Pico Rivera City Council
May 26, 2026

-10-

20. Prevailing Wages. City and Contractor acknowledge that this project is a public work to which prevailing wages apply. Contractor shall comply in all respects with all applicable provisions of the California Labor Code, including those set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

21. Workers’ Compensation Insurance. California Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700 provide that every contractor will be required to secure the payment of compensation to its employees. In accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1861, Contractor hereby certifies as follows:
“I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake selfinsurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this contract.”

22. Nondiscriminatory Employment. Contractor shall not unlawfully discriminate against any individual based on race, color, religion, nationality, gender, sex, sexual orientation, age or condition of disability. Contractor understands and agrees that it is bound by and will comply with the nondiscrimination mandates of all statutes and local ordinances and regulations.

23. Debarred, Suspended or Ineligible Contractors. Contractor shall not be debarred throughout the duration of this Agreement. Contractor shall not perform work with debarred subcontractors pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1777.1 or 1777.7 or any other federal of State law providing for the debarment of contractors from public works. If the Contractor of any Subcontractor becomes debarred or suspended during the duration of the Project, the Contractor shall immediately notify the City.

24. Compliance with Laws. Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, codes and regulations in force at the time Contractor performs pursuant to this Agreement.

25. Payment Bond. Contractor shall obtain a payment bond in an amount that is not less than the total compensation amount of this Agreement, and nothing in this Agreement shall be read to excuse this requirement. The required form entitled Payment Bond (Labor and Materials) is attached hereto as Exhibit D and incorporated herein by this reference.

26. Substitution of Securities. Pursuant to Public Contracts Code Section 22300, Contractor shall be allowed to substitute securities for any moneys withheld by the City to ensure performance under the Agreement, unless, federal regulations or policies, or both, do not allow the substitution of securities. At the request and expense of the Contractor, securities equivalent to the amount withheld shall be deposited with the City, or with a state or federally chartered bank in this state as the escrow agent, who shall Maintenance Services Agreement
WEST COAST ARBORISTS, INC.

-11-
then pay those moneys to the Contractor. Upon satisfactory completion of the Agreement, the securities shall be returned to the Contractor.

27. Contractor’s Representations. Contractor represents, covenants and agrees that:
a) Contractor is licensed, qualified, and capable of furnishing the labor, materials, and expertise necessary to perform the services in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement; b) there are no obligations, commitments, or impediments of any kind that will limit or prevent its full performance under this Agreement; c) there is no litigation pending against Contractor, and Contractor is not the subject of any criminal investigation or proceeding; and d) to Contractor’s actual knowledge, neither Contractor nor its personnel have been convicted of a felony.

28. Conflicts of Interest. Contractor agrees not to accept any employment or representation during the term of this Agreement or within 12 months after completion of the work under this Agreement which is or may likely make Contractor “financially interested,” as provided in Government Code Sections 1090 and 87100, in any decisions made by City on any matter in connection with which Contractor has been retained pursuant to this Agreement.

29. Third Party Claims. City shall have full authority to compromise or otherwise settle any claim relating to this Agreement at any time. City shall timely notify Contractor of the receipt of any third-party claim relating to the Agreement. City shall be entitled to recover its reasonable costs incurred in providing this notice.

30. Non-Assignability; Subcontracting. The experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of Contractor, its principals and employees were a substantial inducement for the City to enter into this Agreement. Contractor shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor any part thereof, whether by assignment or novation, without City’s prior written consent. Transfers restricted hereunder shall include the transfer to any person or group of persons acting in concert of more than twenty-five percent (25%) of present ownership and/or control of Contractor. In the event of any such unapproved transfer, including any bankruptcy proceeding, this Agreement shall be void. Any purported assignment without written consent shall be null, void, and of no effect; and Contractor shall hold harmless, defend and indemnify City and its officers, officials, employees, agents and representatives with respect to any claim, demand or action arising from or relating to any unauthorized assignment. No approved transfer shall release the Contractor or any surety of Contractor of any liability hereunder with the express consent of the City.

31. Applicable Law. The validity, interpretation, and performance of this Agreement shall be controlled by and construed under the laws of the State of California, excluding California’s choice of law rules. Venue for any such action relating to this Agreement shall be in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

32. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. If either party to this Contract is required to initiate or defend or made a party to any action or proceeding in any way connected with this Maintenance Services Agreement
WEST COAST ARBORISTS, INC.

-12-
Contract, the prevailing party in such action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief which may be granted, whether legal or equitable, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees. Attorney's fees shall include attorney's fees on any appeal, and in addition a party entitled to attorney's fees shall be entitled to all other reasonable costs for investigating such action, taking depositions and discovery and all other necessary costs the court allows which are incurred in such litigation. All such fees shall be deemed to have accrued on commencement of such action and shall be enforceable whether or not such action is prosecuted to judgment.

33. Titles. The titles used in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall in no way define, limit or describe the scope or intent of this Agreement or any part of it.

34. Authority. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Contractor warrants and represents that they have the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of Contractor and have the authority to bind Contractor to the performance of its obligations hereunder.

35. Integration; Amendment. It is understood that there are no oral agreements between the Parties hereto affecting this Agreement and this Agreement supersedes and cancels any and all previous negotiations, arrangements, agreements and understandings, if any, between the Parties, and none shall be used to interpret this Agreement. This Agreement may be amended at any time by the mutual consent of the Parties by an instrument in writing.

36. Incorporation by Reference. All Exhibits attached hereto are incorporated herein by reference. The documents, payment and performance bonds, City insurance requirements, Community Workforce Agreement, together with this written Agreement (and all Exhibits, documents and laws referenced therein), shall constitute the entire agreement between the parties as to the subject matter of this Agreement. In the event of any conflict between this Agreement and any Exhibit hereto, the provisions of this Agreement shall control.

37. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, including any other documents incorporated herein by specific reference, represents the entire and integrated agreement between City and Contractor. This Agreement supersedes all prior oral or written negotiations, representations or agreements. This Agreement may not be modified or amended, nor any provision or breach waived, except in a writing signed by both parties which expressly refers to this Agreement.

38. Construction. In the event of any asserted ambiguity in, or dispute regarding the interpretation of any matter herein, the interpretation of this Agreement shall not be resolved by any rules of interpretation providing for interpretation against the party who causes the uncertainty to exist or against the party who drafted this Agreement or who drafted that portion of this Agreement.

Maintenance Services Agreement
WEST COAST ARBORISTS, INC.

-13-

39. Non-waiver of Terms, Rights and Remedies. Waiver by either party of any one or more of the conditions of performance under this Agreement shall not be a waiver of any other condition of performance under this Agreement. In no event shall the making by City of any payment to Contractor constitute or be construed as a waiver by City of any breach of covenant, or any default which may then exist on the part of Contractor, and the making of any such payment by City shall in no way impair or prejudice any right or remedy available to City with regard to such breach or default.

40. Notice. Except as otherwise required by law, any notice or other communication authorized or required by this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed received on (a) the day of delivery if delivered by hand or overnight courier service during Contractor’s or City’s regular business hours or (b) on the third business day following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, to the addresses listed below, or at such other address as one party may notify the other:

To City:

Noe Negrete, P.E.

Director of Public Works
City of Pico Rivera
6615 Passons Blvd
Pico Rivera, CA 90660
To Contractor:

Patrick Mahoney
President
West Coast Arborists, Inc.
2200 E. Via Burton,
Anaheim, CA 92806

41. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterpart originals, duplicate originals, or both, each of which is deemed to be an original for all purposes.

42. Severability. If any term or portion of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. [This section is intentionally left blank]
Maintenance Services Agreement
WEST COAST ARBORISTS, INC.

-14-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed the within Agreement the day and year first above written.

CITY OF PICO RIVERA
By: ____________________________
Steve Carmona, City Manager
ATTEST:

By: ____________________________
Cynthia Ayala, City Clerk

CONTRACTOR
WEST COAST ARBORISTS, INC.

By: ____________________________
Printed Name: Patrick Mahoney
Title: President
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: ____________________________
Arnold Alvarez-Glasman, City Attorney

EXHIBIT A

1. SCOPE OF WORK
It shall be understood that the Contractor will be required to perform and complete the proposed tree maintenance work in a thorough and professional manner, and to provide labor, tools, equipment, materials, and supplies necessary to complete all the work in a timely manner that will meet the City’s requirements. Contractor may be required to perform the following tree maintenance activities at various sites throughout the City:
• GPS Tree Inventory
• Online Maintenance Access*
• Grid Pruning
• Service Request Pruning
• Palm Trunk Skinning
• Tree Removal
• Stump Removal
• Tree Planting
• Root Barrier
• Emergency Services
• Arborist Service / Inspection
 Online maintenance is defined as Internet access to Urban Forestry Management Software for GPS tree inventories that include work order tracking, ability to send work requests, including but not limited to, maintenance recommendations, tree conditions, pruning, planting, and removal, access to reports for tree inventory, value of the urban forest, recycling reports, live job balance, contractor equipment GPS location monitoring.

Prior to beginning work, contractor shall review with the City administrator various methods, tools, and work scheduling to be used.

Contractor shall notify affected residents forty-eight (48) hours in advance of scheduled work.

2. UNIFORMS AND IDENTIFICATION BADGES
A. The Contractor shall ensure that their employees are appropriately identified.

B. The Contractor shall ensure that every on-duty employee wears a visible photo identification badge identifying the following: employee name, physical description, and Contractor’s name. Such badge shall be displayed on employee’s person at all times when he/she is on City designated property.

C. Contractor shall require each of his personnel to adhere to basic public works standards of working attire including uniform shirts and/or vests clearly marked with the Contractor’s name. Contractor’s personnel shall be equipped with proper shoes and other gear required by OSHA. Brightly colored safety vests or reflectors shall be worn when

personnel are working near vehicular traffic. Contractor shall comply with all OSHA and ANSI Z133 safety equipment for tree workers.

3. EQUIPMENT
A. Equipment will be of the highest quality available in order to produce the quality of work required. Equipment shall be maintained in good condition at all times. All parts and systems of the collection equipment shall operate properly. Any equipment not meeting these standards shall not be used until the equipment is repaired and meets the standards stated in this section. Should the City at any time give notification in writing to contractor that any vehicle does not comply with the standards set forth herein, the vehicle shall immediately be removed from service in the City and shall not be used again until approved in writing by the Director of Public Works or his designated representative.

B. Contractor shall provide an adequate number of vehicles and equipment for the tree maintenance services for which it is responsible under the Agreement. All equipment shall conform to the highest industry standards, shall be maintained in a clean and efficient condition and shall comply with all measures and procedures promulgated by all agencies with jurisdiction.

C. Contractor shall make available sufficient back-up capacity to ensure that service remains uninterrupted during the life of the Agreement. The City may specify a minimum level of back-up equipment required. Cost for back-up equipment shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor.

D. The tree maintenance equipment must be designated and operated while on the route in such a manner as to prevent solid or liquid wastes from escaping the vehicle. Transport vehicles or containers must have solid front, sides, and rear, and the top shall be tarped, or otherwise tightly enclosed. Branches, suckers, bark, and other tree parts that are chipped are to be covered while transported and hauled away to the disposal site. Any spillage of materials which occurs during the tree maintenance function shall be immediately cleaned up by the Contractor at its expense. A broom and shovel shall be carried at all times on each vehicle for this purpose. Vehicles shall be washed at least once a week.

E. Contractor shall submit to City, upon City’s request, a certificate of vehicle noise level testing by an independent testing entity approved by the City. Each vehicle used for collection, hauling and disposal services identified in this Agreement shall be equipped with an audible warning device that is activated when the vehicle is backing up.

F. The Contractor shall maintain its vehicles and collection equipment free of graffiti.

4. CONTACT INFORMATION
A. The Contractor is required to maintain an office and provide the telephone services so that all calls from the City have no toll charge. If a telephone answering service is utilized, the answering service shall be capable of contacting Contractor by radio or cell phone.

Contractor is further required to provide the City with a 24-hour emergency number for contact outside normal working hours. In response to a call from the City, Contractor shall respond within 2 hours.

B. The Contractor shall designate in its proposal a Contract Manager. The Contractor shall not change this designation without prior approval of the City, excluding cases of termination of the employee. The Contract Manager will be the City’s key contact person with the Contractor. The Contract Manager shall meet with the City as necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Agreement. The Contract Manager must be knowledgeable with all aspects of the Agreement.

C. The person designated as the Contract Manager shall have at least two (2) years experience in the management of tree maintenance service contracts for municipalities with population 25,000 or more.

D. If the Contractor chooses to employ subcontractor(s) with expertise beyond that of the Contract Manager, the City shall have direct access to a designated representative from the subcontractor(s). The designated representative from any subcontractor(s) shall be designated in the Bid. The Contractor or subcontractor(s) shall not change this designation without prior approval of the City, excluding cases of termination of the employee.

E. The City’s direct contact with subcontractor(s) in no way eliminates the Contractor’s ultimate responsibility to fulfill every requirement of the Agreement.

5. SAFETY
A. The Contractor agrees to perform all work outlined in this Scope of Work in such a manner as to meet all accepted standards for safe practices during maintenance operations and to safely maintain and operate all equipment, machines, and materials consequential or related to the work; and is solely responsible for complying at all times with all local, County, State, Federal, or other legal requirements including, but not limited to, California Department of Food and Agriculture, O.S.H.A. Orders, Department of Transportation Drug and Alcohol testing provisions, CalTrans Traffic Control Manuals, and APWA Traffic Control Handbook, so as to protect all persons, including Contractor’s employees, agents of the City, vendors, members of the public, and others from foreseeable injury to themselves or damage to their property. Furthermore, Contractor must contact Underground Service Alert (Dig Alert) before excavating a location, as necessary.

Contractor shall inspect all hazards and potential hazards in maintained areas and keep a log indicating the date inspected and action taken. All employees working within the roadway right-of-way shall wear reflective safety vests.

B. It shall be the Contractor’s responsibility to inspect and identify any practices and conditions that render any portion of the maintained areas unsafe. The City shall be

notified immediately of any unsafe conditions that require major correction. Contractor shall cooperate fully with City in the investigation of any accidental injury or death occurring in any of the maintained areas, including a complete written report thereof to the City within five (5) days of the injury or death.

C. Contractor shall exercise precautions as necessary when working adjacent to aerial and subterranean utilities. Contractor must utilize Line Clearance Qualified Tree Trimmers while working within 10 ft. of high voltage power lines. In the event that aerial utility wires present a hazard to the Contractor’s personnel or others near the work site, work is to immediately cease and the appropriate utility company notified. Work shall then commence in accordance with instructions from the utility company. In the event that work causes excavation, the Contractor is responsible for properly marking the location and appropriate notification of Underground Service Alert (USA).

D. No hooks, gaffs, spurs, or climbers will be used for climbing trees unless specifically approved by the City administrator.

E. Contractor shall comply with Standards of CAL OSHA and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Z133 Safety Requirements for Arboricultural Operations.

6. EMERGENCY PROCEDURES
The Contractor shall immediately report any emergency situations by calling the following:

During business hours, the Contractor shall contact the City’s Public Works Department at (562) 801-4415.

After-hours, the Contractor shall contact the Public Works Stand-by Employee at (562) 755-0768.

7. HOURS AND DAYS OF SERVICE
A. Maintenance service may be conducted between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on major streets and 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on residential streets.

B. The days of operation shall be Monday through Friday. No work shall be performed on Saturday, Sunday or Holidays unless authorized by the City.

C. Eight (8) hours of labor shall constitute a legal day’s work for all workers employed in the execution of this Agreement and the Contractor and any subcontractor under it shall comply with and be governed by the laws of the State of California having to do with working hours as set forth in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 2 of the Labor Code of the State of California as amended.

8. GPS TREE INVENTORY
A. Within the first 90-days of the contract term, the Contractor shall be required to provide to the City access to a record-keeping system consisting of an Internet-based software program that allows the City to maintain information about its tree inventory, including the description of each tree by species, height, diameter, work history, and site location.

Additionally, the program should generate the estimated monetary value of the urban forest, recycling reports, live job balance, and contractor equipment GPS location monitoring. The program shall be capable of producing detailed listings of tree and site information, work histories, service requests, summary reports, and pictures of City tree species. Contractor shall provide software support to the City for the entire term of the contract. Provisions of the GPS Tree Inventory System include:

1. Conduct an update to the City’s tree inventory, which is to be maintained under this Contract by an ISA Certified Arborist, including coordinates for all trees in public places. This includes, but is not limited to, all publicly owned trees on street rights-ofway, in parks, at City facilities, and in open spaces such as medians and greenscapes.

This tree inventory update will review the previous tree inventory list and ensure its accuracy, adding or deleting trees to create the most precise inventory. The address information in the inventory should be linked directly to a GIS program, such as ArcView. The inventory collector will identify the trees by their global coordinates (longitude and latitude). By collecting the data using the GPS system, the City can consolidate the tree data with other GPS-coded programs within the City.

2. Contractor shall have at a minimum five (5) years of experience in collecting tree inventories for cities and other public agencies and developing inventory databases, including an extensive program that simplifies the management of the City’s Urban Forest. Contractor shall have developed a complete and comprehensive computer software program for at least five (5) California cities. The program should have specialized reports designed specifically for the City’s needs. The program should be developed based on the needs of the City. The user-friendly program should allow the City to generate a variety of reports quickly.

3. The tree inventory program must include a mobile application for field use. The application must reflect live data as it exists in the tree inventory program. The functionality of the mobile application must be compatible with Android systems, be usable for precision mobility view as user moves through canopied areas, include multiple layer features including aerial imagery and street names, display tree icons based on precise GPS coordinates, be able to display live work history records, and allow live data updates.

4. Provide not less than two training sessions in the use and management of the street tree database with City staff to include hands-on demonstration.

5. The inventory system described above shall be considered an instrument of service under this Contract, and shall remain the property of the City during the life of and following the termination of this Tree Maintenance Agreement.

6. Contractor shall provide routine software maintenance, archive, backup, restore, and disaster recovery procedures as may be requested by the City. Contractor shall provide complete software support rapidly, with experienced staff available to the City during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.

9. WORK QUALITY
All tree pruning shall comply with good arboriculture practices for the particular species of trees being trimmed and shall be consistent with the Pruning Standards and Best Management Practices as adopted by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA).

Contractor shall also meet the requirements of the current American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Z133 entitled “Safety Requirements for Arboricultural Operation.” The City’s administrator shall determine if the Contractor has met all pruning requirements and payment shall not be made for pruning that is not in accordance with the above standards.

The Contractor shall be deemed in contract default if they consistently fail to comply with the aforementioned standards.

10. GRID PRUNING PROGRAM
At the direction of the City, the tree pruning will be done per pre-designated grids on a set cycle to include all trees regardless of size. Pruning will include structural pruning, crown raising, and crown cleaning. The intent of this contract is to have all trees pruned a minimum of one time by the end of the three (3) year contract period.

11. SERVICE REQUEST PRUNING
As directed by City staff, trees that need service prior to their scheduled grid trim shall be trimmed within two weeks of notification by the City to the Contractor. Pruning will include structural pruning, crown raising, and crown cleaning. The pruning shall provide a symmetrical shape and aesthetically pleasing appearance typical to the species.

12. PRUNING STANDARDS
A. Final pruning cuts shall be made without leaving stubs. Cuts shall be made in a manner to promote fast callous growth.

B. Topping shall not be done unless specifically requested by the City.

C. The specific techniques employed shall be consistent with industry practice for the size and species of the tree being pruned. All dead, broken, damaged, diseased, or insect infested limbs shall be removed at the trunk or main branch. All cuts shall be made sufficiently close, ½ inch, to the parent stem so that healing can readily start under normal conditions. All limbs 2” or greater shall be undercut to prevent splitting. The remaining

limbs and branches shall not be split or broken at the cut. All crossed or rubbing limbs shall be removed unless removal will result in large gaps in the general outline of the tree.

D. Cut laterals to preserve the natural form of the tree, leaving the head open enough for the branching system to show and permitting the dead material to be easily cleaned out and light to show through the head. Tree foliage shall be reduced by at least fifteen percent (15%) but no more than twenty-five percent (25%).

E. Prune to remove dead wood, or weak, diseased, insect-infested, broken, low, or crossing limbs. Branches with an extremely narrow angle of attachment should normally be removed.

F. Small limbs, including suckers and waterspouts, shall be cut close to the trunk or branch from which they arise.

G. Heading cutes and/or topping will not be allowed without City approval. Heading, rounding over, or stubbing shall not be an accepted practice for reducing the size or the framework of any tree.

H. Trees shall be trimmed to provide a minimum clearance of fourteen (14) feet and no greater than sixteen (16) feet above finish grade for moving vehicles within the traveled roadway and seven (7) feet for pedestrians over sidewalks. Clearances for adjacent structures and their connecting utility lines shall be determined by City staff. Trees shall also be pruned to remove any obstruction around traffic control devices, traffic signs, and street lights. Additional pruning shall be performed to mitigate any extreme effect of the clearance pruning and provide an aesthetic appearance.

I. When pruning bottom branches, care shall be given to obtain a balanced appearance when viewed from across the street immediately opposite the tree.

13. PRUNING PALM TREES
Palm tree pruning shall consist of the removal of loose dead fronds, fruit clusters, and other vegetation from the trunks of all palms in a manner selected by the Contractor and approved by City staff in accordance of the following:

A. The use of climbing spurs or spike shoes for the purpose of climbing palm trees is prohibited, unless specifically approved by the City administrator. The Contractor shall be required to use an aerial tower with sufficient height to reach the crown for the purpose of pruning palm trees.

B. Palm Skinning – Dead fronds, and parts thereof, including stubs, can be removed along the entire length of the trunk of each palm, leaving a clean unsheathed appearance slicked from the ground to approximately twenty-four to thirty-six inches (24” - 36”) from the base of the green fronds at the top of the tree. The frond stubs (cut close to the trunk) can be left in place with a span of at least eighteen inches (18”) but no greater than thirty-six inches (36”).

14. TREE REMOVALS
Upon notification by City staff to Contractor of trees to be removed, Contractor shall notify affected residents at least forty-eight (48) hours in advance and submit USA ticket. Contractor shall remove tree, grind stumps to a depth of eighteen inches (18”) and haul all debris. Stumps shall be cut low enough to the ground where grinding can be done safely. All holes shall be backfilled the same day. The resultant chips from grinding may be used to fill the hole to two inches (2”) above normal ground level. All excess grinding chips and debris will be removed and loaded into transport vehicles for disposal. No wood or debris shall be left along the public right-of-way. All tree parts are to be loaded into transport vehicles or containers. Any damaged paved surfaces shall be restored to their original condition.

15. STUMP REMOVAL
Upon notification by City staff to contractor of stumps to be removed, Contractor shall notify affected residents at least forty-eight (48) hours in advance and submit USA ticket. Contractor shall cut remaining stump low enough for grinding to be done safely and grind to a depth of eighteen inches (18”) and haul all debris. All holes shall be backfilled the same day. The resultant chips from grinding may be used to fill the hole to two inches (2”) above normal ground level. All excess grinding chips and debris will be removed and loaded into transport vehicles for disposal. No wood or debris shall be left along the public right-of-way. All tree parts are to be loaded into transport vehicles or containers. Any damaged paved surfaces shall be restored to their original condition.

16. TREE PLANTING
Tree planting includes the tree, stakes, ties, and complete installation and watering at time of installation as directed by City staff. Planting lists will be compiled by the City and submitted as needed. Contractor will guarantee the quality of the tree stock and the workmanship.

A. Contractor shall provide all equipment, labor, and materials necessary for the planting of trees at City marked locations. Contractor shall notify affected residents at least forty-eight (48) hours in advance and submit a USA ticket.

B. Planting pit shall be dug twice the width and the same depth of the root ball. Before placing the tree in the planting pit, the Contractor shall examine the root ball for injured roots and the tree canopy for broken branches. Damaged roots should be cleanly cut off at a point just in front of the break. Broken branches should be cut out of the canopy making sure that the branch collar is not damaged.

C. Trees shall be placed in the planting pit with its original growing level (the trunk flare) at the same height as the surrounding finish grade. In grass-covered parkways, the top of the root ball shall be level or slightly higher than the surrounding soil. In a concrete tree well, the root ball shall be three inches (3”) below the level of the finished surface of the concrete.

D. Backfill material should be native soil. Eliminate all air pockets while backfilling the planting pit by watering the soil as it is put into the hole.

E. Trees that are planted in parkways shall have a four to six inch (4” - 6”) high water retention basin built around the tree capable of holding at least ten (10) gallons of water. In a concrete tree well, soil should be raked against the edge of the concrete to create a sloping basin. Immediately after planting, the tree shall be watered thoroughly by filling the water retention basin twice.

F. All trees shall be staked with two wood lodge pole and two ties per pole. Minimum size of lodge poles shall be ten feet (10’) long, with a one and a half inch (1 ½“) diameter. Tree ties shall be placed at one third (1/3) and two thirds (2/3) of the trunk height. Stakes shall not penetrate the root ball and shall be driven into the ground approximately twenty-four to thirty inches (24” - 30”) below grade.

G. Trunk protectors such as Arbor-Gards or an approved equal shall be placed at the base of the trunk of all new trees immediately after planting.

H. In some cases, root barriers may be required. The City will make this determination.

Should a root barrier be required, the Contractor will install a mechanical barrier that redirects root growth downward, eliminating the surface rooting that may damage expensive hardscapes and create a hazard. The barrier shall be twelve inches (12”) in depth and at a length determined by the City and placed in a circular fashion surrounding the tree’s root system. Root barriers may be billed as an additional service.

I. Contractor shall clean up all trash and any spilled soil or dirt on paved surfaces at the end of each working day.

J. All trees shall be of good nursery stock that adheres to the American Standard for Nursery Stock as described in the current ANSI Z60.1 Standards. Trees shall be free from pests, disease, and structural defects.

17. EMERGENCY RESPONSE
The Contractor shall be required to provide emergency on-call response for damaged trees as a result of storms or other unforeseen circumstances. Emergency calls may occur at any given time. The Contractor will be provided with locations and work to be done via telephone call by a City authorized representative. Emergency work shall begin within two (2) hours of the initial telephone call.

Contractor shall be required to provide a twenty-four (24) hour emergency phone number and the names of at least ten (10) contact individuals upon award of contract. Should the contact persons or their phones number change during the course of the contract, those changes shall be submitted to the City within two (2) working days.

Contractor shall be required to provide all necessary traffic control during the course of emergency work. Should the work involve any utility lines, the Contractor shall be required to notify the responsible utility company.

Work performed under the emergency provision of this contract shall be paid for on a crew hour basis. This shall include all labor, tools, equipment, disposal fees, and necessary materials.

18. ARBORIST SERVICES
On occasion, the City requires tree evaluations including written reports. The vendor shall provide an hourly rate for an Arborist that can respond to the City’s request for the preparation of detailed arborist reports, tree risk assessment reports, tree evaluations, and site inspections. Reporting can be generated on as little as one tree to an entire urban forest population and is handled on a case-by-case basis.

19. PESTS AND DISEASES
Upon working on any tree known or suspected to be diseased or infested, Contractor shall disinfect all tools and cut surfaces after each cut and between trees. All material and debris shall be chipped to one inch (1”) or smaller and shall not be left on site or used as mulch off site. Debris shall be handled in a manner consistent with the latest version of all appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP) which minimizes the chances of spreading infection or infestation. No additional charges for disinfection or special handling shall be allowed.

