[0:01] >> Good morning. It's 11:04 AM.

[0:05] We are happily ready

[0:07] to call the meeting

[0:08] to order. I love the cheer

[0:12] of the staff. Welcome to the

[0:16] Planning and Program Committee

[0:19] meeting of Los Angeles

[0:21] Metropolitan Transportation

[0:23] Authority.

[0:24] >> Madam Clerk, will you please

[0:26] call the roll

[0:27] to establish a quorum?

[0:30] >> Vice Chair Solis?

[0:32] >> Present.

[0:34] >> Director Horvath?

[0:35] >> Here.

[0:36] >> Director Mitchell?

[0:37] >> Present.

[0:38] >> Director Najarian?

[0:40] >> Here.

[0:41] >> Director Richardson will be

[0:43] absent today. Caltrans

[0:45] Representative Roberts?

[0:47] >> Here.

[0:48] >> And Chair Dupont-Walker?

[0:50] >> Present.

[0:52] >> Also, I just wanted to make

[0:53] a note that we are very aware

[0:54] that the screen behind the

[0:56] directors is flickering. We

[0:58] apologize for this. It's very

[1:00] disruptive. Our IT team is

[1:02] trying

[1:04] to troubleshoot right now.

[1:06] >> Deanna.

[1:08] >> Thank you. Madam Deputy

[1:09] Clerk, will you please provide

[1:11] us with the public comment

[1:12] instructions?

[1:13] >> To give public comment,

[1:14] each speaker needs

[1:15] to follow a 3-step process.

[1:16] First, at any time

[1:18] during the meeting, the speaker

[1:19] can dial 1-888- 978-8818 and

[1:22] enter the English or Spanish

[1:23] access codes. The English

[1:26] access code is 5647249#. The

[1:28] Spanish access code is

[1:30] 7292892#. This number and the

[1:33] access codes are also listed

[1:34] on the agenda

[1:35] for this meeting,

[1:36] which can be found

[1:37] at boardagendas.metro.net. For

[1:39] speakers watching the video

[1:41] feed, there's a 30-second lag

[1:43] behind the actual meeting. If

[1:44] any speakers are watching

[1:45] on video and want

[1:46] to give public comment,

[1:47] they should dial in early to

[1:48] make sure they don't miss the

[1:50] chance. Second, once a speaker

[1:51] dials

[1:52] into the public comment line,

[1:53] they have

[1:54] to indicate which item,

[1:55] item they want to speak on.

[1:56] When their item comes up,

[1:57] the speaker should press pound

[1:58] 2 to raise their hand

[1:59] to speak. Third, when it's the

[2:01] speaker's turn,

[2:02] the moderator will call

[2:03] out the last 4 digits of the

[2:04] phone number and unmute the

[2:05] speaker. If the speaker is

[2:06] listening to the meeting

[2:07] on another device,

[2:08] they will need to mute their

[2:09] speakers and microphone

[2:10] on that device

[2:11] to prevent an echo. Speakers

[2:13] will have 1 minute

[2:14] to make their comment or 2

[2:15] minutes including translation.

[2:16] Consistent

[2:17] with the board rules posted

[2:18] on the agenda,

[2:19] individuals requesting

[2:20] to speak will be allowed

[2:21] to speak for a total of 3

[2:23] minutes per meeting

[2:24] on agenda items in 1-minute

[2:25] increments per item, plus 1

[2:26] minute

[2:27] for general public comment.

[2:28] General public comment is

[2:29] to be used only for items not

[2:30] on the agenda. Please be

[2:32] advised that sign-up for public

[2:33] comment will close immediately

[2:35] once the public comment portion

[2:36] of the item begins. If you wish

[2:38] to speak, make sure

[2:39] to register beforehand.

[2:40] Written public comments

[2:42] received by 5PM the day before

[2:43] the meeting are compiled and

[2:44] sent to the board. Please make

[2:46] sure

[2:47] to include the item number with

[2:48] your comment and your position

[2:49] of 4 against, general comment,

[2:50] or item needs more

[2:52] consideration. You may email

[2:53] your comment to

[2:54] boardclerk@metro.net or mail it

[2:56] to Board Administration, 1

[2:57] Gateway Plaza, Mail Stop

[2:59] 99-3-1, Los Angeles,

[3:01] California 90012. Thank you,

[3:02] Chair.

[3:04] >> Thank you.

[3:05] That's very important

[3:06] because we want to assure that

[3:07] the public can be full

[3:08] participants

[3:10] in the deliberation

[3:11] of this committee. We want

[3:12] to begin

[3:13] with the consent agenda. Do any

[3:15] members of this committee wish

[3:17] to pull an item

[3:18] from the consent agenda?

[3:21] Okay, seeing no one wishes

[3:22] to pull any item, do we

[3:24] have members of the public

[3:26] who have indicated a desire

[3:27] to speak on items 6 and 7.

[3:31] >> This public comment for

[3:32] consent calendar items 6 and

[3:33] 7. Please press pound 2 if

[3:34] you'd like to make a comment

[3:35] on any of these 2 items, 6 and

[3:42] 7. No public comments.

[3:45] >> Thank you.

[3:46] Motion, is there a second?

[3:47] >> Okay, it's been moved and

[3:48] seconded

[3:49] to approve the consent agenda.

[3:51] We'll go ahead and vote

[3:52] on this item. Please call the

[3:53] roll.

[3:54] >> Vice Chair Solis?

[3:55] >> Aye.

[3:56] >> Director Mitchell?

[3:57] >> Aye.

[3:58] >> Director Najarian?

[3:59] >> Aye.

[4:00] >> Director Horvath?

[4:01] >> Aye.

[4:02] >> And Chair Dupont-Walker?

[4:03] >> Aye.

[4:04] >> The consent items carry.

[4:05] >> Thank you. Now moving

[4:06] to the non-consent agenda,

[4:08] we will start with item 8.

[4:09] Federal Consolidated

[4:11] Appropriations Act of 2026

[4:14] award. I believe we have a

[4:16] presentation. Please introduce

[4:19] yourselves and proceed.

[4:22] >> Yes, we do. Good morning,

[4:24] directors. Selena Reynolds, I'm

[4:25] the Chief of Innovation and

[4:26] Games Mobility Planning, joined

[4:27] by Ernesto Chavez, Senior

[4:28] Executive Officer

[4:31] over the games work. And this

[4:33] morning we are bringing

[4:35] before you an item

[4:36] for your consideration We were

[4:38] extremely grateful

[4:39] to receive an appropriation

[4:42] in the fiscal '26 federal

[4:44] budget for the Olympic and

[4:45] Paralympic Games. And Ernesto

[4:47] is going to walk through the

[4:48] details and appreciate your

[4:51] consideration.

[4:54] >> Thank you, Selena. Good

[4:55] morning, committee members.

[4:58] The recommendations in front

[4:59] of you include the programming

[5:01] of $89.4 million coming

[5:03] from the Consolidated

[5:05] Appropriations Act of 2026.

[5:07] In support of planning, design,

[5:08] and operations for the 2028

[5:11] Games, amending the fiscal year

[5:12] '27 budget

[5:13] by the same amount, and then

[5:15] authorizing the CEO or their

[5:16] designee to negotiate and

[5:17] execute all necessary

[5:18] agreements, including

[5:20] pass-through agreements and

[5:21] amendments

[5:22] with agencies contained

[5:23] within the Games Mobility

[5:25] Executive's federal funding

[5:26] allocation, which is included

[5:28] in Attachment A. The issue is

[5:30] that Metro will be the lead

[5:32] agency for this $89 million

[5:35] coming

[5:36] from the federal government.

[5:38] And the proposed board actions

[5:39] are necessary for us

[5:40] to be able to initiate not only

[5:42] the federal fund obligation

[5:43] process, but also the funding

[5:45] exchange process. This initial

[5:48] appropriation in FY26 is, we

[5:51] hope, an initial installment of

[5:52] the full federal funding

[5:55] request that we have made

[5:56] over the past few years

[5:58] for the games. The Games

[6:00] Mobility executives,

[6:01] we've been working with them

[6:02] for many, many years, and

[6:03] over the last few months agreed

[6:05] to follow a similar

[6:07] distribution model that we use

[6:09] for the World Cup

[6:10] for distributing federal funds

[6:12] in which Metro would be the

[6:13] sole recipient of the funds and

[6:15] then help distribute the

[6:16] funding

[6:17] to the participating agencies.

[6:19] Venue cities have expressed

[6:20] interest in exchanging these

[6:21] federal funds with local funds

[6:23] for more flexible use and more

[6:25] expedient use. And we're

[6:27] essentially facilitating that

[6:28] through this process. There

[6:30] will be a local match

[6:31] requirement

[6:32] for the funds that was set

[6:33] at 20%

[6:34] for capital projects and 10%

[6:35] for operation,

[6:36] operational projects. In terms

[6:38] of the scope of work for the,

[6:41] for this initial allocation,

[6:43] we've included in Attachment B

[6:45] a larger description or a more

[6:47] thorough description

[6:48] of the work. But generally,

[6:49] most of it involves the

[6:51] preliminary design,

[6:52] preliminary activities,

[6:54] planning activities,

[6:55] to various work streams.

[6:57] In the case

[6:58] of the venue cities and the

[6:59] Games Mobility Executives,

[7:01] they're going to be focusing

[7:02] on the Games Route Network,

[7:03] preliminary design for the

[7:05] Games Route Network. For the

[7:06] Integrated Transportation

[7:07] Management, that's primarily

[7:08] intelligent transportation

[7:10] system projects. Metrolink is

[7:11] going to be doing some of the

[7:12] preliminary planning work as

[7:14] well for their support

[7:15] for the Games. And then

[7:16] at the venue level,

[7:18] venue cities will be working

[7:19] on design for temporary

[7:20] improvements that will enhance

[7:23] connections

[7:24] between venues and our

[7:25] stations. On the Metro side,

[7:27] we're going

[7:28] to be using those dollars to

[7:29] continue advancing planning and

[7:31] also design for the Games

[7:33] Enhanced Transit Service, the

[7:34] GETS continue design and

[7:36] getting into construction for

[7:37] the key stations that we're

[7:39] advancing and mobility hubs for

[7:40] the games and also final design

[7:42] for the light rail improvements

[7:44] accessibility improvements that

[7:46] we have designed

[7:48] for the games as well. Next

[7:49] steps.

[7:51] With the approval today, or

[7:52] with the board's approval next

[7:53] week, we would advance the

[7:55] Trans Grant application towards

[7:57] the January 2027 deadline

[7:58] for obligation,

[7:59] federal obligation. And then we

[8:02] would also initiate the process

[8:05] of entering into agreements

[8:06] with the local jurisdictions

[8:08] for task order-based scopes and

[8:11] cost reimbursement mechanisms.

[8:13] >> And just one final note,

[8:14] similar to the World Cup money,

[8:16] this money flows through SCAG

[8:17] to Metro, and SCAG's Regional

[8:20] Council approved this process,

[8:22] and we just want to offer our

[8:25] appreciation and gratitude

[8:27] for their partnership.

[8:29] >> Thank you. Madam Clerk, are

[8:31] there any members

[8:32] of the public who wish

[8:33] to speak on this item?

[8:35] >> This is public comment

[8:36] for item 8. Please press pound

[8:37] 2 if you'd like

[8:38] to make a comment

[8:39] on this item. No public

[8:43] comments.

[8:44] >> Thank you. I, I join, I'm

[8:47] sure, the entire board

[8:48] in commending Metro staff and

[8:50] our Games Mobility Executive

[8:51] Partners

[8:52] for successfully securing $90

[8:54] million through the Federal

[8:56] Consolidated Appropriations

[8:57] Act of 2026. As you indicated,

[9:00] it's important

[9:02] down payment preparing

[9:04] for our transportation network

[9:06] for 2028 Olympics and

[9:07] Paralympics Games. and reflects

[9:09] the strong collaboration among

[9:11] our regional partners. A few

[9:13] questions, and you may have

[9:14] answered one of them. Could you

[9:17] share the anticipated timeline

[9:19] and process

[9:20] for local jurisdictions

[9:21] to draw down on the program?

[9:22] You indicated SCAG,

[9:24] but if there's any more detail.

[9:25] And secondly,

[9:27] what are the major milestones

[9:28] for disbursing the funds?

[9:33] >> Thank you. The first

[9:35] milestone entails coming

[9:37] to an agreement

[9:38] with the local jurisdictions

[9:40] on the scope, the schedule,

[9:41] and the budget

[9:42] for the projects. We'll be

[9:43] working with them

[9:44] over the next couple of months

[9:45] to complete that. That will

[9:47] lead us to, the requirement

[9:49] to complete an agreement,

[9:52] either an MOU or a funding

[9:54] agreement with them. And then

[9:57] once we establish that

[9:58] agreement and the work

[10:00] commences, they can start

[10:02] essentially invoicing

[10:04] on a reimbursement basis. So,

[10:05] we anticipate completing that

[10:07] process over the next 3 months.

[10:09] So, by around November or so,

[10:12] we should have the agreements

[10:13] ready and they can begin

[10:15] invoicing us.

[10:17] >> Just to add another couple

[10:18] of points to that. First, local

[10:20] agencies will need to come up

[10:21] with the local match

[10:22] to match the funds. And the

[10:25] work is coming up through all

[10:29] of the work streams. And we've

[10:30] been coming

[10:31] before you and reporting out

[10:32] on that work stream progress.

[10:33] So, these are projects and

[10:34] planning that is sort

[10:36] of already underway,

[10:37] and it's meant to bring those

[10:39] into the implementation phase.

[10:41] >> Thank you.

[10:42] I see several board members

[10:43] who have questions.

[10:44] Supervisor Solis?

[10:46] >> Yes, thank you, Madam

[10:47] Chair. First of all, I want

[10:49] to say thank you to the team,

[10:50] and I think all

[10:51] of us are really excited

[10:52] about what just took place

[10:56] with the FIFA festivities in

[10:58] the fan zone and seeing the

[11:00] excitement and people coming

[11:01] and utilizing Metro services as

[11:03] well as bus, rail,

[11:05] and everything else

[11:06] in between. And I know that

[11:08] moving forward that our ask was

[11:11] actually a lot higher than what

[11:12] we received, right? So, our ask

[11:14] was about $2 billion,

[11:16] is that correct?

[11:17] >> So, we are woefully behind,

[11:19] but I hope that we can compile

[11:21] the data information

[11:22] to show that even

[11:25] in our precursor here with FIFA

[11:26] that we actually did a good

[11:28] job. And people brought in

[11:30] resources and did local match.

[11:32] And I want to just describe

[11:33] for you what we went through

[11:36] at the Whittier Narrows. I want

[11:38] to first thank Caltrans and our

[11:40] public works

[11:42] for helping us with, actually,

[11:44] with the open streets.

[11:46] Repaving Rosemead Boulevard was

[11:48] a major undertaking. Had not

[11:50] been done in decades. And that

[11:52] will help us prepare

[11:54] for the upcoming LA-28 SCEETs.

[11:56] Games that are going

[11:58] to be held right there. So, it

[11:59] helps to provide, I think,

[12:01] that level of awareness and

[12:03] hopefully gives a signal

[12:04] to the feds that, hey, we are,

[12:06] we are here,

[12:07] we are participating. And we

[12:08] also set aside $1 million

[12:10] of our own LA County funds,

[12:13] road improvement funds that

[12:14] come through my office,

[12:16] to dedicate for this effort.

[12:18] So, it shows you that there's

[12:19] participation, collaboration

[12:21] in that way. But we can We can

[12:22] think creatively, and I think

[12:25] that's what the FIFA Games kind

[12:26] of gave us, an opportunity

[12:28] to think out of the box,

[12:30] where we're reliant, yes,

[12:32] on outside support, but we can

[12:34] also look innovatively.

[12:36] But we do need monetary support

[12:38] to continue to sustain that.

[12:40] And I just want to say that

[12:41] for the first time,

[12:43] we had close to 10,000 people

[12:44] show up at this park,

[12:46] obscure park that is hidden

[12:48] behind trees next

[12:49] to a freeway. And for people

[12:50] to come out 3 days,

[12:51] and it kept growing, growing,

[12:53] growing. And I would just say

[12:54] that one

[12:55] of the most positive parts

[12:57] about it was that we acquired

[12:59] our own shuttle services.

[13:00] Coming not exactly directly

[13:03] from rail, but yes,

[13:04] I would say for the El Monte

[13:06] Metro Hub, yes,

[13:08] there was an easy way

[13:09] to get there.

[13:10] But other than that,

[13:11] Montebello Mall, Steinmetz

[13:13] Park, which is in Hacienda

[13:14] Heights, Avocado Heights, they

[13:16] don't have any rail system

[13:18] running through there or even

[13:19] Metrolink. So people did board

[13:21] those and they used them. And

[13:24] there was sufficient,

[13:28] how could I say, roadway

[13:29] passage safety pedestrian

[13:30] measures put in place. And I

[13:32] had never seen, this was

[13:34] something we just thought

[13:36] about, but to see it in reality

[13:37] and how it was utilized

[13:39] by young, old, people

[13:41] with disabilities, really gave

[13:43] me that hope that even in areas

[13:46] that are unincorporated and are

[13:48] hard to get to,

[13:49] that we know how to do this and

[13:51] we can improve upon it. And I

[13:53] certainly want

[13:54] to see us moving forward

[13:55] to collaborate and do much more

[13:56] in any way that we can. So, I

[13:58] am totally supportive of moving

[14:00] forward and hopeful that we can

[14:02] hopefully get to that $2

[14:03] billion and show that we are

[14:05] cooperating in a way that has

[14:08] never been seen before. And I

[14:10] believe our public,

[14:11] once we get the feedback of how

[14:13] many people actually joined our

[14:14] shuttles or used our other

[14:17] services, what that looks like

[14:19] for us, even in faraway places

[14:20] like San Gabriel Valley. So, I

[14:23] just want to say thank you.

[14:24] And I want to thank our CEO and

[14:25] the staff because believe me,

[14:27] Metro had a big presence there.

[14:29] And I am very grateful for that

[14:30] and honored that we were able

[14:31] to pull that off. Thank you.

[14:37] >> Thank you.

[14:39] >> Director Najarian.

[14:41] >> Thank you. Thank you,

[14:43] Madam Chair. So, we're looking

[14:45] for $2 billion. That's our

[14:46] target.

[14:48] >> And now I present

[14:50] to you a check for $2 billion.

[14:54] >> So, was that Ed McMahon?

[14:57] >> So, this is the first

[14:59] tranche that we're receiving.

[15:01] This 90-some million

[15:03] at this point?

[15:04] >> The number is now down at

[15:06] $1.85 with this as well as some

[15:08] other grants that we've

[15:10] received, but yes,

[15:11] you are correct.

[15:12] >> Okay.

[15:13] >> So, I agree with Director

[15:14] Solis that our actions really

[15:19] speak loudly when they can look

[15:22] back and see how we handled the

[15:23] World Cup transportation,

[15:26] safety, everything that we did,

[15:29] and there was a lot going on. I

[15:32] really think that we should

[15:34] send a heartfelt thank you note

[15:38] to the federal government,

[15:39] whoever it is, to let them know

[15:42] that we deeply appreciate this

[15:45] albeit small piece of what

[15:49] we're looking for. I think. I

[15:51] mean,

[15:56] we know there's certain issues

[15:59] at the federal level. It's not

[16:01] always,

[16:02] funding isn't always made based

[16:04] on merit and quality

[16:06] of projects and history

[16:08] of doing it. But I think a nice

[16:10] thank you note to let them know

[16:13] that we appreciate this. Maybe

[16:16] we hope that this is the

[16:17] beginning of a beautiful

[16:18] relationship going towards the

[16:21] Olympics in 28, just so they

[16:23] know that okay,

[16:25] we appreciate it. And I think

[16:28] that might go farther than just

[16:32] the strict look what we've done

[16:34] and we use our money

[16:35] efficiently and we're you know

[16:37] doing that. Just thank you. We

[16:39] hope that we can continue

[16:40] working together to make our

[16:42] country proud.

[16:43] I don't know.

[16:44] Something, something a

[16:45] little bit gushy.

[16:47] Like this.

[16:48] Yeah.

[16:49] The heart.

[16:50] That's just my thoughts. So

[16:51] that's all I would like

[16:53] to chime in on

[16:55] at this point.

[16:56] >> Noted. Thank you,

[16:57] Director.

[16:58] >> Director Horvath.

