HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2013-08-12 #I -SDEIR Comments %6 pI
August 8, 2013
Smita Deshpande, Branch Chief
Caltrans-District 12, "Attn: 405 SDEIR-DEIS Comment Period"
2201 Dupont Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92612
Subject: 1-405 Improvement Project — Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS
Dear Ms. Deshpande:
The City of Seal Beach submits this letter in response to the Supplemental Draft
EIR/EIS for the 1-405 Improvements project, The City appreciates Caltrans and
OCTA's efforts to expand the scope of the EIR/EIS to include and address
impacts that contribute to backup of traffic at the County line. These impacts
have a direct impact to the quality of life for Seal Beach and Orange County
residents. The City of Seal Beach still strongly maintains the concerns listed in
the letter dated July 9, 2012 and expects Caltrans and OCTA to ensure
resolution of those issues.
The main concerns expressed by residents of Seal Beach within that letter were:
1. Possible relocation of the existing College Park East Almond Avenue
soundwall;
2. Opposition to the creation of a toll road (Alternative 3);
3. Possible relocation of 2 gas/petroleum pipelines through College Park
East;
4. Increased traffic congestion along the 1-405 freeway, including northbound
bottlenecks resulting from additional project lanes merging before the LA
County line; and
5. Air quality and public health concerns.
Within the Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS the City of Seal Beach has concerns in
two areas. The areas of concern are:
1. The Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS does not adequately address the
congestions northbound on the 1-405 freeway at the County Line.
Orange County Transportation Authority
Page Two
August 8, 2013
The traffic supplement studies intersections north of the County line related to
impacts from an increase in traffic. Even with these improvements the main line
of the freeway does not have capacity to accommodate the added traffic arising
from the 1-405 improvement project. The traffic supplement does not address the
impacts of a deficiency within the 1-405 freeway north of the County line.
2. Ingress/Egress should be guaranteed for College Park Drive at the
Studebaker Road off-ramp of the 22 Freeway
In October of 2012 the City of Seal Beach completed improvements to the
intersection of College Park Drive at the Studebaker Road off-ramp of the 22
Freeway. This project improved a long standing problem of access. In the
development of the City project, Caltrans denied the request for a traffic signal at
the intersection. If OCTA is able to gain approval for a traffic signal at the
intersection that ensures access for College Park Drive, the City of Seal Beach
agrees with the recommendation in the Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS. However,
the City of Long Beach has developed an alternate design for the intersection. If
the traffic signal for the existing intersection is not approved by Caltrans, the City
of Seal Beach requests that the intersection be upgraded per the alternate
design currently proposed by the City of Long Beach, or access for College Park
Drive is granted to the satisfaction of the City of Seal Beach.
Attached to this letter are a full set of comments regarding the subject document.
If there are any questions, please contact City Manager Jill Ingram at
(562) 431-2527, ext. 1300.
Respectfully,
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
Gary A�Miller
Mayor
cc: Orange County Transportation Authority
c/o Darrell Johnson, Chief Executive Officer
550 S. Main Street
Orange, CA 92863-1584
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
Table ofContents
List of Sections
Section Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..........................................................................................i
1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................1
11 Preface................................................................................................................1
1.2 Introduction..........................................................................................................1
2.0 RECIRCULATION AND SIGNIFICANT NEW INFORMATION......................................17
3.0 "LOGICAL TERMINI" UNREASONABLY LIMITS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.....24
4.0 JUNE 25i 2O13 LETTER FROM PROJECT SPONSOR ---------------'3O
5.0 ADDITIONAL SUPPORT FOR SEAL BEACH'S REQUESTED
DESIGN EXCEPTIONS.................................................................................................33
6.0 SUBSEQUENT PROJECT MODIFICATIONS...............................................................34
01 H[VL Degradation.............................................................................................34
0.2 Decision b» Toll ..................................................................................................30
7.0 SUF»PLEK8EydTAd- DBR/S AND SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC STUDY.........................37
71 General Comment.-------------------------------37
7.2 Incomplete Project Deoormdom-------------------------37
7.3 Corridor System Management Plan ...................................................................38
7.4 Long Beach Area Traffic Study Technical Working Group..................................41
7.5 City of Long Beach Comment Letter----------------------44
7.0 Fragmentation....................................................................................................47
77 December 2O12 Supplemental Traffic Study......................................................48
7.8 Environmental Impact^Signifioanoe^ Criteria......................................................53
7.9 Absence of Measurable Performance Standards...............................................59
710 Unreliable Performance Data.............................................................................01
711 Committed Funding............................................................................................04
712 TDM/TSM and Other Alternatives ......................................................................00
713 CEQA Considerations Relating b» Supplemental BRo.......................................07
714 Recirculated DBR/S..........................................................................................08
715 Feasibility...........................................................................................................7O
710 Improper Delegation of Authority........................................................................71
8.0 AREAS AND FACILITIES OF SPECIFIC CONCERN...................................................72
81 College Park East..............................................................................................72
8.2 College Park West.............................................................................................73
8.3 HOT Lanes ........................................................................................................73
9.0 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS CITED.............................................................................74
91 Publications .......................................................................................................74
9.2 California Cases ................................................................................................75
San Diego Freeway Improvement Project July 22. 2O13
City of Seal Beach Page
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
10.0 ATTACHMENTS...........................................................................................................76
List of Attachments
Attachment
1 California Department of Transportation, December 2012 Supplemental Traffic Study,
December 2012
2 Correspondence from Jim Beil, OCTA Executive Director, June 25, 2013
3 Orange County Transportation Commission, High-Occupancy Vehicle Degradation
Study Powerpoint, April 8, 2013
4 City of Long Beach, 1-405 Freeway Improvement Project Letter and Memorandum, July
17-18, 2012
5 Kenneth A. Small and Chen Feng Ng, Optimizing Road Capacity and Type, June 1,
2013
6 City of Seal Beach, Studebaker Road/College Park Drive Alternative Street and Ramp
Configuration, July 2013
July 22, 2013 San Diego Freeway Improvement Project
Page ii City of Seal Beach
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
June 2013 Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS
The City has completed its final review of the June 2013 Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS document
for the 1-405 Improvement Project and resulted with the following comments. The City is
requesting an official response to, but not limited to, the below items and comments raised
throughout this entire document.
1. The City provided a "Third Party Review Technical Comments (July 22, 2013 in
response to the release of the June 2013 Supplemental Draft EIR.//EIS. Provide an
acknowledgement of receipt of said document.
2. The February 2013 Supplemental Traffic Study is referenced but could not located
through OCTA's website or other document references. Provide or make available the
2013 Supplemental Traffic Study.
3. The report is not consistent in regards to which Supplemental Traffic Study is being
referenced, Provide a reference consistent through-out the document which traffic study
is being used as a reference, i.e.; December 2012, February 2013, March 2013, April
2013, and/or June 2013.
4. Provide a discussion "Why" each Supplemental Traffic Study was not circulated. The
December 2012 Supplemental traffic Study was only circulated to the Technical Working
Group and not to the Affected Orange County Corridor Agencies.
5. Since the City of Seal Beach was initially excluded from the Technical Working Group,
the City of Seal Beach formally requests electronic copies of ALL Supplemental traffic
Studies to post on its Website to solicit Community Comments in conformance with the
CEQA/NEPA Program.
6. Provide or extend the Comment period for an additional 30 days to receive Public
Comments in the Supplemental Traffic Study previously not provided.
7. The December 2012 Supplemental traffic Study provided detailed information on the
impacts to the entire mainline project, interchanges, and intersections. The June 2013
only focusses on the impacts to the City of Long Beach intersection and interchanges.
Provide or include the December 2012 Supplemental Traffic Study in the June 2013
Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS
8. In July of 2012, the City of Seal Beach provided written comments to the DEIR/s. The
LEAD agency has not responded to the City comments. Provide written responses by
the LEAD agency on the City of Seal Beach's July 2012 Comments.
San Diego Freeway Improvement Project July 22, 2013
City of Seal Beach Page i
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
9. The purpose of the June 2013 Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS was to include "significant
new information"; however, the document did not include: 1) OCTA's Board of Director's
selected Alternative 1 as the Local Preferred Alternative, 2) Alternative 2 is not
consistent with SCAG's current RTP or FTI P, and 3) Alternative 3 is not consistent with
SCAG's RTP or FTIP. Provide a discussion in the Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS to
address these issues.
10. The Air Quality Analysis is based upon "Vehicle Speeds" will increase. However, the
mainline Level of Service is maintained as "F" for Alternative 2 and 3. In addition,
LACMTA has performed a operational analysis for the SR-110/1110 110 Express Lanes
Performance Update" which noted that"as traffic volumes have increased, the "average"
GP (general purpose) lane speeds have declined". Update the Air Quality Analysis
based upon the traffic Level of Service and the LACMTA.
11. The June 2013 Supplemental EIR/EIS does not address the impacts of public
transportation ridership to any of the three alternatives (Alternative 1, Alternative 2, and
Alternative 3) in conformance with California Vehicle Code Section 21655.5(a). Provide
an analysis and impacts to the level of service for the mainline freeway system and
comparative analysis for toll revenue impacts.
12. An HOV 3+ efficiency discussion was not provided. Provide an analysis of the HOV 3+
policy compared to the Alternative 3 (HOTL) impacts to the general purpose lane, costs,
and efficiency.
13. A travel Demand Management Program (TDM) was not fully discussed. References
were made for bikeways and roadway efficiencies, but the recommended result was a
payment to the City of Long Beach for mitigation. In conformance with FHWA's Federal
Aid Highway Program Guidance, include TDM alternatives including fixed guideway,
BRT's, park-n-ride facilities, multi-modal travel, and other non-traffic related opportunities
comparison to the HOTL alternative.
14. The limits of the project impacts are confined to the County line on the north and SR-73
on the south. In addition, the project has not thoroughly investigated the users of the toll
facility. Therefore, provide an origin and destination of the HOTL users to justify the need
of the facility and determine where appropriate lane drops or HOTL facility should
terminate.
15. The 2013 Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS does not conduct a concomitant analysis for the
newly introduced traffic impacts for the Long Beach Area. Provide a detailed analysis of
July 22, 2013 San Diego Freeway Improvement Project
Page ii City of Seal Beach
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
the environmental impacts (air quality, water quality, noise..etc) for the introduced Long
Beach intersections.
16. Reference material was not clearly demarcated. As an example, applicable page
numbers or section numbers were not included in the Draft EIR/EIS or the Supplemental
Draft EIR/EIS. Provide complete references for the Draft EIR/EIS and the Supplemental
Draft EIR/EIS. It is also requested to be recirculated with this vital decision making
information.
17. The Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS is predicated on new significant information; however,
this information is very vague in its presentation and the analysis of the City of Long
Beach Study. Provide a detailed listing of the significant information, and detailed
environmental analysis of the City of Long Beach Traffic Study (prepared by Iteris).
18. In April of 2013 two new design Concepts were presented (Concept A and Concept B)
to OCTA. These concepts represent new introduced information and were not included
in the Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS. Provide an analysis for Concept A and Concept B in
conformance with CEQA/NEPA determination.
19. A choke point will exist when all HOV(L) and General Purpose lanes terminate into the
existing lanes at the County Line with Los Angeles. No additional analysis or mitigation
measures are proposed for this condition or the cause and effect on Orange County
Traffic along the 405 corridor. Provide a detailed analysis of the termini of the 405 at the
county line to determine the operational and environmental characteristics impacts to the
drivers and communities.
20. The Technical Working Group developed project findings and defined the limits of the
Supplemental Draft EIR/S. However, the Technical Working Group support materials
were not referenced or provided. Provide meeting Agendas, meeting minutes, meeting
documents, exhibits, agreements, and other reference materials discussed at the
Technical Working Group meetings.
21. The City of Long Beach requested studies were included in the Supplemental Draft
EIR/S. However, the City of Seal Beach's request for additional impact studies related to
College Park East was not considered. Provide City of Seal Beach safety, traffic, and
environmental impacts studies for the community of College Park East.
22. Specific intersections impacted by the project were not address. These impacts include
project related and construction detours. Lampson Avenue corridor shall be evaluated
for project impacts and detour impacts. Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster Avenue
shall be evaluated for detour impacts. Almond Avenue shall be evaluated for Project and
San Diego Freeway Improvement Project July 22, 2013
City of Seal Beach Page iii
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
construction impacts. Mitigation measure shall be provided for each evaluation, similar to
the Long Beach intersection evaluation.
23. The Toll Lane Analysis is incomplete by not discussing the linkages with the SCAG
Express/HOT Lane Network. Provide a detailed analysis on the linkages with other
existing and proposed Express/HOT lanes in the SCAG Model.
24. The Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS does not address the degradation of traffic flow during
the Peak Hour of travel for each of the proposed alternatives and thereby reducing
congestion. Provide an alternative which reduces congestion for the Peak Hour along
with a full impact analysis.
25. The SR-22/7th Street Ramp at College Park Drive is discussed in Alternatives 1 and 2,
but not included in Alternative 3. A discussion is requested for the elimination of any
project impacts to this intersection. The traffic remains relatively constant for each
Alternative.
26. Figure 3-2 does not correctly show the lane configuration at the intersection of SR-22/7th
Street and College Park Drive. In addition, the December 2012, Supplemental Traffic
Study analysis did not reflect the current lane configuration for the developed Model. A
traffic signal is proposed at this intersection; however, the City of Long Beach provided
an Alternative for a direct connect ramp to Studebaker Road and separating it from
College Park Drive. College Park Drive also connected directly to Studebaker Road.
Evaluate this Alternative for mitigation measures at the College Park Drive/SR-
22/Studebaker Ramp.
27. Previously, the City of Seal Beach contacted Caltrans District 7 and Headquarters to
install a traffic signal at this location. It was denied with Caltrans citing the backup onto
SR-22/7th Street causes a safety concern. The report does not model is issue caused by
placing a traffic signal at this location nor was an Agreement with Caltrans provided with
this option. Since the City was previously denied by Caltrans, an Agreement with
Caltrans to install a traffic signal at this location is required before it is proposed as a
mitigation measure.
28. The Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS report provides congestion detail at the terminus of the
project at I-405 and states the each alternative will impact I-405 north of the I-605
interchange. However, no other information is provided on the impacts to the traffic as it
reaches saturation at the I-605 interchange and what happens to both the general
purpose lanes and the HOV lanes. A discussion is provided that provides mitigation in
terms of"cash" value to Caltrans for future use to improve the affected I-405
July 22, 2013 San Diego Freeway Improvement Project
Page iv City of Seal Beach
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
interchanges north of 1-605. Provide a traffic model to determine the impacts to traffic
flow at the County Line, absence of 1-405 improvements, and north of the 1-605 for each
Alternative.
29. A letter was received by the City of Seal Beach from the project sponsor OCTA. It was
dated June 25, 2013. Discussions in this letter, included review of City provided
Alternatives, review of City proposed Mandatory and Advisory Exceptions, Project
relocated Soundwall and Almond Avenue Impacts, and discussion of accident data. The
June 2013 Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS report did not include any discussions of the City
proposed alternatives, requested studies, and impacts to Almond Avenue. However, the
December 2012 Draft Supplemental Traffic Study Report does address many of the City
Alternatives. This information was omitted in the June version. Provide the omitted
information and include in the Supplemental Draft EIR/S.
30. Each proposed Alternative requires both Mandatory and Advisory Design Exceptions in
conformance with the Highway Design Manual, Chapter 80. Chapter 2 of the
Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS report discusses the need for mandatory and Advisory
Design exceptions and details the number required for each. These are provided below
as reference:
Alternative 1: Nine Mandatory and 18 Advisory exceptions
Alternative 2: Nine Mandatory and 17 Advisory (including reduction of 12-foot
lanes to 11-f000t lanes) exceptions
Alternative 3: Nine Mandatory and 20 Advisory exceptions
A list of exceptions or document reference was not provided in order to review the
Design Exceptions. Provide and include this is a critical document into the traffic study..
31. The December 2012 Supplemental Traffic Study provided greater detail relating to the
impacts the interchanges, ramps, and intersections along the Orange County Corridor.
In addition, Chapter 4 of this report included an analysis of the Long Beach Area. Both
reports did not include the LOS analysis work sheets, The June 2013 Supplemental
Draft EIR/RIS only provided Chapter 4 of the December 2012 report. The corridor
information is a vital component of the EIR/EIS evaluation and provides an overview and
the necessary mitigation measures to reduce the community impacts. Provide the June
2013 document and incorporate the information„ discussions, and results from the
December 2012 Supplemental Traffic Study report.
32. The Supplemental EIR/EIS does not address the traffic congestion from the OC/LA
County Line to SR-73. The main focus of this report is the impacts to the City of Long
San Diego Freeway Improvement Project July 22, 2013
City of Seal Beach Page v
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
Beach intersections adjacent to the "project". Missing from the analysis data is the
impacts to the congestion at the County Line before and after the 1-605 Interchange. The
report discusses four (4) accomplishments of Alternative 3 which includes the following:
1. Reduce Congestion
2. Enhance Operations
3. Increase mobility, improve trip reliability, maximize throughput, and optimize
operations
4. Minimize environmental impacts and ROW acquisitions
Since the Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS does not include the corridor information such as
level of service, v/c ratios, d/c ratios, link level of service, or a discussion of"F" verses "F
++", the ability to quantify the four accomplishments of Alternative 3 cannot be verified.
Provide the information previously included in the December 2012 Supplement Traffic
Study and compare it to the Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS defined accomplishments for
Alternative 3 to quantify them.
July 22, 2013 San Diego Freeway Improvement Project
Page vi City of Seal Beach
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Preface
It may be human nature (if not a human foible) to look for the good in our own activities while
ignoring, glossing over, or seeking to justify those same activity's less desirable attributes. It is,
therefore, understandable (albeit not excusable) when a project proponent expends undue
efforts to advocate the merits of those plans and programs that they have already put in motion
while giving short-shift to both the fallacies in the plan or program being advanced and to those
naysayers seeking to raise unaddressed or under-explored issues and suggesting the need for
further refinement and/or alternative direction. Although one might hope that the elected
decision-making body of a public agency might be more willing to engage in self-examination
and more amenable to a variety of differing viewpoints, materials generated (by others) in
advancement of that body's actual deliberations cannot avoid but to both reflect the inherent
biases of their non-elected authors and that same human tendency's inclination to defend
actions taken and positions previously espoused. To do otherwise might be perceived as an
admission of poor judgment or suggestive of a personal or professional failing. Even when the
elected body provides differing direction, it is a rarity when agency staff will actually shift gears.
The individuals and firms responsible for the preparation and processing of the proposed project
and its associated environmental documentation are qualified professions whose actions, while
overly zealous, were likely well intended but nonetheless both misguided and absence
reasonable balance The comments presented herein are not intended to assert, infer, or
otherwise claim that the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans or Lead Agency), the
Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), or any other governmental or non-
governmental entity, inclusive of the advisory and decision-making bodies of those
organizations, their management, and the employees, consultants, and vendors thereof, have
intentionally made or sought to make any material misrepresentations for the purpose of
deception or otherwise or intentionally violated or sought to violate any laws, statutes, rules,
regulations, or codes of conduct with regards to the proposed project.
Even qualified individuals, however, can embark on a course of action that, over time, is
demonstrated to be ill-advised or which lacks solid footing. In an open, democratic process in
which minds are not set and positions not too firmly entrenched, public comments (whether
offered in praise or in criticisms) serve to enhance the decision-making process by allowing all
viewpoints to be considered. Because statute stipulates that agency decisions need to be both
informed and balanced, it is only through a willingness to consider additional information and to
give credence to competing and/or conflicting viewpoints that better decisions are possible.
1.2 Introduction
The following comments serve to augment those written and oral comments previously
submitted to Lead Agency and to OCTA by the City of Seal Beach (City or Seal Beach), its
governmental entities, its elected and appointed officials, and its residents and business
community as part of that National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process which is now underway for the proposed "San Diego
(I-405) Freeway Improvement Project," as described in the "Draft Environmental Impact
Report/Environmental Impact Statement — San Diego Freeway Improvement Project, Orange
and Los Angeles Counties, California, SCH #2009091001" (Caltrans and OCTA, May 2012)
(DEIR/S or Draft EIR/EIS) and as supplemented in both the "Supplemental Draft Environmental
San Diego Freeway Improvement Project July 22, 2013
City of Seal Beach Page 1
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement — San Diego Freeway Improvement Project,
Orange and Los Angeles Counties, California" (Caltrans and OCTA, June 2013) (SDEIR/S or
Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS) and "Supplemental Traffic Study Report — Long Beach Area"
(Caltrans, June 2013) (STS). All of those previous comments are again submitted to Caltrans
and to the OCTA in response to the release of the SDEIR/S and the Lead Agency's solicitation
for public and agency comments in response thereto. Pursuant to Section 15150 in Title 14,
Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), all previous comments from Seal
Beach, its elected and appointed officials, and from its residents and its business community on
the DEIR/S are incorporated herein by reference and, by this reference, assumed to be made a
physical part hereof.
As required in 14 CCR 15088, Seal Beach requests that the Lead Agency provide a detailed
written response to both the comments presented herein and to those additional comments
incorporated herein by reference. Similarly, by incorporating those previous comments herein,
independent of whether those comments were first presented by the City or by other parties, by
making those previous comments a part of the City's own response to the Lead Agency's
dissemination of the DEIR/S and the SDEIR/S, as required under Section 21092.5(a) of the
Public Resources Code (PRC), Seal Beach requests that the Lead Agency provide the City with
Caltrans' draft written responses (conforming to the requirements of CEQA) to all such
comments at least ten days prior to certification of the environmental impact report (EIR).
Although Seal Beach's status has never been acknowledged by the Lead Agency, as defined in
Section 1305(c) in Title 23 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) and in Section 15381 in Title 14
of the CCR, Seal Beach is appropriately categorized as a "Participating Agency" in the NEPA
process and a "Responsible Agency" in the CEQA process.
As noted above, these comments are the result of the Lead Agency's dissemination of the
SDEIR/S. The information presented therein is based, at least in part, on the analysis
presented in the June 2013 STS; however, the June 2013 STS was neither included in nor
disseminated with the SDEIR/S and was not "incorporated by reference" therein pursuant to
Section 14 CCR 15150. In addition, neither the SDEIR/S nor the public notice announcing its
release indicate where a copy of that STS can be view
In looking for the STS, the Lead Agency creates needless confusion as to the precise nature of
that document. Referencing the SDEIR/S:
■ "The new information and analysis presented within the Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS is
based on the `Supplemental Traffic Study Report — Long Beach Area,' prepared in April
2013 in response to City of Long Beach comments on the Draft EIR/EIS" (emphasis
added) (General Information about this Document, unpaginated);
■ "The new information and analysis presented within the Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS is
based on the `Supplemental Traffic Study Report — Long Beach Area,' prepared in
March 2013 in response to City of Long Beach comments on the Draft EIR/EIS"
(emphasis added) (SDEIR/S, p. S-1);
■ "The City of Long Beach has reviewed the `Draft Supplemental Traffic Study Report —
San Diego Freeway (I-405) Improvement SR74 to I-605,' dated December 2012"
(emphasis added) (SDEIR/S, Appendix A);
■ Chapter 6 (References) of the SDEIR/S cites a "Supplemental Traffic Study Report —
Long Beach Area, February 2013" (emphasis added) (p. 6-1); and
July 22, 2013 San Diego Freeway Improvement Project
Page 2 City of Seal Beach
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
■ The OCTA's website links to and Caltrans' website displaying a "Supplemental Traffic
Study Report — Long Beach Area," dated "June 2013" (emphasis added)
(http://www.dot.ca.gov/distl2/405/Long Beach/SU PPLEM ENTAL—Traffic%2OStudy.pdf).
As required, in part, in Section 15147 of the State CEQA Guidelines: "Placement of highly
technical and specialized analysis and data in the body of an EIR should be avoided through
inclusion of supporting information and analyses as appendices to the main body of the EIR.
Appendices to the EIR may be prepared in volumes separate from the basic EIR document, but
shall be readily available for public examination and shall be submitted to all clearinghouses
which assist in public review" (emphasis added).
Because the "February 2013" version of the STS (February 2013 STS) is the document (and the
only document) explicitly cited in the "references" section of the SDEIR/S, the February 2013
STS is given the greatest credence. That document, however, cannot be located in the libraries
listed in the SDEIR/S (General Information about this Document, What You Should Do) or on
either Caltrans' or the OCTA's website.
In Dry Creek Citizens Coalition v. County of Tulare (1999), the court noted that "[a]n adequate
EIR must be 'prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decisionmakers with
information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of
environmental consequences' [Citation]. It 'must include detail sufficient to enable those who did
not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by
the proposed project' [Citation]."
Because the Lead Agency is not even internally consistent with regards to the key document
upon which the information, analysis, and conclusions presented in the SDEIR/S is derived, it is
not possible to know what or which STS is actually being referenced and/or to determine how
the December 2012, February 2013, March 2013, April 2013, and June 2013 versions thereof
may be materially different. Since neither those five documents nor any version thereof was
either circulated with the SDEIR/S nor "incorporated by reference" therein, stakeholders have
been denied the ability to compare and contrast each version, to independently determine the
similarities and/or differences between those documents, to review any comments that may
have been submitted thereupon, and/or to identify any actions (e.g., document revisions) taken
by Caltrans or by others in response to any comments or concerns expressed by any reviewing
individual or organization.
With the exception of the statement that "[t]his recirculation focuses on new traffic information in
the Long Beach area," Caltrans' "Public Notice — Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact
Report/Environmental Impact Statement Available for Interstate 405 & Announcement of Public
Hearing" (Public Notice) (http://www.octa.net/pdf/405Supplemental—PublicNotice.pdf) contains
no reference to a "Supplemental Traffic Study" or any version thereof, such that any reader of
that notice would neither know of the existence of that document nor know how to obtain a copy
thereof.
Seal Beach had the opportunity to review the December 2012 version (December 2012 STS)
which the City has included herein as Attachment 1 (December 2012 Supplemental Traffic
Study). Despite Caltrans' declaration that "[t]his Supplemental will be included in the Final
EIR/EIS" (December 2012 STS, p. i), the December 2012 STS, the February 2013 STS, and/or
the June 2013 STS (or any other version thereof) has not been widely circulated. With regards
to circulation, Caltrans notes that "[a]s part of the coordination process, the initial draft of the
San Diego Freeway Improvement Project July 22, 2013
City of Seal Beach Page 3
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
[December 2012] Supplemental Traffic Study Report — Long Beach Area was submitted to
members of the Technical Working Group in early December 2012 for review and comment"
(June 2013 STS, p. 5-1). The "Technical Working Group" (TWG) consists of a limited number of
governmental entities, all of which are located in Los Angeles County (e.g., "After the Draft
EIR/EIS was circulated and during preparation of the Supplemental Traffic Study, Caltrans and
OCTA coordinated with the technical representatives of the City of Long Beach, Gateway Cities
Council of Governments (COG), Caltrans — District 7, and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (Metro) regarding potential effects to traffic and circulation in the Long
Beach area," June 2013 STS, p. 5-1). Those governmental entities located in Orange County
and/or within the project's designated "study area" which actively participated in the
CEQA/NEPA process and submitted written or oral comments on the DEIR/S were all excluded
from the TWG and were not given the opportunity to provide input concerning the scope of the
STS.
Although it shares coterminous boundaries with Long Beach and Los Angeles County and has
been an outspoken participant and both a Participating and Responsible Agency in the
CEQA/NEPA process, Seal Beach believes that it was intentionally excluded from the TWG. As
evident by information presented in the December 2012 STS, substantially greater traffic-related
and associated environmental impacts will occur in Seal Beach than presently disclosed in the
DEIR/S and SDEIR/S.
In general, as a result of both its withholding of key information and lack of forthcoming with
regards to the precise nature, dissemination, and whereabouts of the STS, stakeholders in Seal
Beach have not been provided a reasonable opportunity to comment on the information and
analysis presented in the December 2012, February 2013, March 2013, and April 2013, and/or
June 2013 versions of that document. Since the STS is the foundational basis for the SDEIR/S,
absent reasonable access to that document, stakeholders' ability to comment on the SDEIR/S
has also been unreasonably curtailed.
So that the evolving nature and content of the STS can be independently examined and so that
each document can be posted (by the City) on Seal Beach's website for review by stakeholders
in Seal Beach, in response to the release of the SDEIR/S, the City formally requests: (1)
electronic copies of the December 2012, February 2013, March 2013, April 2013, and June
2013 versions of that document, including any and all appendices thereto and any and all
comments that may have been submitted to or by Caltrans, the OCTA, the TWG, Long Beach,
and by others thereupon; and (2) that Caltrans provide notice and extend the comment period
on the SDEIR/S for an additional 30 days following the City's receipt of that material.
The June 2013 STS alleges that "[t]he purpose of the `Supplemental Traffic Study Report —
Long Beach Area' (Supplement) is to provide additional traffic information on the I-405
Improvement Project not included in the `Traffic Study Report — San Diego Freeway (I-405)
Improvement Project SR-73 to I-605' completed by Albert Grover & Associates in April 2011"
(June 2013 STS, p. 1-1). It is, however, noted that the June 2013 STS (151 pages) contains at
least 62 pages fewer pages that the December 2012 STS (213 pages). When compared with
the June 2013 document, the December 2012 STS contains substantial more "additional traffic
information" (fostering informed decisionmaking) directly relevant to an understanding of the
proposed project. Although germane to the CEQA/NEPA process, the deleted information
appears to have been intentionally withheld from both the general public and from the project's
decision-making bodies. From that, it must be construed that the document's stated "purpose"
is not actually greater disclosure but the manipulation of information so as to advance an
July 22, 2013 San Diego Freeway Improvement Project
Page 4 City of Seal Beach
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
agenda (e.g., generation of toll revenues) divergent from the October 22, 2012 actions of
OCTA's Board of Directors (i.e., identifying Alternative 1 as the "locally preferred alternative").
It is further noted that the City's written comments on the DEIR/S, dated July 17, 2012, totaled
approximately 500 pages. Excluding a brief letter from the "project sponsor' (not the Lead
Agency), dated June 25, 2013, stating OCTA's rejection of the City's proposed design
exceptions (formulated to allow for the retention of the Almond Avenue soundwall), Seal Beach
has yet to receive a single written reply from the Lead Agency with regards to any of the issues
raised therein. In contrast, Long Beach's 12-page letter predicated the preparation of the
SDEIR/S and STS.
As indicated on the OCTA's website (http://www.octa.net/Freeways-and-Streets/San-Diego-
Freeway-(1-405)/1-405-Improvement-Project/Overview/): "The California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans), in cooperation with the Orange County Transportation Authority
(OCTA), is proposing to widen the San Diego Freeway (1-405) between State Route 73 (SR-73)
and Interstate 605 (1-605). The purpose of the proposed improvement is to improve travel
conditions for work, recreation, school, and commerce by increasing freeway capacity,
improving traffic and interchange operations, and enhancing road safety to meet state and
federal standards. During the initial DEIR/EIS public review period in May 2013, Caltrans
received comments on potential traffic impacts within the City of Long Beach. In an effort to
address these comments, Caltrans prepared a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact
Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) to evaluate the existing and future traffic flow
conditions within the Los Angeles County traffic study area including at a minimum, demand,
capacity and level of service for the mainline freeway and arterial street intersections within the
City of Long Beach not considered in the Draft EIR/EIS" (emphasis added).
