right. All right. Good morning, everyone. It is Day two of you day two of the august 2026 hearing
of the California Transportation Commission in San Diego. Um, we will get started with roll call
Douglas. Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Bradshaw, Vice Chair Cruz present Mr. Brown Hines,
Commissioner Eager. Here with bells on. Commissioner Grisby. Commissioner Gordino. Present. No bells.
Commissioner Mann. Here. Commissioner Tiffany. Here. Chair Falcone. Present with bright colors.
Senator Cortese. No. No. Assemblymember Wilson. Chair, we have a quorum.
thank you douglas and back to you for instructions for public participation
thank you chair welcome to day two of the august
2026 ctc meeting in classy san diego state classy san diego
the meeting agenda is located on our website at
www.catc.ca.gov all of the presentation for today's meetings are available
on the commission's website commission's meetings page of our website sorry
under the View Download Meeting Materials tab.
Any document the CTC creates can be translated into any language you need.
Simply email us at ctc at catc.ca.gov
and we will have them return to you as quickly as possible.
American Sign Language Translation is being provided on the webinar for this meeting.
You should see the translators on your screen.
Live 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 be succinct. Please remember to speak at a steady pace
to allow our translating services adequate time for accurate translations.
If you are presenting remotely, we hope that you will turn on your camera during
your presentation if you have one. The public here at the meeting, we welcome
comments from the public as part of each item at this meeting. For those attending in person,
please submit a speaker slip to the clerk, that's me, and look to let us know you want
to comment on an item. 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 a raise hand feature as early into the item as you can to give the system
time to acknowledge you. Commission staff will let you know when it's your turn to make your comment.
Additionally, you may use a Q&A tab to submit your comment.
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 is provided
at a unique link and phone number to access the webinar.
These should not be shared with other participants
as they are registered to a specific attendee
and can create confusion for staff
when you want to make your comments.
For all of us here today, when you make your comments,
please do your best to be concise.
please make sure that your comments add new information.
If you agree with the comments of a previous speaker,
simply make that statement.
Please remember to speak at a steady pace
to allow our transiting 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 again today.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Douglas.
All right, we are going to move forward with our agenda.
We are on item 73, approval of report on the status
of the transit and inner city rail capital program loan,
Brandy.
Good morning commissioners.
Tab 73 is an action item to approve this report
to the California State Transportation Agency
on the status of the transit and inner city rail
capital programs loan
to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
in accordance with Assembly Bill 117.
Signed by the governor on February 19th, 2026
and enacted as Public Resources Code Section 75227,
AB117 requires the California State Transportation Agency
to loan the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
up to $590 million of approved funding for projects
within the Bay Area region that were not fully allocated
by the commission as of December 31st, 2025.
It further requires the commission to monitor and report
to the California State Transportation Agency
on the unallocated and unexpended balances
of the awarded projects.
The commission must notify
the California State Transportation Agency
and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
if after accounting for any outstanding loan balances,
the awarded but unallocated funds for the region
fall below 350 million.
On June 22nd, the loan was formally executed,
and on June 30th,
the funds were officially transferred to the MTC.
The loan must be repaid
to the California State Transportation Agency
in quarterly installments over a 12-year period.
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission
is expected to make its first quarterly payment,
September 3rd, 2026.
This is the commission's first report
pursuant to AB 117.
Commission staff will continue
to monitor the region's balances
and provide updates to CalSTA
at each regularly scheduled commission meeting.
Before I make my recommendation,
I would like to thank a few people.
I would like to thank in our staff,
my boss, Lori Waters, Justin Behrens, and Kat Kim
for assisting with this first report.
In addition, the Turkup office at Caltrans,
Sammy, Richard, Brian, Chia, and Brooke,
and then also at MTC, Kenny and Carl.
And staff recommends your approval.
Thank you, Brandy.
Well done.
We do have a speaker slip and then we'll go virtual.
So, Kenneth.
Good morning, commissioners.
Kenneth Cowell with the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission.
I wanted to take this time to thank everyone
for their assistance on this, specifically CTC staff,
council staff.
I see Undersecretary Hacker isn't here today,
but he was instrumental in working with us
on the agreement, as well as the legislature and the governor's
office on this.
This loan is so important to our region.
As a Bay Area resident and a transit rider,
I can't imagine living and working in the Bay Area
without our major transit operators.
And this loan provides a bridge loan
to continue our operations,
to support our economic development,
get people to jobs and doctor's appointments and everything.
So I really wanna appreciate the state
for their forward thinking on this
and our partnership with you on this.
So appreciate everything you do.
Thank you.
Thank you, Kenneth.
Any public comment virtually?
No, there is no request from our virtual attendees
to comment on the item.
Okay, thank you.
And I see a light up for Commissioner Gordino.
Thank you, Chair Falcone.
And Kenneth, thank you for coming forward
on behalf of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
as well.
I concur, this has been a wonderful partnership
between a region and the state to keep this vital,
this vital effort going and I wholeheartedly support it and would be
honored to make the motion in support. Okay motion by Commissioner Guardino do
we have a comment from commissioner? I was just gonna comment I'll make the
third comment yes thanks Kenneth and yeah coming from basically the extended
Bay Area that I know how critical this loan is there's also a very a number of
to be a discussion on this.
I think it's really critical about measures at the end of this year
as well. So anyway, wholeheartedly second. Thank you.
Great. We have a motion from commissioner Gordino second by commissioner
Tiffany.
All in favor.
All right.
Any posts.
Abstentions.
Right. That item passes for the record.
Both the motion and the second were wholehearted motion.
Okay, next item is the draft California transportation plan
2050 pathways, Francis.
Good morning commissioners,
tab 24 is an informational item.
Caltrans will be presenting
the draft California transportation plan,
also known as the CTP 2050 pathways.
The California transportation plan outlines a vision
for the future transportation system,
establishes statewide priorities and acts as a roadmap
for Caltrans and its partner agencies
to implement the recommendations outlined in the plan.
This plan is prepared in accordance
with federal regulations and state statutory requirements.
The draft CTP pathways was released
for a 45 day public comment period on August 3rd
and the public comment period closes on September 17th.
I will now turn it over to Caltrans to present
on the draft CTP 2050 pathways.
Good morning commissioners.
My name is Hannah Walter
And I'll be presenting the draft CTP slide, please.
So the California Transportation Plan
is a required planning document.
It's the department's main transportation plan
that covers all of our modes.
We're required to look at a 20 year forecast in the plan.
And it's updated every five years, that's also in law.
There's a lot of state and federal requirements
the plan. There's about 23 different requirements about different topics that the CTP has to cover.
It guides high level transportation planning and it includes recommendations. Next slide please.
We have a high level timeline so we're in the public comment period right now.
That started on August 3rd and it closes on September 17th. After that we're going to
incorporate the comments and then present an updated draft
to CALSTA and we'll work with everybody to get that finalized
and then we'll our goal is to finalize it in November of this year.
Next slide please. We did a lot of engagement
early on during plan development so we have
we have different stakeholder groups. We have a policy advisory committee
and a technical advisory committee. We also present at tribal meetings at NAC
meetings and then we have individual meetings
with different stakeholders who are interested.
We had a lot of coordination with different state agencies
and with MPOs and we have a public facing web page. We're rolling out
this draft through the public engagement portal
which is a new public engagement tool that Caltrans has. Next slide please.
So the CTP has six goals. These cover the main topic areas from statute
and they're also in alignment with Caltrans's strategic plan. So we have safety, climate action
and the environment, accessibility, equity, quality of life and public health, economic
prosperity and infrastructure. So the plan addresses those areas. Next slide please.
Just kind of high level takeaways from the plan. It includes strategies that can help reduce
greenhouse gas and vehicle miles traveled. It talks about collaboration and how we need to
collaborate with MPOs and RTPAs and how important that is to meeting our goals, the six schools I
I just went over.
It talks about new revenue sources and different ideas
that we have for potentially raising revenue in the future.
It acknowledges that solutions are not one size fits all.
We have a really geographically diverse state,
and we need to think about solutions
that are fitting for each region.
And then it also talks about how the system is multimodal.
it's interregional and it needs to be connected.
And also it needs to consider emergency response.
So those are some of the key points
that you'll see in the plan.
Next slide, please.
There's, so like I said, it's updated every five years.
Some of the highlights for the changes
from the last plan include updated data.
So we do a lot of technical analysis to support the plan.
And we use our statewide travel demand model for that.
And it's also updated every five years.
So we have newer data.
AB 2086 passed during the development of this CTP,
and it requires more financial analysis
to be included in the plan.
So we did that.
We consolidated some of the goals together.
So that's why you see like equity in public health together
and climate and the environment together.
So we consolidated those just to make it cleaner,
basically, and more succinct.
And then we also added new strategies this time
that weren't in the last plan.
So those are some of the high-level changes.
I think that may be my last slide, yeah.
So we're happy to give individual briefings as needed.
And this plan really supports or lays like a high-level vision for transportation at Caltrans.
And then it also, the six modal plans also incorporate the goals
of this California transportation plan.
So it kind of sets a high-level framework for those plans as well.
So we're happy to be working on the update.
We'd love to meet with anybody who's interested, and we thank you for your time.
We can answer any questions you have.
Thank you, Hannah. Just any public comment? Yes, we do have one virtual attendee with
their hand raised at this time. Okay. I'd call on Sofia Raficova. Good morning, commissioners.
Sofia Raficova, Coalition for Clean Air. We strongly appreciate Caltrans putting together
this long term vision for California transportation system. We look forward to working with the
agency to further find this vision. I just wanted to highlight that the California Transportation
Plan Pathways document confirms that reducing tailpipe emissions alone is not enough to reach
our statewide goals, that those efforts need to be combined with strategies that reduce VMT
for maximum effect. And the CTP also predicts that by 2050, if the current trends continue,
California's roads and bridges will likely face further VMT increases congestion and deterioration.
This makes it clear that mode shift is necessary to achieve our climate targets,
which will only be done through careful investing and employing VMT reduction strategies.
And one such strategy is the use of active transportation. In fact, the CTP highlights
new bike lanes as the most effective ways to reduce both GHDA and VMT in urban, suburban,
and rural areas. However, the plan also revises the bike and ped trends. The original plan
predicted that by 2050, there would be 17 million daily trips conducted by pedestrian cyclists.
Today's pathways report only predicts 13 million daily trips, a paltry 4% increase compared to a
45% increase predicted in the original report. But while these numbers sound like these options
are becoming less popular, that could not be further from the truth. This was shown in
yesterday's presentation on the active transportation program that showed that over 300 projects have
submitted applications to that program, a number that's been steadily growing with each program
cycle and by neglecting to invest in our active transportation needs we're stagnating California's
growth and sabotaging our efforts to meet our climate targets and also letting down Californians
that rely on these options as their main travel opportunities. So we need we urge you to rethink
the way we fund transportation priorities to ensure we on track to achieving our 2050 vision.
Thank you. Thank you. Okay any other public comment? No there were no other requests
I just want to give a shout out
to the folks who are here.
Thank you, Justin.
Any comments or questions from the dais?
Yes, commissioner man.
Good morning.
Thank you so much for all of your work on this.
I have two engagement questions.
My first one is around.
It shares that more than 75 stakeholders were directly
the different stakeholders that are listed in terms of the listening sessions, and the NAC meetings and one on one interviews, or is that separate one on one conversations and just trying to put that into context in terms of what that means overall?
And then my next question is, whether this is something that also goes to the equity advisory committee, do they provide some level of consultation? Thank you.
Yeah, thanks for that, um
the the groups that I highlighted like the policy advisory committee and the listening sessions those are the
groups that are the main categories of the
75 plus people that we mentioned during the development of the plan and
My boss been de Alba presented the draft CTP to the equity advisory committee yesterday
community, and I presented on it once before, I believe, but it was very early on to the
equity advisory committee.
Thank you for the question.
Commissioner Tiffany.
Thank you, Chair.
Hannah, you mentioned one of the items, one of the key points has to do with looking at
revenue sources or new revenue sources.
I'd like to have you just touch on that a little bit because that obviously along with
trying to find greater cost efficiencies,
that's going to be so critical to get more revenue
as we're facing our huge shortfall in funding.
Thank you.
Yeah, thanks for that.
Well, there's a few different strategies
that we cover in chapter 5 of the plan.
And we tried to take an approach where
we evaluated pros and cons of different possibilities
without necessarily recommending a specific one.
But some of the things that we looked at
are like managed lanes and toll lanes.
We also looked at road pricing and road charge.
We looked at a parking, surge pricing for parking.
We looked at potential sales tax increases
or registration fee increases.
We looked at charging for indirect use fees.
Like if you're ordering something from Uber
or something like that, adding an additional fee
for transportation.
We looked at value capture strategies.
So those are some examples of the things
that we discussed in chapter five.
Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from commissioners? Okay. Thank you, Hannah.
And we look forward to hearing continued development of the CTP. Thanks for joining us.
Great. Next item is the update on the San Diego Coronado Bay Bridge Foundation rehabilitation
deterrent barrier projects on State Route 75. Tim.
as an information item related
to the two projects on the
Coronado Bay Bridge. Please
note there is a yellow
replacement book item. The
first project is a presentation
on the foundation rehabilitation
project after Caltrans
requested supplemental funds
for the environmental phase.
Commissioned staff requested
annual status updates. The
second project is the suicide
deterrent barrier project. This
is a very important project and
it's the department's first
first Progressive Design Build project.
Later in today's agenda, Caltrans will be requesting
an allocation for a design build contract,
which will allow the construction to get started.
Ann Fox, Caltrans District 11 Director
is here to kick off the presentation.
Thank you.
Good morning, everyone.
Good morning, commissioners.
Good morning, Chair Falcone.
I'm Ann Fox.
I'm District 11 Director.
Here we cover San Diego and Imperial Counties.
With me, I have today my chief deputy, Alan Cosop.
We'll tag team on this presentation.
I'll briefly go over introductions
around the bridge itself and then send it over to Alan
to jump in.
