HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem DD. AGENDA REPORT
DATE: October 22, 2001 �I
o e
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager
FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
SUBJECT: REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF COMMENT
LETTER RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT RE: "STATE ROUTE 22/WEST
ORANGE COUNTY CONNECTION"
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
•• Authorize the Mayor to sign the draft comment letter after final review and approval of
any modifications by the City Council.
• Authorize members of the City Council to provide any additional separate comments
directly to Caltrans with a copy to the Director of Development Services.
• Adopt Resolution No. . A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Seal
Beach Authorizing Budget Amendments for the 2001 -2002 Fiscal Year.
❑ Receive and File the Staff Report
❑ Instruct staff to forward copies of approved comment letter to Planning Commission and
Environmental Quality Control Board.
BACKGROUND:
Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration ( "FHA ") (collectively. "the lead
agencies ") have released a Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact
Statement ( "DEIR/EIS ") for a project they describe as the "State Route 22/West Orange
County Connection." As described more fully below, the City Council has directed staff
to conduct a thorough review and comment on the DEIR/EIS. Our review of the
DEBUEIS has revealed numerous shortcomings in the document. As the review process
by the City is now concluded, it is essential that the City submit written comments to the
agencies involved regarding the adequacy of the DEIR/EIS document. The timely
submittal of written comments serves two basic purposes. First, the City's comment
• letter contains a significant amount of information that should help guide the decision -
making process in a direction that will lessen the significant impacts of the potential
project on the City. Second, if the City's suggestions are ultimately ignored or rejected,
Agenda Item DD
C:Niy DocummU\SR -M DEIR- EMDEIR -EIS R Yim.CC SmffR,.ft.d.6LW64MI
City Council Staff Report re:
Consideration of Comment Letter re:
State Route 111West Orange County Connector
Draft Environmental Impact Report /Environmental Impact Statement •
October 22, 2001
providing timely written comments will protect the City's subsequent right to bring a
legal challenge if the project is approved in a form that is unacceptable to the City, or
through a process that does not comply with the law.
The environmental review of this project is proceeding on a dual track simultaneously. A
draft EIR has been prepared by OCTA and Caltrans pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") because state and local agencies are proposing to
undertake a project that will have significant effects on our environment. The Federal
Highway Administration has caused an Environmental Impact Statement to be prepared
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA ") because federal funds are
proposed to be spent on the project. Although CEQA and NEPA permit the use of this
joint EIR/EIS process, slightly different rules regarding the legal adequacy of required
documents apply in certain situations. The City's draft comment letter addresses both
CEQA and NEPA issues.
PROJECT OVERVIEW, PROJECT ALTERNATIVES AND
POTENTIAL AREAS OF CONCERN TO CITY OF SEAL BEACH:
Project Overview: •
The project under consideration in the DEIR/EIS proposes to improve State Route 22 (SR-
22) from SR -55 to I-405 (20.1 km) and I-405 from SR -22 to I -605 (5.3 km) inclusive of the
freeway -to- freeway interchanges, as well as a section of the former Pacific Electric right -of-
way between SR -22 in the City of Garden Grove and Bristol Street in downtown Santa Ana
(4.5. km). The entire project is known as the SR- 22/West Orange County Connection.
The freeways, major surface streets and interchanges proposed to be improved by this
project have insufficient capacity to handle existing and projected travel demand between
the SR -55 interchange and the Los Angeles County line, and to and from destinations
within the corridor. The situation is aggravated by inadequate freeway interchanges, lack
of continuous parallel arterial routes and available arterial/intersection capacity, absence
of alternatives to single - occupant - vehicle travel (HOV lanes or transit services); and lack
of a major program of Transportation System Management (TSM) /Enhanced Bus
strategies.
Potential transportation improvements considered as part of the SR- 22/West Orange County
Connection project include:
❑ A new High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane in both directions between the 1405
and SR -55
❑ An additional HOV lane in both directions of I-405 between I -605 and SR -22 •
13 Direct freeway -to- freeway HOV connectors between:
C3 1-605 and I-405 (both directions)
DEIR -EIS R ie,CC SniffltRn
City Council StaffReport re:
Consideration of Comment Letter re:
Stale Route 21 1West Orange County Connector
• Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
October 22. 2001
❑ I405 and SR -22 (both directions)
❑ Eastbound SR -22 and southbound I -5
• Northbound I -5 and westbound SR -22
• Eastbound SR -22 and northbound SR -55
❑ Southbound SR -55 and westbound SR -22
A continuous auxiliary lane in both directions of SR -22 between Beach Boulevard
and I -5
A new limited - access arterial branching south from SR -22 along the former Pacific
Electric right -of -way to central Santa Ana
Pro ect Alternatives:
Both CEQA and NEPA, to some extent, require the preparing agencies to review a range of
alternatives to the proposed project in an effort to find alternatives that might meet some or
all of the goals of the preparing agencies while eliminating or reducing one or more
environmental impacts. The SR- 22/west Orange County Connection project alternatives
examined in the DEIR/EIS involve transportation improvements to the SR -22 corridor,
including portions of the I-405 and I -605.
• Alternatives under consideration include:
• No Build Alternative — Both CEQA and NEPA require environmental documents
to consider a no- action or no-project alternative. This alternative represents the
status quo, or what would happen if none of the project elements included in the
other alternatives were implemented. The No Build Alternative encompasses only
improvements to the transportation network that have already been approved and
funded. No capital improvements for SR -22 are included under this alternative. The
No Build Alternative represents the existing highway, HOV, bus, fixed guideway,
and Advanced Transportation Systems (ATS), plus all transportation improvements
programmed to be implemented by 2020, as outlined in OCTA's Fast Forward
Long -Range Transportation Plan (FFTP) Baseline Scenario.
• TSM/Expanded Bus Service Alternative — The TSM/Expanded Bus Service
Alternative includes all of the improvements outlined in the No Build Alternative, in
conjunction with additional TSM and transit service strategies in the SR -22 corridor,
such as more buses, extended routes, and shorter headways (less time between
buses). This alternative does not include any capital improvements to the SR -22.
• Full Build Alternative (Project Proposed) — The Full Build Alternative includes
all of the elements of the No Build and the TSM/Expanded Bus Service
Alternatives, as well as the specific project elements discussed above under "Project
Overview ".
• Reduced Build Alternative — This alternative was created by eliminating certain
elements of the Full Build Alternative. The three major elements not included in
• this alternative are:
❑ The new arterial in the Pacific Electric right-of-way into Santa Ana;
DEIR -EIS Revme .CC Staff R pon
City Council Staff Report re:
Consideration of Comment Letter re:
State Route 11/Wat Orange County Connector
Draft Environmental Impact Repor t/Environmental Impact Statement •
October 22, 2001
❑ The HOV connectors between the SR -22 and I -5; and
❑ We HOV connectors between the SR -22 and SR -55.
These elements were eliminated to reduce environmental impacts related primarily
to right -of -way acquisition.
A copy of the complete Draft EIR/EIS document has previously been provided to the City
Council to allow additional time for their review. One of the City's chief concerns after
reviewing the DEIR/EIS is the preparing agencies' inadequate analysis of alternatives to the
project. The limited exploration of alternatives in the DEIR/EIS makes it appear that the
project may have been pre - determined.
In addition, a `Briefing Book' has been distributed by Caltrans and OCTA, . and this
document provides a summary of project alternatives, project benefits, project impacts and
right-of-way needs, proposed sourdwalls, public review and outreach, cost estimates and
time schedule. A copy of the `Briefing Book" is has also previously been provided to the
City Council.
Areas of Concern to City of Seal Beach:
Given the issues of concern identified by staff, the City Council was requested and
approved a contract with Environmental Impact Sciences to review the DEIR/EIS and
prepare a comprehensive continent letter as to the adequacy of the document in
complying with the legal provisions of CEQA and NEPA. Refer to Attachment 1 for the
draft comment letter. The consultant has been coordinating his review with those of city
staff, including the Planning Department, City Attorney, and the contract traffic engineer,
Bill Zimmerman. A thorough review of the subject DEIR/EIS by City Council retained
consultants and city staff has identified the following major areas of concern that required
detailed review, analysis, and formulation of comments and concerns in the attached draft
comment letter for EQCB and City Council consideration:
❑ Potential acquisition of 6 homes within College Park East alon2 Almond
Avenue east of Almond Park. Design alternatives were investigated and have
acaulrtnt' anv residential structures within the City. Design alternatives that we
included within the proposed comment letter include but are not limited to:
❑ "Realignment of Proposed Project — 'Revised Design Criteria"
Alternative. The City has conducted preliminary design investigations that
focus on developing a realignment alternative to the Caltrans proposed project
from SR -22 to I -405. From our limited assessment, it has been determined
that the project could be realigned to the south with no impacts to College •
Park East. Further, the alternative project can be accomplished within
DEIR -EIS Review.CC Staff Report
City Council StaffReport re.
Consideration of Comment Letter re:
State Route 221R'est Orange County Connector
• Draft Environmental Impact ReportlEnvironmental Impact Statement
October 22, 2001
Caltrans right -of -way, i.e., no additional right -of -way required for the project
on the southerly side that would impact the Seal Beach Naval Weapons
Station. The alternative alignment considered pinch points at Primrose Place
and the Navy property line on the south for the southbound SR 22 ramp.
The alternative alignment shifted the freeway to south approximately 3.6
meters. This proposed realignment will miss the existing sound wall along
Almond Avenue. The project specifics are as follows:
❑ SR 22 westbound to I405 northbound — increase control line radius to
1,215 meters with a longer curve length.
❑ I405 northbound at SR 22 westbound — increase control line radius to
703.6 meters with a longer curve length.
❑ -I -405 northbound between stations 104 +00 to 105 +40 - add a 1,000 -meter
curve.
❑ The HOV connector is shifted to the south approximately 3.6 meters. An
844 -meter curve is provided at station 107 +40.
❑ I-405 southbound — add a 1,040 -meter curve between stations 104 +00 to
107 +40.
❑ I -405 southbound between stations 107 +40 to 109 +00 - add an 844 -meter
• radius curve.
❑ I -405 southbound to SR 22 eastbound — the ramp configuration remains
the same with the exception of adding a 610 -meter curve at station
109 +30.
•
❑ Preservation of existing homes and reconfiguration of local street system
alternative. This alternative is proposed by reducing the width of Almond
Avenue and the use of approved design variations in lane width for the
freeway lanes to not require a taking of the indicated residential structures.
This could result in no parking on one or both sides of Almond Avenue east of
Almond Park for a distance of approximately 3 blocks (to Rose Circle).
❑ Southerly alignment impacting the northern portion of the Seal Beach
Naval Weapons Station alternative. This alternative proposes the relocation
of the entire freeway southerly to not require the taking of the identified
homes in College Park East on the north side of Almond Drive east of
Almond Park. This alternative would possibly require the acquisition of up to
a 10 -feet sliver of land in an area necessary to accommodate the widening.
These alternatives would reduce or eliminate one or more environmental impacts and
should have been included in the DEIR/EIS.
DEIR -EIS Review.CC Staff Report
City Council Staff Report re:
Consideration of Comment Letter re.-
State Route 221tfrest Orange County Connector
Draft Environmental Impact ReportlEnvironmental Impact Statement •
October 22, 2001
• Aesthetic impacts upon College Park East and Leisure World of the
Proposed freeway -to- freewav HOV connectors at I405 to I -605 and at 1-405
to SR -22.
• Noise impacts of realignments of travel lanes including noise impacts of any
elevated HOV connectors.
• L_illht and glare impacts of realigned travel lanes and any elevated HOV
connectors.
• Potential phasing issues in the design construction of the Seal Beach
Boulevard overpass at the I-405.
❑ Potential impacts to city pump stations water reservoir facilities and other
Public/private uses adjacent to the I405 and SR -22 This could have
significant cost impacts to the City and its residents.
The continent letter prepared focuses on the following primary areas of deficiency of the
DEIR/EIS document:
❑ Evidence of the Lead Agencies predetermination and lack of objectivity
❑ Failure to make critical documents readily available for public and agency review
• Failure to represent the DEIR/EIS as a `°tiered" Environmental Document
• Failure to provide an adequate description of "Alternatives" under consideration
• Failure to identify the `Preferred Project" despite its obvious existence _
• Lack of comparable alternatives analysis
• Failure to present a reasonable range of Project Alternatives
❑ Failure to consider other alternative alignments and rights-of-way
• Failure to consider other alternative project designs
• Selection of wrong "Horizon Year" prevents long -range planning and analysis
• Failure to consider the "Whole of the Action"
❑ Project fmgmentation/segmemation limits analysis and the range of alternatives
❑ Failure of the Lead Agencies to take a "hard look" at environmental consequences
❑ - Failure to provide a comprehensive environmental analysis
❑ Failure to consider indirect and secondary impacts
❑ Failure to adequately evaluate cumulative impacts
• Implementation may foreclose other transportation options under consideration
• Failure to disclose location of and impacts from construction staging areas •
❑ Failure to determine consistency with applicable General and Regional plans
DEIR -EIS R iew.CC Staff Repon
City Council Staff Report re:
Consideration of Comment Letter re:
State Route 11 /West Orange County Connector
• Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
October 22, 2001
❑ Failure to formulate a reasonable set of "Thresholds of Significance Criteria"
in Identified Threshold criteria lack measurability
• Failure to formulate reasonable mitigation measures
• Reliance on mitigation measures of unknown efficacy
❑ Compliance with standard practices not legitimate thresholds or mitigation
• Presentation of erroneous and illusory mitigation measures
• Deferral of technical analysis and mitigation violates NEPA/CEQA requirements
• All mitigation measures and analysis must originate from the Lead Agencies
• Monitoring Plans have not been presented demonstrating the manner of compliance
• Recirculation and/or preparation of a Supplement to the DEIR/EIS required.
"Enclosure A" of the draft comment letter provides extensive and thorough discussion
regarding the requirements of NEPA and CEQA in preparing a DEIS/EIR document,
indicates where the document has fallen short of those requirements, and provides
appropriate recommendations as to the necessary corrective actions to bring the document
into compliance with the appropriate NEPA and CEQA provisions.
This comment letter is focused primarily on the overarching issues and document
• deficiencies that require extensive modifications to the document, potentially requiring
either re- circulation of a completely revised document or the preparation of a
"Supplemental" DEIR/EIS. Given the extensive amount of review and preparation of the
draft comment letter, the short time period for that evaluation to occur within, and the focus
on those issues identified above, the draft comment letter does not deal extensively with
minor technical corrections or concerns: it deals with those major deficiencies that need to
be thoroughly addressed to address the legal and procedural deficiencies. "Enclosure B" of
the draft comment letter discusses technical corrections or concerns.
Staff would urge members of the City Council and residents to address any issues of
concern not directly addressed in the draft comment letter in their separate communication
to Caltrans by the October 30 comment deadline. Time constraints will not allow staff to
significantly revise the draft comment letter before the October 30 response deadline unless
the City Council determines to adjourn to October 29 for further consideration of this
matter. Again, it is critical that the City's responses be submitted in writing before the
deadline to preserve as many options and remedies for the City as are available.
Previous Review by EOCB and City Council:
In May 1998 the City received the "Notice of Initiation of Studies/Notice of Preparation —
SR 22 and I405 Improvements ". The City Council authorized the Mayor to sign a
comment letter regarding concerns of the City regarding the proposed project on June 22,
• 1998. A copy of the 1998 comment letter is provided as Attachment 5 for the
information of the City Council. The major issues of concern in the 1998 comment letter
were:
DEIR -EIS R Aew.CC Staff Report
City Council StaffReporl re:
Consideration of Comment Letter re.-
State Route 221West Orange County Connector
Draft Environmental Impact ReportlEnvironmental Impact Statement •
October 22, 2001
• Extremely cdncemed about any right -of -way acquisition that would impact the
College Park East neighborhood, north of the I -405 freeway between Seal Beach
Boulevard and Valley View Street. This neighborhood is located immediately
adjacent to the I-405 Freeway right -of -way, and any further encroachment into
this residential neighborhood would be extremely detrimental to the neighborhood
and to the City of Seal Beach.
• The Initial Study indicated any impacts to prime farmlands "are expected to be
less than significant ". Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) states that a project will have a significant impact if it would "convert
prime" agricultural lands to non - agricultural use or impair the agricultural
productivity of "prime" agricultural land. Therefore, any loss of "prime
agricultural land" is a significant impact under CEQA, and the Initial Study
should be revised to indicate this potential significant impact.
• The City requested the air quality analysis include an analysis of CO "hotspots" at
adjacent freeway on/off ramp locations, and development of appropriate
mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a level of insignificance.
• Impacts to existing recreational opportunities should indicate the City of Seal
Beach is currently processing a development application for the Bixby Old Ranch
Towne Center project which, if ultimately approved by the City Council, would
dedicate the existing Bixby Old Ranch Tennis Club to the City of Seal Beach as a
public recreation facility. This existing recreation facility is located immediately
adjacent to the I-405 Freeway. In addition, this section should indicate if the
proposed project would impact the existing bicycle/equestrian trail along the San
Gabriel River, which is a regional trail providing access from the Pacific Ocean to
the San Gabriel Mountains.
