All right. Good morning, everyone. We're going to get started.
All right.
Alright, welcome everyone to the second day of the March 2026 CTC hearings. I'm going
to turn it over to Douglas for roll call and instructions. Thank you chair. Commissioner
Bradshaw. Vice Chair Cruz. Mr. Brown Heinz. Commissioner eager here. Commissioner Elliott.
here. Commissioner Grisby here. Commissioner Gordino. Commissioner Lugo. Commissioner man.
Commissioner Tiffany here. Chair Falcone here. Senator Cortese. Assemblymember Wilson. Chair,
we have a quorum. Thank you, Douglas. And now instructions for public participation. Welcome
Welcome to day two of the March 2026 CTC meeting in sunny Malibu.
The meeting agenda is located on our website at www.catc.ca.gov.
All of the 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 the CTC creates can be translated to any language you need.
e-mail us at ctc at catc.ca.gov and we will have them return to you as soon as possible.
American Sign Language Translation is being provided on the webinar for this meeting.
You should see the translators on your screen. Live closed 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 our presenters, if you're on the agenda to make a presentation, please do your best to
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.
The members of the public,
we welcome comments from the public
as a part of each item at this meeting.
For those attending in person,
please submit a speaker slip to the clerk
at the front of the room.
And that's me and I have speaker slips up here.
There's also more on the materials tables
just outside the door.
and that will let us know what item you want to comment on.
For those attending via 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 this system time to acknowledge you.
Commission staff will let you know
when it's your turn to make your comment.
Alternatively, you may use a Q&A tab
to submit your comment in writing.
Please be sure to include the agenda item number
you are commenting on
and Commission staff will read the comment on your behalf.
As a reminder, each registered attendee
has provided a unique link and phone number
to access this webinar.
These should not be shared with other participants
as this can create confusion for staff
when you're making comments.
For all of our meeting attendees,
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 any single topic,
we reserve the right to limit comments
to one minute as needed.
Thank you for joining us today.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Douglas.
Okay, I'm gonna withhold any stories I usually start with.
So we have a very busy agenda.
So we are gonna start with Tab 24,
adoption of the final 2026 state highway operation
and protection program, also known as SHOP.
And we have Mr. Pray.
Good morning.
Tab 24 is an action item to adopt
the 2026 state highway operation and protection program.
As you noted, otherwise known as the SHOP.
Please note the changeless for this item
does highlight some letters that have been received
the commission regarding the proposed 2026 shop. The shop is the state's fix-it-first program.
The 2026 shop is a four-year, approximately $17.9 billion program consisting of approximately
600 proposed projects and reservations for future unidentified needs. All this is to preserve and
protect our state highway system. The requirements for the preparation and adoption of the shop are
outlined in Government Code Section 14526.5. This statute requires Caltrans to prepare
a four-year shop based on the asset management plan to submit the shop to the commission
by January 31st of each even year. Prior to submitting its proposed program, Caltrans
is required to make a draft of the program available to transportation planning agencies
for review and comment and is required
to include the comments in its submittal to the commission.
And so in accordance with that, on December 8th, 2025,
the shop was made available
to regional transportation planning agencies
and also many other stakeholders for review for comment.
Caltrans accepted comments from December 8th
all the way through January 16th.
And then on January 30th, 2026,
One day earlier than the statutory requirement,
the proposed 2026 shop was submitted to the commission
with comments from transportation planning agencies
and other stakeholders included.
And since January 30th, as required by statute,
the commission's been reviewing the proposed shop
relative to its overall adequacy and its consistency
with the asset management plan.
Our review has consisted of high level analysis
the program in comparison to investment levels and performance targets approved in the Transportation
Asset Management Plan and State Highway System Management Plan, as well as a low-level detailed
review of many of the 600-ish projects in the program.
And then additionally, as part of our review, we held two public hearings.
One on February 5th in the city of San Diego and one on February 12th in the city of Stockton.
So upon reviewing Caltrans's strategic asset management process and the nearly 600 individual
projects in the program, over half of which focus on the four primary asset classes, Commission
staff believes the 2026 shop is adequate and consistent with the transportation asset
management plan.
While the decreased funding target, target funding capacity in the 2026 STIP fund estimate
may make it challenging to meet some of the commission adopted transportation asset management
planned performance targets. The four-year portfolio of projects in the draft 2026 shop
proposes a balanced distribution of projects across all asset classes to make progress towards
meeting the performance targets. I want to thank Diana Campbell along with her predecessor Mike
Johnson as well as Rich Stone and his team at Caltrans and many others at Caltrans who put a
lot of work into the development of this program. There were significant adjustments and many
difficult decisions that had to be made this cycle because of the funding decrease that
we saw. And their team put forward a very balanced program which maximizes the available
funding for the next four years. So the final 2026 shop will consist of the draft 2026 shop
that was submitted to the commission on January 30th with project revisions as noted in attachment
I want to thank our staff for
their time this evening.
I would like to thank the
governor and staff for their
time this evening.
I would like to thank the
governor and staff for their
time this evening.
I would also like to thank the
governor and staff for their
time this evening.
I would also like to thank the
governor and staff for their
time this evening.
I would also like to thank the
governor and staff for their
time this evening.
I would also like to thank the
governor and staff for their
time this evening.
I would also like to thank the
governor and staff for their
time this evening.
I would also like to thank the
governor and staff for their
time this evening.
I would also like to thank the
governor and staff for their
Thank you. All right. We're
going to recognize Caltrans is
new chief deputy director Cory
Bins. Welcome Corey. We're
looking forward to working with
you and we we've known each
other since he was district
director for District 11 some
years ago, so it's good to see
you again. Thank you. All right
with that public comments
Good morning commissioners, Sophia Avikova Coalition for Clean Air. We asked the CTC to prioritize complete streets projects within the SHOP program.
Complete streets projects ensure that our roads are usable for everyone, not just drivers.
By adding pedestrian, bicyclists, and transit infrastructure, these improvements not only promote multimodal use, helping reduce air pollution and climate emissions, but also help improve the safety of these streets.
these streets. And one study found that complete street projects help avoid a total of $18 million
in collision injury costs in one year. And with vehicle collisions still resulting in over 4,000
deaths each year in California, installing complete streets improvements can be a matter
of life and death for many. However, the proposed shop projects do very little to get as closer to
meeting our 10-year complete street goals. With the 2026 shop, it proposes to add 200 miles of new
bikeway facilities, yet the state highway system management plan identified that almost 2,000 miles
of bikeways are needed to meet the 10-year need. This means that Caltrans is only proposing to
build 11% of the infrastructure that the state truly needs. Additionally, 62% of shop projects
were found not to have any ADA, bike, pedestrian, or public transit elements. Not only is this not
in alignment with the rest of the efforts to build a more sustainable transportation system,
but it's also not in alignment with the recently passed SB960, which requires Caltrans to at least
publicly document why projects are choosing not to include any complete streets elements.
And so we urge the CTC to consider early compliance with SB960 to ensure we are on track
to meeting our complete street targets and to protect the safety of all who use our roads. Thank you.
Any award, Walther? Thank you and good morning. Chair and commissioners, thanks for the chance to
join you on your morning. Alana, did you have water in the dish over there? Of course, one of your
meeting. Yeah. Good morning, Commissioner Eager. I am going to echo Sophia's comments and on behalf
for the Climate Plan Network as well as many of the groups that worked hard to pass SB 960.
I just want to say, I think we're pretty frustrated at this moment to review the shop. And I think
particularly, I just want to lean into the real lack of transparency that I'm feeling and I think
we're seeing in this shop in terms of the approach that is being taken with respect to complete
streets. As Sophia said, you know, we can parse out some data like what percentage of projects are
including these elements or not. But I'll be very honest with you, we are hearing from local
advocates all around the state in lots of districts that projects are being either pushed
out of the shop entirely that are complete streets projects or that those elements are being removed
from projects. And, you know, just as an example, there's, you know, in one district, we've heard
from folks on the ground that all of the class one trails that were included in shop projects
have been pushed out and, you know, deemed to be not eligible for this shop. And
SB 960 really did not allow for this to be optional. The purpose of SB 960 is that these
facilities should be included everywhere that they're needed. And, you know, as you know,
as you discussed yesterday, spent a lot of time talking about ATP and how important that is and
on how much those facilities are needed.
These facilities are in places where people are dying
and where we have real serious safety issues
on our roadways.
So I just urge you to push Caltrans
for greater transparency in the decisions
that they're making and to lean in harder
to complete streets in the shop.
Thank you.
Up next, we have Jared Mullen.
Okay, good morning commissioners.
Jared Mullen, transportation manager
at the city of El Cerrito.
I'm speaking on behalf of the city today.
El Cerrito is a city of 26,000 people
just north of Berkeley in the San Francisco Bay Area.
We are the proud home of two BART stations
and one of HCD's first pro-housing cities.
The first phase of our 743 unit AB2923 project
at the El Cerrito Plaza BART station
just broke ground earlier this year.
Our community backs sustainable transportation
and housing policies with action.
I'm here today to respectfully ask that you advance
the State Route 123 pavement rehabilitation project
in Contra Costa County as originally scheduled
with construction starting in summer, 2026.
The shop changes before you today would delay this project
by two years to 2028.
This is not just a paving project,
it is also a safety project.
The Caltrans response to commission comment number 12
and attachment E for this item
implies the project safety features
are isolated to one intersection.
This is not the case.
Instead, the upgrades are systemic and corridor wide,
which include new flashing crosswalk beacons
at two existing crosswalks,
new safety lighting at 11 intersections,
high visibility pedestrian signs and markings
at 19 intersections,
and narrower lane markings corridor wide,
a proven safety countermeasure.
These were developed in collaboration
with district board staff
who I do wanna thank for their partnership.
With that said, we cannot wait.
Motorists have killed two pedestrians along this corridor
in the last two years.
State Route 123, known locally as San Pablo Avenue,
is our city's main street.
The second busiest bus corridor in AC Transit's network,
and the city has entitled over 1600 units
along the corridor.
The changes to the 2026 shop before you today
would delay and risk denying the community
life-saving safety measures as costs escalate.
Please advance the state route 123 pavement rehabilitation
project in Contra Costa County as originally scheduled
with construction starting in 2026.
Thank you.
Up next, we have Jared Sanchez.
I have the commissioners.
Jared Sanchez with CalBike.
We're very concerned that Caltrans and CTC
are not properly following SB 960 signed into law in 2004,
which required the agency to implement complete streets
in its shop projects.
This 2026 shop cycle is the first instance
where the bill's intent takes effect.
However, we're seeing more of the same severe lack
of complete street improvements being proposed.
Not only are we not seeing the planning on safer streets
on our shared state and highway system,
there's also little to no transparency
on how and why Caltrans is making the decisions.
Our research shows that almost 75% of the proposed projects
in the shop cycle are missing complete street assets
identified in the 2025 SHSMP.
Initially we're hearing that in order to meet budget constraints, local Caltrans districts
are proposing to delay or cancel complete streets projects and components.
It goes without saying that budget constraints should not come at the expense of safety to
our most vulnerable road users.
If budget constraints are going to be justification as it ordinarily is, Caltrans needs to be
transparent about why and how it chooses to ignore complete streets needs.
Project funding for bicycle and pedestrian safety features is falling short of Caltrans'
own internal calculations of what's needed.
We understand that Caltrans does not plan a report on SB 960 exemptions until 2028,
a date that is not set in statute.
Accordingly, we request that the CTC request a comprehensive update from Caltrans on the
implementation of SB 960 with the goal of setting the baseline without waiting additional
two years.
Specifically, the update should include, one, all Caltrans efforts to implement 960, including
in district offices, two, documentation of exemptions that have happened so far, and
I have a question. I would
like to ask you three how
budget constraints are
impacting the implementation
of s B 9 60. Thank you for
letting me provide comment
today. Next we have Michael
Swire. Yeah. Hi. Thank you to
the commission for their
efforts. My name is Mike
Swire. I live in San Mateo
County. I'm a safe streets
advocate. I'm also an
ambassador for families for
safe streets, which is an
organization. Uh that helps
to traffic violence, help them advocate for safer streets.
I wanna echo everything you've heard today
that safe streets improvements
are not happening quickly enough.
The past month I've met with multiple families
that have lost loved ones.
My county has had more than 300 deaths
and 2000 serious injuries on our streets
in only the past decade.
Yesterday in the New York Times,
there was a very troubling article on a driver
who ran over an entire family at a bus stop in San Francisco.
one of the most allegedly walkable cities in the country.
Thus I'm asking the CTC to request a clear
and comprehensive update from Caltrans
about how they're implementing complete streets
through SB 960.
And I hope that you keep all of the aforementioned projects
in the plan and well-funded.
Thank you so much.
Lee and Beatty.
Hi, thanks and good morning commissioners.
I'll keep it quick.
I'd like to uplift what my colleagues have said,
particularly Jared Sanchez, this is an area
where CTC oversight is particularly helpful
in making sure that complete streets
are being rolled out as intended by law.
And so I'd like to uplift the ask to request
for the CTC to request a comprehensive update from Caltrans.
Thank you.
We have Mike Woodman.
Thank you, Mike Woodman, Executive Director
of the Nevada County Transportation Commission.
Just today, I wanted to speak in support of adoption
of the 2026 STIP and also of the efforts
of Caltrans staff, both district headquarters and CTC staff
in trying to address the reduction in the funding
for the shop program.
It's never easy when you have a reduction
for the shop program to make those hard decisions
of what projects move forward.
It's important to note that the shop
is not only an asset management program,
it addresses safety issues on the state highway.
We also have new requirements that you've heard today
in relation to SB 960, as well as the transit policy.
So there's a lot of things being asked of the shop
and the shop is an underfunded program.
So it's one of those things that we spoke about yesterday.
There has to be a balance and it's a challenge
and your staff and Caltrans staff do a great job
of rising to that and trying to, you know,
meet the multiple requests that are on the shop. So I think they do a great job. Understand the
challenges this cycle, and again, recommend my support for adoption of the 2026 shop. Thank you.
We have Chris Roberts. Hello, I'm Chris Roberts, a member of San Diego 350, which is a member of
the Climate Plan Network. I want to amplify that climate plans analysis shows that of 288 projects,
62% have no ADA, bike, pedestrian, or public transit elements, and 75% are missing the key
complete streets assets identified in the 2025 SHSMP. Failure to meet complete streets project goals
have severe negative outcomes in more and more pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities.
Also, Climate Plan has learned that Caltrans does not plan to report on SB 960 exemptions until
2021-2028. This is unacceptable. We need to establish the baseline for funding of complete
streets projects. And so we request that the CTC request a comprehensive update from Caltrans
on the implementation of SB 960 this year, not in 2028. Thank you for all the work to put together
the 2026 shop budget. Hello, Madam Chair, members of the Commission. My name is David Martinez with
streets for all. I want to echo a lot of what prior comments have said and state, quite
simply, that we need more complete streets funding. Yesterday you received a presentation
from walk-in rollers and during that presentation you mentioned, some of you mentioned, that
you have visited the city of Costa Mesa.
So, I want to give you a specific example.
Just last week in Costa Mesa,
a pedestrian was fatally struck and died on State Route 55.
That same highway route is receiving about $66 million
today in the shop.
None of that money will be used
to protect future pedestrians none of it will be used towards complete streets for Costa Mesa.
This is one life that could be saved by future investment that could have been saved with past
investment in complete streets that is now just gone. We need this complete streets funding so
I encourage the commission to actually follow S B nine 60 and get some complete streets funding.
Thank you. Okay. Thank you to the books that called in their public comment. Um,
we're going to go with, uh, speakers in the room. We're going to start with Julian Quisado.
Good morning Farrah Falcone Commissioners, Deputy Director Bint and Deputy Director Gee.
My name is Jillian Gazzotto with the Riverside County Transportation Commission, also known as
RCTC. RCTC supports Caltrans's proposed 2026 shop. Caltrans's charge is to address all the needs
of residents and visitors throughout our diverse state
and of course where possible the desires too.
It's unfortunate so much of the increased shop funding
generated by SB1 must be directed toward addressing
the increasing number of transportation emergencies
our state faces but imagine the state of our transportation assets if that
funding hadn't materialized. RCTC and Caltrans have a lot in
common, more needs and desires than we have funding for. We
understand the difficult position Caltrans finds itself
in having to prioritize certain projects while delaying others
that are equally as important. This will be an ongoing
challenge for our Caltrans colleagues, as they continue
being expected to do more with less until the funding
shortfalls impacting the shop can be remedied. RCTC is happy to
provide support for the 2026 shop as Caltrans endeavors to maintain its assets in a condition
that facilitates our state's economic prosperity and all user safety. Thank you.
Thank you. Next speaker is Jose Luis Cosares.
Good morning, Chair Falcone, distinguished commissioners and going to get it right, Chief
Deputy Director Golosewski.
Oh, excellent.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak on the 2026 shop.
I'm not gonna repeat the comments of my colleague,
Ms. Guizado, but I could.
My name is Jose Luis Casas.
I am the Director of Programming
and Program Delivery for Stancog.
That's the Stanislaus Council of Governments.
I'd like to briefly share our region's positive experience
working with Caltrans District 10.
Shortly after the draft shop was released,
district staff approached us proactively
and met with us and took the time
to answer all of our questions.
While we like others are disappointed
by the impacts of the program overall,
we greatly appreciate District 10's transparency
and engagement.
Like other regions, we were disappointed
to see some project schedules push back.
However, contrary to the experiences
that some have just shared this morning,
we were delighted to see the District 10's commitment
to complete streets fulfilled.
Specifically, we are very pleased to see the addition
of a critical, long lead complete streets project,
the State Route 132 Modesto Pavement Anchor Project.
This project represents an important complete streets
investment in Modesto and in the town of Empire.
These are very disadvantaged communities
through which this highway goes.