20. PESTICIDE TREATMENT OF TREES
Contractor shall have an “in-house Qualified Applicator apply chemicals in accordance with the recommendations from the “in-house” Agricultural Pest Control Advisor (PCA) and all applicable product labels and regulations. Applications will be made by drench, spray, or injection as conditions warrant. City policy encourages the use of the least toxic pesticide required for effective control of a given pest.

21. PESTICIDE USAGE AND REPORTING
Contractor shall submit Pesticide Usage Reports to City at the end of each month summarizing the facilities treated, pests treated, pesticides used, pesticide application rates, man hours, and equipment. Reports will provide all information needed in a format sufficient for all annual reporting, including IPM and NPDES.

22. TRAFFIC CONTROL
Contractor shall conform to all City traffic safety requirements and operating rules at all times.

Contractor shall employ staff certified as Traffic Control Design Specialists and Traffic Control Technicians in accordance with the American Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA).

Contractor will be responsible for supplying and using all safety equipment necessary to close or delineate traffic lanes to through traffic. This is to include high visibility Arrow Boards as necessary. The City, prior to use, must approve all traffic safety equipment.

Illuminated arrow boards, sign stands, delineators, and/or cones shall be used to identify work sites for vehicular and pedestrian safety.

23. CLEAN UP
Contractor shall clean all job sites when work is completed, including the raking of leaves, twigs, etc. from the lawns and parkways and sweep streets.

Each day’s scheduled work shall be completed and cleaned up and under no circumstances shall any brush, leaves, debris, or equipment be left on the street overnight. City staff shall be the sole judge as to the adequacy of the clean-up.

24. INVOICING AND PAYMENT
Contractor shall submit invoices monthly, at a minimum. Invoice format shall include, but not be limited to, the address, species, height, and dbh of each individual tree. Failure to submit invoices in this format may result in non-payment until these requirements are met.

The City may withhold payment to such extent as may be necessary to protect the City from loss due to one or more of the following:
• Defective or inadequate work not corrected
• Claims filed, or reasonable evidence indicating probable filing of claims • A reasonable doubt that the contract can be completed for the balance unpaid.

25. ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS
The City will assess penalties against the Contractor for unsatisfactory performance in the form of deductions withheld from the Contractor’s compensation.

Complaints and requests received by the City will be forwarded to the Contractor as soon as possible. Contractor will maintain a computer record of all complaints and requests received from the City. This record will include the date and time when all complaints and requests are received as well as the date and time the complaint or request has been resolved. All complaints, requests, and responses must be recorded within 24 hours of receipt of the complaint or request and resolution by Contractor. A copy of this record shall be available for inspection upon request by the Director.

The City will provide the Contractor with five days written notice of any proposed penalty.

Contractor will have the right to dispute the City’s penalty by written response within five days.

The required response times listed below are applicable for complaints and service requests received by the City and forwarded to the Contractor. The response times will always be based on the time the complaint or request is forwarded to the Contractor by the City.

A. Failure to correct deficiency(ies) – Contractor is responsible for corrected any deficiency within 24 hours. A penalty of $500.00 will be assessed any time a deficiency is not

corrected within 24 hours from the receipt of the complaint. An additional $100.00 will be assessed for each additional 24 hour period the deficiency is not corrected.

B. Failure to process claim for damages – A penalty of $100.00 will be assessed for failure to process a claim for damages within thirty (30) days from the date submitted to Contractor.

C. Failure to provide reports – A penalty of $25.00 will be assessed for each day after the due date each report required of the Contractor is not provided to the City.

D. Excessive Complaints – A penalty of $2,500.00 will be assessed when more than 25 complaints regarding the Contractor are noted within one calendar year.

E. Operating during unauthorized hours – A penalty of $200.00 will be assessed for any occurrence of the Contractor operating during unauthorized hours, except when authorized in writing by the City.

F. Failure to provide record of service requests/complaints – A penalty of $200.00 will be assessed anytime the Contractor fails to make available a copy of the Contractor’s records within 72 hours of the request by the City.

G. Failure to maintain equipment – A penalty of $50.00 will be assessed for any occasion when Contractor’s equipment does not meet the standards required by the City.

H. Failure to maintain records – A penalty of $2,000.00 will be assessed if the Contractor fails to maintain any records required by the Agreement.

I. Excessive violations of service requirements – The penalty will increase by 25% for any of the above indicators when the City has had to assess the same penalty more than 15 times. The penalty will increase an additional 25% for each additional five occurrences of the same penalty.

J. Failure to respond to emergency request – A penalty in the amount of three (3) times the cost incurred by the City to respond to an emergency due to the Contractor’s failure to perform shall be assessed.

26. MINOR MODIFICATIONS AND/OR ADDITIONAL WORK
The City may modify this Scope of Work with the joint approval of the Contractor and the City administrator. All modifications shall be in writing.

In the event that the City should require additional work beyond this Scope of Services, the Contractor shall provide a competitive quote for the work and the City shall approve the quote in writing prior to commencement of the additional work.

1 Grid Prune (all trees Small, Med & Large) Each $72.00 2 Block Prune (street segments) Each $140.00
3 Park / Service Request Prune 0-12" DSH Each $75.00
4 Park / Service Request Prune 13-24" DSH Each $300.00
5 Park / Service Request Prune over 24" DSH Each $450.00 6 Arterial Pine or Ficus Tree Pruning (any size) Each $550.00 7 Raise/Clearance Prune 0-12" DSH Each $45.00
8 Raise/Clearance Prune 13-24" DSH Each $95.00
9 Raise/Clearance Prune over 24" DSH Each $120.00
10 Date Palm Prune Each $225.00
11 Fan Palm Prune Each $72.00
12 Palm Prune, all other species Each $72.00
13 Date Palm Trunk Clean Foot $40.00
14 Fan Palm Trunk Clean Foot $25.00
15 Tree & Stump Removal 0-24" DSH Inch $40.00
16 Tree & Stump Removal over 24+" DSH Inch $60.00
17 Stump Grinding Inch $20.00
18 Plant 15 Gallon Tree Each $225.00
19 Plant 24" Box Tree Each $425.00
20 Plant 36" Box Tree Each $1,100.00
21 Tree Watering Man Hour $100.00
22 Root Prune Foot $30.00
23 Root Barrier Installation Foot $30.00
24 Arborist Report & Services Man Hour $175.00
25 Resistograph Testing Man Hour $175.00
26 Ground Penetrating Radar Man Hour $175.00
27 Air Spade Services Man Hour $175.00
28 Fumigation Services Man Hour $175.00
29 Fertilization Services Man Hour $175.00
30 Level 1,2,3 Risk Assessment Man Hour $175.00
31 Soil Testing/Enchancement Man Hour $175.00
32 Citywide Tree Risk Survey - per tree Each $10.00
33 GPS Tree Inventory Each $3.00
34 Canopy Spray - ground Inch $12.00

CITY OF PICO RIVERA
Item
Schedule of Compensation for Year 2026 - 2027
Tree Maintenance Services performed by WCA, Inc.

Description Unit Proposed Prices
Printed on: 3/13/2026 8:49:39 AM Page 1 of 2

EXHIBIT B

35 Canopy Spray - aerial Inch $12.00
36 Trunk Banding - insecticide/fungicide Inch $12.00
37 Trunk Banding - PGR Inch $12.00
38 Soil Application - insecticide/PGR Inch $12.00
39 Soil Application - insecticide/fungicide Inch $12.00 40 Soil Injection - fertilization Inch $12.00
41 Soil Drenching - fertilization Inch $12.00
42 Trunk Injection - insecticide/miticide Inch $12.00
43 Trunk Injection - fungicide Inch $12.00
44 Trunk Injection - Combo Inch $12.00
45 Injection - avermectin class insecticide Inch $12.00 46 Crane Rental Hour $200.00
47 95' Aerial Tower Rental Hour $200.00
48 Loader or Bobcat Rental Hour $150.00
49 Crew Rental - per crew member Man Hour $100.00
50 Emergency Response - Regular business hrs Man Hour $125.00 51 Emergency Response - Evening, Holiday, Weekend Man Hour $150.00 The proposed rates reflect the same rates from the City of Rosemead's formal competitive bid which WCA was successfully awarded. We would be glad to offer these same rates effective 8/11/2026.

CITY OF PICO RIVERA
Item
Schedule of Compensation for Year 2026 - 2027
Tree Maintenance Services performed by WCA, Inc.

Description Unit Proposed Prices
Printed on: 3/13/2026 8:49:39 AM Page 2 of 2

EXHIBIT B

Exhibit C

EXHIBIT C
Terms for Compliance with California Labor Law Requirements

1. Contractor acknowledges that the project as defined in this Agreement between Contractor and City, to which this Agreement to Comply with California Labor Law Requirements is attached and incorporated by reference, is a “public work” as defined in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of the California Labor Code (“Chapter 1”), and that this Agreement is subject to (a) Chapter 1, including without limitation Labor Code Section 1771 and (b) the rules and regulations established by the Director of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) implementing such statutes. Contractor shall perform all work on the project as a public work.

2. California law requires the inclusion of specific Labor Code provisions in certain contracts. The inclusion of such specific provisions below, whether or not required by California law, does not alter the meaning or scope of Section 1 above.

3. Contractor shall be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations in accordance with California Labor Code Section 1725.5, and has provided proof of registration to City prior to the effective date of this Agreement. Contractor shall not perform work with any subcontractor that is not registered with DIR pursuant to Section 1725.5. Contractor and subcontractors shall maintain their registration with the DIR in effect throughout the duration of this Agreement. If Contractor or any subcontractor cease to be registered with DIR at any time during the duration of the project, Contractor shall immediately notify City.

4. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1771.4, Contractor’s services are subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by DIR. Contractor shall post job site notices, as prescribed by DIR regulations.

5. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773.2, copies of the prevailing rate of per diem wages for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to perform the Agreement are on file at City Hall and will be made available to any interested party on request.

Contractor acknowledges receipt of a copy of the DIR determination of such prevailing rate of per diem wages, and Contractor shall post such rates at each job site covered by this Agreement.

6. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1774 and 1775 concerning the payment of prevailing rates of wages to workers and the penalties for failure to pay prevailing wages. Contractor shall, as a penalty to the City, forfeit two hundred dollars ($200) for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker paid less than the prevailing rates as determined by the DIR for the work or craft in which the worker is employed for any public work done pursuant to this Agreement by Contractor or by any subcontractor.

Exhibit C

7. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Section 1776, which requires Contractor and each subcontractor to (1) keep accurate payroll records and verify such records in writing under penalty of perjury, as specified in Section 1776, (2) certify and make such payroll records available for inspection as provided by Section 1776, and (3) inform the City of the location of the records. The Contractor has ten days in which to comply subsequent to receipt of a written notice requesting these records, or as a penalty to the City, the Contractor shall forfeit $100.00 for each Day, or portion thereof, for each worker, until strict compliance is effectuated.

8. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 and California Administrative Code title 8, section 200 et seq. concerning the employment of apprentices on public works projects.

Contractor shall be responsible for compliance with these aforementioned Sections for all apprenticeable occupations. Prior to commencing work under this Agreement, Contractor shall provide City with a copy of the information submitted to any applicable apprenticeship program. Within 60 days after concluding work pursuant to this Agreement, Contractor and each of its subcontractors shall submit to the City a verified statement of the journeyman and apprentice hours performed under this Agreement.

9. Contractor acknowledges that eight hours labor constitutes a legal day’s work.

Contractor shall comply with and be bound by Labor Code Section 1810. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Section 1813 concerning penalties for workers who work excess hours. Contractor shall, as a penalty to the City, forfeit twenty-five dollars ($25) for each worker employed in the performance of this Agreement by Contractor or by any subcontractor for each calendar day during which such worker is required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any one calendar day and 40 hours in any one calendar week in violation of the provisions of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1815, work performed by employees of Contractor in excess of eight hours per day, and 40 hours during any one week shall be permitted upon public work upon compensation for all hours worked in excess of eight hours per day at not less than one and one-half times the basic rate of pay.

10. California Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700 provide that every employer will be required to secure the payment of compensation to its employees. In accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1861, Contractor hereby certifies as follows:
“I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake selfinsurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this contract.”
Exhibit C

11. For every subcontractor who will perform work on the project, Contractor shall be responsible for such subcontractor’s compliance with Chapter 1 and Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700, and Contractor shall include in the written contract between it and each subcontractor a copy of those statutory provisions and a requirement that each subcontractor shall comply with those statutory provisions. Contractor shall be required to take all actions necessary to enforce such contractual provisions and ensure subcontractor’s compliance, including without limitation, conducting a periodic review of the certified payroll records of the subcontractor and upon becoming aware of the failure of the subcontractor to pay his or her workers the specified prevailing rate of wages.

Contractor shall diligently take corrective action to halt or rectify any failure.

12. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Contractor shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend (at Contractor’s expense with counsel reasonably acceptable to the City) the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents and independent contractors serving in the role of City officials, and volunteers from and against any demand or claim for damages, compensation, fines, penalties or other amounts arising out of or incidental to any acts or omissions listed above by any person or entity (including Contractor, its subcontractors, and each of their officials, officers, employees and agents) in connection with any work undertaken or in connection with the Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all consequential damages, attorneys’ fees, and other related costs and expenses. All duties of Contractor under this Section shall survive termination of the Agreement.

To: Mayor and City Council
From: City Manager
Meeting Date: May 26, 2026
Subject: AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AGREEMENT NO. 22-2114 WITH ABM BUILDING SOLUTIONS, LLC. FOR HEATING, VENTILATION, AND

AIR CONDITIONING MAINTENANCE SERVICES
Recommendation:

1. Approve Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 22-2114 with ABM Building Solutions, LLC (ABM), to provide heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) maintenance services for various City-owned facilities and to exercise the second of two (2) one-year optional extensions for HVAC maintenance and repair services for an annual amount of $115,600;

2. Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to process change orders for asneeded emergency repairs for a not-to-exceed amount of $20,000 in fiscal year (FY) 2026-27; and

3. Authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 22- 2114 in a form approved by the City Attorney.

Strategic Priority:
3 - Infrastructure - Plan, fund, build, and maintain reliable and cost-effective infrastructure that contributes to enhancing quality of life.

Strategy:

3.4 Facilitate a high-level of maintenance of City infrastructure to reduce increased costs from prolonged deferral.

Fiscal Impact:

Sufficient budget will be available in FY 2026-27 to cover the annual cost of $115,600 for the amendment and needed emergency repairs up to $20,000 to be used as needed in GL Account No. 100.40.4031-54500 (Facilities Division, Contracted Services). No additional appropriations are required at this time.
9 Back to Outline
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT – MEETING OF MAY 26, 2026
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AGREEMENT NO. 22-2114 WITH ABM BUILDING SOLUTIONS, LLC. FOR HEATING, VENTILATION, AND AIR CONDITIONING

MAINTENANCE SERVICES

Discussion:

The Public Works Department is responsible for ensuring the continued functionality of HVAC systems across 14 City of Pico Rivera (City) facilities. While routine maintenance and minor repairs are typically performed by in-house staff, specialized or complex HVAC issues require the expertise of licensed professionals. To support this need, the City contracts with ABM, a firm recognized for its technical capabilities and industry experience.

On August 9, 2022, the City Council awarded ABM a three-year Maintenance Services Agreement for HVAC maintenance services, with an annual amount of $107,340, for a total contract amount of $322,020. The agreement included two (2) one-year optional extensions based on mutual agreement between ABM and the City. On June 24, 2025, the City Council approved Amendment No. 1 with ABM to exercise the first of two (2) oneyear extensions in the amount of $111,700 (which included a 4% rate increase) for an amended not-to-exceed amount of $471,500.

The services provided by ABM have been effective and efficient. ABM has had the opportunity to assess the City’s HVAC systems and has administered services customtailored to the City’s needs. Staff have a strong working relationship with ABM, and ABM has consistently met the City’s needs.

At this time, under mutual agreement, the City and ABM would like to exercise the second of two (2) one-year optional extensions. ABM requested a rate increase to account for recent inflation in labor and material costs. The City and ABM have negotiated a 3.5% rate increase for the one-year extension for routine maintenance services. The recommended Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 22-2114 in the amount of $115,600 reflects the negotiated 3.5% increase for routine maintenance services. Amendment No. 2 covers the final year of the agreement. Although authority was previously approved to allow staff to authorize emergency repairs, the allotted emergency repair contingencies were not included in the agreement. Amendment No. 2 will address this by adding the previously authorized emergency repair costs for years one through 5 of the agreement, totaling up to $100,000, for a new not-to-exceed amount of $649,320.

The chart below presents the total contract amounts for Agreement No. 22-2114:

Year 1-3 $ 322,020.00
Year 4 $ 111,700.00
Year 5 $ 115,600.00
Year 1-5 Emergency Repairs $ 100,000.00
Not-to-exceed amount $ 649,320.00
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT – MEETING OF MAY 26, 2026
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AGREEMENT NO. 22-2114 WITH ABM BUILDING SOLUTIONS, LLC. FOR HEATING, VENTILATION, AND AIR CONDITIONING

MAINTENANCE SERVICES

Conclusion:

Staff recommend approving Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 22-2114 with ABM Building Solutions LLC, exercising the second of two (2) one-year extensions for HVAC maintenance and repair services in the amount of $115,600. Additionally, authorize the City Manager or his designee to approve change orders for as-needed emergency repairs for an amount not-to-exceed $20,000 in FY 2026-27 and execute Amendment No. 2 in a form approved by the City Attorney.

Steve Carmona
SC:NN:ML:np
Enclosure: Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 22-2114
AMENDMENT NO. 2
TO AGREEMENT NO. 22-2114

MAINTENANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT

WITH ABM BUILDING SOLUTIONS, LLC
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AGREEMENT NO. 22-2114 FOR MAINTENANCE SERVICES WITH ABM BUILDING SOLUTIONS (“Amendment No. 2"), effective as of the date specified in paragraph 4 hereof, is made and entered into by and between the CITY OF PICO RIVERA (“CITY”), and ABM Building Solutions, LLC, (“CONSULTANT”).

RECITALS
A. CITY and CONSULTANT (collectively referred to as the “PARTIES”) have previously executed that certain Agreement No. 22-2114 between the City of Pico Rivera and ABM Building Solutions LLC, (“Agreement”) for HVAC maintenance and repair services in the City of Pico Rivera.

B. Pursuant to Sections 3 and 7 of the Agreement, the PARTIES desire to amend the Agreement to exercise the second of two (2) one-year options to extend the term of the Agreement and add additional compensation as set forth herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. TERM EXTENSION.

The parties hereby agree to exercise the second of two (2) one-year optional renewal terms pursuant to Section 3 of the Agreement. The Agreement shall expire on July 31, 2027, unless sooner terminated or extended pursuant to the provisions of the Agreement.

2. MODIFICATION OF CONSULTANT’S COMPENSATION.

As compensation for the Scope of Services included in Exhibit A-2 for the extended term under this Amendment No. 2, the total compensation under Section 7 of the Agreement shall be hereby increased by an amount of One Hundred Fifteen Thousand Six Hundred Dollars ($115,600), to a not-to-exceed amount of Six Hundred Forty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Dollars ($649,320) for services provided during the extended term.

3. EFFECT OF AMENDMENTS.

Except as modified herein, either expressly or by necessary implication, the terms and provisions of the Agreement between the CITY and CONSULTANT shall remain in full force and effect.

Enclosure 1
9a
Back to Outline
Maintenance Services Agreement

ABM BUILDING SOLUTIONS, LLC

4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

Unless otherwise specified herein, this Amendment No. 2 shall become effective as of the date set forth below on which the last of the parties, whether CITY or CONSULTANT, executes this Amendment No. 2.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 2 to be executed and attested by their respective officers hereunto duly authorized. “CITY” “CONSULTANT”
CITY OF PICO RIVERA ABM Building Solutions, LLC
______________________________ _________________________________ Steve Carmona, City Manager Chan Onechanh, Area General Manager Dated: ________________________ Dated: ____________________________ ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________ _________________________________ Cynthia Ayala, City Clerk Arnold M. Alvarez-Glasman, City Attorney To: Mayor and City Council
From: City Manager
Meeting Date: May 26, 2026
Subject: Title VI Implementation Plan – Local Agency Federal Highway Administration
Recommendation:

1. Adopt the City of Pico Rivera Title VI Implementation Plan for Local Agency Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), including the Public Participation Plan, Limited English Proficiency Policy, and Title VI Complaint Procedures; and

2. Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to submit the adopted program and execute the required Assurance of Compliance documents.

Strategic Priority:
3 - Infrastructure - Plan, fund, build, and maintain reliable and cost-effective infrastructure that contributes to enhancing quality of life.

Strategy:

3.2 Develop funding policies and strategies to invest in infrastructure planning, construction, and maintenance.

Fiscal Impact:

The fiscal year (FY) 2025-26 Adopted Budget included $30,000 in Measure M Local Return Funds (Fund 208), Account No. 208.70.7300-54500-NonCIP30067, for the preparation of the Title VI Implementation Plan. The Plan was completed by DCCM at a cost of $20,800. No additional funding is required at this time. There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund.

Adoption of the Title VI Implementation Plan is a mandatory requirement for eligibility to apply for and receive federal transportation funding. Approval of the recommended actions will ensure the City of Pico Rivera (City) remains compliant and competitive for such funding opportunities.
10 Back to Outline
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT – MEETING OF MAY 26, 2026
TITLE VI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN – LOCAL AGENCY FEDERAL HIGHWAY

ADMINISTRATION

Background:

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.

As a recipient of federal funding, the City is required to adopt and maintain a Title VI Program to ensure compliance with federal regulations.

The Title VI Program must include key elements such as a Public Participation Plan, a Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Policy, and formal procedures for processing Title VI complaints. These components collectively ensure that all individuals have equitable access to City programs, services, and decision-making processes.

The City is committed to upholding these principles and fostering inclusive participation across all segments of the community.

Discussion:

As a recipient of federal transportation funding administered through the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the City is required to develop and implement a comprehensive Title VI Implementation Plan. This plan establishes defined roles, responsibilities, and procedures to ensure ongoing compliance with Title VI and related nondiscrimination statutes.

The program ensures that no individual is excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or otherwise subjected to discrimination under any Public Works program or activity on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, or any other protected classification under federal or state law.

The City’s Title VI Implementation Plan includes the following components:

1. Title VI Plan
• Formal statement of assurance and nondiscrimination
• Procedures for internal and external compliance monitoring • Training protocols for City staff and contractors
• Collection and analysis of demographic and service-related data

2. Title VI Complaint Procedures
• Established process for filing, reviewing, and resolving complaints • Defined timelines for acknowledgment, investigation, and resolution • Designation of a Title VI Coordinator responsible for administering the process and notifying complainants of outcomes

3. Public Participation Plan
• Strategies to promote ongoing community engagement
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT – MEETING OF MAY 26, 2026
TITLE VI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN – LOCAL AGENCY FEDERAL HIGHWAY

ADMINISTRATION

• Outreach methods tailored to minority, low-income, LEP, and disabled populations • Scheduled opportunities for public meetings, input, and comment • Measures to ensure accessibility, inclusivity, and transparency in public decisionmaking

4. Limited English Proficiency Policy
• Identification and assessment of LEP populations within the City • Guidelines for providing interpretation and translation services • Outreach strategies to inform LEP individuals of available services and their rights

5. Annual Title VI Report
• Summary of complaints received and actions taken toward resolution • Updated demographic data, including LEP population information • Documentation of outreach efforts and methods
• Updates to Title VI-related information available on the City’s website

Conclusion:

Staff recommend adopting Title VI Implementation Plan for Local Agency Federal Highway Administration, including the Public Participation Plan, Limited English Proficiency Policy, and Title VI Complaint Procedures; and authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to submit the adopted program and execute the required Assurance of Compliance documents.

Steve Carmona
SC:NN:GE:np
Enclosure(s):1) Title VI Implementation Plan (Appendices A, B, C, F, G) 2) Title VI / Non-Discrimination Policy Statement
3) Caltrans Master Agreement (Updated August 31, 2021)
Local Agency Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Title VI Implementation Plan
City of Pico Rivera, Public Works Department
Approved by City Council on May 26, 2026
Enclosure 1
Back to Outline 10a
Local Agency Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Title VI Implementation Plan, City of Pico Rivera
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Title VI/Non-Discrimination Policy Statement ........................................................................3 II. Title VI Assurances....................................................................................................................4 III. Organization, Staffing, and Structure...................................................................................5 Organizational Chart ..........................................................................................................6 IV. Title VI Notice to the Public...................................................................................................6 VI. Title VI Training ........................................................................................................................7 V. Title VI Complaint Procedures...............................................................................................7 VI. Title VI Complaint Log............................................................................................................9 VII. Public Participation Plan ......................................................................................................9 Strategies of Community Engagement ......................................................................10 LEP Outreach .................................................................................................................11 Inclusion Measures.........................................................................................................12 VIII. Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Assessment / Language Assessment Plan (LAP) ....13 Limited English Proficiency............................................................................................14 LAP Addressing ..............................................................................................................14 Language Access Services ..........................................................................................16 IX. Title VI Data Collection ........................................................................................................17 X. Primary Program Area Descriptions & Internal Title VI Review Procedures ....................18 XI. External Title VI Reviews / Subrecipient Monitoring..........................................................18 VII. Title VI Annual Work Plan Title VI Accomplishments and Goals Report........................20 Appendix
Appendix A: DOT 1050.2A Title VI Assurance.........................................................................21 Appendix B: Title VI Notice of Rights to the Public.................................................................22 Appendix C: Title VI Complaint Form......................................................................................23 Appendix D: FHWA 10-5 (not applicable)
Appendix E: Copy of City’s Master Agreement for Federal Aid (not included in plan) Appendix F: Title VI LEP Track Log…. .......................................................................................25 Appendix G: Complaint Log.……………………………………………………………………….26 Local Agency Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Title VI Implementation Plan, City of Pico Rivera
3 I. TITLE VI/NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICY

STATEMENT
It is the policy of City of Pico Rivera that no person shall on the grounds of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, or age, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination in any operation of City of Pico Rivera Department of Public Works as provided by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes.

This policy applies to all operations of the City of Pico Rivera, including its contractors and anyone who acts on behalf of the City of Pico Rivera Department of Public Works. This policy also applies to the operations of any department or agency to which the City of Pico Rivera extends federal financial assistance. Federal financial assistance includes grants, training, use of equipment, donations of surplus property, and other assistance.

Prohibited discrimination may be intentional or unintentional. Seemingly neutral acts that have disparate impacts on individuals of a protected group and lack a substantial legitimate justification are a form of prohibited discrimination. Harassment and retaliation are also prohibited forms of discrimination.

Examples of prohibited types of discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, disability, or age include: Denial to an individual any service, financial aid, or other benefit; Distinctions in the quality, quantity, or manner in which a benefit is provided; Segregation or separate treatment; Restriction in the enjoyment of any advantages, privileges, or other benefits provided; Discrimination in any activities related to highway and infrastructure or facility built or repaired; and Discrimination in employment.

Title VI compliance is a condition of receipt of federal funds. The Title VI Coordinator is authorized to ensure compliance with this policy, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C § 2000d and related statutes, and the requirements of 23 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) pt. 200 and 49 CFR pt. 21.

The City of Pico Rivera affirms the recipient's commitment to non-discrimination and assures that every effort will be made to ensure non-discrimination in all of its programs, activities, and services, whether those programs, activities, and services are federally funded or not.
(Top Agency or Department Official) Date
Local Agency Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Title VI Implementation Plan, City of Pico Rivera
4 II. TITLE VI ASSURANCES
DOT 1050.2A Title VI Assurance form: Signed Form in APPENDIX A Non-Discriminatory Legislation:

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – Provides that no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, religion, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination, under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance (as implemented through 23 CFR 200.9 and 49 CFR 21).

