[0:00] We have a quorum of the board. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Yes, we do. Thank you. I'd like to call the April 18, 2022 meeting of the Losan Agency Board of Directors to order for a few virtual meeting reminders before we begin. Our rule call vote will be required for attendance and agenda items requiring board action. Board members, please state your name for the record and staff. Please state your name and job title for the record.

[0:27] The audio live stream has a 60-second delay from the live proceedings.

[0:33] Members of the public will recognize to speak during appropriate public comment opportunities.

[0:39] Madam, could you please conduct the attendance roll call?

[0:42] Good morning, members. This is Alison Cheshire, the clerk of the board, and I'll call the roll.

[0:46] Chairman Hart.

[0:47] Here.

[0:48] Vice Chair Edson.

[0:50] Here.

[0:52] Director Ektronock.

[0:54] Ektronock here.

[0:55] Director Frank, here. Director McDonald, here. Director Malsca, I'm here. Director Miller,

[1:07] here. Director Murray, here. Director Reed,

[1:15] Director Strong, here. Director Telemontes,

[1:22] Director Ken too.

[1:25] Director Brown.

[1:29] Here. Director De Camille.

[1:33] Director Graydenger.

[1:36] Mr. Chairman

[1:37] you have a quorum. Thank you that clerk appreciate that. Would you all please rise and join

[1:43] Director Murray and Pledge of Allegiance.

[1:50] Place your hand over your heart and to move to the

[1:53] the greatest symbol of freedom in the world,

[1:55] ready to begin.

[1:57] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States

[2:00] of America and to the Republic for which it stands,

[2:05] one nation under God, under God,

[2:07] the individual with liberty and justice for all.

[2:18] Thank you all.

[2:23] We are at now at item number one,

[2:25] which is an agreement for legal services

[2:29] with Hanson Bridget.

[2:31] And just as a preface to this item,

[2:33] let me just give you a little bit

[2:35] additional information. This item is important because we have an apparent conflict of interest

[2:42] with the Orange County Transportation Authority's legal counsel who obviously has their

[2:48] primary counsel of our clients, the Orange County Transportation Authority, and there are some issues

[2:55] that are happening and have occurred in the last couple of weeks that are complex and have many

[3:03] different elements related to the low-sade by-laws, the administrative services

[3:08] agreement with the Orange County Transportation Authority, and our board, I

[3:13] believe, needs independent legal counsel to assist us in working through those

[3:19] issues. This isn't prejudging any outcome in any way, it's simply acknowledging

[3:27] that there is a conflict of interest between the Orange Transportation.

[3:31] Point of order, Mr. Chair. Point of order. Yeah, because you're announcing this as a conflict of interest that's a personal matter and under the brown act. We are a brown act agency as an agency of the state.

[3:44] This has to be an executive session.

[3:46] No, I don't think so. I think that a legal services agreement is a properly publicly discussed item.

[3:53] And, you know, really this is very simple, it's just a question of, you know, do we need independent legal representation for us to proceed forward and work out these issues with the Orange County Transportation Authority.

[4:06] And I think, you know, as a independent government agency, we have a responsibility to have legal representation in this matter.

[4:13] and or as does the Orange County Transpitation Authority have the right to have legal representation.

[4:19] Since they have the firm of the Orange County has retained Woodruff's

[4:27] Rattlin and Smart and Mr. Donish represents the Orange County Transpitation Authority.

[4:33] We need to have the independent representation.

[4:36] Director Reed, did you have anything you'd like to add?

[4:38] Yes, I would like to raise the motion to where we are requesting O-C-T-A and it's a council.

[4:51] Please retain council for us and that we recommend Hanson Bridges.

[4:59] which is, excuse me, and would appreciate very much their courtesy in making such an appointment retainer.

[5:10] Thank you, Director Reade. I'll be back in the back.

[5:14] Chairman Reade and our interim and heart and director Reade, this is Kathy Trafasonian.

[5:18] I'm the Assistant General Counsel for Losan.

[5:20] May I make a couple points to address the perceived conflict and the emotion on the table?

[5:28] So to the extent that there is an apparent conflict of interest between OCTA's councilful

[5:35] providing legal services for LOSAN, that conflict was essentially waived by the execution

[5:42] of the administrative support agreement, which I will refer to as the ASA between OCTA and

[5:48] LOSAN.

[5:48] and the ASA requires OCTA to provide general legal services

[5:53] as well as special council services.

[5:56] We have proceeded under this manner

[5:58] for the past almost 10 years now since 2013.

[6:03] And any time an actual complex of interest arises

[6:06] during our representation,

[6:07] which it has on two and only two occasions,

[6:11] it then falls to my professional legal ethical rules

[6:15] of conduct to govern that complex of interest. And one that has occurred, we have retained

[6:21] special counsel. It has occurred on only two occasions and it relates to the negotiation

[6:27] of the ASA between Losan and OCDA. We still have our special services or our special

[6:33] counsel services under contract and we can provide those at any time. But if James and I are

[6:40] We are in a position where we believe that we cannot handle, we cannot represent those clients and we would retain special counsel services and we had.

[6:49] With regard to a recent conflict of interest, this is the first time that I'm being advised by the board that there is a concern about a conflict of interest and we would be happy to address those conflicts.

[7:02] and individual briefings with board members

[7:05] to be exempted to that involved

[7:06] with Attorney Client Privilege discussion.

[7:09] But if there is an actual conflict of interest

[7:14] or a perceived conflict of interest

[7:15] that the board would like us to bring in special counsel,

[7:18] we can always bring in special counsel

[7:19] to represent the low-sam board.

[7:22] As the mayor of the discussion today

[7:25] on whether or not to approve an agreement

[7:27] for legal services with Hanson Bridget,

[7:29] I cannot provide any sort of legal advice on that item because I myself have an STCC conflict

[7:36] of interest because it involves a financial interest.

[7:39] So I will have to refuse myself from providing any sort of legal advice on that.

[7:44] But to the extent that I can answer any questions about whether a previous conflict has existed

[7:50] or if you would like my firm to bring in special counsel to handle a particular situation,

[7:57] and represent Losan for a particular conflict situation

[8:00] that you believe presents a conflict.

[8:02] Then I can do so through my contract or OCPA can do that

[8:06] through their procurement rules.

[8:08] And I would defer to OCPA's leadership

[8:11] who is also on the call to answer any questions

[8:13] about OCPA's procurement policies and rules.

[8:17] Thank you, Ms. Trappazonian.

[8:20] I see directors, number of directors have hands up.

[8:23] Director McDonald.

[8:25] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[8:26] I am and very disappointed in this action on several fronts.

[8:31] One, I asked her a staff report last week if there was one and I got it about 25 minutes

[8:37] before the meeting this morning.

[8:40] I'm one of those who likes to read staff reports ahead of time and research things and do

[8:45] a little background and I didn't get the opportunity to use that because of that.

[8:49] Secondly, it appears that the staff report was written by you, Mr. Chair, and sent us

[8:53] by Jason Jewel. I supported you as becoming chair. I thought you were suited for the job,

[9:00] but in my mind, chair is not a person that does staff reports, nor reaches out to firms for

[9:06] representation. I see no RFP, no RFQ, who is just a matter of a recommendation that we hire a firm

[9:13] potentially at about $1,600 an hour if they use both attorneys. I see no comparison to other firms.

[9:21] And the term conflict of interest is subjective where in some people's minds are maybe a conflict in my mind. I'm not so convinced.

[9:30] I just have problems with this on all kinds of different fronts.

[9:34] I think it's inappropriate. I think it's being made to be an emergency when I don't believe it is.

[9:39] And I have no intention of supporting this in any way, shape or form.

[9:48] Most include my comments. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[9:49] So,

[9:54] German Hart and the A make a comment,

[10:01] German Hart appears to have left the meeting.

[10:08] He's still on my screen, but I don't see him.

[10:10] No, I see a blank space with his name.

[10:19] Well, let's give him a few minutes to rejoin the meeting here.

[10:24] Obviously, there's a technical problem.

[10:28] But if it takes very long, then presumably the vice-chairman will take over the meeting.

[10:36] But let's give Chairman Hart an opportunity to figure out what's wrong and get back on the meeting.

[10:44] That's my recommendation.

[10:57] I was muted. I think that's a perfect recommendation.

[10:59] and give sure hard a few minutes to get over any technical difficulties he might be experiencing

[11:09] and can someone check the waiting room to make sure he's maybe trying to get in.

[11:17] Yes, Dr. Edson, we're checking for him to come back in but we don't see him on the list of attendees yet.

[11:25] Okay,

[11:30] I'm going to text him.

[12:06] I think it's 10.13 now. Let's wait till about 10.15. I texted him.

[12:16] He's not backed by 10-15. We'll just proceed. We're bringing him back in right now.

[12:21] Awesome. Thanks.

[12:26] Can you hear me? I apologize. I apologize. I apologize. There we go.

[12:31] We can hear you. Hear you. Hear you. Hear you. Hear you.

[12:35] But it's causing an echo. Which is okay. It's better than nothing.

[12:43] Welcome back. Mr. Chair.

[12:49] Go on again.

[12:52] Chair Hart, can you hear us?

[12:53] All

[13:08] right. Well, I apologize for that inexplicably my computer rebooted and it took me a minute to get back into the meeting. So I apologize

[13:15] It's technical difficulty

[13:18] Director McDonald's made a couple of statements that I want to clarify

[13:22] Number one, I asked that these two items be put on the board agenda last Wednesday in a meeting with Mr. Jewel and his

[13:31] And they were very responsive and there was plenty of time to get, you know, a staff report out. I did not write this staff report.

[13:39] Mr. Jewel apparently did.

[13:41] And I was distressed and surprised that it took so long to get this staff report posted to board members. I spoke with Mr. Jewel late Friday afternoon.

[13:52] And I know that the legal services agreement from Hanson Bridget got to the Orange County

[14:00] Transportation Authority before 5 o'clock on Friday afternoon.

[14:03] I would have hoped that the Orange County Transportation Authority clerk would have

[14:07] been able to post these materials as Mr. McDonald was requesting.

[14:11] But I don't control how the staff does its work.

[14:15] And the result was the posting of the few minutes before the meeting today, which frankly

[14:21] just disappointed in. So I just wanted to directly address Director McDonald's concerns that the chair was out of being outside of the authority, but I think that it is clear on its face that there's an issue that we need to resolve and the way to do that is to have independent legal counsel.

[14:43] As Ms. Trappisonian referenced, the Orange County Transportation Authority has a process for hiring independent council in a conflict situation. That's a perfectly acceptable alternative solution.

[14:56] We just need independent council and if they have a

[15:00] On public list, you know, I'd be curious if handsome bridges is on that list. That would be a great solution. If they are not, and there are other firms, you know, I think that will solve the problem as well. So, Director McDonald, does that answer your concerns?

[15:18] Sure. Thanks for so much. I still have no intention of supporting this request. All right. Thank you, Director McDonald. I think that Director Strong was next, or excuse me, Director Murray was next, and then Director Strong.

[15:32] Good morning, colleagues.