It's going to improve mobility, safety and accessibility
along this stretch of highway in the past five years,
11 people have been killed in vehicle related collisions.
It's like there's a newspaper article every month
about something on 132.
We appreciate that despite budget challenges,
Caltrans is prioritizing complete streets in our region.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you.
Next step is Carla Langley.
And I know that Dominique Davis was going to see time.
it's not typical of us to cede time.
So if you can keep your comments to two minutes,
that would be appreciated.
Okay. Thank you.
And thank you for being here.
Thank you for having me.
Hi, my name is Farla Langley and I'm incredibly grateful
to speak before you today.
44 days ago, my son Hunter Austin Langley died
Malibu Canyon Road. That was February 4th, 2026. He was 16 years old. This is the first time in
Hunter's life he's been away from me for 44 days and counting. Let me tell you a little bit about
Hunter. Hunter was a quiet giant. Hunter was a scholar. He was a brilliant athlete. He was a
friend, an employee, a business owner, a brother, a son, a nephew. Hunter was a quiet giant. He was
was the kind of kid that during holidays he would email his
teachers and wish them Merry Christmas, happy birthday. And
he never told us the only way I know that to tell you about him
today is because his teachers after he died came to his father
and I and said, let me tell you about your son out of all the
students we've had here at Sierra Canyon private school
hunter was the only kid that reached out to us throughout the
year. What a quiet giant this kid was. He had an infectious
smile. Hunter was the most amazing kid that I have. I have four kids. This is my daughter,
Dominique. And although I love all my kids, Hunter was special. Hunter was the one that showed up
for me all the time. Hunter was the most amazing kid. He was a brilliant athlete. But what I'm
here today to ask is that Hunter's car went airborne 300 feet in the air and ran into the,
and ran into a mountain. His car, the drop where his car went off coming around from Pepperdine
University at marker 3.1 around the curve, his car went off the side of the road and there was
75 to 200 feet drop. So his car was airborne in the air until it dropped into a fatal crash.
This could have been prevented had there been guardrails. There's guardrails, and I'm sorry,
So I'm sorry, I'm speaking aggressively.
It's not intentional because I'm nervous
and I'm very passionate.
So please forgive me.
Madam chair, I'd like to ask a question to the speaker
if that's all right.
Sure, yes, go ahead Commissioner Elliott.
Ma'am, I'd like you to see
if you could continue your comments please.
Okay, so the guardrails,
there are guardrails from 1.8 to 3.1,
but at marker 3.2 to 3.6, there's no guardrails.
There's no runoff, so if there's no recovery zone,
there's a limited shoulder.
It's a narrow shoulder, which means that cars,
it's a fatal accident waiting to happen, which happened,
because there's no flat runoff in this area.
So what I'm humbly asking is that we install guardrails
there, we install concrete barriers
to prevent future accidents happening.
It happened to my son, Hunter,
but it doesn't have to happen to your kid.
The pain that I feel every single day,
throughout the day all day, I can't explain how I feel.
I don't ever want anyone to ever feel my pain.
So if we can do something to prevent this from happening
because of the students at Pepperdine,
because of the hundreds of thousands of cars
that go on Malibu Canyon Road,
if we can prevent this from happening, let's do it.
Now that we know better, we have an obligation to do better.
So I am, there's guardrails throughout the canyon.
And in fact, there's places throughout the canyon
that has a guardrail that doesn't even need it.
So why not move those to where it needs?
There's no shoulder, like let's say someone got a flat,
there's no place for them to run off.
If they go off the side, they're going down the canyon.
Now that we know better, we have an obligation to do better.
So could you please take this under consideration?
If I have to fundraise, I'm happy to do it.
My kid went to a private school.
I'm happy to do whatever it takes.
Tesla's willing to do it, Sierra Canyon.
Please, I'm humbly beg, let's prevent this accident
from happening to any other family.
Ms. Langley, thank you so much for you and your family
for being here and for sharing your very tragic story.
We are very sorry for your loss.
He sounds like an upstanding young man
and it was an opportunity for all of us lost
for losing a life like his.
Commissioner Guardino wanted to make a comment.
Thank you, Chair Falco.
to parents, I can't even imagine your grief. Thank you for joining us today and your family.
If you could follow up with more specifics about where you would like to see guardrail's
place so that we can collectively work with Caltrans District 7 and all concerned to see
their perspective what is possible. And so we'll do that. But we'll need your input on
that. Okay. And thank you for turning such an awful tragedy into a way of trying to help
others in the future. Thank you. Now I do have that information already written up.
Should I submit it to your office or where should I submit? Yes, please. Perfect. Thank
Thank you to Caltrans District seven Gloria Roberts is our outstanding director of Caltrans
District seven and of course to our CDC staff. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank
you. Have a blessed day everyone. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Gordino and I think
Commissioner Elliott wanted to do a follow up question or comment. Thanks, Madam Chair.
I was just asking the speaker to continue so that she could finish her comments.
Thanks for sharing your story and my condolences for your loss.
Absolutely. If I could ask District Director Gloria Roberts to
approach and maybe address this particular area that has been brought up by the speaker.
Thank you. Thanks for being here.
Thank you very much, Chair Falcone, commissioners,
Deputy Director Gail Luszewski, and Deputy Chief Deputy Binns,
Ms. Langley.
Thank you for your loss.
We were actually happened on the morning of the day
that we were talking about the improvements
that we were making on PCH with the traffic signal synchronization.
and that was a horrible way for us to acknowledge also that we have more work to do.
And so, Caltrans along with L.A. County, sorry, I need to speak into the mic, thank you.
Caltrans along with all the city of Malibu of course, but also L.A. County, Malibu Canyon
is a county road.
But regardless of whose jurisdiction,
we all have the same interest in making sure
that we are doing what we can to be proactive
in implementing our safety measures.
So I would like to,
if you can provide me with the information,
we have a very close working relationship
with the County Public Works Department
and we will work together to implement
the suggestions that you have recommended
and also any more that we can to prevent
the tragic loss of your sons and also future lives.
So thank you for sharing this with us
and the grace to the commission
for providing the full time
for Ms. Langley to provide her comments.
Thank you.
Thank you, Director Roberts.
And thank you again to the Langley family
and please accept our deepest condolences for your loss.
And it sounds like there's gonna be some follow-up
after this hearing with the appropriate folks
that can really look into this situation
of that stretch of highway.
Okay, well, thank you to all the speakers.
And with that, I will turn it over to my colleagues
for any questions or comments on this item.
Madam Chair, if now would be an appropriate time.
I actually did have a follow-up question.
It wasn't for Ms. Langley.
Thanks to a number of the other public comments
we received around 960 implementation.
I was briefed on Caltrans's efforts before this meeting.
And I'm prepared to support the item, but before we do so,
I'd like to ask if there is someone from Caltrans
who is ready, willing, and able to step up to the microphone
and share perhaps some of the details
that they shared with us in pre-briefings
on 9.6 implementation.
So I'd like to address the commissioner's question.
Congratulations, commissioners, deputy chief.
My name is Diana Campbell.
I'm the acting state asset management engineer
for Caltrans.
And regarding SB 960, I am also have been riding a cyclist
and avid cyclist for the last 30 years.
I've ridden many centuries up and down California.
Matter of fact, I was witnessed a fatality
on the Marin Century organized bike ride.
I have a near family member that has also recently been
in a near fatal bicycle accident hit by a vehicle
not too long ago.
And I've also implemented bike and ped back years ago
on a bridge in Markleyville, California for the death ride.
Yes, there is an organized ride called the death ride,
very popular.
So I've been implementing SB 960
well before SB 960 became a law.
And I can assure you that we're meeting our needs
and doing the best we can.
And the reason for me saying all that is because
not only am I speaking from a programmatic perspective,
but also from a very personal user perspective as well.
And just to level set a little bit,
The S2026 shop does make bike and ped pedestrian targets
established in the 2025 SHSMP management plan
per SB 960 requirements.
Yes, we've had some challenges and yes,
we've had to defer some projects,
but the 2026 shop is still planning to deliver
more than 160 lane miles of new bikeways
representing an increase of more than 40%
of the existing bikeway inventory.
Further, in the last six years, we've also implemented
approximately 160 lane miles of bike and pen,
and that's not just class one, class two,
that's also class three and class four.
Also, while I understand the shop rebalance
causes some concern, but they're resources directed
to the most critical assets on our state highway system.
So our supplement assets are not necessarily,
they may be deferred, but they're definitely
that we must do to account for
Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to express my condolences to Hunter's family and following up
on my comments yesterday around community engagement in the transportation planning process,
I just wanted to recognize my colleagues on the commission for the tremendous work that they do
and that the commission staff do to be an open door. It's ridiculous, right? We know behind the
the scenes, how ridiculous it is that the streets that we're out there sharing are regulated
by different agencies, different jurisdictions, different municipalities, you know, is it
federal funding? Is it state funding? Is it local funding? It's a complicated mess. And
I so appreciate being part of a commission that works really hard to support people in
navigating this deeply complicated transportation space,
you know, we're never the wrong door and that's incredible.
So I just, I feel called to recognize the leadership
that I've seen in my four years on the commission
from first Chair Eger and then Chair Guardino
and then Chair Grisby and now Chair Falcone
to really create that open door.
I really, really appreciate it.
Thank you for modeling that.
Thank you, Commissioner.
Any other further comments or questions from the dais?
The bins.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just wanted to share an offer up at the department.
We'll always continue to be open to meet
with the speakers here today,
expressing their concerns with the shop.
So I'm looking forward to that.
Thank you, appreciate that.
Okay, with that, again,
To the Langley family,
thank you for putting a human face to the work that we do.
It's what we started with yesterday
with this hearing is talking about,
all the technical and complex work
that we all do in this room and even beyond this room
in really stewarding our state's transportation infrastructure
but we have to always remember the lived experience
and how it affects people.
And so, again, we as a commission,
one extend our heartfelt condolences for your loss
and appreciate you taking the time
and having the strength to come to us
and share your story.
And it really puts a real human face to why we have
to be very thoughtful and intentional
about the decisions we make.
So thank you again for being here.
With that, we do have an item that is for an action
and we'll entertain a motion
if anyone wants to make that motion.
Thank you, Commissioner Eger.
do I hear, do I have a second?
Second.
Okay, second by Commissioner Tiffany.
All in favor?
Aye.
Okay, all opposed?
Thank you and definitely we have a lot of work to do still
and but we appreciate the work that has gone
to putting this shop, 2026 shop together, so thank you.
Okay, moving forward.
So I'm still trying to take my breath after this one.
Okay, tab 25, draft 2026 transportation asset
to management plan, the TAMP and to Mr. Sobelman.
Thank you.
Tab 25 is an information item.
Please note the change list for this item,
which highlights letters that have been received
by the commission regarding the proposed draft
2026 transportation asset management plan.
Government code 14-526.4 requires a department
in consultation with the commission
to prepare a robust transportation asset management plan
to guide the selection of projects
for the state highway operations and protection program.
Transportation plan shall consist
with any applicable state and federal requirements
and commission approved guidelines.
That the transportation asset management plan
and its development processes be updated
at least every four years to incorporate improvements
and reevaluate conditions, targets, and performance.
This will be the third update
to the California Transportation Asset Management Plan.
The commission will be asked
to approve the Transportation Asset Management Plan
at a future CTC meeting.
Diana Campbell is back again,
the Caltrans Acting Statewide Asset Management Engineer,
and she will provide a presentation
on the draft 2026 Transportation Asset Management Plan.
We'll turn it over to Diana.
Thank you, Tim.
Again, good morning.
My name is Diana Campbell.
I'm the acting state asset management engineer
for Caltrans today.
Thank you for the opportunity today
to present the draft 2026
transportation asset management plan.
Next slide, please.
I'll start by giving you a brief update.
The plan covers a four year period
and under federal rule,
the transportation plans is required
for every state in the United States
with a limited number of physical assets
and processes, asset management,
which we'll cover in the next couple of slides.
Now, there's also a financial analysis aspect to this
that covers a 10-year horizon,
similar to the State Highway System Management Plan.
The difference with the TAMP
is that it covers both state and local assets.
So as you can imagine, it's quite a extensive coordination
with all the cities, agencies, and counties
throughout California.
Next slide, please.
The Transportation Asset Management Plan,
also known as the TAMP, is produced to comply
with several federal regulations and state regulations,
as you can see here.
We have two oversight entities for approval of the TAMP,
and one is the Federal Highway Administration
under Federal Regulations and Commission
under state regulations.
Next slide, please.
Now, this is a really key slide.
On the far left, you have the California Transportation Asset
Management Plan, also known as the TAMP.
The second document is the State Highway System Management Plan,
also known as the SHSMP.
Now, this is a slide that's important to show
that these are two very distinct documents
that operate on very different levels of detail.
So when reviewing the TAMP,
please keep in mind that it's very narrowly focused
into four core assets, bridges, pavements,
transportation management systems, and culverts.
Whereas the SH-SMP is fundamentally different
where it covers 30 assets across 12 districts,
making it orders of magnitude more detailed than the TAMP.
Now, this distinction is particularly important
when reviewing public comments,
which often focus on the details.
And that's more included in the SHN 7P than the TAM.
Next slide, please.
At a high level,
the TAM includes federally acquired number of elements,
as you can see here,
some of which are inventory and condition,
performance targets, life cycle planning,
financial plan, and investment strategies.
Next slide, please.
This is also really important
for the Commission to understand that under federal rules,
The TAMP focuses on a system
which we call the National Highway System.
And that's part of the state highway system or the SHS
and a very small component of the local roadway system.
And to give a complete view that meets both federal
and state requirements, we show two views.
One is the federally required NHS view,
which Caltrans and our local partners both share,
and the SHS, which is owned and operated by the state.
Next slide, please.
So this slide provides a quick snapshot
of the National Highway System.
The blue lines, as you can see here,
are locally owned facilities.
And these are predominantly located
in the metropolitan areas like San Francisco, San Diego,
and Los Angeles, in the Bay Area.
Next slide, please.
Within the TAMP, we also document
the National Highway System inventory.
How many lane miles do we have,
and what condition are they in?
So I hope the Commission finds this particular breakdown
of condition easy to read.
It's either good, fair, or poor
both pavement and bridges. Next slide please. Now the TAMP also includes a further breakdown
by ownership between state and local responsibilities. So on the left we're
showing that the National Highway System of payments where the cities and counties own
approximately 36 percent of the lane miles and the state owns the remaining 64. Next slide please.
Similarly for bridges we also present both ownership perspectives on the National Highway
system Caltrans owns about 90% of the total bridge deck area statewide with the local
agencies owning the remaining 10%. Next slide, please.
Throughout the years, we've tried to develop pools that will help our MPOs and cities and
agencies with this effort. So I just wanted to show you just a real quick graphic so the
commission can see the complex analysis that goes behind the scenes. Next slide, please.
Within the TAMP, you'll also see targets for both pavement and bridges that are required
under federal rule.
This excerpt shows asset conditions
can really vary drastically all across California.
And some of the variations are due to self-help counties.
Funding, for example, self-help counties
have local measures that generate transportation
dedicated revenue, while non-self-help counties
rely mainly on state and local funding.
This plan makes all of this very transparent,
breaking down conditions by not only agency, asset type,
and we even break it down by cities
within counties in California to provide complete transparency
to the public.
Next slide, please.
As mentioned earlier, there's a financial analysis component
to the TAMP.
We're required to conduct multiple investment scenarios.
So one, we examine what would it take to maintain our assets
in the current condition?
Two, what would it take to get to our desired state of repair?
And three, third scenario, what local agencies
and Caltrans realistically can achieve given fiscal constraints, inventory,
and current asset conditions.
Next slide, please.
So here's a quick timeline.
We've submitted the draft TAMP to the Commission
and Federal Highway Administration back in January.
And I wanted to take a moment to, at this point, to really thank Commission staff,
Tim Solman and John Pray for their outstanding efforts and collaboration.
I could not have done this without you.
Thank you so much.
Also, FHWA, Chris Long, and Doug Ecock for all of their efforts as well in collaboration.
We've been meeting with Chris biweekly to address any of their comments on the TAMP
to make sure we're meeting federal regulations.
So thank you so much.
Next slide, please.
So the TAMP took well over a year to develop in collaboration
with all of our transportation partners.
Many, many people contributed, and I wanted to acknowledge everyone from our executive team.
Prior leadership, Mike Johnson in particular, and Lauren Turner for all their tireless efforts
in development of this TAMP right up to the day they retired, as well as the Caltrans project
team who did most of the heavy lifting, and also CTC staff, of course, FHWA, MPOs, and RTPA's.
Next slide, please. We also had many presenters from cities, counties, and agencies. There's such
a long list here whose support was so essential. So thank you so much for MTC, SKAG and all
the other entities and partner stakeholders that helped us in development of this TAMP.
Next slide, please. All right. I can't break Keith Duncan's streak. So Commissioner Tiffany,
this picture is for you, as we talked about in February, back in February. This is a real
world example of how the TAMP is implemented in practice. The TAMP guides how we prioritize
our investments to maintain or preserve our California transportation assets through data
driven asset management, lifecycle management and innovation.
The bridge retrofit project I'm highlighting today is an example of how those principles
are actually applied and I suppose only with a person with a bridge background can consider
this scaffolding beautiful but this bridge was beautiful bridge photo was taken by our
structures rep at the time David Galarza.
This bridge is in Monterey County, it's about 15 miles south of Carmel by the sea.
It is 16,178 square feet a deck area and took five years to complete.
But what may not be apparent from this lovely photo is this Caltrans piloting new technology
leveraging new emerging technology to remove chlorides from the bridge, or in other words,
prevent from further deterioration.
This is Caltrans playing offense and the cost for playing offense, $10 million.
This is a lot, but if we were to play defense, we would have frequent maintenance, potential
emergency repairs, and bridge replacement, which would be very costly.