Public Meetings and Comment Period re "State Route 22/West
Orange County Connection Draft Environmental Impact Report
and Environmental Impact Statement":
OCTA and Caltrans have released the "State Route 22/West Orange County Connection
Draft Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Impact Statement" (DEIR/EIS)
relative to the proposed project, dated August 2001. A copy of the "State Route 22/West
Orange County Connection Draft Environmental Impact Report and Environmental
Impact Statement" is available at the Department of Development Services and the Office
of the City Clerk at City Hall. Hard copies are available at the Los Alamitos/Rossmoor
Library, Mary Wilson Library, and Leisure World Library within Seal Beach and the
Garden Grove Regional Library. In addition, a PDF version is available at the Caltmas
website at www.dot.ca.eov /distl2, along with an on -line continent form and additional
information regarding the Draft EIR/EIS. A link to the Caltrans website is provided on the •
City's Web Page at www.ci.seal- beach.ca.us.
DEIR -EIS Review.CC stiff Report
City Council Staff Report re:
Consideration of Comment Letter re:
State Route 211West Orange County Connector
• Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
October 22, 2001
Public Comment Period:
The public comment period on the DERVEIS is August 31 to October 30, 2001. Written
comments will be accepted on the document until 5:00 P.M., October 30. A comment form
is available at the Caltrans website at www.dot.ca.aov /distl2. Comments may also be
submitted by mail to:
Caltrans District 12 Orange County
Attention: Division of Planning
c/o Leslie Manderscheid
3337 Michaelson Drive, Suite 380
Irvine, CA 92612 -8894
Communitv Presentation:
A Community Presentation was conducted in the City Council Chambers on Tuesday,
September 18 at 7:00 P.M. to allow city staff to present a presentation of the project and the
• project alternatives. This community presentation focused on the overall project, with an
emphasis as to impacts directly affecting the City of Seal Beach and on providing
information regarding the EIR/EIS public review time period and the following decision
process by Caltrans and OCTA.
Public Hearines:
Two public hearings were be held by Caltrans to afford interested p e opportunity to�i
l \�
learn of the proposed project. Mayor Bill Doane, Councilperso Path Campbell, City
Manger John Bahorski and Director of Development Services Lee ent eig- attended on
behalf of the City and provided written comments to Caltrans. Copies of those written
comments are provided as Attachment 4 for the information of the City Council.
Upon the close of the public comment period, Caltrans will prepare a "Response to
Comments" document and the Final EII2/EIS, or a re- circulated DEIIUEIS or a
Supplemental DEIIUEIS will be prepared. Upon completion of those documents Caltrans
and OCFA will schedule additional hearings to consider adoption of the Final EIR/EIS and
take an action to approve or disapprove the project or a project alternative.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Caltrans has identified a direct and ongoing fiscal impact of $11,333.00 per year. This is
• a projected loss of property tax revenues due to the potential acquisition of six homes
within the community. That property tax loss would continue indefinitely as the homes
DEIR -EIS Review.CC Smff Re n
City Council Staff Report re:
Consideration of Comment Letter re:
State Route 111West Orange County Connector
Draft Environmental Impact Report /Environmental Impact Statement •
October 22, 2001
would no longer exist. This loss of revenue over time becomes a significant issue to the
City. ° o
In addition, the project as proposed also would require either a partial or full acquisition
of City-owned property where the Beverly Manor Reservoir/Well/Booster Station, city
maintenance buildings, a CNG fueling station and several wireless communication
towers are located. A partial acquisition could adversely impact the CNG fueling station,
city maintenance building and the wireless communication towers, resulting in a loss of
property lease revenues from the wireless communication towers and costs to relocate the
CNG fueling facility and maintenance building. Fiscal impacts to the Beverly Manor
Reservoir/Well/Booster Station are uncertain under the partial acquisition scenario.
Under the full acquisition scenario substantial fiscal and water system operation impacts
will occur. Beverly Manor Reservoir has a storage capacity of 4 million gallons of water
and serves as the primary domestic water storage facility within the City. The Beverly
Manor Well and Booster Station facilities would also be adversely impacted under a full
acquisition. Any acquisition of these facilifies would require replacement of comparable
facilities and the initiation of the operations of those facilities prior to any removal of the
existing facilities. If this did not occur, water service to major portions of the community
would be severely disrupted.
Requested Budget Amendment:
On September 10 the City Council authorized up to $12,500.00 for EIR Consultant
Services to assist staff in reviewing the subject DEIR/EIS and preparing a draft comment
letter for EQCB and City Council review and approval. Those funds have been
encumbered by Environmental Impact Sciences. In addition, Zimmerman Engineering
has developed several design alternatives to eliminate impacts to the homes in College
Park East. An additional $6,500.00 is now requested for the work being performed by
Zimmerman Engineering. Funds are available in the General Fund Balance and will be
spent out of the Planning Departments contract professional services account. The
current Undesignated General Fund balance is $2,292,500.00. If approved, the
Undesignated General Fund balance will be $2,286,000.00. Staff has prepared the
appropriate resolution and it is provided as Attachment 6.
RECOMMENDATION:
❑ Authorize the Mayor to sign the draft comment letter after final review and approval of
any modifications by the City Council
❑ Authorize members of the City Council to provide any additional separate comments
directly to Caltrans with a copy to the Director of Development Services.
❑ Adopt Resolution No. , A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Seal •
Beach Authorizing Budget Amendments for the 2001 -2002 Fiscal Year.
DEER-EIS Revme .CC Smff Report 10
City Council Staff Report re:
Consideration of Comment Letter re:
State Route 22 1West Orange County Connector
• Draft Environmental Impact ReportlEmdronmemal Impact Statement
October 22, 2001
❑ Receive and File the Staff Report
° ❑ Instruct staff to forward copies of approved comrnAt letter to Planning Commission and
Environmental Quality Control Board
i
Attachments: (6)
Attachment 1: Draft Comment Letter re: "Draft Environmental Impact
Report and Environmental Impact Statement (SCH
98064001), State Route 22/West Orange County
Connection"
Attachment 2: "State Route 22/West Orange County Connection Draft
Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Impact
Statement", dated August 2001
Note: Complete document previously provided to City
Council, not provided due to length. It is available for review
at: the Los Alamitos/Rossmoor Library, Mary Wilson
Library, and Leisure World Library within Seal Beach; the
Office of the City Clerk; and the Development Services
Department. In addition, a PDF version is available at the
Caltrans website at www.dot.ca.gov /distl2, along with an
on -line comment form and additional information regarding
the Draft EIRIEIS. A link to the Caltrans website is provided
on the City's Web Page at www.ci.seal- beach.ca.us.
Attachment 3: "Briefing Book — State Route 22 West Orange County
Connection'; Caltrans and OCTA, dated August 30, 2001
Note: Complete document previously provided to City
Council, not provided due to length
•
DEtR -EIS Rwi..CC Stiff R pon I I
City Council Staff Report re:
Consideration of Comment Letter re:
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connector
Draft Environmental Impact ReportlEnvironmental Impact Statement
October 22, 2001
Attachment 4: Public Comment Forms submitted at Caltrans September
° 26, 2001 Public Hearing. Comments submitted by Mayor
Doane, Councilperson Campbell, City Manager Bahorsld
and Director of Development Services Whittenberg
Attachment 5: City. of Seal Beach Comment Letter to Orange County
Transportation Authority re: Notice of Initiation of Studies
— SR -22 and I-405 Improvements, letter dated June 22,
1998
Attachment 6: Resolution No. � A Resolution of the City Council of
the City of Seal Beach Authorizing Budget Amendments for
the 2001 -2002 Fiscal Year
13
•
DEIR -EIS R i..CC Spa Repon 12
City Council Staff Report re:
Consideration of Comment Letter re:
• State Route 221West Orange County Connector
Draft Environmental Impact ReportJEnvironmental Impact Statement
October 22, 2001
•
n
lJ
ATTACHMENT 1
DRAFT' COMMENT LETTER RE: "DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
(SCH 98064001), STATE ROUTE 221WEST
ORANGE COUNTY CONNECTION"
DEIR -EIS Revim.0 Stafrlt pm 13
•
0
October 22, 2001
Caltrans District 12 Orange County
Attention: Division of Planning
c/o Leslie Manderscheid
3337 Michaelson Drive, Suite 380
Irvine, CA 92612 -8894
SUBJECT: CITY OF SEAL BEACH COMMENTS RE: "DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (FHWA -EIS-
CA- 01- 04 -D /SCH 98064001), STATE ROUTE 22 EST
ORANGE COUNTY CONNECTION"
• kYP
Dear Ms. Manderscheid:
The Environmental Quality, ntrol Board an EN cil of the City of Seal
Beach have reviewed the entire DEIR/EIS document refererr'ce'.d above. The Environmental
Quality Control Board (EQCB) considered and discussed the subject document on October
18, 2001. The EQCB authorized the Chairman to sign this letter indicating the official
comments of the EQCB of the City of Seal Beach. The City Council considered and
discussed the subject document on October 22,:2001. The City Council authorized the
Mayor to sign this letter indicating the official comments of the City of Seal Beach.
The City's review of the DEIR/DEIS is undertaken, in part, in accordance with
and in furtherance of the requirements of the "City of Seal Beach General Plan" (General
Plan). As indicated in the City's Housing Element Program Implementation Review,"
the City shall "review all land use changes for impacts on community facilities and
services" (General Plan, Housing Element, p. 69). More specifically, the Housing
Element directs the City to "encourage the maintenance and rehabilitation of existing
owner-occupied and rental housing where feasible" (General Plan, Housing Element,
Policy, p. 58). The proposed destruction of six or more housing units within Seal Beach
and the public acquisition of additional properties within the City, as required for the
proposed State Route 22/West Orange County Connection (SR22/WOCC) project,
• appears inconsistent with a number of major policies found in the Seal Beach General
Plan.
C:Wy Docu=nm \SR -22 DEIR - EIS \City Commmt Lmmdoc \LW 104M
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
State Route 22IWest Orange County Connector
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
October 22, 2001
The City will not support and will adamantly oppose the planned destruction of
homes within the City and the displacement of those families that now call Seal Beach
"home." From the perspective of residential displacement, both the "Full Build
Alternative" and the "Reduced Build Alternative" result in the same loss of existing
housing inventory in Seal Beach (see Table 4.6 -3, p. 4.6 -11 and Table 4.6 -7, p. 4.6 -19).
As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS: "It is important to note that a Reduced Build Alternative
was added to the original proposed project then known as the Build Alternative. This
alternative was included to minimize right -of -way and environmental impacts" (pp. 8 -8
and 8 -9). Based on that statement, there exists no reason that additional alternatives
could not also be formulated to further "minimize right -of -way and environmental
impacts," including the avoidance of impacts upon the six or more homes designed for
destruction in Seal Beach.
To the extent that the City's concerns remain unheeded and the two `build"
project alternatives remains unaltered or new right -of -way alignment and/or design
alternatives added and identified as the "preferred project "`by the Lead Agencies the
comments presented herein, as well as such other comments as may be submitted by the
City, its constituents, and others under separate cover, will be used as basis for the
City's pursuit of other remedies as established under law. We request that specific
written responses be provided to each of the City's comments, that the comments and
your responses be made a part of the Final 'EIR/EIS document and the record of this
proceeding. More fundamentally, the.. City of Seal Beach strongly requests that OCTA,
Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration give the warranted attention to our
comments and revise the document and the project accordingly..
In submitting the following comments, the City: is not asserting its overall
opposition to the proposed SR221W0CC project but seeks to forcefully convey to the
FHWA, toCaltrans, and to other cooperating and responsible agencies, including the
Orange County Transportation Authority(OCTA), that the impacts associated with the
project on Seal Beach and its residents are clearly unacceptable to the City. As a result,
the two "build" project alternatives; presently outlined in the DEIR/DEIS (i.e., "Full Build
Alternative" and "Reduced Build Alternative") are not acceptable and most be modified
to avoid or substantially lessen those direct and indirect impacts upon this community. If
so modified, either through a realignment of the proposed right -of -way and/or through
the identification of an additional. "build" alternative, the City believes that it can support
a modified or alternative transportation improvement project.
l.IL
•
The City, however, believes that feasible solutions exist that would reduce
project- related impacts upon the human environment to an acceptable level. If a
cooperative environment; in fact, exists between the project sponsors and the project's
other stakeholders, such that the "build" project is subsequently modified or another
alternative formulated in response to the City's concerns, Seal Beach is prepared to
support a `build" project scenario and provide whatever coordination and cooperation
may be needed to facilitate the proposed improvements to the SR -22 Freeway. The •
following comments, including the comments provided within the attachments to this
City Commrnt later
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re.,
State Route 22IWest Orange County Connector
• Drat Environmental Impact ReporilEnvironmemal Impact Statement
October 11,1001
cover letter, are intended to move the FHWA, Caltrans, and OCTA away from their
current "build" project description to one that both fulfills those agencies' objectives
while eliminating unacceptable impacts upon Seal Beach.
City Comment Letter
As indicated in Section 21082.2(a) and (e) of CEQA, statements in an
environmental impact report (EIR) "shall not be deemed determinative of whether the
project may have a significant effect on the environment," rather "the lead agency shall
determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment based on
substantial evidence in light of the whole record." As evidenced, in part, by these
comments, the City does not believe that the document's authors' adequately assessed
and disclosed the project's potential impacts on this community. Amongst its failings,
the document's threshold standards (against which impacts are evaluated) ignore the
project's context, suggesting that significant local impacts (e.g., destruction of homes) do
not constitute an impact worthy of mitigation, such as the consideration of other possible
alternatives (e.g., design changes, alternative alignments) that could avoid or substantially "
lessen those impacts.
In accordance with NEPA, all "federal agencies shall to the fullest extent
possible: Use all practicable means consistent with the requirements of the Act [NEPA]
and other essential considerations of national policy, to restore and enhance the quality of
the human environment and avoid or minimize any possible adverse effects of their
•
actions on the quality of the human environment" (40 CFR 1500.2[fj). The need to avoid
impacts upon the City's human environment is, therefore, of paramount importance to all
parties.
Additional: potential project - induced impacts to existing public facilities within
Seal Beach, including`. direct or indirect impacts, are not even addressed in the
DEIR/DEIS and constitute a substantive defect with the project's environmental analysis.
Those Gaistiag public facilities include: `-
The 4- million gallon Beverly Manoi'„eservoir
Existing compressed natural gas (CNG) fueling facilities"
.. City storage building, and <..
❑ ' 'Cellular communication towers.
Additional project - related and cumulative impacts to the City include, but may
not be limited to: "
rF
• Aesthetic impacts 'of sound walls upon the College Park East residential
community and park facilities, including the Old Ranch Tennis Club
• Aesthetic impacts upon the residential areas of College Park East, Leisure
' World, and Rossmoor associated with the elevated, high- occupancy vehicle
(HOV) connectors
• Noise impacts resulting from the realignment of travel lanes, including noise
•
impacts resulting from the construction of elevated HOV connectors
❑ Light and glare impacts associated with the realigned travel lanes and the
elevated HOV connectors
City Comment Letter
City of Sea[ Beach Comment Letter re:
State Route 221wat Orange County Connector
Dmft Environmental Impact Reporr/Envlmnmental Impact Statement
October 22, 2001 •
Potential phasing issues in the design and construction of the Seal Beach
Boulevard overpass at the San Diego (I -405) Freeway; and
Potential impacts to City pump stations and water reservoir facilities adjacent e
to the Garden Grove (SR -22) and I -405 Freeway.
By referencing the above issues, Seal Beach is neither stating that other
environmental concerns are not of equal importance to the City nor that the City accepts
the analysis and preliminary findings of the Lead Agencies with regards to the other
topical issues addressed or not addressed in the DEIR/DEIS.
The comments presented herein are intended to convey, in the most forceful of .
fashions, the City's environmental concerns, primarily as they relate to impacts on the
human environment. It is not the responsibility of the commenter to "dot every `i' and
cross every 't "' with regards to a document that it has scant time to review and limited
resources to allocate. The following comments, provided as attachments to this cover
letter, we more synoptic in nature and not as inclusive as greater . time and resources.''
would allow.
Identification of Additional Alternatives:. ="y In order to preserve the City's rights under NEPA and CEQA, the City submits
the following additional comments to the Lead Agencies, asserting its potential status as a
cooperating and/or responsible agency.
Based on a review of the DEIR/DEIS, as well as the City's own independent
alternatives analysis, a number of additional alternatives have been identified by the City
that have not been addressed by the Lead Agencies. The City's independent technical
analysis, suggests that implementation of one or more of the following alternatives would
avoid or '.reduce one or more of the project's potential significant impacts upon Seal
Beach. Since these alternatives are not now addressed in the DEIR/DEIS, the City
requests that the Lead Agencies augment the DEIRIDEIS to include and provide a
thorough assessment of the following additional alternatives.
❑ "Realignment of Proposed Project — Revised Design Criteria"
Alternative. The City has conducted preliminary design investigations
that focus on developing a realignment alternative to the Caltrans
proposed project from SR -22 to 1-405. From our limited assessment, it
has been determined that the project could be realigned to the south with
no impacts to College Park East. Further, the alternative project can be
accomplished within Caltrans right -of -way, i.e., no additional right -of -way
required for the project on the southerly side that would impact the Seal
Beach Naval Weapo The alternative alignment considered
pinch points at Primro M the Navy property line on the south for •
the southbound SR 22 ramp. -
City commmt Letter
City of Sea( Beach Comment Letter re:
State Route 22/West Orange County Connector
Draft Environmental Impact ReportlEnvironmental Impact Statement
• October 22, 2001
The alternative alignment shifted the freeway to south approximately 3.6
meters. This proposed realignment will miss the existing sound wall along
Almondlvenue. The project specifics are as follows:
e
❑ SR -22 westbound to 1-405 northbound — increase control line radius to
1,215 meters with a longer curve length.
