Wednesday, June 7, 2017 9:30 AM
Agenda
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
William Mulholland Conference Room
1. Call to Order/Roll Call Action (Fanny Pan, Brian Lam)
2. Agenda Reports by Standing Committees Information Bus Operations (Jane Leonard) Local Transit Systems (Sebastian Hernandez) Streets and Freeways (Fulgene Asuncion) TDM/Sustainability (Mike Bagheri) Attachment 1: Subcommittee Agendas Attachment 2: Subcommittee Actions
3. Chairperson’s Report Information 5 min (Fanny Pan)
4. Consent Calendar Action
Approval of Minutes Attachment 3: Draft May 3, 2017 Minutes
5. TIMED AGENDA 9:45 AM
FTA Section 5310/5316/5317 Appeals Action Attachment 4: TAC Appeals Protocol & (Jami Carrington) FTA Section 5310 Appeals Guidelines Attachment 5: FY 17 FTA Section 5310/5316/5317 Evaluation Criteria Attachment 6: Appeals Fact Sheets
6. FY 18 Transit Fund Allocations (FAP) Action
5 min (Manijeh Ahmadi)
7. Draft Measure M Guidelines Information/Possible Action 5 min (Kalieh Honish)
8. FY 18 Metrolink Budget Information
10 min (Yvette Reeves)
9. 2017 Call Recertification/Deobligation/Extension Information
5 min (Fanny Pan) Attachment 7: Recertification List Attachment 8: Deobligation List Attachment 9: Extension List Attachment 10: May 3, 2017 TAC Appeals Summary
10. West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor Information 10 min (Fanny Pan/Teresa Wong)
11. Airport Metro Connector 96th St Station Information
10 min (Meghna Khanna)
12. Legislative Update Information 15 min (Michael Turner/Raffi Hamparian)
13. ATP Update Handout provided in lieu of oral report
14. Other Business
15. Adjournment
TAC Minutes and Agendas can be accessed at: http://www.metro.net/about/tac/ Please call Brian Lam at (213) 922-3077 or e-mail [email protected] with questions regarding the agenda or meeting. The next meeting will be on July 5, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. in the William Mulholland Conference Room.
2
Attachment 1
Subcommittee Agendas
3
Tuesday, May 16, 2017
Agenda
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
BUS OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE William Mulholland Conference Room – 15th Floor 9:30 am
1. Call to Order (1 minute)
Action Jane Leonard
2. Approval of April 18, 2017 Minutes (1 minute)
Action BOS
3. Chair’s Report (5 minutes)
Information Jane Leonard
4. Metro Report (5 minutes)
Information Annelle Albarran
5. FTA Update (10 minutes)
Information Arianna Valle/Adam Stephenson/Stacy Alameida
6. FAP Approval (10 minutes)
Action Manijeh Ahmadi
7. Update on New Low Income Program (10 minutes)
Information Armineh Saint
8. FY18 Budget Update (15 minutes)
Information Quintin Sumabat
9. Access Update (10 minutes)
Information Matthew Avancena
10. Transit Industry Debriefing/Updates (5 minutes)
Information All
4
Information Items:
90-day Rolling Agenda Summary of Invoices FY 2017 Summary of EZ Pass Invoices FY 2017 Subsidy Matrix FY 2017 TDA-STA Capital Claims FY 2017 TDA-STA Claims FY 2017 FY18 Budget Update
BOS Agenda Packages can be accessed online at: https://www.metro.net/about/bos/ Please call SCOTT HARTWELL at 213-922-2836 or ANNELLE ALBARRAN at 213-922-4025 if you have questions regarding the agenda or meeting. The next BOS meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 20, 2017, at 9:30 am in the Mulholland Conference Room, 15th Floor of the Metro Headquarters Building.
11. New Business Information All
12. Adjournment
5
NOTE TIME: 1:00 PM Thursday, May 18, 2017, 1:00 P.M.
AgendaLos Angeles CountyMetropolitan Transportation Authority
LOCAL TRANSIT SYSTEMS SUBCOMMITTEEGateway Building – OMB Conference Room (24th floor)
Call in (213) 922-4940In house call ext. 24940
1. Call to Order ActionSebastian Hernandez, Chair
2. Approval of Minutes ActionSebastian Hernandez, Chair
3. OMB Budget presentation InformationTim Mengle, Metro
4. FY18 Funding Marks (FAP) 4th Draft ActionSusan Richan, MetroManijeh Ahmadi, Metro
5. Measure M Local Return Guidelines – Follow up on Feedback DiscussionSebastian Hernandez, Chair
6. NTD shared-ride policy on Taxicabs (voluntary reporting) Open Discussion
7. New Business, Date of Next LTSS Meeting Sebastian Hernandez, Chair
Note that the item: Metro Transfers Design Study recommendations, Georgia Sheridan, Metro,will be presented in July/August as they are experiencing project delays
6
Thursday, May 18, 2017 9:30 a.m.
Agenda
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Streets and Freeways Subcommittee
William Mulholland Conference Room – 15th Floor
1. Call to Order 1 min
Action (Bahman Janka)
2. Approval of Minutes Attachment 1: April 20, 2017 Minutes Attachment 2: Sign-in Sheet/Attendance Sheet Attachment 3: 90-Day Rolling Agenda
Action (Subcommittee)
3. Chair Report
5 min
Information (Bahman Janka)
4. Metro Report 5 min
Information (Fulgene Asuncion)
5. Caltrans Update 5 min
6. CTC Update
5 min
Information (Steve Novotny) Information (Zoe Unruh/Patricia Chen)
7. West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor Update
20 min
8. Rail to Rail/River Active Transportation Corridor Update 10 min
Information (Teresa Wong) Information (Robert Machuca)
7
9. I-710 South Corridor Project Update 10 min
10. I-605 Corridor Hotspot Program Update 10 min
11. State and Federal Legislative Update 10 min
Information (Lucy Olmos) Information (Carlos Montez) Information (Raffi Hamparian/ Marisa Yeager/ Michael Turner)
12. New Business 5 min
13. Adjournment 1 min
The next meeting for the Streets and Freeways Subcommittee will be held on June 15th at 9:30 a.m. on the 15th floor, Mulholland Conference Room. Please contact Fulgene Asuncion at (213) 922 – 3025 should you have any questions or comments regarding this or future agendas.
Agendas can be accessed online at: http://www.metro.net/about/sfs/
8
Attachment 2
Subcommittee Actions
9
Disposition of Subcommittee Actions
May 2017
Bus Operations Subcommittee:
Approved the April 2017 meeting minutes
Approved the FY 2018 FAP
Local Transit Systems Subcommittee:
Approved the April 2017 meeting minutes
Approved the FY 2018 FAP
Streets and Freeways Subcommittee:
Approved the April 2017 meeting minutes
TDM/Sustainability Subcommittee:
Did not meet in May 2017
10
Attachment 3
May 3, 2017 TAC Minutes
May 3, 2017 Sign-In Sheets
11
TAC Minutes, March 1, 2017 1
Wednesday May 3, 2017 9:30 A.M.
Meeting Minutes
Los Angeles CountyMetropolitan Transportation Authority
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
1. Call to Order/Roll CallBrian Lam (Alternate Chair) called the meeting to order at 9:34 A.M., took roll and declared aquorum was present.
2. Agenda Reports by Standing CommitteesBus Operations Subcommittee (BOS)
Last met on April 18, 2017
Received updates on:o State Transit Assistance (STA) Efficiency Testo Senate Bill 1 (SB-1) Benefitso Draft Measure M Guidelineso Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307 15% Discretionary Capital
and 1% ATI Funds Allocation
Next meeting is scheduled for May 16, 2017
Local Transit Systems Subcommittee (LTSS)
Last met on April 20, 2017
Received updates on:o Funding Marks for FY 2018 Subregional Paratransit 2nd Drafto FY 2018 Budget Developmento Measure M Local Return Guidelines Feedback
Next meeting is scheduled for May 18 , 2017
Streets and Freeways Subcommittee
Last met on April 20, 2017
Received updates on:o Airport Metro Connectoro Draft Measure M Guidelineso Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Planning Grant Round 5
Next meeting is scheduled for May 18, 2017
12
TAC Minutes, May 3, 2017 2
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)/Sustainability Subcommittee
Last met on April 26, 2017
Received updates on:o Bikeshare Program Update – Metro/Pasadenao Metro Complete Streets and First/Last Mile
Next meeting is scheduled for June 2017 (tentative)
3. Chairperson’s Report (Fanny Pan, Metro)A handout of the April 20, 2017 Metro Board meeting recap was distributed in lieu of an oralreport.
Ms. Pan reported that May is bike month, and Metro is offering a free month of bike sharewhen new users sign up for a monthly membership.
Ms. Pan reported that the Metro Policy Advisory Council (PAC) met on May 2, 2017, and staffwill be providing an update of the meeting during the Draft Measure M Guidelinesdiscussion.
Ms. Pan reported that Metro has hired Manjeet Ranu as the new Senior Executive Officer forTransit Corridors, which was previously held by Renee Berlin.
4. Consent CalendarA motion to approve the April 5, 2017 TAC minutes was made by Mohammad Mostahkami(League of California Cities – Gateway Cities COG) and seconded by Robert Beste (League ofCalifornia Cities – South Bay Cities COG). Eric Widstrand (City of Long Beach) and JaneLeonard (BOS) abstained. The minutes were approved.
5. FY 2018 Budget Workshop (Perry Blake, Metro)Mr. Blake reported that Metro’s overall proposed budget for FY 2018 is $6.4 billion, which is a1.4% increase from FY 2017.
Mr. Blake reported that the proposed budget for Metro Operations will grow by 6.1%.Construction and State of Good Repair will decrease by 11.8%, which is due to the settlementcase with the I-405 project. Subsidy Funding Programs will grow by 15.7%, which is largelydue to funding Measure M. Congestion Management will decrease by 13.5%. GeneralPlanning and Programs will increase by 17.1%. Debt Service will grow by 19.7%, which is dueto an increased use of Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) andMeasure R debt to keep construction projects on track.
Mr. Blake reported that Metro anticipates a sales tax growth increase of 2.8% over FY 2017,which includes new funding from Measure M. Measure M funds will make up 95% of whatexisting Measure R and Proposition A and C Ordinances generate. He explained that MeasureM will only generate 95% because the first year of a sales tax ordinance typically does notgenerate as much as existing sales tax ordinances. David Feinberg (League of California Cities– Westside Cities) asked why this is the case? Mr. Blake replied that there are many factors,
13
TAC Minutes, May 3, 2017 3
but it is mostly due to retailers having a hard time getting all their sales tax returns submittedto the State Board of Equalization.
Mr. Blake reported that 38%, or $1.4 billion, is eligible for Metro Operations and State ofGood Repair.
Mr. Blake reported that Metro has assumed Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality(CMAQ) and State Cap-and-Trade funds to continue for Gold Line Foothill Extension 2A andExpo Line Phase 2 operations. Metro also assumed Federal New Starts grants and TIFIA loansto help fund Crenshaw/LAX, Regional Connector and Purple Line Extension construction. Mr.Blake reported that a CPI of +1.75% was built into the budget, and is based on the BeaconEconomics forecast.
Mr. Blake reported that Metro will continue to work on the three major construction projectsfor FY 2018, which include Crenshaw/LAX, Regional Connector, and the Purple Line ExtensionSections 1 and 2. There have also been advancements in budget for Purple Line ExtensionSection 3, Airport Metro Connector, and Gold Line Foothill Extension 2B.
Mr. Blake reported that State of Good Repair will consist of: Facility, System and Maintenanceof Way; Vehicle Maintenance/Acquisitions; and Technology Improvements. He noted that theFY 2018 proposed budget will be posted online and that the appendix will include allanticipated capital projects.
Ms. Leonard (BOS) asked what the expected expense ratio was for rail versus bus? Mr. Blakereplied that 53% of State of Good Repair will go towards rail in FY 2018.
Mr. Feinberg asked how CMAQ funds are generated and how it is distributed in Los AngelesCounty? Mr. Blake offered to follow up with Mr. Feinberg about the matter. He noted thatMetro receives 80% of the first three years of CMAQ operating funds, and the rest comesfrom fare box recovery.
Mr. Blake reported that he could provide TAC members with more information regardingcurrent Metro projects in the various stages of planning and engineering via email.
Mr. Blake reported that there has been no change in overall Revenue Service Hours from FY2017, but service will be right-sized to increase efficiency and better serve the public. Staff isanticipating the use of 10 electric zero emission buses on the Orange and Silver Line, as wellas procurement for additional electric and ultra-low emission Compressed Natural Gas(CNG) buses.
Mr. Blake reported that Revenue Vehicle Service Hours for rail will increase by 11%. Staff willalso be integrating special service to accommodate demands from sporting events and otherpublic service needs.
Mr. Blake presented an overview of Congestion Management projects. He reported that theExpressLanes toll revenues are used to reimburse operators for enhanced bus service along
14
TAC Minutes, May 3, 2017 4
the ExpressLanes corridors. He noted that the Congestion Management staff is also currentlyexploring new ExpressLanes corridor options.
