West Santa Ana Branch

City Manager Technical Advisory Committee

Thursday, July 15, 2021, 2:00 PM – 3:30 PM

TELECONFERENCE MEETING VIA ZOOM Register in advance for this webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_z7dIEX8pRvC-IzboBukZ0Q Phone: 669.900.6833 Meeting ID: 820 6603 0727

AGENDA

1. Welcome John Moreno, Chair

2. Approval of Minutes

15 min. 3. Update on Environmental Process Meghna Khanna Senior A. Document Release and Review Period Director, Mobility Corridor, B. Comment Submittal & Public Participation Countywide Planning

15 min. 4. Update on Federal Funding Efforts Raffi Hamparian, Senior A. Congressional Efforts Director for Federal Affairs, B. Metro Efforts Government Relations

20 min. 5. Update on First/Last Mile Guidelines Jacob Lieb, Senior Director, A. Adopt FLM Guidelines FLM Planning B. FLM Planning Process, Roles and Responsibilities Katie Lemmon, Senior C. 3% Local Contribution Guidance Manager, FLM Planning D. Metro Support for Implementation

10 min. 6. Update on WSAB Project Efforts John Moreno, Chair A. Metro Board Action on Subregional Funding B. Request for Economic Information C. City Manager TAC Public Involvement Schedule D. Master Cooperative Agreements

7. Other City Manager TAC Items and Discussion

8. Propose Next CM TAC Meeting – Thursday, August 12, 2021, Via ZOOM Focus: Environmental Document Review and Initial LPA Discussion

9. Adjournment

2. Approval of Minutes MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE GATEWAY CITIES COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS West Santa Ana Branch City Manager Technical Advisory Committee June 10, 2021 Teleconference Meeting Via ZOOM

PRESENT: Chair, John Moreno, City of Paramount Vice Chair, Gilbert Livas, City of Downey Jeff Stewart, City of Bellflower Art Gallucci, City of Cerritos Raul Alvarez, City of Huntington Park Elaine Kunitake, County of Los Angeles County Chris Jeffers, City of South Gate

ABSENT: William Rawlings, City of Artesia Paul Phillips, City of Bell Michael O’Kelly, City of Bell Gardens Santor Nishizaki, City of Cudahy Jennifer Vasquez, City of Maywood Carlos Fandino, City of Vernon

ALSO PRESENT: Electeds: Luke Klipp, Office of Supervisor Hahn. County/Cities:, Jamie Hwang, County of Los Angeles; Karen Lee, City of Artesia; Len Gorecki, City of Bellflower; Torrey Contreras, City of Cerritos; Vaniah De Rojas, Aldo Schindler, City of Downey; Cesar Roldan, City of Huntington Park. Metro: Meghna Khanna, Ashad Hamideh, Adam Stephenson, Mark Dierking, Metro Staff. Eco-Rapid Transit: Allyn Rifkin. Gateway Cities COG: Nancy Michali, WSAB City Manager TAC staff; Karen Heit, Joel Arevalos, Sandra Mora, GCCOG staff. Other: Adam Christian, Ernest & Young.

Chairperson John Moreno called the meeting to order at 2:06 pm. He welcomed everyone to the meeting, and said that we have a full agenda of substantial issues to discuss and let’s get started.

Item 2. Update on Status of Master Cooperative Agreements Chairperson Moreno introduced the topic of completing the required Master Cooperative Agreements. Four cities have completed the process – Bell, Downey, Huntington Park and Paramount – and South Gate is moving ahead on finishing theirs up. He offered help to any of the remaining cities. Mr. Moreno emphasized the importance of completing the MCA process – it is really important to moving the project forward. Vice Chair Livas offered to reach out to the City of Vernon.

Item 3. Update on City Manager TAC’s 3% Local Contribution Efforts Chairperson Moreno updated the CM TAC on the efforts being made on addressing city concerns related to the required 3% Local Contribution obligation. We have moved forward on securing assistance from the Gateway Cities COG on securing Measure M Subregional Equity funds for the WSAB cities to use in

1 meeting their funding obligations. The request was presented to and approved by the elected officials of the Eco-Rapid Transit Board, who directed their Executive Director to prepare and submit a letter requesting funding assistance to the COG. CM TAC staff is working with COG staff to prepare a funding request to Metro. The Measure M funding will be used to offset the enormous cost each city faces in meeting their local contribution obligation.