Section 162(a) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 (Section 324, Title 23 U.S.C.) – Prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex by recipients and sub-recipients of Federal financial assistance.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 – Prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by recipients and sub-recipients of Federal financial assistance.

The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (Section 6101-6107, Title 42 U.S.C.) – Prohibits discrimination on the basis of age by recipients and sub-recipients or Federal financial assistance.

The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (Public Law 200-209) – Clarifies that the original intent of Congress in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was to apply the non-discrimination statutes to all programs and activities of Federal-aid recipients, sub-recipients, contractors and vendors, whether all such programs are federally assisted or not.

Executive Order (EO) 13166, “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency,” was officially rescinded by President Trump with the issuance of EO 14224, which designates English as the official language, but does not eliminate Title VI protections. Even though EO 14224 rescinded EO 13166, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 remains in full effect.

This means:
• Title VI prohibits language-based national origin discrimination. • LPAs must continue to provide meaningful access to programs, services, and activities for Limited English Proficiency (LEP) individuals. • US Department of Justice (DOJ) guidance and court interpretations reinforce this requirement.

The City will continue to ensure that LEP is accessible under Title VI and to assure FHWA that all federally funded programs and activities comply with non-discrimination requirements.

Local Agency Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Title VI Implementation Plan, City of Pico Rivera
5 III. ORGANIZATION, STAFFING, AND STRUCTURE
City of Pico Rivera is ultimately responsible for assuring full compliance with the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes and has directed that nondiscrimination is required of all agency employees, contractors, and agents pursuant to 23 CFR Part 200 and 49 CFR Part 21.

The City of Pico Rivera has created the positions of Title VI Coordinator and Assistant Title VI Coordinator to ensure implementation of the agency’s Title VI program. The positions of Title VI Coordinator is located within the Public Works Department.

Title VI Coordinator:
• Name: Noe Negrete
• Title: Director of Public Works
• Contact Information: [email protected]
The Title VI Coordinator is responsible for:
• Overseeing Title VI program implementation
• Submitting a Title VI plan and annual reports on the agency’s behalf • Developing procedures for the prompt processing and disposition of complaints • Processing complaints, compiling a complaint log, and reporting to Caltrans • Developing procedures for the collection and analysis of statistical data • Developing a program to conduct Title VI reviews of program areas • Conducting annual Title VI assessments of pertinent program areas • Developing Title VI information for dissemination
• Establishing procedures for resolving deficiency status and reducing to writing the remedial action agreed to be necessary
• Maintains an open line of communication with City Manager, City Council, and other City leadership positions as necessary to facilitate the Title VI Program requirements on time.

Assistant Title VI Coordinator:
• Name: Gene Edwards
• Title: Deputy Director of Public Works
• Contact Information: [email protected]
The Assistant Title VI Coordinator is responsible for:
• Assumes the role and duties of the coordinator when the coordinator is unavailable.
• Works directly with the Title VI Coordinator to ensure program compliance is met. • Ensures that all applicable staff are present for Title VI training and are following Title VI procedures through work with the public, contractors, and consultants.

Local Agency Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Title VI Implementation Plan, City of Pico Rivera
6 IV. TITLE VI NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
As a recipient of federal funding, the City of Pico Rivera is committed to ensuring compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, color, or national origin in all federally funded programs and activities. In accordance with federal requirements, this Title VI Notice to the Public informs individuals of their rights. It explains how to file a complaint if they believe they have been subjected to discrimination.

Pico Rivera strives to promote equitable access to transportation programs, services, and decision-making processes for all community members. The notice will be disseminated to the public through the City departments, translated into Spanish, and posted on the City website at https://www.pico-rivera.org/our-city/departments/public-works/title_v_i.

Title VI Notice of Rights to the Public, found in APPENDIX B of this document.

Local Agency Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Title VI Implementation Plan, City of Pico Rivera
7 VI. TITLE VI TRAINING
The City of Pico Rivera Public Works Department will provide Title VI and related statute training to all Public Works staff with frequent public contact in the administration of federal-aid programs. These trainings will occur at a minimum every two years, and within six months of hiring a new employee. The Title VI Coordinator will conduct the training.

Additionally, links to Caltrans, FHWA, and other applicable agency resources for Title VI and related statutes will be posted on the City’s website at https://www.picorivera.org/our-city/departments/public-works/title_v_i.

In particular, the following items will be covered in the training:
• Review of the City’s Title VI Implementation Plan and other relevant documents • Language assistance services
• How to handle potential complaints
• Where to seek assistance for Title VI questions and concerns V. TITLE VI COMPLAINT PROCEDURES
The City of Pico Rivera Public Works Department, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, ensures “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, religion, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” Related federal statutes and state law further discrimination protections to include sex, disability, religion, sexual orientation, age, and Limited English Proficiency (LEP). This prohibition applies to all branches of the City of Pico Rivera, its contractors, consultants, and anyone else who acts on behalf of the City of Pico Rivera.

The City of Pico Rivera will make every effort to ensure nondiscrimination in all of its services, programs, and activities, whether they are federally funded or not, and that services and benefits are fairly distributed to all people, regardless of race, color, or national origin (including LEP).

Outline of how Title VI complaints are handled:
1) How to File: Any person who believes they have been discriminated against on the grounds of race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other category protected by State or Federal law may file a Title VI complaint by completing and submitting the City’s Title VI Complaint Form. Complaint Form (Appendix C), which can be found displayed in the City Hall lobby, and online https://www.pico-rivera.org/our-city/departments/publicworks/title_v_i. 2) Timeline: The City’s Title VI Coordinator will process complaints received and shall acknowledge receipt within 10 business days; resolution within 60 days. Complaints can be submitted within 180 days of the alleged incident.

Local Agency Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Title VI Implementation Plan, City of Pico Rivera
8 3) Validation: The agency would validate the complaint if the federal administering agency has jurisdiction to investigate/process the complaint and send it to Caltrans for processing.
• Should a complaint be filed with the City of Pico Rivera Public Works and one with a federal or state agency simultaneously, the federal/state complaint will supersede the City’s complaint and the City’s complaint procedures will be suspended pending the federal/state agency’s findings.
• The Title VI Coordinator will document the complaint, ensure it is complete, with the complainant’s contact information, details of the alleged discrimination, and the complainant’s signature.
• The coordinator will verify that it was submitted within 180 days of the alleged incident.
• Then forward the complaint to Caltrans, to be submitted to the FHWA Division Office.
• The Title VI Coordinator will also begin processing the complaint by entering said complaint into the City’s Title VI Discrimination Complaint Log and conducting an internal investigation.
4) Decision: Issue findings to the complainant and corrective actions if needed. • Once a finding has been determined/received, the City’s Title VI Coordinator will provide said finding to the complainant within ten business days via letter and/or email.
5) Appeal: Information on how to appeal decisions.

Complaints Processed Under the Federal Highway Administration 1) Title VI complaints filed with Caltrans in which Caltrans is named as the Respondent will be forwarded to the FHWA Division Office. The Complainant will receive an acknowledgement letter informing them that the complaint has been received and forwarded to the FHWA.
2) Per the FHWA Guidance Memorandum, Processing of Title VI Complaints, dated June 13, 2018, all Title VI complaints received by a sub-recipient are to be forwarded to Caltrans to be submitted to FHWA Division Office. Complaints should be sent within one business day of receipt via email to [email protected]. 3) If the Headquarters Office of Civil Rights (HCR) determines a Title VI complaint against a sub-recipient can be investigated by Caltrans, HCR may delegate the task of investigating the complaint to Caltrans.

A person may also file a complaint directly with the FHWA and/or Caltrans by the following contact information:

Local Agency Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Title VI Implementation Plan, City of Pico Rivera
9 Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Civil Rights 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 8th Floor E81-105
Washington, DC 20590
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Office of Civil Rights Attention: Title VI Branch
P.O. Box 942874, MS 79
Sacramento, CA 94274
VI. TITLE VI COMPLAINT LOG
The City will maintain a log of all formal complaints filed. The complaint log will include the following information: Maintain a log including:
• Complaint filing date.
• Complainant's demographics (if voluntarily provided). • Allegation summary.
• Investigation status and findings.
• Resolution or corrective action.

Title VI Complaint Form can be found in APPENDIX C of this document.

VII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN
Purpose
The City of Pico Rivera’s Public Participation Plan (PPP) is organized to work in concert with the Title VI Plan and the Language Access Plan. The purpose of the PPP is to establish procedures that allow for, encourage, and monitor participation of all citizens living and working in the City. Special attention will be paid to engaging with low-income and minority communities that are traditionally underrepresented.

Goals and Objectives
The City’s PPP has a single comprehensive goal: to allow the public opportunities throughout our many different planning processes to make their ideas and concerns known. To meet this goal, the City has established the following objectives:
1) Identify the most appropriate methods for reaching the public. 2) Determine what language and other cultural barriers exist to public participation within the City.
3) Hold meetings in accessible, reasonably welcoming locations for all Pico Rivera residents.
4) Keep the public informed through effective channels of communication and allow input through additional channels.
5) Work to engage the public in programs, projects, and policy-making actively. Give participants opportunities to collaborate in events that engage in conversation and the exchange of ideas and information, leading to buy-in, a sense of ownership, and higher-quality planning documents.

Local Agency Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Title VI Implementation Plan, City of Pico Rivera
10 6) Ensure that the City’s public involvement plan is dynamic and responsive. The plan will be inclusive of a range of perspectives, engaging citizens in unique ways to reach a broader audience and understand their goals, needs, and desires. 7) Use various illustrative visualization techniques to convey the information, including but not limited to charts, graphs, photos, maps, and the internet.

Identification of Stakeholders
Stakeholders are defined as individuals who are either directly or indirectly affected by a plan or the recommendations of that plan. Stakeholders are broken down into several groups, such as general citizens, minority and low-income persons, public agencies, and private organizations and businesses.

General Citizens: The City of Pico Rivera has a population of 59,363 based on the July 1, 2024, U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, updated annually. The subtotal of General Citizens reported by the Census Bureau exceeds 100%. • 90.1% Hispanic or Latino
• 25.4% Two or More Races
• 16.6% White Alone
• 4.2% White Alone, Not Hispanic or Latino
• 3.5% Asian Alone
• 3.2% American Indian and Alaska Native
• 1.5% Black Alone
• 0% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone
Low-income: Residents with income below the poverty level account for almost 10.3% of Pico Rivera’s population and should be given every reasonable opportunity to provide input on various community plans and programs.

Source: CENSUS POPULATION

STRATEGIES OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Public meetings, surveys, workshops, and focus groups (as needed) The resources listed here are the methods Pico Rivera uses to engage and communicate with the individuals and stakeholders we serve.

The City of Pico Rivera Website:
• The Pico Rivera website provides round-the-clock access to upcoming meetings and agendas, recent reports, maps,
and details about Pico Rivera policies.
• The site is a “City of Pico Rivera Virtual City Hall,” which is dedicated to fostering a stronger and more engaged
community by providing a seamless online platform to
access essential services, information, and resources in multiple languages. The site modernizes local governance to enable the City to bridge the gap between residents and their local government, ensuring everyone has easy access to the tools needed to thrive.

Local Agency Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Title VI Implementation Plan, City of Pico Rivera
11 • The Public Works Department’s website offers the Director’s contact information, allowing the public to share input and feedback. Both the administrative staff and the Director actively monitor the email.
• A translation tool is available on the website for users who do not speak English. • Additionally, the website features an Accessibility Menu for users with disabilities, easily accessible via the icon located in the lower left corner.

Social Media
• Facebook, Instagram, X, and YouTube are used to announce meetings and events. Posts provide the opportunity to share links to pertinent information and survey sites. Social media platforms can also invite public comments and participation on the sites themselves.

City Newsletter
• The Pico Rivera City Newsletter delivers important updates straight to the community's inbox. This newsletter offers valuable insights about local happenings, including festivals, holiday events, public announcements, and recreational programs.

Public Meetings/Community Events/Neighborhood Meetings
• Public meetings are generally open and informal, with project team members interacting with the public on a one-on-one basis. Fact sheets and other collateral material are provided to attendees. All meetings are ADA-compliant.

Posters and Flyers
• Posters and flyers serve as announcements for meetings or events. They can be shared across social media, featured on websites, and distributed in public spaces such as City Halls, libraries, community centers, and electronic display boards.

LEP OUTREACH
Translate vital materials and provide interpretation services.

LEP Outreach encompasses strategies aimed at involving residents with Limited English Proficiency in public decision-making. This is achieved through:
• Providing translated materials
• Employing bilingual staff
• Conducting meetings in various languages
• Collaborating with community organizations that serve these populations Additionally, it emphasizes accessible communication channels, such as community television and social media platforms, in the appropriate languages.

Accessibility features:
• The Pico Rivera website incorporates language access features, including translation tools for content located in the top right corner. The Accessibility Menu provides a variety of features for the community members with disabilities, easily accessible via the icon located in the lower left corner.

Local Agency Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Title VI Implementation Plan, City of Pico Rivera
12 Translation of Key documents:
• The City translates written information from English into other languages, including Spanish, to ensure that essential documents—such as forms, notices, and instructions—are accessible to individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP).

Interpretation services:
• The City facilitates real-time oral translation during conversations, enabling seamless communication between individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP) and English speakers. The City offers bilingual compensation for employees who serve as interpreters for City-related matters. As of February 2026, a total of 40 City employees has successfully passed the certification tests and are now eligible for monthly bilingual pay.

Advance notice:
• The City ensures ample notice for requesting interpretation services for meetings.

Every meeting invitation includes a statement encouraging individuals who require interpretation services to reach out to the event coordinator.

INCLUSION MEASURES
Target outreach to minority and low-income populations.

Inclusive outreach paves the way toward a mutual understanding between the government and the community. This understanding is reliant on the management of expectations, the development of trust, and the existence of transparency into the government process.

Community Meetings:

The City is committed to inclusivity by scheduling meetings at accessible locations and times, considering cultural factors such as religious holidays. Additionally, the City offers translation or interpretation services during meetings upon request. For special circumstances, a service provider can be arranged, or a staff member who speaks the required language may assist if available. Furthermore, all meetings adhere to ADA compliance standards.

City Council Meetings:
• Public meetings conducted by the City Council include essential information regarding meeting dates and times, which can be found on the website and posted at City Hall.
• A designated comment period permits citizens to submit written feedback on both agenda and non-agenda items, or to share their views in person by filling out a public comment card.
• Additionally, these meetings are broadcast daily on the City’s Cable Channel CTV 3 at 11:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Click here or on YouTube to watch the most recent City Council meeting.

Local Agency Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Title VI Implementation Plan, City of Pico Rivera
13 Public Hearing/Community Meeting Notice:
• Public meeting notices are published on the City website and in the City newsletter, which also features translations in multiple languages. City staff is available upon request to assist with translation or interpretation requests related to the notices.

Focus Groups and Surveys:
• The City conducts surveys and focus groups to gather insights on key community issues. Residents are randomly reached out to via phone, email, or text message to participate. City staff are on hand to offer interpretation services, ensuring that members of the Limited English Proficient (LEP) community are included in the process.

Direct Outreach:
• The City coordinates door-to-door outreach and provides information in languages that are relevant to residents, when necessary. Community leaders and trusted individuals are engaged to help share this important information.

Social Media Outreach:
• The City uses social media to foster LEP community engagement. They leverage these platforms to connect with community members and encourage their participation in local events.

VIII. LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY (LEP)

ASSESSMENT / LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT PLAN
(LAP)
Recommended section based on Executive Order 13166, which was revoked by Executive Order 14224.

BACKGROUND
Although Executive Order 13166, “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency,” has been rescinded, the City will continue to ensure that Federally funded programs and activities normally provided in English are accessible to LEP Persons.

Federal financial assistance provides meaningful access to its Limited English Proficiency (LEP) applicants and beneficiaries. As such, local agencies are required to ensure that Federally funded programs and activities normally provided in English are accessible to LEP Persons. Each local agency shall perform an annual assessment to determine if modifications are needed to its programs and activities to ensure meaningful access by LEP persons.

Local Agency Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Title VI Implementation Plan, City of Pico Rivera
14 The assessment, which is referred to as a “Four-Factor” analysis, is based on the following factors:

1. Number/proportion of LEP persons served: The number or proportion of LEP persons eligible to be served or likely to be encountered.

2. Frequency of contact: The frequency of LEP contacts.

3. Importance of the program/service: The nature and importance of the programs, services, or activities provided by the City of Pico Rivera.

4. Resources available: The resources available for LEP persons

LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY
A Limited English Proficiency (LEP) person is a person who does not speak English as a primary language and has a limited ability to read, write, or comprehend English. Per Executive Order 13166, agencies that receive Federal funding must examine their Federally funded services and develop and implement processes that will allow LEP persons to meaningfully access said services.

As shown in Table 1 below, 90.1% of residents in Pico Rivera are considered LEP persons, with the majority of those LEP persons primarily speaking Spanish. The City used demographic data to identify the need for providing bilingual services in the following languages to provide access to the LEP community in compliance with Executive Order 13166.

Source: US Census: CENSUS POPULATION

TITLE VI INFORMATION DISSEMINATION
In order to ensure that Title VI and related Civil Rights information is readily available to the public, the City will develop public notices consisting of posters, flyers, and complaint forms that are available in English and Spanish. The languages selected for the informational materials were based upon language data provided from the US Census; see Table 1 above. Said flyers and posters will be placed in the City Hall lobby, in a highly visible and accessible location. The public notices will also be available for viewing on the City website at https://www.pico-rivera.org/our-city/departments/publicworks/title_v_i.

LAP ADDRESSING:

The first section in this document describes the purpose of the Limited English Proficiency Plan (LEP). The second section in this document provides the four-factor Limited English Proficiency (LEP) analysis as outlined in the Department of Transportation (DOT) used to identify LEP needs and assistance measures.

1. FOUR-FACTOR ANALYSIS: Assess LEP needs based on:
1) Number/proportion of LEP persons served: As shown in Table 1 below, 90.1% of residents in Pico Rivera are considered LEP persons, with the majority of those LEP persons primarily speaking Spanish. The *subtotal of General Citizens reported by the Census Bureau exceeds 100%.

Local Agency Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Title VI Implementation Plan, City of Pico Rivera
15 2) Frequency of contact: The City of Pico Rivera is home to a vibrant mix of individuals from various backgrounds who engage in our programs and services. Our community reflects a wide range of age groups, ethnicities, abilities, and languages spoken.

While we do not gather average statistics across all City programs, we are equipped to assist multilingual individuals through a comprehensive approach. This includes City staff members, a contracted interpreter, and translated written materials. The Public Works team is tasked with translating project materials associated with federally funded programs and initiatives. To keep the Limited English Proficiency (LEP) community informed about ongoing improvements, we implement proactive bilingual outreach plans. Furthermore, should interpretation services be necessary, our staff will ensure that translations are delivered promptly. 3) Importance of the program/service: All City staff, particularly those at the front counter and in Public Works, recognize that 90.1% of the City’s residents are Limited English Proficient (LEP) individuals who primarily speak Spanish. Observations from Public Works reveal that front counter staff are the ones who most often engage with LEP individuals seeking translation services for a variety of programs, services, or activities. Although Public Works staff have received only a handful of requests for translation assistance concerning Federally funded projects, they have consistently responded promptly to any need for translation services. 4) Resources available: Outreach expenses as they relate to LEP populations are shared among several departments. Pico Rivera recognizes that 90.1%of the City’s population is Hispanic or Latino and speaks a language other than English at home.

The City offers bilingual compensation for employees who serve as interpreters for City-related matters.
• As of February 2026, a total of 40 City employees has successfully passed the certification tests and are now eligible for monthly bilingual pay. Our public facilities, such as City Hall, community centers, development services (including building permits), libraries, senior centers, and youth programs, offer essential resources, direct services, and programs. These initiatives significantly enhance access to social and recreational enrichment opportunities, ultimately improving the quality of life for our residents.

Local Agency Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Title VI Implementation Plan, City of Pico Rivera
16 2. LANGUAGE ACCESS SERVICES: Translation, interpretation, and staff training.

1. Interpretation Services: The City offers bilingual compensation for employees who serve as interpreters for City-related matters. As of February 2026, a total of 40 City employees has successfully passed the certification tests and are now eligible for monthly bilingual pay. During conversations, allowing for direct communication between an LEP person and someone speaking English.
• Translation of Key Documents: Pico Rivera converts written information from English into another language, such as Spanish, to ensure important documents like forms, notices, and instructions are accessible to LEP individuals.
• Training: Training for front-line staff members, who are often the first points of contact with LEP individuals, is provided by City Personnel. Staff training includes:
o Identifying and tracking language preference information of LEP persons;
o Delivering services effectively to LEP persons;
o Assuring staff sensitivity to the literacy level of LEP persons; o Describing LEP services offered to the public;
o Procuring interpreter services;
o Identifying and documenting the language needs of LEP persons; o Processing a Title VI/LEP complaint;
o Familiarity with Disability Awareness, Ethics, Civil Rights, and Conflict Management issues.

3. Outreach Strategies: Targeted engagement for LEP communities. • Community Meetings: Pico Rivera schedules meetings at accessible locations and times, considering cultural factors like religious holidays. Pico Rivera holds separate sessions with LEP residents, if necessary, to facilitate open discussion. Pico Rivera provides simultaneous translation or interpretation during meetings. • City Council Meetings: Public meetings conducted by the City Council include essential information regarding meeting dates and times, which can be found on the website and posted at City Hall. A designated comment period permits citizens to submit written feedback on both agenda and non-agenda items, or to share their views in person by filling out a color-coded speaker card. • Public Hearing/Community Meeting Notice: Pico Rivera publishes public hearing notices in multiple languages on the city website and in local ethnic newspapers, including details about translation and interpretation services available. • Focus Groups and Surveys: Pico Rivera designs surveys and focus group questions in multiple languages. Pico Rivera utilizes bilingual City staff to conduct sessions with LEP communities.
• Direct Outreach: Pico Rivera partners with a vendor to conduct door-to-door outreach and distribute information in relevant languages. Pico Rivera utilizes community leaders and trusted figures to disseminate information.

Local Agency Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Title VI Implementation Plan, City of Pico Rivera
17 • Community Forums: Pico Rivera organizes community forums in different neighborhoods, providing bilingual moderators and translated materials, with specific sessions focused on LEP residents' concerns.
• Social Media Outreach: Pico Rivera creates social media pages in relevant languages and engages with LEP communities through targeted posts and advertisements.

IX. TITLE VI DATA COLLECTION
Demographic and related data collected and used by City staff comes from governmental sources responsible for collecting and vetting the information for consistency and accuracy. These sources include, but are not limited to, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, California Department of Finance, California Department of Labor, and the California Employment Development Department. Additionally, staff may also collect project-specific demographic data utilizing data collection as appropriate through the public outreach process on federally funded projects.

Program Area Type of Data Collected & Process for
Collecting
Intended Outcome of Data
Analysis
Public Meeting
Participations
Collecting data on who attends public
hearings or meetings related to a
federally funded project.

Limited English Proficiency (LEP)
Assessment / Language Assess
Plan (LAP)
Feedback from
Stakeholders
Gathering qualitative data through
focus groups or interviews with
stakeholders, like caregivers in a Title VI
program, to understand their
experiences and needs.

Limited English Proficiency (LEP)
Assessment / Language Assess
Plan (LAP)
Disseminating
Title VI
Information:

Providing Title VI brochures, information
during pre-construction meetings, and
posting information on internal websites
to ensure awareness and compliance.

Limited English Proficiency (LEP)
Assessment / Language Assess
Plan (LAP)
Local Agency Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Title VI Implementation Plan, City of Pico Rivera
18 X. PRIMARY PROGRAM AREA DESCRIPTIONS &

INTERNAL TITLE VI REVIEW PROCEDURES
The City Public Works Department engages in the following program areas and will implement the PPP and the LEP plan in the following Program Areas:

Program Area General Description Title VI/NonDiscrimination Concerns and
Responsibilities
Review
Procedure for
Ensuring NonDiscrimination
Right of Way The phase of transportation engineering
and surveying which involves the
determination of existing right of way
lines and property boundaries, the
preparation of maps and descriptions
for the appraisal, acquisition, and
disposal of real property rights.

Yes Yes
Planning/
Design
The plans and specifications for the works
to be constructed including such maps,
profiles, plans sheets and as-builts.

Yes Yes
Environmental The proactive and reactive measures
taken to minimize negative impacts on
the surrounding environment and
maximize positive impacts.

Yes Yes
Construction The process of building and developing
infrastructure, structures, and facilities.

Yes Yes
XI. EXTERNAL TITLE VI REVIEWS / SUBRECIPIENT

MONITORING
The City of Pico Rivera monitors subrecipients for Title VI compliance by implementing a structured oversight process that ensures federally funded programs and activities adhere to nondiscrimination requirements. The monitoring process generally includes the following key components:

1. Subrecipient Agreement and Title VI Assurances
• Require subrecipients to sign Title VI Assurances (DOT 1050.2A) as part of grant agreements.
• Include Title VI compliance obligations in all contracts, agreements, and Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs).
• Specify reporting and monitoring expectations in agreements.

Local Agency Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Title VI Implementation Plan, City of Pico Rivera
19 2. Training and Technical Assistance
• Provide Title VI training to subrecipient staff on nondiscrimination requirements, complaint procedures, data collection, and reporting.
• Offer technical assistance to help subrecipients develop and implement their own Title VI Program.
• Ensure subrecipients understand requirements related to Limited English Proficiency (LEP) plans, public participation, and environmental justice.

3. Compliance Reviews and Monitoring
• Conduct periodic compliance reviews (e.g., annual or biennial audits) of subrecipients to assess adherence to Title VI requirements. • Review subrecipient policies, procedures, complaint records, and public outreach efforts.
• Require subrecipients to submit self-assessments or compliance checklists.

4. Complaint Handling and Investigations
• Ensure subrecipients establish and follow a Title VI complaint procedure. • Require subrecipients to log and report complaints to the city, including how they are resolved.
• Investigate complaints if subrecipients fail to take corrective actions.

5. Data Collection and Reporting
• Require subrecipients to collect and analyze demographic data to evaluate program impacts on minority and low-income populations. • Ensure subrecipients document public outreach efforts, including engagement with underserved communities.
• Review subrecipient reports on language access services provided to LEP individuals.

6. Public Participation and LEP Compliance
• Ensure subrecipients provide meaningful public involvement opportunities for minority, low-income, and LEP populations.
• Verify that public notices, surveys, and key documents are available in relevant languages.
• Require subrecipients to maintain LEP plans that align with the City’s Title VI policies.

7. Corrective Actions and Enforcement
• If a subrecipient is found noncompliant, the City should issue a written notice detailing deficiencies and required corrective actions. • Provide technical assistance to help subrecipients achieve compliance. • If necessary, take enforcement actions, such as withholding funding, imposing conditions, or terminating contracts for persistent noncompliance.

8. Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping
• Require subrecipients to submit annual Title VI reports summarizing compliance efforts, training participation, complaints, and outreach activities. • Maintain detailed records of subrecipient agreements, training attendance, complaints, compliance reviews, and corrective actions.

Local Agency Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Title VI Implementation Plan, City of Pico Rivera
20 VII. TITLE VI ANNUAL WORK PLAN (TITLE VI

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND GOALS REPORT)
This Title VI represents the City's inaugural plan, which is why there is currently no annual work plan available. The first annual report will be prepared following the City Council's approval in the subsequent year.