Mr. Blake reported that staff has held numerous forums to discuss Metro’s budget, and notedthat Metro’s interactive online budget tool is still available to provide input.
Michelle Caldwell (BOS) asked what is the bus cost per revenue service hour? Mr. Blakeoffered to send the information to Ms. Caldwell and Ms. Leonard via email.
15
TA
CM
inu
tes,
Mar
ch1,
2017
5
6.C
allf
or
Pro
ject
sD
eob
ligat
ion
Ap
pea
ls(F
ann
yP
an,M
etro
)
Pro
ject
ID#
Ag
ency
/S
po
nso
rP
roje
ctT
itle
Pre
sen
ter
Su
mm
ary
of
Ap
pea
lsT
AC
Rec
om
men
dat
ion
1
F31
75C
ulv
erC
ity
Cu
lver
Bo
ule
vard
Rea
lign
men
tP
roje
ct
Lee
To
rres
and
Mat
eG
asp
ar
Mr.
Gas
par
rep
ort
edth
atth
ep
roje
cth
asb
een
del
ayed
du
eto
ast
orm
wat
erp
roje
ctw
ith
inth
esa
me
pro
ject
area
asth
eC
allP
roje
ctth
atn
eed
edto
be
com
ple
ted
firs
t.T
he
city
has
acti
vely
bee
nap
ply
ing
for
gra
nts
tofu
nd
the
sto
rmw
ater
pro
ject
and
rece
ived
fun
din
gfr
om
the
San
taM
on
ica
Bay
Res
tora
tio
nC
om
mis
sio
n(S
MB
RC
)P
rop
osi
tio
n84
.In
add
itio
n,t
he
city
pas
sed
alo
calp
arce
lta
x,M
easu
reC
W,t
ofu
nd
sto
rmw
ater
pro
ject
s.T
he
gra
nt
fun
din
gis
for
the
sto
rmw
ater
pro
ject
,wh
ich
isse
par
ate
fro
mth
eC
allP
roje
ct.T
her
eis
no
fun
din
gsh
ort
fall
for
the
Cal
lPro
ject
.
Ino
rder
tom
eet
the
on
e-ti
me
20-m
on
thla
psi
ng
dat
eex
ten
sio
n,t
he
pro
ject
'sd
esig
nw
ou
ldn
eed
tob
egin
imm
edia
tely
and
exp
edit
ed.
20
-mo
nth
exte
nsi
on
toF
ebru
ary
28
,2
01
9.P
roje
ctS
po
nso
rm
ust
pro
vid
ean
up
dat
eat
the
May
20
18
TA
Cm
eeti
ng
pro
vid
ing
asc
hed
ule
toco
mp
lete
des
ign
and
awar
dco
nst
ruct
ion
con
trac
tn
ola
ter
than
Feb
ruar
y2
019
.
3
F31
39
Cit
yo
fM
anh
atta
nB
each
Sep
ulv
eda
Bo
ule
vard
Bri
dg
eW
iden
ing
Pro
ject
Ste
ph
anie
Kat
sou
leas
/Pre
mK
um
ar
Ms.
Kat
sou
leas
rep
ort
edth
atth
ep
roje
ctp
lan
sar
eco
mp
lete
dan
du
nd
erre
view
by
Cal
tran
s.P
roje
ctd
elay
has
bee
nd
ue
toR
igh
to
fW
ay(R
OW
)is
sues
.Th
ere
iso
ne
pro
per
tyre
mai
nin
g,w
hic
hth
eci
tyis
inth
efi
nal
stag
eso
fco
mp
ensa
tin
gth
eo
wn
ero
nso
un
dis
sues
.T
her
ear
etw
ote
nan
tsin
the
pro
per
ty,o
ne
of
wh
ich
isa
fert
ility
clin
icw
ho
seo
per
atio
ns
are
very
sen
siti
veto
no
ise,
vib
rati
on
,air
qu
alit
y,et
c.D
ue
toth
is,i
tis
likel
yth
atem
inen
td
om
ain
may
nee
dto
be
use
d.
On
e-ye
arex
ten
sio
nto
Jun
e3
0,
20
18
.
4
F11
68
Cit
yo
fS
anta
Cla
rita
Via
Pri
nce
ssa
Ext
ensi
on
-G
old
enV
alle
yR
oad
toR
ain
bo
wG
len
Har
ryC
ord
er
Mr.
Co
rder
rep
ort
edth
atth
ep
roje
ctd
elay
was
du
eto
eco
no
mic
do
wn
turn
.Ad
jace
nt
dev
elo
pm
ent
was
inte
gra
lto
the
pro
ject
,ho
wev
erth
atd
evel
op
men
tw
asd
elay
ed.
Th
ed
evel
op
men
tis
no
wm
ovi
ng
forw
ard
,an
dth
eci
tyis
pre
par
edto
mo
vefo
rwar
dw
ith
des
ign
.It
was
no
ted
that
this
pro
ject
iso
nly
able
tore
ceiv
ea
on
e-ti
me
20-m
on
thla
psi
ng
dat
eex
ten
sio
n.M
r.C
ord
ern
ote
dth
atth
ep
roje
ctsp
on
sor
will
atte
mp
tto
get
the
pro
ject
into
con
stru
ctio
nb
efo
reF
ebru
ary
2019
,aft
erw
hic
hth
ep
roje
ctw
illn
eed
tog
oto
the
Met
roB
oar
dto
req
ues
tan
add
itio
nal
exte
nsi
on
tofi
nis
hco
nst
ruct
ion
.
20
-mo
nth
exte
nsi
on
toF
ebru
ary
28
,2
01
9.P
roje
ctS
po
nso
rm
ust
pro
vid
ean
up
dat
eat
the
May
20
18
TA
Cm
eeti
ng
pro
vid
ing
asc
hed
ule
toco
mp
lete
des
ign
and
awar
dco
nst
ruct
ion
con
trac
tn
ola
ter
than
Feb
ruar
y2
019
.
16
TA
CM
inu
tes,
May
3,
2017
6
5
F35
07
Cit
yo
fB
ald
win
Par
k
So
uth
Bal
dw
inP
ark
Co
mm
ute
rB
ikew
ayP
roje
ct
Dav
idLo
pez
and
Far
zad
Do
rran
i
Mr.
Lop
ezre
po
rted
that
the
pro
ject
was
del
ayed
du
eto
des
ign
chal
len
ges
.Th
ep
roje
ctsp
on
sor
hir
edan
eng
inee
rto
exp
edit
ed
esig
nan
dw
ork
thro
ug
hth
ese
issu
es.D
esig
nis
curr
entl
yat
85%
com
ple
tio
n,a
nd
the
pro
ject
spo
nso
ris
wo
rkin
gw
ith
Cal
tran
san
dth
eC
ou
nty
for
per
mit
s.
20
-mo
nth
exte
nsi
on
toF
ebru
ary
28
,2
01
9to
com
ple
teth
ep
roje
ct.
6
F17
08C
ity
of
Los
An
gel
es
Ho
llyw
oo
dIn
teg
rate
dM
od
alIn
form
atio
nS
yste
mG
hen
tP
eer
Mr.
Pee
rre
po
rted
that
ther
ew
asa
chan
ge
of
sco
pe,
wh
ich
was
app
rove
db
yth
eM
etro
Bo
ard
and
incl
ud
edin
Am
end
men
t4
of
the
Lett
ero
fA
gre
emen
t(L
OA
).T
he
pro
ject
met
the
mile
sto
nes
set
fort
hb
yT
AC
atth
e2
01
6T
AC
Deo
blig
atio
nA
pp
eals
.Fu
rth
erd
elay
has
bee
nd
ue
toa
req
uir
edH
isto
ric
Pro
per
tyS
tud
yR
epo
rt(H
PS
R)
and
Fin
din
go
fE
ffec
t(F
OE
)b
yC
altr
ans.
Des
ign
isan
tici
pat
edto
be
com
ple
ted
inM
ayo
rJu
ne
201
7.
Fu
nd
ing
for
inst
alla
tio
nis
anti
cip
ated
tob
eo
blig
ated
Jan
uar
y20
18.
On
e-ye
arex
ten
sio
nto
Jun
e3
0,
20
18
too
blig
ate
fun
ds.
7
F35
14C
ity
of
Los
An
gel
es
Exp
osi
tio
n-W
est
Bik
eway
-N
ort
hva
leP
roje
ct(L
RT
PP
rog
ram
)
Ab
bas
sV
ajar
/Pau
line
Ch
en
Mr.
Vaj
arre
po
rted
that
the
pro
ject
has
bee
nd
elay
edd
ue
toR
OW
issu
es,l
eng
thy
leg
allit
igat
ion
,an
da
fun
din
gsh
ort
fall.
Liti
gat
ion
has
bee
nse
ttle
dw
ith
the
seve
np
rop
erti
esn
eed
edfo
rth
ep
roje
ct,a
nd
des
ign
has
beg
un
.T
he
pro
ject
spo
nso
ris
acti
vely
seek
ing
add
itio
nal
fun
din
gto
fill
the
sho
rtfa
llo
fap
pro
xim
atel
y$
6m
illio
n(b
ased
on
pre
limin
ary
des
ign
).T
he
pro
ject
spo
nso
ris
ho
pef
ulf
or
the
nex
tA
ctiv
eT
ran
spo
rtat
ion
Pro
gra
m(A
TP
)C
all.
Ms.
Ch
enre
po
rted
that
the
pro
ject
was
init
ially
sup
po
sed
tob
ein
corp
ora
ted
into
the
Exp
oLi
gh
tR
ailp
roje
ctan
dco
nst
ruct
edat
the
sam
eti
me.
Th
elit
igat
ion
del
ayed
this
pro
ject
and
incr
ease
dth
ep
roje
ctco
std
ue
toch
ang
esin
des
ign
and
con
stru
ctio
n.
On
e-ye
arex
ten
sio
nto
Jun
e3
0,
20
18
.Pro
ject
Sp
on
sor
mu
stp
rovi
de
anu
pd
ate
atth
eM
ay2
01
8T
AC
mee
tin
gan
dd
emo
nst
rate
that
the
pro
ject
isfu
llyfu
nd
edth
rou
gh
con
stru
ctio
n,e
ith
erw
ith
anA
ctiv
eT
ran
spo
rtat
ion
Pro
gra
m(A
TP
)C
ycle
4A
pp
licat
ion
,or
oth
erfu
nd
ing
pla
n.I
fth
eP
roje
ctS
po
nso
ris
un
able
tod
oso
,th
ep
roje
ctm
ayb
ere
com
men
ded
for
deo
blig
atio
n.
8
F36
32C
ity
of
Los
An
gel
es
Wes
tern
Ave
Bu
sS
top
&P
edes
tria
nIm
pro
vem
ent
Pro
ject
Jose
ph
Keu
ng
Mr.
Keu
ng
rep
ort
edth
atd
esig
nis
at90
-95%
and
sub
mit
ted
the
Pre
limin
ary
En
viro
nm
enta
lStu
die
s(P
ES
)to
Cal
tran
sw
ith
are
com
men
dat
ion
of
Cat
ego
rica
lE
xem
pti
on
.Cal
tran
sd
idn
ot
agre
ean
dre
qu
este
dad
dit
ion
alcu
ltu
rals
tud
ies
be
con
du
cted
asth
ep
roje
ctis
loca
ted
inth
eci
ty's
des
ign
ated
Cu
ltu
ralO
verl
ayZ
on
e.T
he
pro
ject
spo
nso
ris
wo
rkin
gw
ith
Cal
tran
s'st
aff
toco
mp
lete
the
cult
ura
lstu
die
sin
ati
mel
ym
ann
eran
dan
tici
pat
eso
bta
inin
gth
eE
-76
for
con
stru
ctio
nb
yJu
ne
201
8.
On
e-ye
arex
ten
sio
nto
Jun
e3
0,
20
18
.
17
TA
CM
inu
tes,
May
3,
2017
7
10
F31
46C
ity
of
Los
An
gel
es
Hig
hla
nd
Ave
nu
eW
iden
ing
-Od
inS
tree
tto
Fra
nkl
inA
ven
ue
Mic
hae
lH
add
adin
Mr.
Had
dad
inre
po
rted
that
the
pro
ject
was
del
ayed
du
eto
un
cert
ain
tyif
the
pro
ject
wo
uld
con
flic
tw
ith
the
new
lyad
op
ted
Mo
bili
tyP
lan
2035
,wh
ich
esta
blis
hes
new
com
ple
test
reet
sst
and
ard
sth
atw
ere
no
tin
pla
cew
hen
the
pro
ject
was
awar
ded
thro
ug
hth
eC
all.
Inad
dit
ion
,b
uild
ing
sup
po
rtfo
rth
ep
roje
ctw
ith
an
ewly
elec
ted
Co
un
cilm
emb
erw
asn
eed
ed.I
th
asb
een
con
clu
ded
that
the
pro
ject
do
esn
ot
con
flic
tw
ith
the
po
licie
so
fM
ob
ility
2035
and
ther
eis
full
sup
po
rtfr
om
the
Co
un
cilO
ffic
e.