As the commission has seen in the 2026 shop project cost breakdown slide, the majority
of the projects fall within the $5 to $10 million range.
And this is a clear example of how our investment pays off.
aligns with the TAMPS focus on preserving bridge assets before deterioration requires
more costly replacement. And yes, Commissioner Tiffany, this bridge is very safe to drive
over I assure you. With that, this concludes my presentation. I'm appreciative of your
time and I'm happy to take questions or comments at this time.
Thank you, Diana. First, we will go to public comment, Justin.
question. Thank you, Jeremy. We
do have some attendees on line
with their hand raised. I'd
like to first. Call on Andy
Maggie. Sheriff Falcone and
members of the committee.
Thank you for the opportunity
to comment on the transportation
asset management plan. My name
is Andy Magi, and I represent
Pew Charitable trust. Pews U. S
Conservation program advances
common sense solutions that
address the impacts of a
changing environment and nature
I'm commenting today to encourage the inclusion of wildlife connectivity considerations into the final TAMP, despite its significant value to moving people in goods, California's vast transportation network is a major contributor to habitat fragmentation
and wildlife population decline through breaking up large landscapes disrupting migrations and gene flows and increasing mortality through wildlife vehicle collisions.
The impacts on wildlife are in addition to nearly $200 million incurred by Californians annually in property damage, emergency response, and other related costs when wildlife and vehicles collide on the State Highway System.
Recognizing the benefits of wildlife-friendly infrastructure, California has enacted statewide policies directing agencies to integrate wildlife connectivity and collision reduction strategies into transportation planning and project delivery.
Unfortunately, despite the clear policy direction, the current draft TAMP does not reference
or operationalize any of the state's connectivity related mandates or objectives, or even consider
wildlife vehicle collisions.
The absence of connectivity and wildlife vehicle collision reduction infrastructure from the
asset management framework limits the TAMP's ability to fully address known safety risks,
system vulnerabilities, and long-term life cycle costs.
We do recommend updating the Transportation Asset Management Plan to recognize wildlife
connectivity and wildlife vehicle collision reduction infrastructure as performance objectives,
incorporate inventory and condition assessment of wildlife passage infrastructure, establish
performance measures and targets for wildlife connectivity infrastructure and your time
is expired.
Thank you.
Hello, my name is Angus McLean, Wildlife, Corridor and Crossing Project Manager.
Pardon me?
Angus, you're free to meet yourself.
Hello, can you hear me now?
Hello, can you hear me now?
Hello.
Hello, are you able to hear me now?
We can hear you online.
Okay, super.
Hello, my name is Angus McLean, Wildlife, Corridor and Crossing Project Manager with the Nature Conservancy.
I appreciate the opportunity to make a brief comment regarding wildlife connectivity in
the Tampon Shop.
I'd first like to thank Caltrans for their partnership in advancing wildlife crossings
throughout the state and for the work that has been done thus far to connect wildlife
passage infrastructure with the shop and the system of asset management.
Wildlife crossings are essential to the safety and resilience of the state's road network
and wildlife vehicle collisions are the leading cause of mortality for many iconic wildlife
populations like threatened Southern California mountain lions. However, wildlife connectivity
is still primarily pursued opportunistically via standalone projects and as a result we're
not moving at the pace and scale necessary to address the state's documented needs in
a cost-effective manner. Building on the progress that Caltrans has made, we ask that the TAMP
formally integrate wildlife passage infrastructure into asset management and that performance
objectives be set for these assets in a similar manner to other asset classes. This will ensure
connectivity needs and infrastructure are identified, prioritized, funded, and tracked
in a more effective and efficient way. Moving towards a more systematic approach will ensure
that we don't miss opportunities to implement crossing improvements within larger pavement,
bridge, and culvert rehab projects. This way we only have to dig once, saving significant
time and money while enhancing driver safety and resilience outcomes. Thank you to the Commission
for your time and consideration and we look forward to continued collaboration with Caltrans
to advance wildlife connectivity and driver safety.
They all mine attendees.
Thank you Justin, and thank you Diana again.
Any questions or comments from the dais
or virtually from commissioners?
Yes, Commissioner Lugo.
Yes, thank you Chair.
Just following up on that last comment,
I wondered if you could tell us about how the integration
of wildlife connectivity with Department of Fish
wildlife takes shape in the TAMP. Sure, appreciate the comment. Caltrans
recognizes the benefits of wildlife connectivity. Wildlife connectivity is
not directly incorporated into the TAMP because under federal rule we're only
required to include bridges and pavement. Instead it's actually
addressed in parallel in the State Highway System Management Plan as well
as the SHOT Plan. Performance objectives for wildlife connectivity, we've actually
had an objective since the 2021 SHSMP. We also have a fish and wildlife program
that feeds directly into the shop and they have been working very closely with
California Department of Fish and Life over the last several years and
collaborating with many many stakeholders including again California
Fish and Wildlife State and federal and local partners to identify and
prioritize all these projects to further advance these priorities. So we
definitely recognize the need and we appreciate the comment. Thank you. Thank
you for the question. Any other yes Commissioner Tiffany? I couldn't let your
comment ask without letting you know. Thank you for the presentation and yeah
Keith has got some work to do. But anyway it's on my to-do list. I'm gonna
drive across that bridge and check it out. So thank you very much and
and excellent presentation. Thank you. Okay. Challenge accepted by Commissioner Tiffany.
Thank you Diana again for the presentation and we look forward to the update as you head towards
June, the June meeting. Yeah. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Okay.
Next item is the draft vehicle weight safety study report to the legislature. Kayla,
Your swan song. Yes, thank you. Yes, Chair Falcone commissioners tab 26 and informational item includes a presentation on the vehicle weight safety study or a B 251 draft report to legislature.
An overview of the draft report draft legislative considerations and an opportunity for questions.
Next I'll provide an overview of the draft report.
Next slide.
The 8251 requires the Commission to convene a task force to study the relationship between
passenger vehicle weight and road user injuries and fatalities, degradation of road infrastructure,
equity considerations, and appropriate responses, such as imposing a passenger vehicle weight
fee.
Additionally, the Commission is required to consider zero-emission vehicles and submit
a report to the legislature next slide provides an overview of the process to develop the
draft report commission staff contracted with a team of researchers to study the requirements
of the legislation. The results of which were presented during task force meetings in 2025.
The academic research the summary of task force findings and feedback from the commission
and EAC were used to develop the draft report
that is being presented today.
After the public comment period concludes,
feedback received to date will be used
to develop the draft report.
Next slide.
The draft report is available on the commission's website
and included as Attachment A on the agenda book item,
which I believe is a yellow,
and includes the information outlined in this slide.
Next slide.
Draft legislative considerations.
I'll first provide key findings from the academic research
and task force process,
and an overview of engagement feedback to date.
California was one of the first states
to adopt the safe system approach as a policy mechanism
to achieve zero fatalities and serious injuries by 2050.
This is reflected in multiple plans
and further reinforced in the 2025
Joint Secretary's policy on road safety.
Next slide.
How did the injury trends amongst vulnerable road users which by the way I should define
as those who walk by can roll to get around, continued to trend upwards.
In response, the commission in its 2022 annual report recommended the legislature authorize
a study on how larger and heavier vehicles may impact vulnerable road users, which was
enacted as AB 251 in 2023.
Next slide.
serious injuries and fatalities continue to increase.
Size and weight of all passenger vehicles also continues to increase.
Larger and heavier vehicles transfer more kinetic energy and impact vulnerable road
users with greater force.
Sedans are the most common vehicle type involved in fatal and serious injury crashes with vulnerable
road users across all geographies, meaning rural, urban, suburban areas.
However, SUVs are expected to overtake sedans as the most registered vehicle in California
and are the fastest growing vehicle type involved in crashes with vulnerable road users.
Next slide.
Eyes meaning hood height and other features increases the risk of fatality and serious
injuries for vulnerable road users.
a top cause for death of youth and affect disadvantaged communities 50% more
than other areas, next slide.
The research showed that growing vehicle size and weight are correlated with an increase
in vulnerable road user injury and fatalities,
meaning both of these trends have moved in the same direction.
Although there is a correlation, it is not clear
if there is a causation between these trends.
While it is possible some relationship
between these trends exist, the research does not show
that an increase in passenger vehicle size and weight
is in vulnerable road user injury and fatalities.
Next slide.
Be needed to mandate vehicle design changes.
A higher one-time fee could reduce consumer demand
for heavier weight vehicles and generate substantial revenue.
Any exemptions to this may drastically
reduce revenue generated.
It's an infrastructure and the safe system approach
can reduce fatalities and serious injuries
for all road users.
Next slide.
Provide an overview of engagement and feedback
that we've received to date.
Again, a commission, interagency equity advisory committee
presentations, provided stakeholder updates, and had conversations with
public schools and some of their other representatives across the state of
California.
We've received included consideration of equity, further fleshing out nuances and
collision trends, best practices across the country and the world, and how
revenues may be directed if a fee were enacted. And as Sequoia in tab 14, I believe, mentioned
during her equity update yesterday, commission staff presented a summary of task force findings
to the interagency equity advisory committee in December. And that feedback was incorporated
in the draft report presented today. We also presented the draft report on March 4. Again
at the EAC's meeting, including how commission staff responded to the December 12 feedback
that was received. Next slide. California state legislature. There are two considerations
total here summarized. One includes a weight-based fee for passenger vehicles and a motor vehicle
non-occupancy safety assessment.
And I should say regarding the first consideration,
it's considerations regarding a weight-based speed
for passenger vehicles.
Next slide.
And I'm going to go a little bit into kind of how we arrived
at these considerations before presenting them.
As mentioned on slide 11, there is not a causal relationship
between growing passenger vehicle size and weight
and increases in vulnerable road user injury fatalities.
Passenger vehicle weight across all fuel types
does not adversely impact road degradation
compared to commercial freight trucks,
vehicles with many more axles than passenger vehicles.
And a passenger vehicle weight fee
is unlikely to change consumer purchase behavior
unless it were extremely large.
And for these reasons, implementing a passenger vehicle,
next slide,
The weight fee is not being recommended.
A few considerations in the following slides,
should the legislature choose
to impose a passenger vehicle weight fee?
If it considers that further,
it should calibrate the fee to differences in vehicle weight
while balancing against undue cost burdens
for vehicle owners and administrative feasibility.
Next slide.
There's an existing programs that enhance roadway safety for all road users and vulnerable road users in particular.
So this is also across infrastructure and non-infrastructure funding, I should say.
Next slide.
The fee annually at vehicle registration and setting of the amount that accounts for engine type to avoid disincentivizing adoption of zero emission vehicles.
And also should better the fee in the broader context of the state's need for a sustainable
funding mechanism for its transportation infrastructure.
By addressing the approximately 215.7 billion shortfall over the next 10 years as identified
in the commission's needs assessment, investments can address the entire transportation system
to enhance safety for all modes.
Next slide.
Again some key takeaways related to our next consideration which is the motor vehicle non-occupancy, non-occupant safety assessment.
Historically, the focus of federal standards has been on improving safety of vehicle occupants as opposed to those outside of a vehicle, which is in contrast to case studies coming out of other countries similar to United States.
Additionally, the automotive industry has advanced integration
of optional vehicle safety features preceding
federal standards.
Next slide.
To provide more fleet information to consumers,
the legislature could consider establishing a voluntary motor
vehicle safety rating program
that considers safety outcomes for vulnerable road users.
This program could be administered through partnerships
with private industry and would provide information regarding passenger vehicle safety features
to potential buyers. An administrative cost to implement such a program are unknown at
this time, but should include incentives for manufacturers to choose to participate on
a voluntary basis. Next slide. For the presentation, taking questions, I just wanted to provide
It's just some key dates and next steps here.
Again, the draft report public comment period
is currently open with the last day
to submit public comments on April 1st.
My email address is here on the screen
where you can submit public comments.
It's cayla.mcdonelatcatc.ca.gov.
And we anticipate that the staff will present
final report to the commission for your approval at the May commission meeting before is of
course transmitted to the legislature. Next slide. Questions. Thank you, Kayla. Any public
comment, Justin? No seeing any requests online to comment. Okay, thank you. Any questions
or comments from the dais? Yes, Commissioner Lugo. Thank you, Chair. Once again, I'm talkative
today. I love it. I was wondering, Kayla, did the question of vehicle height come up at all in the
conversation? Because I know that, you know, I really appreciate, you know, how you've shared
the findings as they've been developed with commissioners. And I feel very, you know, just
grateful for the good work that's gone into this. But I do wonder in terms of height, because we
just as a frequent user of roadways outside of motor vehicles, it does seem like taller cars,
maybe drivers in those cars don't have as many opportunities to notice folks outside of the
vehicle. So to directly answer your question, yes, and I'll explain how, but I do also want
to reiterate, as you're probably well aware, vehicle weight, passenger vehicle weight was
was the focus of the study and the basis
for the academic research.
So that was what was the primary factor
that was looked at in the research and explored in depth.
So the research is a basis
for what was presented the task force
and then the findings that were produced
that were also a key basis for this draft report.
They did have some information on hood height
and there is a slide I think in here that did describe.
height as a factor. So, you know, didn't go into depth about it, but I believe so it's
between 30, 30 plus inches of hood height had, I think 30 to 40 inches was a 26% increase
in fatality rates. And then 40 plus hood height was related with a, I think it was 44% increase
fatalities and serious injuries. I think we'd have to look back at that slide to get that
perfect. And then certainly that information is provided in so it's Appendix B if you want to
read about that further of which is the academic report in the draft report. And that's certainly
something that came up with a task force and then with our conversation with schools. We also did
explicitly ask if vehicle weight was of concern and what came up instead was vehicle height and just
you know, generally larger vehicle size, difficulty with blind spots and so on of seeing children.
And then we didn't present it here, but in previous presentations, especially regarding
the task force findings, the academic research and the task force reinforced, you know, concern
about children which are 82 percent more likely to be killed if struck by a SUV or larger
vehicle than a sedan, than a lower slope lower hood height vehicle. So hope that answers your
questions. Happy to follow up if there's anything else. Yeah, thank you for that. So just one follow
up question. Is the issue around vehicle height included in the recommendations to the legislature
or kind of framed as an area where some future research is needed? That's included in, again,
the academic research and in the task force findings. But I think we also in particular
emphasize you know funding not just for should the legislature consider a fee and revenues were used
for some purposes we not we didn't only say you know it should fund infrastructure it should fund
also safe routes to schools, behavioral campaigns.
And I think Justin, you might wanna say something.
I think we would also anticipate that would be covered
under the vehicle safety assessment
if that were to be implemented by the legislature
because that would look at how vehicle design impacts
crashes with one of the road users.
Thank you, Judge.
Those are good thoughts.
Commissioner Tiffany.
Thank you, Chair Falcon.
I have a question and a couple of comments.
My question is, and you touched on this slightly,
I'm just curious, did you guys look at
or previously looked at comparing us to Europe?
Because as I think most of us know,
in Europe you don't have large trucks,
you have much smaller vehicles.
Now I realize there's all kinds of other components
which makes it really difficult to separate it out,
but I'm just curious, when we compare the United States
to places like Europe, how does fatality rates
and accident rates, do you have any idea?
The question directly about how the fatality
or serious injury rates differ or compare.
And I am not certain if we have that,
I don't believe we have that in our research,
But we, you know, from our December 12th meeting
with the subcommittee of the EAC,
and we heard it again at also this most recent meeting
with the EAC, that that suggestion has been brought up.
And that is actually something
that our academic research team did draw
from in their, obviously in their research.
So one example, I'll just say,
I know this not answer your question directly,
but the new car assessment program,
which is the second, so the second consideration
is modeled after a little bit or derived
from the European new car assessment program
which looks at again, pedestrian fatality
and serious injury outcomes with a passenger vehicle.
So there's definitely some consideration
regarding what we've seen in countries
similar to United States and also in other states
in the United States.
We do, although some of those other comparative examples aren't elevated as a legislative
consideration, we do have that in the academic research where we looked at regulations and
a number of different case studies from across the world in the United States.
Okay.
Thank you.
And then I was just going to comment, and I think I've made this comment previously,
It doesn't surprise me at all that your findings would find that unless it was a very large
weight feat that it's not going to change by our habit.
For many years now, we have been moving more and more toward larger vehicles, for better
or for worse, trucks, et cetera, and obviously common sense tells us that the larger the
the more damage unfortunately those vehicles can inflict whether it be on
other vehicles or on vulnerable users as we're talking about even though I
understand that there isn't as that as a sole correlation you know I for one and
I know this is probably your recommendation for the legislature to
look at and this is a certainly a sensitive very sensitive area politically
but that doesn't mean a weight fee, a smaller weight fee couldn't be used to wouldn't change
by our behavior, but it could be used to help fund some of these areas that we've been hearing
so much that we don't have enough funding for. For the active transportation projects and the
and the like, and for providing safe streets,
and so that the vulnerable people
are more protected from the vehicle.
So I think that that is something
I'd like to see the legislature look at,
even though I do understand
that's a difficult thing to look at.
I think that they would also, I would hope,
need to take a look at possibly income level,
because obviously people from lower income struggle
as it is with pricing vehicles and gas prices, et cetera.
So, but anyway, thank you for presentation.
Very interesting.
Great suggestions.
Okay, commissioner Brown-Hind.
Yeah, I just wanted to kind of add to that a little bit.
I was really looking at some of the findings
and some of the data.
I think one of the data points about disadvantaged
communities, I think it's twice as many fatalities
and across kind of types of vehicles.
And so I was wondering about the utility of the data
beyond the vehicle weight assessment.
If it may not be the scope of, of course the presentation
to the legislature, but is there any discussion
about what can be, how the data can be used
to address some of the findings
that we've seen beyond the vehicle weight question?
Not gonna get used to it.