The City of Pico Rivera Public Works Department will annually establish and monitor program goals and accomplishments. The Title VI Coordinator will ensure that employee training is conducted, language translation services continue to be available, public participation is optimal, and appropriate Title VI signage is posted. This also includes updating community statistics and corresponding with state and federal agencies as necessary. The annual work plan will be made available to the public.

Local Agency Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Title VI Implementation Plan, City of Pico Rivera
21 APPENDIX A
DOT 1050.2A TITLE VI ASSURANCE

SIGNED DOCUMENT WILL BE INSERTED HERE
Local Agency Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Title VI Implementation Plan, City of Pico Rivera
22 APPENDIX B TITLE VI NOTICE OF RIGHTS TO THE PUBLIC

TITLE VI NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC

YOUR RIGHTS AGAINST DISCRIMINATION UNDER
TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 AND

RELATED NON-DISCRIMINATORY AUTHORITIES
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, religion, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

The following additional authorities protect against discrimination based on sex, age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other category protected by State or Federal law:
• Section 162(a) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 (Section 324, Title 23 U.S.C.)
• Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
• The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (Section 6101-6107, Title 42 U.S.C.) • The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (Public Law 200-209) Any person who believes that they have been discriminated against may file a written complaint with the City of Pico Rivera Public Works Department, within 180 days of the alleged discrimination. Additional information and Title VI Complaint Forms can be obtained on the City of Pico Rivera City’s website, at https://www.pico-rivera.org/ourcity/departments/public-works/title_v_i. Title VI Complaint Forms can also be obtained from the Public Works Department at City Hall.

To file a Title VI discrimination complaint, please use the following contact information:

Title VI Implementation Plan City of Pico Rivera
Department of Public Works
6615 Passons Blvd.

Pico Rivera, CA 90660
[email protected]
562-801-4421
Local Agency Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Title VI Implementation Plan, City of Pico Rivera
23 APPENDIX C TITLE VI COMPLAINT FORM

TITLE VI COMPLAINT FORM
Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act requires that “No person in the United States shall on the grounds of race, religion, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” If you wish to submit a Title VI complaint to the City of Pico Rivera Public Works Department, please complete the information below and submit this form to:

Title VI Implementation Plan City of Pico Rivera
Department of Public Works
6615 Passons Blvd.

Pico Rivera, CA 90660
[email protected]
562-801-4421
Name:

Address:

City:

State:

Zip Code:

Cell/Home:

Name, title, and description of person(s) who allegedly discriminated against you:

Check the box(es) for the type(s) of discrimination that was experienced:
1) Date(s) that alleged event(s) took place:
2) Location(s) where the alleged event(s) took place:

Race
Sex
Religion
Color
Age
Sexual Orientation
National Origin
Disability
Gender Identity
Other (Please Describe):

Local Agency Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Title VI Implementation Plan, City of Pico Rivera
24 3) Is the alleged discrimination still ongoing?:
4) In your own words, please describe the alleged discrimination, explain what happened, and who you believe is responsible:
5) Please list any person(s) we may contact for additional information to provide further information for your complaint:
6) Have you filed this complaint with any other federal agency, state agency, federal court, or state court? If yes, please check all that apply:

Federal Agency
State Agency
Federal Court
State Court
7) Please provide the name, phone number, and email of the contact persons at the agency/court where the complaint was filed, below:

Please sign and date this form on the lines provided below. If any additional space is needed to provide information about this complaint, please attach the additional information to this form.

Signature: ___________________________________ Date:___________________ Local Agency Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Title VI Implementation Plan, City of Pico Rivera
25 APPENDIX F TITLE VI LEP TRACK LOG

TITLE VI LEP TRACK LOG
Interpretation and Translation Requests
Interpretation
Date Name Details of Interpretation Department
Translation
Date Name Details of translation Department
Local Agency Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Title VI Implementation Plan, City of Pico Rivera
26 APPENDIX G COMPLAINT TRACK LOG

TITLE VI

COMPLAINT LOG
Date Name Brief Summary of Complaint Department Result
Local Agency Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Title VI Implementation Plan, City of Pico Rivera
3 I. TITLE VI/NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICY

STATEMENT
It is the policy of City of Pico Rivera that no person shall on the grounds of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, or age, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination in any operation of City of Pico Rivera Department of Public Works as provided by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes.

This policy applies to all operations of the City of Pico Rivera, including its contractors and anyone who acts on behalf of the City of Pico Rivera Department of Public Works. This policy also applies to the operations of any department or agency to which the City of Pico Rivera extends federal financial assistance. Federal financial assistance includes grants, training, use of equipment, donations of surplus property, and other assistance.

Prohibited discrimination may be intentional or unintentional. Seemingly neutral acts that have disparate impacts on individuals of a protected group and lack a substantial legitimate justification are a form of prohibited discrimination. Harassment and retaliation are also prohibited forms of discrimination.

Examples of prohibited types of discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, disability, or age include: Denial to an individual any service, financial aid, or other benefit; Distinctions in the quality, quantity, or manner in which a benefit is provided; Segregation or separate treatment; Restriction in the enjoyment of any advantages, privileges, or other benefits provided; Discrimination in any activities related to highway and infrastructure or facility built or repaired; and Discrimination in employment.

Title VI compliance is a condition of receipt of federal funds. The Title VI Coordinator is authorized to ensure compliance with this policy, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C § 2000d and related statutes, and the requirements of 23 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) pt. 200 and 49 CFR pt. 21.

The City of Pico Rivera affirms the recipient's commitment to non-discrimination and assures that every effort will be made to ensure non-discrimination in all of its programs, activities, and services, whether those programs, activities, and services are federally funded or not.
(Top Agency or Department Official) Date
Enclosure 2
10b Back to Outline
31 August 21
Enclosure 3
Back to Outline 10c

For
08/31/2021

To: Mayor and City Council
From: City Manager
Meeting Date: May 26, 2026
Subject: TREASURER’S MONTHLY INVESTMENT TRANSACTION
REPORT AS OF APRIL 30, 2026
Recommendation:

1. Receive and file the Treasurer’s Monthly Investment Transaction Report as of April 30, 2026.

Strategic Priority:
1 - Fiscal & Organizational Sustainability - Create a City government built to adapt to change.

Strategy:

1.1 Build a more transparent and sustainable fiscal system to improve trust and efficiency.

Fiscal Impact:

There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund.

Background:

Per the City of Pico Rivera (City) Investment Policy, approved by the City Council on April 14, 2026, the City Treasurer submits a monthly investment transaction report to the City Council within 45 days following the end of the reporting period, in accordance with California Government Code Section 53607.

Discussion:

This report provides the City Council with updates on the City’s monthly transactions within the investment portfolio for the month ending April 30, 2026. The enclosed statements include transaction activity for the City’s investments with the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), Chandler Asset Management, and Commercial Bank of California (Enclosures 1, 2, and 3).

Back to Outline 11
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT – MEETING OF MAY 26, 2026
TREASURER’S MONTHLY INVESTMENT TRANSACTION REPORT AS OF APRIL 30, 2026

Conclusion:

As of April 30, 2026, the City’s investment portfolio remains highly rated, liquid, and stable.

All investments are maintained in accordance with California Government Code Section 53601 and the City’s Investment Policy approved by the City Council on April 14, 2026.

Steve Carmona
SC:JG:JA:ep
Enclosure(s): 1) LAIF Statement for the Month Ending April 30, 2026 2) Chandler Asset Management Transaction Ledger for the Month Ending April 30, 2026
3) Commercial Bank of California Insured Cash Sweep Statement for the Month Ending April 30, 2026




 
 



 !
"

# $#%&%'("(

# )

% 
% 
* )

 )
+
,-  !
.,
!/
01/ 2
/1!./
33!142)
3 ./.
01 0!
%%#'

3
02 
!/
01/ !
%%
566789:;8<=>?@
"#"%'( A-
%
 
 .
.

A 2 B-
--
 CDD>6:EF> GH:> I?H9JH6:E79 GH:> I?H9 IKL>M79DE?< ;8<=>? N>= M79DE?< ;8<=>?58:O7?EP>QMHRR>?5<789: 4#'4
%4#4
%S/2#T


34
,
.1)%


T 566789:U8<<H?K .2 A-V %


T -

-

 V % %
%
'%% .W-+XV


1 -

 V T


(%(
Enclosure 1
11a
Back to Outline




 
 



 !
"

# $#%&%'("(

# )

% 
% 
* )

 )
+
,-  !
.,
!/
01/ !0
2/1
11)1/314!,!!54. 2
/
44!162)
4 1/0
!1
%%#'

4
02 
!/
01/ !
%%
7889:;<=:>?@AB#"#"

C D-
%
 
 .
.

D 2 E-
--
 FGG@8<HI@ JK<@ LAK;MK8<H9; JK<@ LAK; LNO@ P9;GHA> =:>?@A Q@? P9;GHA> =:>?@A7:<R9AHS@TPKUU@A7>9:;< 6#'6
%6#6
%V/2#CC

46
,
.1)%# (C%
7889:;<W:>>KAN .2 D-X %# (C%
 -

-

 X % C# #%

.Y-+ZX


1 -

 X % (( %
%

Settlement Date
Transaction
Category Transaction Type Security Description Quantity Price Principal Interest Total Amount 4/27/2026 Acquisitions Buy MORGAN STANLEY 400,000.00 0.98925 395,700.00 3,897.73 399,597.73 4/29/2026 Acquisitions Buy FHMS K-098 A2 470,000.00 0.95055 446,757.03 886.47 447,643.50 4/30/2026 Acquisitions Buy FIRST AMER:GVT OBLG Y 476,584.83 1.00000 476,584.83 - 476,584.83 4/15/2026 Dispositions Maturity UNITED STATES TREASURY 300,000.00 1.00000 300,000.00 - (300,000.00) 4/27/2026 Dispositions Sell APPLE INC 400,000.00 0.99628 398,512.00 (2,903.33) (401,415.33) 4/29/2026 Dispositions Sell FIRST AMER:GVT OBLG Y 450,716.35 1.00000 450,716.35 - (450,716.35) 4/1/2026 Other Transactions Coupon FHMS K-063 A2 - - - - 920.26 4/1/2026 Other Transactions Coupon FHMS K-069 A2 - - - - 1,282.48 4/1/2026 Other Transactions Coupon FHMS K-073 A2 - - - - 1,312.08 4/1/2026 Other Transactions Coupon FHMS K-081 A2 - - - - 503.75 4/1/2026 Other Transactions Coupon FHMS K-082 A2 - - - - 620.67 4/1/2026 Other Transactions Coupon FHMS K-083 A2 - - - - 776.25 4/1/2026 Other Transactions Coupon FHMS K-085 A2 - - - - 930.42 4/1/2026 Other Transactions Coupon FHMS K-087 A2 - - - - 912.67 4/1/2026 Other Transactions Coupon FHMS K-090 A2 - - - - 941.05 4/1/2026 Other Transactions Coupon FHMS K-100 A2 - - - - 570.24 4/1/2026 Other Transactions Coupon FHMS K-746 A2 - - - - 710.85 4/11/2026 Other Transactions Coupon SALESFORCE INC - - - - 7,770.00 4/15/2026 Other Transactions Coupon JDOT 2022-B A3 - - - - 0.21 4/15/2026 Other Transactions Coupon JDOT 2022-C A3 - - - - 99.38 4/15/2026 Other Transactions Coupon MBART 2023-1 A3 - - - - 59.98 4/15/2026 Other Transactions Coupon HART 2023-A A3 - - - - 13.55 4/15/2026 Other Transactions Coupon UNITED STATES TREASURY - - - - 5,625.00 4/15/2026 Other Transactions Coupon AMXCA 2023-1 A - - - - 527.58 4/15/2026 Other Transactions Coupon CHAIT 2023-1 A - - - - 1,483.50 4/15/2026 Other Transactions Coupon JDOT 2023-C A3 - - - - 732.10 4/15/2026 Other Transactions Coupon AMXCA 2023-3 A - - - - 1,503.62 4/15/2026 Other Transactions Coupon TAOT 2024-A A3 - - - - 464.53 4/15/2026 Other Transactions Coupon UNITED STATES TREASURY - - - - 5,062.50 4/15/2026 Other Transactions Coupon MBALT 2024-B A3 - - - - 418.35 4/15/2026 Other Transactions Coupon HART 2024-C A3 - - - - 532.88 4/15/2026 Other Transactions Coupon WFCIT 2025-1 A - - - - 1,519.00 4/15/2026 Other Transactions Coupon BACCT 2025-1 A - - - - 1,497.73 4/15/2026 Other Transactions Coupon UNITED STATES TREASURY - - - - 6,125.00 4/15/2026 Other Transactions Coupon TAOT 2026-A A3 - - - - 450.33 4/15/2026 Other Transactions Coupon MBALT 2026-A A3 - - - - 327.50 4/16/2026 Other Transactions Coupon GMCAR 2023-2 A3 - - - - 116.35 4/16/2026 Other Transactions Coupon GMCAR 2024-4 A3 - - - - 366.67 4/16/2026 Other Transactions Coupon INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVEL - - - - 5,814.00 4/20/2026 Other Transactions Coupon GMALT 2024-2 A3 - - - - 285.43 4/20/2026 Other Transactions Coupon VZMT 2025-3 A1A - - - - 958.37 4/20/2026 Other Transactions Coupon GMALT 2025-2 A3 - - - - 610.67 4/21/2026 Other Transactions Coupon HAROT 2023-1 A3 - - - - 28.43 4/21/2026 Other Transactions Coupon GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC - - - - 3,633.88 4/25/2026 Other Transactions Coupon PNC BANK NA (DELAWARE) - - - - 5,425.00 4/25/2026 Other Transactions Coupon BMWOT 2024-A A3 - - - - 497.51 4/25/2026 Other Transactions Coupon BMWOT 2025-A A3 - - - - 836.00 4/28/2026 Other Transactions Coupon WALMART INC - - - - 6,742.50 City of Pico Rivera Portfolio
Chandler Investment Transactions
April 2026
Enclosure 2
11b
Settlement Date
Transaction
Category Transaction Type Security Description Quantity Price Principal Interest Total Amount City of Pico Rivera Portfolio
Chandler Investment Transactions
April 2026
4/30/2026 Other Transactions Coupon UNITED STATES TREASURY - - - - 11,562.50 4/30/2026 Other Transactions Coupon UNITED STATES TREASURY - - - - 5,812.50 4/24/2026 Other Transactions Custody Fee US DOLLAR - - - - (273.38) 4/13/2026 Other Transactions Management Fee US DOLLAR - - - - (2,799.47) 4/30/2026 Other Transactions Money Market Funds FIRST AMER:GVT OBLG Y - - - - 766.51 4/1/2026 Other Transactions Principal Paydown FHMS K-063 A2 - - 731.04 - 731.04 4/1/2026 Other Transactions Principal Paydown FHMS K-069 A2 - - 844.98 - 844.98 4/1/2026 Other Transactions Principal Paydown FHMS K-087 A2 - - 328.46 - 328.46 4/15/2026 Other Transactions Principal Paydown JDOT 2022-B A3 - - 68.52 - 68.52 4/15/2026 Other Transactions Principal Paydown JDOT 2022-C A3 - - 7,969.86 - 7,969.86 4/15/2026 Other Transactions Principal Paydown MBART 2023-1 A3 - - 3,588.72 - 3,588.72 4/15/2026 Other Transactions Principal Paydown HART 2023-A A3 - - 3,549.87 - 3,549.87 4/15/2026 Other Transactions Principal Paydown JDOT 2023-C A3 - - 15,075.73 - 15,075.73 4/15/2026 Other Transactions Principal Paydown TAOT 2024-A A3 - - 9,257.87 - 9,257.87 4/15/2026 Other Transactions Principal Paydown MBALT 2024-B A3 - - 11,631.74 - 11,631.74 4/16/2026 Other Transactions Principal Paydown GMCAR 2023-2 A3 - - 4,896.98 - 4,896.98 4/20/2026 Other Transactions Principal Paydown GMALT 2024-2 A3 - - 17,452.92 - 17,452.92 4/21/2026 Other Transactions Principal Paydown HAROT 2023-1 A3 - - 2,949.38 - 2,949.38 4/25/2026 Other Transactions Principal Paydown BMWOT 2024-A A3 - - 8,984.17 - 8,984.17 Change in Cash, Payables, Receivables (277,436.40)
Changes of Market Values and Accrued Interests 14,813.20 Net Investment Transactions $ 80,478.35
Beginning Balance as of 3/31/2026 35,667,590.47
Ending Balance as of 4/30/2026 $ 35,748,068.82
Contact Us
(714) 431-7000
Account

CITY OF PICO RIVERA
Date
04/30/2026
Page
1 of 6
IntraFi Cash ServiceSM, or ICS®, Monthly Statement
The following information is a summary of activity in your account(s) for the month of April 2026 and the list of FDIC-insured institution(s) that hold your deposits as of the date indicated. These deposits have been placed by us, as your agent and custodian, in deposit accounts through IntraFi Cash Service. Funds in your deposit accounts at the FDIC-insured institutions at which your funds have been placed will be "deposits," as defined by federal law. Certain conditions must be satisfied for "pass-through" FDIC deposit insurance coverage to apply. To meet the conditions for pass-through FDIC deposit insurance, deposit accounts at FDIC-insured banks in IntraFi's network that hold deposits placed using an IntraFi service are titled, and deposit account records are maintained, in accordance with FDIC regulations for pass-through coverage.

Summary of Accounts
Account ID Deposit Option Interest Rate Opening Balance Ending Balance *********354 Savings 4.05% $27,795,562.72 $33,487,774.90 TOTAL $27,795,562.72 $33,487,774.90
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION IntraFi and ICS are registered service marks, and IntraFi Cash Service is a service mark, of IntraFi Network LLC. €!N
rHV1H
pm/Y#E [Q+
€TA
B
NA#9{.bbY
*eV
€*YPW
8rf tp`@r
€+
q1qqQQQqQ1qQQQQq11Q1Q
Commercial Bank of California
19752 MacArthur Blvd.

Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92612
‚„‚„ƒ„ƒƒ‚„‚‚„„‚„„ƒ‚ƒ‚‚„„ƒ„‚„„„ƒ‚ƒ„ƒƒƒƒ‚‚‚ 143100-30A

CITY OF PICO RIVERA
6615 PASSIONS BLVD
PICO RIVERA, CA 90660
64362

RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED
Enclosure 3
11c
Back to Outline

DETAILED ACCOUNT OVERVIEW
Account ID: *********354
Account Title: CITY OF PICO RIVERA
Account Summary - Savings
Statement Period 4/1-4/30/2026 Average Daily Balance $27,658,644.50 Previous Period Ending Balance $27,795,562.72 Interest Rate at End of Statement Period 4.05% Total Program Deposits 7,600,008.61 Annual Percentage Yield Earned 4.13% Total Program Withdrawals (2,000,000.00) YTD Interest Paid 334,155.16 Interest Capitalized 92,203.57
Current Period Ending Balance $33,487,774.90
Account Transaction Detail
Date Activity Type Amount Balance
04/02/2026 Deposit $8.61 $27,795,571.33
04/09/2026 Withdrawal (1,200,000.00) 26,595,571.33
04/16/2026 Withdrawal (800,000.00) 25,795,571.33
04/23/2026 Deposit 3,800,000.00 29,595,571.33
04/30/2026 Deposit 3,800,000.00 33,395,571.33
04/30/2026 Interest Capitalization 92,203.57 33,487,774.90 Summary of Balances as of April 30, 2026
FDIC-Insured Institution City/State FDIC Cert No. Balance Amalgamated Bank New York, NY 622 $247,823.52
Ameris Bank Atlanta, GA 20504 247,823.52
Anderson Brothers Bank Mullins, SC 9923 247,823.52
Arrow Bank N.A. Glens Falls, NY 7074 247,823.52
Associated Bank, N.A. Green Bay, WI 5296 247,823.52
BOKF, National Association Tulsa, OK 4214 247,814.58
Banc of California Los Angeles, CA 24045 247,823.52
Banesco USA Miami, FL 57815 247,823.52
Bank of Ann Arbor Ann Arbor, MI 34120 247,823.52
Bank of Baroda New York, NY 33681 247,214.39
Bank of Central Florida Lakeland, FL 58479 247,823.52
Bank of China New York, NY 33653 247,823.52
Bank of Marin Novato, CA 32779 247,823.52
Bank of Springfield Springfield, IL 19506 247,823.52
BankUnited Miami Lakes, FL 58979 247,823.52
Bankers Trust Company Des Moines, IA 953 247,027.40
Barclays Bank Delaware Wilmington, DE 57203 247,776.38
Beacon Bank & Trust Boston, MA 17798 247,823.52
Bristol County Savings Bank Taunton, MA 23622 247,799.94 Busey Bank Champaign, IL 16450 247,823.52
Byline Bank Chicago, IL 20624 247,823.52
Date
04/30/2026 Page
2 of 6
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION IntraFi and ICS are registered service marks, and IntraFi Cash Service is a service mark, of IntraFi Network LLC. €!N
vDV1H
pm/Y#E [Q+
€TA
B
ND">~0ey &gV
€*YNT
.wyA;bn@
Ws+
q1QQQqQqQqQQQ1Q

DETAILED ACCOUNT OVERVIEW
Account ID: *********354
Account Title: CITY OF PICO RIVERA
Summary of Balances as of April 30, 2026
FDIC-Insured Institution City/State FDIC Cert No. Balance CNB Bank Clearfield, PA 13876 247,823.52
Cambridge Savings Bank Cambridge, MA 17870 247,823.52
Capital Bank, National Association Rockville, MD 35278 247,823.52 Capital Community Bank Provo, UT 33823 247,027.40
Capitol Bank Madison, WI 34074 247,823.52
Cedar Rapids Bank and Trust Company Cedar Rapids, IA 57244 247,823.52 Citizens Bank and Trust Frostproof, FL 5673 247,823.52
Citizens Bank of Kansas Kingman, KS 4707 247,823.52
Citizens Bank of Philadelphia, MS Philadelphia, MS 12204 367.39 Citizens Bank, National Association Providence, RI 57957 247,219.33 City National Bank of Florida Miami, FL 20234 247,823.52 Coastal Carolina National Bank Myrtle Beach, SC 58864 247,823.52 Coastal Community Bank Everett, WA 34403 247,823.52
Cogent Bank Orange City, FL 34908 247,612.55
Columbia Bank Roseburg, OR 17266 247,823.52
Community Bank, N.A. Canton, NY 6989 247,823.52
ConnectOne Bank Englewood Cliffs, NJ 57919 247,823.52
Customers Bank Malvern, PA 34444 247,823.52
Dacotah Bank Aberdeen, SD 17437 247,823.52
Dime Community Bank Hauppauge, NY 6976 247,823.52
EagleBank Silver Spring, MD 34742 247,823.52
East West Bank Pasadena, CA 31628 247,823.52
Eastern Bank Boston, MA 32773 247,823.52
Enterprise Bank & Trust Clayton, MO 27237 247,823.52
Equity Bank Andover, KS 25858 247,823.52
First American Bank Artesia, NM 2240 247,823.52
First Bank Chicago Highland Park, IL 17470 247,219.33
First Dakota National Bank Yankton, SD 4028 247,192.10
First Financial Bank Abilene, TX 3066 247,823.52
First Horizon Bank MEMPHIS, TN 4977 247,823.52
First Mid Bank & Trust N.A. Mattoon, IL 3705 247,823.52 First National Bank & Trust Co. Ardmore, OK 4037 247,219.33 First National Bank of Pennsylvania Greenville, PA 7888 247,823.52 First United Bank and Trust Company Durant, OK 4239 247,823.52 First Western Trust Bank Denver, CO 57607 247,823.52
First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company Raleigh, NC 11063 247,823.52 FirstBank Nashville, TN 8663 247,823.52
Five Star Bank Roseville, CA 35361 247,823.52
Flagstar Bank, N.A. Hicksville, NY 32541 247,823.52
Date
04/30/2026 Page
3 of 6
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION IntraFi and ICS are registered service marks, and IntraFi Cash Service is a service mark, of IntraFi Network LLC. 64362

DETAILED ACCOUNT OVERVIEW
Account ID: *********354
Account Title: CITY OF PICO RIVERA
Summary of Balances as of April 30, 2026
FDIC-Insured Institution City/State FDIC Cert No. Balance Flushing Bank Uniondale, NY 58564 247,823.52
Fulton Bank, N.A. Lancaster, PA 7551 247,777.07
Gateway First Bank Jenks, OK 15118 247,823.52
German American Bank Jasper, IN 17393 247,219.33
Grand Savings Bank Grove, OK 32084 247,823.52
Grasshopper Bank, N.A. New York, NY 59113 247,808.03
Hancock Whitney Bank Gulfport, MS 12441 247,823.52
Hingham Institution for Savings Hingham, MA 90211 247,823.52 InterBank Oklahoma City, OK 27210 247,823.52
Israel Discount Bank of New York New York City, NY 19977 247,219.33 KS StateBank Manhattan, KS 19899 247,823.52
Kirkpatrick Bank Edmond, OK 20156 50,514.12
Leader Bank, National Association Arlington, MA 57134 247,823.52 Legacy Bank & Trust Company Mountain Grove, MO 22319 247,746.46 Live Oak Banking Company Wilmington, NC 58665 247,219.33 Mechanics Bank Walnut Creek, CA 1768 84,702.30
Merchants Bank of Indiana Carmel, IN 8056 247,823.52
Metairie Bank & Trust Company Metairie, LA 16539 247,219.33 Mid Penn Bank Millersburg, PA 9889 247,823.52
MidFirst Bank Oklahoma City, OK 4063 247,823.52
Mission Bank Bakersfield, CA 34805 247,219.33
NBT Bank, National Association Norwich, NY 7230 247,219.33 NebraskaLand Bank North Platte, NE 34811 247,219.33
Nelnet Bank Draper, UT 59205 247,027.40
New Valley Bank & Trust Springfield, MA 59143 227.29
NexBank Dallas, TX 29209 247,823.52
Oakstar Bank Springfield, MO 58115 247,823.52
Old National Bank Evansville, IN 3832 247,823.52
One Florida Bank Orlando, FL 58811 247,027.40
Origin Bank Ruston, LA 12614 247,823.52
Park National Bank Newark, OH 6653 247,219.33
Peapack Private Bank & Trust Bedminster, NJ 11035 247,208.58 Peoples Bank Marietta, OH 6544 247,823.52
PeoplesBank Holyoke, MA 90213 247,823.52
Pinnacle Bank Nashville, TN 35583 247,823.52
Pioneer Bank Mapleton, MN 5193 247,823.52
Ponce Bank New York City, NY 31189 247,823.52
Popular Bank New York, NY 34967 247,823.52
Regent Bank Nowata, OK 4160 247,823.52
Date
04/30/2026 Page
4 of 6
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION IntraFi and ICS are registered service marks, and IntraFi Cash Service is a service mark, of IntraFi Network LLC. €!N
vHV1H
pm/Y#E [Q+
€TA
B
NC)6€-whY&4cV
€*ZJUDWn^T]\kHk)Rps+
q1qQqQ1q1QQq11Q1Q

DETAILED ACCOUNT OVERVIEW
Account ID: *********354
Account Title: CITY OF PICO RIVERA
Summary of Balances as of April 30, 2026
FDIC-Insured Institution City/State FDIC Cert No. Balance SMBC MANUBANK Los Angeles, CA 18618 247,823.52
Salem Five Cents Savings Bank Salem, MA 23296 247,823.52 Security First Bank Rapid City, SD 5415 247,823.52
SmartBank Knoxville, TN 58463 247,823.52
Sonata Bank Sebree, KY 21342 247,027.40
Sound Community Bank Seattle, WA 57451 247,823.52
South State Bank, N.A. Winter Haven, FL 33555 247,823.52 Stearns Bank N.A. St. Cloud, MN 10988 247,247.28
Stifel Bank St. Louis, MO 57358 247,219.33
Summit Bank Eugene, OR 57706 247,823.52
Sunwest Bank Irvine, CA 20164 247,823.52
Susser Bank Arlington, TX 34885 247,439.51
T Bank, National Association Dallas, TX 57703 247,027.40 Texas Security Bank Dallas, TX 58739 247,823.52
The Bank of Tampa Tampa, FL 21031 247,823.52
The First National Bank of Granbury Granbury, TX 3228 247,823.52 The Huntington National Bank Columbus, OH 6560 247,823.52 The State Bank and Trust Company Defiance, OH 13339 247,823.52 The Washington Trust Company of Westerly Westerly, RI 23623 247,823.52 Third Coast Bank Humble, TX 58716 247,823.52
TowneBank Portsmouth, VA 35095 247,823.52
TransPecos Banks, SSB Pecos, TX 11178 247,027.40
TriState Capital Bank Pittsburgh, PA 58457 247,269.75
Truist Bank Charlotte, NC 9846 247,823.52
Two Rivers Bank & Trust Burlington, IA 58013 247,631.44 U.S. Bank National Association Cincinnati, OH 6548 247,823.52 UMB Bank, National Association Kansas City, MO 8273 247,823.52 Union Bank & Trust Lincoln, NE 13421 247,823.52
United Bank Fairfax, VA 22858 247,823.52
United Fidelity Bank, fsb Evansville, IN 29566 247,027.40 Valley National Bank Morristown, NJ 9396 247,823.52
Virginia National Bank Charlottesville, VA 34755 231,851.57 Waterford Bank, N.A. Toledo, OH 58433 247,823.52
WebBank Salt Lake City, UT 34404 247,027.40
West Bank West Des Moines, IA 15614 247,823.52
West Coast Community Bank Watsonville, CA 57591 247,823.52 West Michigan Community Bank Hudsonville, MI 22308 207.03 West Texas National Bank Midland, TX 22957 247,823.52
Western Alliance Bank Phoenix, AZ 57512 247,823.52
Date
04/30/2026 Page
5 of 6
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION IntraFi and ICS are registered service marks, and IntraFi Cash Service is a service mark, of IntraFi Network LLC. 64362

DETAILED ACCOUNT OVERVIEW
Account ID: *********354
Account Title: CITY OF PICO RIVERA
Summary of Balances as of April 30, 2026
FDIC-Insured Institution City/State FDIC Cert No. Balance Zions Bancorporation, N. A. Salt Lake City, UT 2270 247,823.52 i3 Bank Bennington, NE 8595 177,783.62
Date
04/30/2026 Page
6 of 6
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION IntraFi and ICS are registered service marks, and IntraFi Cash Service is a service mark, of IntraFi Network LLC.

