Meeting_Body
REVISED
PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING COMMITTEE
NOVEMBER 16, 2022
Subject
SUBJECT: EASTSIDE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PHASE 2 PROJECT
Action
ACTION: APPROVE RECOMMENDATIONS
Heading
RECOMMENDATION
Title
CONSIDER:
A. APPROVING the Lambert Station in the City of Whittier the terminus for the 9 miles Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 project and authorizing the preparation of the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the full project through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);
B. APPROVING the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) as Alternative 3: IOS Greenwood, between the existing terminus of Metro L (Gold) Line to Greenwood Station; with design options for Atlantic/Pomona (open underground station) and Greenwood Station (at-grade) and a Maintenance and Storage Facility (at-grade) located in the city of Montebello; and
C. APPROVING the results of the Title VI Equity Analysis: Siting and Location of Maintenance and Storage Facility Sites for the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 project;
D. AUTHORIZING the Chief Executive Officer to execute Modification No. 22 to Contract No. PS4320-2003 with CDM Smith/AECOM Joint Venture (JV) Technical and Outreach Services to reinitiate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental clearance process in the amount of $4,748,305, increasing the total current contract value from $27,585,479 to $32,333,784 and extend the period of performance from December 30, 2022, to December 31, 2024.
Issue
ISSUE
Metro is the lead agency for the Reinitiated California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 project. The Reinitiated Draft EIR was released on June 30, 2022. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) would need to be selected by the Board to prepare the Final EIR. As the lead agency for CEQA, the agency can environmentally clear the full alignment to Whittier and the LPA.
A Title VI Service Equity Analysis was developed for the Maintenance Storage Facility site options pursuant to Metro’s Title VI Program. A record of the Board action on the Title VI findings, if approved, will be forwarded to the FTA.
Per a Board request at the February 2022 meeting, staff was directed to reinitiate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental process. To accomplish this, Board approval is needed for Contract Modification No. 22, PS4320-2003 with CDM Smith/AECOM Joint Venture (JV).
Background
BACKGROUND
Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 is an approximately 9-mile light rail transit extension proposed from the existing Metro L (Gold) Line terminus station at Atlantic/ Pomona, traveling east in an underground configuration to Citadel Outlets in Commerce. The route then proceeds east along Washington Boulevard via aerial and at-grade configurations ending at Lambert Road in Whittier. Proposed stations considered along this route include:
• Relocated Atlantic/Pomona Boulevard station
• Atlantic/Whittier Boulevard station in East Los Angeles
• Commerce/Citadel station in Commerce
• Greenwood Avenue station in Montebello
• Rosemead Boulevard station in Pico Rivera
• Norwalk Boulevard station serving unincorporated Los Nietos, Whittier, and Santa Fe Springs, and
• Lambert Road station in Whittier
In addition to the full project alignment, Initial operating segments (IOS) were introduced to the Board at their February 2022 meeting (Item #2020-0010).
IOS-1Commerce would extend the Metro L (Gold) Line approximately 3.2 miles from the current terminus at Atlantic Boulevard to an underground terminal station at the Commerce/Citadel station in the City of Commerce with connections to the Commerce MSF site option.
IOS-2 Greenwood would extend the Metro L (Gold) Line approximately 4.6 miles east from the current terminus at Atlantic Boulevard to an aerial or at-grade terminal station at the Greenwood station in the City of Montebello.
A summary of the build alternatives is listed and summarized in subsequent sections.
The Measure M Ordinance identifies $3 billion (2015$) in funding; with escalation (to year of expenditure or 2029), this funding is estimated at $4.4 billion from Measure M and other local and state sources. Because the project is comprised of state and local funding only, the Board approved discontinuing the NEPA analysis from the project’s environmental process at their February 2020 meeting to align the project to the Board’s acceleration goals. With the recent passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIIJA), these federal funding opportunities were not available pre-pandemic, before the Board discontinued NEPA. At the February 2022 meeting, the Board requested that staff reinitiate NEPA to seek federal funding opportunities. Metro is committed to the build out of the full project. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) supports projects with known timelines and with local funding commitments. Therefore, the LPA should align with FTA’s processes to streamline the project, making it shovel ready for construction and the best candidate for federal funding. Alternative 3 IOS Greenwood is the best option for meeting the federal requirements of local commitment based on identified local funding sources and a more certain timeline due to the limited number of regulatory agencies requiring extensive coordination, such as Caltrans and US Army Corps of Engineers on the full alignment. Additionally, the Board requested that staff pursue engineering activities to streamline the project, identify alternative project delivery, and reduce project risks. Meanwhile, the CEQA-only environmental clearance process continues for the full alignment and LPA with the Reinitiated Draft EIR released on June 30, 2022, with a 60-day public review period through August 29, 2022.