[15:34] So I too, I'm very, very disturbed by this action.

[15:38] I want to thank our legal counsel for clarifying the appropriate

[15:42] manner to handle potential conflict of interest.

[15:46] I personally think that we are proceeding in a very, very dangerous path.

[15:54] They're normally based upon my 10 years of experience on this board.

[16:00] where anything where we would go for an outside agency to consider for services is done appropriately through a procurement process.

[16:11] None of us have any knowledge of this particular firm other than you Mr. Chair and maybe one or two others, but we do have an appropriate manner in which we move forward with conflicts of interest.

[16:24] and as our legal mentioned, we had two prior cases where our legal counsel utilized the appropriate

[16:33] measures to hire outside counsel and they did that on their own without any requests from our

[16:40] board. So they certainly were moving forward with the appropriate ethical action. I'd also like to

[16:47] deferred to our CEO of Orange County Transportation Authority, Mr. Johnson, the comment on this because

[16:55] again, a lot of this is within staff's knowledge of anything that might potentially even touch on

[17:03] a conflict. So I think it's important for CEO from the Orange County Transportation Authority,

[17:10] who's on board today to maybe share some comments. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[17:15] Thank you, Director Murray.

[17:20] Director Strong?

[17:23] Chairman Hart, I would like to hear Director Johnson's or CEO Johnson's comments because

[17:31] I was going to bring up a few things like the Brown Act and requiring us to go out to

[17:38] bid for such a thing, but if they already have a list, if we have established, so their

[17:43] satisfaction if there is a conflict, then I would see that as an appropriate procedure

[17:48] rather than just making a recommendation, although I guess we can still make a recommendation

[17:53] with our consideration in the process.

[17:56] So I would like to hear from to you Johnson myself.

[18:00] Thank you.

[18:01] Thank you, Mr. Johnson.

[18:03] Thank you, Mr. Johnson.

[18:04] Mr. Johnson, would you like to thank you Chairman Hartle.

[18:10] I'll make it quick.

[18:10] I think Cassie, Trappisonian, covered it, but I'll just emphasize two points are existing legal services agreement with with with just Freyland and smart to

[18:22] bring in.

[18:23] Special counsel for any number of circumstances, specific projects, conflict,

[18:30] a desire, if the low sample were desires, from a conflict standpoint to have additional counsel.

[18:36] That can be asked for and as Cassie indicated has been done twice before and we would be able

[18:40] to process that under the existing contract issues or concerns.

[18:47] If there is a desire to procure as Cassie indicated, she would need to step away from that,

[18:52] but we would be happy to follow the proper procurement policies in place to do that as well.

[18:57] But in summary, our contract with Woodruff Freyland and Smart, broad latitude to bring

[19:02] in special counsel as needed.

[19:03] it. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Director Murray or Mueller.

[19:11] Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, I'm probably typically new on this board. I've been

[19:15] an alternate in the past for the first years as an actual director. And it's concerning

[19:21] to me that we would get a staff report and I concur with Director McDonald and thank you

[19:28] for some of the clarification on the timing of this. But I still don't know what this conflict

[19:34] is this is really the first time I've heard about it and we're being asked to procure special counsel

[19:39] for a conflict and I'm not even aware of what these issues are. And so that's troubling to me

[19:45] on why we're having this conversation at all without some kind of documentation on what the real

[19:51] problems are. And I don't know if you can discuss that out here or Cassie may be able to bring that

[19:56] up that maybe that's something we need to talk about in closed session but this is difficult for me.

[20:02] I think I've read the ASA, I've read the JPA, and it's quite clear that OCCA can provide these

[20:12] these legal services. I'm not sure what we're here talking about. Thank you, Director Miller.

[20:19] Director Tullavan says, Director Hart could tell me what this conflict is. I mean, we have to go

[20:27] closed session. That's where it needs to go, then that's where we can talk about it.

[20:31] I don't think we need to close session. The conflict is that the Orange County Transportation

[20:39] Authority terminated the agency's managing director and there is a difference to the opinion

[20:46] or there is confusion or there is lack of clarity about the roles and responsibilities of this board

[20:53] in that action and I'm not prejudging the outcome of that conversation but

[21:00] there are conflicting provisions between the bylaws of the Losan agency and

[21:05] the administrative services agreement that we need to resolve and we need

[21:10] independent counsel to represent the Losan board in that conversation and so this

[21:15] is a pretty simple matter you know we need we need to work collaboratively with

[21:19] Lawrence County Transportation Authority to resolve these issues, amicably and civilly

[21:25] and responsibly and collaboratively, and in order to proceed forward to do that, we

[21:30] need independent council.

[21:31] And the path that was described by Ms. Trapezonian, where they have a conflict of interest procedure

[21:38] to use within the legal services agreement that they currently have, is a viable option as

[21:44] well.

[21:44] this, you know, the proposal to have this particular firm with a solution to the problem,

[21:50] it is not the only solution to the problem, and I am welcome, I welcome an alternative solution

[21:56] that has board support, but the conflict is there are competing elements of the two governing

[22:04] documents that need to be resolved to the board's satisfaction as we proceed forward in partnership

[22:10] with the Orange County Transportation Authority.

[22:13] Yes, thank you.

[22:14] Thank you, Director Millen.

[22:17] Director Tala Montez.

[22:19] Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

[22:22] There appears to be some confusion among four members.

[22:26] And this was a simple request in regards to what happened

[22:30] to our managing director.

[22:33] The CEO of OCTA, which he's online right now, didn't even bother to make

[22:38] from my awareness, didn't even bother to make a call to our chair to let him know what was going on.

[22:47] So this came out of left field somewhere in regards to the termination.

[22:52] And I'm not even sure and clear she's our employee.

[22:57] In past times, I guess that executive committee approved an employee, like for example, this past managing director.

[23:05] I was only on for a few months when that would happen.

[23:09] The executive committee came back to the board and said,

[23:11] this is who we want.

[23:13] But, so that's the hiring process.

[23:16] Now, when it's a termination process,

[23:19] the board doesn't have any say, apparently,

[23:21] because it just happened.

[23:24] The OCTA-TO has the say,

[23:28] because he went forward and let our managing director go.

[23:34] without even advising the board, or the chair.

[23:37] I don't even care if the advice is entire board.

[23:39] They'll easily make a phone call to the chair

[23:40] and say, this is the way I'm going.

[23:44] And these are the reasons why.

[23:46] That wasn't even done.

[23:47] I mean, from a professional standpoint,

[23:50] you know, we're talking about professionalism

[23:51] and it's time to look at that joint powers agreement.

[23:57] It's time, it's been nine years.

[23:59] In the beginning, it was perfect.

[24:01] It was a perfect document.

[24:02] But now, nine years later, a lot of things have transpired.

[24:06] Things have changed.

[24:07] It's time to look at it again with a set of clear eyes.

[24:11] And that's the reason for the hiring

[24:14] of somebody different.

[24:16] A council coming from the outside looking in and saying,

[24:20] telling us if we're wrong or right or indifferent.

[24:24] Somebody that's been involved with this thing from the beginning

[24:27] is not going to be looking at, from my perspective,

[24:30] on my experience of different boards and commissions and city council, you have to have a clear set of

[24:36] eyes coming in to evaluate the situation. It's okay to go wrong, but it's not okay to stay well.

[24:43] That's been my, that's what I've said for years. Thank you Mr. Chair.

[24:48] Thank you, Director Thomas. And I will confirm that I was not informed of the action that Mr.

[24:54] Dodson took to terminate our executive director and I don't believe any members of the board were

[24:59] prior to that decision. Director Ektronon.

[25:04] Thank you very much, Chair. I too share some of the angst of being notified in the email

[25:11] of something that I believe having read. I've been at this for over 50 years and looking

[25:17] at documents and GEPs, et cetera, and the question of the authority of Los Angeles was the authority

[25:23] of OCTA, I

[25:27] was just stunned at the way it happened without, and there may very well have been a reason or not,

[25:33] but did the executive director of OCTA in fact have the authority to remove our managing director.

[25:41] And when you look at all of those documents, it was like, well gee, I don't know.

[25:46] And I had shared my concerns with my fellow board member from Metro.

[25:50] I know that some people got phone calls from Mr. Johnson.

[25:54] I was not pretty in that experience, disappointing.

[26:00] The mere fact that OCTA was responsible for getting the documents out and they had them in their offices on Friday,

[26:07] and still did not execute over the weekend, all of us are disappointed.

[26:11] So the lack of a communication, and when something happens, you would think that the board would have been made well aware of it,

[26:18] other than an email, oh, this is my decision, so that because of that, and for the comfort

[26:25] of the Losan Board, and the issue does the Losan Board have the authority to our chair

[26:30] to bring in our own council, so that there are no issues of conflict, etc.

[26:37] So it is independent.

[26:39] Yes, we do.

[26:40] Yes, we do, and that some of us have spent quite a bit of time reviewing those documents,

[26:46] and with the best for ability and the assets that we have at our disposal to check on those.

[26:53] So that I believe this process is very simple and that when the board needs to seek legal advice,

[27:00] and there is concern as to whether or not the council hired by OCTA and under the direction

[27:11] of its CEO would be that independent of us. We don't know that, which is why it is well

[27:18] within the purview of the low send board through our chair, and executive committee to go out

[27:24] and hire, just a separate council.

[27:28] That way we can come back and decide with a good recommendation

[27:33] on where to go. Some of us are absolutely still stuck. Most of us believe that our managing director

[27:38] and looking at all of those agreements, which are hours of my weekend, I'm not getting back,

[27:44] that I had always felt that with OCTA and Lemmy were told by

[27:49] legal counsel during the hiring, which I felt I was a conflict at that time,

[27:54] and just was there the same time recently on the board.

[27:59] We said, oh no, if you don't have the authority to hire,

[28:01] we bring you a recommendation to hire, and you can see either Yay or Nay.

[28:05] I disagreed with that at that time.

[28:07] I believe Los Angeles has the authority to hire and to fire our own managing director,

[28:12] and that does not lie within OCTA.

[28:15] It does lie, the OCTA that our managing director

[28:19] must be an employee of OCTA,

[28:22] and maybe that's something we should be looking at

[28:24] in future higher.

[28:26] But we had always felt that we have our managing director

[28:29] that manages the contract that we have to run the agency,

[28:33] which is OCTA.

[28:37] So I am fully supportive of this.

[28:39] But I think it, we need to have in place someone that belongs to the, reports to the

[28:47] Losan Board that we know that at least that legal opinion is something that we can count

[28:53] on and I'm not saying that there may be any biases with OCTA, county legal services,

[29:02] but at least this way we know what is independent and this is a higher by the Losan Board.

[29:07] and I fully support this. I believe it is the easiest, the quickest, and the cleanest way

[29:12] to get the information that we so desperately need over something that happened.

[29:19] Some of

[29:20] us are still in the dark over that, but bringing in our own counsel. I think it would go a

[29:26] long way to help bring a quick resolution to this issue. Thank you very much and I want

[29:35] Sherman Hart, for at least moving on this.