[16:59] >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I

[17:01] too want to thank our Metro

[17:03] team for your stellar outreach

[17:05] and work to achieve where we

[17:06] are today. I do want

[17:08] to thank our federal government

[17:09] for making this initial

[17:10] investment. And I also want to

[17:14] understand if we believe there

[17:17] is opportunity

[17:18] for the remainder

[17:19] of our request to come

[17:20] to fulfillment? And if it

[17:21] doesn't,

[17:22] do we have contingency plans

[17:23] to address what needs will

[17:24] exist on the ground?

[17:27] >> We still remain optimistic

[17:30] that in working with,

[17:32] in partnership with our,

[17:33] with the organizing committee,

[17:35] with LA28,

[17:37] that there is still a window

[17:39] for us to achieve the full

[17:41] funding that we need

[17:43] to execute what we need

[17:44] to execute. When you say

[17:46] contingency plans, can you,

[17:48] to address the needs

[17:49] on the ground, can you address,

[17:51] can you say a little more about

[17:52] what specifically you mean?

[17:55] >> Well, if we,

[17:56] I assume we requested the

[17:57] $1.85 billion now because there

[18:00] are specific things that are

[18:02] not

[18:03] in our budget that we cannot do

[18:04] without funding. So if we don't

[18:06] get funding

[18:07] from the federal government,

[18:09] I see that you have been able

[18:11] to get down from $2 billion

[18:13] to $1.85 through some

[18:14] additional grant funding,

[18:15] so that's great. Are there

[18:17] other opportunities like that

[18:18] or something else that exists,

[18:20] or are we going to have to say

[18:22] there are just certain things

[18:23] that despite our best planning

[18:25] we won't be able to do?

[18:26] >> Understood.

[18:27] So, when it comes

[18:30] to the projects that we need

[18:31] to finish construction on that

[18:33] this board has funded and that

[18:35] we've received funding from

[18:36] elsewhere we do feel as though

[18:39] there are opportunities for us

[18:40] to finish those projects or

[18:42] come up with contingency plans

[18:45] to meet those needs. However,

[18:47] the 2 largest items in that

[18:49] $1.85 billion are $1 billion

[18:51] for the supplemental transit

[18:53] service that we will need. So

[18:55] similar to what we executed

[18:56] for the World Cup

[18:58] with the extra buses, working

[19:00] with our municipal partners

[19:01] and, and our friends

[19:03] in the charter industry,

[19:04] we will need 1,700 roughly

[19:06] additional buses and the costs

[19:09] that go along with them,

[19:10] as well as the games route

[19:11] network,

[19:12] which is a significant cost.

[19:14] It's about $333 million.

[19:15] That's where it sits right now,

[19:17] largely on the Caltrans system,

[19:19] on the state highways,

[19:21] but also about $80 million or

[19:23] so of that is

[19:24] for venue cities. So local

[19:26] agencies, the rest

[19:28] of the way there between the

[19:29] freeway and the venues

[19:31] for hopefully our buses

[19:33] for spectators and workforce,

[19:34] but really for the athletes and

[19:36] the officials and the media.

[19:38] Those 2 items are almost

[19:40] impossible to fund any other

[19:42] way because they are purely

[19:45] operational

[19:46] in nature and temporary. And

[19:48] so, what we have with our MOU

[19:50] with the organizing committee

[19:51] is very clear that if there is

[19:53] not outside funding, Metro will

[19:55] not be able to serve in that

[19:57] capacity as delivery partner,

[19:58] and the organizing committee

[20:01] will need to figure

[20:02] out alternate plans.

[20:04] >> Okay, that's, I'm glad we're

[20:06] managing those expectations

[20:08] early, especially if we don't

[20:09] get that funding. So, also,

[20:14] I know that for the new

[20:16] crossover and siding track

[20:17] project on the A and E lines

[20:20] what is the timeline

[20:21] for that project? And will

[20:23] there be any disruption

[20:24] to service

[20:25] during construction?

[20:30] >> The timeframe

[20:32] for finishing design and Tim is

[20:34] here.

[20:37] >> I heard the seat.

[20:40] >> Just go ahead and keep

[20:41] going, Ernesto. So that portion

[20:48] of the project is yet

[20:49] to be completely funded,

[20:52] right? And that requires a lot

[20:53] of special track work that

[20:54] needs to be ordered. And we are

[20:56] right up against the clock

[20:57] on those projects. So, we do

[20:59] have a procurement that's

[21:00] ongoing right now. We're hoping

[21:01] to bring it forward in

[21:02] September to put us

[21:03] in the best position

[21:04] to be able

[21:05] to construct those projects.

[21:06] So, all hope is not lost.

[21:07] We're trying.

[21:10] But what I would say about

[21:11] those is that they are projects

[21:14] we need to do anyways,

[21:15] Olympics or not. They are very

[21:17] useful to operations. The

[21:19] downside with those projects is

[21:21] that they're very high impact

[21:23] in terms of impact

[21:24] to customers. You can't put new

[21:25] interlockings in without bus

[21:27] bridges and shutdowns. And so

[21:29] that's kind of part

[21:30] of the mix we need

[21:31] to figure out. But we're still

[21:32] giving it a shot. We're still

[21:34] trying to fund them. We're

[21:35] going to put ourselves

[21:36] in the best position, but, yes,

[21:37] they are difficult projects to

[21:39] achieve while also providing

[21:41] service.

[21:42] >> And for the Olympic and

[21:44] Paralympic venue approach

[21:45] enhancements, some of the

[21:47] improvements are indicated as

[21:48] temporary, including the

[21:50] intersections and bike lanes.

[21:52] Where are the temporary bike

[21:54] lanes and why are they not

[21:55] permanent?

[21:58] >> So just one addendum to

[22:00] Tim's note. Those projects,

[22:03] those track projects are also

[22:06] in the TIFIA letter that we

[22:07] brought before you. So, we are

[22:09] pursuing alternate ways to fund

[22:11] those because we do need them

[22:12] either way. Regarding the venue

[22:13] approach,

[22:15] so these venue approach

[22:17] improvements, which is the

[22:18] category that includes crowd

[22:21] management, heat mitigation

[22:23] measures, wayfinding,

[22:25] all kinds of things, they also

[22:27] may include some temporary or

[22:29] permanent infrastructure

[22:32] for people biking and walking.

[22:34] Those decisions are really the

[22:35] decisions

[22:37] of the venue cities themselves.

[22:38] So, through that first last

[22:39] mile work stream,

[22:40] we have been bringing together,

[22:41] that work stream is led

[22:43] by the City of Los Angeles,

[22:45] by LADOT. They've been bringing

[22:47] together those venue cities and

[22:51] working through all

[22:52] of those scopes

[22:53] for those projects. And so,

[22:54] it's really kind

[22:55] of a local decision. We can

[22:57] certainly get the latest

[22:59] for you on the details of

[23:00] what's going where and when and

[23:02] how, or at least what they're

[23:03] envisioning at the moment.

[23:05] But that's kind

[23:06] of the high level.

[23:07] >> Yeah, I can imagine these

[23:08] investments being legacy

[23:09] investments in the community,

[23:10] especially if they,

[23:11] we expect them

[23:12] to be highly used facilities,

[23:15] that it might be nice

[23:16] to keep them longer term. But I

[23:18] hear you that that's not a

[23:19] Metro call. So, thank you.

[23:24] >> Supervisor Mitchell.

[23:27] >> Thank you very much, Madam

[23:28] Chair. I want

[23:29] to just echo the comments

[23:30] from all of my colleagues.

[23:32] Congratulations on the, I'll

[23:34] just keep emphasizing first

[23:36] installment because that would

[23:38] suggest an additional

[23:40] installment is forthcoming.

[23:43] Agree with you, Director

[23:45] Najarian. Let's thank them.

[23:48] And I was wondering if there

[23:50] are ways from your perspective

[23:52] that the board could be

[23:54] supportive of Metro's advocacy

[23:57] for a second 3rd, 4th,

[24:00] 10th installment. And I,

[24:02] and I asked because, as

[24:04] Director Horvath talked

[24:06] about if not this, then what?

[24:10] And you talked about what the

[24:12] $1 billion from the, for the

[24:14] supplemental transit plans are

[24:17] needed. It reminds me that we

[24:19] have a fundamental

[24:20] responsibility to make sure

[24:21] that we're maintaining frequent

[24:23] and reliable service for

[24:27] Angelenos who rely on Metro

[24:33] for their transit needs. So, is

[24:35] there anything from your

[24:37] perspective the board could do

[24:38] to be helpful?

[24:44] >> One is in Washington and

[24:46] Sacramento. In Washington, the

[24:48] issue right now is What exactly

[24:51] is the appropriations process

[24:53] that's remaining? The key step

[24:55] in that process is that we need

[24:56] the administration

[24:57] to communicate to Congress the

[25:00] need to include this money in

[25:02] whatever appropriations bills

[25:04] move. You've probably heard the

[25:06] discussion about a supplemental

[25:08] funding primarily oriented

[25:09] towards war funding. There may

[25:11] or may not be something enacted

[25:13] before the election. We've

[25:15] heard most likely something

[25:16] would be enacted

[25:17] after the election, but

[25:19] in either way,

[25:20] in either case,

[25:21] we need communication

[25:22] from the White House to

[25:23] Congress that this needs

[25:25] to be a priority. And we're

[25:26] working very closely with LA28

[25:28] to secure that. A lot

[25:30] of these roads lead

[25:32] through OMB, so working

[25:33] through OMB is important. We

[25:35] had a very good visit

[25:36] with the Secretary when he came

[25:39] out to the ESOC, and I think he

[25:42] understood the importance

[25:43] of the success of the World

[25:44] Cup to the Olympics. So we're

[25:46] continuing to work

[25:47] through the Department of

[25:48] Transportation, but really

[25:50] It's between the White House

[25:51] and Congress with respect

[25:53] to the $1.8 billion. In

[25:55] Sacramento, we're also working

[25:58] on a $379 million ask.

[26:00] In fact, Madeline and Alex are

[26:02] on phone calls all day today

[26:04] talking to members

[26:05] about that specific ask. We, we

[26:07] pulled things out of our

[26:09] federal program and oriented a

[26:11] state ask towards the kind of

[26:12] things we thought the state

[26:13] would be most likely to fund.

[26:15] So, we really need the LA

[26:18] delegation to unify around that

[26:20] and secure that when the

[26:22] legislature comes back

[26:23] from recess. So, I'd really

[26:25] direct your focus towards

[26:26] Sacramento in this case.

[26:28] >> And so, this is an ask

[26:31] for current budget year,

[26:32] budget year plus 1?

[26:33] >> Current budget year.

[26:35] Current budget year. Because

[26:36] what,

[26:38] there was a budget that was

[26:40] adopted, but we have heard

[26:42] there will be, well, There's

[26:43] more than one budget in

[26:44] California these days. You

[26:46] usually get the budget and then

[26:47] subsequent budgets.

[26:48] >> Additional trailer bills.

[26:49] >> Trailer bills, right. So, we

[26:52] would be looking

[26:53] in the month remaining

[26:54] in session

[26:55] to try and secure something

[26:56] of the 379.

[26:58] >> Okay, so that's where you'd

[26:59] like us

[27:00] to focus our energy.

[27:01] >> That's.

[27:04] All right, okay, thank you.

[27:06] I'm glad I asked that question

[27:07] because I had no idea

[27:08] about that piece.

[27:09] Thank you.

[27:10] Director Solis, I couldn't

[27:12] agree with you more. I wrote

[27:13] down your quote. We know how

[27:15] to do this. And I was not

[27:16] convinced

[27:17] before that we knew how

[27:18] to do it. Maybe I'll speak for

[27:19] myself. I wasn't convinced I

[27:20] knew how to do it.

[27:22] But let me say,

[27:24] I couldn't agree

[27:25] with you more. The countywide

[27:27] nature of the official FIFA and

[27:31] the official Metro programs was

[27:35] just breathtaking. And I can't

[27:38] imagine what our region needed

[27:41] more than that success right

[27:43] now. It was phenomenal. I mean,

[27:47] it was just phenomenal. I can't

[27:48] speak more highly

[27:49] of it. I want to thank Metro.

[27:51] We too had shuttles running

[27:52] from Rosa Parks. I told CEO

[27:55] Wiggins that I was amused

[27:56] by the Angelenos who came up

[27:58] to me

[27:59] with utter surprise. I took

[28:00] Metro when I got here. Like,

[28:02] right,

[28:03] people do that every day. Go

[28:05] Metro. So, I hope that we earn

[28:07] some raving Metro fans,

[28:10] in addition to you know,

[28:13] World Cup fans. I completely

[28:16] agree. And from the, from, and

[28:20] from the county's perspective,

[28:22] from the JCOD bus on site,

[28:24] that partnership with Metro and

[28:27] Metro's presence at Magic

[28:29] Johnson Park, I couldn't agree

[28:31] with you more. I'm very proud

[28:33] that that we had that shared

[28:34] experience. And it really

[28:35] absolutely is a perfect, it was

[28:39] a perfect training ground. We

[28:40] do know how to do this. And I

[28:43] think, I hope that will instill

[28:45] a higher level of confidence

[28:47] in all of us, speak

[28:48] for myself again, as well as

[28:49] the federal government and the

[28:51] state government, that with

[28:52] investment it will be a

[28:55] seamless system

[28:57] with the investment. Because

[28:59] we've got to maintain access

[29:00] for our Metro riders as well as

[29:03] guarantee the athletes and the

[29:05] Olympians that they too can

[29:06] rely on us for transport. So,

[29:08] thank you

[29:09] for the homework assignments

[29:10] in terms of what we can do

[29:12] to try to put our shoulder

[29:13] to the grindstone to help

[29:15] Metro staff in accessing these

[29:17] additional resources. Thanks,

[29:18] Madam Chair.

[29:21] >> Thank you. And Supervisor

[29:22] Mitchell, you're exactly right.

[29:23] I'm keeping a list

[29:24] of first-timers on Metro. My

[29:26] friends are calling, and the

[29:28] commemorative cards that they

[29:29] were going to file away,

[29:30] they're now using.

[29:32] But thank you, CEO Wiggins, for

[29:34] your regular updates and your

[29:36] postings, which we were able to

[29:39] share and encourage some people

[29:40] just to go where they thought

[29:42] it was just too crowded. This

[29:44] certainly was a wonderful,

[29:45] wonderful trial run.

[29:48] Trial run.

[29:49] This is an action item.

[29:50] Could I have a motion and

[29:51] second, please?

[29:54] >> Okay, this is something we

[29:55] all want to vote on, so Madam

[29:56] Clerk, will you please try,

[29:58] >> Vice Chair Solis?

[29:59] >> Aye.

[30:01] >> Director Mitchell?

[30:02] >> Aye.

[30:03] >> Director Najarian?

[30:04] >> Aye.

[30:05] >> Director Horvath?

[30:06] >> Aye.

[30:07] >> And Chair Dupont-Walker?

[30:08] >> A unanimous aye.

[30:09] >> The motion carries.

[30:10] >> Thank you. I thank you

[30:11] for the presentation. We are

[30:12] now ready for item 9,

[30:15] Antelope Valley Line

[30:16] Improvements, San Fernando

[30:17] Valley and Pacoima Metrolink

[30:19] Stations and Mobility Hub.

[30:22] Mr. Sosa, do we have a

[30:24] presentation?

[30:26] >> Good morning, Chair,

[30:28] committee members. Ray Sosa,

[30:29] Metro Chief Planning Officer.

[30:31] As folks get settled in,

[30:32] I did also want to thank all

[30:34] of the staff in the Planning

[30:35] Department and other supporting

[30:38] departments,

[30:40] not only bringing the number

[30:41] of items today to the Planning

[30:42] and Programming Committee,

[30:43] but also being the MVPs out

[30:46] in the field supporting

[30:48] on FIFA World Cup MVPs, work

[30:50] streams, fan zones, transit

[30:53] fans, first fans, still doing

[30:54] all that while being able

[30:56] to bring these items

[30:57] to the board this July. So, I

[30:58] wanted

[30:59] to extend that thank you,

[31:00] especially since many

[31:02] of them are

[31:03] in the building as opposed

[31:04] to being out

[31:05] in the field. I'm not used to,

[31:06] to that sort of effort. So

[31:07] really want to say thank you

[31:09] to all of them. This item

[31:10] before you is the Antelope

[31:13] Valley Line Improvements, San

[31:14] Fernando Valley Pacoima

[31:16] Metrolink Station and

[31:17] Mobility Hub. I'm joined by

[31:19] Michael O'Connor, Executive

[31:20] Officer, and Karen Swift,

[31:22] Deputy Executive Officer.

[31:23] Michael O'Connor will go

[31:24] through the presentation.

[31:25] >> Thank you, and thank you,

[31:26] Madam Chair. I appreciate it.

[31:27] It's a little bit drafty

[31:29] in the boardroom, so I had

[31:30] to bring out my Argentina scarf

[31:31] just to keep me warm. Down,

[31:34] down to business.

[31:37] >> We are all English.

[31:38] >> You told me you wouldn't

[31:39] wear it.

[31:40] >> Yeah, yeah. You're supposed

[31:41] to give it to me, right?

[31:43] >> Well, it's a pleasure

[31:44] to be here. This item is a

[31:45] continuation of prior board

[31:48] actions that were taken

[31:49] December of 2025 and April

[31:51] 2026, focused on creating a

[31:53] broader multimodal

[31:55] transportation vision

[31:56] for connecting the City of

[31:57] San Fernando and the

[31:58] Northeast San Fernando Valley

[32:00] communities to the rest of the

[32:01] regional transportation system.

[32:02] This item here is focused

[32:03] on the Pacoima Metrolink

[32:04] station and mobility hub.

[32:06] Today we're asking

[32:07] for this item to program $6.9

[32:09] million that will help us do

[32:10] the conceptual planning,

[32:12] environmental clearance,

[32:14] preliminary engineering,

[32:15] and the community outreach

[32:16] for the San Fernando Valley

[32:18] Pacoima Metrolink station and

[32:19] mobility hub. And I just want

[32:21] to note before we start that

[32:22] this effort really is a

[32:23] multimodal team effort across

[32:24] Metro, but also our partners

[32:26] at different agencies, and

[32:27] tremendous outreach that we

[32:29] have done

[32:30] with the communities,

[32:31] listening to them and trying to

[32:32] incorporate their concerns and

[32:33] items within our approach to

[32:35] designing and planning

[32:37] different improvements

[32:38] in this area to make a seamless

[32:39] integrated approach

[32:40] to transportation in this part

[32:42] of the area that really

[32:43] deserves high-quality

[32:44] transportation options. So,

[32:47] part

[32:48] of that vision here is really

[32:49] to leverage the Metro-owned

[32:51] Metrolink Antelope Valley Line

[32:53] right-of-way and the

[32:54] Metro-funded Metrolink

[32:55] Antelope Valley Line service

[32:57] that does run through the

[32:58] corridor you see there

[33:00] from the north, the northwest

[33:02] to the southeast. The I want

[33:04] to orient you

[33:05] to the gold star there, number

[33:06] 5. That is the proposed

[33:08] location for the Pacoima

[33:09] Metrolink station,

[33:11] which would basically be

[33:13] at the terminus of the East

[33:14] San Fernando Valley light rail

[33:16] project that we are moving

[33:18] forward currently. This will

[33:20] provide an opportunity

[33:21] to connect 2 systems at a very

[33:23] key convenient transfer point

[33:27] that will connect this area to

[33:29] opportunities north and south.

[33:30] east and west across the

[33:33] Allen Valley Line into Santa

[33:34] Clarita, San Fernando Valley,

[33:36] down to Los Angeles. Focus you

[33:37] on Burbank Airport North,

[33:39] for example. The terminal is

[33:41] being moved to the northern

[33:42] area where we have a Metrolink

[33:44] station on the north side of

[33:45] Burbank Airport, and as well as

[33:46] the future opportunities the

[33:48] East San Fernando Valley

[33:50] Light Rail project will offer

[33:52] connecting everyone further

[33:53] south and eventually even

[33:54] to the future Sepulveda

[33:56] Transit Corridor project. So,

[33:57] there's a lot

[33:58] of opportunity here,

[33:59] and this is why we're bringing

[34:00] in a lot

[34:01] of different teams and agencies

[34:02] to help us put together a

[34:03] vision on how we can put forth

[34:04] the most integrated system

[34:06] possible to create value

[34:07] for the Pacoima Station as a

[34:09] key link for a transfer

[34:11] between our 2 systems.

