[0:00] This morning, it's 930, and welcome to the August 24th of CTA Board of Directors, meeting. Thank you, directors,

[0:06] cloth and Stein and Arbor for holding down the left side of the dias. We do have a quorum. Please rise and join director Tettimer in the Pledge of Allegiance.

[0:15] Please place your hand over your heart. Place the flag and say with me, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic of Stance,

[0:28] Thank you,

[0:32] everybody.

[0:38] Councillor, do we have a need for a close session this morning?

[0:41] Yes, Mr. Chairman, the board will be meeting on one item for

[0:44] Student Government Code Section 54956.

[0:47] Point 9 Subsection D1 Conference with General Council,

[0:50] Existing Litigation, Carlinsky versus OCTA.

[0:54] Thank you.

[0:55] We will now recess to close session and be back promptly.

[0:57] thanks for your patience.

[1:22] Please hold. The meeting will be starting shortly.

[1:53] This could go that smoothly. Thank you everybody. All right. We are back and it's a pleasure

[1:58] to announce our presentation of resolutions of appreciation for employees of the month, Mr. Johnson.

[2:15] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I remember it's always a pleasure to recognize our employees of the month.

[2:19] And today we have three employees of the month of August. I'd like to start with our coach operator

[2:23] to the month of Ricardo, R. T. Agam Martinez. He joined OCTA in 2019 and serves as a coach

[2:29] operator as well as a behind-the-wheel trainer. He is recognized for his outstanding customer

[2:34] service, professionalism, and his commitment to safety and the split in important role in

[2:38] training and developing new coach operators as they join OCTA. He's also maintained an accident

[2:43] for driving a record throughout his OCTA career, and this month he introduced me to chief seven

[2:48] months, excuse me, seven years of consecutive safe driving. So please join me in congratulating

[2:52] Ricardo.

[3:11] Thanks for the opportunity to say a few works to you guys. To everybody around here,

[3:16] I see familiar faces and just going to make it this really short. The letters, OCTA, to me,

[3:23] stands, only Gaussian, they can vanish. That's all I can say. Thank you.

[3:39] Our maintenance employee

[3:40] the month is Jose Mungia, Jose joined OCTA in 1991, 35 years ago, and he serves as a service worker

[3:47] our garden grow base. And as I mentioned, it's nearly 35 years of service to OCTA. Recently,

[3:53] Jose identified several bus batteries that were slated for disposal at the end of their

[3:57] useful life, but they were still under warranty resulting in more than $1,000 in reimbursements

[4:01] and avoiding unnecessary replacement costs for OCTA. Because initiative, attention to detail and

[4:06] commitment to doing the job right, our great examples of the professionalism Jose is brought to OCTA

[4:11] throughout his career. And when we talk this morning in our reception and in the other room,

[4:16] He has traveled all over the world. So if you have questions about international travel, please, please ask Jose.

[4:21] So please join me in congratulating Jose.

[4:39] I'm going to make it more faster.

[4:42] Thank you very much.

[4:44] Thank you.

[4:51] Our administrative employee at the month is Maggie Quorum.

[4:54] Maggie joined OCTA through our internship program in 2016 and has advanced OCTA through our real...

[5:00] Local property department who are current role as a senior real property agent. She's recognized for her professionalism, integrity and attention to detail, along with a collaborative approach, making her valuable member of our OCTA team.

[5:12] Most recently Maggie worked with OCTA's general council and our commercial real estate broker to complete the sale of two surplus properties and compliance with the surplus land act, generating more than $2 million for OCTA. So please join in congratulating Maggie.

[5:24] Good

[5:38] morning chairman members of the board. I'd like to thank my manager and the real

[5:42] property for all of their support. It will be my 10th year here at OCCA next week

[5:47] and I look forward to many more. Thank you.

[5:57] Thank you for doing that. Darrell and congratulations Ricardo Jose and Maggie. We appreciate

[6:01] all of your hard work and everything you do to represent this agency. Thank you very much.

[6:08] Moving on to our consent calendar today items 3 through 16 are the consent calendar staff

[6:13] I understand we're pulling item nine, correct?

[6:18] Board any others?

[6:22] Yeah, right.

[6:25] And you'd like to hear item 14 separately

[6:28] that, uh, right?

[6:30] Any others?

[6:33] No?

[6:33] There's a motion from Director Tettimer

[6:35] on the balance second over here at Director Foley.

[6:39] Thank you.

[6:40] Yes, please check for public comments.

[6:42] Public comments to comment

[6:43] in real time select raise hand to speak.

[6:48] Sing then.

[6:49] Okay.

[6:49] any opposition to the consent calendar minus item is 9 and 14. Seeing none of those items pass.

[6:58] Mrs. Sinto item number nine.

[7:03] Good morning chairman members of the board.

[7:06] We talked briefly about this what SB 1087 at our legislative committee meeting last Thursday.

[7:14] This is a bill. We have been engaged in since towards the beginning of session that

[7:20] devices, the SB-375 planning process.

[7:24] The bill was a remote to have amendments negotiated last week.

[7:29] Those did not become available in print until Friday evening, so we weren't able

[7:35] to really inform any changed position last Thursday.

[7:40] So before you today and apologies for the significant amount of supplemental material, but you

[7:46] have three additional documents to inform this analysis, one being the actual bill text, it's

[7:55] a quite lengthy bill, and this is the most recent amendments. CalCog, which is association

[8:01] we belong to the California Councils of Governments, they have put together a very draft

[8:08] analysis of the bill and kind of show where some of the high level points of the bill are

[8:14] addition to where they still, they're flagging some areas of potential, ambiguity or need to

[8:22] work further on as we enter either later this year or next year. And then finally there is

[8:28] a letter directed at the Scag chair that requests that Scag convert their position or at least

[8:37] withdraw their sponsorship of the bill or change to an opposed position. I'm going to give some

[8:43] Background and then I'm going to turn it over to the board for further discussion, but this bill, OCTA had adopted a supportive amended position on it a few months ago.

[8:55] The bill does a number of things include providing increased transparency and deadlines for the greenhouse gas emission reduction requirements under SB 375.

[9:09] These are targets that metropolitan planning organizations must meet through the adoption of a sustainable community strategy.

[9:17] That is integrated into the regional transportation plan.

[9:21] In the past, the California Air Resources Board, who administers this program, has created significant delays in the adoption of these documents,

[9:32] which puts into jeopardy our region's ability to obtain federal funding and meet other federal

[9:38] requirements related to the regional transportation plan. It also creates significant challenges

[9:44] in disagreements with the California Resources Board in modeling assumptions and whether

[9:52] our region has actually met the targets required. So this bill fundamentally changes.

[10:00] Change is that process and puts really strict timelines on those requirements by the California resources or effort to alleviate that issue.

[10:12] It also allows for the option of an eight-year cycle for this system-building strategy.

[10:19] Currently, MPOs have to adopt the SCS every four years.

[10:24] This is enormously costly.

[10:26] The process goes through it, California Environmental Quality Act process.

[10:31] So that adds additional over layers.

[10:34] And instead, this bill seeks to elongate that period to eight years.

[10:40] And they're by reduced the cost for the region.

[10:42] And hopefully, direct more of that funding to project implementation.

[10:46] The latest amendments do add some requirements that at a four-year interval, the California

[10:54] Air Resources Board could come in and say there's been a material change to the assumptions

[11:00] underlying the plan and require an SES distilled be developed.

[11:07] But given that the modeling assumptions now have to be completely consistent between the

[11:12] P.O. and the California Air Resources Board, we feel like that is somewhat mitigated that the material change would have to be significant enough to require that type of significant over overlay.

[11:28] So those are the two big pros to this bill.

[11:32] There's also a number of changes to smaller funding programs, including the Caltrans Sustainable Planning Grants to ensure that those funds are used consistent with our

[11:42] region's sustainable community strategy and new requirements put on

[11:47] cow transfer their California transportation plan.

[11:51] This is a document that is similar to what the regions put together for

[11:54] the sustainable community strategy. The language related to

[11:58] cow transfer was brand new this weekend. We had not previously seen it.

[12:04] As a just some background, this bill was sponsored by the big four MPOs,

[12:09] which includes Skag in our region, Sandag in the San Diego Region, Metropolitan Transportation

[12:17] Commission in the Bay Area, and then the Sacramento Council of Government in Sacramento.

[12:23] They've been negotiating this language over the summer with the Governor's Office, the California

[12:28] Resources Board, the California Transportation Commission, and Count Trans. The regional

[12:36] transportation agencies were not part of those negotiations. So we're seeing the language at the same time

[12:42] at the board here is seeing it. So the CTP language, the California Transportation Plan

[12:47] language does provide new requirements on CalTrans at a district level. So in our case it would

[12:53] be district 12. We'd have to integrate performance measures into their plan to show how they're achieving

[12:58] the goals of the California Transportation Plan, which includes greenhouse gas emission reductions

[13:03] among other factors. This could requirements on a project planning or delivery aspect, but it's still

[13:12] very aspirational in nature and there's some ambiguity.

[13:17] So at that's at a high level, the big

[13:19] changes and what the bill still seeks to accomplish. At this point given that there are some

[13:24] ambiguity related to the bill, but also still some significant benefits for our MPO and our region

[13:33] And we're recommending we withdraw our support of the men in position and remain neutral on the bill.

[13:40] However, that would be up to the board to decide how to move forward.

[13:45] This concludes my presentation.

[13:47] I'd be happy to answer further questions or provide further detail.

[13:52] Thanks. Let's start with public comment.

[13:56] If you don't mind Madam Clerk and we have one in person and go ahead with the rest.

[14:00] Sorry.

[14:01] Sorry.

[14:02] Turn around.

[14:02] Mr. Cameron.

[14:03] It's a possible that we could table this until, so we have a chance to re-through all

[14:07] this packet that we thought, can we table it until like after the next two items we

[14:13] can re-through this because we want to move it in the agenda today?