Item 4. Update on WSAB Project Chairperson Moreno introduced Meghna Khanna, Project Manager to provide a WSAB Project Update (Project Update presentation attached). The topics included in her presentation were –  Draft Environmental Document (DEIS/R) Status and Review - Project Alternatives Overview - Environmental Schedule - DEIR – Environmental Superior vs Staff Preferred Alternative  Third Party Engagement  Project New Starts Grants Assessment and Cost Range. Draft Environmental: Project Alternatives Four alternatives were studied in the Draft Environmental Impact Study/Report (DEIS/R) –  Two full alignment alternatives (Alternatives 1 and 2 with different terminus points in downtown Los Angeles to Pioneer Station in Artesia); and  Two partial alignment alternatives – Alternative 3 Slauson/A Line to Pioneer Station, and Alternative 4 I-105/C Line to Pioneer Station. Ms. Khanna provided an overview of the major project elements of the four alternatives, including alignment length, number of stations, number and type of crossings (street, freight, freeway and river crossings), miles of shared right-of-way with freight rail operations, miles of freight relocations needed, maintenance storage facility and number of park and ride facilities. Maps and details of the alternatives were presented, along with a Comparison Summary Table. Environmental Schedule Ms. Khanna stated the DEIS/R document is planned for release for public review in July 2021. There will a 45-day comment period, which will include public hearings and community outreach. The Metro Board will select a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) in the October/November timeframe.  The Metro Board is expected to select the LPA, following the release and comment period for the Draft EIS/R.  The LPA will then be advanced for further analysis and included in the Final EIS/EIR, which is expected to be released in Summer 2022. DEIR: Environmental Superior vs Staff Preferred Alternatives The Draft EIR/S will include two LPA alternatives –  An Environmentally Superior Alternative, which is a requirement under CEQA and is based on the results of the technical analysis of the alternatives prepared in support of the Draft EIS/R. This alternative is identified as the alternative that has an environmental advantage over the other alternatives under consideration. - The goal of identifying the environmentally superior alternative is to assist decision-makers. - Metro is not required by CEQA to select the environmentally superior alternative as the approved project.

 A Staff Preferred Alternative, so named to differentiate it from the Locally Preferred Alternative.

2 Ms. Khanna explained both NEPA and CEQA recommend identifying the Staff Preferred Alternative in the Draft EIS/EIR.

 This alternative is identified based on an evaluation of the full environmental impact assessment conducted for the No Build and Build Alternatives; and considers an assessment of which alternative would best meet the Project’s identified Purpose and Need.

 Metro staff will determine if the Staff Preferred Alternative should be recommended to the Metro Board of Directors for selection as the Locally Preferred Alternative.

 However, as elected representatives of the community, the Metro Board can modify the staff recommendation, or select another alternative if they think it would best meet the Project Purpose and Need.

Metro staff has continued working on Third-Party Coordination through the following efforts –

 Caltrans – preparing the required PSR/PR in a parallel effort to the DEIS/R.

 USACE – preparing work on geotechnical information required for the design and construction of the required river crossings.

 UPRR – sharing the project alternatives, providing an overview of the environmental analysis, and seeking their review and comment.

 Stakeholder Working Forums through on-line interactive tools.

 City of Cerritos resident comments on the project and Metro’s responses. On-going efforts have continued to prepare for future Enabling Works, including –  Utilities verification, which has identified 64 utility providers and 213 utility conflicts.  Survey and right-of-way mapping updates and verification of the project alignment.

Comments/Questions Chair Moreno asked for comments and questions on Ms. Khanna’s presentation, and hearing none moved on to the second portion of the WSAB Project Update. Ms. Khanna introduced Ashad Hamideh from Metro’s Financial Group to talk about Metro’s New Starts Grants Assessment and the updated estimated cost range for the WSAB Project. Mr. Hamideh started his presentation by explaining that Metro staff recently completed an assessment and prioritization of Metro projects for Federal New Starts Grants, which has been approved by the Metro Board. The purpose of this effort was to identify opportunities and constraints for New Starts grants funding from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for Metro projects. The efforts focused on two of the FTA’s funding programs: 1) the Capital Investment Grants (CIG) Program; and 2) the Expedited Project Delivery (EIFD) for the CIG Pilot Program. These assessment efforts resulted in Metro Board approval of:

 Project-specific recommendations for pursuing New Starts grants; and  Recommendations on targeted CIG/EIFD legislation and a FTA engagement strategy. Project Assessment Based on their many years in securing CIG program and other federal funding for projects, Metro has identified five “Pillars of Success” for securing federal funding –

 Focus on a limited number of projects – prioritize and pursue federal funding for a small set of the most competitive projects.  Select projects that are eligible and have the most merit – projects that meet the CIG Program‘s Project Justification Criteria and demonstrate a strong Local Financial Commitment.

