Paragraph (b) and (c) seem fairly clear to me

I recently sent a letter to Katy Yaroslavsky showing that upzoning mostly along commercial corridors (as CHIP does) will exacerbate health disparities.

Today, she was the deciding "yes" vote to oppose SB 79, knowingly reinforcing social determinants of health and health inequities in LA.

I would need to check the RSA for each resource but for example, the "station planning, land use, and development" RSA already includes the most likely station areas (I think it would be where the industry freight spur is being closed if not at the current metrolink location)

At that point I wish they'd add a station at National if they are already digging. UCLA housing has~1200 family/grad housing units across the street and another 500+ within ~1 mile. The area generally just has the highest density of student and faculty/staff commuters besides Sawtelle

I don’t understand how they whiffed so badly on this one. Hard to believe none of these options would be possible with some easements for a better cxn. But the one benefit is that UCLA is making Lot 36 a transit hub/bus bay where all the transit agencies will connect, right next to alt 3.

I really hope metro uses this to procure fully-walkthrough sets with longitudinal seating, similar to new B23 stock on the DLR. Our current LRVs have some of the most inefficient layouts I’ve ever experienced. Standing capacity for big events basically just means blocking every door

Biking to campus today straight into the headwind was my tour de france