[14:18] Correct.

[14:19] Sure.

[14:19] We'll delay this to, we'll put this at the end.

[14:22] Thank you.

[14:23] No problem.

[14:24] Yeah.

[14:24] Give you a chance to look through it.

[14:26] And before we do that, before we move this in the agenda and that totally fine with that, I just want to clarify something, simplify a lot of what you said, which is all relevant and appropriate and correct.

[14:38] We were a supportive amended in the amendments.

[14:40] We're not the amendments we were looking for. Is that a true statement?

[14:44] Chairman, members of the Board, we did receive get all of the amendments.

[14:50] We asked for however significant new language without it.

[14:52] You were convinced that we would, yeah, I got it.

[14:56] Thank you for boiling it down.

[14:58] Thank you.

[14:59] All right.

[15:00] So we're going to deal with that one at the end. Thank you. We're going to deal with that one at the end. I have a number 14.

[15:14] Good morning, Mr. Chair. Members of the Board, Cliff Tharn. Director of Maintenance.

[15:21] Was there questions on this item?

[15:24] Would you like to say if you want to hear a full brief or you have a specific question?

[15:28] Well, I have some comments to make.

[15:30] So can I do object to 14A?

[15:33] Okay.

[15:33] No problem with 14B, 14B is fine.

[15:38] Go ahead with you.

[15:39] Go ahead with you.

[15:39] I don't know.

[15:40] Okay.

[15:41] 14A deals with hydrogen fueled buses.

[15:45] And I know I met with staff over this and they raised a couple of issues.

[15:49] But if you recall, we did really very smart, I thought.

[15:52] We had some electric buses and some hydrogen fuel buses, and we compared their result.

[15:58] Like you buses did very well, but the hydrogen fuel buses were problematic when our own study came in.

[16:05] And so now here we are buying more hydrogen fuel buses.

[16:09] I think that's a bad investment.

[16:12] I don't really want to spend another dime on anything related to hydrogen.

[16:15] If I may explain why, a number of reasons, one hydrogen typically is made out of methane,

[16:23] which has a carbon fuel.

[16:26] You can burn it and get the carbon out and released, or you can split it into hydrogen

[16:32] and carbon and the hydrogen release, same as if you had burned it.

[16:36] A global warning basis, it doesn't do anything constructive, unless you have a melted of sequestering

[16:43] carbon that comes out of it and we don't have that yet. Another issue is you sometimes

[16:49] can create hydrogen on a water. Water has two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

[16:54] It's a process called electrolysis where you split the part and the problem is that you don't

[17:02] get any extra energy. You lose a little bit when you do that it takes so much electrical energy.

[17:07] But here we go, I've heard this from people supporting hydrogen, all we'll use, clean

[17:14] electric energy to split the molecule, where you release the hydrogen and oxygen separately,

[17:22] and then create hydrogen.

[17:24] Well, that doesn't make sense to me, could you start off with clean electric power?

[17:29] You use that up to create the hydrogen on a water.

[17:33] Then here we take the hydrogen and we use that to run a generator, create electricity to run our buses, and every time you move through the process of conversion, you've lost some energy, some power, you don't quite get back all of it, and so if you've got clean electric energy, firstly use it, why waste it on doing these other things, so that's an issue, when I met with staff, they gave me two issues, really, one electric buses, don't quite have the range, but that's changing.

[18:03] as the battery technology improves. I think the next version of the buses will be better on

[18:09] terms of range, but it's just slightly short. I think there are some of our routes that aren't

[18:15] quite as long as others. The other issue was not having enough power at our bus base to recharge

[18:22] all the buses. Well, coincidentally, met with Edison last week over a different issue. They were

[18:28] wanting to make certain aware of a large power line structure going through the, uh,

[18:33] part of the state that brings more green energy into this state and they want to make sure

[18:37] we're aware of some of that. So I hit them with this and within the business is selling power.

[18:43] If we don't have enough power to bus station they can they can change that. And so we can get

[18:47] enough energy to recharge the buses. The other thing as I mentioned a couple of times the ability

[18:52] now in this experimental I don't know how costly it is, where you can create a grid in this

[18:58] again it will recharge the boss as it sits there because of the receptor that you

[19:02] know fluid in the bosses and enough recharging I think that you can get the

[19:06] range of that short so I don't see any issue with electric buses that can't

[19:10] be solved and they've worked very well you know the hydrogen stop has not

[19:15] proved itself to be efficient in terms of maintenance in terms of cost and so

[19:21] I am going to vote no on 14 Asia that we put to a vote and I don't see wasting

[19:26] money on the hydrogen. That's why I raised that issue. I think we also have a power authority

[19:34] in the county that might be able to step up and provide some electrical energy that is needed

[19:41] in even a green power source. Because Edison can also circulate as power, but they can create

[19:47] green power to the base. So we are solving some global warming issues at the same time when we do

[19:54] that versus the release of carbon atoms,

[19:57] when you use a carbon-based fuel hole to create hydrogen.

[20:00] So I'm in no on that. Thank you, Mr. Johnson, I see you want to give this.

[20:06] If I could, Mr. Chairman, we did meet with Director Chafee and he's expressed his concerns, of course, about hydrogen, if you will, multiple times.

[20:14] I would like to clarify the item before you, so this is a mending a contract that the board approved in November of 2024.

[20:20] And the amendment is specifically about the partial ending of an exemption for sales tax on zero emission transit buses.

[20:28] Mr. Off to leak it explain all the details of that if you would like, but this is something we have to do relative to this state tax laws in place today.

[20:38] So this is a as a release of hydrogen buses the board made a policy decision in November of 24 to purchase those. So this is not a new purchase.

[20:45] The other thing I'd like to clarify is also a director, chief, you've asked me many times when are we going to make a decision about the future.

[20:51] The next time that we would ask the board to consider any type of zero emission bus purchase, whether it's fuel cell electric or hydrogen, is approximately 2030.

[21:00] So we have about four more years to test both the battery electric plug-in and the hydrogen fuel cell, which as you've indicated,

[21:07] neither one of them are shining stars in the performance space.

[21:10] We will continue to update the board every two, twice a year through the transit committee in the board on the performance of those.

[21:17] our goal, of course, is by time we bring you a recommendation in 2030, which is our next

[21:21] bus purchase, that we would have definitive information about what the best product for us is,

[21:25] including the issues that you brought up, Director Shafi. But this is merely an amendment relative

[21:30] to the change in California Department of Tax and Feed Administration on the existing contract.

[21:36] We get a pay sales tax on our upgrades to zero emission buses now. Brilliant.

[21:43] Madam Clerk, are there any other questions?

[21:47] Thank you, so I guess kind of interested in Director Tipee's comments and between November

[21:56] 24 when we made the policy decision with hydrogen buses and today has our experience

[22:04] or the reason for our choosing hydrogen buses has our attitude changed at all as from your

[22:12] perspective.

[22:13] Through the chair, Director Harper, I just recall the board.

[22:16] We brought in 2020, a dates back to early 2020, a two-part path through the board to consider.

[22:22] There's two technologies that meet the California Air Resources Board, innovative clean

[22:26] transit rule requirement.

[22:27] Right now in California, it's a battery electric plug-in bus and a hydrogen fuel cell electric.

[22:32] We thought at that time that neither one of them would meet all of our requirements, so

[22:35] we asked the board to adopt a pilot program to test both of them.

[22:39] So I believe Mr. Thorne could correct the numbers if I'm wrong, but I believe we have 40 fuel cell

[22:44] electric and 10 battery plug-ins, and we've been reporting twice a year to the transit

[22:49] committee in detail about their performance against a control group of C&G buses to show

[22:54] their performance.

[22:55] And while there are some benefits, in terms of certain aspects, there's a challenge with supply chain,

[23:00] reliability, and market maturity.

[23:02] So we are achieving what we thought they would achieve, which is being less productive than

[23:08] compress natural gas buses, not as productive as we want them to be, but the idea was to pilot both of them before we had to make a big decision, which is that 2030 to 2031 timeframe.

[23:19] Remember we have approximately 450 buses, so we're testing about 60 buses before we have to remake a decision on 400 buses.

[23:27] Okay, and then the, these, these buses, these hydrogen fuel cell buses that are on a agenda item 14 is my recollection as we are.

[23:36] It's completely funded by a grant.

[23:41] To do the chair, Director Harper, Harper.

[23:44] So far, all of the buses that we've purchased have been through grants.

[23:47] Okay, and if we were to say we don't want to do hydrogen,

[23:51] and we wanted to change it to electric buses,

[23:54] would we still have the grant funds?

[23:56] Or would they go away?

[23:58] Generally speaking, yes, assuming grant funds are made available

[24:02] and as we report through other avenues, discretionary grants through things like Senate Bill 1, SB 125, or at risk through budgetary issues, but generally speaking there are grant opportunities available for buses in general.

[24:18] One thing I would note is once you do buy a bus, the minimum federal useful life is 12 years.

[24:23] We try to get 18 years out of our buses by maintaining them well, and therefore lowering our cost of capital over time.

[24:28] But again, the idea, the whole focus was to test the two modes or the two technologies to see which one is best for us right now.

[24:38] I think if you were to ask Mr. Thorne, if we had to make it show us today, we would probably choose hydrogen, they're more reliable and easier to maintain and easier to fuel than the electric.

[24:47] But we recognize that technology will likely change over the next four to five years yet again.

[24:51] Okay, so in the, I guess in Mr. Thor's experience, then his choice would be high.

[25:03] Thank you, Director Harper. That's the data that we're getting right now that they're just as Mr. Johnson mentioned.

[25:10] They're more reliable. They're more cost effective at the moment.

[25:14] Okay, so all right. Thank you.

[25:17] Director Foley.

[25:19] Thank you, Director Harper for those excellent questions.