So today's presentation provides both our annual update
on the Coronado Bridge Foundation and Rehabilitation
Project, as well as an update on the department's first
progressive design build project, which will install a suicide deterrent and
maintenance walkway on the bridge. The San Diego Coronado Bridge is an
iconic feature of the San Diego skyline. As you can see from the photo we've
provided,
this connects the greater San Diego area to the city of Coronado. Over 70,000
vehicles travel across the bridge daily. Next slide, please. Coronado is home to
several military installations including Naval Air Station North Island, which is home port to
three aircraft carriers. Located southeast of the bridge is Naval Bay San Diego, which is the
principal home port of the Pacific Fleet of over 60 ships. Several of you had opportunity Wednesday
to meet with the commanding officer, Captain Brian Bengay. Essential for national defense,
These naval ships must pass under the bridge to reach Naval Bay San Diego and must also travel
under the bridge to exit the San Diego Bay to the Pacific Ocean. Department of Defense
has designated San Diego Harbor as a national strategic seaport. Also located southeast of the
bridge is National City Marine Terminal. Harbo vessels go to and from National City Marine Terminal
which is which must also these vehicles must also pass under the bridge. Unfortunately Coronado
Bridge is the second most frequently used bridge for suicide in the United States. On average one
or more lives is lost at the bridge every month. District staff began work in early 2017. We
initially met with the San Diego County Suicide Prevention Council and we learned that the county's
Suicide Prevention Plan also included a suicide barrier on the Coronado Bridge. Coronado
Suicide Deterrent Project started in 2017 with a feasibility study to understand what
could be built. In 2019, California State Senate Bill 656 required Caltrans to convene
committee to provide input into a suicide deterrent. The committee represented the suicide
prevention community, first responders, the military, community members and elected officials.
This then led to Caltrans receiving $5 million from the California state budget to move forward
into environmental studies. These environmental studies are completed and we are now progressing
in our design. So with that, I'll turn it over to Alan to add some more depth to these
overviews. Next slide. Good morning, commissioners. Alan
Cussep, Chief Deputy for District 11. And I wanted to start off just with providing
a slide that shows a little bit of the context of the structure and the challenges. 22 columns,
that hold up the bridge.
But the navigational channel is really limited
to that area you see on the east side.
So that's a key feature.
All of the military boats go through their ships.
A complexity of the channel is the Rose Canyon Fault,
which is a very significant fault line.
So this bridge was constructed in 1969.
In 2002, we retrofitted the piers from the water up.
Next slide.
When the bridge was first constructed,
the piers that hold up the columns, so to speak,
or I'm sorry, the piles that hold up the columns,
there are micro cracks in those piles.
And over time, saltwater gets in there
and can corrode the rebar.
We all know that, we've been monitoring it over time.
And in fact, in 2002, when we did the retrofit
of the seismic retrofit, we asked ourselves,
Should we also do the foundation, the piles?
And the decision in 2002 was no.
Those piles still had some additional life in them.
And so we would continue to monitor.
And that's what we've been doing.
So in 2016, it was decided that we really
needed to do a more in-depth analysis of those piles.
And that really became the beginning
of the long lead project.
And the first thing we did is we did replica pile testing
with UCSD and we brought in a peer committee,
a peer review committee of seismic experts.
And I think I know the conclusion was
we really need to move forward with a retrofit.
So that's where 2018, 19,
we moved into alternative selection.
Okay, if we're gonna do this, how do we do it?
Next slide.
And this kind of shows you a closeup
of what we're looking at, those piles.
There's 499 of those piles
in the harbor holding up the structure.
So those are the things that were retrofitting.
I think originally we looked at could we drill holes
into existing piles and replace,
essentially add more steel through the holes?
Or should we actually build a bigger pile cap
and put new piles on the outside?
And so that's where we started for a couple of years.
That's where we thought we were gonna go.
Those alternatives proved to be costly
and have constructability concerns with them.
And so where we are today is micropiles and essentially
putting new piles in between those existing piles
or adding a new row or two of micropiles on the outside.
But the good news is, in the last year,
we've really firmed up our perspective
on what's the best way to restore these piles.
Next slide.
In 2024, we also thought about what
do we need to do to ensure that ships don't,
errant ships don't hit the columns,
like what happened at Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore.
I love this photo because it shows the challenge.
And keep in mind, I don't know much about naval ships,
but people tell me this is a small one.
But it really highlights the fact
that since the structure has been built,
ships have changed their design, and the bows get longer and longer. And so you see that
curve front in the front of the ship. And the question is, do the fenders that are out
there today, would they be protecting if that ship hit those fenders? And you can kind of
see it's sort of questionable, right? You could see that maybe the bow of the ship's
going to hit the column. And so we invested additional funds. You funded additional money
need to look at that question and to build new fenders
that protect against the more modern ships.
So next slide.
The answer there is fairly straightforward.
Building those fenders, we call them dolphins.
We're looking at various scenarios.
The key challenge with any of this construction
is that navigable channel,
making sure we don't reduce the width of that channel.
And so really, for both the retrofit and the dolphins,
a number of stakeholders come together,
the Navy Coastal Commission, the folks who
have the access to the bay.
How do we do this and still maintain functionality
of those two channels?
Not only long-term, but during construction.
Next slide.
Also like this slide, because it really shows the complexity
of doing that work.
These are dry docks adjacent to the structure.
And so if we're going to fix those fenders,
how do we do that in that confined space?
And how do we do that and keep functionality of the dry docks
and not have to impact those dry docks
for a couple of years?
So we're working with those partners, making good headway.
We think we have a solution forward there.
Next slide.
the photo shows what are what's the existing vendors look like? You kind of
see the pile cap in the back and then you see the wood. I mean, there's
additional concrete there. But, um, you know, just sort of a zoomed in look of
of that. Um, what did we accomplish in the last year since our last report?
Um, we have kicked off the environmental studies. We've had our
public scoping meetings. We've had additional round of value analysis,
make sure we're on the right track. Uh, and we've gotten our we brought our
stakeholders along and we have good consensus on these solutions and we now
we've started the environmental impact studies right now that we know the
footprint of the project how we're going to go build it we can go look at eel
grass we can go look at water quality we can go look at visual and so that's
those studies are ongoing next slide so good news is we're on track to have the
draft environmental document out to the public in early 2027 and we would be
back here in 2829 asking for funds to begin design right now we're thinking
design budget is around 40 million dollars again we're still looking at
some alternatives so the range of alternatives on the construction side
would be about 350 to 450 million dollars and we'd be asking for that in
current schedule is early 2030s but again a lot of work to do to hone in on
on which alternative works best and actual cost.
So with that, I'm going to pivot
to the suicide prevention project.
The suicide deterrent, I should say.
Next slide.
So one second while I catch up.
As Anne pointed out, the need and purpose of the project,
and I'll just sort of talk a little bit
about the scope of the project.
The scope of the project is fairly straightforward.
Two major components, about three miles of suicide
deterrent mesh along both sides of the structure.
And then the mesh has triggered a problem with
how do we maintain the underside of this metal bridge?
How do we inspect it on a regular basis?
So in addition to the mesh and the deterrent walkway,
a new walkway is being constructed in under the bridge
in certain pieces of the bridge
so that it can be inspected in a regular manner.
We are also replacing and adding new cameras, CCTV.
In 2024, we selected this project,
the department selected this project
as our first progressive design build project,
as Ann mentioned.
Next slide.
So you're probably asking yourself,
why did we decide this was a good job
to do progressive design build?
A few things, right?
This is a very unique job.
We don't have, the department doesn't have any comparable
projects that we've worked on. A lot of questions when we came in, there are a
lot of competing interests on the projects from a from an objective
standpoint, right? This is a historical bridge. This is an iconic bridge. How do
we, how are we effective deterring suicides while not undermining the
iconic structure? And in fact, it's being a historical bridge legally that we've
got to meet certain objectives, right? So bringing on a design build team allowed
that we're doing. And that's
know, we do structures like this project. There's certainly a high risk of cost
growth through construction. Unforeseen things. I always equate it to like doing
your kitchen. You open up your kitchen, a remodel, and something's different, right?
And you're adding change orders. We've seen a lot of history of that. So methods
like CMGC and progressive design build allow you to answer those questions
before you start construction. And so you're reducing the risk. You're
bringing effort that normally is in construction and you're bringing into
design and in doing so you're bringing down the risk of future cost growth so
that was really important to us and the third reason is the early completion in
any design builds project you're starting to overlap the design into
construction right start your construction on a critical path start
buying your material while some of the details like the connections to the
barrier are still being worked out so it allows you to save time and time was a
really important part of our goal here with the suicide deterrent. And I just want to
emphasize on any of these alternative procurements, it really is, you know, it's not the right
tool for all projects. It's a very limited set of projects where this makes sense. So
we think about it as the right tool for unique projects. Next slide. So what is the process?
What is the process to bring on a consultant team? First of all, it's best value. So remember,
This is a design and a contractor getting together as a joint venture.
And we procure based on their experience, their qualifications, experience with similar
type jobs.
And in fact, this team has members who have done suicide deterrent projects throughout
the nation.
And also some of their team actually have people who did the original seismic retrofit
in 2002 on this bridge.
And so you're really bringing that experience forward that we as the department can leverage
And then we talked about this sort of constructability issue.
Once you bring them on, and remember it's a two-step contract.
And so we first bring them on for design, to finish up the design, to look for innovations,
and to do the constructability.
And the constructability included things like mock-ups and off-site.
Let's see how this material performs.
Is it going to perform the way we think it's going to perform?
We don't want to start getting up there, buy it, start, and it sags more than we think.
And so, all those things are sort of rolled up into that design phase.
At the end of the design phase, when you finish the design, you're getting close to the finish.
And you've finished your innovations, and you've done your constructability, then you
enter into an open book estimating process with the contractor to establish a fair price.
And that's where we are today, when we end up with the price that we all agree on.
We ask for the construction vote, and we then move into the second contract, the second
phase of the contract. But it's actually a separate contract. Um, next
slide. Uh, and before we go too far, I just point out sort of this is a great
job shot to show the complexity of the of the project. It has no shoulders,
has very limited shoulders. So when we go build this, how do we build it? Um,
essentially, uh, you know, it's all about closing the lanes in order to get
crews up there. So we're really working at night. Um, we think about the cost
drivers and we take that very seriously, right. We know this job is is
significantly higher than our base number in 2022. Um, but you know, the
things that we didn't understand as a district in 2022, um, was how are we
gonna connect? We thought we could put. We could build it from the face of
the barrier. We can't. We have to go to the backside of the barrier and
install it. So now we're over water. And so now you bring in a whole bunch of
different operations scaffolding safety elements and you get a lot slower. This
project when we had a baseline estimate we thought we could build this is the
department thinking we thought we could build the bridge deterrent in about 170
days with one crew turns out we've got five crews for three over 350 days so a
lot longer slower production and a lot of that has to do with the complexity
of the design to meet the environmental goals and environmental objectives of not damaging,
not having a significant impact to historic structure, right? And it's controlled by SHPO.
We don't make those decisions. And so, again, at 30%, which is when we started the handoff over to
the contractor, those were things we didn't know. We weren't sure. Can you connect that deterrent
to that existing barrier in wind, and it not,
is the barrier strong enough to hold up?
Not sure, we know that now.
We've done that by x-rays and that sort of thing.
We know where the rebar is.
All those techniques in order to bring down the price.
Contractors, some of the innovations we've brought forward
include constructing some of the mesh offsite
and trying to, it's all about time.
How do we make this process go faster?
because faster means cheaper.
And then finally, I'll just touch on escalation.
When our team estimated this project,
it was in the middle of 2022
at the bottom of COVID and COVID's impact on prices.
The accepted escalation rate in 2022 was 3.2%.
So roughly over four or five years,
we're looking at 16% total inflation.
If you look at the California construction index
from that same time to where we are today,
actual costs, inflation's been probably close to 40%.
And that's rolled up in things, not just commodities, right?
That's based in insurance and fuel and labor and salaries
and all those kinds of things.
All of that rolled up to about 40%.
We didn't anticipate that.
So that's a large part of why we're about 50 million over
from our base.
I would just say something to think about for us,
there's $19 million of just stainless steel material
on this project.
So it's three miles of mesh
and just the material is $19 million before we pick it up
and start trying to install it.
So yeah, it's not just your off the shelf fence.
Last slide.
From my perspective,
progressive design build has served us well.
Again, when we took over the project,
there were a lot of competing thoughts
about what's the best solution here
and not to screw up the iconic bridge,
but also how do you fix the problem
in a very timely manner, right?
We didn't want to spend five years
going through a robust environmental document process.
So we're really trying to find something
that has no significant impact
and all the stakeholders can agree, right?
That's that extra threshold.
So for me, success looks like
getting our coastal permit,
getting our ship approval first time through.
And so, you know, those are successes.
And I feel real strongly that we have minimized
a lot of the construction risks
that we had going into the project.
And we do think that this is gonna save about a year
to opening because we're able to overlap
some of the ongoing design and construction.
And with that, I will open it up to questions.
I will say that Clint Myers from our partner,
the joint venture of Myers and trailer is here.
So if you have any questions for the contractor,
they're available too.
Right, thank you Alan and thank you Ann.
Any public comment?
Sure, for the record we received a few emails
in the last 24 hours or so
and we'll get those posted online upward.
They were all in favor of this project.
Okay, thank you Douglas.
Yes, we do have a few virtual attendees
with their hand raised at this time.
Okay.
first call on Mary Curtis. Hello, this is Mary Curtis. I'm a resident of Coronado and I thank
you for all the details on the design and also I want to point out that besides the national
strategic reasons involving the Navy and the Marines is I have firsthand knowledge in that
I'm a member of SOSL, which is survivors of suicide loss. I lost my son, not on the bridge,
but my suicide and my friend's son, Adam. And we think the sooner this can be completed,
the better, that it will save lives immediately. I am willing, and most Coronado residents are
willing to wait when there's construction delays because we're waiting anyway because
everybody I know has been stuck on the bridge at one time or another due to these sad sad disasters
and I have called 911 when I see a person walking on the bridge or biking on the bridge and I just
want to encourage you to follow through on all these great plans and I'm really really thankful
for all the work you do. Thank you. Up next we have Charles Bradshaw. Good morning. My name is
Charles Bradshaw and I am the community planes and liaison officer for Naval Base Coronado.
We're here to speak in support of this project. For the Navy, mental health suicide prevention
is a top priority. From the command structure to enlisted personnel, mental health is a constant
area of focus.
Leaders emphasize that suicide prevention is an active daily responsibility requiring
robust command involvement in a supportive culture.
The construction of the proposed deterrent barriers on the Coronado Bridge would be physical
infrastructure that would prevent tragedies of military personnel and civilians alike.
The other project, the Foundation Rehabilitation, preserves vital defense access as part of
the Strategic Highway Network.
We fully support these projects moving forward.
We would also like to commend the local Caltrans staff for working with the Navy to implement
these projects in a manner that does not degrade the missions of Naval Base San Diego and Coronado.
