but also addresses the other concerns of the Metro Board and the public.  Specifically, these include: (1) the transition at Indiana Street; and (2) the impacts related to the station location at Beverly and Atlantic Boulevards.  Both options are minor refinements of the LRT Build Alternative presented in the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

Based on the comments received, the preliminary engineering activities, and the other technical studies conducted, as well as the extensive community outreach program, the Metro staff concluded that the option which best responds to the direction of the Board and the comments received is Option B.  Accordingly, LRT Build Alternative Option B is the Metro staff recommendation for adoption by the Board as the refined Locally Preferred Alternative and as the adopted project.  (See Attachment D for Computer Simulated Station Designs.)

LRT Build Alternative Option B includes the following modifications (presented in more detail throughout the Final SEIS/SEIR):

¨       Alameda Street Alignment and 1^st/Alameda Station – the Alameda Street alignment has been moved off-street, to just east of Alameda Street, and the 1^st St./Alameda Station has been moved from the middle of the 1^st Street to just east of Alameda Street necessitating some additional partial acquisitions and full acquisition of a gas station along the east side of Alameda Street, from Commercial Street to 1^st Street.  The off-street alignment will provide higher traffic capacity on Alameda Street and address other concerns from the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT).  The movement of the station responds to Little Tokyo businesses’ concerns to provide a more convenient location.  On 1^st Street from Alameda to Vignes Street, two lanes of traffic in each direction will be provided instead of one traffic lane in each direction to provide higher traffic capacity on 1^st Street. 

¨       Indiana Street Transition – The LRT track alignment is moved to an off-street, at-grade alignment between 1^st and 3^rd Streets (on the east side of Indiana Street outside the current street right-of-way).  Ramona High School (located at the northeast corner of 3^rd Street/Indiana Street) will either be relocated to another site acceptable to the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and Metro or reconstructed on the existing site.   

¨       Modified Station Locations - The 1^st/Lorena, 3^rd/Rowan, and Beverly/Atlantic Stations would be moved to 3^rd/Indiana (off-street location on the Ramona High School property), 3^rd/Ford, and Pomona/Atlantic (west of Atlantic), respectively.

For the maintenance facility option, the Board selected use of the existing Red Line Yard during approval of the Draft SEIS/SEIR.  There are no modifications to this selection. 

The identification and assessment of all reasonable and feasible alternatives accomplished by the Major Investment Study (MIS), the Draft SEIS/SEIR and the Final SEIS/SEIR meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as well as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The certification of the Final SEIS/SEIR and selection of the LPA is consistent with the November 1998 Board adopted policy defined in the Regional Transportation Alternatives Analysis (RTAA) and the MIS (February 200) which provide for a fixed guideway transit alternative in this transit dependent corridor.  The project approval is also consistent with the May 2001 Board adoption of the LPA based on the Draft SEIS/SEIR.  The Eastside Light Rail Transit project is contained in the Metro Long Range Plan.

OPTIONS

The Metro Eastside Corridor MIS, accepted by the Board in February 2000, considered 47 route and mode alternatives.  In February 2000, the Board selected a single alignment.  In May 2001, the Board adopted the Light Rail Transit, Option 1 in the Draft SEIS/SEIR as the LPA.  The Final SEIS/SEIR contemplates the LPA with two alternative sets of refinements (Options A & B) and the No Build Alternative. 

Adoption of the No Build Alternative would be contrary to the Board’s adopted policy to provide fixed guideway transit for this corridor.  The Board could defer approval of either of the refined LPA options.  However, this action would delay the project schedule, increase cost and increase the risk of losing Federal Fixed Guideway funds earmarked for Los Angeles County.

The Board could adopt LRT Build Alternative Option A (see attachment E), which includes only the refinement to the Metro Board approved LPA for the Alameda Street Alignment and 1^st/Alameda Station. This is the same refinement as previously described for Option B.  Although Option A addresses the Alameda and 1^st Street concerns, it does not address the transition on Indiana or the traffic impacts to Beverly and Atlantic Boulevards.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

Adoption of the LPA does not have an impact to the Metro FY02 Budget.  The recommended LPA keeps the project within just over 1% of the project costs identified in the August 14, 2001 FTA Section 5309 Report. The current capital cost estimate for the recommended Project is $826.3 million in year of expenditure dollars.  Funding is allocated in Cost Center 4320, project number 800088, task 2.2.10.01 to proceed with the next step in project development.   This is a multi-year project and the cost center manager and Executive Officer will be responsible for programming the necessary funds in the Metro FY03 Budget.