[34:15] Previously, the prior board

[34:16] actions that I did mention were

[34:17] revolving around the East San

[34:18] Fernando Valley Shared

[34:20] Right-of-Way Study. And

[34:21] at the end of that study, the

[34:23] board did take a preferred

[34:25] alternative that they approved

[34:26] to adopt the new Pacoima

[34:28] Metrolink Station and

[34:30] to move it forward through

[34:31] design and environmental

[34:32] clearance. And we're,

[34:33] this is part

[34:34] of a larger effort,

[34:35] of course, in terms of at-grade

[34:36] crossing improvements that we

[34:37] heard earlier in April this

[34:39] year and other key items you're

[34:41] going to hear about later on

[34:42] in this presentation.

[34:43] But ultimately, one of the key

[34:44] features here is the multimodal

[34:45] mobility hub that we're going

[34:46] to be bringing to this. It's

[34:48] not just a transfer station

[34:49] platform to platform. We're

[34:51] looking at integrating

[34:52] different multiple rail

[34:54] systems, of course,

[34:55] but also bus systems, Metro

[34:56] operations,

[34:57] we have municipal operations

[34:59] in the area, and we also want

[35:00] to bring

[35:01] in active transportation

[35:02] options in an area that

[35:03] desperately needs more

[35:04] opportunities

[35:05] to access transportation by

[35:06] walking or bicycle or other

[35:07] kinds

[35:08] of safe and convenient methods.

[35:10] As mentioned previously,

[35:11] ultimately there's a future

[35:14] where this line for the

[35:15] Antelope Valley Line is going

[35:17] to become intercity rail

[35:18] potentially and could extend

[35:19] down to San Diego in terms

[35:20] of access. So, we're really

[35:21] trying to bring as much value

[35:23] as we can. to this part of LA

[35:24] County. The local residents

[35:27] will benefit tremendously

[35:28] from this investment,

[35:30] and this initial phase

[35:31] of work is specifically for the

[35:33] station and the work we need

[35:34] to do there,

[35:35] as mentioned previously. The

[35:36] mobility hub I want

[35:37] to bring up as a, as a key,

[35:40] as big as a key feature. This

[35:42] really is an opportunity

[35:43] for us to put together all the

[35:44] best practices and the

[35:45] different things we've been

[35:46] working on into one location

[35:48] for this area,

[35:49] even featuring some

[35:51] of the things we talked about

[35:52] for the World Cup

[35:53] with heat mitigation,

[35:55] for example, thinking about

[35:56] ways that we move people back

[35:57] and forth so that it's

[35:59] people-focused and it's safe

[36:00] and convenient. And it really

[36:02] spurs a reliance

[36:05] on public transportation

[36:06] in this area

[36:07] to provide greater value,

[36:09] not just for the residents,

[36:10] but for local businesses and

[36:12] just general commuting. So,

[36:14] we're very excited

[36:15] about this. The mobility hub is

[36:16] something that we're going to

[36:17] be developing and moving

[36:18] forward, and obviously

[36:19] in concert with community

[36:20] engagement. and conversations

[36:21] about how does this space

[36:22] potentially provide the best

[36:24] value

[36:25] for the local residents. And

[36:27] I'd like to turn it over to

[36:28] Karen Swift, who will talk

[36:29] about the community engagement

[36:31] piece.

[36:32] >> Thank you, Michael. Karen

[36:33] Swift, Deputy Executive

[36:34] Officer in Community

[36:36] Relations. So following board

[36:37] action this month, our

[36:38] department will issue a

[36:40] communications bench task order

[36:41] to engage Northeast San

[36:43] Fernando Valley communities

[36:44] on the latest developments in

[36:45] all these planning efforts that

[36:46] Michael's described. Our

[36:48] outreach efforts will build

[36:49] upon the robust engagement

[36:51] conducted for the shared

[36:52] right-of-way study back in

[36:53] 2025. This committee may recall

[36:55] that we had not just the

[36:57] traditional briefings and

[36:58] community meetings,

[36:59] but we had Spanish language

[37:01] roundtables partnered

[37:02] with our CBOs in the North

[37:04] Valley. We also hosted our own

[37:05] resource fair in partnership

[37:06] with the City of San

[37:08] Fernando, where we distributed

[37:09] more than 150 boxes

[37:11] of fresh produce.

[37:12] to groups up there,

[37:14] which was just great. So, you

[37:15] see some pictures

[37:16] of that here. So going forward,

[37:18] we want to build

[37:19] from that model. And so,

[37:20] we'll have design charrettes,

[37:21] roundtables again, working

[37:23] with CBOs, hands-on workshops.

[37:25] I picture us building little

[37:27] mobility hubs and sort

[37:28] of playing around

[37:30] with some 3D elements. We'll

[37:31] have strategic partnerships

[37:32] with elected officials, local

[37:34] jurisdictions, CBOs, and

[37:35] of course youth. We've got

[37:37] Mission College up there and

[37:38] some other connectivity we want

[37:39] to make sure we tap into. And

[37:41] then following that, countywide

[37:42] planning will execute a task

[37:44] order to start the conceptual

[37:45] planning, environmental

[37:46] clearance,

[37:47] and preliminary engineering.

[37:49] That concludes our

[37:50] presentation.

[37:52] >> So next steps here before we

[37:53] conclude actually is the,

[37:54] we have a task order we're

[37:55] going to be issuing this summer

[37:56] that will move this forward

[37:57] with board support this month.

[37:58] So with that, we're happy

[38:00] to take any questions.

[38:02] >> Thank you. Thank you

[38:04] for the presentation and for

[38:05] the excitement that we continue

[38:07] to feel. As usual,

[38:10] we normally hear

[38:11] from the public before the

[38:12] board members deliberate. or

[38:13] ask questions.

[38:15] But today I want to be sure,

[38:17] because of uniqueness

[38:18] on this item,

[38:19] that our board clerk is

[38:21] prepared

[38:22] to make the necessary changes.

[38:29] Oh, okay, absolutely.

[38:33] Thank you.

[38:35] Okay I'm moving ahead too

[38:36] quickly. Do any board members

[38:38] have questions or comments?

[38:45] Okay, this is Director

[38:47] Horvath.

[38:49] >> Thank you, Madam Chair.

[38:50] This is an exciting step

[38:52] following the approval

[38:53] of the next steps for the

[38:54] shared right-of-way study in

[38:56] December of last year. So, I

[38:58] really want to thank staff

[38:59] for all of your work on this

[39:01] project. I know it's highly

[39:03] anticipated in the Northeast

[39:04] San Fernando Valley, which

[39:08] certainly has been eager

[39:09] to see more investment

[39:10] in transportation solutions.

[39:12] So, I know this is going,

[39:14] going to,

[39:15] and certainly means a lot

[39:16] already, and we want to make

[39:17] sure we're getting it right. I

[39:20] know our board approved

[39:22] Scenario 2 in December

[39:23] of last year,

[39:25] as well as direction

[39:26] to move forward

[39:27] with environmental clearance,

[39:28] safety improvements at the, at

[39:31] the 6th at-grade railroad

[39:33] crossings within the project

[39:35] area and the identification

[39:38] of funding. This segment

[39:39] of the project began moving

[39:41] on a track separate

[39:43] from the 6.7-mile Van Nuys

[39:46] running segment. So, I just

[39:48] want to make sure we're clear

[39:49] about timeline and we manage

[39:52] expectations so community

[39:54] members know exactly what's

[39:55] coming and they can stay

[39:57] engaged appropriately. As well

[39:59] as for budgetary purposes,

[40:01] I know this action looks

[40:03] to approve just $6.9 million

[40:04] for planning work, but the

[40:06] project is still estimated

[40:07] to cost more than $250 million.

[40:10] So, is it the intent of staff

[40:12] to deliver the shared

[40:13] right-of-way segment along

[40:15] with the Van Nuys running

[40:17] segment?

[40:19] >> So, we're obviously aware

[40:21] that it'd be very important to

[40:22] provide that connectivity as

[40:23] soon as possible for the value

[40:24] for both systems. We have a lot

[40:26] of work ahead of us to be able

[40:28] to put forth the timing because

[40:29] a lot of it may just depend

[40:31] on phasing of the project or

[40:33] the design scope

[40:34] for the station itself,

[40:35] or what we can do potentially

[40:36] in different steps. So we'll

[40:38] have more information

[40:39] on that timing when we come

[40:41] back to the board

[40:42] with the next report.

[40:43] But our intention is to try

[40:44] to maximize that value of,

[40:46] of connectivity when the East

[40:48] San Fernando Valley Light Rail

[40:50] opens, if possible.

[40:51] >> So, if you continue to,

[40:52] to diverge, do you have an

[40:53] estimated timeline

[40:54] for construction and delivery

[40:56] And should we expect to see

[40:58] sizable budget allocations

[41:00] for the project in the

[41:01] near future, given where,

[41:03] what's being allocated today

[41:04] versus what the total project

[41:05] cost will be?

[41:08] >> Well, the conceptual

[41:09] planning and the preliminary

[41:10] engineering phase is going

[41:11] to be about 20 months. That

[41:13] will tell us a lot

[41:14] about what we're dealing with,

[41:15] of course, in terms

[41:16] of the scope,

[41:17] potential future costs. And we

[41:19] would come back to the board,

[41:20] of course, to certify the

[41:21] environmental documentation and

[41:22] the program funds

[41:23] for the design. So right now,

[41:24] we don't have a lot

[41:25] of information

[41:26] about the exact steps forward

[41:28] for those pieces. We want to

[41:29] make sure that we have that

[41:31] information when we come back.

[41:33] But we'll know more about the

[41:34] overall construction schedule

[41:35] and the overall project budget

[41:36] as we proceed

[41:37] through these different steps

[41:38] for planning and preliminary

[41:39] engineering, et cetera. Plus,

[41:41] we have more community

[41:42] engagement we have to do to

[41:43] make sure that we're getting

[41:44] the scope correct

[41:45] in that area. So, we'll

[41:46] establish a funding plan,

[41:48] but that will be in a future

[41:49] date when we come back

[41:50] with more information.

[41:51] >> I'm just trying to help

[41:52] in that community work part.

[41:54] So, people know exactly when

[41:55] to show up and when

[41:56] to comment, because sometimes

[41:57] any opportunity to comment

[41:59] means people will come forward

[42:01] to talk about something that

[42:02] might not be the specific thing

[42:03] you're asking for

[42:04] in that moment. So, it sounds

[42:05] like they should just continue

[42:08] to keep coming forward every

[42:10] opportunity that exists so that

[42:11] way they don't miss the

[42:12] opportunity to talk about

[42:13] timeline and funding

[42:14] accordingly.

[42:17] >> Yeah, I think that's

[42:18] correct. And we also are out

[42:19] there obviously building the

[42:20] light rail now. So,

[42:21] construction relations is

[42:22] deeply engaged door to door

[42:24] with the community. So, we'll

[42:25] continue to partner

[42:26] with them so that if people

[42:27] come to a construction update

[42:28] meeting or our meeting,

[42:30] we're sharing information. We

[42:31] recognize the community sees

[42:32] one Metro. So, we want to make

[42:34] sure they always have those

[42:35] opportunities

[42:36] to share feedback.

[42:37] >> And our December action

[42:39] called on staff

[42:40] to continue planning work on

[42:42] the rail crossing safety

[42:43] improvement. as well at the 6

[42:44] at-grade crossings along the

[42:46] 2.5-mile corridor as part

[42:48] of improvements to the

[42:50] Metrolink Antelope Valley

[42:52] Line. So, what is the status

[42:53] of that work? And what is the

[42:55] timeline

[42:56] for those improvements to move

[42:58] into construction?

[42:59] >> Sure. So those 6 at-grade

[43:00] crossings, they're in the 30%

[43:02] preliminary design phase. And

[43:04] so, we were about 20 to 25%

[43:07] of the way through

[43:08] with the consultant,

[43:09] and we're planning to have 30%

[43:10] preliminary design plans ready

[43:12] for us to review sometime

[43:13] around September. And so, we're

[43:16] anticipating 30% completion

[43:17] by late 2026, early 2027. That

[43:19] will give us a lot

[43:20] of information, of course,

[43:21] in terms of those next steps

[43:22] for costs and funding plans as

[43:24] well.

[43:25] >> Okay, thank you very much.

[43:28] >> Director Najarian.

[43:30] >> Thank you, Mike. I just want

[43:33] to reiterate a lot of your

[43:35] comments. I think this is just

[43:37] an incredibly well-planned

[43:41] project to place the Metrolink

[43:44] station right there connecting

[43:47] to the East San Fernando

[43:48] Valley. It's going

[43:50] to open up a new world

[43:54] for the commuters in the

[43:55] Antelope Valley who are

[43:57] constrained. They don't have

[43:58] much transit. Many

[44:00] of them rely on the vehicles,

[44:02] their cars, just because there

[44:03] aren't that many other options.

[44:04] This way,

[44:07] someone who is employed

[44:10] in that employment center

[44:12] at the Van Nuys Courthouse,

[44:13] state buildings, city

[44:15] buildings, will be able

[44:16] to take the Metrolink and

[44:19] with a change, just change

[44:21] once, and drop right down

[44:24] into the Van Nuys Center using

[44:25] the East San Fernando Valley.

[44:27] And then future trips, as you

[44:30] see, it's lining up

[44:31] with our,

[44:33] Sepulveda corridor route a

[44:37] few years down the road.

[44:39] But it's, I just think it's

[44:41] really a very good and

[44:43] well-thought-out series of

[44:45] plans that have come together.

[44:48] And I think it's just wonderful

[44:50] and would just like to

[44:52] congratulate planning staff as

[44:55] all these projects just fit

[44:56] together really well

[44:59] at this location. So, thank

[45:00] you very much and good work.

[45:03] >> Any other comments? I just

[45:05] want to share, Director

[45:06] Najarian explained the

[45:08] interlocking, which I

[45:10] experienced actually a couple

[45:11] weeks when I was in City of

[45:12] San Fernando

[45:14] for a meeting. I have

[45:16] to admit I took a lot

[45:17] of bows because my Metro pin

[45:20] seemed to draw people

[45:21] with smiles. So, thank you for

[45:22] the outreach. I even took bows

[45:24] for Metrolink. But I think

[45:26] what's important is what you're

[45:28] creating is a welcoming

[45:29] atmosphere, and it is evidence

[45:31] of a level of trust they have

[45:34] that what you are saying is

[45:36] going to happen. So, thank you

[45:37] for that. Do we have any

[45:39] comments from the public?

[45:42] >> This is public comment

[45:43] for item 9. Please press pound

[45:44] 2 if you'd like

[45:45] to make a comment

[45:48] on this item.

[45:49] >> Caller ending in 2074,

[45:51] please state your name.

[45:52] You have 1 minute

[45:53] to state your comment.

[45:57] That caller has lowered his

[45:58] hand.

[46:04] >> Did you unmute 2074?

[46:08] >> Oh, they lowered their hand.

[46:09] They just re-raised it.

[46:10] Unmuting them now.

[46:14] >> Sorry about that. Good

[46:17] morning. Paula Basingana,

[46:18] Planning Director for Council

[46:20] District 7 in the City of LA.

[46:21] On behalf of Councilwoman

[46:23] Rodriguez, I'd like

[46:24] to express her support

[46:25] for this funding action. We are

[46:26] grateful

[46:27] to see the investment come

[46:28] in a timely manner after the

[46:30] board made the decision

[46:31] to complete the northern

[46:33] segment of the East San

[46:34] Fernando Valley project via

[46:35] this Metrolink connection. We

[46:36] look forward

[46:37] to continue working with Metro

[46:39] to ensure this connection and

[46:40] mobility hub is as successful

[46:42] as possible. Thank you.

[46:44] >> Thank the councilwoman.

[46:46] >> That was the last public

[46:47] comment.

[46:48] >> Thank you. This is an action

[46:50] item. And Madam Clerk, will you

[46:51] please call the roll?

[46:52] >> Can I get a motion and a

[46:53] second, please?

[46:55] >> Second.

[46:56] >> Oh, wonderful. Thank you.

[46:59] Vice Chair Solis?

[47:00] >> Aye.

[47:02] >> Director Mitchell?

[47:03] >> Aye.

[47:04] >> Director Najarian?

[47:05] >> Aye.

[47:06] >> Director Horvath?

[47:07] >> Aye.

[47:08] >> And Chair Dupont-Walker?

[47:09] >> Aye.

[47:10] >> The motion carries. Thank

[47:11] you.

[47:12] >> Thank you. Okay, I'm back

[47:13] now. Item 10. Measure R

[47:15] Multimodal Highway

[47:17] Subregional Program

[47:19] Semiannual Update.

[47:22] >> Thank you, Chair. This is

[47:24] the semiannual update for the

[47:26] Measure R Highway Program. Up

[47:28] with me are Robert Machuca,

[47:29] Deputy Executive Officer, and

[47:31] Avital Barnea, Senior

[47:34] Executive Officer,

[47:35] to make the presentation.

[47:37] >> Thank you, Madam Chair and

[47:38] committee members, for hearing

[47:40] out our, our item. If you can

[47:44] please bear with me,

[47:45] it's a long set

[47:47] of considerations,

[47:48] but approving $125 million

[47:50] in additional programming

[47:51] with the capacity of Measure R

[47:53] multimodal highway subregional

[47:55] programs along with the funding

[47:57] changes via the updated project

[47:58] list shown in Attachment A,

[47:59] approving the obligation of $8

[48:02] million

[48:03] in previously approved Measure

[48:05] R multimodal highway

[48:06] subregional program funds and

[48:07] reallocating to other existing

[48:09] board-approved Measure R

[48:10] projects,

[48:12] or returning remaining funds

[48:14] to the Measure R subregional

[48:16] fund balance as shown in

[48:17] Attachment A, and authorizing

[48:19] the chief executive officer or

[48:21] their designee to negotiate and

[48:24] execute all necessary

[48:25] agreements

[48:26] for board-approved projects.

[48:29] This chart provides an overview

[48:31] of the Measure R program

[48:32] with the various line items

[48:34] in the Measure R. These are the

[48:36] sub-regional programs that are

[48:39] the responsibility

[48:40] of the sub-regions to identify

[48:41] and prioritize projects within

[48:43] their sub-regional allocations.

[48:45] As you can see, there's over

[48:46] 350 projects that have been

[48:48] vetted through this process

[48:51] with the percentages that

[48:53] you'll see on the right column

[48:55] with the spent percentage

[48:56] with how they're doing

[48:58] with each of their individual

[48:59] projects and programs in each

[49:01] of the sub-regions. An example

[49:04] of one of the projects

[49:06] within this program is

[49:07] within the city of Norwalk.

[49:09] This is the Bloomfield Avenue

[49:11] at Imperial intersection

[49:12] improvements. This has a series

[49:14] of various improvements looking

[49:16] at doing some westbound left

[49:19] turn lane improvements,

[49:21] really allowing

[49:23] for capacity to,

[49:24] to function well there,

[49:26] but also includes other

[49:28] Mobility improvements,

[49:29] such as ramp upgrades, meeting,

[49:32] making sure that ADA standards

[49:34] are being met, new crosswalks,

[49:36] improved striping, and also

[49:38] some bicycle facilities that

[49:39] are in place will stay

[49:41] in place. With regards

[49:45] to equity-focused communities,

[49:46] this update includes board

[49:48] actions that advance the local

[49:50] priority projects and EFCs

[49:52] within cities of Bell

[49:53] Gardens, Commerce, Downey,

[49:54] Glendale, Los Angeles,

[49:56] Paramount, Norwalk, and other

[49:58] parts of unincorporated Los

[49:59] Angeles County. So next steps

[50:02] will be staff will continue

[50:03] working with the subregions to

[50:05] execute necessary agreements

[50:06] and work

[50:07] with the various subregions,

[50:08] local jurisdictions

[50:09] for their consideration

[50:10] of multimodal, safe, equitable,

[50:12] and sustainable investments

[50:13] within the Measure R multimodal

[50:16] highway subregional program.

[50:21] With that being said, that

[50:22] concludes my presentation.

[50:25] >> Thank you. We are going to

[50:27] handle this a little bit

[50:28] differently today, and

[50:29] before I call

[50:31] for board members or myself

[50:33] to comment, I want

[50:35] to be sure, Madam Clerk, that

[50:37] you're prepared to make

[50:38] whatever changes will come.

[50:41] Thank you. Okay, I have a

[50:44] question. I appreciate the

[50:45] semiannual update on Measure R

[50:48] multimodal highway subregional

[50:50] programs. These investments are

[50:53] indeed critical

[50:54] to improving the mobility

[50:56] across the county

[50:57] by addressing congestion,

[50:59] enhancing safety, and

[51:00] delivering projects that

[51:01] reflect the unique

[51:03] transportation needs

[51:04] of each subregion. And that's

[51:07] so important. I'd also like

[51:08] to know how Metro is measuring

[51:10] the success of these

[51:13] investments. I know that

[51:14] deliver, delivering timely

[51:16] within budget is important.