Yeah, I really appreciate elevating that further.
You know, I think one of the things I didn't get into
for the sake of time, but it was included
in the legislative considerations verbatim.
We included our legislative considerations verbatim
on the slides.
And so one of those things was,
and also to Commissioner Tiffany's point,
was regarding underserved disadvantaged communities
and exemptions or discounts to a fee based on income.
but I'm interested in your comment and sorry,
not just income, but I shall also say disability
and other considerations.
And then we, you know, from the DMV,
they have a disabled person's placard and so on.
There's some mechanisms administratively
that were talked about for consideration
should a fee be enacted and to provide, again,
exemptions or discounts to underserved populations.
but we appreciate that comment
and take it further into consideration.
Thank you, Commissioner.
In the legislative considerations,
we talk about reinvesting potential revenues
in existing programs like back in transportation program.
The ATP in particular has almost entirely gotten
to funded investments in disadvantaged communities.
There's a statutory requirement for 25% of those funds
to go to disadvantaged communities.
And I think every cycle we hit
somewhere between 95 and 100%.
So extending that thought a little bit,
you could potentially hope that
if there were additional revenues for that program,
it would be targeted in those types of communities.
We have immediate past Chair Grisby with his hands up.
Go ahead.
Thank you, Chair.
Appreciate that, Chair.
So I definitely wanna concur with Commissioner Tiffany
on all of his comments regarding this.
It's good economic policy as well
to address negative externalities
through some type of monetization.
But there is a cultural element that I like to address.
Would recommend anyone interested in this topic
to find some of the comments made by Senator Ruben Gallegos
of Arizona.
And as a Democrat, I found them to be very illuminating
and helpful in that there are a lot of communities
this country that view getting a big truck as he called it quote big ass truck as a cultural
relevancy point in our country of making it to be able to provide for your family by getting a
big truck and carrying your tools and carrying your family members in the truck is considered
to be a lot of people's version of the American dream. So there's a cultural element that we also
have to address along with the right thing to do to make sure that everyone can follow along
with us and good policy. So just wanted to mention those things and I appreciate this conversation.
Thank you for the comments. Any other comments or questions from my colleagues?
Okay, I'm just hearing all of these thoughtful comments and questions. And I mean, in essence,
we are investigating safety, right, and how how we can ensure approaches as it relates to
keeping people safe, not only inside the car, outside the vehicle. One consideration as I was
listening that I have and we have you and I have talked quite a bit about this
this work is autonomous vehicles you know as as as autonomous vehicles
proliferate our streets and I'm starting to see some even in in in my part of the
the state was has there been any conversation or discussion about that in
in your work was brought up by our task force members
and included in the task force findings.
Beyond that, I believe I don't have the exact figure,
but I think we looked at the amount of vehicles
and it's extremely small, meaning for autonomous vehicles.
So I think that's just a growing consideration,
but it wasn't anything further that addressed in my mind
our legislative considerations, but I appreciate the feedback. It was documented as something key
that came out of the findings, so that could be something further to look at.
And hopefully industry that are focused on will consider this kind of work as they are developing
their fleets and what is best in integrating with other vehicles on our infrastructure.
Obviously, technology is going to figure a lot in the coming years of how we can make vehicles
just safer. So keep at it. I know that this is this is your last presentation to us in your current
role. And appreciate, you know, the work. I know this is personal to you and the work that you have
done on this with your team. And look forward to the continuing work in this space that you'll be
doing in your next rule, Kayla. I really appreciate that. Thank you. Information calendar, Justin.
Thank you, commissioners. Tabs 27 through 46 are information items that have been reviewed
and found to have no issues raised by commission staff. Therefore, individual items will not be
presented unless requested by a commissioner. If there are no questions, that will conclude
the presentation of the information calendar and on to the consent calendar back at you
admissions tops 47 through 64 pardon um public comment on the information calendar
thank you chair there was no request to comment on the uh information calendar okay thank you
still getting used to this role by the way all right justin back at you commissioners tops 47
through 64 are action items on the consent calendar. Please also note the change list
for tabs 50, 51, and 58. Staff recommends approval of tabs 47 through 64.
Thank you Justin. Any public comment on the consent calendar?
I'm not seeing any requested comment on the consent calendar at this time.
Okay thank you. Any questions or comments from the dais? No? Okay I'll entertain a motion.
I'll move for approval. Okay. A motion by Commissioner Tiffany. Second by Commissioner
Brown-Hines. All in favor. Aye. Any opposed. Abstentions. Okay. The consent
calendar passes. Thank you. Okay. Tab 65 is a resolution of necessity. Mr.
Sobelman. Thank you. Commissioner, Tab 65 is an action item for three resolutions of
of necessities or RONs.
The RON hearing was requested by the property owners
due to impacts to their properties
from a project on State Route 74 in Orange County
within the city of San Juan Capistrano.
The project is planned to relieve congestion,
improve safety and support long-term mobility.
Facility from two to four lanes, upgrade intersections
and improve bike and pedestrian access.
In addition, the project will construct retaining walls,
sidewalks, and sound walls.
At this time, I'd like to ask if the property owners
or a representative are in attendance
or participating virtually.
We have a hand raised from a Charles Krolikowski.
Thank you.
Before hearing from the property owners or Caltrans,
I'd like to briefly go over
what we're gonna consider 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 1245.230
of the code of civil procedure prior to the commission
adopting a resolution.
The three findings are does the project interest
and necessity require the proposed project,
is the project plan and located in a manner
that will be most compatible with the greatest public good
and least private injury,
and is the property necessary for the proposed project.
The fourth finding requires that an offer
to acquire the property in accordance
with the government code Section 7267.2
has been made to the owner of record.
It is the commission's understanding
that the department provided these offers
on July 3rd of 2025 and March 27th of 2025
for the respective partials.
The commission neither determines
the amount of compensation for the property rights
to be acquired nor deals with any issue
other than the three findings.
Section 1245.240 specifies eight affirmative votes
are needed for commission approval
of a resolution of necessity.
Caltrans will provide a presentation
and then we will hear from the property owners
or their attorneys.
Rizwan, Caltrans assistant chief engineer
is here to provide the department's presentation.
Good morning, honorable commissioners.
I'm Rizwan Tanveer,
and I'm here to present the Caltrans request
to approve the resolution of necessity
For the State Route SR-74 widening project
in Orange County, Caltrans District 12.
Parcel 104334 is owned by Fernando A. Kellenberger,
Diego Kellenberger, and Fernando Kellenberger
and Enner Chengala, husband and wife all as joint tenants.
Parcel 104335 is owned by Fernando Kellenberger
and Enner Chengala Living Trust, dated June 16, 2016.
parcel 1 0 4 3 3 7 is owned by Margaret Bretton Brutal call and Robert Giovanni Brutal call husband and wife as joint tenants. Next slide please.
In my presentation, I will go over the project and parcels location parcels acquisition how Caltrans meets the four statutory findings property owners contentions and can transfer responses.
And finally, a summary of the four statutory findings.
Next slide.
It's located on SR 74,
also known as the Ortega Highway,
marked with a red star here.
SR 74 is a conventional highway from Interstate 5
in the city of San Juan Capistrano
to the Orange County line
and travels east into Riverside County.
Next slide.
The project location is shown in yellow, on SR-74,
from Caullier and Tradaro, post mile 1.0,
to the eastern city limits
of San Juan Capistrano, post mile 1.9.
SR-74, through the project limits,
is a two lane highway, one lane in each direction.
Subject parcels, highlighted in orange,
are located on north side of SR-74.
Brutal call parcel is at the intersection
of Hunt Club Drive and SR 74 on the left
and Kellenberger parcels are located
near the eastern end of the city
of San Capistrano on the right.
Next slide.
This slide shows acquisitions
from Kellenberger parcels shown in orange.
The required temporary construction easement areas
are shown in purple
and fee acquisition areas are shown in red.
The green line with yellow tick marks represents
the existing Caltrans access controlled right away line.
On the left, parcel 104334 is 92,819 square feet in total.
The project requires 5,687 square feet
in temporary construction easement, TCE,
which is 6.1% of the total parcel size.
The project also requires 2,507 square feet in fee acquisition, which is 2.7% of the total
parcel size.
On the right, parcel 104335 is 99,687 square feet in total.
The project requires 3,800 square feet in temporary construction easement, which is
23.9% of the total parcel size and 1712 square feet in fee acquisition, which is 1.7% of
the total parcel size. Next slide. Broodacao parcel, 104,337, shown in orange, is 48,631
in total. The project requires 737 square feet in temporary construction easement shown
in purple, which is 1.5% of the total parcel size. Project also requires 260 square feet
in fee acquisition shown in red, which is 0.5% of the total parcel size. Next slide.
Before presenting details of the proposed project, I declare that the Caltrans has met
the four findings needed for the Commission to approve this resolution of necessity.
And the following slides, I will describe with facts how Caltrans has met these findings.
Next slide.
Related to the first finding, yes, the public interest and necessity require the proposed
project.
SR-74, through project limits, narrows from four lanes to two lanes, creating a traffic
bottleneck and resulting in traffic congestion, as seen in picture one, on the left.
Traffic congestion has been a long-standing issue, causing significant traffic delays
and increasing the risk of rear-end collisions.
Traffic delays impact daily commuters and slow emergency response times.
As seen in picture two on the right, SR 74 has no median except for a short segment.
No bike lanes, 790 feet of sidewalk gap along eastbound SR 74 and non-standard outside shoulders.
A road with no median increases the risk of head-on collisions and leaves no recovery
space for any driver error.
The city of San Juan Capistrano has continued
to support the project that was recently affirmed
by their letter to Caltrans district 12,
dated February 12th, 2026.
Next slide.
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 reduce traffic congestion
and delays and improve emergency response time
by widening the SR-74 from two lanes to four lanes.
Improve safety for motorists
by providing 12 feet wide median.
Improve safety for cyclists
by providing five or eight feet wide shoulders
that will serve as class two bike lanes.
The master bike plan of the Orange County Transportation
Authority and Caltrans District 12 active transportation plan
identifies the SR-74 segment within the project limits
as a class 2 bike lane, improves safety and connectivity
for pedestrians by filling in a 790 feet sidewalk gap
along eastbound SR-74 and installing new crosswalks
at the intersection of Hunt Club Drive and SR-74.
The project will also improve noise mitigation
for the affected properties by constructing sound walls
along the south side of SR-74.
Next slide.
Regarding the least private injury,
Caltrans has made efforts to minimize the project's impacts.
In this picture, the pink areas show the widening
on the north side and the two green areas show the winding
on the south side.
As seen, the proposed widening of SR-74
will primarily occur on the north side
to reduce impacts on private properties
because the south side has a higher property density.
Next slide.
Continuing with the overall lease private injury,
referring to picture one,
the project proposes to construct retaining walls
to eliminate approximately 7.6 acres of fee acquisition
shown in yellow.
Without the retaining walls on the north side of SR-74,
the fee acquisition would have been approximately eight acres
to construct a three-to-one side slope,
as shown in picture two.
However, due to proposed retaining walls,
the fee acquisition is 0.4 acres.
Private injury for the Kellenberger parcels,
the fee acquisition is reduced from 2.65 acres,
shown in yellow to 0.1 acres, shown in red.
And it has been done by proposing
to construct a retaining wall.
Next slide.
Regarding the least private injury
for the Brutal Call parcel,
260 square feet in fee acquisition
and 737 square feet in total temporary construction easement
are the bare minimum areas required to construct
driveway ADA compliant curb ramp and traffic signal. access to
the brutal call will remain open throughout construction. All
temporary easements will be returned to the property owner
upon completion of construction. Next slide related to the third
finding. Yes, the project requires 4,219 square feet in
fee acquisition and 9,575 square feet in temporary construction
easement from the Kallenberger parcel to construct the proposed retaining wall.
As shown in the previous slides, the project proposes to construct retaining walls on the
north side of SR-74 to eliminate 7.6 acres of fee acquisition.
There are four retaining walls proposed on the north side of SR-74.
The one retaining wall is along Kallenberger's parcel.
In picture one on the left, looking from Callenberger parcel, the red dotted line shows the boundary
of the fee acquisition area that is needed to construct a one foot wide retaining wall,
a two foot wide drainage ditch behind the retaining wall, and a three foot wide area
behind the ditch to maintain the retaining wall and the ditch.
The ditch is required to prevent erosion
behind the retaining wall.
Will be within Caltrans right away after fee acquisition.
Caltrans maintenance schedule will not impact
the property owners use of property.
Caltrans maintenance team conducts multiple inspections
on weekly basis and before and after storm events.
One, a 15 feet wide temporary construction easement area
is the bare minimum needed to construct the retaining wall,
ditch and maintenance area.
All temporary construction easements
will be returned to the property owner
upon completion of construction.
Picture two on the right, looking from SR 74,
is a visualized post construction image
that shows the proposed retaining wall and bioswale.
The bioswale is required for stormwater drainage.
With finding three, the project requires 260 square feet
in fee acquisition and 737 square feet
in temporary construction easement
from the Brutal Cow parcel.
To repave the existing driveway,
construct the proposed ADA compliant curb ramp
and install the new traffic signal as shown in picture one.
These improvements are needed to improve pedestrian safety
and connectivity and traffic flow.
Picture two on the right
is a visualized post-construction image
showing the proposed improvements.
Related to the fourth finding,
yes, the offers of just compensation
were provided to the property owners
in accordance with government code 7267.2.
On July 3rd, 2025, Caltrans District 12
provided the first written offer
to the Kellenberger property owners and their attorney.
On March 27, 2025, Caltrans District 12
mailed the first written offer
to the Brutal Call property owners.
The property owners confirmed receiving the offer
on March 31, 2025.
The offers meet all legal requirements,
Caltrans policies and procedures, and industry practices.
Thus, Caltrans has met the four statutory findings
needed for the commission
to approve this resolution of necessity.
Next slide.
Without going into details,
this slide reflects a continuous communication
between Caltrans District 12 and Kalenberger
and their attorney when they have interacted
via email, phone calls, and meetings over 45 times.
The district is continuously working
with the property owners to address their concerns.
Next slide.
This slide reflects a continuous communication
between Caltrans District 12 and BrutoCao and their attorney
when they have interacted over 70 times.
The district is continuously working
with the property owners to address their concerns.
In the following slides,
I will go over the property owner's
most pertinent contentions and Caltrans responses.
Next slide.
Contents with losing direct access to SR 74.
Caltrans response.
Kellenberger parcel has access from shade tree lane
as shown by the yellow arrows in picture one on the left.
Contention is marked with the red circle in picture one
and picture two is it's zoomed in street view.
Is unpermitted and encroaching Caltrans right away
because Caltrans right away is access controlled
along the Kellenberger parcel,
as shown by the green line
with yellow tick marks in the picture.
All vehicular access rights to SR 74
were released and relinquished as of August 29th, 1979
per parcel map PMB 137-4022
by the property owner at that time.
Since the driveway is unpermitted,
a value is not assigned to it and is not compensable.
is what built in 1992 and 2002,
decades after the relinquishment.
Furthermore, it is not feasible
to skip retaining wall for the driveway
because to do so, additional right away
will be needed for wing wall.
Hence with increased noise in the after condition
and asks why the project includes a sound wall
on the south side of SR-74,
but only a retaining wall on the north side
adjacent to the Kellenberger property.
Caltrans response, the noise threshold
for considering a soundwall is 67 A weighted decibel DBA.
According to the project's 2018 noise study report,
the after condition noise levels
for the Kellenberger parcels are expected to increase
from approximately 57 dBA to 61 dBA,
which is a change of 4 dBA.
To put that in perspective, a 4 dBA increase
is barely noticeable to the human ear,
while 67 dBA noise level is similar to a household
washing machine, dishwasher, or vacuum cleaner running.
Because the projected noise level of 61 DBA
remains below the 67 DBA threshold,
a sound wall is not warranted for the Kellenberger parcels.
Furthermore, the properties located south of SR-74
are closer to the highway while the Kellenberger property
sits higher on the hillside and farther away,
which reduces the noise levels reaching the residence.
I also want to mention though noise study was conducted
in 2018, another study would not change the outcome
that is to estimate noise levels
based on projected traffic volume.
Contents with potential slope failure during construction.
Caltrans response based on the project's
geotechnical evaluations, no slope instability
is expected during construction.
Excavation activities will follow CalOSHA
and Caltrans safety requirements
to maintain adjacent slope stability
throughout construction.
And qualified Caltrans inspectors
will monitor slope condition during construction
to ensure safety.
Next slide.
That there are potential issues
with the retaining wall design and ask why,
ask what can be done to reduce the impact? Caltrans response. As I described in a previous slide,
a retaining wall is proposed to minimize grading and reduce right-of-way acquisition by 2.55 acres,
ensuring the least private injury to the Kellenberger property. Retaining walls are
designed in accordance with applicable AASHTO and Caltrans design standards. And qualified
by Caltrans inspectors will monitor
retaining wall construction.
Next slide.
Mr. Kellenberger contends with soil types
and creep mentioned in the April 2025 foundation report.
Caltrans response, the foundation report
was prepared to determine ground conditions.
The creep mentioned in the foundation report
does not refer to soil movement,
but it refers to Caltrans standard test
on the soil anchors inside the retaining wall
to make sure they do not slowly stretch under pressure.
The retaining wall is designed to work safely
with soil types, capistrano and Monterey formations
identified in the report.
Furthermore, to address corrosive soils
identified in the report,
coated steel will be used to prevent long-term corrosion.
But it does not mean that the soil is unstable.
Next slide.
Mr. Brutico contends with increased after condition noise,
particularly reflective noise,
and asks why a sound wall was not proposed
on the north side of SR-74.
Caltrans responds.
The noise threshold for a sound wall consideration is 67 DBA,
as I just mentioned.