[25:23] As it, I'm looking at attachment A and it looks like we have a 63.6 million dollar investment

[25:34] for a five-year term. And then if you look at item number six, what we're being asked to vote on today

[25:40] is to amend the purchase order to 2.4 million.

[25:46] So I guess I don't understand, we're doing that because the sales tax exemption has gone away, but didn't we already buy the buses?

[26:02] I guess I don't understand why we have to do this, is it prospective?

[26:08] And then why did the sales tax exemption go away? Was that something California decided?

[26:13] or is that something decided by someone else?

[26:22] Good morning and good and sure, my members of the committee, Chris, and seeing to a

[26:25] executive director of government relations. I'll get to the latter question first.

[26:32] The exemption was in statute and it was on a, we kept getting bills passed over the last

[26:38] about 10 years that kept extending for about two years. Last year, we worked through the

[26:44] and transit association, this board adopted a support position on SB552 by Senator Richard Sen,

[26:51] which would have extended the sales tax exemption again. That bill can knock it out of a

[26:55] preparation committee. The California Transit Association tried to get it reinstated as part

[27:01] of the budget negotiations this year and that failed, so it was a state decision not to.

[27:06] Okay, so, but when was, so we didn't get the exemption when we bought the buses,

[27:13] That's the part I'm confused about.

[27:15] So if I buy a car, I get my sales tax exemption,

[27:18] the year I buy the car, we're now a couple years later.

[27:24] Through the chair director fully, the purchase price,

[27:27] the purchase of the bus,

[27:29] doesn't happen until the delivery of the vehicle.

[27:31] So when the board approved this in November of 2024,

[27:37] no money goes to the vendor.

[27:40] Not until we receive and accept the first bus,

[27:42] Does the pain start going so the tax takes effect at the point where we're paying for the bus

[27:48] And we're actually purchasing so we're even if you were to buy a car today

[27:53] You put in the order, but you wouldn't pay the sales tax until you purchase the vehicle took delivery of it

[27:57] And that's what we're doing with the buses. So this isn't for this is for all 40. We haven't received any of the buses

[28:03] We've received the 10 battery electric buses and we've received one fuel cell electric bus and those will receive this year

[28:10] And they feel so that remaining feel so less is our introduction as we speak.

[28:15] Okay, so 39 in production.

[28:18] Okay.

[28:19] All right.

[28:19] Thanks for clarifying.

[28:23] Go ahead, Director Jiffy.

[28:26] Yeah, there's a fuel supply issue here.

[28:29] I understand we're looking at spending literally tens of millions of dollars to create our own

[28:33] refueling station for hydrogen.

[28:36] And that's part of the issue here.

[28:38] I don't see why we should spend money on that as well.

[28:42] If we're looking at budgetary issues and spending our money wisely,

[28:46] to me, that's not a wise investment.

[28:48] It's not only the buses, but then you have a fueling station that,

[28:54] when it comes time to consider what buses to buy,

[28:57] you're kind of stuck in a way in the future

[28:58] if you've got a hydrogen fueling station that you've invested.

[29:02] Whether it's $70 million or something like that,

[29:04] it's part of it.

[29:05] I don't remember the neck number, but it's a lot.

[29:07] And so I would like to see that done, and if it's possible to resound the purchase of the hydrogen

[29:15] buses I'd like to do that.

[29:17] So I know that's not this issue that's agenda-ized.

[29:20] So I'm voting no on anything to do with the hydrogen buses.

[29:23] I do not think that's a wise investment.

[29:26] I know we're stuck a little bit because of the state air quality issues and there are only

[29:32] two kinds of buses that have that 100 percent green thing, but I don't think hydrogen really

[29:38] is green when you look at how it's created. That's an issue there as well. And I see that

[29:46] some of the hydrogen people involved are starting to back away because the problems we've

[29:51] had are pretty universal with the hydrogen buses. There's not unique. And so I don't want

[29:57] to solve all those problems or not, or why we didn't want to go.

[30:00] So forward in any event, because I don't like seeing us spend money when we're having other budget issues

[30:06] that we're talking about. So I'm going to vote no one in rest. You can all do it. And yes,

[30:11] I did vote back in that early time, not knowing better for the hydrogen buses as well.

[30:18] Thank you, Director Chafi. And just to clarify, both buses, the battery electric and the hydrogen fuel cell,

[30:27] as you mentioned, do qualify under the state or federal or whatever regulations for zero

[30:33] mission, right?

[30:34] Through the chair, that is correct.

[30:36] And the regulation is through the California Air Resources Board, the California Legislature

[30:41] for California.

[30:42] There is no federal requirement for zero mission, there's a federal requirement for...

[30:46] And there are types of flow.

[30:46] The agencies decision the way the program is laid out now is in 2030, when we will

[30:51] make the next big purchase of buses.

[30:54] That's correct.

[30:55] And I think it's important to note that in the last three decades we moved from diesel and we removed diesel tanks and we got rid of all of our diesel buses and we went to liplified natural gas.

[31:05] We installed those fueling stations and then regulations change and we pulled all of those out and got rid of those buses and then we moved to various versions of compressed natural gas think we're on our fourth iteration of that they've gotten cleaner over time and now we're on to the fifth fuel type, which is zero emission hopefully that's the end.

[31:25] But we've went in the last 30 years from diesel to LNG to CNG to zero-mission bus.

[31:30] And that's part of the issues that we've raised.

[31:34] That this is a half a billion dollar transition issue.

[31:36] Clean air is important.

[31:37] We know that.

[31:38] We're not debating that.

[31:39] It was we talked a lot about that.

[31:41] But we've advocated at the state level for grants to help with the installation of the new stuff.

[31:46] Removal of the old stuff and the transition to the new vehicles.

[31:49] And so far we've been able to navigate that.

[31:52] but I think we still have questions

[31:53] about how do we get all 400 buses compliant

[31:55] between now and 2041.

[31:57] Thank you very much.

[31:58] Madam Clerk are there any public comments?

[32:00] To comment real times,

[32:01] the lecturers hand to speak.

[32:05] Seeing none, we could proceed.

[32:06] Okay, thank you.

[32:08] And for the board, there are two items, items A&Bs,

[32:12] recommended actions.

[32:14] If anyone would like to move those,

[32:16] there's a motion, your, your, no on, on, on A,

[32:21] I'm fine with B.

[32:22] Okay.

[32:23] motion on the staff recommended actions. We have a no from director Chapey on item A, any other opposition?

[32:30] Okay, seeing none, we can move on. Thank you everybody for that.

[32:36] That should take us to item number 17.

[32:41] I have that right, Madam Clerk, all right. Item number 17, coastal rail resilience,

[32:45] you study update. So Chairman, before the staff presentation, I'd just make a couple of opening remarks

[32:50] on where we're at on the Coastal Rail Resiliency Study.

[32:55] As you know, this has been a long and deliberate process.

[32:58] We've spent considerable time engaging in listening to the board,

[33:01] the community working with our regulatory agencies and partners,

[33:04] and coordinating with local, regional, state, and federal partners,

[33:07] including technical experts, and doing our absolute best

[33:10] to incorporate everyone's input into the study.

[33:13] So first I'd just like to thank all the parties that participated in that.

[33:17] But we also know for the past several years,

[33:19] two-match of our work along the coastline has been driven by emergencies, whether it's bluff failures, erosion,

[33:24] other coastal conditions to keep the railroad operating safely.

[33:28] This study is about being more proactive.

[33:29] So what Mr. Foo and team are going to present in a moment is not the emergency work that's going on today.

[33:34] This is how do we protect for the next 30 years and identify improvements that could help protect the rail line before those next emergencies.

[33:41] happen.

[33:42] I want to also thank the leadership of the board in a director fully, I have been very engaged

[33:45] in this.

[33:46] You provided a lot of input and I think we've made modifications based upon your input as well

[33:50] as the South Orange County Beach Coalition that you've established.

[33:53] Thank you for your input and continue dedication on that.

[33:58] Also, Chairman Federico, you provided significant input in this space as well.

[34:02] I want to thank you for that as well.

[34:04] When I transition to what the board is receiving today, we're not asking you to approve

[34:07] a specific project, we're not asking you to pick a solution, we're not asking you to make a funding

[34:12] decision for the entire 7-mile quarter.

[34:15] The conditions do vary significantly along the coastline, even in this 7-mile section.

[34:20] So what works in one area may not make sense somewhere else.

[34:24] The best way to really think about the study in our opinion is it's a toolbox that includes

[34:27] potential rail improvements, potential bus side protections, potential b-side concepts that

[34:32] can be matched to the conditions and risk at the individual locations.

[34:35] And any project that would be coming out of this study would still need to go through its own project development process,

[34:42] which includes additional engineering, community input, environmental review, permitting funding analysis and future approvals.

[34:48] Many of those which would happen by this board in addition to other parties.

[34:52] So today is an important step.

[34:54] And I want to acknowledge it's not the end of a process.

[34:56] It really establishes a technically sound path for...

[35:00] Forward thinking around how we can improve the quarter over the next 30 years. We're closing

[35:05] a saying that it also complements the separate state-led effort, which we understand will kick off

[35:10] before the end of this calendar year. That will look at long-term solutions beyond the 30-year

[35:14] horizon. Potentially could move the rail alignment itself. So with that, I'd like to turn it

[35:19] over to Mr. Foo for a presentation. Thank you, Darrell. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and directors.

[35:25] I'm Dan Foo with the Planning Division and joining me this morning is Rebecca Soto, who's the Senior Project Manager with the Planning Division.

[35:33] So, before she gets into the updates on the Coastal Railways, the Lean Sea study I like to take a moment and just touch on and there I had already talked about this at a high level, but I want to touch on if you were the four buckets of activities that OCTA has had to work with the regional partners over the last handful of years.

[35:53] So starting on the very left side, you can see that there's been a series of emergency actions

[35:59] that OCTA, along with Metro Lincoln, others have had to take over the last several years.