❑ I -405 northbound at SR -22 westbound — increase control line radius to
703.6 meters with a longer curve length.
❑ I -405 northbound between stations 104 +00 to 105 +40 - add a 1,000
meter curve.
❑ The HOV connector is shifted to the south approximately 3.6 meters.
An 844 meter curve is provided at station 107 +40.
❑ I -405 southbound - a 1,040 meter curve is added between stations
104 +00 to 107 +40.
❑ I -405 southbound between stations 107 +40 to 109 +00 - add an 844
meter radius curve.
c3 1405 southbound to SR -22 eastbound — the v'ramp configuration
remains the same with the exception of adt in a 610 meter curve at
station 109 +30.
�r
I
This alignment alternative meets the design criteria set for the project
• ❑ "Preservation of Existing Homes and Reconfiguration of Local Street
System" Alternative. As required under 23 CFR 7I0.509(a), "when
publicly owned real property, including land and/or facilities, is to be
acquired for a federal -aid highway project; in lieu of paying the fair
market value for the real property, the State may provide compensation by
functionally replacing the publicly, owned real property with another
facility which will provide equivalent utility.. Federal and/or State right -
of -way acquisition efforts within Seal Beach, as required for the
SR22/W0CC project, would involve the acquisition of portions of one or
more local streets within the City.
er this alternative, in lieu of the demolition of existing single - family
units in the City, the Lead Agencies would undertake the reconfiguration
of affected roadways so as to allow the retention of existing homes in Seal
Beach. Under this alternative, a portion of the Almond Street right -of-
way, east of Almond Park, may need to be modified, parking restrictions
established, and /or the road converted to a one -way street. As a
component of this alternative or as a separate alternative, reduced freeway
lane widths should be considered to reduce 'future right -of -way
requirements.
• Design plans would need to be formulated to determine the feasibility and
functionality of this design concept. This design alternative would,
City Comment lcaer
City of Sea/ Beach Comment Letter re.
State Route 22/West Orange County Connector
Draft Environmental Impact ReportlEnvironmental Impact Statement
October 11, 2001 •
however, constitute "functional replacement" within the meaning of the
Code of Federal Regulations.
❑ "Southerly Alignment through the Seal Beach Naval Weapons
Station' Alternative. Although impacts on Seal Beach residents we
virtually ignored in the DEIR/DEIS, if the information and analysis
applied to different areas were equally applied to the City, a number of
significant project - related impacts would be identified (e.g., displacement
and loss of neighborhood cohesion). As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS, "the
Naval Weapons Base planning district makes up the entire area south of I-
405/SR-22, between Seal Beach Boulevard and Old Bolsa Chica Road" (p.
3.6 -6). The existing use of that area is indicated as "prime farmland" (p.
3.6 -11). Since no source is cited for that statement, it is not possible to
determine whether the existing agricultural uses now evident within the
USNWS is "prime farmland" or merely allocated for an agricultural use
While acknowledging the loss of "prime farmlands" may constitute a
significant environmental effect under CEQ.A`, under'this alternative only a
narrow band of existing agricultural use�would be directly affected. This
incremental reduction to a sensitive resource would likely constitute a
lesser environmental impact that the destruction of six or more homes in
Seal Beach and either the temporary or permanent displacement of their
occupants.
Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any analysis of or explanation for the Lead
Agencies' failure to consider an alternative right -of- -way alignment that
would involve federal lands within the USNWS. The City believes that by
realigning the proposed improvements to shift the expanded right -of -way
southward, not only would impacts on the City be reduced but additional
right -of -way could be preserved for the future expansion of the I -405
Freeway, identified as a "Post 2020 Long -Range Corridor. "'
=`fit„
As 'authorized under 23 CFR 710.601, "federal land transfers" are
authorized through the submission of an application to a federal land
owning agency, such as the United States Department of the Navy (DON).
Applications under this section shall include the following information:(1)
the purpose for which the lands we to be used; (2) the estate or interest in
the land required for the project; (3) the federal-aid project number or
other appropriate references; (4) the name of the federal agency exercising
jurisdiction over the land' and identity of the installation or activity in
possession of the land; (5) a map showing the survey of the lands to be
acquired; (6) a legal description of the lands desired; and (7) a statement
of compliance with NEPA and any other applicable federal environmental •
laws, including the National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470[fJ),
and 23 USC 135. Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is either any reference to
City Comment I ter
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connector
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
• October 22, 2001
these provisions or evidence of the Lead Agencies discussions with the
DON (see Chapter 11.0, pp. 11 -1 through 11 -2) with regards to the
allocation of lands within the USNWS for right -of -way purposes. ,
The DEIR/DEIS should, therefore, be expanded to include a more
southerly alignment through the USNWS. Although dealing with the
DON is probably more difficult that dealing with the City, political
expediency does not constitute a supportable basis for ignoring a viable
alternative whose implementation has the possibility of` avoiding or
substantially reducing the potential impacts associated with the "build"
alternatives now addressed in the DEIR/DEIS. of
Identification of the City's Preferred Project Alternative
As indicated in the Council of Environmental Qualigs'�CEQ) Forty Questions,
"if each agency has its own "preferred alternative," both can be identified in the EIS"
(CEQ Forty Questions, Question 14[b]). In accordance therewith, subject to its inclusion
in the DEIR/DEIS and the Lead Agencies preparation of more detailed environmental
review therein, the City identifies the "Realignment of Proposed Project -. Revised
Design Criteria" Alternative as the City's `preferred alternative." Implementation of
• that alternative would likely result in the retention of all single family residential units
located within Seal Beach that are now identified for displacement in the DEIR/DEIS and
that may be displaced in the future as ''a result of the future expansion of the 1-405
Freeways.
Since nothing even approximating this alternative has been identified by the Lead
Agencies and either rejected from or included in the DEIR/DEIS, the project's
environmental documentation needs to be augmented, re- circulated, or supplemented to
include a comparable evaluation of this alternative.
The City would like to extend its appreciation to the Lead Agencies for the
opportunity to participate in the NEPA and CEQA process. We look forward to an
opportumtyffor a constructive dialogue with regards to the items raised herein.
Prior to the release of the final NEPA/CEQA document, the recirculation of the
DEIRMEIS, and/or the preparation of a supplemental analysis, representatives of the
City would like to meet with representatives of FHWA, Caltrans, and the OCTA to
discuss the items and issues raised both in these comments and as may be submitted
under separate cover. The City believes that such a meeting may prove beneficial in
resolving'the issues of concern to the City and its constituents.
Please contact Mr. John Bahorski, City Manager or Mr. Lee Whittenberg, Director
of Development Services, City Hall, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, 90740 if you have
• questions concerning this. Mr. Bahorski can be reached at (562) 431 -2527, extension 300
and Mr. Whittenberg can be reached at (562) 431 -2527, extension 313.
Ciry Comment L r
City of Sea! Beach Comment Letter re:
State Route 22/6'eat Orange County Connector
Draft Environmental bnpact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
October 22, 1001 •
Sincerely,
William J. Doane Joseph Potter III, Chairman
Mayor Environmental Quality Control Board
City of Seal Beach City of Seal Beach
Attachments: (2)
Enclosure A:
Enclosure B:
City of Seal Beach Comments - Draft Environmental Impact
Report and Environmental Impact Statement, State Route
22/West Orange County Connection:'— FHW'A- EIS -CA -01
04 -D /SCH No. 980604001, submitted by City of Seal Beach,
Office of City Manager, dated October 2001
City of Seal Beach Supplemental Comments — Draft
Environmental Impact Repoli. and Environmental Impact
Statement, State Route 22/West Orange County Connection
— FHWA- EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D /SCH No. 980604001, submitted
by City of Seal Beach, Department of Development Services,
dated October 8, 2001
City Commav Uner
Seal Beach Planning Commission
Director of Development Services
n
•
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
State Route 221West Orange County Connector
• Drafi Environmental Impact ReportlEnWronmental Impact Statement
October 22, 2001
•
•
ENCLOSURE A
CITY OF SEAL BEACH COMMENTS -
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT, STATE ROUTE 22/WEST
ORANGE COUNTY CONNECTION - FHWA-
EIS-CA-01-04-D/SCH NO. 980604001,
SUBMITTED BY CITY OF SEAL BEACH,`,
OFFICE OF CITY MANAGER, DATED
OCTOBER 2001
Ciry Comment Lear, 9
"I'm
e
El
rI
qw CITY OF SEAL BEACH
C COMMENTS,
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
STATE ROUTE 22 /WEST ORANGE
COUNTY CONNECTION
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01- 04 -D /SCH NO. 980604001
Submitted to
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Attn: Michael G. Ritchie, Division Administrator
980 Ninth Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, California 95814 -2724
(916) 498 -5038
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DISTRICT 12
Attn: Cindy Quon, District Director
3347 Michaelson Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, California 92612 -8894
(949) 724 -2089
Submitted by:
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Attn: John Bahorski, City Manager
211 Eight Street
Seal Beach, California 90740
• (562) 431 -2527
October 2001
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
• Table of Contents
Section Page
a 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUBMISSION OF COMMENTS 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Submission of Comments 3
2.0 AUTHORITY TO COMMENT -. 6
s`
„.
3.0 GENERAL COMMENTS 7
3.1 Evidence of the Lead Agencies' Predetermination and Lack of Objectivity 7
3.2 Failure to Make Critical Documents Available for Public and Agency Review.. 8
3.3 Failure to Represent the DEIR/DEIS as a'Tiered' Environmental Document
3.4 Failure to Provide an Adequate Description of the Alternatives under `s
Consideration j 5
3.5 Failure to Identify the 'Preferred Project" Despite. its Obvious Existence 19
3.6 Lack of Comparable Alternatives Analysis 22
3.7 Failure to Present a Reasonable Range. of Project Alternatives 22
3.8 Failure to Consider other Alternative: Alignments and Rights -of -Way ,Fe 26
• 3.9 Failure to Consider other Alternative" Project Designs 28 -
3.10 Selection of Wrong Horizon Year Prevents Long -Range Planning and Analysis 30
3.11 Failure to Consider the 'Whole of the Action" 35
3.12 Project Fragmentation/Segregation Limits Analysis and the Range of Alternatives 36
3.13 Failure of the Lead Agencies to Take a "Hard Look" at Environmental
Consequences `�.-- _.,� _" 40
3.14 Failure to Provide Comprehensive Environmental Analysis 41
3.15 Failure to Consider Indirect and Secondary Impacts 42
3.16 Failure to Adequately Evaluate Cumulative Impacts 44
3.17 Implementation may Foreclose Other Transportation Options under Consideration 49
3.18 Failure to Disclose Location: of and impacts from Construction Staging Areas 50
3.19 Failure to Determine Consistency with Applicable General and Regional Plans 51
3.20 Failure to Formulate a Reasonable Set of Threshold of Significance Criteria 57
3.21 Identified Threshold Criteria Lack Measurability 63
3.22 Failure to Formulate Reasonable Mitigation Measures 64
3.23 Reliance on Mitigation Measures of Unknown Efficacy 66
3.24 Compliance with Standard Practices not Legitimate Thresholds or Mitigation 68
3.25 Presentation of Erroneous and Illusory Mitigation Measures 71
3.26 Deferral of Technical Analysis and Mitigation Violates NEPA/CEQA Requirements 75
3.27 Failure to Examine Secondary Impacts 77
3.28 All Mitigation Measures and Analysis must Originate from the Lead Agencies 79
3.29 Monitoring Plans have not been Presented Demonstrating the Manner of
Compliance 79
• 3.30 Recirculation and/or Preparation of a Supplement to the DEIR/DEIS Required 80
State Route 22/west Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page i
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS - A- 01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
Table of Contents (Continued)
Section Page
e e
4.0 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT /ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 83
4.1
Summary
83
4.2
Purpose and Need
85
4.3
Alternatives
87
4.4
Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures
1.°
88
4.4.1 Community Impact Assessment"'
'-
91
4.4.2 Noise
93
4.4.3 Utilities
98
4.4.4 Visual Resources
99
5.0 COOPERATING /RESPONSIBLE AGENCY OBLIGATIONS AND
OPPORTUNITIES `
105
5.7
Identifiratinn of Additional Alternatives
106
6.0
108
108
Slate Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page ii
•
C J
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
• 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUBMISSION OF COMMENTS
1.1 Introduction
In response to the City of Seal Beach's (City or Seal Beach) review of the "Draft Environmental
Impact Report and Environmental Impact Statement - State Route 22AVest Orange County
Connection, FHWA - EIS- CA- 01- 04 -D/SCH No. 980604001," dated August 2001 (DEIR/DEIS or
DER/EIS), the City hereby submits the following comments to the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) and to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in those agencies joint role
as "lead agency" under the National Environmental Policy Act (NFPA) and California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). The City requests that the lead agencies provide written responses to these
comments as required by CEQA, and that the comments and responses become apart of the Final
EIR/EIS for this project. In many cases, as indicated below:., adequate responses to the City's
comments will necessitate substantial revisions to, and recirculation of, the DEIR/EIS.
The City's review of the DEIR/DEIS is undertaken, in part, in accordance with and in furtherance of
the requirements of the "City of Seal Beach General Plan" (General Plan)- As Indicated in the City's
"Housing Element Program Implementation Review," the City shall "review all land use changes for
impacts on community facilities and services" (General Plan, Housing Element, F. 69). More
specifically, the Housing Element directs the City to "encourage the maintenance and rehabilitation
of existing owner-occupied and rental housing where feasible" (General Plan, Housing Element,
Policy, p. 58). The proposed destruction of six ormore housing units within Seal Beach and the
• public acquisition of additional properties within the City, as required for the proposed State Route
22/West Orange County Connection (SR22ANOCC) project, appears inconsistent with a number of
major policies found in the Seal Beach General Plan.
Project- induced impacts to existing public facilities within. Seal Beach, including direct or indirect
impacts to the 4- million gallon Beverly Manor Reservoir, existing compressed natural gas (CNG)
fueling facilities, City storage building, and cellular communication towers, are not even addressed
in the DEIR/DEIS and constitute a substantive defect with the project's environmental analysis.
.Additional project - related and cumulative impacts to:. eCity include, but may not be limited to: (1)
aesthetic impacts of sound walls upon the College Park East residential community and park
facilities, including the Old Ranch Tennis Club; (2) aesthetic impacts upon the residential areas of
College Park West, College Park East, Leisure World, and Rossmoor associated with the elevated,
high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) connectors; (3) noise impacts resulting from the realignment of
travel lanes, including noise impacts resulting from the construction of elevated HOV connectors;
(4) light and glare . impacts associated with the realigned travel lanes and the elevated HOV
connectors; (5) potential phasing issues in the design and construction of the Seal Beach Boulevard
overpass at the San Diego (1 -405) Freeway; and (6) potential impacts to City pump stations, water
reservoir, and other utility facilities adjacent to the Garden Grove (SR -22) and 1 -405 Freeway. By
referencing the above issues' Seal Beach is neither stating that other environmental concerns are
not of equal importance to the City nor that the City accepts the analysis and preliminary findings
of the lead agencies with regards to the other topical issues addressed or not addressed in the
DEIR/DEIS.
• In submitting the following comments, the City is not asserting its overall opposition to the
proposed SR22AVOCC project but seeks to forcefully convey to the FHWA, to Caltrans, and to
Stale Route 22lWest Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 1
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EIS -CA- 01-04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
other cooperating and responsible agencies, including the Orange County Transportation Authority - •
(OCTA), that the impacts associated with the project on Seal Beach and its residents are clearly
unacceptable to the City. As a result, the two 'build' project alternatives presently outlined in the
DEIR/DEIS (iiie., 'Full Build Alternative' and 'Reduced Build Altern live') are not acceptable and
must be modified to avoid or substantially lessen those direct al indirect impacts upon this
community. If so modified, either through a realignment of the proposed right -of -way and /or
through the identification of an additional 'build' alternative, the City believes that it can support a
modified or alternative transportation improvement project.
The comments presented herein are intended to convey, in the most forceful of fashions, the City's
environmental concerns, primarily as they relate to impacts on the human environment. It is not
the responsibility of the commentator to 'dot every 'i' and cross every 't'" with regards to a
document that it has scant time to review and limited resources to allocate- The following
comments are, therefore, more synoptic in nature and not as inclusive as would greater time and
resources would allow.
As indicated in Section 21082.2(x) and (e) of CEQA, statements in an environmental impact report
(EIR)'shall not be deemed determinative of whether the project may have a significant effect on the
environment,' rather 'the lead agency shall determine whether . a project may have a significant
effect on the environment based on substantial evidence in light of the whole record.' As
evidenced, in part, by these comments, the City does not believe that the document's authors'
adequately assessed and disclosed the project's potential impacts on this community. Amongst its
failings, the project proponents' threshold standards (against which impacts are evaluated) ignore •
the project's context, suggesting that significant local impacts (e.g., destructioeof homes) does not
constitute an impact worthy of mitigation, such as the consideration of other possible alternatives
(e.g., design changes, alternative alignments) that could avoid or substantially lessen those impacts.
In accordance with NEPA,. all 'federal . agencies shall to the fullest extent possible: Use all
practicable means consistent with the requirements of the [National Environmental Policy] Act and
other essential considerations of nation policy, to restore and enhance the quality of the human
environment and avoid or minimize any possible adverse effects of their actions on the quality of
the human. environment' (40 CFR 1500.2[rj). The need to avoid impacts upon the City's human
environment is, therefore, of paramount importance to all parties.