The designs of the project were made in a manner that preserves safe passage of the
protection systems.
Additionally, staff
coordination helped to identify work periods that would advance the project while eliminating or
mitigating traffic impacts to naval-based Coronado and surrounding communities with the
construction.
Thank you for your consideration of this important life-saving infrastructure and diligent
coordination with the Navy.
Thank you.
Up next, we have Vianny Palomino.
California Transformation Commission for the time. My name is Yani Palomino. I'm the Vice
President of Community Health and Engagement for Community Health Improvement Partners.
We're in strong support of the San Diego Coronado Bay Bridge Suicide Deterrent.
As a suicide prevention professional and representative of the San Diego County
Suicide Prevention Council, we believe this project reflects our shared efforts and desires
to create an environment that supports life and connects people in crisis to the help that they
need. Creating barriers between a person and a lethal mean like the Coronado Bridge can truly
make the difference between life and death. By installing this more permanent physical deterrent,
we can help save lives, reduce traumatic impacts on families while demonstrating our commitment to
hope, healing, and prevention. The project's purpose is admirable, highly needed, long awaited,
and supported to help these efforts, and at the same time it has maintained focus on Caltrans
expectations and needs and we highly also commend Caltrans team for their work for bringing in
community for this project and making sure that everybody has been heard. We respectfully urge
the California Transportation Commission and decision makers to move forward with a timely
implementation of this important collaborative project and we also thank you for their leadership
and commitment and support to protecting the well-being of our community and help self-lives
from suicide. This is a project that I've been a part of since the beginning in 2016.
And it's exciting to be able to be at this place. Thank you.
I don't see any other hand raised at this time from our virtual attendees.
Okay. Thank you, Justin. Anyone from the dais would like to comment or have any questions?
Okay. Commissioner Tiffany. Thank you, Chair. This is obviously a very
important in needed project both of the projects. I'm just maybe you can dig into this a little
bit further. Obviously both these projects are hugely expensive as you pointed out and
there's been a lot of escalation. Can you go into a little bit further what are the
plans for funding this going forward.
Have you looked at the different pots of money that I know you're going to be coming back
to us, but different pots of money that you'll be looking at what kind of local funding is
part of this and looking at both the design and construction phases as well as the construction
itself.
As you know, we're looking at a number of huge projects, and there's another one just
after this presentation that we're going to be looking at as well, and costs are going
through the roof.
So I'm just curious if you could touch on that a little bit further.
Thank you.
On the suicide deterrent, right now it's 100% shop.
the foundations and the dolphins, we're still in the process of thinking what
does that financial plan look like, where are our opportunities, right?
Certainly federal grants, you know, potentially military. We don't have that
full set of ideas, or we're working on that. I would say back on the suicide
deterrent, you know, to me things are the finished cost, not necessarily the
beginning cost right and what I mean by that is we continue to work to find ways to reduce
the cost of that during construction. That is one of the beauties of things like progressive
design build. We're always looking for a better mousetrap. We're in fact right now, re-looking
at the connections which are a large part of why it's slow it is to produce that and
if we can get those changes approved by the Coastal Commission in Chippewa then that will
It will be a significant reduction.
I mean, it's not, it may say $10 million.
I mean, it's not gonna make the job any,
it's not gonna make it cheap,
but it is a significant reduction.
And you've got our commitment
that we're gonna keep chewing on it and keep working on it.
Any other questions?
Yes, Commissioner Mann.
Thank you so much for this presentation.
And thank you for the speakers who spoke virtually.
My condolences to the one who shared about the loss of life
and just the importance of this project.
My question is more to the staff team.
So thank you so much for such a detailed explanation
of the progressive design build.
It's helpful to understand what that does in terms of costs
and levels of efficiencies.
But what I think would be helpful if this is possible
is to have a more detailed briefing about progressive
design builds to just understand the process.
Because one of the things you spoke about
is the two contracts, and what happens when you get
to the construction phase.
I'm really curious to know more about that.
So thank you.
That's a great suggestion, Commissioner Mann,
because this is a unique approach to project delivery.
And so I think it would merit a briefing.
Chief Deputy, do you have any comments on that?
Yeah, we're actually in the process of planning
a project delivery workshop in the future with Caltrans,
so that might be an opportunity,
or we can coordinate with Caltrans
for another briefing opportunity.
And I'd emphasize, it's a pilot, right?
And so there are some contractual things
that maybe we would do differently as it relates to that.
So I think it was a great conversation.
What would we do different next time?
Thank you.
Any other comments or questions from Adyas?
OK, the only, and just to disclose,
I will be recusing myself on the later item.
And I'm going to temper my comments and a question
and focus on coordination during construction.
So because of the uniqueness of the bridge
and the many stakeholders and communities
that are impacted by the project.
What can the communities expect
in terms of traffic during construction?
So right now, as I mentioned, all at night, right?
And one of the things we're looking at is,
can we extend the hours a little bit?
Because again, fewer working days,
lower cost, lower indirects and those things,
and try to find that sweet spot with congestion.
Especially given that the peak periods for the base
are different than your normal commute periods,
I think we heard on the tour their peak period
is like five in the morning and maybe 2.30 in the afternoon.
And so with that knowledge, maybe we can work around it
and give our contractor a bit more time.
But we're definitely doing that in collaboration
with Coronado and the bases.
Okay, okay.
And the other side on the San Diego side
and preparing the communities
on that side of the bridge as well?
Yes, definitely.
We've been working with Barbara Logan
and looking at some mitigation potentials opportunities.
All right, thank you.
And I want to echo Commissioner Mann's appreciation
to those who have called related to this item.
And so appreciate the public comment on that.
All right, thank you.
It has been requested because of the sentiments
that are attached to this project
that we take a five-minute break just to settle ourselves.
So let's do five minutes, and we'll be back.
Thank you.
All right.
We will now resume to item 76 update
on the last chance grade project located
on United States Highway 101 in Del Norte County.
Tim.
Thank you.
That 76 is an information item
for the last chance grade project
or last chance grade realignment and tunnel project
on the US Highway 101.
As part of the allocation recommendations
for the environmental phase of this project,
staff requested Caltrans to provide annual progress updates
the commission. Today's presentation is that annual update, but will also highlight some
major milestones of the project, including actions later in the agenda and including
a request to allocate the design phase. Richard Mullen, Caltrans district one deputy district
director for program project and asset management, is here to kick off the presentation. Richard.
Thanks, Tim. Good morning, everyone. Good morning, commissioners. Good morning, chair
file Cohen commissioners and welcome back executive director Taylor. As you
mentioned, I'm Richard Mullen, deputy district director for district one. And
I want to thank the commission for the continuous support for this project.
Originally, we started our annual updates in 2020 and we're continuing to
keep those going. So appreciate your support. I'll be short because I know we
have this presentation coming up but in meeting as alluded to yesterday by
director L to onesy we completed environmental document which is a
significant major milestone for this project I want to take time just to
acknowledge a few of those people that are in support of that have helped us
through the way here senator McGuire congressman Huffman assembly member
Rogers and our Del Norte County supervisors I also wanted special thanks
to the key stakeholders as this project goes through the state and national parks, their
support, and then the five tribes that were mentioned yesterday also. They're all in support
of the project. With what was mentioned earlier in the project before about progressive design,
this project is a CMGC project, so we look forward to that alternative delivery workshop to present
to you guys so we can understand the differences together. And with that, I'm going to turn it over
to the Project Manager, the Corridor Manager, Jamie Matioli for the thank you.
Good morning Jamie Matioli, Corridor Manager, last chance grade.
Good morning commissioners and staff, thank you for the opportunity to provide our annual update
on the last chance grade project. The corridor is a lifeline for the north coast and as requested
we're committed to updating you each year. Let me start with a quick overview and then we'll move
into what's changed since last year. Next slide please. Last Chance grade is more than just a
highway project. It's about keeping communities connected and thriving. The permanent solutions
shifts the current alignment out of an unstable landslide into a 6,000 foot tunnel to deliver a
long-term, reliable and safe road. Why is that so important? Next slide please. If the road closes,
There's no viable detour. A closure forces extreme travel times, threatens jobs and services,
and disproportionately affects tribal and rural communities. Our economists have estimated cost
in the hundreds of millions of dollars in lost business, travel costs, and foregone trips
if the road is closed for more than a year. Next slide, please. Last Chance Grade sits atop three
large, active landslides with ongoing coastal erosion at the toe of the slope.
The setting includes sensitive species, old growth redwoods in UNESCO World
Heritage Site. It's within Redwood National and State Park, and it is the
ancestral territory of five tribal communities since the highways been in
this current alignment in 1937. The roads shifted and slided down the hill
to the west, and that movement has accelerated in recent decades with
costs and safety risks also accelerating as we're running out of real estate.
Last chance grade puts our core four principles into action. We're improving safety, we're
advancing equity, we're protecting the economy, and we're taking climate action. We have two jobs
at last chance grade. We need to keep the current highway open and safe, and we need to find a
long-term solution. Jamie, I'm sorry, can I get you to speak right in front of the mic please?
There you go. Thanks. Next
slide, please. To keep the
corridor open. We've invested
heavily in emergency work over
the last decade. We've spent
$150 million in maintenance and
emergency repairs. These
efforts by time, but they're
not a long term solution. Next
slide, please. Onto our long
term solution. We've advanced
through alternatives analysis.
We've completed the
environmental document. Our
next phase is design, permitting
right of way acquisitions,
culminating in construction,
which could take eight years to construct the tunnel.
We're working to meet or beat that schedule.
We have an ambitious schedule
because every season of delay carries risk and cost.
Next slide, please.
We're coordinating with a broad coalition
of resource agencies, tribal governments,
and local entities.
This is not an exhaustive list.
Each group has a distinct role
in protecting resources and ensuring compliance.
Next slide, please.
With that context, here's what's changed since last year.
Again, we've achieved this milestone project approval
and environmental document in July 15th.
That's later than the December 25 target
we shared with you last year.
The primary reason was completing
a first-of-its-kind memorandum of agreement,
multi-tribal section 106 memorandum of agreement.
That MOA took additional time
because we prioritize meaningful engagement and collaboration.
Ultimately, tribal governments actively shaped,
supported, and co-signed this agreement.
As part of the partnership,
we worked with tribes to develop formulas
that would fund tribal-led special projects
that would serve as mitigation
for impacts to cultural resources.
This is a novel first-of-its-kind approach
that ensures tribal leadership on these actions.
With PAED complete, and thanks to your timely action
to supplement our environmental phase at the June meeting,
we're on track to perform geotechnical investigations
this fall, which keeps the entire design schedule on track.
Next slide, please.
So this fall drilling, it refines our understanding
of the rock type and quality, the geometry and movement
of these landslides, and it reduces uncertainty.
Ultimately, it will help us validate
that current tunnel design.
We will need future geotechnical investigations
in 2027 and 2028 to advance our design.
Next slide, please.
Here's the cost picture.
Design supports programmed roughly 223.7 million
and right-of-way support at 1.3 million.
These numbers reflect the complexity of designing
and permitting a modern tunnel
in a highly complex geotechnical and environmental setting.
We have a lot left to learn about this landslide complex.
Construction capital represents that uncertainty.
We're sharing a broad range of 2.5 to 3.5 billion
because there's a significant chance of changes
to the design and cost
as we advance our geotechnical studies.
We're actively working to increase our cost certainty.
Next slide, please.
On pursuit of capital funding,
we expect securing construction capital
is a multi-year effort
and it will require a strong coalition of leaders,
elected tribal leaders, agency leaders.
We don't have construction fund secured yet,
which is not unusual for a project of this scale
and at this stage.
Caltrans anticipate we'll need a diverse mix,
programmatic funds, competitive grants,
financing tools, and non-federal matches.
The exact path we take is uncertain.
But we do know that advancing the design without delay
is critical because increasing cost certainty
in advancing milestones towards a shovel-ready project
helps us compete for funding.
Next slide please.
And that's why we're asking for allocation
of design support and right-of-way support
and later items to maintain that critical momentum.
Assuming approval, here are the next steps
and key milestones we'll execute to keep our schedule.
Next slide please.
With this action today,
we would formally begin the design phase,
which includes final design and its products,
achieving environmental permits,
and securing the right-of-way acquisitions.
The goal is to begin construction in 2031
and complete in 2039.
We aim to meet or beat these schedules as much as we can
because of the urgency.
Again, we're using CMGC delivery method,
which helps us stay ahead of risks.
It strengthens our coordination with permitting agencies
and overall it keeps the schedule and budget more reliable.
Next slide, please.
Delivering a project of this scale
depends on stakeholder collaboration.
The project strength is the community behind it.
Tribal governments, local leaders, partner agencies,
and North Coast residents who have kept us accountable
and focused on a safe, smart, and sustainable solution.
We are successful because of the coalition
behind this project.
Next and final slide.
In closing, PA and ED is complete.
The memorandum of agreement is a major respectful milestone
and CTC's timely action have kept us on track.
Thank you for your continued support
and oversight of this critical project.
I'm happy to take any questions.
Thank you for your presentation.
We have a couple of speaker slips.
Well, let's start with those in the room
and then we'll go virtual.
So Supervisor Valerie Starkey.
Good morning, commissioners.
I am Valerie Starkey.
I'm a supervisor in Del noir county.
I traveled to this meeting here today
to support the presentation
that you just heard from Caltrans.
But I also wanted to take a moment
to put a little community behind the project.
Last chance grade has been a problem for over 60 years.
In fact, its history dates back
before my history with Del noir county.
In 1974, my father, who was a CHP officer,
wanted to raise his kids in a small rural community.
So ironically, he moved his family from here in San Diego
to the far northern reach of California,
which is Deloitte County.
It was important for him to raise his family
in a small rural community where people knew each other,
where we looked out for each other,
but probably most importantly,
so he could always know what his children were doing.
And quite honestly, he knew.
I grew up in that community.
I grew up with Last Chance Grade.
When I was elected in 2021,
I was appointed to Congressman Huffman's
Stakeholders Work Group.
That group brings together tribal leaders,
local governments, state and national parks,
environmental organizations,
and pretty much people who've not always approached
this from the same perspective.
But we did something important.
With the assistance of Caltrans District One,
we decided we needed to put this problem in front of us
and not between us.
Ultimately, we agreed on something very fundamental.
Del Norte County needs a safe, reliable,
sustainable connection to the rest of California.
For us, as Jamie pointed out,
Highway 101 isn't simply another highway.