Des
ign
isap
pro
xim
atel
y50
%co
mp
lete
,an
den
viro
nm
enta
lcle
aran
ceis
anti
cip
ated
tob
eco
mp
lete
db
yth
een
do
fO
cto
ber
2017
.RO
Wac
qu
isit
ion
will
beg
inim
med
iate
lyaf
ter
envi
ron
men
talc
lear
ance
.
On
e-ye
arex
ten
sio
nto
Jun
e3
0,
20
18
.
11
F31
12
Cit
yo
fLa
wn
dal
e
Ing
lew
oo
dA
veC
orr
ido
rW
iden
ing
Pro
ject
Fra
nk
Sen
ten
o
Mr.
Sen
ten
ore
po
rted
that
asc
op
ech
ang
ew
asap
pro
ved
by
the
Met
roB
oar
din
Au
gu
st20
16.
Des
ign
isap
pro
xim
atel
y65
%co
mp
lete
.Th
ep
roje
ctsp
on
sor
isw
ork
ing
wit
hth
eC
enti
nel
aV
alle
yU
nio
nH
igh
Sch
oo
lD
istr
ict
and
So
uth
ern
Cal
ifo
rnia
Ed
iso
n(S
CE
)to
acq
uir
eth
en
eed
edea
sem
ents
for
con
stru
ctio
nan
dre
loca
tio
no
fo
verh
ead
uti
litie
s.T
he
pro
ject
spo
nso
ris
also
wo
rkin
gw
ith
Met
roto
amen
dth
ep
roje
ctd
escr
ipti
on
inth
e2
017
-18
FT
IP.
20
-mo
nth
exte
nsi
on
toF
ebru
ary
28
,2
01
9.P
roje
ctS
po
nso
rm
ust
pro
vid
ean
up
dat
eat
the
May
20
18
TA
Cm
eeti
ng
pro
vid
ing
asc
hed
ule
toco
mp
lete
des
ign
and
awar
dco
nst
ruct
ion
con
trac
tn
ola
ter
than
Feb
ruar
y2
019
.
18
TAC Minutes, March 1, 2017 8
7. Draft Measure M Guidelines (Discussion/Action)Ms. Honish reported that the Metro Policy Advisory Council (PAC) met on Tuesday, May 2nd.Following an internal survey among the PAC members’ representatives and their alternates,the meeting consisted of five break-out sessions in order to aggregate various issuesassociated with the Draft Guidelines. The sessions included: ADA/Paratransit, Transit forElder Adults and Students, Discounts – which focused on the 75/25% split; Local Return;Multi-Year Subregional Programs (MSPs) – which discussed the roles of Metro, the Council ofGovernments (COGs), and funding administration; 3% Local Contribution; and Shovel-Readiness – which discussed project eligibility and program eligibility. Ms. Honish noted that“shovel-ready” refers to project-readiness, and does not refer to construction. She noted thatshe is aware that there is a desire to fund pre-construction activities, to the degree that theywere included in the scopes of work for projects that were submitted. This is a clarificationthat is legitimately needed, and does not necessarily speak to any cost of developing anyproject before it reaches the construction phase. She noted that term “shovel-ready” iscertainly not intended to exclude the design phase. Ms. Honish noted that the Mobility Matrixwas also discussed at the PAC meeting.
Ms. Honish reported that the PAC attempted to reach consensus on a variety of topics, but noofficial decision has been made. The PAC will meet again in early June 6, 2017, where they willfurther discuss the issues and hope to release a more formal position in June on the fivetopics from the break-out sessions. Because the PAC represents such a large stakeholdergroup, they also want to know what their smaller topics are and the pros and cons within thefive topics.
John Walker (County of Los Angeles) asked for elaboration on the ADA/Paratransit split. Ms.Honish replied that 75% of the amount set aside for the ADA/Paratransit group would gotowards Access Services, and 25% would go towards Students and Senior Discounts.
Jane Leonard (BOS) commented that the BOS is made up of Metro and municipal agencies,and through the PAC process, BOS input and feedback on the Draft Guidelines has beensubmitted through the Los Angeles County Municipal Operations Association (LACMOA)representation. Ms. Honish replied that the PAC represents various constituencies, and notedthat if BOS does not feel well represented or if there are specific concerns/comments thatLACMOA did not raise, she encouraged BOS to submit comments online viatheplan.metro.net, or via email at [email protected]. Ms. Leonard replied that for thepurposes of this discussion, there is not a formal BOS representation on contributions toTAC, so BOS members will be evaluating if they want to submit comments separately. Ms.Honish replied that BOS is unique in many ways, so its specific issues may get lost throughthe process.
Mohammad Mostahkami (League of California Cities – Gateway Cities COG) asked when thePAC last met, and when the next meeting would take place? Ms. Honish replied that the PACmet on May 2nd, and will meet again on June 6th. Mr. Mostahkami asked if the PAC isrequired to reach a consensus? Ms. Honish replied that they are striving for consensus butthat there is no requirement that they do so. If they have a consensus but simultaneously havea strong minority opinion on a topic, they have been asked to bring both sides forward whenthey report. In order to provide fair representation to their constituents, they do not
19
TAC Minutes, May 3, 2017 9
necessarily have to make a motion that they will make a specific change in the DraftGuidelines.
Mr. Mostahkami asked if comments submitted to theplan.metro.net will be shared with thePAC? Ms. Honish replied that the PAC has received all comment submitted to date, but notedthat not many comments have been submitted. She confirmed that they have received hisletter with comments, as well as letters from Local Transit Systems Subcommittee (LTSS) andthe Foothill Construction Authority. Staff has also received emails of draft letters that have notbeen submitted formally. Mr. Mostahkami asked if the PAC will receive any new commentsthat have yet to be submitted? Ms. Honish confirmed and noted that staff will send them anemail in two weeks.
Mr. Mostahkami asked if the language in the ADA/Paratransit Eligible Participants subsectionof the Draft Guidelines is also in the Measure M Ordinance? Ms. Honish replied that shedoes not recall the language being in the Ordinance.
Sebastian Hernandez (LTSS) reported that LTSS had formal recommendations on the DraftGuidelines that were submitted to the PAC. A handout of those recommendations wasdistributed to TAC members, and Mr. Hernandez summarized the comments.
LTSS requested clarification on the 3% Local Contribution to Major Transit Projects,specifically on whether this category applies only to rail projects. Larry Stevens (League ofCalifornia Cities – San Gabriel Valley COG) commented that the Draft Guidelines include anAppendix that lists Measure M projects that are subject to the 3% Local Contribution. Heasked if this is consistent with LTSS’s comment? Ms. Honish replied that is correct, andasked Mr. Hernandez if LTSS’ question is concerning the language in the Draft Guidelines asit pertains to whether it includes Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)? Mr. Hernandez confirmed that iswhat LTSS was referring to. Ms. Honish replied that the list of projects in Appendix A is thetransit lines that are subject to potential 3% Local Contribution, which does not include anyBRT lines. Mr. Hernandez asked for confirmation that this 3% only applies to rail lines? MarkYamarone (Metro) replied that the only mode confusion on this project list is the TransitConnector Orange/Red Line to Gold Line (LRT), which is currently funded as a BRT, but isultimately envisioned to be an LRT. Mr. Yamarone stated that while the project is still a BRT itwould not be subject to the 3%, but the 3% Local Contribution provision would kick in if it isconverted to an LRT. Ms. Honish noted that this is subject to the environmental process, andthat there is no assumed correct mode for the project.
Concerning the MSPs, LTSS requested clarification that the list of Subregional Programs isincluded in the Expenditure Plan. They also requested that eligible “capital projects” in theMSP, also include acquisition of contracted transportation services that are required for theservice delivery associated with the capital acquisition identified in the Mobility Matrix.
David Kriske (League of California Cities – Arroyo Verdugo Cities) commented that ArroyoVerdugo has a transit project in the Expenditure Plan but it is not listed as one of the projectsunder the Transit Subregional Programs in the Draft Guidelines. He stated that he wants tomake sure the Arroyo Verdugo transit project applies to the Subregional Transit Program. Henoted that State of Good Repair is mentioned as part of New Capital, but he suggested that
20
TAC Minutes, May 3, 2017 10
Operations should also be included. Additionally, he noted that the Subregional Program thatArroyo Verdugo submitted stated Transit Operations and State of Good Repair as its need, sothey would like to include that as an eligible expense in the Transit Subregional Programs. Heand also wanted to ensure that Glendale, Burbank, and Arroyo Verdugo are included in thatprogram.
Mr. Hernandez noted that there are some Operation-type projects in the Mobility Matrix, andit seemed as though some Capital projects in the Mobility Matrix are no longer eligible. Ms.Honish replied that the Ordinance specifically states that the funds are for Capital only. Mr.Hernandez replied that, similar to other federal legislation, “capital-only” also includes thepurchasing of transportation services. Heather Hills (Metro) asked for more clarification onhis definition of “service.” Mr. Hernandez replied that it would include revenue service hourswithout additional administrative costs. Ms. Honish replied that the Ordinance states thatthese funds are only eligible for Capital, and Capital is defined within the Ordinance, not theDraft Guidelines.
Justine Garcia (LTSS) commented that the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 5310Application included the possibility of proposing a new program or operation that involvespurchasing capital, such as buses, and also involves a large portion of new operating dollarsin order to operate expanded service. Therefore, LTSS’s recommendation is that buyingcapital buses to operate brand new or expanded service comes from a large portion ofOperations dollars, which should be included into the Capital category. Michelle Caldwell(BOS) also commented that another precedent for this is the Congestion Mitigation and AirQuality (CMAQ) program and the operation of rail lines. Ms. Honish replied that she isfamiliar with both of those federal sources, but stated that Measure M funds are not federalfunds. Mr. Hernandez commented that related LTSS’s concern of what Capital projects couldbe defined as, there should be clearer definition on the population requirement designating“small cities” for Local Return allocation. Mr. Hernandez hoped that there could be someflexibility with these definitions.
Concerning Measure M Recognition, LTSS is recommending that acknowledgement ofMeasure M funds should be simple and straight forward and not get bogged down in theprocess. They recommend revising the language so that the acknowledgement is determinedby the recipient agency in consultation with Metro.
Concerning the definition for Active Transportation and First/Last Mile, LTSS isrecommending revising the definition to include infrastructure for “regional and/or localshuttle circulator services.”
Concerning the 20% for Transit Operations, LTSS is recommending using the proper title of“Included and Eligible Municipal Operators” or “Regional Operators” instead of MunicipalProviders, since there are another 25 municipal providers that are ineligible for these funds.
Concerning the 2% for ADA/Paratransit, LTSS is recommending a change in the language ofthe Draft Guidelines for the 75/25% split to make it clearer that at least 75% of the 2% ADAParatransit fund is dedicated to support ADA.
21
TAC Minutes, May 3, 2017 11
Concerning the Local Return, LTSS is recommending increasing the annual $100,000minimum for small cities.
Concerning the Local Return Program (Public Transit), LTSS is recommending addingTransportation Network Companies as an alternative to taxis.
General comments from LTSS include clarification on whether the projects can be added tothe Mobility Matrix or to new matrices for the Ordinance. In addition, since Measure M doesnot sunset, LTSS is recommending a regularly schedule review and update of the DraftGuidelines, to be conducted at a minimum of every five years. Ms. Hills asked for clarificationthat a regularly scheduled review of Measure M already exists. Ms. Honish replied that thereis a Measure M review every five years, but that Mr. Hernandez is requesting a review of theDraft Guidelines be added.
Mr. Mostahkami asked if there have been any updates from staff regarding Local Return? Henoted that the Board had instructed staff to review the Local Return. Kelly Hines (Metro)replied that more scenarios were discussed, but no recommendations were made. Ms.Honish reported that part of the motion was to consult with the PAC to have their input. Theissue was discussed at the PAC meeting, but she could not comment on whether they hadreached a consensus. Jason Smisko (League of California Cities – San Fernando Valley COG)commented that at the PAC meeting it seemed like the Local Return minimum was going tobe taken out. Ms. Honish replied that she could not comment on that.
Mr. Mostahkami asked if it is true that there was a possibility of smaller cities getting a biggerLocal Return, while not affecting the Local Return of larger cities? Ms. Honish replied that shewas not aware of this information.
Mr. Stevens asked if there are were scenarios discussed that involved a Local Returnminimum higher than $400,000? Ms. Hines replied that there was no scenario of this sort.
Mr. Stevens asked the TAC members if they would like to focus on specific items, or if theywould like to cover the Draft Guidelines in general and try to reach a consensus? He notedthat his COG has a few big picture items to comment on. He was not sure if the San GabrielValley COG submitted the official letter yet. Ms. Honish confirmed that the San Gabriel ValleyCOG did.
Mr. Stevens noted that most of the COG commented on big items, which he described as the3% Local Contribution, MSPs, and Local Return minimum. He stated that he believed the twomost important items are the 3% Local Contribution and the MSPs. The TAC membersagreed to begin discussion on the three big topics that Mr. Stevens mentioned.
