june 7, 2017 - agenda - technical advisory committee meeting · attachment 1: subcommittee agendas...

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

http://www.metro.net/about/tac/

mailto:[email protected]

Attachment 1

Subcommittee Agendas

3

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

Agenda


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


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

http://www.metro.net/about/sfs/

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 FY 2018 FAP

Streets and Freeways Subcommittee:


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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 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


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


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

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

Attachment 5

FY 17 FTA Section 5310/5316/5317Evaluation Criteria

39

Attachment 6

FY 17 FTA Section 5310/5316/5317Appeals Fact Sheets

45

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)


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


F5310 LA COUNTY RAMONA BOULEVARD/BADILLO STREET/COVINA BOULEVARD TSSP/BSP 863

F5315 LA COUNTY SAN GABRIEL VALLEY 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


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


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



AS OF JUNE 30, 2017

($000)


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


60

ATTACHMENT D

PROJ


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



AS OF JUNE 30, 2017

($000)


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$


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