[29:38] Thank you.

[29:39] Thank you, Director Mack.

[29:41] The next go to Director Mosca,

[29:43] and then to Director Frank.

[29:44] And then we'll go back around for the directors

[29:47] who have their hands raised for a second time.

[29:49] Director Mosca.

[29:51] Chair, I would defer to Director Frank

[29:53] if she'd like to go first.

[29:54] I think she had her hand up first.

[29:55] So I don't want to step into those shoes.

[29:59] If she wants to.

[30:00] Thank you, Director Roscoe. Director Frank. Thank you. Thanks, Joe. I, you know, whether or not

[30:09] independent council is needed, I'm really uncomfortable with the process that we're trying to

[30:15] move forward with today. There's been no RFP, no competitive bid process, and honestly, no transparency.

[30:22] Ultimately, we're, these are taxpayer dollars that we're spending, and I don't feel that we're doing

[30:27] not in a responsible and transparent way when we're, you know, I have no information about

[30:32] this law firm or whether or not it's, you know, a fair price. They're all of those things.

[30:37] And quite honestly, I still haven't been presented with compelling evidence that a true

[30:42] complex exists beyond the ability to hire special counsel within our current contract.

[30:48] I feel that the few conflicts that have arisen have been handled appropriately and I don't

[30:54] see why we couldn't go through that process going forward if we need to look at the ASA and look at how

[31:00] HR decisions are handled. I agree and I think OCA staff is well aware of the issues and how this

[31:07] situation was handled and the disappointment that many board members feel. I don't like surprises.

[31:13] I don't like feeling in the dark either and I've made that clear to Jason. But ultimately does that

[31:19] mean that we just go out and pick a firm out of the dark. I mean, I don't know where

[31:24] this firm, how this firm was selected, any of that, what their history is. So, you

[31:30] know, I think the more appropriate thing would be to move forward with some kind of RSP or

[31:34] bid process to procure a law firm if we feel that that's even needed. Again, as, you know,

[31:40] sort of public money, I just can't in good conscious support this item today. And I think that

[31:45] certainly further discussions are needed about what the relationship between OCTA and LOSAN

[31:51] are going forward. Thank you. Thank you, Director Frank. Director Moska.

[31:56] Yeah, and thank you, thank you, Chair. And I'm glad that Director Frank went first because she

[32:00] really articulated some of the feelings that I have kind of approaching this issue. So thank you,

[32:06] Director Frank. So I'm not going to repeat what she said because it's kind of what what I'm feeling

[32:11] prior to this conversation, just kind of, you know, feeling like I'm not sure what's going on,

[32:17] that I do think that there could have been, from OCPAs perspective, there should have been more

[32:25] communications with the board, with our member agencies, just stronger communications about

[32:31] what's going on. I also just want to say that I feel a bit uncomfortable having this

[32:37] It's as an open session that should, these are employment matters.

[32:42] And I think that this should be done in closed session, where if there's any,

[32:51] I mean,

[32:51] we're all talking about kind of determination of somebody.

[32:54] This is something that I'm not comfortable generally speaking about in open session.

[32:59] It's something that Brown Act allows us to kind of talk about in closed session and for

[33:04] for a good reason too, because there's liability here.

[33:07] And so I'm gonna basically be very, very circumspect

[33:10] in the way I talk about this,

[33:11] because I'm not really wanting to, you know,

[33:15] be deposed or be a part of any kind of litigation

[33:17] in the future, but I'm not necessarily sure

[33:20] that I hear a conflict of interest.

[33:22] What I hear is some struggles

[33:24] with the existing contract.

[33:27] And so I'm not sure, you know, if there was a conflict,

[33:33] I think that the legal counsel would have an obligation to come forward about that conflict.

[33:40] And if we identified a conflict, you know, then we could recommend to the existing law firms

[33:47] to kind of look at folks that could help us.

[33:50] But I'm not necessarily hearing a conflict of interest here.

[33:54] You know, and I hear a lot of other things,

[33:57] but they're not necessarily material to this particular item.

[34:01] And so what I would say is that I'm not in favor of this moving on this item.

[34:07] But I do think that in closed session it would be nice to kind of hear more about what happened in the past.

[34:13] And how we're going to move forward, specific to the employment matter.

[34:19] And I think that there's some mention about the agreement between LoFan and OCTA.

[34:29] I think that that may have a year or two left on it, so I think it's fair that we start to talk about the future as well.

[34:36] And what we want to see in the contract or whatever we want to see in the future.

[34:41] so I think that's also a pathway as well. So thank you for letting me speak on this item.

[34:49] Thank you, Director Monska. Now we'll go back around for other directors who want to add

[34:54] additional comments. Director Murray.

[34:59] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I think some of my colleagues

[35:03] have expressed some of my concerns because generally based on my experiences in over 30, 40 years of

[35:11] of personnel related issues, things of this nature with boards are usually handled in

[35:17] a closed session manner. Again, I'm not sure if the path we're proceeding with regarding

[35:26] a potential or a perceived, I guess, is a better way of putting it conflict of interest.

[35:33] So and also the comment regarding the dispersal of our documents and so forth. I think

[35:41] there may be the Brown Act may also have played into that. So I was wondering if our legal counsel could

[35:50] apply on both the Brown Act potential issue and also discussions of potential personnel related

[36:01] in an open session.

[36:03] Gassy?

[36:05] I think Director Murray, sure.

[36:07] I cannot find on that.

[36:09] It's correct.

[36:10] We cannot discuss any personnel issues in open session.

[36:15] And I would advise the board not to go down that path.

[36:18] For this particular issue, we cannot bring it into closed session.

[36:23] It's not right for a closed session today because it's not noticed in the agenda.

[36:27] It's not right for a future closed session, unfortunately.

[36:32] So we cannot discuss these employment matters at this time.

[36:37] As to the ground act, Director Murray, can you clarify

[36:42] what the question is on posting agenda materials?

[36:48] Certainly.

[36:49] Is there a time frame in which materials have to be dispersed

[36:53] the board members, and are there run act regulations regarding that that you might be able to

[36:59] apply to because there's a lot of comments about the documents getting to us in a late fashion,

[37:05] which I know you know we all have concerns about. Yes, thank you for clarifying. I'm correct,

[37:11] the brown act requires the agenda to be posted at least 72 hours prior to the meeting time,

[37:18] and any supplemental materials, they can be provided to the board at any time and publicly

[37:25] posted anytime up until the meeting. However, there is a provision in the statute and it was

[37:32] recently confirmed by a court of appeal that no agenda materials, if they're going to be provided

[37:39] publicly to or if they're going to be provided to the board within the 72 hour period, they have to

[37:47] be provided at a time when the clerk's office is open to the public, so that's why if

[37:54] agenda materials were not available until, you know, later last week or we were within

[38:00] the 72 hours, those could not have been provided over the weekend, it would have been a

[38:04] violation of the ground act to do so.

[38:07] Okay, that's what I thought, but I'm not technically doing that, the technical expertise that you

[38:13] do.

[38:13] So thank you for that clarification and also there were some comments related to communications.

[38:20] Is there anything Mr. Johnson you can apply to on that with some of those comments that were made.

[38:28] If the chair will allow it, I'll just.

[38:34] Yes, Mr. Johnson.

[38:39] Within our

[38:44] left message with every single agency CEO.

[38:55] But I did call each and talk to you.

[38:57] The left message are talked directly

[39:06] next is director strong.

[39:11] Thank you again, Mr. Chair.

[39:14] I believe that we should change the motion to postpone this entire matter to executive session at our next meeting.

[39:21] And proceed with the rest of this meeting because I think we are totally out of order.

[39:25] it's a spoiler and I would make that motion or seconded if the maker of the original motion would

[39:31] instead make that motion. We don't have a motion on the table we don't well then I will move

[39:37] that we postpone this to executive session at our next meeting okay that motion has been made

[39:45] is there a second being

[39:50] no second let's continue with the directors you'd like to speak director

[39:53] after not. Mr. Chair, can I still continue if this motion isn't accepted.

[40:02] We can come back to you, Director Strong.

[40:05] Thank you very much.

[40:09] Thank you very much.

[40:11] I think it's a simple contracting issue and the question of whether or not

[40:28] the

[40:28] that sometimes you can bypass, easily bypass the RIP process that can take months or even

[40:36] weeks.

[40:38] Maybe you might shorten it down to even a three or four weeks, but in a situation such

[40:46] as we're in now for the comfort of the board and that should information have been provided

[40:53] Like a CV or more information on this particular agency, yes, just because I'm familiar with

[41:02] the agency, you know, out of Sacramento and transit, that doesn't mean everyone else is.

[41:06] But I believe that the Chairman Hart acted in with the executive committee in the best interest

[41:11] of low-fans, and just to try and get some answers, it's a contracting question.

[41:18] And to me, it's not a, we're not talking personnel, we're not talking anything.

[41:23] Does a low-hand board have the right,

[41:27] regardless of how it occurs,

[41:31] puts this on the agenda and

[41:33] hire their own legal counsel?

[41:34] It doesn't take for a long time, or for how many.

[41:37] It appears it's an immediate problem.

[41:40] It needs an immediate solution for those of us that just want to see an outside concern.

[41:49] And yes, there are firms that are on the list for OCTA to hire through their legal counsel.

[41:56] And I think the rubb is the what authority does close by in half.

[42:00] I believe we have wide broad ranging authority to do a lot of these things and just hiring

[42:06] in a legal firm so that we can get into closed sessions and ask some of these questions that

[42:10] we'd all like to ask and talk about.

[42:15] And I think that's what the issue is.

[42:17] whether we do it now or later, at least we have that option.

[42:20] It doesn't mean that sort of casting the team there aren't doing a good job.

[42:25] I'm not saying that, but just for the moment and for this particular issue, just to bring

[42:30] in its amount side counts, that's all this is about.

[42:34] And we didn't have time from the time, you know, the email on out.

[42:38] This was something that happened very quickly, it was unexpected for most of us, and this is

[42:43] a good response, I believe, to a short-term solution that someone is going to be discussing

[42:50] the future. You hire them, maybe they answer one question, and maybe take them an hour

[42:56] to write the opinion, and we get it back, and then we're done. And we can start moving

[43:01] forward. And in response to you, Mr. Johnson, that I appreciate you calling the CEO, but

[43:10] Most of us are not appointed by a CEO,

[43:12] as a matter of fact, none of us are.

[43:14] We are appointed by our own board

[43:18] and not the CEO of the agency.

[43:22] So, and that that was the issue there.

[43:25] So, the CEO might have known

[43:27] with the appointing agencies on the assuming they would know now.

[43:31] I think that part was the issue, but I wouldn't want that.

[43:37] I would hope that in both polling this,

[43:39] and I feel I believe that we should move forward,

[43:42] bring in Council, and this isn't something

[43:44] that the board can't undo.

[43:48] You know, within 72 hours, we're going to have a special meeting.

[43:51] And we can undo this action if we need to,

[43:53] but at least we have some outside counsel,

[43:57] where we can get answers to some of these questions

[44:01] and move along quickly,

[44:02] so that we can put this whole issue to bed quickly.