Discussion
DISCUSSION
Alternatives Evaluated in the Draft EIR
The Draft EIR evaluates the No Project Alternative and three Build Alternatives, design options, and two maintenance and storage facility (MSF) site options. Descriptions of these project elements are in the attached Draft EIR Executive Summary (Attachment A) and on the project website metro.net/eastside2022 <https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/f609c050ef0e405e995c195d3cb8449d>. The following provides a list of each alternative and design options, and MSF options evaluated in the Draft EIR.
• Alternative 1 Washington: Existing Atlantic/Pomona terminus to Lambert station
o Design Option 1: Atlantic/Pomona station open underground station
o Design Option 2: At-Grade Greenwood station
o Design Option 3: At-Grade Montebello MSF
• Alternative 2 IOS Commerce: Existing Atlantic/Pomona terminus to Citadel/Commerce station with Commerce MSF site option only
o Design Option 1: Atlantic/Pomona station open underground station
o Design Option 2: At-Grade Greenwood station
o Design Option 3: At-Grade Montebello MSF
• Alternative 3 IOS Greenwood: Existing Atlantic/Pomona terminus to Greenwood Station in the City of Montebello
o Design Option 1: Atlantic/Pomona station open underground station
o Design Option 2: At-Grade Greenwood station
o Design Option 3: At-Grade Montebello MSF
• Commerce MSF site option
• Montebello MSF site option
Alternative 1 Washington begins at the existing Atlantic/Pomona terminus station and ends at the Lambert station in the City of Whittier. Alternative 1 is the longest alignment at approximately nine miles, with seven stations and two maintenance and storage facility site options. The alignment includes design options at the Atlantic/Pomona station, Montebello alignment, Montebello MSF lead tracks, and the Greenwood station.
Alternative 2 IOS Commerce begins at the Atlantic/Pomona terminus station and ends at the Commerce/Citadel station. Alternative 2 is the shortest alignment at approximately 3.2 miles with three stations and only allows connection to the Commerce MSF. The alignment includes design options at the Atlantic/Pomona station.
Alternative 3 IOS Greenwood begins at the Atlantic/Pomona terminus station and ends at the Greenwood station. Alternative 3 is approximately 4.6 miles with four stations and two maintenance and storage facility site options. This alignment includes design options at the Atlantic/Pomona station, Montebello alignment, Montebello MSF site option, and the Greenwood station.
The Commerce MSF site option is located in the City of Commerce, and this site supports any of the three build alternatives. The site is located west of Washington Boulevard and north of Gayhart Street. The site is bounded by Davie Avenue to the east, Fleet Street to the north, Saybrook Avenue to the west, and an unnamed street to the south. The site is approximately 24 acres. The facility would accommodate storage of approximately 100 light rail vehicles.
The Montebello MSF site option is located in the City of Montebello. The site can support Alternative 1 and Alternative 3. The site is north of Washington Boulevard and south of Flotilla Street between Yates Avenue and S. Vail Avenue. The site is approximately 30 acres. The facility would accommodate storage of approximately 120 light rail vehicles. Only one of the two MSF site options would be constructed under the Project.
Table 1 illustrates the project components for each alternative and design option listed in the sections above.
Notes:
MSF = Maintenance and Storage Facility
The Base Alternative is the Build Alternative without implementing any design options (Atlantic/Pomona Station Option and/or Montebello At-Grade Option). Design Options are listed in the table if they differ from the Base Alternative.
Total lengths do not include MSF lead track.
The at-grade length includes 0.05-mile of transition from at-grade to underground.