[51:17] Are there any other measures?

[51:22] >> Certainly, yes. Well, first

[51:24] of all, you're, you pointed out

[51:25] something very important the,

[51:27] the selection and

[51:28] prioritization

[51:29] of these projects

[51:30] by the unique features of each

[51:31] of the subregions. So that's

[51:33] why we get a broad range

[51:34] of various types

[51:35] of projects that come through.

[51:37] So, one

[51:38] of our main responsibilities in

[51:39] ensuring that these projects

[51:41] are eligible within the

[51:42] guidelines that we have in the

[51:43] project we're also ensuring

[51:45] that there's consistency

[51:47] with a lot of the board actions

[51:48] that have taken place such as

[51:50] with BMT, complete streets

[51:52] equity-focused elements that

[51:54] the projects are consistent

[51:56] with those line items. One

[51:59] thing that I am excited to

[52:00] announce is that we also have

[52:02] been able to integrate all 350

[52:04] projects into the MyGrants

[52:06] portal. And this is a portal

[52:08] where cities are now being able

[52:10] to utilize for consistency. It

[52:13] cuts down on redundancy, labor,

[52:16] manual entries of information

[52:18] of their projects. They're able

[52:20] to process their invoices

[52:21] through this portal. So, this

[52:23] portal has already been in use

[52:24] with Measure M projects,

[52:26] but we finally have been able

[52:28] to integrate the Measure R

[52:29] projects into the system. So,

[52:31] it's a lot, it's going to

[52:33] facilitate the process a lot

[52:34] better.

[52:35] >> That's really important,

[52:36] especially as we talk about the

[52:37] many sub-regional partners and

[52:39] local agencies that are working

[52:41] with us. Supervisor Solis.

[52:45] >> Just a quick question.

[52:47] Appreciate the presentation and

[52:49] agree with a lot

[52:50] of what we have before us,

[52:52] but I wanted to ask,

[52:53] and maybe it's not a big deal,

[52:55] but there was 60, I think it

[52:58] was $60 million that was

[53:00] deobligated from a Caltrans

[53:01] hotspot project from I-605

[53:04] intersection improvement, and I

[53:05] wasn't clear where the fund

[53:08] surplus was allocated to.

[53:15] You see, it's a good thing. We

[53:16] had a surplus, but where.

[53:19] >> So those funds would

[53:22] replenish the overall

[53:23] subregional equity fund so that

[53:25] we'd be eligible

[53:27] for that subregion to apply

[53:28] for another grant.

[53:30] >> Yeah, the remaining.

[53:31] >> Yeah, good.

[53:32] >> It wasn't given

[53:33] to a specific project

[53:34] but is available for,

[53:35] >> So, it's available.

[53:36] Okay.

[53:37] That's good to know. Thank

[53:38] you very much. Thank you.

[53:41] >> Supervisor Horvath, I'm

[53:42] going to call Director

[53:43] Najarian first,

[53:44] and I'll come back

[53:45] to you.

[53:46] >> Yes, you're next.

[53:48] >> Okay. Thank you. There's a

[53:51] lot of projects here. Some

[53:53] cities were able

[53:55] to use them; others not. The

[53:56] obligated and all that.

[53:57] But I just want to,

[53:59] I just put this

[54:01] in perspective, that when

[54:03] Measure R was passed. These

[54:05] were intended

[54:06] to be highway funds

[54:08] to equalize and

[54:10] to compensate those areas

[54:13] of the city, of the county,

[54:16] that did not have a significant

[54:18] transit line going

[54:19] through them. So, this is how

[54:21] it all came about. It was only

[54:22] later that this board decided

[54:27] to make those funds more

[54:29] flexible by permitting them

[54:30] to be used

[54:32] for pedestrian bike path,

[54:33] active transportation, and

[54:36] frankly, a very broad series of

[54:39] other improvements. I think

[54:42] that was Director Bonin who I

[54:45] guess was spearheading that.

[54:47] So, it has caused me some

[54:51] heartburn when our COG and our

[54:54] sector and our subregion is

[54:59] trying to decide how

[55:01] to use these funds. Often there

[55:03] was a large demand

[55:04] for the active transportation.

[55:08] At that point, I was saying,

[55:10] well, we really need

[55:11] to reserve this

[55:12] for some highway improvements,

[55:14] on-ramps, off-ramps,

[55:15] safety features.

[55:17] But they said, no,

[55:18] that's not what the Metro

[55:19] Board wanted to do. They wanted

[55:20] these funds

[55:21] to be very flexible, very

[55:23] broad, to serve all modes

[55:24] of transit. So, I just want

[55:27] to put that

[55:28] out there as we deal with these

[55:30] many different projects, some

[55:31] highway, some active

[55:33] transportation, pedestrian,

[55:35] bike, and all that. This has

[55:36] truly become a very broad and

[55:39] flexible pool of money,

[55:41] significant pool of money,

[55:43] that the subregions

[55:45] in their wisdom will decide how

[55:46] to use. So, I just want

[55:48] to put that out in terms of,

[55:50] Being the historian,

[55:51] I can only do this for like,

[55:52] >> Very important. Yeah, very

[55:53] important.

[55:54] >> I won't do it anymore

[55:55] after that. So that's all I

[55:56] wanted to say.

[55:57] >> No, no, the historical

[55:58] memory is extremely important.

[55:59] Thank you for sharing that.

[56:01] Supervisor Horvath.

[56:04] >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I do

[56:06] know that that is the history,

[56:08] and I appreciate your

[56:10] acknowledgment of that. And I

[56:11] also know we get to be the

[56:14] policy-setting body that helps

[56:16] to guide how we make

[56:18] investment. And I think,

[56:21] I know as part of the, our

[56:23] board retreat and discussions

[56:24] around impending fiscal cliff

[56:26] and our financial

[56:28] decision-making going forward,

[56:30] I want to make sure that,

[56:32] at least from my part,

[56:33] that we're doing all we can

[56:34] to invest in transit solutions

[56:36] that provide alternatives

[56:38] to people being in cars one

[56:40] by one on all

[56:42] of our streets and highways.

[56:43] And so, I would ask if,

[56:46] if you are open to it, Madam

[56:48] Chair, that we would request

[56:51] this item to be bifurcated

[56:52] to vote on the $21 million

[56:54] allocation for MR 35.74

[56:59] westbound SR 91 Alondra

[57:01] Boulevard to Shoemaker Avenue

[57:04] improvement project separately.

[57:06] Thank you.

[57:09] >> Let me get the consensus

[57:11] of the committee. If there is

[57:14] anyone who would object

[57:15] to the item being bifurcated?

[57:17] Okay, let me make sure the

[57:19] public understands that what we

[57:20] are proposing is to make an

[57:23] adjustment and vote first on

[57:25] the items minus the last item

[57:29] referenced by Supervisor

[57:31] Horvath. We'll make that

[57:33] notation so that we're very

[57:35] much aware of the first vote.

[57:39] And then we would take a vote

[57:42] on these items separately.

[57:46] >> Appreciated. Thank you.

[57:48] >> So I'll move the balance.

[57:49] Well, have we done public

[57:51] comment?

[57:52] >> Yeah, we haven't gotten

[57:53] there yet. Are we ready?

[57:56] Okay. Is there a member

[57:58] of the public that wishes

[57:59] to speak

[58:00] on the items minus SR 91?

[58:02] >> There's public comment

[58:03] for item 10. Please press pound

[58:04] 2 if you'd like to make,

[58:05] >> You know what, let's just

[58:06] speak on all of them.

[58:07] >> Yes.

[58:08] >> Yes. Item 10 as a whole.

[58:09] Yes. No public comments.

[58:13] >> Okay, a motion's

[58:15] in order.

[58:16] >> So accepting the bifurcation.

[58:20] >> As on the screen.

[58:22] >> As, oh, yeah, we're

[58:23] on the screen already.

[58:24] >> We're ready. Our clerk is

[58:26] ready.

[58:27] >> Okay, there we go. So I

[58:28] guess I will move item 10A1.

[58:33] 10A.

[58:34] >> Do I have a second? Okay,

[58:36] moved and seconded that we

[58:39] approve item 10A.1. Will you

[58:41] call the roll?

[58:42] >> Vice Chair Solis?

[58:44] >> Aye.

[58:45] >> Director Mitchell?

[58:46] >> Aye.

[58:47] >> Director Najarian?

[58:48] >> Aye.

[58:49] >> And Chair, excuse me,

[58:52] Director Horvath?

[58:54] >> Aye.

[58:55] >> And Chair Dupont-Walker?

[58:57] >> Yes.

[58:58] >> The motion carries.

[58:59] >> Thank you.

[59:00] >> And now we will move

[59:03] to the next item.

[59:05] >> Just give it a second

[59:06] to reset so she can.

[59:07] There we go.

[59:08] >> Okay, could I have a motion,

[59:09] please?

[59:13] >> This is,

[59:15] so that the first one was for,

[59:16] we had pulled

[59:18] out just the one section,

[59:19] so it was A1,

[59:22] which removed the one section,

[59:24] B and C. So, then this 2nd vote

[59:29] is just for the Shoemaker

[59:31] Avenue project approval.

[59:34] >> As presented.

[59:35] >> Correct?

[59:36] >> So, what would the proper

[59:38] name of that motion be?

[59:40] >> You can move it

[59:41] to approve it, just this

[59:43] project.

[59:44] >> I will move just this

[59:45] project.

[59:46] >> There you go.

[59:47] >> Do I have a 2nd?

[59:48] >> I'll second. Please call

[59:50] the roll, Madam Clerk.

[59:52] >> Vice Chair Solis?

[59:53] >> Aye.

[59:55] >> Director Mitchell?

[59:56] >> Aye.

[59:57] >> Director Najarian?

[59:58] >> Aye.

[59:59] >> Director Mitchell, excuse

[1:00:01] me, Director Horvath?

[1:00:03] >> No.

[1:00:04] >> And Chair Dupont-Walker?

[1:00:05] >> Yes.

[1:00:06] >> The motion carries.

[1:00:08] >> Thank you. We now move

[1:00:10] to item 11, Measure M 10-Year

[1:00:13] Comprehensive Assessment

[1:00:14] Objectives and Criteria. Do we

[1:00:17] have a presentation?

[1:00:21] >> Yes, we do, Chair. Ray

[1:00:23] Sosa, Chief Planning Officer,

[1:00:24] accompanied by Mike O'Connor,

[1:00:25] Executive Officer, and Paul

[1:00:27] Backstrom, Senior Director,

[1:00:29] will go

[1:00:30] through the presentation

[1:00:31] on the Measure M 10-Year

[1:00:32] Comprehensive Assessment

[1:00:33] Objectives and Criteria.

[1:00:36] >> Thank you again, Madam

[1:00:37] Chair, members

[1:00:38] of the committee. This is kind

[1:00:40] of actually building on

[1:00:42] Director Najarian's earlier

[1:00:43] comments about Measure M and

[1:00:45] the history of it. This is

[1:00:46] really a through line from

[1:00:48] Measure M as a bottoms-up,

[1:00:50] transparent, consensus-based

[1:00:51] sales tax measure securing 71%

[1:00:53] of the vote and the

[1:00:55] accountability measures that

[1:00:56] were built into that ordinance

[1:00:58] that have helped provide the

[1:01:00] structure for Measure M going

[1:01:02] forward and allowing

[1:01:03] for an opportunity 10 years

[1:01:04] later

[1:01:05] to do a comprehensive

[1:01:06] assessment of the measure

[1:01:07] to set ourselves up

[1:01:08] for the next decade.

[1:01:09] of delivering Measure M

[1:01:10] in the region. So, with that,

[1:01:11] I'll begin the presentation.

[1:01:14] So, our recommendation today is

[1:01:17] to approve the objectives and

[1:01:18] the criteria for the Measure M

[1:01:20] 10-Year Comprehensive

[1:01:21] Assessment. This action is

[1:01:24] consistent with the Measure M

[1:01:25] guidelines, and in addition

[1:01:27] to what the ordinance directs,

[1:01:28] the guidelines also state that

[1:01:31] the Measure M Independent

[1:01:33] Taxpayer Oversight Committee

[1:01:34] shall review the objectives and

[1:01:36] criteria prior to presentation

[1:01:37] to the board. We completed that

[1:01:39] step in June, presenting

[1:01:41] to them, and so we are now

[1:01:43] bringing this item forward

[1:01:44] to the board this cycle to

[1:01:45] approve these objectives and

[1:01:46] criteria. Next slide. So, the

[1:01:50] fundamental purpose of the

[1:01:52] comprehensive assessment is to

[1:01:54] provide accountability and

[1:01:55] transparency in how Metro and

[1:01:57] our partners are performing

[1:01:58] in the delivery

[1:01:59] of the voter-approved Measure M

[1:02:00] program and

[1:02:01] to use that information

[1:02:02] to guide our actions

[1:02:04] over the next decade. The

[1:02:06] ordinance requires the

[1:02:07] preparation of a comprehensive

[1:02:08] assessment every 5 years. You

[1:02:10] may recall that we had our

[1:02:11] first 5-year assessment for

[1:02:13] Measure M in October of 2023,

[1:02:14] which this board approved.

[1:02:17] At the 10-year interval mark,

[1:02:19] the Measure M ordinance also

[1:02:21] requires that Metro assess and

[1:02:23] expenditure plan major projects

[1:02:24] and multi-year subregional

[1:02:25] programs, or MSPs to see how

[1:02:27] they are completed or

[1:02:30] anticipated to be completed

[1:02:31] during the next 10-year period.

[1:02:33] That means when we go through

[1:02:34] this assessment process,

[1:02:36] we're looking back 5 years,

[1:02:38] but also looking forward 10

[1:02:39] years, creating a 15-year

[1:02:41] fiscal year window. So,

[1:02:44] to prepare for this work,

[1:02:45] we have to do several things.

[1:02:47] We have to estimate the

[1:02:49] financial capacity for Measure

[1:02:50] M and compare our forecasted

[1:02:52] revenues against our

[1:02:53] anticipated expenditures. We

[1:02:55] also have to assess project and

[1:02:57] program benefits associated

[1:02:58] with Measure M investments.

[1:03:00] coordinate

[1:03:01] across the agency departments

[1:03:03] with numerous teams,

[1:03:05] conduct stakeholder engagement,

[1:03:06] which will be a critical

[1:03:07] element of this work

[1:03:09] to ground our findings

[1:03:10] in the lived experiences

[1:03:11] of our riders and also

[1:03:12] to gather feedback

[1:03:14] on any proposed amendments we

[1:03:15] may bring forward to you. And

[1:03:16] finally,

[1:03:17] once the assessment is

[1:03:18] complete, we will bring it

[1:03:19] to the Board for consideration

[1:03:20] along

[1:03:21] with any potential amendments.

[1:03:22] One key item, just we want to

[1:03:24] keep saying this every time we

[1:03:25] come back to you, is that the

[1:03:27] end process requires a 2/3 vote

[1:03:31] to approve the comprehensive

[1:03:32] assessment and a 2/3 vote

[1:03:33] to approve any amendments. So

[1:03:35] that consensus building, that

[1:03:37] transparency, that community

[1:03:38] engagement,

[1:03:39] we take that very seriously

[1:03:41] during this process. We want

[1:03:42] to come back to you

[1:03:43] with the opportunity

[1:03:44] to have items

[1:03:45] before you that will allow

[1:03:46] for that consensus

[1:03:47] to take hold. So, the framework

[1:03:52] and the objectives

[1:03:54] for the assessment. There's 2

[1:03:55] major analyses that compose the

[1:03:57] assessment framework. Part 1 is

[1:04:00] that system-wide assessment

[1:04:01] of progress to date,

[1:04:03] going back the past 5 years and

[1:04:05] building on the first 5-year

[1:04:07] assessment that we conducted.

[1:04:08] It's a state of the system and

[1:04:10] a quality-of-life assessment

[1:04:11] of the administration of

[1:04:12] Measure M to date. It will

[1:04:15] encompass a broad range of

[1:04:16] analysis that includes

[1:04:18] revenues, expenditures,

[1:04:19] major project status, Metro

[1:04:21] employment and vacancy rates,

[1:04:24] access to opportunity,

[1:04:25] and economic benefits, as well

[1:04:27] as some external factors that

[1:04:30] are affecting the construction

[1:04:31] market outlook. The assessment

[1:04:33] objectives and criteria

[1:04:34] in this report primarily apply

[1:04:35] to this portion

[1:04:36] of the analysis. The work

[1:04:38] that's completed in Part 1 will

[1:04:40] then inform our work in Part

[1:04:42] 2, which is the capital project

[1:04:43] and program assessment. This

[1:04:45] portion is the evaluation of

[1:04:47] the expenditure plan major

[1:04:48] projects and programs including

[1:04:50] the MSPs, that are completed or

[1:04:52] anticipated to be completed

[1:04:53] in the next 10-year period. We

[1:04:55] are developing a project

[1:04:56] evaluation framework, metrics,

[1:04:58] and weighting for this work,

[1:04:59] which we'll bring

[1:05:00] to you this fall. The 5

[1:05:03] recommended assessment

[1:05:04] objectives, which you see

[1:05:06] on the right, carry over

[1:05:07] from the 2023 assessment that

[1:05:08] we conducted

[1:05:10] with a minor revision

[1:05:11] to the first objective, which

[1:05:13] really broadens our analysis to

[1:05:14] include other actors that are

[1:05:16] delivering Measure M projects

[1:05:18] and implementing projects

[1:05:20] funded by Measure M in terms

[1:05:21] of direct and subrecipients

[1:05:24] of Measure M funds. We want to

[1:05:26] make sure it's a holistic

[1:05:27] approach to everyone involved

[1:05:29] in delivering Measure M. The

[1:05:30] language used in these 5

[1:05:31] objectives draws directly

[1:05:32] from the Measure M ordinance to

[1:05:35] ensure that we are meeting the

[1:05:36] requirements of the ordinance

[1:05:38] in preparing the assessment.

[1:05:42] So, the proposed assessment

[1:05:43] criteria, similar

[1:05:47] to the objectives, it builds

[1:05:49] upon those that were used

[1:05:52] in the 2023 Measure M 5-year

[1:05:54] assessment

[1:05:55] with some modifications to

[1:05:56] address the specific needs that

[1:05:57] are required

[1:05:58] for the 10-year assessment.

[1:05:59] So, we began

[1:06:00] with those criteria

[1:06:01] from the 5-year assessment,

[1:06:03] and we modified them

[1:06:04] to reflect relevant changes

[1:06:05] since then,

[1:06:06] including recommendations

[1:06:07] from the Oversight Committee

[1:06:09] and Metro staff that were

[1:06:12] included in the Measure and

[1:06:13] 5-Year Assessment report. We

[1:06:15] had board direction via motion

[1:06:16] at that time when the board

[1:06:18] approved the 2023 report,

[1:06:20] and that is included. We also

[1:06:21] have report recommendations

[1:06:24] themselves from the 5-Year

[1:06:25] Assessment that we wanted

[1:06:27] to continue forward, and again,

[1:06:28] the needs that are specific

[1:06:30] for the, the ordinance's

[1:06:32] 10-year assessment

[1:06:33] requirements. So, there are 7

[1:06:37] assessment areas. There's a lot

[1:06:39] on the screen, so I won't go

[1:06:41] through the entire thing. This

[1:06:43] is all in Attachment A

[1:06:45] to the report,

[1:06:46] but essentially, it's,

[1:06:48] this is a sampling

[1:06:49] of those criteria. So

[1:06:51] basically, it's not the entire

[1:06:53] element, but it's,

[1:06:54] it gives you a good sense

[1:06:55] of what's in each

[1:06:56] of these assessment areas. 2

[1:06:59] new assessment areas have been

[1:07:00] added to the original 2023

[1:07:02] criteria. The first is the

[1:07:04] planning assessment area,

[1:07:06] which includes 2 criteria. The

[1:07:07] first one related to project

[1:07:09] performance as amended

[1:07:10] by the board with the adoption

[1:07:11] of the 2023 Comprehensive

[1:07:13] Assessment and whether Measure

[1:07:15] M is helping to address the

[1:07:17] board-adopted VMT targets or

[1:07:18] vehicle miles traveled. The

[1:07:20] second new assessment area is

[1:07:22] economic impact, and that will

[1:07:24] examine direct and indirect

[1:07:26] jobs created during and after

[1:07:28] project implementation and

[1:07:29] examine the cost-benefit of

[1:07:31] Measure M projects and programs

[1:07:32] consistent with their

[1:07:34] cost-benefit analysis process.

