A homeowners’ group from Sherman Oaks critical of LA Metro is demanding the transit agency answer 20 detailed questions about its Sepulveda Pass transit project and provide extra time for the public to review future environmental reports.
In a letter dated Feb. 28, the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association asks Metro to double the comment period on the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project’s future Draft Environmental Impact Report from 45 to 90 days to allow more time for commenting on a document that will be more than 20,000 pages, the letter states.
The letter, signed by Bob Anderson, SOHA’s vice president and transportation committee chair, says Metro has not been forthcoming about the massive project that will potentially impact homes, traffic and aesthetics in Sherman Oaks.
Metro is considering six alternative routes, either by a monorail (alternatives 1-3) or underground heavy rail (alternatives 4-6) that would become the first transit project to connect the San Fernando Valley with L.A.’s Westside. It would be built either over or under the Santa Monica Mountains, offering an alternative to driving the busy 405 Freeway.
If Metro does not answer SOHA’s questions, most of which center on cost estimates, funding sources, outreach and use of eminent domain, the group will ask federal and state agencies that have given billions of dollars in grants to other Metro rail projects to withhold funding for the Sepulveda Pass project until all questions are answered and posted on the transit agency’s website.
SOHA has given Metro until Thursday, March 14, to answer all of its questions before it tells outside funding agencies “that Metro has withheld essential project information from the public,” the letter states.
“We’d like to be able to get their funding canceled or put on hold,” Anderson said in an interview on March 4. “If you want to call it a threat, call it a threat.”
Stephanie Wiggins, Metro CEO, responded to the letter in an email, saying, “Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project. I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your correspondence below regarding the Project and to let you know that I have asked my staff to review your comments and questions and prepare a response.”
Anderson was thankful for Wiggins’ quick notice of receipt of the group’s letter, which is prefaced by saying the group has submitted 80 questions and comments since 2018 but has yet to get a response.
Without mincing words, the letter says that by promptly answering SOHA’s 20 questions, Metro will help the public better respond to the upcoming draft EIR. It also says that Metro’s trust as a “public steward” is on the line.
“Metro is committed to delivering a high quality, viable transit solution to relieve Angelenos from the legendary soul crushing traffic of the 405 freeway. We know the environmental review process can be lengthy, but we owe it to taxpayers and future riders to do a thorough analysis and get it right,” said Metro spokesman Dave Sotero in an email on Thursday.
The project would have two end points: the north end would be at the Metrolink/Amtrak station at Van Nuys Boulevard and Saticoy Street, while the south end connects to the Metro E (formerly Exposition) light rail line, which runs from Santa Monica to East Los Angeles. The line would either use an aerial Disneyesque monorail, or an underground subway similar to those running in downtown Los Angeles. Or a mixture of the two.
Two private companies were signed by Metro to prepare the concepts and designs. Los Angeles SkyRail Express (LASRE) is developing plans to build the monorail, while Sepulveda Transit Corridor Partners, including Bechtel Development Company, Meridiam Infrastructure and American Triple I Partners, would build the heavy rail.
LA Metro and the EIR will examine six configurations, with Alternatives 1 to 3 mostly monorail, and Alternatives 4 to 6 heavy rail. The six alternatives are:
Alternative 1: (15.3 miles) Monorail with aerial alignment on 405 Freeway corridor and electric bus connection to UCLA.
Alternative 2: (15.8 miles) Monorail with aerial alignment on 405 Freeway corridor and aerial automated people mover connection to UCLA. However, LASRE has asked that this option no longer be considered, Metro reported.
Alternative 3: (16.2 miles) Monorail with aerial alignment on 405 Freeway corridor and underground alignment between Getty Center and Wilshire Boulevard. This would allow for an underground station at UCLA.
Alternative 4: (14 miles) Heavy rail with underground alignment south of Ventura Boulevard and aerial alignment generally along Sepulveda Boulevard in the San Fernando Valley, with four aerial stations.
Alternative 5: (14 miles) Heavy rail with underground alignment including along Sepulveda Boulevard in the San Fernando Valley.
Alternative 6: (12.6 miles) Heavy rail with underground alignment including along Van Nuys Boulevard in the San Fernando Valley and a southern terminus station on Bundy Drive.
Travel time and boarding projections will be part of the environmental impact report which is scheduled for completion next year. Ultimately, the LA Metro Board will determine the preferred alternative route, station alignments — and updated cost estimates. Completion is estimated between 2033 and 2035, according to Metro.
Metro has about $8 billion budgeted, mostly from Measure M, the half-cent sales tax for transportation projects passed by county voters in 2016 — including a majority in the San Fernando Valley.
Anderson and SOHA have favored the monorail for many reasons, saying it could be built at a price reflective of the current Metro budget. Sepulveda Transit Corridor Partners put the cost of their subway/rail project at $10.8 billion.
In 2022, Anderson said he was concerned that tunneling would cause damage to homes, and that being underground in a subway during a major earthquake would be dangerous. Metro has completed numerous tunnels for several rail lines and has not had problems with aboveground shaking and the tunnels have withstood earthquakes with no damage.
Recently, the group has said heavy rail options would actually cost upwards of $25 billion and that Metro would not have the money to complete it. Metro has not released updated cost figures but plans to discuss costs at meetings next year, the agency reported.
“What is the cost of something you have been studying for eight years?” Anderson said in a question directed at LA Metro. He said this and other questions in the letter are what many in the corridor want to know.
Coby King, a public affairs consultant on transportation issues with clients at Metro, said he agrees with SOHA’s request to extend the comment time for the EIR.
Anderson said he wants Metro to hold more in-person meetings, saying, “Let them sit down and discuss the project, with SOHA, the Bel Air homeowners and UCLA. I want to see substantial open meetings with individual communities.”
Metro will hold community meetings on the project over the next two to three months, mostly to talk about LASRE’s monorail alternative. Also Metro reported it will hold additional community meetings before the release of the draft EIR in early 2025. At those meetings, construction and operating costs will be discussed, Metro reported.
King said cost analysis information from Metro will be coming but it will take some time.
In an interview on March 4, King, speaking only for himself, said: “There is no evidence anywhere that Metro is hiding information. I am confident when numbers are available on costs and funding, that Metro will release them. Then we will be able to see how to structure it and pay for it.”
As to SOHA’s threat to hold up federal and state funding for the project, King said: “I’m confident the federal government and state government will help us.”
He called SOHA’s preference for the monorail approach “largely out of step with the opinions of other elected officials and groups in the San Fernando Valley.”
Anderson said Metro should have solid cost and funding numbers available before presenting build options. But the agency doesn’t approach projects that way and does environmental studies first as per California state law.
“In my opinion that is an idiotic way of operating,” he said.