item as noted on the change list and with those changes these shop amendments will add 38
new projects and revised nine projects in the 2024 shop. Of the 38 new projects 38 are coming
from the major damage reservation and one is coming from the safety reservation and the nine
projects that are being revised are various proactive changes to adjust scope cost and schedule
as necessary. Tab 90 is an action item to amend the 2024 shop and this amendment will increase
the major damage emergency opening reservation for the fiscal year is 2025
2026 by 300 million dollars this increase the increases this increases
the reservation from 400 million dollars to 700 million dollars this increase is
needed to continue to respond to emergencies through the remainder of the
fiscal year Caltrans will continue to monitor the reservation through the end
of the fiscal year and will return to the Commission if further adjustments are
necessary staff recommends approval of tabs 89 and 90 thank you Tim any public
comment we've never seen any requested comment on these items thank you
question comment or emotion from the dice so moved by Commissioner Tiffany
seconded by commissioner eager all those in favor
item. Opposed? Abstentions.
for the City of National City's 24th Street Transit Center
Connections Project located in San Diego County.
The project scope as submitted in the application
proposes to make several safety improvements
and provide a connection to the 24th Street Transit
Center via Hoover Avenue.
At the time of application, high density residential housing
projects were anticipated along Hoover Avenue,
prompting the City of National City
to provide a north-south connection for future community members. However, the planned housing
projects have been delayed with no known target date for completion. Without the high-density
residential housing projects, Hoover Avenue remains an industrial zone. The city is requesting a scope
change to move the class 4 separated bikeways from Hoover Avenue onto D Avenue, a parallel route,
and add an additional bike box, rapid rectangular flashing beacon, lighting and green bike
conflict striping. Cap 92 is an action item for the active transportation program presenting
a scope amendment request for the City of National City's 22nd Street separated bikeway project
located in San Diego County. The project scope as submitted in the application proposes to make
several safety improvements and provide a connection to the 24th Street Transit Center
via East 22nd Street. After this project was approved, the City's general plan was updated.
Through this process, the City Council requested that no project be implemented if it resulted in
a significant loss of on-street parking. During the environmental phase, the City's continued
engagement with the community found a lack of support for a complete loss of parking
given that there aren't any other parking options available. The city is requesting a scope change
to remove the class one and class four bike lanes on 22nd street and add class two and class four
facilities on 24th street as well as signalized intersection improvements and bike boxes.
Caltrans performed engineering assessments of the updated scopes for National City's 24th Street
Transit Center Connections Project and the 22nd Street Separated Bikeways Project and has
determined that the changes will retain the safety benefits of the projects as compared to their
original scopes. With these changes, the recommended scope amendments will ensure
completion of the project benefits as promised in their applications. Staff has reviewed these
requests and concurs with Caltrans's assessments and finds them consistent with the active
transportation program guidelines. Therefore, staff recommends approval of TAP 91 and 92.
All right. Thank you, Alika. Any public comment? We do not receive any requests or comment on the
items. Thank you. A question or comment from the DICE. So moved by Vice Chair Phil Kong. Is there
second. Seconded by Commissioner Eger. All those in favor? Opposed?
Tensions? Motion is approved. On to item 93, Kayla. Good afternoon, commissioners.
Tab 93 is an action item to amend the local partnership formulaic program. This
amendment will make the following update to the current formulaic program of
projects. Add four new projects in Nevada, Marin, Sonoma, San Francisco, and San
and Joaquin counties and program a total of $7,494,000
in 2022 formulaic program funds
to various project phases in fiscal year 2025-26.
This action leaves $20,992,000
of 2022 formulaic program funding available
for programming through June 30th, 2026
one and $1 million and $8
million and $89,172,000 of 2024
formulate program funding
available for programming
through June 30th, 2028.
Staff recommends approval of
this item.
Thank you, Keila.
Any public comment?
We now receive a request to
comment on this item.
Thank you.
Question, comment, or a motion
from the dais.
So I move by Commissioner
Cruz, seconded by Vice Chair
this item is approved. Agreed.
Motion is approved. Items 94
through 95 Beverly.
Commissioners I will present
tabs 94 and 95 together with a
recommendation at the end. Tab
94 is an action item to amend
the 2024 trade corridor
enhancement program for five
projects. One of these projects
is a quick requesting a more
All changes are acceptable for the trade corridor enhancement program guidelines
The first project is the coastal rail infrastructure resiliency project in Orange County
Which was originally programmed with eighty million dollars for one component
The project proposes track protection activities in four areas
Along a seven-mile segment of the Los Angeles, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, rail corridor
also known as the Low Sand Rail Corridor.