Failing to distinguish the number of people actually moved (personal mobility) from vehicle
counts (e.g., "throughput is the number of vehicles able to pass a fixed point along the corridor
during the hour of greatest demand" [emphasis added], DEIR/S, pp. ES-3 and 4-2), Caltrans
holds fast to the antiquated idea that building more freeway lanes is the panacea to increased
both capacity and mobility. Nowhere in the DEIR/DEIS or in the SDEIR/S is there any serious
and meaningful discussion of how to move people while reducing the number of vehicle on the
road, how to increase the occupancy rate of those vehicles that are on the road, the actions
necessary to place travelers into public transportation (or to provide motorists the alternative to
utilize public transportation), or the more fundamental changes in land-use patterns and social
structure needed to minimize the necessity of individuals to travel by private vehicle between
destinations.
As indicated in the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) "Federal-Aid Highway Program
Guidance on High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes" (November 2012) (Federal-Aid Highway
Program Guidance) (http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freewaymgmt/hovguidance/hovguidance.pdo: "As
stated in the 2007 Economic Report of the President, small changes in the number of cars using
a particular roadway at a given time can result in large improvements in the flow of traffic. For
instance, the addition of just a few school buses makes traffic flow noticeably worse on the first
day of school, while traffic flow is noticeably better on some State holidays when only a small
number of residents stay home from work" (emphasis added). If only a "small change" (e.g.,
relatively minor reduction in the number of vehicles) is necessary to produce potentially large
returns (e.g., improved Level of Service [LOS]), an alternative to building more lanes to
accommodate more vehicles is reducing the number of vehicles. None of the alternatives
San Diego Freeway Improvement Project July 22, 2013
City of Seal Beach Page 5
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
examined in the DEIR/S and in the SDEIR/S, however, seek to reduce the "number of cars
using" the I-405 Freeway and/or any of the arterials that are linked thereto.
The DEIR/S states that "[t]he existing HOV lanes also experience congestion during the peak
hours. The HOV lane volumes are exceeding the capacity of the HOV lanes in the corridor and
throughout southern California. . .The travel time advantage of the HOV lanes on I-405 within
the project limits is anticipated to be completely lost by the time the proposed project is open to
traffic, except along the northernmost 3 miles of the corridor" (DEIR/S, p. 1-9). Among other
factors, the Lead Agency asserts that only through the introduction of HOT lanes (Alternative 3)
will travel times improve (e.g., "The Express Lanes provide an option to users to obtain
increased reliability in travel time," DEIR/S, p. 2-11).
As indicated in the DEIR/S: "[t]he design concept and scope of the proposed project is
consistent with the project description in the 2008 RTP, the 2008 TIP, and the assumptions in
SCAG's [Southern California Association of Governments] regional emissions analysis"
(emphasis added) (DEIR/S, p. 3.2.6-31); however, as further indicated therein:
■ "Alternative 2 is not consistent with the current RTP or FTIP. OCTA is currently pursuing
revisions to both documents. This will be completed prior to the Final EIR/EIS, which will
include the revised description and reference to the conforming documents" (emphasis
added) (DEIR/S, p. S-13); and
■ "Alternative 3 is not consistent with the current RTP or FTIP. OCTA is currently pursuing
revisions to both documents. This will be completed prior to the Final EIR/EIS, which will
include the revised description and reference to the conforming documents" (emphasis
added) (Ibid).
Besides pointing to one of many internal inconsistencies throughout the DEIR/S, the above
excerpts further document: (1) the SDEIR/S' failure to include other"significant new information"
and analysis about changed baseline conditions, outdated policy documents, and recently
adopted regional plans, such as the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG)
"2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy" (April 4, 2012);
and (2) fragmentation of the proposed project, such that OCTA has pursued revisions to the
RTP and FTIP in furtherance of Alternatives 2 and 3 independent of the project's CEQA/NEPA
process and the OCTA's Board of Directors' selected LPA (i.e., Alternative 1).
The air quality analysis presented in the DEIR/S is further based on the assumption that "vehicle
speeds would improve on both the mainline and in the HOV lanes" and that "[p]eak-hour
congestion would be reduced, leading to a reduction in vehicle idling and associated emissions"
and "[p]otential localized PM [particulate matter] increases associated with the increase in ADT
[average daily trips] would be offset by the increase of vehicle speed in the project area"
(DEIR/S, p. 3.2.6-41). Because it is based on false assumptions and material
misrepresentations, the resulting analysis likely underestimates (in terms of conclusion and
magnitude) the project's actual impacts.
The closest example of an operating HOT-lane (HOVL) system can be found along an 11-mile
segment of the Harbor (SR-110) Freeway in Los Angeles County which commenced operations
on November 10, 2012. As indicated in the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority's (LACMTA) "110 Express Lanes Performance Update, As of 2/28/13," as traffic
volumes have increased, the "average GP [general purpose] lane speeds have declined"
(https://www.metroexpresslanes.net/en/about/110_Performance_Report_Feb_2013.pdo. Based
July 22, 2013 San Diego Freeway Improvement Project
Page 6 City of Seal Beach
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
on operational experience, 40 percent of HOT-lane (HOTL) vehicles are single-occupant
vehicles (SOVs). LACMTA recognizes that "[p]roviding high-quality transit service is the key to
meeting the express lanes goal of moving more people - not more vehicles" (emphasis added).
A comparable or even higher rates of SOVs usage as that evident on the SR-110 Freeway's
express lanes (40 percent) would appear applicable to the proposed project.
Actual throughput (measured in the number of individuals transported) is not merely a by-
product of how many vehicles per hour per lane the freeway can accommodate. If freeway
lanes are to be added and/or operational changes are to be instituted, vehicle-based actions
must be considered in combination concurrent transit-based facilities and improvements. Public
transportation is not even represented as an incidental component of the proposed project and
reference to and discussion of public transportation in the DEIR/S and SDEIR/S is virtually non-
existent.
The DEIR/S alleges that, under all build-alternatives, "vehicle speeds would improve on both the
mainline and in the HOV lanes" (p. 3.2.6-41). Caltrans' experience on other recent and proximal
HOTL project, however, demonstrates that travel speeds actually decrease in GP lanes once a
HOTL is operational.
As apparent in the accompanying exhibit
' (Source: Southwest Washington Regional
Transportation Council), a wide variety of
vehicle options exist to transport the same
' number of people. Although the poet may
calpooll
be correct in stating a "rose is a rose is a
rose" (Gertrude Stein, Sacred Emily) the
same adage does not hold true for motor
• vehicles. Because they contain different
1 occupancy loads, a bus, a vanpool, a
vehicle carrying three or more people, a 2-
person automobile, and a SOV all may be
the same to a vehicle-counting transponder but all are substantively different with regards to
their implications with regards to both freeway capacity and personal mobility. With a large
percentage of available HOTL capacity being consumed by SOVs, increased vehicle throughput
represents a false standard with regards to personal mobility.
While the LACMTA appears committed to "moving more people - not more vehicles," Caltrans'
adage would appear to be "moving more cars — not more people." When comparing a
traditional HOVL wherein all vehicles are assumed to be 2-person carpools against a managed
lane in which 40 percent of the vehicles are SOVs and all other vehicles are 2-person carpools,
under a traditional HOVL, a total of 50 vehicles would be needed to transport 100 people;
however, in the HOTL, a total of 70 vehicles (40 SOVs + 30 2-person carpools) would be
needed to move those same 100 people (representing a 40 percent increase in the number of
vehicles required to transport the same number of individuals.
None of the managed lanes now being proposed include a 40 percent increase in vehicle
throughput capacity over that found in a GP lane, people-moving capacity will actually decrease
under Alternative 3.
San Diego Freeway Improvement Project July 22, 2013
City of Seal Beach Page 7
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
While toll-paying SOVs may benefit from the introduction of HOTLs, the LACMTA's independent
monitoring provides clear documentation that the majority of motorists traveling along a freeway
with a HOTL system actually experience reduced vehicle speeds, longer travel times, and
greater congestion. As a result, under Alternative 3, a nearly $6 billion investment (e.g., "the
repayment cost of $5.8 billion exceeds the future toll revenue projections," William Kempton,
April 16, 2012) will only benefit a privileged few (i.e., SOVs).
In addition, left unexamined in either the DEIR/S or in the SDEIR/S is the potential for a HOTL
system, allowing usage by SOVs, to adversely impact public transportation ridership. Since the
project description contains no public transportation commitment or component, the potential for
reduced ridership and reduced person-per-vehicle ratio (person throughput) would appear an
inevitable but unaddressed consequence of the proposed project. As posited in "Potential Mode
Shift from Transit to Single-Occupancy Vehicles on a High-Occupancy Toll Lane" (Chum,
Geoffrey L. and Buris, Mark W., Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, No. 2072, 2008):
One of the benefits of modifying high-occupancy vehicle lanes to high-occupancy
toll lanes is to allow vehicles that would otherwise be ineligible, such as single-
occupancy vehicles, to utilize the excess capacity of an HOV lane. However,
current carpoolers and transit riders may also become SOV travelers because of
the additional flexibility and personal space benefits of driving alone while
obtaining the travel time benefits on the HOT lane. Reductions in transit ridership
and carpools reduce the person-carrying capacity of the HOT lanes and counter
one of the original objectives of the HOV lane - to encourage a high person-per-
vehicle ratio (emphasis added).
With regards to the "original objectives of the HOV lane," referencing Section 21655.5(a) and (f)
of the California Vehicle Code, "[t]he Department of Transportation and local authorities, with
respect to highways under their respective jurisdictions, may authorize or permit exclusive or
preferential use of highway lanes for high-occupancy vehicles. . . It is the intent of the
Legislature, in amending this section, to stimulate and encourage the development of ways and
means of relieving traffic congestion on California highways and, at the same time, to
encourage individual citizens to pool their vehicular resources and thereby conserve fuel and
lessen emission of air pollutants" (emphasis added).
As reported by the California Legislative Analysis Office (LAO), the California Transportation
Commission (CTC) and FHWA require that, whenever Caltrans is considering adding capacity
(e.g., adding a new lane) to an urban freeway, Caltrans must also consider an HOV-lane option
(http://www.lao.ca.gov/2000/010700_hov/010700_hov_lanes.html). A HOV-lane option (e.g.,
"Alternative M2 would provide an additional HOV lane in each direction, as well as transit
improvements, including express buses operating in the HOV lanes and the addition of new
park-and-ride facilities," DEIR/S, p. 2-38) was, however, rejected prior to the commencement of
the DEIR/S and, potentially in violation of Caltrans' requirements, no HOVL option was
reasonably examined in the project's CEQA/NEPA documentation.
As indicated in the OCTA's Board of Directors' April 22, 2013 agenda, entitled "Path Forward for
the Interstate 405 Improvement Project between State Route 55 and Interstate 605" (OCTA,
April 15, 2013) (April 2013 Path Forward):
July 22, 2013 San Diego Freeway Improvement Project
Page 8 City of Seal Beach
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
Another concept that surfaced in discussions with Caltrans proposes to add the
M2 Project K single GP lane plus one HOV2+ lane in each direction. The HOV2+
lane would be combined with the existing HOV2+ lane to form a dual HOV2+
facility. This concept was studied as Alternative 8 in the 1-405 MIS, but was not
chosen as the locally preferred strategy. This concept would deliver on the
promise of M2 Project K, as well as address the degraded HOV condition on this
stretch of 1-405. However, there is no identified funding to construct a dual HOV
lane concept. Caltrans has not determined the method to address HOV
degradation on the entire 1-405 corridor and, therefore, it is not recommended it be
further studied (emphasis added).
Although not addressed in either the DEIR/S or in the SDEIR/S, future unknown and, as yet,
unspecified subsequent actions that may or may not be taken by Caltrans' relating to "HOV
degradation on the entire 1-405 corridor' (independent of Caltrans' response to other HOV
degradation exhibited throughout southern California) is now being presented as the rationale
for the adoption of the implementation of a HOTL.
As noted in the DEIR/S: (1) "Forecast year 2040 Alternative 1 speeds in the HOVLs during peak
hours range from 10 to 27 mph" (DEIR/S, p. 3.1.6-83); (2) "Forecast year 2040 Alternative 2
speeds in the HOV lanes during peak hours range from 17 to 44 mph" (DEIR/S, p. 3.1.6-93);
and (3) "Forecast year 2040 Alternative 3 speeds in the Express Lanes are expected to be 65
mph" (DEIR/S, p. 3.1.6-100). Based solely on the use of congestion pricing, as determined by
the Lead Agency's selective disclosure and what would appear contrary to the policy position
espoused on April 22, 2013 by the OCTA's Board of Directors, projected HOV degradation (i.e.,
operating speed of less than 45 mph for 90 percent of the time) appears only to be remedied by
the creation of HOTLs along "the entire 1-405 corridor." As a result of that disclosure, the
inventory of related projects producing potential cumulative impacts, the proposed project's
potential environmental and socioeconomic consequences, and analytical "study area" that
needs to be considered in the project's CEQA/NEPA documentation increased substantially.
The DEIR/S notes that"[a]nother option that could be jointly considered by OCTA, Caltrans, and
FHWA to restore the travel speed incentive to use the carpool lanes on 1-405 would be to
increase the eligibility requirement from two to three persons per vehicle. An HOV3+ occupancy
policy was not considered" (emphasis added) (DEIR/S, p. 3.1.6-82).
The rejection of a HOV3+ option appears to conflict with Caltrans' own "Updated Managed Lane
Design" (April 7, 2011) (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/signdel/policy/11-02.pdf)
which served to update Caltrans' "2003 High Occupancy Vehicle Guidelines for Planning,
Design, and Operation" (HOV Guidelines). As specified therein:
The following principals are expected to guide decision-making on the
development and/or operations of managed lanes: [1] Employ a system
management approach; managed lane strategies can affect the performance of
the entire freeway system. The focus should not just be on the operation of the
managed lane and its mobility benefits. [2] Balance system performance and
overarching goals, including safety, mobility, delivery, stewardship, and customer
service when selecting and analyzing project alternatives and key features. [3]
Consider increasing occupancy requirements if HOV lanes are experiencing
severe congestion. [4] Consider planning for two managed lanes in each direction
of travel if analysis determines it to be practical and beneficial. [5] Consider
San Diego Freeway Improvement Project July 22, 2013
City of Seal Beach Page 9
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
implementing congestion pricing to utilize the full capacity of under-utilized HOV
lanes if analysis determines it to be practical and beneficial. [6] Ensure uniformity
and consistency in the appearance of facilities within a region as much as
possible; unique conditions and situations may require unconventional
treatment(s). [7] Ensure enforcement considerations are taken into account.
Consult the California Highway Patrol (CHP) during project development. [8]
Consult with the Traffic Liaison to ensure that emerging best practices and recent
"lessons learned" from collision analysis and research are fully considered and
implemented (emphasis added).
It can be reasonably assumed that the Lead Agency's failure to consider a HOVL option, a
modified HOV-occupancy policy, and HOVL vehicle eligibility requirements (e.g., exclusion of
inherently low emission vehicles [ILEV]) was not the result of an inability to perform those
analyses but to slant the CEQA/NEPA outcome in favor of a HOTL alternative (e.g., Alternatives
1 and 2 fail to meet specified HOVL performance standards specified in 23 Section 166[d][2]).
As indicated in the FHWA's Federal-Aid Highway Program Guidance:
HOV facilities offer States the ability to match vehicle eligibility criteria and vehicle
occupancy requirements to the demand for the lane. Under 23 U.S.C. 166 (a), the
States retain the authority to establish the minimum occupancy requirements of
their HOV lanes, so long as the minimum occupancy is no less than two. The goal
is to set the occupancy requirement at a level that will encourage the use of
carpooling, vanpooling, and transit services without overloading the capacity of the
HOV lane. Changes in the designated vehicle-occupancy restrictions may be
needed over the life of an HOV facility. For example, some HOV lanes using a 2+
requirement have experienced congestion resulting in reductions in trip time
reliability and slower travel times. This situation happened on both the I-10 West
and U.S. 290 HOV lanes in Houston. To address this problem, the vehicle-
occupancy requirements were increased to 3+ during the morning and afternoon
peak-hours. States are strongly encouraged to increase vehicle-occupancy levels
in the event that facility performance becomes degraded. In locations where HOV
lanes are overcrowded, States may combine pricing and occupancy requirement
modification strategies to improve performance. States should set an occupancy
requirement that reasonably facilitates the use and operation of carpools. In other
words, States should establish the occupancy requirement at a level related to the
performance of HOVs on the facility.
Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 166(b)(5), until September 30, 2017, individual states may allow ILEVs
and vehicles certified and labeled as low-emission and energy-efficient vehicles (including
alternative fuel vehicles) that do not meet the established occupancy requirements to use HOVL
facilities so long as the state establishes procedures to enforce the restrictions on the use of the
facility by these vehicles. Absent from the DEIR/S and SDEIR/S is any analysis of the number
of ILEV vehicles using and the number of such vehicles projected to use the HOVL and how or
whether performance of that lane may be enhanced by excluding those vehicles therefrom.
Referencing the FHWA's Federal-Aid Highway Program Guidance: "In addition to the pricing,
occupancy requirement, and vehicle eligibility operational strategies, other travel demand
management [TDM] strategies can also be used to improve HOV system performance on both a
region-wide and facility-specific basis include: guaranteed ride home programs; telecommuting
and alternate work schedules; growth management, land use policies, and zoning ordinances;
July 22, 2013 San Diego Freeway Improvement Project
Page 10 City of Seal Beach
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
parking management; trip reduction ordinances; and traveler information systems." None of
these FHWA-recommended "travel demand management strategies" were, however,
reasonably considered by the Lead Agency.
As indicated in the DEIR/S, "[t]he purpose of the proposed action is to: [1] Reduce congestion;
[2] Enhance operations; [3] Increase mobility, improve trip reliability, maximize throughput, and
optimize operations; and [4] Minimize environmental impacts and ROW acquisition" (emphasis
added) (DEIR/S, p. 1-5).
Referencing the United States Department of Transportation's (USDOT) "Integrating Demand
Management in the Transportation Planning Process: A Desk Reference" (August 2012) (TDM
Desk Reference) (http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop12035/fhwahop12035.pdf):
"Applying TDM in the planning process can play a pivotal role in helping agencies address their
goals to reduce transportation system congestion, improve system reliability, and improve
safety" (emphasis added). The USDOT' further notes:
Congestion is an ever-increasing reality in today's communities, and not just in
large metropolitan areas. Many urban corridors in most large cities have been
expanded to the extent feasible from subsequent widening projects, leaving few
options to improving performance and efficiency other than TDM. Each TDM
strategy that works to influence travel choices, and minimize recurrent and non-
recurrent congestion, can help reduce the strain on the overburdened system. This
is accomplished by reducing VMT, shifting travel outside the peak periods, and
eliminating the need to travel — contributing to reductions in delay or VHT. The end
result can be a reduction in congestion and an improvement in system reliability for
travelers. TDM can also help provide travelers with reliable options that might not
have been available before. The TDM strategies that work to meet the policy goals
of congestion reduction and reliability improvement are also strongly related to
helping meet regional mobility and accessibility, safety, and goods movement
goals.
It is evident that TDM strategies could facilitate the achievement of many of the project's stated
purposes. Although a clear linkage exists, absent any analysis and offering only bare
conclusions, the Lead Agency concluded that a "TDM alternative" was not "considered viable"
because it "fail[ed] to meet the project's purpose and need" (DEIR/S, p. S-2). Because TDM
strategies addressed in the TDM Desk Reference include both "congestion pricing" and "HOV to
HOT conversions," the Lead Agency seeks to assert that TDM actions are not "considered
viable" while concurrently seeking to argue that TDM-related actions are the foundation upon
which Alternative 3 is based.
In response to the Senate Bill (SB) 391, Caltrans is preparing the "California Interregional
Blueprint" (CIB). That State-level transportation blueprint, focusing on the State's role with
regards to the interregional movement of people and goods, will articulate California's vision for
an integrated, multi-modal, interregional transportation system promoting the furtherance of
regional transportation and land-use plans. When finalized, the CIB will become the
foundational basis for the "California Transportation Plan 2040" (CTP) which is due to the State
Legislature by December 2015. Absent from the Lead Agency's assessment of "mobility" (e.g.,
"increase mobility," DEIR/S, p. 1-5), however, is a discussion of "smart mobility," as addressed
in Caltrans' "Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan — Review Draft" (December 2012)
San Diego Freeway Improvement Project July 22, 2013
City of Seal Beach Page 11
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
(ITSP) (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/oasp/ITSP_document_FlNAL.pdf#zoom=65). As
indicated therein:
In order to better integrate transportation and land-use decisions, Caltrans has
developed "Smart Mobility 2010: A Call to Action for the New Decade." The plan
was prepared in partnership with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
in collaboration with the Governor's Office of Planning and Research and the
California Department of Housing and Community Development. Smart Mobility
2010 incorporates current innovative practices such as smart growth, livable
communities, context-sensitive design, transit-oriented development, complete
streets, and sustainability. Smart Mobility 2010 defines the Caltrans `mobility'
mission as follows: "Smart Mobility moves people and freight while enhancing
California's economic, environmental, and human resources by emphasizing:
convenient and safe multimodal travel, speed suitability, accessibility,
management of the circulation network, and efficient use of land." It establishes six
Smart Mobility principles to be assessed using specific land use place-types and
performance measures. The six Smart Mobility principles are: [1] Location
Efficiency; [2] Reliable Mobility; [3] Health and Safety; [4] Environmental
Stewardship; [5] Social Equity; [6] Robust Economy. California must meet
ambitious environmental and sustainability goals included in the Global Warming
Solutions Act (AB 32), SB 375, and SB 391. The Smart Mobility framework is seen
as an important planning tool to help meet these new regulatory requirements
(emphasis added) (ITSP, pp. 44-45).
Unlike the emphasis in the DEIR/S and SDEIR/S, noticeably absent from Caltrans' definition of
"smart mobility" (e.g., "move people and freight) is any emphasis on moving vehicles rather than
people. Similarly, unlike the DEIR/S and SDEIR/S, "smart mobility" focuses on "multi-modal
travel" and not on a singular emphasis on the creation of more freeway lanes for added vehicle
throughput (primarily by SOVs), with a corresponding increase in total vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) (e.g., each of the three build alternatives examined in the DEIR/S and SDEIR/S
substantively increases VMT over the no-build scenario).
As further indicated in the FHWA's "Reference Sourcebook for Reducing Greenhouse Gas
Emissions from Transportation Sources" (February 2012), "the nexus between land use and
transportation is important and may be critical to reducing GHG emissions" (emphasis added)
(http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/climate_change/mitigation/resources_and_publications/re
ference_sourcebook/referencesourcebook.pdf).
Referencing the USDOT's "Operational Design Guidelines for High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes
on Arterial Roadways" (November 1994): "Urban planning and transportation experts concur
that the generation of trips and the subsequent potential congestion is directly related to
decisions made regarding the location, scope and type of land use in an urban area. In fact this
linkage lies at the heart of the congestion issue which has resulted in the need for initiatives
such as HOV priority and Travel Demand Management programs" (emphasis added)
(http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freewaymgmt/publications/hov/00101625.pdo.
NEPA requires federal agencies proposing actions "significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment" to provide a "detailed statement' concerning "alternatives to the proposed
action" (42 U.S.C. 4332[C][iii]). The "alternatives requirement" of NEPA demands that agencies
"rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives" (40 C.F.R. 1502.14[a]).
July 22, 2013 San Diego Freeway Improvement Project
Page 12 City of Seal Beach
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
The environmental impact statement (EIS) must take a "hard look" at the environmental
consequences of the alternatives and must provide an explanation of the alternatives sufficient
to permit a reasoned choice among different courses of action. The courts have held that NEPA
does not allow an agency "to contrive a purpose so slender as to define competing `reasonable
alternatives' out of consideration" (Simmons v. United States Army Corps of Engineers [1997]).
One of the fundamental failings of the Lead Agency's CEQA/NEPA documentation is that, in
reality, there are no meaningful alternatives presented therein. With the exception of the "no
build" alternative mandated under both State and federal statutes, each option examined by the
Lead Agency constitutes merely a minor variation on the theme of just "build more travel lanes"
(all of which increase total VMT in GHG-emitting private vehicles). Absence from the
CEQA/NEPA process are any public transportation options for the nearly $6 billion in public
dollars being expended and for the additional right-of-way being consumed. As indicated in the
DEIR/S: (1) "Alternative M3 [which included a "fixed-transit guideway"] is not considered a viable
option" (DEIR/S, p. 4-41); and (2) "Alternative M9 [which included "fixed transit guideway
service"] is not considered a viable option" (DEIR/S, p. 4-46).
As defined in Caltrans' "Bus Rapid Transit: A Handbook for Partners" (February 2007) (BRT
Handbook) (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/Docs-Pdfs/BRT/BRT-Handbook-030706.pdo:
"Bus Rapid Transit can best be described as a combination of facility, systems, and vehicle
investments that convert conventional bus services into a fixed-facility transit service, greatly
increasing their efficiency and effectiveness to the end user' (BRT Handbook, p. 5). As further
indicated therein:
The California Department of Transportation recognizes and supports the concept
of implementation of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) as a potential cost-effective strategy
to maximize people throughput (emphasizing the movement of people, not lust
vehicles), reduce traveler delay, increase capacity, and foster energy savings on
the California State Highway System, as well as on conventional highways. . .BRT
represents a way to improve mobility at relatively low cost through incremental
investment in a combination of bus infrastructure, equipment, operational
improvements, and technology. The intended result of this policy is improved
mobility options through the full integration of BRT as an investment alternative
into system and comprehensive corridor planning documents and project
development processes. . .Ensure that project initiation documents for capacity-
increasing projects in urban areas consider, and , if appropriate, recommend BRT
as the preferred alternative for the project (emphasis added) (BRT Handbook,
Appendix A, Director's Policy, pp. 18 and 20).
As further indicated in the DEIR/S: (1) "Alternative M8 [which included BRT] is not considered a
viable option because it does not fulfill the project purpose. Alternative M8 [d]oes not maximize
throughput' (emphasis added) (DEIR/S, p. 4-44); and (2) "Alternative M11 [which included BRT]
is not considered a viable option because it does not fulfill the project purpose" (emphasis
added) (DEIR/S, p. 4-47). Despite this assertion, the BRT Handbook demonstrates that a BRT
alternative can achieve many of the project's stated objectives and, therefore, should not have
been prematurely and summarily rejected.
Another shortcoming with the project's CEQA/NEPA documentation relates to the establishment
of an erroneous and unvetted "study area" (http://www.octa.net/pdf/405impmap.pdo. As
indicated in Caltrans' "Guidance of Preparers of Cumulative Impact Assessments" (last updated
San Diego Freeway Improvement Project July 22, 2013
City of Seal Beach Page 13
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
February 3, 2012) (http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/cumulative_guidance/defining_resource.htm), "[a]
resource study area (RSA) is the geographic area within which impacts on a particular resource
are analyzed." As further indicated therein, "[t]he boundaries of RSAs for cumulative impacts
analysis are often broader than the boundaries used for the project-specific analysis, which
focuses on the immediate project area" and "[p]olitical boundaries are often arbitrary; they are
not likely to represent development trends nor do they identify habitat areas."
Notwithstanding the information presented in the SDEIR/S and June 2013 STS, the Lead
Agency continues to examine the project through self-imposed blinders that artificially establish
a myopic "study area," as if each individual motorist utilizing the 16-mile segment of the I-405
Freeway now under consideration commences and terminates there travel choices within an
area which is coterminous with the physical boundaries of the proposed improvements,
asserting (on the northern end) that the area of impaction originates and terminates at the
Orange County/Los Angeles County line. Absent from the CEQA/NEPA documentation is any
effort to: (1) determine the actual extent of project-related and cumulative impacts, beyond
which environmental effects are diminimus; and (2) ascertain the origins and destinations of
those motorists utilizing the specified segment of the I-405 Freeway and whether there exists
any non-lane-adding options that might enhance both their abilities to get from here-to-there and
the quality of the affected environment (e.g., overall reduction in VMT).
The inherent concept in VMT is "vehicle" miles traveled. Providing motorists opportunities and
incentives to reduce individual private automobile trips, converting SOV-trips to HOV-trips,
reducing the total number of vehicles on the roadway, and promoting the use of public
transportation can all reduce VMT without necessitating shorter trips or more freeway lane
miles. Under any of those options, total "person" miles traveled (PMT) can actually increase
without a corresponding rise in VMT.
Unlike a library which exists as a fixed-point in space, the proposed project is, in actuality, only a
conveyance mechanism (conduit) relating to travel between various fixed points. As a viable
alternative, CEQA/NEPA documentation prepared for a new public library could elect to
examine the corresponding environmental effects attributable to the use of new-technology-
driven options (e.g., Internet) giving users greater resource options while avoiding the need for
and the impacts associated with the need to construct new brick-and-mortar facilities.
Conversely, Caltrans merely seeks to perpetuate the myth that adding new freeway travel lanes
is the only means to improve both "travel conditions" and "traffic and interchange operations."
As indicated in the DEIR/S: (1) "Because CO emissions are produced almost entirely from
automobiles, the highest CO concentrations in the basin are associated with heavy traffic"
(DEIR/S, p. 3.2.6-9); (2) "[A]utomobile exhaust accounts for most of the CO emissions" (DEIR/S,
p. 3.2.6-17); (3) "The primary sources of ROG and NOX, which are the components of 03, are
automobile exhaust and industrial sources" (DEIR/S, p. 3.2.6-17); (4) "The greatest source of
smog-producing gases is the automobile" (DEIR/S, p. 3.2.6-17); (5) "Traffic noise is a function of
traffic type, volume, and speed. Generally, noise increases with increased speed and with
higher volumes of traffic" (DEIR/S, p. 3.2.7-6); (6) "Noise in the study area is dominated by
traffic" (DEIR/S, p. 3.2.7-8); (7) "Noise measurement results indicate that traffic noise levels at
various locations along the freeway corridor either approach or exceed the aforementioned NAC
[noise abatement criteria] of 67 dBA for frequent outdoor use areas during the peak noise hour'
(DEIR/S, p. 3.2.7-8); and (8) "Without any additional barrier protection, noise analysis results
indicate that the proposed project would raise noise levels in some areas from 3 to 6 dB
compared to the Design Year (2040) No Build Alternative" (DEIR/S, p. 3.2.7-8).
July 22, 2013 San Diego Freeway Improvement Project
Page 14 City of Seal Beach
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
As defined under Section 15358(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines: "Effects include: (1) Direct or
primary effects which are caused by the project and occur at the same time and place. (2)
Indirect or secondary effects which are caused by the project and are later in time or farther
removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable." Other than the presentation of
unsupported conclusions, absent from the SDEIR/S and June 2013 STS is any actual analysis
of the potential indirect and secondary impacts resulting from the acknowledgement that
significant environmental impacts extend beyond the DEIR/S' original "study area" and include
additional and previously unidentified impacts within the "Long Beach study traffic study area"
(p. 3-3)." Based on the above DEIR/S excerpts, if there are direct impacts, there is also a
likelihood that additional indirect impacts will also exist as a secondary consequence thereof.