Mr. Stevens asked to know if soft costs, including staff time, are eligible to count towards the3% Local Contribution? If not, he would like the Draft Guidelines to consider that. Mr. Stevensstated that he wanted any betterments that cities choose to add along the transit line, that areotherwise acceptable, to count towards the 3% Local Contribution. He noted that currentlybetterments are precluded from being eligible in the Draft Guidelines. He noted that for asmall city, a 3% contribution for a multi-million dollar project could be extremely
22
TAC Minutes, May 3, 2017 12
burdensome. He believes that these small cities need a lot more flexibility for how to satisfythe 3% contribution. Mr. Yamarone replied that it is important to note that Measure M doesnot fully fund any project and that they all need additional funding. The financial forecastsassume a 3% funding from Local Contribution in order to have these projects built on time.Mr. Yamarone noted that the Local Contribution dollar amount is determined at the 30%design level of a project. Costs that are included at the 30% level are eligible to count towardsthe 3% Local Contribution, such as inspections, plan reviews, and parts of project delivery, aswell as first/last mile improvements. Concerning betterments, Mr. Yamarone stated that theywould all need to work together to define the term more clearly. He noted that bettermentsare often aesthetic improvements and not functional project costs. If it can be argued that thebetterment is improving pedestrian flow or capacity and is included in the project cost, then itis eligible.
Mr. Mostahkami stated that Local Return is meant for the improvement of the localinfrastructure, so that the cities benefit from it. With the 3% Local Contribution requirement,cities may have to give up some of their Local Return and thus defer their projects for severalyears. He stated that there should be a mechanism for cities to contribute through othermeans. He suggested the possibility of having cities apply for grants that could then be usedtowards the 3%. He believes that the current standards are too strict for the cities.
Mr. Stevens stated that the Draft Guidelines state an extraordinary benefit cities will get fromhaving a transit station in their jurisdiction. He noted that contributing 3% to help get theproject fully funded is a better argument than saying cities will benefit from a station. Mr.Stevens commented that the type of benefit from a transit station would depend on factorssuch as whether the city has low property tax, or whether the city has to subsidize theaffordable housing units in new Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs). He commented thattrying to sell the idea that cities will directly benefit just from having a transit station isdeceiving. He noted that if a 3% Local Contribution applies to any of the small cities along theGold Line, the Local Contribution amount would equate to about $8 million. He stated thatbecause the amount is so high, cities may decide not pay the 3%, which he believes is a poordecision. He stated that Metro may be forcing the cities to make this bad decision by notgiving them the flexibility to be part of the program. Mr. Yamarone replied that the benefits tocities are based on the examples from existing rail stations. He noted that areas around GoldLine stations have benefited from increased land value and job access. Mr. Stevensacknowledged that there are some benefits, but also some detriments; for example, additionalcosts to the Azusa Police Department. Ms. Hills asked Mr. Stevens what specifically is heproposing? Mr. Stevens stated that he would like to expand what is considered eligibletowards the 3% Local Contribution. Mr. Yamarone reiterated that if it is part of the projectcost at 30% design, then Metro is open to satisfying the 3%.
Mr. Stevens noted that the Foothill Construction Authority has told him that Metro staff andthe Construction Authority have agreed to the eligible components that will cover almost all ofthe cities’ 3% Local Contribution.
Mike Begheri (TDM/Sustainability Subcommittee) asked if first/last mile improvements suchas rerouting shuttle service, road dieting, and sidewalk widening could be consideredbetterments? He asked specifically what betterment is defined as. Mr. Yamarone replied that
23
TAC Minutes, May 3, 2017 13
if it fits into Metro’s goal of having a first/last mile plan for every future station, then it wouldqualify. These could include bulb-outs, sidewalk widening, signal improvements. Heelaborated that if it is in the project plan and costs, then it is eligible. He noted that he hadnot heard of shuttle rerouting or other operational costs being included in first/last mileimprovements. Mr. Stevens stated that the Gold Line is currently at 30% design but has nofirst/last mile plan. He noted that the Foothill Construction Authority does not want to dealwith first/last mile improvements.
Mr. Bagheri stated that whenever a new station is introduced, City staff has to go back andwork on zoning and general plan updates, which add extra costs to the City. He believes thatthese extra costs should be counted toward the 3% Local Contribution. Ms. Pan stated thatthe cities along the West Santa Ana Branch project have already been pursuing TOD grants inadvance and are working on specific plans. Ms. Honish noted that when a City has to makeinspections along Metro transit right-of-ways (ROWs) the City then charges Metro for theinspection. She stated that these costs are part of the project cost, which would be part of the3%. In-kind is allowed, but staff is trying to emphasize that it has to be part of the projectcost, because this 3% is lacking as part of the total funding component.
Mr. Stevens stated that he would like the language in the Draft Guidelines to clearly state thatthose types of costs are eligible, because he believes that they are in the project budget. Ms.Honish clarified that they are not eligible if they are not in the project budget. The key iswhether or not the component is part of the project scope. She noted that charging Metro forinspection of the ROW would count, but city staff time in reviewing the project would not.
Mr. Bagheri stated that there are some projects where cities use the use of ROW as part of thelocal match. For instance, a station may cause parking spaces to be removed, resulting in aloss of revenue from parking. There could be creative ways to satisfy the 3% LocalContribution, but the Draft Guidelines do not specify this.
Robert Beste (League of California Cities – South Bay Cities COG) asked if local match fundsare made of anything other than Measure M money? Ms. Honish replied that it could also befrom Senate Bill 1 (SB-1). Mr. Beste asked where Measure M Subregional funds come from?Mr. Stevens replied that the Draft Guidelines state that Subregional money is eligible, sofirst/last mile improvements that were included in the San Gabriel Valley subregional plan canbe part of the 3% Local Contribution, but he is not sure it that will be enough to satisfy the3%.
Mr. Mostahkami asked why the Draft Guidelines do not allow cities to use a Metrocompetitive grant to contribute towards the 3% Local Contribution? He stated that if there isfunding available from any grant, whether Metro, state, or other means, they should beeligible to use as the contribution? He stated that he would like to change the language in theDraft Guidelines to allow for any grants. He reiterated that the cities need more flexibility tomeet the 3% Local Contribution.
Mr. Bagheri stated that Page 37 of the Draft Guidelines list the eligible projects for first/lastmile. He noted that expansion of the eligibility list would help cities with the 3% LocalContribution. He recommended including additional capital improvements as part of the
24
TAC Minutes, May 3, 2017 14
eligible projects. He noted that the list does not mention curb extensions, corner rounding,and other capital improvements that could be added to the list.
Concerning betterments, Mr. Stevens commented that any capital investment that enhancesand improves on the operation of the transit system, funded by the local agency, should bedesirable to Metro and should not be discouraged. He stated that he would like those capitalinvestments be added to the definition of betterments. Mr. Yamarone replied that Metro has ahistory of working with local agencies to define betterments that would provide operationalimprovements to the transit system.
Mr. Stevens asked which agency San Dimas will be entering an agreement with regarding the3% Local Contribution; Metro or the Foothill Construction Authority? Ms. Hills noted that thisis a good question and suggested that Ms. Pan discuss the issue with the Senior ExecutiveOfficer of the Transit Corridor Planning. She stated that there is disconnect with the cities inknowing which agency they should be dealing with. Mr. Stevens noted that the FoothillConstruction Authority believes they are negotiating on behalf of the cities. Ms. Honishconfirmed that the Foothill Construction Authority has met with Metro but that there hasbeen no agreement signed. Mr. Stevens asked if they are even the right agency to be havingthat discussion, relative to compliance with the Draft Guidelines? Ms. Honish noted that itmay be beneficial for Mr. Stevens to have a meeting with the Foothill Construction Authorityto work out these concerns.
Ms. Caldwell commented that the City of Azusa negotiated an agreement with the FoothillConstruction Authority regarding parking, and Metro has now changed that agreement. Shestated that it needs to be established who is going to be making the final decision on the 3%Local Contribution? Mr. Stevens agreed, and stated that it needs to be decided if the 3%agreements will be made between the cities and Metro, or the cities and the FoothillConstruction Authority, in the case of the Gold Line Foothill Extension project. Mr. Yamaronereplied that this is a project specific comment, in which the answer will come as the projectmoves forward. Mr. Yamarone reported that from a Draft Guidelines perspective, one of thecomments from the PAC meeting was whether the 3% Local Contribution should be appliedto a whole corridor, and that each city would not be responsible for a specific amount, as longas that corridor meets its 3%. With regard to Mr. Steven’s question, Mr. Yamarone stated thatthe Foothill Construction Authority could be representing the cities and assuming thatresponsibility.
Mr. Beste asked if there will be a timing issue with the 3% Local Contribution if eligiblecontributions are constructed years before the Measure M project? Mr. Yamarone replied thatif the contribution is part of the project cost at 30% design, then it is eligible. Mr. Bestereplied that they are currently starting construction on a transit center where the Green LineExtension will eventually go. Ms. Honish reiterated that cities will need to contribute 3% ofthe project cost at a 30% design level. Mr. Stevens commented that if Mr. Beste does nothave an agreement with Metro on how the 3% Local Contribution will be satisfied for theproject, he does not believe costs from the past will be eligible. Mr. Stevens noted that part ofhis discussions involved being able to count soft costs as eligible towards the 3%.
25
TAC Minutes, May 3, 2017 15
Mr. Bagheri commented that the timing of eligible projects towards the 3% LocalContribution be tied to an adopted plan that is part of the transit station. If a city has anadopted plan that takes into account a specific future station that makes improvements,those improvements should be eligible for the 3%. John Walker (County of Los Angeles)asked for clarification on how an adopted plan is defined. Mr. Bagheri replied that if a city hasupdated their specific plan, knowing that a future transit station will be built, and the city hasconceptual designs for first/last mile improvements, then those improvements should beeligible towards the 3%. Kevin Minne (City of Los Angeles) asked if the language can bechanged to not apply to specific plans but to projects that have been specifically developed inanticipation of a transit station? He noted that the City of Los Angeles applied to the Call forProjects specifically to improve connectivity to an anticipated transit station, which hebelieves should be eligible for the 3% Local Contribution. Mr. Yamarone reported that Page 21of the Draft Guidelines states: All local improvements must be consistent with station areaplans that will be developed by Metro in coordination with the affected jurisdiction(s). Henoted that the idea is that Metro will work with cities on first/last mile improvements and putthem into the project costs. With regard to Mr. Beste’s project, building improvements nowwill mean that they are not included in the project cost, which will not apply towards the 3%Local Contribution.
Mr. Stevens commented that San Dimas has a residential development project that isimmediately adjacent to the Gold Line Foothill Extension 2B. The project was built five to sixyears ago because the City thought the Gold Line Foothill Extension 2B would be funded byMeasure R, but it ended up being a separate project. As part of the project, city staff requirednoise mitigation walls in anticipation of the running train. He noted that this project is animprovement and also saves the overall noise mitigation cost of the Gold Line. He asked ifthis improvement will count towards the 3% Local Contribution? Mr. Yamarone replied that ifMr. Stevens can locate the sound walls in the Gold Line Construction Authority’s constructiondocuments, then he can make an argument that the City has already paid for those becausethey have already been built.
Referring back to Page 21 of the Draft Guidelines, Eric Widstrand (City of Long Beach) asked ifthere are requirements that the station area plans be consistent with the local City’s plans?Mr. Yamarone replied that this is what was implied in the Draft Guidelines. He elaboratedthat it is the goal that Metro and the cities work together to jointly develop those plans. Mr.Widstand noted that the current language can create some confusion, because if there is anexisting bike plan that states one street should be improved, but Metro’s first/last mile planstates it that another street should be improved instead, there could be a problem. Ms.Honish commented that if any TAC members would like to add clarifying language, sheencouraged them to do so via email to [email protected] or metro.net/theplan
Mr. Mostahkami stated the importance of the TAC members to indicate how they want theGuideline language to read. Jane Leonard (BOS) agreed and stated that if TAC will beproviding recommendations, it should be as specific as possible. She asked what is thereasoning behind not allowing non-Metro competitive grants? Ms. Honish replied that it ismeant for Metro to avoid competing with themselves. Metro is trying to fund that 3% ofproject costs, and the agency cannot undermine their own fund plan. A Metro grant is usedtowards the 3% Local Contribution, might not otherwise fund another project down the
26
TAC Minutes, May 3, 2017 16
pipeline. Ms. Hills used the Call for Projects as an example. Metro funds 80%, and the LocalMatch is 20%, a portion of which can be In-Kind, but it is specified that the Local Match hasto be another source of funding. Mr. Mostahkami asked if he was able to do first/last mileimprovements through a grant from Metro, then why would that not be eligible towards the3% Local Contribution? Ms. Honish replied it is because the city would then be relying onMetro to meet their match.
Ms. Honish summarized that the 3% Local Contribution framework is that cities will becontributing 3% of the total cost of a project at 30% design. She noted that if the project costincreases afterwards, Metro will bear the burden. Mr. Stevens reiterated that the contributioncan include improvements such as station area planning and first/last mile improvements, aslong as they are in the plan and project cost at 30% design. He stated that what cities need todo is get their proposed improvements into the 30% design of the project. He stated that it isextremely difficult for a small city to come up with 3% of a total project cost and that thecurrent 3% Local Contribution amount for San Dimas is $1.2 million, which will increase iffirst/last mile improvements are added. He noted that this will be a very complicated process.Ms. Honish replied Metro is not looking for more than the 3% contribution, to the degree thatit exceeds the Local Return amount they will be receiving.
