Authority to Construct - CEQA Discussion

The Commission is a Responsible Agency for these applications and as such is required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to review and consider the environmental documents produced by the lead agency before we can grant authority to construct. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15050(b), 15096.)

Over the life of the Los Angeles to Pasadena Metro Blue Line Project ("Project"), the Authority and its predecessors in interest have prepared numerous environmental review documents for the Project as the lead Agency (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.). The following is a chronological listing of the environmental documents (collectively, the "Environmental Documents") prepared for the Project:


· Draft EIR, 1988 (SCH # 88042713). This document was circulated for public review in 1988. Due to changes in project design initiated in response to public comment, the Draft EIR was substantially revised and recirculated as the Revised Draft EIR in 1989. While the Final EIR supersedes this document for purposes of environmental review, comments received during public review of the Draft EIR and the Revised Draft EIR were responded to and included in the Final EIR.


· Final EIR, 1990 (SCH # 89082327). This document addressed the environmental review for both the Highland Park and North Main alternatives with various segment options, rail yards, and other facilities.


· Mitigated Negative Declaration, 1991 (SCH # 91071040). This document addressed the environmental review for the aerial structure from Downtown Los Angeles/Union Station to Chinatown.


· Final Supplemental EIR, 1993 (SCH # 92071005). This document addressed the environmental review for three alternative locations for the maintenance facility, three new station locations, and two grade separations.


· Final Supplemental EIR #2, 1994 (SCH # 93121099). This document addressed the environmental review for a change in operations along Marmion Way, five additional street closures in Highland Park, additional property acquisitions, sound barrier modifications, a cut-and-cover tunnel option for the Marmion Way/Figueroa Street grade separation, and alternate location for a park-and-ride facility.


· Addendum #1, 1995 (No SCH #). This document addressed the environmental review for additional property acquisitions.


· Addendum #2, 1996 (No SCH #). This document addressed the environmental review for redesign of the Del Mar Station and transfer of entitlements.


· Addendum #3, 2000 (SCH # 93121099). This document addressed the environmental review for minor modifications to the Project subsequent to transfer of the Project from the MTA to the Authority; including the opening of three at-grade crossings, various Project enhancements, selection of a train vehicle, and construction of an aerial pedestrian bridge at Sierra Madre Villa station.

Each of the grade crossings proposed as part of the Project was analyzed for environmental effects in the Environmental Documents. The eight grade-separated crossings associated with the Chinatown Station alignment were analyzed as part of the project in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #91071040) approved and adopted by the MTA on March 25, 1992. The four grade-separated crossings associated with the Colorado Boulevard segment and the Southwest Museum Station at-grade crossing were analyzed as part of the Project in the Final Supplemental EIR #1 (SCH #92071005) approved and adopted by the MTA on January 27, 1993. The grade-separated crossing at Figueroa Street and Marmion Way was analyzed as part of the Project in Final Supplemental EIR #2 (SCH #93121099), approved and adopted by the MTA on May 25, 1994. The environmental effects associated with the twenty-seven (27) other grade-separated crossings and twenty-seven (27) other at-grade crossings proposed as part of the Project were analyzed in the Final EIR (SCH # 89082327), approved and adopted by the MTA on March 30, 1990.

The Environmental Documents for the Project identified seven unavoidable significant environmental effects, for which Findings and A Statement of Overriding Considerations ("SOC") was adopted. While these are summarized below, the particular environmental effects are not within the scope of the Commission's permitting authority for this project. Accordingly, we are not required under CEQA to adopt related findings. (Public Resources Code Sections 21153(c), 21204(c).)

Pursuant to the analysis in the Final EIR, an SOC was adopted for the two unavoidable significant adverse impacts of the selected alternative: (1) modifications to the historic Arroyo Seco Bridge; and (2) loss of parking along Marmion Way between Avenue 51 and Avenue 57.

The aforementioned modification to the historic Arroyo Seco railroad bridge across State Route 110 was identified as a significant adverse impact in the Final EIR due to the widening of the bridge deck and reinforcement of the historic structure to meet seismic safety requirements. The MTA submitted a grade crossing application for this crossing in 1994 (A.94-11-027), which was approved by the Commission in 1995 by D.95-09-067. The reinforcement and seismic modifications then were completed by the MTA prior to their suspension of the Project.