To: Mayor and City Council
From: City Manager
Meeting Date: May 26, 2026
Subject: ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD AND LAKEWOOD BOULEVARD

COMPLETE CORRIDOR VISION PLAN
Recommendation:

1. Receive and file the Rosemead Boulevard and Lakewood Boulevard (RoseWood) Complete Corridor Vision Plan that establishes a long-term framework for transforming the corridor into a high-capacity, transit-oriented, and economically vibrant regional spine connecting the San Gabriel Valley to Southeast Los Angeles County.

Strategic Priority:
2 - Economic Development & Land Use - Encourage the development of underutilized space, plan for growth, and engage businesses to transform the City as an economic and cultural hub.

Strategy:

2.3 Facilitate public infrastructure improvements that enhance safety, accessibility, and mobility
Fiscal Impact:

There is no fiscal impact as a result of this report.

Background:

In 2020, the City of Pico Rivera (City) established a community and economic recovery framework to address major impacts resulting from the Whittier Narrows Dam, economic instability, climate change, infrastructure deficiencies, and evolving state mandates.

Through this effort, five key corridors were identified as priority areas for strategic investment, including Rosemead Boulevard, due to its regional significance and potential to leverage state and federal funding while advancing economic development and mobility goals.
12 Back to Outline
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT – MEETING OF MAY 26, 2026

ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD AND LAKEWOOD BOULEVARD COMPLETE CORRIDOR

VISION PLAN

Building on this framework, the City advanced a vision for the transformation of Rosemead Boulevard and Lakewood Boulevard (State Route 19/164) into a unified, multimodal Complete Corridor. Historically developed as an auto-oriented arterial highway, the corridor today presents a unique opportunity to be reimagined as a highcapacity, multimodal spine that enhances transit services, active transportation, and transit-oriented development.

On August 31, 2023, the City was awarded a Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant to prepare the RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan. This highly competitive program awarded funding to only 90 projects statewide and supports local and regional efforts to advance sustainable, equitable, and climate-resilient transportation systems.

Initially, the City partnered with the Shared-Use Mobility Center (SUMC) to support project management, coordination with regional stakeholders, and assisting in the procurement and oversight of technical consultants.

Following a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) process in October 2024, HDR Engineering, Inc. was selected as the lead technical consultant and approved by the City Council in January 2025. HDR was tasked with conducting a comprehensive technical analysis, developing conceptual designs, evaluating alternatives, and producing the Vision Plan document. Their scope included analysis of transit operations, multimodal connectivity, safety conditions, land use opportunities, and implementation strategies.

The Vision Plan builds upon prior and ongoing regional planning efforts, including the Gateway Cities Council of Governments Complete Streets Master Plan and the San Gabriel Valley Transit Feasibility Study, which identified the corridor as a strong candidate for a north-south Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system. It also aligns with local initiatives across multiple jurisdictions that are independently advancing complete streets, active transportation, and transit priority improvements along the corridor.

Discussion:

The RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan establishes a comprehensive, multimodal framework for transforming approximately 28 miles of corridor into a cohesive, highfunctioning regional transportation and development spine. The Plan is grounded in the integration of three core elements: incremental transit enhancements, active transportation (ATP) improvements, and transit-oriented development (TOD).

Collectively, the three core elements are designed to improve mobility, enhance safety, reduce environmental impacts, and stimulate economic growth.

A central component of the Vision Plan is the phased approach to improve the transit service within the corridor. Improvements range from short-term, low-cost, localized improvements to long-term, resource-intense, corridor-wide improvements. The Plan CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT – MEETING OF MAY 26, 2026

ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD AND LAKEWOOD BOULEVARD COMPLETE CORRIDOR

VISION PLAN

highlights the required consensus and coordination between all cities for corridor-wide improvements. The Plan also outlines the need for a regional transportation agency (Metro, SCAG, Caltrans, etc.) to undertake and manage a multijurisdictional corridor project.

Ridership Projections and Travel Demand Analysis
The Vision Plan includes corridor-level travel demand modeling that evaluates existing transit usage, population and employment density, and projected land use changes.

Based on these inputs, the implementation of a full BRT system demonstrates strong ridership potential. Modeling indicates daily ridership in the range of approximately 13,000 to 15,000 boardings under a BRT buildout scenario, with higher ridership concentrations in segments with strong transit connectivity and higher density land uses. The implementation of BRT is projected to result in travel time savings of approximately 20 percent compared to existing local bus service.

The corridor is expected to experience a mode shift from single-occupancy vehicles to transit, contributing to measurable reductions in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas emissions in alignment with State climate mandates. Ridership projections are further strengthened by the corridor’s unique position as a connector between multiple high-capacity transit lines, employment centers, and regional destinations. The Plan identifies strong transfer activity at key nodes such as the Pico Rivera Towne Center, Lakewood Mall, Cal State Long Beach, the Long Beach Airport, and the Long Beach Veteran Affairs Medical Center, reinforcing the corridor’s role as a regional mobility spine.

Active Transportation and Complete Streets Enhancements Complementing the transit enhancements, the Vision Plan integrates a robust active transportation network that includes protected bicycle lanes, enhanced pedestrian infrastructure, safer crossings, and improved streetscape design. The corridor currently presents significant safety challenges for vulnerable road users, including pedestrians and cyclists. The proposed improvements are designed to address these challenges by creating a safer, more comfortable, and more accessible environment for all users.

The Plan incorporates Complete Streets principles to rebalance the public right-of-way, ensuring that all modes of transportation are accommodated. This includes the integration of green infrastructure, shade trees, landscaped medians, and stormwater management features, which not only enhance the user experience but also contribute to climate resilience and environmental sustainability.

Land Use, Transit-Oriented Development, and Economic Opportunity Beyond transportation, the Vision Plan provides a comprehensive framework for land use transformation along the corridor. Existing development patterns are characterized by low-density, auto-oriented uses with significant underutilized parcels. The Plan identifies CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT – MEETING OF MAY 26, 2026

ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD AND LAKEWOOD BOULEVARD COMPLETE CORRIDOR

VISION PLAN

key opportunity sites for infill development and recommends land use strategies that support higher-density, mixed-use, and transit-oriented development.

These recommendations are designed to align land use policy with transportation investments, creating a symbiotic relationship between mobility and economic development. By encouraging mixed-use development near transit nodes, the City and its regional partners can increase housing supply, including affordable and workforce housing, while also supporting local businesses and creating vibrant, walkable communities.

The Plan also highlights the potential for economic revitalization through strategic investment in public infrastructure, placemaking, and public-private partnerships. By transforming the corridor into a destination for commerce, recreation, and cultural activity, the Vision Plan positions the corridor as a driver of long-term economic growth.

Phasing and Implementation Strategy
Recognizing the scale and complexity of the corridor, the Vision Plan outlines a phased implementation strategy that identifies potential early action projects or short-term improvements. Early action projects focus on low-cost, high-impact interventions such as striping/signage for bus lanes, stop amenities, implementation of more frequent transit service, better connections between service providers, and the implementation of Transit Signal Prioritization. These projects are designed to deliver immediate benefits while building momentum for larger capital investments.

Mid-term and long-term phases include more substantial infrastructure investments, such as incremental expansion of dedicated BRT lanes, station construction, targeted streetscape and corridor design improvements in priority segments. The Plan emphasizes the importance of aligning implementation with funding opportunities, including state and federal grants, regional transportation programs, and initiatives tied to major events such as the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Long-term corridor buildout proposes dedicated BRT lanes were locally amenable, complete streets reconstruction and full realization of TOD opportunities.

The proposed development of an enhanced transit system incorporates several key design and operational elements:

Enhanced Stops and Passenger Amenities:

The plan includes recommendations for high-quality mobility hubs that would include shade shelters, seating, real-time arrival information via e-paper displays, lighting, and first/last mile connections.

Transit Signal Priority (TSP) and Queue Jumps:

The proposed enhancements include corridor-wide TSP and targeted queue jump lanes at key intersections to minimize delay and maintain consistent headways.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT – MEETING OF MAY 26, 2026

ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD AND LAKEWOOD BOULEVARD COMPLETE CORRIDOR

VISION PLAN

Stop Spacing and Stop Consolidation:

Existing transit stops are generally spaced 0.25 miles apart. Enhanced transit options include fewer stops between approximately 0.3 to 1 mile apart to balance accessibility with travel speed, significantly reducing dwell time and improving corridor throughput compared to existing local bus service patterns.

Service Frequency and Headways:

The Vision Plan models peak period headways in the range of 7 to 10 minutes, with offpeak service at approximately 10 to 15 minutes. This level of frequency is designed to support “show up and go” service, reducing reliance on schedules and improving rider convenience.

Dedicated or Semi-Dedicated Bus Lanes:

The Plan evaluates both side-running and curb-running configurations. In segments where full dedication is not immediately feasible, transitional treatments such as peak hour bus lanes are recommended.

Regional Coordination and Governance
A key strength of the Vision Plan is its emphasis on regional coordination. The corridor spans multiple jurisdictions, requiring collaboration among cities, regional agencies, and stakeholders. The Plan establishes a framework for ongoing coordination through technical advisory committees, interagency partnerships, and regional planning bodies.

This collaborative approach is essential to ensuring consistency, efficiency, and successful implementation across the corridor.

Community Outreach and Engagement
The Vision Plan was developed through a robust outreach and stakeholder engagement process to ensure the project reflects the needs and priorities of residents, businesses, and corridor communities. With support from the Shared-Use Mobility Center (SUMC), the City coordinated with corridor cities, regional agencies, transit operators, community organizations, and the public throughout the planning process.

An interactive project website, social media platforms, community workshops, stakeholder meetings, pop-up events, mobility forums, and online surveys were utilized to gather public input and educate stakeholders on key concepts related to Complete Streets, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), first- and last-mile connectivity, and Transit-Oriented Development (TOD).

The engagement process included more than 20 outreach activities and an online survey that received 127 responses from residents across Pico Rivera and neighboring communities. Survey feedback identified safety, transit reliability, accessibility, neighborhood appearance, and improved multimodal connectivity as top priorities for future corridor improvements, while also highlighting concerns regarding the corridor’s existing auto-oriented design and limited transit options.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT – MEETING OF MAY 26, 2026

ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD AND LAKEWOOD BOULEVARD COMPLETE CORRIDOR

VISION PLAN

Public Comment and Feedback
The last phase of the engagement process covered the public review period, from April 8 to April 26, 2026. As part of this phase, the draft Vision Plan was presented to the Technical Advisory Committee and the Transit Agency Subcommittee, providing an overview of the recommended alternatives and short- and long-term improvements along the corridor. A 2.5-week public solicitation period followed the presentation to stakeholder committees. Two in-person events were held, and information about the public review period and draft plan were promoted on the website, through social media, and via direct email campaigns.

Conclusion:

The RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan represents a comprehensive and forwardlooking framework to transform one of the region’s most significant transportation corridors into a safer, more connected, and economically vibrant multimodal corridor. The Vision Plan blends technical analysis, industry best practices, stakeholder engagement, public input, and City Council direction to establish a unified vision and implementation strategy for the corridor. Through a combination of early, mid, and long-range improvements, the Plan positions the corridor to advance enhanced transit service, active transportation infrastructure, transit-oriented development, economic revitalization, and regional connectivity for decades to come. Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file the RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
Steve Carmona
SC:AG:smc:cso
Enclosure: 1) RoseWood Complete Corridor Plan
RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
May 20, 2026
Enclosure 1
12a
Back to Outline
RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
May 20, 2026 | i
Contents
1 Introduction ........................................................................................1

1.1 Project Background ................................................................................................2

1.2 Study Area and Project Corridor............................................................................4 2 Existing Conditions ............................................................................6

2.1 Policies and Plans...................................................................................................6

2.2 Corridor Conditions ................................................................................................7

2.2.1 Governance ................................................................................................................. 7

2.2.2 Infrastructure ................................................................................................................ 7

2.2.3 Travel Characteristics................................................................................................... 7

2.2.4 Safety and Access........................................................................................................ 8

2.3 Travel Demand, Propensity, and Service Analysis .............................................11

2.3.1 Travel Demand and Propensity.................................................................................. 11

2.3.2 Transit Service Analysis............................................................................................. 13 3 Mobility Problem Definition Statement ...........................................17 4 Stakeholder Engagement Summary ...............................................18

4.1 Approach ...............................................................................................................18

4.2 Engagement Activities ..........................................................................................19

4.2.1 Committee Meetings .................................................................................................. 19

4.2.2 Community Forums .................................................................................................... 19

4.2.3 Pop-Up Events ........................................................................................................... 20

4.2.4 Online Engagement.................................................................................................... 20

4.3 Engagement Phasing............................................................................................21

4.4 Engagement Findings...........................................................................................21 5 Corridor Vision..................................................................................22

5.1 Vision Summary ....................................................................................................22

5.2 Service Vision........................................................................................................22

5.2.1 Service Alternatives.................................................................................................... 23

5.3 Ridership Forecast Modeling................................................................................27

5.3.1 Modeling Approach .................................................................................................... 27

5.3.2 Ridership Forecasting Results ................................................................................... 31

5.4 Infrastructure Improvements................................................................................36

5.4.1 Early Action Improvements ........................................................................................ 36

5.4.2 Long-Term Buildout.................................................................................................... 46

5.4.3 Cost Estimate Summary............................................................................................. 53

5.5 TOD Opportunities ................................................................................................53 6 Implementation Plan ........................................................................56

6.1 Phasing and Implementation Strategy.................................................................56

6.2 Funding Strategy...................................................................................................57 7 Next Steps ........................................................................................67 RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
ii | May 20, 2026
Tables
Table 2-1. Subregional Travel Demand Patterns (Spring 2024 Average Weekday).................................. 11 Table 5-1. Service Scenarios...................................................................................................................... 29 Table 5-2. Results Summary....................................................................................................................... 33 Table 5-3. Intersection Infrastructure Upgrade Needs by Agency.............................................................. 39 Table 5-4. Infrastructure Upgrade Needs by Intersection........................................................................... 40 Table 5-5. TSP Implementation Costs (2026 dollars)................................................................................. 41 Table 5-6. Top 14 Priority Bus Stops for Early Action Amenity Enhancement ........................................... 45 Table 5-7. Bus Stop Amenities Costs (2026 dollars).................................................................................. 46 Table 5-8. Types of Dedicated Bus Lanes.................................................................................................. 47 Table 5-9. Cost Estimate Summary ............................................................................................................ 53 Table 6-1. Federal, State, and Local BRT Funding Sources...................................................................... 59 Figures
Figure 1-1. Study Area and the Project Corridor .......................................................................................... 5 Figure 2-1. Pedestrian and Bicycle-Involved Crash Density, 2018-2022 ................................................... 10 Figure 2-2. Study Area Transit Propensity Score ....................................................................................... 12 Figure 2-3. Study Area Transit Network...................................................................................................... 15 Figure 2-4. Study Area Ridership by Stop .................................................................................................. 16 Figure 5-1. Alternatives Matrix .................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 5-2. Alternative 1 Service Map......................................................................................................... 24 Figure 5-3. Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 Service Map ............................................................................ 25 Figure 5-4. Alternative 4 and Alternative 5 Service Map ............................................................................ 26 Figure 5-5. BRT Scenario Boardings (2024)............................................................................................... 35 Figure 5-6. TSP Operations ........................................................................................................................ 37 Figure 5-7. Example Bus Stop Amenities with a Bus Charging Unit .......................................................... 44 Figure 5-8. Metro BRT Station Shelter........................................................................................................ 44 Figure 5-9. Mixed Flow with Class II Bike Lane.......................................................................................... 49 Figure 5-10. Side-Running Bus Lane with Class II Bike Lane.................................................................... 49 Figure 5-11. Curb-Running Bus Lane with Class II Bike Lane ................................................................... 49 Figure 5-12. BRT Alignment Configuration................................................................................................. 51 Figure 5-13. TOD Features ......................................................................................................................... 54 Figure 5-14. Infill Development Strategy..................................................................................................... 55 Figure 5-15. Historic Whittier Boulevard TOD Buildout .............................................................................. 55 RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
May 20, 2026 | iii
This page is intentionally left blank.

RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
May 20, 2026 | 1
1 INTRODUCTION
Rosemead/Lakewood Boulevard, designated as State Route (SR) 19 from SR 1 to Gallatin Road and SR 164 from Gallatin Road to Foothill Boulevard, is a major north-south corridor connecting the Gateway Cities and San Gabriel Valley sub regions of eastern and southeast Los Angeles County.

The entire corridor extends approximately 28 miles from the Sierra Madre A (Gold) Line Metro Rail station in East Pasadena south to the Pacific Coast Highway (SR 1 of PCH) in the City of Long Beach.

From the traffic circle in Long Beach, the Rosemead/Lakewood (RoseWood) Corridor extends southeast to California State University of Long Beach (CSULB) and the Tibor Rubin Veterans’ Affairs (VA) Medical Center, along SR 1 and 7th Street to provide connectivity to this major destination. The corridor is well-positioned to provide multimodal regional connections to existing and future destinations. In the near term, it provides a connection between proposed competition venue sites for the 2028 Los Angeles Olympic and Paralympic Games (2028 Games) and serves longer-term as a transportation spine that links two iconic Southern California natural landscapes:
the San Gabriel Mountains and the sea. Major Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) rail projects intersect the corridor such as the Phase 2 of the Metro Eastside Transit Corridor (Mero E Line extension) with a proposed Rosemead Boulevard station in Pico Rivera and the Southeast Gateway Line crossing Lakewood Boulevard.

In response to growing travel demand, the RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan seeks to transform the corridor to prioritize transit, active transportation, and safety for all users.

Improvements along the corridor aim to improve access, reduce vehicle miles traveled, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and improve community and economic vitality. Improvements along the corridor will facilitate connections to the regional transit network, job centers, and key destinations, while integrating pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and supporting transit-oriented development (TOD).

The RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan will evaluate alternatives and identify phasing opportunities for the implementation of preferred concepts along Lakewood/Rosemead Boulevard between Pico Rivera and Long Beach. Although the implementation strategy outlined in the Vision Plan is focused on the Gateway Cities (City of Pico Rivera to City of Long Beach, including the cities of Downey, Bellflower, Paramount, and Lakewood), this report includes a broad analysis of the onemile area around the entire RoseWood Corridor, from Pasadena to Long Beach, to establish a clear and comprehensive vision. North of Pico Rivera, the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) is studying concepts for the northern section of Rosemead Boulevard with Metro as a project partner.

RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
2 | May 20, 2026

1.1 Project Background
The concept for a unified north–south multimodal corridor has emerged from multiple planning efforts undertaken independently by cities and regional agencies along Rosemead/Lakewood Boulevard. While these efforts vary in scope and geography, they share a common goal of transforming Rosemead/Lakewood Boulevard into a safe, efficient, and multimodal corridor. This includes:
• The Complete Streets Master Plan developed by Gateway Cities Council of Governments (GCCOG) which explores active transportation improvements from Pico Rivera to Long Beach. The Lakewood/Rosemead Boulevard Master Plan and Complete Street Evaluation can be found here.
• The Lakewood/Rosemead Corridor Enhanced Transit Assessment developed by Metro evaluated transit improvement opportunities and the feasibility of enhancing transit service along the Lakewood/Rosemead Boulevard corridor between Pico Rivera and Long Beach. The results of the assessment indicate that Lakewood/Rosemead Boulevard has potential for ridership growth with enhanced service and connectivity to Long Beach and may be viable as a candidate for service enhancements, including eventual bus rapid transit (BRT) service. The report can be found here. • The San Gabriel Valley Transit Feasibility Study developed by SGVCOG, which identifies Rosemead Boulevard from the Sierra Madre A (Blue) Line in Pasadena to Gallatin Road in Pico Rivera as a potential corridor for enhanced bus service, and potential improvements are being studied separately by SGVCOG. The project status and reports for the San Gabriel Valley Transit Feasibility Study can be found here. o Phase 1 completed in 2022, screened 15 corridors and carried forward seven for further analysis, including a route via Rosemead/Lakewood Boulevard with stops from Sierra Madre Villa Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway. o Phase 2 completed in 2024, focused on refining the concepts. Bus lane segments and Traffic Signal Priority along Rosemead Boulevard in Rosemead, El Monte, and South El Monte is proposed as a mid-term plan (2035). The long-term plan (2050) would add additional bus segments along Rosemead Boulevard in East Pasadena. o The current effort, known as SGV Forward builds on the completed feasibility study.

This next phase will carry out early-action demonstration projects by 2028, potentially including new bus lanes, transit signal upgrades, and improvements to key stops and corridors.
• The Long Beach-East LA Corridor Mobility Investment Plan (CMIP), developed by Metro, reimagines mobility for communities along the Interstate 710 corridor. It replaces the prior freeway widening proposal with a vision focused on health, mobility, and environmental justice. The Lakewood Boulevard Improvement Project is included in the CMIP’s initial list of projects, and improvements are proposed along Lakewood Boulevard between Del Amo Boulevard and Ashworth Street. The project would install a Class I bike path and pedestrian sidewalk within the parkway, along with minor roadway capacity improvements on Lakewood Boulevard. In total, it would deliver 1.5 miles of RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
May 20, 2026 | 3
new bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Additional improvements include undergrounding utilities, traffic signal upgrades, LED street lighting, ADA improvements, and green street features, including landscaped median islands, parkway trees, and stormwater retention.

The Long Beach-East LA Corridor Mobility Investment Plan can be found here. • The Regional Dedicated Transit Lanes Study was completed by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) in 2023. It provided a summary of transit priority treatments in the SCAG region and recommendations, which proposed transit signal priority (TSP) along Rosemead boulevard extending from Interstate 5 to Huntington Drive. The study can be accessed here.

TSP on Rosemead Boulevard in the San Gaberial Valley is a near-term improvement and some segments are targeted by SGVCOG for implementation by 2028. The City of Downey has deployed Bus Signal Priority (BSP) for existing Downey LINK transit services at 17 intersections along Lakewood Boulevard to reduce delay at signalized intersections. Long Beach Transit is exploring integrating TSP on Long Beach Transit’s (LBT) fleet. Metro’s NextGen Bus Plan improved bus service frequency along the corridor, significantly increasing daily revenue hours and miles, particularly during the midday per Next Gen policy to maintain peak headways throughout the day for Line 266.

The RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan builds on these initiatives. This plan was generously funded by a California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) through the Sustainable Communities Transportation Planning Grants program. It focuses on the portion of the RoseWood Corridor between Gallatin Road in Pico Rivera and CSULB in the Gateway Cities (the Southern Segment). The Vision Plan puts forth a cohesive vision that integrates high-quality transit and active transportation to enhance connections to major destinations.

RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
4 | May 20, 2026

1.2 Study Area and Project Corridor
The Study Area encompasses a one-mile buffer around the entire RoseWood Corridor from East Pasadena south to Long Beach and includes the communities of Pasadena, Temple City, South El Monte, Signa Hill, Pico Rivera, Downey, Bellflower, Paramount, Lakewood, Long Beach, and unincorporated portions of Los Angeles County (East Pasadena, East San Gabriel, and Whittier Narrows Recreation Area). As shown in Figure 1-1, the Southern Segment of the RoseWood Corridor extends 16.5 miles from Gallatin Road in the City of Pico Rivera, through the Cities of Downey, Bellflower, Paramount, Lakewood, and Long Beach, continuing onto Pacific Coast Highway to the CSULB and Veterans’ Affairs site in southeast Long Beach.

Although the Study Area included the Northern Segment of the corridor to understand regional origin and destination connections, the SGVCOG and Metro are separately studying concepts for the section of Rosemead Boulevard north of Pico Rivera. In summary, existing conditions have been analyzed for the entire Study Area, with key opportunities for corridor enhancements focused on the Southern Segment of the RoseWood Corridor.

RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
May 20, 2026 | 5
Figure 1-1. Study Area and the Project Corridor
RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
6 | May 20, 2026
2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
To inform the Vision Plan, recent relevant plans and available data, such as demographics, ridership, and traffic conditions were reviewed to provide context for the study.

2.1 Policies and Plans
Adopted and in-progress plans and policies were reviewed for how well they align with and support a multimodal corridor on Rosemead/Lakewood Boulevard.