When last chance grade fails,
there are no alternative routes
but we can just detour somebody for a mile or two.
Our other major highway is Highway 199
and it faces challenges of its own.
This section of Highway 101 connects our residents
to healthcare, it moves our goods
and supports our businesses.
It brings visitors to our Redwoods and our coast
and it connects our tribal communities and our families.
It connects California to Oregon and all of the North Coast.
Yesterday I heard this commission talk thoughtfully
about making sure rural communities-
Your time has expired.
You can finish with that sentence.
Thank you.
I thought thoughtfully about making sure communities
aren't inadvertently left behind
as transportation policies evolve.
That's why I'm here today.
When you see the words last chance grade on an agenda,
I hope you see more than the name
of a transportation project.
I hope you see the people
at the very northern edge of California
who rely on this road for safe and reliable transportation.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Supervisor Chris Howard.
Good morning, commission.
Thank you for allowing me to be here with you today.
The significance of us being here is incredibly important
to the scale of this project,
being the second largest project
in California highway history.
And it's not just for our little community.
This little community helped build the state of California.
The resources that flowed on this interstate highway for many, many decades before I-5
was completed in 1979, this was the corridor that built San Francisco and built other beautiful
places we call home in the state of California.
The importance of what was spoken to today was about the coalition, the collaboration,
the people that came together to make sure that this project did not impact some of the
the most important resources in the United States are redwoods are redwoods that are
not only culturally significant to the five tribes that were spoken about, but also to
many people around the world. It's important for us to recognize that this project emphasizes
protecting those redwoods and protecting that interstate. So goods and services can continue
to flow to the rest of the state of California. And I truly hope that you continue to support
to the commission. You know,
I've worked this project
because this commission of all
the commissions that I've been
to has been a partner and a
leader for us to move this
project forward for over the
last decade. Thank you for
being there for us. Thank you
for coming down for this item.
Both of you. Um, any virtual
comments? I don't see any
request from our virtual
attendees to comment on the
Thank you.
Well, first of all, as a 2020 Commissioner, we've been hearing about last chance grade
since day one, I think, Commissioner Gardino and I, and certainly, excuse me, big supporters
of the community and understand what happens when the road closes and having to drive five
hours out of the way.
So I'll put that up front first.
Secondly, coincidentally, two weeks ago I was on the train coming from Oceanside and
coming to downtown San Diego for a Padres game, and the people sitting across from me
at the table, they said, oh, where are you from?
They said, oh, you probably never heard of it.
We're in Del Norte County.
I said, oh, I have.
As a matter of fact, I have.
And they talked about last chance grade.
And I said, oh, I'm a commissioner on the California Transportation Administration.
They're going, oh, what's your name?
What's your number?
Where can we contact you?
But they talked personally about what this will mean to them and their neighbors.
And so I'm a supporter, obviously.
But my concerns are on the other side of this tunnel.
The places on 101 that aren't getting this upgrade.
And we here in San Diego know about the low sand corridor, what happens when the hills
come down.
closed highway 1 so many times for Big Sur that you never know when you're driving through there
whether or not you got to go you know 10 hours out of the way. So for the long term we put a
lot of money into making sure this tunnel happens. Great, but how about the other sides because if
you can get through the tunnel but then you can't keep going down the 101 because of the landslides
on that way, what are the long-term plans for ensuring that those roads stay open?
I can speak to- Sorry Jamie I was gonna ask if I could jump in on that. I don't think it's fair
to ask Jamie who's a district one guy for the entire plan for the state. I think maybe we can
get back to you with some specifics on how we're looking at resiliency along the coast
and what our plans are you know statewide rather than trying to make Jamie come up with an answer.
Thank you so much. You're on the hook though, Steve. Okay. Yes. Did you have any follow-up
questions, Commissioner Eager? Are you okay? No. Okay. Commissioner Tiffany.
Like Commissioner Eager, I'm certainly supportive of this project. As I've said many times, I'm very
supportive of rural projects. This is about as rural as you can get and I think it's very
important that as a commission we recognize there's parts of our state, they're very important,
but we think of San Francisco as being Northern California, it's really not. I get it. There's
a lot up there. So anyway, very important project and congratulations on such a collaborative
approach that you've taken. With that being said, this is a hugely expensive project and
certainly all of you have heard me talk a lot about concerns about costs. Can you touch
a little bit further on other than shop funding, what sources of funding and I know you're
looking ahead, but what other sources of funding that you might be looking at when you get
to, particularly when you get to the construction phase with, you know, 2.5 to 3.5 billion dollars?
Funding is obviously going to be an issue. I'd like for you to touch on that a little
bit further.
Thank you so much for the question. The project does have a very high cost.
Yes, thank you. So other than the shop, we're looking for every possible reasonable source
of funding. Statewide, federal, we're looking at all grants that are relevant, all programmatic
funds that are relevant, potentially using financing options and non-federal matches.
So that could be a whole series of things. We're not resting. We have a funding plan
in place. We've applied for federal grants already for this capital piece, the build
grant so far. We were not successful in that application, but we're continuing to apply
for everything that comes up. Again, the coalition is so important and we feel that having leaders
support this is necessary and including the commission here. So we appreciate any leadership
that's provided. I appreciate any help. We have a coalition that includes tribal leaders,
elected officials already, and agency leaders. The responsible thing, again, is to advance
design. We know that projects of this scale aren't typically funded at this stage, but
we need to advance design so we're more competitive. And the goal is to achieve full funding by
by 2031. Every year that we delay the construction cost and escalation alone, we estimate that's
$180 million. That's just escalation. That's not additional rework, additional environmental
studies and that doesn't include the sustained exposure to the community from this landslide.
So the short answer is we're looking for all sources. We're talking to everybody that could
this is my comments are not specifically for the last chance grade but the cost of this
project as well as the cost that we just discussed with the Coronado bridge as well as a number
of other projects that we're looking at over these two days illustrate the funding issues
that we have as a state going forward, not only do we have these huge projects we're
dealing with, it's combined with a decrease in revenue, as we've discussed.
We already know we have a $215 billion shortfall we're looking at, as well as with predictions
of El Niño coming probably more expense more cost for emergency repairs. Anyway
I've been talking about this a lot but I'm just doubling down and I hope that
during this project delivery workshop that we're talking about having that
Caltrans will be able to present some ideas on how we address these cost issues, both
from a revenue as well as a cost efficiency standpoint. We're going to have to have new
revenue sources going forward. And we're going to have to set priorities as well because
frankly some projects would just won't get done unless we can identify new
revenue sources or cost efficiencies so at any rate those are my comments and and
I do hope that in the planned project workshop that we can really dig into
some of these issues thank you any other questions or comments yes vice chair
Cruz thank you madam chair and I appreciate their presentation and I want
to thank the supervisors for making a long trip from Dale
North, obviously very supportive of the project.
And my questions speak more to some specifics
on the realignment.
Obviously, I shared the concerns that Commissioner Tiffany
has on project costs for mega projects.
But this is one that's obviously needed.
And you guys laid out a great argument
why we have to make improvements to these rural areas
in California.
but does the new array alignment accomplish the goals of providing some stability and
is there, have you guys took a deep dive and can validate that that's the case on this
project?
Yes, thank you.
So we do expect this alignment accomplishes the goals.
We studied approximately 20 alternatives going back to 2014 and this was the only alignment
that we had high confidence.
It avoids high confidence that it solves a long-term problem.
It avoids the large active landslides and it provides a stable structure that's strong
in terms of seismic strength and avoids the landslide.
We do need to validate the design.
So this geotech investigation we're doing this fall goes up into the national park.
We need to cut in roads, highly sensitive areas.
So we needed this environmental document complete
to perform the studies we need to validate,
ensuring that the landslide is well
behind the proposed alignment.
So we're actively validating this design.
And compared to the other designs,
we just had the highest confidence
in this alternative geotechnically, in terms of risk.
Thanks for your answer, appreciate it.
I want to thank my commissioner colleagues
for the very thoughtful questions and comments
on this and previous item.
My only comment is that there is no question
about the merit of the importance of this project.
I think the questions are on the scale
and the impact on our very finite funding opportunities
And it's not getting any better, and we're
trying to figure out solutions here, as Commissioner Tiffany
so eloquently laid out in his line of questioning
and his comments.
And so just to let you know that there
is support in terms of the need, it's how we get there.
And so we welcome continued engagement with all of you
on this project, and we look forward
to your updates in the coming hearings on this project
and other mega projects as well.
So thank you.
All right, let's move on.
Item 77, approval of project for future consideration
of funding, Sherry.
Tab 77 is an action item to consider
the environmental impact report
and approve future consideration of funding
for the last chance grade permanent restoration project
in Del Norte County.
The lead agency Caltrans approved a statement
of overriding considerations,
finding the benefits of the project outweigh the impacts.
Staff has reviewed this request and recommends approval.
Thank you, Cherry.
Any public comment?
No, there was no request to comment on the item.
Okay, I see a light up for Commissioner Gorgino.
Move for approval.
Second.
Second by Vice Chair.
Cruz, all in favor?
Aye.
Noes, abstentions?
Okay, that item passes.
Next, 78, approval of a project
for future consideration of funding.
Cherry, back to you.
Tab 78 is an action item
to consider the Environmental Impact Report
and approve future consideration of funding
for the South Fresno State Route 99 corridor project
in Fresno County.
The lead agency Caltrans approved a statement
of overriding considerations,
finding the benefits of the project
outweigh the impacts staff has reviewed
this request and recommends approval.
Thank you, Cherry.
Any virtual comments?
No, there was no request
from our virtual attendees to comment.
All right, thank you, Justin.
We do have a speaker slip from Robert Phipps.
Madam Chair and commissioners,
and thank you for the opportunity to speak.
I'm Robert Phipps with executive director
for Fresno Council of Governments.
Just wanted to say Fresno Cog has continuously
and will continue to support
the South Fresno Interchanges
that will replace three obsolete interchanges
with two modern interchange designs
to improve access, operations,
and safety on State Route 99,
as well as the adjacent road networks.
Better access in this case is critical and transformative
for this growing industrial area within
and just south of the city of Fresno
to help address air pollution,
racial and economic equity concerns
and to provide for good paying jobs.
The project meets all necessary criteria
for project readiness and demonstrates a benefit-cost ratio
that promises return on investment within six years.
Completing these interchanges will fulfill a promise
made 20 years ago through the region's
Measure C transportation tax,
when residents and businesses at that time
pointed to the existing half interchange configurations
as both confusing and potentially deadly.
And over the last decade,
we've seen approximately 1,000 collisions on State Route 99
and the interchange ramps within the project limits.
There were three fatalities,
there have been three fatalities in 292 injury accidents
and 695 property damage only accidents.
Right now, the short single lane off-ramps
at the interchanges do not have the storage links
to accommodate the traffic volumes exiting the freeway
and traffic queuing on the main line is a common occurrence.
The proposed ramps will have more storage capacity
and more traffic lanes,
and this will help eliminate the queues
that occur in the main line,
which will reduce occurrences of rear end collisions.
The new ramps will also see improvements
to curves and super elevations,
which should lead to fewer collisions occurring
on the interchange ramps.
So I want to take this opportunity
to thank our partners with CTC
and with Caltrans District Six
for their vigilance on this project
and urge the commission to acknowledge
the tremendous work already completed
If it's going to be a
monthly project, I will
look forward to making this
project a reality by
accepting the now
recirculated EIR and
approving the project for
future funding.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Commissioner
Eager.
Yes, thank you.
I just wanted to say a
special thank you to
Michael Navarro.
Working hard on this
project.
This has been in the queue
for 20 years.
And anybody driving down
the 99, if you see right
at those exits and
The trucks line up all the way down the 99 and could be for miles and miles trying to
get on and off.
I think the people in that area had been promised for many, many, many years that this upgrade
would happen and so that it's finally going to happen now, hopefully, is really a testament
to everyone that's been working on this project.
So thank you, Michael, for picking up the reins here and getting us to the finish line.
with that I'd like to make the motion okay so moved by eager and seconded by
Commissioner Tiffany all in favor aye no abstentions right that item passes tab
79 and 80 are together cherry tab 79 is an action item to consider the
environmental impact report and approve future consideration of funding for the
the Wannini Road Winding Project in Ventura County.
The Lead Agency approved a statement
of overriding considerations,
finding the benefits of the project outweigh the impacts.
Staff has reviewed this request and recommends approval.
And did you say?
ADS well, okay.
And tab 80 is an action item
to consider the environmental impact report
and approve future consideration funding
for the I-10 bypass banning to cabazon project
in Riverside County.
The Lead Agency approved a statement
of overriding considerations,
finding the benefits of the project outweigh the impacts.
staff has reviewed this request as well
and recommends approval.
Thank you, Cherry.
Any public comment?
No, there was no request to comment on either item.
Okay, commissioners.
Yes, commissioner Mann.
Thank you so much.
I just have a quick question.
With respect to tab 80,
is there ongoing communication that occurs with the tribe?
And if so, what does that look like?
Could I ask Doug to see if there's somebody
from the project team?
They should raise their hand.
Yes, we have Alfredo Martinez and Adairin Adrian.
Alfredo, you are now unmuted and pretty speak.
Alfredo Martinez, you're free to comment.
Hi, Alfredo Martinez,
County of Riverside Transportation Department.
Just wanted to say that we do have ongoing coordination
with the Morongo Band of Mission Indians.
we actually meet with them on a monthly basis.
Right.
May I entertain a motion on these two items, OK?
Motion made by Commissioner Tiffany and seconded
by Commissioner Eger.
All in favor?
Any no's, abstentions?
OK.
Those items pass.
Thank you.
All right.
We have tabs 81 to 91 together.
And this goes to David.
Thank you, Commissioner.
tabs 81 and 91 are all requests to directly negotiate air space leases with
private entities. Uh, as commissioner said, I'll present these together with
a single recommendation and vote at the end. The streets and highways code
requires these leases to be competitively bid unless the commission
finds by unanimous vote. Uh, that direct negotiation is in the best interest of
the state. All 11 items today are asking for that permission to negotiate.
You'll notice that this is a higher than usual number of items or these types of requests
at one meeting.
This reflects the department's progress working towards its holdover lease inventory.
And staff expects to see more of these in upcoming meetings.
I'll go over a summary of the 11 items.
Nine of the 11 items, tabs 81 through 86, tabs 88 through 90 share the same justification.