The Gty will not support and will adamantly oppose the planned destruction of homes within the
City and the displacement of those families that now call Seal Beach 'home.' From the perspective
of residential displacement, both the "Full Build Alternative' and the 'Reduced Build Alternative'
result in the same loss to the existing housing inventory in Seal Beach (see Table 4.6-3, p. 4.6-11
and Table 4.6 -7, p. 4.619). As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS: 'It is important to note that a Reduced
Build Alternative was added to the original proposed project then known as the Build Alternative.
This alternative was included to minimize right-of-way and environmental impacts' (pp. 8 -8 and 8-
9). Based on that statement, there exists no reason that additional alternatives could not also be
formulated to further 'minimize right-of-way and environmental impacts,' including the avoidance
of impacts upon the six or more homes designed for destruction in Seal Beach.
As described more fully below, the two 'build' project alternatives must be altered dramatically. A
new right -of -way alignment and/or design alternatives that do not adversely and disproportionately •
effect the citizens of Seal Beach must be explored by the lead agencies. To the extent that the
Stale Route 221West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 2
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- E[5- CA -01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
• City's concerns remain unheeded and the two "build" project alternatives remain unaltered, the
comments presented herein, as well as such other comments as may be submitted by the City, its
constituents, and others under separate cover, will be used as a basis for the City's pursuit of other
remedies as established under law.
The City, however, believes that feasible solutions exist that would reduce project- related impacts
upon the human environment to an acceptable level. If a cooperative environment, in fact, exists
between the project sponsors and the project's other stakeholders, such that the "build" project is
subsequently modified or another alternative formulated in response to the City's concerns, Seal
Beach is prepared to support a "build" project scenario and provide whatever coordination and
cooperation may be needed to facilitate the proposed improvements to the SR -22 Freeway. The
following comments are intended to move the FHWA, Caltrans,'and OCTA away from their current
"build" project description to one that fulfills those agencies' objectives while eliminating
unacceptable impacts upon Seal Beach.
1.2 Submission of Comments
The following comments are submitted to the FHWA (NEPA Lead Agency), to Caltrans (CEQA Lead
Agency), and to the OCTA by the City in response to the City's receipt and preliminary review of
the DEIR/DEIS. These comments are presented within the comment period established by the
NEPA Lead Agency and CEQA Lead Agency (Lead Agencies) for the receipt of comments on the
DEIR/DEIS and, by their submission, are intended to become part of the environmental review
• record (ERR) for the proposed SR22/W000 project. Any information contained in the ERR can be
used by Seal Beach or others should any judicial proceedings be brought against the Lead Agencies
with regard to their failures to fully comply with the analytical and disclosure provisions of NEPA
and CEQA.
As represented by the Lead .Agencies, the DEIR/DEIS has been prepared in compliance with the
provisions of CEQA, as codified in Section 20 et seq. in the Public Resources Code (PRC) and
NEPA, as codified in Title 42,: Section 4321 "et sett„ of the United States Codes (USC). As defined
under NEPA, the proposed SR22AVOCC project constitutes a "major federal action affecting the
quality of the human environment" (Section 102[2][C];. NEPA). A "major federal action" includes
actions with effects that may be major and are potentially subject to federal control and
responsibility, including projects and programs entirely or partially financed, assisted, conducted,
regulated, or approved by federal agencies;'
The basic tenet of NEPA is `to use all practical means and measures ...to create and maintain
conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social,
economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans" (Section 101[a],
NEPA). It is, therefore, the responsibility of the FWHA "to use all practical means" to 'assure for all
Americans safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings'
(Section 101 [b][2], NEPA). As further indicated in NEPA, federal agencies are required to consider
environmental values in decision making through the preparation of a "detailed statement" on
'major federal actions' and consider "alternatives to the proposed action" (Section 102[7][C][iii],
NEPA) designed to "avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human
• environment" (40 CFR 1502.1). When alternatives or other modifications are readily available that
would serve to eliminate or substantially reduce significant project- related impacts upon the
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 3
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA -01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
'human environment' (40 CFR 1508.14), NEPA directs public agencies to actively pursue those
alternatives.
Notwithstandingr the existence of other alternatives whose implementation would reduce or
eliminate one or more of the project's impacts upon Seal. Beach, the Lead Agencies have limited
the project's environmental analysis to only two "build" project scenarios producing comparable
impacts upon the City. The Lead Agencies failure to identify and consider other "build' alternatives
producing lesser impacts is, therefore, clearly inconsistent with the basic tenet of NEPA.
Similarly, as required under CEQA, "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' (Section 21002, CEQA) and "each
public agency shall mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment of projects that it
carries out or approves whenever it is feasible to do so' (Section 21002.1 [b], CEQA):. Since it is the
goal of the State that all public agencies regulate their actions 'so that major consideration is given
to preventing environmental damage' (Section 21000W, CEQA), . publicly sponsored development
projects (such as the SR221WOCC project) may, therefore, need to be constrained or otherwise
limited by the ability of those same public agencies to fully mitigate the environmental effects of
their own actions. As indicated herein, the Lead Agencies have the ability to accomplish the
project's objectives while avoiding significant impacts upon Seal Beach. The Lead. Agencies failure
to pursue those alternative actions constitutes a violation of CEQA.'
In addition to NEPA and CEQA, the DEIR/DEIS must conform to a number of other related •
documents, including the Council of Environmental Quality's (CEQ) "Regulations for Implementing
the Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act." (CEQ Regulations), codified in 40 CFR
Parts 1500 -1508 and established in response to Executive Order 11514 (March 5, 1970). Pursuant
to the CEQ Regulations, "agencies shall integrate the NEPA processs with other planning at the
earliest possible time to insure that planning and decisions reflect environmental values, to avoid
delays later in the process, and to head off potential conflicts" (40 CFR 1501.2). Prior to the release
of the DEIR/DEIS, Seal Beach received no prior notification that a number of existing residential
units within the City would be destroyed to accommodate the proposed improvements. If so
consulted, Seal Beach would have willingly worked with the Lead Agencies to formulate other
'build' project alternatives that would have avoided those disastrous impacts to the City's residents.
The Lead Agencies' failure to fully involve the City in the planning process only serves to
demonstrate those agencies' failure to comply with applicable environmental requirements, and
provides substantial evidence that the outcome of this decision - making process is pre - determined.
Specifically, Caltrans has failed to consult with the City as a public agency with transportation
facilities in its jurisdiction which could be affected by the project — such as major local arterials — in
violation of Public Resources Code Section 21092.4.
.X r
In addition to the CEQ Regulations, although not explicitly referenced in the DEIR/DEIS, the
following documents serve to define and establish specific requirements upon the Lead Agencies
with regards to the project's environmental documentation. As a result, the following documents
are cited herein and the statutory and regulatory requirements outlined therein constitute binding
obligations upon the Lead Agencies: (1) the FHWA's "Environmental Guidebook," dated October
1999 (FHWA Environmental Guidebook); (2) FHWA's Technical Advisory T6640.8A, "Guidance
for Preparation of Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents,' dated October 30, 1987 (FHWA
Technical Advisory T6640.8A); (3) Caltrans/California Transportation Commission's "Regulations
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 4
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA -01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
• for Implementing CEQA" (Caltrans/CTC CEQA Regulations), codified in Title 21, Division 2,
Chapter 11, Sections 1501 - 1512.3 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR); (4) Caltrans'
"Environmental Handbook, Volumes 1, 3, and 4," dated March 6, 1995, January 2000, and June
e 1997, respectively ( Caltrans Environmental e Handbook); (5) FHWA/Caltrans' "Joint Federal
Highway Administration California Division and California Department of Transportation 'Standard
Reference' of Federal Environmental Legislation Affecting Transportation and Guidance on
Preparing NEPA Documents and Section 40) Evaluations," dated January 1999 (Standard
Reference); and (6) the "Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act" (State CEQA
Guidelines), codified in Section 15000 et seq. in Title 14, Chapter 3, of the CCR. Additional
information concerning the SR22/WOCC project has been obtained from OCTA's "State Route 22
West Orange County Connection Briefing Book," dated August 30, 2001 (Briefing Book), as well as
from a number of other cited sources.
Although each of these documents is referenced extensively herein, unless otherwise noted, all
page references cited in these comments relate to information presented in the DEIR/DEIS. Page
references to other documents may reflect the corresponding page number found in documents.
'downloaded' from the Internet, which could differ from the original published text. Those and
other citations are presented for convenience only and any errors, exclusions, or misstatements in
those citations or in these comments are unintended and should not be used by the Lead Agencies
as a defensible rationale for avoiding the preparation of a detailed technical response to those
issues, comments, or inquires presented herein. Similarly, all such issues, comments, and inquires
should be interpreted as broadly as practical and reasonable to ensure the preparation of an
• adequate technical written response. In that context, although a comment or statement may be
presented in response to a specific item of information presented in the DEIR/DEIS, to the extent
that the comment or statement may also be relevant to other items or analyses contained therein,
the comment or statement should not be construed as relevant only to the item or analyses for
which the comment or statement is first presented. For brevity, each specific comment or statement
is not repeated with regprd -g Is application to other information contained in the DEIR/DEIS and
should be interpreted as broadly as reasonably`ssible.
h
Certain words extracted from other documents, which are capitalized or presented in lower case in
the cited text, have been modified herein. Such modifications, however, are not intended to
change the meaning or context of those words` but merely to provide internal consistency
throughout these comments or to facilitate placement of those excerpts into the context of the
specific comment.
Although each sentence herein may not be structured in the form of a specific question, each of the
statements presented in this document are intended to elicit a formal written response from the
Lead Agencies. Each sentence, statement, declaration, issue, or inquiry herein constitutes a specific
"substantive comment" on the 'DEIR/DEIS and, as such, requires a formal written response by the
Lead Agencies (e.g., 40 CFR 1503.4; Section 15088(a], State CEQA Guidelines). Similarly, all
references to the singular should also be interpreted to apply to the plural since specific. City
comments have or may have application to other statements in the DEIR/DEIS where those same
comments would be relevant. Also, specific words used herein are intended to have multiple
meanings. For example, because of their potential interrelationship, the terms 'alternatives' and
• "mitigation measures" are assumed to be interchangeable.
State Route 22,!Wesl Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 5
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA-01-04-D / SCH No. 98064001
"every
Under NEPA, as required under 23 CFR 771.125(a)(2), reasonable effort shall be made to
resolve interagency disagreements on actions before processing the final EIS." The City, therefore,
requests an opportunity to meet with representatives of the FHWA, Caltrans, and OCTA to more
thoroughly discuss the City's comments and concerns in order to seek information in response to
those comments and resolution of those concerns prior to the release of the "final EIS" and prior to
the finalization of the NEPA and CEQA process. Similarly, as required under 23 CFR 771.125(g),
"the final EIS shall be transmitted to any persons, organizations, or agencies that made substantive
comments on the draft EIS or requested a copy, no later than the time the document is filed with
EPA [United States Environmental Protection Agency]." In accordance therewith, the City requests
copies of not only the "final EIS" but also of all environmental notices and all related documents
associated therewith.
Under CEQA, the California Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that CEQA's procedures must be
"scrupulously followed," because CEQA's environmental review process "protects not only the
environment but also informed self - government" (Laurel Heights Improvement Association of San
Francisco, Inc. v. Regents of the University of California, 4-7 Cal3d 376, 392). The following..
comments are, therefore, submitted for the purpose of assisting the Lead Agencies in fulfilling the
legislative intent of NEPA and CEQA, are submitted to identify specific deficiencies with the
DEIR/DEIS that precludes the FHWA and Caltrans from taking any action on any of the "build"
project alternatives pending the resolution or correction of those defects, and seek to promote the
identification and selection of other possible "build ' .. project alternatives which will minimize or
avoid significant environmental effects on the City and its residents.
These comments are not intended to be inclusive of all comments submitted by the City but are
•
intended to augment both the City's previous written comments and other comments, whether
submitted by the City, its residents, or business community, on the DEWDEIS and on the
SR221WOCC project.
2.0 AUTHORITY TO COMMENT _.
In accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the following
comments are presented to the Lead Agencies pursuant to the authority provided to the City under
Sections 21000(e), 21003.1(a), 21082.1(6), 21092.4, and 21153 of CEQA and Sections 15044,
15084(c), 15086, 15096, 15201, and 15209 of the State CEQA Guidelines and applicable
provisions of the Caltrans/CTC CEQA', Regulations and Caltrans' Environmental Handbook. As
public agencies, the Lead Agencies are obligated under Section 21092.5(a) of CEQA to provide the
City with draft written responses to each of the comments raised or presented herein at least ten
days prior to any formal actions by the Lead Agencies on either the DEIR/DEIS or SR22/WOCC
project. Presentation of these and any additional comments that may be submitted under separate
cover seek to preserve the '.City's , rights under Section 21177 of CEQA should such rights need to be
subsequently exercised.
Upon receipt of the Lead Agencies' draft written responses to the City's comments, the City may
again elect to provide further written and/or oral comments to the Lead Agencies and requests that
any such additional comments be provided to the project's decision makers as part of their
deliberations and prior to any final action of the proposed project. •
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 6
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
• In accordance with the provisions of NEPA and the CEQ Regulations, the following comments are
presented to the Lead Agencies pursuant to the authority provided to the City under Section 102 of
NEPA and Sections 1500.1(b), 1500.2(6) and (d), 1501.1(b), 1501.2(d)(2), 1501.7(a), 1502.19,
e 1503.1, 1503.2, 1503.3, and 1508.5 of the CEQ Fegulations and applicable provisions of the
FHWA Environmental Guidebook. As required under Section 1503.4 of the CEQ Regulations, the
Lead Agencies are required to assess, consider, and respond to the comments raised by the City.
3.0 GENERAL COMMENTS
Presented in the following section are a number of 'general comments" based on information
presented in the DEIR/DEIS. While, for descriptive purposes, certain sections of the DEIR/DEIS may
be specifically referenced herein, the City's comments should not be perceived as limited to only
those document sections explicitly referenced but should be interpreted as applying or potentially
applying to other components of the Lead Agencies' analysis which relate to the specific comment
being raised. Although not presented in the form of a specific question, the City's comments are
clearly intended to elicit a formal written response from the Lead Agencies.
In interpreting these comments, the Lead Agencies should not seek to utilize the specific reference
or references cited as a reason or excuse for limiting the preparation of written responses to the
issues and concerns that have been raised. The Lead Agencies should offer as comprehensive a
response to the City's comments as may be possible.
• The sequence in which the following comments are presented should not be seen as any attempt
by the City at prioritization of these comments by the Lead Agencies. All comments should be
given equal 'weight and importance," notwithstanding where they may appear in the ERR.
3.1 Evidence of the Lead Agencies' Predetermination and Lack of Objectivity
As required under Section 1502.5 of the CEQ Regulations, the project's environmental impact
statement (EIS) shall "serve practically as an important contribution to the decision making process
and will not be used to rationalize or justify decisions already made." As indicated in the
DEIR/DEIS, "recognizing that this project is in response to the increased demands placed on the SR-
22 both by local land use development as well as by regional demands. for an east -west corridor,
the impacts that it may cause are more than balanced by the benefit it is providing" (p. v). Under
CEQA and NEPA, the determination whether the project's benefits outweigh the environmental
costs is made by the project's decision: makers (and not the authors of the DEIR/DEIS) and is
typically deferred until the document is finalized (and all input received and all comments fully
addressed), and not presented as a fait accompli upon the release of the initial draft.
As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS, "this DEIR/EIS includes analysis of the Full Build Alternative as
illustrated on the Preliminary Engineering Plans, State Route 22, for Project Report and
Environmental Document, in Orange County, From Interstate 605 to State Route 55 (Project Plans)
(Parsons Brinckerhoff, December 2000)" (p. 2 -8). As indicated, the "Full Build Alternative" is
identified as the 'Project Plans." Although the DEIR/DEIS was not released until August 21, 2001,
preparation of engineering plans for a single alternative commenced a year before the document's
• release. Similar project -level design detail was not, however, commenced for any of the other
alternatives presented in the DEIR/DEIS.
State Route 22/Wee Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 7
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA -01- 04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
The project's engineering plans were prepared by 'Parsons Brinkerhoff' (p. 2 -8). In addition, either •
the entirety or major sections of the DEIR/DEIS also appear to have been prepared by "Parsons
Brinkerhoff' (pp. 12 -1 through 12 -5). Under what authority was Parsons Brinckerhoff authorized to
prepare project-level plants for a single alternative prior to the completion of tqe CEQA/NEPA
process? Was any CEQA/NEPA review undertaken at the time the Lead Agencies made the
decision to prepare such plans? If not, why not?
When the firm responsible for the preparation of engineering drawings is the same firm responsible
for the environmental critique of those drawings, it is highly unlikely that the firm would offer
substantive criticism of its own work product or objectively consider other options that may reduce
that firm's continuing design work. In this case, Parsons Brinkerhoff is in essentially the same
position as a planning consultant employed by the owner of a private development project to draft
an EIR/EIS for a project that the same consultant is helping to design. In this case, there is simply no
evidence to indicate that the Lead Agencies have submitted this DEIR/DEIS to the kind of
independent review by professionals other than the designers of the project that would give the
public confidence that environmental issues have been adequately identified and mitigated. One
purpose of the CEQA/NEPA requirements relating to 'independent judgement" is to ensure that the
claims of a project designer and developer are not just accepted at face value.. It strains credulity,
for example, to assume that the company that designed a particular project is going to suggest ways
that the project could be better designed to avoid environmental impacts. Since NEPA, CEQA and
various state and federal laws require that consultants and drafters of environmental documents
exercise independence in their work, the potential's conflicts that can result from duality of roles
raises serious concerns with the document's objectivity. The Lead Agencies' failure to seek an •
independent third party to prepare the DEIR/DEIS or review the document prior to its release calls
into serious question the adequacy of the entire document and the Lead Agencies' decision- making
process.