According to the project's 2018 noise study report,
The after condition noise levels for the brutal call parcel
are expected to increase from 60.5 DBA to 63.9 DBA,
a 3.4 DBA change,
which is barely noticeable to the human ear.
Since 63.9 DBA is below the 67 DBA threshold,
a sound wall is not warranted for the brutal call parcel.
Reflective noise from the proposed sound wall
was not evaluated because the approved FHWA DNM 2.5 model
that was used for analysis does not include provisions
for single barrier reflection calculations.
However, for FHWA guidance, a single noise barrier
on the opposite side of the highway
reflects very little sound.
With FHWA field measurements showing only about
of one to two decibel increase,
which is barely noticeable to the human ear.
Next slide.
To summarize, I again declare
that Caltrans 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,
Caltrans District 12 Director, Lan Zhu.
Thank you, commissioners.
Thank you for your presentation. Justin, is there any comment from the property owner?
Chair Falcone.
Apologies. I think that Director Lamb, did you want to say something?
Okay. All right. I had just.
Thank you. Chair Falcone, I was going to ask the property owner, the representatives to
see if they would like to say a word. Thank you.
Thank you.
Yes, so we do have Charles Krolikowski with her hand raised you're now unmuting and free to comment
Hello, can you hear me?
Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Okay. Great
Yes. Hi. My name is a Charles or Chuck Krolikowski. I'm eminent domain counsel for the Kellenburgers
shingala and the Brudico families
We have been working with Caltrans for quite a while now trying to figure out this project in terms of its potential impacts of the
properties. I did submit two objection letters. I wanted to confirm that the board did receive
those letters and that they will be made part of the permanent record. Could someone please confirm
that? We did receive them. Okay, great. Thank you. So I won't belabor the point. The critical issue
in the eminent domain acquisition, at least from our perspective, is the project plan in a manner
that promotes the greatest public good while while mitigates or eliminates the least private
injury. And when you're looking at least private injury, you're not looking at the least private
injury to the public as a whole, you're looking to the least private injury to the individual
property or business owner who you're taking property from. And you're looking at the project
in terms of how the project might impact that property owner. In my letter for Kellenberger
and Shigala. Obviously, the biggest issue we have, which is raised in the letter and of prior
hearings, is the elimination of the access point to Ortega Highway. Caltrans's position has been,
well that was relinquished a long time ago, but that loses sight of a California eminent domain
statute. It's 1263.330 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. That statute says when you're
value when you're valuing the property in the before condition before the acquisition you have
to assume that the project and the taking and the eminent domain matters don't exist. So if you're
looking at the property in the before condition and there is no taking, there is no project, there is
no eminent domain action, the reasonable assumption was that that driveway would continue to be used
by the ownership, whether it's my clients or new owners, into the foreseeable future.
So if you consider that statute, which is one of the statutes and eminent domain we
have to follow, you have to exclude the project and the taking from consideration and value
in the property in the before condition. Another comment I'd like to make on the Kellenberger
shingala property is that there's going to be a large graded hill which will be eventually put
into a very large retaining wall and kind of a mountain in that location. We have concerns
about the potential stability of that wall in the future. We have concerns about its maintenance
behind the wall to the extent it requires that during the processes. Further, the sound wall issue
is interesting because Caltrans is saying that the decibel levels at the homes will not be
significantly increased or increased by only a few decibels, but the homes are located way in the
back of the property. To the extent this property is developed more towards the right-of-way,
one would need to analyze what those increased decibel levels would be to properties or homes
that are built closer to the sound wall location. This is a larger piece of property, so it does
have the ability to develop additional homes. So we believe that additional sound analysis should
be completed closer to the top of the retaining wall as that is a location where future homes
could be placed in that location. And ultimately these will impact not only whether the project is
most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury, but also for compensation
issues. In addition, while Caltrans did make an offer of compensation, and while the offer itself,
the fact that they made the offer hits the wicket of the four elements for the resolution and
necessity, there's still issues with respect to the amounts and what they analyzed and did not
analyze in terms of what I've talked about in terms of the statute and the retaining wall
eliminating access to the property.
With respect to the Brudico property,
the only issue that we've raised on that
is the sound bouncing off the wall
on the other side of the street.
And also we don't know if there were actual sound readings
or just simulated sound readings on the Brudico property
in the before condition in terms of assessing
how much sound is there now
and how much it will be increased
by the additional lane of traffic.
obviously the higher speed of traffic in that area
with more lanes and the lack of a sound wall
on the north side of State Route 74.
The fact that there really has been no analysis or study
of sound that would bounce off the wall
on the south side of 74 does concern the Brudecos.
They have a home there and they want to make sure
that the sound levels are at a level that is acceptable
and also promotes the least private injury.
So with the comment letters we've submitted,
all the information we discussed with Caltrans
at the various meetings and my presentation today,
we would request that Caltrans look at these issues
more carefully and analyze the least private injury
in a way that would satisfy the elements
to pass a resolution.
So again, we would object to the resolutions
being passed at this time.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Polakowski.
And we did, just to confirm, receive your letters.
Any questions or comments?
Oh, actually, are there any additional public comments
on this?
No, I do not see any requests to comment
on the item at this time.
OK, thank you, Justin.
Any comments or questions from the dias?
I was just wondering if the question
around the unpermitted driveway could just
be discussed a little bit more.
Thank you very much.
Thank you for your attention again.
As an Asian woman,
I cannot be more proud for you to sit there,
to serve all of us as a CTC chair.
And I don't know,
commissioners to answer your questions about the
unpermitted access.
And, you know,
this driveway,
B9 actually stated took full access control right
for entire Ortega Highway.
So then these two houses were built,
involved three parcels, but the two houses,
the properties were built.
One is in 1992, another one is the year 2002.
Years after we took over the access control.
So it was never been permitted.
So, you know, the law does not allow us
to use public found to compensate
something never been permitted or allowed.
Thank you for the question.
Any other questions or comments from the dais?
I just had a question for Lian.
Go ahead, Commissioner here.
Yeah, so looking at the map
and looking at that access point,
I'm assuming that that's not permitted
and hasn't been permitted for decades
because of the danger of backing onto the freeway there
or coming out when the freeway is going in both directions
right at that driveway?
Am I assuming correctly?
Yes, Commissioner Yiga, yeah.
Your statement is correct.
So, you know, because if where you know this state route,
then you know it's very challenging.
And I'll take a highway, lots of vertical, horizontal curves,
And then it's the only corridor in the South Orange County
to connect in the Orange County with the inland.
And so I think it is a safety needs to take over.
That's why they took over the access right
to protect the overall safety of this corridor.
Thank you, Director Lam.
We have a question from Commissioner Tiffany.
Just to further follow up.
The attorney said that, but for the this project,
that that access would remain in place.
Is that correct or is that not correct?
And this access not permitted should not be there
and regardless of this project.
So whether or not this project went forward,
that access would be eliminated.
Yes.
Thank you.
Good morning. Thank you. Any
other questions or comments from
commissioners? So moved. Uh
Tim. Thank you. Please continue.
Commission staff has reviewed
the proposed runs and concludes
Caltrans has met the statutory
requirements and therefore
recommends approval for all
three runs. Okay, thank you,
Tim. Um I will now entertain a
last chair, Grizzby second by Commissioner Eger. All in favor?
Aye.
Any opposed, extensions? Okay, that passes. Thank you.
Okay, I think we are due a break. So let's give it what, 10, about 10, 15 minutes, and
we'll be back around 1128, or 1130.
28 for 11 30 please take your seats all right everyone we're going to get
started again all right we are at tab 66 and we're just gonna try to power
through the agenda until the end. So get comfortable. All right, John Pray. Go ahead.
Yes. Tabs 66 through 68 are all action items to approve the execution of director's deeds
in accordance with Section 118 of the Streets and Highways Code, the Roberti Act, and the
State Route 710 sales program regulations. These three items are all 710 property sales
however they've been grouped into three separate items according to the
different types of sales. Sixth is requesting approval to execute
directors deeds for 12 unoccupied properties being sold to the city of
South Pasadena at the original acquisition price. The city will then
sell these properties at fair market value and in accordance with the program
regulations they will use the proceeds to finance the production or acquisition of three
affordable housing units for each unoccupied property purchased from the department. And
then tab 67 is requesting approval to execute directors deeds for five occupied properties
that are being sold to the current tenants at affordable prices. One of these properties
are located in the city of Los Angeles and one is in the city of South
Pasadena. And then tab 68 is requesting approval to execute directors deeds for
two occupied properties being sold to the current tenants at the fair market
value. One of these properties is in the city of Los Angeles and one is in the
city of South Pasadena staff recommends approval of tabs 66 through 68 thank you John before we go
to virtual comments we have council member Janet Braun from the city of South Pasadena welcome
good morning my name is Janet Braun I'm a member of the city council in South Pasadena thank you
so much for the opportunity to speak today. I was here about 18 months ago regarding the
purchase by South Pasadena of five historic properties and the legislative action that
was accomplished through a collaborative effort by the city, our legislative representatives,
assembly member Mike Fong and then state senator Anthony Portentino, Caltrans including district
seven director Gloria Roberts, deputy director Dan Murdock and all of their colleagues.
That legislation paved the way for our city to purchase these non historic properties and
sell them at fair market value to use the proceeds to to build three affordable units
for each property sold. So we wanted to just take another moment to thank our partners for
working with us to accomplish that goal. A quick update on the first five properties purchased by
the city. We hired a broker to represent us for all of these properties and spent a little money
sparkling them up to the extent possible.
The five houses sold quickly,
the net proceeds to the city of South Passes, Dedena,
that we will use to build affordable housing
was $6.5 million.
All the homes that have been remodeled,
two are adding ADUs,
and one property recently offered three rental units.
Today's properties, if approved by you,
will be purchased by the city,
and we will put those properties on the market
for sale at fair market value
and use the proceeds to build the affordable housing
on a three to one basis.
The city is working on an exclusive basis
with related California
to build a 64 unit all affordable project
on a city owned property
in the middle of our downtown area.
Just wanna thank you for your consideration
of these director's deeds.
The city of South Pasadena strongly supports approval of them
and we look forward to fulfilling our shared goals
of providing more housing opportunities
including affordable units in our city.
Thank you.
Thank you, council member.
It's good to see you and appreciate the update
on the previously purchased properties.
Thank you.
Any other comments virtually?
Not seeing any other requests virtually
to comment on these items.
Okay, thank you, Justin.
Any comments or questions from my colleagues?
I will entertain a motion.
I'll make a motion.
Okay, thank you.
All right.
A motion made by Commissioner Tiffany second
by Commissioner Lugo.
All in favor?
Aye.
Aye.
Any opposed?
Any abstentions?
Okay.
Those Director Deeds, items pass.
Thank you.
Next item.
Okay.
Tab 69, Director's Deed, Troy Street, Lemon Grove.
Back at Tim.
Thank you.
Commissioner's tab 69 is requesting approval
to execute one director's deed in San Diego County
in the city of Lemon Grove.
This approximately 2.75 acre property located adjacent
to state route 125 and south of Troy Street
will be sold directly to the county of San Diego
at the fair market value of $955,000.
This sale is a direct sale to a public agency,
which is allowed by CTC resolution G98-22
when the property will be used for a public purpose.
Staff has reviewed tab 69 in accordance with section 118
of the Streets and Highways Code
and the Commission's excess land resolution
and recommends approval.
Thank you, Tim.
Any virtual comments?
Yes, we do have some virtual attendees with their hand raised
indicating they want to comment on the item.
I'd like to first call on Monica Montgomery Stepp.
Thank you.
Thank you, Supervisor, for joining us and making comment.
Thank you so much.
Thank you, Chair Tawken and Commissioners,
for the opportunity to speak.
My name is Monica Montgomery Stepp,
and I'm the County of San Diego Supervisor for District 4,
which includes the city of Lemon Grove.
I respectfully urge the CTC to approve this item.
If the CTC approves, the County of San Diego
will transform the unused land into a tiny home community
serving individuals experiencing homelessness.
This is exactly what the governor has been calling for
since 2023, for counties to use tiny homes
to help people off the streets and into stability.
For the last two years, my office canvassed
and distributed around 250 flyers over three days
in the neighborhood surrounding this property,
mailed 199 postcards, hosted an in-person town hall meeting
where approximately 300 people showed up,
had three meetings with community leaders,
including with those who opposed the tiny home project,
held a community meeting within council member
and now mayor of Lemon Grove, Allison Snow,
and a virtual meeting to show the initial design
of the tiny home project and gather community feedback
before making revisions to the design.
In addition, county staff has presented
and received feedback on the project
at a public city council meeting and workshop.
I understand that there are some people
who remain opposed to this project,
but there are countless others who support this project
and are asking that their unhoused community
be prioritized to participate in the Tiny Home Program.
The Federal Highway Administration
has approved the sale of this excess land.
The Board of Supervisors has approved this project
and purchase of the land.
And the CTC's approval is all that is needed now
for the tiny home project to move forward.
This is an opportunity for the state and county
to work together in a tangible and meaningful way
to help people move off of the streets
and get the support that they need
to move into permanent housing.
Once again, I urge the CTC to approve this item.
Thank you so much.
Thank you for your prospective supervisor
and for calling in.
Any other virtual comments?
Yes.
Up next, we have Joshua Bohannon.
Hi, thank you for hearing me.
I'm Josh Bohannon.
I'm the chief strategy officer at Father Joe's Villages.
Father Joe's is San Diego's oldest
and largest homeless services provided for over 75 years.
San Diego has one of the largest homeless populations
in the state.
And we still struggle to build affordable housing.
We struggle to find shelter sites
for our community experiencing homelessness.
And so this initiative by the County in collaboration with the state of California is a very positive step forward to addressing some of the root causes of homelessness.
You know, hopefully through the building of the site, the wraparound services will help move people out of shelter or temporary housing into long term permanent affordable housing.
So I'm here to speak in support
on behalf of the community that we serve in San Diego
and the city of San Diego
and support the county's efforts in the sale of this land.
Thank you.
La Helle, Medics.
Good morning, everyone.
Thank you very much.
My name is La Helle Medics
and I serve as the chief operations officer
for the regional task force on homelessness.
And we are the continuum of care for the San Diego region.
I'm here today in strong support
of the Troy Street project in the city of Lemon Grove.
First, I wanna thank the County of San Diego
and Supervisor Monica Montgomery Stepp
and Board District 4 for their continued leadership
in advancing this project.
This effort has required persistence, coordination
and a willingness to navigate real challenges
to bring forward a much needed resource for this community.
This project represents a critical expansion
of interim housing in a community
that has historically had very limited access
to homelessness resources.
Adding this type of non-congregate shelter
paired with onsite services is needed to help people move
from the streets and into stability.
RTFH is also a recipient
of the state of California's encampment resolution funding
along the I-94 corridor,
providing addressing encampments
for the city of Lemon Grove.
So projects like Troy Street are essential to this work
as well as creating services
beyond the encampment resolution funding
community. So without local
service connected in term
housing options, those efforts
cannot succeed. We recognize
that projects like this come
with challenges, but they are
necessary and they are
impactful. They represent real
tangible progress in communities
that need it most. Continued
leadership at the state,
regional and local levels is
critical to moving these
solutions forward. The Troy
Street project is an important
step in that direction for this
that's from our online attendees.
Okay, thank you to those who.
Pardon me, Chair, we did have a late hand raise
that I wanted to acknowledge
from one of our public commenters.
Okay, please proceed.
Kaylee Levitt.
Good morning.
Hi, my name is Kaylee Levitt
of Jewish Family Service of San Diego,
Vice President of Government Affairs.
We are a provider of safe parking
and other homelessness services in San Diego County
and also in Riverside County.
and we are a strong supporter as well
of the Troy Street Project.
As a safe parking and interim housing
and all types of housing are really necessary right now.
And we urge the committee to continue to support this item.
And we're grateful for the partnerships
that the county has offered with the state
to bring this forward.
And we hope to see more such services in the future.
So we just wanted to come on record
to recognize our support for this issue as well.
Thank you.
That's in the other side.
Okay, thank you.
All right, we have three speaker slips
for our folks in the room.
First, we have Deanna Beck from the County of San Diego.
Good morning or good afternoon Chair and the commissioners.
My name is Deanna Beck.
I'm Director for the County of San Diego's
Office of Homeless Solutions.
And today with me and the audience is Scott Crisman,
Deputy Director for County's Department of General Services.
We are here today with support of our Board of Supervisors
and in particular, our Vice Chair,
Monica Montgomery stepped the District Four
for this project, and we wanna register our strong support
from the County of San Diego for item 69,
and we are, of course, available to answer any questions.
County of San Diego has been working very closely
with Caltrans, and I wanna thank them
and their leadership with us in this project.
And if item was approved today,
it would ensure that we swiftly move forward
and that we complete this project by next year.
County in San Diego has dedicated significant funds
to develop this project.
And once completed,
the County is allocating 3.6 million annually
to operate the program at this site
that will serve our most vulnerable residents
in our communities.
The County in San Diego Office of Homeless Solutions
is committed to the longevity and success of this project
as well as ensuring transparency
within the city of Lemon Grove
in maintaining high public health and safety standards.
It has been our pleasure working with Caltrans
and all the other partners on this project,
and we hope that you will approve
that item before you today.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next we have Scott Chrisman.
Yeah, Chair, commissioners, my name's Scott Chrisman.
I'm a Deputy Director for the County of San Diego's
Department of General Services.
And as Deanna Beck mentioned,
we are here today to register strong support for item 69.
We have been working closely with Caltrans on this project for several years to complete
all necessary planning, permitting and design needed to move forward.
The county has dedicated $11 million towards the design and construction.
If approved today, the county will purchase the parcel, begin construction and be completed
by early summer 2027.
As part of our effort, the county engaged with the community and City of Lemon Grove
and we continue to engage with the City of Lemon Grove,
providing regular updates on project milestones.