[36:04] And the most recent events are actually leading up to and it's not shown on here,

[36:09] but it's actually June, July, and August of this year with the King Ty and the High Swelves

[36:14] as a result of a tropical stone that's through the south of us.

[36:18] and then going on to the next bucket, or the emergency projects that Darrell had referenced,

[36:24] and those are what we call the four hotspots. We call them areas one through four,

[36:28] starting from the north, effectively around the the peer area and in the city of San

[36:34] Clomenade all the way down to just north of the Cyprus shore area in the state beach area.

[36:40] So with respect to that work, much of it has already been underway. And in fact, the area three

[36:47] is that you can see there over 60% complete

[36:50] and we're looking to complete that pretty soon.

[36:53] What is outstanding is the area four,

[36:56] what we call the shoreline protection structure,

[36:59] where there is no beach over the last,

[37:01] where if I observe over the last 10 or so years,

[37:04] there hasn't been a beach,

[37:05] so really the first line of the fence is just the rail line.

[37:08] And then of course, the large quantity of sand placement

[37:11] and Rebecca is gonna talk about that in a moment.

[37:14] And then the third bucket is the subject at hand today, where this is looking to protect the rail for the foreseeable future and that's defined as the next several decades.

[37:27] So while we're figuring out working with the state, cows done evenly to decide on the ultimate disposition of the rail, whether it's staying in place or not.

[37:36] There needs to be an operation.

[37:38] We need to work together to provide a safe operational rail line

[37:44] for passenger rail, which MetroLink and Amtrak uses

[37:48] this particular line of the low sand.

[37:51] And then lastly, is the long term potential relocation study.

[37:58] And again, we're working with Calcid to determine

[38:00] the ultimate disposition of this rail line,

[38:03] whether it makes sense to move it, stay in place,

[38:05] or do something else with it, but that's remains to be seen.

[38:10] And I would just mention that the state had looked at something similar

[38:15] about between 2000 to 2009 to relocate it somewhere inland along the five

[38:22] or adjacent to the five and that particular project led to a no project

[38:26] decision by the state due to the complexity, the potential environmental impact,

[38:31] the costs and so forth.

[38:33] So it is a very complex study that we're excited to work with the state to undertake.

[38:38] So with that I'll turn it over to Rebecca, who's going to talk up either showing a midterm study.

[38:46] Thank you, Dan.

[38:48] So up on your screen here, you can see that this has been a very, very much a collaborative

[38:53] process with various local, local and state federal agencies, consider local partners there

[39:01] That includes the County of Orange and a few different agencies that fall under that, OC Parks, OC Public Works, the South Orange County Beach Coalition, the water district and then the cities of Dean of Points and Climini as well as San Juan Capustrano and then just kind of going down the list here, you can see our regional partners that includes Metrolink as well as the Losanne corridor agency, our state partners, the California Coastal Commission, California State Parks.

[39:30] California State Parks, Orange Coast District, as well as the California Department of Transportation.

[39:36] On the federal side, we have the U.S. Army Corps as well as the federal railroad administration.

[39:42] We have worked very closely with all of these partners.

[39:46] We've provided periodic updates as well as have held a series of project, project, project meetings.

[39:55] and we have made sure that all of these agencies have been very engaged.

[40:00] Throughout this process. On the community side, we have conducted a multi-fazed outreach throughout

[40:09] this entire study period, including listening sessions, public meetings, as well as ongoing

[40:14] stakeholder engagement that we're still going through today. This includes 11 listening

[40:21] decisions held in 2024, two rounds of public meetings held in July in October 2025, and it's

[40:29] not on here, but just within the last couple of weeks we also held two additional public

[40:34] meetings as well, and receive some good feedback from the community there. On the right

[40:41] hand side of the screen you can see some of the kind of summary of what's been heard as well

[40:51] as well as a desire for the recurring placement to be integrated into

[40:57] sand retention strategies.

[40:59] We've heard concerns about various shoreline protection structures as well as the

[41:04] desire for more clarity on long-term planning as well as potential rail

[41:08] relocation.

[41:09] In response to those comments, we've added a one-time sand nourishment to any

[41:15] and all shoreline protection structure concepts as well as provided some

[41:19] additional conceptual design in the draft feasibility report, which was attached to this item,

[41:28] as well as included some information on there for next steps upon completion of this study,

[41:34] which we'll talk more about here in a second. Again, just kind of a snapshot of the ongoing

[41:41] stakeholder engagement process. You can see we're sort of kind of in the tail end of the process

[41:46] here. The four boxes that you see on the screen kind of represent the key milestones. So as you

[41:53] can see, we're in the last box, the results we're conducting are sort of last rounds of engagement

[42:02] to receive that feedback on our draft feasibility studies so that way we can come back with the final

[42:07] report later this year.

[42:12] So just briefly touching on the feasibility study overview on your screen,

[42:16] And this just basically shows a very high level overview of what is included in that report,

[42:22] very quickly, it provides information on the approach to the study as well as the alternative

[42:28] concept development, just a quick refresher.

[42:31] Our alternative concept development was basically broken down into three different categories.

[42:36] We had rail concepts, bluff side concepts as well as beach side concepts.

[42:42] There was, as you can see, there was three, nine and eleven.

[42:44] And so several concepts all together, we put them through a screening and evaluation process

[42:50] and then shortlisted those concepts to be for the ones to be carried forward for further

[42:56] analysis and then as well as information on the different considerations, community environmental

[43:02] and recreational as well as information on funding strategy, federal partnership opportunities

[43:08] as well as those next steps.

[43:12] Again, just a quick reminder, these are the short listed concepts that are ultimately being

[43:18] recommended to be carried forward for further analysis as part of the study.

[43:22] Under the rail concept category, there's alternative materials for critical railroad infrastructure

[43:28] to reduce those life cycle costs.

[43:30] The marine environment is very corrosive, so those alternative materials will help prolong.

[43:35] The life of that as well as some ground improvements on the bluff side, we have catchment walls as well as tieback soil nail pin pyowalls on the beach side.

[43:47] Again, each of these are paired with a one-time beach nourishment, but we've got sand plus rip wrap sand plus engineered rock revetment sand plus seawall or sand plus any combination of those items above.

[44:03] Now, this just provides just an example, it's not meant to be indicative of any kind of

[44:09] final design.

[44:11] But looking at ground improvements, this is intended to stabilize the track bed in areas where

[44:15] we see drainage issues, look with action and track pumping, the ground improvement installs

[44:21] columns of competent soil to replace native material that is compromised, reducing the overall

[44:26] maintenance of the track bed ties and ballast.

[44:32] On the bluff side, a concept starting with the image on the left here, again, not meant to be indicative of any kind of final design.

[44:39] This is just an example.

[44:41] Catchment wall concept is like what is being constructed at Mariposa Point currently.

[44:45] It's intended to catch potential landslide debris from the bluff, blocking it, and blocking it, or falling onto the tracks.

[44:52] This concept significantly reduces risks to rail operations in areas where these surrounding bluffs have become unstable and are at risk for potential lands.

[45:01] And then looking at the tie-back wall here, the image on the right, that concept is like what is installed at Cyprus shore, the tie-back

[45:08] anchors penetrate into the bluff through to bedrock to stabilize those deeper landslides. Looking at the soil nails slash pinpile wall, the soil nails help us slope stabilization and can be used on steep cuts or embankments, often paired with like a shot creep base.

[45:25] The steel nails create a reinforced soil mass and create and tensile resistance counteracting

[45:31] landslide movement.

[45:33] Penpiles are similar to soil nails and are embedded into stronger soil or rock.

[45:37] Penpile also also raises the lateral earth pressures and ultimately transfers the load

[45:41] downward, which is what we want.

[45:46] Looking at the beach side concepts starting with the rip wrap repair restoration on the left

[45:52] side here. The rip wrap repair restoration is like the improvements installed in emergency areas

[45:58] one and two, where existing rip wrap track embankment has become oversteepened and is

[46:03] ultimately restructured and rebuilt to a more stable slope. And then looking at the

[46:08] engineered refettment, that short protection is a more structurally stable rip wrap embankment

[46:14] that includes a filter fabric layer under layer stone and a keyed in section of rock that will

[46:20] increase the stability of the overall embankment section.

[46:29] The C-wall shoreline protection, which is the image on the left here, for the railroad track

[46:36] bed, excuse me, provide structural protection for the railroad track bed to protect it from

[46:41] wave overtopping as well as loss of ballast and rip-rap embankment, and then the combination

[46:46] of the C-wall and the eventment shore protection provides a buried rip-rap section that

[46:50] a piece of wave refraction and prevents potential

[46:53] scour in front of that C-wall.

[47:01] For the Bluff Hazard risk assessment,

[47:04] I know it's probably a little hard to see,

[47:06] but essentially the project team did a risk hazard

[47:10] assessment of the Bluff side.

[47:13] The scoring components for that on the right hand side

[47:16] of the screen that includes the rough proximity

[47:18] to the railroad so that information was considered

[47:21] as well as historical geotechnical data

[47:24] And the current conditions of existing bluff erosion.

[47:28] And so we went through analysis and then so the takeaway from this slide is that you can see.

[47:35] So this is our study area. The areas in pink are reflect the highest risk areas on the bluff side.

[47:42] So in thinking of next steps, those high risk areas are the areas that we would want to really focus in on next.

[47:50] And we recognize that it is a very dynamic environment down there, so of course this is subject to change and we would reassess as we need to.

[48:05] And we essentially went through the same process on the coastal side as well.

[48:09] Same concept here. This map shows our study area, the area is highlighted in that pinkish red that you see depict the highest risk areas.

[48:20] And then, therefore, the areas that we would ideally want to focus on next as we move forward with looking at these different areas and then the yellow depicts the moderate risk and then the green is the lowest risk.

[48:35] And, again, subject to change and we will update our approach accordingly.

[48:42] So on this slide, this just provides kind of an idea of the sand placement projects inventory based off of the information that we have available to us.