As indicated in Section 102(D) of NEPA (42 USC 4332), "the procedures in this subparagraph shall
not relieve the federal official'of his responsibilities for the scope, objectivity, and content of the
entire statement or of any other responsibility under this Act." As further required under Section
1502.14(a) of the CEQ Regulations, the Lead Agencies are obligated to 'rigorously explore and
objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives." Similarly, Section 1502.1 of the CEQ Regulations
indicates that the purpose of NEPA is to 'provide full and fair discussion'. of the project's significant
environmental impacts. As further indicated in the CEQ's'Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning
CEQ's National Environmental Policy Regulations, as published in the Federal Register (Volume 46,
No. 55, March 17, 1981) (CEQ Forty Questions), 'the statement must be objectively prepared and
not slanted to support the choice of the agency's preferred alternative over the other reasonable and
feasible alternatives" (CEQ Forty Questions, Question 41c]).
It is the function of the project's decision makers to balance the environmental costs against the
project's potential benefits.. inclusion of the above statement in the DEIR/DEIS suggests that a
determination has already been made that the project's significant and potentially significant
environmental consequences have been 'balanced' by the project's benefits.
3.2 Failure to Make Critical Documents Available for Public and Agency Review
As required under 23 CFR 771.123(g), 'the draft EIS shall be made available to the public and •
transmitted to agencies for comment no later than the time the document is filed with the
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection Otlolter 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 8
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA -01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
• Environmental Protection Agency in accordance with 40 CFR 1506.9. The draft EIS shall be
transmitted to: (1) Public officials, interest groups, and members of the public known to have an
interest in the proposed action or the draft EIS; (2) Federal, State and local government agencies
,expected to have jurisdiction or responsibility over, or interest or expertise in, the action. Copies
shall be provided directly to appropriate State and local agencies, and to the State
intergovernmental review contacts established under Executive Order 12372." It is assumed that
the term "shall' (e.g., "the draft EIS shall be made available) constitutes a binding obligation on the
part of the FHWA.
The DEIR/DEIS states that the information presented in the project's environmental analysis is
derived from a number of other documents including, but not limited to, Floodplain Evaluation
Report, Natural Environmental Study, Draft Relocation Impact Report, Traffic/Circulation Impact
Report, Air Quality Technical Report, Traffic Noise Impact Report, Initial Site Assessment, Visual
Impact Assessment" (p. xxxvii). Specifically, the DEIR/DEIS identifies, among others, the following
technical documents that were not disseminated with the DEIR/DEIS and not made available to the
City:
❑ "OCTA's 'The Corridor Major Investment Study Final Evaluation Report,' which was
adopted by the OCTA Board on June 9, 1997" (p,. 2 -5)i
• "'Floodplain Evaluation Report' (December, 2000) and the'Floodplain Evaluation Report
Reduced Alternative Addendum' (December, 2000)" (p. 4.2 -1);-
❑ "SR- 22/West Orange County Connection NES' (December 2000) and the 'NES Reduced
• Build Alternative Addendum' (December 2000) (under separate cover)" (p. 4.3 -1);
❑ "'SR- 22ANest Orange County Connection Historic Property Survey Report' (December
2000)" (p. 4.5 -1);
❑ "SR- 22/West Orange County. Connection Draft Relocation`.' Impact Report' (December
2000) and'DRIR Reduced Build Alternative Addendum' (December 2000); and the FHWA
report, 'Summary-- Economic Impacts of Federal -Aid Highway Investment' (2000)" (p. 4.6 -1);
❑ -SR-22/West Orange County Connection Traffic/Circulation Impact Report' (May 2001) and
'Traffic/Circulation Report Reduced Build Alternative Addendum' (May 2001)" (p. 4.7 -1);
❑ "'SR -22 West Orange County Connection Air Quality Technical Report' (January 2001) and
the 'Air Quality Technical Report Reduced Build Alternative Addendum' (January 2001)" (p.
4.8 -1);
❑ "Traffic Noise Impact Technical Report' and 'Traffic Noise Technical Report Reduced Build
Alternative Addendum,' Parsons Brinckerhoff, December 2000 (under separate cover)' (p.
4.9 -1);
❑ "Preliminary Noise Abatement Decision" (p. 4.9 -12);
❑ "SR -22 West Orange County Connection Initial Site Assessment" [December 20001 and the
"Draft ISA Reduced Build Alternative Addendum" [December 20001 [p. 4.12 -1]; and
❑ SR- 22AVest Orange County Connection Visual Impact Assessment' (December 2000) and
the 'Reduced Build Alternative Visual Impact Assessment Addendum' (December 2000)
(under separate cover)" (p. 4.13 -1);
None of the above referenced studies are readily available in the public domain, have not been
provided to the City or its constituents, were not concurrently released with the DEIR/DEIS, and are
• not available for review in an electronic format (e.g., on the Internet). In addition, many of these
documents appear not to be available directly from the Lead Agencies but must be obtained either
from the OCTA (e.g., Footnote 2, p. iv; Footnote 2, p. 2 -5; Footnotes 4-5, p. 1 -12; Footnote 6, p. 1-
State Route 2VWest Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 9
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS-CA -01- 04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
13; Footnote 7, p. 1 -14; Footnote 2, p. 2 -5; Footnote 3, p. 2 -8; Footnote 12, p. 2 -21) or from other QO
sources, thus making it difficult or impossible to obtain copies of and review these reports within
the limited comment period provided by the Lead Agencies. In the absence of access to those
supportive materials or an accompanying definition of acronyms and abbreviations in the
DEIR/DEIS, even the terminology presented in the DEIR/DEIS cannot be placed in any
understandable context (e.g., "consisting of sub - alternatives 6A, 66, and 6C," p. 2 -2).
NEPA is intended to ensure that federal agencies make informed, carefully calculated decisions
when acting in such a way as to affect the environment and also enables dissemination of relevant
information to external audiences potentially affected by the agency's decision (Robertson v. _
Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 349 [19891). Similarly., referencing Section 21003(b) of
CEQA, "documents prepared pursuant to this division [shall] be organized and written in a manner
that will be meaningful to decision makers and to the public. As further indicated in Section
21005 therein, 'the Legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of the state that
noncompliance with the information disclosure provisions of this division which preclude relevant
information from being presented to the public agency, or noncompliance with substantive
requirements of this division may constitute a prejudicial abuse of discretion. ".
Throughout the DEIR/DEIS, the Lead Agencies make numerous references to documents which are
not broadly available to the public, not available at the offices of the Lead Agencies, and are not
adequately notated to allow the affected public to identify and locate or request . copies of those
documents. For example, although the DEIR/DEIS notes that the °FHWA and'FTA made a
conformity determination on the SCAG's 1998 RTP on June 9, 1998" (p. 4.8 -10) and, through a •
footnote reference, indicates that the document is "available at OCTA" (Footnote 3), no further
information concerning that "conformity:: determination" is presented In the DEIR/DEIS, no
reference to that document is presented in Chapter 13.0 (Bibliography), and the referenced study is
not 'incorporated by reference" (Section 15150, State CEQA Guidelines). The DEIR/DEIS does not
identify the OCTA as a "lead agency" but rather as a "responsible agency" under CEQA (e.g.,
OCTA is represented as "a responsible agency under CEQA," p. i) and an undesignated but likely a
'cooperating agency" under NEPA. Additionally, the DEIR/DEIS does not disclose the OCTA's
hours of operation or the name of any party (e.g., custodian of records) that could be contacted to
obtain information or copies of those documents "available at OCTA.'
By requiring . the affected public to contact other agencies merely to review source information used
in the preparation of the DEIR/DEIS, the Lead Agencies have failed to make that information readily
available to the general public and have,: therefore, failed to meet their "own responsibilities under
CEQA" (Section 15020, State CEQA Guidelines) with regards to the disclosure of critical data.
NEPA has twin aims. First, it "places upon an agency the obligation to consider every significant
aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action" (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v.
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 553). Second, it ensures that the agency will
inform the public that it has indeed considered environmental concerns in its decision making
process (Weinberger v. Catholic Action of Hawaii /Peace Education Project, 454 U.S. 139, 143
[19811). An analysis, without full public disclosure, is analogous to no analysis at all since the
public's access to that information is the same under both instances.
In the absence of full access to those technical studies utilized by the Lead Agencies to support the •
statements presented in the DEIR/DEIS, the affected public has no ability to independently validate
State Route 22 1West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 10
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01- 04-D /SCH No. 98064001
is or refute the Lead Agencies preliminary findings. By equipping one side in an argument with all
the tools it needs and by failing to provide the other side with equal access to those same tools, the
Lead Agencies have created an non -level playing field to the disadvantage of those public agencies
and representatives of the general public who choose to partie ipate in the NEPA/CEQA process.
3.3 Failure to Represent the DEIR/DEIS as a "Tiered" Environmental Document
As indicated in 23 CFR 771.111(g), "for major transportation actions, the tiering of EISs as discussed
in the CEQ Regulation (40 CFR 1502.20) may be appropriate. The first tier EIS would focus on
broad issues such as general location, mode choice, and area-wide air quality and land use
implications of the major alternatives. The second tier would address site - specific details on project
impacts, costs, and mitigation measures.'
Pursuant to 23 CFR 450.322(a), "the metropolitan transportation planning process shall include the
development of a transportation plan addressing at least a twenty year planning horizon. The plan
shall include both long -range and short-range strategies/actions that lead to the development of an
integrated intermodal transportation system that facilitates the efficient movement of people and
goods... The transportation plan must be approved by the MPG." As further indicated therein, for
major transportation investments for which analyses are not complete, the transportation plan shall
"indicate that the design concept and scope (mode and alignment) have not been fully determined
and will require further analysis" (23 CFR 450.322[g][81).
• As required under 23 USC 134(3)(D), "each project shall be consistent with the long -range
transportation plan developed under subsection (g) for the area." As further indicated under 23
USC 134(4)(A), "all federally funded projects carried out within the boundaries of a transportation
management area under this title (excluding projects carried out on the National Highway System
and projects carried out under the bridge program or the Interstate maintenance program) or under
Chapter 53 of Title 49 shall be selected for implementation from the approved transportation
improvement program by the metropolitan planning organization designated for the area in
consultation with the State and any affected public transit operator." As a result, there clearly exists
a direct relationship between the SR22ANOCC project and the transportation planning efforts of
SCAG, acting as the area's MPO (e.g., 'As the federally designated MPO for a major portion of
Southern California, SCAG adopts and periodically updates a long -range RTP," p. 1 -12).
Prior to adoption of the "1998 Regional. Transportation Plan" (1998 RTP), SCAG certified a Waster
Environmental Impact Report" for the 1998 RTP (1998 RTP MFEIR). As part of a comprehensive
update of the 1998 RTP, SCAG subsequently elected to discard the "master EIR" in favor of a new
"program EIR" and to change the horizon year used for planning purposes from 2020 to 2025.
Absent from the DEIR/DEISIs;' any reference to the 1998 RTP MFEIR. Since the Lead Agencies seek
to assert consistency wit;�:�tie 1998 RTP, that consistency determination must also include
consistency with and conformance to the programmatic analysis and program -level mitigation
measures contained in the 1998 RTP MFEIR. No such analysis, however, is presented in the
DEIR/DEIS.
If the proposed SR22AV000 project was not, however, specifically identified in the 1998 RTP, in
• accordance with the provision of State CEQA Guidelines, the 1998 RTP MFEIR may not serve as a
supportable first -tier EIR (e.g., "the certified master EIR shall not be used in accordance with this
State Route 22IWet Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 11
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
article if either [i] it was certified more than five years prior to the filing of an application for a later t
project, or [ii] a project not identified in the certified master EIR as an anticipated subsequent
project is approved and the approved project may affect the adequacy of the master EIR," Section
15179, State CEQA Guidelines).
In April 2001, SCAG certified the 2001 RTP FPEIR and adopted the 2001 RTP. Construction of
HOV lanes on the SR -22 Freeway was identified as a "HOV Connector Project" in the 2001 RTP
(2001 RTP, Table 5.3, p. 72). Although the SR -22 Freeway "HOV connector project" is identified
in the 2001 RTP, the level of analysis presented therein did not include project- specific alignment,
right-of-way, or engineering studies, relegating those activities to other implementing agencies at a
later date. The proposed SR22AVOCC constitutes such a later . pr )Iect and is directly linked to
regional planning efforts of SCAG.
As indicated in the 2001 RTP FPEIR: "Project -level analysis will be prepared by implementing
agencies on a project-by- project basis" (2001 RTP DPEIR, p. PD -2) and "The lead agencies for
individual projects analyzed in this PEIR [program EIR] are required to prepare project level CEQA.
documents. The lead agencies for individual projects may use this PEIR as the basis of their
regional and cumulative analysis. Moreover, it is the intent of SCAG that member agencies and
others use the information contained within the PEIR in order to 'tier' subsequent environmental
documentation of individual projects in the region" (2001 RTP DPEIR, p. 6).
'Tiering' is a concept that is integral to both the CEQA (e.g., Section 1515 2; State CEQA
Guidelines) and NEPA (e.g., 40 CFR 1502.20) process and serves to link earlier program -level •
analyses (such as that contained in the 1998 RTP MFEIR and 2001 RTP FPEIR) with the more
specific project-level investigations undertaken in furtherance of the overall development program
(such as the DEIWDEIS). The Lead Agencies, however, never acknowledge the existence of either
the 1998 RTP MFEIR or the 2001 RTP FPEIR and the DEIR/DEIS. contains no description as to why
tiering was not considered nor the rationale for its rejection when such an approach seems a logical
transition from a regionalized assessment of need to a localized response to that need (e.g.,
"Because SR -22 provides an east/west connection to the primary north /south freeways in the region.
..it is an important link to the regional transportation network," p. 1 -9).
As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS, the proposed SR22AVOCC project must be consistent with the
current. RTP (e.g., "Under the requirements of the CAAA, ISTEA, and TEA -21, proposed
transportation projects must be derived from an RTP,' p. 4.8 -10). Since the SR22AVOCC project is
'derived" from the 2001 RTP, the environmental analysis that accompanied that document (i.e.,
2001 RTP FPEIR). is directly relevant to the current NEPA/CEQA review. As indicated therein, "the
lead agencies for individual projects analyzed in this PEIR are required to prepare project level
CEQA documents. "f. Moreover, . it is the intent of SCAG that member agencies and others use the
information contained within the: PEIR in order to 'tier' subsequent environmental documentation
of individual projects in the region° (2001 RTP DPEIR, p. 6).
As indicated in Section 15168(4 of the State CEQA Guidelines, 'subsequent activities in the
program must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional
environmental document must be prepared." Section 15005 of the State CEQA Guidelines states
that "must' or 'shall' identifies a mandatory element which all public agencies are required to
follow." Notwithstanding that obligation, the DEIR/DEIS makes no reference to the 2001 RTP •
State Route 22/WeA Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 12
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA -01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
• FPEIR, therefore, indicating the Lead Agencies' failure to review and consider the information and
findings therein.
As furth @r indicated in Section 15152(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines: "Where an EIR has been
prepared and certified for a program, plan, policy, or ordinance consistent with the requirements of
this section, any lead agency for a later project pursuant to or consistent with the program, plan,
policy, or ordinance should limit the EIR or negative declaration on the later project to effects
which: (1) Were not examined as significant effects on the environment in the prior EIR; or (2) Are
susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by the choice of specific revisions in the project,
by the imposition of conditions, or other means."
In addition to assessing cumulative environmental impact, the 2001 RTP FPEIR established specific
"threshold of significance" criteria and program -level "mitigation measures" which were intended
to apply to later projects conducted in furtherance of the 2001 RTP As indicated therein, "the
Mitigation Monitoring Program for the 2001 RTP Update PEIR has been prepared pursuant to
Section 21081(x) of the Public Resources Code. Prior to approving the 2001 RTP Update, the
SCAG Regional Council made the following findings.... SCAG will require that each implementing
agency shall identify accountable enforcement agencies and monitoring agencies for individual
project mitigation measures/conditions adopted as part of the 2001 RTP Update EIR" (2001 RTP
DPEIR, pp. 7 -8). From that statement, it is obvious that SCAG intended the mitigation measures
contained in the 2001 RTP FPEIR to become binding obligations on later projects,: such as the
proposed SR22/WOCC. s 'g
• As indicated in Caltrans' "Local Assistance Procedures Manual" ( Caltrans, March 15, 2001), "the
local agency is responsible for insuring that mitigation measures presented as commitments in
environmental documents, and that conditions and restrictions, associated with regulatory permits,
are incorporated into appropriate contract documents, plans, specifications, and estimates prior to
proceeding with maj nstfuction activities such as land acquisition or construction... Failure to
meet mitigation cogs] "ts. may render the project ineligible for federal reimbursement.
Omission or midiRlcationr'tof a. mitigations- commitment, thereby creating new significant
environmental effects will result in the need to prepare a reevaluation to assess any changes that
have occurred and their effect on the validity of the environmental document" (Local Assistance
Procedures Manual, p. 12 -2). Caltrans was a participant in the development of the 2001 RTP and
2001 RTP FPEIR and was fully aware of the commitments and program -level mitigation measures
contained therein.
