GOLETA, Calif. – Drivers in Goleta are now using the city's newest roundabout after the intersection of Pine Avenue and Ekwill Street opened to traffic Friday.

The roundabout marks another milestone for the City's Project Connect and the larger Ekwill Street Extension Project, which is designed to improve traffic flow and east-west connectivity through Old Town Goleta.

The intersection is currently open with one travel lane in each direction, providing northbound and southbound access on Pine Avenue while construction continues.

"It's increasing connectivity, it's improving circulation, and it's making it easier for people to travel," said Goleta City Councilmember James Kyriaco.

Crews continued working Friday by installing street signs and making other improvements around the new intersection.

The project also includes the new Ekwill Street extension, which city leaders say will provide drivers with an alternative route to Hollister Avenue.

"When this project is completed, we will have an east-west route through Old Town Goleta on the southern end of Hollister Avenue," Kyriaco said. "That allows vehicles moving through this area to not have to rely on Hollister Avenue and be able to get through this area more easily."

Some neighbors say the project is already making the area feel safer.

"The traffic doesn't go as fast as it used to," said Goleta resident Lawrence Boehm. "It used to go really fast here."

Construction worker Johnny Cayabyab said the roundabout should also improve traffic flow.

"It should make traffic a little smoother, especially with the pedestrians," Cayabyab said. "It's a quicker route."

The Ekwill Street extension is expected to be completed later this year. When finished, the corridor will include new travel lanes, bicycle lanes, sidewalks and landscaped parkways to improve safety and mobility for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians.

City officials are advising drivers to expect occasional lane shifts and short traffic delays while construction continues.

The post Goleta opens new Pine Avenue, Ekwill Street roundabout as Project Connect reaches milestone appeared first on News Channel 3-12.

The post In Play? appeared first on The Santa Barbara Independent.

Por Ella Nilsen y Kit Maher, CNN

El Gobierno de Trump revirtió este viernes décadas de una ley ambiental de larga data que protegía a las especies en peligro de extinción, abriendo hábitats sensibles de esas especies protegidas a la perforación, la minería, la agricultura y el desarrollo inmobiliario.

El cambio, finalizado por los Departamentos del Interior y de Comercio, redefine qué constituye “daño” a las especies en peligro de extinción y a sus hábitats bajo la Ley de Especies en Peligro de Extinción (ESA, por sus siglas en inglés) de 1973. Esa ley había prohibido durante años la “modificación o degradación del hábitat” porque podía dañar o matar a animales en peligro al afectar su capacidad para reproducirse y encontrar alimento o refugio. Esa definición de daño fue ratificada por la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos en un fallo de 1995.

El Gobierno de Trump calificó la definición anterior de daño como “obsoleta” en un comunicado emitido este viernes, al argumentar que su medida “devuelve la interpretación de la ESA a su texto real y a su intención original, lo que pondrá fin a años de extralimitación federal”.

El secretario del Interior, Doug Burgum, dijo en un comunicado que el enfoque de la ley había “convertido la actividad rutinaria en una trampa regulatoria, elevó los costos que afectaron la vida de las personas y amplió la autoridad federal más allá de lo que el Congreso pretendía”.

“Durante años, las agencias federales abusaron de la ESA para obstaculizar el uso legal de la tierra y perjudicar a las familias y empresas estadounidenses”, añadió Burgum, al calificar la acción del Gobierno como una medida de “sentido común” que “sigue el estatuto que el Congreso realmente aprobó”.

El secretario de Comercio, Howard Lutnick, añadió en un comunicado que la nueva norma beneficiaría a los pescadores que sufrieron “regulaciones excesivamente amplias y onerosas”.

Un funcionario del Departamento del Interior dijo que la norma se publicará en el Registro Federal a principios de la próxima semana.

Grupos ambientalistas denunciaron la medida y dijeron que planeaban impugnar el cambio en los tribunales de manera inminente.