We also have an interactive public website
where people can view all relevant information
and share feedback with us.
We are committed to ongoing engagement with the community
as construction moves forward.
We hope that you will approve item 69
so that we may continue on our path
to addressing the needs of our most vulnerable residents.
We are available to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next we have Zeke Sandoval.
Morning, commissioners.
My name is Zeke Sandoval.
I'm here on behalf of PATH.
As you may know, PATH is a leading homeless services
provider and affordable housing developer
throughout California.
We're very active in San Diego and in addition
to several other large cities across the state.
We've supported the Troy Street sleeping cabins project
since its inception.
Our support draws from our experience
operating a similar site in the city of San Jose
called Evans Lane, which is 48 tiny home units,
known formerly as quick-build interim communities.
It's been our most successful interim site to date,
opened in 2021, serving 631 people,
including 357 children.
Of those, 72% exited to positive housing destinations.
So that's hundreds of mothers and fathers and kids
who went from living in a car or a tent
to living in a safe shelter and now stable housing.
As some of you may know,
the bulk of shelter beds in the San Diego region
located within the City of San Diego, but there is an acute need for shelter beds in the south
and eastern portions of San Diego County. Our teams of social workers that are conducting regular
outreach in those areas have limited interventions to offer our participants since shelter beds fill
up almost immediately every day. Any available beds are typically in downtown San Diego, a minimum
20 to 30 minute drive away from family, friends, and a support network. Our neighbors recover from
from homelessness faster and more stably
when we make it easy for them to get into
and stay in shelter.
The Troy Street Sleeping Cabins project
is conveniently located in the nexus of East
in South County.
So we really appreciate the persistence
of San Diego County,
especially Supervisor Monica Montgomery Steppe
for moving the site forward.
At the end of the day,
the people we serve simply need a place to stabilize
while we work to find long-term permanent housing support.
So we encourage a swift approval of the item
And thank you very much.
Bye.
Thank you, and thank you for making the track up here.
Any other public comment on this?
Not seeing any other requests at this time.
Great, thank you.
Any comment or questions from my colleagues?
Elliot?
Oh, I saw, Commissioner Tiven, did you want to speak?
I'm happy to.
Yeah.
Yeah, just in this probably in the packet, but I don't recall.
I'm just curious, how many homeless people will be served
by this project?
Maybe it was said, but...
Will be 60 cabins constructed as part of the project.
I don't have the total number of people
that will be able to be housed.
And do you, I don't know if you know the answer to this,
Tim, is how will the people be selected?
Maybe that's a better answer by the people
that came here to speak on it.
Would the County like to address the questions
from the commissioner?
Thank you, Deanna.
Thank you for your question, commissioner.
That is correct.
There will be 60 sleeping cabins at the site.
Some of them will be double occupancy
and most other single occupancy were anticipated
to serve approximately 70 to 80 people
at any given night at this site.
Approximate stay will range based
on the people's set of needs.
So it will be essentially, it could be up to six months
and the goal is to provide them with the wraparound services
that will be onsite to move them into permanent housing.
And the folks will come from outreach teams
that are out there and be able to refer into the site.
Yeah, and could you just dive a little bit more
into how you transition them into permanent?
I think it's a great project.
I'm just curious how you transition them
into permanent housing.
Yes, thank you for that.
Great question.
So we have, we will, once the site is constructed,
we are also going to have an operator of the site,
which will be through contracted services
and that will include not only the 24 hour site maintenance,
security and those types of logistics,
also will include case managers and housing navigators,
as well as a behavioral health onsite assessment
for folks that might have those needs.
And so those individuals will be working with our clients
to assess their unique set of needs, make a housing plan,
and then connect them with all the supportive services,
essentially everything needed
to remove any barriers to permanent housing
and then help them get ultimately connected
to the housing options based on their unique set of needs.
Okay, thank you for that. And once again, thank you for everyone, what everyone's been
doing to get to this project to this point. Obviously, homeless situation is huge problem
in our state and every little bit we can do is great to see. So thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, Commissioner Elliott.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I have a real mixed feelings about this item. I am
deeply passionately supportive of what the county is doing. To the supervisor
thank you for your courage in standing up to people who don't want to be part
of the solution. Thank you to the city. To Father Joe's I've toured facilities
with you Father Joe's folks. To PATH I've been to that San Jose shelter. You guys
do a tremendous job. We need dozens more of these kinds of facilities around the
state and to elected officials and government officials who stand up to push for these things,
I applaud you. I'm proud of you. I spent years and years and years working in government. I ran
the housing and homelessness policy portfolio for the Newsman administration for a number of years.
So I'm intimately familiar with these programs, the executive orders, the funding streams underneath
them. This is exactly what communities should be doing. The federal government is not doing its
job. As we discussed yesterday, it appears we won't jump to conclusions until our federal
partners have a chance to clarify their backtracking. But it appears that the federal
government is now poised to do what previous administrations, both Republican and Democrat,
never did, which is deny below fair market leases for homeless facilities.
And I'm still not totally clear on the details of how the negotiation went with the federal
government on this lease, but the conclusion is that the County of San Diego is being asked
to spend $1 million to acquire a parcel that in other places in the state, we discussed
a couple of them yesterday, the local governments are able to implement these kinds of facilities
for $1 as opposed to $1 million.
I understand that having site control is important.
a million dollars that you can spend on outreach and on mental health services and on public
safety is more important to me. So I am going to abstain from supporting this item, not
because I question the implementation of the tiny home villages. It's fantastic. It's a
model, but because I am wary of the federal government retreating from its responsibilities
and the state not standing up and fighting back against that. So I will abstain from
this item. If there are future excess land leases that come forward where the federal
government has abdicated its responsibility to partner with the state, then I'm going
to vote against those. But in this case, I will abstain because I'm still not totally
clear on the details of what happened. But please to the San Diego folks, community leaders
and elected officials that are listening or in the room, my abstention is not a reflection
of your commitment or your achievement on this project. It's simply about the financial
mechanism underneath it and frankly the failure of the federal government to do its job. Thank
you for indulging me and I will put myself on mute now. Thank you, Commissioner Elliott. I
appreciate the spirit of your desire to see more of these projects and to ensure that local
government and their partners can utilize funding for actually providing the housing
and the services for these folks that need it the most. So any other comments or questions
from commissioners? Okay, with that, I will entertain a motion. Okay, Commissioner Lugo
So we'll move second by commissioner Tiffany and I just want to say, um, you know, one
more thing as part of discussion is, you know, I think, you know, this is a, an example of,
of trying to do the right thing. Um, and, and there's definitely been, it seems a lot
of work that has been done, uh, by Caltrans as well as the county and, um, the city of
Lemon Grove and so appreciate this item coming up today and moving forward if this moves.
So with that, I will call on any eyes on this item and an abstention.
A little old me abstaining. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Elliott. And with that, the item passes. All right. Moving
Moving forward, we have tab 71, John.
Yeah, I don't know if we need to say for the record tab 70 has been withdrawn from
the agenda.
So tab 71 is an action I request in approval to execute one director's deed in Santa Clara
County and City of Palo Alto in accordance with section 118 of the streets and highways
code.
This director's deed will decertify a 172 square foot slope easement at the request
of the underlying fee owner.
The state has determined that a slope easement is no longer necessary at this location and
can be decertified without any negative impact to the state highway system.
The property owner will pay the fair market value of $1,650 for the removal of this easement
from their property.
Staff has reviewed this request and recommends approval of tab 71.
Thank you, John.
Any public comment on this item?
Nobody now receiving a request to comment on the item.
Okay.
Any comments or questions from the dais?
Move for approval.
Okay, thank you.
Moved by Commissioner Gordino, any second?
Okay, second by Commissioner Lugo.
All in favor?
Aye.
Any opposed?
Abstentions?
questions. Okay. Adam passes.
Next we have item 73 adoption
of the 2025 program of projects
for small, urban and rural
areas. Cat. Sorry, Chair. We're
actually going to start with
tab 72. Oh, for the hearing
first. My apologies. Okay. Um.
Thank you. Please proceed.
Thank you, Chair. Tab 72 is an
Program of Projects for Small Urban and Rural Areas in the Federal Transit Administration,
Section 5310, Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program,
which is commonly known as FTA 5310. The FTA 5310 program funds transportation services
planned, designed, and carried out to meet the special transportation needs of seniors and
individuals with disabilities in large urban, small urban, and rural areas of California.
For assembly bill 772, the commission is responsible for establishing an appeals process and holding at least one public hearing before adopting the final program of projects for small urban and rural areas.
In June 2025, Caltrans released the call for projects for the 2025 funding cycle. As part of this process, Caltrans assembled a state review committee consisting of advocates, users of the program services,
Equity Advisory Committee members, and other interested parties to review the applications.
The application review process began in September 2025, and by December 2025, the project scores
were merged into a statewide prioritized list, which became the draft 2025 program of projects.
The draft was submitted to the commission as an information item at the January commission
meeting.
An appeals hearing was held on February 10th, during which one appeal was heard and approved.
While that appeal affected the contingency list, it did not change the draft Program
of Projects list that was presented at the January meeting.
The details regarding the appeals process are included in the book item.
Upon conclusion of the public hearing under tab 72, the commission will consider adopting
the final 2025 Program of Projects for small urban and rural areas under tab 73.
At this time, I'd like to ask Chair Falcone to please open the public hearing for tab
72.
Hi. Thank you, Cat. Yes. So we
are opening up this item to
public comment. Any public
comment, Justin? Chair, this
time, I'm not seeing any
request to comment on the item.
Okay. This is closest. Any
comments or questions from the
commissioners? Close the hearing
and then we will move to tab 73,
Tab 73 is an action item to adopt the 2025 Program of Projects for small, urban, and
rural areas in the Federal Transit Administration Section 5310 Enhanced Mobility of Seniors
and Individuals with Disabilities Program.
The details for the final 2025 Program of Projects are included in the book item.
At this time, I'd like to thank everyone who volunteered their time to review applications,
advocates and users of the program, as well as the Equity Advisory Committee members Lisa Marie
Alvarado, Michelle Rousey, Brandi Torres Van Beck, and Howard Wong. The time and expertise of everyone
involved helped make the application review process a success. I'd also like to thank the Caltrans FDA 5310
team led by Mark Barry, including Valerie Alexander, Kevin Chen, Jackie Fleck, Gino Horton,
Joel Rodriguez, Magdalena Saldana, and Wendy King for the valuable knowledge and guidance
throughout this process. I also want to thank Lori Waters and Brandy Fleming from the Commission
for their leadership and assistance in preparing these items. Lastly, thank you to all the speakers
who voiced their support for the FDA 5310 program during yesterday's meeting. This program would not
be a success without the many people behind it who are passionate about improving the lives of
the public hearing under under
Thank you. Sorry. One moment to get a question from three here. Yes. Um, actually, I just
wanted to say a special thank you to our equity advisory committee. Um, your assistance in
all of this is invaluable as always. Um, and this program is so important. So I just
wanted to make sure they got a special shout out. And with that, I'll make a motion. That
we have a motion from Commissioner Eager seconded by Commissioner Lugo. All in favor.
And he knows any abstentions. Okay, that passes. Thank you, Kat.
Well done.
All right, next item we have approval of the California Natural Resources Agency's 2025 environmental enhancement and mitigation program.
program. Naveen. Hi, Naveen. Commissioner. Chair. So, TAP 74 is an action item to approve
the 2025 Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program, also known as the EEM program, as
provided in the book item. The Commission awards annual grants to fund projects as recommended
by the Natural Resources Agency, which develops and adopts procedures to determine eligibility,
evaluates project proposals
and recommends projects for funding
and then manages grants post-award.
For the 2025 program grant cycle,
the California Natural Resources Agency
evaluated 35 applications
and recommends programming eight projects
for a total of $6,507,706.
Five of the recommended projects
contribute to California's 30 by 30 commitment
to conserve and restore biodiversity,
expand access to nature, and mitigate and build resilience
to climate change.
I will present the allocation request later under tab 111.
I want to recognize Jen Meats and Theresa Mallory
at the California Natural Resources Agency
for their hard work and commitment to ensuring
this program's continued success,
and for communicating with commission staff timely
and effectively each year.
Commission staff has reviewed the request
and recommends your approval of tab 74.
any public comment on this Justin? No there is no request to comment on the
item. Okay thank you any comments questions motion from commissioners?
All right moved by Commissioner Lugo second by Commissioner Tiffany all in
favor? Aye. Any no's, abstentions? All right that item passes thank you. All right next is
Thank you. Commissioner. This. Tab 75 fiscal year 2024 25 local streets and roads Alicia. Hi, Alicia. Hi, good afternoon. Commissioners tab 75 is an information item for the fiscal year 2024 25 local streets and roads annual expenditure reporting update. Staff received 539 reports from cities and counties in the local streets and roads funding program.
This marks the 7th consecutive year in which all jurisdictions submitted the required reporting.
Cities and counties reported spending 1.5 billion in program funds on roughly 3,700 projects that
were either completed or in progress within the fiscal year. Details regarding the expenditure
reporting data can be found in attachment A of the book item. The list of projects reported on
and updated for can also be found on the program website. I would like to thank Celeste Sivas,
Almanza, and Leanne Batien as well as our stakeholders for all of their hard work
and commitment to this program that has allowed us to be as successful as we have been.
coming up we have fiscal year 26 27 project lists and middles for program funding eligibility
that will be due to the commission by july 1st 2025 are there any questions thank you alicia um
any public comment no there was no request to comment on the item okay and this is an
information item um any questions or comments uh for alicia thank you alicia appreciate the update
All right tab 76 we have Cherry on approval of project for future consideration of funding.
Tab 76 is an action item to accept the environmental document and approve future
consideration of funding for the interstate 680 northbound express lane project in Contra Costa
County. The lead agency Caltrans adopted an environmental impact report and statement of
of overriding considerations for this project,
finding benefits outweigh the impacts.
Staff has reviewed this request and recommends approval.
Thank you, Chair.
Any public comment?
No, we did not receive any request.
Comment on the item.
Okay, thank you.
Any questions, comments, motion from the dais?
I'll make a motion to approve.
Okay, motion by Commissioner Tiffany.
Second.
All right, second, Commissioner Ludo.
All in favor?
Any no's, abstentions?
Okay, that item passes.
Tab 77, Tim.
77 and 78 together with a recommendation at the end.
Tab 77 is an action item
for a shop maintenance facilities project
on State Route 88 in Alpine County,
requesting a supplemental allocation of 250,000
for the plan specifications and estimate phase.
The additional funding is needed to repackage the contract
to re-advertise and award the project.
TAP78 is an action item for a shop pavement preservation project on State Route 78 in
San Diego County requesting a supplemental allocation of $800,000 for the plan specification
and estimates phase.
The additional funding is needed to complete the design phase and award the first Caltrans
contract utilizing the building information modeling for infrastructure or BIM port technology.
as reviewed the projects and the requests for tab 77 and 78 recommend approval okay thank you
temp public comment justa we don't receive any request to comment on these items okay any questions
comments motion from commissioners i'll make a motion thank you commissioner tiffany uh any
second thank you commissioner brownhines all in favor aye any opposed abstentions okay both
tab 77 and 78 passes. Tim, tab 79 through 85. Correct. Tab 79 through 85 will be taken together
with a recommendation at the end. Tab 79 is an action item for a shop bridge replacement
an update project bridge rail replacement update project on state route one and state route 33 in
Ventura County requesting $1,389,000 in supplemental funding to award the contract.
them for a shop major damage permanent restoration project on US 101 in San
Mateo County requesting supplemental funding of 1,800,000 in
construction capital and 900,000 in construction support to complete the
construction contract. The increases are related to additional scope and time
needed to address required environmental permit related work identified after the
start-up construction. Tab 81 is an action item for a shop project, I'm sorry,
for a shop material laboratory project on Interstate 580 in Alameda County
requesting supplemental funds of $2,120,000 in
construction capital to complete the construction contract. The funding is
needed for contract change orders related to design modifications, delays
related to utilities, unforeseen city permit requirements, and to address state
fire marshal requirements item for a bridge rehabilitation and replacement
project on state route 217 in Santa Barbara County requesting supplemental
funding of 1,600,000 the construction support to complete the construction
contract related work delays these delays ultimately extended the
construction duration by one year item for a shop rehabilitation roadway
rehabilitation project on state route 216 in Tulare County requesting
supplemental funding of $1,336,000 in construction capital and $1,073,000 in construction support
to complete the construction contract.
The funding is needed due to the discovery of unanticipated utilities, requirement relocation,
and contract change orders due to differing site conditions.
For a shop drainage system restoration project on State Route 1, in Los Angeles and Ventura
counties requesting supplemental funding of 3,335,000 in construction capital and 2,750,000
in construction support to complete the construction contract.
The funding is needed for construction, sorry, contract change orders to address various
issues related to differing site conditions for coordination and contract administration
efforts related to the compliance with environmental safety and constructability requirements.
And tab 85 is an action item for a shop,
Americans with Disabilities Act,
Curb Ramps Replacement Project on State Route 164
in Los Angeles County, requesting supplemental funds
of 375,000 in construction capital
to complete the construction contract.
The funding's needed for contract change orders,
related to electric work,
delays, and different site conditions.
fundamentals at the March CTC meeting
is approximately 18 million.
And the total increases for the 25-26 fiscal year for supplement and initial allocations
greater than the program amount is approximately 460 million.
Staff has reviewed the projects and requests for tabs 79 through 85 and recommends approval.
Thank you, Tim.
Public comment.
We never see any requests or comment on any of the listed items.
Thank you, Justin.
Any questions, comments, motion from commissioners?
motion by Commissioner Tiffany. Second. All right. Commissioner Lugo seconds. All in favor.
Aye. Any pose. Abstentions? Okay. Tab 79 to 85 passes. All right. Tabs 86 to 89. Cat.
Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, commissioners. Tabs 86, 87, 88, and 89 are action items to
to approve supplemental allocations totaling 57,363,000
for four components in the transit
and intercity rail capital program.
Please note that tab 86 has a minor correction
via the change list.
Staff has reviewed the request for tabs 86, 87, 80, and 89
and finds them consistent with the change list,
the program's allocation policy and program update.
Staff recommends approval of tabs 86, 87, 80, and 89.
Okay. Thank you, Cat. Public
comment. There was no request to
comment on any of these items.
Thank you. Any questions,
comments, motion from
commissioners. Move approval of
tabs 86 87 88 and 89. Thank you,
Commissioner Gardena. Do I hear
a second? Second by Commissioner
Okay. Those measures, or items passes. Thank you. All right. Beverly, we've got a number
of... 91 to 97. Just a quick note for anybody who wasn't here yesterday, we took tab 90
yesterday. We're not just skipping over it. Thank you for that reminder, Douglas.
Commissioners, I will present tabs 91 through 97 together with a recommendation at the end.
Tab 91 is a scope amendment request for the EV Realty South Bay Truck Charging Hub Project
which was jointly nominated by Caltrans and EV Realty and programmed with $7,900,000 in
the 2024 Trade Corridor Enhancement Program.
Caltrans and EV Realty are requesting to reduce the number of charging ports from 60 to 50
but to upgrade the chargers to the megawatt charging system which allows for significantly
more power output and faster charging speeds. Overall, the change will increase truck throughput
and total charging capacity at the site. AB 92 was a scope amendment request for the
Harbor Scenic Drive enhancements project, which was jointly nominated by Caltrans and
the City of Long Beach Harbor Department and programmed with $31 million and $900,000 in
the 2024 Trade Corridor Enhancement Program. Caltrans and the City of Long Beach are requesting
to reduce the scope of the project by removing the proposed rehabilitation of the northbound
roadway pavement and to make other minor adjustments.
The proposed scope change maintains the project's freight benefits.
Staff is recommending a proportional reduction in funding totaling $5 million, which will
be considered in the program amendment under tab 96.
Tab 93 is the scope amendment request for the Long Beach East Los Angeles corridor zero
emission truck for mobility project, which was jointly
nominated by LA Metro and for mobility and programmed with $10
million in the 2024 trade corridor enhancement program. LA
Metro and for mobility are requesting to significantly
reduce the number of chargers and to upgrade the charging
standard to the megawatt charging system. Despite the
decrease in charging ports, the megawatt charging system will
allow for significantly more power output and faster
charging speeds. Overall the change will increase truck throughput and total
charging capacity at the site. Additionally the change will decrease
the total project cost resulting in a proportional reduction of TSEP
program funding by five million one hundred and three thousand dollars. Staff
will present a program amendment at a future meeting to reflect this change.
Tab 94 is a scope amendment request for the Long Beach East Los Angeles corridor
Zero Mission Truck M&A Energy Project which was jointly nominated by LA Metro and M&A Energy
and programmed with three million six hundred fifty three thousand dollars in the 2024
trade corridor enhancement program. LA Metro and M&A Energy are requesting to increase the number
of charging ports from 26 to 28 allowing for more truck throughput and total charging capacity at
at the site is an amendment
to the 2022 Trade Corridor Enhancement Program
for the America's Green Port Gateway Project,
which was jointly nominated
by the Southern California Association of Governments
and the City of Long Beach,
and programs with $70,442,000 for two components.
The requested program amendment
will add a third project component
that consolidates rail yard access improvements
into a single contract to improve construction,
sequencing, and reduce the risk of delays.
While the new component will not include
trade corridor enhancement program funding,
it will still be subject to Senate Bill 1
reporting requirements for the life of the project,
and the city must complete the full scope of work
as originally programmed.
HAB 96 is an amendment to the 2024
trade corridor enhancement program for three projects.
The first project is the City of Long Beach Harbor Scenic Drive Enhancements Project,
which was just presented as a scope change.
Staff recommends a $5 million reduction in Trade Corridor Enhancement Program funds proportional
to the reduction in scope.
If approved, the amendment would bring the total Trade Corridor Enhancement Program funding
from $31,900,000 to $26,900,000 and return savings to the Trade Corridor Enhancement
program for future programming and a future cycle.
Additionally, two projects have minor technical changes.
The project location for the religious nobility
free logistics electrifications for emissions free transport
project is being changed from Alameda County
to San Joaquin County to reflect the scope amendment approved
by the commission at its January 2026 meeting.
And the implementing agency for the Pennsylvania Avenue
grade separation project is being changed from the city of Beaumont to the
Riverside County Transportation Commission to support efficient project
delivery. Tab 97 is a request to approve baseline improvements for four
2024 trade corridor enhancement program projects. Staff has reviewed these
requests and recommends approval of tabs 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96 and 97.
Thank you, Beverly. Now you can take a breath. That was a lot. All right. We have a speaker
slip for Peter Conklin from Forum Mobility. Commissioners, good afternoon. My name is Peter
Conklin. I'm the chief operating officer at Forum Mobility, and I oversee the FM Santa
Fe project, which is under discussion today. I'd like to begin by expressing our appreciation
your continued support for our project, as well as the leadership that Commission has shown in
creating zero-emission infrastructure in California. I'd also like to thank the staff at Caltrans,
at CTC, and at LA Metro for their partnership. These projects wouldn't happen without everyone
contributing. I guess overall we're really excited about this project. We are going to bring it on
early next year. We have significant customer engagement already. Over 100 truckers have signed
up, so we'll begin charging with heavy use immediately. The change from a slower charging
technology to a faster charging is really good for all stakeholders of the project. The project
will be cheaper, we will service more customers, and we'll have better outcomes. So I just wanted
question. Um I wanted to, um,
thank you again for the
opportunity to speak and please
let us know if you have any
questions about the project.
Thank you for your comments and
thanks for being here. Any
other public comment? Justin
would have received any other
request to comment on these
items. Hey, thank you.
Questions, comments motion from
council members. Thank you.
All in favor.
All in favor.
All right.
All right.
No's, abstentions, tabs 91 to 97 passes.
Thank you.
All right.
Moving along because we all want to get to the beach.
We have Kaye Lagisi for tabs, for tab 98.
for that next item.
Next item is item to amend the
local partnership formulaic
program.
This amendment will make the
following updates to the
current formulaic program of
projects.
Program $21,000 in supplemental
funds to one project in Madera
county.
And add six new projects in
Madera, Contra Costa,
Sacramento, and Santa Cruz
counties and program $8,834,000
to various project phases in fiscal year 2526 and 2627.
This action leaves $16,632,000 of 2022
formulaic program funding available for programming
through June 30th, 2026 and $80,056,000
of 2024 formulaic program funding available
for programming through June 30th of 2028.
staff recommends approval of this item.
Thanks, Caleb.
Public comment?
There was no request to comment on this item.
OK.
Any comments, questions, motion from?
Motion for approval.
Thank you, Commissioner Gordino.
Any second?
I'll second.
Second by Commissioner Tiffany.
All in favor?
Aye.
Aye.
Any no's?
Abstentions?
That item passes.
Thank you.
Next is Lashara.
Good afternoon commissioners tab 99 is an action item to split the u.s. 50 gold line corridor enhancement project in Sacramento County
Into two separate project components
This will allow the project sponsor to deliver the construction project in two separate contracts and better manage the project delivery
Along with the project splits this action amends the project component titles and the individual component activities while preserving the original scope
outputs and programmed amounts
This project will result in improvements to Hazel Avenue that will help to alleviate congestion and improve non motorized transportation through the project area and connect to the American River Parkway staff have reviewed this request and recommend approval.
Thank you.
Any public comment, Justin.
No, there was no request to comment on the item.
Thank you.
Any questions, comments, or emotion from commissioners.
Commissioner Tiffany. Any second? Thank you. Commissioner Brown-Hines, all in favor?
Noes, abstentions? Okay, tab 99 passes. Next, we have tabs 100 to 103
voted together. John Prey. Yes, tabs 100 through 103 are all action items for
shop allocations so I'll present them together and we'll take an action at the end.
Tab 100 is an action item for shop construction allocations. This item will allocate $28,745,000
for four shop projects. This lower than typical amount is a result of the allocation plan that
was approved at the December Commission meeting and we're still operating under.
These four projects align with the allocation priorities
that were approved by the Commission.
Two of the four projects are mitigation projects,
and so that falls under the mandates category
in the allocation plan.
One of the four projects is an emergency restoration project,
and so that falls under the emergency reopening category.
And the last one of the four projects
is a financial contribution to the city of Chino
to relinquish a portion of state route 83
within the city limits,
that falls under the relinquishments category of the allocation plan. This relinquishment was
approved by the commission yesterday, or no, today under the consent calendar. And then there
are no primary asset performance outputs to report at this meeting on that one. So we'll move on to
tab 101. Tab 101 is an action item for shop pre-construction allocations. This item will allocate
$84,538,000 for 83 shop pre-construction phases for environmental design and right
away. These capital outlay support resources are very important to continue project development
on these projects, so they're ready to be allocated as we roll into our rebalanced 2026 shop.
102 is actually another action item for shop pre-construction allocations. This item will
allocate $107,421,000 for 38 shop pre-construction phases. This item, these are all brand new
2026 shop projects and these are all allocations for the P&ED phase, so these new projects
can begin preliminary design and environmental studies. Please note there is one small technical
correction on the changelist for this item. 103 is an action item to allocate $10,500,000
for the right of way capital phase for the Binnie Junction pavement rehabilitation project
on state route 70 in Yuba County. Most right of way capital allocations are delegated to
Caltrans under the right of way annual allocation. However, right of way capital allocations
I don't know how to do that.
We are required to come to the
commission for individual
approval.
This is the second right of way
capital allocation for this
project because the project had
to be reprogrammed for funding
for this project, which is kind
of rare.
the project lapsed when it was not delivered as planned and it couldn't be delivered within its
20-month allocation time extension. So projects been reprogrammed and we're reallocating this right away capital allocation.
So with that staff recommends approval of tabs 100 through 103.
Thank you John. Any public comment?
No, there's no request of comment on these items. All right. Thank you. All right. I'm gonna recite each individually so that gives my
commissioners time to rev up here. So, uh, any questions or comments or motion on tabs
100 100 1 102 or 103 to approve, uh, the shop allocations recommended in tabs 100 1 0 1
1 0 2 and 1 0 3. Thank you. Commissioner Lugo a second. Thank you. Commissioner Brown Hines
All in favor?
Aye.
Aye.
Any opposed?
Abstention?
Okay.
Those tabs passes.
Thank you.
Next tabs 104 and 105 Sheila.
Thank you.
I'll be presenting 104 and 105 together with a recommendation at the end.
Tab 104 is a request to allocate $3 million for the locally administered state transportation
improvement program, date route four operational improvements, phase two
project on the state highway system in Contra Costa County. Tab 105 is a
request to allocate 12 million two hundred and sixty eight thousand for six
locally administered state transportation improvement program and
planning programming and monitoring or PPM projects off the state highway system.
The staff has reviewed the requests and recommends approval of tabs 104 and
Okay. Thank you, Sheila. Public comment. there is no request to comment on these items. Okay, thank you. Any questions, comments, motion, motion on tabs one oh four one oh five. I'm going to approve one oh four and one oh five. Okay, motion. Commissioner Tiffany. Second.
Second. Commissioner Lugo seconds. All in favor.
All right, any no abstentions?
Okay, those tabs pass.
Thank you.
All right, tab 106, Kenneth, joining us virtually.
Thank you, Chair.
Commissioners tab 106 is an allocation of $32,670,000
for the Sacramento County Wadi V
innovative freight terminal project.
This project will construct a medium
and heavy duty zero emission vehicle charging station.
As part of this allocation, staff is recommending approval of a minor scope change request to
increase the solar capacity and number of charging ports.
Staff has reviewed this request and recommends approval.
Any public comment?
No, there was no request to comment on the item.
Thank you.
Any questions, comments, motion from the commission?
I'll move to approve tab 106.
Thank you.
Commissioner Lugo, any second?
Second by Commissioner Guardino.
All in favor.
Aye.
Aye.
No abstentions.
Okay.
That tab passes.
Thanks, Kenneth.
All right.
Back to LaShara for tab 107.
Tab 107 is an allocation request for the following projects, $3 million for the local partnership
formulaic program for the 2026 paving and drainage project for the town of Truckee in
Nevada County, $231,000 from the local partnership formulaic program for the Gillette Road applicant.
rehabilitation project for the city of El Centro in Imperial County and $25 million for the local partnership competitive program for the ice street bridge replacement project for the city of Sacramento in Sacramento County staff have reviewed these requests and recommend approval for a total local partnership program allocation of 28 million.
$231,000. Thank you, Lashara. Any public comment.
Sorry. Nope. There was a request.
Coming in there. Thank you. Any
comments? Questions? Motion of
commissioners. I'll move to
approve tab one of seven. Thank
you. Commissioner Lugo, second.
Second by Commissioner Brown
Heinz. All in favor. All right,
and he knows abstentions. That
item passes. Thank you, Lashara.
there you are. Commissioners tabs 108 and 109 are allocation requests for a total of three
million three hundred and seventy seven dollars in excuse me let me say that again three million
three hundred and seventy seven thousand dollars in local partnership formulaic program and Turkup
funds for two projects in San Joaquin and Santa Cruz counties. Staff has reviewed these requests
and found them to be consistent with local partnership formulaic program and Turkup guidelines
David, please note that tab 1 0 9 has a minor edit to the agenda title noted on the change list to revise the county that this project is in from Santa Clara to Santa Cruz staff recommends your approval of tabs 1 0 8 and 1 0 9.
Thank you, Kayla.
Public comment.
There are no requests to comment on the item. Okay, thank you.
comments or motion? Moved
approval. Thank you, Commissioner
Guardino second by Commissioner
Tiffany on favor for tabs one
oh eight and one oh nine. And he
knows abstention. Okay, that
passes. Thank you. Next tab one
10 is Naveen. Welcome back. Thank
you. Commissioners tab 110 is an
and local partnership competitive program allocation request of $100 million for Bart Silicon Valley. Phase two new whole yard tunneling package one project component, which is a state of Miss administered project component in Santa Clara County.
Commission staff reviewed the request and recommends your approval of tab 110.
Thank you, Navin. We do have a speaker slip for Erika Rhoads from VTA.
Good afternoon, commissioners and staff. My name is Erika Rhoads. I am the Deputy Director
of External Affairs for VTA's Bart Silicon Valley Program. On behalf of VTA, I would
like to thank the California Department of Transportation for recommending the allocation
of $100 million to VTA's Bart Silicon Valley Phase 2 project. VTA strongly urges the commissioners
to approve this recommendation, as the project is accelerating through early construction
activities, finalizing design and continues momentum towards major tunnel construction.
The state has long supported this project and the funding allocation discussed today
will allow our agency to immediately put funds to use towards early construction
activities that are occurring now in 2026. Since the spring of 2025, early construction activities
have been underway to construct the west tunnel launch structure, and we're planning to maintain
that momentum through 2026 and 2027 to ensure we start handling as soon as possible to stay
on the clerical path to deliver this project. To do so, we are asking for this 100 million
allocation to be granted as soon as possible so that this work can continue and more significant
construction could get underway shortly thereafter. Bringing BART through downtown San Jose into
Santa Clara is a multi-generational long-term investment in transit infrastructure. We at
us as you go forward. This
work with the Bay Area VTA are
honored to play a role in the
development of this
infrastructure that Bay Area
residents have strongly
supported for decades to ring
the Bay with rail. This work
with your assistance will
create greater economic growth,
further connect to the region,
and provide equitable transit
for the communities in the Bay
Area. Thank you for your time
in support of this allocation.
Thank you, Erica, for being
here. Do we have any public
comment online?
comments, motion. I would be honored to make a motion for approval of this. Absolutely.
Thank you. Commissioner Gordino. Second. I'll make a second. Seconded by Commissioner Tiffany.
All in favor. Aye. Any no's, abstentions? All right. That item passes. And Madam Chair,
I believe, I believe there's a possibility at our May 1415 hearing in San Jose that VTA
and our outstanding staff are working on a tour for that mid-morning on Thursday, May 14th.
Excellent. Looking forward to it.
And for those who can join us, we'll be able to see where the tunneling will go on. And we
promise that that tunnel will not be boring.
Terrible.
Thank you for waking us up.
I'm a dad.
That's a dad joke.
All right. Looking forward to that.
Stay tuned everyone. All right back to Naveen for tab 111. It was a great joke Commissioner
Gordino. Tab 111. All for you. I love them. So tab 111 is an action item to approve an allocation
for $6,507,706 for eight projects in the 2025 environmental enhancement and mitigation program
as approved under tab 74 earlier. Commission staff has reviewed the request and recommends
your approval of tab 111. Thank you Naveen. Any public comment Justin? Yes we do have one
virtual attendee with her hand raised at this time. Okay. Let's call on Cane Silvie.
Hi commissioners this is Cane Silvie with the land conservancy of San Luis Obispo County.
I just wanted to say a quick thank you to y'all for your review of these projects and for selecting
us as one of your funded projects. We're really excited about the McMillan Ranch Conservation
Easements and looking forward to working with you all to bring that project to fruition. So
thank you. Justin. There were no other requests to comment. Okay, great. Thank you. Any
questions, comments, motion from commissioners? Thank you. Commissioner Lugo, any second?
second by Commissioner Brown Hines. All in favor. Any opposed? Abstentions? Okay. Tab 111 passes.
Thank you, Naveen. All right. Tab 112, we have Rebecca Light joining us virtually.
