sort of lead into larger matters and that's the two attempts that the f d a made to correct and improve the record the first one was in response to our request for a judicial notice we asked only that the court to do this will notice of the p s website showing that they have included mitigation measures for my client in response they they produce a declaration of leslie rogers who signed the original record of decision and he information and belief which is contrary to twenty eight u s c seven hundred forty six and contrary to authority in this court the second attempt the f d a made to correct the record was they in february they filed document which is corrected the final environmental impact statement and a corrected raad record of decision but the problem with this particular document is  the mitigation measures of four point four point seven and this corrected document are the old mitigation measures now what they did is they did drop in mitigation measures into the corrected m r p which is an attachment but this leads to the larger problem the larger problem is that they didn't do any analysis of the mitigation measures that their engineers recommended that m t a staff promised to add and that they finally attempted to add in this year so even though that they attempted to add medication measures for noise and vibration subsidence and parking there's no and malice of those newly added mitigation measures anywhere in the old the f b i s and the new f b i s just nowhere and that's the problem with this case i know it's a it's an important case i know that this transportation system is important for the area big transportation systems are important i fully understand and realize that but need is pretty clear nepa requires them to fully analyze every mitigation measure there's got to be a detailed discussion of mitigation measures and they have to explain why they're not adopting a particular mitigation measure and four for noise and vibration their experts  said look you've got that the mitigation many measures we recommend aren't enough but we recommend relocating the residence which we say is not mitigation measure and we recommend meetings and notice  and and then they recommend an engineering solution those three were not enough they said but the m t a only adopted two of them and their f b i s says that's enough there's no bridging the gap between their experts saying it's not enough we asked the district court to cease to tell the m t a to cease instructing c supporting this until the the f b i s it's corrected that's what we asked for we are correct your honor is correct and we note that in vocal of both of our briefs and we point out that our position is is that not protect our problem is not with the technical failure to attach the rod it's the failure to undertake any kind f b i s and that the m m are p contemplates maybe mitigation measures as they become necessary that the whole thing is effective underneath that is that the argument that not quite the argument is that the medication measures that they're now in the corrective m r p are nowhere discussed in the f analysis in informing the public and decision makers as to the the range of mitigation measures available to the mitigation to the decision makers when they prove this project they the engineer said the only the asking for is not a stay of the entire project we're asking that the that no impact be had upon the japanese village the little tokyo portion of the project until the analysis  commitment of resources that will lead to moving japanese village up that will that will and can lead to damage and i had to seek a stay if i hadn't seen see saw t commitment of resources this is the first major invasion of japanese villages property for the project it's the injection of ground so so our concern is with the irretrievable commitment of resources we didn't raise below but if their first foray into our project was to start with tunneling well we would object to that or if it was the insertion of some big device we would object to that that would be an irretriev the detection of one quarter inch subsidence at japanese village and and they abandoned that mitigation measure for less definitive studies and we argued that they should  if the court christopher sutton appearing for the bonaventure hotel which is the business name for today's for inc in the related case i just want to quickly emphasize that the district court in terms of our end of the project which is the opposite in from japanese village found that the environmental analysis of the tunneling on flower street was not included in the us and that was the basis for the in the partial injunction and we just don't think the court went far enough because if the secret october of two thousand and fourteen and then they did an abbreviated environmental document in the court found them in compliance with the injunction in january of this year so there was a fifteen month injunction for a partial injunction in place just for the flower come up that particularly it pertained to metro ms wright is here and available to answer them but i'm not specifically reserving time for her the regional connector will add a critical missing link to los angeles's public transportation system and will allow a one seat ride across the county this increase will serve thousands of metro riders it'll add new stations decrease transfers improve air quality and reduce traffic congestion and move those transit customers efficiently through one of the densest parts of los angeles now of course constructing this one point nine mile line is not going to be without temporary annoyance especially to some businesses issues and we've heard about just a few of them this morning but the agency has acted reasonably at each step of their process they considered information before them at the time they worked to improve their the isolated slab track technology which is a medication measure available to mitigate operational noise