Pursuant to the analysis in Supplemental EIR #1, an SOC was adopted for four unavoidable significant adverse impacts associated with the Project changes: (1) temporary traffic impacts during construction at the Marmion Way/Figueroa Street intersection; (2) visual impacts of the then-proposed aerial structure at Marmion Way/Figueroa Street (subsequently eliminated in favor of a below-grade alternative); (3) traffic impacts at Fair Oaks and Colorado Boulevard associated with the Colorado Boulevard grade separation; and (4) visual impacts from the aerial structure for the west bank maintenance facility.

Finally, pursuant to the analysis in Supplemental EIR #2, an SOC was adopted for the unavoidable significant adverse vibration impacts associated with the proposed Project changes.

Of the 14 applications now pending before the Commission (excluding A.00-04-022 already approved by the Commission), only two of those applications involve rail crossings for which any significant environmental impact has been identified in the Environmental Documents: A.00-11-016 and A.00-10-039. The visual impacts associated with the aerial structure for the west bank maintenance facility does not involve any railroad crossing application before the Commission, and is outside the purview of the Commission's discretionary approval of any aspect of the Project. Largely in response to public and City of Los Angeles comments and involvement, the aerial structure at Marmion Way/Figueroa Street was eliminated in favor of a below-grade separation, extinguishing the significant visual and short-term traffic impacts associated with that structure. In addition, the unavoidable significant adverse vibration impacts associated with the Project are not associated with grade crossings proposed as part of the Project but rather the entirety of the Project itself, and so are not within the Commission's jurisdiction over the Project. The remaining significant impacts are related to the following applications:

Application 00-11-016. This application seeks approval of at-grade crossings from Avenue 50 to Avenue 57 along Marmion Way. The Final EIR (1990) identified one unavoidable significant adverse impact associated with this configuration - loss of parking along Marmion Way between Avenue 51 and Avenue 57.

The loss of parking along Marmion Way is not an environmental impact within the scope of the Commission's authority over grade crossings. Rather, this impact stems from the conversion of a portion of the Marmion Way right-of-way to accommodate the proposed light rail alignment.

Application 00-10-039. This application seeks approval of grade separations at four streets in the City of Pasadena, including Colorado Boulevard. Final Supplemental EIR #1 found traffic at the intersection of Fair Oaks Avenue and Colorado Boulevard to be impacted beyond an acceptable level of service under all Colorado Boulevard grade crossing scenarios, regardless of whether the proposed grade separation was constructed.

This impact also does not fall within the purview of the Commission's authority over the Project's grade crossings. The Final Supplemental EIR #1 indicates that the Fair Oaks Avenue and Colorado Boulevard intersection would be impacted beyond an acceptable level of service under either an at-grade or grade-separated crossing, due to trips generated by the Holly Street/Memorial Park station and ambient traffic growth in the area. Final SEIR #1 at 4-27. Since the traffic impacts at this intersection are not generated by the grade crossing, this significant impact does not fall within the scope of the Commission's review of the Project's Environmental Documents.

Comments on Proposed Decision

On December 26, 2001, the alternate decision in this proceeding of Commissioner Lynch was filed with the Commission and served on the parties in accordance with Section 311(d) of the Public Utilities Code and Rule 77.1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments have been received from the Applicant (Authority) and the Mt. Washington Association.

The Authority recommends that we confirm the ACR and that we also grant final authority to construct several additional crossings that it alleges are no longer at issue. We will not accept the recommended changes at this time.

Mt Washington makes an argument regarding duties of a responsible agency under CEQA. We are not persuaded to change our order in this regard.

Findings of Fact

6. We have considered the Assigned Commissioner's Ruling dated November 1, 2001 and decline to confirm the ruling.

7. Notices of the applications were published in the Commission Daily Calendar.

8. Los Angeles to Pasadena Metro Blue Line Construction Authority (Authority) requests authority, under Public Utilities Code Sections 1201-1205, to construct light rail tracks at certain separated grades and certain at-grade crossings through various intersections in the Cities of Los Angeles, Pasadena and South Pasadena in Los Angeles County.

9. Construction of the proposed project is an essential element in the construction of the Los Angeles to Pasadena Metro Blue Line light rail transit project.

10. Public convenience, necessity and safety require the construction of the proposed light rail tracks at separated grades.

11. MTA (its successor agencies) is the Lead Agency for this project under CEQA.

12. The Commission is a responsible agency for this project, and has reviewed and considered the lead agency's Final Environmental Impact Report, (FEIR) supplements to the FEIR and the statement of overriding considerations.