Environmentally Superior Alternative
Under Section 15126.6(a)(b) of the CEQA guidelines, an environmentally superior alternative must be identified to determine which alternative possesses an overall environmental advantage when compared to all other alternatives and alternatives with the potential for avoiding or substantially lessening significant impacts. The Environmentally Superior Alternative is not always the same as the Locally Preferred Alternative because it is primarily an enumeration of the number of impacts. Other measures are used to recommend the Locally Preferred Alternative, including fiscal and performance measures. A summary of the Draft EIR findings related to the environmentally superior alternative is outlined below.
The No Project Alternative would have the greatest number of significant and unavoidable impacts to environmental resources as this alternative would be inconsistent and conflict with regional and local programs, plans, ordinances, and policies related to air quality, GHG, Land Use, and transportation. The No Project Alternative would also be inconsistent with the State’s long-term climate strategies. The No Project Alternative’s incremental contribution to climate change would also be significant and unavoidable concerning GHG emission reduction plans. The No Project Alternative would also not achieve or address any of the Project objectives since it would not include a new rail service in the project area. Given the conflicts with adopted state, regional and local plans and its inability to meet Project objectives, the No Project Alternative would not be the environmentally superior alternative.
Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 with the Commerce MSF site option, with or without the design option(s), would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to cultural resources related to the demolition of the historic Pacific Metals Company Building and removal of properties within the potential Vail Field Industrial Addition historic district at the Commerce MSF site. Therefore, Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 with the Commerce MSF site option would result in additional significant unavoidable impacts to cultural resources and would not be considered the environmentally superior alternative. Since Alternative 2 only includes the Commerce MSF site option, it would be unfeasible to pursue this alternative because it does not continue east to connect to the environmentally superior MSF option, which is the Montebello MSF.
Alternatives 1 and 3 with the Montebello MSF site option, with or without the design options, would have similar findings of environmental impacts and mitigation measures. While many of the same mitigation measures apply to Alternative 1 and 3 and reduce impacts to less than significant, there is a greater number of properties and public rights-of-way with impacts that must be mitigated under Alternative 1. Additionally, Alternative 1 would require regulatory agency coordination with the United States Army Corps of Engineers and Caltrans with long lead times for review and agreements for the river crossing and I-605 underpass, respectively. The construction duration for Alternative 1 is longer than Alternative 3 due to its length. Because Alternative 1 is a longer alignment compared to Alternative 3 with less impacts such as traffic, noise, and property acquisition, Alternative 3 has been identified as the environmentally superior alternative.
Public Comments Summary
A robust outreach program was developed for the project that included partnering with local Community-Based Organizations (CBO). The CBO Roundtable served as local experts that advised the project team on best outreach practices for enhancing notification and simplifying meeting materials. Several rounds of community meetings were conducted prior to the release of the Draft EIR. At each round of meetings, the project team provided project and design updates, including the approximate timeframe the Draft EIR would be released. These meetings were held in November 2021, March 2022, and June 2022. The June 2022 meetings further highlighted how the community and stakeholders could navigate and comment on the Draft EIR. All meetings were held virtually, however, to provide technical assistance and resources, tech booths/vans were available concurrently with each virtual meeting. The tech booth/vans were located near public facilities with accessibility to transit. In total, 9 tech booths were available over the course of three rounds of outreach, and 14 participants utilized the tech booths.
The Draft EIR was released for public review and comment for 60-days from June 30, 2022, through August 29, 2022. Noticing of its release was done in accordance with CEQA regulations that also extended notification process and included three coordinated rounds of notification that included information on the June meetings, details about the Public Hearings, the official release date of the Draft EIR, and comment methods on the Draft EIR. Public notification incorporated a combination of 53,000 direct mail notices, 92,000 door-to-door drop-offs, required legal notices on local newspapers, social media posts and ads, E-blasts, 676 SMS text messages, podcast, press releases, notices on the project website, information booths at local events, pop-up events, and other methods. The Notice of Availability (NOA) was filed with the California State Clearinghouse and mailed to public and responsible agencies, organizations, elected officials, and other interested parties. The NOA was distributed at the start of the comment period to announce the availability of the Draft EIR and to promote the public hearings.