3

 Demonstrate readiness – based on project development schedule status and demonstrated local financial commitment; advance projects that have or are near to completing the first project phase, Project Development, and are ready to enter the second phase, Project Engineering.

 Demonstrate technical capacity and capability – based on developing reliable cost estimates and a Project Management Plan.

 Get projects into the funding pipeline – the federal funding process is lengthy, it can take up to five years, so it is important to enter projects into the federal funding approval process as soon as they are ready. The level of secured funding is typically less than what is requested due to the high level of national competition for limited federal funding. Preliminary Project Justification Assessment Scenarios were prepared by Metro staff for the West Santa Ana Branch (WSAB) Project and four other rail projects currently in the Project Planning phase. The first step in the assessment process was to identify an updated project cost estimate adjusted to reflect 2020 dollars and a 15% level of engineering. The revised cost estimates were for the two full alignment alternatives from downtown Los Angeles to the Pioneer Station in the City of Artesia. Three updated cost estimates were identified for the WSAB Project to show a range of possible costs reflecting the early stage of design work –

 Scenario B1 – current costs in 2020$; $7.0 billion.

 Scenario B2 – cost estimate reflecting 20% higher costs; $8.4 billion.

 Scenario B3 – cost estimate reflecting 20% higher costs than B2; $10.1 billion. Project Justification Summary Ratings. Based on the project justification criteria identified by the FTA, summary ratings were identified for the five projects. FTA identifies five rating categories to measure the rating results: Low, Medium-Low, Medium, Medium-High and High. The FTA requires that projects must rank medium or higher to be eligible to enter the New Starts funding pipeline. The results for the WSAB Project show a sensitivity to the project cost with the project without costs as ranking Medium- High and Medium with the projected cost estimates. Any cost increase will threaten the WSAB Project’s rating and competitiveness on a national level.

Project Assessment Summary for the five evaluated corridors showed the WSAB Project as furthest along in completing the 30% level of design by 2022, and having pursued preparation of an integrated federal environmental (NEPA) and state environmental (CEQA) process, making it eligible for federal funding. Metro Board Recommendations and Next Steps In April 2021, the Metro Board approved the following –

 Project specific recommendations for pursuing New Starts grants – - Approved the WSAB Project as one of Metro’s two next priorities for New Starts.

 Recommendations on targeted CIG/EPD legislative and FTA engagement strategy - Authorized staff to request entry into Project Development for the WSAB Project at the appropriate time; to work on a grant application and engage with FTA staff.

- Authorized staff to develop and implement targeted CIG/EPD legislative strategies; to engage with the Congressional delegation on behalf of the WSAB Project.

4

Ms. Khanna stated the WSAB Project environmental work is clearly further along than the other four projects assessed for federal funding by Metro staff – it will be finished by Summer 2022, which is one of key requirements to complete the Project Development phase. Mr. Hamideh stated that timely completion of the Project Development efforts was important to making the funding request and expediting the process to the extent possible will increase Metro’s chances to secure federal funding for the WSAB Project. Comments/Questions Chair Moreno asked for comments and questions. Gilbert Livas, Vice Chair/City of Downey: As we work through completing the Project Development phase, there is a concern that several cities are looking at project enhancements that may increase the project cost and delay project delivery. At what point, will the project definition be completed? Response: Ms. Khanna stated that all project elements must be identified and cleared through the NEPA/CEQA environmental process underway. Any project revisions and/or enhancements not included in the current project description and/or are outside of the “environmental footprint” as documented in the Draft EIS/R will require restarting or recirculating the environmental review process and the Draft EIS/EIR document. This would significantly delay the project’s environmental review process being completed and entered into the New Starts Program.