13. The Lead Agency found that The Los Angeles to Pasadena Metro Blue Line light rail transit project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Lead Agency also concluded that the mitigation measures required by the lead agency in the areas of noise and vibration, housing, transportation/circulation, and other issues will reduce the severity of the adverse impacts to acceptable levels. These effects were not identified as being specific to any of the proposed crossing locations.

14. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted related to specific aspects of this project.

15. Transit improvements are an integral part of the Regional Air Quality Management Plan.

16. A shift from auto to rail transit would be beneficial to the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area.

17. The Project is in conformance with applicable local improvement and regional transportation plans. This project will be part of the countywide rail transit system, and will thereby provide alternative means of transportation during fuel crises and increased future traffic congestion.

Conclusions of Law

18. The Assigned Commissioner's Ruling dated November 1, 2001, should not become a final order of the Commission.

19. There are no unresolved matters or protests with respect to the applications as discussed in this order above.

20. A.00-10-020, A.00-10-033, A.00-10-039, A.00-10-050, A.00-11-029, A.00-11-032, A.00-11-033, A.00-11-034, and A.00-11-050 should be granted as set forth in the following order.

INTERIM ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Los Angeles to Pasadena Metro Blue Line Construction Authority (Authority) is authorized to construct grade crossings as proposed in Application (A.) 00-10-020, A.00-10-033, A.00-10-039, A.00-10-050, A.00-11-029, A.00-11-032, A.00-11-033, A.00-11-034, and A.00-11-050 in the Cities of Los Angeles, Pasadena and South Pasadena in Los Angeles County substantially in accordance with the plans attached to the applications and as delineated in Table 1 of this Decision.

2. The crossings shall be identified as described in Table 1 of this Decision.

3. Clearances and walkways shall be in accordance with the Commission's General Order (GO) 143-B.

4. Walkways shall conform to GO 118.

5. The crossings shall be fitted with warning devices, as described in Table 1 of this Decision, in accordance with GO 75-C.

6. Construction and maintenance costs shall be borne in accordance with the agreement titled Master Cooperative Agreement for the Los Angeles to Pasadena Metro Blue Line by and between the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles to Pasadena Metro Blue Line Construction Authority, date June 13, 2000.

7. Within 30 days after completion of the work under this order, Authority shall notify the Commission's Rail Safety and Carriers Division in writing that the authorized work was completed.

8. This authorization shall expire if not exercised within three years unless time is extended or if the above conditions are not complied with. Authorization may be revoked or modified if public convenience, necessity, or safety so require.

9. The applications are categorized as Ratesetting.

This order is effective today.

Dated January 9, 2002, at San Francisco, California.

I will file partial dissent.

I will file partial dissent.

A.00-10-012 etal.

D.02-01-035

Commissioners Richard A. Bilas and Henry M. Duque, dissenting in part:

Today's decision has the same goal as Commissioner Bilas' Assigned Commissioner Ruling (ACR), which is to minimize the waste of taxpayer dollars. While the decision will reduce the amount of wasted taxpayer dollars, the decision does not go far enough.

We believe that the work on the approved, non-controversial crossings will be completed before a final decision will be issued. The result is that contractors will still be idle, although admittedly for a shorter amount of time that an outright denial of the ACR would have caused. Second, there will be a tremendous loss of efficiency at some crossings. As the Construction Authority is laying track, it will be forced to stop construction at the near end of a crossing, and then resume construction on the far end of the crossing. Heavy equipment, some of which are designed to operate while on the rail line, will need to be physically moved over the crossing. After the final decision, the Construction Authority will need to return to the site to join the two segments together. These two factors alone will cause an additional burden on taxpayers.

One sentence in today's decision is particularly troubling. It reads, "The legal result of this action is to confirm that the Blue Line, at no time prior to this order, had authority to construct." After the issuance of the ACR on November 1, 2001, the Blue Line would have understandably thought that it could proceed with construction. However, today, there is language that says the Blue Line never had authority to construct. The messages from the Commission on the Blue Line could not be any more confusing.

/s/ RICHARD A. BILAS /s/ HENRY M. DUQUE

Richard A. Bilas Henry M. Duque

Commissioner Commissioner

January 9, 2002

San Francisco, California

Previous PageTop Of PageGo To First Page