Table 2 details the four (4) public hearings held as part of the Draft EIR release.
|
# |
Date and Time |
In-Person Location/Address |
|
1. |
Thursday, July 21, 2022 6-8pm |
Kaiser Permanente Medical Offices 5119 Pomona Bl Los Angeles, CA 90022 |
|
2. |
Saturday, July 30, 2022 10am-12pm |
Applied Technology Center High School 1200 W Mines Av Montebello, CA 90640 |
|
3. |
Thursday, August 11, 2022 6-8pm |
Virtual via Zoom In-person livestreaming site: City of Pico Rivera - Council Chamber 6615 Passons Bl, Pico Rivera, CA 90660 |
|
4. |
Wednesday, August 17, 2022 6-8pm |
Whittier Community Center - Gymnasium 7630 Washington Av Whittier, CA 90602 |
Table 3 provides an overview of the total official submissions and total official comments received by method.
|
Source |
Qty |
|
Website |
198 |
|
Public Hearings (oral comments) |
33 |
|
Email |
20 |
|
Events |
7 |
|
Post Mail (Letters) |
4 |
|
Public Hearings |
5 |
|
Total Official Submissions |
268 |
|
Total Official Comments |
~900 |
Over the 60-day public comment period, 268 submissions were received, which encompassed approximately 900 comments. The comments were categorized into the following main topics:
• Alternatives - 12%
• Engineering/Design - 24%
• Environmental Topics (18 topics) - 50%
• Planning - 56%
From the comments received regarding the alternatives, 33% supported Alternative 1 Washington, 7% supported Alternative 2 IOS to Commerce, and 11% supported Alternative 3 IOS to Greenwood. The engineering/design comments were related to grade separation, station design, and parking facilities. Comments on environmental topics were in regard to transportation, noise, hazardous materials, public safety (emergency services), and mitigation measures. The planning issues included comments such as costs and funding, public safety at crossings, and impact to businesses.
The Washington Coalition, comprised of the five (5) incorporated cities along the corridor, collectively submitted a letter of support for the project. Letters were also received from key stakeholders such as Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital (PIH), Caltrans, State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Los Angeles County (LAC) Department of Parks and Recreation, LAC Library, LAC Sanitation Districts, Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The Environmental Protection Agency and US Army Corps of Engineers provided no comment at this time.
As a part of the public participation process, a petition was submitted with approximately 1600 (unverified) signatures endorsing the Transportation System Management Alternative (TSM). The TSM Alternative, which analyzes other transportation modes such as bus improvements and Intelligence Systems Management (ITS), was not studied in the Draft EIR because it is not required by CEQA and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). As such, the Draft EIR is compliant with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a), describing a range of reasonable alternatives to the project. Further, the No Project Alternative includes Next Gen bus improvements as the baseline evaluation.
Letters from community groups in East Los Angeles submitted letters expressing concerns about the 60-day public comment period and Metro’s actions to expedite the Draft EIR release. During the ongoing outreach efforts beginning in November 2021 and leading up to the release of the Draft EIR, the project team indicated the approximate timeframe the Draft EIR would be released. Section 15105 of CEQA Guidelines requires a Draft EIR to be available for public review no less than 30 days and no longer than 60 days except in unusual circumstances. Typically, Metro provides a 45-day comment period; however, due to the release of the draft EIR in the summer, staff proceeded with a 60-day comment period. In this case, there were no unusual circumstances that have not been experienced during the pandemic. Additionally, the project staff provided several methods for public participation and submission of public comments.
Early Intervention Team (EIT) Engagement
The project team is conducting review sessions with the EIT to engage leadership across the agency as this project reaches a critical stage (i.e., selection of the LPA). The EIT was established in July 2022 to identify and implement strategies to improve successful delivery of projects with a focus on cost control and cost containment that addresses full lifecycle needs. The EIT review engages the full Metro team in identifying specific project risks and mitigation opportunities relevant to this phase of the project, including assessment of project delivery method options for future project phases.