[44:07] Thank you.

[44:08] Thank you, Director Eichner.

[44:09] I see that Vice Chair Edson hasn't spoken yet,

[44:12] so let's go to her next.

[44:14] Thank you, so like I think everyone else on here today that's a board member, I was

[44:22] very surprised by the action that was taken to terminate our managing director, but

[44:28] I also agree that since this is a HR issue, it should be discussed in a closed session.

[44:35] I just wanted to state my surprise at the way it was handled.

[44:39] and enough said on that, with regard to the matter before us, procuring outside counsel.

[44:50] I agree with many of the comments that were made, Director Moscow, Director Franklin, or Director Frank.

[45:00] Sorry, I added a link to you. With regard to, there being no RFP or competitive bid process. And I was happy to learn that there is a process in place to, to use special counsel and that that solution was.

[45:19] has seen something that was not objected to by chair heart in his earlier comments.

[45:27] So, if he's comfortable with that, I don't know why we would still be pursuing going

[45:32] to outside council, because it is a solution that seems to have worked in the past.

[45:38] With regard to the AFA, I, you know, there's years remaining on the agreement, I think that

[45:48] If it's felt that there are issues and I believe that there's a lot of gray area is what we're facing.

[46:00] And so I think if we could take these two years to discuss future procurement of services along with any matters of concern and just look at it as an opportunity to either tighten up the agreement that we have.

[46:18] and make it something so that we don't have surprises like the ones that we've

[46:23] faced this past week.

[46:27] Those are my comments thanks. Thank you director. It's an

[46:31] two-year point directly. I do think that there is a consensus I sense from the

[46:37] board that using the Orange County Transportation Authority's legal conflict

[46:42] process that they have internal to the organization it would satisfy all the

[46:47] concerns that have been expressed so far and, you know, the intent was to have independent

[46:54] council for Losan as we resolve these issues and using the system that's in place at OCTA

[47:01] sounds to me like something that everybody can support. So, you know, if somebody wants

[47:06] to make a motion to that effect, maybe we could move this item along.

[47:11] I also move, Mr. Chair.

[47:14] Right, Director Strong.

[47:15] So you are recommending that we ask that the Orange County Transportation Authority exercise its conflict procedures and recommend independent council for the Los Angeles board.

[47:27] I'm moving that they look into the matter to determine if there is a conflict and if so to move forward with resolving that conflict.

[47:44] I'm not exactly sure what Director Strong has in mind so I'd like to make a substitute

[47:50] motion and the substitute motion is that we request respectfully request O-C-T-A and

[47:59] it's legal counsel to work closely with us to find independent counsel using the procedures

[48:09] already in effect to handle this matter so that we can have independent counsel to advise us

[48:22] of advise this board as we go forward.

[48:26] This is a request.

[48:27] There's a question as to whether we have the authority

[48:29] to actually do it ourselves.

[48:33] If I requesting them to do it,

[48:35] we eliminate that as an issue,

[48:38] but we move forward on this.

[48:41] That's my substitute motion.

[48:43] I second the substitute motion.

[48:45] All right.

[48:45] I would ask the question of legal counsel.

[48:48] Just one second, Director Strong.

[48:50] We have a motion on the floor.

[48:51] we have a second to the motion. Are there comments to the motion? We can go on quite some time here.

[48:58] I see a number of hands up. I don't know if those hands are still up, or if they were previously

[49:04] up, but thank you. I see a number of hands have gone down, so that's good. But I do still see some

[49:10] hands up, so I want to get to the folks who want to comment on this motion. So Director Mosca,

[49:15] director Muller director Brown director Edson director strong all have their hands up. Let's try and be to think so we can move this item on director Moscow. Thank you. Thank you chair. I'm still a little bit fuzzy on why we need special counsel.

[49:31] I think that that it's clear to me under the contract that that OCTA has the has the right to hire and that the person in question is a OCTA employee.

[49:45] If we don't like that, I think that has been discussed about the contract we could do something else in the future.

[49:51] I thought director strong had a recommendation if we thought that there's a conflict on OCTA through the general council has a pathway to hire a special council determine whether or not there's a conflict.

[50:03] I'm not necessarily sure that what we want to do is hire an independent council determine whether or something we already know which is that OCTA under a contract has a right to hire.

[50:12] And if it's an employee of OCPA, they have a right to terminate.

[50:16] If we don't like that, the future contract that we work out with our managing agency can be different in the future.

[50:23] But I think that that's kind of a pathway that's there now.

[50:26] I also want to just say that I do see why and I think others have commented on this.

[50:31] I do see why that this I believe personally believe and not disparaging anybody.

[50:37] I do see now why that there's this kind of situation.

[50:43] I think that it could, I think this could have been handled a lot differently if I were

[50:47] King for a day, which I'm not, you know, I think I would have designed this differently.

[50:53] I think I would have communicated better with the board of directors, making sure that the

[50:58] chairman has information as soon as possible, making sure every director has information as

[51:05] soon as possible.

[51:05] I think I would have an item on today's agenda for closed session that basically speaks

[51:11] to the investigation.

[51:13] What investigation happened?

[51:14] Who investigated?

[51:15] Who is in charge of investigation?

[51:17] What were the findings of that investigation?

[51:19] The fact that it's not on our agenda now is disappointing.

[51:22] The fact that General Counsel's not suggesting it would be on our next agenda is disappointing.

[51:27] I would, Chairman, ask that the put on a special closed session agenda item, who conducted

[51:34] to the investigation. When was it started? What was the reason for it? What was the outcome

[51:40] of that investigation? I'd like to know as a member, and I'd also like to know, moving

[51:45] forward, how are we going to basically fill the role of managing director and how the board

[51:51] of directors is going to be informed throughout every step and how that process is going to

[51:56] go? Because it should be a collaborative approach we're working hand in hand together. So those

[52:01] are my comments. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Namaskar. I think you make a really credible point

[52:05] to for us to take the first step to ask the Orange County Transportation Authority to exercise

[52:11] its conflict procedures and a point independent council to assist us in doing all of the things you

[52:18] just described because none of those things have happened. This is the first step in that process

[52:24] and without us exercising the first step, I don't understand how we could accomplish all of the things

[52:30] that you described in your remarks.

[52:33] Let's go to Director Brown.

[52:40] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[52:42] I was in charge of the committee that selected the Managing Agency.

[52:47] It was made up of members of all the CTCs and agencies that belonged to the original low

[52:54] sand before we took up the state offer to run our own.

[52:59] At that time, and since then, unless there's been a big change,

[53:05] OCT has provided the

[53:06] managed director as a collateral duty of one of their employees, the managed director

[53:11] of Los Angeles.

[53:13] They are only an OCT employee.

[53:19] The past, the OCT has put forward the person and the board has approved those people.

[53:24] And the executive board has and brought those forward to the directors as our new director

[53:30] of low-san. If something came up or an OCT employee had to be fired, that's OCTA's business.

[53:38] If they didn't notify us, that's a problem we have to work out with them.

[53:42] But it's an OCT employee, you know, OCTA's right to employ, or just charge that person,

[53:49] anytime they don't meet the requirements of OCTA.

[53:54] And they bring forward a new person, and we vet them and decide whether or not we want them,

[54:00] I have an OCEJ look for another person to be our managing director, but it's strictly

[54:06] an OCEJ employee and they're right to hire a fire at any time.

[54:11] In the original contract, that's how it was designed and it's been that way it's ever

[54:16] sentenced to my knowledge.

[54:18] So the argument about rather than not, they have the right to hire a fire is not something

[54:24] to work out in the next contract.

[54:27] This conversation is getting a little bit on the off side, but I would work it out with

[54:33] those CTAs to have that in the next contract maybe, but I don't see a conflict of interest

[54:40] because if they're employee, they'd be like me saying, this is my city manager, you can't

[54:45] fire that person because I don't, I like them, well it's not my job as a city council person

[54:52] of the higher-fire city employee at the city manager's job and in many years it's the same.

[54:58] So this argument is not going to get you anywhere in a conflict of interest.

[55:03] The OCT employee know they want to fire them at their business. How they notified the rest of the

[55:08] board, the director of the board, the president of the board, that's another thing to work out.

[55:16] So as far as the hiring and firing, it's an OCK

[55:19] prerogative that Los Angeles actually has no say in.

[55:24] Thank you.

[55:25] Thank you, Director Brown.

[55:26] Let's all try and be a little briefer as we go through this round,

[55:30] because we're trying to get this to a conclusion we have a motion on the floor.

[55:33] Really like your remarks to speak directly to the motion if you would.

[55:36] Director Muller.

[55:41] But, okay.

[55:42] Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[55:43] I'm not going to go through everything.

[55:45] I think Director Brown is exactly right on this.

[55:47] This is an OCT employee.

[55:50] I don't think we have the right to listen to in closed session from another agency's employee.

[55:59] That's an issue I understand that some of these board members have.

[56:03] The one thing I do want to point out is there's a reason that Sacramento set low stand-up the way they did.

[56:09] And the reason was they didn't want a separate bureaucracy.

[56:11] And I think the path we're going down needs people to believe.

[56:14] Maybe that's what we are trying to set up.

[56:16] And I think we're going to have a problem with the state.

[56:18] I don't agree with a lot of what Sacramento does, but I agree with what they did with

[56:22] this agency.

[56:24] Director Moscow and Edson got it, I think got it right.

[56:27] We have two more years.

[56:29] This would be what, 15 or 12 to 15 years total with these agencies, this ASA.

[56:36] And I tell every agency I sit on, it's always a good idea to take a look outside after five

[56:40] to 10 years.

[56:41] And maybe that's the right thing to do.

[56:42] I said on OCTA and I have no problem with low sand taking a look at somebody else becoming the

[56:49] the staff so but I'm not because I truly would OCTA is going to do a good job and they have

[56:55] and they'll be selected again but I think we need to be careful where we're going down and I agree

[56:59] that there is no conflict here and I will be supporting this motion. Thanks. Thank you director

[57:05] Dr. Moller, Director Strong.

[57:09] Director, I'm going to jump in and make a mention

[57:11] that we're getting a little bit off topic

[57:12] on the agenda item, so for Brown Act concerns,

[57:15] we need to focus on the agenda item.

[57:17] Thank you, Mr. Ophazonian.

[57:19] Thank you, speaking through the motion,

[57:20] as you requested and the agenda item,

[57:23] I believe that we are totally out of order

[57:26] and requesting an illegal action,

[57:28] be performed by another agency.

[57:31] The previous two speakers were very, very correct.

[57:33] This is a personnel matter for OCTA, they are subject to the Brown Act, their personnel

[57:39] matters are subject to their executive sessions and are not to be revealed outside of their

[57:44] executive sessions.

[57:45] Therefore, they cannot be revealed to us without violating the law.

[57:49] And if we pass any of these motions, we are asking another agency to violate state law.

[57:56] I believe that we should just dismiss this matter and close it up and go on to executive

[58:00] the session for the matter that caused this in the first place.