and vibration of facts is that the same as compensation grounding knows the company because i thought they were referring to that expert report that suggested that probably this other technology would be adequate to medically operational noise the agencies at that point developed mitigation  twenty nine that suggests using that technology but also leaves open the possibility of using other appropriate measures as needed to eliminate impacts and reduce enormous criteria so they certainly weren't closing the door to other technologies being used and when the twenty twelve expert report came out suggesting that that isolated slab track technology would be  necessary to reduce operational noise much more than adopted that as part of the medication plan this is exactly how this the mitigation is supposed to work is as we get more information we make modifications then the agencies haven't don't abandoned those recommendations that's absolutely not cracked the medication plan incorporates the recommendations about it's about taking baseline measurements setting specific thresholds for how much movement is acceptable and then using these very sensitive measuring devices to touch that movement and of course using grouting both in advance of that's how that's actually how the can tell if the grouting is working or not if they've done enough is there's a tiny just measurable amount of heave and then they say ok we're done we solidify the soil well enough that tunneling could comm on grounds that are unrelated to the merits of your appeal which this heave is and also metro filed some declarations talking about the heart the stream cost of  delay we think the balance of equities here tips very strongly in agencies favor the again you know that if crowding is the harm that they're worried about we have to use these measures in place to make sure that the subsidence or he is going to be within these narrow acceptable thresholds and as for noise we have measures in place as well to make sure that the people affected by  construction noise japanese the edge may be relocated if they wish so that they don't have to experience the annoyance of a sound around the annoying level of an air conditioner  prefer and so they've now withdrawn that motion and come to you normally federal appellate procedure eight does say that they have to go to the district court first but they have decided that they think this is enough of an emergency that they have come straight to the circuit did does the record reflect any attempt to measure the future parking capacity of the garage and the impact on whether there's any increase or decrease in the future parking availability there was not a  specific study about long term parking effects on japanese village in particular what the record says is that this kind of new transit project where it's in an urban environment they simply don't expect it to draw additional parking to the er drivers to the area that will need parking because it's going of course provide a way for people to come to this area without driving so the record in a couple village points to a analysis done for another project saying look you get all this parking analysis for the souther project why didn't you do it for us if you actually look at that analysis it talks it reaches just the same conclusion about that the more urban downtown stations that there simply aren't expected to be parking at facts at downtown stations and i wasn't there that there's going to be a stay at a place where people can get on the the train in the fishing village at the japanese village and so what about people who want to park their cars at that station right there actually already is another station right there near japanese village  but what a what the agencies are saying here is that this isn't like you know i need a hood transit station or a parking right type transit station this is an urban station people are going to be coming to it on the train for not so much going to be driving there  increased transit access meaning less need for parking and that's that's the joy of x one ninety five point one and eight x four five two but the record also talks about these these other things that are going there being a metro property that is after it's done being used for construction can be used for parking at least for a while and the other thing is the record notes that parking like the parking that's being lost is certainly thought of as a transatlantic it's not something you can necessarily count on being around forever anyway because those types of things tend to be developed into more profitable in their brief comments first i want to point out that the the tunneling issue that the just being manned it is not the tunneling issue that's on appeal here there are two separate construction methods the timing issue that's on here is the use of  closed face tunnel boring machine and whether it can be extended just one block farther study of this at several different points in the record as different facets of the project change that could allo more flexibility in construction method continue to evaluate and see can we extend it recognizing that tunneling does have fewer effects on neighboring properties than cotton cover construction they were  potentially possible but it's it would require further study of cost risks schedule and design changes some of which were going to be significant and later metro's board voted to do that extension by one block if it did turn out to be feasible you know the list this isn't technically on appeal before you but the agencies have now done supplemental analysis they voluntarily tokyo because the board material would have to be taken back to the tunnel and exit the tunnel at little tokyo they determined that it simply wasn't feasible as a matter of sound public policy so to the extent you  did agree upon of ensure that there hadn't been enough analysis there's now been a whole lot more analysis now and there were really be no