Cost Estimates
At the February Board meeting, the project cost estimates for conceptual design were presented as follows:
|
Preliminary Cost Estimates (15% design) |
Range ($2021) |
|
Alternative 1 Washington |
$6.1B - $6.5B |
|
Alternative 2 Commerce (Commerce MSF) |
$4.5 - $5B |
|
Alternative 3 Greenwood (Commerce MSF or Montebello MSF) |
$5.1B - $5.3B |
|
(2021$) |
|
These estimates were based on a conceptual level of design using a parametric model that stems from prices similar to other projects. For the planning phase, this high level of cost estimating is appropriate for screening alternatives. As the project continues to advance, the project team has been working closely with Program Management’s Cost Estimating staff to complete an Independent Cost Estimate (ICE) update. This updated ICE includes several cost factors that were not included in the February estimate, including (1)the mid-point of construction , (2) design and MSF options that were yet to be determined in February, and (3) specifics of the advanced conceptual engineering plans. This exercise produces a cost estimate with greater detail and accuracy for the purposes of establishing budgets, mitigating risks, and supporting the procurement process in the next phases of the project. Critical cost considerations included in the ICE include the following:
• Contingencies:
o Allocated contingency (design contingency): Risk based cost estimates associated with further refinement of design since details are not complete. As the level of design increases, contingency decreases. Allocated contingency was recalculated consistent with calculations on other new projects, and taking into consideration FTA requirements.
o Unallocated contingency (construction contingency): Estimate of costs associated with unforeseen conditions during the construction phase such as unknown site conditions, schedule delays, trade coordination.
• Escalation - reflects uncertain changes in technical, economic, and market conditions over time, such as cost of labor, equipment, and material due to continuing price changes over time. Escalation was estimated at 3.5% per year, calculated to the mid-point of construction.
The table below summarizes the results of the ICE, specifically incorporating added contingencies, escalation, and the application of an accuracy range.
|
Independent Cost Estimate Breakdown - 15% design Alternative 1 Washington Alternative |
Alternative 1 Washington |
Alternative 3 IOS Greenwood |
|
Base Alternative (Guideway/tracks, stations, support facilities, systems) |
$4.951B |
$4.000B |
|
Allocated Contingency |
$1.672B |
$1.359B |
|
Unallocated Contingency |
$662M |
$537M |
|
Sub Total (2022$) |
$7.285B |
$5.896B |
|
Escalation |
$2.884B (2032$) |
$2.006B (2031$) |
|
Total Cost Estimate |
$10.169B |
$7.902B |
(Estimate as of November 10, 2022)
Although cost contingency percentages are standardized by cost category, there are differences between Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 based upon the project scope for each alternative. Allocated contingencies are percentages applied to standard cost categories for professional services, construction, real estate, vehicles, etc. Depending on the high-risk project element, the percentages can range from 16% to 50%. Alternative 1 considers project elements such as the bridge crossings at Rio Hondo and San Gabriel and the under-crossing at the I-605. These items are not present under Alternative 3. Therefore, contingencies for Alternative 1 are higher. Escalation is also higher for Alternative 1 because it has a longer construction duration compared to Alternative 3, which is a shorter alignment that assumes a shorter construction duration.
Due to the potential volatility of project costs that are unknown in the early phases of design, the team has applied an accuracy estimation with an upper bound (+30%) in accordance with industry best practices developed by the Association for Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE). This is also consistent with the Board directive to provide cost forecasts in ranges for planning phase projects to reflect uncertainty in earlier project delivery phases. These factors result in an updated project forecast range of $7.9B to $10.3B for the Alternative 3 IOS Greenwood, inclusive of the current construction market escalation costs.
Funding Plan
Due to existing funding shortfalls, the full project approved under CEQA will be developed in segments. A funding plan for the Greenwood segment is presented in the following table and is comprised of local sales tax and state and federal grant funding that is yet-to-be secured. Funding for the project may be available from new state and federal sources that have become available over recent years, as well as existing sources that may become available to Metro in the future. Local tradeoffs (i.e., transfer of funds) from other projects and programs are also included.
New federal funding related to the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and new state funding from the state budget surplus that is designated for rail and transit may be available, and Metro will seek funding from these sources to fund the LPA. Metro will also seek funding from existing state grant programs created by Senate Bill 1 (SB-1) for a significant portion of the funding need. The transfer of existing local sales tax funds may also be required, given the risk that the amount of funding needed cannot be met with federal and state grants. This can happen if grant awards are not successful or are less than requested.
Funding Plan for IOS-3
The funding plan for the remaining project to Whittier includes additional yet-to-be-secured federal, state, and local funding. The plan to Whittier assumes the existing federal Capital Investment Grants and state SB-1 grant programs will be functioning and potential funding sources for the completion of the project when additional funding is available from these programs over time after funding the LPA. We will target moving forward with the Whittier segment in 2035 after completing the LPA when additional yet-to-be secured funding is expected to be available. The exact timing will depend on the success in getting needed local, state, and federal funding. The local funding requires prioritizing this segment of the Project. Our success in obtaining state and federal funding will depend on the availability of these funds and the relative competitiveness of the project.