Gilbert Livas: It is important for us to understand what the “window” is for completing project decisions, so everyone can understand and meet the deadlines, and so the WSAB project can remain competitive for federal funding. Response: Ms. Khanna stated that the project deadlines are October/November 2021 for the Locally Preferred Alternative decision and Summer 2022 for completing the environmental work (Final EIS/R). There is a strong need to manage WSAB project costs – as any cost increases would cause the project’s rating to fall to a Medium-Low level, and hamper the project’s entry into the New Starts Program and hurt the project’s national competitiveness for federal funding. Gilbert Livas: How can we manage expectations so as not to jeopardize building the project?

John Moreno: We as a group must respond to and help cities to manage their expectations, so we can deliver the project. Nancy is helping us to do that.

Nancy Michali: As the cities discuss project changes and/or enhancements, we identify and share a possible project cost estimate range for those proposed improvements, based on current0 Metro project construction costs, so corridor cities can understand the cost implications. Cost implications include understanding the corresponding increase in the 3% local contribution required of all cities. Gilbert Livas: I would rather have 70% of a project than 100% of nothing. We cannot spend the time and money to make the project perfect. We need to structure our efforts. I request that Nancy and Meghna work together to identify a schedule with drop-dead dates. Ms. Khanna: It is important to identify a timeline to manage expectations and deliver the project. There are very real concerns that as the WSAB Project cost increases, it is closer to not being cost-effective and competitive for federal funding. Jeff Stewart, City of Bellflower: Will the 30% level of project design documents be completed in September 2021?

Ms. Khanna: No, the 30% level of design documents will be completed by the end of 2023. Once the LPA decision is made, Metro will be working closely with the cities to advance the 15% design for the utilities, freight relocations and grade-crossings. Metro is continuing work on an assessment of pursuing

5 the project through a Public-Private Partnership (P3) process, and the selected developer will advance the design of the LRT system and associated elements from 15% to 30%. Jeff Stewart: Will pursuing the P3 effort make up the funding gap?

Ms. Khanna: No, P3 will not provide additional funding to the project. It is planned that the federal New Starts Program or other grants will provide the additional funding.

Mr. Hamideh: It is of utmost importance for the project to meet the New Starts Program criteria and for the timely submittal of the WSAB Project to the New Starts Program. Through the current infrastructure discussions, federal transportation funding availability may increase with an additional $20 billion available for funding transportation projects.

Ms. Khanna: Metro is preparing a Draft Project Funding Plan that will be discussed with the Metro Board as part of the LPA recommendation.

Mr. Moreno: Does the Project Funding Plan include a cost assessment for the City of Los Angeles segment possibly being built in an aerial alignment rather than constructed underground? Ms. Khanna: Yes, that information can be included. Elaine Kunitake, County of Los Angeles: What about the Rio Hondo Station study effort and its recommendations. are they are expected at the same time as the WSAB Final EIS/EIR – Summer 2022? Ms. Khanna: Yes, the Rio Hondo Station Study is a parallel effort and is anticipated to be completed at the same time as the Draft EIS/R. Karen Lee, City of Artesia: You mentioned a study of aerial construction versus undergrounding? Did that study include the southern portion of the alignment? Ms. Khanna: No, I was referring to an assessment of aerial vs underground vertical alignment in the downtown Los Angeles segment, not for the southern segment. The Draft EIS/R document does include a discussion of why an underground configuration was not considered for the southern segment of the project alignment. Allyn Rifkin, Eco-Rapid Transit: Environmental justice effects are included in the federal criteria. I assume this is reflected in Draft EIS/R? Ms. Khanna: Yes, environmental justice issues were addressed in detail in the Draft EIS/R. Based on the project analysis, the entire project corridor has been identified as an environmental justice corridor.

Mr. Hamideh: The WSAB Corridor meets current FTA criteria for designation as an environmental justice corridor. President Biden is considering expanding federal funding criteria to better target federal funding to flow into environmental justice communities – and to create good-paying jobs as part of his American Jobs Plan. This is yet another reason to move forward as soon as possible on seeking WSAB project funding. This is a generational opportunity to fund this project. Mr. Moreno: I support moving forward as quickly as possible. When will we be able to see the environmental document? Ms. Khanna: The Draft EIS/R is scheduled for release in July. We are waiting for FTA approval to release the document.