Mr. Mostahkami asked TAC members if there are parts of the Draft Guidelines they would liketo read differently? Mr. Bagheri replied that his comment was about the timing of whichprojects were eligible for the 3% Local Contribution. Ms. Leonard asked for clarification thatthe eligible contributions have to be identified by the city within their project plan, before 30%design completion of the transit project. Ms. Honish confirmed that the improvements haveto be identified before 30% design.
Mr. Bagheri requested a change in language on Page 21 of the Draft Guidelines, concerningActive Transportation Capital Improvement Contributions. He suggested that the languageread: “All local improvements must be consistent with station area plans that will bedeveloped by Metro in coordination with the affected Jurisdiction(s) or any adopted localplans in the station area.” Ms. Leonard and Mr. Mostahkami both stated that they wereunclear about the definition of “plan” versus the definition of “project.” Mr. Mostahkamiasked how “local improvements” are defined? Mr. Bagheri replied that these could befirst/last mile improvements. Mr. Mostahkami commented that he is still not sure whatMetro had in mind with “local improvements.” He asked if this could mean local streetimprovements, building improvements, or infrastructure improvements? Mr. Bagheri repliedthat this is why it is important to recommend additional language in the Draft Guidelines toclarify. Mr. Mostahkami suggested that it should read “all local projects.” Mr. Beste suggestedthat TAC members should instead submit individual comments, rather than trying towordsmith the Guideline language and obtain a consensus at the meeting. Ms. Caldwellcommented that there seems to be an agreement that there is a general lack of clarity. Ms.Honish commented that TAC can submit a comment on the general lack of clarity as a whole,and then submit individual comments on what they would like to see clarified.
Mr. Beste asked for clarification on how the 3% Local Contribution is calculated? Ms. Hillsreplied that the 3% has to be part of the total rail project. Ms. Honish elaborated that this iscalculated based on center-track miles. Ms. Hills demonstrated that, for example, if a track is
27
TAC Minutes, May 3, 2017 17
20 miles, costs $100, and has 10 stations in 10 cities, then 3% for each of those cities wouldbe $3.
Mr. Bagheri commented that the general confusion among TAC members concerning the 3%is not how it is calculated, but which city improvement projects are eligible towards the 3%Local Contribution. He noted that it is the cities’ responsibility to implement improvementprojects around Metro stations to make them viable and attractive to riders. Mr. Yamaronereplied that the project cost is the entire rail project cost estimate at 30% PE level. 3% of thetotal rail project cost estimate is then shared among the cities. He stated that there is theneven a further sharing among station area. For example, if the half-mile radius of a stationcovers more than one city, those cities will then share that 3% based on the square miles ofthe radius covering each respective city. Mr. Yamarone stated that one way to satisfy that 3%is through a direct monetary contribution; but if a city wants to build something within thehalf-mile radius through improvements such as widening sidewalks, installing new trafficsignals, or other first/last mile improvements, then those improvements could count towardsthe 3% Local Contribution. Ms. Caldwell asked for clarification on what kinds of projects areeligible? Mr. Yamarone replied that it includes any first/last mile projects that are in anadopted station plan that Metro and the city have collaboratively developed or if the project isincluded within the transit project cost at 30% design. Ms. Leonard asked for clarification thatwould involve a lot of multi-jurisdictional planning, well in advance of any implementation,and that cities will need to be involved in the early stages of planning with Metro, in order toidentify eligible projects within the plan that could to be applied towards the 3%? Mr.Yamarone confirmed that this is correct.
Mr. Mostahkami asked if the first/last mile draft Guidelines have been developed or are beingdeveloped? Mr. Yamarone replied that the First/Last Mile Strategic Plan was adopted by theBoard in 2016. The Strategic Plan stated that Metro is to work with the cities to developimprovements within a half-mile of transit stations. Mr. Stevens noted that there have notbeen any station area plans developed to date. He commented that because there are nostations area plans, cities cannot develop improvements. Mr. Stevens stated that their CityAttorney should be advising him on these issues. Mr. Mostahkami suggested that thelanguage on Page 21 of the Draft Guidelines read: “The criteria for local first/last mileinvestments for first/last mile contributions are being developed by Metro in coordinationwith the cities, specifically to carry out integration of first/last mile within their transit capitalprojects.”
Mr. Widstrand commented that Metro has started working on the Blue Line Station first/lastmile plans, and that the City of Long Beach will start engaging with Metro in those efforts inthe coming weeks.
Mr. Beste asked if one city’s improvements can overlap into another city and contributetowards the overall 3% Local Contribution? Mr. Yamarone replied that this issue was alsobrought up at the PAC but no consensus was reached. Mr. Stevens asked for clarification thatif this scenario were allowed, then the cities along the Gold Line stations could form anagreement to meet the total 3% Local Contribution? Mr. Yamarone confirmed that that wouldbe possible. He noted that if Metro can enter into an agreement with a group of cities orconstruction authorities, it seems to be consistent with Metro’s goals. Mr. Walker asked if
28
TAC Minutes, May 3, 2017 18
TAC would need to submit a comment to revise the language in the Draft Guidelines to reflectthis possibility? Ms. Honish replied that the Ordinance specifically states that the agreementhas to be made with the jurisdictions, so if a city has given a construction authorityjurisdiction over a project, then revising the language would not be necessary. However, thecities can provide comment requesting clarification to indicate that the cities have providedwritten agreement. She stated that TAC members can submit a comment asking foragreements to be made between Metro and the COGs if they wish, since different subregionshave varying relationships with their COGs, or some cities may not want a constructionauthority to participate. Mr. Walker requested to have the language on Page 20 of the DraftGuidelines read: “The Ordinance includes provisions that allow development of a mutualagreement between a jurisdiction, a group of jurisdictions, or subregion, and Metro, and adefault penalty if such an agreement cannot be reached.” He noted that he will formallysubmit the comment via [email protected].
Ms. Honish distributed a handout listing certain sections of the Draft Guidelines that willneed to be further developed.
Concerning MSPs, Ms. Pan noted that the list states the procedure for determining MSPproject readiness will be established within one year of adoption of the Draft Guidelines.
Mr. Stevens noted that the San Gabriel Valley COG would like to see a greater commitment toincorporating the COGs into the subregional planning process and letting them have somelevel of control over the prioritization of funds. He noted that the San Gabriel Valley COG’scomment will include a recommendation that the COG can prepare a five-year capital plansubject to Metro approval. Their other comment will also be concerning how the term“project sponsor” is defined. He also proposed having a special Call for Projects for eachsubregion. Ms. Hills replied that the Mobility Matrices were developed by Metro after workingwith all 89 jurisdictions in Los Angeles County and the COGs. She noted that the social justiceand advocacy groups in the PAC do not like the idea of COGs creating their own Call. Mr.Beste commented that there does not need to be a one size fits all Call, and if each subregioncan do one differently, it should be allowed. Ms. Hills cautioned about the negative feedbackthat it could generate from social justice and advocacy groups.
Steve Novotny (Caltrans) stated that one comment from Caltrans relating to Project Approvaland Environmental Document (PAED) is to ensure that Page 31 of the Draft Guidelinesinclude funding for all types of state highway projects, freeways, expressways. He requestedexpanding the definition of “managed lanes” to hot lanes, HOV lanes, and to includepreliminary studies, because those feed into Project Initiation Documents (PIDs) andcomplex projects. He noted that Caltrans will be submitting official comments soon.
Mr. Walker asked if the COG’s role in agreements discussed earlier was addressed in theCashflow Management section of the handout that was distributed? Mr. Stevens replied thathe believes it will take time to develop those changes. Ms. Honish and Mr. Stevens noted thatit could also apply to the MSPs section as a future discussion.
Concerning Local Return, Mr. Stevens stated that the San Gabriel Valley COG is content withthe $100,000 minimum, but would not actively support it. He noted that they would become
29
TAC Minutes, May 3, 2017 19
concerned if the minimum becomes more than $100,000. He asked how the $100,000 wasdeveloped in the Draft Guidelines? Ms. Honish replied that many amounts were suggested atthe Local Return Working Group and noted that there will likely be formal calculationsprovided in the May Board Report. Mr. Stevens stated that it is unfortunate that the LocalReturn Working Group had as many small cities as it did. He believes this is how the$100,000 was decided on. Kelly Hines (Metro) replied that every city was invited. Mr.Mostahkami acknowledged that there are concerns on both sides.
Mr. Stevens asked for confirmation that once the Draft Guidelines are adopted, they will be inplace until changed, or if there will be an automatic review? Ms. Honish replied that she couldnot comment on the matter.
Mr. Hernandez asked if TAC members would like to adopt LTSS’s comments and submitthem as part of TAC’s comments? Ms. Honish replied that LTSS’s comments have alreadybeen submitted and will be part of the public record for review. Ms. Caldwell noted that shesupports LTSS’s comment #6 – Page 61 – 20% Transit Operations, Title and Introduction.She asked how she should show her support? Ms. Honish told Ms. Caldwell to submit hersupport for the comment online. She noted that the PAC will receive those comments andprovide a summary to the Board. She noted that staff cannot provide every word on everycomment that they receive. They will instead provide a summary of LTSS’s comments to theBoard. She noted that some of the comments will be easily assimilated into a revised draft,while other comments will be in conflict with each other, but she could not speak to how thecomments will alter the Draft Guidelines. Ms. Caldwell asked who will decide how theconflicting comments will be resolved? Ms. Honish reiterated that she cannot speak to howthe Draft Guidelines will be changed. Ms. Hills stated that this is similar to an EnvironmentalImpact Report (EIR) response to comments. Ms. Caldwell replied that it should not be up topoliticians to decide.
Mr. Stevens asked if staff is likely to take the comments under consideration and recommendany changes to the current draft? Ms. Honish confirmed that they can, especially if it is just asimple clarification. She noted that she cannot say definitively that staff can get approval forchanges. She noted that staff’s best effort will be towards clarifying any issues that areambiguous, and provide a more streamlined Measure M. Ms. Honish recommended that theTAC members submit their comments sooner rather than later, since it will be more difficultto get comments tabulated closer to May 26th deadline. Mr. Stevens asked when a revisedGuidelines will become available to the public? Ms. Honish stated that staff hopes to have therevised Guidelines for the June Board meeting. However, Ms. Honish noted that she couldreturn to the June TAC meeting and provide an update.
Mr. Stevens asked when is the Board meeting to adopt the Draft Guidelines? Ms. Pan repliedthat it is on June 22nd. Ms. Honish stated that she will have more updates at the nextmeeting, since it will take place after the next PAC meeting. Ms. Pan stated that she will put aMeasure M Draft Guidelines item on the agenda. Mr. Stevens requested to put this update asan Action Item. Ms. Pan confirmed that she will.
Mr. Mostahkami asked when the Measure M sales tax will take effect? Ms. Honish replied itwill be starting July 1st.
30
TAC Minutes, May 3, 2017 20
8. AdjournmentMs. Pan adjourned the meeting and reported that the next scheduled TAC meeting is June 7,2017 in the William Mulholland Conference Room on the 15th floor at 9:30 am. If you havequestions regarding the next meeting, please contact Brian Lam at (213)922-3077 or [email protected].
31
32
33
34
35
Attachment 4
TAC Appeals Protocol&
FTA Section 5310 Appeals Guidelines
36
Revised TAC Appeals Protocol Guidelines 06-24-2015
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE TAC Roles and Responsibilities: TAC is an Advisory Committee and serves as the appeal body for Metro Grant Programs including the Call for Projects, Transit Oriented Development (TOD), FTA Section 5310, to name a few. TAC’s primary role and responsibility is to provide an objective, technical, and countywide perspective in the appeals process. TAC’s role is also to objectively listen to project sponsors’ appeal for funding. Based on the merits of the appeal, it is TAC’s role to recommend whether the project is justified to receive funding from the Board approved TAC Appeal Reserve fund. Projects are not to be reevaluated or rescored. Metro staff can concur, reject or recommend alternatives to the TAC recommendations. To ensure TAC’s countywide role, these protocols shall govern:
The Alternate TAC member shall only participate in the meeting when the primary TAC member is not present.
Ex-officio members are not allowed to vote.
For projects for which their respective agency has submitted an application(s) or appeal(s), TAC members and/or Alternates are prohibited from providing oral testimony.
TAC members and/or Alternates should not participate in TAC discussion concerning project(s) their agency sponsored so as not to be perceived as taking an advocacy role.
Motion seconds should be made from an agency/jurisdiction/League of Cities/TAC Subcommittee representative other than the agency/jurisdiction/League of Cities/TAC Subcommittee representative that originated the motion.
Any discussion involving the public will be allowed when acknowledged and determined appropriate by the TAC Chairperson.
TAC discussion and motion development is intended for TAC members’ participation only.