Each freeway lease area is landlocked
with no public street access
and is of no functional use to anyone
other than the adjoining business owner
that's currently using it for parking.
A competitive bid wouldn't serve any purpose.
Now, the remaining two items, tabs 87 and 91,
have different justifications.
Tab 87 is a tieback foundation
that supports a residential development.
This lease allows temporary subsurface showing rods
to encroach into state right away during construction.
There's no competitive use for this temporary encroachment.
So direct negotiation makes sense in this case.
Tab 91 is different as it's accessible from a public road.
However, the free lease area sits between the public road
and the owner's parcel.
If that strip released anyone else,
it would sever the property's connection
to the public road.
So while it isn't landlocked in the same sense
the other nine. A direct negotiation is still the only reasonable path and since leasing
it elsewhere would cut off the owner's access. Just as a reminder commissioners today's vote
only authorizes the department to begin negotiations. Once negotiations are complete, the department
will bring the actual lease terms back to the commission for separate approval. With
that staff recommends approval of tabs 81 through 91.
Thank you David. Any comments?
So that's. No we did not
receive any request to comment
on any of the listed items.
Okay and I see a light up from
Commissioner Gordino move
approval. Okay motion made by
Commissioner Gordino seconded
by. By Commissioner Eager on
favor. All right. Any posts
abstentions. All right. Tabs
move on to 93, Director's Deeds, Tim.
Thank you.
Commissioner's tab 93 is an action item
to approve the execution of a director's deed
in accordance with section 118
of the Streets and Highways Code.
The state will receive $217,000 for the easement conveyance.
Please note, this amount was added to the book item
as noted on the change list.
This action would allow a direct conveyance
of an easement from Caltrans
to the Regents of the University of California
for the purposes of developing a medical facility
for public benefit.
As part of this direct conveyance,
the UC Regents will accept ownership
and all maintenance obligations of the highway easements
and a retaining wall with associated drainage structures,
all pursuant to the Operations and Maintenance Agreement
executed on June 17th, 2026.
Staff recommends approval of TAP 93.
Thank you, Tim.
Any public comment virtually?
No, no requests from our virtual attendees to come.
Thank you, Justin.
We do have one speaker slit from Brendan Cramer
from UCSD Health.
Good morning.
My name is Brendan Cramer,
and I serve as the chief operating officer
for UC San Diego Health.
I really appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today.
We've been talking about this transaction,
what it means.
I want to talk about the why.
As part of the University of California,
UC San Diego Health has a unique mission.
We are not only a health care provider,
but we are also a public institution and a community asset
with the responsibility to bring care to the community,
teach the doctors of tomorrow,
and help to invent the next cures.
This proposed Rancho Bernardo Health Care Center
is an important part of fulfilling that responsibility.
We've been in the Rancho Bernardo community since 2018,
when we opened our first site at Via Tizil.
Today, that facility serves 20 specialties
and is a medical home for over 16,000 primary care patients
and sees 40,000 unique patients each year.
But demand has outgrown the space available.
We simply do not have enough capacity
to treat all the patients that need to see us.
In addition, we just created a new joint powers authority
with Palomar Health, which is allowing us to expand
even more specialty care to the community.
This project will allow us to expand access for patients
and add additional primary care and specialty care,
including OBGYN, dermatology, rheumatology, and endocrine.
The care will be supported by services
such as advanced imaging, mammography,
bone density scanning, expanded urgent care,
physical therapy, pharmacy, and laboratory.
These matters particularly for our seniors
and our patients managing complex care
who need to receive that own care in their backyard.
This project is an extension of our public mission.
It's about improving access, removing barriers to care
and ensuring that the residents of this region
can receive world-class academic medical care
where they want it.
We wanna thank Caltrans, the Federal Highway Administration,
California State Transportation Agency and CTC staff
for their assistance over the years
in bringing this item forward.
We appreciate the partnership
of Undersecretary James Hacker,
Deputy Secretary for Communications, Kimberly Erickson,
Caltrans District 11 Director Anne Fox and her staff
and Timothy Solbumen, chief engineer of the CTC engineering.
Their collective efforts reflect an important collaboration
among public entities working together
in your time in the process.
We appreciate the commission's consideration of this item
and we respectfully ask for your support.
Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other comments?
Okay. At the dais, Commissioner Eger.
Thank you.
First of all, I want to thank you for acknowledging Tim.
He never gets the accolade, so thank you, Tim.
Good job.
So I think that's a good point.
And I also wanted to congratulate UCSD.
This area, in case you don't know is overwhelmingly senior
citizens.
And as one of two senior citizens up on the
dais here, we know the importance of health care.
So I just wanted to thank you for expanding your services
there in that area.
All right, we have a motion by Commissioner CDER and seconded by Commissioner Tiffany.
My only comment is, I know that it took quite a bit to get to this point and your accolades
across the board are merited.
Thank you for your comments on that.
We in San Diego are very blessed to have a very robust safety – or I'm sorry – safety
net network in health care, and – but it's – the demand is growing and there are folks
that are from outside the region that take advantage of the health care in San Diego
region.
We're not only supporting health care here,
but also outside our region as well.
So with that, we have a motion and a second.
All in favor.
Aye.
Any opposed?
Abstentions?
All right, that item passes.
Thank you.
Tabs 94 to 97, together.
David.
Thank you, Commissioner.
Again, I'll present tabs 94 through 97 together
with a recommendation at the end.
These four items request approval
of high voltage underground utility license agreements
with PG&E, allowing them to install underground
electrical distribution lines
with an access control right away.
These four agreements cover PG&E service territories
within Mendocino, Lake, and Butte counties
along state routes 20, 29, and 32.
Undergrounding with an access control right away
is the last option available.
The department has approved an exception policy exception.
I'm sorry, an encroachment policy exception
for these agreements and has applied license fees
from a standardized appraisal based matrix
by county and route.
The Federal Highway Administration has already approved
both the agreement and the fee matrix for this use.
BGE is the sole electrical utility provider in each area
and Caltrans has finalized a statutory CEQA exemption
for each project.
All four agreements carry a 30 year term
with license fees ranging from about $1,000 to $13,000 a year.
With that staff recommends approval of tabs 94 through 97.
Thank you, David.
Any public comment?
No, no request to comment on any of the items.
Okay, great.
And commissioners, anybody wanna make a motion?
I heard from vice chair Cruz.
Okay, just making sure now I'm assigning. All right. Motion made by Vice Chair Crews,
seconded by Commissioner... Second.
All right, Gordino. All in favor?
Aye.
Opposed? Any abstentions? All right. Items 94 to 97 passes. All right, item 98. John, pray.
Oh, this is okay. Thank you. Before we move forward with this item, yours truly must recuse.
And the reason why is my husband and I own property within one mile of the project
location. So with that, I turn the gavel over to Vice Chair Cruz.
All right tab 98 state highway operations and protection program
john
Yes, sir
Uh tab 98 is an action item to approve amendments to the 2026 shop
These shop amendments will add 21 new projects and revised 13 projects in the 2026 shop
Of the 21 new projects 14 of them are from the major damage reservation
six are from the safety reservation,
and one is from the mandates reservation,
which is kind of a general term
which most commonly funds relinquishments,
and this one is a new project that'll fund
a financial contribution to the city of Torrance
in Los Angeles County for the relinquishment
of State Route 107, which we just approved
under the consent calendar.
So all 21 of these new projects
are coming from reservations, which as a reminder,
the reservations are funds that are set aside
to fund urgent needs that come up between cycles.
And then the 13 projects that are being revised,
various proactive changes with those.
A couple highlights.
The first one, as the chair alluded to this project,
one of the changes in this item is to program
previously unfunded construction funds
for the Suicide Deterrent Fence
on the San Diego Coronado Bay Bridge.
This will program the funds,
and then there's a related request
to allocate the funds under tab 107.
And then the other project I wanted to highlight,
there's one project with a fairly significant change
to its mitigation requirements,
and after recent discussions
and collaboration with Caltrans,
we actually have a modification
to what's being requested in this book item to this project.
So I'll read kind of carefully.
The change is for the Novato Creek Bridge Replacement Project
on State Route 37 in Marin County.
The posted book item proposes to split out $24 million
into a new mitigation project.
Staff has been working closely with CalTrans in recent days,
days and weeks to understand the justification
for this $24 million in mitigation.
And as a result of our discussions
collaboration, Caltrans requested that the amount be reduced from $24 million
down to $14 million, $100,000. This will allow more time to negotiate costs and
secure the stormwater mitigation strategy prior to committing shop funds.
So just to be clear, the recommendation is not the $24 million that's in the book,
it's $14 million, $100,000 and Caltrans has revised that request and that'll be
reflected on the change list so with that change noted staff recommends
approval of tab 98 thank you John um Douglas we have any public comment both
either online or in and present no there was no request to comment on the item
any comments from commissioners on the dice
mr. Tiddley thank you vice chair after hearing that John it makes me wonder can
And we saved $10 million on a whole bunch of other projects like that if you talk to
them all.
I just wanted to highlight, and it's good that we've seen a reduction in the mitigation
cost.
But just, again, bigger picture, doubling down on what I was saying earlier, we're seeing
more and more mitigation costs, in some cases just being nearly as much or maybe even greater
than the construction costs on various projects, and I'm not specifically talking about the
Nevada Bridge Project, but the point being mitigation is a huge issue when we're talking
about the costs that we have to deal with here.
And so I do hope that, again, in the project delivery workshop, that Caltrans can have
discussion with us in regards to mitigation and how maybe we can address that and somehow
get that more under control. Because every mitigation cost that we have to pay means that
that's a dollar or a million dollars or ten million dollars or a hundred whatever that's not
going to construction of a project that desperately needs to be done. So anyway I hope that that is
an item that we look at. Thank you. Thank you commissioner for your insight. Is there
a motion to approve? Motion to approve by Tiffany Evers our second second by Commissioner
Heine Brown. All in favor. I all opposed. Abstentions tab number 898 passes. Thank you.
So Solomon here. All right, moving on. Where are we? 90. 99, thank you. All right, we have tabs 99
and 100 together. Kayla. Commissioners, tab 99 and 100 will be presented together with a recommendation
at the end. Tab 99 is an action item to amend the local partnership formulaic program. This
This amendment will make the following updates to the current formulaic program of projects.
First, add a total of $30,272,000 in Formulate Program Funds to four projects in Los Angeles
County to various phases in fiscal year 27-28.
$25,236,000 of these funds are being advanced-programmed and will be deducted from Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority's 2026 formulaic fund distribution, pursuant to the
2026 formulaic program guidelines. Advanced programming is available in the 2026 cycle for
projects that provide statewide economic impacts. These projects will directly support the upcoming
2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games in Los Angeles. Next, add the Silverado Trail five-way intersection
improvement project in Napa County, and program $2 million to the right-of-way phase in fiscal
year 26-27. Next, add the East Bay Greenway multimodal phase one Oakland South construction
package two project in Alameda County, and program $273,000 in 2022 formulaic program funds
to the construction phase in fiscal year 26-27. And lastly, deprogram a total of $4 million,
$6,000 from two projects in the Formulate Program. These project funds have lapsed
due to the timely use of funds policy and will be redistributed among all eligible taxing
authorities in the 2024 LPP fund distribution in tab 100. This action leaves $68,546,000
of 2024 formulaic program funding available for programming through June 30th, 2028 and
$190,764,000 of 2026 formulaic program funding available for programming through June 30th,
Tab 100 is an action item to amend the 2024 Local Partnership Formulaic Fund Distribution.
The following updates are being made.
Pursuant to the 2024 Local Partnership Formulate Program Guidelines, incentive funding remaining
at the end of each fiscal year shall be redistributed in the following fiscal year.
60% will be redistributed to the Formulaic Program and 40% to the Competitive Program.
$8,765,000 of unused fiscal year 2526 incentive funding is being redistributed among all eligible
taxing authorities in the 2024 local partnership formulaic program.
$5,843,000 was redistributed in the 2026 competitive program capacity with tab 23.
Next $4,000,000, $6,000 in lapsed project funds are being redistributed according to
the Formulate Program guidelines.
Two projects in the Formulate Program were unable to meet timely use of funds policy
deadlines resulting in redistribution of unexpected funds among all eligible taxing
authorities.
These lapsed funds were presented to the commission for deallocation and deprogramming under tabs
54 and 99 before they could be presented
for redistribution in this item.
Lastly, $5 million in incentive funding
is being added to fiscal year 2627
for Madera County Transportation Authority
for their renewal of Measure T,
which makes them eligible for the Formulate Program.
So with that, staff recommends approval of these items,
tabs 99 and 100.
Okay, thank you Kayla.
Any public comment?
No, there were no requests to comment on either item.
All right, commissioners.
Yes, commissioner Mann.
Thank you.
Thank you to staff for all of your work on this
and also for creatively working with the stakeholders
to figure out how to make these projects work.
But when we're ready, I'd like to move for approval.
Wonderful, all right.
So motion made by commissioner Mann, seconded by, oh.
I'll second, but I also just wanted to congratulate
for their passage of their measure and the importance that people can see of measures being able to elevate you to continue to work on the important projects here. So I will second with that.
So we'll move on to item one.
I have an enthusiastic second by Commissioner Ater.
All in favor?
Aye.
Any no's?
Abstentions?
OK, those two measures or items pass.
Thank you, Kayla.
All right.
We have item 103, Rebecca.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I jumped.
Item 101, Active Transportation Program Amendment.
One is an action item to amend the Active Transportation Program by deprogramming the
Duran Street grade separation active transportation access project in Los Angeles County from
the 2019 Active Transportation Program's statewide component, and deprogram $10,821,000 from the
construction phase of the Inland Rail Trail gap connector project in San Diego County
from the 2021 active transportation program metropolitan planning organization component.
The Duran Street project was programmed with a scope of building two bridges, the river access
bridge and the river walk bridge. After the project was programmed, the Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, whom I'll refer to as LA Metro, was notified by the Army
Corps of Engineers who are delivering the Riverwalk Bridge that they could not commit to completing
the bridge within the timely use of funds timeframe. LA Metro met with Commission staff
and agreed to relinquish the 2019 ATP funding because such a large reduction of scope,
one of two bridges is not typically supported in the ATP. LA Metro will reapply for ATP funding
for this project in a future cycle. The San Diego Association of Governments requests
deprogramming the construction phase from the Inland Rail Trail Gap Connector Project
so that they can apply for smaller phased construction segments in future ATP cycles.