Shared objectives from the policies are:
• Improve transit frequency and access, while increasing mobility options • Enhance pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and improve active transportation connectivity along Rosemead/Lakewood Boulevard
• Implement traffic calming measures to create safer streets and improve the multimodal mobility and access
• Advance TOD strategies for areas along the corridor designated as for high-density residential and employment centers including land use planning and community development policies that maximize access to transit and encourage land use diversity • Foster livable and healthy communities and support economic vitality and quality of life
The reviewed plans and policies identify common challenges along Rosemead/Lakewood Boulevard, including limited right-of-way, required setbacks, on-street parking demand, utilities, and peak-hour congestion, all of which may constrain pedestrian, bicycle, and transit improvements. The local and regional plans prioritize walking and biking; however, implementation largely falls to cities with limited funding, and some improvements require coordination with Caltrans, particularly near freeway interchanges and state highways. Near- and long-term transit initiatives include transit signal priority on Rosemead Boulevard by 2028, proposed BRT or express bus service by 2035, and Metro and Long Beach Transit (LBT) commitments to 100 percent zero-emission bus fleets by 2030.

Safety goals are also prominent, with Los Angeles County targeting zero traffic fatalities in unincorporated areas by 2035 and Long Beach aiming for zero fatalities by 2026.

Planned and proposed development near the corridor, including the Pico Rivera Sport and Entertainment District, the Whittier Boulevard Vision Plan, Washington Boulevard TOD Specific Plan, and other mixed-use projects, supports transit-oriented growth. Pico Rivera and Lakewood are also exploring Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts to help fund transportation improvements.

Major rail projects intersect the corridor, including Phase 2 of the Metro Eastside Transit Corridor with a proposed Rosemead Boulevard station by 2037, a proposed Metrolink and/or Amtrak station in Pico Rivera near Warvale Street and Industry Avenue, and the Southeast Gateway Line crossing Lakewood Boulevard, scheduled to open in 2033. These investments could strengthen bus and rail connectivity along the corridor.

Additional initiatives include the Whittier Narrows Dam Safety Modification project, Rio Hondo Bike Path and Recreation Zone, the Riverfront Sports and Entertainment District, the Micro EV Tech Hub and Nucleus, and capital projects near the southern terminus at CSULB, such as the mobility hub RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
May 20, 2026 | 7
with potential connections to LBT, Metro, and Orange County Transportation Authority. Finally, with the 2026 World Cup and 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games approaching, Rosemead/Lakewood Boulevard is expected to serve as a key arterial linking event venues in Long Beach, Pasadena, and the San Gabriel Valley, as well as the planned Cultural Celebration Hub in the city of Pico Rivera.

2.2 Corridor Conditions

2.2.1 Governance
The RoseWood Corridor traverses numerous governance boundaries that include transit operators, councils of governments, municipalities, and county jurisdictions. Two major transit providers, Metro and Long Beach Transit, operate along the corridor, and additional providers such as Foothill Transit and Montebello Bus Lines operate connecting services. The corridor traverses 11 cities within Los Angeles County, including Pasadena, Temple City, Rosemead, El Monte, South El Monte, Pico Rivera, Downey, Bellflower, Paramount, Lakewood, and Long Beach, as well as two unincorporated communities (East San Gabriel and Whittier Narrows). Two subregional councils of governments represent the corridor, the Gateway Cities Council of Governments and the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments. This underscores the need for coordinated governance and dedicated support to effectively planning and deliver regional improvements. The Lakewood/Rosemead Boulevard from Pico Rivera to Long Beach has been entirely relinquished to local agencies; Caltrans does not own or maintain any portion of this segment. In the San Gabriel Valley, Rosemead Boulevard is in the process for relinquishment by Caltrans.

2.2.2 Infrastructure
Through the Southern Segment, Rosemead/Lakewood Boulevard is an arterial highway oriented towards moving automobile traffic, with road configuration varying by city. The corridor generally includes 5 to 9 lanes in both directions and including medians, with varying geometries, median widths, sidewalk widths, and lane widths. Cross sections typically widen at major signalized intersections, reflecting needs from previous intersection-level capacity analyses. Medians are mostly continuous (raised or striped), while curbside parking is limited to select segments. Existing bus stops are typically located near striped crosswalks or signalized pedestrian crossings.

2.2.3 Travel Characteristics
Land Use Land uses include residential neighborhoods, commercial corridors, industrial areas, and major community destinations such as schools, parks, hospitals, government facilities, the VA Center, and educational institutions. Throughout its alignment, the corridor intersects employment centers, retail clusters, and educational institutions, making it an ideal candidate for high-capacity, efficient transit. Economically, the area features a concentration of retail jobs, planning, and light manufacturing employment, and public-sector employers, such as school districts and municipal offices. The corridor also connects residential zones to the broader job markets of Los Angeles and the San Gabriel Valley, facilitating access to opportunity for communities with limited mobility options.

Trips By ModeUsing Replica data from a typical weekday in fall 2024, approximately 1.3 million total trips were identified. Private automobiles account for 70 percent of trips, carpools 24 percent, freight 3 percent, public transit 2.5 percent, and taxi/TNCs 0.5 percent. Freight activity is most RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
8 | May 20, 2026
concentrated in Pico Rivera (between Claymore Street and Beverly Boulevard) and Downey (between I-5 and Imperial Highway). Given their share, the traffic analysis focuses on private auto trips.

Trip CharacteristicsPrivate auto trips generate about 1.2 million vehicle miles traveled, with an average trip length of 13 miles. The most common trip purpose is commuting home (33 percent), followed by shopping (19 percent) and work (16 percent). Key work-trip destinations include CSULB, Long Beach Airport, and South El Monte. Trips are distributed throughout the day, with peaks from 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM and from 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM, indicating strong potential for frequent, peakperiod transit service. Nearly half of trips along the corridor are 10 to 20 minutes, and most trips range from 5 to 15 miles.

Traffic Analysis SummaryExisting conditions indicate strong potential for BRT. The corridor connects dense clusters of educational, medical, civic, and commercial destinations in Long Beach, Downey, and Pico Rivera, including CSULB, the VA Medical Center, Kaiser Permanente, and Long Beach City College. Trip data shows mostly consistent volume of travel throughout the day, with an increase in the afternoon. This indicates robust demand for reliable, frequent transit service, especially during morning and late afternoon periods. Trip data indicates that many users are traveling medium-range distances between 5 and 15 miles. This range is ideal for fast, frequent BRT service that can outcompete the automobile for short-to-mid-distance trips. Demographic diversity underscores the need for inclusive, multilingual outreach. These factors point to high latent demand for high-capacity transit along the RoseWood corridor.

2.2.4 Safety and Access
Existing Conditions Active transportation conditions vary widely along the 28-mile corridor due to differing jurisdictional standards. Sidewalks are generally present but are missing or incomplete in several segments, sometimes on one side only. Bicycle facilities are intermittent and discontinuous, with limited Class II and Class IV segments. Several frontage roads provide local access and may offer opportunities for active transportation improvements.

Safety Performance Crash data from 2018 to 2022 show 1,410 collisions involving a pedestrian or bicyclist, resulting in 65 fatalities and more than 1,300 injuries. Most crashes occurred during daylight hours, and 16 percent were hit-and-run incidents. Common contributing factors included pedestrian violations and right-of-way conflicts. There are high-crash location clusters along Rosemead/Lakewood Boulevard, particularly in Pasadena, Marshall Street in Rosemead, Garvey Street in El Monte, Whittier Boulevard in Pico Rivera, Firestone Boulevard in Downey, and the Pacific Coast Highway in Long Beach, with additional concentrations on nearby arterials (see Figure 2-1). Multiple jurisdictions along the corridor have adopted Vision Zero High-Injury Networks that overlap the study area.

Planned Improvements Local plans across the Southern Segment propose sidewalk upgrades, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements, enhanced crossings, and new or improved bikeways. The GCCOG’s Rosemead/Lakewood Boulevard Master Plan and Complete Street Evaluation (2019) provides a unifying vision for corridor-wide active transportation improvements.

Areas of Opportunity Key opportunities include filling sidewalk gaps near rail underpasses in Pico Rivera, improving pedestrian safety at high-crash intersections in Downey, Bellflower, Lakewood, and Long Beach, and enhancing crossings and wayfinding near the Traffic Circle and RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
May 20, 2026 | 9
PCH. Bicycle connectivity could be strengthened by linking planned local bikeways, regional trails, and proposed Class I facilities on Lakewood Boulevard, as well as improving bike access through the Traffic Circle area.

Environmental and Health ConditionsCalEnviroScreen and Healthy Places Index data show that many communities along the corridor, particularly in Pico Rivera, Paramount, and Bellflower, face high pollution burdens, greater population vulnerability, and poorer health outcomes. These areas also experience socioeconomic disparities and limited access to resources, underscoring the importance of equitable, health-focused transportation investments along the RoseWood Corridor.

RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
10 | May 20, 2026
Figure 2-1. Pedestrian and Bicycle-Involved Crash Density, 2018-2022 RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
May 20, 2026 | 11

2.3 Travel Demand, Propensity, and Service Analysis

2.3.1 Travel Demand and Propensity
Travel demand was analyzed using fall 2023 and spring 2024 data from Replica, which uses mobile location data to estimate daily origin-destination patterns. Census tracts were grouped into seven subareas: SGV-North, SGV-South, Pico Rivera, Downey, Lakewood, Long Beach, and CSULB.

From 2019 to 2024, total travel in the Study Area increased by about 15 percent, but origin– destination patterns were largely consistent. More than 78 percent of trips both began and ended within the same subarea. As shown in Table 2-1, trips leaving a subarea were generally most likely to end in an adjacent subarea, with the number of trips decreasing with distance. Travel between the Southern Segment and the northern San Gabriel Valley was relatively limited, except for trips to and from Pico Rivera. Table 2-1 green cells show higher trips, with yellow, orange, and red cells showing decreasing number of trips.

Table 2-1. Subregional Travel Demand Patterns (Spring 2024 Average Weekday) Destination
Origin
SGV-North SGV-South Pico Rivera Downey Lakewood Long Beach CSULB SGV-North 79,210 5,717 1,139 248 127 160 126
SGV-South 6,007 27,057 521 153 79 41 69
Pico Rivera 1,114 528 80,836 7,097 1,936 308 168
Downey 268 168 6,949 79,687 15,289 1,942 1,065
Lakewood 163 103 1,671 14,355 116,503 10,191 3,947
Long Beach 151 27 315 2,227 12,154 37,081 16,592
CSULB 127 62 214 1,042 3,766 15,038 56,270
Transit mode share across the Study Area remains low at approximately 0.7 percent, though it is higher in the southern portions of the corridor than in the San Gabriel Valley. The Transit Propensity Score (TPS) estimates the likelihood of transit use by evaluating physical, locational, and socioeconomic factors at the census-tract level. It is based on three components: demand (population, employment, school enrollment, and shopping trip density), market segments (zero-car households, poverty, age, family status, minority populations, and disability), and the built environment (walkability, housing density, and occupied development intensity). Metro’s TPS analysis indicates mostly medium transit potential across the corridor, with high potential east of the Long Beach Traffic Circle and lower potential near Whittier Narrows, parts of Pico Rivera, and Long Beach Airport. Figure 2-2 shows TPS by census tract divided into three categories: low (TPS between 0 and less than 4), medium (between 4 and less than 8), and high (between 8 and 14).

RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
12 | May 20, 2026
Figure 2-2. Study Area Transit Propensity Score
RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
May 20, 2026 | 13

2.3.2 Transit Service Analysis
Figure 2-3 shows the transit services in the
study area. Most of the corridor is served by
Metro Line 266, which operates every 20
minutes on weekdays and every 30 minutes
on weekends along its route from Pasadena
to Lakewood Center. South of Lakewood
Center, service is primarily provided by LBT,
with Route 111 operating hourly between
Lakewood Center and downtown Long Beach,
and Routes 171/175 providing 20-minute
service between the Long Beach Traffic Circle
and CSULB. Additional LBT routes (41 and
121) serve portions of the Southern Segment.

Figure 2-4 shows the number of boardings
and alightings at Line 266 and LBT stops
along the corridor. Metro stop activity reflects
only Line 266. In contrast, due to the absence
of continuous service along the entirety of the
Long Beach portion of the corridor, LBT stop
activity shows combined ridership for all
routes serving each stop. A stop activity
analysis shows that the highest ridership
occurs at major destinations and transfer points, particularly CSULB, the VA Medical Center, and the Long Beach Traffic Circle, as well as at Metro C and A Line stations. Metro Line 266 ridership is higher on weekdays, though weekend boardings are similar in order of magnitude, and the stop rankings are relatively consistent. The activity for Line 266 was similar across weekdays and weekends, however, activity on the Long Beach portion of the corridor shows a large drop in ridership at stops near CSULB on weekends. High-activity stops are typically located at major cross streets with strong commercial uses and bus transfer opportunities, underscoring the importance of connectivity.

Transfer analysis indicates that over 15 percent of Metro Line 266 boardings involve transfers within Metro’s two-hour free transfer window. Transfers to LBT were not disaggregated by route, but it is likely that most transfers are to Route 111. Despite lower service frequency, LBT transfers represent

6.4 percent of all transfers and only three Metro routes have a higher number of transfers from Route 266, suggesting unmet demand for stronger north–south connectivity into Long Beach. The pattern of transfer activity largely corresponds to total boardings by stop, with transfer activity occurring largely at major arterial highways along the route. Combined with the fact that some riders have more than one transfer, this underscores the use of the bus system as a grid, with connections opening a larger range of destinations.

Service performance data show that Line 266 weekday and weekend boardings now exceed preCOVID levels, though productivity remains slightly below pre-COVID due to service expansion.

Compared to the Metro bus system overall, Line 266 has lower average productivity but higher Bus stop at Lakewood
& Hardwick
RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
14 | May 20, 2026
operating speeds, performing near the system median. Since 2022, ridership growth on Line 266 has matched or exceeded systemwide growth, despite no increase in service levels on the route.

A field bus ride assessment conducted in May 2025 found that buses generally operated on schedule, with moderate traffic-related delays at some intersections. Stop capacity was adequate, and ridership remained light to moderate, with seating available throughout the observed trips.

Passenger experience was positive overall, with minimal delays from wheelchair boarding or bicycle loading. Bus stop amenities varied by jurisdiction, with more consistent shelter design in Long Beach than elsewhere along the corridor.

RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
May 20, 2026 | 15
Figure 2-3. Study Area Transit Network
RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
16 | May 20, 2026
Figure 2-4. Study Area Ridership by Stop
RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
May 20, 2026 | 17
3 MOBILITY PROBLEM DEFINITION

STATEMENT
The Mobility Problem Definition Statement focuses on potential to improve the RoseWood Corridor Southern Segment. The Southern Segment shows great promise for multimodal, active transportation, and TOD investment, but there are some operational and infrastructure challenges to coordinate and consider.

Lack of connected
transit services
creates a patchwork
of routes for Southern
Segment riders.
• While travel demand analysis shows strong links between Long Beach and other Gateway Cities, transit riders are currently required to transfer at Lakewood Center between two transit agencies (Metro and Long Beach Transit), with significantly different service headways. Current activity indicates existing demand for connections to LBT, but transfer volumes are greater to connecting Metro routes with higher service
frequency.
• Transit riders who pay with cash, Transit Access Pass (TAP) card, or a smartphone can use the same payment method for both Metro and LBT transit systems; however, a $0.50 transfer fee applies when transferring between LBT and other systems.

Further, there are no free transfers within the LBT system, so single-fare riders transferring between the CSULB campus and the Traffic Circle would have to pay a new single fare.

The corridor needs to
accommodate longterm growth and
short-term event
surges.
• While projected population growth in the Study Area is dispersed, new transit and development projects, particularly within Pico Rivera, are expected to generate more travel to and along the Southern Segment. Improved transit would help to capture more of these trips, mitigating increases in congestion and vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
• The Southern Segment is expected to absorb short-term but significant surges in travel demand from upcoming mega
events, especially the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games, which will include venues at the north and south ends of the Project Corridor, and a cultural celebration hub in the City of Pico Rivera. Additional increases in travel demand are expected from growing entertainment activities, including the Long Beach Grand Prix, the Vans Warped Tour, and the planned new
amphitheater at the Queen Mary.

With the above challenges, future plans and enhancements of the Southern Segment should focus on upgrading transit service for frequency, connectivity, and consistency to support growth and development without residents, students, workers, and other travelers relying solely on cars.

Fortunately, the Southern Segment is not especially physically constrained, allowing for design and reconfiguration alternatives to support a complete corridor that provides regional connectivity from the mountains to the sea.

RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
18 | May 20, 2026
4 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
The Vision Plan was informed and developed through robust community engagement. From January 2025 to April 2026, the Project Team engaged with community members, stakeholders, transportation agencies, city staff, and legislative decision-makers to identify perceptions, unique needs, constraints, and considerations that reflect the respective cities, economic sectors, user demographics, and adjacent land uses throughout the corridor. More detailed information on engagement is included in Appendix A.

4.1 Approach
The overall process involved continuous engagement with the community at each stage of the planning and design process, through a sequence of public interactive planning events and activities to develop community-based solutions for the study area. The project team hosted 28 events, including public meetings, mobility forums, pop-ups at farmers’ markets and local events, workshops, and online surveys. The Project Team also used various communication channels, including the project website, social media, and partners’ channels, to communicate with stakeholders about the latest developments in the Vision Plan and opportunities to get involved.

Engagement was targeted through three primary groups:

General Public. The study and opportunities for participation were widely publicized with an emphasis on engaging residents, businesses, schools, and other organizations and institutions in the corridor. Key outreach materials and community meetings included Spanish translation as needed.

Stakeholders. Stakeholder groups, such as neighborhood associations, chambers of commerce (e.g. Pico Rivera Chamber of Commerce), business associations, organizations that work with and represent seniors (e.g. Pico Rivera Senior Center), veterans (e.g. Long Beach Veteran Affairs (VA), and people with disabilities, bicycling and pedestrian advocates (e.g. Move LA, Pico Rivera Women Ped/Bike Club, Community Information Department City of Long Beach), school districts, and advocates (e.g. Car-Lite, Pedal Movement, Active SGV), were targeted for inclusion in the activities above and also for involvement in individual or small group focus meetings.

Agencies/City Staff and Decision-Makers. The Project Team engaged technical staff from each corridor city (e.g. public works directors, city/traffic engineers), related agencies (Metro, Caltrans, Long Beach Transit, Montebello Bus Lines (MBL), Foothill Transit, etc.), and other jurisdictional authorities (e.g. Gateway Cities Council of Government (GCCOG), Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)), as well as the City of Long Beach, Long Beach Airport, and Cal State Long Beach during the phases of community planning, engagement, and plan development process to ensure feasible solutions for the corridor and future implementation.

RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
May 20, 2026 | 19

4.2 Engagement Activities
The Project Team has held 28 engagement activities, ranging from online meetings and in-person community forums to ad hoc committee meetings and pop-ups at local events as needed. During the project stage, some activities were pivoted or delayed reflecting on-the-ground conditions, including immigration enforcement measures that delayed some in-person events. Appendix A lists when each engagement activity was conducted during the project.

4.2.1 Committee Meetings
The Project Team convened a series of committee groups, comprised of representatives from government and technical staff from each city (e.g. city managers, public works directors), related agencies (Metro, Caltrans, Long Beach Transit, MBL), SCAG, GCCOG, Long Beach Airport, Long Beach Transit, CSULB, Long Beach VA, community stakeholders, advocacy groups, and policymakers. These committees convened online multiple times throughout the duration of the project.

Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC)
Focus on providing critical updates, reviewing content, sharing information, overcoming challenges, and informing the planning process and outreach program.

Transit Agency
Subcommittees (TAS)
Focus on identifying strengths, weaknesses, threats, and opportunities to provide the most effective, efficient, and highestquality bus service in the corridor.

Long Beach
Subcommittee
Focus on identifying strengths, weaknesses, threats, and opportunities to provide safe, convenient, and attractive active transportation facilities and the most effective, efficient, and highestquality bus service in the Long Beach segment of the corridor.

Individual Cities Focus on discussing and accounting for unique needs, issues, and considerations pertaining to each segment of the corridor.

Stakeholder Advisory
Group (SAG)
Focus on identifying key sensitivities and pertinent information about the community’s conditions, history, and needs of the community.

They were consulted to help determine strategies to engage all segments.

Blue Ribbon
Committee
Focus on informing and gathering support from the decisionmakers.

4.2.2 Community Forums
The Project Team collaborated with partners to hold two rounds of forums in three locations, engaging the community members and stakeholders about bus rapid transit, complete streets, transit-oriented development, and learning about their mobility and transit needs and service models that best suit their communities. Activities included Mobility Forums and Youth Workshop.

RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
20 | May 20, 2026

4.2.3 Pop-Up Events
The Project Team participated in existing events and activities along the corridor to promote the project and gather public input. Activities included: Farmer’s Market, Summer Street Fest, Long Beach Transit Bus Fest, Car-Lite Happy Hour, Tree Lighting Ceremony, and community bike rides.

4.2.4 Online Engagement
Project Website
● The project website launched in January 2025,
featuring relevant documents and information,
upcoming events, and community surveys.
○ Community Survey Findings
The initial survey was collected in English and
Spanish from July 17 to October 21, 2025. The survey was available digitally and in print at in-person events, receiving 118 responses.

The first survey asked residents about how they travel along the RosemeadLakewood corridor. About a third of participants travel more than once a day (32.5%), followed by “often (3-5 times a week)” with 29.9%. Primary reasons for not using transit include “Does not take me to where I need to go” (47.5%) and “Travel time takes too long (59.3%). The majority of participants selected better sidewalks, more bike lanes, safer biking conditions, and shade coverage as improvements that would encourage active transportation.

Social Media
● An Instagram account (@rosewoodcorridor) was
created to inform the public, connect with users,
share upcoming events, and promote surveys and
engagement opportunities throughout the project.

Instagram served as a helpful tool for reaching users
who met the criteria and shared an interest in
transportation, active transportation, walking, cycling, etc.
● The Project Team coordinated closely with city staff
to ensure relevant project information was featured
on the City of Pico Rivera’s Instagram and Facebook.

In addition, the Project Team collaborated with the
City’s Active Transportation Master Plan project team
to cross-promote with each other’s audience and
share the vision and connection between the two
projects.

Project Newsletter
● RoseWood Bulletin, the project’s newsletter, was published a few times to update the stakeholders on project status and upcoming events.

RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
May 20, 2026 | 21

4.3 Engagement Phasing
The first phase of the engagement process (lasting from approximately January through November 2025) focused on introducing tools and strategies related to Complete Streets, first- and last-mile transit connectivity, zero-emissions enhanced transit, TOD, key concepts associated with BRT, and the overall corridor planning process. Activities conducted during this phase included coordination and informational meetings with individual cities, committee groups, site visits, mobility forums, community surveys, and pop-up events to support stakeholders and public engagement. During this time, the Project Team presented results of the corridor conditions assessment through committee meetings and community pop-ups.

The second phase of the engagement process, in early 2026, presented preliminary BRT concepts, potential strategies to improve connectivity along the corridor, and initial implementation considerations for community review and input. During this phase, feedback was collected through an online survey hosted on the project website and disseminated through social media, newsletters, and direct email outreach. Additional input was obtained through in-person outreach activities, including community bike rides, mobility forums and youth workshops.

The last phase of the engagement process included a public review period of the Draft Plan from March 30 to April 26, 2026. The draft Vision Plan was presented to the Technical Advisory Committee and the Transit Agency Subcommittee, providing an overview of the recommended alternatives and short- and long-term improvements along the corridor. Additionally, the team held a series of community pop-ups to gather public comments and feedback and launched a robust online promotion through the project website, social media, and via direct email campaigns. The team coordinated with project partners, including the GCCOG, MoveLA, SAG, and city staff, to support online promotion.

4.4 Engagement Findings
Engagement results highlighted strong concerns about the corridor’s existing car dependency and the lack of safe, reliable, and competitive transit and active transportation options. Respondents indicated that Rosemead and Lakewood Boulevards are used for a wide range of trips beyond commuting, underscoring the importance of improving all-day mobility. Consistent with broader survey themes, participants identified long travel times, limited connectivity, and infrequent service as key barriers to using transit.

Regarding the alternatives presented, the public showed strong support for implementing a full Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system rather than pursuing incremental improvements. Speed, reliability, and competitiveness with driving emerged as the most important priorities, with participants frequently highlighting the need for faster travel times and more consistent service. Respondents also showed a clear preference for dedicated transit infrastructure, including bus-only lanes and measures that prioritize transit over private vehicles, noting that operating in mixed traffic would reduce the system’s effectiveness.

RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
22 | May 20, 2026
5 CORRIDOR VISION

5.1 Vision Summary
The RoseWood Corridor Vision Plan establishes a strategy to deliver a unified 28-mile enhanced multimodal corridor connecting the San Gabriel Valley and the Gateway Cities to regional transit, job centers, and other key destinations. Developed through community engagement and review of previous local and regional plans, the Vision Plan aligns investments in mobility with local priorities and support the implementation of high-quality transit and multimodal improvements.

The RoseWood Corridor will serve as a north-south main street designed for safe and efficient travel for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and drivers. The Plan will advance regional mobility, improve safety for all roadway users, and support long-term community and economic development.

The Vision includes the following three pillars that may be delivered through a phased and incremental approach:
• Enhanced Transit ServiceFaster and more frequent bus service that better connects between lines will make transit a more competitive travel mode and better serve new and future riders.
• Multimodal Infrastructure Improvements Improvements include transit signal priority to speed up buses through intersections, enhanced bus stop amenities, safe bicycle lanes, pedestrian improvements, and potentially dedicated bus lanes. • Transit Oriented DevelopmentTo support the region’s economy and address regional housing needs, it is anticipated that developers will take advantage of corridor improvements to redevelop underutilized parcels along the corridor with mixed-use housing and commercial developments, adding more residents and attractions to this vibrant corridor.

5.2 Service Vision
Preliminary alternatives were developed in order to estimate the ridership potential of various infrastructure improvements and service plans along the RoseWood Boulevard Corridor. Several key factors were considered in developing the alternatives, including:
• Improved Connectivity with Long BeachTravel pattern analysis showed strong links between Long Beach and other Gateway Cities, but current transit services making this connection are infrequent and require transfers between LBT and Metro. Improved service to key destinations, such as the CSULB complex including the VA Hospital, present additional opportunities to generate ridership. • Frequent ServiceTo improve customer convenience, the alternatives should operate frequently enough to allow customers to use the service without needing to consult a published schedule. For the purposes of this analysis, frequent service refers to 15- minute headways or better.
• Bus Speed ImprovementsIncreasing the speed of travel can significantly improve the rider experience. Various infrastructure and technology options are available to improve RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
May 20, 2026 | 23
Figure 5-1. Alternatives Matrix
bus speeds, such as bus stop placement at the far side of intersections, transit signal priority, bus bulbs or curb extensions, and dedicated bus lanes where feasible. • Stop Spacing OptionsCurrent local bus routes along the corridor include stops spaced approximately one quarter mile apart. This spacing maximizes access but adds time for customers making longer trips. Increasing the distance between stops can improve travel time, particularly in conjunction with other improvements such as dedicated bus lanes.

Considering these factors, five alternatives were modeled to evaluate their ridership potential: an enhanced local with two service providers, two alternatives reflecting a single enhanced local bus service with varying levels of dedicated bus lanes, one limited-stop rapid service with reduced local service, and one scenario with full BRT in addition to reduced local service. The enhanced local service alternatives represent a more modest improvement over existing operations, while the limited stops and BRT alternatives represent a higher level of service and infrastructure improvements, which would require greater levels of investment.

5.2.1 Service Alternatives
Five alternatives were developed that span a range of
service levels, from local service to full BRT, and a range of infrastructure investments, from targeted improvements to corridor-wide improvements. The level of service
improvement to infrastructure investment is shown in
Figure 5-1. This section summarizes the five alternatives for enhancing transit service along the corridor. Each
alternative is defined by assumptions regarding the
alignment, stop spacing, service frequency, and transit priority treatments to improve speed and reliability.