[58:04] Thank you, Director Strong, Director Murray.

[58:08] I'll keep mine very succinct.

[58:10] I concur with my colleagues who made the last three comments.

[58:14] Thank you.

[58:15] Thank you, Director Murray.

[58:16] Director Ektronon.

[58:21] Thank you very much.

[58:23] Again, I just state that the accident had been for us

[58:26] as a contract matter for the board.

[58:29] And we're just simply directing the OCTA,

[58:36] independent counsel, not asking for anything other than that.

[58:41] It is not a personal matter.

[58:42] It's just simply directing or managing director,

[58:48] to execute the wishes of the Los Angeles board.

[58:52] That's just all this issue is.

[58:54] Anything else you want to bring on the agenda?

[58:57] We can do so.

[59:01] But something needs to be happening instead of just leaving.

[59:04] And there's a difference between a true legal conflict

[59:07] and a perceived conflict, and I think the state in its wisdom sometimes that they do set

[59:14] us up for potential conflicts, such as that, and it just simply states that, I mean,

[59:21] in the low-hand board can hire whoever they want to be their managing director, and we

[59:27] can hire the managing agency, but the manager director by law must be an employee, the agency

[59:35] see that we hire, we are managing agency and that's all I'm going to say. I just would hope that we can move this forward very quickly. Thank you.

[59:46] Thank you, Director. Director Edson, I think you get the final word.

[59:49] I would just like to call for a vote of the motion on the floor and perhaps have that motion repeated.

[59:56] Thank you, Director Edson, and I just like, uh,

[59:59] Bye.

[1:00:00] This trap is only in to speak to Director Strong's remarks that the action proposed is illegal. It is far from that. This is, as you described the process that your office would use to resolve the conflict of interest issues. So if you would please clarify our action or request of the Orange County Transportation Authority to exercise its conflict of interest process and a point independent council for Los Angeles matters.

[1:00:29] is within our purview and it's a legal act.

[1:00:33] Yes, we would be happy to bring in a special council to look at the issues with the ASA is what I'm

[1:00:41] gathering from the conversation is what the perceived conflict is.

[1:00:45] My office through OCEPA, we can bring in a special council to advise those to close in on the ASA issues.

[1:00:52] Thank you, Mr. President, for that clarification. This issue is very simple.

[1:00:55] the motion is to request the Orange County Transportation Authority to use its internal conflict

[1:01:03] of interest process to obtain independent legal counsel for low-san to assist us in investigating

[1:01:11] the matter before the board regarding the governing documents and the conflicts that are contained

[1:01:17] in. This is a simple straightforward request and I will now call the question. And I vote

[1:01:26] would authorize the Orange County Transportation Authority to exercise its own internal process

[1:01:33] to identify legal counsel for Los Angeles.

[1:01:36] Yes, Director Strong, one question please. The question is, didn't the motion contain a request

[1:01:42] that we'd be given the information on the personal life?

[1:01:44] So, no, that has never been the subject of discussions the entire day.

[1:01:50] We have not been talking about the first no matter.

[1:01:52] We've been simply talking about legal counts.

[1:01:55] Madam Clerk, would you please call the role?

[1:02:01] Chairman Hart.

[1:02:03] Aye.

[1:02:04] Vice Chair Edson.

[1:02:06] Aye.

[1:02:08] Director Eckonock.

[1:02:10] Eckonock, aye.

[1:02:12] Director Frank.

[1:02:13] No.

[1:02:15] Director McDonald.

[1:02:21] I think I think the additional clarification I think because of the fact that this is going to go through the normal OCPA process and it's not hiring council that we haven't looked at but something that's going through the general councils kind of process.

[1:02:38] I'm going to support this and say yes.

[1:02:42] Director Miller.

[1:02:45] Director Murray.

[1:02:50] Director Reed. Yes. Director Strong.

[1:02:58] No. Director

[1:03:00] Telemontis. Yes.

[1:03:15] Motion passes. Thank you Madam Clerk. Thank you Director

[1:03:20] Sir your patience. We'll now adjourn to close session so that everybody's clear

[1:03:25] There's a separate Zoom link in your agenda to go to close session.

[1:03:30] Please leave this meeting and go to that additional link so we can be in close session to discuss item number two.

[1:03:39] I'll see you on the other side. Thank you.

[1:03:46] April 18th.

[1:03:48] And Ms. Trapp is on you, would you please report out

[1:03:51] from closed session?

[1:03:53] Yes, during a closed session,

[1:03:55] the Low-Stand Board of Directors

[1:03:57] by unanimous vote, appointed Jason Jewel

[1:04:01] as the Interim at Managing Directors.

[1:04:04] Thank you, everyone, and congratulations, Mr. Jewel.

[1:04:07] We look forward to working with you

[1:04:08] and as your capacity as our entering managed

[1:04:11] interim managing director,

[1:04:12] would you like to make any remarks?

[1:04:18] Yes, Chairman Hart, thank you very much.

[1:04:20] I really appreciate it.

[1:04:21] and I really appreciate the support of the board.

[1:04:25] I just wanted to let you all know

[1:04:26] that I've had the pleasure of working

[1:04:28] with the Los Angeles Agency over the last seven years

[1:04:31] in the capacity of the Chief Financial Officer.

[1:04:34] And I look forward to my role as an interim.

[1:04:38] I definitely accept this challenge

[1:04:40] and want to step up to the plate

[1:04:43] and do everything I can to support you

[1:04:45] and support the board

[1:04:47] and really support the agency

[1:04:48] as we move forward

[1:04:50] and furthering the goals of the agency.

[1:04:52] So thank you very much.

[1:04:53] Thank you, Mr. Jewel.

[1:04:55] We'll now go to the consent calendar item,

[1:04:58] which is items three through six,

[1:05:00] and all matters on the consent calendar.

[1:05:02] RW approved in one motion,

[1:05:04] and less the director of the member of the public,

[1:05:06] wishes to pull an item for discussion.

[1:05:08] Do I have any requests to pull any items?

[1:05:10] We've got to change this motion.

[1:05:12] I still voted no, and still almost an answer.

[1:05:15] there.

[1:05:18] The microphone is open and we're all hearing what you're saying.

[1:05:22] It's not pretty.

[1:05:25] Thank you.

[1:05:27] Move approval.

[1:05:28] Consent.

[1:05:29] Thank you, director.

[1:05:30] Vice chair.

[1:05:31] Second, Moscow.

[1:05:33] Thank you, director.

[1:05:33] Moscow.

[1:05:34] Motion's been made and seconded.

[1:05:36] Are there any public comments, Madam Clerk?

[1:05:45] We do not have any written public comments.

[1:05:47] However, at this time, we'll ask for live comments.

[1:05:49] comments will be limited to three minutes per speaker unless different times are set by the chairman.

[1:05:54] To comment in real time select race hand to speak you can find the race hand icon in the bottom

[1:05:58] of your zoom. If you're calling by phone press star nine to raise your hand and press star six to

[1:06:03] unmute and unmute yourself. We'll look for public comments.

[1:06:11] Seeing none you may proceed.

[1:06:12] Thank you, ma'am Quirk. Would you please call the roll?

[1:06:18] Chairman Hart, Vice Chair Edson, I, Director Ektanok,

[1:06:30] Director Frank,

[1:06:34] Director McDonald,

[1:06:36] Director Mosca, Director Miller, Director Murray, Director Reed,

[1:06:48] Yes. Director Strong.

[1:06:52] All right. Director Talamontis.

[1:06:55] Yes. Motion passes.

[1:06:58] Thank you, ma'am. This brings us now to item number seven, which is the amendment to the fifth federal fiscal year 2021,

[1:07:05] 22 operating agreement with outtracks for the Pacific Circliner inner city passenger rail service.

[1:07:12] Mr. Jewel will be presenting this item to the board.

[1:07:15] Mr. Jewel.

[1:07:17] Good morning, Chairman Hart and members of the Board, a Jason Jewel interim managing

[1:07:22] director for the LoSan Agency.

[1:07:24] And I'm here to present to you an amendment to the Federal fiscal year 2021-22 operating

[1:07:29] green with Amtrak.

[1:07:30] The recommendation you have before you today is to authorize the managing director to negotiate

[1:07:36] and execute amendment number one to the agreement between the LoSan Agency and Amtrak.

[1:07:41] and this amendment will replace the centrile carpet on 42

[1:07:46] circular cars and in a not-to-excite amount of $577,183.

[1:07:54] The recommendation also includes authorization for the

[1:07:57] managing director to negotiate and execute all funding

[1:08:00] agreements necessary for the reimbursement of cost for

[1:08:03] this project.

[1:08:05] Amtrak has proposed a firm-6 price per car of roughly

[1:08:09] $13,742 to replace a center aisle carpet.

[1:08:15] This center aisle carpet in the equipment

[1:08:17] is on average roughly about 12 years old

[1:08:20] and it is showing visible signs of wear and tear.

[1:08:23] The project will replace this old aging carpet

[1:08:27] with new carpet and it will be done

[1:08:29] on 31 Amtrak-Done cars and 11 state-owned cars.

[1:08:34] And in addition to this work,

[1:08:36] Amtrak has agreed to replace seat cushions

[1:08:38] that no additional cost.

[1:08:40] Amtrak will be utilizing seat cushions

[1:08:42] from its Estella equipment

[1:08:44] that they will be retiring from the Northeast corridor.

[1:08:47] The following board approval on this item,

[1:08:49] we will work closely with Amtrak to a menu agreement

[1:08:52] and begin the carpet replacement as quickly as possible.

[1:08:56] And while it is our desire and intent to replace

[1:08:58] as many seats as possible,

[1:09:00] in conjunction with the carpet replacement,

[1:09:03] the actual timing of the seat replacement,

[1:09:05] that it will be contingent on how quickly Amtrak

[1:09:09] will be basically retiring.

[1:09:11] It's a cell equipment from the Northeast corridor.

[1:09:15] But we are anticipating the carpet replacement

[1:09:17] to be completed within about 12 months.

[1:09:19] So it is important to note that this project

[1:09:22] is fully funded by the state.

[1:09:24] So that concludes my presentation.

[1:09:26] I don't know, be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[1:09:32] Thank you, Mr. Jewel.

[1:09:33] Are there questions from directors?

[1:09:40] Thank you, Director McDonald. Is there a second to Director McDonald's vote?

[1:09:45] That was Director Murray. Thank you for the motion to second. Any discussion from the board? Any comments from members of the public?

[1:09:57] To comment in real time. Raise your hand.

[1:10:02] Seeing none may proceed.

[1:10:04] Thank you. Would you please call the roll, Madam Clerk?

[1:10:07] Chairman Hart.

[1:10:09] Aye.

[1:10:10] Vice Chair Edson.

[1:10:12] Aye.

[1:10:14] Director Ectonock.

[1:10:20] There we go.

[1:10:22] Ectonock, aye.

[1:10:23] Thank you.

[1:10:24] Director Frank.

[1:10:27] Director McDonald.

[1:10:29] Aye.

[1:10:31] Director Moscow.

[1:10:33] Yes.