reason for being and you don't have any further questions  the depth of the tunnel would provide for additional block of tunneling and the reason for that is there was a certain area of the lluvia i'm in and there's a certain area of bedrock if they would lower the tunnel slightly the tunnel boring machine would be able to go through the bedrock the one block past the bonaventure to fist treat and it's that one block analysis either between open face tunneling or close face tunneling but they did not analyze the lower alignment that we pointed out in our brief it's the lower on line and that allows them to go the extra block not whether or not one method or another is viable at the at the top at the higher shallow area this train the way they have designed it is a roller coaster it comes in at little tokyo then comes past the l a times goes up and comes down in excess of national standards if the tunnel would simply stay level it would be faster to build cheaper to build safer to build and quieter to operate that's the analysis they didn't take is that the  level lower level alignment is the one they did not analyze it the court should have ordered them to analyze along with everything else that would have come from that the access the night time glare annoys the hotel we are not seeking  order to stop this project we are seeking in order for them to postpone what they're doing at this one location in japanese village of their one location the rest of this alignment is not in dispute if the court remains to the district court they are doing create tunneling preparation they are doing they're doing they're dropping pilings they're doing utility relocation but the tunneling past the bonaventure is not going to start for a long time because the tunneling has to start in japanese village it say do a full supplemental environmental document instead the district court left to the discretion of the local agency the scope of which they were going to analyze and so that when they came back to the district court for compliance they complied with the limited order that the district court entered and we believe the limited order was the busa discretion because once they found a vial once the court found a violation of nepa it should have said you can't say that your analysis on noise l let me just be clear on the on the stage issue grouting is important to the project it's important for the tunnel we didn't challenge growing before we didn't complain about heave before all we're saying now is that this is the first thing that's going to happen in the project on japanese village where there is an irretrievable commitment of resources grouting and he that's why the state was asked for has nothing to do with what we challenge or didn't challenge below we're saying if we wait any longer they're going to start injecting cement underground japanese village the grouting that they've done so far is called permeation grouting it's just chemicals the grouting that they're going to start this week is cement and we tried to go to the district court the district court the parties we all agreed to a hearing second week of august the district court set it for middle of september i felt i had no choice but to withdraw that motion and come here i consider that an essential denial of our of our motion council stated the following metro adopted i esteem as part of the plan that is not true nowhere is that in the record we point that out in our br there are no studies anywhere in the record that discuss spillover parking impacts upon little tokyo it's not just our parking structure that's sixteen feet away from the station it's all the parking structures in japanese in little tokyo f says well the parking the private parking structures can simply take up the slack that's not an acceptable mitigation measures certainly not to my client it will find if parking structure filled with cars the for l says well you don't need local parking structures because increased transit is going to offset the need for parking no studies anywhere in the record support that they just say they just there's one paragraph they just say it and in fact we point out in our briefing that elsewhere down the line on one of their other projects in an urban environment they had to beef up the archdiocese parking structure adjacent to a station because of the very problems that we're talking about and finally one last thing it's on the noise and vibration issue they admit in their papers which we point out in our reply that they exceed federal guidelines federal standards federal threshold stated that meant that they have done that nowhere in the record do they explain why they've chosen to proceed with the project given those accidents was and why it's necessary proceed they're entitled to to ignore threshold exceeds was there but they have to have a reason as to why they're doing it no where in the record does that sound instead we have post hoc rationalization coming from briefing explaining why this is being done and remainder order would be to number one ask instruct the district court to select the appropriate remedy to address the court's decision on the irretrievable commitment of resources he's talking about public resources matter resources yes publicly funded federally funded resources such as i would leave that up to the district court to figure out what that is but i i don't know what a bond would accomplish let's say the district court required the posting of a ten million dollars bond and then the project could proceed that doesn't what does that solve anything does that  permit that that just permits the project to be completed in the studies to be done afterwards that that doesn't give the agencies the opportunity to say oh well based upon this analysis we have found a better solution here that's what we're saying they should do so i'm not sure a bond would really help out here nor have i ever heard of a bond being done in a federal transportation project like th