The Lead Agency mistakenly asserts that traffic impacts in Long Beach can be examined in
isolation, such that one environmental effect has no relationship with any other, as if the direct
impacts of traffic did not also produce other secondary impacts, including land use (e.g., "The
main purpose of the MPAH [Master Plan of Arterial Highways] is to describe an arterial highway
system that effectively serves existing and adopted future land uses," DEIR/S, p. 3.1.1-9), air
quality (e.g., "Because CO emissions are produced almost entirely from automobiles, the
highest CO concentrations in the basin are associated with heavy traffic," DEIR/S, p. 3.2.6-9; "In
urban areas such as the project location, automobile exhaust accounts for most of the CO
emissions," DEIR/S, p. 3.2.6-17; "The greatest source of smog-producing gases is the
automobile," DEIR/S, p. 3.2.6-17), and noise (e.g., "Generally, noise increases with increased
speed and with higher volumes of traffic," DEIR/S, p. 3.2.7-6; "Noise in the study area is
dominated by traffic," p. 3.2.7-8).
Notwithstanding the fact that the DEIR/S and the SDEIR/S describe two separate and distinct
"study areas," the Lead Agency appears to assert that a newly introduced "Long Beach study
traffic study area" (p. 3-3) is warranted for traffic but that no concomitant analysis of indirect and
secondary impacts within that new or expanded area need be conducted for any other topical
issues included in the project's CEQA/NEPA documentation. As a result, the SDEIR/S contains
no analysis of the potential indirect and secondary impacts of newly introduced "significant
cumulative traffic impacts" (e.g., "The new information in this Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS
results in new CEQA-significant cumulative traffic impacts," p. 1-2), thus producing both an
incomplete and fragmented picture of the project's likely environmental consequences.
As indicated in the Public Notice: "This project is considered a Project of Air Quality Concern
regarding particulate matter PM10 and PM2.5 as defined in 40 CFR 93.123(b)(1). A qualitative
PM10 and PM2.5 hot spot analysis was completed as required by 40 CFR 93.116 and 93.123,
based on U.S. EPA Guidance" [sic]." By inferring that a new analysis will be presented in the
SDEIR/S, that statement appears intentionally misleading since the "qualitative analysis" being
reference is the one presented in the DEIR/S (i.e., no post-DEIR/S air quality analysis appears
to have been performed and none is referenced in the SDEIR/S).
As indicated in the DEIR/S, areas where a carbon dioxide (CO) analysis would be warranted
include "[i]ntersections where air quality may be getting worse. . .criteria include increases in
vehicles operating in cold-start mode, increases in traffic volumes greater than 5 percent, and a
worsening of traffic flow" (DEIR/S, p. 3.2.6-32). In addition, "[i]ntersection reconfigurations may
move the roadway closer to receptors and may increase peak-hour traffic volumes. This may
result in higher CO concentrations near reconfigured intersections" (Ibid), further contributing to
potential air quality impacts.
San Diego Freeway Improvement Project July 22, 2013
City of Seal Beach Page 15
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
While the SDEIR/S and STS identified potentially cumulatively significant traffic impacts at
intersections within the "Long Beach study traffic study area" (p. 3-3), no further air quality
analysis was conducted with regards to those intersections. Absent any analysis or even a
declaration that the DEIR/S examined a worst-case scenario that would not be exceeded in
Long Beach, it must be inferred that the Lead Agency seeks to rely on analysis derived from
data generated in Mission Viejo (Orange County), more than 16 miles from Long Beach, as
indicative of ambient air quality conditions in Long Beach (Los Angeles County) (i.e., "The
Mission Viejo Monitoring Station was chosen for this analysis, DEIR/S, p. 3.2.6-38).
Although unsupported conclusory statements are presented in the SDEIR/S with regards to
construction (e.g., "Noise and air quality impacts of construction would be temporary and not
anticipated to be an adverse effect," pp. 3-69, 3-75, 3-84, 4-27), no analysis of secondary
operational impacts has been presented therein. Similarly, neither construction-term nor
operational land-use impacts relating, either directly or indirectly, for identified traffic-related
impacts are addressed in the SDEIR/S.
As indicated in the OCTA's April 2013 Path Forward, the proposed project has been revised.
Those revisions include, but may not be limited to, "truncates express lanes at Euclid Street/Ellis
Street, eliminates State Route 73 connector" (Alternative 3) (emphasis added). Although
addressed in the December 2012 STS, those revisions are neither identified in the SDEIR/S nor
in the June 2013 STS. Additionally, the potential implications of those now proposed changes
to those previously proposed "safety improvements" are not addressed in the project's
CEQA/NEPA documentation.
The December 2012 STS states that "[t]he study area for the Long Beach Area Traffic Study
includes: [1] I-405 from I-605 to Lakewood Boulevard; [2] I-605 from Katella Avenue to Carson
Street; and [3] SR-22/7th Street from I-405 to Pacific Coast Highway" (emphasis added)
(December 2012 STS, p. 4-1). In contrast, as described in the SDEIR/S: "The Long Beach
study traffic study area includes: [1] I-405 from I-605 to Lakewood Boulevard; [2] I-605 from
Katella Avenue to Carson Street; and [3] SR-22/7th Street from I-405 to Park Avenue"
(emphasis added) (p. 3-3).
As described in the DEIR/S: "The project study area is located within an extensively urbanized
area of Orange County with few vacant or undeveloped parcels of land. Eight municipalities are
responsible for land use and zoning oversight within the project study area and include the cities
of Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Los Alamitos, Westminster,
Seal Beach, and the County of Orange unincorporated community of Rossmoor" (DEIR/S, p.
3.1.1-2). Long Beach is not included among the listing of responsible municipalities. Although
CEQA/NEPA may allow for consideration of non-uniform study areas based on project-related
and cumulative impacts, reasonable justification for consideration of differing analytical areas
needs to be provided. No such justification is, however, presented in either the DEIR/S or in the
SDEI R/S.
The SDEIR/S states that "[r]eviewers are requested to limit their comments to only information
that is provided in this Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS" (General Information About the Project,
unpaginated); however, Caltrans' Public Notice contains no such admonishment or limitation.
Because all the comments presented herein relate, either directly or indirectly, to traffic-related
issues arising from the information presented in or absent from the SDEIR/S and the
significance of those primary and/or secondary environmental and socioeconomic impacts, the
Lead Agency is obligated to respond to the comments and issues raised herein. "In no case
July 22, 2013 San Diego Freeway Improvement Project
Page 16 City of Seal Beach
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
shall the lead agency fail to respond to pertinent comments on significant environmental issues"
(14 CCR 15088.5[f]).
The comments and concerns raised herein neither replace nor supersede comments submitted
on the DEIR/S and should be considered "new" or "additional" comments submitted in response
to the project's CEQA/NEPA documentation. The order in which and labeling of comments
herein, including the use of indentation and underlining, is for the City's convenience only and is
not intended to represent a prioritization of the relative importance of each comment to Seal
Beach or the relative magnitude of its possible implications to the proposed project and the
project's associated CEQA/NEPA documentation. Unless otherwise noted, all page references
herein are to the SDEIR/S. Additionally, unless otherwise noted, reference to the STS is to the
June 2013 version of that document.
As required in Section 15148 of the State CEQA Guidelines, "[t]he EIR shall cite all documents
used in its preparation including, where possible, the page and section number of any technical
reports which were used as the basis for any statements in the EIR." When other technical
material is cited herein which is not a part of the DEIR/S and/or SDEIR/S, the City has
endeavored to clearly identify that document (including the author or agency responsible for its
publication, the date of publication, and the corresponding page or section number) and, when
available on the Internet, provide a webpage citation where that document can be viewed and
the information cited independently verified. It is noted that in both the DEIR/S and SDEIR/S,
the Lead Agency has not been so diligent.
2.0 RECIRCULATION AND SIGNIFICANT NEW INFORMATION
"EIRs shall be written in plain language" (14 CCR 15140).
With regards to assessing potential environmental impacts, the SDEIR/S is so indecipherable as
to prevent any clear understanding of the document's purpose, analysis, and both pre-mitigated
and post-mitigated conclusions. On one hand, the Lead Agency states that: (1) "[t]he new
information in this Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS results in new CEQA-significant cumulative
traffic impacts' (emphasis added) (p. 1-2); and (2) "OCTA will provide a fair share amount of
funding for the measures that have been identified as part of this SDEIR/EIS to address
significant cumulative impacts to traffic" (emphasis added) (p. 3-84). On the other hand, the
Lead Agency states that "traffic and transportation-related direct or indirect cumulative impacts
are not anticipated, and no further cumulative impact analysis or additional measures are
required. . .the project's contribution to adverse cumulative effects within the Supplemental Draft
EIR/EIS study area at the affected locations would be minimized" (p. 3-93). More specifically:
■ With regards to Alternative 1, the Lead Agency states: (1) "the contribution of Alternative
1 to the cumulative impact on the freeway mainline is less than significant" (p. 4-3); (2)
"there are no intersections where the contribution of Alternative 1 to the cumulative
impacts is significant with the proposed mitigations in place"(p. 4-3); (3) "there are no
significant impacts of Alternative 1 on performance or the LOS of the circulation system"
(p. 4-4); (4) "Alternative 1 does not contribute to adverse cumulative effects on any study
intersection in 2020" (p. 3-66); and (5) "Alternative 1 does not contribute to adverse
cumulative effects on any study intersection in 2040" (p. 3-66).
■ With regards to Alternative 2, the Lead Agency states: (1) "the contribution of Alternative
2 to the cumulative impact on the freeway mainline is less than significant." (p. 4-12); (2)
San Diego Freeway Improvement Project July 22, 2013
City of Seal Beach Page 17
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
"there are no intersections where the contribution of Alternative 2 to the cumulative
impacts is significant with the proposed mitigations in place" (p. 4-12); (3) "there are no
significant impacts of Alternative 2 on performance or the LOS of the circulation system"
(p. 4-12); (4) "Alternative 2 does not contribute to adverse cumulative effects on any
study intersection in 2020" (p. 3-75); and (5) "Alternative 2 does not contribute to
adverse cumulative effects on any study intersection in 2040" (p. 3-75).
■ With regards to Alternative 3, the Lead Agency states: (1) "the contribution of Alternative
3 to the cumulative impact on the freeway mainline is less than significant' (p. 4-20); (2)
"there are no intersections where the contribution of Alternative 3 to the cumulative
impacts is significant with the proposed mitigations in place" (p. 4-20); (3) "there are no
significant impacts of Alternative 3 on performance or the LOS of the circulation system."
(p. 4-20); (4) "Alternative 3 does not contribute to adverse cumulative effects on any
study intersection in 2020" (p. 3-84); and (5) and "Alternative 3 does not contribute to
adverse cumulative effects on any study intersection in 2040" (p. 3-84).
From the SDEIR/S, it is not even possible to determine what the "new significant information"
(e.g., "Caltrans has determined that the Supplemental Traffic Study represents new significant
information" [emphasis added], p. 1-2) actually is and whether the "new information" presented
therein is, in fact, deemed to be "significant" by the Lead Agency (e.g., "This Supplemental Draft
EIR/EIS for the proposed San Diego Freeway Improvement Project provides new information on
potential project-related traffic effects within the City of Long Beach" [emphasis added], p. S-1).
The SDEIR/S acknowledges that the "Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, 40
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 1502.9(c) allows agencies to prepare supplements
to either a Draft or Final EIS if: (i) The agency makes substantial changes in the proposed
action that are relevant to environmental concerns; or (ii) There are significant new
circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed
action or its impacts" (emphasis added) (p. 1-2). Because the SDEIR/S only discusses "new
information," it is assumed that the Lead Agency is neither acknowledging nor disclosing the
concurrent existence of "substantial changes in the proposed action" and/or "significant new
circumstances." If such conditions exist, they are certainly not identified or described in the
SDEI R/S.
"Substantial changes in the proposed action" and/or "significant new circumstances or
information" are not necessarily confined to modifications in the physical design of the proposed
project and/or the by-product of the Lead Agency's own analysis of project-related and
cumulative environmental effects. Such conditions can result from comments raised by
stakeholders, the Lead Agency's responses thereto, and/or the introduction of information and
other relevant material whose subsequent disclosure has (a) substantively bearing on the
adequacy and accuracy of the CEQA/NEPA documentation and (b) that was known to the Lead
Agency prior to the DEIR/S' release but which was either knowingly withheld or which was not
included therein.
"A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the
EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review under Section
15087 but before certification. . .'Significant new information' requiring recirculation include, for
example, a disclosure showing that: (1) A new significant environmental impact would result
from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. (2) A
substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation
July 22, 2013 San Diego Freeway Improvement Project
Page 18 City of Seal Beach
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (3) A feasible project
alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would
clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponents decline to
adopt it. (4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in
nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded" (emphasis added) (14 CCR
15088.5[a]). Under CEQA, one of these conditions must exist to predicate recirculation;
however, it is unclear which (if any) of these triggers has predicated the release of the SDEIR/S.
The SDEIR/S states that "only those portions of the Draft EIR/EIS that have been modified as a
result of the new information are included within the Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS" (p. 1-2).
However, since there has been no public disclosure of the Lead Agency's draft responses to
stakeholders' comments on the DEIR/S and no opportunity to critique those draft responses
under Section 21092.5(a) of CEQA, it would be presumptive for Caltrans to assume that no
other comments (including the Lead Agency responses thereto) introduce new information of
substantial importance, introduce new environmental effects not previously disclosed, increase
the significance of impacts previously identified, introduce new alternatives and/or mitigation
measures, and/or raise other substantive issues warranting recirculation of the DEIR/S.
"In no case shall the lead agency fail to respond to pertinent comments on significant
environmental issues" (14 CCR 15088.5[f]). Without even having to wait to see the Lead
Agency's draft responses to comments on the DEIR/S, by the Lead Agency's own actions (i.e.,
an explicit or implicit declaration that there exists no other "significant new information" other
than as disclosed in the SDEIR/S), it is evident that those responses will merely seek to defend
both the work previously performed by Caltrans' and the OCTA's staff and consultants and the
righteousness of the DEIR/S' analysis and conclusions and serve as a post-hoc rationalization
for the Lead Agency's predetermined outcome. By limiting the context of the SDEIR/S (e.g.,
"The remaining sections of the Draft EIR/EIS are not included because they do not require
modification," p. S-1), the Lead Agency, in essence, states that there is no other"significant new
information" necessitating recirculation of the DEIR/S or any additional portion thereof.
The Lead Agency seeks to "piecemeal" not only the geographic extent of its "study area" and
"logical termini" but also its "supplemental" environmental analysis to examine only a single
issue (e.g., "As a result of comments received on potential traffic effects within the City of Long
Beach, Caltrans prepared the Supplemental Traffic Study," p. 1-2) without due consideration of
or the requisite "hard look" at: (1) the totality of comments submitted by other stakeholders and
any "significant new information" arising therefrom; and (2) an evaluation of the indirect and
secondary environmental consequences of that single issue's potential to affect other topical
issues examined in the DEIR/S (e.g., land use, air quality, and noise).
Since OCTA's name appears on the cover of both the DEIR/S and SDEIR/S and is represented
as "project sponsor" therein, the OCTA's actions cannot be severed from either the proposed
project or from Caltrans' disclosure and analytical obligations under CEQA/NEPA. Although
recognizing that OCTA is not presented as the Lead Agency, evidence of fragmentation and/or
the existence of a hidden agenda (e.g., OCTA staff's continuing advocacy for and Caltrans'
continued endorsement of Alternative 3) can be found in the following extracts from OCTA's
administrative record.
■ Identification of a Locally Preferred Strategy (2006). Based on a more extensive
alternatives analysis conducted at that time, the OCTA's "Interstate 405 Major
Investment Study Final Report" (OCTA [Parsons], February 2006) (MIS) concluded that:
San Diego Freeway Improvement Project July 22, 2013
City of Seal Beach Page 19
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
"fMISI Alternative 4 adds a single general purpose freeway lane in each direction to the
I-405 segment from Brookhurst Street to Valley View Street which currently has only 4
such lanes. In order to avoid dropping a lane and creating a potential operational
bottleneck, this lane is carried to the I-605 interchange on the north. . .fMISI Alternative 4
is the Locally Preferred Strategy (LPS) for improvements to I-405 between I-605 and
SR-73. The LPS provides for an additional general purpose lane in each direction on the
freeway between I-605 and Brookhurst Street. It includes auxiliary lanes linking on-
ramps to downstream off-ramps at numerous locations in the corridor" (MIS, pp. 26 and
91).
■ Regional Planning and Highways Committee's Recommendations (2012). As
indicated in the Board packet for their meeting on October 22, 2012 was a memorandum
from Wendy Knowles, Clerk of the Board to Members of the Board of Directors (Subject:
Selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative for the Interstate 405 Improvement Project
between State Route 55 and Interstate 405), dated September 24, 2012, transmitting to
the OCTA's Board of Directors the recommendations of the Regional Planning Highways
Committee (Committee) as formulated at the Committee's September 17, 2012 meeting.
The following "Committee Recommendations" are outlined therein: "(A) Select
Alternative I as the locally preferred alternative for the Interstate 405 Improvement
Project between State Route 55 and Interstate 605 and transmit this selection to the
California Department of Transportation. (B) Direct staff to work with California
Department of Transportation t ensure the final design of Alternative 1 does not preclude
options that may be developed in the future to improve mobility in the corridor. (C) Direct
staff to develop a financing plan for Alternative 1 and work with the Finance and
Administration Committee on a recommended approach to accelerate the delivery of the
project. (D) Direct staff to incorporate Alternative 1 into the Measure M2 M2020 Plan. (E)
Direct staff to seek legislative authority through the state of California to construct the
project using a design-build procurement and inform the appropriate agencies of Orange
County Transportation Authority's decision and intent' (emphasis added).
■ Selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative (2012). As indicated in the OCTA's April
2013 Path Forward: "On October 22, 2012, the Board selected Alternative 1, the single
GP lane, as the locally preferred alternative (LPA). Alternative 1 delivers the M2 Project
K scope approved by voters, and also eliminates the need to reconstruct the Fairview
Road bridge in the City of Costa Mesa. Parking impacts in the City of Westminster have
also been greatly reduced through design modifications. Alternative 1 does not
necessitate the relocation of the soundwall that exists along Almond Avenue in the City
of Seal Beach" (emphasis added) (April 2013 Path Forward, p. 3). The identification of
Alternative 1 as the LPA demonstrates as a policy-based continuity with the Board of
Directors earlier actions arising out of the MIS.
Evidence of OCTA staff's advocacy for Alternative 3 can be demonstrated in the Board
of Directors October 22, 2012 agenda. As indicated therein, the OCTA staff presented
the following recommendations to the Board of Directors: "(A) Select the modified
Alternative 3 as the locally preferred alternative to the Interstate 405 Improvement
Project between State Route 55 and Interstate 605 and transmit this selection to the
California Department of Transportation for consideration. (B) Direct staff to develop a
financing plan for the modified Alternative 3 and work with the Finance and
Administration Committee on a recommended approach. Continue to look for financing
through mechanisms such as the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation
July 22, 2013 San Diego Freeway Improvement Project
Page 20 City of Seal Beach
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
Act to minimize interest costs. (C) Incorporate the Measure M2 cost of the single general
purpose lane, inherent in all build alternatives, into the M2020 Plan, and direct staff to
establish separate funding and accounting for express lanes costs and revenues under
Alternative 3. (D) Adopt the 91 Express Lanes toll policy for the Interstate 405 Express
Lanes, but allow carpools with three or more persons to ride free at all times. Continue
to explore opportunities to allow two-person carpools to ride free during non-peak hours"
(emphasis added).
The City wishes to extent its appreciation to the OCTA Board of Directors for both its
courageous actions not to follow its own staff's recommendations and to implement the
voter's Measures M/M2 directives and for its efforts to retain the Almond Avenue
soundwall in Seal Beach. However, notwithstanding that clear policy direction, in
correspondence from Jim Beil, Executive Director, Capital Projects of OCTA to the City's
Director of Public Works, dated June 25, 2013, included herein as Attachment 2
(Correspondence from Jim Beil, OCTA Executive Director, June 25, 2013), OCTA staff
continues to focus its attention on the pursuit of other alternatives. In that letter, Mr. Beil
states that "[i]f the Mandatory Design Standards for lane and shoulder width on the 1-405
are met, the sound wall would be relocated narrowing Almond Avenue from its current
40 foot width to approximately 36 feet west of Almond Park. . .Almond Avenue would be
narrowed to between 40 and 34 feet" (emphasis added).
In addition, as outlined in the OCTA's April 2013 Path Forward, the following four
"recommendations" are identified: "(A) Direct staff to proceed in accordance with an
approach that advances project development of the Measure M2 Project K, which adds
one general purpose lane in each direction on Interstate 405 between Euclid Street and
Interstate 605. (B) Direct staff to concurrently screen a new concept for improvements to
Interstate 405, which adds two general purpose lanes in each direction and also
explores converting the existing high-occupancy vehicle lane to a single high-occupancy
toll lane. The screening will consider traffic and revenue implications, identify additional
right-of-way needed for this concept, and is estimated to cost $140,000. (C) Direct staff
to concurrently screen a new concept for improvements to Interstate 405, which
truncates the second northbound general purpose lane of Alternative 2 at Valley View
Street. The screening is estimated to cost $15,000. (D) Direct staff to return to the Board
of Directors in September 2013 for further discussion of existing alternatives and to
present findings from the analysis of the new concepts" (emphasis added).
If the OCTA's Board of Directors adopted (October 2012) a policy directive to advance
Alternative 1 and retain the existing Almond Avenue sound wall, why is its own
Executive Director in April and June 2013 not actively promoting that direction and
discussing actions directly contrary thereto? Why does the SDEIR/S not include a letter
from the OCTA staff to the Lead Agency requesting Caltrans' implementation of the
Board of Director's October 22, 2012 policy directive? Is not the Board's formal
selection of Alternative 1 as the LPA not itself considered" significant new information"
under CEQA/NEPA?
Why is no reference to that action included therein? If no such reference to the Board's
October 2012 action is presented in the SDEIR/S, why has the project sponsor's
decision-making body's request for Caltrans' approval of Alternative 1 been hidden from
CEQA/NEPA stakeholders? Why are comments from Long Beach given greater
San Diego Freeway Improvement Project July 22, 2013
City of Seal Beach Page 21
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
credence that the both the actions of OCTA's Board of Directors and comments
submitted by other stakeholders in response to the release of the DEIR/S?
As further described in the OCTA's April 2013 Path Forward, two new build alternatives
(Concepts A and B) have been identified and a Caltrans-authored degradation study of the
Orange County HOVL system have been submitted. No reference to the Board of Directors'
identification and consideration of alternative "Concepts A and B" is, however, presented in the
SDEIR/S. Similarly, left unexplained is the criticality of the information presented in the
SDEIR/S that its release could not have been delayed pending further discussions of"Concepts
A and B."
The April 2013 Path Forward agenda item noted that "[s]hould the Board select a new
alternative to the DEIR/EIS within the existing footprint of the three build alternatives previously
studied, it would require new technical studies that would need to be incorporated into the
DEIR/EIS which would need to be recirculated. A supplemental DEIR/EIS would need to be
prepared and a new round of public hearings would need to be carried out with public input
recorded and addressed. It is estimated that this additional environmental work could take up to
18 months to complete and cost $1.7 million." Notably absent from that agenda is any staff
discussion regarding the importance of and the role that alternatives analysis plays in both the
CEQA/NEPA and decision-making processes, the merits of including or not including "Concepts
A and B," and why either or both of those alternatives might warrant further consideration (e.g.,
effectively addressed a stated public concern).
In the absence of any concurrent discussion of the time and cost to prepare the SDEIR/S or
even why that document was required at this time (e.g., "Caltrans, as the Lead Agency, made
the decision to disclose this new information to the public by preparing and circulating this
Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS," p. S-1) the discussion of time delays and cost overruns appears
solely intended to dissuade the OCTA's Board of Directors from pursuing the analysis of new or
modified alternatives. While recognizing that schedule and budget considerations are often
important consideration, there exists no substantive information in the DEIR/S and SDEIR/S of
the relevance of time and money to the formulation and selection of an implementation plan.
Those variables have not previously been elevated to the same stature as that indicated in the
April 2013 Path Forward. The release of the SDEIR/S appears more likely timed to support
staff's argument that another recirculated CEQA/NEPA document would not be warranted.
It is noted that no reference to or information concerning Caltrans' HOVL degradation study is
presented in the SDEIR/S. With much appreciation to Fifth District Supervisor Pat Bates for her
diligent efforts to inform her constituency and provide full disclosure of the activities of the
OCTA's Board of Directors, the following information was presented on Supervisor Bates'
website (http://bos.ocgov.com/legacy5/newsletters/volume7issuel4.htm):
Staff from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) gave a
presentation to the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Board of
Directors on the Caltrans Statewide High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Degradation
Study, which included information about HOV lanes that are degraded within
Orange County and the options available to address the degradation. An HOV
lane is considered "degraded" when speeds fall below 45 mph for 10% or more of
the morning or evening weekday peak hour periods over a consecutive 180-day
period. Contained within in the federal transportation reauthorization bill (Moving
Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century), enacted July 6, 2012, are requirements
July 22, 2013 San Diego Freeway Improvement Project
Page 22 City of Seal Beach
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
for state departments of transportation to identify and remedy degraded HOV
lanes. The Caltrans study, which has not yet been released in its entirety, identifies
portions of the 1-405, 1-5, SR-55, SR-22 and SR-91 as having degraded HOV
lanes. Caltrans recommendations for remedying the degradation include raising
the HOV occupancy requirement from 2+ to 3+, adding second HOV/HOT lanes,
and converting existing HOV lanes to High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes, including
any or all of these recommendations taken together. Unfortunately, Caltrans'
presentation lacked adequate detail and did not include specific data by freeway
segment. Caltrans is expected to provide this information within the next several
weeks (emphasis added).
The above statement differs substantially from the written information presented to the OCTA's
Board of Directors on April 22, 2012 (and discoverable to all but those in attendance at that
meeting), namely, the declaration that "Caltrans has not determined the method to address
HOV degradation on the entire 1-405 corridor' (April 2013 Path Forward). Absent Caltrans'
disclosure of its HOV degradation study and proposed response, the public is provided no
means to reconcile those contradictory statements.
As of July 2008, as presented in "California HOV/Express Lane Business Plan, 2009" (Caltrans,
March 31, 2009), with regards to HOVLs, Caltrans reported that there were a total of 1,424
existing lane miles and 124 lane miles under construction within the State. As further indicated
therein: "According to a report by Caltrans, nearly 50% of the HOV lanes in the state experience
periods of degradation in the peak hour according to the federal definition — meaning that
average speeds of 45 mph speed or lower have been measured more than 10% of the time"
(http://www.accma.ca.gov/Documents/22_136_74AO371_ExpressLaneBizPlan_033109_FI NAL
—check_2_.pdf). If, as reported, one-half of the State's 1,548 HOVL miles are already
degraded, assuming Caltrans' recommendations apply universally to all degraded HOVLs
throughout the State and are not limited only to that segment of the 1-405 Freeway located in
Orange County, from a cumulative environmental perspective, related projects (including other
HOVLs where the State may mandate raising HOV-occupancy requirements, adding HOWHOT
lanes, and/or undertaking HOVL-to-HOTL conversions) producing cumulative environmental
effects include 774 HOVL miles throughout California. Those related projects and those
cumulative impacts are not, however, discussed in either the DEIR/S or in the SDEIR/S.
Based on the potential significance of the State's HOVL-degradation study with regards to the
proposed project, the imminent timing of its scheduled release, and the fact that Caltrans is not
scheduled to release its response to comments on the DEIR/S until "October 2013" (April 2013
Path Forward), it is unclear why Caltrans elected to release the SDEIR/S at this time rather than
delaying its release a couple of "weeks" so as to allow the SDEIR/S to also include the relevant
project-specific information anticipated in that study.
As indicated by the California Senate Transportation & Housing Committee (February 18, 2013),
"Caltrans' most recent HOV lane degradation report [was] submitted to FHWA in November
2011 [and] concluded that HOV lane degradation 'may continue to be the result of high traffic
demand and congestion across the entire freeway facility"' (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-
14/bill/sen/sb_0251-0300/sb_286_cfa_20130328_113404_sen_comm.html). If, as reported by
the Senate Transportation & Housing Committee, the degradation study has been available
since November 2011, then the withholding of that information while concurrently alleging its
potential significance and direct relevancy to the proposed project raises questions as to the
motivation behind the lack of disclosure.
San Diego Freeway Improvement Project July 22, 2013
City of Seal Beach Page 23
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
The information presented in Attachment 3 (High-Occupancy Vehicle Degradation Study
Powerpoint), which purports to be a summation of Caltrans' HOV degradation study appears to
bear no relationship to either the Senate Transportation & Housing Committee's or Supervisor
Bates' description of that document's content. Similarly, in recognition of its relevancy to the
proposed project, it is unclear why a study completed in November 2011 has neither been
disclosed as part of the project's CEQA/NEPA documentation nor made fully available to the
general public.
3.0 "LOGICAL TERMINI" UNREASONABLY LIMITS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Substantial evidence exists that the "logical termini" identified by the Lead Agency and the
identified "study area" misrepresent and/or underestimate the proposed project and its likely
environmental effects. With regards to the "study area," referencing a memorandum from Will
Kempton, OCTA Chief Executive Officer to Members of the Board of Directors (Subject: 1-405
Improvement Project Follow-Up Items), dated October 11, 2012, included in the October 22,
2012 Board packet:
To help define the potential area of benefit for net toll revenues, staff looked at
year 3035 morning peak period trips that are expected to use the 1-406 corridor
project limits and analyzed the origins and destination of those trips. A graph
summary of this information was presented to the Board on September 24, 2012
and is included as Attachment B. Four possible project boundaries were
evaluated. These boundaries were based on commute shed of the trips using the
1-405. Commute shed refers to the area defined by origin and destination points of
morning peak period trips that are likely to use the 1-405. The various concepts
are depicted in Attachment C.
Year 2035 Origin and Destination for 1-405 Corridor
%of Total
Year 2035 Origins Trips Orange County
Trip Origins
Total AM Origins: Concept A: 5-Mile Radius 49,000 76%
Total AM Origins: Concept B: 3-Mile Radius 38,000 59%
Total AM Origins: Concept C: Full Corridor 5-Mile Radius 57,400 89%
Total AM Origins: Concept D: Parallel Corridors 58,600 91%
%of Total
Year 2035 Destinations Trips Orange County
Trip Origins
Total AM Origins: Concept A: 5-Mile Radius 55,100 78%
Total AM Origins: Concept B: 3-Mile Radius 35,839 50%
Total AM Origins: Concept C: Full Corridor 5-Mile Radius 65,640 94%
Total AM Origins: Concept D: Parallel Corridors 66,497 94%
The above table shows that Concepts C and D encompass the majority (90
percent or more) of commuter trip origins and destinations. Therefore, these
boundaries cover the bulk of the transportation systems which support the users of
1-405 and represent an area where 1-405 related investments could be made.
Concept D provides for a clearer definition of the boundary as it is defined by the
July 22, 2013 San Diego Freeway Improvement Project
Page 24 City of Seal Beach
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
parallel transportation routes. However, Concept C is more consistent with SB 4
as it is defined by the 1-405 corridor which is the facility where the revenue-
generating improvements will be constructed (emphasis added).