“Por primera vez, un Gobierno presidencial afirma que las especies protegidas por la Ley de Especies en Peligro de Extinción no deberían estar a salvo de la modificación del hábitat que destruye donde viven, crían a sus crías o buscan alimento”, dijo en un comunicado la abogada de Earthjustice Kristen Boyles. “No hay respaldo para la norma del Gobierno de Trump: no hay respaldo científico, no hay respaldo legal, no hay respaldo público”.

Los Departamentos del Interior y de Comercio insistieron en que aún se aplicarían protecciones “centrales” más limitadas para las especies en peligro, y añadieron que su definición de esa ley ambiental fundamental impediría “acciones que lesionen o maten directamente a la fauna silvestre incluida en la lista”.

Sin embargo, los grupos ambientalistas impugnarán esa definición más estrecha, al señalar el caso de la Corte Suprema de 1995, que ratificó la definición más amplia de daño, incluida la destrucción del hábitat. Pero si las impugnaciones legales a la reversión del Gobierno de Trump llegan nuevamente a la Corte Suprema, los ambientalistas se enfrentarán a un tribunal mucho más conservador.

“La pérdida de hábitat es la causa número uno de extinción”, dijo en un comunicado Gib Brogan, director senior de campañas en Oceana. “Cuando se eliminan las protecciones del hábitat, se elimina una de las salvaguardas más importantes de la ley”.

El Gobierno de Trump ha intentado recortar la Ley de Especies en Peligro de Extinción a lo largo del primer y segundo mandato del presidente Donald Trump, con distintos niveles de éxito.

A principios de este año, varios altos funcionarios de Trump, incluido Burgum, votaron para desmantelar regulaciones de larga data de

The post Funding Saved to Support Unaccompanied Immigrant Children in Tri-County Area appeared first on The Santa Barbara Independent.

By Liam Reilly, CNN

(CNN) — The New York Times filed a counterclaim Friday against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, accusing the agency of retaliating against the publication for its reporting via a race- and gender-based discrimination lawsuit.

The countersuit follows an EEOC lawsuit filed in May on behalf of a White staffer, Bryant Rousseau, who claimed the Times had denied him a promotion to deputy editor on the basis of his race and gender.

The Times cast the EEOC’s action as politically motivated in its filing on Friday. The newspaper highlighted that the EEOC’s lawsuit came eight days after a Times report showed that staff at the agency said they were under pressure to pursue discrimination cases that “match (President Donald) Trump’s agenda” opposing diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

Shortly following its article on the EEOC, the Times reported that the agency was poised to sue after investigating a claim against the newspaper — later revealed to be Rousseau’s case. The EEOC sued the Times two days later.

Friday’s countersuit alleges that the EEOC’s lawsuit was filed even though the probe found “no evidence that race or sex was considered.”

“Despite pursuing an eight-month investigation of the Charge … the Commission tellingly does not (and could not) point to any evidence in its Complaint to show that Rousseau was discriminated against on the basis of his race or sex in connection with The Times’s hiring of a Real Estate Deputy Editor,” the Times’ attorneys write in the countersuit.

The Times also alleges that the EEOC’s lawsuit “was filed by a Commission that has expressly disavowed any independence from the President and is expressly committed to pursuing his agenda.”

“The Commission’s retaliatory, bad faith use of its authority to target The Times violates the First and Fifth Amendments and the Administrative Procedure Act (‘APA’) and poses a uniquely insidious threat to a free and independent press, and to our democracy,” attorneys allege elsewhere in the lawsuit.

The EEOC declined to comment, citing its ongoing lawsuit.

This isn’t the Times’ first legal fight with the Trump administration.

In September 2025, Trump filed a separate $15 billion defamation lawsuit against the Times, accusing it of being a “virtual mouthpiece” for the Democratic Party. A judge dismissed Trump’s suit but allowed him to file an amended complaint.

The Times, meanwhile, sued the Department of Defense over restrictions on press access in December.

The EEOC’s lawsuit “attacks a news organization that the President has repeatedly disparaged for its newsgathering and reporting,” the Times attorneys write in the countersuit.

The EEOC initially brought the complaint without identifying Rousseau, who later joined the lawsuit in May. While the May complaint demanded Rousseau’s promotion to deputy editor, a June filing indicates he left the company.

In a statement in May, a Times spokesp