[1:10:35] Director Miller.

[1:10:36] Aye.

[1:10:37] Director Murray.

[1:10:40] Director Reed.

[1:10:41] Yes.

[1:10:43] Director Strong.

[1:10:44] Aye.

[1:10:45] Director Telemontes. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you, Madam Clerk. That brings us to item

[1:10:53] item number 8, which is Coastal Float Stabilization Update, and Joyce Sharma will present this item.

[1:11:01] Ms Sharma.

[1:11:07] Thank you, Director Hart and the members of the board. My name is Joyce Sharma. I'm at the

[1:11:11] Los Angeles Capital Project Manager. And I'm here today to talk about the Coastal Float Stabilization.

[1:11:18] Also known as the blood stabilization in contact

[1:11:21] to that application for terseps,

[1:11:22] the transit at inner city range,

[1:11:24] capital program grant application,

[1:11:26] and that you submitted to CalSuff

[1:11:28] or last month in March to address

[1:11:29] some of these issues along the coastal line.

[1:11:31] Next slide, please.

[1:11:38] But to begin with,

[1:11:39] the areas that concern for slow stabilization

[1:11:41] are along the entire coastal line of low fund corridor.

[1:11:44] Well identified locations are in the northern counties

[1:11:46] which are in the top left image,

[1:11:48] and in the southern counties are in the bottom right image.

[1:11:50] And we will lower each and every one of them

[1:11:52] in the upcoming slide in detail.

[1:11:54] Next slide please.

[1:11:58] Starting from the non-10, we have center Barbara County,

[1:12:00] where we have four locations.

[1:12:02] These are known as, or they are located

[1:12:03] at the end of the left.

[1:12:04] Callister Ranch, El Capital, and Otena Hills.

[1:12:07] Next slide please.

[1:12:11] The diving deeper in the detail,

[1:12:12] the top left and right pictures illustrate conditions

[1:12:15] that end of the left.

[1:12:16] This is about 1,500 feet long stretch,

[1:12:18] and it's comprised of about 190 feet high coast of the left.

[1:12:21] As you can see from the top left image,

[1:12:23] it's pretty high from the sea level.

[1:12:25] The top of love is now only 15 feet away from the tracks and any additional erosion within

[1:12:30] the JP track and the rock tracks.

[1:12:32] There's a significant total erosion as you can see from the image on the right side,

[1:12:36] the top right image.

[1:12:37] And you can see that there is significant information of CK.

[1:12:40] So CK is so large that literally anybody can walk in them right now.

[1:12:44] So UT is even losing the inclinometer and mercury switches that they installed close to the

[1:12:48] track to monitor the track movement.

[1:12:50] So this is a significant location here.

[1:12:58] So,

[1:13:02] if you look at the image on the top left, there's a frontage road and almost from the track alignment to the frontage road, there's about 300 feet which is UT right away.

[1:13:19] The UT can just realign these tracks and get them away from the blood.

[1:13:22] So that's the phase one solution, and the phase two solution is to fill in the CK, so that's quite eminent and quite significant, the BK could be filled in with anything the concrete broad or the sand, but it requires intense review and acceptance from the coastal commission.

[1:13:38] So this is quite a significant effort, and that's why this project is supposed to be taken care of in the phase approach.

[1:13:44] The bottom image represents the hand-up sighting, so this is just part of the hand-up lock location.

[1:13:50] And this sighting kindly flows due to the significant toy erosion issues and the flow issues,

[1:13:55] the flow protection issues, as well as there's excessive sand on the tracks.

[1:14:00] So why do the hand-up love?

[1:14:01] We want to take advantage of the location right next to it and address the flow stability issues

[1:14:06] or any kind of the sand issues on the sighting as well.

[1:14:09] and it's falling on the cost of a million dollars and it can lead to the opening of this

[1:14:13] funder's sliding at this location. Next slide please.

[1:14:19] This is just we discussed in the

[1:14:20] previous slide, so on the blockchain sliding. It's just presented in the tablin manner,

[1:14:24] so I'll script this one and we can go to the next slide. Next slide please.

[1:14:30] So this is another location in center Barbara County as Hollister Ranch and as you can see,

[1:14:35] there's also significant block erosion. There's covering almost to the shoulder.

[1:14:39] We are losing the virus, and the trucks are getting 8 feet of the top of the bluff right

[1:14:44] now.

[1:14:45] As you can see, the team members are standing there and monitoring the situation.

[1:14:49] The base of the old rocket response wall that has been observed, today is a significant

[1:14:52] slow corrosion issue there.

[1:14:56] And the proposed map is, of course, the best one is always to replace the drainage.

[1:15:00] That's the best strategy to address any slow civilisation issues. That's very, very prominent in the industry. And this can have a life of 20 to 30 years to fix a slow civilisation issues. And all of them will still need some significant permits like U.S. Army course of engineers and a regional water quality control board and coastal commission certification. The total estimated cost of this location is about $8 million. Next slide please.

[1:15:28] So this is another one at El Capitans last. And you can see that

[1:15:31] a CFP pipe, the current-rogate-ignatipite,

[1:15:34] that's broken above the toe of the slope.

[1:15:35] And this is, there's a large shower hole.

[1:15:37] You can see there are team members of standing

[1:15:39] just right at the head wall.

[1:15:41] And it's again, because of the significant drainage issues,

[1:15:43] but a broken pipe is not able to take the water all the way

[1:15:46] down to the toe of the slope.

[1:15:47] So permanent solution, again, I have the drill valve

[1:15:50] and have the drainage system fixed,

[1:15:52] as well as probably the repair of the seawall,

[1:15:54] which is at the bottom of the toe of the slope there,

[1:15:57] and not very visible in these images,

[1:15:59] but there's an infesting sea wall right there.

[1:16:02] So the total project cost at this location

[1:16:03] is about $4 million.

[1:16:05] Next slide, please.

[1:16:08] So this is the last location in Santa Barbara County

[1:16:11] except our data health.

[1:16:12] And it comprises the three different milestones.

[1:16:15] As you can see from pictures,

[1:16:16] the flow is eroding, which is failure of the draining system.

[1:16:19] We are losing balance and we've tracked the location.

[1:16:22] No track movement has been observed, fortunately,

[1:16:24] but there's no room to walk on ocean sites.

[1:16:26] So technically, the maintenance guys,

[1:16:28] they can walk on the ocean side of the track to maintain or get any access to it,

[1:16:33] and you can see from the image on the bottom right there is a very significant void under the

[1:16:38] bridge creating the instability issues. So the full solutions are game-driven,

[1:16:42] the drainage issues, the installation of the support columns, such as the FIEDH files,

[1:16:47] geo-revention, and filling in the void, and the bridge with the concrete and ground

[1:16:50] etc. The total estimated cost of this project is going to be about 8 million dollars.

[1:16:55] Next slide, please.

[1:16:58] Again, this is just a repetition of previous slide

[1:17:01] in the tabular manner, so we can skip this one

[1:17:03] and go to the next slide.

[1:17:04] Next slide.

[1:17:06] We'll get to the then true accounting locations.

[1:17:09] And here, we have two identified locations.

[1:17:11] One is the rink and point on the north,

[1:17:13] and another one is Emma Woods on the south.

[1:17:15] Next slide, please.

[1:17:18] The rink and point is on the left side,

[1:17:20] the top left image, for a significant area of open erosion

[1:17:23] above the track surface in a flow,

[1:17:25] and Emma Woods state features on the right side,

[1:17:27] in the Atoy Ocean at the base slope passing of stone.

[1:17:30] The proposed repair work is installation of storm drains,

[1:17:33] placement of rocks, re-wetment strategies

[1:17:34] to stabilize the top of the slope.

[1:17:36] And you can see from the top left image,

[1:17:39] the locals and the private farmland

[1:17:41] has tried to stabilize some portion of the land.

[1:17:44] And the same strategy needs to be done

[1:17:46] using the fiber rules and the benching of the slope

[1:17:48] except trying rating of the slope

[1:17:50] for the safer slopes for the remaining of the stretch.

[1:17:53] So at this location, the total project cost

[1:17:55] would be approximately $5 million.

[1:17:58] So again, this is a tabular matter for rank and point

[1:18:01] in M-I-Word state beach.

[1:18:02] And we can skip this slide and go to the next one.

[1:18:06] So now we are in the orange county.

[1:18:08] And here, we have Piper's shore that

[1:18:10] is planting me on the south end.

[1:18:12] And as well as approximately 7.4 miles long stretch

[1:18:15] across the line, in the orange county,

[1:18:17] there are various erosion or the blood civilization

[1:18:19] we should expect.

[1:18:21] Next slide, please.

[1:18:23] So these are the images from the last year at Cycle Shores, exactly meaning.

[1:18:28] This isn't a backyard of a residential community, and as you can see, there was a significant

[1:18:32] movement and flow along east of Tracks.

[1:18:35] We've lost the top part of the Tracks to shift the more than two feet, causing the service

[1:18:38] interruption of Tracks by three weeks in September of 2021.

[1:18:43] At the right place, the risk limit or the plastic, the shooting at this location to address

[1:18:46] the crack and torque of loss and drainage of the very temporary solution.

[1:18:49] And this is a day major from the last year.

[1:18:52] Next slide please.

[1:18:54] So in order to address these concerns last year,

[1:18:58] OCTA and MetroLink instituted repairs

[1:19:00] to the respite of tracks by placing

[1:19:01] about 10,000 tons of rip rap along the ocean site,

[1:19:05] rip rap helped us point down the movement of flight.

[1:19:07] And earlier this year, again, there

[1:19:09] was a second sliding plane which was observed earlier this year,

[1:19:12] which was moving and organ second emergency in January of 2022.

[1:19:16] And small rip rap plays which flowed down the movement of planes.

[1:19:19] In all the efforts from last year and this year, and technically by using the RepRap, the

[1:19:24] speed restrictions, we were able to let the speed restrictions in third week of February

[1:19:27] 2022 at the location and operations were used to the normal speed.

[1:19:32] OCCA is currently working on potential permanent solutions, such as placement of tiebacks on

[1:19:38] the inside of track for this location.

[1:19:40] The total budget cost would be approximately $7.5 million, and it's included in the

[1:19:45] to touch the applications that we find in March 2022.

[1:19:49] Next slide, please.

[1:19:51] So this is an investment to the various coastal issues

[1:19:54] along the 7.4-mind stretching orange county.

[1:19:56] Like I mentioned in the previous slides,

[1:19:58] the significance don't relate to damage

[1:20:00] of erosion over the past several years

[1:20:02] and taxes trying to reach

[1:20:03] and several other locations having observed.

[1:20:05] In this estimated cost of about $7.5 million,

[1:20:08] team is worth an obtaining environmental clearance

[1:20:11] and performing preliminary engineering work.

[1:20:13] This may involve working closely

[1:20:15] the coastal commission to address some intense concerns, such as beach nourishment,

[1:20:19] beach intrusion strategies, and the other solutions, such as the p-walls, re-vegment,

[1:20:24] or even possible change in track alignment horizontally or vertically.