Although an opportunity has not been provided to review the source data and analytical
methodologies used to derive the above information, five items are worthy of note: (1) origin-
and-destination studies have been conducted by OCTA (but are not included or referenced in
the DEIR/S or SDEIR/S) and likely represent a more supportable basis for the establishment of
the project's analytical "study area"; (2) the four"concepts" illustrated by OCTA staff(e.g., 5-mile
radius, 3-mile radius, full corridor and 5-mile radius, and parallel corridors) differ substantially
from the DEIR/S' original "study area" and the SDEIR/S' "Long Beach study traffic study area"
(p. 3-3); (3) the "appropriate area where 1-405 related investments could be made" (i.e., areas of
potentially significant impact) are substantial larger than both the original (DEIR/S) and
expanded (SDEIR/S) "study areas" further invalidating the geographically-limited CEQA/NEPA
analysis; (4) total VMT traveled will likely exceed the quantities presented in the DEIR/S based
on OCTA's acknowledged "commute shed"; and (5) the identified need (defined by the number
of trips assigned to the 1-405 Freeway) bears no relationship to the traffic projections and
number of trips described in the DEIR/S and SDEIR/S.
With regards to "logical termini," Caltrans does not view the 1-405 only in the context of a "14-
mile" (DEIR/S, p. 2-20) or 15-mile" (DEIR/S, AQR, p. 51) or 16 mile" (DEIR/S, p. 1-12)
segment of a larger transportation corridor. Caltrans' "transportation concept reports" (TCRs) is
an internal planning document which expresses the agency's judgment on what the
characteristics of each State highway should be in response to proposed land uses and
projected travel demand over a 20-year planning period. As indicated in Caltrans' (District 12)
"Route Concept Report Interstate 405 — San Diego Freeway" (November 1999) (RCR)
(hftp://www.dot.ca.gov/distl2/planning/pdf/route4O5.pdo:
Interstate 405 (1-405) also known as the San Diego Fwy [Freeway] has 24.18 miles
located in Orange County and 48.2 miles located in Los Angeles County. It is
considered a bypass route to the Santa Ana/Golden State Fwy [Freeway] (1-5). . .I-
405 provides access between cities that are located in both Orange and Los
Angeles Counties. It is used for commuting and inter-regional travel along with
direct and indirect access to employment centers, recreational attractions,
shopping malls, medical centers, universities, airports, etc. (emphasis added)
(RCR, p. i).
San Diego Freeway Improvement Project July 22, 2013
City of Seal Beach Page 25
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
Caltrans' "Corridor System Management Plan - State Route 22/Interstate 405/Interstate 606
Final Report" (System Metrics Group/Braidwood Associates, August 2010) (CSMP)
(http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/corridor-mobility/CSMPs/d12_CSMPs/SR%2022-1%20405-
1%20605/D12_SR-22_CSMP_Final_Technical Report_dec2010.pdf) was prepared in response
to the voters' approval of Proposition B (The Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and
Port Security Bond Act of 2006) in November 2006. That ballot measure included a funding
program identified as the "Corridor Mobility Improvement Account" (CMIA). In order to receive
CMIA funds, California Transportation Commission's (CTC) guidelines required that project
sponsors describe (in a CSMP) how mobility gains from CMIA-funded corridor improvements
would be maintained, focusing on operational strategies and funded expansion projects.
Initially intended as a mean of prioritizing
CMIA funding, CSMPs were subsequently
included in the CTC's "Regional
Transportation Plan Guidelines." There
are presently about 50 CSMPs that have
been developed or are in the process of
being developed. Within the Los Angeles
metropolitan area, Caltrans' network of
CSMPs is illustrated in the accompanying
graphic (Source: ITSP, Figure H, p. 43).
2 - CSMPs within Caltrans' Districts 7 and 12
are listed below.
Corridor System Management Plan (CSMP) Routes
District County Corridor CSMP Limits
5&7 Santa Barbara U.S. 101 Winchester Canyon Creek in SB Co. to Rice Ave. in
Ventura VEN Co.
Los Angeles 1-5 ORA/LOA Co. Line to 1-710
7 Los Angeles 1-5 From 1-10 West to 1-210
Los Angeles 1-405 From 1-110 to 1-5
Los Angeles 1-210 From SR-57 to 1-5
SR-22
Orange 1-405 SR-22 from 1-405/1-605 Junction to SR-55; 1-405 from I-
I-605 5 to LA Co. line-, and 1-605 from 1-405 to LA Co. line
Orange SR-57 SR-22/1-5 Interchange to LA Co. line
12 Orange 1-5 SD Co. line to LA Co. line
Orange SR-55 Entire route within District 12
Orange From 1-5/SR-91 separation in ORA Co. to just east of
Riverside SR-91 RIV Co. line
Source: California Department of Transportation, Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan —
Review Draft, December 2012, Appendix D
(http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/oasp/ITSP_docu ment_Fl NAL.pdf#zoom=65)
As noted, both District 7 and District 12 have identified an 1-405 Corridor" within their respective
boundaries. As indicated in the SDEIR/S, the Lead Agency now acknowledges that significant
environmental impacts are not confined to either an agency's managerial boundaries or the
project's construction limits. As such, for the purpose of CEQA/NEPA compliance, neither an
agency's jurisdictional boundaries nor the edge of planned construction serve as an appropriate
geographic indices of the extend and magnitude of significant project-related and cumulatively
July 22, 2013 San Diego Freeway Improvement Project
Page 26 City of Seal Beach
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
significant environmental effects. When the contiguous 1-405 Corridors" in both District 7 and
District 12 are combined into a single management area, the more supportable "logical termini"
extends along the 1-405 Freeway from the 1-5 Freeway on the north to the 1-5 Freeway on the
south (e.g., 1-405 is considered a bypass route to the Interstate 5 Santa Ana/Golden State
Freeway through Orange County," DEIR/S, Noise Study Report, p. 1). By viewing the 1-405
Freeway as a north-south freeway and arterial "bypass" and considering the "logical termini"
from a functional rather than a construction-defined or jurisdictional perspective, both the project
and its potential impacts can be viewed from a systems perspective.
Caltrans' "Draft Final Corridor System Management Plan Orange County SR-22 Comprehensive
Performance Assessment and Causality Analysis" (May 4, 2009) (Draft Final CSMP)
(http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/corridor-mobility/CSMPs/d12_CSMPs/SR%2022-1%20405-
1%20605/SR-22%20&%201-405%20&%201-605%20CPA.pdf) states that "[o]ver the last few
years, Caltrans and its stakeholders and partner agencies have been developing and
committing to a framework called `System Management'. . .This framework aims to get the most
of our transportation infrastructure through a variety of strategies, not just through the traditional
and increasingly expensive expansion projects. System Management has been embraced by
the Administration as part of their Strategic Growth Plan and by the Southern California
Association of Governments, the Metropolitan Planning Organization for Southern California
and Orange County" (Draft Final CSMP, p. 3).
In that study, Caltrans identifies a larger 1-405 Freeway corridor' which includes "portions of
three state routes, SR-22, 1-405, and 1-605 in Orange County. The corridor begins at an
interchange involving all three freeways at the Los Angeles County border. From there, the
corridor runs east along SR-22 (Garden Grove Freeway) to SR-55. The corridor also runs
southeast along 1-405 (San Diego Freeway) until it reaches 1-5 (Golden State Freeway) just
outside Irvine. The corridor includes a short, one-mile section of 1-605 (San Gabriel River
Freeway) as it heads north from the Los Alamitos Curve (SR-22/1-405/1-605) interchange to the
Los Angeles County border. . .The portion of SR-22 in the study corridor traverses a large part
of Orange County and includes all 13 miles of the freeway from its beginning in Seal Beach
(Post Mile R0.000) through Westminster, Garden Grove, and Santa Ana to SR-55 (Post Mile
R13.164). . .The portion of the study corridor along 1-405 extends 24 miles (Post Mile 0.230 to
Post Mile 24.178), paralleling the Orange County coastline from 1-5 to SR-22."
Within that area, "[d]uring the AM peak period, only about 44 percent of all trips originate and
terminate in Orange County (Zones 1 or 2). The remaining trips originate in Orange County and
terminate in another county (26 percent), originate outside Orange County and terminate in
Orange County (25 percent), or originate and terminate outside Orange County (6 percent).
The picture is similar for the PM peak period, which experiences around 28 percent more
demand than the AM. Around 44 percent of trips originate and terminate in Orange County. The
remaining trips originate in Orange County and terminate in another county (25 percent),
originate outside Orange County and terminate in Orange County (25 percent), or originate and
terminate outside Orange County (7 percent)" (Draft Final CSMP, p. 36).
Caltrans' SR-22/1-405/1-605 corridor, which focuses primarily on freeway segments within a
single Caltrans' organization district, is less representatives of traffic conditions and expected
impacts than the linked 1-405 Corridors" in District 7 and District 12 but more encompassing
that either the DEIR/S' original "study area" or the SDEIR/S' "Long Beach study traffic study
area" (p. 3-3).
San Diego Freeway Improvement Project July 22, 2013
City of Seal Beach Page 27
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
Referencing correspondence from the City of Long Beach (Long Beach) presented to Caltrans
in response to the release of the DEIR/S and included as Attachment 4 (1-405 Freeway
Improvement Project Letter and Memorandum) herein:
The 1-405/1-605/SR-22 interchanges does not seem like a `logical termini' for the
northern segment of the 1-405 Improvement Project. Traffic should be further
evaluated after the termination of the proposed project's additional lanes to ensure
that a choke point does not occur north of the Orange County/Los Angeles County
line in the City of Long Beach. The City of Long Beach does not feel that the
northern terminus of the proposed project meets the `logical termini' requirements
of the FHWA, as stated in the DEIR/EIS (p. 1-24), thus resulting in an issue of
`segmentation.' The FHWA's discussion of logical termini and segmentation is
provided below (The Development of Logical Project Termini, November 1993):
In developing a project concept which can be advanced through the
stages of planning, environment, design, and construction, the
project sponsor needs to consider a "whole' or integrated project.
This project should satisfy an identified need, such as safety,
rehabilitation, economic development, or capacity improvements, and
should be considered in the context of the local area socioeconomics
and topography, the future travel demand, and other infrastructure
improvements in the area. Without framing a project in this way,
proposed improvements may miss the mark by only peripherally
satisfying the need or by causing unexpected side effects which
require additional corrective action. A problem of "segregation" may
also occur where a transportation need extends throughout an entire
corridor but environmental issues and transportation needs are
inappropriately discussed for only a segment of the corridor
(emphasis added).
As indicated in the FHWA's Federal-Aid Highway Program Guidance: "The FHWA supports
HOV lanes as a cost-effective and environmentally friendly option to help move people along
congested urban and suburban routes. As such, FHWA regulations at 23 C.F.R. 810.102
specifically provide that HOV lanes are eligible for Federal-aid participation. In locations where
existing or anticipated excess HOV lane capacity is available, conversion to a HOT lane facility
is encouraged as a way to increase throughput and to provide additional travel options for
drivers. As part of an overall approach to respond to increased travel demand and address
traffic congestion, HOV and HOT lanes can be a practical alternative to adding more general-
purpose travel lanes. The FHWA encourages the implementation of HOV or HOT lanes as an
important part of an area-wide approach to help metropolitan areas address their requirements
for improved mobility, safety, and productivity, while also being sensitive to environmental and
quality of life issues (emphasis added).
Referencing the FHWA's "NEPA and Transportation Decisionmaking — Developing and
Evaluation of Alternatives" (November 15, 2006): "When developing a transportation project,
project sponsors should consider how the end points of the action are determined, both for the
improvement itself and for the scope of the environmental analysis. Whether the action has
`logical termini' or not is also a concern. Logical termini for project development are defined as
rational end points for both a transportation improvement and a review of the environmental
impacts" (http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/tdmalts.asp).
July 22, 2013 San Diego Freeway Improvement Project
Page 28 City of Seal Beach
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
In "NEPA and Transportation Decisionmaking — The Development of Logical Project Termini"
(November 5, 1993), the FHWA further noted that: (1) "the termini chosen must be such that: [1]
environmental issues can be treated on a sufficiently broad scope to ensure that the project will
function properly without requiring additional improvements elsewhere, and [2] the project will
not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation
improvements"; and (2) "Choosing a corridor of sufficient length to look at all impacts need not
preclude staged construction. Therefore, related improvements within a transportation facility
should be evaluated as one project, rather than selecting termini based on what is programmed
as short range improvements. Construction may then be `staged,' or programmed for shorter
sections or discrete construction elements as funding permits" (emphasis added)
(http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/tdmtermini.asp).
The SDEIR/S concludes that"[t]he new information in this Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS results in
new CEQA significant cumulative traffic impacts" (p. 1-2). Based on the Lead Agency's own
admission, when examining only previously undisclosed impacts to the north of the original
"study area" (without consideration of possible cumulative impacts beyond that single expansion
area), the information presented in the SDEIR/S demonstrates that the DEIR/S presented an
erroneous "logical termini" in that the full extent of project-related and cumulative significant
environmental impacts were not disclosed. The statements in the DEIR/S that "[t]he proposed
project satisfies the requirements for independent utility and logical termini" (DEIR/S, p. 1-22)
and "[t]he project corridor is of sufficient length to adequately address transportation issues"
(DEIR/S, p. 1-23) are unsupported by information presented in the SDEIR/S.
Although current law, as set forth in 23 U.S.C. 301, generally provides that, subject to a few
exceptions, federal highways "shall be free from tolls of all kinds," evidence demonstrates that
concerted efforts are underway by Caltrans to convert many existing HOVLs within the Los
Angeles-Orange County metropolitan area into HOTLs and to construct new lanes to
accommodate tolling. Caltrans has failed to examine the broader environmental and
socioeconomic implications of those actions at either a Statewide or regional level and has
repeated sought to piecemeal (fragment) those improvements and other modifications based on
falsely-conceived segmentation.
Rather than addressing the environmental and other implications of the larger fundamental shift
in infrastructure financing (e.g., tolling) and the environmental justice and related issues relating
to authorizing and encouraging SOVs usage of "express lanes," Although regional
environmental impacts (e.g., air quality) do not logically cease at an agency's corporate
boundaries, Caltrans seeks to perpetuate the myth that CEQA/NEPA allows a governmental
entity to ignore the proven reality (as demonstrated in the SDEIR/S) that "significant' impacts
do, in fact, occur beyond the physical limits of the proposed capital improvements and the
confines of an agency's jurisdictional boundaries (e.g., Orange County is located within Caltrans
District 12 while Long Beach is located within Caltrans District 7).
Because the SDEIR/S demonstrates that roadway improvements are required beyond the
boundaries of the original "study area," the "logical termini" asserted by the Lead Agency: (1)
misrepresents the nature of the proposed project; (2) fails to encompass the totality of the
project's environmental effects; (3) ignores the functionality of the I-405 Freeway; (4) does not
consider "related improvements"; and (5) artificially restricts the analysis only to areas of"short
range improvements."
San Diego Freeway Improvement Project July 22, 2013
City of Seal Beach Page 29
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
Since the SDIE/S report provides congestion detail at the terminus of the project at 1-405 and
states the each alternative will impact 1-405 north of the 1-605 interchange, it does not provide
information these impacts to the traffic as it reaches saturation at the 1-605 interchange and
what happens to both the general purpose lanes and the HOV lanes. However, a discussion is
provided that provides mitigation in terms of cash value to Caltrans for future use to improve the
affected 1-405 interchanges north of 1-605, without mitigation measures proposed for the
terminus at the 1-605 interchange. The City is requesting development of a traffic model to
determine the impacts to traffic flow at the County Line, absence of 1-405 improvements, and
north of the 1-605 for each Alternative.
4.0 JUNE 25, 2013 LETTER FROM PROJECT SPONSOR
In response to its extensive comments on the DEIR/S, the City was surprised to receive a letter
from Jim Beil, Executive Director, Capital Projects of OCTA, dated June 25, 2013. That letter
was submitted by the "project sponsor' and not the Lead Agency and dealt with decisions
already make with regards to the proposed project. As noted therein, "OCTA and Caltrans staff
are preparing the supplemental draft environmental impact report/environmental impact
statement that is scheduled to be circulated for public review and comment in summer 2013"
(emphasis added).
It is noted that the SDEIR/S includes no reference to OCTA's role in the preparation of that
document and the document contains no list of "persons, firms, or agencies preparing the draft
EIR" (14 CCR 15129) or "list the names, together with their qualifications, of the persons who
were primarily responsible for preparing the environmental impact statement" (40 CFR
1502.17). Because the "project sponsor' is not an impartial observer, it would appear a
potential conflict of interest for that entity or parties under contract to that entity to: (1) prepare,
on behalf of the Lead Agency, responses to comments relating to the project that the "project
sponsor" seeks to undertake; (2) expect a party with a vested interest in the project to
objectively response to criticisms regarding the manner in which the project has been managed
and the adequacy of the project's CEQA/NEPA compliance; (3) determine whether further
mitigation or other project conditions are warranted, particularly if such actions were to increase
project costs or result in scheduling delays; and (4) endorse new or modified alternatives whose
introduction might necessitate additional recirculation of the DEIR/S
Although the OCTA is identified as a joint preparer of the SDEIR/S, the document's authors
failed to note that the OCTA's Board of Directors selected Alternative 1 as the LPA on October
22, 2012. As indicated on the OCTA's website (http://www.octa.net/pdf/actionsl02212.pdo, the
Board of Directors took the following actions: "The board selected Alternative 1 for the Interstate
405 Improvement Project, choosing to add one general-purpose lane in each direction on the
freeway between Euclid Street and 1-605. The project to date, has taken nearly 10 years of
planning with significant input from local and regional stakeholders. At the meeting, the board
voted on all three alternatives and Alternative 1 passed with a 12-4 vote. The implementation of
Alternative 1 will help to reduce congestion and increase mobility while minimizing
environmental impacts and right-of-way acquisitions. The $1.3 billion project will be funded
through Measure M2, the half-cent sales tax for transportation improvements. OCTA's selection
of the locally preferred alternative will be forwarded to Caltrans for final review and approval."
In correspondence from Jim Beil, OCTA's Executive Director to Sean Crumby', Seal Beach's
Director of Public Works, dated June 25, 2013 (prior to the release of the SDEIR/S on June 28,
2013 but subsequent to the actions of the OCTA's Board of Directors), OCTA stated, in part:
July 22, 2013 San Diego Freeway Improvement Project
Page 30 City of Seal Beach
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
Project plans for the three build alternatives have differing impacts to the
soundwall: Project Alternatives 1 and 3 would not necessitate the reconstruction of
the soundwall as both alternatives provide just one additional general purpose
(GP) lane at this location. Alternative 2, however, does necessitate reconstruction
of the existing soundwall as this alternative provides two additional GP lanes on 1-
405 along Almond Avenue, thus requiring some minimal additional right-of-way to
accommodate the second GP lane. . .[T]he City proposed that the Project include
non-standard features such as reduced widths for lanes and shoulders in order to
reduce the Project footprint and eliminate the need to reconstruct the soundwall.
Orange County Transportation Authority staff and consultants have met with the
California Department of Transportation, City staff, and consultants to review these
proposals. Based on discussions with Caltrans, there is no justification to
substantiate approval for any of the three proposed design exceptions to the
mandatory design safety standards that would be required to leave the soundwall
in place with Alternative 2. Approval of the design exceptions must consider the
tradeoffs between meeting the mandatory design safety standards on 1-405 and
the impacts to Almond Avenue. . .State approvals of mandatory design safety
standard exceptions are contingent upon implications to safety when not meeting
standards. There are no safety implications related to the removal of parking on
the south side of Almond Avenue. In comparison, this section of 1-405 has the
highest accident concentrations in Orange County. Maintaining design standards
on 1-405 significantly outweights the minimal impacts to Almond Avenue when it
comes to safety. . .Alternative 2 will maintain one lane of traffic in each direction
and parking on both sides of the street with the exception of approximately 100
feet where parking will only be feasible on one side of the street. This appears to
be in general compliance with the City's Municipal Code (emphasis added).
Mr. Beil's declaration that "this section of 1-405 has the highest accident concentrations in
Orange County" appears to contract the DEIR/S, which states, for existing conditions, "the
actual accident rates in both directions of the entire 14.9 miles of 1-405 are lower than the
statewide average for similar facilities" (DEIR/S, p. 3.1.6-27). Contrary to the provisions of
Section 149 of the Streets and Highways Code, noticeably absent from the DEIR/S and
SDEIR/S is any "safety analysis" assessing post-project conditions.
The receipt of correspondence from OCTA rather than Caltrans creates confusion and raises
questions concerning the roles and responsibilities of those two agencies with regards to the
CEQA/NEPA process. This confusion is highlighted by the following additional facts: (1)
OCTA's and Caltrans' name appears on the cover of both the DEIR/S and SDEIR/S; (2) virtually
no information about the proposed project and the project's CEQA/NEPA documentation is
available on Caltrans' website while substantial information can be found on OCTA's website;
(3) the consulting firms preparing the DEIR/S (e.g., Parsons, Albert Grover&Associates, Group
Delta Consultants, Paragon Partners, Psomas, TEC Management, and URS Corporation), as
listed in Chapter 6 (List of Preparers) in the DEIR/S, are working under contract to OCTA
(Contract No. C80693) rather than Caltrans; (4) with regards to the SDEIR/S, although the
affiliation of the members of the "Report Preparation Team" (p. 7-1) are not listed, at least two of
the four individuals listed (i.e., Neal Denno and Raizalyn Lubong) where listed as being affiliated
with Parsons in the DEIR/S (DEIR/S, p. 6-6), suggesting that the SDEIR/S was also prepared by
OCTA's vendors; and (5) the Public Notice directs stakeholders to submit comments
electronically to "405.Supplemental.Draft.E1 R.EIS @parsons.com."
San Diego Freeway Improvement Project July 22, 2013
City of Seal Beach Page 31
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
Why is the "project sponsor' and not the Lead Agency the governmental entity formally
responding to a request from a Participating Agency (NEPA) and a Responsible Agency
(CEQA) to the CEQA/NEPA Lead Agency relative to a request for a "design exception"
(alternatively a "mitigation measure" of "condition of project approval") on a highway under
Caltrans'jurisdiction?
Applicable statute and regulations dictate that Caltrans (as the CEQA/NEPA Lead Agency) is
responsible for the preparation of written responses to comments received on the DEIR/S,
environmental determinations under CEQA/NEPA, and the selection of the facility's physical
design and operational attributes. Notwithstanding those obligations, it was the "project
sponsor" and not the CEQA/NEPA Lead Agency that notified the City that: (1) "there is no
justification to substantiate approval for any of the three proposed design exceptions to the
mandatory design safety standards that would be required to leave the soundwall in place with
Alternative 2"; (2) "[m]aintaining design standards on I-405 significantly outweights the minimal
impacts to Almond Avenue when it comes to safety"; (3) that "there is no justification to accept
the proposed design exceptions to mandatory design safety standards"; (4) "[t]here are no
safety implications" relating to impacts along Almond Avenue; and (5) that the reducing in
Almond Avenue right-of-way is in "general compliance with the City's Municipal Code."
Those determinations ("no justification"), that delicate balancing ("outweight") of a broad array of
environmental and socioeconomic considerations, and that interpretation ("general compliance")
of the City's existing municipal policies by an entity other than the Seal Beach City Council all
occurred outside any CEQA/NEPA context, by an agency other than the Lead Agency, by an
agency other than the one possessing management and maintenance responsibilities over the
affected roadway, by an agency will an economic interest in the project, and whose decision-
making body has explicitly endorsed Alternative 1 as the LPA and the retention of the Almond
Avenue soundwall.
As indicated in the Board's agenda packet for its October 22, 2012 meeting (Subject: Selection
of a Locally Preferred Alternative for the Interstate 405 Improvement Project Between State
Route 55 and Interstate 605): "Staff is recommending the Board select the modified Alternative
3 as the LPA for the 1-405 Improvement Project between SR-55 and 1-605, and submit the LPA
to Caltrans" (October 22, 2012 Agenda Packet, p. 12). Although program staff may disagree
with the Board's decision, public policy requires that agency staff must nevertheless implement
the directives of its own decision-making body. OCTA staff only needs to look toward the
actions of its own Board of Directors for the requisite justification ("no justification"). By ignoring
the Board's own vote and policy directive selecting Alternative 1 as the LPA and endorsing the
preservation of the existing Almond Avenue soundwall, it would appear that that OCTA staff is
acting contrary to and promoting an agenda (e.g., relocation of the existing Almond Avenue
soundwall) which is divergent from that of its own Board of Directors.
Conversely, as described in "Fact Sheet: Exceptions to Advisory Design Standards — 1-405
Improvement Project" (Caltrans, April 2012) (Fact Sheet), Caltrans has "approved" a number of
Advisory Design Exceptions, including, but not necessarily limited to the following: (1) Advisory
Design Exception No. 1: HDM [Highway Design Manual] Index 101.1 - Selection of Design
Speed; (2) Advisory Design Exception No. 2: HDM Index 202.5(1) & 202.5(2) - Superelevation
Transition; (3) Advisory Design Exception No. 3: HDM Index 202.6 - Superelevation of
Compound Curves; (4) Advisory Design Exception No. 4: HDM Index 203.5 - Compound
Curves; (5) Advisory Design Exception No. 5: HDM Index 203.6 - Tangent Length between
Reversing Curves; (6) Advisory Design Exception No. 6: HDM Index 204.3 - Minimum Grade;
July 22, 2013 San Diego Freeway Improvement Project
Page 32 City of Seal Beach
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
(7) Advisory Design Exception No. 7: HDM Index 502.2 - Isolated Off Ramps & Partial
Interchanges; (8) Advisory Design Exception No. 8: HDM Index 504.3(3) - 4% Max Grade at
Ramp Terminal; (9) Advisory Design Exception No. 9: HDM Index 504.3(6) - Two-Lane Exit
Ramps; (10) Advisory Design Exception No. 10: HDM Index 504.7 - Weaving Section Capacity;
and (11) Advisory Design Exception No. 12: HDM Index 504.8 - Access Rights Opposite Ramp
Terminals. Safety considerations were likely a factor in assessing each exception (e.g., "At a
minimum, it is not expected that the proposed project would contribute to an increase in
accidents or compromised safety along the corridor," Fact Sheet, p. 28).
Although "this section of 1-405 has the highest accident concentrations in Orange County,"
absent from the Fact Sheet is any evidence of a detailed safety analysis for the eleven "design
exceptions" which have already been "approved" by Caltrans. It is further unclear how any
"approval" has occurred prior to: (1) Caltrans' selection of which alternative will be pursued; and
(2) completion of the CEQA/NEPA process. The City would assert that Seal Beach's requested
"design exceptions" introduce no greater safety considerations that the eleven exceptions
already endorsed by Caltrans and outlined above.
5.0 ADDITIONAL SUPPORT FOR SEAL BEACH'S REQUESTED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
Pursuant to Caltrans' "Updated Managed Lane Design" (April 7, 2011): "Geometric design of
managed lane projects, including lane and shoulder widths, shall conform to the HDM [Highway
Design Manual]. Deviations from the requirements of the HDM shall be evaluated and
approved on a case-by-case basis in the manner prescribed in HDM Index 82.2. Section 3.10
of the HOV Guidelines provides a priority listing for reductions in cross-sectional elements for
various managed lane configurations. This priority listing shall be utilized in the development of
managed lane projects where reductions to cross-sectional elements are deemed necessary"
(emphasis added).
Seal Beach has determined that the relocation of the Almond Avenue soundwall and the
reduction of the Almond Avenue right-of-way would significantly impact the residents of the
College Park East neighborhood and the safety of vehicular and non-vehicular usage of Almond
Avenue. As such, the City-recommended design exceptions sought to not foreclose the ability
of Caltrans to select and implement Alternative 2 but allow that action to occur in a manner
which would neither necessitate the relocation of that soundwall nor adversely impact that
established residential area. In order to accommodate both objectives, design variations were
identified and those or similar exceptions were "deemed necessary" by the City.
As indicated above, Caltrans' existing policies allow for approval of design exceptions on a
"case-by-case basis" (e.g., when conditions warrant). Eleven such exceptions have already
been approved. Similarly, design plans initially proposed to enhance safety have subsequently
been eliminated from the project. However, each proposed Alternative requires both Mandatory
and Advisory Design Exceptions in conformance with the Highway Design Manual, Chapter 80.
Chapter 2 of the Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS report discusses the need for mandatory and
Advisory Design exceptions and details the number required for each. These are provided
below as reference:
Alternative 1: Nine Mandatory and 18 Advisory exceptions
Alternative 2: Nine Mandatory and 17 Advisory (including reduction of 12-foot lanes to 11-f000t
lanes) exceptions
Alternative 3: Nine Mandatory and 20 Advisory exceptions
San Diego Freeway Improvement Project July 22, 2013
City of Seal Beach Page 33
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
A list of exceptions or document reference was not provided in order to review the Design
Exceptions. This is a critical document for the traffic study and should be included.
Researchers at the University of California Irvine and California State University, Long Beach
have concluded that slimmer and slower highways, with extra lanes, are a better investment in
urban areas than the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) recommended standard of 12-feet (3.65-meter) wide travel lanes and 10-foot (3.05-
meter) wide shoulders on each side of two directional roadways. In "Optimizing Road Capacity
and Type" (Small, Kenneth A. and Ng, Chen Feng, June 1, 2013), included in Attachment 5
(Optimizing Road Capacity and Type) herein, the authors conclude:
[T]hat typical freeways in large urban areas are over-designed for free-flow speed
at the expense of capacity. This arises largely from the finding that the cost
elasticity for increasing free-flow speed is, on average, more than three times that
for expanding capacity (roughly 1.4 vs. 0.4); as a result even modest amounts of
congestion favor incremental investments in capacity relative to free-flow speed.
While the optimal road configuration is very case-specific, we can state a more
general policy conclusion: road design needs to allow for variety and flexibility,
rather than being constrained to meet a predetermined set of standards such as
those for US Interstate Highways
The report concludes that "empirical analysis provides suggestive evidence that in many large
congested cities, standard expressway designs are unbalanced in the sense of providing more
free-flow speed than is desirable relative to capacity; whereas the same is not true for urban
streets and arterial highways. This observation in turn suggests giving greater attention to the
possibilities of more low-footprint roads which offer considerable capacity even though speeds
are only moderate even at low traffic levels."
6.0 SUBSEQUENT PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
6.1 HOVL Degradation
For HOVLs, the "minimum average operating speed" is defined in 23 U.S.C. 166(d)(2)(A) as 45
miles per hour (mph) for a facility with a speed limit of 50 mph or greater and not more than 10
mph below the speed limit for a facility with a speed limit of less than 50 mph. Facility
"degradation" is defined in Section 166(d)(2) as one that does not meet minimum average
operating speed of 45 mph for 90 percent of the time during a 180-day morning or evening
weekday peak-hour period (or both for a reversible facility) in the case of a HOV facility with a
speed limit of 50 mph or greater or not more than 10 mph below the speed limit in the case of a
facility with a speed limit of less than 50 mph.