The transit priority treatments are largely consistent across the five alternatives and include:
• Increasing the number of far side bus stops
• Providing signal priority at all intersections with far side stops • Installing bus bulbs at eight stop locations
The primary distinction in transit priority treatment is the extent of dedicated bus lanes, which are evaluated at 25, 50, and 100 percent of the corridor length. It should be noted that this study does not specify where the 25, 50, and 100 percent dedicated lanes would be implemented, as these determinations would be subject to further analysis.

These alternatives can be considered both as discrete options for enhanced bus service, but also as potential phases for progressive implementation of corridor enhancements over time.

RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
24 | May 20, 2026
Frequent Service (Alternative 1)
For this alternative, two service providers (Metro and LBT) would operate, meeting at Lakewood Center Mall. North of Lakewood Center Mall, the alignment would follow Metro Route 266, with stop spacing increased to approximately 0.33 miles apart, increasing speed while continuing to serve a variety of local trips. South of Lakewood Center Mall, the alignment would follow LBT Route 111.

The service map and stop locations are shown in Figure 5-2. The proposed services would operate with 15-minute headways during peak hours and 20-minute headways in the evening, facilitating consistent transfers between the two routes. In addition to the transit priority treatments that are consistent across all alternatives, this alternative evaluates dedicated bus lanes along 25 percent of the length of the corridor. As stated above, this study does not specify the specific locations for dedicated lane implementation, which would be subject to further study.

Figure 5-2. Alternative 1 Service Map
RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
May 20, 2026 | 25
Frequent, Direct Service (Alternative 2)
This alternative assumes a single service provider, likely Metro, operating along the corridor with local stop spacing of about 0.33 miles apart, extending Route 266 to CSULB and eliminating the need to transfer lines. LBT Route 111 is assumed to continue operating as it does today. The service map and stop locations are shown in Figure 5-3. Similar to the first alternative, the proposed service would operate with 15-minute headways during peak hours and 20-minute headways in the evening. This alternative includes the standard transit priority treatments and evaluates dedicated bus lanes along 25 percent of the corridor length. Service operations are more streamlined compared to the first alternative.

Frequent, Direct, Faster Service (Alternative 3)
Under this alternative, a single service provider operates with local stop spacing of about 0.33 miles (see Figure 5-3). Service frequencies remain consistent with the first and second alternatives, 15- minute headways during peak hours and 20-minute headways in the evening. In addition to investment in the transit priority treatments that are consistent across all alternatives, this alternative evaluates dedicated bus lanes along 50 percent of the length of the corridor.

Figure 5-3. Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 Service Map RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
26 | May 20, 2026
Limited-Stop Rapid Service (Alternative 4)
This alternative introduces a limited-stop, enhanced service operated by a single provider, with stops spaced approximately one mile apart. Underlying local service would continue to operate every 30 minutes, provided separately by Metro and LBT. The service map and stop locations are shown in Figure 5-4. This limited-stop rapid service would run every 15 minutes during peak hours and every 30 minutes in the evening, while local service operates every 30 minutes. Transit priority treatments include far side bus stops, transit signal priority, bus bulbs, and dedicated bus lanes at 50 percent of the corridor length.

Full BRT Service (Alternative 5)
The full BRT alternative assumes a single provider operating a limited-stop service every 15 minutes with stops spaced approximately one mile apart, supplemented by 30-minute local service provided separately by Metro and LBT (see Figure 5-4). In addition to investments in far side bus stops, transit signal priority, and bus bulbs, this alternative evaluates dedicated bus lanes throughout the entire length of the corridor.

Figure 5-4. Alternative 4 and Alternative 5 Service Map RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
May 20, 2026 | 27

5.3 Ridership Forecast Modeling

5.3.1 Modeling Approach
While the Study Area for the Vision Plan spans from Long Beach to Pico Rivera (to account for the BRT study underway in the San Gabriel Valley), the intent was for the ridership model to account for the whole potential corridor extending to the Sierra Madre Villa station. Ridership modeling compared a no-build and build scenario in 2024
baseline conditions and a 2057 horizon.

Ridership was modeled using the Federal
Transit Administration’s Simplified Trips-onProject Software (STOPS), which is a series of programs designed to quickly produce plausible
forecasts of transit project ridership using
readily available American Community Survey
data, transit ridership, origin-destination
surveys, transit schedule information, and
metropolitan planning organization forecasts of
demographic growth and traffic congestion.

STOPS creates a zone-to-zone matrix of
person trips stratified by trip purpose and
socioeconomic class for traffic analysis zones
(TAZs), then assigns each of the mode-specific
tables to specific transportation facilities to
determine transit travel volumes.

The STOPS model was built by updating
transportation system elements available
through the STOPS model prepared for the
East San Fernando Valley Light Rail Project.

The model was calibrated to the existing
boardings by stop for October 2024 and
operating assumptions were developed for
multiple enhanced transit alternatives. The
ridership modeling does account for the future
Metro E Line extension, the Southeast Gateway
Line, and the proposed Pico Rivera Metrolink
Station.

Five scenarios were modeled, three reflect an enhanced local bus service, one is a limited-stop rapid service with a reduced local service, and one is a full BRT in addition to reduced local service. Table 5-1 summarizes the existing conditions of Route 266 and Route 111 and the proposed conditions of each of the five scenarios.

In terms of travel time savings assumptions for the STOPS model, Alternatives 1 and 2 are each assumed to reduce travel time by 4.3 percent compared to existing conditions. Alternative 3 is Key elements of the STOPS modeling
approach for this project include:
• Origin-to-Destination TravelInstead of
elaborate trip generation and destination
choice procedures included in trip-based
models, origin and destination data were
derived from the American Community
Survey and the regional transit on-board
survey.
• Proposed Operating Patternsfor each
of the alternatives described above.
• Travel TimesEstimated travel times
between stations were developed using
existing Metro Route 266 and LBT Route
111 schedule information, along with
assumptions on travel time savings from
improvements such as dedicated bus
lanes, signal priority, bus bulbs, and
longer distances between stations.
• Fixed Guideway FactorSTOPS
accounts for the presence of exclusive
lanes by assigning a value between 0 and
1, 0 being fully mixed traffic and 1 being
completely separated guideway such as a
subway. For the BRT alternative, a factor
of 0.4 was used.

RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
28 | May 20, 2026
assumed to reduce travel times by 5.8 percent, Alternative 4 by 16.7 percent, and Alternative 5 by

20.1 percent compared to the existing services.

RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
May 20, 2026 | 29
Table 5-1. Service Scenarios
Existing Enhanced Local Limited Stops + Local (Alt
4) BRT + Local (Alt 5)
Metro
266 LBT 111 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Limited Stops
Local
(Metro
266)
Local
(LBT
111)
BRT
Local
(Metro
266)
Local
(LBT
111)
Number of Stops 79 NB,
80 SB
58 NB,
55 SB
106 NB,
106 SB
106 NB,
106 SB
106 NB,
106 SB
26 NB,
26 SB
79 NB,
80 SB
58 NB,
55 SB
26 NB,
26 SB
79 NB,
80 SB
58 NB,
59 SB
Avg. Stop
Spacing (miles) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1 0.3 0.3 1 0.3 0.3 Peak/Midday
Headway 20 60 15 15 15 15 30 30 15 30 30
Evening Headway 30 60 20 20 20 30 30 30 30 30 30
Percent Dedicated
Lanes
0% 25% 25% 50% 50% 100%
Travel Time
Saving N/A N/A 4.3% 4.3% 5.8% 16.7% 20.1%
Peak/Midday
Roundtrip Run
Times
3:42:00 2:04:00 4:35:55 4:35:55 4:31:07 4:02:22 3:42:00 2:04:00 3:40:18 3:42:00 2:04:00 Off-Peak
Roundtrip Run
Times
3:14:00 1:58:00 4:06:56 4:06:56 4:02:37 3:29:48 3:14:00 1:58:00 3:12:57 3:14:00 1:58:00 Service Span 5am - 10pm
RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
30 | May 20, 2026
This page is intentionally left blank.

RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
May 20, 2026 | 31

5.3.2 Ridership Forecasting Results
Table 5-2 shows the estimated weekday boardings for each service scenario. The corridor has considerable ridership potential with increased speed and frequency. The new BRT route is expected to capture approximately 13,050 daily boardings in the 2024 baseline scenario and over 14,950 daily boardings in the future year scenario. Even without a full BRT service, the Enhanced Local scenarios show an increase of 12 to 24 percent over the existing service with improvements in frequency, speed, and the extension of the route to CSULB. Decrease in walking access due to limited stops, and limited dedicated bus lanes, may account for lower ridership on Alternative 4.

Figure 5-5 shows the projected station level boardings by transfers and other access modes, including walking, kiss-and-ride, and park-and-ride, for the 2024 baseline BRT scenario. Project trips are mostly concentrated in Pico Rivera, Downey, Lakewood, and Long Beach. Connectivity to other rail and bus lines is a key source of ridership. There is significant forecast transfer activity along the route, particularly at the proposed Metro E Line Extension on Washington Boulevard, the Lakewood Boulevard Station, and the San Gabriel Valley stops. The pattern of station level boardings is similar in the 2057 future scenario, with slight decreases in the number of transfers to other access modes.

The new stops in Long Beach to CSULB, not currently served by Route 266 or LBT 111, represent approximately 20 percent of total boardings. This indicates that the projected corridor-level ridership gains not only result from speed and frequency improvements, but from new connectivity to Long Beach.

RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
32 | May 20, 2026
This page is intentionally left blank.

RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
May 20, 2026 | 33
Table 5-2. Results Summary
Existing Enhanced Local Limited Stops +
Local (Alt 4)
BRT + Local
(Alt 5) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3
2024
New Linked Trips, Systemwide - 300 400 400 200 2,500
New Unlinked Trips, Systemwide - 300 100 -50 1,550 5,600 Systemwide Boardings 1,224,750 1,225,050 1,224,850 1,224,700 1,226,300 1,230,350 Corridor Boardings 6,750 7,600 7,900 7,950 8,300 13,050 Metro Route 266 5,950 - - - 2,400 2,100
LBT 111 850 1,950 650 650 850 750
Alternative Boardings - 5,650 7,300 7,350 5,050 10,200
Vehicle Miles Reduced - 1,100 2,800 3,000 5,650 20,950
2057
New Linked Trips, Systemwide - 350 400 450 250 2,800
New Unlinked Trips, Systemwide - 200 0 -150 2,050 6,550 Systemwide Boardings 1,519,950 1,520,100 1,519,950 1,519,800 1,522,000 1,526,500 Corridor Boardings 7,750 8,650 8,900 9,000 9,600 14,950 Metro Route 266 6,750 - - - 2,750 2,400
LBT 111 1,000 2,350 750 750 1,000 900
Alternative Boardings - 6,300 8,150 8,250 5,850 11,650
Vehicle Miles Reduced - 1,000 2,950 3,150 6,850 23,900
RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
34 | May 20, 2026
This page is intentionally left blank.

RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
May 20, 2026 | 35
Figure 5-5. BRT Scenario Boardings (2024)
RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
36 | May 20, 2026

5.4 Infrastructure Improvements
While some of the larger infrastructure and service frequency improvements will require additional planning and funding to deliver, several elements of the vision can be implemented earlier.

Advancing early action improvements provides an opportunity to improve mobility of all roadway users sooner, delivering service benefits while longer-term investments are developed.

5.4.1 Early Action Improvements
Transit Signal Prioritization
Buses and streetcars often face the same congestion and delays as private vehicles, reducing the reliability and attractiveness of transit service. Transit Signal Prioritization (TSP) has emerged as an effective traffic management strategy designed to improve transit performance by modifying traffic signal operations in favor of transit vehicles. By granting conditional priority at signalized intersections, TSP helps reduce delays, improve schedule adherence, and enhance the overall efficiency of urban transportation systems.

Definition and Purpose of Transit Signal Prioritization Transit Signal Prioritization refers to a set of operational strategies that adjust traffic signal timing when a transit vehicle approaches an intersection. Unlike signal preemption—commonly used by emergency vehicles and railroad crossings—TSP only modifies the existing signal timing by adding green time while maintaining the remaining phases of the signal. The primary goal of TSP is to reduce intersection delay for transit vehicles while minimizing adverse impacts on general traffic, pedestrians, and cyclists.

The motivation for implementing TSP lies in its ability to improve transit service effectiveness without major capital investments. Since signalized intersections are a major source of delay for surface transit, even small timing adjustments—such as extending a green phase or shortening a red phase—can yield significant benefits in travel time and reliability.

Types of Transit Signal Priority
There are several forms of TSP, each varying in complexity and level of control. Common strategies include:

Green Extension,
which lengthens the
current green phase to
allow the approaching
bus to clear the
intersection.

Early Green (Red
Truncation), which
shortens the opposing
phase, so the bus
receives a green signal
sooner.

Phase Insertion, in
which a special phase
is added to serve
transit movements.

Adaptive or
Conditional Priority,
which uses real-time
data to determine
when priority should be
deployed.

Modern TSP systems often rely on Global Positioning System (GPS) data, automated vehicle location (AVL), and advanced signal controllers to dynamically respond to traffic and transit conditions. These systems allow agencies to tailor priority strategies based on time of day, congestion levels, or policy objectives. Figure 5-6 below shows how the TSP would operate.

RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
May 20, 2026 | 37
Benefits of Transit Signal Prioritization
The benefits of TSP extend far beyond faster bus trips. Studies have consistently shown that TSP can reduce transit travel times by five to 15 percent and improve schedule reliability by decreasing variability in delays. Improved reliability reduces the need for excessive recovery time at route termini and allows agencies to deploy their fleets more efficiently.

From a passenger perspective, shorter and more predictable travel times enhance the perceived quality of transit service. For operating agencies, TSP can reduce operating costs by allowing the same level of service to be provided with fewer vehicles or drivers.

Impacts on General Traffic and Multimodal Considerations While TSP prioritizes transit vehicles, it is designed to balance competing roadway demands.

Because priority is typically conditional and temporary, impacts on cross street traffic are generally modest. Nevertheless, careful planning is required to ensure that priority strategies do not significantly degrade safety or delay for other users, particularly pedestrians and cyclists.

Integration of TSP with multimodal policies is increasingly important. In corridors with bicycle lanes, pedestrian priority corridors, or freight routes, signal timing must accommodate diverse needs.

Advanced TSP systems can be coordinated with adaptive traffic signal control to optimize overall corridor performance rather than focusing solely on transit delay.

Figure 5-6. TSP Operations
RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
38 | May 20, 2026
Implementation on the RoseWood Corridor
A planning level cost estimate for TSP implementation for the RoseWood Corridor has been developed and includes existing infrastructure, upgrades necessary to make the existing infrastructure TSP-enabled, and a planning level cost estimate for cloud-based TSP implementation.

The existing infrastructure inventory was informed by meetings with the City of Pico Rivera, City of Bellflower, City of Downey, City of Lakewood and City of Long Beach.

Signalized intersections along the route that are maintained by Caltrans on Pacific Coast Highway were not evaluated for TSP implementation and are not included in this cost estimate. The Caltrans signals are being reviewed for potential TSP implementation as a potential area wide project.

There are 54 signalized intersections along the RoseWood Corridor route that are considered in this cost estimate. The existing traffic signal controller hardware, firmware, communications media, and planned upgrades were collected from each city.

Infrastructure Needs
The following assumptions were made regarding the infrastructure needs:

1. The software solution is a cloud-based hosted TSP service deployment.

2. Cloud-based transit signal priority is compatible with:
a. 2070, 2070E, 2070E ATC, and 2070L ATC controller hardware. b. Bitrans 2033, Bitrans 233, MaxTime, and Omni controller firmware. c. Controllers with fiber, DSL, and twisted pair copper communications.

3. Existing 2070, 2070E, 2070E ATC, and 2070L ATC controllers along the route support Metro TSP protocols and networking.

4. Controllers with fiber, DSL, and twisted pair copper communications have high-speed IP communications.

5. Controllers with no existing communication will require a leased-line, cell modem

6. Cloud-based transit signal priority is not compatible with:
a. 170 controller hardware and will require an upgrade to 2070. b. CATS controller firmware. Controllers with SCATS require an upgrade to the firmware of the corresponding City’s preference.

To be TSP-enabled, a signalized intersection must have appropriate controller hardware, firmware, and communications. Table 5-3 highlights upgrade needs by Agency. Table 5-4 shows which signalized intersections need upgrades to be TSP-enabled.

RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
May 20, 2026 | 39
Table 5-3. Intersection Infrastructure Upgrade Needs by Agency Agency No. of Signalized Intersections
Along
Corridor
Require TSPEnabled
Communications
Require TSP-Enabled
Controller Hardware
Require TSPEnabled Controller
Firmware
Bellflower 6 0 0 0
Downey 17 1 4 1
Lakewood 5 5 5 5
Long Beach 11 6 5 5
Pico Rivera 15 6 14 14
Total 54 18 28 25
RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
40 | May 20, 2026
Table 5-4. Infrastructure Upgrade Needs by Intersection City Need Intersection
Downey New Traffic Signal Infrastructure with Compatible Communications and Controller Hardware &
Firmware
Lakewood/Century
Controller Hardware Upgrade Lakewood/Gallatin
Lakewood/Cherokee
Lakewood/Firestone
Pico Rivera Controller Hardware and Communications Upgrade Lakewood/Telegraph Controller Firmware and Communications Upgrade Rosemead/Whittier Controller Hardware, Firmware, and
Communications Upgrade
Rosemead/Beverly Blvd
Rosemead/Beverly Road
Rosemead/Olympic
Rosemead/Havenwood
Controller Hardware and Firmware Upgrade Rosemead/Gallatin Rosemead/Mines
Rosemead/Coffman
Rosemead/The Marketplace
Rosemead/Washington
Rosemead/Rex
Rosemead/Slauson
Rosemead/Terradell
Rosemead/Telegraph
Long Beach Controller Hardware, Firmware, and
Communications Upgrade
Lakewood/Cover
Communications Upgrade Lakewood/Carson
Lakewood/McGowenDouglas Cr Dr
Lakewood/Conant
Lakewood/Wardlow
Lakewood/Spring
Controller Hardware and Firmware Upgrade Lakewood/Arbor Lakewood/Harvey
Lakewood/23rd
Lakewood/Stearns
RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
May 20, 2026 | 41
Funding and Timing
The implementation of TSP can be done as an early action project and constructed in individual segments/cities as funding becomes available. Operating agreements with Metro or Long Beach Transit will be required to have the buses equipped with the necessary tacking hardware/software. In addition, Memorandums of Understanding will need to be established between each agency having jurisdiction of the traffic signals to have TSP implemented to establish timing guidelines, and use of cloud-based software. The cost for potential implementation is shown below in 2026 dollars.

Table 5-5. TSP Implementation Costs (2026 dollars)
Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Extended Price
Non-Capital Cost
Project Management 1 LS $80,000 $80,000
Training and Documentation 1 LS $35,000 $35,000
Furnish TSP System Software 1 LS $540,000 $540,000
Installation and Integration with Metro
Network
1 LS $275,000 $275,000
Configure and Deploy TSP System 86 EA $2,700 $232,200
System Testing & Acceptance 1 LS $65,000 $65,000
Design 1 LS $190,000 $190,000
Total Non-capital and Software Cost $ 1,417,200
5-Year Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Cost
System Operation, Warranty, and Support 5 Year $30,000 $150,000 Performance reporting KPI dashboard 1 LS $75,000 $75,000 Performance reporting & optimization
review meetings for 5 years)
5 EA $30,000 $150,000
Traffic signal operations updates for five
years
5 EA $20,000 $100,000
Total O&M Cost $ 475,000
Capital Cost
Remove and Salvage Existing Controller.

Furnish and Install 2070 Controller.
29 EA $10,000 $290,000
Furnish and Install 2070 Controller 1C
module
29 EA $7,000 $203,000
Firmware upgrades 20 EA $1,500 $30,000
Contingency (20%) 1 EA $120,000 $120,000
Total Upgrade Capital Cost $ 643,000
LS = Lump Sum
EA = Each
RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
42 | May 20, 2026
Bus Stop Amenities
Bus stop amenities, such as shelters, benches, and informational signage, play a critical role in shaping the rider experience and influencing transit use. Research consistently shows that investments in basic bus stop infrastructure improve comfort and accessibility while also producing measurable increases in ridership. As a result, bus stop amenities represent a cost-effective strategy for strengthening transit systems and encouraging mode shift.

Through the addition of new amenities, bus stops can become mobility hubs rather than just places on the sidewalk where buses stop. The early action improvements described below focus on improving the comfort of riders waiting for the bus, but over time as the corridor develops, additional features could be added to support connectivity to other modes, such as bikeshare.

Improved Comfort and Waiting Experience
Bus stop amenities directly improve the comfort of waiting passengers. Shelters provide protection from rain, wind, and extreme heat, while benches reduce physical strain for riders who may have difficulty standing for extended periods. These improvements are particularly important because waiting time is often perceived as more burdensome than in vehicle travel time. Studies have shown that comfortable waiting environments can reduce the perceived wait time and improve overall satisfaction with transit service.

Comfort improvements are not merely cosmetic; they affect travel behavior. Surveys conducted as part of the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) found that a significant share of riders reported they would increase transit use if amenities such as shelters and seating were provided, even when compared to fare reductions.

Measurable Increases in Ridership
Empirical research demonstrates that bus stop amenities are associated with statistically significant increases in ridership. A well-documented study of bus stop improvements by the Utah Transit Authority found that stops upgraded with shelters, seating, signage, and sidewalks experienced higher ridership growth than comparable unimproved stops, even after controlling for land use and demographic factors. The same study also found a reduction in demand for ADA paratransit services near improved stops, suggesting that better stop design enables more riders to use fixed route transit rather than more costly alternatives.

At a broader level, the TCRP’s Amenities for Transit Handbook estimates that investments in passenger amenities can increase ridership by approximately 1.5 to 3 percent in typical U.S. transit systems, depending on the scale of improvements and local context. While these percentage gains may appear modest, they are significant given the relatively low cost of stop level improvements compared to major service expansions.

More recent research also shows that ridership impacts can be substantially higher at specific locations. A Virginia Transportation Research Council study documented stop level ridership increases ranging from 1.5 percent to over 100 percent following the installation of basic bus stop infrastructure, with the largest gains occurring at previously unimproved, high demand stops. These findings highlight that amenities are especially effective where waiting conditions were previously poor.

RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
May 20, 2026 | 43
Accessibility, Equity, and Ridership Retention
Bus stop amenities also support equity and accessibility, which in turn influence ridership retention.

Benches and shelters benefit older adults, people with disabilities, and riders with health or mobility limitations. Clear informational signs with route numbers, schedules, and maps reduce uncertainty for first-time riders and people unfamiliar with the system. Research indicates that reducing physical and informational barriers encourages more frequent use among existing riders and lowers the likelihood that riders abandon transit altogether.

By improving accessibility at the stop level, agencies can also reduce reliance on paratransit services, which are significantly more expensive to operate than fixed route transit. The observed decrease in paratransit demand near improved stops underscores the long-term operational and financial benefits of amenity investments.

Safety, Perception, and Community Benefits
In addition to direct ridership impacts, bus stop amenities improve safety and the perceived quality of transit service. Well-designed shelters and signage increase visibility, support lighting installation, and signal public investment in a location. These factors contribute to a greater sense of security, particularly during early morning or evening hours, which research has linked to increased willingness to use transit.

From a community perspective, attractive and well-maintained bus stops enhance the streetscape and can support local economic activity by increasing foot traffic. Over time, increased ridership contributes to reduced congestion, lower emissions, and more efficient use of existing transportation infrastructure.

Corridor recommendations for early stop improvements
Improvements would consist of the installation of a BRT type shelter developed by Metro, and would include seating, trash receptacles, e-paper displays to provide bus/route information, and informational/ad kiosks. The shelters are installed in units of 12 or 16 feet in length, and several can be located at one stop depending on need and available space. The units are also internally illuminated to provide safety at night. Some locations may also include an overhead charging unit for electric buses running down the corridor. Figure 5-7 and Figure 5-8 are examples of a typical stop will full amenities. In addition to improving functionality, the shelters enhance design quality and Metro brand consistency throughout the corridor while allowing for the incorporation of artwork that reflects local culture and neighborhood character.

RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
44 | May 20, 2026
Figure 5-7. Example Bus Stop Amenities with a Bus Charging Unit Figure 5-8. Metro BRT Station Shelter
While the goal would be to add or upgrade existing stop amenities such as shelters, benches, and informational kiosks at all stops along the corridor, based on high usage and connectivity the following stop locations are recommended for implementation as an initial phase.

RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
May 20, 2026 | 45
Table 5-6. Top 14 Priority Bus Stops for Early Action Amenity Enhancement Stop Location Southbound
Weekday
Ridership
Northbound
Weekday
Ridership
Connections Municipality
Rosemead /
Whittier
245 253 Montebello Bus Line 10 Pico Rivera
Rosemead /
Washington
53 200 Montebello Bus Line 50 Pico Rivera
Rosemead /
Slauson
136 130 Metro 108 Pico Rivera
Lakewood /
Telegraph
190 207 Downey
Lakewood /
Florence
197 201 Metro 111 Downey
Lakewood /
Firestone
282 265 Metro 115, 127 Downey
Lakewood
Blvd C Line
428 447 Metro C, 117, 120; LBT 22 Downey
Lakewood /
Rosecrans
151 154 Metro 125 Downey /
Bellflower
Lakewood /
Alondra
119 106 Metro 128 Bellflower
Lakewood /
Artesia
108 124 LBT 141 Bellflower
Lakewood /
Hardwick
181 244 Metro 265; LBT 103, 112, 191 Lakewood
Ximeno /
Atherton
341 389 LBT 121, 172, 173 Long Beach
7th / Channel 661 LBT 41, 46, 91, 92, 93, 94,
121, 171, 175; OC Bus 1, 50,
60 Long Beach
Beach / W
Campus
1426 1426 LBT 41, 46, 91, 92, 93, 94,
121, 171, 175
Long Beach
Estimated cost for the initial 14 locations is shown below. Cost is 2026 dollars and does not include bus charging equipment, new or upgraded handicap ramps, or bus bulb-outs for side running locations.

RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
46 | May 20, 2026
Table 5-7. Bus Stop Amenities Costs (2026 dollars)
Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Extended Price
Non-Capital Cost
Project Management/Transit Agency
Coordination
1 LS $50,000 $50,000
Design 1 LS $300,000 $300,000
Total Non-Capital Cost $ 350,000
Capital Cost
Furnish and Install 16 shelter 14 EA $150,000 $2,100,000 Construct shelter foundation 14 EA $ 5,000 $70,000
Furnish and install Kiosk 14 EA $ 25,000 $350,000
Furnish and install benches 28 EA $3,000 $84,000
Furnish and install trash receptacles 14 EA $1,000 $14,000 Install meter cabinet and related
conduit/pull boxes
14 EA $5,000 $70,000
Contingency (20%) 1 EA $537,000 $537,000
Total Capital Cost $ 3,225,000
LS = Lump Sum
EA = Each
For each location, maintenance agreements will need to coordinate with the operating transit agency. This would include maintenance of the shelter, operation of the e-paper displays, operation/maintenance of the kiosk and use of the revenue from ad sales. In addition, local agencies can utilize back panels for local artwork.