Item 5. City Manager TAC Member Discussion Chairperson Moreno asked for final questions and comments from CM TAC members. Chris Jeffers, City of South Gate: Is it possible to reach out for some funding possibly available from the HSR effort? Mr. Moreno: Directed Ms. Michali to prepare a response to his suggestion. He asked for any further comments and hearing none, moved to adjourn the meeting.

6

Item 6. Next City Manager TAC Meeting The next WSAB CM TAC meeting is scheduled for Thursday, July 15, and the agenda will focus on a presentations on the Environmental Document Review Process and the First Last Mile Guidelines recently adopted by the Metro Board. He urged members to attend and be proactive in the discussion.

Chair Moreno adjourned the meeting.

7 4. Update on Federal Funding Efforts A. Congressional B. Metro Efforts West Santa Ana Branch: CM TAC Project Update

June 10, 2021 Topics

• Environmental Document (DEIS/R) Status and Review

o Project alternatives overview

o Environmental schedule

o DEIR: Environmental Superior vs Staff Preferred Alternative

• Third Party Engagement

• Project New Starts grants assessment and cost range (Ashad Hamideh)

2 Draft Environmental: Project Alternatives

• Draft EIS/R includes assessment of 4 termini options: – Alt 1: Los Angeles Union Station to Pioneer Station – Alt 2: 7th St/Metro Center to Pioneer Station – Alt 3: Slauson/A Line (Blue) to Pioneer Station (Metro Board approved IOS 2) – Alt 4: I-105/C Line to Pioneer Station (Metro Board approved IOS 1)

3 Alternative 4: I-105/C Line to Pioneer (6.6 miles, 4 WSAB stations)

Major Project Elements: • 6.6 miles − 5.6 miles at-grade; 1 mile aerial • 4 WSAB stations − 1 aerial; 3 at-grade • 4 park & ride facilities − 1 parking structure; 3 surface lots • New River bridge − San Gabriel River • MSF facility (approx. 25 acre) • 7 aerial grade-separations • 11 at-grade crossings • 1.3 miles of freight realignment • PEROW soil remediation 4 Alternative 4: I-105/C Line to Pioneer (6.6 miles, 4 WSAB stations) Major Project Elements (continued): • 3 freeway crossings •New C Line station in addition to 4 WSAB station − SR-91, I-605, I-105 −Requires approx. 1 miles of C Line track reconstruction −3 new bridges over I-105

5 Alternative 3: Slauson to Pioneer (14.8 miles, 9 WSAB stations) Major Project Elements between C Line & Slauson: • 8.2 miles − 6.6 mile at-grade; 1.6-mile aerial • 5 WSAB stations − 2 aerial; 3 at-grade • 1 park & ride facility • New River bridges − Los Angeles − Rio Hondo • 1 freeway crossing − I-710: Undercrossing (jack box construction) • 8 aerial grade-separations • 20 at-grade crossings • 6.8 miles of freight realignment 6 Alternative 1 & 2: Downtown to Pioneer (19.3 miles, 12 WSAB stations) Major Project Elements between Slauson & Downtown: • 4.4 miles − 2.1 miles aerial; 2.3 miles of underground • 2 freeway crossings − Aerial over I-10 − US 101 or US 110 (underground) • 2 to 3 WSAB stations (underground) • 10 aerial grade-separations • 1.3 miles of freight realignment

7 Comparison Summary of Alternatives

Alt 1: Union Station to Alt 2: 7th/Metro to Alt 3: Slauson to Alt 4: Green Line to Pioneer Pioneer Pioneer Pioneer Length (miles) 19.3 19.3 14.8 6.6 AtComparison-grade Summary12.3 of Build12.3 Alternatives12.2 5.6 Aerial 4.7 4.7 2.6 1.0 Underground 2.3 2.3 - - No. of Stations 12 12 9 4 *All alternative include a (3 aerial , 6 at-grade (3 aerial , 6 at-grade (3 aerial, 6 at-grade) (1 aerial, 3 at-grade) new C Line Station 2 underground) 3 underground) No. of Crossings 75 75 62 24 At-grade street crossings 31 31 31 11

Aerial street crossings 25 25 15 7 Freight crossings 10 10 9 2 Freeway crossings 6 6 4 3 River crossings 3 3 3 1 Shared ROW with freight 11.4 miles 11.4 miles 10.1 miles 2 miles Freight relocation needed 8.1 miles 8.1 miles 8.1 miles 1.3 miles MSF Bellflower or Paramount