Under H.R. 4248 (Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century) (MAP-21), as signed by the
President on August 6, 2012, Section (d)(D) prescribes that the State has 180 days following
notice of degradation to "bring the facility into compliance with the minimum average operating
speed performance standard through changes to operation of the facility, including: (1)
increasing the occupancy requirement for HOV lanes; (2) varying the toll charged to vehicles
under subsection (b); (3) discontinuing allowing non-HOV vehicles to use the HOV lanes under
subsection (b); or, (4) increasing the available capacity of the HOV facility." Pursuant to Section
(d)(E) therein, "[i]f the Administrator determines that a State has violated or failed to comply with
July 22, 2013 San Diego Freeway Improvement Project
Page 34 City of Seal Beach
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
the Federal laws or the regulations in this part with respect to a project, he may withhold
payment to the State of Federal funds on account of such project, withhold approval of further
projects in the State, and take such other action that he deems appropriate under the
circumstances, until compliance or remedial action has been accomplished by the State to the
satisfaction of the Administrator." As authorized therein, the Secretary of Transportation can
prescribe penalties, such that if the state fails to bring a facility into compliance, then the
Secretary shall subject the state to appropriate program sanctions under Section 1.36 of Title 23
(or successor) until the performance is no longer degraded. As noted in the FHWA's Federal-
Aid Highway Program Guidance:
State agencies with jurisdiction over HOV facilities hold the sole authority to set
occupancy requirements and to implement any of the HOV occupancy exceptions
under 23 U.S.C. 166(b). There is no discretionary decision or any approval action
to be made by the FHWA in these areas, except where a State wishes to exclude
motorcycles or bicycles from an HOV lane under 23 U.S.C. 166(b)(2)(B). As such,
NEPA does not apply to the States' actions in setting the occupancy requirements
or implementing any of the HOV occupancy exceptions, including converting HOV
lanes into HOT lanes under 23 U.S.C. 166(b)(4). Only when other factors, such as
Federal-aid funding or a need to amend previous commitments, give rise to a
FHWA approval must the FHWA perform a NEPA evaluation (emphasis added).
Based on those provisions, independent of the alternative selected under the current
CEQA/NEPA process, it would appear that Caltrans, absent any subsequent NEPA review and
concurrent public participation, retains the authority to implement a HOV-to-HOT lane
conversion at any later date. It is uncertain whether a local governmental entity, such as OCTA,
could so condition the project as to preclude such later actions or whether any such preclusion
would bind subsequent administrations. As further indicated therein:
Much of the legislation pertaining to tolling is included in MAP-21 Section 1512
'Tolling', which amends Section 129 of Title 23 U.S.C. MAP-21 has removed the
requirement for an agreement to be executed with the U.S. DOT [United States
Department of Transportation] prior to tolling under mainstream tolling programs,
though such agreements will still be required under any toll pilot programs.
Specifically, the tolling of new Interstates and added lanes on existing Interstates
are now mainstreamed; previously these conditions existed under the Interstate
System Construction Toll Pilot Program and the Express Lanes Demonstration
Program, both of which no longer exist.
As such, it is unclear whether the requisite legislation identified in the DEIR/S (e.g., "If
Alternative 3 is selected for construction, authority to operate the tolled Express Lane
component of the alternative would be needed from the state legislature. Authority to operate a
toll facility on the Interstate Highway System would be required from FHWA," DEIR/S, p. 1-19) is
still required. If not, then the change in implementing legislation constitutes additional
"significant new information" requiring disclosure in the SDEIR/S.
With regards to the proposed project, neither the DEIR/S nor the SDEIR/S explicitly describe
what "factors" trigger the need for NEPA compliance and what federal actions may occur
following CEQA/NEPA compliance without triggering further NEPA review. An understanding of
those actions is necessary to determine whether the Lead Agency has met any associated
burden of proof that may be required for those actions.
San Diego Freeway Improvement Project July 22, 2013
City of Seal Beach Page 35
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
6.2 Decision to Toll
At a community meeting conducted in Seal Beach on July 9, 2013, with representatives of the
OCTA in attendance, members of the public asked City representatives "When will decisions
concerning which alternative Caltrans will implemented be made?"
In response, it was the City's apparently mistaken belief that that decision will be made at the
end of the current CEQA/NEPA process. However, as noted in the Federal-Aid Highway
Program Guidance, the FHWA notes that: (1) "The decision to toll as part of a `reconstruction'
project may occur anytime up until the completion of all work under the contract for the physical
construction of the project. If a the physical construction of the location to be tolled is to be
conducted under multiple contracts, then the decision to toll may occur anytime up until the
completion of the final contract comprising the reconstruction activities" (emphasis added). (2)
"The decision to toll lanes that are added to any existing free facility through initial construction,
reconstruction, rehabilitation, or restoration, so long as the facility has the same number of free
lanes after construction as it did before, may occur any time up until the new lanes are open to
traffic" (emphasis added). (3) "Decisions regarding the amount of toll rates are to be made
solely by the State DOT [Department of Transportation] or other qualified public authority. These
decisions require no review, input or oversight by the FHWA" (emphasis added).
As a result, independent of which alternative is selected by OCTA and Caltrans, subsequent
decisionmakers appear to have the authority to materially alter that initial selection and
implement a tolled facility along the I-405 Freeway at any time up until the date the facilities are
operational. Since construction is estimated to require approximately 4-1/2 years, assuming
Caltrans acts on the CEQA/NEPA document in "September 2013" (April 2013 Path Forward),
the I-405 Freeway could be converted to a HOTL project at any time before around February
2018.
Absent from the DEIR/S and SDEIR/S is any reference to or discussion of what authorization
may be provided (under statute or agency procedures) to subsequent boards and/or executive
staffs which would allow those parties to materially alter any decisions by current boards and
current officials with regards to the proposed project. Since once "new or"reconstructed" lanes
would already be in place (e.g., changes to the physical environment have been completed),
subsequent operational changes (e.g., HOV-to-HOT lane conversion) appears exempt from
CEQA/NEPA and can, therefore, occur with minimal fanfare and outside public scrutiny. The
flexibility provided under statute allowing for subsequent HOV-to-HOT lane conversion gives
further credence to the need to examine the proposed project in a substantially broader,
system-wide perspective.
Additionally, the DEI RS/S does not address the traffic congestion from the OC/LA County Line
to SR-73. The main focus of this report is the impacts to the City of Long Beach intersections
adjacent to the "project". Missing from the analysis data is the impacts to the congestion at the
County Line before and after the I-605 Interchange. The report discusses four (4)
accomplishments of Alternative 3 which includes the following:
1. Reduce Congestion
2. Enhance Operations
3. Increase mobility, improve trip reliability, maximize throughput, and optimize operations
4. Minimize environmental impacts and ROW acquisitions
July 22, 2013 San Diego Freeway Improvement Project
Page 36 City of Seal Beach
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
Since the Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS does not include the corridor information such as level of
service, v/c ratios, d/c ratios, link level of service, or a discussion of "F" verses "F ++", the ability
to quantify the four accomplishments of Alternative 3 cannot be verified. The information
previously provided in the December 2012 Supplement Traffic Study should be included and
compared to the Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS defined accomplishments for Alternative 3 to
quantify them.
Is Seal Beach correct in its interpretation of the above provisions, namely that a subsequent
decision by a federal agency could materially alter the nature and operational characteristics of
any actions that may be taken by Caltrans with regards to the proposed project? Would a later
HOV-to-HOT lane conversion require any additional CEQA/NEPA analysis? If there are no
requirements for subsequent or supplemental environmental review prior to such conversion,
why is the DEIR/S and SDEIR/S not defective based on its failure to disclose and analyze that
scenario? What local, State, or federal agencies could initiate that subsequent change?
7.0 SUPPLEMENTAL DEIR/S AND SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC STUDY
7.1 General Comment
Alternative one, Alternative 2, and Alternative 3 requires both Mandatory and Advisory design
Exceptions. Most notably is Alternative 2 where the "Project" is proposing 11-foot mainline lanes
from Seal Beach Boulevard to SR-22 to avoid the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. Eleven
foot mainline lanes were proposed by the City of Seal Beach for the northbound direction
between SR-22 and the Seal Beach Boulevard interchange. This request was denied in a letter
dated June 25, 2013 from Mr. Jim Beil, Executive Director, Capital Programs, to Mr. Sean
Crumby, Director of Public Work for the City of Seal Beach. As referenced in Attachment A, the
City proposed 11-foot lanes were denied based upon the safety implications and shown in the
accompanying table showing that the HDM standard for travel lanes is 12-feet. But it does not
address the 11-foot lanes proposed by the project in the same area. If the project is considering
11-foot lanes, the same consideration should also be given to the City of Seal Beach's request
for the same design exception. See Page 2-5, second paragraph
The section labeled "Transportation System Management/Transportation Demand Management
Alternative" does not provide very much detail in supporting other mode of transportation to
reduce overall SOV's or traffic congestion. In addition, this section focused on TDM
opportunities for local roadways and not the affected freeways. This section should be
expanded to include the freeways and detailed local streets affected by the project.
Finally, Section 3.1 "Traffic and Transportation Facilities" does not elaborate on the project
impacts to Long Beach. With the background traffic and development within the Long Beach
area, traffic is expected to increase. Yet, no discussion on how this project will create new trips
within this area. A detailed analysis and discussion for this impact is requested.
7.2 Incomplete Project Description
"'Project' means the whole of the action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct
physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the
environment, and that is any of the following: (1) An activity directly undertaken by any public
agency including but not limited to public works construction and related activities clearing or
San Diego Freeway Improvement Project July 22, 2013
City of Seal Beach Page 37
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
grading of land, improvements to existing public structures, enactment and amendment of
zoning ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of local General Plans or elements
thereof pursuant to Government Code Sections 65100-65700. (2) An activity undertaken by a
person which is supported in whole or in part through public agency contacts, grants, subsidies,
loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies. (3) An activity involving
the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by
one or more public agencies' (emphasis added) (14 CCR 15379[a]).
Because key aspects of the proposed project remain undefined, it is not possible to accurately
assess potential project-related and cumulative environmental effects. For example, in response
to an inquiry from the OCTA Board of Directors regarding the use of "net toll revenues," it is
apparent that not all aspects of the proposed project have been described or analyzed in the
DEIR/S and SDEIR/S.
Referencing a memorandum from Will Kempton, OCTA Chief Executive Officer to Members of
the Board of Directors (Subject: 1-405 Improvement Project Follow-Up Items), dated October 11,
2012, included in the October 22, 2012 Board packet:
Staff proposes to review the 1-405 Major Investment Study (MIS) and the Central
County Corridor MIS to develop an initial inventory of projects. The projects will
include freeway, transit, and arterial highway system improvements. Staff will also
use the OCTA Long Range Transportation Plan to further refine the projects and
relative priorities. The initial listing of work can be completed within 60 days of
Board approval of an 1-405 alternative (emphasis added).
Absent from the DEIR/S and SDEIR/S is any discussion or analysis of the intended or likely use
of toll revenues under Alternative 3. If additional revenues are projected over those associated
with capital costs and debt service and if those funds are to be used for other "freeway, transit,
and arterial highway system improvements," the environmental impacts of those revenue
expenditure need to be addressed as part of the project's CEQA/NEPA documentation.
7.3 Corridor System Management Plan
As indicated in the Draft Final CSMP: "Major bottlenecks are the primary cause of corridor
performance degradation and the resulting congestion and lost productivity. It is important to
verify the actual location and cause(s) of each major bottleneck to determine traffic operational
problems. . .By definition, a bottleneck is a condition where traffic demand exceeds the capacity
of the roadway facility. In most cases, the cause of bottlenecks is related to a sudden reduction
in capacity, such as roadway geometry, heavy merging and weaving, and driver distractions; or
a surge in demand that the facility cannot accommodate. In many cases, it is a combination of
increased demand and capacity reductions" (Draft Final CSMP, p. 155).
Caltrans' recognized that "bottlenecks are generally the major cause for mobility and
productivity performance degradations and are often related to safety degradations as well"
(Draft Final CSMP, p. 2). If bottlenecks adversely affect mobility and contribute to congestion,
then any plans whose goal is to "reduce congestion" and "increase mobility" (DEIR/S, p. 1-5)
would need to focus on the elimination of existing bottlenecks (choke points) and the avoidance
of the creation of new ones.
Citing the 1-605/1-405 Interchange as an existing bottleneck (e.g., "[t]he 1-605 has a potential
bottleneck location at the 1-405 Interchange in both peak periods," Draft Final CSMP, p. 201),
July 22, 2013 San Diego Freeway Improvement Project
Page 38 City of Seal Beach
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
Caltrans states that "[d]uring the PM peak hours, the traffic from the 1-605 at about 3,100 vph
[vehicles per hour] merges with the southbound 1-405 traffic carrying about 6,500 vph in 4 lanes,
for a total of over 9,600 vph in five lanes, as the outer lane is dropped. This lane drop results in
the mainline traffic over the threshold level creating the bottleneck condition and resulting traffic
congestion" (emphasis added) (Draft Final CSMP, p. 183). In addition, with regards to the
larger"corridor" area examined therein, Caltrans identified the following pre-project bottlenecks:
State Route 22
Eastbound Bottlenecks. Starting from the Los Angeles/Orange County Line and
moving eastbound, the following bottlenecks were found: [1] Euclid On — This
bottleneck occurs when there are high volumes on the on-ramp and mainlines. [2]
Harbor On — This bottleneck also occurs when there are high volumes on the
onramp and mainlines. [3] Fairview On — A lane drop causes vehicles to weave
between the Fairview onramp and the City Drive/1-5, creating the bottleneck. [4] 1-5
Off/City Drive IC — The inability of the exit facility to accommodate the demand
creates this bottleneck. [5] 1-5 On/Town and Country Off — Heavy cross-weaving
between the 1-5 on-ramp and Town and Country exit contributes to this bottleneck.
Westbound Bottlenecks. Starting from SR-55 and moving westbound, the
following bottlenecks were identified: [1] Northbound 1-5 On-Ramp — This
bottleneck relates to high volumes and cross-weaving and queuing of vehicles
destined for SR-22. [2] Garden Grove On — Congestion and queuing can be seen
from the southbound 1-5 connector on-ramp. [3] Valley View Off—A lane drop from
four to three lanes contributes to this bottleneck. [4] 1-405 On-Ramp — This
bottleneck relates to a lane drop from three to two lanes and cross-weaving of
vehicles destined for 1-405
Interstate 405
Northbound Bottlenecks. Starting from 1-5 and moving northbound, the following
bottlenecks were identified: [1] Sand Canyon Off-ramp: A lane drop contributes to
this bottleneck location. [2] Jeffrey/University On-ramp: Consecutive on-ramp
merges contribute to this bottleneck location. [3] SR-73/Fairview On-ramp: An
uphill grade and reduced mainline capacity creates a bottleneck. [4] Euclid On-
ramp: Weaving at this location creates a bottleneck. [5] Brookhurst On-ramp: A
platoon of vehicles from the collector/distributor contributes to this bottleneck. [6]
SR-39 On-ramp: The platoon of vehicles from the collector/distributor also
contributes to this bottleneck. [7] SR-22 On-ramp: A lane drop on the SR-22 ramp
does not provide enough capacity for the vehicles merging on the 1-405 mainline.
Southbound Bottlenecks. Starting from the Los Angeles/Orange County Line and
moving southbound, the following bottlenecks were identified: [1] 1-605 On-ramp: A
lane drop occurs at the 1-405 merge reducing the total lanes from six to five lanes.
[2] Seal Beach On-ramp: Although not a major bottleneck location, congestion
occurs as a result of cross-weaving between the Seal Beach Boulevard on-ramp
and SR-22 off-ramp. [3] Valley View/SR-22: High demand likely contributes to this
bottleneck location. [4] SR-39 On-ramp: Consecutive on-ramp merges occur at this
location. [5] Warner On-ramp: This location is the most significant bottleneck on
this corridor with queues extending for many miles. [6] Talbert On-ramp: The
mainline capacity cannot accommodate the flow of vehicles during the peak hours.
[7] Bristol Off-ramp: Cross-weaving traffic between two ramps contributes to this
San Diego Freeway Improvement Project July 22, 2013
City of Seal Beach Page 39
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
bottleneck location. [8] MacArthur Off-ramp: Consecutive SR-55 on-ramp merges
contributes to this bottleneck. [9] Culver On-ramp: The mainline cannot
accommodate the flow from back-to-back merges. [10] Jeffrey/University On-ramp:
Again, the mainline cannot accommodate the flow from back-to-back merges. [11]
Sand/Shady Canyon On-ramp: The high demand on the on-ramp combined with
the already high demand on the mainline creates this bottleneck.
Interstate 605
Southbound Bottleneck. Southbound 1-405 On-ramp: this bottleneck location
occurs during the PM peak as a result of lane drop that occurs after the 1-405
merge (emphasis added) (Draft Final CSMP, p. 126-128).
As indicated above, a number of conditions can cause or contribution to the creation of
bottlenecks, including: (1) lane drops and lane mergers; (2) weaving and cross-weaving; (3)
capacity limitations and reductions; and (4) high traffic demands. Where these conditions exist
or are created, choke points can be established causing traffic to backup, level of service
conditions to drop, and creating additional safety concerns.
In the Draft Final CSMP, Caltrans examined bottlenecks attributable to existing HOV facilities.
These bottlenecks were primarily associated with ingress/egress locations and were the result
of speed differentials between the HOV and GP lanes. Specifically, Caltrans noted that:
[V]ehicles on the HOV lane that intend to exit the corridor must stop to squeeze
into the mainline congested traffic stream. Similarly, the vehicles on the mainline
which intend to enter the HOV lane must do so from a very low speed, disrupting
the HOV lane flow. . .When the mainline freeway is congested, vehicles have a
difficult time entering and exiting the HOV lane. As a result, bottleneck conditions
occur and vehicles queue behind these locations (Draft Final CSMP, pp. 186 and
191).
Whether with regards to HOVLs (including other managed lanes) and/or at all on-ramps where
ramp speeds exceed merging GP-lane speeds, these problematic conditions would appear
equally applicable at all access points when speed differentials exist between the managed and
GP lanes. Although the proposed project seeks to address many of these existing conditions,
the Lead Agency has sought to avoid acknowledging and analyzing remaining choke points,
ignored the existence of new bottlenecks that the proposed project will create, and the project's
potential to exacerbate existing bottlenecks (e.g., lane drops and ingress/egress into and from
managed lanes).
Absent from the DEIR/S and SDEIR/S is any reference to the CSMP. In addition, the document
includes no discussion of: (1) the project's relationship to and consistency with the CSMP; (2)
Caltrans' "systems management plan" (e.g., "This framework aims to get the most of our
transportation infrastructure through a variety of strategies, not just through the traditional and
increasingly expensive expansion projects," Draft Final CSMP, p. 3) for the SR-22/1-405/1-605
corridor; (3) whether the proposed project will effectively eliminate the identified bottlenecks;
and (3) the potential for the proposed project to cause or contribute to new bottlenecks based
on the contributing causes described therein.
7.4 Long Beach Area Traffic Study Technical Working Group
July 22, 2013 San Diego Freeway Improvement Project
Page 40 City of Seal Beach
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
As indicated in material provided to the OCTA's Board of Directors on January 28, 2013
(http://www.octa.net/pdf/4.22.131-405PathForwardre REVISED.pdf), unspecified parties (likely
Caltrans and OCTA) "[f]ormed the Long Beach Area Traffic Study Technical Working Group
(TWG) (Orange County Transportation Authority, California Department of Transportation, Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, City of Long Beach, Gateway Cities
Council of Governments. TWG agreed on parameters for a supplemental traffic study report."
The OCTA possesses an economic interest in the project (including any resulting revenues)
and, as a result of its lack of impartiality, an inherent disinclination to increase entitlement costs,
extend the entitlement schedule, or for its own consultants to find and disclose material defects
with its own technical analyses. With a name "Long Beach Area Traffic Study Technical Working
Group" and with no other representation by Orange County or its affected municipalities, it is not
surprising that no supplemental traffic analysis in Orange County was recommended by the
TWG or included in the SDEIR/S.
Absent from the SDEIR/S and STS are copies of any agendas, minutes, handouts, other
materials considered by the TWG, and any discoverable writings stating the TWG's findings and
recommendations. It is also not known whether their meetings (e.g., "Long Beach Area Traffic
Study Technical Working Group on September 11, October 17, November 14, and December
12, 2012, and January 8 and February 13, 2013," p. 5-1; "A meeting was held in the field on
March 15, 2012, to review potential impacts and avoidance and minimization/mitigation along
7th Street in the City of Long Beach. The field review was attended by representatives of OCTA,
Caltrans District 7, and OCTA's consultant," p. 5-1) were publicly notice, whether those
meetings were open to the general public and other affected agencies, whether the public and
other affected agencies had an opportunity to participate in meeting discussions, or even the
level of attendance by TWG participants. In the absence of that information, it is not possible to
know the TWG's charter, the reasons supporting the group's composition, what questions the
TWG were asked to answer, what supporting documentation was provided, and whether there
existed any dissenting options and/or recommendations for an alternative analytical scope.
The substantive differences between the December 2012 STS and the June 2013 STS suggest
the possibility of dissention among TWG participants, radically different understandings of the
TWG's purpose and the issues that the TWG were tasked to answer, Caltrans' and/or the
OCTA's subsequent rejection of many of the TWG's findings and recommendations, and/or
attempts by Caltrans and/or the OCTA to conceal information concerning the nature and extend
of project-related and cumulative impacts. As indicated in the December 2012 STS
[T]his Supplement contains two sections, numbered and providing additional traffic
information on the two topics in the list below: (1) Operational Analysis Northbound
Approaching 1-605. Potential for operational difficulties northbound on 1-405 at 1-
605 is analyzed. As the build alternatives approach the LA County line, the
additional lanes proposed in each of the build alternatives continue into receiving
lanes on branch connectors to SR-22/7th Street westbound and 1-605 northbound.
If more motorists desire to continue northbound on 1-405 in LA County than the
freeway can handle as the additional lanes exit to SR-22/7th Street and 1-605,
there is the potential for a bottleneck to occur. (2) Long Beach Area Traffic Study.
Traffic changes in the Long Beach area along SR-22/7th Street, 1-405, and 1-605, at
their local interchanges, and at nearby intersections due to the proposed build
alternatives are evaluated. The study area includes Carson Street in the vicinity of
San Diego Freeway Improvement Project July 22, 2013
City of Seal Beach Page 41
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
1-605 which, in addition to the City of Long Beach, includes the Cities of Lakewood
and Hawaiian Gardens (emphasis added) (December 2012 STS, p. i).
In contrast to the information presented in the December 2012 STS and CSMP, the June 2013
STS states: "This Supplemental provides traffic information to the areas north of the limits of the
proposed freeway capacity enhancement in Orange County. The traffic information is the
evaluation of the traffic changes in the Long Beach area along SR-22/7th Street, 1-405, and 1-
605, at their local interchanges, and at nearby intersections due to the proposed build
alternatives. The study area includes Carson Street in the vicinity of 1-605 which, in addition to
the City of Long Beach, includes Cities of Lakewood and Hawaiian Gardens. The objective of
this evaluation is to determine the extent of any potential adverse cumulative traffic effects of
the proposed project alternatives north of the limits of the proposed capacity improvements"
(emphasis added) (STS, p. 1-1).
It is not known what is meant by OCTA's statement that "TWG agreed on parameters for a
supplemental traffic study report." What was the nature of that agreement and how was that
agreement documented? If an agreed upon work plan was established prior to the release of
the Public Notice, why was information concerning the precise scope of that analysis not more
thoroughly described therein (e.g., "The recirculation focus on new traffic information in the Long
Beach area," Public Notice) so that parties suggesting a different or expanded scope could
present meaningful recommendations thereupon? Because the December 2012 STS differs
substantially from the June 2013 STS, which of those two diverse reports more precisely
contains the "TWG agreed on parameters"? What written documentation evidences TWG's
agreed on parameters"? Did those parameters include anything approximating an "operational
analysis" of 1-405 Freeway traffic relating to "northbound approaching 1-605" (as referenced in
the December 2012 STS)?
As indicated in the OCTA's April 2013 Path Forward, the proposed project has been
subsequently revised. Those revisions include, but may not be limited to, "truncates express
lanes at Euclid Street/Ellis Street, eliminates State Route 73 connector' (Alternative 3)
(emphasis added). It appears that both of those changes were addressed in the December
2012 STS; however, none of the analysis relating to those changes has been included in the
SDEIR/S and no record of those discussions presented in the June 2013 STS.
As required under Section 15020 of the State CEQA Guidelines, "[e]ach public agency is
responsible for complying with CEQA and these Guidelines. A public agency must meet its own
responsibilities under CEQA and shall not rely on comments from other public agencies or
private citizens as a substitute for work CEQA requires the lead agency to accomplish." It is the
function of the Lead Agency and not the TWG to determine the nature and extent of the
technical analysis required under CEQA/NEPA. If the Lead Agency sought to delegate to other
parties responsibility for the identification of defects in the DEIR/S, representation by a broader
range of stakeholders should have been undertaken. As a result of the Lead Agency's
delegation of its own obligations to another entity, the TWG's limited composition and
representation, the exclusive Los Angeles County-based focus of the TWG, its apparent limited
focus, and the substantive unexplained differences between the December 2012 STS and the
June 2013 STS, the findings and recommendations of TWG and any technical studies resulting
therefrom (inclusive of both the SDEIR/S and the June 2013 STS) cannot themselves be
deemed indicative of the project's traffic and non-traffic-related analytical defects.
July 22, 2013 San Diego Freeway Improvement Project
Page 42 City of Seal Beach
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
Pursuant to Section 21092.4(a) of CEQA: "For a project of statewide, regional, or areawide
significance, the lead agency shall consult with transportation planning agencies and public
agencies that have transportation facilities within their jurisdictions that could be affected by the
rp oject. Consultation shall be conducted in the same manner as for responsible agencies
pursuant to this division, and shall be for the purpose of the lead agency obtaining information
concerning the project's effect on major local arterials, public transit, freeways, highways,
overpasses, on-ramps, off-ramps, and rail transit service within the jurisdiction of a
transportation planning agency or a public agency that is consulted by the lead agency"
(emphasis added). As defined in Section 21092.4(b) therein, "'transportation facilities' includes
major local arterials and public transit within five miles of the project site and freeways,
highways, overpasses, on-ramps, off-ramps, and rail transit service within 10 miles of the
project site."
In addition, as further indicated in Section 21104 of CEQA: "(a) Prior to completing an
environmental impact report, the state lead agency shall consult with, and obtain comments
from, each responsible agency, trustee agency, any public agency that has jurisdiction by law
with respect to the project, and any city or county that borders on a city or county within which
the project is located unless otherwise designated annually by agreement between the state
lead agency and the city or county, and may consult with any person who has special expertise
with respect to any environmental impact involved. In the case of a project described in
subdivision (c) of Section 21065, the state lead agency shall, upon the request of the applicant,
provide for early consultation to identify the range of actions, alternatives, mitigation measures,
and significant effects to be analyzed in depth in the environmental impact report. The state lead
agency may consult with persons identified by the applicant who the applicant believes will be
concerned with the environmental effects of the project and may consult with members of the
public who have made a written request to be consulted on the project. A request by the
applicant for early consultation shall be made not later than 30 days after the determination
required by Section 21080.1 with respect to the project. (b) The state lead agency shall consult
with, and obtain comments from, the State Air Resources Board in preparing an environmental
impact report on a highway or freeway project, as to the air pollution impact of the potential
vehicular use of the highway or freeway" (emphasis added).
Although they have not been disclosed, Seal Beach believes that any comments submitted to
the Lead Agency from the California Air Resources Control Board (CARB) and/or the South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) likely raise substantive technical issues
regarding the adequacy of the project's air quality analysis and an adequate technical response
thereto would likely result in the introduction of additional "significant new information."
As defined in Section 15005(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines: "'Must' or `shall' identifies a
mandatory element which all public agencies are required to follow." Seal Beach believes that
no such consultation occurred prior to the dissemination of the SDEIR/S. Because the SDEIR/S
and June 2013 STS had already been completed prior to its release, Caltrans' Public Notice
was not a solicitation for comments but merely an announcement that unspecified technical
studies had already been completed and the SDEIR/S had already been prepared and
published.
7.5 City of Long Beach Comment Letter
Despite the time and effort expended to produce the SDEIR/S, the concerns expressed by Seal
Beach, its residents, and business community generally remain unaddressed. In clear contrast
San Diego Freeway Improvement Project July 22, 2013
City of Seal Beach Page 43
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
to Seal Beach's comments on the DEIR/S (as well as every other comment that was submitted
by every other stakeholders in response to the release of the DEIR/S), Long Beach's 12-page
comment letter (purported including as "Appendix A" in the SDEIR/S) not only received an early
response but apparently predicated the preparation of both the SDEIR/S and multiple iterations
of the STS. In making that distinction, the Lead Agency appears to categorize Long Beach's
comments as exceptionally meritorious (e.g., "As a result of the comments received on potential
traffic effects within the City of Long Beach, Caltrans prepared the Supplemental Traffic Study,"
p. 1-2) while concurrently categorize all other stakeholder comments as trivial, insignificant,
and/or unsubstantial.
Although many of the comments and concerns raised by Long Beach may be similar to those
presented by Seal Beach, the City's comments are neither acknowledged nor expressly
addressed in the SDEIR/S. What was the nature of Long Beach's comments that singled only
those comments out for special consideration while relegating all other comments to a separate
CEQA/NEPA process (e.g., "Comments that are received on information provided in this
Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS will be responded to, and these responses will be provided in the
Final EIR/EIS for the Interstate 405 Improvement Project, along with responses to comments on
the original Draft EIR/EIS" [emphasis added], p. 1-3)?
As indicated by the Lead Agency: "The new information and analysis presented within the
Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS is based on the Supplemental Traffic Study, prepared in April 2013
in response to City of Long Beach comments on the Draft EIR/EIS (See Appendix A for a copy
of the City's comment letter)" (p. 1-2). In actuality, the Lead Agency even misrepresents the
document that purports to be foundational basis for the preparation of the SDEIR/S. Presented
in "Appendix A" is a letter from Long Beach, dated January 31, 2013, submitted in response to
the December 2012 STS. Long Beach's actual comment letter on the DEIR/S (which was not
included in the SDEIR/S) is dated July 17-18, 2012 and is included as Attachment 4 (I-405
Freeway Improvement Project Letter and Memorandum) herein.
Among other things, the December 2012 STS and the June 2013 STS demonstrate that arterial
roadways and intersections substantially removed (geographically) from the project's alleged
"logical termini" will be significantly and cumulatively impacted by the proposed project. While
focusing primarily on intersections located in Long Beach (i.e., "The study area includes Carson
Street in the vicinity of I-605 which, in addition to the City of Long Beach, includes Cities of
Lakewood and Hawaiian Gardens," STS, p. 1-1), based on the results of those analyses, Seal
Beach believes that other non-analyzed arterials within the City and elsewhere will also be
adversely impacted by the proposed project.
Representatives of the Lead Agency are invited to meet with the City's Public Works Director to
identify those additional intersections within Seal Beach that will be adversely impacted by the
proposed project and discuss Seal Beach's concerns relative thereto.