LPA Selection and Recommendation
Per CEQA, a LPA needs to be selected by the Board to advance the selected alternative into the Final EIR. Should the Board approve the staff recommendation, the selected LPA and full alignment will be environmentally cleared through CEQA, making the project shovel ready and competitive for funding. All build alternatives have been studied extensively through the Draft EIR, engineering design, and technical studies. Metro has also conducted ongoing communications with stakeholders, corridor cities, and unincorporated Los Angeles County to provide updates on significant milestones of the project. The project team also held meetings in November 2021 to introduce to the public the design options: the Atlantic/Pomona open-air station concept and the at-grade section in Montebello. June 2022 meetings introduced the specific locations of the MSF locations. Most recently, staff hosted a meeting on November 9, 2022, to introduce the draft LPA and updated cost estimates.
Understanding that Metro would need to build the project in phases because of funding shortfalls, it is recommended that Alternative 3 IOS to Greenwood (Atlantic/Pomona Station to Greenwood Station) be selected as the LPA with the open underground station at the Atlantic/Pomona station, at-grade guideway in Montebello including the at-grade Greenwood station and the Montebello MSF site option. Furthermore, Alternative 3 IOS to Greenwood is identified as the environmentally superior alternative.
Additionally, the FTA prefers a project with a known timeline and with local funding commitment. Although the Board may select LPA at any time; however, a committed funding plan is important for FTA Full Funding Grant for the initial segment. Based on the funding available in 2029 for the project per Measure M of $4.4 billion (2029$), there is a funding short fall of $3.5 billion for the recommended LPA compared to the full alignment of $5.7B. Based on the secured funding for the project, there is yet-to-be-secured funding of $4.6 billion for the recommended LPA compared to the full alignment of $6.8 billion. Therefore, it is recommended that LPA proceed into the NEPA process to seek federal funding for the highest cost project elements, such as the underground segment and MSF.
The Metro Board’s approval of environmentally clearing through CEQA the full project alignment to Whittier with a terminus Lambert Station represents the commitment of the eventual buildout of this Project. This project will address regional mobility, equity, and environmental and economic benefits for the communities along the corridor.
Title VI Maintenance Storage Facilities Analysis
The Title VI Service Equity Analysis is to ensure that the proposed MSF locations are selected per Metro’s Title VI Program and in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The analysis determined whether the introduction of the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 project will have a disparate impact on the minority population or a disproportionate burden on the low-income population. A record of the Board’s action on the Title VI findings will be forwarded to the FTA. The findings concluded that neither the Commerce MSF nor the Montebello MSF has a disparate impact, with the absolute and relative differences both being negative numbers that are below the thresholds of the absolute and relative difference. The Commerce MSF and Montebello MSF sites would both have a disparate impact on Limited English Proficiency populations. The Commerce site has the larger absolute difference at 60.3% and the Montebello site at 53.4%
Contract Modification
Per a Board request (File #2022-0274) at the February 2022 meeting, staff was directed to reinitiate the NEPA process because of the recent influx of federal opportunities the project can compete for nationally. Additionally, the Board requested to advance engineering activities to streamline the project into the most efficient project delivery method. To reinitiate the NEPA process, a contract modification is needed to the existing contract for professional environmental services, which is Contract Modification No. 22, Contract No. PS4320-2003, with CDM Smith/AECOM Joint Venture (JV). The contract modification for engineering services is anticipated to be presented at the January Board meeting.
Risks
Delaying the selection of an LPA will delay the start of the Final EIR and impact the overall Project schedule. This would also delay the NEPA process, leading to a loss of opportunities to seek federal funding. Moreover, not pursuing engineering activities could increase risks for the project as it advances to project delivery.