Since the DEIR/DEIS contains no reference to the 2001 RTP FPEIR and since none of the program -
level mitigation measures are cited therein, the DEIR/DEIS fails to acknowledge the obligations
established under the 2001 RTP FPEIR upon the proposed project and ignores the commitments
previously make by the MPO applicable to the SR221WOCC project. Specific program -level
mitigation measures identified in the 2001 RTP FPEIR include, but are not limited to, the following:
❑ For projects with the potential to displace homes and/or businesses. Project implementation
agencies shall evaluate alternative route alignments and transportation facilities that
minimize the displacement of homes and businesses. Potential impacts shall be minimized
• to the extent feasible. If possible, existing rights-of-way should be used (2001 RTP, DPEIR,
p. ES-6);
Slate Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
Ciry of Seal Beach Page 13
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA-01-04-D / SCH No. 98064001
• Prior to commencing construction activities on individual projects, project implementation
•
agencies shall comply with applicable federal, State and applicable city and county land
use plans, policies, and regulations (2001 RTP, DPEIR, p. ES-8);
• All mitigation measures should be included in project-level analysis as appropriate. The
project proponent or local jurisliction shall be responsible for ensuring adherence to the
mitigation measures prior to construction. SCAG shall be provided with documentation of
compliance with mitigation measures (2001 RTP, DPEIR, pp. ES -16, 19, and 20);
• The project implementation agency shall ensure that prior to construction all necessary
local and State road and railroad encroachment permits are obtained. The project
implementation agency shall also comply with all applicable conditions of approval. As
deemed necessary by the governing jurisdiction, the road encroachment permits may
require the contractor to prepare a traffic control plan in accordance with professional
engineering standards prior to construction (2001 RTP, DPEIR, pp. ES -48 and 49);
❑ The growth inducing potential of individual projects should be carefully evaluated so that
the full implications of the project are understood. Individual environmental': documents
shall quantify indirect impacts on public services and utilities to the extent feasible. Lead
and responsible agencies should then make any necessary adjustments to the applicable
General Plan. Any such identified adjustment shall be communicated to SCAG (2001 RTP,
DPEIR, p. ES -49); and
❑ Projects identified in the 2001 RTP Update that require wastewater service, solid waste
collection, and/or potable water service will coordinate with the local public works
department to ensure that the existing public services and utilities would be able to handle
the increase. If the current infrastructure servicing the project site is found to be inadequate,
infrastructure improvements for the appropriate public service or utility shall be identified in
•
each project's CEQA documentation (2001 RTP, DPEIR, p. ES -49). "
Based on the above measures, although never identified in the DEIR/DEIS, the City may be a
responsible agency under. CEQA and a cooperating agency NEPA since one or more
.under
discretionary actions (e.g., encroachment permit, General Plan amendment) may be required
project components. As indicated in the CEQ ,Forty Questions: "If the lead agency leaves out a
significant issue or ignores the advise and expertise of the cooperating agency, the EIS may be
found later to be inadequate. Similarly, cooperating agencies have their own decisions to
make;'and they intend to adopt the environmental impact statement and,base their decisions on it,
one document should include all of the' information necessary for the decisions by the cooperating
agencies. Otherwise they may be forced' to duplicate the EIS process by issuing a new, more
complete EIS or Supplemental EIS, even though the original EIS could have sufficed if it had been
properly done at the outset" (CEQ Forty Questions, Question 14[bj).
As a potential responsible agency under CEQA, prior to project commencement, the City will be
required to utilize the DDR/DEIS as the environmental basis for those discretionary approvals. As
indicated in Section 15086(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines:
If a responsible agency believes that the final EIR or negative declaration prepared
by the lead agency is not adequate for use by the responsible agency, the
responsible agency must either: (1) Take the issue to court within 30 days after the
lead agency files a notice of determination; (2) Be deemed to have waived any •
objection to the adequacy of the EIR or negative declaration; (3) Prepare a
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
Ciry of Seal Beach Page 14
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01 -04-D /SCH No. 98064001
• subsequent EIR if permissible under Section 15162; or (4) Assume the lead agency
role as provided in Section 15O52(a)(3).
As indicated on Section 15152(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "tiering does not excuse the lead
agency from adequately analyzing reasonably foreseeable significant environmental effects of the
project and does not justify deferring such analysis to a later tier EIR or negative declaration." As
indicated herein, the City has concluded that the DEIR/DEIS contains numerous defects that can
only be rectified through either the document's augmentation and subsequent recirculation or
through the preparation of a supplemental analysis. Additionally, the City has concluded that the
DEIR/DEIS fails to present an adequate assessment of those project- related and cumulative impacts
identified herein as being City concerns.
To the extent that those defects are not corrected, as a responsible agency, Seal Beach will be
required to undertake those actions authorized under Section 15086(e) of the State CEQA
Guidelines. To the extent that any permits or approvals may be required from the City prior to the
commencement of any work on the proposed project, additional delays can be anticipated . as the
City undertakes sufficient environmental analysis to address and fully mitigate those impacts.
As a tiered document, some or all of the information contained in the 2001 RTP FPEIR remains
applicable to the proposed project. In addition to the cumulative impact assessment, the 2001 RTP
FPEIR's "threshold of significance" criteria and program -level mitigation measures continue to apply
to those later activities undertaken in furtherance�b,£ that program. Absent from the DEIR/DEIS,
• however, is any reference to either the threshoPT standards or adopted mitigation measures
contained in the 2001 RTP FPEIR.
Since the proposed project exists as a result of its inclusion in the 2001 RTP, the Lead Agencies
cannot turn a "blind eye" to the relationship between the 2001 RTP FPEIR and the DEIR/DEIS. By
ignoring that relationship, the Lead Agencies' actions serve to diminish the valuable efforts and
contribution by all stakeholders who contributed to the development of that regional transportation
plan and its accompanying environmental documentation. It is often said: 'Those who ignore the
lessons of history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past." In the same context, by failing to
acknowledge the clear and direct linkage between the 2001 RTP FPEIR and the DEIR/DEIS, the
Lead .Agencies are likely to overlook „the significant environmental impacts and corrective
mitigation measures formulated througw” " development of that first -tier document.
3.4 Failure to Provide an Adequatecription of the Alternatives under Consideration
Referencing the FHWA/Caltrans' Standard Reference, "each alternative should be briefly described
using maps or other visual aids such as photographs, drawings, or sketches to help explain the
various alternatives." Additionally, "all reasonable alternatives under consideration (including the
no-build) need to be developed to a comparable level of detail in the draft EIS so that their
comparative merits may be evaluated (40 CFR 1502.74[6])."
As required under FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, the discussion of each "build" alternative
should be sufficient to provide "a clear understanding of each alternative's termini, location, costs,
• and the project concept (number of lanes, right-of-way requirements, median width, access control,
etc.). Where land has been or will be reserved or dedicated by local government(s), donated by
individuals, or acquired through advanced or hardship acquisition for use as highway right -of -way
Stale Route 221Wesl Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seat Beach Page 15
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01 -04-D /SCH No. 98064001
for any alternative under consideration, the draft EIS should identify the status and extent of such •
property and the alternatives involved' (FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, pp. 10-11). That
level of detail is presently absent from the DEIR/DEIS as is any substantial information concerning
the specific characteristics of the projecj (e.g., full extent of additional right -of -way required,,
specific design characteristics of the proposed improvements).
As required under Section 15124(x) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the description of the project
shall include "the precise location and boundaries of the proposed project shall be shown on a
detailed map, preferably topographic. The location of the project shall also appear on a regional
map.' Webster defines 'precise' as meaning "exactly or sharply defined or stated" or "minutely
exact.' Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is anything even approximating a "narrative or graphic
description of the project's "precise location." What is offered is a map (Figure 1.2 -2, p. 1 -6)
depicting the 'project study area' (e.g., "Figure 1.2 -2, Project Study Area Map, shows the SR-
22/West Orange County Connection study area," p. 1 -2). Based on the map scale, the "study area'
comprises a band up to 2 -miles wide and about 10 -miles long, or an area of about 20 square miles.
Although direct impacts are likely to occur in close proximity to the SR -22 Freeway, from the,,
information presented in the DEIR/DEIS, it is not possible to "precisely" define those areas, located`
beyond the existing Caltrans' right -of -way that will be impacted by the project.
While those individual sites earmarked for acquisition may be identified, from the data presented,
the City is unable to determine whether a "full ".: or only "partial" take of those properties is
requested or will be required, what public rights -of -way will be impacted and to what extent (e.g.,
"both the Full Build and Reduced Impact Build options do require right of way," Briefing Book, p.
13). In the absence of that information, it is difficult to envision the post - project environment in
other than a broad general sense. The City is unable to determine how traffic patterns within the
College Park East neighborhood will be impacted, the location and intended use of any "residual"
parcels not directly needed for right -of -way purposes, or the specific characteristics of the proposed
encroachment into that. neighborhood, so as to determine the project's potential indirect impacts on
those proximal properties (e.g., remaining single - family homes, Bixby Old Ranch Tennis Club) not
identified as proposed acquisition sites.
The DEIR/DEIS does go on to state: "Figure 2.2 -1 shows the proposed Full Build Alternative route
map and locations of the proposed capital improvements" (p. 2 -7). The , "proposed improvements'
are delineated as a broad line extending along the entire length of the project and the 'proposed
intersection improvements' and "proposed interchange improvements' are represented by symbols
that are at least one -third mile in dimension. Again, from the information provided, it is not
possible to ascertain the "precise location" of the proposed improvements, much less the location
and size of those adjoining properties where additional right -of -way is proposed for acquisition.
Surprisingly, the Briefing Book contains a greater description of the proposed improvements than
contained in the DEIR/DEISVince the information in the Briefing Book was available to the Lead
Agencies at the time the DE'IR/DEIS was released, there can be no explanation for the Lead
Agencies withholding of critical information necessary to understand the project now under
consideration. Since the Briefing Book is not referenced in the DEIR/DEIS, is not incorporated by
reference therein, and has not been widely disseminated to all project stakeholders, the information
and statements in the Briefing Book cannot be used as a substitute for information and analysis that
should be and clearly could have been included in the DEIR/DEIS. The information in the Briefing
•
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 16
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01-04D / SCH No. 98064001
• Book should be incorporated into the DORMS, the analysis revisited based on the information in
the Briefing Book, and the entire document should be recirculated.
Since substantially greater information about the precise location of proposed improvements was
available to the Lead Agencies prior to the release of the DEIR/DEIS, the agencies election not to
include that level of detail was, therefore, a conscious decision whose purpose could only have
been to create confusion (e.g., lack of full disclosure) as to the precise nature of the proposed action
so as to allow the Lead Agencies the broadest possible discretion in interpreting and implementing
the project. The FHWA Technical Advisory T664O.8A identifies and appears to encourage non-
disclosure (e.g., "care should be taken to avoid unnecessary specifying features which preclude
cost - effective final design options,' FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A,; It. 11) in direct
contradiction to NEPA's "action- forcing' provisions to make sure that federal agencies act
according to the letter and spirit of the [National Environmental. Policy] Act' (40 CFR I500.1[a]) and
the degree of specificity required under CEQA (e.g., Section 15146[a], State CEQAGuidelines).
From the level of detail presented (or more specifically not presented), it is not possible to
'precisely' determine what, if any, areas beyond the existing right -of -way will be directly or
indirectly impacted by the proposed improvements. In the absence of that information, there exists
an insufficient basis to: (1) identify the areas of physical disturbance (e.g., location; width and
length; existing land uses; existing characteristics of those sites; type and use of adjoining
properties) associated with the 'build' alternatives; (2) independently determine any project- related
impacts thereupon; and/or (3) validate the preliminary information presented in the DEIR/DEIS.
• Similarly, the Lead Agencies appear to be presenting a "moving target" that is likely subject to
further change following the release of the DEIR/DEIS and the receipt of comments thereupon. As
indicated in the DEIR/DEIS, 'if the Full Build Alternative is selected as the preferred alternative after
the DEIR/DEIS public review period, various alignment refinements included in the Reduced Build
Alternative, discussed below, may be considered for implementation as part of the Full Build
Alternative' to 2 -8). Since opportunities for further public and agency review and comment will
be substantially curtailed following the end of the comment period on the DEIR/DEIS, the public's
ability to independently review and submit supplemental comment on any such 'alignment
refinements' will be limited. It is unreasonable to bothfail to disclose the 'precise location' of the
project and then state that changes to the project are likely to occur "after the DEIR/EIS public
review period.'
As a result, it is extremely difficult for the City and its constituents to fully understand the physical
characteristics of the proposed project, the precise area of any real property that is now suggested
for public acquisition, the height and associated dimensions of the proposed improvements, etc. In
the absence of that critical information, the affected public can neither fully comment on the
project's potential impacts nor independently verify the accuracy of the Lead Agencies preliminary
conclusions (e.g., insufficient information is presented to allow the City to conduct an independent
acoustical analysis). .
As indicated in Caltrans' Environmental Handbook, even before embarking on a description of the
proposed project, the document is required to present a detailed discussion of the "purpose of and
• need for [the] project.' Although the DEIR/DEIS contains some generalized information, the level
of detail therein is not commensurate with that presented in the Environmental Handbook. As
indicated therein, "the evaluation of need is to be based on current and future conditions, not on
State Route 22 1West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 17
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA -01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
the assumption that prior decisions are still valid, and an objective and analytical definition of the
'problem.' Factual, and wherever possible, quantifiable justification should be included to back up
statements of need" (Environmental Handbook, p. 3 -3).
For those projects designed to address capacity problems, such as the SR22ANOCC (e.g.,
"addressing the capacity deficiency problem, which is also associated with congestion - related
accidents," p. 1 -1), the following information is identified: (1) hours of congestion being
experienced and reasons for congestion; (2) present and projected average daily traffic (ADT), peak
hour volumes (PHV), and level of service (LOS) in words; and (3) basis for projected ADT,
including the reference pages in the document where these factors are discussed in detail. For
projects addressing safety problems, the following information is identified: (1) personal injury and
fatality rates vs. Statewide rates; (2) reasons why accidents are happening; and (3) safety benefits of
the project. For operational deficiencies, the document shall contain an explicit description of the
problem(s).
It is not sufficient for the DEIR/DEIS to merely indicate that "some portions of existing SR -22 do not
conform to current State and federal highway design standards" and that 'congestion-related`°
accidents are linked to these problems" (p. 1 -1) or that "geometric improvements to the freeway
and on- &off ramps are generally expected to reduce run - off - the -road and hit - object . type accidents"
(p. 1 -1). Rather than presenting detailed information concerning accidents within the project area,
the document merely references "information compiled by Caltrans' Traffic Accident. Surveillance
and Analysis System Table C -High Accident Concentration Locations" (p. 1 -1) which is neither
included in the DEIR/DEIS nor cited in Chapter 130 (Bibliography). Similarly, although the
DEIR/DEIS suggests "high accident rates" (p. 1 -2), no information is provided comparing localized
•
conditions with Statewide accident rates. Other than a reference to a percent increase over 1996
conditions, no information concerning hours of congestion or future yearADT /PHV is provided.
Caltrans' Environmental Handbook goes on to list the information. that "shall" be provided as part
of the project description..` Although identified in the handbook, the DEIR/DEIS fails to include a
detailed map showing project limits and adjacent facilities. The handbook notes that "good exhibits
are also esse,, %ial for a clear understanding of he project features" (Environmental Handbook, p. 3-
er
4) Ne in the DEIR/DEIS, however, are any exhibits presented depicting: (1) the precise
locano- those "189 residential displacements" (p. 4.6 -11), including those area where a "full" or
partia'ky,.e ".. of property will be required and the precise extent of that take; (2) any additional
right-of-way that may be required, including the precise length of encroachment onto other public
or privately owned properties now abutting the Caltrans' right -of -way; (3) the precise location and
dimensions of the "Pacific Electric right -of -way" (p. 2 -7); (4) the location and height above existing
grade of all "HOV direct connector ramps' (p. 2 -7); (5) the location, height, and length of any
associated sound walls;. and (6). other related design elements (e.g., type of paving materials, extent
of excavation required, construction staging areas, etc.).
On September 18, 2001, the City subsequently received a set of "draft preliminary engineering
plans," dated December 2000. Despite their existence, no explanation was, however, provided
why these drawings were not included in the DEIR/DEIS (e.g., "This DEIR/EIS includes analysis of
the Full Build Alternative as illustrated on the Preliminary Engineering Plans," pp. 2 -7 and 2 -8). The
Lead Agencies failure to incorporate these documents and that level of information in the
DEIR/DEIS and the City's receipt of these "plans" well within the comment period established for
the DEIR/DEIS has unreasonably restricted the City's ability to provide meaningful comments
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 18
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA-01-04-D / SCH No. 98064001
• thereupon in the context of Seal Beach's comments on the DEIR/DEIS (e.g., the draft preliminary
engineering plans appear only to be "available at OCTA," Footnote 3, p. 2-8). Similarly, since these
engineering drawings have not been disseminated to the City's constituents nor has notice of their
availability been provided by the Lead Agencies, the affected public is precluded from submitting
meaningful comments on the DEIR/DEIS and the additional information concerning the project that
may be contained on those "draft preliminary engineering plans."