The project addresses climate-related bluff erosion,
beach and revetment loss, and geologic landslides.
The project location consists of four distinct areas.
At its May 2025 meeting,
the Commission approved two partial allocations
for emergency work and project management support
in Area 3 of the project.
At the time of allocation,
The project did not have National Environmental Policy Act clearance for work in area three, so committed federal consolidated rail infrastructure and safety improvements program funds could not be used.
Area three now has received National Environmental Policy Act clearance. Therefore, the Orange County Transportation Authority is requesting a program amendment to align the project with the Commission's May 2025 actions.
and to adjust the distribution of trade corridor enhancement program funds between project
components so that consolidated rail infrastructure and safety improvements program funds can
be used.
If this amendment is approved, the project will include four components as reflected
in the book item.
Additionally, the total program amount of $80 million will remain the same and the approved
scope will remain intact.
The four remaining projects are requesting
minor technical changes,
which are outlined in the book item.
If approved, total programming to all four projects
will remain the same and all scopes will remain intact.
That concludes my presentation on tab 94.
I will not proceed to tab 95.
Tab 95 is request to approve baseline agreements
for nine 2024 trade corridor enhancement program projects.
Staff has reviewed the request
and recommends approval of TABs 94 and 95.
Thank you, Beverly.
Any public comment?
We have not received any requests to comment on these items.
Thank you.
Any question, comment, or a motion from the dais?
So moved by Commissioner Tiffany.
Is there a second?
Second by Vice-Chair Falcone.
All those in favor?
Aye.
Opposed?
Abstentions?
Motion is approved.
Item 96, Justin.
Thank you.
Tab 96 is an action item to allocate $5,871,000 in Proposition 1B Local Bridge Seismic retrofit
account funds for the 2025-2026 fiscal year annual allocation.
Approval of this item will allocate the funds to Caltrans and will also delegate to Caltrans
the authority to sub-allocate the funds to local agencies throughout the year.
As a reminder, these bond funds provide the local match requirement for a specific set
of local bridge seismic rehabilitation projects within the federally funded highway bridge
program.
The book item includes a list of seven bridges that are expected to receive funds this fiscal
year.
Of those seven bridges, three are already in construction and four of those projects
are initial construction allocations for projects moving into construction.
This program dates back to 2006 and these local seismic retrofit bridge projects
they all went the way back to 1989.
Back in 2020, in order to encourage delivery of the remaining projects in
the program, project delivery agreements were executed for the 40 remaining
projects in the program that had not yet moved into construction.
As of today we are down to 11 projects that have not yet began construction.
Those 11 projects are in Imperial County, Los Angeles County, Sonoma County, the city
of Barso, the city of Colton, the city of Oceanside.
We are chipping away at the list slowly but surely, and Caltrans has been great partners
with us as well as with local partners in pushing these projects forward.
One final note is that the funding in this program is distributed on a first-come, first-served
basis according to the current estimates there may not be sufficient funding to
cover all remaining bridges in the program we are working on possible
solutions but for this reason we would encourage agencies to come in for funds
as soon as possible staff recommends approval of tabs 96 thank you Justin any
public comment we'd never see the request to comment on this item thank
you questions comments or emotion from the dice so I move that Commissioner
to Tiffany, seconded by Vice Chair Falcone.
All those in favor?
Opposed?
Abstentions?
Motion is approved.
Now we will take tab 97 through 99 together.
Tim.
Thank you.
Tabs 97 through 99 are all action items
for shop allocations and will be taken together
with a recommendation at the end.
Tab 97 is an action item to allocate construction funds
for a shop minor program project in Kern County.
Please note a slight revision to the book item
as identified on the change list.
The project is a financial contribution to Kern County
to contribute funds to a locally implemented
intersection improvement safety project
on State Route 43 at the 7th Standard Road intersection.
The county proposes to install a roundabout
at this location.
A minor A project allocations
are typically delegated to Caltrans.
However, this project was not
on the delegated minor A project list
that the commission approved in June.
and therefore the project's required to come to the commission for an individual allocation.