[1:07:37] Equity is pulled

[1:07:38] out as its own assessment area,

[1:07:40] and consistent

[1:07:41] with staff recommendations

[1:07:42] in the 2023 5-year assessment,

[1:07:44] we are working very closely

[1:07:45] with the Office of Equity and

[1:07:47] Race to improve our definition

[1:07:49] for access

[1:07:51] to opportunity and what it

[1:07:52] means for the 10-year

[1:07:53] comprehensive assessment as we

[1:07:55] go forward. So, the application

[1:07:56] of these criteria in totality

[1:07:59] will produce a transparent

[1:08:01] examination of how Metro and

[1:08:02] its agency partners have

[1:08:04] invested Measure M dollars,

[1:08:05] whether set-asides

[1:08:07] for operations and state of

[1:08:08] good repair have been

[1:08:10] sufficient, how revenues and

[1:08:11] expenditures are tracking

[1:08:12] against our original forecast,

[1:08:14] identify associated benefits

[1:08:15] of Measure M and who benefits,

[1:08:18] and examines the external

[1:08:19] forces that have complicated

[1:08:21] project delivery and prepare us

[1:08:23] for the next decade

[1:08:24] of investment. So

[1:08:28] for the financial capacity,

[1:08:30] we're in the process

[1:08:31] of developing this analysis to

[1:08:33] determine whether there is

[1:08:34] capacity

[1:08:35] to add new projects or programs

[1:08:36] to Measure M. The financial

[1:08:37] forecast that was prepared

[1:08:39] for the Metro 2025

[1:08:41] Short-Range Transportation

[1:08:43] Plan demonstrated that Measure

[1:08:44] M revenue is down from the

[1:08:46] original revenue forecast

[1:08:48] in the 2016 expenditure plan.

[1:08:50] However, we are currently

[1:08:51] updating the financial forecast

[1:08:52] based on the UCLA Anderson

[1:08:54] School of Business sales tax

[1:08:56] forecast and that will be used

[1:08:58] to inform stakeholder

[1:08:59] discussions and coming

[1:09:00] recommendations

[1:09:01] of any potential amendments

[1:09:03] to the expenditure plan. So, as

[1:09:07] you look forward

[1:09:08] for the next steps again,

[1:09:10] this is a long process. We have

[1:09:11] various touchpoints

[1:09:12] with you and the Oversight

[1:09:13] Committee and the public as we

[1:09:15] move towards that Board action

[1:09:16] in fall of 2027.

[1:09:18] With the approval

[1:09:20] of the objectives and criteria,

[1:09:22] today and at the full board,

[1:09:24] we'll begin an extensive data

[1:09:25] collection process

[1:09:26] to prepare the assessment.

[1:09:28] In the fall of this year,

[1:09:29] we will bring to the board a

[1:09:30] project evaluation framework

[1:09:33] with metrics and weighting

[1:09:35] to prepare to assess Measure M

[1:09:37] expenditure plan projects.

[1:09:39] In spring 2027, we will bring a

[1:09:40] draft assessment and proposed

[1:09:42] draft amendments to the both

[1:09:44] the board and the oversight

[1:09:46] committee

[1:09:47] for discussion and feedback.

[1:09:49] Following that process, we'll

[1:09:50] incorporate the direction that

[1:09:51] is received

[1:09:52] to complete the final work on

[1:09:54] the assessment draft

[1:09:55] recommendation and draft

[1:09:56] amendments, excuse me, the

[1:09:57] assessment and the draft

[1:09:59] amendments. Then we'll come

[1:10:00] back to the Oversight

[1:10:01] Committee in the summer

[1:10:02] for review and comment on the

[1:10:04] assessment and any necessary

[1:10:05] findings

[1:10:06] on the proposed amendments,

[1:10:07] and then incorporate all

[1:10:09] of that recommendations,

[1:10:10] feedback, etc., and come back

[1:10:11] to the Board in fall 2027 to

[1:10:13] present the final assessment,

[1:10:15] which will require a 2/3 vote,

[1:10:16] and any proposed amendments,

[1:10:18] which require a 2/3 vote.

[1:10:19] Stakeholder engagement,

[1:10:21] of course, will be conducted

[1:10:22] throughout this process. It's

[1:10:23] very important that we continue

[1:10:24] to engage our communities and

[1:10:26] those that helped pass Measure

[1:10:28] M and share the vision with us

[1:10:29] to implement what is in

[1:10:31] Measure M, and that will help

[1:10:32] ground truth our findings and

[1:10:33] assess the amendment process as

[1:10:35] we go forward. And I believe

[1:10:37] that is the final slide. I'd be

[1:10:38] very happy to take any

[1:10:39] questions or receive direction.

[1:10:40] Thank you.

[1:10:44] >> Thank you for that very

[1:10:46] comprehensive report. Do we

[1:10:47] have any members

[1:10:48] of the public who've requested

[1:10:50] to speak?

[1:10:51] >> This public comment

[1:10:52] for item 11. Please press pound

[1:10:53] 2 if you'd like

[1:10:55] to make a comment. No public

[1:10:59] comments.

[1:11:02] >> Public comment is now

[1:11:04] closed. I believe, and,

[1:11:06] and this is a nostalgic moment

[1:11:07] for me as I think about

[1:11:08] Director Najarian and the

[1:11:11] historic memory that he has and

[1:11:14] the years that he has put in

[1:11:16] to make sure that all

[1:11:17] of this came to fruition. I

[1:11:19] remember the trips around

[1:11:21] Measure M, crowding

[1:11:23] in cars going from the San

[1:11:24] Fernando Valley to San Pedro

[1:11:27] to the beach cities, all

[1:11:29] to talk about Measure M. And I

[1:11:31] just think

[1:11:33] about you wanting this being

[1:11:34] one of your legacy projects

[1:11:36] because you were

[1:11:37] one of those who seemed

[1:11:38] to be able to talk

[1:11:39] to all kinds of audiences,

[1:11:41] and I was amazed.

[1:11:44] >> Are you calling me old?

[1:11:47] >> That means I was there.

[1:11:48] >> What does that mean?

[1:11:50] >> No.

[1:11:51] >> Just briefly, I think it

[1:11:52] was, it's a huge testament

[1:11:54] to the residents of LA County

[1:11:57] who stood up and accepted not

[1:11:59] one

[1:12:00] but two sales tax measures.

[1:12:02] And I can't say the

[1:12:03] immeasurable credibility that

[1:12:05] gives us when we go to

[1:12:06] Washington or to Sacramento

[1:12:07] and ask

[1:12:09] for funding because they say,

[1:12:11] you guys stood up and made it

[1:12:13] happen, and you're putting your

[1:12:15] money where your mouths are.

[1:12:16] Of course, leadership from the

[1:12:18] supervisors and the mayors that

[1:12:20] were,

[1:12:21] LA mayors that were involved

[1:12:23] in this, and board members, as

[1:12:24] well as yourself and others who

[1:12:28] we've sat with,

[1:12:30] played a great role in that.

[1:12:31] So I'm just, I was just part

[1:12:33] of the team. Thank you.

[1:12:34] >> And I know we're not

[1:12:35] supposed to offer trinkets, but

[1:12:36] I do remember the M&M's that we

[1:12:38] carried and how popular we were

[1:12:40] with them. But this certainly

[1:12:44] is a testament

[1:12:45] to voter confidence, and it's

[1:12:48] so important as we look forward

[1:12:50] to stimulating this ridership

[1:12:52] explosion that has started

[1:12:54] with FIFA, but also

[1:12:56] to find ways to meet the

[1:12:58] emerging challenges and

[1:12:59] opportunities, preparing

[1:13:02] for major events, adapting

[1:13:04] to evolving travel patterns,

[1:13:06] embracing new technology, and

[1:13:09] building the most resilient and

[1:13:11] sustainable transportation

[1:13:13] system in the world. Thank you,

[1:13:15] CEO Wiggins and Metro staff,

[1:13:17] for developing this framework,

[1:13:20] and we look forward to what is

[1:13:22] to come. I see requests from

[1:13:25] Supervisor Solis.

[1:13:27] >> Yes, thank you.

[1:13:28] I too want to join you and,

[1:13:29] and thank you and, and Ara and

[1:13:31] all the folks that really made

[1:13:33] this all possible. It seems

[1:13:35] like 10 years went

[1:13:36] by so fast, and this is my,

[1:13:38] going on my 12th year,

[1:13:40] and some of us won't even be

[1:13:41] on the board

[1:13:43] by the time they get to 27,

[1:13:45] year 27. So I'll be watching.

[1:13:48] But I want to say that it's

[1:13:49] been my privilege to serve on

[1:13:51] this board and actually see the

[1:13:54] workings of Measure M and how

[1:13:56] we were able to meet the needs

[1:13:57] of our community. And I,

[1:13:59] for one, will say I got

[1:14:00] to sit here and be able

[1:14:01] to vote on some very

[1:14:02] significant projects,

[1:14:04] like the Gold Line extension

[1:14:05] to Pomona that some people

[1:14:08] thought would never happen,

[1:14:10] the Metro Regional Connector

[1:14:13] that we saw famously, and the

[1:14:16] NoHo to Pasadena BRT. Ara, come

[1:14:18] on, we were there

[1:14:20] in those battles. It's tough.

[1:14:23] And it's still tough,

[1:14:24] but we're getting there. And

[1:14:25] I'm very excited about the

[1:14:26] Eastside extension and also

[1:14:27] Sela, cause that's kind

[1:14:29] of where, well, it was called

[1:14:30] Sela before, that line.

[1:14:32] But just

[1:14:33] to say how far we've come. And

[1:14:35] I know that there's going

[1:14:36] to be a lot

[1:14:37] of assessment feedback coming

[1:14:38] in from all parts

[1:14:40] of our communities

[1:14:41] in the county, but I do want

[1:14:42] to say that that we look

[1:14:45] at also keeping our commitment

[1:14:47] to the voters. Because I know

[1:14:49] in my situation with the

[1:14:51] Eastside Gold Line, we knew

[1:14:54] that there was funding for 2

[1:14:56] rails, 2 rails that could have

[1:14:59] been proposed. One was R60,

[1:15:03] right? And that didn't happen

[1:15:04] because we didn't have

[1:15:06] sufficient funding. So there

[1:15:08] was a decision made to go

[1:15:09] to a BRT. from down here in

[1:15:12] El Monte all the way out to

[1:15:13] Pomona. And that was a way of

[1:15:15] still continuing our commitment

[1:15:17] to our communities out there

[1:15:19] that still don't have that area

[1:15:23] covered in a rail system. So I

[1:15:24] would hope that we would think

[1:15:27] about committing to keeping the

[1:15:29] monies that were set aside

[1:15:32] for SR 60 to stay in the area

[1:15:35] for the East LA Gold Line

[1:15:38] because it still will impact

[1:15:41] the areas in Whittier, going

[1:15:42] through Whittier and extending

[1:15:44] as far as we can from East LA

[1:15:46] out

[1:15:47] to those different communities.

[1:15:48] And I believe it's an

[1:15:49] obligation that we made. And it

[1:15:52] was pretty clear

[1:15:53] to me what the trade-offs were.

[1:15:55] But not to say that somehow

[1:15:56] this money then could be left

[1:15:59] over and reprogrammed somewhere

[1:16:01] else for something else.

[1:16:02] I think that would really go

[1:16:04] against the grain of what our

[1:16:05] commitment was and what we sold

[1:16:07] our communities on, that we, we

[1:16:09] were lifting up these equity

[1:16:12] areas. So for me, that would,

[1:16:14] that would be something that I

[1:16:15] would like to be

[1:16:16] on record for. Thank you very

[1:16:17] much.

[1:16:19] >> Supervisor Horvath.

[1:16:21] >> Thank you, Madam Chair. In

[1:16:23] 2023, along with consideration

[1:16:24] of the 5-year assessment,

[1:16:26] our board adopted a set

[1:16:28] of evaluation criteria,

[1:16:29] and I see some

[1:16:30] of that being incorporated

[1:16:32] in what you presented. Thank

[1:16:33] you for that.

[1:16:34] But I'm not seeing some others,

[1:16:36] and so I just, for example,

[1:16:37] wanted to highlight under the

[1:16:39] economic impact criteria will

[1:16:42] staff be evaluating access to

[1:16:43] jobs as well as direct and

[1:16:45] indirect job creation?

[1:16:48] >> Yes, Supervisor. Our equity

[1:16:50] assessment area will include

[1:16:52] criteria for measuring access

[1:16:53] to opportunity, and that also

[1:16:54] includes examining access

[1:16:56] to jobs. So yes.

[1:16:58] >> Okay, and will staff

[1:17:00] evaluate whether projects and

[1:17:03] programs are anticipated

[1:17:05] to connect

[1:17:06] to major economic centers,

[1:17:08] which we know will increase

[1:17:10] sales tax growth,

[1:17:11] which I know you sort of led

[1:17:13] with that we're not on track

[1:17:15] at this point. So, if that's

[1:17:18] being done,

[1:17:19] where is that criteria

[1:17:20] captured, and where does

[1:17:23] project feasibility and

[1:17:24] competitive competitiveness

[1:17:26] for local, state,

[1:17:27] or federal dollars factor

[1:17:28] into the criteria?

[1:17:29] >> Sure, thank you. There's 3

[1:17:31] areas that I would focus on.

[1:17:32] The first is the planning

[1:17:34] assessment area

[1:17:35] with a criterion that's

[1:17:36] specific to connectivity. Under

[1:17:37] the equity assessment area,

[1:17:39] there's also some, some

[1:17:41] elements there that are focused

[1:17:42] on that. And then you have the

[1:17:43] access to opportunity. So, all

[1:17:45] 3, I mean, there may not be one

[1:17:46] direct hit on it, but there's

[1:17:47] 3 areas that converge

[1:17:49] on that will help us to explore

[1:17:50] that area that you requested.

[1:17:52] >> And the Board report notes

[1:17:55] criteria being incorporated

[1:17:58] into both retrospective

[1:18:00] evaluation as well as

[1:18:02] prospective. And I saw a lot

[1:18:04] of the retrospective in

[1:18:05] Attachment A,

[1:18:07] and that was very helpful.

[1:18:09] Where will we see the criteria

[1:18:10] being factored into prospective

[1:18:12] analysis?

[1:18:14] >> I appreciate that. So, we're

[1:18:15] setting up the look back first,

[1:18:17] and then we'll be coming back

[1:18:18] in the fall with a report on

[1:18:19] the project evaluation

[1:18:21] framework, the metrics, the

[1:18:22] weighting,

[1:18:23] the look forward part. So,

[1:18:24] we're kind

[1:18:25] of setting up how we've done

[1:18:26] to date first,

[1:18:27] and then we're transitioning.

[1:18:28] So, you will see that in the

[1:18:29] fall when we come back.

[1:18:30] >> Okay. And just

[1:18:31] on the going forward, I think

[1:18:32] the more explicit we can be

[1:18:33] in sort of highlighting since

[1:18:34] the board passed that criteria

[1:18:36] how we're addressing that

[1:18:37] criteria in evaluation, I

[1:18:39] think,

[1:18:40] I know that would be helpful

[1:18:41] to me and maybe

[1:18:42] for others as well. Thank you.

[1:18:45] >> Supervisor Mitchell.

[1:18:47] >> Thank you, Madam Chair, and

[1:18:49] I'm looking forward

[1:18:51] to this process. I'm glad

[1:18:53] to join this committee again

[1:18:54] to have this opportunity to

[1:18:57] take this 10-year comprehensive

[1:18:59] assessment.

[1:19:01] On your assessment area slide,

[1:19:03] I think it's slide 6, I just

[1:19:04] want to comment on the first

[1:19:05] bullet and the last bullet, the

[1:19:07] financial analysis and equity.

[1:19:11] I am hoping to learn from the

[1:19:13] assessment's analysis whether

[1:19:17] our operations and our

[1:19:18] maintenance funding has been

[1:19:20] sufficient

[1:19:21] for existing budgets, as well

[1:19:24] as if our current operations

[1:19:25] and maintenance funding levels

[1:19:27] are going to meet the needs

[1:19:28] of our growing system. That's

[1:19:30] going to be really, I think,

[1:19:31] important to me,

[1:19:32] particularly as operations

[1:19:34] chair, and really trying

[1:19:35] to make sure I keep my eye on

[1:19:36] the operations and maintenance

[1:19:37] budget. Because

[1:19:40] from my perspective, it, it

[1:19:42] funds and fuels the core

[1:19:45] element of our system. And so,

[1:19:47] I am hoping that the assessment

[1:19:49] will give me that kind

[1:19:51] of insight.

[1:19:55] >> Yes, we've received clear

[1:19:56] direction,

[1:19:58] and we are not doing this work

[1:19:59] in a silo, even though the

[1:20:00] assessment itself and the

[1:20:02] comprehensive assessment is

[1:20:03] more of a capital assessment.

[1:20:05] We are not bifurcating

[1:20:06] in any way, shape, or form, and

[1:20:07] have had clear direction that

[1:20:08] where are there,

[1:20:10] where there are opportunities

[1:20:12] to reduce our reliance on

[1:20:14] operations-eligible funding or

[1:20:15] assist that in any way,

[1:20:17] we are seeking them. So, we've

[1:20:19] already started our work there,

[1:20:21] and we understand the marching

[1:20:22] orders.

[1:20:23] >> Thank you. I appreciate

[1:20:24] that. I understand both in the

[1:20:27] report and you articulated that

[1:20:28] you're working

[1:20:29] on the definition of access

[1:20:31] to opportunity under equity.

[1:20:33] And so, I'll be interested in

[1:20:35] hearing what that ultimately is

[1:20:36] defined as, but I'm hoping that

[1:20:38] we think broadly, macro versus

[1:20:44] micro, when we think

[1:20:46] about access to opportunity,

[1:20:47] and that it's not just making

[1:20:49] sure people,

[1:20:51] that we're not just focusing

[1:20:52] on access to work and school,

[1:20:53] but,

[1:21:29] medical facility, but

[1:21:31] that's not an urgent care or a

[1:21:33] hospital. So, we're trying

[1:21:34] to do some of that work

[1:21:35] in culling through the data.

[1:21:36] >> Thank you very much

[1:21:37] for that.

[1:21:38] Thanks, Madam Chair.

[1:21:39] >> Okay, this is an action

[1:21:40] item. Could I have a motion and

[1:21:41] second, please?

[1:21:44] >> Second.

[1:21:45] >> Thank you. Madam Clerk, will

[1:21:47] you please call the roll?

[1:21:48] >> Vice Chair Solis?

[1:21:50] >> Aye.

[1:21:51] >> Director Mitchell?

[1:21:52] >> Aye.

[1:21:53] >> Director Najarian?

[1:21:54] >> Aye.

[1:21:55] >> Director Horvath?

[1:21:56] >> Aye.

[1:21:57] >> And Chair Dupont-Walker?

[1:21:58] >> Aye.

[1:21:59] >> The motion carries.

[1:22:00] >> Thank you. Moving to item

[1:22:01] 12, Eastside Transit Corridor

[1:22:02] Phase 2 Project.

[1:22:06] >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Ray

[1:22:08] Sosa, Chief Planning Officer,

[1:22:10] being joined at the desk by

[1:22:13] Jill Liu, who is our project

[1:22:16] manager and senior director

[1:22:18] for the East Side, and our

[1:22:19] senior executive officer,

[1:22:20] David Meagher, to initiate the

[1:22:22] presentation.

[1:22:24] >> Thank you, Ray. I think

[1:22:26] Director Solis may have already

[1:22:28] given our introduction for this

[1:22:29] project just a few moments ago.

[1:22:31] But this is a project that's

[1:22:33] been coming a long, long time.

[1:22:34] Eastside, the first cycle 1,

[1:22:36] the phase 1

[1:22:37] of the project was completed,

[1:22:38] and now we have a chance

[1:22:40] to complete a project that gets

[1:22:41] to Whittier Boulevard, serves

[1:22:42] Atlantic, gets over to City

[1:22:43] of Commerce, which has more

[1:22:45] attendees than Disneyland, they

[1:22:47] claim, every year, as a major,

[1:22:49] at the head

[1:22:50] of the I-5 freeway coming in

[1:22:52] from the south,

[1:22:54] a major transfer point

[1:22:55] from cars to get

[1:22:56] into transit and move

[1:22:57] through the east side to get

[1:22:58] to downtown. So, this has been

[1:22:59] a long time coming, and I think

[1:23:01] we have a progress report on a

[1:23:02] major milestone that we're

[1:23:03] achieving

[1:23:04] with the project right now.

[1:23:05] And I'll turn it over to

[1:23:06] Jill, our project manager.