[48:54] Just something that I want to point out as you look at this inventory is looking at the recent to the 2000 to present here.

[49:03] Over the last 26 years, there has been a total volume of 716,500 cubic yards of sand placed by different agencies.

[49:11] So if you add up those cubic yards, that's what you get.

[49:18] And then that includes that 2,500 cubic yards provided by OCT, OCT, which is ultimately part of the future,

[49:26] 540,000 cubic yards that we planned to place.

[49:30] In total, OCT's contribution will compromise well over half of that total volume of sand in one single placement.

[49:41] Just to kind of provide the picture there.

[49:47] And then even when we look forward, even when looking ahead, the 540,000 cubic yards of sand,

[49:52] Again, currently underway from OCTA is approximately two times more than any planned features

[49:58] and project outside of scene.

[50:00] Andag's future regional sand placement goal. So I really just want to highlight that while this is right now, like a one-time sand placement, it's a significant contribution. And I want to just make sure that that is highlighted.

[50:18] Moving on, this just shows our general study schedule here again.

[50:24] We're sort of in the tail end, you can see that we're in the draft feasibility study report phase, that draft was released last month and then we're now providing the update to our board today.

[50:38] And we're still in that process of obtaining feedback and we're going back and listening to all of the feedback and the comments and the questions that we received during our last this recent set of public meetings as well.

[50:51] So we're going to continue doing that and then incorporate all of that or look at it for

[50:58] consideration as we publish our final report, which is anticipated to be later this fall.

[51:08] Then this schedule, it basically shows what the next steps look like.

[51:15] So these next steps involve determining whether and where particular concepts might make sense,

[51:21] developing more detailed engineering identifying potential cost funding sources as well as establishing

[51:27] priorities. Daryl mentioned it earlier, but I just want to reiterate that any specific project

[51:33] proposed in the future that would ultimately come out of this study would have to go through these

[51:38] additional steps. And this again, this is a traditional pathway, this isn't an emergency pathway,

[51:43] this is the traditional pathway. And any of those projects would require its own environmental review,

[51:50] continued public outreach, along with all of the necessary permitting and approvals through the appropriate regulatory agencies.

[52:01] And while OCTA continues this work, again, I want to reiterate that we remain an active participant and supporter of

[52:20] agencies as well. There is the the South Orange County Beach Coalition is in the process of putting

[52:29] together a master inventory of the status of sand depth on our beaches, which we are an active

[52:35] participant in that group. And all of that work and that group will be critical in the ongoing pursuit

[52:40] of sand and allow us to create an annual sand retention and replenishment plan in partnership with

[52:46] our local agency partners through that group.

[52:49] So again, while OCTA is working on advancing and carrying forward these items for continued

[52:57] analysis while we determine what the next set of projects will be, we will continue to

[53:03] participate in standard related discussions as well as support our partner agencies and their

[53:09] pursuits as well.

[53:11] And with that, that concludes our presentation, and we'd be happy to answer any questions.

[53:18] Thank you, Rebecca, and then questions.

[53:23] Go ahead, first of all, Director Climate.

[53:27] So, I know there are a lot of directors who are much closer to this than I am.

[53:31] Just a question about this El Niño year that we're expecting and how that impacts both existing,

[53:41] distinct and replenishment efforts and proposed as well as, obviously, the stabilization, stabilization piece of it.

[53:54] Yes. So we are continuing to monitor that.

[53:58] And I mean, Dan alluded to it, but we've already started to see some like, you know, ocean swells and things like that that have already required some emergency repairs.

[54:06] So we are definitely aware of the, of the super El Nino that experts are talking about and we're working closely with all of our partners to monitor, as best as we can and if emergencies arise, we will be prepared to address those, but again as part of this study, we are trying to become more proactive and get away from just always doing emergencies all the time.

[54:34] So this is part of us trying to be proactive, and so in the future, as these storms come,

[54:39] we're in a better position to address them, and I don't know if Dan, if you have anything

[54:45] you'll add to that.

[54:46] We're just like Darrell, jump in and I would like to talk about that by the transition.

[54:50] I think it's an important question to ask my director climate and you open with other directors

[54:53] or closer.

[54:54] So if maybe we can go back to a slide to just to put that in context, it's been nearly

[54:59] too...

[55:00] Years since we went through, so the slide two, the second box, the priority projects are immediate needs with the support of the board and help from the state transportation agency in the Federal Railroad Administration in 2023 and 4.

[55:16] We came up with these four emergency areas. Initial applications and conversations with the California Coastal Commission is many of the board members know well.

[55:25] They were deemed to not be emergencies, but the whole idea was to get prepared for the next storm season.

[55:30] About 15 months ago, I think, under concern, maybe even pressure from the OCT board.

[55:37] Three of those four areas were turned into emergency applications through the California Coastal Commission.

[55:43] We still believe area four, but we call area four, which is site for shores.

[55:46] Some of the video you may have seen in the last two weeks, where the waves are overtopping the rail line and the rail vehicle.

[55:51] We still believe that should be an emergency, and as recently as last Thursday the coastal commission is still denied that's an emergency.

[55:57] So we are absolutely focused on that, but there is significant regulatory approvals that are in place.

[56:05] And the forecast for El Niño is only going to make that worse.

[56:08] When we sat here two years ago, our goal was to get these four areas done before the storm season of 25.

[56:14] And now we're approaching the storm season of 26.

[56:16] And we have about two and a half of them done, and probably the most significant one is not done.

[56:21] So although Rebecca is correct, that's different than this study, it is very timely, and we still have significant concern that we can't get through the permitting processes where we need to get to in a timely manner.

[56:36] Thank you, very helpful. And again, I know Director Folley's closest to this and I'm coming in new to it, but I think specifically my question is really, obviously we need to have a long term solution here.

[56:50] But given what the immediate forecast is, I would hate to see our efforts immediately negated.

[56:59] That's kind of where I was headed.

[57:00] Thank you for the additional explanation.

[57:04] All right, director Foley.

[57:07] Thank you.

[57:07] And first, I just want to complement Rebecca and Dan.

[57:12] And thank you for your well-presented information at the community meetings,

[57:19] including at our so-called beach coalition meeting and thank you for being

[57:24] available to answer questions and I also want to thank CEO Johnson and your

[57:31] team for listening and being open-minded to learning and really I think that

[57:37] this study has made great changes in terms of when I first started talking

[57:45] about this in terms of whether sand was a, was there a nexus between sand replenishment and

[57:52] transportation. I think we've come a long way. So I want to express my appreciation for that.

[57:58] I do think we still have a ways to go, but after our meeting at the beach coalition,

[58:05] and we had that presentation about the, what I'm going to describe as overly burdensome

[58:13] an egregious permitting process,

[58:18] I, while, in parallel to this study, we've got to figure

[58:24] out how do we streamline that permitting process.

[58:28] And we need to do that in coordination, as I think we learned, with the city of San Clementi

[58:36] especially, so that we don't go through the permitting process, which now looks like, you know,

[58:41] We secured the funding for 300 million for the sand nearly two years ago now and under the current proposal,

[58:53] we're not going to be placing sand at best for another two years.

[58:58] So that length of time does not address the sense of urgency to get back to Dr. Clemens comment.

[59:06] I mean, we need to be depositing sand now.

[59:11] And so that is something we have to address.

[59:15] And I understand the long term studies.

[59:18] It's hard to not talk about the short term

[59:20] and the midterm, as we're talking about the long term,

[59:24] because the long term may change if we have no beach left.

[59:27] So that is the concern.

[59:30] But I do think we need to focus on that.

[59:34] As it relates to the long term,

[59:36] I just want to encourage you all to continue to work with the local stakeholders, and I think that this state, I hope that the state effort will not just bog down the process, but will actually help us expedite the process of planning for the future for maintaining our rail corridor.

[1:00:00] Because a lot of people don't realize we're the second strongest rail corridor in America, in terms of the number of

[1:00:06] communities using the corridor. So thank you for the efforts and I don't think we need it. Well, I'll move. If it's appropriate time.

[1:00:16] I think it's a receiver file. I think there's a language in there that says direct staff to continue.

[1:00:21] It will require an action. So I'll move the recommended.

[1:00:26] Okay. Thanks. Thank you. Certainly take the motion.

[1:00:30] I'd like to thank you for the excellent work and I think the upcoming winter when we have the

[1:00:38] El Naneo is going to be a pretty interesting test and I hope we look at that carefully because

[1:00:44] that could change some of the priorities and when I'm seeing when I visit the beach area is

[1:00:49] recently I think a whole coastline is under attack and this is the rail component and so I look

[1:00:58] forward to your continued study and vigilance as well as part of that and very

[1:01:02] interesting seeing how to pay for some of these things as they unfold in terms of

[1:01:07] the priority if we can set that right so just thank you guys for the good work you're doing.

[1:01:13] Thank you Rebecca could you go back to slide one for me?

[1:01:17] All right so I just it's important I think for this board to recognize and for the public to

[1:01:23] understand the second word there is rail this is this is the coastal rail resiliency study

[1:01:28] this is not the coastal resiliency study. It's an important distinction because I think a lot of

[1:01:33] people in the public because this agency is so good at planning and because we own the

[1:01:41] most relevant infrastructure closest to the water down there in most cases. Everyone looks to this

[1:01:47] agency first to solve the coastal resiliency issues that are only ours or only related to us

[1:01:53] because we happen to have the train tracks.

[1:01:55] If not for the train tracks, this would be someone else's coastal resiliency problem.

[1:02:01] And it's important for everybody to understand that.

[1:02:03] But we do own the train tracks down there and until this is solved,

[1:02:06] people will continue to be looking at us and we will continue to have to work on this.

[1:02:11] Something you said Rebecca, I think is really important.

[1:02:14] As we look at this, we are looking at our, is it 100 foot wide right of way and what we need to protect,

[1:02:20] But we are part of a bigger solution and there needs to be a group and I appreciate that the South Orange County Beach Coalition is working on this, but whoever that lead agency is on coastal resiliency, writ large, we need to be good partners there and whatever that solution is becomes part of our solution, right?