37
38
Attachment 5
FY 17 FTA Section 5310/5316/5317Evaluation Criteria
39
40
41
42
43
44
Attachment 6
FY 17 FTA Section 5310/5316/5317Appeals Fact Sheets
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Attachment 7
2017 Call for ProjectsRecertification List
52
ATTACHMENT A
PROJ AGENCY PROJECT TITLE TOTAL
F7600 ALHAMBRA ALHAMBRA PED IMPROVEMENT/WALKING VIABILITY PROJECT ON VALLEY 605$
F9600 AVALON CITY OF AVALON FIVE-CORNER COMPREHENSIVE PEDESTRIAN PROJECT 171
F9620 BALDWIN PARK FIRST/LAST MILE CONNECTIONS FOR THE BALDWIN PARK TRANSIT CENTER 16
F7634 BELL FLORENCE AVE PED IMPROVEMENTS 2,159
F7120 BELL GARDENS EASTERN AVENUE AND FLORENCE AVENUE RSTI PROJECT 1,043
F9804 BELLFLOWER DOWNTOWN SMART PARK SYSTEM AND PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 87
F7506 BURBANK CHANDLER BIKEWAY EXTENSION 1,896
F9315 BURBANK MIDTOWN COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 122
F9626 BURBANK MIDTOWN COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 50
F7516 CALABASAS MULHOLLAND HIGHWAY GAP CLOSURE 372
F9301 CALTRANS I-210 CONNECTED CORRIDORS ARTERIAL SYSTEMS IMPROVEMENTS 3,943
F9530 COMPTON CENTRAL AVENUE REGIONAL COMMUTER BIKEWAY PROJECT 11
F3317 CULVER CITY CULVER CITY BUS SIGNAL PRIORITY 2,001
F7507 CULVER CITY BALLONA CREEK BIKE PATH CONNECTIVITY PROJECT AT HIGUERA BRIDGE 385
F7300 DIAMOND BAR DIAMOND BAR ADAPTIVE TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM PROJECT 734
F7311 DOWNEY DOWNEY CITYWIDE TRANSIT PRIORITY SYSTEM PROGRAM 495
F7520 EL MONTE EL MONTE REGIONAL BICYCLE COMMUTER ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS 15
F3306 GARDENA GARDENA MUNICIPAL BUS 650
F3432 GLENDALE GLENDALE CNG FUELING AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY PROJECT 1,556
F7321 GLENDALE REGIONAL ARTERIAL TRAFFIC PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM (MATCH MR310.32) 410
MR310.32 GLENDALE REGIONAL ARTERIAL TRAFFIC PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM (MATCH FOR F7321) 100
F7709 GLENDALE REGIONAL BIKE STATIONS (MATCH MR310.34) 747
MR310.34 GLENDALE REGIONAL BIKE STATIONS (MATCH FOR F7709) 332
F7101 HAWTHORNE SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS ON PRAIRIE AVE FROM 118TH ST. TO MARINE AVE.(MATCH MR312.47) 814
MR312.47 HAWTHORNE SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS ON PRAIRIE AVE FROM 118TH ST. TO MARINE AVE.(MATCH FOR F7101) 418
F7312 HUNTINGTON PARK HUNTINGTON PARK SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION AND BUS SPEED IMPROVEME 368
F3137 INDUSTRY SR-57/SR-60 CONFLUENCE PROJECT: WESTBOUND SLIP ON-RAMP 2,800
F7200 INDUSTRY SR57/60 CONFLUENCE:WB SR60/NB SR57 GRAND OFF-RAMP INTERCHG 6,036
F3128 INGLEWOOD CENTURY BOULEVARD MOBILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1,803
F7319 INGLEWOOD ITS: PHASE V OF INGLEWOOD'S ITS UPGRADES (MATCH MR312.50) 603
MR312.50 INGLEWOOD ITS: PHASE V OF INGLEWOOD'S ITS UPGRADES (MATCH FOR F7319) 192
F9202 INGLEWOOD MANCHESTER AND LA CIENEGA GEOMETRIC IMPROVEMENTS 125
F9307 INGLEWOOD INGLEWOOD ITS PHASE VI 419
F1305 LA CITY ATCS CENTRAL CITY EAST 2,500
F1307 LA CITY ATCS CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT 6,000
F1345 LA CITY ATCS LOS ANGELES 2,200
F3630 LA CITY MAIN STREET PEDESTRIAN ENHANCEMENTS 165
F3643 LA CITY BOYLE HEIGHTS CHAVEZ AVE STREETSCAPE/PEDESTRIAN IMPROV. 140
F3650 LA CITY WESTERN AVE EXPO LINE STATION LINKAGE PROJECT (SOUTH) 616
F5624 LA CITY WASHINGTON BLVD PEDESTRIAN TRANSIT ACCESS(HOOPER/ALAMEDA) II 1,314
F5821 LA CITY VALENCIA TRIANGLE LANDSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION PLAZA 110
F7123 LA CITY MAGNOLIA BL WIDENING (NORTH SIDE) -CAHUENGA BL TO VINELAND 2,104
F7125 LA CITY SHERMAN WAY WIDENING BETWEEN WHITSETT AVE TO HOLLYWOOD FWY 142
F7205 LA CITY ALAMEDA ST. WIDENING FROM ANAHEIM ST. TO 300 FT SOUTH OF PCH 3,513
F7207 LA CITY IMPROVE ANAHEIM ST. FROM FARRAGUT AVE. TO DOMINGUEZ CHANNEL (MATCH MR312.51) 2,511
MR312.51 LA CITY IMPROVE ANAHEIM ST. FROM FARRAGUT AVE. TO DOMINGUEZ CHANNEL (MATCH FOR F7207) 1,050
F7424 LA CITY PURCHASE DASH REPLACEMENT CLEAN FUEL VEHICLES 1,807
F7628 LA CITY WATTS STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS PHASE 2 571
F7707 LA CITY LAST MILE FOLDING BIKE INCENTIVE PROGRAM 180
F7708 LA CITY INTERACTIVE BICYCLE BOARD DEMO PROJECT 257
F9119 LA CITY HARBOR BOULEVARD/SAMPSON WAY/7TH STREET RECONFIGURATION 2,399
F9201 LA CITY YTI TERMINAL TRIP REDUCTION PROGRAM 1,383
F9204 LA CITY SLAUSON AVENUE - VERMONT AVENUE TO CRENSHAW BLVD 501
F9206 LA CITY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ON HYPERION AVENUE AND GLENDALE BOULEVARD 834
F9309 LA CITY TRAFFIC SIGNAL RAIL CROSSING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 417
F9311 LA CITY ATSAC TRAFFIC SURVEILLANCE VIDEO TRANSPORT SYSTEM ENHAN. 261
F9430 LA CITY PURCHASE OF THREE ELECTRIC ZERO EMISSION DASH BUSES 845
F9520 LA CITY MID-CITY LOW STRESS BICYCLE ENHANCEMENT CORRIDORS 312
F9803 LA CITY BUILDING CONNECTIVITY WITH BICYCLE FRIENDLY BUSINESS DISTRICTS 296
6281 LA COUNTY NORTH COUNTY/ANTELOPE VALLEY TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT 278
F1310 LA COUNTY INFORMATION EXCHANGE NETWORK PHASE II 479
F1311 LA COUNTY SOUTH BAY FORUM TRAFFIC SIGNAL CORRIDORS PROJECT 400
F1312 LA COUNTY GATEWAY CITIES FORUM TRAFFIC SIGNAL CORRIDORS PROJECT, PHASE V 100
F1321 LA COUNTY SAN GABRIEL VALLEY FORUM TRAFFIC SIGNAL CORRIDORS 96
($000)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
2017-18 CALL FOR PROJECTS RECERTIFICATION LIST
Countywide Call for Projects Attachment A Page 1 of 2
53
ATTACHMENT A
PROJ AGENCY PROJECT TITLE TOTAL
($000)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
2017-18 CALL FOR PROJECTS RECERTIFICATION LIST
F1344 LA COUNTY SLAUSON AVENUE CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS 1,388
F3308 LA COUNTY SAN GABRIEL VALLEY FORUM TRAFFIC SIGNAL CORRIDORS PROJECT 100
F3309 LA COUNTY GATEWAY CITIES FORUM TRAFFIC SIGNAL CORRIDORS PROJECT, PHASEVI 543
F3310 LA COUNTY SOUTH BAY FORUM TRAFFIC SIGNAL CORRIDORS PROJECT 62
F5310 LA COUNTY RAMONA BOULEVARD/BADILLO STREET/COVINA BOULEVARD TSSP/BSP 863
F5315 LA COUNTY SAN GABRIEL VALLEY FORUM TRAFFIC SIGNAL CORRIDORS PROJECT 200
F5316 LA COUNTY SOUTH BAY FORUM TRAFFIC SIGNAL CORRIDORS PROJECT 200
F7115 LA COUNTY THE OLD ROAD-LAKE HUGHES RD TO HILLCREST PKWY PHASE I 1,261
F7306 LA COUNTY FOOTHILL BOULEVARD TRAFFIC SIGNAL CORRIDOR PROJECT 130
F7308 LA COUNTY EAST LOS ANGELES TRAFFIC SIGNAL CORRIDOR PROJECT. 80
F7700 LA COUNTY WILLOWBROOK INTERACTIVE INFORMATION KIOSKS 55
F7701 LA COUNTY EAST LOS ANGELES DEMONSTRATION BICYCLE SHARING PROGRAM 91
F7806 LA COUNTY VERMONT AVENUE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 662
F9114 LA COUNTY FULLERTON ROAD CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS - LA COUNTY 1,233
F9116 LA COUNTY MICHILLINDA AVENUE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 192
F9511 LA COUNTY SOUTH WHITTIER COMMUNITY BIKEWAY ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS 617
F5509 LANCASTER 10TH STREET WEST ROAD DIET AND BIKEWAY IMPROVMENTS 263
F7500 LAWNDALE HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD CLASS II BICYCLE LANES 171
F9101 LAWNDALE REDONDO BEACH BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS 883
F3518 LONG BEACH DAISY CORRIDOR AND 6TH STREET BIKE BLVD 1,115
F7314 LONG BEACH SANTA FE AVENUE SYNCHRONIZATION ENHANCEMENT PROJECT 1,517
F7316 LONG BEACH ARTESIA CORRIDOR ATCS ENHANCEMENT PROJECT 1,454
F7615 LONG BEACH MARKET STREET PED ENHANCEMENTS 834
F9130 LONG BEACH ARTESIA - GREAT BOULEVARD 3,421
F9314 LONG BEACH MID-CITY SIGNAL COORDINATION IN LONG BEACH 4
F9808 LONG BEACH PARK OR RIDE 135
F7402 LONG BEACH TRANSIT LBT CLEAN FUEL BUS REPLACEMENT PROJECT 901
F9502 MONTEREY PARK MONTEREY PASS ROAD COMPLETE STREETS BIKE PROJECT 39
F1300 PALMDALE NORTH COUNTY TRAFFIC FORUM ITS EXPANSION, PHASE V 220
F7121 PALMDALE RANCHO VISTA BLVD WIDENING 3,529
F7304 PALMDALE NORTH COUNTY ITS - PALMDALE EXTENSION 160
F7317 PASADENA PASADENA AREA RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM - TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY 455
F7318 PASADENA ADAPTIVE TRAFFIC CONTROL NETWORK - PHASE II 652
F9802 PASADENA SHARED EV EMPLOYER DEMONSTRATION (SEED) PROGRAM 234
F9122 PICO RIVERA TELEGRAPH ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 323
F7204 PORT OF LONG BEACH PIER B STREET FREIGHT CORRIDOR RECONSTRUCTION 3,491
F9518 PORT OF LONG BEACH COASTAL BIKE TRAIL CONNECTOR - OCEAN BOULEVARD, LONG BEACH 2,401