The Inland Rail Trail Gap Connector Project was originally developed as a single corridor
project. However, due to project complexity and escalating construction costs, the San Diego
Association of Governments has re-evaluated the project delivery strategy and overall funding
approach staff has reviewed the requests and recommends approval of tap 101 thank
you Anya any public comment no there was no request to comment on the item any
comments or questions from the commissioners right any motion a motion
by Commissioner Tiffany seconded by mr. Eger all in favor any post abstentions
Okay that passes. Thank you Anya. Next item 102 Laurie. Good morning
commissioners. Tab 102 includes two actions that you will be considering for
the Los Angeles River Greenway West San Fernando Valley gap closure project in
Los Angeles County. This is an active transportation program project. The first
action is to consider a two-month contract award time extension amendment.
The second is to consider a major scope change. The book item posted late as
listed on the change list. The project scope as submitted in the application
proposes to build a three-mile class one bike and pedestrian path with six
under crossings and various on-street improvements. The project closes a gap
and the 13 mile multi-use path through the San Fernando Valley, which in turn
connects with the 51 mile LA River Greenway, an important regional project.
The City of Los Angeles allocated the construction funds in January of 2024
and then received a time extension to award a contract because there was a
steep cost increase and the city needed time to find additional funds. The city
project. In fact, the city
did secure some additional fun
local and measure funds for the
project. The project took the
pro the city took the project
out to bid twice, and both times
a low bid was more than the
funds that they had available
with the ATP funds and the other
funds that they have put
together with the project. To
bring the project within the
remove five of the under crossings and instead install five signalized
accurate crossings and one under crossing. The accurate crossings will
include a hawk signal, which is a regular sized traffic light that
flashes for cars to stop when a pedestrian or bicyclist presses the
button, providing additional safety benefits at the intersections. Caltrans
performed an engineering assessment of the updated scope and has determined
that the revised scope will generally maintain the benefits as submitted in
the application. The city is ready to award a contract by early September. The
city needs the two month contract time extension to keep the funds alive for
them to award that contract. There was some miscommunication between Caltrans
in the city necessitating the need for the time extension.
Commissioner's staff considered the scope amendment very seriously before we felt confident
in recommending it to you for your approval.
There were many process breakdowns and poor communication that brought us to this critical
point.
Ultimately, though, there were two main reasons that we decided to support these actions.
one of their own funds for the
project. The first is that the
city is very committed to
delivering this project and to
installing all of the under
crossings when the funds are
available. They stand ready to
award a contract right away. To
further show their commitment,
the city has put in 22.3 million
of their own funds for the
project and have raised over 50
million of other funds. But
More importantly, the community that will be using this facility still strongly supports
this project even with the scope revisions.
The Los Angeles Bike Coalition, MOVE LA, and LA Metro all submitted support letters.
Staff was particularly swayed by the LA Bike Coalition support.
I want to quote from their letter.
they say, closing this gap matters.
For communities in Resita, Tarzana, Van Noyes,
and throughout the West San Fernando Valley,
these three miles can turn disconnected pieces
of the LA River path into a transportation corridor
that people can actually use to reach schools, parks,
transit jobs, local businesses, and one another
without having to rely on a car.
This project also serves communities
with significant transportation and equity needs
and provides an important connector
along the Sepulveda Basin.
Delaying these improvements would mean
delaying safer mobility and access for the people
who stand to benefit from them now.
Staff recommends approval of both the actions
under this item, the two month contract award time extension
and the major scope change.
over, I understand there might be some questions.
Marcelino Asunción of the city is here
to answer any questions and also Dee Lam from Caltrans.
Okay, thank you, Lori,
and thank you for your diligence on this item.
Any public comment?
No, there was no request of comment from the public.
Right, any questions or comments?
Yes, Commissioner Eger.
Yeah, thank you.
And thank you, Lori, for trying to explain to us
what's happening here. I know this is an important project and so I'll start with that. I guess
I had some concerns because we were so excited about that there was going to be an undercrossing
and how that would work and the benefits from a safety standpoint. And then it was start
over. Let's not do that because it's a little bit too expensive. And certainly as we talk
up here about saving money. We don't want to save money if safety is put secondary.
So I would like to ask the city if you could explain a little bit about the safety concerns
of at grade versus under crossings and I know I think, Gloria, you said they'll be able
to do under crossings later and how you will find the money to do that if we approve this
today. Hi commission, Marcelin Ocenso. I am a senior civil engineer and project manager for
SEW Los Angeles. Thank you for the opportunity. I'm also here with a colleague here from LADOT.
Yes, Chris Ryder, senior transportation engineer with safety and mobility at LADOT.
So to provide some context, you know, it was with great consideration when we went out to
to rebid that second time, where we wanted to develop
a strategy to make sure that we could award the project.
Right?
So we looked at a variety of options
of how do we strategically and effectively provide
the best menu of options.
So as far as the scope reduction at grade undercrossings,
to be clear, we are awarding one undercrossing, right?
We have enough funding to award that.
The at-grade crossings are HOC beacons
that give transportation users
on-demand signal control right at-grade,
and it's gonna be combined with high visibility crosswalks
and flat approach sight lines,
and then as a secondary benefit,
help calm vehicle speeds
and enhance safety across the broader network,
because when you slow down cars for that at-hoc crossing,
you effectively slow down traffic.
Secondly, this is an approved FHWA countermeasure,
it's an acceptable solution,
approved track record for traffic calming.
I wanna be clear that the city is committed to searching
and finding more money for these under crossings.
It really was a budgetary constraint.
The way that the plans are segmented
is so that the city can come back.
If we are able to fundraise
before the completion of the project,
we can certainly add under crossings
back into the contract.
That's how it was bid out very strategically.
So we wanted to give ourselves
the best menu of options, right?
We had our under crossings and then our at grade proposals.
And so they will just be added in as change orders.
Second to that, if for whatever reason,
the city is not able to fundraise
or execute those five under crossings
because it's roughly about $20 million total,
it is very easy for the city in the same way
that we can add it as a change order
to package it as a new project in the future.
So cities committed to delivering those safety elements,
it's just contingent on funding.
As we know, throughout the years with COVID,
with the fires in Los Angeles, escalation of costs,
these are all contributing factors.
Our initial estimate,
just to provide some broader context,
our initial estimate for this project was $60 million.
So that's what we had ready to go to award this project.
We were stunned when bids came back,
almost 80% over our engineer's estimate.
So it was our job as a city to come back
to go and find and seek those fundings.
Just in the last six months,
with partnerships with Metro, with the county,
with the state, we were able to raise roughly $30 million
in the last six months to make sure
that we can be shovel-ready to award this project.
So I don't know if that answers your question directly.
It's a longer, broader conversation,
but the city is committed.
We fundraise very aggressively,
and even throughout construction,
will continue to fundraise in order to see how we can incorporate those under crossings
during construction. So what I heard was that the city's committed. Yes. Certainly to looking
in the future to make sure that if you have the money you can do the under crossings.
But you want to continue to build so it doesn't stop this. I would just request that you keep
us posted on this that the communication stays open so that we know where you are as you
move forward with the project yeah absolutely more than happy to provide informal or formal
construction updates as well as funding updates and how we move forward to delivering those
under crossings either as part of this contract or a future contract thank you any other questions
or comments Vice Chair Cruz I have a question to Caltrans I don't know if Caltrans is here
and Lori for reference maybe some communication breakdown on this project specifically and
and I'm sure you have tools in place
that can flag potential issues for projects like this.
I guess my question is,
how are you using information
that agencies are providing to you
to make sure they're successful with project delivery?
Good afternoon, Dee Lam from the Division of Local Assistance.
Always a pleasure to be here, as you see on the agenda
and where I sit.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair.
definitely wanna recognize you for everything you do.
Commissioners, our CFO, Student Cat,
as well as our deputy director, Paul Goloski.
Okay.
All right, with that,
thank you, Commissioner Cruz, for the question.
So before I respond,
I wanted to kind of give this project
a lot of some explanation of the engagement.
In my mind, and as well as the team,
And this is District 7 along with headquarters and the city.
It's always moving parts, no matter if it's a smooth sail or not.
And in my mind, there's three areas that we collectively work together on and balanced.
One is what you had just heard, the funding along with that, the time extensions.
The other pillar of this is bid strategy, as you heard.
Third pillar is the scope change.
So I want to speak on behalf of Caltrans specifically, is the fact that taking all of this into
consideration, the level of engagement that was put forward to this really sheds light
on how to collaboratively work together to be where we are today.
So really wanted to kind of put that in perspective, that it's all connected.
That's one thing that I had in mind.
The question on how are we using our agency information?
First, I wanna kind of address
the different communication channels that happen.
So there are the one-on-ones,
the more the real focused collaboration
between agencies, districts, and headquarters.
We get information, in fact, more in-depth information
through that relationship.
And from there, depending on, like you said,
some of the outcomes perhaps of the project
or some of the strategies of the projects
or maybe some triggers of sorts,
that then is, you know,
push it at the working level to the best extent.
That's one path, right?
Or one communication engagement path.
I do wanna say also is we have different tools in place
like Look Ahead reports.
Right now, I believe it's on a two month,
kind of a two month outlook.
We're looking to do more of a 12 month outlook
for Look Aheads.
That then is information of, hey, what's to come
as far as extensions, allocations, and so forth.
So we can get ahead,
not only within the department, but with the agencies.
So that is definitely a pathway there.
What I also wanna say is we want to do,
and we're working on this is ways
in which we can dashboard this.
And I think, you know, visuals sometimes paint a thousand
words, but it gives kind of like,
how are we moving the needle
with the information that we have?
And how are we resolving that?
So a lot of times it's like you're putting tools in place,
but what's the ROI?
So that's something that we have in place there as well,
and we're working on.
One other thing also that we want to bring back
is that program versus allocated report.
I know we used to have, and we used to produce that,
and I know it's important to bring that back
to help show progress.
So that's something that we'll bring back.
What I also want to say with information also is,
many times, right, depending on the different level
of info, the different kind of parties
and who holds the information,
It's about that collaboration.
What we want to do with this information
is be able to communicate it more frequently.
So that would be in the form of more collaborative meetings
on a bi-monthly basis with all parties.
So those are, I think, just a few things.
I think that is just the beginning.
I do want to say two more things with information.
one is beefing up risk management.
A lot of times, you know, I mean,
the extent of this anytime, you know,
we have anywhere between 5,000 or so active projects,
as you can see hundreds of agencies that we work with.
The risk management piece is ever so more important.
So what we're doing is focusing also our attention
on how we can better manage risk collectively.
So that's an area of focus,
just so that it's how to utilize this information.
That way, we can have that visibility
into what problems or issues, or even successes may arise.
So I'll end there, but a lot of things on our mind
and on our plates to implement.
I appreciate your answer.
And I am confident that, in your ability to move projects,
and this is an example of maybe an area we have to improve,
but I guess my follow-up question
would be there's a recent executive order that
established the active transportation teams.
How do you think that fits in, and do you
think it will improve some efficiencies?
Yeah, another great question there, Commissioner Cruz.
I think it's in complete alignment.
So we've had some a lot of internal discussions
about how do we carry out this executive order requirement.
So one thing that we wanna do with this,
or this call for a support team,
what we're doing is, and it's happening right now,
is we've designated a single focal point.
We've designated someone that's gonna take a lead
of the initiative, as well as project delivery,
the oversight that you're seeing.
So we're gonna have,
we have the designated focal point, if you will.
And then using existing structures that we have
within the state, that's district coordinators,
as well as headquarters PMs,
using kind of that existing system,
have the lead work with the team to be able to carry out
and even enhance that level of support that this calls for.
So that was something else.
And I'll say a couple of things.
One is this team and this structure,
one of the things that we have in mind is clarity
on roles and responsibilities.
And so I think collectively that brings ownership
and accountability to what we provide agencies
as well as getting ever more so coordinated
within Caltrans and of course the commission and so forth.
So that's one area that I think there's alignment
with kind of this concept or this team.
So, and again, I think I touched upon a big one
that kind of aligns with your question
on how do we use this information,
but it also aligns on how this structure
or this point of leader or team is going to help carry out.
So that's the item under that is when I touched
on the risk management piece,
the risk, more of a risk management approach
to making this happen.
So definitely a lot of alignment there.
So thank you there, Commissioner Cruz.
Well, thank you. I appreciate your expertise and depth of knowledge.
Thank you. Commissioner Mann.
Thank you. And I really appreciated the questions and comments from my fellow commissioners.
I think there are really critical issues when we're talking about a project like this and
thinking about, you know, what are some of the safety issues that we're balancing because
of cost. And thank you so much, Vice Chair, for really diving into some of those communication
concerns. I heard a lot in that answer about things that you're looking at. And so I think
in that same sense of having ongoing feedback and communication around this project, it
would also be helpful to understand which ones you implement. The dashboard in particular,
when you're talking about the visual elements to make some of this really clear for everyone,
as people may change, budget shift, all of those things happen. I appreciated hearing
about all of that. I also want to take a page out of Commissioner Tiffany's book and talking
about resources, and whatever projects that we're talking about, there are resource constraints,
and we do see escalating costs for so many of these projects. So thank you for sharing
how you're balancing that understanding of escalating costs, knowing that you'll still
have the safety concerns addressed and you come up with a path forward in terms of communication.
I know that one of the comment, the letters call this out, but this is a community that
has a lot of transportation issues and equity concerns.
So I do think this is an important project and I really want to thank staff for all of
your work in getting this to this meeting and especially something where we get the
the materials a little bit later.
So I know a lot of work likely went into all of that effort
to make sure that this could be presented today.
But when we are ready to make a motion,
I'm happy to get that motion.
Thank you.
Okay, noted.
Thank you, Commissioner Mann
and thank you Vice Chair Cruz
for your very excellent comments and questions.
I'm gonna turn it back to Commissioner Eger.
Well, actually, Commissioner Mann said what I was gonna say
and that was really to thank Lori.
I know getting information last minute
and trying to get it out to all of us
and get it on this agenda in a way
that we can move it forward was difficult.
And it was a lot of work
that certainly you could have used elsewhere, I'm sure.
So I just wanted to say a special thank you
to you and your team for all the hard work
that you did to get it to this place
where we can vote on this today.
So thank you.
And I'll second with that.
along with our team.
I have to thank Tim Selbulman too,
cause I was on vacation for part of when this was happening
and he stepped in for me and really, really helped sort
through all of the issues.
So thank you, Tim.
Two accolades for Tim in one meeting.
Wow.
And on active.
Jesus Matthew.
On active transportation, Elissa.