Tab 98 is an action item for shop construction allocations. This item will allocate $104,586,000
for seven shop projects. Seven projects is a lower amount than we typically allocate at one meeting.
This is a result of the allocation plan that was discussed by Caltrans and Keith Duncan's
presentation yesterday under tab 16. These seven projects align with the
priorities that were approved by the Commission. Three of the seven projects
are emergency projects coming from a reservation. Two of the projects are
mandates, one for stormwater and one for mitigation. Two of the projects are
projects of statewide interest. One is a transportation systems management
project, which is necessary for the LA 28 Olympics. And the other project of
statewide interest is a financial contribution to construct three
wildlife crossings on Interstate 15 as part of the Brightline West high-speed rail project.
Tab 99 is an action item for shop pre-construction allocations. Please note there are a couple
revisions on this item on the change list and with those changes this item will allocate 67,272,000
for 51 shop pre-construction phases for environmental design and right-of-way.
staff recommends approval of tabs 97 through 99 all right thank you tim any uh online comment
we'd never receive any requests from our online attendees thank you i have a card for item 98 uh
neil desai uh national parks conservation association afternoon this is how we are afternoon
hey i think there are some people online but um maybe they'll raise their hands
Hey, good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Neil Desai with the National Parks Conservation
Association. I serve as our Pacific Regional Director. It's really nice to be here the last
couple days learning a lot, a lot of interesting important challenges you all are working.
Commissioner Brown, I'm so thankful that you're on this. I'm familiar with your work to improve
the lives of the communities all around this region over here. So really nice to see you again.
We strongly support this allocation for the wildlife crossings. It took such a long time
to get here working with the U.S. senators, the legislature, the governor, right, and here we are
at construction phase. I wanted to be here in person just to thank you, to see you,
and thank you, but also to impress upon you that this action right here is cementing Caltrans and
the CTC as part of a multi-generational effort to preserve our California desert. 40 years ago,
that generation stepped up and he designated all these national parks, Joshua Tree, Death Valley,
Mahari bookended earlier this year by President Biden designating the Chukwala National Monument
just in this east from Coachella Valley and in years to come people sitting up here or out here
they're going to be talking about the CTC and Caltrans and these wildlife crossings right and
the work that you're doing. I really appreciate everything you've done. I want a special shout
out to the District 8 folks. Miradeh Tim, he's a project manager, a specific individual working
that's been liaisoning with our external community out here and helping to move this project forward. So I hope you feel really good about this. When the shovel's in the ground out there, I'll be out there with you all. We'll be celebrating and I really appreciate your work.
Thank you so much for joining us. Any other comment online? Just a check. Yes, we did receive some requests from our online attendees. I'd like to first call on Megan Cleveland.
Good afternoon commissioners, this is Megan Cleveland with the Nature Conservancy.
TNC is a science-based organization that supports work worldwide to deliver conservation
solutions that benefit both people and nature.
We have applied deep technical expertise, tools, and resources in conservation science
expressly to conserve biodiversity and increase climate resilience.
And to that end, we have protected over 1.5 million acres of landscapes, preserving habitats
that are essential to nature and people.
We are in strong support of the requested allocation of more than 70 million to support
the construction of three overpasses that will help ensure movement corridors over the
I-15 and the planned Bright Line West high-speed rail.
As the effects of climate change intensify, animals will need to travel further to find
conditions that they need to survive.
Wildlife crossing infrastructure, like these three overpasses, will help protect native
populations by reconnecting wildlife linkages.
this. Thank you so much for your consideration. Thank you. Before we go to the next person,
just want to remind folks to mention the item number that you're referring to. Yes, thank
you, Chair. Up next, we have Clint Epps. Okay. Can everyone hear me? We can. Okay, great.
Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Clint Epps. I'm a professor of wildlife biology
at Oregon State University, and I'm just speaking to express my support and appreciation for
the consideration of, I guess it's item number 98, excuse me, this is funding for wildlife
crossings over Interstate 15. I've been studying the impact of the barrier that I-15 has created
on the desert landscape for 25 years, particularly with respect to bighorn sheep, and I think
this is one of the most important landscape scale
conservation actions that we could take at this time,
particularly when we are looking at the construction
of a high speed rail line that would really turn this
into an even more challenging barrier for wildlife.
So it's tremendously exciting to see this problem
basically getting to the point of being addressed
in this way.
And so again, I just wanted to express my support
and appreciation for this item.