[1:02:41] If there were 100 yards of sand between our train tracks and the water right now, we would not be sitting here talking about this.

[1:02:50] But there isn't.

[1:02:52] Until now, cities have been left to their own devices to solve this, Huntington Beach and Newport Beach have.

[1:02:57] They have long, in place, you know, funded and programmed sand replenishment and retention projects.

[1:03:05] No fault of the current leadership in San Clemente.

[1:03:07] They are woefully behind on that and they're now working diligently towards it, but we need

[1:03:12] to help them and work with them and partner with them as they work towards that and become

[1:03:17] that needs to become part of the solution.

[1:03:19] And hopefully some other agency becomes the lead agency to take this stuff on.

[1:03:24] But until then, unfortunately, the cities are left to figure it out on their own,

[1:03:28] and we just need to work with them as partners.

[1:03:30] And I know we're working on that, and we've done a good job working on that,

[1:03:34] and helping the public understand that, you know, by the time the emergency work is done

[1:03:40] in our sand is actually placed, I think it's going to roll into the becomes part of this

[1:03:44] project, right, and we thought it was short term, and it becomes part of our mid-range solution.

[1:03:53] I appreciate the work, it is important, we need to protect those tracks, but that we need to make

[1:04:03] that our plans are working together with the other agencies who need to be thinking about coastal

[1:04:09] resiliency on a larger scale.

[1:04:11] So thank you for that.

[1:04:13] I love the direction to continue to work with the stakeholders, not just to hear them out,

[1:04:18] but to partner with them on a solution.

[1:04:21] So we're not here talking about this every time there's a big storm that washes the sand out.

[1:04:25] It is really hard to make up a delta, I think it's on slide 15,

[1:04:29] of the one point, can you go to slide 15 real quick?

[1:04:35] 1.3 million cubic yards of sand used to wash out on to do Haney from San Juan Creek.

[1:04:45] That's a lot of sand, and we now man-made sand has to make up that delta somehow,

[1:04:52] because it all gets caught way further upstream and it doesn't come out anymore.

[1:04:55] I live walking distance from where that San Juan Creek dumps into do Haney Beach, and there's no sand.

[1:05:00] We need to figure out, not this agency, collectively as a South Orange County or as a society need to figure out how to make that up if we're going to keep our peaches.

[1:05:11] Anyway, thank you for the hard work, Director Foley, go ahead.

[1:05:15] Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And yes, as part of our South Orange County beach coalition, we are trying to take the lead in terms of getting all of the stakeholders together at the table.

[1:05:26] And I think this historical summary is really helpful.

[1:05:31] One of the things we've done is we've over the last six months we've taken the time

[1:05:36] to really educate the group on the historical depth and width of the beaches.

[1:05:43] And the harbor, obviously, is what caused the sand to stop flowing into that ocean-side

[1:05:50] the Toro cell. And what we learned was that the county was supposed to replenish sand at

[1:05:58] 50,000 cubic yards annually. That never happened. And so we're trying to play catch up

[1:06:07] of what was decades of a lack of replenishment of the sand that has stopped flowing because

[1:06:16] of the development of the harbor. Additionally, what we have approved at the beach coalition,

[1:06:23] a draft last meeting was an inventory of all of the beaches. And we have a really good

[1:06:31] inventory. We now have a new coastal resiliency manager at the county and her job and you know

[1:06:46] pavement index, we're creating a sand inventory so that we have here's what the historical

[1:06:54] width of the beaches is based on documented technical documents and drone footage et cetera,

[1:07:04] but then here's our goal for each of the beaches and then we are going after grants. We already

[1:07:10] have identified a few grants to support, but what we've also identified as something I

[1:07:17] referred to earlier. We have the money. We have actually multiple sand sources, whether

[1:07:25] offshore, product, dam, buy it from a quarry that's local, get it from the Santa and

[1:07:33] ever, extra sand, many, many multiple sources of sand.

[1:07:38] We don't have the permits, and we can't get the permits for, we have the scoop permit,

[1:07:45] which is less than 300,000 cubic yards, but we can't get the permits for the amount

[1:07:50] of sand that we need, whether through CTA, or through San Clementi, or through the county

[1:07:56] orange because the state process mostly is extremely burdensome. And so that's what I'm going

[1:08:05] to pour my time into trying to reduce that process. But thank you.

[1:08:09] Well, and if I may Mr. Chairman, while we're on this screen since we're talking about it,

[1:08:13] what we've committed to with this board's committed to and what our state and federal partners have

[1:08:17] funded is 540,000 cubic yards. That would make it the single largest sand placement in 60 years.

[1:08:23] So we're ready to do it, we have the funding to do it.

[1:08:27] The board has said, go do it, but we can't get there.

[1:08:31] So not only is it sand, it's significantly more than anything else in the last 60 years.

[1:08:35] The only bigger ones, of course, were in 1969, in 1966, based upon the history there.

[1:08:41] So I think it's important to understand the context of how much we've committed to and

[1:08:45] trying to get that done.

[1:08:47] Not to appreciate it.

[1:08:49] And if any director, you probably won't, because I feel these for all of you.

[1:08:53] But if any other director's ever get asked why we haven't dumped the sand yet, I have a list

[1:08:57] of some of the outstanding things that need to happen.

[1:09:01] We have to result to get through a tribal and state historical preservation consultation,

[1:09:07] two different fish and endangered species studies, the Federal Railway Administration

[1:09:14] Categorical Exclusion, then the Coastal Commission will start looking at it in the California

[1:09:18] State Lands Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California State Water Resources

[1:09:23] board. And then we can hire a dredge and actually start dumping sand. So for everyone who's

[1:09:28] out there who's wondering why it's not there yet to direct a foley's point, this agency

[1:09:32] would dump that sand tomorrow if we could. Those things are beyond our control. So all right,

[1:09:40] is it we've beaten this up enough yet? Any other comments or questions? We took a motion.

[1:09:45] One kind of said one more comment. As it relates to what are we going to do about El Nino and

[1:09:51] is it going to take away all the sand? Well, the good news is, is Dr. Sanders and the UCI Flood

[1:09:57] Lab have been studying the placement of the sand.

[1:10:00] And even when we're getting these storms, the sand is staying in the ocean side, let's oral cell, which means that it's still in our area.

[1:10:10] It'll just flow back and forth. So the sand is there. We've got to get through the storms.

[1:10:17] All right. We do have a motion.

[1:10:19] Second, there's a second. Any public comments? Madam Clerk.

[1:10:22] To comment in real time, select raise hand to speak?

[1:10:27] Sign up. We're seeing.

[1:10:56] Well, I was going to move to support because after reading this packet, it looks like we

[1:11:04] have, it says 14, I see 13, but assume it's 14, procedural changes reviewed, 10 were assessed

[1:11:12] as positive and very positive only four as neutral or neutral to positive, zero were opposed,

[1:11:21] So I don't know why we're taking a we're withdrawing our support seems like we support this. I'm moved support

[1:11:29] I

[1:11:33] Wait on the second if there is doesn't one if one doesn't exist. I'll move

[1:11:38] Staff recommendations go to neutral is there a second to move to change our position to support

[1:11:45] Change to support. Correct. All right now. I'll make the motion to

[1:11:50] to move staff recommendations, which is really the one I want to pose it?

[1:12:00] I mean, I know that it doesn't necessarily, particularly affect us as OCTA, but it

[1:12:05] does put a very burdensome efforts against our effort to build housing in the future.

[1:12:14] And so it's really crippling the housing industry, which is all what everybody is mandated

[1:12:19] to do by the state.

[1:12:20] And so by going neutral, I get it, it's probably safer.

[1:12:26] But I think all of the housing industry will be opposing it.

[1:12:31] It's a huge alert right now in the last 72 hours.

[1:12:35] And so that's kind of, again, going back to,

[1:12:38] I understand that it might not necessarily affect OCTA directly.

[1:12:43] But I think though, is that we should consider enough opposition.

[1:12:50] before we get clarity on that because I don't know what I can't. I don't know what information

[1:12:56] she has at that we don't have because I don't see that in the packet I got. So I obviously

[1:13:02] don't want to do anything to deter housing. So what is it that's because here in the regional

[1:13:08] housing needs assessment integration, I thought this was something that was going to help us

[1:13:13] to be able to use transportation funds to build housing.

[1:13:18] That's what I thought.

[1:13:20] So the BIA has come out strong against this

[1:13:23] and we've been receiving lots and lots of emails

[1:13:25] about opposing it.

[1:13:27] They have entitled it the Housing Killer Bill.

[1:13:32] This letter doesn't even say that.

[1:13:34] So how do we have that from BIA?

[1:13:40] Through the chair, we have their letter

[1:13:41] which we provided this morning.

[1:13:43] And I believe they have submitted like a capital action alert

[1:13:46] that states something to that perspective.

[1:13:50] We really see, if I would see two positive things in here

[1:13:53] that are very positive, one is this eight-year planning cycle.

[1:13:56] And all of the modeling methodologies

[1:13:57] are all really positive.

[1:13:59] From a transportation concern, maybe the bad part

[1:14:02] is the integration of the California Transportation Plan.

[1:14:05] Perhaps it gives, with all due respect,

[1:14:07] to much oversight on local projects, but we don't likely see the housing issue the same way

[1:14:14] VIA does.

[1:14:15] We have different lens, of course, but which was our goal of staying neutral in the sense

[1:14:20] of we like the eight year planning cycle.

[1:14:22] We like the methodologies, the technical analysis.

[1:14:25] We're not sure about the CTP component, and we have heard the VIA's comments.

[1:14:31] But if we were to ask, is it better than what we have today, the answer is we believe

[1:14:34] it's better than what we have today.