F7521 REDONDO BEACH BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PHASE II 1,329
F7523 ROSEMEAD ROSEMEAD/SOUTH EL MONTE REGIONAL BICYCLE CONNECTOR PROJECT 73
F3307 SAN DIMAS INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ON BONITA AVE. AT CATARACT AVE. 1,339
F9313 SAN FERNANDO SAN FERNANDO CITYWIDE SIGNAL SYNCH AND BUS SPEED IMPRV. 77
F7105 SANTA CLARITA LYONS AVENUE/DOCKWEILER DRIVE EXTENSION 104
F7301 SANTA CLARITA INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS (ITS) PHASE VI 682
F9306 SANTA CLARITA ITS PHASE VII 1,612
F9414 SANTA CLARITA VISTA CANYON METROLINK STATION 1,648
F9513 SANTA CLARITA RAILROAD AVENUE CLASS I BIKE PATH 139
F7320 SANTA MONICA SANTA MONICA SIGNAL SYNC IMPROVEMENTS 541
F7704 SANTA MONICA MULTI-MODAL WAYFINDING: CONGESTION REDUCTION/STATION ACCESS 355
F9625 SANTA MONICA 17TH STREET/SMC EXPO PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY IMPROVEMENTS 1,332
F9807 SANTA MONICA SANTA MONICA EXPO AND LOCALIZED TRAVEL PLANNING ASSISTANCE 123
8002R SGV COG ALAMEDA CORRIDOR EAST - MEASURE R 25,900
6347 SOUTH GATE I-710/FIRESTONE BLVD. INTERCHANGE RECONSTRUCTION 954
F7309 SOUTH GATE TWEEDY BOULEVARD AND SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION PROJECT 518
F9601 WEST HOLLYWOOD WEST HOLLYWOOD - MELROSE AVENUE COMPLETE STREET PROJECT 1,222
F5314 WHITTIER GATEWAY CITIES FORUM TRAFFIC SIGNAL CORRIDORS PROJECT 120
TOTAL 133,206$
Countywide Call for Projects Attachment A Page 2 of 2
54
Attachment 7
2017 Call for ProjectsDeobligation List
55
AT
TA
CH
ME
NT
B
Pri
or
FY
17
FY
18
FY
19
FY
20
FY
21
1F
9537
BE
VE
RLY
HIL
LS
BE
VE
RLY
HIL
LS
BIK
ES
HA
RE
PR
OG
RA
MLT
FB
IKE
10
$
10
$
262
$
-
$
282
$
C
AN
CE
LLE
D
2F
1328
DO
WN
EY
FLO
RE
NC
E A
VE
NU
E T
RA
FF
IC S
IGN
AL
CO
MM
UN
ICA
TIO
N S
YS
TE
MP
C25
SS
1,4
38
1,2
54
184
AU
DIT
SA
VIN
GS
3F
1136
GLE
ND
ALE
GR
AN
DV
IEW
AV
E M
OD
IFIC
AT
ION
WIH
IN
TH
E C
ITY
OF
GLE
ND
ALE
PC
25
RS
TI
2,1
07
2,0
66
41
AU
DIT
SA
VIN
GS
48102
LA
NC
AS
TE
R
SR
-14 F
RE
EW
AY
/AV
EN
UE
I IN
TE
RC
HA
NG
E
IMR
PV
OE
ME
NT
SP
C25
RS
TI
5,3
51
3,4
57
1,8
94
AU
DIT
SA
VIN
GS
58047
LA
CIT
Y
BA
LB
OA
BLV
D A
ND
VIC
TO
RY
BLV
D
INT
ER
SE
CT
ION
IM
PR
OV
EM
EN
TS
PC
25
RS
TI
2,4
20
1,9
89
431
AU
DIT
SA
VIN
GS
6F
3142
LA
CIT
Y
EX
PO
SIT
ION
PA
RK
TR
AF
FIC
CIR
CU
LA
TIO
N
IMP
RO
VE
ME
NT
SC
MA
QR
ST
I 2,9
10
400
2,5
10
CA
NC
ELLE
D -
PE
ND
ING
CIT
Y
CO
UN
CIL
AC
TIO
N
7F
9532
LO
NG
BE
AC
H
AT
HE
RT
ON
BR
IDG
E A
ND
CA
MP
US
CO
NN
EC
TIO
NT
BD
PE
D1,8
77
-
1,8
77
AT
P A
WA
RD
SA
VIN
GS
86324
PA
SA
DE
NA
ITS
IM
PR
OV
EM
EN
TS
: LA
KE
AV
EN
UE
AN
D
DE
L M
AR
BLV
DP
C25
SS
7
70
566
204
AU
DIT
SA
VIN
GS
9F
9516
PA
SA
DE
NA
PA
SA
DE
NA
BIC
YC
LE
PR
OG
RA
M-U
NIO
N
ST
RE
ET
2-W
AY
CY
CLE
TR
AC
KC
MA
QB
IKE
745
1,9
69
-
656
AT
P A
WA
RD
SA
VIN
GS
10
6364
SA
NT
A
CLA
RIT
AS
IER
RA
HIG
HW
AY
OV
ER
TH
E R
AIL
RO
AD
PC
25
RS
TI
1,9
99
1,0
78
921
AU
DIT
SA
VIN
GS
11
F3124
SO
UT
H G
AT
E
FIR
ES
TO
NE
BLV
D C
AP
AC
ITY
IMP
RO
VE
ME
NT
SP
C25
RS
TI
9,4
24
458
2,3
52
SC
OP
E
CH
AN
GE
12
F7526
TE
MP
LE
CIT
Y
LA
S T
UN
AS
DR
IVE
BIC
YC
LE
IMP
RO
VE
ME
NT
SC
MA
QB
IKE
2,7
22
-
2,7
22
CA
NC
ELLE
D
13
F7618
TE
MP
LE
CIT
Y
LA
S T
UN
AS
DR
IVE
IM
PR
OV
EM
EN
TS
AN
D
SA
FE
TY
EN
HA
NC
EM
EN
T P
RO
JE
CT
CM
AQ
PE
D2,9
10
-
2,9
10
CA
NC
ELLE
D
14
F7812
TE
MP
LE
CIT
Y
LA
S T
UN
AS
DR
IVE
CO
MP
LE
TE
ST
RE
ET
S
IMP
RO
VE
ME
NT
PR
OJE
CT
CM
AQ
TD
M1,2
77
-
1,2
77
CA
NC
ELLE
D
15
F9517
WE
ST
HO
LLY
WO
OD
WE
HO
BIK
ES
HA
RE
IM
PLE
ME
NT
AT
ION
AN
D
INT
ER
OP
ER
AB
ILIT
Y P
RO
JE
CT
LT
FB
IKE
510
-
510
CA
NC
ELLE
D
TO
TA
L26,4
19
$
8,1
74
$
10
$
1,9
69
$
-$
2,1
39
$
11,2
68
$
18,7
71
$
LO
S A
NG
EL
ES
CO
UN
TY
ME
TR
OP
OL
ITA
N T
RA
NS
PO
RT
AT
ION
AU
TH
OR
ITY
FY
2016-1
7 C
AL
L F
OR
PR
OJE
CT
S D
EO
BL
IGA
TIO
N R
EC
OM
ME
ND
AT
ION
S($
000)
PR
OJ. ID
#A
GE
NC
YP
RO
JE
CT
TIT
LE
MO
DE
$
EX
PD
/
OB
LG
TO
TA
L
DE
OB
R
EA
SO
ND
OL
LA
RS
PR
OG
RA
MM
ED
AN
D F
ISC
AL
YE
AR
FU
ND
ING
SO
UR
CE
County
wid
e C
all
for
Pro
jects
Attachm
ent B
Page 1
of 2
56
AT
TA
CH
ME
NT
B
TO
TA
L D
EO
BL
IGA
TIO
N R
EC
OM
ME
ND
AT
ION
BY
MO
DE
RE
GIO
NA
L S
UR
FA
CE
TR
AN
SP
OR
TA
TIO
N IM
PR
OV
EM
EN
TS
(R
ST
I) $
8
,149
SIG
NA
L S
YN
CH
RO
NIZ
AT
ION
& B
US
SP
EE
D IM
PR
OV
EM
EN
TS
(S
S)
3
88
BIC
YC
LE
IM
PR
OV
EM
EN
TS
(B
IKE
) 4,1
70
PE
DE
ST
RIA
N IM
PR
OV
EM
EN
TS
(P
ED
) 4,7
87
TR
AN
SP
OR
TA
TIO
N D
EM
AN
D M
AN
GE
ME
NT
1,2
77
TO
TA
L $
18,7
71
County
wid
e C
all
for
Pro
jects
Attachm
ent B
Page 2
of 2
57
Attachment 7
2017 Call for ProjectsExtension List
58
ATTACHMENT D
PROJ
ID# AGENCY PROJECT TITLE
FUNDING
SOURCE
LAPSING
PROG YR(S)
TOTAL PROG
$
TOTAL
EXP/OBLIG/A
LLOC $
AMOUNT
SUBJECT TO
LAPSE
REC'D EXT
MONTHS
REASON
FOR EXT
#1, 2 OR 3
NEW REVISED
LAPSE DATE
F3507 BALDWIN PARK
SOUTH BALDWIN PARK
COMMUTER BIKEWAY PROJECT LTF
2014
2015 484$ -$ 484$ 20 3 2/28/2019
F7414 BALDWIN PARK
CLEAN FUEL BUSES FOR THE
BALDWIN PARK TRANSIT SERVICE CMAQ 2015 1,150 - 330 12 1 6/30/2018
F3313 BURBANK
BURBANK-GLENDALE TRAFFIC
SYSTEM COORDINATION PC25 2015 1,019 366 653 20 3 2/28/2019
F3509 BURBANK
BURBAK CHANNEL BIKEWAY
REGIONAL GAP CLOSURE CMAQ 2015 2,721 254 2,467 12 1 6/30/2018
F1204 CALTRANS
118 FREEWAY WESTBOUND OFF-
RAMP AT TAMPA AVE PC25
2010
2011
2012
2013 683 - 683 20 3 2/28/2019
F3175 CULVER CITY
CULVER BOULEVARD
REALIGNMENT PROJECT PC25
2014
2015 2,856 - 2,856 20 1 2/28/2019
F3318 CULVER CITY
TRAFFIC MONITORING AND
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM GAP
CLOSURE PC25 2015 2,438 648 1,790 20 3 2/28/2019
F5114 DOWNEY
TELEGRAPH ROAD TRAFFIC
THROUGHPUT AND SAFETY
ENHANCEMENT RSTP 2015 2,787 - 419 12 1 6/30/2018
F3125 EL MONTE
RAMONA CORRIDOR TRANSIT
CENTER ACCESS PROJECT CMAQ
2014
2015 7,651 1,121 6,530 12 1 6/30/2018
F5125 EL MONTE
RAMONA BOULEVARD & VALLEY
BOULEVARD INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENT PC25
2015
2016 1,568 - 96 24 1 6/30/2019
F7405 GARDENA
PURCHASE OF ALTERNATIVE
FUEL REPLACEMENT BUSES CMAQ 2015 2,145 - 2,145 12 1 6/30/2018
F5101 HAWTHORNE
EL SEGUNDO BOULEVARD
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PC25
2015
2016 3,849 233 262 24 1 6/30/2019
MR314.
01
I-5
CONSORTIUM
CITIES JPA
I-5 PRE CONSTRUCTION
MITIGATION FINAL PHASE MR 2014 14,168 13,846 322 20 3 2/28/2019
F5100 INDUSTRY
SR 57/60 CONFLUENCE, GRAND
AVENUE AT GOLDEN SPRINGS
DRIVE PC25
2015
2016 6,728 - 838 24 1 6/30/2019
F1106 INGLEWOOD
LA BREA AVE. INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS PC25 2009 1,082 962 105 20 3 2/28/2019
F5803 LANCASTER
AVENUE I CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS, 20TH ST W TO
10TH ST W LTF 2015 372 8 364 12 1 6/30/2018
F3112 LAWNDALE
INGLEWOOD AVE CORRIDOR
WIDENING PROJECT PC25
2014
2015 1,314 76 1,238 20 1 2/28/2019
F1528 LONG BEACH
SAN GABRIEL RIVER BIKE PATH
GAP CLOSURE AT WILLOW
STREET CMAQ 2012 783 92 691 12 1 6/30/2018
F1649 LONG BEACH
WILLOW STREET PEDESTRIAN
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CMAQ 2012 2,180 374 1,806 12 1 6/30/2018
F7117 LONG BEACH
REDONDO AND ANAHEIM
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS PC25 2015 742 17 725 20 1 2/28/2019
LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
FY 2016-17 CALL FOR PROJECTS EXTENSION LIST
AS OF JUNE 30, 2017
($000)
Reason for Extensions: 1. Project delay due to an unforeseen and extraordinary circumstance beyond the control of the project sponsor (federal or state delay, legal challenge, Act of God, etc.); 2. Project delay due to Metro action that results in a change in project scope, schedule, or sponsorship that is mutually agreed; and 3. Project is contractually obligated, however, a time extension is needed to complete construction that is already underway (capital projects only).
Countywide Call for Projects Attachment D Page 1 of 3
59
ATTACHMENT D
PROJ
ID# AGENCY PROJECT TITLE
FUNDING
SOURCE
LAPSING
PROG YR(S)
TOTAL PROG
$
TOTAL
EXP/OBLIG/A
LLOC $
AMOUNT
SUBJECT TO
LAPSE
REC'D EXT
MONTHS
REASON
FOR EXT
#1, 2 OR 3
NEW REVISED
LAPSE DATE
LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
FY 2016-17 CALL FOR PROJECTS EXTENSION LIST
AS OF JUNE 30, 2017
($000)
Reason for Extensions: 1. Project delay due to an unforeseen and extraordinary circumstance beyond the control of the project sponsor (federal or state delay, legal challenge, Act of God, etc.); 2. Project delay due to Metro action that results in a change in project scope, schedule, or sponsorship that is mutually agreed; and 3. Project is contractually obligated, however, a time extension is needed to complete construction that is already underway (capital projects only).