Although the DEIR/DEIS indicates that these "preliminary engineering plans" are "available at
OCTA" (Footnote 3, p. 2 -8), the OCTA is represented as "a responsible agency under CEQA' (p. i)
and is not identified as one of the two joint "lead agencies" for CEQA or NEPA compliance. As
required under CEQA, "a public agency must meet its own responsibilities under CEQA" and the
'lead agency is responsible for the adequacy of its environmental documents" (Section 15020, State
CEQA Guidelines). By failing to include anything approximating sufficient information about the
specific or precise design and engineering characteristics of the project, the Lead Agencies have
released a deficient environmental document, relegating to a "responsible agency" (e.g., OCTA) the
function of making detailed information concerning the project's design and engineering
characteristics available to the project's stakeholders.
3.5 Failure to Identify the "Preferred Project" Despite its Obvious Existence
As indicated in CEQ Forty Questions, "the agency EIS staff is encouraged to make
recommendations of the environmentally preferred alternative(s). during HIS preparation. In any
• event the lead agency official responsible for the EIS is encouraged to identify the environmentally
preferable alternative(s) in the EIS" (CEQ Forty Questions, Question 6(bl).
As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS: 'The," mainline improvements of the SR-22/West Orange County
Connection Project (Full Build Alterh°attive "or Reduced Build Alternative) is included in the 1998
RTP as Project ID ORA000795 and P 5 ect Description: Design, Right -of -Way, and construction to
build mainline HOV lanes for SR -22 from Valley View Street to Glassell Street, with a completion
date of 2010" (p. 4.8 -10). By suggesting that the "build" alternatives are consistent with the "1998
RTP," because consistency is a requirement for project funding, the Lead Agencies are, in essence,
declaring the "build" alternatives to be the "preferred project."
In describing the project, the DEIR/DEIS notes that the "SR -22 is the only Orange County freeway
that does not have an HOV facility. The absence of HOV lanes on the SR -22 freeway is the missing
link in the Orange County HOV system. The proposed project would potentially provide for HOV
system continuity and connectivity" (p. 2 -1) and "improving the availability of travel choices under
study could help 'close the gap' in the Orange County High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) system" (p.
2 -1). Additionally, in Lead Agencies rejecting of the 'fixed guideway" alternative and the "general -
purpose lanes" alternative, the rationale for that rejection was those alternatives' inability "to meet
an important transportation goal, completion of Orange County's HOV system" (p. 2 -17). Similarly,
the 'HOV lanes on SR -22" alternative was rejected since 'it lacked direct freeway - to-freeway HOV
connectors" (p. 2 -18). It is, therefore, evident that the project's goal is the construction of HOV
lanes that can only be accomplished through the implementation of the two "build" alternatives.
• Note that the project, itself, is entitled the "West Orange County Connector.' As a result, based on
the project's title and the above declaration, it is apparent that anything other than a 'connector"
project will ultimately be rejected by the Lead Agencies since such action would not fulfill the
State Route 22RYest Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 19
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EIS -CA -01 -04-13 / SCH No. 98064001
project's explicit and /or implicit objectives. It is evident that the Lead Agencies primary emphasis •
is developing a HOV system, with direct connectors, for the SR -22 Freeway. Therefore, it is further
evident that a HOV -based alternative constitutes the Lead Agencies "preferred project." Similarly, it
e is further evident that the "TS&axpanded Bus Servip Alternative" will ultimately be rejected since a
it "does not include any capital improvements to SR -22" (p. 2 -5).
As indicated in 23 USC 134(1)(1) (Additional Requirements for Certain Non - attainment Areas),
"notwithstanding any other provisions of this title or Chapter 53 of Title 49, for transportation
management areas classified as non - attainment for ozone or carbon monoxide pursuant to the
Clean Air Act, federal funds may not be programmed in such area for any highway project that will
result in a significant increase in carrying capacity for single- occupant vehicles unless the project is
part of an approved congestion management system." As noted in the DEIR/DEIS, "the South Coast
Air Basin does not attain State and federal Ambient Air Quality Standards for four of the six criteria
air pollutants" (p. 3.8 -2). As further indicated in the 1998 RTP: "The South Coast Air Basin faces
the most serious air quality problems in the region. Despite improvements, it has the worst air
pollution in the United States" (1998 RTP, Section 4.8).
In describing the purpose of the project, the DEIR/DEIS indicates that "the SR -22 corridor has
insufficient capacity" and "SR -22 does not meet the capacity needs of the area" (pp. 1 -1 and 1 -15)
and "the SR -22 corridor has insufficient capacity on both the freeway and major adjacent surface
streets to handle existing and projected 2020 travel demand" (p. 1 -2). The DEIR/DEIS further
indicates that the proposed SR22AV000 "improvements are anticipated to provide a higher level
of operation for existing and anticipated traffic volumes" (p. iii). The provision of additional •
capacity is, therefore, clearly represented a = :':e project's mtent
As indicated in FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, "for all major projects in these urbanized
areas, HOV lanes should be considered. As further indicated in the DEIR/DEIS, "the No Build
Alternative does not include any HOV connectors" and "the TSWExpanded Bus Service Alternative
does not includ OV connectors" (p. 4.7 -13).
In describing' the project, the Lead Agency states that "the State Route 22 (SR- 22)AVest Orange
County. Connection project involves transportation improvements to the SR -22 corridor, as well as ,
portions of I -405 and I -605, in Orange. County" (p.8 -7). Since the project is defined by the Lead
Agencies as a project which "involves transportation improvements to the SR -22 corridor" and
since the project's stated goals include the intent to "improve mobility" and maximize the cost-
effectiveness of the proposed "improvements' (p. 1 -2), some of the alternatives identified in the
DEIR/DEIS will quickly be eliminated since they fail to fulfill those objectives. As indicated in the
DEIR/DEIS, 'under the no build alternative, traffic is projected to worsen" (p. 2 -4) and "the
TSM/Expanded Bus Service Alternative does not include any capital improvements" (p. 2 -5). Based
on the Lead Agency's own project description and declared goals, neither the `No Build
Alternative' nor the "TSM/Expanded Bus Service Alternative" meet the project definition and fail to
accomplish the project objectives. .
Thus, the DEIR/DEIS fails to explicitly state the Lead Agencies' "preferred project." For the average
reader, denied access to the various resources on which the DEIR/EIS is based, the Lead Agencies'
conduct in this regard constitutes "hiding the ball." Referencing the DEIR/DEIS, "this DEIR/EIS
includes analysis of the Full Build Alternative as illustrated on the Preliminary Engineering Plans,
State Route 22, for Project Report and Environmental Document, in Orange County, From Interstate
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 20
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA-01-04-D / SCH No. 98064001
• 605 to State Route 55 (Project Plans) (Parsons Brinckerhoff, December 2000)" (p. 2 -8) (Preliminary
Engineering Plans). For no other alternative(s) have the Lead Agencies prepared or referenced the
existence of any "preliminary" or "conceptual" engineering plans.
Since the Code of Federal' Regulations (23 CFR 771.113) prohibits starting work on the final design
phase of a federally funded project until after approval of the final environmental document, it is
understandable that no final plans have yet to be formulated. However, why would the Lead
Agencies develop 'preliminary engineering plans' for a single alternative unless that alternative was
the agencies' 'preferred project'?
Additionally, the DEIR/DEIS includes the following text: "Note: If the Full Build Alternative is
selected as the preferred alternative after the DEIR/DEIS public review period, '.various alignment
refinements included in the Reduced Build Alternative, discussed below, may considered for
implementation as part of the Full Build Alternative" (p. 2 -8) This Note calls into question the
conclusions regarding environmental impacts that result from the alignment of the proposed
project. There is no way for the reader to be confident that environmental impacts of the ' project
have been identified and mitigated if the Lead Agencies know already that they may consider
changes to the alignment after the DEIR/EIS is completed. No comparable notation exists for any of
the other alternatives identified in the DEIR/DEIS. The inclusion of the above statement constitutes
further evidence of the Lead Agencies intent to identify the "Full Build Alternative' or a
"refinement" thereof as the "preferred project.' It is, therefore, evident that the Lead Agencies now
know that the "Full Build Alternative," or a close variation thereof, constitutes the Lead Agencies'
• "preferred project.' As indicated in FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, "in those situations
where the HA [highway agency] has officially identified a "preferred" alternative based on its early
coordination and environmental studies, the HA should so indicate in the draft EIS." -
The Lead Agencies failure to disclose the "preferred project" despite its obvious existence prevents
the submission of meaningful comments on the DEIR/DEIS, creates unnecessary confusion to an
already complex environmental document, and suggests the lack of forthright fullness on the part of
the document's authors. Further, the Lead'' Agencies' "alternatives" approach to the process of
supplying a project description violates CEQA's requirement that the DEIR must include an
'accurate, stable and finite project description. The Lead Agencies' inability, or unwillingness, to
publicly disclose a stable and finite description of the project they propose to undertake is amply
demonstrated by the notes referenced above that indicate the Lead Agencies are likely to revise
even the alignment of the chosen alternative at some future date. As required under Section
1502.14(e) of the CEQ Regulations, they Lead Agencies shall "identify the agency's preferred
alternative or alternatives, if one or more exists, in the draft statement and identify such alternative
in the final statement unless another law prohibits the expression of such a preference." The City is
not aware of any law that would prohibit the Lead Agencies from expressing a preference in this
case. k .s
As further indicated in CEQ Forty Questions, "the 'agency's preferred alternative' is the alternative
which the agency believes would fulfill its statutory mission and responsibilities, giving
consideration to economic, environmental, technical and other factors" (CEQ Forty Questions,
Question 4[a]) and "the agency EIS staff is encouraged to make recommendations of the
• environmentally preferred alternative(s) during EIS preparation' (CEQ Forty Questions, Question
6[bj).
SWe Route 22 /Wes[ Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 21
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA -01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
Although the project constitutes an HOV improvement program, there exists only two "build" •
alternatives in the DEIR/DEIS that include HOV components. Even if the "Full Build Alternative"
has not been identified as the "preferred project," it is evident that the "Full Build" and/or the
r"Reduced Build" alternatives constitute variations of the �ead Agencies' "preferred project." e
Although the remaining alternatives examined in the DEIR/DEIS may not be illusory, those
alternatives merely constitute the agencies' efforts to fulfill their own statutory and regulatory
requirements. Since neither of those alternatives meet the project's declared objectives, they do
not constitute reasonable or meaningful alternatives for the purpose of environmental compliance
(e.g., `The range of possible alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could
feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project, ". Section. 15126.6[c], State CEQA
Guidelines) and will, therefore, be quickly dispatched in favor of one or both of the document's
"build" alternatives.
3.6 Lack of Comparable Alternatives Analysis
FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A states that "each alternative should be briefly described usi°nIr
maps or other visual aids such as photographs, drawings, or sketches to help explain the various
alternatives. The material should provide a clear understanding of each alternative's termini,
location, costs, and the project concept (number of lanes, right -of -way requirements, median width,
access control, etc.)... All reasonable alternatives under consideration (including the no-build)
need to be developed to a comparable level of detain in the draft EIR so that their comparative
merits may be evaluated (40 CFR 1502.14[b] and [d])" (FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, pp. •
10 -11). As further indicated in CEQ Forty Questions:
The degree of analysis devoted to each alternative in the EIS is to be substantially
similar to that devoted to the "proposed action." , Section 1502.14 is titled
"Alternatives including the proposed action" to reflect such comparable treatment.
Section 1.502.14(b) specifically requires "substantial treatment" in the EIS of each
alternative including the proposed action. This regulation does not dictate the
amount of information to be provided, but rather, prescribes a level of treatment,
which may in turn require varying amounts of information; to enable a reviewer to
evaluate and compare alternatives,CEQ Forty Questions, Question 5[b]).
The Lead Agencies state "this DEIR/DEIS.ancludes analysis of the Full Build Alternative as illustrated
on the Preliminary Engineering Plans' "State Route 22, for Project Report and Environmental
Document, in Orange County, From Interstate 605 to State Route 55 (Project Plans) (Parsons
Brinckerhoff, December 2000)" (pp. 2 -7 and 2 -8). Since no comparable "engineering plans" have
been prepared for any of the other alternatives and since the analysis of those other alternatives is
not based on any such "preliminary engineering plans," the Lead Agencies have failed to comply
with NEPA by presenting an inconsistent level of analysis for those alternatives addressed in the
DEIR/DEIS
3.7 Failure to Present a Reasonable Range of Project Alternatives
As indicated in Section 101(c) of NEPA, "the Congress recognizes that each person should enjoy a •
healthful environment and that each person has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation
and enhancement of the environment."
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 22
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA-01-04-D / SCH No. 98064001
•
As required under 23 USC 134(3)(D), 'each project shall be consistent with the long -range
transportation plan developed under subsection (g) for the area." Relative to the proposed project,
the "long -range transportationtplan" is the Southern California Association of Governmernt's (SCAG)
2001 "Regional Transportation Plan" (2001 RTP). Prior to adopting that plan, SCAG prepared a
"Draft Program Environmental Impact Report — 2001 Regional Transportation Plan Update" (SCAG,
February 1, 2001) (2001 RTP DPEIR) and subsequently adopted a "Final Program Environmental
Impact Report - 2001 Regional Transportation Plan Update" (SCAG, April 2001) (2001 RTP FPEIR)
that included reference to the SR22MOCC project. With regard to "population, employment, and
housing, SCAG identified the following impact:
The project could potentially displace or relocate residences and businesses through
acquisition of land and buildings necessary for highway, arterial, and transit
improvements. This would be considered a potentially significant impact (2001 RTP
DPEIR, p. ES-6).
As a result of the environmental analysis conducted by SCAG in accordance with CEQA, a number
of mitigation measures where adopted and which SCAG mandated as requirements for "each
implementing agency" (2001 RTP DPEIR, pp. 7 -8). Those mitigation measures include the
following measure relating to projects with the potential to displace homes and /or businesses:
S
te alternative route alignments and
Project implementation agencies shall eva a
• transportation facilities that minimize the, rsplacement of homes and businesses.
Potential impacts shall be minimized '. to the extent feasible. If possible, existing
rights -of -way should be used (21 DPEIR, p. ES -6).
Even after the implementation o alf:,?avai l able mitigation measures, the area's regional
transportation planning agency concluded ;: "This Impact would remain significant and unavoidable
after mitigation due . to the potential large., number of displacements that could occur with
construction of all the proposed facilities" (2001 RTP, DPEIR, p. ES -6).
The MPO indicates that the "displacement of homes and businesses" constitutes a significant
project - related and cumulative impact. That determination obligates the1ead Agencies to conduct
later project- specific analyses that would serve to reduce or avoid those adverse environmental
consequences:'. Referencing CEQ Cumulative Effects: "If it is determined that significant cumulative
effects would occur as a result of a proposed action, the project proponent should avoid, minimize,
or mitigate adverse effects by modifying or adding alternatives ... It is important to remember that
the goal of the NEPA process is to reduce adverse environmental effects, including cumulative
effects" (CEQ Cumulative Effects, pp. 45 -46).
Although not disclosed as such in the DEIRMEIS, with regards to project- related impacts on Seal
Beach, one area of potential significant environmental effect relates to the potential displacement of
six residential units under the "Full Build Alternative" (e.g., Table 4.6-3, p. 4.6 -11; Figure 4.6 -1A)
and under the "Reduced Build Alternative" (e.g., Table 4.6-7, p. 4.6 -19; Figure 4.6 -2A). Although
no displacement activities are anticipated under the "TSM/Expanded Bus Service Alternative" (e.g.,
• "the TSM/Expanded Bus Service Alternative would not result in any displacement," p. 4.6 -11), it is
likely that this latter alternative will be rejected by the Lead Agencies since it "does not include any
capital improvements to SR -22" (p. iv) and, therefore, fails to meet the project's declared goals.
Slate Route 221West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 23
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA-01-04-D / SCH No. 98064001
As indicated in FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, "the draft EIS must discuss a range of •
alternatives, including all 'reasonable alternatives'" [emphasis added] (FHWA Technical Advisory
T6640.8A, p. 9). As further indicated therein, with regards to the identification and assessment of
"build" alternatives, the advisory states: "Both improvements gf existing highway(s) and alternatives
on new locations should be evaluated. A representative number of reasonable alternatives must be
presented and evaluated in detail in the draft EIS (40 CFR 1502.14[a]) ... Where there is a large
number of alternatives, only a representative number of the most reasonable examples, covering
the full range of alternatives, must be presented" (FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, p. 10).
The City believes that the selection of only a single right -of -way fails to provide the project's
decision makers and stakeholders with either a "representative number" or a "full range" of
alternatives.
Only four alternatives are examined in the DEIR/DEIS. Those alternatives can generally be
described as constituting two "non - build' alternatives and two "build" alternatives. Although the
Lead Agencies would assert that the "TSM/Expanded Bus Service Alternative" would more
appropriately be categorized among the "build" alternatives, in reality, few actual improvements
are proposed under that option (e.g., "The TSM alternative represents implementation of lower -cost
capital improvements, such as increased bus service with associated arterial improvements," p. iv;
"Since this alternative would not include major arterial and freeway improvements, the goals of
these cities for overall transportation mobility would go unmet," p. 4.6 -1; "this alternative does not
propose construction on the freeways; p. 4.9-13; 'there would be no change to the SR -22," p.
4.13 -16). However, since "the TSM/Expanded Bus Service Alternative does not include any capital
improvements to SR -22" (p. iv), with regards to the SR -22 Freeway, that alternative represents a •
`non - build" option. As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS:
The TSM/Expanded Bus Service Alternative includes all of the improvements
outlined in the No Build Alternative, such as OCTA's FFTP Baseline Scenario and
The Corridor, MIS No Build and TSM Alternatives., conjunction with these
improvements, the TSM/Expanded Bus Service Alternative incorporates additional
TSM strategies for the SR -22 corridor. The TSM/Expanded Bus Service Alternative
would include various improvements such '. as increased capacity and speed on
Garden Grove Boulevard, Trask Avenue, and Westminster Boulevard /17" Street
within the existing curb (p..2 -5).