[1:23:09] >> Good morning, Chair

[1:23:10] Dupont-Walker and committee

[1:23:12] members. Staff is here

[1:23:13] to present agenda item number

[1:23:14] 12 for the Eastside Transit

[1:23:15] Corridor Phase 2 project. This

[1:23:17] is a 9-mile project, as David

[1:23:19] mentioned, from East LA to

[1:23:20] Whittier. This 9-mile project

[1:23:22] has been environmentally clear

[1:23:23] under CEQA. After 19 years

[1:23:25] of making in the history. And

[1:23:28] right now, we're focused on

[1:23:29] design and federal

[1:23:31] environmental clearance for the

[1:23:33] initial 4.7-mile alignment

[1:23:35] for this project. In May, we

[1:23:37] published the NEPA document

[1:23:39] environmental assessments,

[1:23:40] and then in June, we completed

[1:23:42] the public review process based

[1:23:43] on the findings of the

[1:23:45] environmental assessment and

[1:23:47] the feedback received

[1:23:48] from the public and agencies.

[1:23:50] We are recommending 3

[1:23:51] recommendations

[1:23:52] for the board's consideration

[1:23:54] to receive and file the NEPA

[1:23:55] document, including the project

[1:23:57] mitigation measures

[1:23:58] for the LPA, a 4.7-mile IOS

[1:24:01] to Montebello. Also approve a

[1:24:04] new and smaller maintenance and

[1:24:06] storage facility, MSS Site 3,

[1:24:08] in the City of Commerce

[1:24:10] for the board-approved LPA,

[1:24:12] while maintaining the entire

[1:24:13] 9-mile project all the way to

[1:24:15] Whittier and the end of

[1:24:16] Lambeau Road in Whittier.

[1:24:18] That's the full project

[1:24:19] definition. And then amending

[1:24:21] the 2020 Long-Range

[1:24:23] Transportation Plan to reflect

[1:24:24] the board LPA and the new MSF

[1:24:26] site for the Eastside Phase 2

[1:24:28] project. Just for context,

[1:24:30] this project has been

[1:24:33] in the making for 19 years. As

[1:24:35] I mentioned, the existing E

[1:24:37] Line currently has 22 miles

[1:24:38] long and 29 stations and

[1:24:40] provides 1-seat rides from

[1:24:42] East LA to Santa Monica. Once

[1:24:44] the full 9-mile project is

[1:24:46] built,

[1:24:47] this project will extend the E

[1:24:49] Line service to 30 miles, 31

[1:24:51] miles long with 7 new stations

[1:24:53] connecting more people

[1:24:55] to more jobs and more places.

[1:24:57] Similar to the other Metro

[1:24:59] Rail projects, we will be

[1:25:00] implementing the project

[1:25:02] in phases

[1:25:03] with the initial phase to

[1:25:04] Montebello connecting the

[1:25:05] hearts of East LA, Commerce

[1:25:06] Citadel that has 17 million

[1:25:07] visitors, and then downtown

[1:25:09] Montebello. And the future

[1:25:11] extension will further extend

[1:25:12] the E Line by another 4 miles

[1:25:14] to, from Montebello to

[1:25:16] Whittier. Because the 9 Mile

[1:25:17] project has been

[1:25:19] environmentally clear

[1:25:20] under CEQA, and the project has

[1:25:21] well-defined alternative and

[1:25:23] station alignment,

[1:25:25] we have FTA's approval for this

[1:25:26] 1-year expedited NEPA process

[1:25:29] so that we can make a federal

[1:25:31] action for funding

[1:25:33] for this project. This new

[1:25:34] alignment, the IOS,

[1:25:36] will include 3.1 miles

[1:25:38] underground from East South

[1:25:40] Atlantic Station to Commerce

[1:25:41] Citadel. 0.9 miles

[1:25:44] of aerial alignment north of,

[1:25:47] near the Garfield-Washington

[1:25:49] intersection in Commerce, and

[1:25:50] then 0.7 miles

[1:25:53] of street-level alignments in

[1:25:54] Montebello. The NEPA study also

[1:25:56] evaluated 3 new MSF sites,

[1:25:58] which we'll talk a little bit

[1:26:00] more about it later. And then

[1:26:01] overall, the project schedule

[1:26:03] is once we complete the NEPA

[1:26:04] process in fall,

[1:26:06] we will start utility

[1:26:07] relocation,

[1:26:08] property acquisition in 2027.

[1:26:09] Groundbreaking

[1:26:11] for station and guideways in

[1:26:14] 2029 and opening

[1:26:15] for the project in about 10

[1:26:17] years. The project does have

[1:26:18] many benefits,

[1:26:19] reduced travel time from 16

[1:26:21] minutes by car down to 8

[1:26:23] minutes by rail, regardless

[1:26:24] of traffic. Better quality

[1:26:26] of life, less traffic, less

[1:26:27] emissions, and then reduced

[1:26:29] transportation costs for over

[1:26:30] 75,000 individuals that are

[1:26:32] transit dependent

[1:26:34] in a study area. it generates

[1:26:35] over $3.1 billion economic

[1:26:37] benefits

[1:26:38] in this region and then 11,000

[1:26:41] new jobs for the construction

[1:26:42] and operation of the project.

[1:26:44] During the NEPA phase,

[1:26:45] we heard from the community the

[1:26:47] 39-acre site in Montebello was

[1:26:49] too large. It covers 500

[1:26:51] employees and 6 large

[1:26:53] properties.

[1:26:55] During NEPA phase, we tried

[1:26:56] to look at ways

[1:26:58] to reduce impact. We started

[1:27:00] thinking about within the box

[1:27:02] of 2 options, MS Site 1 and 2

[1:27:04] in Montebello, which shows

[1:27:06] in yellow and green

[1:27:08] on the map. And those are

[1:27:09] smaller than 39 acres, 25 to

[1:27:11] 29 acres. However, that's still

[1:27:13] too big to the City of

[1:27:14] Montebello. And we started

[1:27:17] to think outside of the box.

[1:27:18] What can we do? We look at the

[1:27:20] properties that were already

[1:27:21] identified in the final EIR

[1:27:23] for tunnel boring activity,

[1:27:25] and we're going

[1:27:27] to use those 9-acre sites in

[1:27:29] Commerce Twice

[1:27:30] after construction

[1:27:31] of tunnel boring

[1:27:32] for the underground alignment

[1:27:34] in Commerce, we're going

[1:27:35] to use it

[1:27:36] for a junior MSF site

[1:27:37] in the city of Commerce. MSF

[1:27:38] Site 3 is recommended because

[1:27:40] it meets the operational

[1:27:42] requirements, we need

[1:27:43] for the IOS, reduce the number

[1:27:45] of property acquisitions,

[1:27:47] reduce the impact

[1:27:48] to the community

[1:27:49] without displacing 500

[1:27:51] employees in Montebello. It

[1:27:53] also minimizes construction

[1:27:54] impact along Washington

[1:27:55] Boulevard. We conducted the

[1:27:57] weighted benefits and cost

[1:27:58] analysis also for the 3

[1:27:59] options, and all MSF sites are

[1:28:01] viable, but MSF Site 3

[1:28:04] performed the best. As you can

[1:28:06] see, we, across all 5 goals,

[1:28:08] MSF Site 3 delivers similar

[1:28:10] benefits from safety, health,

[1:28:13] environmental sustainability,

[1:28:15] and deliver economic benefits.

[1:28:17] However, it, we could deliver

[1:28:19] all the similar benefits

[1:28:20] with much lower cost. Reduce

[1:28:22] construction impact and

[1:28:24] environmental impact

[1:28:25] to our community. We have also

[1:28:27] conducted very comprehensive

[1:28:29] outreach, starting even prior

[1:28:31] to entry into the NEPA phase

[1:28:32] in early 2025. We hosted 4

[1:28:35] public meetings in East LA,

[1:28:36] Montebello, Commerce, and also

[1:28:38] virtually. We had 200 attendees

[1:28:41] at those events. And throughout

[1:28:43] the whole NEPA process,

[1:28:44] we worked very closely

[1:28:46] with our 14 community-based

[1:28:47] organizations on this project.

[1:28:49] to continue increasing

[1:28:51] awareness for this project. We

[1:28:53] made the environmental

[1:28:55] assessment document available

[1:28:56] online, which we had 1,300

[1:28:57] visits over 30 days. We have

[1:29:00] hard copies available

[1:29:01] at local libraries,

[1:29:03] distributed 50,000 flyers

[1:29:04] door-to-door

[1:29:06] to our community station area,

[1:29:08] transit intercepts, small

[1:29:10] businesses, legal notices,

[1:29:11] digital and physical flyers

[1:29:14] through many, many channels.

[1:29:15] And then we want to really

[1:29:17] thank the board offices and the

[1:29:18] cities and the Gateway Cities

[1:29:20] Corps for helping us informing

[1:29:21] the community

[1:29:22] of this project. A little bit

[1:29:24] about the finding from the

[1:29:26] environmental assessment. The

[1:29:27] LPA to Montebello has no

[1:29:30] adverse environmental impact

[1:29:32] that cannot be mitigated. It

[1:29:34] has minimal impact

[1:29:36] to historical resources, and

[1:29:37] the impact that had been

[1:29:38] identified in the EA can either

[1:29:40] be avoided, minimized,

[1:29:42] or mitigated

[1:29:43] with the implementation of the

[1:29:44] project. measures and the NEPA

[1:29:46] mitigation measures. And as I

[1:29:48] mentioned,

[1:29:49] this project creates $3.1

[1:29:51] billion of benefits in terms

[1:29:52] of economic condition.

[1:29:54] Finally, what we heard

[1:29:57] from the public in June during

[1:30:00] the 30-day public review period

[1:30:01] and the 4 public hearings in

[1:30:03] East LA, Commerce,

[1:30:04] Montebello, and virtually is

[1:30:06] that we have received 140 total

[1:30:09] comment submission letters,

[1:30:10] which encompass over 350

[1:30:12] comments. These comments are

[1:30:14] very, very similar

[1:30:16] to what we have heard

[1:30:18] from the previously,

[1:30:19] the final EIR. It shows really

[1:30:20] strong support

[1:30:22] for the project,

[1:30:23] for the extension to

[1:30:24] Montebello and further

[1:30:25] extension to Whittier. And

[1:30:26] there's some common suggestions

[1:30:28] about how we can work

[1:30:29] with the cities and communities

[1:30:30] on the design

[1:30:31] of the alignment and the

[1:30:33] station to ensure appropriate

[1:30:34] traffic access and safety

[1:30:36] during construction. and also

[1:30:38] considering transit-oriented

[1:30:40] development, community benefits

[1:30:41] throughout the project

[1:30:43] development process. So today

[1:30:45] we are requesting your approval

[1:30:47] and to receive and file

[1:30:48] for the NEPA document,

[1:30:49] select the MSF site in

[1:30:51] Commerce, and also updating the

[1:30:53] long-range plan. Upon your

[1:30:55] approval for these actions,

[1:30:56] we will work

[1:30:58] with our lead agency FTA

[1:30:59] to publish the NEPA document,

[1:31:00] the findings of no significant

[1:31:02] impact findings by fall 2026,

[1:31:04] And we'll work with the,

[1:31:08] our cities to continue engaging

[1:31:09] the public throughout the

[1:31:11] environmental process. I would

[1:31:12] just really acknowledge FTA

[1:31:14] Region 9

[1:31:16] for their expedited review

[1:31:18] for this process, also their

[1:31:19] partnership,

[1:31:22] and also our borough offices

[1:31:24] in terms of outreach support

[1:31:25] during the NEPA phase. And

[1:31:27] also, behind me and work

[1:31:28] with me, 175 staff members

[1:31:30] from Metro departments and our

[1:31:32] consultant team,

[1:31:33] including our SBE and DBE,

[1:31:35] who worked really hard

[1:31:36] for the outreach effort.

[1:31:38] With that, I'm happy

[1:31:39] to answer any questions.

[1:31:41] >> Thank you

[1:31:43] for that presentation. Do we

[1:31:44] have any members

[1:31:45] of the public who asked

[1:31:46] to speak?

[1:31:48] >> Yes, we do. I have item 12

[1:31:49] here. Patrick Lewis, please

[1:31:50] come up to lectern A. Ashley

[1:31:53] Lujan, please come up

[1:31:54] to lectern B. Gabriella Eddy,

[1:31:56] please come up to lectern A.

[1:31:58] If you're on the phone,

[1:31:59] please press pound 2.

[1:32:02] >> Thank you. We're glad

[1:32:03] to hear your voice today.

[1:32:05] >> Good afternoon. My name is

[1:32:06] Patrick Lewis, and I'm speaking

[1:32:08] on behalf of the Gateway

[1:32:09] Cities Council of

[1:32:10] Governments. Today we voice our

[1:32:11] support for the Eastside

[1:32:13] Transit Corridor Phase 2

[1:32:14] project and the environmental

[1:32:15] assessment

[1:32:16] before the committee. This

[1:32:18] project represents an important

[1:32:19] step

[1:32:20] toward expanding reliable,

[1:32:21] high-quality transit service

[1:32:22] throughout Southeast Los

[1:32:24] Angeles County and the

[1:32:25] Gateway Cities region.

[1:32:26] Improved regional connectivity

[1:32:28] will make it easier

[1:32:29] for residents to reach jobs,

[1:32:30] schools, medical facilities,

[1:32:32] commercial areas, and other key

[1:32:34] destinations while reducing

[1:32:35] transportation barriers

[1:32:36] for many communities. We urge

[1:32:38] the committee to receive and

[1:32:39] file the environmental

[1:32:41] assessment, approve the

[1:32:42] recommended maintenance and

[1:32:44] storage facility site in

[1:32:45] Commerce, and amend the

[1:32:46] long-range transportation plan

[1:32:48] to incorporate the

[1:32:49] board-approved locally

[1:32:50] preferred alternative.

[1:32:52] Advancing these approvals will

[1:32:53] bring the project closer to

[1:32:54] implementation and help realize

[1:32:55] long-term transportation,

[1:32:57] economic, and quality

[1:32:58] of life benefits

[1:32:59] for our communities. Thank you.

[1:33:00] >> Thank you. Next, please.

[1:33:14] >> Good afternoon. My name is

[1:33:16] Ashley Lujan. I represent the

[1:33:17] Mexican American Opportunity

[1:33:18] Foundation. As a grassroots

[1:33:20] organization that provides

[1:33:21] services to community members

[1:33:23] throughout the East Side,

[1:33:25] Commerce, Montebello, and

[1:33:27] neighboring communities, we

[1:33:30] witness firsthand how important

[1:33:32] public reliable transportation

[1:33:34] is to the people we serve.

[1:33:36] This is why we support the

[1:33:38] Eastside Corridor Transit

[1:33:40] Corridor Phase 2 project. Many

[1:33:43] of our community members rely

[1:33:44] on transit every day to get

[1:33:46] to work, go to school,

[1:33:48] attend medical appointments,

[1:33:50] and other essential

[1:33:52] destinations. We encourage the

[1:33:55] Metro Board

[1:33:56] to continue advancing the

[1:33:57] Eastside Transit Corridor

[1:33:58] Phase 2 project so future

[1:34:00] generations can benefit

[1:34:01] from a stronger,

[1:34:02] more connected system.

[1:34:04] Expanded transport, expanding

[1:34:06] transportation is not a luxury

[1:34:08] but a crucial step to creating

[1:34:09] greater opportunities

[1:34:10] for families and neighborhoods.

[1:34:12] Thank you.

[1:34:13] >> Thank you. Next, please.

[1:34:17] >> Can you hear me?

[1:34:18] >> Thank you. Yes.

[1:34:20] >> Good morning, Chair,

[1:34:21] members. I'm Gabriela Eria,

[1:34:22] community organizer

[1:34:23] with SVCC representing today,

[1:34:25] and we want

[1:34:26] to express our strong support

[1:34:28] for the Eastside Transit

[1:34:29] Corridor Phase 2 project.

[1:34:31] Every day we work with

[1:34:33] residents and families

[1:34:34] throughout our community who

[1:34:35] rely on public transportation

[1:34:37] to get to work, to school, to

[1:34:39] medical appointments and

[1:34:40] services they need. We know

[1:34:42] that having reliable and

[1:34:44] accessible transit is not just

[1:34:45] about getting from one place

[1:34:47] to another. It's

[1:34:49] about creating opportunities,

[1:34:50] reducing barriers, and helping

[1:34:51] our communities stay connected.

[1:34:53] I'm from Mexico City, so I know

[1:34:55] about these things firsthand.

[1:34:57] And expanding transit access

[1:34:59] will help connect residents

[1:35:01] to jobs, education, healthcare,

[1:35:03] sports, and recreation. And we

[1:35:06] also appreciate that Metro's

[1:35:08] commitment engaged community

[1:35:10] organizations like us and

[1:35:11] residents throughout this

[1:35:13] process, giving local voices

[1:35:14] the opportunity

[1:35:15] to be heard and

[1:35:16] to help us that to project like

[1:35:19] this reflects needs and

[1:35:21] priorities of the community.

[1:35:23] Thank you for your time,

[1:35:24] and we support this. Go

[1:35:26] Metro!

[1:35:27] >> Go Metro! We have 2 people

[1:35:29] from the phones. Please unmute

[1:35:31] the first caller.

[1:35:35] >> Caller ending in 9370,

[1:35:37] please state your name. You

[1:35:38] have 1 minute

[1:35:39] to state your comment.

[1:35:42] >> Hi, my name is Jacqueline. I

[1:35:46] am a South Montebello resident,

[1:35:49] and I decided to call

[1:35:52] in because I'm in support

[1:35:54] for the Metro Eastside

[1:35:56] Extension all the way to

[1:35:57] Montebello. I would get service

[1:36:00] from the last train station,

[1:36:03] which would be, at least

[1:36:06] for this portion, the

[1:36:07] Greenland and Washington. And I

[1:36:09] am here in support because we

[1:36:11] Don't have that many. We have

[1:36:12] many. We have the Montebello

[1:36:16] transit, but

[1:36:18] at the same time, it's not as

[1:36:20] like,

[1:36:23] it's not as consistent as

[1:36:26] Metro. And I feel like

[1:36:28] with this Metro extension, we

[1:36:29] would have much more reliable

[1:36:30] service to get

[1:36:31] to downtown LA or to get

[1:36:32] to even closer places

[1:36:33] like the Citadel, which is,

[1:36:35] which was the station prior.

[1:36:37] And I'm here

[1:36:38] in support because I feel like

[1:36:39] it would benefit our community

[1:36:41] to have reliable

[1:36:43] transportation,

[1:36:45] to have reliable transportation

[1:36:46] to downtown LA.

[1:36:51] >> Moving on

[1:36:52] to the next caller.

[1:36:53] Caller ending in 3705,

[1:36:54] please say your name. You have

[1:36:56] 1 minute

[1:36:57] to state your comment.

[1:37:02] >> Good afternoon,

[1:37:06] board members. My name is

[1:37:07] Cesar Roldan, Director of

[1:37:08] Public Works for the City of

[1:37:09] Montebello. The city supports

[1:37:11] Metro's continued advancements

[1:37:13] of the Eastside Transit

[1:37:15] Corridor Phase 2 project and

[1:37:16] the environmental assessment

[1:37:17] being presented today.

[1:37:19] However, we respectfully

[1:37:21] request that the board consider

[1:37:22] relocating the proposed

[1:37:23] maintenance and storage

[1:37:24] facility to a more appropriate

[1:37:26] site outside of the City of

[1:37:27] Montebello. This project is an

[1:37:28] important investment

[1:37:30] in regional mobility. It will

[1:37:32] expand access to jobs,

[1:37:33] education, healthcare,

[1:37:35] and other essential services

[1:37:37] for residents in East Los

[1:37:38] Angeles, Commerce,

[1:37:40] Montebello, Pico, Santa Fe

[1:37:41] Springs, Whittier, and the

[1:37:42] surrounding communities. We

[1:37:44] urge the committee to receive

[1:37:45] and file the environmental

[1:37:46] assessment, approve the

[1:37:48] proposed maintenance storage

[1:37:50] facility site in Commerce, and

[1:37:51] amend the long-range

[1:37:52] transportation plan to advance

[1:37:53] the board-selected locally

[1:37:55] preferred alternative. I want

[1:37:56] to thank the board, and I want

[1:37:59] to thank Metro staff

[1:38:00] for working with the City of

[1:38:01] Montebello. Thank you.

[1:38:02] >> That was the last public

[1:38:03] comment.

[1:38:04] >> Thank you. Supervisor

[1:38:05] Solis.