BACKGROUND

Following the suspension of the Metro Red Line Eastside Extension, Metro Red Line Mid-City Extension and Pasadena Blue Line in January 1998, the Board directed the development of the RTAA.  The RTAA identified additional cost effective fixed guideway alternatives for the Eastside, Mid-City/Westside and San Fernando Valley Corridors.  In February 2000, the Board accepted the MIS for the Eastside Corridor, which identified a single project alignment.  In June 2000, the Board adopted Light Rail as the preferred mode for this alignment and authorized the completion of the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

The Draft SEIS/SEIR evaluated the Light Rail Transit (LRT) Build Alternative along with its three transition options between 1^st Street and 3^rd Street (via Indiana Avenue) and the No-Build Alternative.  In May 2000, the Board selected the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) and the Transition Option 1 but also directed staff to conduct additional analysis at specific locations in response to community comments received during circulation of the Draft SEIS/SEIR.  The Board also selected the existing Red Line Yard as the Maintenance and Storage Facility (M&SF) site.

A comprehensive community outreach program was conducted throughout the development of the Draft SEIS/SEIR.  The Metro conducted three formal Public Hearings in accordance with Federal and State environmental law.  The formal public comment period was also extended 30 days for a total of 75 days.  Summaries of the public testimony submitted at public hearings and throughout the comment period were included in the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

The FSEIS/FSEIS comprehensively responds to all the community comments received during circulation of the Draft SEIS/SEIR.  In response to community comments and per Board direction, the LPA was refined to include the two options described as LRT Build Alternative Option A & B in the Final SEIS/SEIR.  Metro also conducted several community meetings and invited the public and residents that live near the areas where the refinements were introduced.  Based on the comments received, the preliminary engineering activities, and the other technical studies conducted, as well as the extensive community outreach program, the Metro staff concluded that the option which best responds to the direction of the Board and the comments received is Option B.  Accordingly, LRT Build Alternative Option B is the Metro staff recommendation for adoption by the Board as the refined Locally Preferred Alternative and as the adopted project.  

Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources code requires that public agencies approving a project with an Environmental Impact Report adopt a Mitigation Monitoring plan (MMP) (See Attachment B).  The purpose of the MMP is to ensure that the mitigation measures identified in the EIR to mitigate the potentially significant environmental effects of the project are, in fact, properly carried out.  Following adoption of the MMP, the Metro is responsible for assuring full compliance with the provisions of the MMP.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 requires that Metro make certain findings with respect to those environmental effects of the project determined in the Environmental Impact Report to be significant.  These findings are contained in the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. (See Attachment A.)  In addition, where significant environmental effects are not found to be avoided or mitigated to a less than significant level, CEQA requires that the Metro must balance, as applicable, the economic legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the project against its unavoidable impacts when determining whether to approve a project.  CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a) states that if the specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered acceptable. The Metro Board must find that notwithstanding the disclosure of these significant and unavoidable impacts, there are specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, and other reasons for approving this project and that these reasons serve to override and outweigh the project’s significant unavoidable effects.   Thus, the adverse effects are considered acceptable.  CEQA requires Metro to support, in writing (see Attachment A – Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations), the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened.

NEXT STEPS

Assuming Board approval of the staff recommendation, Metro staff and consultants will prepare the Notice of Determination for the Eastside Corridor.  Upon review and approval by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), a Record of Decision will be issued.  The  Metro will then be authorized to enter into final design and will begin negotiating the Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) with the FTA. 

ATTACHMENTS:

A   Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

B   Mitigation Monitoring Plan

C   LRT Build Alternative Option B

D   Computer Simulated Station Designs

E   LRT Build Alternative Option A

Prepared by:         Ray Sosa, Project Manager

                            Diego Cardoso, Director

                  Pedestrian/Urban Environment Transportation Linkages