[1:14:35] But we would still recommend a neutral position on it at this point in a time given how short the time frame was and we were not in the room

[1:14:43] To go sheet in the legislation that the four MPals were before I can get to the director climate. Yeah, I'm going to second the vice chair's motion to move to neutral and accept the staff's recommendation

[1:14:57] So we do have a motion and a second on that

[1:15:00] I'd be to take further discussion to act to climb and go ahead.

[1:15:02] Yeah, I just wanted to say that OCOG voted unanimously to take an opposition position on this last week.

[1:15:10] We're not BIA and we are not OCOG, here at OCTA. Our focus is transportation, so I'll just add that I think the concern remaining for this agency is that this gives

[1:15:24] car more power than I think we want it to have. If anything, we'd like to see go the other

[1:15:32] directions. So, again, from, you know, with my OCTA had on, I think we should be opposing this.

[1:15:41] Director Harper first. Yeah, the question does. So, ask a question for Mr.

[1:15:46] Jacinto. So, can you sort of, I guess, clarify a little bit, you know, what, what does this mean to OCTA

[1:15:53] if this passes, or if it does, and it seems like it's not going to really affect us much

[1:15:58] one way or the other. It's more of something for the planning organization. So you mentioned

[1:16:03] there was some effect on federal funding. That's the only thing that I heard in your presentation

[1:16:08] that might actually affect this agency. So can you maybe clarify that a little bit?

[1:16:13] Yeah, Director Harper, through the chair. Of course, I can give you a few

[1:16:18] overarching buckets of how this might impact us. One is what you mentioned in the federal

[1:16:22] funding. We are dependent on Skag, our Metro Pub planning organization to adopt a regional

[1:16:29] transportation plan, pursuant to federal requirements that regional transportation plan includes

[1:16:35] solicit and welcoming strategy, because Carb has traditionally been very late or has provided

[1:16:43] lack of detail in their analysis of the SES that has held up that planning process. So allowing

[1:16:49] more consistency and clarity on that process is a benefit in our eyes to ensuring that nothing

[1:16:56] gets jeopardized on the federal level. The second benefit, as the CEO mentioned, is that there

[1:17:03] is now more transparency on how carb is modeling the assumptions and more consistency with

[1:17:11] how the MPOs are to model things, so that we hope is reduces some gamesmanship as we set

[1:17:20] reduction targets pursuant test B375. The third is if there is Emerson area where

[1:17:28] Scag is unable to meet their greenhouse gas emission reduction target, this does provide a pathway

[1:17:33] for us to continue to access SB1 transportation funding if Scag has to adopt an alternative planning

[1:17:40] strategy that has been missing in the past and there are some regions specifically Sacramento

[1:17:47] who have identified the potential to not be able to meet their target and their by-loose SB1 funding

[1:17:53] from certain programs. Finally I would say another benefit to this is we did ask for several amendments

[1:18:01] one was to ensure transportation funding remain stable and not adding new requirements to that

[1:18:09] was done. In addition, we asked that agency such as OCTA be at the table in the target setting

[1:18:16] capacity. Previously, the bill had proposed the reconstitution of the regional targets advisory committee

[1:18:23] that existed back in 2008 when SB 375 first passed. OCTA was on that. We had representation from

[1:18:32] our CEO and one of our board members on that committee.

[1:18:37] Skag and the other MPOs did consider that and we're going to integrate us into this new process.

[1:18:44] Ultimately, the Governor's Office has to reduce costs that we not reconstitute the,

[1:18:49] what we call the R attack and instead have a public process.

[1:18:53] That the public process in the bill does acknowledge that regional transportation agencies need to be part of that.

[1:19:00] So our amendments have been addressed on those fronts,

[1:19:03] but obviously as the CEO mentioned,

[1:19:05] there are still areas of what I'll call ambiguity

[1:19:08] that give us some content that will require potential

[1:19:12] for their analysis or work in the future years

[1:19:15] to make sure there are no adverse repercussions

[1:19:18] and that includes the additional

[1:19:20] Caltrans language on the Caltrans Transportation Plan.

[1:19:24] And that would, so is there a potentially jeopardizer

[1:19:27] delay any OCT8 projects, you know, as a result of anything that's going on in this bill.

[1:19:35] Yes, there is, like I said, some ambiguity that potentially could lead to that situation.

[1:19:42] But the hope, and I think Calcog mentioned that in this analysis, is that we would work

[1:19:48] through that process to mitigate that potential and work with, of course, our Caltron's

[1:19:54] to mitigate that as they develop plans and performance measures for their own.

[1:20:03] Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I think overall, you know, there are positives and negatives. I mean, the bill itself is, yeah, regardless of what we think about it from a good or bad policy standpoint, I think, it sounds like remaining neutral from an agency standpoint is probably the appropriate stance at this point. So I will support the motion.

[1:20:30] Director, Jan and women. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[1:20:33] So, as I'm looking at this, so what this bill, it's going to impose new causes and delays

[1:20:39] on housing development. And it's also going to tie the housing mandate with carbon neutral

[1:20:46] target, which there isn't a blueprint right now. And that could also build and cost delays with

[1:20:54] projects that we work on for most ETFs standpoint, putting anything, I mean, I'll do a

[1:21:03] organization that gives nobody heads up no blue print or roadmap to where we need to get

[1:21:09] how to get to any of this. And so by empowering them more in the process of us building homes

[1:21:16] and infrastructure, I think it's a dangerous road ahead. And so that's why it's standing neutral,

[1:21:23] why it sounds great and it sounds quite frankly to me as a former legislator. It's just you

[1:21:31] don't want to take a stand. You don't want to take the heart's the heart stand on something.

[1:21:36] So I think we actually should oppose because if there isn't a road map, if there is,

[1:21:40] if there's going to be a cost to building housing and every city here is mandated to build

[1:21:45] housing for the state and allowing car to really dive in and do whatever they want to,

[1:21:55] especially with the carbon neutral target. I think it's, we should actually oppose it.

[1:22:00] So I would not be supporting the neutral.

[1:22:04] Okay.

[1:22:05] I checked young first guy.

[1:22:06] Oh, I hear supervisory ones points and they're well made.

[1:22:11] I think that it does signal to Sacramento,

[1:22:16] and certainly to the author of this bill,

[1:22:19] and the legislative staff of that author,

[1:22:22] that there are concerns by moving from a supportive

[1:22:25] amended to neutral.

[1:22:26] that is a serious move, it's not, you know, we're not, we're not, it's a something that I think

[1:22:34] staff has thought out. My concern is by going to an oppose, we eliminate ourselves from having

[1:22:41] a seat at the table. And realistically, if we are going to continue to fight for transportation

[1:22:48] in Orange County, we need that seat. We are the region standard. So that would be something I caution

[1:22:55] against. I think by taking a little bit more cautious and moderate approach, we amplify our

[1:23:03] position a little bit more and have somewhere to go. If indeed this bill goes south and it gets

[1:23:09] worse by opposing it, there's nowhere for us to go. We are stuck where we're at. So I would encourage

[1:23:17] you to let our staff monitor it and we'll continue to monitor them with it through the chair and

[1:23:23] support the neutral position. Thank you, sir.

[1:23:26] Director Foley.

[1:23:28] Thank you.

[1:23:29] Well, given all of the extra information that's not available to us as we're sitting here at the Dius,

[1:23:36] I'll support the motion because it seems like there's a lot of information that's going back and forth that not everyone has access to.

[1:23:45] And I don't know if it makes carbs stronger or weaker, I really just don't know given what's in our packet that I'm reading.

[1:23:57] So, I'll support the motion for next time.

[1:23:59] Thank you.

[1:24:02] Any public comments, Madam Court?

[1:24:05] To comment in real-time selectories, hand to speak?

[1:24:12] Seeing them.

[1:24:13] Okay.

[1:24:13] I think we have one in public or I'm sorry in person.

[1:24:15] Yes.

[1:24:16] Pol Hayak, please come forward.

[1:24:32] Two things.

[1:24:32] One, on the item 14, be when you order them, make sure you get a free one set up like they

[1:24:45] old 75-hag because of the fact that that single figure will be folded up and you can

[1:24:54] So, walkers, cards, number two, we need to...

[1:25:00] If the drivers, we're getting a lot of these homeless have dogs say, oh, he's my companion, but they don't have the paperwork. Is there some way we can have a driver verified that paperwork that he has a certificate saying he's a companion or a support dog?

[1:25:26] That's what I'm thinking. I've seen it, and you can always tell those errors.

[1:25:33] For me, support dogs because if they get on and they see another dog, they're going to

[1:25:39] grow on them.

[1:25:42] That's my comments.

[1:25:44] Thank you for your general public comment, Mr. Huyack.

[1:25:47] Madam Clerk, let's take a roll call, though, here if you don't mind.

[1:25:53] Chair Fedoriko?

[1:25:54] Yes.

[1:25:56] Vice Chair Jung,

[1:25:59] Dr. Chai-Pee.

[1:26:05] The motion, I'll clarify, the motion was to move from a position that we had, which was

[1:26:10] supported, amended, two neutral.

[1:26:16] The motion is to move to neutral.

[1:26:22] Director Foley?

[1:26:23] Aye.

[1:26:26] Director Go?

[1:26:27] Yes.

[1:26:29] Director Harper?

[1:26:30] Aye.

[1:26:33] Director Hennessy is left.

[1:26:35] Director Climin?

[1:26:36] No.

[1:26:39] Director Cloppinstein?

[1:26:43] Director Nguyen?

[1:26:44] No.

[1:26:46] Director Tam Nguyen?

[1:26:48] No.

[1:26:50] Director Tavillars?

[1:26:53] Just gone.

[1:26:54] Director Tettimer?

[1:26:55] No.

[1:26:59] Motion passes.

[1:27:01] six to five fails, right, okay, and I moved to support, I mean, I post,

[1:27:15] I had second that.