Nice.
There you go.
All right.
We have a motion from commissioner Mann,
seconded by commissioner Eger.
All in favor, opposed, abstentions?
Okay, thank you, Dee.
You.
And again, thank you, Lori.
Okay, item 103, Rebecca, joining us virtually.
Thank you, Chair Falcon.
Commissioners tab 103 requests amending
the 2023 Local Transportation Climate Adaptation Program
by reprogramming $1,100,000
from the right-of-way to the construction phase
for the Moreno MDP line K
and Resch Canyon detention debris basin project
off the state highway system.
The city of Moreno Valley anticipates
that it cannot complete the right of way phase
before the deadline of its construction allocation
in June of 2027.
It must negotiate with 11 property owners
over 12 separate parcels of land
affected in the project area.
This redistribution of funds would result
a no net change in the 2023 local transportation climate adaptation funding for the project.
And it would give the city of Moreno Valley and its implementing partner the flexibility needed
to proceed with the right-of-way phase activities. The right-of-way phase will remain fully funded.
The project's implementing partner will fund it with the one million one hundred thousand dollars
that they are contributing to the project. Staff recommends your approval of tab 103.
Thank you. Any public comment? No, there was no request to comment on the item.
Okay. Commissioners? Questions, comments? Motion? Second. Okay. Motion made by
Vice Chair Cruz. Seconded by Commissioner Tiffany. All in favor? Any opposed? Abstentions? Okay,
that passes. Thank you, Rebecca. Tabs 104 to 106 and 108 will be presented by Tim. Thank you.
Commissioners, I will be taking tabs 104 through 106 and tab 108 together with a recommendation
at the end. These items are all initial allocations for construction capital and construction support
for shop projects with at least one of the phases exceeding the program amount by more than 20%.
Tab 104 is an action item for bridge form of the project on state route 299 in Modoc County.
Construction capital was programmed for 5,900,000 and Caltrans is requesting 7,655,000 and
construction support was programmed for 1,450,000 and Caltrans is requesting 2,433,000.
The additional funding is needed to account for changes in the scope of the bridge deck
rehabilitation, the requirement of scaffolding that was not originally accounted for and increased
unit prices due to more involved staging strategy. The construction support estimate was increased
due to the increase in working days to accommodate U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Eagle nesting
constraint and changes to the estimate to construct the project within two seasons.
Tab 105 is an action item for a safety improvement project on State Route 213 in Los Angeles County.
Construction capital is programmed for 821,000 and is requesting 1,055,000 and support was
programmed for 735,000 and requesting 775,000. The construction capital estimate was increased
due to scope changes, the need to install a temporary signal system and increases to the
to the number of working days.
Tab 106 is an action item
for a bridge rehabilitation and replacement project
on Interstate 40 in San Bernardino County.
The construction capital is programmed for 49,616,000
and is requesting 64,681,000
and support was programmed at 10,268,000
and is requesting 10,500,000.
This is the Colorado River Bridge
connecting California to Arizona.
The project is jointly funded project
with the state of Arizona with each state
being responsible for half of the project costs.
The project was originally utilizing
the construction manager general contractor delivery method.
However, earlier this year, the decision was made
to put the contract out for bid.
The construction capital estimate increased
due to changes to the foundation of the bridge,
increases to the unit prices of concrete,
changes to the bridge removal requirements,
increases to time-related overhead and contingency. And tab 108 is an item for
an operational improvement project on state routes 37 and 121 in Sonoma County.
This project is being combined with another project for construction which
is being allocated or is requesting an allocation under tab 130. Please note
there are letters posted for this item as noted on the change list.
Construction capital was programmed for $17,657,000,
and Caltrans is requesting $27,157,000.
Construction support was programmed for $3,397,000
and is requesting $5,197,000.
The main reason for the additional
construction capital funding need is due to a major change
to the type of retaining wall system
after completing the geotechnical investigation.
The site experiences consistently saturated soil conditions, which will require extensive
dewatering operations to facilitate construction of the retaining walls and embankments.
In addition, it was determined that the groundwater must be treated before it can be discharged,
resulting in additional treatment costs.
The increased construction support is due to increased inspection needs due to the scope
change, additional coordination with regulatory agencies and project stakeholders, and a significant
increase in the number of working days Commission staff has reviewed the
projects and the book items for items 104 through 106 and item 108 and
recommends approval thank you Tim public comment yes we do have a virtual
attendee with their hand raised at this time let's call on Jason Bryant okay
okay Jason lowered their hand so appear though that was an inadvertent so no
other virtual attendees looking to comment at this time.
OK, thank you.
I do know that Congressman Mike Thompson was waiting very
patiently for item 108.
And we regret that we weren't able to get to this item
in time before he had to jump off.
So thank you, Congressman, for hanging in there with us
if his staff is listening.
We do have a number of speaker slips in the room,
starting with Matt Robinson. Uh I think it's still good morning Madam Chair. Um I appreciate
you letting me speak today. Uh on behalf of the Solano Transportation Authority uh we are urging
you to support this item and also item 130 which will be later in the agenda uh related to the 37
project. Uh STA is a stakeholder uh local partner with our our other counties with MTC with Caltrans
in the overall 37 corridor. We recently sponsored legislation to help facilitate permit streamlining
on the project. We continue to seek more resources through the state legislature for this project,
and very much want to see its success. And so with that, again, I encourage your support today. Thank you for letting me speak. Okay, next up, Chris Smith. Good morning, still, Carolyn Falcone and members of the Commission. My name is Chris Smith. I'm here on behalf of the Associate General Contractors of California, our
our organization represents about 1,000 contractor members
and construction associated members as well.
We're here to express our support for this item
and item 130 here before the commission.
We believe that the Bay Area's success relies heavily
on communities being interconnected and communities
can only be served with reliable transportation
infrastructure and our roads put food on the table
that get people where they need to go.
And State Route 37 is a vital artery in the Bay Area
that is in desperate need of improvement
with an additional threat of climate change.
And so currently over 40,000 vehicles a day travel
the corridor with commutes delayed more than 90 minutes
and heaven help you if there's a event out
the Sonoma Raceway, you're never getting home there.
I know that some of the Bay Area folks here know exactly
when I'm talking about maybe some of the SoCal folks,
not so much.
But AGC of California and several of our coalition members
were proud to support the assembly transportation
committee chairwoman's Lori Wilson,
her budget request for improvements to SR 37.
We know that we need climate resilient infrastructure
to deliver for families and communities in the North Bay.
As staff pointed out in the report,
should the allocation not be approved,
commuter and freight functions along the segment of SR37
will continue to experience deteriorating
operational conditions, heavy congestion, backups,
delays traveling through the intersection
during peak hours.
These delays are delays that our communities cannot afford.
So on behalf of the associated general contractors,
California, we appreciate the work of this commission
and committee staff, and look forward
to our continued partnership on this.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next up is Joshua Arce.
Morning commissioners, Joshua Arce.
I'm the executive director
of the California Alliance for Jobs.
We're a labor and business collaboration coalition
between construction unions and Northern California labors
and operating engineers, Local 3,
And the construction employers, AGC,
Mr. Chris Smith was here,
the Associate General Contractors, of course,
the United Contractors,
together representing 70,000 union members
and 2,000 construction employers
who are grateful to be here today
because this is truly historic,
this opportunity to move this solution forward
and start fixing 37 now
is something that 40,000 vehicles, daily commuters,
working people, overwhelmingly working-class folks,
trying to get to work and back to home,
waiting up to 90 minutes a day, an hour and a half.
The relief is on the way with this project.
It's just the first.
This is new funding.
We're grateful.
We're also grateful to the Congress member,
Mike Thompson, who called in
because of his leadership in federal.
Getting the federal support to get us to this point
is really a big piece of the puzzle.
I just wanna say that, you know,
when you think about, and just so you know,
I live in the Bay area myself,
it's about reducing congestion,
it's about increasing safety,
and it's about improving the quality of life
for all those commuters.
It's about 40, I believe the number
is 20 million vehicle miles traveled a year, go down.
The first of these three phases
of what you're gonna have today and in the future
can decrease VMTs by 20 million a year,
create 5,000 union construction jobs.
We launched a coalition when we asked folks,
hundreds if not thousands of drivers,
do you wanna fix this stuff decades down the road?
Cause there's ways to do that.
Sea level rise is gonna take over,
flooding all these things.
There's stuff we can do down the road,
but we asked folks, do you wanna wait till then?
Or do you wanna provide these solutions now?
You've got 123 letters, copies of which I have in my hand.
These are the residents in North Bay,
imploring, urging, it's up to 200 now.
your time. Thank you. And they want to it's 37 now. Thank you. Thank you,
Joshua.
All right. Um, next is Chris Snyder. Good morning, Chris. I'm with the
operating engineers, local three. I'm the political director. I'm also a
resident of Sonoma County and I actually commute almost every day from
across 37 into Concord and I I've probably lost weeks of my life in that
process and we're here in support of the coalition. This is a jobs thing for us but on a personal
level for me I know when the flooding happened a couple years ago it would take me three to four
hours to get from Sonoma to Concord for work and back. The North Bay desperately needs this. I just
want to thank you ahead of time. It's a good project. It's a long-term fix and with the El
Nino Super El Nino coming this year we're gonna have an opportunity to see
how bad things could get and those environmental disasters and events are
gonna get worse and worse and worse and so if we don't fix 37 it's gonna
completely cut off the economic lifeblood between Sonoma Marin and Napa
Solano and up to Sacramento and you know it is the it is the only thing that
connects that whole region. So this is a huge step and I really thank all you
folks today for supporting this item and we're gonna be back in the future but
this is a big first step. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for coming down. We
have a virtual commenter that called back in. Yes we're gonna try again with
the original virtual attendee, Jason Bryant. Good morning Madam Chair and
commissioners. Jason Bryant on behalf of Transportation California. We're in
strong support of TABS-108 and my comments also extend to TAB 130 as well. We support these items
because they will fund the first phase of the critical work on State Route 37. The project
exemplifies how Strategic Highway Capacity Project can also enable functional transit,
reduce VMT and GHGs, enhance climate resilience, and of course create jobs and economic development
and improve the mobility and overall quality of life of the region.
It's for these reasons we're urging you to support TAB 108 and 130.
Thanks for the opportunity. Any other virtual public commenters?
No other request from the virtual commenters. Okay,
commissioners? Anybody have any questions, comments? Vice Chair Cruz?
Just comment. I want to appreciate the correspondence and thank the folks who came down
from Northern California to support these projects in particular 108. I know that stretch
of highway all too well and have been stuck in traffic both ways. So um these improvements
are much needed and sea level rise in that area is real and it's going to inundate that roadway
at some point if we don't begin the work we need to do now to get in front of this. Thank you. Is
Is that a motion, vice chair?
That is a motion.
OK, all right.
Commissioner Gordino.
Yeah, thank you.
I want to thank Congressman Mike Thompson, again,
for waiting on the line for 75 minutes
to address this commission and missing that opportunity.
I will apologize to him offline, but thank him
for his strong support for this project.
and I'd be very pleased to second the motion.
Great, thank you, Commissioner Guardino.
So we have a motion by Vice Chair Cruz,
second by Commissioner Guardino.
All in favor?
He knows.
Abstentions.
Okay, so items 104, 105, 106, and 108 passes.
Thank you.
Okay, so item 107, I will again have to recuse
due to property that my husband and I own
within the project site.
Within one mile of the project site.
So with that, I turn it over again to Vice Chair Cruz.
Book item 107, Tim.
Missioners, tab 107 is in action.
As for Paul, we don't have a quorum.
Thank you, Doug.
Quorum, Doug, one, two, three.
Let's have two of them.
We need six.
We're enjoying your training, please.
We need, we need to send, because there's a lot of seats.
necessarily how many of us there really are?
Yeah.
You mean to go check?
You mean to go check?
I'll go check.
Thank you.
Yeah.
All right, we have a quorum.
Tim, proceed please.
Thank you.
Tab 107 is an action item
for a bridge rehabilitation project
on State Route 75 and Interstate 5 at San Diego County
requesting an initial allocation for construction capital
that exceeds the programmed amount by more than 20%.
This is the Deterrent Barrier Progressive Design
Build Project we heard about earlier today,
so I won't go into too much detail.
Construction capital was recently amended
for 94,800,000 Caltrans is requesting $146 million
for construction capital.
Construction support was recently amended
for 15 million and Caltrans is requesting 16 million.
The construction capital estimate increased
due to changes in the deterrent fences attachment system
to meet all design, environmental
and construction constraints
as we heard about earlier today.
And it's also increased due to the recursive design builder
having a better understanding
of how the project will be constructed.
The construction support estimate increased
to account for efforts required for the department
to move the existing medium, median movable barrier,
movable bridge barrier during construction.
Commissioner Staff has reviewed the project
and the book item for tab 107 and recommends approval.
Thank you, Tim.
And do we have any folks who want to make comments
on this item?
Yeah, no indication from the virtual public
that they wish to comment on the item.
Thank you.
Any comments from commissioners on the dais?
seeing none. Is there a motion? Motion by Commissioner Tiffany, seconded by
Commissioner Mann. All in favor? All opposed? Abstentions? Seven passes.
All right moving on to item 109 Beverly. Thanks Chair Falcon. Commissioners tab 109
Mine is a multi-funded state transportation improvement program and trade corridor enhancement
program construction allocation request of $85,788,000 for the Fix Five Cascade Gateway
I-5 improvements Shasta project in Shasta and Tehama counties.
This allocation exceeds the programed amount by more than 20 percent.
Specifically, in the state transportation improvement program, the project is programmed
with $5,081,000 in the construction phase
and is requesting $8,081,000, a 59% increase.
In the Trade Corridor Enhancement Program,
the project is programmed with $70,399,000
in the construction and construction support phases
split between state and regional shares.
Caltrans is requesting to increase the Trade Corridor
Enhancement Program state share funding
from $45,982,000 to $53,290,000, a 15.9% increase.
The Fix 5 Cascade Gateway I-5 Improvement Staster Project
proposes to add a new truck-only lane in each direction
to improve safety and enhance freight reliability.
During the design phase of the project,
the California Highway Patrol and the Federal Highway
administration identified traffic operational concerns that required additional traffic studies.
These studies resulted in design modifications, including updates to signage, striping, and safety
elements, as well as modifications to the proposed truck only lane, including messaging and
delineation. The commission approved the scope change for these modifications at its June 2026
meeting. Caltrans is now requesting supplemental funding to address the increased costs resulting
from these changes. The Trade Corridor Enhancement Program Supplemental Allocation will be funded
from the Caltrans Available Cycle 5 Trade Corridor Enhancement Program funding capacity.