The SDEIR/S expands the "study area" described in the DEIR/S and introduces the "Long
Beach study traffic study area" (p. 3-3). The "Long Beach study area" is illustrated in Figure 3-1
(Long Beach Study Area) in the SDEIR/S and described as: "[1] 1-405 from I-605 to Lakewood
Boulevard; [2] I-605 from Katella Avenue to Carson Street; and [3] SR-22/7th Street from I-405
to Park Avenue. The study area includes all of the interchanges along I-405 and I-605 within
the limits noted above, including arterial/ramp intersections and arterial/arterial intersections in
the immediate vicinity of the interchanges" (p. 3-3). In contrast, the DEIR/S notes that "[t]he
project study area is located within an extensively urbanized area of Orange County" (DEIR/S,
p. 3.1.1-2) and "[t]he northern terminus of the proposed project is at the interchange of the I-405
July 22, 2013 San Diego Freeway Improvement Project
Page 44 City of Seal Beach
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
and 1-605 freeways" (DEIR/S, p. 1-24). It is, therefore, evident that both the geographic
boundaries of the "study area" and the project's "logical termini" are no longer as represented in
the DEIR/S. As a result, the totality of the CEQA/NEPA analysis must also expand, not merely
that associated with traffic impacts at select intersections.
Similarly, if the proposed project is demonstrated to produce exogenous impacts extending to
the north (thus warranting the introduction of a new "Long Beach study area" and predicating
the preparation of the SDEIR/S and document recirculation), it must be equally assumed that
those same external consequences and expanded area of potentially significant environmental
impacts would also be evident to the south, east, and west of the DEIR/S' original "study area."
No reference to, consideration of, or evaluation of the further expansion of the DEIR/S' original
"study area" to the south, east, or west is, however, presented in the SDEIR/S (e.g., "The
objective of the Long Beach Area Traffic Study is to determine the extent of any potential traffic
impacts of the proposed project alternatives north of the limits of the proposed capacity
improvements" [emphasis added], December 2012 STS, p. 4-1).
The inclusion of the "Long Beach study I
area" is nothing new. As illustrated
(Source: OCTA, Interstate 405 Major
Investment Study Final Report, February eEfX
p ), 9 geographic
2006 8 a larger area than
that encompassing the SDEIR/S' original
"study area" and the SDEIR/S' "Long
Beach study area" was included in OCTA's
MIS. In addition to the "study area"
extending further to the north into Long
Beach, it is noted that the MIS' depicted
area also extends southward beyond the
SR-55 Freeway (e.g., southern study area) _
and further east along the SR-22 Freeway 19
(eastern study area).
As indicated in Long Beach's comments on the December 2012 STS:
Based on the fact that the Supplemental Traffic Study reveals significant impacts
and the fact that the Gateway Cities model shows that the Supplemental Traffic
Study impacts are under-represented, the [Long Beach] study area is inadequate.
The significant impacts likely go further than the area that was studied, based on
the analysis conducted by the City [of Long Beach]" (STS, Appendix A, p. 3).
As evident by the SDEIR/S, the STS, and Long Beach's critique of the December 2012 STS,
significant impacts (requiring mitigation) have been demonstrated to occur beyond the confines
of the "study area" examined in the DEIR/S. Although part of the planning effort upon which the
proposed project is derived, absent evidence that intersections within those areas do not
warrant further investigation based on anticipated project-related and cumulative contributions
to those intersections, those additional areas of potential impaction which were identified in the
MIS have been excluded from the CEQA/NEPA analyses.
The continuing and unaddressed fallacy of the DEIR/S and SDEIR/S is the Lead Agency's
failure to examine the larger transportation "corridor' of which the proposed project is but a part,
San Diego Freeway Improvement Project July 22, 2013
City of Seal Beach Page 45
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
its fragmentation of proposed and reasonably foreseeable improvements to and in proximity of
that corridor (e.g., 5-mile radius), the anticipated traffic diversion onto and from other linked
freeways and arterials based on both the presence of HOTLs and congested GP lanes (e.g.,
"VMT can be expected to increase on 1-405 under the build alternatives because freeway
congestion would be reduced with a consequential reduction in diversion from the freeway to
local streets, DEIR/S, p. 3.1.6-80), and continuing failure to fully address the on-site/off-site and
direct/indirect environmental consequences of the proposed project.
While the Lead Agency's efforts to analyze arterial impacts in Los Angeles County are
commendable, Caltrans continues to examine only a part of a larger problem by ignoring
congestion and mobility-related issues beyond the project's stated "logical termini."
As indicated in the accompanying graphic, extracted from the "2012-2035 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy" (SCAG, April 4, 2012) (Figure 2.6), with
regards to the 1-405 Freeway, the proposed "Express/HOT Lane Network" within the SCAG
region does not terminate at the Orange/Los Angeles County border but continues northward to
its northern linkage with the 1-5 Freeway in the San Fernando Valley. Other linked freeway
segments which have been ignored by the Lead Agency include the 1-110 and SR-91 Freeways.
Since "CEQA was intended to be interpreted in such a manner as to afford the fullest possible
protection to the environment' (14 CCR 15003[f]), for the purpose of CEQA/NEPA compliance,
the proposed project and both its direct and indirect impacts, must be examined in a broader
regional geographic context.
The proposed project does not exist in
isolation but is a component of the
regional's existing and proposed HOTL
m network. With each new link, by repeatedly
• segregating that network into isolated
a, component parts and ignoring their
° connectivity, contrary to CEQA/NEPA,
° x Caltrans seeks to avoid a broader system-
- ° wide analysis of the larger environmental
and socioeconomic consequences of this
• rapidly growing system. If the State refuses
to conduct this analysis, what agency
° e c
i should then bear responsibility for the more
4 comprehensive analysis required for
— environmental protection?
As posited in the Transportation Research Board's "Research Needs Statement' (posted on
January 6, 2010) (http://rns.trb.org/dproject.asp?n=24742) and as presented herein as an
inquiry to the Lead Agency:
High Occupancy Toll lanes are gradually becoming a mainstream congestion
management strategy. Thus far, most of the HOTLs have been implemented as
isolated projects. Some areas have begun to plan for HOTL networks. But little
attention has been given to issues relating to transitioning HOTLs or HOTL
networks to full system pricing environments. Will this mentality create potential
problems later if full system pricing is ultimately where we are headed?
7.6 Fragmentation
July 22, 2013 San Diego Freeway Improvement Project
Page 46 City of Seal Beach
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
By preparing a SDEIR/S addressing only "project-related traffic effects within the City of Long
Beach" (p. S-1), the Lead Agency ignores other "new information" originating after the release of
the DEIR/S (e.g., "The information and analysis within this Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS was not
available during the circulation period for the Draft EIR/EIS," p. S-1) which also has direct and
meaningful relevancy with regards to the proposed project and its CEQA/NEPA compliance
obligations. That information includes, but may not be limited to, the OCTA's Board of Directors'
selection of a LPA, issues raised by affected stakeholders in response to the release of the
DEIR/S, new executive policies relating to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and changes in
State law relating to continuous access to HOVLs.
Other "recent actions" identified by the OCTA and presented to its Board of Directors on
January 28, 2013 (http://www.octa.net/pdf/1.28.121-4051mprovementProjectUpdate.pdf) include:
"[1] City of Long Beach request for re-circulation of DEIR/DEIS with revised traffic study; [2]
Caltrans direction to re-circulate with revised traffic study; [3] Caltrans high-occupancy vehicle
(HOV) lane degradation report; [4] LACMTA [Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority] feasibility study to convert Interstate 405 HOV in LA [Los Angeles] County into high-
occupancy toll lanes." With the exception of recirculation, none of these issues and related
actions are either identified or addressed in the SDEIR/S.
Information concerning the Caltrans "District 12 HOV Degradation" study, as presented to
OCTA's Board of Directors on April 8, 2013, is included as Attachment 3 (High-Occupancy
Vehicle Degradation Study Powerpoint) herein. As illustrated therein, in Orange County, "HOV
lane degradation" has been identified on Interstates 5 and 405 and on State Routes 22, 57, and
91. As a result, the condition is not unique to the 1-405 Freeway.
Proposed improvements to the 1-405 Freeway would divert traffic from or to other linked freeway
segments and arterials (e.g., "VMT can be expected to increase on 1-405 under the build
alternatives because freeway congestion would be reduced with a consequential reduction in
diversion from the freeway to local streets," DEIR/S, p. 3.1.6-81). Additionally, the 1-405
Freeway has been shown to be an alternative route to the 1-5 Freeway and other freeways and
arterials for motorists in both Los Angeles and Orange County (e.g., 1-405 is considered a
bypass route to the Interstate 5 Santa Ana/Golden State Freeway through Orange County,"
DEIR/S, Noise Study Report, p. 1). As a result, for the purpose of CEQA/NEPA compliance, the
actual "study area" and the resulting environmental analysis must include all linked freeway
segments. Although neither addressed in the DEIR/S nor in the SDEIR/S, "related projects"
producing potentially cumulative impacts (e.g., "most of the reasonably foreseeable projects are
primarily transportation improvements," DEIR/S, p. 3.1.1-9) include all identified degraded
freeway segments within Caltrans' District 7 and District 12.
In addition, the OCTA notes that LACMTA has initiated a "feasibility study to covert Interstate
405 HOV [lanes] in LA County into high-occupancy toll lanes." Although no additional
information on that study is presented, it is believed that the reference relates to an action by
the LACMTA's Board of Directors on June 27, 2013 which directed LACMTA "staff [to] come
back next month with a feasibility study on implementing a congestion pricing toll program for
the 405 HOV lanes" (http://media.metro.net/board/recap/2013/recap_20130627rbm.pdo.
Separate committee actions had occurred prior to that meeting.
Because it predicates a more corridor-wide analysis, the introduction of managed lanes on the
abutting segment of the 1-405 Freeway in Los Angeles County serves to substantially alter the
nature of the CEQA/NEPA documentation and the potential environmental impacts associated
San Diego Freeway Improvement Project July 22, 2013
City of Seal Beach Page 47
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
with those linked activities. Even prior to the LACMTA's action, independent of its
representation in the DEIR/S and SDEIR/S, for the purpose of CEQA/NEPA compliance, the
project at hand constitutes the totality of the proposed improvements to the I-405 Freeway in
both Orange and Los Angeles Counties.
The Lead Agency seeks to stifle discussion and public participation through the release of a
SDEIR/S that focuses on only a very limited aspect of that project while concurrently ignoring
other"significant new information" of direct relevancy. As indicated in the SDEIR/S, "[r]eviewers
are requested to limit their comments to only information that is provided in this Supplemental
Draft EIR/EIS. Comments that are received on information provided in this Supplemental Draft
EIR/EIS will be responded to, and these responses will be provided in the Final EIR/EIS for the
Interstate 405 Improvement Project" (pp. S-1 and S-2).
In light of the release of an incomplete and inadequate SDEIR/S (e.g., "traffic or transportation-
related direct or indirect cumulative impacts are not anticipated, and no further cumulative
impact analysis or additional measures are required," SDEIR/S, p. 3-93) and the withholding of
critical information concerning the project's potential impacts (including "significant new
information" removed from the December 2012 STS), the Lead Agency should not seek to hide
behind self-imposed constraints on what, in the opinion of the Lead Agency, does or does not
constitute an appropriate and acceptable comment (i.e., "comments on only information that is
provided in this Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS"). The SDEIR/S and STS are wrong-headed in so
many different ways and serve to further highlight the inadequacies of the DEI R/S.
7.7 December 2012 Supplemental Traffic Study
The December 2012 Supplemental Traffic Study provided greater detail relating to the impacts
the interchanges, ramps, and intersections along the Orange County Corridor. In addition,
Chapter 4 of this report included an analysis of the Long Beach Area. Both reports did not
include the LOS analysis work sheets, The June 2013 Supplemental Draft EIR/RIS only
provided Chapter 4 of the December 2012 report. The corridor information is a vital component
of the EIR/EIS evaluation and provides an overview and the necessary mitigation measures to
reduce the community impacts. The June 2013 document should incorporate the information an,
discussions, and results from the December 2012 Supplemental Traffic Study report.
As specified in Section 21061 of CEQA: "An environmental impact report is an informational
document," the purpose of which "is to provide public agencies and the public in general with
detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the
environment; to list the ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be
minimized; and to indicate alternatives to such a project." Inherent therein is the obligation of
the Lead Agency to disclose all it can about a project's potentially significant environmental
effects." As further specified in Section 21005(a) therein: "The Legislature finds and declares
that it is the policy of the state that noncompliance with the informational disclosure provisions of
this division which precludes relevant information from being presented to the public agency, or
noncompliance with substantive requirements of this division may constitute a prejudicial abuse
of discretion within the meaning of Sections 21168 and 21168.5, regardless of whether a
different outcome would have resulted if the public agency had complied with those provisions."
Pursuant to Section 15151 of the State CEQA Guidelines: "Disagreement among experts does
not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement
among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness,
and a good faith effort at full disclosure."
July 22, 2013 San Diego Freeway Improvement Project
Page 48 City of Seal Beach
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
The SDEIR/S states that `[t]he new information and analysis presented within the Supplemental
Draft EIR/EIS is based on the `Supplemental Traffic Study Report — Long Beach Area'
(Supplemental Traffic Study), prepared in April 2013 in response to City of Long Beach
comments on the Draft EIR/EIS" (General Information About this Document). Notwithstanding
its key role and relationship to the SDEIR/S, it is noted that no version of the STS was physically
included as a component part of the SDEIR/S, "incorporated by reference" therein, or
concurrently disseminated therewith. Based on the exclusion of that document, it is incumbent
upon the Lead Agency to ensure that the SDEIR/S accurately describes the information,
analysis, and recommendations presented therein, such that the two documents are consistent
both in terms of content and conclusions. Clearly, that is not the case here.
Referencing the December 2012 STS: "The purpose of the Supplemental Traffic Study Report is
to provide additional traffic information on the 1-405 Improvement Project not included in the
`Traffic Study Report —San Diego Freeway (1-405) Improvement Project SR-73 to 1-605'
completed by Albert Grover&Associates in April 2011. These improvements [sic] were included
as a result of public comments during the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental
Impact Statement circulation" (emphasis added) (December 2012 STS, p. i). No qualifier is
used to limit or otherwise narrow the meaning of the term "public comments" therein. Similarly,
no exclusive reference to only those "comments received on potential traffic effects within the
City of Long Beach" (emphasis added) (p. 1-2) is included in that excerpt.
As indicated in the December 2012 STS, the following "topics" are addressed in that analysis:
(1) Operational Analysis Northbound Approaching 1-605 - Potential for operational
difficulties northbound on 1-405 at 1-605 is analyzed. As the build alternatives
approach the LA County line, the additional lanes proposed in each of the build
alternatives continue into receiving lanes on branch connectors to SR-22/7th Street
westbound and 1-605 northbound. If more motorists desire to continue northbound
on 1-405 in LA County than the freeway can handle as the additional lanes exit to
SR-22/7th Street and 1-605, there is the potential for a bottleneck to occur. (2) Long
Beach Area Traffic Study. Traffic changes in the Long Beach area along SR-22/7th
Street, 1-405, and 1-605, at their local interchanges, and at nearby intersections
due to the proposed build alternatives are evaluated. The study area includes
Carson Street in the vicinity of 1-605 which, in addition to the City of Long Beach,
includes the Cities of Lakewood and Hawaiian Gardens. Each of the four sections
is independent (emphasis added) (December 2012 STS, p. i).
As indicated in the DEIR/S: "An increase of PM emissions would occur if the project significantly
increased ADT in the project area and at locations where there are more traffic delays. Traffic
delays would occur at freeway segments and intersections where vehicles are accumulating
and idling. It is unlikely that PM hot spots would be associated with the proposed project
because local accumulation and delay of vehicles would be reduced by the project. . .[T]he
project is not expected to cause an adverse effect with respect to localized concentrations of
PM2.5 or PM10 at any nearby sensitive receptor"(D El R/S, p. 3.2.6-41). Because it is based on
false assumptions, the resulting analysis likely underestimates, both in terms of magnitude and
its presented conclusions, the project's actual air quality, GHG-emission, and global climate
change impacts.
San Diego Freeway Improvement Project July 22, 2013
City of Seal Beach Page 49
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
As indicated in the MIS, "[o]perational problems occur on the freeway, primarily because of
physical bottlenecks" (MIS, p. 11-13). As further indicated in the DEIR/S, "[o]perational
problems occur on 1-405 primarily because of physical bottlenecks" (DEIR/S, p. 1-14) and, with
regards to existing conditions, "[w]ithin the project corridor, three `bottleneck' locations (i.e.,
where GP lanes terminate) occur, creating operational problems" (Ibid). Although they relate to
different locations and are presented in the context of project-related benefits, the DEIR/S
nonetheless recognizes that bottlenecks (e.g., "lane termination creates a bottleneck," DEIR/S,
p. 3.1.6-101) and lane drops (e.g., "lane drops. . .creates peak-period backups of traffic on 1-
405," DEIR/S, p. 1-24) produce adverse and undesirable traffic conditions.
If, as represented, the SDEIR/S purports to have been prepared in response to comments from
Long Beach (e.g., "The new information and analysis presented within the Supplemental Draft
EIR/EIS is based on the Supplemental Traffic Study Report — Long Beach Area, prepared in
April 2013 in response to City of Long Beach comments on the Draft EIR/EIS" [emphasis
added], General Information about this Document), then it is surprising that the SDEIR/S fails to
also more specifically address Long Beach's comments. As indicated in correspondence from
Long Beach, included in Attachment 4 (1-405 Freeway Improvement Project Letter and
Memorandum) herein, "[i]t remains unclear how the added lanes will transition beyond the
Orange County line into Los Angeles County and the City of Long Beach. . .Proper evaluation of
1-405 north of the Orange County/Los Angeles County line needs to be conducted to ensure that
a choke point does not occur north of the Orange County/Los Angeles County line in the City of
Long Beach."
Noticeably absent from both the SDEIR/S and from the June 2013 STS is any reference to
"operational analysis northbound approaching 1-605." Additionally, no justification is presented
in the SDEIR/S or elsewhere supporting the Lead Agency's decision to eliminate from the
SDEIR/S and June 2013 STS two additional "topics" included in the December 2012 STS (i.e.,
"Alternative 3 Modified" and "Alternative 1 Magnolia/Warner Interchange").
In correspondence from Jim Beil, OCTA's Executive Director to Sean Crumby', Seal Beach's
Director of Public Works, dated June 25, 2013, OCTA stated that the northernmost segment of
the 1-405 Freeway in Orange County (in proximity to Seal Beach) "has the highest accident
concentrations in Orange County." The Lead Agency's apparent attempts to "sanitize" the
December 2012 STS becomes critical in light of both Mr. Beil's declaration and the following
undisclosed "significant new information" from the December 2012 STS:
The accident data above indicates that the prevalent cause of accidents along the
freeway mainline is traffic congestion, resulting in rear end, sideswipe and hit
object collisions. These accident types may be attributed to higher speed vehicles
approaching a mainline chokepoint with slower/stopped vehicles, resulting in
abrupt lane change and vehicles striking other vehicles or roadside objects. It also
appears that in addition to the freeway congestion, heavy lane change activities
could be possible factors in sideswipe collisions. According to the TASAS [Traffic
Accident Surveillance and Analysis System], there is a higher frequency of
sideswipe collisions near the 1-405/SR-73 and 1-405/SR-22/1-605 freeway-to-
freeway interchanges where there are multiple lane change and lane continuity
issues (Fact Sheet, p. 28).
An operational analysis was conducted of northbound 1-405 as it approaches the Seal
Beach Boulevard, SR-22/7th Street, and 1-605 interchanges. The purpose of the analysis
is to evaluate the potential for disruption of smooth traffic flow to occur in this area as the
July 22, 2013 San Diego Freeway Improvement Project
Page 50 City of Seal Beach
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
additional lanes proposed in the build alternatives are terminated. The additional lanes
proposed in each of the build alternatives continue into receiving lanes on branch
connectors to SR-22/7th Street westbound and 1-605 northbound. If more motorists
desire to continue northbound on 1-405 into LA County than there is freeway capacity
continuing northbound on 1-405 into LA County, there is the potential for disruption of the
traffic flow along 1-405.
The analysis is limited to the general purpose (GP) lanes. The study area includes
northbound 1-405 from the SR-22 confluence near Valley View Street through the
exit to 1-605 northbound and traffic data were collected for that area. The study
takes speed as the primary indicator of a disruption of the smooth flow of traffic.
Based on the information presented in the [December 2012] Traffic Study in
Tables 3.1.6-4 and 3.1.6-12, the GP lanes of 1-405 within the study area are
anticipated to be over capacity during peak hours in years 2020 and 2040 with or
without the proposed project and operating at LOS F under severely congested
conditions. Section 4 of this Supplement shows that 1-405 north of the project limits
is also anticipated to operate under heavily congested conditions. Accordingly, it is
not possible to accurately assess peak hour congestion attributable to the
termination of the proposed new lanes, because heavy congestion is anticipated to
occur along the entire corridor during peak hours regardless of the proposed
project (emphasis added) (December 2012 STS, p. 3-1).
During the AM peak hour in year 2040 Table 3.2 shows that there will be
substantial disruption to traffic flow under all of the alternatives. Under the No
Build Alternative speeds will decrease to as low as 49 mph, as low as 36 mph
under Alternatives 1 and 3, and as low as 16 mph under Alternative 2. In general,
the more lanes that are added by the build alternatives the greater the magnitude
of the disruption to traffic flow in the Seal Beach Boulevard, SR-22/7th Street, and
1-605 interchange area. . .[S]lowing and substantial disruption in traffic flow is
anticipated during the PM peak hour under Alternative 2. During the AM peak hour
substantial slowing and substantial disruption in traffic flow is anticipated during
the AM peak hour under all alternatives. The magnitude of the slowing and
disruption in traffic flow is least under the No Build Alternative and increases with
the number of additional general purpose lanes proposed under the build
alternatives (emphasis added) (December 2012 STS, pp. 3-3 and 3-4).
The above findings contradict the DEIR/S' assertion that "[t]he proposed project alternatives
would relieve congestion and improve operational efficiency" (DEIR/S, p. 1-1) and the SDEIR/S'
statements that "the project's contribution to adverse cumulative effects within the Supplemental
Draft EIR/EIS study area at the affected locations would be minimized" (p. 3-93). Since
"substantial disruption to traffic flow under all of the alternatives" will exist "north of the project
limits," neither the project nor the designated "study area" can be demonstrated to have
independent utilize and, therefore, individually and jointly fail to meet the standard for "logical
termini." Segmenting a larger areawide problem, failing to actually remedy the condition that the
project has been purportedly formulated to address, pushing or compounding congestion to the
north (if not elsewhere), and scrubbing the SDEIR/S clean of critical information about the
project's adverse environmental effects does not constitute a reasonable or supportable
approach to congestion management and/or CEQA/NEPA compliance.
Because the above findings are limited to GP lanes and do not consider, either in isolation or as
part of how those lane drops could further contribute to the impacts identified, other managed
San Diego Freeway Improvement Project July 22, 2013
City of Seal Beach Page 51
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
lanes, actual impacts will likely be greater than those already presented. Additionally, neither
the DEIR/S / SDEIRS nor the December 2012 STS / June 2013 STS contain any "safety
analysis" how or to what extent this project-induced "substantial disruption to traffic flow" would
add to existing safety hazards "in the Seal Beach Boulevard, SR-22/7th Street, and I-605
interchange area."
As specified under "managed lanes engineering study requirements," as contained in Caltrans'
"Updated Managed Lane Design" (April 7, 2011), "Section 149 of the Streets and Highways
Code requires that competent engineering estimates be made of the effects of a managed lane
on safety, congestion, and highway capacity prior to constructing such lanes. A traffic study
shall be performed for all managed lane projects. This study shall be composed of an
operational analysis and a safety analysis. The traffic safety analysis shall be performed by or
approved by the district traffic safety office. This analysis will focus on the safety impact of the
proposed improvements on operating conditions and collision potential by utilizing traffic and
collision data and analytical tools and processes. This is especially important when the project
proposes a change in the type of access" (emphasis added).
In recognition of the exclusion of important information presented in the December 2012 STS
(e.g., "substantial disruption to traffic flow under all of the alternatives"), the information
presented in the Fact Sheet (e.g., "The accident data above indicates that the prevalent cause
of accidents along the freeway mainline is traffic congestion, resulting in rear end, sideswipe
and hit object collisions"), Mr. Beil's declaration that "this section of I-405 has the highest
accident concentrations in Orange County," and OCTA's rejection of Seal Beach's requested
"design exceptions" purportedly for safety reasons (while concurrently granting itself eleven
"design exceptions"), it is important that the required "safety analysis" become part of the STS
and not be deferred to a later time when opportunities for public and agency review would be
limited.
In light of Caltrans' approval of eleven "design exceptions" and the alleged "safety implications"
of Seal Beach's request for additional exceptions allowing for the retention of the existing
Almond Avenue soundwall, why has a "safety analysis" yet to be conducted? Specifically, what
analysis has been conducted supporting Caltrans' and/or the OCTA's acceptance or rejection of
those exceptions?
The December 2012 STS concluded that, in the GP lanes, as northbound traffic along the I-405
Freeway approaches the Seal Beach Boulevard/SR-22/7th Street/I-605 interchanges, "slowing
and substantial disruption in traffic flow is anticipated during the PM peak hour under Alternative
2. During the AM peak hour substantial slowing and substantial disruption in traffic flow is
anticipated during the AM peak hour under all alternatives. The magnitude of the slowing and
disruption in traffic flow is least under the No Build Alternative" (emphasis added) (December
2012 STS, p. 3-1). When doing nothing (i.e., "No Build Alternative") is demonstrated to have a
greater beneficial impact that implementing one or more of the Lead Agency's self-generated
alternatives, it is not surprising that the December 2012 STS was materially altered prior to its
subsequent release as the June 2013 STS.
The environmental consequences of "slowing and substantial disruption in traffic flow" are
neither examined nor are those impacts disclosed in the SDEIR/S. Similarly, since no threshold
of significance criteria are presented in either the DEIR/S or in the SDEIR/S (e.g., "Because
Caltrans does not use threshold criteria for the determination of significance of impacts,
discussion of the threshold criteria was removed from the document at the request of Caltrans
July 22, 2013 San Diego Freeway Improvement Project
Page 52 City of Seal Beach
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
environmental staff," STS, Response to Comments Matrix, Comments from Eduardo Amezcua
in January 22, 2013 Email to Smita Deshpande), no CEQA-based conclusions are or can be
drawn with regards to the potential significance of those adverse conditions. Absence a
quantitative, qualitative, or performance-based threshold of significance, the Lead Agency seeks
to avoid the identification of significant environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and/or
other actions that might avoid, reduce, rectify, or compensate for the "substantial disruption in
traffic flow" which was identified by the Lead Agency but which has not been publically
disclosed.
While clearly within its possession, with the release of the SDEIR/S, what remains unclear is
why the Lead Agency fails to acknowledge this "substantial disruption in traffic flow" and why the
Lead Agency consciously and knowingly elected not to release that information as part of the
SDEIR/S. The Lead Agency must acknowledge that its own consultant (i.e., authors of the
December 2012 STS) were the source of the operational analysis presented in the December
2012 STS. Although it may not like the information produced, Caltrans nevertheless has an
obligation for full disclose (e.g., cannot cherry-pick the information its own experts produce).
It is further noted that the December 2012 STS did not examine peak-hour conditions. As noted
therein, "it is not possible to accurately assess peak hour congestion attributable to the
termination of the proposed new lanes, because heavy congestion is anticipated to occur along
the entire corridor during peak hours regardless of the proposed project" (emphasis added)
(December 2012 STS, p. 3-1). As such, through fragmentation, the proposed project seeks to
ignore the formulation of a more comprehensive system-based strategy addressing the peak-
hour "heavy congestion" that occurs along the larger 1-405 Corridor," fails to present any
alternatives that actually remedy that congestion, and does not present either a realistic or
reasonable assessment of the project's potential impacts. It is the existence of peak-hour
conditions that purports to be the basis for the introduction of HOTLs; however, based on the
Lead Agency's own admission "it is not possible to accurately assess peak hour congestion."
7.8 Environmental Impact "Significance" Criteria
As mandated under Section 21002 of CEQA, "[t]he Legislature finds and declares that it is the
policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are
feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen
the significant environmental effects of such projects" (emphasis added). Based on that
requirement, a substantial component of any CEQA process is the determination of whether the
magnitude and/or context of an identified impact results in that effect being deemed to be
"significant." Similarly, with regards to the recirculated DEIR/S, a factual basis needs to be
presented in order to distinguish "new information" from "significant new information." When the
agency's threshold standards are not clearly articulated, determinations of "significance" are not
possible and the resulting documentation cannot fulfill its primary CEQA purpose.
As noted in the City's comments on the DEIR/S, absent from the DEIR/S (and now again from
the SDEIR/S) are concise threshold of significance standards which are clearly articulated so as
to allow stakeholders the ability to independently consider and subsequently comment on the
appropriateness of those or to suggest other alternative standards. It is only through the
identification of qualitative, quantitative, or performance-based threshold criteria that: (1) it is
possible to determine whether the proposed project will produce project-related and/or
cumulative environmental impacts; (2) determine whether mitigation measures or other
alternative implementation strategies need to be formulated in response to those environmental
San Diego Freeway Improvement Project July 22, 2013
City of Seal Beach Page 53
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
effects; (3) assess the level of significance of each impact following the application of mitigation
measures or other actions; and (4) support CEQA's requisite findings.
In attempting to ascertain the Lead Agency's conclusions concerning the post-project level of
significance of project-related and cumulative environmental effects, the same confusion exists
with the STS as was previously noted with both the DEIR/S and the SDEIR/S. In the case of
the STS, the confusion is compounded by both a change in vernacular and continued failure of
the Lead Agency to describe its significance criteria (e.g., "The intersection does not meet the
significant impact criteria and there are no significant traffic impacts at the intersection,"
December 2012 STS, pp. 1-9 and 2-3).
With regards to assessing the significance of the proposed project's traffic-related impacts, as
noted in the December 2012 STS: (1) "Level of Service (LOS) is based on density (pc/mi/In).
The density LOS thresholds are different for the freeway mainline and collector-distributor
roads. Refer to Table 2.1.3 for the LOS criteria" (December 2012 STS, Tables 1-6, I-17, and 1-
18); (2) "The density LOS thresholds for the freeway mainline are shown in Table 2.1.3"
(December 2012 STS, Table 1-7); and (3) "The density LOS thresholds for the C-D roads are
shown in Table 2.1.3" (December 2012 STS, Table 1-8). It is noted that no "Table 2.1.3" is,
however, presented in the December 2012 STS. "Table 2.1.3" (Capacity Values for Merge
Areas), as presented in the DEIR/S' "Traffic Study - San Diego Freeway Improvement Project,
SR-73 to I-605, Orange and Los Angeles Counties" (Caltrans, May 2011) (May 2011 Traffic
Study), includes no such "criteria."