Thank you.
Up next, we have Elizabeth Reed-Wainscote.
Hello, my name is Elizabeth Reed-Wainscote,
and I am speaking on behalf of the Center
for Biological Diversity on item number 98.
We strongly support the allocation of funding
for the I-15 Wildlife Crossings.
We are a national nonprofit that represents
over 1.8 million members and subscribers,
many of which are here in California.
For decades, we have been fighting
to protect our native landscapes
to support community and environmental health.
As we continue to face threats from development and climate change, it is imperative that we invest
in wildlife connectivity infrastructure so species can migrate to find food, mates, and suitable
habitat. We have been pushing for California to invest in these projects through legislation,
including two bills that we sponsored, AB 2344 and AB 1889, and we've been a part of this coalition
to ensure these specific overpasses are built, which are essential for sustaining wildlife in
in our Mojave Desert.
We're very grateful for the hard work
by Caltrans leadership and district eight staff
to get us to this point of construction.
And we look forward to when these overpasses are completed
and both wildlife and people can travel more safely
through this section of highway.
We therefore strongly encourage the commission
to allocate funding for this important project.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
I do not see any other request to comment on this item.
All right, thank you.
I'd like to recognize first Commissioner Tiffany.
Well, I was just going to say congratulations to reaching this this milestone in in protecting our wildlife.
It's it's obviously been a very, very long process, it sounds like.
And I just wanted to congratulate you for for reaching this milestone.
And and when the commission is ready, I will make a motion to approve.
I'd like to turn now to Commissioner Gordino.
Thank you, Chair Grisby, and I want to thank the work that's been done and the speakers
who came forward today, both in person as well as virtually.
I had a legislator contact me recently about this and, hey, with limited resources, why
are we doing these crossness for wildlife, and I reminded that very well-respected and
well-meaning legislator, this is safety for all of us.
Highway 17 through the Santa Cruz Mountains near where I live, that crossing.
When there are deer running across that road, if your car hits a deer, you know,
that's a bad day for the deer and everyone in your car and everyone behind
you as well. So I want to just encourage us all, as one of the callers
mentioned, this is a holistic approach that helps all of us in terms of our
health safety and if you know if you hit an animal like that there's gonna be a
lot of congestion behind you as well so this is this is something that we can't
forget is good for our environment it's good for our safety it's good for our
economy and it's good for our mobility and I will be enthusiastically seconding
the motion from Commissioner Tiffany thank you Commissioner Gordino now I'd
I'd like to turn to Commissioner Brown-Hines.
I will let Commissioner Tiffany make the motion.
But I did want to congratulate the coalition that
worked together to make this happen in the conservation
space.
I've had a chance to work with many of them
for almost the past decade.
And I know how hard they work to conserve our natural lands,
especially the desert escape.
So I, I just wanted to congratulate them on this as well.
And I'll turn it over to commissioner Tiffany.
I'd love to make the motion.
All right.
Thank you.
Um, so, so moved by commissioner Brown Heinz seconded by commissioner Georgino
commissioner Tiffany, if you feel strong about it, you can pick up that second.
I'll be your third.
All right.
Um, seconded by commissioner Tiffany.
All those in favor.
Opposed abstentions.
Motion is approved. Moving on to items 100 through 103, Casey. Thank you. Commissioners,
I'll be covering the state transportation improvement program allocations, tabs
100 through 103. Tab 100 is an allocation request for 55, excuse me, tab 100 is an allocation
request of 55,206,000 for the Wyden conventional highway segment 13 project, a state administered
construction project in Los Angeles County implemented by Caltrans.
Tab 101 includes an allocation request totaling $2,748,000 for three locally administered projects
off the state highway system in Sacramento and Amador counties, as well as planning and
programming and monitoring for two agencies.
Tab 102 is an allocation request of $5 million for the construction phase of the Folsom Light
rail station conversion project, a locally administered project in Sacramento County.