Staff recommends your approval of tab 109. Thank you Beverly. Any public comment? No,
there was no request to comment on 109. Thank you Justin. We do have a speaker slip,
I hope I pronounced your last name okay.
Do pretty good there.
Tron Peegent, Director of the Shasta
Regional Transportation Agency.
Good morning commissioners, Chair Falcone and staff.
As a small metropolitan planning organization,
we don't often get the opportunity to come before you
to discuss large projects such as this.
I'm here before you today to express
further support for this project.
As you have several items for approval related
to the fixed-fly Cascade Gateway project,
including Tableau 09 and earlier consent agenda items,
tabs 39 and 41.
So it is presented on this project before you in the past,
including the most recent workshops,
and we're excited to see this project ready for bids
and then for construction.
The project will be a first of its kind effort
in addressing regional challenges surrounding freight safety
and efficiency of goods movement
through the unique approach of creating and converting
portion of Interstate 5 through Reading to part-time freight-only managed lane
system in what we commonly call the number one or fast lane which is a
unique approach within Caltrans existing right-of-way. Additional project
components including advanced changeable message sign system, zero mission freight
charging, improved and upgraded guardrails and medium barriers as well as
other infrastructure improvements. It will contribute to safer highways and
and roads for all users while addressing the challenges
of being the northernmost point of the Sacramento Valley,
often susceptible to closures,
did wildfires, and severe winter storms.
This project was not without its challenges,
both politically and in designing,
with input from many agencies and partners.
But we can't go through them all today.
Hopefully we'll get the opportunity out of ribbon cutting.
But I do want us to do a shout out
to Caltrans District 2 and their staff
for their leadership in navigating this complex project
any input, feedback and support from our federal state,
regional and local partners.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Back at the dais.
Any questions, comments from commissioners or motion?
Moved by Commissioner Eger, seconded by?
I'll second.
By Commissioner Tiffany, all in favor?
Aye.
Any opposed, abstentions?
Okay, that measure passes.
Thank you for that item.
Thank you measure.
tabs 110 to 113 together. Tim. Thank you. I will be taking items 110 through 113
with a recommendation at the end. Tab 110 is an action item for a shop
pavement preservation project at various locations in Shasta County requesting
two million twenty thousand in supplemental funds to complete the
project approval and environmental document phase. The project realized cost
increases due to the complexity of the project which includes complete streets
elements, upgrading traffic elements, relocation of traffic signals at 25
intersections, utilities, right-of-way requirements through the downtown area.
The project has experienced more extensive and ongoing public business and
local government engagement than expected, than anticipated. The project
underwent a value analysis study and eight design alternatives were proposed
for the complete streets elements which is higher than anticipated and will
will require additional time to review and analyze.
Item 111 is an action item for a shop bridge rail
and replacement and upgrade project
on State Route 36 in Humboldt County,
requesting 2,470,000 in supplemental funds
to complete construction.
The project realized cost increases
due to weather-related work stoppage and permit delays
as a result of regulatory and environmental constraints,
which were above what was anticipated.
Additional funding is needed to complete inspection
of the remaining work, obtain full compliance
with all stormwater construction general permit mandates.
And the project also increased the number of working days
to complete construction.
Item 112 is an action item
for a shop protect program project on State Route 9
in Santa Cruz County that is requesting supplemental funds
of 250,000 in construction capital
and 1 million in construction support
to complete construction.
The project realized cost increases
due to contract change orders
to address differing site conditions
and changes to traffic control.
The support costs increase
due to delays from differing site conditions,
utility relocations, environmental constraints,
changes to traffic control
and the need to use consultants for inspection work.
And item 113 is an action item
for a shop collision severity,
reduction and roadside safety improvements project
on US 101 and State Route 23 in Ventura County,
requesting 720,000 supplemental funds
for construction support to complete construction.
The project realized cost increases
due to contract change orders required
for the replacement of damaged guardrail,
repair of eroded shoulders,
replacement of asphalt dyke,
redesign of guardrail terminal systems,
and increasing the number of working days
to complete the contract.
Commission staff has reviewed the projects
and the book items for 1.10 through 1.13
and I recommend approval.
Thank you, Tim.
Any public comment?
No, we did not receive any requested comment
on these items.
Okay, thank you.
Any questions, comments from commissioners or a motion?
Moved by Commissioner Eger,
seconded by Vice Chair, Cruz, all in favor?
Aye.
Any posts, abstentions?
Okay, those items pass.
Thank you.
Item 114, Sheila.
Thank you commissioners.
Tab 114 is a state transportation improvement program
supplemental allocation request of $1,700,000
for the state route 46, state route 41 Y project
in San Luis Obispo County.
This request represents a 10.9% increase
over the original construction allocation
of $15,550,000.
The project is converting State Route 46
near the State Route 41Y from a two lane highway
to a four lane divided expressway
to improve safety and operations.
The supplemental funding is being requested
to address the extended construction duration
and continued contract administration needs necessary
to complete the project.
There is a corresponding time extension request
that can be found under tab 144.
Staff recommends your approval of tab 114.
Thank you, Sheila.
Any public comment?
No, did not receive any request to comment on tab 114.
Okay.
Colleagues, any questions or comments?
Motion.
So moved.
Moved by Commissioner Eger,
seconded by Vice Chair Cruz.
All in favor?
Aye.
Any opposed?
Substantions?
Okay, that item passes.
Thanks, Sheila.
Um, item 115, Tim. Thank you. Tab 115 is an action item for a shop safety
improvements project on interstate 40 in San Bernardino County, requesting
$150,000 in supplemental funds for construction capital to close out
construction. The project realized cost increases due to the need for
additional traffic control to address the removal of asbestos containing
material and striping and lane closure staging that was revised during
construction as I always do before giving my recommendation for my last
item I would like to summarize the shop increases the total increases for
supplementals and the initial allocations greater than 20% of the
program amount at the August 26 CTC meeting is approximately 88 million
dollars commission staff has reviewed the project and the book item for tab 115
and recommends approval thank you Tim public comment Justin there was no
request to comment on the item.
Thank you.
Colleagues, questions, comments, motion?
All right, motion made by Commissioner Tiffany,
seconded by Commissioner Eager.
All in favor?
Any no's, abstentions?
Any of that?
Item passes.
Tabs 116 to 118, 120, 122, and 123, Brandy.
Good afternoon, commissioners.
Tabs 116, 117, 118, 120, 122, and 123 are action items to approve supplemental funds allocations, totaling $27,234,000 for six transit and inner city rail capital program project components.
These projects expand and improve California's inner city commuter and urban rail systems
and bus and ferry transit systems, including integration with the high speed rail system,
increasing ridership, improving safety and significantly reduces emissions of greenhouse
gases, vehicle miles traveled and congestion.
you on that. Thank you. Thank
you. I recommend your
approvals of tabs 1 16 1 17 1
18 1 20 1 22 and 1 23. Thank
you, Brandi. Any public
comment? No, there was no
request to come on any of the
listed items. All right,
commissioners. Comments,
questions, motion. Move by
Commissioner Eager, seconded
item. Uh please note that items.
there are a couple changes on the change list.
And with those changes, this item will allocate
$1,382,022,000 for 57 shop projects.
That's a large amount, so I'd like to highlight
a little bit of what's in this item.
First off, that's a steep increase
from what we've been seeing in this item
in the past few commission meetings.
And this is evidence that the allocation plan
as Keith Duncan mentioned in his comments yesterday,
is in the rearview mirror.
And now under the Rebalance Shop program,
shop projects can resume requesting allocations
as they're ready.
So it's a new year.
The 57 projects that are being allocated,
this is another breath of fresh air.
We haven't had a lot of products to report
in the last few commission meetings.
And this time with these new projects coming in,
there's gonna be 23 bridges that are improved,
452 lane miles of pavement, 237 culverts,
11 TMS elements, and lots of other really great stuff.
So I'll just touch on a couple other things,
notable items within this item.
Over 100 million of it is staying right here
in San Diego County, which is exciting,
and that's in addition to the over $100 million
of bridge improvements that were just approved,
or I mean approved.
Statewide, there are a lot of allocations on here.
There's allocations from every single district.
Two of them stand out above the rest for their size.
One of them is a $266 million allocation
to rehabilitate the Caldecott Tunnels in Alameda County.
That's a CMGC project.
And the other really large one is a $220 million allocation
to replace the Nevada Creek Bridge in Marin County
on State Route 37.
So both very large, very important.
They're all very important projects.
The final thing that I wanna highlight in this item
is we did receive some support letters
for one of the SHOP projects on State Route 99
in Madera County within this item.
This is a SHOP project that's partnering
with a project that's sponsored
by the Madera County Transportation Commission.
Those letters are posted online with the commission meeting materials for anybody who's interested.
And so with that, I will move now to tab 125.
Tab 125 is an action item for shop pre-construction allocations.
This item will allocate $119,592,000 for 67 shop pre-construction phases for environmental design and right-of-way.
And then I'll move on to tab 126.
Tab 126 is another action item
for shop pre-construction allocations,
but these two allocations are just
for one single project in this item.
Caltrans submitted this request
as a more detailed request
because of its significance and magnitude.
This item will allocate $216,925,000 for the PS&E phase
and $1,286,000 for the right-of-way support phase
on the last chance grade permanent restoration project.
This is the project that was the subject
of the presentation just a little bit earlier.
So I won't rehash the details,
but I will note that along with this allocation request,
there are multiple letters that were posted
with the book item from members
of state and federal legislature.
I think there was 13 total letters posted
with the book item.
State and federal legislatures, local agencies,
Native American tribes from the region,
local environmental groups, and other stakeholders,
they were all written in support of this project.
This is a CMGC project, which means
that while Caltrans will be doing the design,
the contractor will be on board during design.
And also this is by far the largest PSNE allocation
that the shop, at least in my time,
has ever made to a single project.
And as such, staffs recommending that Caltrans,
we just had an update at this meeting
and staffs recommending that Caltrans continue
to provide annual updates on this project on two things,
the status of PSNE,
which is expected to take maybe like four to five years.
And also the status on construction funding,
which is currently unfunded and estimated in the buildings,
both things that were highlighted in the presentation,
we're just asking that Caltrans come back
with annual updates on that.
So with all of that, staff recommends approval
of tabs 124, 125 and 126.
Thank you, John.
Any public comment?
We do not receive any requests to comment on these items.
Okay, thank you.
And I see light up from Commissioner Eger.
Thank you. Yes, I just wanted to
make the motion, but also you've heard Medera's name quite a few times these
last couple of days. Proof, never give up, right? Keep on fighting. So congratulations
to Medera, and I will make the motion. Oh, Medera, by the way. I have a motion
this item. Yep. Okay. Very,
very well noted. Um Supervisor
Chris Howard would like to
speak on this item. Keep I'll
keep it very, very brief. Thank
you for the consideration of
all the support letters that
were given to this project to
take that next valuable step.
Thank you. Okay. I have a
motion from Commissioner Eager,
those items pass thank you John it is on
commissioners items 127 to 158 will be voted together in a group these are
various allocations and time extensions for Commission programs all of the staff
has reviewed these items and recommends your approval thank you Lori any public
I do not see any request a comment from any of your virtual attendees on any of the listed
items.
Okay, thank you, Justin.
Any comments or questions or motion from the commission move approval?
Okay, I hear motion by Commissioner Tiffany, seconded by Vice Chair Cruz on favor.
Any posts any stitches?
Okay, all of those items pass.
As we end this hearing, are there any comments from commissioners?
And I wanted to also give an opportunity for our partner, Stephen Keck, to make a few comments.
But I wanted to ask the commissioners if they had any comments before I turn it over to
Stephen Keck.
Yes.
Commissioner Eager.
I just also wanted to echo Chair's comments that our hearts and prayers are with our staff.
And that's been a tough couple of days, but we appreciate all of the staff and all of
the efforts and with that I'll leave it.
Thank you, Commissioner Eger.
Anybody else would like to say anything?
Okay.
Thank you.
I would like to turn it over to Steven to say a few words about one of our fallen workers
that was working on our highways.
Thank you, Chair.
I don't want to add to the atmos here, but I would like to request that we close this
the CTC meeting with the moment to honor Onias Avila-Rodriguez.
Onias was tragically killed by a hit-and-run driver
on August 10 while he was working as a subcontractor
on our fix-50 project in Sacramento.
Onias was an experienced contractor.
He was a devoted family man.
And he will be missed by countless friends and family.
tragic incidents like this are frankly not acceptable.
They bring a grim highlight to our number one priority,
which is safety.
That's our agency, our department,
it's our number one priority.
As we reflect on this tragedy together,
we must all recommit to the highest standards of safety
for our Caltrans family, for the CTC family,
for our contractors, for our subcontractors,
and for the traveling public.
I would hope that we can all move forward
with a reviewed vigilance and a commitment
to safety in memory of and in honor of Onias Averla Rodriguez.
Thank you.
OK.
Thank you, Stephen.
I do want to give, before we adjourn in memory of Onias,
to give the public any last opportunity
for public comment, Justin?
Not seeing any requests at this time
from the public to comment.
Okay.
Just real quick, I appreciate a journey in memory of Anais.
He was a labor, a local 73 member out of Stockton.
And I appreciate us, you know, being aware,
there's just a lot of folks on our roads
who work on our roads who want to go home
to their families, and we have to do everything we can
to protect those people from being able to do that.
So this is a really sad incident.
It's unfortunate, but we have to be better.
Thank you.
Thank you, Vice Chair.
Just an inflection of the last two days, three days.
This is a reminder that we work in the infrastructure space,
but what we do.
It impacts humanity, each other.
And what we are experiencing at the moment
really brings at the face of what we do, a human face,
and lives that are affected in the work that we do.
And that we have to remember that the people that
are helping move California.
They are people and that we respect all the work
that each and every one of you does
for the state of California.
And as we adjourn in memory of our fallen worker,
we also think of our colleague who
is going through a medical issue and wish her well.
I also want to, again, take this opportunity
to thank each and every one of you
who have traveled from other places of the state
to be here in San Diego.
It was personally something that I was looking forward to
and grateful that you came to San Diego
even in the most challenging of circumstances, so thank you.
With that, we will adjourn this meeting in memory of the fallen worker.
And with that, thank you, and please, safe travels to all of you traveling back home.
Thank you.