No. of Park & Rides 5 facilities (Firestone, I-105/C Line, Paramount/Rosecrans, Bellflower and Artesia Stations)8 Alternative 4 does not include park & ride at Firestone Station Environmental Schedule

1. July 2021: Draft release for public review - 45-day comment period - Public Hearings 2. Metro Board selects Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA): October/November • The Metro Board is expected to select the LPA, following the release and comment period for the Draft EIS/EIR. • The LPA will then be advanced for further analysis and included in the Final EIS/EIR, which is expected to be released by summer 2022

9 DEIR: Environmental Superior vs Staff Preferred Alternative

Draft to include: “ Environmentally Superior Alternative” and “Staff Preferred Alternative” • Identifying the “environmentally superior alternative” is a requirement under CEQA and is based on the results of the technical analysis of the alternatives prepared in support of the Draft EIS/EIR. - The “environmentally superior alternative” is the alternative that has an overall environmental advantage over the other alternatives under consideration. - The goal of identifying the environmentally superior alternative is to assist decision-makers in the project approval process. - However, the public agency is not required by CEQA to select the environmentally superior alternative as the approved project.

10 DEIR: Environmental Superior vs Staff Preferred Alternative

• Both NEPA and CEQA recommend identifying the preferred alternative in the Draft EIS/EIR. - Identified based on evaluation of the full environmental impacts assessment conducted for the No Build and Build Alternatives; will consider an assessment of which alternative would best meet the project’s purpose and need. - After circulation of the Draft EIS/EIR, agency staff will compile and consider comments received from the public and other stakeholders on the Draft EIS/EIR. - The staff will determine if the Staff Preferred Alternative should be recommended to the Metro Board of Directors for selection as the Locally Preferred Alternative. - However, as elected representatives of the community, the Metro Board can modify the staff recommendation or select another alternative if they think it would best meet the project purpose and need.

11 Third-Party Coordination & Enabling Works

1. Third-party Coordination • Caltrans: PSR/PR Submittals • USACE: Geotechnical • UPRR • Stakeholder Working Forums • Cerritos residents comments/responses

2. Enabling Works • Utilities verification (213 utilities conflict and 64 providers) • Survey and ROW mapping update • Alignment verification

12 Thank you

13 Pillar & East San Fernando Valley Projects Priority Assessment for New Starts Grants

WSAB City Manager TAC June 10, 2021 Assessment Goals

• Identify opportunities and constraints for New Starts grants from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA):

o Capital Investment Grants (CIG) Program

o Expedited Project Delivery (EPD) for CIG Pilot Program

• Assess CIG New Starts rating results and implications of individual projects

• Develop project specific recommendations for pursuing New Starts grants

• Develop recommendations on targeted CIG/EPD legislative and FTA engagement strategy

2 CIG Program Pillars of Success

 Focus on a Limited Number of Projects

 Select Projects that are Eligible and Have the Most Merit • Project Justification Criteria and Local Financial Commitment • System-wide financial capacity including operations and maintenance of Metro system

 Demonstrate Readiness • According to project development schedules and local financial commitment

 Demonstrate Technical Capacity & Capability • Reliable cost estimates and Project Management Plan (PMP)

 Get Projects into the Pipeline

3 Source: CIG Assessment for Pillar and ESFV Projects_ Board Staff Workshop #2.pdf February 4, 2021 Project Justification Summary Ratings

5 Project Assessment Summary

6 Metro Board Recommendations and Next Steps Project specific recommendations for pursuing New Starts grants  Approve WSAB and Sepulveda as Metro’s next priorities for New Starts  Approve ESFV as Metro’s priority for EPD

Recommendations on targeted CIG/EPD legislative and FTA engagement strategy  Authorize staff to request entry into Project Development for WSAB and Sepulveda at the appropriate time  Authorize staff to submit a grant application to EPD for ESFV  Authorize staff to develop and implement targeted CIG/EPD legislative strategies Next steps in parallel approach to State grants for Gold Line Eastside and Green Line to Torrance

7 6. Update on WSAB Project Efforts D. Master Cooperative Agreements Status of WSAB Master Cooperative Agreements

City Initial Follow-up City Council City Council Meeting Meetings Info Presentation Approval Artesia   Bell     Bellflower   Pending Cerritos  Cudahy   Downey      Huntington Park      Paramount     South Gate   Pending Vernon --

As of 5/28/21