Tab 103 is an allocation request of 25,658,000 for the environmental phase of the Coachella Valley
San, I'm going to make sure I pronounced this correctly, San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor
Service Project, a locally administered project in Riverside County. Staff has reviewed these
requests and found them consistent with the STIP guidelines and staff recommends your approval
of tabs 100 through 103. Thank you Casey. Thank you. Any public comment online? Yes we do have
online commenters. I'd like to call on Raymond Gregory. And good afternoon Chair Grisby,
Honorable Commissioners and Executive Director Taylor. My name is Raymond Gregory. I currently
serve as Mayor Pro Tem for the City of Cathedral City, one of the vibrant communities in the Coachella
Valley, and serve as Vice Chair of the Riverside County Transportation Commission. I'm commenting
on item 103. Just want to take a moment to sincerely thank you for your thoughtful consideration
of the request for STIP funding to advance the Coachella Valley San Gorgonio Pass Rail
Corridor Project. And I also want to express our appreciation to your commission staff
for their diligent work in bringing this request to the current stage.
I want to attempt to summarize the project as I know you already are well aware of its scope,
scale and a critical role it plays in our region's transportation future. Bringing this project to
fruition will require continuing collaboration and commitment from all of us. Your approval today
will mark a significant step forward and we want to know you to know how much your support means
to us. We are truly grateful to be working alongside you on this important effort. Thank you.
Thank you for joining us that concludes all the online comments we received at this time.
Thank you. So now we're going to move to in person. Jeremy Smith, second vice chair of RCTC.
Good afternoon. Good afternoon, chair and welcome home. Little birdie might have told me that. Good
afternoon, chair and commissioners. Executive Director Taylor. Thank you, everyone. Appreciate
the time for allowing me to speak. My name is Jeremy Smith. I'm a Canyon Lake Council member.
I'm also second vice chair of Riverside County Transportation Commission on behalf
of RCTC chair Karen Spiegel and in collaboration with Vice Chair Raymond Gregor who you just
heard on the phone. I'm happy to speak today and thank you to the CTC and Caltrans for your
coordination and support for the Coachella Valley Rally Project. RCTC strongly supports
staff recommendation for the STIP allocation of 25 million
to allow RCTC to move into the next phase
of environment review, station studies,
and preliminary engineering.
Our county is united behind this rail project
and it has been exciting to see the collaboration
from my colleagues on RCTC into regards to rail.
When construction, when constructed,
the Coachella Valley Rail will be 144 mile
intersection passenger rail services
between L.A. Union Station and the Cajala Valley,
about 70 miles east of here.
We need to make big, bold moves, as most of you know,
to improve transportation in Southern California,
and CV Rail is exactly the type of solution we need
as a region and as a state.
Thank you for joining us in our vision
to bring daily rail service from east to west
across the entire Southern California.
With that, I respectfully request a ye vote.
Thank you.
Thank you for joining us.
Now we'll move to the dais to see if there's any questions
or comments or a motion.
I'd love to make the motion.
I mean, it is amazing when you think of what we will be able
to do for connectivity in the desert.
Really there's really only one way,
the 10 freeway to access it and it's by car.
So to have a rail option will be amazing.
And then I wouldn't just think of all of the folks
people who need to travel
between those spaces and any of
you who have been on that road
traveling out to Palm Springs
or out to the other parts of the
desert, this would be, I think,
like you said, transformational
for this region.
So I would love to make the
motion to approve.
Exciting project, indeed.
So moved by Brown-Himes.
Is there a second?
Seconded by Vice Chair Falcone.
All those in favor?
to item 104-106, Lashira.
Commissioners tabs 104, 105, and 106
will be presented together with a recommendation at the end.
The six allocation requests are for a total of $38,583,000
and include four local partnership
formulated program projects in San Francisco,
Alameda, and Contra Costa, and Sonoma and Marin counties,
and two competitive program projects in Stanislaus and Sacramento counties. Staff has reviewed these
requests and found them to be consistent with competitive and formulaic program guidelines.
Staff recommends your approval of tabs 104, 105 and 106. Thank you. Any public comment?
We'd never see a request to comment on these items. Thank you. Question, comment or a motion
from the dice. So moved by uh Commissioner Eker. Seconded by whom? Okay Vice Chair Falcom. All those
in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? Motion is approved. Going on to item 107, Matthew.
Thank you Chair Grizzby. I'm over here this time. Uh, type 107 is an action item to approve an
allocation request of $52,606,000 for the Southern California Regional Rail Authority's
Metrolink Locomotives Project in the 2024 Solutions for Congested corridors program.
As part of this allocation request, the local agency has requested to extend the
period of contract award by an additional six months beyond the six month allowable
for a total of 12 months.
Staff is going to recommend approval of that additional time.
This request is consistent with the solutions
for congested corridors program and guidelines.