[1:38:08] >> Yes, thank you, Madam

[1:38:09] Chair. I especially want

[1:38:11] to thank the staff. I want

[1:38:15] to thank you, Ray, and your

[1:38:16] team Jill, Lou, especially

[1:38:17] Lillian De Losa Gutierrez,

[1:38:19] Lorena Sanchez, Dolores

[1:38:21] Roibal, Annette Cortez, and I

[1:38:23] especially want

[1:38:25] to thank our CEO, Stephanie

[1:38:27] Wiggins, and everyone, because

[1:38:29] when you mentioned earlier this

[1:38:31] has been a 19-year project,

[1:38:32] I had to shake my head. I

[1:38:34] haven't even been here 12 yet,

[1:38:35] and look at, I mean,

[1:38:37] people have been on this,

[1:38:39] and it took mountains,

[1:38:41] moving mountains. And I want to

[1:38:43] say that you have not let us

[1:38:45] down, Metro, and the community

[1:38:47] has not let us down. And it is

[1:38:49] important because this,

[1:38:51] for me, is one

[1:38:53] of the biggest legacy projects

[1:38:55] for the East Side. And we're

[1:38:56] finally going

[1:38:57] to see some pathway forward.

[1:38:59] And given all the challenges

[1:39:00] and hardships, to come

[1:39:02] to this day,

[1:39:03] to see that we're going

[1:39:04] to submit our NEPA, go

[1:39:06] through the NEPA process,

[1:39:07] and we've had our hearings, and

[1:39:09] we've done tremendous outreach.

[1:39:11] So I want to commend you for

[1:39:12] that because I know this was

[1:39:13] not easy. And including

[1:39:15] figuring

[1:39:17] out where we were going

[1:39:18] to put the maintenance yard,

[1:39:19] going back and forth with

[1:39:20] Montebello and Commerce. And

[1:39:22] the person who called earlier,

[1:39:24] we're looking at Commerce. So

[1:39:25] just

[1:39:26] to clear the record there and

[1:39:27] to let you know that now

[1:39:29] because of this process,

[1:39:30] we'll be able to move into the

[1:39:32] other step forward now that'll

[1:39:33] open up the capital investment

[1:39:36] grant program so we can receive

[1:39:38] more funding. And I'm just I'm

[1:39:40] just overwhelmed. I can't

[1:39:41] believe that today has finally

[1:39:44] come for me, at least sitting

[1:39:46] here knowing that all things

[1:39:47] were coming together. Because

[1:39:49] last year or 6 months ago, I

[1:39:52] was very fearful that things

[1:39:53] were not going

[1:39:54] to go this way,

[1:39:56] that they were going to go

[1:39:57] in another direction. But I'm

[1:39:58] very happy that the wisdom

[1:40:00] of your committee, this

[1:40:01] committee, and your staff,

[1:40:04] as well as the community coming

[1:40:05] out to support. And I want

[1:40:07] to thank my staff too, Wakas,

[1:40:09] Raymond, and others that have

[1:40:10] been involved in this process

[1:40:11] for many years. What a

[1:40:13] tremendous opportunity is

[1:40:15] for all of us. And I would just

[1:40:17] ask us to continue to do the

[1:40:19] outreach so people are fully

[1:40:20] aware that we have our eyes and

[1:40:22] our ears focused here,

[1:40:25] and that this is going to be a

[1:40:26] very beneficial project

[1:40:28] economically for people who are

[1:40:30] so transit-dependent

[1:40:32] on the bus right now, and

[1:40:34] to see them making progress,

[1:40:35] economic development,

[1:40:37] and just the creation

[1:40:39] of jobs, all of that is going

[1:40:41] to be so meaningful

[1:40:42] for this space, for East LA,

[1:40:43] which has gone

[1:40:44] through a whole lot, as many

[1:40:46] of you know, in the last 3

[1:40:48] weeks. So, thank you so much,

[1:40:50] and I want to congratulate the

[1:40:51] planning team and again our

[1:40:53] CEO. Thank you.

[1:40:56] >> I love the confidence

[1:40:57] already being expressed and

[1:40:59] this project. Director

[1:41:01] Najarian.

[1:41:04] >> Well, I have another story

[1:41:05] to tell.

[1:41:06] >> We're ready, we're ready,

[1:41:07] we're ready.

[1:41:09] >> It was almost 17 years ago,

[1:41:12] it was November of 2009, that

[1:41:15] I,

[1:41:16] as a freshly minted chairman

[1:41:18] of this august agency,

[1:41:22] was there and able

[1:41:23] to officiate at the

[1:41:26] ribbon-cutting and the

[1:41:27] dedication of the East Side,

[1:41:30] they called it the Gold Line

[1:41:31] back then. Phase 1. And it was

[1:41:34] attended by all the incredible

[1:41:37] community leaders, Gloria

[1:41:38] Molina, Representative Lucille

[1:41:41] Roybal-Allard, the mayor was

[1:41:45] Antonio Villaraigosa, and

[1:41:47] everyone was there. And I have

[1:41:49] to tell you,

[1:41:50] it was such a proud moment

[1:41:52] for East LA at that time,

[1:41:54] because up until then, they

[1:41:55] really felt that they were

[1:41:57] being ignored

[1:41:58] in the transit allocation.

[1:42:01] The West Side had all their,

[1:42:03] the Red Line was already going,

[1:42:04] the Purple Line was going, and

[1:42:07] this was something that really

[1:42:09] brought some identity and some

[1:42:11] pride

[1:42:12] to the entire community.

[1:42:15] Supervisor, you were probably

[1:42:16] in Washington, and you probably

[1:42:17] heard all the good news and

[1:42:19] everything that was that was

[1:42:21] going on at that time. And then

[1:42:23] let's move forward a little

[1:42:25] bit. I can't, I mean,

[1:42:27] I can't overstate the amount of

[1:42:29] controversy that we were facing

[1:42:31] trying to decide which

[1:42:33] alignment was going

[1:42:34] to be used. Is it going

[1:42:36] to be the SR 60, or is it going

[1:42:38] to be the Washington

[1:42:40] Boulevard? And all the heavy

[1:42:42] hitters were out there trying

[1:42:43] to lobby the board. Richard

[1:42:45] Alatorre, A big proponent

[1:42:48] of the SR-60. Mike Ruse and all

[1:42:50] these other folks were coming

[1:42:53] in and lobbying. And I think it

[1:42:54] was a contamination discovery

[1:43:00] on the SR-60 route that really

[1:43:02] shifted everyone back to

[1:43:03] Washington. And I'm so happy

[1:43:05] that we're here today approving

[1:43:07] the NEPA, moving forward. It's

[1:43:09] something that the East Side

[1:43:11] desperately deserves and is

[1:43:13] entitled to. Thank you.

[1:43:15] Especially since we've had all

[1:43:16] the excitement

[1:43:17] on the west side, right? We've

[1:43:18] got the K Line and the, the C

[1:43:20] Line and the D Line and all

[1:43:22] that stuff. This is something

[1:43:23] that's truly deserved and

[1:43:25] equitable. And if nothing else,

[1:43:27] this board tries to be

[1:43:28] equitable. I think there's

[1:43:30] still some allocations that

[1:43:32] need to be made

[1:43:33] to the east side

[1:43:34] of the county,

[1:43:36] but certainly this is a step

[1:43:38] in the right direction. So I

[1:43:39] wholeheartedly support this.

[1:43:43] >> Well, thank you

[1:43:44] for sharing that. Really,

[1:43:45] really important. But I do,

[1:43:46] I want to just add kudos

[1:43:49] to you for the outreach. It's

[1:43:54] such an outstanding notation of

[1:43:58] how the community has been

[1:44:00] engaged. And actually, the only

[1:44:01] public comment today has been

[1:44:02] on this item,

[1:44:04] so it continues. And kudos

[1:44:05] to you. Thank you. Thank you so

[1:44:07] much, Madam Clerk. I'm going

[1:44:09] to have a motion,

[1:44:10] please. I know Mr. Najarian is

[1:44:15] going to second it.

[1:44:16] >> Vice Chair Solis?

[1:44:18] >> Yes.

[1:44:20] >> [ SPANISH ].

[1:44:21] >> Director Mitchell?

[1:44:22] >> Aye.

[1:44:23] >> Director Najarian?

[1:44:24] >> Aye.

[1:44:25] >> Director Horvath?

[1:44:26] >> Aye.

[1:44:27] >> And Chair Dupont-Walker?

[1:44:29] >> [ SPANISH ].

[1:44:30] >> The motion carries.

[1:44:32] >> Thank you. Thank you so

[1:44:34] much. We are now at item 13,

[1:44:40] Open and Slow Streets Grant

[1:44:41] Program update.

[1:44:45] >> Thank you, Chair. Joining me

[1:44:46] at the table is Jacob Lieb,

[1:44:48] Deputy Executive Officer, and

[1:44:50] Neha Chawla, Senior Director,

[1:44:52] who will go

[1:44:54] through the presentation.

[1:45:00] >> Thank you.

[1:45:02] >> Good afternoon. We will be

[1:45:03] presenting the Open and Slow

[1:45:04] Streets grant update

[1:45:06] for your consideration. The

[1:45:07] staff recommendation is

[1:45:09] to provide assistance

[1:45:10] to local jurisdictions

[1:45:11] to use local return and

[1:45:12] Transportation Development

[1:45:13] Act, or TDA, Article 3 as the

[1:45:15] only available funding for

[1:45:17] Open and Slow Streets events

[1:45:19] occurring between September

[1:45:21] 2026 and March 2028. The

[1:45:24] Metro Board approved cycles 6

[1:45:27] and 7 of the program in

[1:45:29] December 2026, 2025. The action

[1:45:32] included an amendment

[1:45:34] to report back on a series of

[1:45:35] recommendations and analysis,

[1:45:37] to obtain input

[1:45:38] from community stakeholders

[1:45:40] to identify ways

[1:45:41] to make the program permanent,

[1:45:43] initiate an abbreviated cycle

[1:45:44] with identified funding

[1:45:45] for events occurring between

[1:45:47] September 2026 and March

[1:45:49] 2028, and offer technical

[1:45:51] assistance,

[1:45:52] including alternative sources

[1:45:53] of funding

[1:45:54] for events not funded

[1:45:55] through cycles 6 and 7.

[1:45:58] >> Thank you, Neha. Good

[1:45:59] afternoon, Madam Chair, members

[1:46:01] of the committee. I will talk

[1:46:03] you through the staff response

[1:46:06] to direction from the board

[1:46:07] from back in January, as Neha

[1:46:09] described. This is

[1:46:10] substantially described

[1:46:12] within the board report itself,

[1:46:13] but I'll be describing some

[1:46:16] of the high points

[1:46:17] of our staff response.

[1:46:20] For the first item,

[1:46:21] which directed us to come back

[1:46:22] with recommendations

[1:46:24] for a permanent Open and Slow

[1:46:25] Streets program, what we're

[1:46:27] describing is that staff

[1:46:29] intends to return to the board

[1:46:30] in 2028 with recommendations

[1:46:32] for a permanent program. A

[1:46:34] couple of things that we want

[1:46:36] to emphasize here. First

[1:46:38] of all,

[1:46:40] that the currently awarded

[1:46:42] Cycle 6 and 7 Open and Slow

[1:46:44] Streets events,

[1:46:45] and I'd say unlike prior cycles

[1:46:47] of the grant program, we have

[1:46:50] retained the program evaluation

[1:46:51] activities, whereas in the past

[1:46:53] we've asked our grantees

[1:46:54] to evaluate individual events.

[1:46:57] That evaluation is ongoing

[1:46:58] with the current slate

[1:47:00] of events, will continue

[1:47:01] with the 2028 Open and Slow

[1:47:03] Streets events,

[1:47:05] and that will provide us

[1:47:06] with a depth of information to

[1:47:08] inform that recommendation that

[1:47:12] we'll be bringing back to you.

[1:47:14] in 2028. The other thing

[1:47:15] to emphasize is that we do

[1:47:17] within this Board report

[1:47:19] describe some guideposts or

[1:47:20] considerations

[1:47:22] for a permanent program,

[1:47:24] and we felt it was important to

[1:47:25] inform you and get your

[1:47:26] feedback as our Board, as well

[1:47:28] as to provide an indication

[1:47:30] to stakeholders and partners

[1:47:31] about how we want

[1:47:33] to pursue that discussion

[1:47:34] over the next couple

[1:47:35] of years. And it features

[1:47:37] things like a closer tie

[1:47:39] to specific intended outcomes,

[1:47:41] such as improving transit

[1:47:43] ridership, both on day of event

[1:47:46] and measuring the impact that

[1:47:47] open and slow streets events

[1:47:49] have on everyday choices

[1:47:52] to ride transit. Additional

[1:47:55] outcomes that we are featuring

[1:47:59] include creating some distinct

[1:48:02] and measurable momentum

[1:48:03] toward the implementation of

[1:48:05] permanent active transportation

[1:48:06] infrastructure,

[1:48:09] and then as well moving

[1:48:12] toward a more regular,

[1:48:13] predictable cadence of open and

[1:48:16] slow streets events, as we see

[1:48:17] with some of the most popular

[1:48:18] and successful and long-running

[1:48:21] open street and slow streets

[1:48:22] programs around the world. All

[1:48:24] of those objectives that we

[1:48:26] described in the board report

[1:48:27] are also underpinned

[1:48:29] by a key consideration,

[1:48:30] which is cost efficiency. What

[1:48:32] we've observed,

[1:48:34] and specifically recently

[1:48:35] with the program,

[1:48:37] are dramatically increasing

[1:48:39] costs,

[1:48:40] and everything else that we

[1:48:41] want to accomplish

[1:48:42] with this program requires us

[1:48:44] to deliver these events as

[1:48:46] efficiently as possible

[1:48:48] with our partners. The second

[1:48:50] item that the Board asked us

[1:48:51] to come back

[1:48:52] with recommendations

[1:48:54] on is funding

[1:48:55] for an abbreviated cycle and

[1:48:56] to identify $1 million

[1:48:58] for that purpose. What we have

[1:49:01] described in the board report

[1:49:03] is that there is both broadly

[1:49:06] eligible, very flexible,

[1:49:08] and available funding in

[1:49:10] locally programmed fund

[1:49:12] sources, including

[1:49:13] Transportation Development

[1:49:15] Act Article 3, as well as local

[1:49:16] return. We've provided as

[1:49:19] attachments to the board

[1:49:20] reports the current fund

[1:49:22] balances for both of those

[1:49:24] Funding sources. We've also

[1:49:26] described that

[1:49:29] for all prior cycles of the

[1:49:33] Open and Slow Street programs

[1:49:35] we have tapped on Proposition C

[1:49:38] 25%, PC 25, as the only

[1:49:41] eligible Metro, directly

[1:49:44] Metro-programmed funding source

[1:49:47] for programming events like

[1:49:48] Open and Slow Streets. The

[1:49:50] PC-25 funding source for this

[1:49:54] time period is fully subscribed

[1:49:58] to high-priority investments

[1:50:01] such as the Vermont Transit

[1:50:03] Corridor, the freeway service

[1:50:05] patrol other items that,

[1:50:07] that we've described

[1:50:08] within the board report. And,

[1:50:10] and we do not want to be

[1:50:11] in a position

[1:50:12] of creating a funding hole

[1:50:13] within those other priorities

[1:50:15] and, and then having

[1:50:16] to come back to you

[1:50:17] with recommendations for how

[1:50:19] those funding holes might be

[1:50:21] plugged. And then the final

[1:50:23] item that the board asked us

[1:50:24] to report back on is technical

[1:50:25] assistance. I want

[1:50:27] to emphasize here, of course,

[1:50:28] that we provide technical

[1:50:29] assistance to grantees and

[1:50:30] prospective grantees routinely.

[1:50:32] We've done that as part

[1:50:35] of the cycle 6 and 7 debrief,

[1:50:37] both with successful and

[1:50:39] unsuccessful applicants. And we

[1:50:42] will be,

[1:50:45] pending the board's action

[1:50:47] on this item, we will be

[1:50:48] initiating an intensive

[1:50:50] technical assistance effort

[1:50:51] to assist jurisdictions with

[1:50:54] accessing the available

[1:50:56] funding, navigating trade-offs,

[1:50:58] providing grant writing

[1:51:00] assistance in instances where

[1:51:02] that's appropriate,

[1:51:03] and so forth. Open and Slow

[1:51:06] Streets program, of course, is

[1:51:08] an equity-focused effort that's

[1:51:10] reflected in our grant

[1:51:14] selection criteria, where in

[1:51:17] fact these events are taking

[1:51:18] place. As noted on slide 25,

[1:51:20] of the current 29 funded events

[1:51:22] are

[1:51:23] in equity-focused communities,

[1:51:25] and filters through with how

[1:51:27] the events are produced and

[1:51:29] mounted. Many of the events are

[1:51:30] themselves produced by

[1:51:32] community-based organizations,

[1:51:34] and all of the events place a

[1:51:35] great emphasis on making sure

[1:51:38] that the full range of Los

[1:51:41] Angeles residents have access

[1:51:43] to events and are enjoying

[1:51:46] them. Next steps as described,

[1:51:49] we will be continuing

[1:51:51] to evaluate the current slate

[1:51:53] of funded program events

[1:51:55] in cycles 6 and 7. returning

[1:51:58] to you in 2028

[1:52:00] with recommendations tied to

[1:52:02] Cycle 8 and an ongoing

[1:52:04] permanent program as directed

[1:52:07] by the board. That concludes

[1:52:09] our presentation.

[1:52:10] >> Thank you very much. Do we

[1:52:11] have any public comments?

[1:52:13] >> If you'd like

[1:52:14] to make a comment on item 13,

[1:52:17] Open and Slow Streets Grant

[1:52:19] Program Update, please press

[1:52:21] pound 2 to raise your hand.

[1:52:22] From the room, we have Rommel

[1:52:24] Ramel Pasqual, please come

[1:52:27] to podium lectern A, and Wes

[1:52:29] Ruttenman, please come

[1:52:31] to lectern B.

[1:52:37] >> Good morning,

[1:52:38] directors. I'm Ramel Pasqual.

[1:52:39] I'm the executive director of

[1:52:41] CicLAvia. Let me just begin by,

[1:52:43] Metro has been an outstanding

[1:52:45] partner in making Open Streets

[1:52:46] one of the region's greatest

[1:52:48] success stories. These events

[1:52:49] have consistently delivered

[1:52:50] benefits, increasing transit

[1:52:53] ridership, supporting local

[1:52:54] business, improving public

[1:52:56] health, encouraging active

[1:52:58] transportation, and most

[1:52:59] importantly,

[1:53:00] bringing communities together.

[1:53:02] That's why today's report is so

[1:53:03] disappointing. It arrives

[1:53:05] months late. No permanent

[1:53:08] program developed,

[1:53:10] no funding allocated

[1:53:13] for events in 2027. No

[1:53:14] commitments

[1:53:16] to longer multi-route,

[1:53:18] multi-mile routes that have

[1:53:20] made Open Streets so

[1:53:21] successful. And I want

[1:53:22] to be clear on this, is we

[1:53:24] would have welcomed being

[1:53:25] engaged as a report was being

[1:53:27] developed. As the region's

[1:53:29] longest-running and most

[1:53:31] experienced Open Streets

[1:53:32] organization, we believe our

[1:53:34] experience could have helped

[1:53:35] strengthen its recommendations.

[1:53:38] As we move forward,

[1:53:39] I'm asking the board to make

[1:53:42] Open Streets permanent. Thank

[1:53:43] you.

[1:53:45] >> Thank you. Next, please.

[1:53:46] >> Good morning, directors.

[1:53:50] Wes Ruderman, Deputy Director

[1:53:51] with active SGV.

[1:53:52] Over the past decade,

[1:53:56] we we've had the pleasure

[1:53:57] of hosting 10 events in the

[1:53:58] San Gabriel Valley made

[1:54:00] possible by Metro. Our region

[1:54:02] is filled

[1:54:03] with small communities, and

[1:54:04] these cities generally do not

[1:54:05] have the staff capacity or the

[1:54:07] discretionary funding

[1:54:08] to host large regional events

[1:54:10] like this. However, thanks to

[1:54:12] Metro's program,

[1:54:13] we've been able

[1:54:16] to do really iconic events,

[1:54:17] some of the biggest events

[1:54:18] in the San Gabriel Valley.

[1:54:19] For example,

[1:54:20] our first one connected 6 new

[1:54:22] Gold Line cities all the way

[1:54:24] from Azusa to South Pasadena.

[1:54:26] It was 8 communities together,

[1:54:28] 18 miles of open streets.