5.4.2 Long-Term Buildout
Dedicated bus lanes are a key strategy for cities aiming to improve mobility, reduce congestion, and promote sustainable transportation. By reserving road space for buses, cities increase travel time reliability and allow transit agencies to operate more efficiently. By allocating specific roadway space exclusively for buses, municipalities can dramatically enhance the reliability, speed, and appeal of public transit.

One of the most significant advantages of dedicated bus lanes is improved travel time reliability.

Unlike buses operating in mixed traffic—where they face delays from congestion, collisions, or unpredictable driver behavior—buses in dedicated lanes can maintain consistent speeds and predictable schedules. This reliability enhances passenger satisfaction and improves operational efficiency, allowing the same number of buses to complete more trips within a given period.

Dedicated bus lanes also promote higher public transit ridership. When buses are faster and more dependable, they become a viable alternative to driving. Increased ridership reduces the number of single-occupancy vehicles on the road, easing congestion. This modal shift also supports RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
May 20, 2026 | 47
environmental goals; particularly electric buses, significantly lower per-capita emissions when compared with private cars. Cities striving to meet climate action targets view dedicated bus lanes as a relatively low cost means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving air quality.

Dedicated bus lanes can make efficient use of limited right-of-way. Expanding general-purpose lanes often leads to induced demand and more traffic, whereas transit-priority lanes move more people in less space. A single articulated bus can carry as many passengers as dozens of cars while occupying far less roadway. Dedicated bus lanes also integrate well with complementary strategies such as transit signal priority, bus rapid transit corridors, and safe pedestrian infrastructure around stations.

Implementation, however, presents challenges. Some communities express concerns about congestion if road space is reallocated from general traffic to transit, whiles businesses have concerns about impacts to curbside access or parking. Addressing these issues requires thoughtful planning, public engagement, and data-driven decision-making. A regional transportation agency or a dedicated joint powers authority serving as the planning lead could help streamline coordination, build consensus, and secure approvals. Successful projects typically pair bus lanes with signal optimization, managed loading zones, and improved pedestrian crossings. In practice, corridors often perform better overall when more travelers shift to high-capacity transit.

Financial factors must also be considered. Although far less expensive than major highway or rail projects, bus lanes still require funding for design, construction, signage, enforcement, and maintenance. Effective enforcement is essential, as unauthorized vehicles can undermine performance. Technologies such as automated enforcement cameras help preserve lane integrity while reducing staffing demands.

Overall, dedicated bus lanes represent a practical, scalable, and sustainable approach to improving urban mobility. By increasing reliability, reducing emissions, and maximizing roadway space, they deliver long-term benefits that often outweigh the initial challenges.

Types of Dedicated Bus Lanes
Dedicated bus lanes vary in their level of separation, operational design, and intended performance.

The following are the primary types used in urban transit systems:

Table 5-8. Types of Dedicated Bus Lanes
Type Characteristics Advantages Challenges
Curbside Bus
Lanes
• These lanes run along the
curb and are the most
common form of dedicated
bus lane.
• Located directly adjacent to
the sidewalk.
• Shared points of conflict
with right turning vehicles,
driveways, loading zones,
• Easiest and fastest
to implement.
• Minimal roadway
redesign.
• Susceptible to
blockage by illegal
parking or delivery
vehicles.
• Lower reliability
compared with
more separated
options.

RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
48 | May 20, 2026
Type Characteristics Advantages Challenges
and cyclists.

Median
(Center
Running) Bus
Lanes
• These lanes operate along
the center of the roadway.
• Buses run in the median
area or in the lane adjacent
to the median (essentially
the conversion of a generalpurpose lane to a dedicated bus lane), often with
platform stations in the
center.
• Usually paired with
restricted or protected left
turns.
• Avoids right turn
conflicts and
curbside
blockages.
• Provides higher
speed and
reliability similar to
BRT.
• Requires more
infrastructure
changes (stations,
pedestrian
access).
• More expensive
and complex to
build.

Side Running
Bus Lanes
(Offset Bus
Lanes)
• These are placed one lane
away from the curb—
between the parking lane
(or bicycle lane) and
general-purpose traffic.
• Reduces interference from
curbside activities like
parking or delivery.
• Maintains bus accessibility
to curbside stops via short
pull-ins or platform
extensions.
• More reliable than
curbside lanes.
• Less disruptive
than fully center
running lanes.
• Requires careful
design to manage
conflicts with
turning vehicles.

Analysis of the RoseWood Corridor
A review of existing street configurations and available right-of-way was conducted to determine the most feasible type of dedicated bus lanes for the RoseWood Corridor. This evaluation incorporated the adopted active transportation plans of each city along the corridor to ensure that proposed bicycle facilities could be accommodated alongside any dedicated bus lanes. Given the limited median space along much of the corridor, and to minimize frequent transitions between curbside and center-running configurations, curb- and side-running dedicated bus lanes were identified as the most appropriate option. The roadway cross sections illustrated in Figure 5-9, Figure 5-10, and Figure 5-11 are examples of mixed flow, side-running, and curb-running bus lanes.

These lanes could be implemented relatively quickly. Improvements would include signage, pavement markings, and curb extensions where side-running bus lanes are introduced. Curb extensions for bus stops would be of sufficient length to support all-door boarding. Traffic signal modifications would also be required. Estimated costs range from $3 million to $8 million per mile.

RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
May 20, 2026 | 49
An additional benefit of curb/side-running dedicated bus lanes is their flexibility. The lanes can be implemented in phases or independently by individual jurisdictions, allowing buses to transition between dedicated lanes and general-purpose lanes as segments are completed. Figure 5-12 presents the proposed alignment configuration identifying where each bus lane treatment would be implemented in the full buildout of bus lanes along the corridor, but it is likely that lanes would be implemented in phases. As discussed in Section 5.3.1 of this report, the incremental addition of dedicated bus lanes is expected to progressively reduce bus travel times and increase ridership over time. While scenarios were modeled with bus lanes for 25 or 50 percent of the corridor, the specific locations of dedicated lanes are not specified and would depend on funding and local support.

Figure 5-9. Mixed Flow with Class II Bike Lane
Figure 5-10. Side-Running Bus Lane with Class II Bike Lane Figure 5-11. Curb-Running Bus Lane with Class II Bike Lane RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
50 | May 20, 2026
This page is intentionally left blank.

RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
May 20, 2026 | 51
Figure 5-12. BRT Alignment Configuration
RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
52 | May 20, 2026
This page is intentionally left blank.

RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
May 20, 2026 | 53

5.4.3 Cost Estimate Summary
The costs associated with both the early action improvements and the long-term buildout are summarized in Table 5-9. The total cost shown for TSP and bus stop amenities reflects implementation across the full corridor and includes capital, non-capital, and operations and maintenance expenses.

Table 5-9. Cost Estimate Summary
Element Cost Estimate
TSP $2,535,000
Bus Stop Amenities $3,575,000
Dedicated Bus Lane $3 million to $8 million per mile
25% Dedicated Bus Lane $19,500,000 to $52,000,000
50% Dedicated Bus Lane $39,000,000 to $104,000,000
100% Dedicated Bus Lane $78,000,000 to $208,000,000

5.5 TOD Opportunities
Planning TOD alongside the BRT improvements can promote a sustainable approach to urban revitalization and economic development. According to the American Public Transportation Association, investment in public transit delivers $5 in economic benefits for every $1 investment. 1 The TOD site selection process addresses challenges of underutilized spaces while fostering vibrant, connected, and livable communities. The proposed TOD concepts will include strategic redevelopment plans for key locations, each uniquely positioned to benefit from enhanced connectivity, residential density, and mixed-use functionality. These developments are designed not only to improve current land use and address safety concerns but also to align with broader municipal visions and regional growth strategies. By capitalizing on existing infrastructure and emphasizing multimodal transportation, these TOD projects promise to reinvigorate the local economy, provide essential housing, and create engaging community spaces. Opportunities at two potential TOD sites are described below, and additional information on the potential of each site is provided in Appendix B.

Long Beach Circle
An underutilized parking lot is available at the terminus of the RoseWood Corridor at the intersection of 7th Street and Manila Avenue, making it a suitable location for future TOD development. The developable area that has been identified totals to about 2.75 acres, zoned within the SP-2 – Southeast Area/ PD-1 Southeast Area Development and Improvement Plan (SEADIP), with a current land use of Commercial. The proposed new development would yield approximately 100 to 1 Increased Investment in Public Transportation
RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
54 | May 20, 2026
150 housing units, and approximately 195 parking spaces. The assumptions used for this site were based on the combination of development standards from R-4-N and CCN of the City of Long Beach’s Municipal Code, as the existing guidelines defer to the development standards closest to the overall intent of the Planned Development area. Given that the area does not include mixed development standards, a combination of R-4-N and CCN reflects closely the TOD development envisioned for this site.

The analysis for this area also considers the California State University Long Beach Master Plan2 to identify the future growth and plan for the area. The Master Plan has set forth a goal to increase the number of beds on campus to approximately 3,626 student beds within the 15-year time horizon, and a total new parking of 65 spaces given the underutilized spaces from existing facilities.

Historic Whittier Boulevard
The Historic Whittier Boulevard (HWB) area presents as an appropriate location for a potential TOD development site due to the large, underutilized surface lots facing Whittier Boulevard within its commercial corridor at the Whittier/Rosemead intersection. Zone 4 of the HWB Vision Plan calls for Town Mixed-Use with 19.3 acres of developable area proposed for new development. The TOD will feature various placemaking elements such as benches, bike lanes, and bus platforms, as shown in Figure 5-13. The approximate unit yield would total 450 to 500 housing units, and approximately 800 to 900 parking spaces (see Figure 5-14). The area is also located within the regional dedicated transit lanes and SCAG bike routes, therefore further providing riders with connectivity and access to multimodal transportation options.

Figure 5-13. TOD Features
In alignment with the HWB Vision Plan3, the TOD development will follow the infill land use recommendation planned for the next 30 years outlined in the plan. The HWB Vision Plan, as demonstrated in Figure 5-15 , would include additional new open spaces, redesigning circulation for pedestrian-oriented streets, complete streets reconfiguration, preservation of existing retail and 2 Master Plan Update 2035.pdf
3 HWB_Vision_20Plan_ExecSummary_Final_20December_202024_20(1).pdf - Adobe cloud storage RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
May 20, 2026 | 55
additional ground floor retail, strategic district parking, pedestrian paseo network, and multi-purpose public plazas.

Figure 5-14. Infill Development Strategy
Figure 5-15. Historic Whittier Boulevard TOD Buildout
RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
56 | May 20, 2026
6 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

6.1 Phasing and Implementation Strategy
The proposed infrastructure improvements can be implemented in phases, with short-term improvements in customer experience leading eventually to higher-level infrastructure and service investment. Potential early action items include upgraded bus stops in areas with high ridership and transit signal priority. Bus lane additions could be implemented in locations with the highest need first, allowing time for funding to be obtained as the project progresses into its final form. This allows for performance to be studied over time to measure activity for corridor residents and users, which can strengthen a funding application. An example of this is the Metro G Line BRT, completed in 2005. 4 The original 14-mile segment opened in 2005, with an extension to Chatsworth completed in 2012, allowing Metro to expand service incrementally as funding became available. Ongoing performance monitoring showed significant benefits, including a 22 percent reduction in end-to-end travel time and highly reliable operations, which justified later reinvestment and upgrades. 5 Stakeholders involved with this project each play a role in its implementation. From components such as providing transit service, maintenance of right-of-way’s (ROW), and community engagement and input, each part stakeholders play during implementation helps get the project one step closer to completion. With this project traversing through multiple jurisdictions while being in the same county, Metro could act as the sole transit service provider as it currently does for its two other countywide BRT lines, the G and J Lines. Metro would be responsible for all infrastructure, operations, maintenance, and outreach.

Another option would be to advance the corridor collaboratively between the cities and the transit operators, Metro and /or Long Beach Transit. In this case, corridor cities would each be responsible for ROW maintenance, utility coordination, and signal prioritization as each city owns and manages their own roadways. The cities could progress with context sensitive infrastructure improvements as funding and local political will allow. Service planning would remain the responsibility of the transit providers. If a single operator were to provide a continuous service along the corridor to improve connectivity, it is likely that Metro would be that operator. As regional governments representing the cities along the corridor, SCAG and GCCOG, could allocate potential regional funding appropriately to adhere to each city’s needs and the goals of each of its regional plans and organizational initiatives.

Outreach and engagement efforts for a transit project allow residents to provide input and feedback on the project during the early phases of the project’s inception. If Metro becomes the service provider, Metro would be in charge of coordinating outreach within the project corridor city jurisdictions. If the provider is Long Beach Transit with support from the project corridor cities, then these cities would individually be in charge of coordinating outreach efforts with local communitybased organizations (CBOs) and businesses. 4 Metro Orange Line B R T Project Evaluation, F T A 0004 Research Report Summary 5 LA Metro Orange Line Improvements, 2018
RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
May 20, 2026 | 57

6.2 Funding Strategy
For a project of this magnitude, leveraging various funding mechanisms at the federal, state, and local levels will help ensure comprehensive financial support to implement the corridor-wide vision, as shown in Table 6-1. The project should focus on securing federal funding first as the amount of grant funding awards are usually larger and could provide a significant amount of funding needed to complete the project. At the federal level, the project would qualify for the Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) grants, which provided $1.5 billion in FY 2026, to cover the costs related to construction, planning, and design phases. BUILD has a maximum award of $25 million per entity, which can limit the size of projects that can be funded. Additionally, pursuit of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Capital Investment Grants (CIG) for either Small Starts or New Starts programs (pending project cost), could provide annual funding continuity with $3 billion allocated per year and $1.6 billion in advance appropriations. New Starts project must have a project cost of $400 million or more, and Small Starts projects must be less than $400 million. The final cost of this project will determine which grant program the project will be eligible for. It should be noted that CIG eligibility depends on the implementation approach, as the project would need to have substantial corridor investment, not incremental improvements in order to be eligible.

Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities, offering $397 million in FY 2025, could support the acquisition of BRT buses and necessary infrastructure. The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program, with $2.74 billion available in FY 2026, could help reduce congestion and improve air quality by funding bus lane improvements and transit strategies. This project would qualify for this grant as a BRT route involves designating or upgrading streets to bus-only or shared bus and vehicle lanes.

At the state level, the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP), offered $1.33 billion in FY 2024 to achieve positive environmental impact and ridership increase. This program has been widely used in the state for BRT projects including the enhancement of the San Bernardino sbX Green Line BRT and the Metro G Line BRT Improvements for transit signal priority and bus-only lane enhancements. The Solutions for Congested Corridors Program (SCCP), with $250 million annually, funds the construction of bus-only lanes and enhancement of existing transit infrastructure. Projects must be included in a qualifying Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan to be eligible for SCCP funding. The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), is providing $32 billion for FY 2026- 2027, and can support comprehensive capital improvements, including state highways and mass transit guideways; a category that this project falls in.

Local funds can be best used for matching requirements after federal and state funding is obtained.

In Southern California, leveraging Measure M funds can provide funding for priority signaling and dedicated bus lanes. Measure R’s $13 million over a 30-year period will improve bus stops and station amenities. Proposition A and Proposition C, each offering $1.2 billion in FY 2024, can expand transit services and support capital improvements for the corridor-wide vision.

RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
58 | May 20, 2026
This page is intentionally left blank.

RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
May 20, 2026 | 59
Table 6-1. Federal, State, and Local BRT Funding Sources Source Description Total Funding Available BRT Applicability Website Federal Funding
Better Utilizing
Investments to
Leverage
Development
(BUILD)
The U.S. Department of
Transportation's (USDOT) BUILD
grant program provides grants for
surface transportation infrastructure
projects with significant local or
regional impact. The eligibility
requirements of BUILD allow project
sponsors, including state and local
governments, counties, Tribal
governments, transit agencies, and
port authorities, to pursue multi-modal
and multi-jurisdictional projects that
are more difficult to fund through other
grant programs.
$1.5 Billion
(FY 2026)
BRT Applicability for this
funding source include:
> Capital Projects:

Public transportation
projects eligible under
chapter 53 of title 49,
United States Code
> Planning Projects:

Planning, preparation,
design, or engineering of
eligible surface
transportation capital
projects
Better Utilizing
Investments to
Leverage
Development (BUILD)
Grant Program | US
Department of
Transportation
Federal
Transit
Authority
Urbanized
Area Formula
Funding
Program
The Urbanized Area Formula Funding
program makes federal resources
available to governors and other
recipients for transit capital and
operating assistance and
transportation-related planning in
urbanized areas. An urbanized area is
an area that has been defined and
designated by the U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census as
an 'Urban Area' with a population of
50,000 or more.
$7.2 Billion
(FY 2024)
BRT Applicability for this
funding source include:
> Capital Projects:

Capital investments in
bus and bus-related
activities
> Planning Projects:

Planning, engineering,
design and evaluation of
transit projects and other
technical transportationrelated studies
Urbanized Area
Formula Grants -
5307 | FTA
RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
60 | May 20, 2026
Carbon
Reduction
Program
The Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act (IIJA) establishes the Carbon
Reduction Program (CRP), which
provides funds for projects designed to
reduce transportation emissions,
defined as carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions from on-road highway
sources
$1.3 Billion
(FY 2026)
BRT Applicability for this
funding source include:
> Capital Projects: A
public transportation
project eligible under 23
U.S.C. 142 that supports
the reduction of
transportation emissions
Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs
Act - Carbon
Reduction Program
(CRP) Fact Sheet |
Federal Highway
Administration
Grants for
Buses and
Bus Facilities
The Grants for Buses and Bus
Facilities Competitive Program (49
U.S.C. 5339(b)) makes federal
resources available to states and
direct recipients to replace, rehabilitate
and purchase buses and related
equipment and to construct busrelated facilities, including technological changes or innovations
to modify low or no emission vehicles
or facilities. Funding is provided
through formula allocations and
competitive grants.
$397 Million
(FY 2025)
BRT Applicability for this
funding source include:
> Capital Project:

Capital projects to
replace, rehabilitate and
purchase buses, vans,
and related equipment,
and to construct busrelated facilities,
including technological
changes or innovations
to modify low or no
emission vehicles or
facilities. Additionally,

0.5% of a request may
be for workforce
development training,
and an additional 0.5%
may be for training at the
National Transit
Institutes.

Grants for Buses and
Facilities
Low or No
Emission
Program
(LoNo)
The Low or No Emission competitive
program provides funding to state and
local governmental authorities for the
purchase or lease of zero-emission
and low-emission transit buses as well
as acquisition, construction, and
leasing of required supporting
facilities.
$1.6 Billion
(FY 2025)
BRT Applicability for this
funding source include:
> purchasing or leasing
low- or no-emission
buses
> acquiring low- or noemission buses with a
leased power source
Low or No Emission
Grant Program | FTA
RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
May 20, 2026 | 61
> constructing or leasing
facilities and related
equipment for low- or
no-emission buses
> constructing new public
transportation facilities to
accommodate low- or
no-emission buses
> rehabilitating or
improving existing public
transportation facilities to
accommodate low- or
no-emission buses
> Additionally 0.5% of a
request may be for
workforce development
training and an additional

0.5% may be for training
at the National Transit
Institute (NTI)
Capital
Investment
Grants (CIG)
The Capital Investments Grants
provide funding through a multi-year
competitive process for transit capital
investments, including heavy rail,
commuter rail, light rail, streetcars, and
bus rapid transit. Federal transit law
requires transit agencies seeking CIG
funding to complete a series of steps
over several years to be eligible for
funding.
$3 billion per year in annual
appropriations and $1.6
billion per year in advance
appropriations
BRT Applicability for this
funding source include:
> New Starts Projects
must be new fixed
guideway projects or
extensions to existing
fixed guideway systems
(including fixed-guideway
BRT) that have a total
estimated capital cost of
$400 million or more or
that are seeking $150
million or more in CIG
program funds.
> Small Starts projects
must be new fixed
guideway projects,
extensions to existing
Capital Investment
Grants Program | FTA
RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
62 | May 20, 2026
fixed guideway systems,
or corridor-based bus
rapid transit
projects that have a total
estimated capital cost of
less than $400 million
and must be seeking
less than $150 million in
CIG program funds.

Surface
Transportation
Block Grant
(STBG)
The STBG program provides flexible
funding that may be used by States
and localities for projects to preserve
and improve the conditions and
performance on any Federal-aid
highway, bridge and tunnel projects on
any public road, pedestrian and
bicycle infrastructure, and transit
capital projects, including intercity bus
terminals.
$14.97 Billion
(FY 2026)
BRT Applicability for this
funding source include:
> Capital Projects:
capital projects for the
construction of a bus
rapid transit corridor or
dedicated bus lane
Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs
Act - Surface
Transportation Block
Grant (STBG) Fact
Sheet | Federal
Highway
Administration
Congestion
Mitigation and
Air Quality
(CMAQ)
The IIJA continues CMAQ to provide a
flexible funding source to State and
local governments for transportation
projects and programs to help meet
the requirements of the Clean Air Act.

Funding is available to reduce
congestion and improve air quality for
areas that do not meet the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for
ozone, carbon monoxide, or
particulate matter (nonattainment
areas) and for former nonattainment
areas that are now in compliance
(maintenance areas).
$2.74 Billion
(FY 2026)
BRT Applicability for this
funding source include:
> Transit Facilities are
eligible if they are
associated with new or
enhanced public transit,
passenger rail, or other
similar services.
> Bus service and fleet
expansions that increase
ridership by providing
new or expanding bus
services are eligible.
> High-Occupancy
Vehicle and Managed
lanes including bus lanes
are eligible.

Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs
Act - Congestion
Mitigation and Air
Quality (CMAQ)
Improvement Program
Fact Sheet | Federal
Highway
Administration
State Funding
RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
May 20, 2026 | 63
Transit and
Intercity Rail
Capital
Program
(TIRCP)
The Transit and Intercity Rail Capital
Program (TIRCP) provides grants from
the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund
(GGRF) to fund transformative capital
improvements that will modernize
California’s intercity, commuter, and
urban rail systems, and bus and ferry
transit systems, to significantly reduce
emissions of greenhouse gases,
vehicle miles traveled, and congestion
$1.33 billion
(Cycle 7 - FY 2024)
BRT Applicability for this
funding source include:
> Bus rapid transit that
will increase ridership
and reduce
greenhouse gas
emissions
Transit and Intercity
Rail Capital Program |
CalSTA
Local
Partnership
Program (LPP)
The Road Repair and Accountability
Act of 2017 (Senate Bill 1) created the
Local Partnership Program and
continuously appropriates $200 million
annually from the Road Maintenance
and Rehabilitation Account to local
and regional transportation agencies
that have sought and received voter
approval of taxes or that have imposed
fees, which taxes or fees are
dedicated solely for transportation
improvements.
$200 Million Annually BRT Applicability for this
funding source include:
> Improvements to
transit facilities, including
guideways, that expand
transit services,
increase transit ridership,
improve transit safety,
enhance access or
convenience of the
traveling public, or
otherwise provide or
facilitate a viable
alternative to driving.
> Acquisition of zeroemission buses
> Other transportation
improvement projects
Local Partnership
Program | CTC
Solutions for
Congested
Corridors
Program
(SCCP)
The Solutions for Congested Corridors
Program is a statewide, competitive
program that funds projects to reduce
congestion in heavily traveled
corridors. Projects must deliver
measurable performance
improvements that balance mobility,
community, and environmental
impacts. All projects nominated for the
Solutions for Congested Corridors
$250 Million Annually BRT Applicability for this
funding source include:
> Capital Projects: New
or existing transit
infrastructure
improvements for new or
improved service
including adding
roadway capacity for
new or improved transit
Solutions for
Congested Corridors
Program (SCCP) |
CTC
RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
64 | May 20, 2026
Program must be included in a
comprehensive multimodal corridor
plan (CMCP).
service, such as bus-only
lanes or dedicated buson-shoulder facilities
State
Transportation
Improvement
Program
(STIP)
The STIP is a multi-year capital
improvement program of
transportation projects on and off the
State Highway System, funded with
revenues from the Transportation
Investment Fund and other funding
sources. The purpose of this program
is to provide state transportation
funds for state highway improvements,
intercity rail, and regional highway and
transit improvements. The STIP
consists of two broad sub-programs:
the Regional Improvement Program
(RIP) and the Interregional
Improvement Program (IIP).
$32 Billion
(FY 2026-2027)
BRT Applicability for this
funding source include:
> The projects may
include State highway,
intercity passenger rail,
mass transit guideway,
or grade separation
projects.

State Transportation
Improvement Program
(STIP) | Caltrans
Local Funding
LA County
Measure M
Passed in 2016 by LA County, this no
sunset half-cent sales tax funds
projects to ease vehicular congestion,
repair local streets and sidewalks,
expand public transportation,
seismically retrofit bridges, and
subsidize transit fares for students,
older adults, and people with mobility
limitations.
$1 Billion
(FY 2022)
BRT Applicability for this
funding source include:
> Bus rapid transit
Capital Improvements
Measure M Guidelines
LA County
Measure R
Approved by LA County in 2008,
Measure R is a half-cent sales tax that
finances new transportation projects
and programs and accelerates funding
for projects in the pipeline. 15% is
allocated to local jurisdictions through
a Local Return, which may fund bus
stop improvements.
$13 Million
(Over 30-year period from
2010-2039)
BRT Applicability for this
funding source include:
> Exclusive Bus Lanes
> Traffic signal priority for
buses
> Preferential turning
lanes for buses
> Bus Stops
> Bus/Station Amenities
Measure R Guidelines
RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
May 20, 2026 | 65
Proposition A Proposition A is a half-cent sales tax:
25% is designated to a Local Return
program, 35% is designated to rail
development and 40% is designated
for discretionary funding.
$1.2 Billion
(FY 2024)
BRT Applicability for this
funding source include:
> New or expanded
transit services
> Transportation system
management for
reserved bus lanes
> Bus-only transit malls
or station
Proposition A and C
Guidelines
Proposition C Proposition C is a half-cent sales tax:
20% is designated for a Local Return;
5% is designated for rail and bus
security; 10% is designated for
commuter rail, transit centers, and
park-and-ride facilities; 25% is
designated for transit-related highway
improvements; and 40% is designated
as discretionary funding.
$1.2 Billion
(FY 2024)
BRT Applicability for this
funding source include:
> Bus rapid transit
Capital Improvements
Proposition A and C
Guidelines
RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
66 | May 20, 2026
This page is intentionally left blank.

RoseWood Complete Corridor Vision Plan
May 20, 2026 | 67
7 NEXT STEPS
The Plan identifies a long-term vision for the corridor and multiple potential pathways to achieve it.

While the corridor stakeholders continue to collaborate on long-term planning for potential BRT implementation, corridor cities can achieve immediate benefits through early action improvements such as TSP and enhancing bus stop amenities. These improvements will enhance the rider experience and can help build the corridor identity for future funding pursuits. For the long-term, corridor stakeholders could continue to collaboratively advance incremental infrastructure and service improvements in phased approach or develop a substantial corridor-level investment plan to seek funding for a more substantial corridor-wide investment through the FTA CIG program.

COUNCIL

MEETING
DATE

COUNCIL MEMBER REQUEST DETAIL DIRECTOR(S)
ACTION TAKEN: Memo; Staff
Report; Closed Session;
Presentation; Follow-up
Meeting; City Manager Reports;
Informal Action

DISCUSSION
ITEM
ACTION

ITEM DATE
STATUS:

Complete;
Pending;
On-going;
In-Progress
11/12/2025 Sanchez/Camacho SNAP Benefits Assistance to residents 11/12/2025 Sanchez/Garcia Tow Truck Company Ordinance regulation/procurement process Alvie Betancourt

GOOD OF THE ORDER
Back to Outline