Therefore, commission staff recommends approval of tab 107.
Thank you.
Is there a question, comment, or a motion from the dais?
So moved by Vice Chair Falcalaam,
seconded by Commissioner Eger.
All those in favor?
Okay, we'll move to second.
Chair, there's no request to comment on the item. Oh, we did. Okay.
Perfect.
Where is that coming from online?
Online crack.
Okay. Great. Thanks.
Oh, there's no, there was not any comment.
Okay.
My bad. All right. So we got.
On the record. So moved by vice chair fall clung,
seconded by commissioner Eager, all those in favor.
going on to item 107 Naveen. Vice Chair, yes I just presented that for Naveen.
Kat. Good afternoon Chair, can everyone hear me? We can. Okay good. Good afternoon
commissioners, tab 108 is an action item requesting an advance allocation of
350,000 to the local transportation climate adaptation program, Interstate 80
and aquatic park lagoon sub-surface culvert resiliency project in Alameda
County. The project is located in the City of Berkeley along Interstate 80. The
City of Berkeley is requesting an advance allocation from fiscal year 26-27
to the current fiscal year 25-26 to initiate the environmental phase.
Staff has reviewed this request and find it consistent with a program's guidelines.
Staff recommends approval of tab 108. Thank you Kat. Any public comment? We do not
receiving a request to comment on this item. Thank you. Question comment or a
motion for the dais. Motion approved. So moved by Commissioner Tiffany seconded by
Commissioner Brad Shaw. All those in favor? Opposed? Stentions? Motion is
approved. On to item 109 and 110, Jayden. Commissioners tabs 109 and 110 are
action items to consider approval to allocate $15,492,000 for 17 locally-administered active
transportation program projects as well as to consider approval to advance allocations of
$2,631,000 for three locally-administered active transportation program projects.
Please note that within tab 109, project number 15, which can be identified by PPNO 3617,
will include the addition of a secret date which will be reflected on the final actions taken
report. Staff has reviewed tabs 109 and 110 and recommends your approval. Thank you, Jaden.
Any public comment? We do not receive any requests to comment on these items. Thank you.
uh, question, comment, or a motion from the DICE motion to approve Bradshaw motion to approve, uh, commissioner Bradshaw seconded by commissioner Tiffany. All those in favor, I post stentions motion is approved on the item. One 11 cat.
Good afternoon commissioners have one 11 is an action item requesting an allocation of 42,000,000,000,000 to seven projects in the transit and intercity rail capital program.
Please note that projects five and six were removed via the change list prior to the meeting.
Staff has reviewed these requests and find them consistent with the agenda's change list,
the program's allocation policy, and program updates.
Staff recommends approval of projects one through four and seven through nine under tab 111.
Thank you, Kat.
Any public comments?
We do not receive any requests to comment on this item.
Thank you.
Question, comment, or a motion from the DICE?
Motion to approve, Bradshaw.
Thank you, Commissioner.
I'll be addressing one 12 through one 25 together.
These are action item consisting of time extension request for
projects from the following programs.
The state highway operation protection program.
The state transportation improvement program.
The state transportation improvement program.
The state transportation improvement program.
the State Highway Operation Protection Program,
the State Transportation Improvement Program,
the Local Partnership Program,
the Trade Corridor Enhancement Program,
the Infrastructure for Rebuilding America,
Solution for Congested Corridors Program,
the Active Transportation Program,
and Transit and Inner City Rail Program.
Staff has reviewed this request and determined they are
consistent with their respective program guideline.
please note of the change list for tab 114.
Additionally, there were some last-minute revisions
that I would like to highlight.
Under tab 113, the time extension request for the first project with the project planning number is 2598,
was reduced from 20-month to 12-month,
and the projects with project planning number 2633 and 5204 were withdrawn at the CTC meeting.
The book item itself will be revised accordingly to reflect these updates
Lastly tab was 118 was also withdrawn staff frequency approval tabs 112 through 125
Thank you. I met any public comment
We do not receive any requests to comment on any of these listed items. Thank you
Question comment or a motion from the dais. I'll make a motion but also an opportunity to thank I met for all his work indeed
Thank you, man
Thank you so much.
Excellent.
Well, so moved by Commissioner Gardeno,
seconded by Commissioner Eager.
All those in favor, it's all good.
Thank you.
All those in favor?
Aye.
Opposed?
Abstentions?