[1:54:29] There was even a point-to-point

[1:54:30] half marathon. People were able

[1:54:31] to run, get a TAP card,

[1:54:33] and take the train back. And

[1:54:35] again, things like events

[1:54:36] like that, or Arroyo Fest, when

[1:54:38] the Arroyo Seco Parkway was

[1:54:40] reopened, only possible with

[1:54:41] Metro's leadership and support.

[1:54:43] And unfortunately,

[1:54:45] our region will not be able

[1:54:46] to do events like this if there

[1:54:47] isn't a strong partner at

[1:54:49] Metro and a Metro program.

[1:54:51] Thank you.

[1:54:52] >> That was the last public

[1:54:53] comment.

[1:54:54] >> Okay, thank you. I hear the

[1:54:57] public comment. I'm also struck

[1:55:00] by the staff report, which

[1:55:02] indicates that this is the only

[1:55:06] available pot of money for this

[1:55:08] use. I remember joining this

[1:55:10] board,

[1:55:12] and we were actually looking

[1:55:15] at these kinds of activities as

[1:55:17] being very much out-of-the-box

[1:55:19] thinking. We've come a long way

[1:55:20] but I must say I would be very,

[1:55:23] very concerned if we put any

[1:55:28] of our projects at risk

[1:55:30] by doing this. So, we must find

[1:55:31] a way

[1:55:32] to be out-of-the-box thinkers

[1:55:34] at the same time that we don't

[1:55:35] forget our core focus. I am

[1:55:38] very concerned if anything

[1:55:40] would threaten the Vermont

[1:55:41] Corridor. I am struck

[1:55:43] by the continued memory

[1:55:47] of a video that talked

[1:55:48] about the last train, red car,

[1:55:51] that went in. It was Vermont,

[1:55:54] and it was promised that it

[1:55:55] would return. And we start

[1:55:56] with the BRT.

[1:55:58] And so, I hope we can,

[1:55:59] I know you will because you're

[1:56:01] creative, continue to look.

[1:56:03] And thank you for that. And I'm

[1:56:04] sure none of us would want

[1:56:05] to put

[1:56:07] at risk a legacy project

[1:56:08] like the Vermont Corridor BRT.

[1:56:09] Thank you. Supervisor

[1:56:12] Horvath.

[1:56:14] >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I,

[1:56:15] I just want to echo the

[1:56:18] sentiments that were expressed

[1:56:19] by members of the public. And

[1:56:21] given the hour we're at, I, I

[1:56:23] know we have a couple more

[1:56:24] items and I probably need

[1:56:25] to wrap up soon. I just wanted

[1:56:26] to ask my colleagues to

[1:56:27] consider potentially moving

[1:56:29] this item for full board

[1:56:31] consideration. I know there are

[1:56:33] other members of the board who

[1:56:34] also have a passion

[1:56:36] for these programs,

[1:56:37] and I too am disappointed,

[1:56:40] not only what it says

[1:56:43] about our investment

[1:56:44] in this kind of programming,

[1:56:45] but with a 4-month delay, even

[1:56:47] if we did stand up something

[1:56:49] alternatively,

[1:56:50] it takes away the opportunity

[1:56:51] for people to apply and go

[1:56:52] through the process that's

[1:56:53] necessary. The intention

[1:56:55] behind this wasn't simply to

[1:56:56] provide technical assistance.

[1:56:58] It was to look at how we could

[1:57:02] make a program permanent. And I

[1:57:05] agree with the Chair that we

[1:57:06] have to be mindful

[1:57:08] of what our finances are. And

[1:57:09] unfortunately, the pot of money

[1:57:11] that was identified is not a

[1:57:13] pot of money that we actually

[1:57:14] have discretion over. And so, I

[1:57:15] think that given the challenges

[1:57:20] of what has been presented

[1:57:22] to us and sort of the lateness

[1:57:24] of where we are

[1:57:25] in our committee meeting

[1:57:27] at this point in time,

[1:57:29] I think there's a lot

[1:57:31] to discuss

[1:57:32] about what would be possible

[1:57:34] for us to do at this point. I

[1:57:37] think a major motivation

[1:57:39] for us

[1:57:40] to consider this was not only

[1:57:42] to create a long-term permanent

[1:57:43] program, which I think is a

[1:57:45] priority, but also

[1:57:46] to identify opportunities

[1:57:48] between the World Cup and the

[1:57:50] Olympics and keep sort of the

[1:57:52] energy going as it relates

[1:57:54] to open streets and the kind

[1:57:55] of activity that it can bring,

[1:57:57] the kind of engagement

[1:57:58] opportunities that it gives

[1:58:00] Metro for, to engage people who

[1:58:02] are interested in all of the

[1:58:03] solutions that we're bringing

[1:58:05] forward to communities. So, I

[1:58:06] would just offer that perhaps

[1:58:07] we could forward this

[1:58:09] to the full board for

[1:58:10] consideration without

[1:58:11] recommendation today.

[1:58:14] >> I think that our full Board

[1:58:17] has a lot of items

[1:58:18] on it because we were dark in

[1:58:21] June. So, if this committee

[1:58:23] would want to vote today,

[1:58:24] it doesn't close the issue out,

[1:58:26] but I think it's important

[1:58:28] for us, given what I've seen

[1:58:30] already and been advised we

[1:58:32] might have before us

[1:58:35] in the meeting next week. If we

[1:58:37] could move this item today,

[1:58:38] it would be very helpful.

[1:58:40] Thank you. But let me hear

[1:58:41] from the rest

[1:58:42] of the committee.

[1:58:47] >> My note says this was a

[1:58:49] receive and file. Is that not

[1:58:51] the action?

[1:58:54] >> You're right, it is. It is a

[1:58:55] receive and file.

[1:58:56] >> No, it's not. It's not.

[1:58:57] It's an action

[1:58:58] to be taken.

[1:59:00] >> So, our notes are wrong.

[1:59:01] Okay.

[1:59:03] >> Thank you very much, Madam

[1:59:05] Chair. Let me say, I have

[1:59:13] thoroughly enjoyed partnering

[1:59:16] with some of the Open and

[1:59:17] Slow Streets partners.

[1:59:19] CicLAvia specifically partnered

[1:59:22] and brought, helped to bring

[1:59:24] CicLAvia to South LA. It's just

[1:59:26] partnered with Metro on the

[1:59:28] Paseo Willowbrook Open Street

[1:59:29] event just 4th of July. And

[1:59:32] when I consider You know,

[1:59:34] what I hear

[1:59:35] from constituents when we bring

[1:59:36] CicLAvia, coupled

[1:59:39] with the fact that the 2nd

[1:59:40] Supervisory District,

[1:59:42] in my other day job,

[1:59:43] when we look at the Vision

[1:59:45] Zero project that the county

[1:59:46] voted on years ago, I am clear

[1:59:49] that it's the 2nd district that

[1:59:51] has the highest rate of vehicle

[1:59:53] pedestrian fatalities. And so

[1:59:56] Open and Slow Streets is a

[1:59:58] wonderful program

[2:00:00] to bring those communities

[2:00:01] to create a safe opportunity

[2:00:04] for community members

[2:00:06] to try transit,

[2:00:07] to walk and bike

[2:00:09] in their own communities. And

[2:00:12] so, I've supported. The reason

[2:00:15] I chuckled is,

[2:00:17] these are the kinds of

[2:00:18] decisions that make our jobs

[2:00:19] very difficult when it's

[2:00:21] Sophie's Choice, if you will.

[2:00:25] As Director Najarian talked

[2:00:26] about this last item,

[2:00:27] we just heard how it took 19

[2:00:29] years and how there was real

[2:00:31] concern for many of those years

[2:00:33] that there were certain aspects

[2:00:34] of the community that had

[2:00:36] expansion of transit and other

[2:00:38] aspects that didn't. In reading

[2:00:42] the report and the funding

[2:00:44] source that would have

[2:00:46] to be tapped is a community,

[2:00:48] the Vermont Transit Corridor,

[2:00:50] that currently sees close to

[2:00:52] 40,000 Angelenos a day.

[2:01:00] >> As we talked a moment ago

[2:01:02] about how you're going

[2:01:05] to define the, under the equity

[2:01:08] rubric acknowledging that

[2:01:14] 40,000 people per day

[2:01:16] conservatively rely

[2:01:19] on our presence

[2:01:20] on that corridor

[2:01:24] to live their lives. And so, if

[2:01:26] that is the only viable funding

[2:01:29] source, it's,

[2:01:32] it's a non-negotiable for

[2:01:34] someone who represents that

[2:01:36] district and hears

[2:01:38] from those people every day

[2:01:41] about what that BRT means

[2:01:44] to them, their ability to go

[2:01:46] to work, to go to school,

[2:01:48] to go to not just work but

[2:01:50] to multiple jobs. And so that

[2:01:55] is challenging for me. I'm not

[2:01:57] really clear what a delay

[2:01:59] in a vote would get us.

[2:02:02] Director Horvath, you've hit

[2:02:04] your button,

[2:02:05] you must have an answer.

[2:02:06] >> More opportunity for

[2:02:07] engagement and discussion. I do

[2:02:09] not believe that the Vermont

[2:02:10] Corridor bucket

[2:02:11] of money is the only source

[2:02:13] of funding. CMAC, CBG. There

[2:02:16] are other sources that we could

[2:02:17] consider. And again,

[2:02:19] given the lateness

[2:02:20] of where we are, I think that

[2:02:22] just deserves discussion. If

[2:02:23] we're interested

[2:02:24] in funding this,

[2:02:26] I don't think the Sophie's

[2:02:28] Choice that you reference is

[2:02:30] appropriate or fair. But I

[2:02:32] don't think it's the only

[2:02:33] option that we have

[2:02:35] to consider. And I think we

[2:02:36] could, if there's willingness

[2:02:37] of the board to continue

[2:02:39] to fund this, that we could

[2:02:40] have a more robust discussion

[2:02:41] around what we would want to

[2:02:43] fund and where we would fund it

[2:02:44] from.

[2:02:46] >> And so, is staff prepared

[2:02:47] to talk about those other

[2:02:48] funding sources and

[2:02:50] opportunities today?

[2:02:53] >> We appreciate the question.

[2:02:55] We are, we are not prepared

[2:02:57] to talk about,

[2:03:00] >> Good afternoon, Michelle

[2:03:01] Navarro, interim CFO.

[2:03:04] Unfortunately, we do have very

[2:03:06] limited sources

[2:03:07] of eligible money

[2:03:08] for these type

[2:03:10] of projects and programs. The

[2:03:12] only other source of funding

[2:03:14] would be operating eligible

[2:03:15] dollars,

[2:03:17] which we are being very prudent

[2:03:19] in under, in,

[2:03:20] in protecting those dollars

[2:03:22] for our operations.

[2:03:23] >> We do have fiscal challenges

[2:03:25] ahead, and we are trying to

[2:03:27] protect those dollars as much

[2:03:28] as possible.

[2:03:32] >> I have a question,

[2:03:33] but answer, Supervisor Mitchell?

[2:03:38] >> It has.

[2:03:39] >> Okay.

[2:03:40] >> Thank you.

[2:03:41] >> Any other comments? I think

[2:03:43] given where we are,

[2:03:45] I would ask for a motion.

[2:03:49] >> I would move that we advance

[2:03:52] this item

[2:03:53] without recommendation

[2:03:54] to the full board for full

[2:03:55] board consideration.

[2:04:03] >> The motion fails for lack

[2:04:04] of a second. Could I have a

[2:04:06] motion

[2:04:07] to move it forward?

[2:04:09] >> So moved.

[2:04:12] >> Second.

[2:04:14] >> Moved and seconded that we

[2:04:16] move the items accepting the

[2:04:18] staff recommendation. Will you

[2:04:20] please call the roll?

[2:04:21] >> Vice Chair Solis?

[2:04:23] >> Aye.

[2:04:24] >> Director Mitchell?

[2:04:25] >> Aye.

[2:04:26] >> Director Najarian?

[2:04:27] >> Aye.

[2:04:28] >> Director Horvath?

[2:04:30] >> No.

[2:04:31] >> And Chair Dupont-Walker?

[2:04:32] >> Aye.

[2:04:33] >> The motion carries.

[2:04:35] >> But if I might add, I don't

[2:04:37] think this forecloses the

[2:04:38] efforts

[2:04:39] to find other funding pools,

[2:04:40] both

[2:04:42] on the funding side and also

[2:04:44] on the cost containment side in

[2:04:46] the preparation and production

[2:04:48] of these CicLAvias. So.

[2:04:50] >> I think we all agree. Yeah, I

[2:04:53] think we all agree. I think

[2:04:55] what's important is there are

[2:04:57] communities who have not

[2:04:59] enjoyed the benefits. You've

[2:05:00] talked about that today,

[2:05:01] and I think we need to make

[2:05:03] sure that they understand it's

[2:05:04] still a priority for us. Item

[2:05:09] 15, Countywide Planning Major

[2:05:10] Project Status Report. Oh, I'm

[2:05:13] sorry, did I skip 14? Yes, I

[2:05:19] skipped 14. Thank you,

[2:05:22] Supervisor Horvath.

[2:05:24] Transportation Demand

[2:05:25] Management Master Plan and

[2:05:27] Policies.

[2:05:29] >> Thank you, Chair. This item

[2:05:32] is a receive and file

[2:05:34] on the master plan. We can go

[2:05:36] through an expedited

[2:05:38] presentation considering the

[2:05:40] time, if that may be the wish

[2:05:42] of the Chair.

[2:05:43] >> Yes.

[2:05:47] >> Good morning. We are here

[2:05:48] to present the TDM Master Plan

[2:05:50] and policies. This is part

[2:05:55] of the pre-games trip reduc,

[2:05:57] or VMT reduction goal for the

[2:05:59] Olympics. Next slide. We are

[2:06:02] recommending

[2:06:04] to receive and file the report

[2:06:05] on implementation of the

[2:06:06] Metro Transportation Demand

[2:06:07] Management Master Plan Yes,

[2:06:12] ma'am. So staff have developed

[2:06:13] a Transportation Demand

[2:06:14] Management Master Plan and

[2:06:18] policies to address demand

[2:06:19] in the Greater Los Angeles

[2:06:20] region and

[2:06:21] to provide a TDM roadmap

[2:06:22] to support the 2028 Olympic and

[2:06:24] Paralympic Games, as indicated

[2:06:26] in the 2028 Mobility Concept

[2:06:28] Plan. The goal of implementing

[2:06:29] the master plan and policies is

[2:06:31] to reduce VMT in Los Angeles

[2:06:33] County by 20%. Before the 2028

[2:06:38] games, as established

[2:06:39] by SCAG and LA 28. And I will

[2:06:41] mention that this is just one

[2:06:43] of the measures that will help

[2:06:46] meet that 20% reduction goal.

[2:06:49] The elements of the TDM master

[2:06:51] plan are transit corridors and

[2:06:53] mobility hubs. We want

[2:06:54] to engage with communities

[2:06:55] around planned mobility hubs

[2:06:57] and transit lines to increase

[2:06:58] transit use as well as

[2:06:59] multimodal trips. Really

[2:07:01] concentrating on those short

[2:07:03] non-commute trips,

[2:07:05] so those leisure trips,

[2:07:07] errands, trips to school, and

[2:07:09] promoting transit corridors and

[2:07:11] mobility hubs as real assets

[2:07:13] to the community. We also have

[2:07:15] on-demand shared mobility

[2:07:17] engaging residents in areas

[2:07:19] with limited transit access by

[2:07:20] offering incentivized on-demand

[2:07:22] carpooling as a less expensive

[2:07:24] option to driving alone. So

[2:07:26] This would be similar to

[2:07:28] Uber, but it would be a carpool

[2:07:29] model where users could find

[2:07:31] carpools

[2:07:32] in a dynamic situation. Also,

[2:07:34] I'd like to point

[2:07:37] out that this is great for

[2:07:38] employers who have shift

[2:07:40] workers who don't have regular

[2:07:41] schedules, and it's also great

[2:07:43] for our transit-dependent folks

[2:07:45] to have an additional mode of

[2:07:47] mobility because you don't need

[2:07:48] to own a car in order

[2:07:49] to participate. You can just

[2:07:51] simply be a rider. The next is

[2:07:53] fostering multimodal kids

[2:07:54] for the future. So it's going

[2:07:56] into schools near the transit

[2:07:58] corridors and mobility hubs and

[2:07:59] engaging the kids and the

[2:08:01] parents through the kids

[2:08:03] in learning about walking,

[2:08:04] biking, and transit, not only

[2:08:07] to create future generations

[2:08:08] that embrace multimodal travel,

[2:08:10] but also to get to the parents

[2:08:12] and get the parents taking

[2:08:14] their kids on transit

[2:08:16] at a young age. And finally,

[2:08:18] we have transit tourism.

[2:08:20] Promoting transit-accessible

[2:08:21] destinations

[2:08:22] to tourists as well as

[2:08:23] residents

[2:08:24] to reduce vehicle demand.

[2:08:25] We'll do this

[2:08:26] through partnering

[2:08:28] with hotels,

[2:08:29] training concierge on Metro's

[2:08:31] programs, and also

[2:08:34] through reaching out to our

[2:08:36] residents and engaging them

[2:08:38] to take transit

[2:08:39] to leisure destinations. The

[2:08:40] total budget

[2:08:41] for this program is $11.295

[2:08:44] million, funded by a $10

[2:08:45] million CMAQ grant.

[2:08:49] To support implementation

[2:08:50] of the TDM Master Plan and

[2:08:51] policies for the 2028 Games,

[2:08:53] Metro will partner with SCAG,

[2:08:54] which is coordinating the TDM

[2:08:56] subcommittee of the Games

[2:08:57] Mobility Concept Plan. Metro

[2:08:59] will initially implement the

[2:09:01] TDM Master Plan and policies as

[2:09:03] targeted pilot projects and

[2:09:05] conduct stakeholder outreach.

[2:09:07] After completion, staff will

[2:09:09] review all the data collected

[2:09:10] from the pilot program, and if

[2:09:12] the pilot analysis indicates

[2:09:13] effective TMD VMT reduction.

[2:09:16] Based on that recommendation,

[2:09:18] the 5 initiatives,

[2:09:19] the pilots will be expanded

[2:09:20] to the entire region.

[2:09:27] >> Is that the presentation?

[2:09:28] >> That's the presentation.

[2:09:29] >> Any questions or comments

[2:09:30] by members of committee? Thank

[2:09:33] you. This is received and

[2:09:34] filed. Appreciate it. Item

[2:09:37] 15, I'm sorry, public comment,

[2:09:39] please.

[2:09:41] >> This is public comment

[2:09:42] for item 14. Please press pound

[2:09:43] 2 if you'd like

[2:09:44] to make a comment. No public

[2:09:50] comments.

[2:09:52] >> Okay this is received and

[2:09:53] filed, and we will, we have

[2:09:55] received it and it will be

[2:09:58] filed. Item 15, countywide

[2:10:00] planning major project status

[2:10:03] report. We have polled. We

[2:10:04] thank you

[2:10:05] for receiving the report. Do we

[2:10:07] have any questions? Okay, we

[2:10:10] will review and we'll be in

[2:10:12] contact should there be any

[2:10:13] comments. We're now

[2:10:17] at the public comment.

[2:10:20] >> This is public comment

[2:10:22] for item 15. Please press pound

[2:10:23] 2 if you'd like

[2:10:24] to make a comment on item 15.

[2:10:28] No public comments.

[2:10:29] >> My crystal ball told me

[2:10:30] that. We

[2:10:34] at general public comment now.

[2:10:36] Do any members

[2:10:37] of the public have any comments

[2:10:39] on items that are not

[2:10:41] on today's agenda?

[2:10:42] >> We don't have anybody

[2:10:43] in the room

[2:10:44] for general public comment. If

[2:10:45] you're on the phone,

[2:10:46] please press pound 2. No

[2:10:51] general public comments.

[2:10:53] >> Public comment is now

[2:10:54] closed. The agenda is now

[2:10:55] exhausted. The meeting stands

[2:10:56] adjourned.

[2:11:00] >> Construction committee will

[2:11:03] begin at 1:30.

[2:11:06] >> Let me say before we go,

[2:11:07] I just want to say to you,

[2:11:09] Director Najarian, it is such a

[2:11:15] joy, and we look forward

[2:11:18] to remaining in contact. We

[2:11:19] know you won't go far away

[2:11:21] from transportation, but you

[2:11:23] have a legacy that is worth

[2:11:25] repeating.

[2:11:26] >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I

[2:11:27] have loved working with you.

[2:11:28] Thank you.

Planning and Programming Committee on 2026-07-15 11:00 AM

Agenda

Transcript