As further noted in the December 2012 STS: "For the freeways, impacts are evaluated in terms
of changes in level-of-service (LOS) and volume-to-capacity (V/C) or demand-to-capacity (D/C)
ratios. For arterial intersections the City of Long Beach criteria are used to evaluate potential
impacts. The City of Long Beach criteria are applied using the Highway Capacity Manual
operational intersection analysis methods for signalized and unsignalized intersections. A
signalized intersection operating with a LOS E or F and whose D/C ratio increases by more than
0.02 under `with project' condition compared to No Build Alternative is considered [sic] exceeds
the City of Long Beach criteria" (emphasis added) (December 2012 STS, p. 4-2).
The June 2013 STS notes that: (1) "The HCM method is the method recognized by Caltrans for
intersection analysis. It was used for all intersection analysis in the Orange County portion of the
study area in the original Traffic Study. For consistency, it is used in the Supplemental Traffic
Study for the Long Beach area"; and (2) "The Supplemental Traffic Study for the Long Beach
area has been revised to set to threshold for action equal to or greater than an increase in an
intersection's volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.20 when the project condition is LOS E or F.
Because Caltrans does not use threshold criteria for the determination of significance of
impacts, discussion of the threshold criteria was removed from the document at the request of
Caltrans environmental staff" (emphasis added) (STS, Response to Comments Matrix,
Comments from Eduardo Amezcua in January 22, 2013 Email to Smita Deshpande).
In lieu of "significance of impacts," the June 2013 STS substitutes the phrase "adverse effect"
(e.g., "The objective of this evaluation is to determine the extent of any potential adverse
cumulative traffic effects of the proposed project alternatives north of the limits of the proposed
capacity improvements" [emphasis added], STS, p. 1-1). In addition, in lieu of a definitive
criteria, the document states that "[a]dverse cumulative effects are evaluated through
application of professional judgment to changes in level-of-service (LOS) and volume-to-
capacity (V/C) ratios" (emphasis added) (STS, p. 1-2). Assuming that the difference between
July 22, 2013 San Diego Freeway Improvement Project
Page 54 City of Seal Beach
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
"adverse" and "significant" is only one of semantics and that the "professional judgment" of the
study's authors is both transparent and consistent with common traffic engineering standards,
the June 2013 STS concludes:
■ With regards to Alternative 1: (1) "Alternative 1 does not have an adverse cumulative
effect on any study intersections in year 2020" (STS, p. 4-9); and (2) "Alternative 1 does
not have an adverse cumulative effect on any study intersections in year 2040" (STS, p.
4-9).
Although neither stated as "significant" nor "adverse" (conversely, not stated as being
either "insignificant" or "not adverse"), with regards to Alternative 1, the STS identifies
the following "over capacity" and "increase in D/C ratio" conditions:
0 "The northbound and southbound 1-405 HOV lanes within the project limits are
anticipated to operate over capacity during the AM or PM peak hours under year
2020 Alternative 1 conditions with D/C ratios ranging from 1.16 to 1.41" (STS, p.
4-9).
0 In what appears to be a typographic error (i.e., referencing "2020" rather than
"2040"), the document further notes that "[u]nder Alternative 1 conditions for year
2040, the 1-405 freeway mainline segments are projected to operate at either
LOS E or F during the AM and PM peak hours in both directions. The northbound
and southbound 1-405 HOV lanes within the project limits are anticipated to
operate over capacity during the AM or PM peak hours under year 2020 [sic]
Alternative 1 conditions with D/C ratios ranging from 1.16 to 1.41" (STS, p. 4-6).
0 "Table 4-13 presents a comparison of year 2020 No Build Alternative and year
2020 Alternative 1 operating conditions anticipated for the mainline freeway
segments. The table shows that there is an increase in the D/C ratio from the No
Build Alternative to Alternative 1 in many segments, with the range of increase in
the GP lanes from 0.01 to 0.13 during peak hours and 0.02 to 0.18 in the HOV
lanes. Higher levels of increase are generally found closer to the limits of the
project improvements and diminish with increasing distance from those limits"
(STS, p. 4-9).
0 "Table 4-14 presents a comparison of year 2040 No Build Alternative and year
2040 Alternative 1 operating conditions anticipated for the mainline freeway
segments. The table shows that there is an increase in the D/C ratio from the No
Build Alternative to Alternative 1 in many segments, with the range of increase in
the GP lanes from 0.01 to 0.15 during peak hours and 0.02 to 0.31 in the HOV
lanes. Higher levels of increase are generally found closer to the limits of the
project improvements and diminish with increasing distance from those limits"
(STS, p. 4-9).
■ With regards to Alternative 2: (1) "Alternative 2 does not have an adverse cumulative
effect on any study intersections in year 2020" (STS, p. 5-10); and (2) "Alternative 2
does not have an adverse cumulative effect on any study intersections in year 2040"
(STS, p. 5-10).
San Diego Freeway Improvement Project July 22, 2013
City of Seal Beach Page 55
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
Although neither stated as "significant" nor "adverse" (conversely, not stated as being
either "insignificant" or "not adverse"), with regards to Alternative 2, the STS identifies
the following "over capacity" and "increase in D/C ratio" conditions:
0 "The majority of the northbound and southbound 1-405 HOV lanes are anticipated
to operate over capacity during the AM or PM peak hours under year 2020
Alternative 2 conditions with D/C ratios ranging from 1.04 to 1.46" (STS, p. 5-5).
In what appears to be two typographic errors (i.e., referencing "2020" rather than
"2040" and referencing "No Build" rather than "Alternative 2").
0 In what appears to be a two typographic errors (i.e., referencing "2020" rather
than "2040" and referencing "No Build" rather than "Alternative 2"), the document
further notes that "[u]nder Alternative 2 conditions for year 2040, the 1-405
freeway mainline segments are projected to operate at either LOS E or F during
the AM and PM peak hours in both directions. The northbound and southbound 1-
405 HOV lanes within the project limits are anticipated to operate over capacity
during the AM or PM peak hours under year 2020 [sic] No Build Alternative [sic]
conditions with D/C ratios ranging from 1.06 to 1.58" (STS, p. 5-6).
0 "Table 5-13 presents a comparison of 2020 No Build and 2020 Alternative 2
operating conditions anticipated for the mainline freeway segments. The table
shows that there is an increase in the D/C ratio from the No Build Alternative to
Alternative 2 in many segments, with the range of increase in the GP lanes from
0.01 to 0.10 during peak hours and 0.01 to 0.18 in the HOV lanes. Higher levels
of increase are generally found closer to the limits of the project improvements
and diminish with increasing distance from those limits" (STS, p. 5-11).
0 "Table 5-14 presents a comparison of 2040 No Build and 2040 Alternative 2
operating conditions anticipated for the mainline freeway segments. The table
shows that there is an increase in the D/C ratio from the No Build Alternative to
Alternative 2 in many segments, with the range of increase in the GP lanes from
0.01 to 0.11 during peak hours and 0.01 to 0.32 in the HOV lanes. Higher levels
of increase are generally found closer to the limits of the project improvements
and diminish with increasing distance from those limits" (STS, p. 5-11).
■ With regards to Alternative 3: (1) "Alternative 3 does not have an adverse cumulative
effect on any study intersections in year 2020" (STS, p. 6-10); and (2) "Alternative 3
does not have an adverse cumulative effect on any study intersections in year 2040"
(STS, p. 6-10).
Although neither stated as "significant" nor "adverse" (conversely, not stated as being
either "insignificant" or "not adverse"), with regards to Alternative 3, the STS identifies
the following "over capacity" and "increase in D/C ratio" conditions:
0 "The majority of the northbound and southbound 1-405 HOV lanes are anticipated
to operate over capacity during the AM or PM peak hours under year 2020
Alternative 3 conditions with D/C ratios ranging from 1.04 to 1.24" (STS, p. 6-5).
0 "Under Alternative 3 conditions for year 2040, the 1-405 freeway mainline
segments are projected to operate at either LOS E or F during the AM and PM
July 22, 2013 San Diego Freeway Improvement Project
Page 56 City of Seal Beach
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
peak hours in both directions. The northbound and southbound 1-405 HOV lanes
within the project limits are anticipated to operate over capacity during the AM or
PM peak hours under year 2040 Alternative 3 conditions with D/C ratios ranging
from 1.02 to 1.34" (STS, p. 6-6).
0 "The transition areas are anticipated to operate at a level of service similar to the
level expected for the HOV and/or general purpose lanes in the vicinity of the
transition area. The northbound transition area on 1-405 from 1-605 to the end of
the HOV access is expected to operate at LOS F in year 2040. As shown in
Table 6-8, the northbound GP and HOV lanes in the transition area on 1-405 from
1-605 to Studebaker Road are anticipated to operate over capacity (LOS F)
during peak hours. In the southbound direction, Table 6-8 shows LOS E
conditions in the GP lanes and over capacity conditions in the HOV lanes during
the AM peak hour; over capacity (LOS F) conditions area anticipated southbound
during the PM peak hour' (STS, p. 6-11).
0 "Table 6-13 presents a comparison of 2020 No Build and 2020 Alternative 3
operating conditions anticipated for the mainline freeway segments. The table
shows that there is an increase in the D/C ratio from the No Build Alternative to
Alternative 3 in many segments, with the range of increase in the GP lanes from
0.02 to 0.34 during peak hours and 0.03 to 0.09 in the HOV lanes. Higher levels
of increase are generally found closer to the limits of the project improvements
and diminish with increasing distance from those limits" (STS, p. 6-10).
0 "Table 6-14 presents a comparison of 2040 No Build and 2040 Alternative 3
operating conditions anticipated for the mainline freeway segments. The table
shows that there is an increase in the D/C ratio from the No Build Alternative to
Alternative 3 in many segments, with the range of increase in the GP lanes from
0.02 to 0.37 during peak hours and 0.03 to 0.10 in the HOV lanes. Higher levels
of increase are generally found closer to the limits of the project improvements
and diminish with increasing distance from those limits" (STS, p. 6-10).
In assessing potential project-related and cumulative impacts, the difference between "0.20" and
"0.03" is substantial. In lieu of a single intersection standard, the Lead Agency notes:
■ June 2013 STS. A 0.20 volume-to-capacity (v/c) threshold standard is identified in the
June 2013 STS (i.e., "The Supplemental Traffic Study for the Long Beach area has been
revised to set to threshold for action equal to or greater than an increase in an
intersection's volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.20 when the project condition is LOS E or F"
[emphasis added], STS, Response to Comments Matrix, Comments from Eduardo
Amezcua in January 22, 2013 Email to Smita Deshpande).
■ DEIR/S. The DEIR/S' May 2011 Traffic Study states that "[a]ll interchange signalized
intersections and adjacent arterial intersections were analyzed using the Highway
Capacity Manual based Level of Service methodology, including queuing. A criterion of
an increase of (0.03) in the overall v/c ratios was used to identify potential significant
traffic impacts of the project to the study intersections. This criterion was applied to
intersections that were operating at LOS of E or F during the peak hours" (emphasis
added) (May 2011 Traffic Study, p. ES-6).
San Diego Freeway Improvement Project July 22, 2013
City of Seal Beach Page 57
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
It is apparent that, at least with regards to v/c ratio, the threshold of significance criteria
presented in the SDEIR/S (0.03) and STS (0.20) differ substantially. No attempt has, however,
been made to: (1) explain the use of differing criteria (e.g., separate Orange and Los Angeles
County criteria); (2) discuss the potential merits and drawbacks of applying separate criteria to
different geographic areas; (3) explain why the criteria of each affected municipality has also not
been considered with regards to intersections within each agency's jurisdiction; (4) reconcile
those differences so as to produce a cohesive and internally consistent document; and/or (5)
consistently compare impacts in the DEIR/S' original "study area" and SDEIR/S' "Long Beach
study area."
Since motorists in Long Beach and motorists in communities in Orange County likely have the
same (or similar) general aversion to and tolerance (or lack of tolerance) to congestion and
travel delays and the same (or similar) expectations concerning the functionality of the region's
transportation system, it seems unreasonable to suggest that difference standards should apply
to different areas (e.g., Long Beach motorists should be provided a better performing street
system that motorists in Orange County). Because the DEIR/S and the SDEIR/S are intended
to be informational and internally consistent documents, an analysis based on the use of a
single threshold standard should be presented so that relative magnitude of project-related and
cumulative impacts can be consistently assessed.
It is noted that each of the affected municipalities have adopted local general plans containing
individual "Circulation Elements" that define each locale's adopted performance standards. The
Lead Agency has not previously sought to apply jurisdiction-specific threshold standards relating
to impact assessment within each agency's corporate boundaries but has previously applied a
single project-wide standard to the environmental assessment of the proposed project. If
Caltrans now believes that a 0.20 v/c ratio (rather than the 0.03 v/c ratio presented in the
DEIR/S) is, in fact, the appropriate standard, then the roadway analysis within the DEIR/S'
original "study area" should be redone based on that higher performance standard.
It is not unreasonable for the Lead Agency to present multiple model runs based on differing
performance standards. From those model runs, stakeholders can consistently assess impacts
independent of jurisdiction and individual agencies can individually determine the standard most
applicable within their corporate boundaries. Only by including a comparable analysis can an
"apples-to-apples" comparison be provided throughout the project's multiple "study areas."
7.9 Absence of Measurable Performance Standards
As indicated in the DEIR/S, "[t]he purpose of the proposed action is to: [1] Reduce congestion;
[2] Enhance operations; [3] Increase mobility, improve trip reliability, maximize throughput, and
optimize operations; and [4] Minimize environmental impacts and ROW acquisition" (emphasis
added) (DEIR/S, p. 1-5). Terms like "reduce," "enhance," "increase," and "minimize" are not, in
fact, objectives but only directional guidance relative to an existing point in time and space and
offer no means of measuring or comparing actual performance (e.g., was congestion reduced
by the amount desired?). A single vehicle's one second reduction in the amount of time
required to traverse an arbitrarily established distance could support an agency's contention that
it "increased" mobility.: Unasked is whether than one second saving was: (1) the appropriate
goal to start with; (2) whether the efforts and cost required to achieve that reduction were well
expended; (3) whether a similar comparative benefit could be gained through less costly, less
environmentally damaging, or more socially beneficial actions; and (4) whether the benefit
horizon should be viewed from a short-term, mid-term, or long-term perspective.
July 22, 2013 San Diego Freeway Improvement Project
Page 58 City of Seal Beach
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
Caltrans never defines (from a quantitative, qualitative, or performance-based perspective)
either their specific horizon or the envisioned future that its proposed and alternative actions
seek to accomplish. During peak periods, conditions on the 1-405 Freeway are presently
operating at level of service (LOS) "F." When the project is completed in 2020, level of service
conditions will remain at LOS "F" (e.g., "much of 1-405 within the project area operates and is
expected in the future to operate at LOS F conditions," STS, p. 3-2). From most viewers'
perspective, nothing will have changed (other than traffic speeds will be reduced for all but
SOVs in the HOVL).
In what appears to be a direct contradiction to the assertion that "Caltrans does not use
threshold criteria for the determination of significance of impacts" (STS, Response to Comments
Matrix, Comments from Eduardo Amezcua in January 22, 2013 Email to Smita Deshpande), in
"Smart Mobility 2010 - A Call to Action for the New Decade" (February 2010) (Smart Mobility)
(http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ocp/documents/smf_files/SM F_handbook_062210.pdf),
Caltrans states that:
Performance measures provide quantified evidence of the consequences of a
decision or action. Performance measures are an efficient means through which
to present key information for system users, managers and decision makers in an
objective, concise and consistent format. Transportation performance measures
forecast, evaluate, and monitor the degree to which the transportation system
accomplishes adopted public goals and mobility objectives. Smart Mobility
Performance Measures (SMPMs) demonstrate the relationship between integrated
transportation and land use decisions and the consequent effects on the full range
of economic, social, and environmental conditions. SMPMs are intended for use in
decision-making at both the planning and the project level to evaluate progress
toward implementing the principles of Smart Mobility and attaining Smart Mobility
benefits. . . SMPMs evaluate the degree to which Caltrans policies and planning
decisions advance the six Smart Mobility principles: [1] Location Efficiency; [2]
Reliable Mobility; [3] Health and Safety; [4] Environmental Stewardship; [5] Social
Equity; [6] Robust Economy (emphasis added) (Smart Mobility, p. 50).
In order to facilitate decisions concerning public expenditures, the State's Statewide Needs
Assessment notes that "[a]ccording to Caltrans, `SMPMs are intended for use in decisionmaking
at both the planning and the project level to evaluate progress toward implementing the
principles of Smart Mobility and attaining Smart Mobility benefits"' (Statewide Needs
Assessment, p. 6-1). The SMPMs to be used in planning and project-level decisionmaking are
included in the accompanying exhibit (Source: Smart Mobility 2010, p. 55; Statewide Needs
Assessment, p. 6-2). Surprisingly, none of Caltrans' own SMPMs were included in the DEIR/S,
SDEIR/S, or in the formulation or assessment of project alternatives.
Smart Mobility Performance Measures
Goal Performance Measure Recommended Metries
Ai I '
1. Support for Sustainable Growth n
III Ir ' 1 II i1 li I-:'I!:
Location
Efficiency 2. Transit Made Share !III- o:il o- . .'rrl i;r',I :_,,:: ;.:r.l.vlu;?r',I11=..1:11 br.
--II J A-II-'lI li i. :11;1' I'li�j! A I1j.,.rl-I`.F..:-,I 11111 .r:!I:�{ rrI I-I
3. Accessibility and Connectivity
a-' 111rnr 1Ia ,,Ir1,, n1'111 LI ;10;.11 Irl1':
:11I: P:i,:luC. I,� 11;: ';tt:,::if-:
- = i
4. Muni-Modal Travel Mobility f + 11n:"n n t•k J I: apt t iia'e Ir1 1n;:;rlJ :i11 r i,
d.J V m;:r 910[1
Reliable w-!n-ar'•;v:,ria:lli!', ,i rr.•,vel 11rn ;h:-:!v rah res .'da".rdc•:rirls,rr'i I.',tlr:at! '::i;
5. Multi-Model Travel Reliabilitv
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
As indicated in the California Transportation Commission's (CTC) "Statewide Transportation
Systems Needs Assessment — Final Report' (October 2011) (Statewide Needs Assessment)
(http://www.catc.ca.gov/reports/2011 Reports/2011 Needs Assessment updated.pdf): "The
total cost of all system preservation, system management, and system expansion projects
during the ten-year study period is nearly $538.1 billion. . .The total estimated revenue from all
sources during the ten-year study period is $242.4 billion. This represents about 45 percent of
the overall estimated costs of projects and programs that were identified in the needs analysis,
and leads to a shortfall of about $295.7 billion over the ten-year period" (Statewide Needs
Assessment, p. 1-2).
Households living on limited budgets must made periodic decisions concerning how available
monies are to be expended. Typically, expenditures for necessities and other criticalities
receive the first priority with regards to those funds and desirous but non-essential items are
often deferred. Anyone on a fixed budget understands the quandary of deciding the best use of
available resources. Isn't it time that governmental entities, whose existence is dependent upon
public proceeds, also ask the question "how do we get the `best bang' for the buck?"
July 22, 2013 San Diego Freeway Improvement Project
Page 60 City of Seal Beach
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
Since transportation-related needs will exceed available revenues at least in the near term, the
funds that are available need to be effectively and efficiently expended. The Lead Agency's
objectives to reduce congestion, enhance operations, increase mobility, improve trip reliability,
maximize throughput, and optimize operations (DEIR/S, p. 1-5) need to be unitized so that, for
each alternative, a comparative cost can be allocated to each "unit" of congestion relief,
mobility, etc. Since each alternative carried a different price tag, as now presented, there exists
no mechanism to determine benefits gains versus costs incurred.
7.10 Unreliable Performance Data
As indicated in a joint release by the FHWA and Caltrans in a recent Transportation Review
Board (TRB) announcement (Request For Information On Managed-Lane Projects): "It is
difficult to predict the impacts that changing HOV occupancy requirements may have on corridor
performance because existing travel-demand models do not appear capable of predicting the
numerous possible mode changes (e.g., shifts from HOV2 in HOV lane to two SOVs in GP
lanes, etc.)" (FHWA and Caltrans, undated).
The performance expectation of Alternative 3, including ridership and LOS conditions within the
proposed express lanes, are presented as if broad consensus exists as to the assumptions and
methodologies presented therein. In reality, predicted performance is, at best, guesswork which
can be easily manipulated based on the philosophic perspective of the party conducting or
contracting for the analysis.
Absent from the DEIR/S and SDEIR/S is any indication of the possible variability of the data or
declaration that actual performance may differ from the modeling. As indicated in "Impacts of
Increasing Vehicle-Occupancy Requirements on HOV/HOT Lanes" (Caltrans, March 25, 2013)
(http://www.dot.ca.gov/newtech/researchreports/preliminary_investigations/docs/HOV_and_HO
T_Lanes_Prelim inary_lnvestigation_03-25-13.pdf): "California's high occupancy vehicle (HOV)
lane network is heavily used, and portions of it are becoming congested during peak periods. To
address this congestion, Caltrans is exploring several solutions: increased enforcement,
bottleneck reductions, hybrid/BEV exclusions, raising the minimum required occupancy of
vehicles using these lanes from two to three persons (from HOV2+ to HOV3+) and converting
lanes into high occupancy toll (HOT3+) lanes. However, the likely impacts of these measures on
corridor performance are not easy to predict since existing travel demand models do not appear
capable of predicting the numerous possible mode changes (for instance, the possibility that
increasing occupancy requirements will lead to more single occupant vehicles in regular lanes).
Consequently, Caltrans is interested in conducting an investigation into the effects of raising
HOV occupancy requirements or converting HOV to HOT lanes" (emphasis added).
In addition, agency expectations concerning revenue projections under Alternative 3 appear
overstated. As indicated in the National Center for Transit Research's (NCTR) "Integrating
Transit and Road Pricing Projects Final Report" (NCTR, June 2013)
(http://www.dot.state.fl.us/research-center/Completed_Proj/Summary_PTO/FDOT-BDK85-977-
43-rpt.pdf): "A misconception exists for some that when tolling is implemented, the HOT or
express lanes will generate an extraordinary amount of revenue. Depending upon the cost of
the project and the plan of finance, it is unlikely that the tolls will cover the capital and operating
costs of the physical roadway elements" (emphasis added).
San Diego Freeway Improvement Project July 22, 2013
City of Seal Beach Page 61
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
One not need look far afield to identify examples of local transportation agencies' failures to
accurately predict post-project conditions (e.g., tolling revenues and ridership). As reported in
the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission's "Final Foothill/Eastern
Transportation Corridor Agency Foothill/Eastern Toll Road Project — Proposed 2013
Restructuring Financial Advisor Evaluation" (July 3, 2013):
The [Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor] Agency was formed in 1986 as a
joint powers agency by the County of Orange (the "County") and twelve cities in
Orange County, California. The Agency was created to plan, design, finance,
construct and operate the Foothill (State Route 241) and Eastern (State Route
241, State Route 261, and State Route 133) Toll Roads.
The Agency is one of two transportation corridor joint powers agencies established
among the County and various cities within the County in order to plan, design,
finance, construct and operate toll roads. While the Agency is administered by a
common staff with its sister Agency, the San Joaquin Hills Agency, all policy
decisions regarding the Foothill/Eastern System are made by the Agency's Board
of Directors, an appointed body of elected officials separate from the Board of
Directors of the San Joaquin Hills Agency. The System provides an important
connection between the Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties.
In the mid-1980s, two state laws were passed authorizing the Agency to collect
tolls and development impact fees to fund road construction. With a pledged
revenue stream from future tolls, the Agency issued toll-revenue bonds to fund
road construction. The Agency also entered into a Cooperative Agreement with the
California Department of Transportation ("Caltrans") to assume ownership, liability,
and maintenance of the State Route 241, State Route 261, and State Route 133
Toll Roads as part of the state highway system. This agreement eliminates the
need for the Agency to pay for road maintenance.
In 1995, the Agency issued $1,262,750,597.70 in principal amount of its Toll Road
Revenue Bonds, Series 1995A (Fixed Rate) and $245,600,000 of Series 199513-E
(Variable Rate) (together the "Series 1995 Bonds"). The proceeds of the Series
1995 Bonds were used to finance a portion of the costs associated with the design
of, acquisition of property for, and construction of, the Foothill/Eastern toll road.
In 1999, the Agency issued $1,588,143,865.05 in Series 1999 Bonds. The Bonds
were issued to (i) advance refund a substantial portion of the Series 1995 Fixed
Rate Bonds and refund all of the Series 1995 Variable Rate Bonds, (ii) fund
capitalized interest on the Series 1999 Bonds and fund a toll stabilization fund for
the Series 1999 Bonds, and (iii) fund a use and occupancy fund for the Series
1999 Bonds. Based on the revenue projections by Wilbur Smith Associates (now
CDM Smith), debt service on the Agency's debt was structured to grow at an
average rate of 4.4% per year.
According to the Agency's disclosure document, over the past ten years, annual
traffic transactions on the Foothill/Eastern System increased by an average of
0.03% per year, and annual revenues have increased by an average of
approximately 3% per year during the same ten-year period. This is below the rate
needed to keep up with escalating debt service.
July 22, 2013 San Diego Freeway Improvement Project
Page 62 City of Seal Beach
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
In FY 2007-08, average weekday transactions decreased 5%, falling below
202,000 per day with annual revenues down 3% to $102.8 million. Decreases in
toll transactions and revenues continued to worsen the following year, dropping an
additional 8% to $94.1 million in FY 200809, with average weekday transactions of
approximately 185,000 per day. Toll transactions continued to fall in 2009-10 to
approximately 173,000 per day due at least in part to a toll increase in July that
averaged 12%. However, 2009-10 revenues increased 6% to $99.7 million. Toll
transactions in FY 2010-11 and FY 2011-12 were flat with almost no growth;
however, given the implementation of a system-wide toll increase in July 2011 of
7% on average, revenues increased 7% from FY 2010-11 to FY 2011-12. The
Agency has approved a further toll increase of 4.8% for FY 2013-14, and has
projected for budgeting purposes that annual gross revenues will increase by an
equivalent amount, reflecting no growth in toll traffic.
The slower than anticipated revenue growth compared to the growth in debt
service of 4.4% annually has made it necessary for the Agency to consider
restructuring its debt in order to meet its bond covenants and payment obligations.
. .In the past, the Agency's previous T&R [traffic and revenue] studies by Wilbur
Smith Associates have significantly over - estimated revenues, lending to an over
issuance of debt.
By its own admission, Caltrans acknowledges that existing traffic models are incapable of
predicting changing HOV occupancy requirements and the numerous possible mode changes
that may be associated with the proposed project. An example of potential errors in modeling
assumptions can be found in the December 2012 STS. As indicated therein: "A direct
comparison of the forecast and existing condition speeds must be made with caution, because
the forecast speeds are based on modeling and existing speeds are based on field observation.
It is not likely that speeds will increase with growth in traffic. The largest increases in speed from
the existing condition to the No Build Alternative occur on the segment north of the exit to 1-605
northbound and could be partially attributable to the forecast speed model not accounting for
any back up and reduced speeds due to downstream congestion" (December 2012 STS, p. 3-
4). Although the projections remain the same, that "caution" and the analysis of predicted
bottleneck conditions north of the 1-405/1-605 junction were removed from the June 2013 STS.
Based on the assumptions make, variables selected, and the limitations of the modeling, how
might actual 2020 and 2040 traffic conditions vary from those projected in the DEIR/S and
SDEIR/S? From an environmental worst-case perspective, what are the possible
consequences of the potential unrealized projections and failed performance expectations
presented in the CEQA/NEPA documentation? What is to ensure that revenue projections
under Alternative 3 do not suffer the same fate as those of the Foothill/Eastern Transportation
Corridor Agency?
7.11 Committed Funding
As indicated in the SDEIR/S: "It should be noted that the State of California would implement a
project only when enough funds have been collectively received for that specific mitigation
measure. (A) If PA [preferred alterative] is Alternative 1. . .(B) If PA is Alternative 2. . .(C) If PA is
Alternative 3" (emphasis added) (pp. S-5 thru S-7, 3-90 thru 3-91, and 4-30 thru 4-31). Since
the OCTA's Board of Directors has already selected Alternative 1 as the LPA, it is both
San Diego Freeway Improvement Project July 22, 2013
City of Seal Beach Page 63
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
disingenuous to suggest that a different PA might now exists (e.g., "After the public circulation
period for the Draft EIR/EIS, all comments will be considered, and the Project Development
Team will select a preferred alternative and make the final determination of the project's effect
on the environment," DEIR/S, p. 2-27).
With regards to funding, the above excerpt appears to lump together the terms "project' and
"mitigation measures," such that the excerpt could be equally interpreted to read "the State of
California would implement a project only when enough funds have been collectively received
for that specific `project" (i.e., substituting the term "project" for "mitigation measure"). Since
"mitigation" is only a line-item cost, the State's purported policy declaration would appear to
relate to both any individual line-items and, more generally, to the total cost of a proposed
action.
From what source or precedent is California's policy and/or implementation procedure derived
that the State will "only [implement a project] when enough funds have been collected"? Is that
an adopted policy and/or written implementation procedure? What is the meaning of the phrase
"enough funds"? Would the State allow a National Highway System (NHS) improvement project
to proceed absent evidence of sufficient funding for the totality of the identified improvements?
Is the proposed project intended to be constructed as a phased undertaking (e.g., spend the
available money now and defer later improvement until funds become available at a later date)
or constructed as a single set of improvements? Does the "project sponsor' have sufficient
dedicated and budgeted funds to implement any of the alternatives? Is it Caltrans' intent to
select a PA and then look for the money to pay for it?
What is the meaning of the word "implement"? What does "implement' mean in the context of a
separate "project sponsor' paying or substantially contributing to the cost of those
improvements? Clearly, Caltrans has initiated a CEQA/NEPA process, including the
preparation of associated engineering studies and design drawings, with only an estimated
$600,000 in available Renewed Measure M Program" (M2) funding. How is the introduction of
alternatives whose costs exceed that number consistent with the above policy declaration?
Notwithstanding the above statement, neither the project's described "purpose and need" nor
the project's stated "objectives" include any declaration or inference that funding may be a
controlling or contributing factor with regards to alternative selection. What role does funding
play in Caltrans' selection of its chosen alternative? Is it presently the State's intent to full all or
a portion of the proposed I-405 Freeway improvements?
As indicated in correspondence from William Kempton, OCTA's CEO to OCTA's Regional
Planning and Highway Committee (Subject: Update on the Interstate 405 Improvement Project
Alternatives, Business Models, and Delivery Option), dated April 16, 2012, current project cost
estimates and funding options are described below:
For Alternatives 1 and 2, the total estimated project cost is $1.3 billion and $1.4
billion, respectively. As the M2 revenues for this project are currently estimated to
be $600 million over the life of the M2 program, this leaves an estimated funding
need of $700 million for Alternative 1 and $800 million for Alternative 2. For
Alternative 3, the express lanes alternative, the total estimated project cost is $1.7
billion. Alternative 3 is approximately two miles longer than the other two
alternatives and includes an Express Lanes direct connector between the I-405
and the SR-73, and would require additional Intelligent Transportation System
July 22, 2013 San Diego Freeway Improvement Project
Page 64 City of Seal Beach
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
components to operate the Express Lanes facility. Alternative 3 delivers
congestion management via tolling to provide the public with the option of a
guaranteed speed and travel time through the corridor. Alternative 3 provides for
greater vehicle throughput, as vehicles travelling at or near the speed limit in the
Express Lanes will move through the corridor in greater numbers than vehicles in
slower moving general purpose lanes. With the same M2 revenues of $600 million
for the Express Lanes Alternative, the funding need is approximately $1.1 billion.