Equity Platform
The Project will benefit communities along the eastern portion of Los Angeles County with a high-quality, reliable light rail system. The full project alignment traverses six (6) Equity-Focused Communities (EFC), and there are 2,281 transit-dependent households along the project alignment and 1,828 households along the LPA. When the eventual build-out of the project occurs, communities along the corridor will have access to the Metro regional network and to activity centers and job opportunities along the corridor that include but are not limited to Whittier College, East Los Angeles College, Citadel Outlets, the Historic Whittier Boulevard Shopping, and Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital. The Project and LPA will fulfill a gap in high-quality transit services that currently exist in the eastern portion of Los Angeles County. The LPA recommendation, should the Metro Board approve Alternative 3 IOS Greenwood, would serve the highest concentration of EFCs in East Los Angeles and the cities of Commerce and Montebello.
Upon the selection of the LPA, several planning activities will be initiated, including First Last Mile (FLM) planning and TOC Implementation Plans. The project team anticipates re-engaging the CBO Roundtable for these activities and possibly including more CBOs to conduct FLM planning, walk audits, outreach, and other activities. The TOC Corridor Baseline Assessment process will also begin, which supports corridor communities by providing TOC Grant Writing, Baseline Assessments, and Technical Assistance Program around affordable housing production and community stabilization. The Baseline will be prepared in collaboration with jurisdictions along the corridor and with deep stakeholder engagement throughout the process. The Baseline Assessments will be a resource of information for municipalities and community members that will highlight positive opportunities to leverage the transit infrastructure investments for equitable TOCs and identify potential risks and vulnerabilities. The Baseline Assessment is critical at this stage to begin station planning efforts early to ensure equitable development and prevent unintended consequences such as displacement and gentrification. Several cities along the corridor are updating their long-range plans; by including these resources and tools, vulnerable communities along the corridor could experience a positive outcome.
Extensive outreach efforts will continue along the corridor to engage project stakeholders through various outreach methods through the Final EIR and upcoming activities. The project team will continue collaborating with the CBO Roundtable to discuss project milestones and enhance outreach methods.
DETERMINATION OF SAFETY IMPACT
Approval of the Draft EIR and selection of an LPA will not impact the safety of Metro’s customers or employees.
Financial_Impact
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The FY 2022-23 budget contains approximately $8M in Cost Center 4310 (Mobility Corridors), Project 460232 for professional services. Since this is a multi-year contract modification, the Cost Center Manager and Chief Planning Officer will be responsible for budgeting in future years.
Impact to Budget
Funding for this action comes from Measure R 35% Transit Capital. These funds are not eligible for bus or rail operating expenses.
Implementation_of_Strategic_Plan_Goals
IMPLEMENTATION OF STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
The Project supports the following strategic plan goals identified in Vision 2028: Goal 1: Provide high-quality mobility options that enable people to spend less time traveling, Goal 3: Enhance communities and lives through mobility and access to opportunity, and Goal 5: Provide responsive, accountable, and trustworthy governance within the Metro organization.
Alternatives_Considered
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The Board may decide not to approve the recommended LPA described in this report. This is not recommended as it may delay the project delivery and would risk the ability to meet the Measure M Expenditure Plan schedule, including both the Project groundbreaking and opening dates.
Next_Steps
NEXT STEPS
Should the Board select the LPA, staff will initiate work on the Project’s Final EIR. The full project alignment to Whittier will also be included in the Final EIR. After completion of the Final EIR, staff anticipates returning to the Board in Summer/Fall 2023 for certification of the Final EIR.
Upon Board approval, staff will execute Modification No. 22 to Contract No. PS4320-2003 with CDM Smith/AECOM, a Joint Venture, to initiate the NEPA process for the project.
Attachments
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary
Attachment B - Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project Map
Attachment C - Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Title VI Equity Analysis: Siting and Location of Maintenance and Storage Facility Sites
Attachment D - Procurement Summary
Attachment E - Contract Modification/Change Order Log
Attachment F - DEOD Summary
Prepared_by
Prepared by: Eva Moir, Manager, Countywide Planning & Development, (213) 922-2961
Jenny Cristales-Cevallos, Senior Director, Countywide Planning & Development, (213) 418-3026
Dolores Roybal Saltarelli, Deputy Executive Officer, Countywide Planning & Development, (213) 922-3024
Allison Yoh, EO, Countywide Planning & Development, (213)
David Mieger, SEO, Countywide Planning & Development, (213) 922-3040
Debra Avila, Deputy Chief Vendor/Contract Management Officer, (213) 418-3051
Reviewed_By
Reviewed by: James de la Loza, Chief Planning Officer, (213) 922-2920