F7313 LONG BEACH
LONG BEACH’S METRO BLUE LINE
SIGNAL PRIORITIZATION PC25 2015 993 169 824 12 1 6/30/2018
8086 LA CITY
NORTH SPRING STREET BRIDGE
WIDENING AND REHABILITATION RSTP 2008 9,098 3,245 5,853 12 3 6/30/2018
F1609 LA CITY
MAIN STREET BUS STOP AND
PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS CMAQ 2013 658 130 528 12 1 6/30/2018
F1612 LA CITY
CENTURY CITY URBAN DESIGN
AND PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION
PLAN CMAQ
2009
2011 1,605 - 1,605 12 1 6/30/2018
F1615 LA CITY
EASTSIDE LIGHT RAIL
PEDESTRIAN LINKAGE CMAQ
2009
2010 2,392 320 2,072 12 1 6/30/2018
F1630 LA CITY
WASHINGTON BLVD TRANSIT
ENHANCEMENTS RSTP 2011 1,671 286 1,385 12 1 6/30/2018
F1708 LA CITY
HOLLYWOOD INTEGRATED
MODAL INFORMATION SYSTEM CMAQ
2009
2010
2011 1,682 274 1,408 12 1 6/30/2018
F3146 LA CITY
HIGHLAND AVENUE WIDENING-
ODIN STREET TO FRANKLIN
AVENUE CMAQ
2014
2015 3,773 - 3,773 12 1 6/30/2018
F3314 LA CITY
INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM (ITS) COMMUNICATION
SYSTEM CMAQ
2013
2014
2015 4,394 - 4,394 12 1 6/30/2018
F3514 LA CITY
EXPOSITION-WEST BIKEWAY-
NORTHVALE PROJECT (LRTP
PROGRAM) CMAQ
2014
2015 4,416 1,732 2,684 12 1 6/30/2018
F3631 LA CITY
WESTLAKE MACARTHUR PARK
PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT CMAQ
2014
2015 1,339 268 1,071 12 1 6/30/2018
F3632 LA CITY
WESTERN AVE BUS STOP &
PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT CMAQ
2013
2014 1,178 236 942 12 1 6/30/2018
F3640 LA CITY
LANI - EVERGREEN PARK STREET
ENHANCEMENT PROJECT CMAQ
2013
2014
2015 844 - 844 12 1 6/30/2018
F3653 LA CITY
PASADENA AVE PED
CONNECTION TO GOLD LINE
HERITAGE SQ STATION CMAQ
2014
2015 2,053 200 1,853 12 1 6/30/2018
F5121 LA CITY
BALBOA BOULEVARD WIDENING
AT DEVONSHIRE STREET RSTP 2015 1,208 - 109 12 1 6/30/2018
F5519 LA CITY
BICYCLE FRIENDLY STREETS
(BFS) CMAQ 2015 586 - 387 12 1 6/30/2018
F1617 LA CITY
HOLLYWOOD
PEDESTRIAN/TRANSIT
CROSSROADS PHASE II RSTP
2010
2012 619 - 619 12 1 6/30/2018
F3311 LA COUNTY
INFORMATION EXCHANGE
NETWORK PHASE III CMAQ
2013
2014
2015 2,391 1,411 980 12 1 6/30/2018
F5111 LA COUNTY
COLIMA ROAD - CITY OF
WHITTIER LIMITS TO FULLERTON
ROAD CMAQ 2015 4,423 - 4,423 12 1 6/30/2018
F5115 LA COUNTY
AVENUE L ROADWAY WIDENING
PROJECT RSTP 2015 4,797 - 4,797 12 1 6/30/2018
Countywide Call for Projects Attachment D Page 2 of 3
60
ATTACHMENT D
PROJ
ID# AGENCY PROJECT TITLE
FUNDING
SOURCE
LAPSING
PROG YR(S)
TOTAL PROG
$
TOTAL
EXP/OBLIG/A
LLOC $
AMOUNT
SUBJECT TO
LAPSE
REC'D EXT
MONTHS
REASON
FOR EXT
#1, 2 OR 3
NEW REVISED
LAPSE DATE
LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
FY 2016-17 CALL FOR PROJECTS EXTENSION LIST
AS OF JUNE 30, 2017
($000)
Reason for Extensions: 1. Project delay due to an unforeseen and extraordinary circumstance beyond the control of the project sponsor (federal or state delay, legal challenge, Act of God, etc.); 2. Project delay due to Metro action that results in a change in project scope, schedule, or sponsorship that is mutually agreed; and 3. Project is contractually obligated, however, a time extension is needed to complete construction that is already underway (capital projects only).
F3139
MANHATTAN
BEACH
SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD BRIDGE
WIDENING PROJECT RSTP
2012
2013
2014 6,813 1,440 5,373 12 1 6/30/2018
F7400
MONTEREY
PARK
CLEAN FUEL BUS
REPLACEMENTS LTF
2015
2016 1,230 274 956 24 1 6/30/2019
F3107 PALMDALE AVENUE S WIDENING PHASE II PC25 2015 6,614 3,570 3,044 20 3 2/28/2019
F3301 PASADENA
METRO GOLD LINE AT-GRADE
CROSSING MOBILITY
ENHANCEMENTS CMAQ 2015 1,356 - 1,356 12 1 6/30/2018
F3302 PASADENA
INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM (ITS) PHASE III PC25
2014
2015 4,325 281 4,044 20 3 2/28/2019
F7422 PASADENA
PASADENA REPLACEMENT AND
ADDED CAPACITY OF CLEAN
FUEL BUSES CMAQ 2015 1,056 - 742 12 1 6/30/2018
F1165
PORT OF LONG
BEACH
I-710/GERALD DESMOND BRIDGE
GATEWAY (DESMOND
REPLACEMENT) PC25 2013 17,306 13,921 3,385 20 3 2/28/2019
F3503
PORT OF LONG
BEACH
LONG BEACH SOUTH
WATERFRONT BIKE PATH GAP
CLOSURE CMAQ
2013
2014
2015 708 - 708 12 1 6/30/2018
F3428
REDONDO
BEACH
REDONDO BEACH INTERMODAL
TRANSIT CENTER CMAQ
2013
2014 1,200 - 1,200 12 1 6/30/2018
F1168 SANTA CLARITA
VIA PRINCESSA EXTENSION-
GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD TO
RAINBOW GLEN PC25 2015 11,577 - 11,577 20 1 2/28/2019
F3300 SANTA CLARITA
ITS PHASE IV INTERCONNECT
GAP CLOSURE AND SIGNAL
SYNCH PC25 2015 3,032 445 2,587 20 3 2/28/2019
F7404 SANTA CLARITA
VISTA CANYON REGIONAL
TRANSIT CENTER PC10 2015 2,809 90 2,719 12 1 6/30/2018
F3505 SANTA MONICA
BIKE NETWORK LINKAGES TO
EXPOSITION LIGHT RAIL CMAQ
2013
2014
2015 2,057 - 2,057 12 1 6/30/2018
F3312 TORRANCE
CITY OF TORRANCE ITS &
TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS PC25 2015 967 529 438 20 3 2/28/2019
F3807 WHITTIER
GREENWAY TRAIL DIRECTIONAL
SIGNAGE & SCENIC
BEAUTIFICATION LTF 2015 555 470 85 20 3 2/28/2019
TOTAL 168,445$ 47,288$ 105,626$
Countywide Call for Projects Attachment D Page 3 of 3
61
Attachment 7
May 3, 2017 TAC Appeals Summary
62
AT
TA
CH
ME
NT
F
PR
OJ
ID#
AG
EN
CY
PR
OJE
CT
TIT
LE
PR
OG
YR
(S)
TO
TA
L
ME
TR
O
PR
OG
$
(000')
ME
TR
O
AM
OU
NT
SU
BJE
CT
TO
LA
PS
E (
000')
EX
T
YR
SE
XT
#R
EA
SO
N F
OR
AP
PE
AL
TA
C R
eco
mm
en
dati
on
Metr
o R
esp
on
se
1F
3507
BA
LD
WIN
PA
RK
SO
UT
H B
ALD
WIN
PA
RK
CO
MM
UT
ER
BIK
EW
AY
PR
OJE
CT
2014
2015
484
$
484
$
12
Did
not m
eet Lapsin
g P
olic
y
20-m
onth
exte
nsio
n to F
ebru
ary
28,
2019 to c
om
ple
te the p
roje
ct.
Concur
with T
AC
recom
mendation.
2F
3175
CU
LV
ER
CIT
Y
CU
LV
ER
BO
ULE
VA
RD
RE
ALIG
NM
EN
T P
RO
JE
CT
2014
2015
2,8
56
$
2,8
56
$
12
Did
not m
eet Lapsin
g P
olic
y
20-m
onth
exte
nsio
n to F
ebru
ary
28,
2019. P
roje
ct S
ponsor
must pro
vid
e a
n
update
at th
e M
ay
2018 T
AC
meeting
pro
vid
ing a
schedule
to c
om
ple
te d
esig
n
and a
ward
constr
uction c
ontr
act no late
r
than F
ebru
ary
2019.
Concur
with T
AC
recom
mendation.
3F
3112
LA
WN
DA
LE
ING
LE
WO
OD
AV
E
CO
RR
IDO
R W
IDE
NIN
G
PR
OJE
CT
2014
2015
2,1
72
$
1,2
39
$
12
Did
not m
eet Lapsin
g P
olic
y
20-m
onth
exte
nsio
n to F
ebru
ary
28,
2019. P
roje
ct S
ponsor
must pro
vid
e a
n
update
at th
e M
ay
2018 T
AC
meeting
pro
vid
ing a
schedule
to c
om
ple
te d
esig
n
and a
ward
constr
uction c
ontr
act no late
r
than F
ebru
ary
2019.
Concur
with T
AC
recom
mendation.
4F
1708
LA
CIT
Y
HO
LLY
WO
OD
INT
EG
RA
TE
D M
OD
AL
INF
OR
MA
TIO
N S
YS
TE
M
2009
2010
2011
1,6
82
$
1,4
08
$
66
Did
not m
eet Lapsin
g P
olic
y
One-y
ear
exte
nsio
n to J
une 3
0, 2018 to
oblig
ate
funds.
Concur
with T
AC
recom
mendation.
5F
3514
LA
CIT
Y
EX
PO
SIT
ION
-WE
ST
BIK
EW
AY
-NO
RT
HV
ALE
PR
OJE
CT
(LR
TP
PR
OG
RA
M)
2013
2014
2015
4,4
16
$
2,6
84
$
22
Did
not m
eet Lapsin
g P
olic
y
One-y
ear
exte
nsio
n to J
une 3
0, 2018.
Pro
ject S
ponsor
must pro
vid
e a
n u
pdate
at th
e M
ay
2018 T
AC
meeting a
nd
dem
onstr
ate
that th
e p
roje
ct is
fully
funded thro
ugh c
onstr
uction, either
with
an A
ctive T
ransport
ation P
rogra
m (
AT
P)
Cyc
le 4
applic
ation, or
oth
er
fundin
g
pla
n. If
the P
roje
ct S
ponsor
is u
nable
to
do s
o, th
e p
roje
ct m
ay
be r
ecom
mended
for
deoblig
ation.
Concur
with T
AC
recom
mendation.
6F
3632
LA
CIT
Y
WE
ST
ER
N A
VE
BU
S S
TO
P
& P
ED
ES
TR
IAN
IMP
RO
VE
ME
NT
PR
OJE
CT
2012
2013
2014
1,1
78
$
942
$
23
Did
not m
eet Lapsin
g P
olic
yO
ne-y
ear
exte
nsio
n to J
une 3
0, 2018.
Concur
with T
AC
recom
mendation.
7F
3146
LA
CIT
Y
HIG
HLA
ND
AV
EN
UE
WID
EN
ING
-OD
IN S
TR
EE
T
TO
FR
AN
KLIN
AV
EN
UE
2014
2015
3,7
73
$
3,7
73
$
12
Did
not m
eet Lapsin
g P
olic
yO
ne-y
ear
exte
nsio
n to J
une 3
0, 2018.
Concur
with T
AC
recom
mendation.
8F
3139
MA
NH
AT
TA
N
BE
AC
H
SE
PU
LV
ED
A B
OU
LE
VA
RD
BR
IDG
E W
IDE
NIN
G
PR
OJE
CT
2012
2013
2014
6,8
13
$
5,3
73
$
23
Did
not m
eet Lapsin
g P
olic
yO
ne-y
ear
exte
nsio
n to J
une 3
0, 2018.
Concur
with T
AC
recom
mendation.
9F
1168
SA
NT
A
CLA
RIT
A
VIA
PR
INC
ES
SA
EX
TE
NS
ION
-GO
LD
EN
VA
LLE
Y R
OA
D T
O
RA
INB
OW
GLE
N2015
11,5
77
$
11,5
77
$
01
Did
not m
eet Lapsin
g P
olic
y
20-m
onth
exte
nsio
n to F
ebru
ary
28,
2019. P
roje
ct S
ponsor
must pro
vid
e a
n
update
at th
e M
ay
2018 T
AC
meeting
pro
vid
ing a
schedule
to c
om
ple
te d
esig
n
and a
ward
constr
uction c
ontr
act no late
r
than F
ebru
ary
2019.
Concur
with T
AC
recom
mendation.
RE
SU
LT
S O
F M
AY
201
7 T
EC
HN
ICA
L A
DV
ISO
RY
CO
MM
ITT
EE
(T
AC
) A
PP
EA
LS
PR
OC
ES
S
So
rte
d b
y A
ge
nc
y a
nd
Nu
mb
er
of
Ye
ars
Ex
ten
de
d
County
wid
e C
all
for
Pro
jects
Attachm
ent F
Page 1
of
1
63