[1:20:28] So $7.5 million does not include the design and the construction phase because it's the

[1:20:33] beginning of a very significant project, a very costly affair, and it's a large stretch,

[1:20:37] along the orange county. This is also included in the terms of application. Next slide please.

[1:20:44] So, all right, we are at the very south end of Los Angeles corridor, in San Diego County,

[1:20:49] and here the coastal erosion issues extend approximately due to 3 miles as we are aware,

[1:20:54] from Coast Polymer to Torrentine's forehead branch.

[1:20:57] Next slide, please.

[1:20:59] So, we will take a look at the phase by today, which is currently in the design, expanded leading

[1:21:03] in San Tremor of the project, the phases by verse in flow stabilization issues.

[1:21:08] So, phase by this happening is exactly where the previous phases have taken place.

[1:21:12] So phase 4 was completed in construction in 2021.

[1:21:15] And because of the sea level wise

[1:21:17] and all the issues, the future phases

[1:21:20] keep happening at a sea of locations.

[1:21:23] So in this layout, you can see the yellow

[1:21:24] are some retrofit areas where Sandag

[1:21:27] had done some measurements and had implemented

[1:21:29] the slow stabilization efforts in the past phases.

[1:21:32] There's one to phase 4, and it needs a more reward.

[1:21:35] And then the view areas are the new stabilization areas.

[1:21:38] And also shown as some view lines,

[1:21:40] which are the proposed seawall or extension of existing seawalls which are reflected in the

[1:21:44] ground lines. Next slide please. So here the picture is represented, which I just explained.

[1:21:51] The top left image represents how standard extended seawall at certain locations where previously

[1:21:56] seawalls were constructed to address the erosion in tradition. And the bottom right picture

[1:22:01] represents how slow forward, leading to need the most low civilization to work at locations

[1:22:05] of their support columns along with a tie-back

[1:22:08] and saw in the previous phases for blood stabilization.

[1:22:12] So as you can see from the right image,

[1:22:13] the bottom right image, the support columns

[1:22:15] were there, the CGH-Python saw along with a tie-back.

[1:22:19] But again, the scouring has happened almost all the days

[1:22:22] to them.

[1:22:23] So I think the more work now.

[1:22:26] So for more information of phase five ongoing work

[1:22:28] at Delmar, most of the emergency repair work is done.

[1:22:31] Phase five is funded through construction.

[1:22:33] Currently it's in design phase at almost 50%

[1:22:35] stage and the project ledger's global slope stability issues, including seismic and general

[1:22:40] civilization names. It will also include training systems as well as include additional

[1:22:45] flow civilization issues such as placement of course support columns. Sandag is currently

[1:22:50] working on obtaining requirements from required agencies including course of permission,

[1:22:54] and construction is anticipated to start sometime in 2023-2024. Also, I want to make clear that

[1:23:00] the demoers are led by the Sandag, so they are the lead agency as well as the project sponsors.

[1:23:07] So, this is the summary of the previous slides, and we will just summarize the real site in Santa Barbara and Ventura counties. We identified five locations. All of them are included in a terse of application.

[1:23:18] U.P. is already performing some of the emergency work such as the rip-rap, etc. U.P. has provided matching funds in support of terse of application.

[1:23:26] And to us, the application included about $15 million for the Orange County locations along

[1:23:31] coastal line.

[1:23:32] One of them is for the permanent tiebacks, such as the Sanctumini and Cyprus, and others

[1:23:36] to take off and start the P-A-E-D phase for seven and a half miles of stretch along the

[1:23:40] coastal line.

[1:23:41] In San Diego County, Sanlight is leading all the efforts, and currently they are wrapping

[1:23:45] up a emergency work as well as proceeding in human forward, where they are 60% designed for

[1:23:50] or baseline, which could go in construction in 2023, 2024.

[1:23:55] Along with all this, all the agencies and stakeholders

[1:23:57] are coordinating and participating in quarterly blood

[1:24:00] meetings, which are organized and spread

[1:24:02] by those companies for reviewing and brainstorming

[1:24:04] some of the critical issues and potential solutions.

[1:24:07] UP, Sandag, and the TD-Losa, and also conducted a job

[1:24:10] by Bob of February, 2022 for understanding

[1:24:13] and discussion of problems and facts and solutions

[1:24:16] to these significant erosion issues.

[1:24:18] Next slide please.

[1:24:23] And this is the cross-systemic breakdown

[1:24:25] of terrestrial grant application by Priority

[1:24:27] and Project Covenant.

[1:24:28] We review all of these projects and locations

[1:24:30] in previous slides.

[1:24:32] It was submitted by Lofan and prepared in coordination with UTA

[1:24:35] and OTA.

[1:24:36] And total cost is 73.355 million dollars.

[1:24:39] And we expected it as well in a few months.

[1:24:42] Next slide please.

[1:24:45] So, this concludes the presentation on coastal flow

[1:24:48] issues and I would be happy to answer any questions.

[1:24:50] Thank you.

[1:24:51] Thank

[1:24:58] you, Ms. Sharma, for the excellent presentation.

[1:25:00] It really points out how precarious the rail line is on the coastline and how challenging

[1:25:07] these issues are for the agency.

[1:25:08] So thank you very much for highlighting that in great detail.

[1:25:12] I see Director Moscow and Director McDonald's have their hands up, so Director Moscow.

[1:25:16] Yes.

[1:25:17] Thank you, Chair.

[1:25:17] I just wanted to also join in and say thank you, Ms. Sharma, for the presentation.

[1:25:23] Excellent presentation.

[1:25:24] really highlights the the critical challenges that we have court or wide and I just have two points,

[1:25:29] which is one that we should continue these stabilization efforts court or wide. And second point,

[1:25:36] we really need to make sure that we're doubling down on those efforts of collaboration with all

[1:25:41] the member agencies. So thank you so much, Ms. Somers. Thank you, Director Mosker, Director McDonald.

[1:25:48] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the presentation, excellent information. And I don't know that you'll have

[1:25:53] of this information that will be up

[1:25:55] and in terms of the rank on points,

[1:25:58] slope occurs, is there any anticipated

[1:26:00] start date for that?

[1:26:05] Thank you, Director McDonald,

[1:26:08] and to Chair, I'll answer the question.

[1:26:10] So right now, we are currently waiting

[1:26:12] for a third of application funds results.

[1:26:15] We should be getting them, I hope, in May or June.

[1:26:18] Health service will be approaching us

[1:26:19] and then be telling us what's going on with it.

[1:26:21] So based on that, we'll move forward.

[1:26:23] We'll leave some of the efforts in the project

[1:26:25] to discuss otherwise we'll see some of the assided funds.

[1:26:28] And so it can be based on the priority

[1:26:31] of the criticality and to address

[1:26:33] the most urgent safety concerns along the corridor.

[1:26:37] And that's how we move forward.

[1:26:38] But definitely, it's included in the terms of application.

[1:26:41] And if you get the funds, the project can move forward.

[1:26:45] Thank you very much.

[1:26:47] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[1:26:48] Thank you, Mr. McDonald and Director Muller.

[1:26:53] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[1:26:54] There was a great presentation and thank you for doing that.

[1:27:00] We looked at the real issue of the coastal erosion and losing our beaches and how effective beach replacement is going to be.

[1:27:10] Our San Clemente actually moved about a million dollars worth of sand out of the data point harbor down to North Beach two years ago in the first big storm washed it all away.

[1:27:20] And so is that really where we should be looking?

[1:27:22] I know, Chair Hart, I had an interesting conversation

[1:27:25] a couple of weeks ago about the letter B.

[1:27:28] And I'm definitely gonna come up

[1:27:29] and check out what's going on up there.

[1:27:32] But as after effect or side effect of all the debris flows,

[1:27:38] they actually had some debris drop there

[1:27:40] and it's starting to catch that sand

[1:27:42] and it sounds like it might be coming back.

[1:27:44] Is that something we're talking about

[1:27:45] is maybe taking a look at building some offshore measures

[1:27:49] that could actually capture that sand and prevent the undermining of the tracks.

[1:27:55] Thank you, Director, to the chair. So, at San Flanini, for $7.5 million, we asked the Curse of Application,

[1:28:02] and that's just for the study of some of these items that you just brought up,

[1:28:06] which is like the beach nourishment or the beach inclusion, and how do we address them?

[1:28:11] For $7.5 miles along that orange county line, the various implementation measures

[1:28:16] thing to take place could be the construction of the sea walls or could be the construction of

[1:28:21] the support columns as well as the beach. But all of them would need to be reviewed and they

[1:28:25] would definitely go to the post-admission because all of that work would need post-admission

[1:28:30] certification to be in approval. So that's why OPPS want to move forward with all those studies and

[1:28:37] and they will be analyzed as soon as we get the funds and the money for that work.

[1:28:42] Thank you. Supervisor Park lift from the fifth district here in Orange County put together a coastal resiliency group. So we have.

[1:28:51] Amtrak's involved.

[1:28:53] OCT has involved state parks, county parks, the different cities along the corridor.

[1:28:57] It's a pretty large organization. And so we are taking a look at this. And I mentioned low sand.

[1:29:03] It might be make sense for low sand to be a part of that as well. And I do think it does make sense.

[1:29:08] And so it's something to take a look at, but we are taking a look at getting out into the water.

[1:29:12] That's one of the things we need to start talking about.

[1:29:14] We capture that beach sand before it gets so deep that the next storm will blow it up back onto the beach. So thank you for that.

[1:29:23] Thank you, director Miller. And just to share with the rest of the board, the conversation the director Miller and I had was about the response to the Thomas debris flow after the big fires that we had.

[1:29:34] of our county. A lot of material got moved to the beach because there's no other place to put

[1:29:38] that. And in that material, there's a lot of cobblestone and it was placed on Golida Beach.

[1:29:42] And I don't think anybody knew that it would end up being an anchor to hold sand,

[1:29:48] but it is weathered through a number of winter storms now. And there was actually a subsequent

[1:29:53] placement of that material at Golida Beach in a future year that also cost a little bit of a toe

[1:29:59] Hold and see.

[1:30:00] And it seems to be working. You know, it's obviously the coast is complex, probably wouldn't work in every situation, but we need an extensive tool bag to address a feature plungement. And that's one strategy that may have application of the places. But obviously, ultimately, the coastal commission is going to be the permitting authority for all these strategies. And we're going to have to work collaboratively with them because the asset that is the low sand corridor is a nationally critical asset. And we got to figure a way to protect it and keep the trains

[1:30:29] So, thank you again for the wonderful presentation, Ms. Sharma.

[1:30:33] I'm sure we're going to talk about this for many many years.

[1:30:36] Are there any other comments or questions from board members?

[1:30:40] Are there any public comments on this item?

[1:30:43] To comment in real time, raise your hand or select star nine to raise your hand.

[1:30:51] Seeing none, you may proceed.

[1:30:54] Thank you, Madam Clerk, and there is no action required on this item.

[1:30:57] It's an informational item, so thank you again, Ms. Sharma.

[1:30:59] brings us to item number nine, which is public comments.