Thank you, Chair. Commissioners, Tab 112 is an action item to approve an allocation request
of 8,266,000 for the PSNE and right-of-way phases for the state-administered State Route 49
development strategy. For
the last few years, we have
identified grass valley wildfire
evacuation project. The
improvements from this project
exist address existing evacuation
barriers identified at bottleneck
locations on State Route 49
corridor, and this will improve
mobility and safety for climate
vulnerable and disadvantaged
communities. Staff reviewed the
request and found them
consistent with the adopted
2023 local transportation
public comment. There was no request to comment on this item. Any questions, comments, motion
from the commission? Second? Second. Okay, second by Commissioner Lugo. All in favor?
Any opposed? Abstentions? Okay, that tab passes. All right, tabs 113 and 114. Anya?
Missioners tabs 113 and 114 are action items to consider approval to allocate $29,472,000
to 15 locally administered active transportation program projects. These projects will benefit
people walking, biking, and rolling. For example, the Wilshire active transportation safety project
and Santa Monica will construct safety enhancements for pedestrians, including traffic signals with
leading pedestrian intervals and bike detection, pedestrian refuge islands, and pedestrian level
lighting. Staff have reviewed these requests and recommend approval of CAVs 113 and 114.
Thank you, Anya. Public comment? There is no request to comment on these items. Okay, great.
Thank you. Any questions, comments, or motion from commissioners?
I'll move to approve tabs 113 and 114. Okay, motion made by Commissioner Lugo, second?
Second. Seconded by Commissioner Tiffany, all in favor?
Aye. Any noes?
Substantions? Okay, tabs 113 and 114 passes. Tab 115, Kat?
Thank you chair. Good afternoon commissioners. Tab 115 is an action item to allocate 160,610,000
to 11 project components in the transit and intercity rail capital program.
Staff has reviewed this request and found it consistent with the program's allocation
policy and program update. Staff recommends approval of tab 115.
Thank you, Kat. Any public comment, Justin? There was no request to comment on the item.
Okay. Thank you. Any questions, comments, motion from kosher's? Move approval. Thank you.
Commissioner Gordino second by Commissioner Brownhines. All in favor?
No. Abstentions? Okay. Tab 115 passes.
All right. We have tabs 116 to 133. Justin. Thank you, commissioners. I'll be addressing
tabs 116 through 133 together. These are action items consisting of time extension requests
for projects from the following programs state highway operation and protection program
state transportation improvement program trade corridor enhancement program local partnership
program local transportation climate adaptation program active transportation program and transit
and inner city rail capital program staff has reviewed these requests and determined they are
consistent with the respective program guidelines stop recommends your approval of tabs 116 through
133 thank you Justin any public comment no there is no request to comment on any of the
grouped items okay thank you um any questions comments motion on tabs 116 to 133 i'll move to
approved tabs 116 to 133. All right motion by Lugo, any second? Second by Commissioner Brown-Hines.
All in favor? Aye. No. Abstentions? Okay, those tabs pass. All right, tab 134, Navin.
Commissioner, tab 134 is an action item to approve a one-month post-fact extension
for the period of contract award for the locally administered solutions for congested corridors
program zero emission vehicle infrastructure project component in Santa Barbara County.
The delay resulted from utility coordination, a rebid after the initial bids were not viable,
an internal compliance review that pushed contract execution past the timely use of funds deadline.
The contract was ultimately awarded on January 21st,
the request. The request of the
Thank you, Naveen.
Next is CAT, tab 135.
Thank you, Chair.
Commissioners, tab 135 is an action item
to approve a post-fact time extension request
to extend the period of contract award
for the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Programs,
2024-21, Bridging Rail Initiatives Technology
and Education Project for the Rail Academy
of Central California Component in San Joaquin County.
Staff has reviewed this request
and recommends approving this exception
to the allocation policy.
Staff recommends approval of tab 135.
Thank you, Kat.
Public comment?
One more?
Okay, no, there was no request of comment on the item.
Okay, thank you, Destin.
Any questions, comments?
Motion?
I move you approve.
Okay, motion by Tiffany,
seconded by Commissioner Lugo.
All in favor?
Aye.
Any opposed, abstentions?
Okay, that tab passes.
Thank you.
All right, we have tabs 136 to 138, Justin.
Tabs 136 through 138 are action items
for your consideration regarding the approval
of time extension amendments as exceptions
to the shop guidelines.
Tab 136 is an amendment to the contract award period
for one shop bridge seismic restoration project
in San Mateo County.
tab 137 is an amendment to the project allocation period for two shop projects and tab 138 is
an amendment to the project development expenditure period for two shop projects commission staff
has reviewed these requests and recommend approval of tabs 136 to 138 okay thank you
Justin public comment there's no request to comment on these items thank you questions
comments motion on tabs 136 to 138. Okay motion made by Commissioner Brown-Hein seconded by
by me Commissioner Tiffany all in favor
any noes abstentions okay tabs 136 through 138 passes. Next is Anya for tab 139.
Commissioners tab 139 is an action item to amend a previously approved time extension for construction allocation
For the city of south gates holly dale area access improvements project by an additional 12 months
In june 2024 the commission approved a 20-month allocation time extension for the project
However, because of the delays caused by the southern california fires
The city needs additional time to finalize approvals, close the funding gap, and align
schedules with LA Metro and the city of Paramount to deliver this multi-agency integrated project
as intended. We viewed the request and find it consistent with the interim timely use of funds
policy for the 2024 and 2025 Southern California fires and recommend approval.
Thank you Anya. Any public comment?
there's no request to comment on the item all right thank you Justin any questions comments
motion from commissioners i'll move to approve tab 139 okay thank you motion made by commissioner
Lugo seconded by okay commissioner brown-himes i was about to jump in all right all right all
in favor for tab 139 all right any no abstentions all right that item passes
Good evening, my name is
Sam and I'm the director of
management.
Thank you.
Rounding it up.
Can for tabs one 40 to one
42.
Thanks share.
Commissioners tabs one 40 141
and 142 are action items for
time extension amendment
requests for seven project
components in the transit and
intercity rail capital program.
Staff has reviewed these requests
and one forty two. Thank you, cat. Any public comment, Justin? There's no request to comment
on these items. Thank you. Wonderful. Any questions, comments, motion from commissioners?
Madam Chair, I'm going to be abstaining. Fifty six months is just past my comfort level for
an extension. I tried to dig into this and understand why that long of a delay would
have to do. I don't know. It's
not appropriate. It would be
appropriate. I just can't get
there, so I'll be abstaining on
these. Okay noted. Thank you
for letting us know. Commissioner
Gordino. Do we have anyone else
that wants to make a motion?
I'll make a motion. Okay. Motion
by Commissioner Tiffany,
seconded by. Seconded by
Okay, we have two abstentions one from Commissioner Gordino and past chair, grisby. All right. Thank you, cat. All right, commissioners, we do have a number of public comments. And let's see, I will call two at a time.
to see. I will call two at a time. Um,
Halen Conrad, and then following Monica Joanna.
Thank you so much for being here in Malibu. Um,
I do think that some people might have left,
but we'll be coming back cause I let them know. Um,
my name is Halen Conrad and I'm a sitting mouth sitting Malibu city council
member, but I'm not speaking on behalf of the council.
Thank you again for being here.
I do know how difficult public service can be.
I'm speaking as a mother and a resident of Malibu
and never in my wildest dreams did I think it would be this
hard to make a state highway and our canyons road safer.
Let's start with a simple reality.
Malibu has about six to 8,000 residents right now,
but on busy days we see over 50,000 people
moving through a single 21 mile highway,
not built for that kind of volume.
About 10 million visitors every summer
And this is also our main evacuation route
in a very high fire severity zone.
And yet we still treat this like a small town problem.
We have serious parking crisis on PCH because of this volume.
Cars line the highway, people cross unpredictably,
and traffic is constantly stopping and starting.
I'm all for public access, but this must be safe,
and it is not.
And I have ideas on how to help.
At East Winding Way and Escondido Trail,
it is incredibly dangerous.
The MRCA parking lot there is designed for about 13 cars,
yet on any given weekend,
you can see over a thousand visitors at that trailhead.
Cars spill onto PCH, pedestrians are everywhere,
and fast-moving traffic is forced to react in seconds.
There was just an accident.
Last Saturday, a multi-car pile-up at Zuma Underpass
shut down PCH for hours.
Zuma Underpass has been closed for years
due to overlapping agencies, special sediment,
and no one taking responsibility.
This Wednesday night, my daughter's 16-year-old best friend
was rear-ended at that same exact location.
Air bags deployed, her car spun into oncoming traffic,
same place, same outcome.
PCH closed for hours.
A young driver now shaken and traumatized.
Your time has expired.
Thank you.
Thank you, Council Member.
Oh, I have copies I'd like to give out.
Thank you very much for being here.
Thank you Council Member for being here.
All right.
And Monica, can you help me with your last name?
Al-Nakave.
I can, it's Al-Nakave.
Al-Nakave.
Okay, thank you.
First I wanted to thank Mrs. Langley for sharing her story
and I want to offer my condolences for her family's loss.
As a mother of two and resident of Malibu,
I echo her requests for safety and guardrails where needed,
but today I'm making a public comment non-agenda item
the safety conditions. I'll be
echoing a lot of the things that
hailing just previously mentioned. I
respectfully request that this item be
placed on a future agenda for formal
consideration and action. I'm
requesting a proactive approach in
implementing safety measures, including
the immediate and meaningful restriction
of roadside parking along
SR one at winding way east and west
with parking limited to the designated
parking lot only, which is 13 parking
on the next step. It's one of
the only which is 13 parking
spaces, although we see over
thousands of visitors on any
given weekend. Public access
should never require stepping
into a highway or risk of life
to access a public trail. I'm
in full support of a public
access consistent with the
Coastal Act. However, access
does not require unsafe road
parking along as our one. The
to the designated lot maintains access while removing pedestrians from the roadway. Thank you for your February 23rd, 2026 correspondence confirming the Caltrans has initiated a traffic engineering investigation.
investigation at SR-1 in winding way, I appreciate and acknowledge that current
conditions and that you that you see that current conditions warrant
evaluation and I respectfully request that the investigation reflects real
world operating conditions. I'm just skipping through so that I get through
everything. In 2013 Pacific Coast Highway Safety Study alternatives analysis
draft section three dated July 2013 identifies this exact
condition that shared shoulder use creates vehicle and
pedestrian conflict. Your time is expired. Thank you. Thank
you. I have this printed to give out. Thank you so much.
Thank you for your comments. All right. Next we have Kevin
Keegan and then Meryl May. I'm Kevin Keegan. I'm an board
member of peer to peer a local organization dedicated to
providing water ferry service to connect communities and businesses along the
magnificent SoCal Coast and offering Malibu an alternative evacuation route
by sea. Accessibility is a goal. To start we plan to have catamaran passenger
boats servicing coastal landings from Malibu Pier to Santa Monica Pier
over to Venice cruising down to Redondo Beach before arriving at San Pedro and
Long Beach. Sustainability is another goal. Our California licensed vessel
operator will run carbon neutral catamarans for approximately 149
passengers. A private-public partnership is a goal. Peer-to-peer has close to a
hundred partners at the city, county, state and federal levels, plus nonprofit
and private organizations. In June we aim to launch the boat service during the
Conference of Mayors meeting in Long Beach. Lastly our peer-to-peer water
ferry service has a potential to be a legacy project for the 2028 Summer
Olympics. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, next we have Meryl May. My name is Meryl May, I'm gonna talk
real quick because then you're all gonna get a copy of this. I'm a resident here, I've been here
for 30 years almost. This is to show how a lot of cyclists out here, we need good highways out here,
so it has to be bike safe. I'm on the public safety commission, I'm not speaking for the safety
commission. I've been trying to improve safety on PCH for 25 years. Most of what you saw on your tour
where we went to the east, and there's a lot of challenges,
but really to the west is where the crowd buildup is.
It's all very dangerous.
Whenever you do projects out here,
we need somebody that's responsible
for overseeing the safety.
We finally got some upgrades done in Corral Canyon,
but I've been begging and begging and begging for months
to have the channelizers improved.
They just were done recently.
Since 2010, there's been 63 deaths.
You'll see the white tires around,
and that's Hunter and Langley is the reason
that I've done this for 25 years
to try to prevent things like that.
I'm on a group called Safe Canyons.
PCH is a highway, there's visitors, residents, cyclists,
Z traffic commuters, there's a severe risk all the time,
but people don't realize that they'd come here,
not only having a safe highway and wide shoulders,
it also creates parking area, room for cyclists,
it also creates a fire break area.
So if the fire breaks out,
having the shoulders cleared helps the fire break area.
Their last florist crew does a great job,
but they're overwhelmed in capacity.
You saw what it was like to the east,
but they have to go to the west 15 miles.
Zuma underpass is bad, winding way is bad,
Corral Canyon needs improvement.
We need wider shoulders all the way cleared.
The stroller needs to be in good shape.
Vehicle weight cracks need to be filled
so that the cyclist tires, there was a girl killed in 2012
because her tire went in a crack.
She fell and got crushed by a bus.
Took me 60 days to get simple tuck tar in a crack
so that it would have a smooth surface.
I've worked with Caltrans to try to work
on smooth surface patching on the kettles that they use.
If you had two wands, it would help the output
of the patching because you've got about six
or eight people in trucks protect these people.
Am I done?
Yes, thank you.
I'll write it all down.
All right, I appreciate it.
I'm available anytime you want to talk to me
or have pictures or data or 20 years of experience.
Appreciate it, thank you, Mr. May.
Next, we have Michael Sharve, or Michael Shane,
and Dane Schaufamer.
Okay, we also have Patricia Keenan Myscoss.
Good afternoon, commissioners.
My name is Patricia Keeney-Mayshos.
I'm chair to peer to peer,
And we are developing a transformative friendly
environmental ferry system connecting Malibu to Long Beach.
And this is specifically designed to reconnect LA
in a different way.
Our project directly addresses the commission's
2026 priorities.
We are environmentally friendly.
We'll be removing lots of vehicles off of PCH
in those four or five corridors.
And we are connecting each of our stops, Malibu,
Santa Monica, Marina del Rey, Redondo Beach,
San Pedro, and Long Beach to public transit.
We are preparing our TIRCP cycle aid pre-application
before the May 18th deadline.
My ask today is for the commission to recognize
Waterborne Transit as a critical multimodal pillar
for Southern California.
We invite the staff to technically review
and really understand our ridership and revenue modeling
to ensure that our submission exceeds
your CalSTAS 2026 benchmarks.
And we look forward to seeing all of you on the ferry.
Thank you, Ms. Maeschas.
Any further public comment?
Yes, we do have one online attendee.
I'm looking to comment.
I'd like to call on Ryan Seneff.
Hello, commissioners.
My name is Ryan Seneff, I'm resident of Landora.
We are currently asking our transportation infrastructure
doing possible. We are mandating a total shift to zero-emission vehicles and high-speed rail.
Yet, we are relying on an energy grid stretched to its absolute limit. We simply cannot run a
world-class network on intermittent power alone. Assembly Bill 2647 is the key to unlocking our
state's potential. By embracing advanced nuclear reactors, we are building on the mechanical
backbone of the carbon-free economy. Unlike solar and wind, small reactors and micro-reactors offer
firm 24-7 baseload power. These units can be co-located at our busiest transit hubs,
our ports and airports. They provide the high temperature heat necessary to produce green
hydrogen at a fraction of the costs, finally making zero emission, shipping and trucking
economically viable. The choice is simple. We can continue to manage energy scarcity
or we can legislate for energy abundance. AB2647 signals that California is a destination
for clean tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs.
These Gen 4 reactors also use passive cooling systems
that physically cannot melt down.
They offer the smallest land-use footprint
of any clean energy source.
I firmly urge this board's support for AB2647
for a green hydrogen and a clean transportation economy.
Let's give the California's transportation system
the clean, reliable, and powerful future it deserves.
Thank you.
all of our online requests.
Thank you, Justin.
Sorry, did you hear me?
What the?
Hello?
Sorry, time is expired.
Apologies.
All right.
Thank you to those who provided public comment online
and especially those that came today,
particularly from the community in Malibu
and providing suggestions on the challenges
that you all face, not only on safety,
but just really looking at mobility choices
and really expanding the, you know,
the possibilities of moving around
in your sort of challenging area as it relates to mobility.
And so appreciate the suggestions
and respectfully encourage you to continue to work
with your local and regional transportation leaders
as well as Caltrans, and I'm always looking forward
to hearing any updates on projects that come before us.
So thank you to the public for coming.
Any comments from commissioners before we adjourn?
In guard neck of the woods in May.
Yes, we're looking forward to it as well.
Did anyone from online wanted to talk?
Okay, Commissioner Elliott.
Hey, thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Sorry, there's like a little weird delay for us,
so I never know if I'm interrupting you, I'm sorry.
I just wanted to reiterate my hope
that we can, at the next meeting in May,
have an agenda item around the FHWA issue
that we've addressed a number of times.
I won't restate the issues, everyone knows what those are,
but I'll defer to you, Madam Chair, and to the staff
in terms of what would be the most appropriate way
to have an item or a discussion about that
and where it would go on the agenda,
but I do hope that we can do that.
Thank you for the consideration.
We will have further discussions on that
per your request.
Thank you.
All right.
With that, yes.
I just wanted to congratulate you
and complain your first meeting as the chair.
Congratulations.
Beth, thank you very much.
I appreciate the support
in helping me remove my training wheels.
And I look forward to future meetings sitting in this chair.
And really, I just want to reemphasize
the spirit of collaboration in this room
and beyond this room.
We do a lot of work here
and sometimes we kind of power through things,
but I just want to let you know that we here on the dais
really respect the work that gets in front of us
where it gives us the ability to make decisions
on the projects that really impact communities
throughout the state.
So thank you and appreciate all the well wishes
and I'm here for you too.
So thank you and we will see you all in May and be safe.