[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.