[1:31:03] Are there any public comments?

[1:31:05] Anyone that would like to speak to address the board

[1:31:07] on items that are not on our agenda?

[1:31:09] To comment, please select raise hand or star nine.

[1:31:15] Seeing none, you may proceed.

[1:31:18] Thank you, Madam Burke.

[1:31:19] That concludes that item.

[1:31:21] It brings us to item number 10,

[1:31:22] which is the Managing Directors Report.

[1:31:24] Mr. Jewel.

[1:31:26] Good morning again, Chairman Hart and members of the board.

[1:31:31] I just wanted to start off with some positive news.

[1:31:35] Our March ridership exceeds 133,000 riders,

[1:31:39] which is an increase of about 35% over the prior month.

[1:31:43] And it's our highest monthly total since last summer.

[1:31:46] So that's very good news.

[1:31:47] Preliminary April ridership is also positive

[1:31:50] and indicates that we may exceed our previous

[1:31:53] post-pandemic peak this month.

[1:31:55] We're also working with CalTrans and Amtrak

[1:31:58] on having the necessary equipment, the crews and funding available to restore an 11th round trip

[1:32:04] between San Diego and Los Angeles, hopefully prior to the 4th of July weekend. And this will help

[1:32:10] address the anticipated surgeon ridership that we typically have experienced in July and August

[1:32:15] associated with events during those months. Also this past Friday on April 15th, we reopened the

[1:32:28] the passengers traveling to and from the Anaheim resort to reduce cost during the pandemic

[1:32:33] were forced to close several stations along the Pacific surf liner route. And while passengers

[1:32:38] were still able to get on and off at these stations, there were no longer staffed and provided

[1:32:43] no services to passengers during that time. However last summer, we were able to open Salona

[1:32:49] Beach and Irvine. Also on April 15th, we restored baggage service to the Pacific surf liner.

[1:32:56] This was another service that was temporarily suspended to save cost during the pandemic.

[1:33:03] And it's a service that our passengers have been requesting to be restored.

[1:33:07] And both of these service restorations were achieved at no additional cost

[1:33:11] to the Losan Agency, thanks to other cost-cutting measures that were introduced

[1:33:15] in collaboration between staff and Amtrak.

[1:33:19] And last but not least, we have hired a new marketing manager.

[1:33:23] Her name is Pooja Thomas Patel.

[1:33:26] She comes with us from the private sector.

[1:33:29] She has over 15 years of experience.

[1:33:32] And prior to joining us most recently, she was in charge of a statewide market segmentation

[1:33:40] efforts in cooperation with CalTrans DRMT.

[1:33:43] So we welcome Pooja and we are excited to have her on board.

[1:33:47] And with that summary, those are my managing director's report.

[1:33:51] I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[1:33:53] Thank you, Mr. Joel.

[1:33:54] Appreciate hearing the good news.

[1:33:56] That's it's a welcome addition to our discussion today.

[1:34:00] Are there any questions from Mr. Joel?

[1:34:06] Are there any public comments on the Intra Managing Director's report?

[1:34:11] Mr. Joel, we do see a raise hand from Janet Rogers.

[1:34:16] Thank you, Ms. Rogers.

[1:34:17] Please go ahead.

[1:34:20] Hello.

[1:34:20] I have a quick question to Mr. Joel.

[1:34:23] on restoring that 11th trip down to San Diego.

[1:34:28] What time of the day would that be?

[1:34:30] Would that be during the day?

[1:34:32] Or would that be the 4th train that stays overnight?

[1:34:35] Thank you.

[1:34:38] To Joel, do you know how through the chair,

[1:34:43] Jason Jewel, Liz and Agency Interim Managing Director,

[1:34:46] they will not be the overnight train,

[1:34:49] but for more specifics,

[1:34:51] I would like to defer that question

[1:34:52] to our Operations Officer, James Campbell.

[1:34:59] afternoon everyone. Chairman Hart, through the chair, the additional round trip we're looking at would be a midday round trip that would be a mid-morning out of Los Angeles and an evening train departure out of San Diego.

[1:35:16] So it would not be another overnight train for San Diego at this time.

[1:35:21] Thank you, Mr. Campbell and Mr. Jules and thank you, Ms. Rogers, for the question.

[1:35:25] I believe that concludes public comment on the managing director's report, which brings us to item 11, which is the board member's report.

[1:35:35] So I'd like to open the floor to directors to offer any reports and I see the director strong has to send up. Please, director strong.

[1:35:42] Thank you, Mr. Chair. And as you know, I represent all of the regions of the United States

[1:35:48] on transportation in Washington, D.C. And also I'm the rail chair for the National League

[1:35:54] of Cities, our co-chair. And those capacities we have had talks with the administration of

[1:36:00] especially with some of their senior officials. And this is just a heads up for our member agencies

[1:36:05] to use who are going after grants.

[1:36:08] And that is when your, pardon me,

[1:36:11] when your agency engineer is doing the grant applications,

[1:36:16] they concentrate very heavily on the infrastructure aspect

[1:36:19] of it.

[1:36:20] But the people who are analyzing those grant applications

[1:36:24] are not engineers.

[1:36:26] They are political people.

[1:36:28] So what they're looking for is what does this do

[1:36:30] for our constituents?

[1:36:32] What does it do for the public?

[1:36:33] So there are going to be training courses available and there is advice available from the respective agencies if you seek it to get your city engineers or or county engineer to understand exactly how to frame some of these grand applications to emphasize the benefit of public and how it reaches not just me but us.

[1:36:58] So the broader the the application to people, the better regard there is for that application.

[1:37:07] So the broader segment of population that is served, that gives a lot higher consideration, just a heads up for everybody.

[1:37:15] Thank you.

[1:37:16] Thank you, Dr. Strong.

[1:37:18] Any other directors would like to make a report?

[1:37:20] I see Vice Chair Edson and then Director Telemontis.

[1:37:25] Yes, thank you.

[1:37:27] NCTD News, NCTD submitted a congressional-directed spending request to fund the design of the double-tracking projects through Camp Pendleton.

[1:37:37] This area of track is currently single-tracked, which results in negative impacts to OTP and constraints planned increases to passenger and freight frequency.

[1:37:49] This project complements natural links, CPP, Sarah, a project that provides double tracking in

[1:37:57] single mini, so fingers crossed on that one.

[1:38:01] Coaster Boardings for February 2022, total 38,831, which is an 893.7% increase compared

[1:38:13] as your year-over-year queue February 2021.

[1:38:16] So it looks like things are coming back and moving in the right direction and we're welcoming passengers. Thanks.

[1:38:24] Thank you, Vice Chair Edson. Director Telemontis.

[1:38:28] Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to thank my director, colleagues, for a very insightful discussion this morning.

[1:38:36] I really enjoyed it and I got a lot of it. And for your leadership, Mr. Chair, thank you for leading us in this very difficult discussion today.

[1:38:44] Thank you.

[1:38:45] Thank you.

[1:38:45] Director Tom Notchis.

[1:38:46] Very kind of you.

[1:38:48] Director Murray.

[1:38:49] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[1:38:52] Jason, I want to congratulate you and the increase in ridership with a question.

[1:38:57] Now that Angel baseball is starting in the past, we've had promotions for jumping on the train

[1:39:04] to go to games to and from.

[1:39:05] Do you anticipate any promotions in the future?

[1:39:08] Through

[1:39:15] to the chair, to answer your question, Director Murray, during the pandemic, as you

[1:39:20] all are probably aware, we did scale back our marketing efforts quite considerably.

[1:39:25] And we were also reduced as far as the state-funded marketing funding that's provided to us.

[1:39:32] I know our marketing team with the leadership now of our new marketing manager is looking

[1:39:37] at all types of opportunities to get out there and promote the service as we do as the ridership

[1:39:44] is increasing and we are looking to add that additional round trip but I will also defer

[1:39:50] that question to our administration officer Roger Lopez for any other specifics that they're

[1:39:56] currently undertaking to address that further if he is available. Thank you.

[1:40:07] Yes, thank you Jason

[1:40:08] through the chair. We do have some plans to engage in some opportunities with Angel Spaceball.

[1:40:14] We have some advertising that is going on with the in-game, you know, the signage behind the second base and things of that nature.

[1:40:26] Currently, we're still working on plans for maybe some sort of potential game trains.

[1:40:31] Metro link kind of has the monopoly on those angels express game provisions.

[1:40:36] But we are working through some additional options as we go forward.

[1:40:42] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, thank you, Ryder and Jason.

[1:40:48] Thank you, Director Murray.

[1:40:49] Director Brown.

[1:40:52] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[1:40:53] I also sit on the Metro League for the next official first gang.

[1:40:57] As of April 4th, the first railroad in the United States

[1:41:00] has started operating all their locomotives,

[1:41:03] and the diesel ground powered equipment using renewable diesel,

[1:41:13] Thank you for that great announcement. Appreciate hearing that. Good news. Director Miller.

[1:41:20] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to follow up on Director Murray's comment. This is probably going to be to Mr. Lopez.

[1:41:27] because you know, I live in South Orange County

[1:41:30] and I like going down to the Padres games.

[1:41:32] One of the problems we have during the summers,

[1:41:34] we can't get the train back.

[1:41:36] Is there any plan to take a look at all of the different events

[1:41:39] that happen in South Orange County and San Diego County

[1:41:43] and start planning specific trains?

[1:41:46] Like one train a week goes down to the Padres game

[1:41:48] or you've been, it could change day of the week

[1:41:51] based on the other events that are happening down there

[1:41:53] to make sure that we can get our residents back north

[1:41:56] at the end of the night.

[1:41:59] Yes, Director Muller, through the chair.

[1:42:01] That is event trains, as we call them,

[1:42:03] special event trains are something we have considered.

[1:42:06] Unfortunately right now, just because of the limitations on equipment,

[1:42:10] you know, planning those event trains is really difficult.

[1:42:13] But as we go forward and equipment becomes freer,

[1:42:16] that's definitely something that we're looking at in the future

[1:42:17] is to plan a train specific for events like

[1:42:22] you know, just whatever we can, we can get to get people back home, understanding that some of those end pretty late at night.

[1:42:30] But it's definitely something we're looking forward to as soon as the equipment becomes available.

[1:42:34] Okay. Thank you. And by the way, I did take the train down to San Diego last Thursday for the Padres. So I'm open or keep back on Friday.

[1:42:41] It's such a joy. I love doing that. And it was an interesting trip, but I had a lot of people on the train asking why can't we get a later train back so we can go down to more of these games.

[1:42:49] So thank you. Thank you, Director Miller. We know what sport you're a fan of. I think that

[1:42:56] is the last report from directors unless somebody else's hand wants to go up. So I'm not seeing

[1:43:03] anybody. So that'll conclude our meeting for today. The next regular scheduled meeting of

[1:43:08] the Losan Board is at 10 a.m. on Monday, May 16, 2022. Thank you all for your patience today.

[1:43:15] and our job before to see you soon.

[1:43:18] Have a great afternoon.

LOSSAN Board 04-18-22

Agenda

Transcript