[1:27:16] Sure,

[1:27:24] before we vote, we did hear from the O-Cog meeting, BIA said that they would look forward to putting forward a bill that they felt was better overall it could take the best of what we find here,

[1:27:37] And then make some other adjustments to it and they would say they were happy to sponsor that bill going forward.

[1:27:42] So I don't know that we should do that. This is the end of this conversation.

[1:27:46] It's just it's a maybe a deflection point.

[1:27:49] So I think there's an opportunity to make it better.

[1:27:53] And my concern is that we pass things that are ambiguous and then hope to fight and make them better.

[1:27:59] If that's hopeful strategy which always troubles me,

[1:28:02] I'd rather have a better bill than past things that are ambiguous, and then have to try and clean them up later because that could be, that could go the wrong way, so food for thought. Thank you.

[1:28:14] Go ahead, director. Thank you. And the reason I voted neutral is because my guess is this is going to change after this meeting.

[1:28:22] This bill is going to change again. And so we don't even have the current bill before us.

[1:28:28] That's why I think oppose support is not the right position at this time given the conversation that we've had here today.

[1:28:39] Good to meet you.

[1:28:40] Good to meet you.

[1:28:41] Yeah, I just make comment.

[1:28:43] I guess the choice now is between oppose or support if amended.

[1:28:47] I or no, we already voted not neutral.

[1:28:51] So between oppose and support, I'm in the oppose camp.

[1:28:54] So even though I voted in favor of neutral, I will vote in favor of the new amendment.

[1:28:58] Go

[1:29:03] ahead, Director Noine.

[1:29:05] I'm fine.

[1:29:07] Okay.

[1:29:10] Just one comment is Chairman.

[1:29:11] I recognize we have 11 members.

[1:29:13] We need nine to vote anything.

[1:29:15] If you do stalemate, we're, you know, what we have is a supportive amended position.

[1:29:19] Just wanted everybody to know that.

[1:29:21] Yeah.

[1:29:21] Sadly.

[1:29:23] All right.

[1:29:24] Roll call vote, please.

[1:29:27] Chair Federico.

[1:29:31] Vice Chair Jones.

[1:29:34] Dr. Chaffee.

[1:29:37] Dr. Foley.

[1:29:40] Yeah, my motion is to oppose the bill.

[1:29:48] The motion is to

[1:29:51] start to weigh your mic is on.

[1:29:53] What the CEO is stating is currently as it exists right now on the OCTA's platform.

[1:30:18] Thank you for the clarification.

[1:30:29] Everyone understands how they're voting.

[1:30:35] Good.

[1:30:35] Start over.

[1:30:37] Chair Federico?

[1:30:39] No.

[1:30:41] Vice Chair Jung.

[1:30:45] Director Chaffee.

[1:30:47] Director Foley?

[1:30:49] No.

[1:30:52] Director Go?

[1:30:53] No.

[1:30:55] Director Harper?

[1:30:55] Yes.

[1:30:58] Director Climin?

[1:30:59] Yes.

[1:31:01] Director Clopin Stein?

[1:31:04] Dr. Nguyen, Janet.

[1:31:08] Sorry.

[1:31:09] It's okay.

[1:31:11] Director Timwin?

[1:31:12] Yes.

[1:31:15] Director Tettimer?

[1:31:16] All right.

[1:31:22] The motion failed seven to four.

[1:31:42] I would move to reconsider neutral.

[1:31:53] Mr. Chairman, can I make a comment?

[1:31:55] Sure.

[1:31:58] I'll go to neutral because I don't want us to be support unless amended.

[1:32:04] But I want to make it very clear that I'm very opposed to this bill.

[1:32:08] I'm not neutral to the bill at all, but because I don't want us to be listed as support and

[1:32:14] thus amendmented, we should move forward then just go with neutral.

[1:32:21] Let me show you if I may, I just clarify how staff would manage this.

[1:32:24] First of all, we recognize the bill.

[1:32:26] The amendments came out in print late Friday night.

[1:32:29] I want to thank Kristen and her team and working with Skag and Calcock to try to get

[1:32:32] something on the agenda today.

[1:32:33] We talked about it at the Ledge Committee on Thursday.

[1:32:36] So we recognize the short time frame on that, but if the board does go neutral, I think we can still express our areas of concern that you've expressed in the past relative to the amendments and consistent with our platform.

[1:32:51] But it does give us the ability to work with our transportation partners at the same time about what can work on the transportation side. So I think we will navigate that. If we do expect it, it will change. There will be more discussion over the course of the week, we're coming to the 11th hour.

[1:33:03] And if perhaps there's something that is significant, I could ask you, Mr. Chairman, we could talk about a special meeting to re-establish our position or reconsider our position.

[1:33:13] If something were to change significantly, but I think we can navigate the oppose and understanding that the board is, excuse me, the neutral and the board.

[1:33:20] Thank you.

[1:33:20] We can certainly do those things.

[1:33:22] We've had this information a couple days ago.

[1:33:24] We would add a really robust discussion at the Ledge Committee.

[1:33:26] We will continue to monitor it closely.

[1:33:28] I think it's very symbolic that the transportation agency is moving off a support position on a bill, that's very thick.

[1:33:35] And in some cases is very beneficial to the way that the transportation planning works.

[1:33:41] I think the symbolism of that is very important.

[1:33:46] And there's Mr. Don, it's no reason why we can't reconsider and accept the motion to reconsider the previous action, right?

[1:33:55] Correct.

[1:33:55] All right, so we have a motion headache second and can I clarify Mr. Donald can the motion be to reconsider and vote for neutrals?

[1:34:04] So we don't have to have two motions.

[1:34:06] Or do we have to have two motions?

[1:34:10] As I understand at the motion right now is just to move to a neutral position.

[1:34:15] So that can just function is.

[1:34:17] If the board approves that.

[1:34:19] So one motion.

[1:34:20] We can do it in one motion.

[1:34:22] All right, so we have a motion and a second to reconsider and change to a neutral position.

[1:34:26] Correct. They won't understand that. That I'm clear. Good.

[1:34:32] Chair Federico. Yes.

[1:34:34] Vice Chair Jung.

[1:34:36] Dr. Chaffee.

[1:34:39] Dr. Foley. Fine.

[1:34:42] Dr. Go. Yes.

[1:34:44] Dr. Harper. Yes.

[1:34:46] Dr. Climan. Yes.

[1:34:49] Dr. Clappard Stein. Yes.

[1:34:52] Dr. Janet Win. Dr. Tamwin. Yes.

[1:34:56] Dr. Chetimer.

[1:34:58] There we go.

[1:35:00] Mr. Chairman.

[1:35:01] Yes, ma'am.

[1:35:02] Can we ask, because my office hasn't received any of the analysis or information that's being presented

[1:35:09] by Director Wynn or Climin, and so if there's any information that you could forward to

[1:35:16] us, we haven't had any communication from the BIA or anyone. I've checked while I'm sitting

[1:35:21] here. So if we could get an analysis of the concerns, because, of course, I'm very

[1:35:28] crow housing. So I wouldn't want the transportation bill to hurt our housing efforts. So I can't

[1:35:36] see that in the written words that are in front of me so I'd like to know what the analysis is

[1:35:42] and why they're such concern. Absolutely. And I understand a lot of directors are getting some

[1:35:47] of this information at other bodies that they serve on. And we frankly don't have that here. And

[1:35:56] And we have anything else.

[1:35:57] We're happy to share it.

[1:35:59] I would just note we did hear from BIA.

[1:36:01] We followed the O-Cog discussion.

[1:36:03] And clearly, someone had information about the amendments

[1:36:06] that they were not sharing with the transportation parties.

[1:36:09] We did not see the amendments until they were actually

[1:36:11] in print Friday night.

[1:36:12] We also know people have those, but they were not

[1:36:15] being shared with the transportation parties,

[1:36:16] including Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and others.

[1:36:20] So we can only analyze what we have.

[1:36:22] So we didn't have anything to analyze until Friday night.

[1:36:24] Yeah, no fault of this agency. Other, you know, directly getting it at other agencies who are probably more related to housing than this one

[1:36:31] And so as we get it if we have it will certainly pass it on to everyone and

[1:36:35] Thank you because we we can change our position again if need be right. Thank you all for for working on that one

[1:36:45] Are there any other general public comments?

[1:36:49] Yes, Mr. Chair, we did receive a few written comments from Daniel Militon and two from Craig

[1:36:54] Derby.

[1:36:54] They were provided to the board on August 23rd at 6.10 p.m. and I will check online if you have

[1:36:59] any public comments in real time, please select raise hand to speak.

[1:37:06] Sing then.

[1:37:07] Okay.

[1:37:08] Mr. Johnson.

[1:37:09] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[1:37:10] Just one quick comment to make.

[1:37:12] We are finalizing the outreach on our long range transportation plan, which looks at the

[1:37:16] blueprint for transportation from 2026 through 2050.

[1:37:19] We held a second elected officials workshop last week. It was very well attended. We do have another public opportunity, which is an online community meeting this Wednesday, the 26 from 6 to 7 p.m. Participations available in English, Spanish and Vietnamese.

[1:37:31] Residents can also provide their input through an online survey through September 20 including meeting registration taking the survey that can all be available at OCTA.net-slrtp.

[1:37:41] If you would like information to put into your newsletter or social media, please let me know and we can provide that information to you as well.

[1:37:47] So that Mr. Chairman of Food and I remarks.

[1:37:49] Thank you, and Director's reports, Director Nguyen.

[1:37:53] Just for if I won't be able to record a yes on the consent calendar, please.

[1:38:00] Thank you.

[1:38:01] Anyone else?

[1:38:03] All right.

[1:38:04] Thank you, everybody.

[1:38:04] Our next meeting will be September 14th, year 930 AM at OCT Headquarters.

[1:38:09] We are adjourned. Thanks.

[1:38:36] Please hold.

[1:38:37] The meeting will be starting shortly.

Board Meeting (Auto-Generated Trim Backup)

Agenda

Transcript