Motion is approved.
Commissioner Crescia.
It's uplifting, thank you.
Yes, thank you, thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner.
Thank you.
Right, and we're back to Ahmed again
for items 126 and 127.
Thank you.
Tab 26 and 127 are action items for your consideration
regarding the approval of time extension amendments
as an exception to the SHOP guideline.
Tab 126, an amendment to the project completion
for a state highway operation protection program
in Alameda County.
Tab 127 is an amendment to the project development
expenditure for two SHOP projects.
We had a last minute change to Tab 126.
The requested time extension amendment was revived
to reflect the need for an additional five months
instead of nine.
The new time extension deadline is May 2026.
Commission staff have reviewed this request
and recommend your approval of tabs 126 and 127.
Thank you Ahmed.
Any public comment?
We do not receive any request to comment on these items.
Thank you.
Question, comment or a motion?
Madise?
So moved by Commissioner Tiffany.
Second.
Second by Commissioner Bradshaw.
All those in favor?
item, please. Opposed
extensions. Motion is approved.
Item 128. Jaden.
Commissioners tab 128 is an
action item to consider
approval of a time extension to
amend the period of project
allocation for the locally
administered Hetch, Hetchy
Railroad Trail project in
Tuolumne County as an exception
to the active transportation
program guidelines. Staff has
comment. There was no request a comment on this item. Thank you. Question comment or a motion from the
dice. So moved by Commissioner Eager second by Commissioner Tiffany all those in favor. Aye.
Opposed. Bensions. Motion is approved. Item 129. Cat. Thank you. Good afternoon commissioners.
Cab 129 is an action item for a time extension amendment for the period of project development
expenditure for the transit and intercity rail capital programs 2018-19
Valley Rail Hall exciting upgrade component in Sacramento County staff has
reduced his request and supports the succession to the programs allocation
policy staff recommends approval of tap 129 thank you cat any public comment
there's no request to comment on this item thank you question comment or motion
from the dias. So move by Commissioner Bradshaw. Is there a second? Commissioner Eager seconds.
All those in favor? Opposed? Stentions? Motion is approved. And we are now moving to public
comment. I see we have a card coming. Thank you. Irma Flores, please come forward.
While we try to figure out what's going on there, is there any public comment online?
Yes, I'd like to call on Kelly Brinkman. Hello, good morning, or good afternoon.
Thank you. I was encouraged to hear the emphasis on DEI at the October meeting. While Caltrans
excels at building infrastructure that keeps California moving, this approach to real estate
management presents significant challenges. My name is Kelly Brinkman and I have been a Caltrans
at 711 South Pasadena Avenue for 18 years.
According to Carolyn Damme's presentation
at the last meeting,
my home is classified as a single family residence.
However, I've been informed that it is being treated
as a multifamily property,
requiring me to purchase not only my home,
but also the neighboring farmhouse
at 679 South Pasadena Avenue,
including a barn, Taft building, a flat,
and a three-car garage built in 1916
with an underground gas tank, all at fair market value.
I have respectfully requested
that the proper lot lines be drawn to annex
the 679 South Pasadena Avenue address.
But I have been clearly told this will not be considered.
In our presentation, Ms. Dambi noted,
If you residents in the 710 corridor are unhappy with the sales process, in reality, I'm not aware of a single resident who is satisfied.
I've attempted to provide public comment on this October 16 but was unable to do so.
Given the ongoing issues with the 710 corridor, I believe an independent audit of the sales process with legislative oversight is both necessary and overdue.
My home should be sold to me at an affordable, single-family price, not at a multi-family fair market value.
A president for this already exists.
We ask that a 710 corridor update also be added to the CTC agenda.
Thank you for your time, sir.
Thank you for joining us.
And for your attention to this matter.
Thank you.
And that concludes.
I don't see the women who turned in the speaker card, but Irma Flores will give you one more shot.
Herma Flores, you turned in a speaker card.
All right, thank you.
And I recognize Carl Gordino, Commissioner.
Thank you, Chair Grisby.
Whenever we're in Riverside, I think many of us,
if not all of us, think of our former longtime colleague
and leader, Papa Joe Tavallone.
And if it is the pleasure of our chair and commission,
I'd like us to have a moment of silence
to adjourn in his honor today.
All right.
All right, thank you for joining us in Riverside.
Thank you to our hosts here in the Alien Empire.
We are adjourned.