Dozens of residents and transit advocates urged the Irvine City Council on Sept. 30 to end the city’s litigation over the proposed Orange County Maintenance Facility so Metrolink trains can run more frequently and reliably.

Supporters told the council during a period of public comment that a completed maintenance facility — often called the OCMF or rail maintenance yard — would enable more frequent Metrolink and Amtrak service, reduce car traffic and improve commuting options for lower‑income workers who rely on transit.

The comments followed a closed‑session item on existing litigation between the city and the Orange County Transportation Authority. After the closed session the council reported “no reportable action.” No motions or votes were taken in open session on the litigation during the meeting.

“Get them off the roads, get them on the train,” said Doug Elliott, who identified himself as an Irvine commissioner speaking for himself. “This maintenance facility will be a critical part of the public transit infrastructure.”

Deborah Franza, an Irvine resident and frequent Metrolink rider, said disruptions and irregular schedules are common now. “If we can get the Orange County maintenance facility to progress as we want it to … it allows the trains to run at a more consistent time period,” she said.

Several speakers described equity and climate benefits. Mason Buck, a Cypress Village resident, told the council the facility would “expand access for low income communities who may not be able to afford to live in Orange County,” and called it core infrastructure for the Southern California Optimized Rail Expansion (SCORE) efforts. James Wong, a Woodbridge resident, summarized the frequent‑service argument: “Frequency is freedom,” he said, urging the city to drop the lawsuit.

Others emphasized day‑to‑day impacts. Colton Roan, speaking on behalf of U.S. Rep. Mike Levin’s office, said congressional work is under way to provide a federal pathway for consolidated interim storage and to prioritize removal of fuel from high‑risk sites; he said local engagement supports federal efforts.

Council members did not vote on the litigation in open session. After public comment the council recessed and later reconvened for a separate study session. Mayor and council remarks at the end of the meeting said the matter would be considered further in future discussions, but the council did not adopt a resolution or instruct staff to dismiss or settle the litigation during the Sept. 30 meeting.

The litigation identified in closed session was City of Irvine v. Orange County Transportation Authority, Orange County Superior Court case number 30‑2023‑01366419, discussed during the closed session announcement by the city attorney. The closed session agenda included other property negotiation items that were not reported as actions in open session.

The city clerk recorded public commenters supporting the maintenance facility and asking the council to lift legal barriers; supporters included frequent transit users, local commissioners and residents who said improved Metrolink service would reduce freeway congestion and provide more reliable travel for students and workers. Opponents or other perspectives were not represented in the public comment period on Sept. 30.

What’s next: The council did not make a public commitment to drop or continue litigation at the meeting. Residents and speakers asked the council to act to remove barriers so construction could proceed; the city’s next formal steps — whether litigation will be continued, settled or otherwise resolved — were not decided in open session on Sept. 30.