As indicated in the DEIR/S: "Alternative 4 [was] proposed to provide localized improvements
within the I-405 corridor that could be fully funded and implemented with available revenue from
Orange County's Renewed Measure M transportation sales tax initiative" (DEIR/S, pp. 2-3 and
4); however, "Alternative 4 would neither provide additional capacity along the entire corridor nor
enhance interchange operations. It would not meet the project purpose and was eliminated from
further consideration in this Draft EIR/EIS" (DEIR/S, p. 2-4). If the proposed project's origins are
directly linked to Measures M/M2 and if implementation of Measure M/M2 improvements and
cost constraints are deemed inconsistent with the "project purpose," then it is obvious that the
stated purpose is wrong and the totality of the CEQA/NEPA analysis fatally flawed.
As indicated, the only alternative that could be "implemented with available revenues" was
eliminated prior to the publication of the DEIR/S (e.g., "Funding options to address the shortfall
are currently under study," DEIR/S, p. 1-18).
Based on that information, there is presently insufficient funding for the completion of any of the
three build alternatives described in the DEIR/S and SDEIR/S. Acknowledging that funding is
currently insufficient for any of the alternatives, how does Caltrans reconcile the statement that
the State will not precede with the advancement of any project until such time as sufficient funds
have been committed? Could the "project sponsor" (e.g., "The term `project sponsor' means the
agency or other entity, including any private or public-private entity, that seeks approval of the
Secretary for a project" [emphasis added], 23 U.S.C. 139[a][7]) or another party, proceed with
the preparation of detailed engineering drawings, solicitation for a design-build contractor,
and/or contract award for a project prior to the State's receipt of a commitment for full project
funding?
7.12 TDM/TSM and Other Alternatives
The Lead Agency continues to misrepresent that inclusion of a transportation system
management (TSM) and transportation demand management (TDM) alternative is presented in
the DEIR/S and SDEIR/S. The SDEIR/S asserts that "[a] stand-alone Transportation System
Management (TSM)/Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Alternative was identified for
the corridor' (p. 2-8); however, "[i]t does not meet the project purpose and is described in
Section 2.2.7, Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion" (DEIR/S, p. 2-
22). The entire analysis comprises about one page and concludes that "[t]he TSM/TDM
Alternative is not considered a viable option because it does not fulfill the project purpose"
(DEIR/S, p. 2-50).
The mandate of Measure M is to "make best use of available freeway property, update
interchanges and widen all local overcrossings according to city and regional master plans"
(emphasis added) (Measure M, Project K). The term "best use" is not specifically defined
San Diego Freeway Improvement Project July 22, 2013
City of Seal Beach Page 65
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
therein nor does it contain language which limits Measure M-eligible projects exclusively to new
freeway lane additions.
Because factors relating to "efficiency" and "effectiveness" are neither part of the project's stated
purpose nor a performance criterion against which alternatives are to be examined and since
cost appears not to have been a factor in alternative formulation, neither Caltrans nor the OCTA
ever appear to contemplate (from a transportation investment perspective) "what is the `best
use' of Measure M resources?" Since the question is never asked and since only "build more
freeway lanes" is ever considered, it is not possible to ascertain whether $1 spend on public
transportation would reap higher returns (e.g., Smart Mobility benefits) than that same $1 spend
on freeway lane expansion. As a result, to the extent that Caltrans and OCTA assert a nexus
between the proposed project and Measure M, the Lead Agency has artificially narrowed the
range of reasonable alternatives that need to be considered under CEQA/NEPA.
Clearly, an alternative to adding more lane capacity is fewer vehicles. If the Lead Agency's
objective is to reduce congestion, while it may seem counterintuitive, one of the performance
measures that would appear applicable related to the number of privately-operated vehicles or
vehicle trips removed from the affected roadway and the number of such trips that are
converted to transit-based trips.
Since "congestion" is a symptom of a larger mobility problem and not its root cause, setting a
goal of reducing congestion (i.e., "Reduce congestion," DEIR/S, p. 1-5) is analogous to putting a
band-aid on a terminally ill patient in that it may temporarily cover the physical manifestations of
the illness but does not promote either a cure or lasting remedy. As indicated in the DEIR/S and
SDEIR/S, between now and 2020, traffic problems along the I-405 Freeway will grow such that
the improvements will already be outdated once they are completed. It is unlikely that the
County's voters elected to tax themselves for actions that will not meaningfully benefit the
majority of County motorists.
If Caltrans and OCTA wish to implement a HOTL project using Measures M/M2 funds, since
there exists no reference to tolling in those ballot measures and since funding cannot be so
differentiated as to segregate Measures M/M2 funds from the total cost of project
improvements, independent of any memorandum from legal counsel, why would OCTA's Board
of Directors not seek input from County voters whether such an expenditure is consistent with
the voters' earlier directives?
What factual basis exists to support a determination that Alternative 1 constitutes the "best use
of available freeway property"? What factual basis exists to support a determination that
Alternative 2 constitutes the "best use of available freeway property"? What factual basis exists
to support a determination that Alternative 3 constitutes the "best use of available freeway
property"?
7.13 CEQA Considerations Relating to Supplemental EIRs
Referencing Section 21166 of CEQA:
When an environmental impact report has been prepared for a project pursuant to
this division, no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report shall be
required by the lead agency or by any responsible agency, unless one or more of
the following events occurs: (a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project
which will require major revisions of the environmental impact report. (b)
July 22, 2013 San Diego Freeway Improvement Project
Page 66 City of Seal Beach
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental
impact report. (c) New information, which was not known and could not have been
known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete,
becomes available (emphasis added).
Section 21166 of CEQA applies only after an environmental impact report (EIR) has been
certified (which is not the case herein). Prior to certification, Section 21092.1 of CEQA applies.
As indicated therein:
When significant new information is added to an environmental impact report after
notice has been given pursuant to Section 21092 and consultation has occurred
pursuant to Sections 21104 and 21153, but prior to certification, the public agency
shall give notice again pursuant to Section 21092, and consult again pursuant to
Sections 21104 and 21153 before certifying the environmental impact report'
(emphasis added).
With regards to the use of a subsequent (Section 15162), supplemental (Section 15163), or an
addendum (Section 15164) to an EIR, a California appellate court has ruled that "[a]II three cited
guidelines refer to preparation of documents after the certification of an EIR. These documents
are prepared only when, subsequent to certification, changed circumstances occur or when new
information, which was not known and could not have been known when the original EIR was
certified, becomes available [Citation]" (Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water
Management District [1998]). In Bowman v. City of Petaluma (1986), the court noted: We
question the applicability of section 21166 where the original EIR has not been finally certified
as complete. (See Stevens v. City of Glendale [Citation] [where certification of EIR was vacated,
it would be `premature' to require a supplemental EIR]."
As a result, unlike NEPA (40 CFR 1502.9[c]), under CEQA, Caltrans is precluded from
preparing a "Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report" (emphasis added). No
"supplemental draft" EIR exists under CEQA or its implementing guidelines. As such, any
reference thereto is a misnomer and only serves to misrepresent the precise nature of the
current CEQA document to affected stakeholders.
7.14 Recirculated DEIR/S
As indicated in the SDEIR/S: "As a result of comments received during circulation of the Draft
EIR/EIS on project-related traffic effects within the City of Long Beach, and new information,
analysis, and project effects in the Supplemental Traffic Study, Caltrans, as the Lead Agency,
made the decision to disclose this new information to the public by preparing and circulating this
Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS. The [State] CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(c) allow for the lead
agency to recirculate an environmental document that has been modified and address the new
information that is the basis for the recirculation" (p. S-1).
To add to the confusion as to the precise nature and intent of the document, the Lead Agency
refers to the SDEIR/S as both a "supplemental draft' and a "recirculate[d]" environmental
document. As the SDEIR/S (pp. S-1 and S-2, see also 1-2 and 1-3) further notes:
San Diego Freeway Improvement Project July 22, 2013
City of Seal Beach Page 67
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
This Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS only includes supplemental information, as
applicable, for relevant sections related to the new information described in Table
S-1 below.
Table S-1: Summary of Draft EIR/EIS Sections
Addressed in the Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS
Section Change
3.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/ Discussion added as a result of
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities the Supplemental Traffic Study
3.6 Cumulative Impacts Discussion added as a result of
the Supplemental Traffic Study
4.0 California Environmental Quality Act Evaluation Discussion added as a result of
the Supplemental Traffic Study
If the SDEIR/S only seeks to augment the three above referenced sections, then there exists a
substantial amount of tangential information whose purpose and intent remain unclear and
whose integration into the DEIR/S remains unexplained. Since the formatting of the DEIR/S
and the SDEIR/S are not internally consistent and since the Lead Agency has elected to present
separate and independent subheadings and numbering in the SDEIR/S which are not reflective
of the DEIR/S, the two documents are not organized in a manner which allows stakeholders to
understanding: (1) what significant new information is actually being introduced; and (2) how the
DEIR/S has been augmented or otherwise modified to reflect the information and analysis
presented in the SDEIR/S.
With the exception of the following sections, it is unclear how the Lead Agency seeks to
integrate the remainder of the SDEIR/S into the DEIR/S:
■ Section 3.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities. In
Chapter 3 (Environmental Setting, Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and
Mitigation Measures) of the SDEIR/S, the Lead Agency states that "[t]he following is
additional information for Draft EIR/EIS Section 3.1.6, Traffic and Transportation/
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities. This information will be added to Section 3.1.6, Traffic
and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities of the Final EIR/EIS' (p. 3-1).
The analysis presented in the SDEIR/S is not, however, consistent with the analysis
presented in the DEIR/S. For example, the DEIR/S states that the "[a]nalysis of vehicle
queues was conducted for AM and PM peak hours at four types of locations" (emphasis
added) (DEIR/S, p. 3.1.6-1). In contrast, the SDEIR/S states that the "[a]nalysis of
vehicle queues was conducted for AM and PM peak hours at three types of locations"
(emphasis added) (p. 3-2). Although none of the freeway ramps in the expanded "study
area" were examined in the DEIR/S, without explanation, the analysis of "[v]ehicle
storage at freeway on-ramp meters" (DEIR/S, p. 3.1.6-2) was excluded from the
SDEIR/S. In addition, with regards to the freeway mainline within the "Long Beach study
area," integration of the two documents is made difficult since other analyses presented
in the DEIR/S (e.g., "peak-hour performance," DEIR/S, p. 3.1.6-21; "daily vehicle miles
traveled," DEIR/S, p. 3.1.6-22; "corridor travel times," DEIR/S, pp 3.1.6-25 and 26;
"traffic accident data," DEIR/S, p. 3.1.6-27; "pedestrian and bicycle facilities," DEIR/S pp.
3.1.6-34 and 35) have not been repeated or modified based on the information and
analysis presented in the SDEIR/S.
July 22, 2013 San Diego Freeway Improvement Project
Page 68 City of Seal Beach
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
■ Section 3.6 Cumulative Impacts. In Section 3.2 (Cumulative Impacts) of the SDEIR/S,
the Lead Agency notes: "The following is additional information for Draft EIR/EIS Section
3.6, Cumulative Impacts under Subsection 3.6.5.7, Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian
and Bicycle Facilities. This information will be added to Section 3.6.5.7 of the Final
EIR/EIS" (p. 3-92).
Section 3.6 consists of only two pages (pp. 3-92 and 3-93). As a result, the cumulative
impact analysis presented in the DEIR/S is only "supplemented" by the referenced
pages in the SDEIR/S.
■ Section 4.0 California Environmental Quality Act Evaluation. In Chapter 4 (California
Environmental Quality Act Evaluation), the Lead Agency notes: "The following is
additional information for Draft EIR/EIS Section 4.2.3, Significant Environmental Effects
of the Proposed Project, under Subsection 4.2.3.5, Transportation/Traffic Checklist
Questions a) — b). This information will be added to Section 4.2.3.5 of the Final EIR/EIS"
p. 4-1). In addition, Section 4.2 (Mitigation Measures for Significant Impacts under
CEQA notes: "The following is additional information for Draft EIR/EIS Section 4.2.8,
Mitigation Measures for Significant Impacts under CEQA. This information will be added
to Section 4.2.8 in the Final EIR/EIS. With implementation of the proposed traffic
measures below, the project contribution to significant cumulative impacts would be
mitigated" (pp. 4-26 and 27).
Comments concerning the adequacy of the DEIR/S' and SDEIR/S' compliance with
CEQA are presented elsewhere herein.
The State CEQA Guidelines present agencies with two options with regards to "recirculation of
an EIR prior to certification" (14 CCR 15088.5). As stipulated therein:
(1) When an EIR is substantially revised and the entire document is recirculated,
the lead agency may require reviewers to submit new comments and, in such
cases, need not respond to those comments received during the earlier circulation
period. The lead agency shall advise reviewers, either in the text of the revised
EIR or by an attachment to the revised EIR, that although part of the administrative
record, the previous comments do not require a written response in the final EIR,
and that new comments must be submitted for the revised EIR. The lead agency
need only respond to those comments submitted in response to the recirculated
revised EIR. (2) When the EIR is revised only in part and the lead agency is
recirculating only the revised chapters or portions of the EIR, the lead agency may
request that reviewers limit their comments to the revised chapters or portions of
the recirculated EIR. The lead agency need only respond to (i) comments received
during the initial circulation period that relate to chapters or portions of the
document that were not revised and recirculated, and (ii) comments received
during the recirculation period that relate to the chapters or portions of the earlier
EIR that were revised and recirculated. The lead agency's request that reviewers
limit the scope of their comments shall be included either within the text of the
revised EIR or by an attachment to the revised EIR.
As presented and as organized, the SDEIR/S neither constitutes "the entire EIR" (14 CCR
15088.5[f][1]) nor the "revised chapters or portions thereof' (14 CCR 15088.5[f][2]). As such,
since the SDEIR/S is neither of the two authorized versions, the Lead Agency cannot then
San Diego Freeway Improvement Project July 22, 2013
City of Seal Beach Page 69
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
stipulate that previous public and agency comments submitted in response to the DEIR/S no
longer"require a written response" or that comments submitted in response to the release of the
SDEIR/S be confined to the "revised chapters or portions."
7.15 Feasibility
Conclusions presented in the SDEIR/S relating to the proposed project's post-mitigated level of
significance are predicated on unspecified future events, such that the document is written in a
fashion whereby the Lead Agency can avoid implementing the mitigation measures which it
purports to be necessary to reduce otherwise significant environmental impacts to a less-than-
significant level (e.g., "With implementation of the proposed traffic measures below, the project
contribution to significant cumulative impacts would be mitigated," p. 4-27). As indicated in the
SDEIR/S:
Funding from additional sources will be required to fully fund implementation of
each of the improvements proposed in Measures T-10 and T-11. It is unsure at
this time if and when 100 percent of the funding will be available to implement
each intersection identified in Mitigation Measures T-10 and T-11 because they
are dependent on mitigation funds from future developments and projects in the
area. The Department is committed to the fair share funding percentages as stated
below. However, if the City of Long Beach and the State of California are unable to
get 100 percent of the remaining funds, then Measure T-10 and/or Measure T-11
will be deemed infeasible due to impacts identified as significant and not fully
mitigable; consequently, Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations
would be prepared for inclusion in the Final EIR/EIS to comply with State CEQA
Guidelines (Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3, Section 15903),
and the Department of Transportation and California Transportation Commission
Environmental Regulations (Title 21 California Code of Regulations, Chapter 11,
Section 1501) (emphasis added) (p. 4-27).
The above statement appears inconsistent with the Lead Agency's declaration that "[w]ith
implementation of the fair share agreement within 90 days of publication of the project's Record
of Decision (ROD) and payment of related funding prior to construction, as described in
proposed traffic measures T-10 and T-11, the project's contribution to adverse cumulative
effects within the Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS study area at the affected locations would be
minimized" (p. 3-93).
Is the Lead Agency asserting that the term "minimized" is synonymous with "reduced to below a
level of significance"? Are traffic-related impacts within the "Long Beach study area" deemed to
be "significant' in the absence of Measures T-10 and T-11 and "less than significance" once
those mitigation measures are implemented?
Since it is unlikely that either Long Beach or the State can demonstrate the availability of 100
percent of dedicated and committed funds for specified roadway improvements (e.g., "It should
be noted that the State of California would implement a project only when enough funds have
been collectively received for the specified mitigation measure," p. 3-89), the Lead Agency
appears to be inclined to deem the identified mitigation measures infeasible and avoid the
payment of its fair-share contributions thereunder. No private "project sponsor' can so condition
its mitigation obligations (as specified both under CEQA and the County's "Congestion
Management Program") so as to: (1) independently determine whether it bears any obligation to
July 22, 2013 San Diego Freeway Improvement Project
Page 70 City of Seal Beach
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
fully or proportionately address the impacts of its own actions; (2) condition the mitigation
measure on the performance of other parties not related to the proposed project; and/or (3)
defer performance to an unspecified later date, bearing no time-dependent nexus between the
impacts of its actions and the faithful implementation of the stated mitigation measure.
Under CEQA, mitigation measures (14 CCR 15126.4[a][1]) and project alternatives (14 CCR
15126.6[c]) must be deemed feasible. In addition, mitigation measures must be fully enforceable
through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally-binding instruments (14 CCR
15126.6[2]). To the extent that the Lead Agency were to subsequently deem Measures T-10
and T-11 to be "infeasible," those recommendations actions would not constitute valid mitigation
measures under CEQA. Since no additional or alternative measures are presented in the
SDEIR/S, the Lead Agency would violate CEQA's primary tenet not to prevent or minimize
environmental damage (14 CCR 15021).
Similarly, public agencies tasked with mitigation (e.g., "That the proposed improvements shall
be implemented by the City of Long Beach, with the City of Long Beach bearing responsibility
for necessary clearances and permits," Mitigation Measure T-10) should be provided
reasonable flexibility in the manner in which that implementing agency elects to compensate for
a project's identified impacts. Independent of the location specified, a public agency might elect
to undertake comparable improvements in another location so as to reduce traffic to a
comparable amount; however, as drafted, the identified mitigation measures unreasonably limits
a Responsible Agency's discretionary authority by stipulating that any allocated funds are
restricted to only the location noted (e.g., "That the payment made by OCTA shall be placed into
the City of Long Beach Transportation Mitigation Program and shall only be used to provide
improvements to remedy impacts of the PA at the intersections listed below," Mitigation
Measure T-10; "That the payment made by OCTA shall be held by Caltrans and shall only be
used to provide improvements to remedy impacts of the PA at the intersections listed below,"
Mitigation Measure T-11).
7.16 Improper Delegation of Authority
As specified under Section 15100(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "[p]ublic agencies should
carry out their responsibilities for preparing and reviewing EIRs." As further specified under
Section 15025 of the State CEQA Guidelines:
(a) A public agency may assign specific functions to its staff to assist in
administering CEQA. Functions which may be delegated include but are not
limited to: (1) Determining whether a project is exempt. (2) Conducting an Initial
Study and deciding whether to prepare a draft EIR or Negative Declaration. (3)
Preparing a Negative Declaration or EIR. (4) Determining that a Negative
Declaration has been completed within a period of 180 days. (5) Preparing
responses to comments on environmental documents. (6) Filing of notices. (b) The
decision-making body of a public agency shall not delegate the following functions:
(1) Reviewing and considering a final EIR or approving a Negative Declaration
prior to approving a project. (2) The making of findings as required by Sections
15091 and 15093. (c) Where an advisory body such as a planning commission is
required to make a recommendation on a project to the decision-making body, the
advisory body shall also review and consider the EIR or Negative Declaration in
draft or final form."
San Diego Freeway Improvement Project July 22, 2013
City of Seal Beach Page 71
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
The administrative records suggests or demonstrates that there has been an improper
delegation of authority with regards to the proposed project. As indicated in the SDEIR/S: "The
Department is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act and National
Environmental Policy Act. The Orange County Transportation Authority is the project sponsor'
(General Information about this Document, unpaginated). However, the DEIR/S notes that
"[a]fter the public circulation period for the Draft EIR/EIS, all comments will be considered, and
the Project Development Team (PDT) will select a preferred alternative and make the final
determination of the project's effect on the environment" (emphasis added) (DEIR/S, p. 2-27).
It is not believed that the PDT is the decision-making body of Caltrans and accountable to any
constituency for their actions. Additionally, neither the composition of nor the criteria that the
PDT will use in making that "final determination" and selecting the "preferred alternative" (e.g.,
"CEQA requires that decisions be informed and balanced," 14 CCR 150030]) have been
identified. As a result, assigned roles and delegated responsibilities with regards to both the
project's approval and the "final determination" regarding the significance of environmental and
socioeconomic impacts appear inconsistent with statutory and regulatory requirements.
Is the PDT Caltrans' designated "advisory body" or "advisory committee"? Who determined the
composition of the PDT and when and who appointed its members? Specifically, by name and
agency affiliation, what is the PDT's membership? Are the PDT's deliberations publicly noticed
and open to the general public? With regards to the proposed project, what role has the PDT
played to date and where are the official records of that body located? Are the PDT's meeting
recorded or taped and, if so, who is the custodian of those records? Is the proposed action a
"Category 1" or"Category 2" project and what specific procedures apply to decisions concerning
those projects? What is the composition of Caltrans' decision-making body? What role, if any,
does the CTC have in the selection of the "preferred alternative" and "final determination"?
8.0 AREAS AND FACILITIES OF SPECIFIC CONCERN
8.1 College Park East
As indicated in correspondence from Jim Beil, Executive Director, Capital Projects of OCTA to
the City's Director of Public Works, dated June 25, 2013, included herein as Attachment 2
(Correspondence from Jim Beil, OCTA Executive Director, June 25, 2013), OCTA notes that the
existing Almond Avenue would be removed and relocated under Alternative 2 and that the City's
requested "design exceptions," formulated to allow for the retention of that soundwall should
Alternative 2 be selected, have been rejected by the OCTA. Discussions in this letter, included
review of City provided Alternatives, review of City proposed Mandatory and Advisory
Exceptions, Project relocated Soundwall and Almond Avenue Impacts, and discussion of
accident data. The June 2013 Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS report did not include any
discussions of the City proposed alternatives, requested studies, and impacts to Almond
Avenue. However, the December 2012 Draft Supplemental Traffic Study Report does address
many of the City Alternatives. This information was omitted in the June version and should be
included. As a result, Seal Beach does not support the Lead Agency's selection of Alternative 2
as the "preferred alternative" and requests that Caltrans reject and cease all activities in
furtherance Alternative 2.
8.2 College Park West
July 22, 2013 San Diego Freeway Improvement Project
Page 72 City of Seal Beach
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
The SR-22/7th Street Ramp at College Park Drive is discussed in Alternatives 1 and 2, but not
included in Alternative 3. A discussion is requested for the elimination of any project impacts to
this intersection for Alternative 3. The traffic remains relatively constant for each Alternative.
Figure 3-2 does not correctly show the lane configuration at the intersection of SR-22/7th Street
and College Park Drive. In addition, the December 2012, Supplemental Traffic Study analysis
did not reflect the current lane configuration for the developed Model. A traffic signal is proposed
at this intersection. Previously, the City of Seal Beach contacted Caltrans District 7 and
Headquarters to install a traffic signal at this location. It was denied with Caltrans citing the
backup onto SR-22/7th Street causes a safety concern. The report does not model is issue
caused by placing a traffic signal at this location nor was an Agreement with Caltrans provided
with this option. Since the City was previously denied by Caltrans, an Agreement with Caltrans
to install a traffic signal at this location before it is provided as a mitigation measure.
Since College Park West neighborhood, located to the north west of the 1-405/1-605 Freeway
interchange, has only a single means of vehicular access (i.e., College Park Drive) and since
the northbound on-ramp and off-ramp configurations for Studebaker Road which has been
proposed by Caltrans creates access, mobility, and safety concerns both for that neighborhood
and for freeway motorists, Seal Beach has formulated an alternative street and ramp
configuration which enhances access, mobility, and public safety. This plan is identical to the
City of Long Beach Alternative for a direct connect ramp to Studebaker Road and separating it
from College Park Drive. College Park Drive also connected directly to Studebaker Road.
In lieu of the design plan presented in the SDEIR/S (Figure 4-6), the City requests that Caltrans
adopt the alternative street and ramp configuration that is presented as Attachment 6
(Studebaker Road/College Park Drive Alternative Street and Ramp Configuration) herein.
8.3 HOT Lanes
Based on the proposed access limitation to the managed lanes, neither Seal Beach nor its
residents and business community would benefit from the implementation of Alternative 3. For
those and for the reasons articulated in the City's responses to the DEIR/S and SDEIR/S, Seal
Beach does not support the Lead Agency's selection of Alternative 3 as the "preferred
alternative" and requests that Caltrans reject and cease all activities in furtherance of Alternative
3.
9.0 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS CITED
(Partial Listing)
9.1 Publications
■ California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission, Final Foothill/Eastern
Transportation Corridor Agency Foothill/Eastern Toll Road Project— Proposed 2013
Restructuring Financial Advisor Evaluation, July 3, 2013.
■ California Department of Transportation, Bus Rapid Transit: A Handbook for Partners,
February 2007.
(http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/Docs-Pdfs/BRT/BRT-Handbook-030706.pdo
■ California Department of Transportation, California HOV/Express Lane Business Plan,
2009, March 31, 2009.
San Diego Freeway Improvement Project July 22, 2013
City of Seal Beach Page 73
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
(http://www.accma.ca.gov/Documents/22_136_74AO371_ExpressLaneBizPIan_033109_
FINAL_check_2_.pdf)
■ California Department of Transportation, California Interregional Blueprint, Interim
Report, December 2012.
(http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/californiainterregionalblueprint/Documents/cib_interim_rep
ort/CI B_I nterim_Report_022613.pdf#zoom=65)
■ California Department of Transportation (System Metrics Group/Braidwood Associates),
Corridor System Management Plan - State Route 22/Interstate 405/Interstate 606 Final
Report, August 2010.
(http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/corridor-mobi I ity/CSM Ps/d 12_CSM Ps/SR%2022-
1%20405-1%20605/D 12_SR-22_CSM P_Final_Technical_Report_dec2010.pdf)
■ California Department of Transportation, Draft Final Corridor System Management Plan
Orange County SR-22 Comprehensive Performance Assessment and Causality
Analysis, May 4, 2009.
(http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/corridor-mobi I ity/CSM Ps/d 12_CSM Ps/SR%2022-
1%20405-1%20605/SR-22%20&%201-405%20&%201-605%20CPA.pdf)
■ California Department of Transportation, Draft Supplemental Traffic Study Report—San
Diego Freeway (1-405) Improvement SR74 to 1-605, December 2012.
■ California Department of Transportation, Fact Sheet: Exceptions to Advisory Design
Standards — 1-405 Improvement Project, April 2012.
■ California Department of Transportation, Guidance of Preparers of Cumulative Impact
Assessments, updated February 3, 2012.
(hftp://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/cumulative—guidance/purpose.htm)
■ California Department of Transportation, Impacts of Increasing Vehicle-Occupancy
Requirements on HOV/HOT Lanes, March 25, 2013.
(http://www.dot.ca.gov/newtech/researchreports/preliminary_investigations/docs/HOV_a
nd_HOT_Lanes_Preliminary_lnvestigation_03-25-13.pdf)
■ California Department of Transportation, Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan —
Review Draft, December 2012.
(http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/oasp/ITSP_document_FI NAL.pdf#zoom=65)
■ California Department of Transportation, Public Notice — Supplemental Draft
Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement Available for Interstate
405 &Announcement of Public Hearing, undated.
(http://www.octa.net/pdf/405Supplemental_PublicNotice.pdo
■ California Department of Transportation, Route Concept Report Interstate 405 —San
Diego Freeway, November 1999.
(http://www.dot.ca.gov/distl2/planning/pdf/route4O5.pdf):
■ California Department of Transportation, Smart Mobility 2010 —A Call to Action for the
New Decade, February 2010.
(http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/off ices/ocp/documents/smf—fi les/SM F_hand book_062210.
pdf),
■ California Department of Transportation, Updated Managed Lane Design, April 7, 2011.
(http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/signdel/policy/11-02.pdf)
■ California Transportation Commission, Statewide Transportation Systems Needs
Assessment— Final Report, October 2011.
(http://www.catc.ca.gov/reports/2011 Reports/2011_Needs_Assessment_updated.pdf)
■ Chum, Geoffrey L. and Buris, Mark W., Potential Mode Shift from Transit to Single-
Occupancy Vehicles on a High-Occupancy Toll Lane, Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2072, 2008.
July 22, 2013 San Diego Freeway Improvement Project
Page 74 City of Seal Beach
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
SCH No.2009091001
■ Federal Highway Administration, Federal-Aid Highway Program Guidance on High-
Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes, November 2012.
(http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freewaymgmt/hovguidance/hovguidance.pdo
■ Federal Highway Administration, NEPA and Transportation Decisionmaking —
Developing and Evaluation of Alternatives, November 15, 2006.
(http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/tdmalts.asp)
■ Federal Highway Administration, NEPA and Transportation Decisionmaking —The
Development of Logical Project Termini, November 5, 1993.
(http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/tdmtermini.asp)
■ Federal Highway Administration, Reference Sourcebook for Reducing Greenhouse Gas
Emissions from Transportation Sources, February 2012.
(http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freewaymgmt/publications/hov/00101625.pdf)
■ National Center for Transit Research, Integrating Transit and Road Pricing Projects Final
Report, June 2013.
(http://www.dot.state.fl.us/research-center/Completed_Proj/Summary_PTO/FDOT-
BDK85-977-43-rpt.pdf)
■ Orange County Transportation Authority (Parsons), Interstate 405 Major Investment
Study Final Report, February 2006.
■ Small, Kenneth A. and Ng, Chen Feng, Optimizing Road Capacity and Type, June 1,
2013
(http://www.tollroadsnews.com/sites/default/files/Small&NgOptimizingHwys.doc)
■ Southern California Association of Governments, 2012-2035 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, April 4, 2012.
■ Transportation Research Board, Research Needs Statement, posted January 6, 2010.
(hftp://rns.trb.org/dproject.asp?n=24742)
■ United States Department of Transportation, Integrating Demand Management in the
Transportation Planning Process: A Desk Reference, August 2012.
(http:Hops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop12035/fhwahop 12035.pdf)
9.2 California Cases
■ Bowman v. City of Petaluma (1986
■ Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (1998)
10.0 ATTACHMENTS
1 California Department of Transportation, December 2012 Supplemental Traffic Study,
December 2012
2 Correspondence from Jim Beil, OCTA Executive Director, June 25, 2013
3 Orange County Transportation Commission, High-Occupancy Vehicle Degradation
Study Powerpoint, April 8, 2013
4 City of Long Beach, 1-405 Freeway Improvement Project Letter and Memorandum, July
17-18, 2012
5 Kenneth A. Small and Chen Feng Ng, Optimizing Road Capacity and Type, June 1,
2013
6 City of Seal Beach, Studebaker Road/College Park Drive Alternative Street and Ramp
Configuration, July 2013
San Diego Freeway Improvement Project July 22, 2013
City of Seal Beach Page 75