As a result, the only apparent distinction between the "No Build Alternative" and the
"TSM/Expanded Bus Service Alternative" are the introduction of additional buses along the SR -22
Freeway and the construction of limited improvements along streets which are not subject to
Caltrans jurisdiction and can be implemented by local jurisdictions independent of the
5R22/WOCC project. Clearly, the "TSM/Expanded Bus Service Alternative" is, in no way, similar to
the other "build" alternatives addressed in the DEIR/DEIS (e.g., "TSM/Expanded Bus Service
Alternative strategies are primarily operational," p. 2 -5) since the primary purpose of the
SR221WOCC project appears to be the implementation of capacity improvements to the Garden
Grove Freeway.
Of the two "build" alternatives addressed in the DEIR/DEIS, both have comparable impacts to Seal
Beach with regards to residential displacement, aesthetic impacts, and noise intrusion. From the •
perspective of direct impacts to the City, there exists no substantive difference between those
alternatives. As a result, based on the provisions of NEPA and its implementing guidelines, and as
State Route 22/weet Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 24
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
• required under the 2001 RTP FPEIR, the Lead Agencies are directed to explore other alternatives
that would allow for the "preservation" of the existing environment and "minimize the
displacement of homes and businesses." The City asserts that by failing to formulate one or more
'build' alternatives that avoid the destruction of homes within Seal - Beach, the Lead Age @@s have
failed to formulate a reasonable range of alternatives, including possible "new locations" wflich, if
implemented, would result in the "preservation' of those homes.
The DEIR/DEIS states that "with the loss of homes, landscaping, and the new direct views of
freeway elements, visual quality would be dramatically affected in residential neighborhoods. It is
anticipated that there would be potentially significant impacts to visual quality in residential
neighborhoods" (p. 4.13 -10). Referencing Section 15126.6(f) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "the
range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by the 'rule of reason' that requires the EIR to
set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be
limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project."
Based on the Lead Agencies' own disclosure of "significant impacts to visual quality in residential
neighborhoods" and the City's declaration that the loss of six or more homes would, itself, be
significant, CEQA directs the Lead Agencies to investigate other alternatives whose implementation''
would result in the reduction or avoidance of those declared significant impacts, while still
allowing the Lead Agencies to accomplish the project's stated intent.
Of the four alternatives now presented in the DEIR/DEIS, only two alternatives (i.e. "Full Build
Alternative" and 'Reduced Build Alternative ') seek to accomplish the Lead Agencies declared
• objectives. Conversely, the remaining two alternatives (i.e., ', 'No Build Alternative" and "TSM/
Expanded Bus Service Alternatives ') fail to fulfill the Lead Agencies' objectives, fail to minimize
significant or potentially significant impacts upon the City, and have been included in the
DEIR/DEIS solely as a result of statutory or agency regulations. Referencing FHWA Technical
Advisory T6640.8.A, the range of alternatives that should be considered include: (1) the "no action"
alternative (i.e., required under 40 CFR'. 1502.14[d]); (2) Transportation System Management (TSM)
alternative (e.g., the TSM alternative includes those activities which maximize the efficiency of the
present system); (3) mass transit;'. and (4) build alternatives (e.g., both improvement of existing
highway[s] and alternatives on new locations):. As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS, a mass transit
alternative (i.e., fixed guideway) was rejected by the Lead Agencies (see pp. 2 -16 and 1 n and has
not been carried forward therein.
The Lead Agencies will ultimately reject as either infeasible or as failing to meet the project's
objectives both the "No Build Alternative" and the "TSM/Expanded Bus Service Alternative" and
focus the agencies' discussion on one 'or'.more of the "build" alternatives. The Lead Agencies must,
therefore, identify and 'rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives" (40
CFR 1502.14[a]) from the universe of all "build' alternatives that could be formulated. Since both
"build" alternatives addressed in the DEIR/DEIS have comparable impacts upon the City, from Seal
Beach's perspective, the Lead Agencies have clearly failed to identify and fully consider other
"reasonable alternatives which would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of
the human environment" (40 CFR 1502.1).
For example, through much of the City, the SR -22 Freeway abuts the 5,256 -acre United States
• Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach (USNWS). Along the freeway, the adjoining area within the
base is presently allocated for agricultural use (e.g., row crops). Although no homes or businesses
exist along that segment, the Lead Agencies have failed or refused to examine a more southerly
Slate Route 22Mest Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 25
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA-01-04-D / SCH No. 98064001
alignment that would avoid the loss of existing homes located on the north side of the freeway. •
Shifting the proposed freeway alignment a few feet to the south through the City would likely result
in the preservation of those existing homes and the avoidance of significant impacts upon the City
and its residents. The City specifically requests that the Lead'gencies include and thoroughly
analyze a realigned alternative that would shift the proposed freeway south onto the USNWS
property, rather than into the backyards and homes of Seal Beach residents. The DEIR/EIS should
be revised and recirculated to address that question, as well as others identified therein.
The Lead Agencies' requirement for the assessment of 'alternative locations' to the proposed
project is contained in Section 15126092) of the State CEQA Guidelines which stipulates: 'The key
question and first step in analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be
avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location.' Only locations that
would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered
for inclusion in the EIR.' Although the Lead Agencies fail to specifically address the impacts
associated with the destruction of six homes in Seal Beach,'.. the DEIR/DEIS indicates that
'displacement' and 'loss of community cohesiveness' (p. xiv) constitute a "potentially significant
impact.' The question to the Lead Agencies then becomes can the impacts associated with
displacement be avoided or substantially lessened through the realignment or relocation of the
proposed improvements?
As required under Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, 'where there are impacts that
cannot be alleviated without imposing an alternative design, their implications and the reasons why
the project is being proposed, notwithstanding their effects, should be described.' If the Lead •
Agencies conclude that no feasible alternative locations, alignments, rights -of -way, or designs exist
that would reduce or avoid the project's potential impacts;: the Lead Agencies must disclose: (1)
their concerted efforts to identify such.. actions; (2) the list of all such actions considered; and (3) the
reasons why such actions were rejected or could not feasibly implemented (Section
15126[f][2][B], State CEQA Guidelines). Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any supportive evidence
documenting either. the Lead Agencies investigation of or reasons for failing to consider variations
in the proposed SR -22 Freeway . alignment that would result in the avoidance or reduction of
impacts to affected residents and businesses.
3.8 Failure to Consider Other Alternative Alignments and Rights f -Way
Although the SR -22 Freeway'HOV connector project' was included in the 2001 RTP (2001 RTP,
Table 5.3, p. 72), neither the 2001 RTP nor the 2001 RTP FPEIR included a specific alignment or
right -or -way for that project. Referencing the 2001 RTP FPEIR, 'project specific planning and
implementation undertaken by each implementing agency will depend on a number of issues,
including: policies, programs and projects adopted at the local level; restrictions on federal, State,
and local transportation funds;: the results of feasibility studies for particular corridors; and further
environmental review of proposed projects' (2001 RTP DPEIR, p. PD -2).
For both of the 'build' alternatives presented in the DEIR/DEIS, the Lead Agencies present only
variations of a single alignment. Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any discussion or analysis of an
alternative alignment(s) that could accomplish the project's stated objectives or rationale for the
DEIR/DEIS' reasons for failing to evaluate other possible rights-of- -way. Similarly, none of the •
'initial set of conceptual alternatives' (p. 2 -2) identified in the DERIDES appear to be the result of
a detailed feasibility study or other alignment study. By suggesting that only a single alignment (as
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 26
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement.
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01- 04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
• the DEIR/DEIS does by its failure to identify other alignments) is available for all "build" alternatives
(absent substantial technical analysis, full disclosure, and public and peer review as part of the
environmental process), the Lead Agencies have artificially and inappropriately narrowed the range
of alternatives that could and should berconsidered in the DEIR/DEIS. >
Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any indication that one of the discretionary actions now under
consideration and, therefore, subject to public debate, modification, and further environmental
analysis is a final alignment determination. By withholding that information, the Lead Agencies.
have limited the submission of meaningful public comments on the DEIR/DEIS since the
document's reviewers are led to believe (through the DEIR/DEIS' failure to disclose) that no final
alignment determination has yet to be made.
Although a major investment study (MIS) (e.g., "The entire alternative screening process is
documented in the MIS [available at Caltrans, OCTA, and major libraries)," p. iii; "The MIS
technical analysis is presented in the MIS Evaluation Report," (p.2-16); "This MIS Evaluation Report
does not recommend alternatives," (p.10 -1) and project study `report (PSR) (e.g., "With the
completion of the MIS Evaluation Report, the study process began with implementation' of the
Project Study Report," p.10 -1) have been prepared and are referenced in the DEIR/DEIS, the MIS
and PSR were not subject to any detailed environmental review, the public was not widely invited
to participate in that development of those work efforts, the MIS and PSR were not disseminated
with the DEIR/DEIS nor are the key elements summarized therein, and neither the MIS nor the PSR
are referenced in Chapter 13.0 (Bibliography) of the DEIR/DEIS
• z `n
As required under 23 CFR 771.105(a), it is the policy of the FHWA that "to the fullest extent
possible, all environmental investigations, reviews, and consultations be coordinated as a single
process, and compliance with all applicable environmental requirements be reflected in the
environmental document required by this regulation.' is, therefore, unreasonable and
inappropriate for the Lead Agencies to segregate the "alternative screening process" from the NEPA
process and fail to fully and faithfully disclose the screening criteria, totality of alternatives
considered, specific performance of each alternative with regards to the established criteria,
comparative ranking of each alternative, and supportive documentation associated with that
process as part of the DEIR/DEIS. Similarly, the Lead Agencies should document all public
outreach efforts, including identification of all notices, parties contacted, and public meetings
conducted as part of that "alternative screening process."
The DEIR/DEIS fails to note whether the MIS or PSR included either a general or detailed evaluation
of alternative alignments. As such, in the absence of that information, there exists no factual basis
in the DEIR/DEIS to assume the availability of only a single alignment for all "build" alternatives.
By limiting the environmental analysis to a single alignment, other possible alignments (e.g., a
southerly alignment through the USNWS) are never considered and the comparable impacts
associated with those alternative routes never examined nor presented for public and agency
consideration. As indicated in the CEQ Regulations, alternatives are "the heart of the
environmental impact statement" (40 CFR 1502.14). The intent of the alternatives analysis is not to
present slight variations of a single course of action but to "present the environmental impacts of
the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues and
• providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision makers and the public" (40 CFR
1502.14).
Slate Route 221West Orange County Connection October 2001
ON of Seal Beach Page 27
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA -01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
In People Against Nuclear Energy v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the court stated •
that "NEPA procedures are designed to ensure that environmental information is available to public
officials and citizens before decisions are made, so that environmental considerations are part of
the agency's decision making process" and "government must not proceed to make decisions that
might have a momentous effect ...on community well -being of its citizens without first giving
careful, responsible consideration to the consequences its actions might have. By enacting NEPA,
Congress meant to assure that no federal decision — especially one of this importance — would be
made in the shadow of environmental ignorance" (678 F. 2d 234 -235 [1982]).
The Lead Agencies failure to consider a broad array of right -of -way options, particularly in areas
where such options could reduce substantial impacts on the human environment (e.g., destruction
of homes and displacement of residents), serves to limit dialogue, discussions, and environmental
analysis to an artificially constrained set of alternatives. Rather than first seeking to answer the
question "which rightof -way would likely produce the least environmental consequences ?" the
Lead Agencies have narrowed the question presented to the project's stakeholders to "how can we
reduce the impacts within the single right -of -way selected ?" By bypassing the first question and /or
by failing to allow the project's stakeholders to fully participate in the right-of-way selection
process, there clearly is a "momentous effect' since the range of choices are now limited and the
resulting environmental analysis is confined to what, if any, mitigation measures can be reasonably
and feasibly implemented should the single `build" alternative (masquerading as two alternatives
proposed within the same right-of-way) be selected? .
The City believes that the Lead Agencies failure to identify and consider, as part of the DEIR/DEIS, •
alternative rights-of-way, including those., rights -of -way, required to accommodate future
"transportation corridor" improvement projects (e.g., the 1 -405 Freeway is identified in the 1998
RTP as a "Post 2020 Long -Range Corridor" [1998 RTP, Table 6.11, indicating the need to preserve
additional right-of-way for future expansion), is_contrary to the intent of NEPA and CEQA. The City
further believes that there exist other possible freeway alignments that, if implemented, will reduce
some or all of the substantial environmental effects on Seal Beach and its residents.
3.9 Failure to Consider Other Alternative Project Designs
As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS: (1) "this change from asoft landscaped edge to a hard - surface edge
would also represent a potentially substantial adverse impact" (p. 4.13 -6); (2) "the new views
related to the Full Build Alternative are anticipated to be potentially significant" (p. 4.13 -11); (3)
"the new views related to the Reduced Build Alternative are anticipated to be potentially
significant" F. 4.13 -12); (4) "the visual impact to the remaining residential viewers cannot be fully
mitigated and a residual visual impact would remain" (p. 4.13 -34); (5) "the removal of landscaping
for widening of the freeways and realignment of interchanges cannot be fully mitigated" (p. 4.13-
34); and (6) "the addition of elevated connectors ... would also result in unmitigatable blockage of
views" (p. 4.13 -34). Although the DEIR/DEIS' assessment of visual impacts is inadequate and
deficient, based on the Lead Agencies own declarations, significant visual impacts will be produced
by either of the two "build" alternatives that cannot be reduced to below a level of significance.
Since no mitigation measures have been identified by the Lead Agencies that can effectively reduce
the project's visual impacts to an insignificant level, the Lead Agencies are obligated under CEQA •
(e.g., Section 21002, CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines (e.g., Sections 15021[a][2] and
15041[a], State CEQA Guidelines) to identify and consider other alternatives that could eliminate
Stale Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 28
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA-01-04-D / SCH No. 98064001
• those impacts. Other than the two "non - build' alternatives examined in the DEIR/DEIS (i.e., 'No
Build Alternative" and "TSM/Expanded Bus Service Alternative'), absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any
analysis of other potential design options (e.g., elimination of the elevated connectors) proposed in
response to the project's significant visual impacts.
e
Similarly, as indicated in CEQ Forty Questions, "when there are potentially a very large number of
alternatives, only a reasonable number of examples, covering the full spectrum of alternatives, must
be analyzed and compared in the EIS" [emphasis added] (CEQ Forty Questions, Question 1[b]).
The consideration of only two "build" alternatives which appear identical except for the inclusion
of the Pacific Electric Arterial, both operating within the same alignment and utilizing the same
design solutions, fails to represent a reasonable "full spectrum of alternatives "..for the fulfillment of
the project's declared objectives. Of the four project "goals" only a single goal references HOV
improvements (i.e., 'maximize cost - effectiveness of the SR- 22/Est Orange County Connector
improvements,' p. 1 -2), while the preponderance of goals stress mobility, safety,
environmental impacts, and positive economic impacts (see p 1 -2). Those objectives do not
explicitly require the construction of "HOV connectors."
Although not specifically addressed in the DEIR/DEIS, the City has concluded that the proposed
SR221WOCC project will produce significant visual impacts to established residential areas and
recreational facilities in Seal Beach through the construction of new sound walls, elevated HOV
connectors, and through the introduction of new sources of light and glare. Since neither the "No
Build Alternative' nor the'TSM/Expanded Bus Service Alternative" will produce those same effects,
• the identified impacts relate to the project's currently proposed improvements. Modifications to the
project's design (e.g., elimination or modification of the proposed elevated connectors) could,
therefore, constitute an effective means of eliminating or substantially reducing those impacts.
As indicated in Caltrans' "Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol' (Caltrans, October 1998) (Caltrans Noise
Protocol or Protocol), "noise abatement measures may include, but are not limited to ... Avoiding
the project impact by using..': design alternatives that result in lessening the noise effect, such as
altering horizontal and vertical, to avoid a noise impact' (Caltrans Noise Protocol, p.
25). ., -.
By eliminating the proposed freeway connectors many of the project's potential impacts to Seal
Beach could be eliminated or substantially reduced. One possible alternative available to the Lead
Agencies, which was rejected prior to the release of the DEIR/DEIS, is the "HOV Lanes on SR -22
Alternative" (p. 2 -18). As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS: "This HOV Alternative performed well in the
technical analysis conducted for the MIS as it maximized transportation benefits at the lowest cost
compared to the other build alternatives. This alternative would complete the countywide HOV
system, fulfilling an important transportation goal' (p. 2 -18). It is, therefore, apparent that this
alternative meets the majority of "goals" established by the Lead Agency for the proposed project.
The Lead Agencies rationale for rejecting this and other alternatives appears to be "public opinion"
(i.e., "Through surveys of the project area and countywide public opinion polls, participants voiced
concerns about the safety and congestion impacts of vehicles moving between HOV and general -
purpose lanes as they transition between freeways. Surveys indicated that the public generally
• believe direct carpool connectors between freeways improve safety and overall efficiency of the
HOV system," p. 2 -18) and/or "public support' (e.g., "the Fixed Guideway Alternative was
eliminated from further consideration due to lack of public support in the SR -22 corridor study
Stale Route 22/West Orange County Connection. October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 29
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS-CA -01- 04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
area," p. 2 -17). None of the referenced "surveys' are, however, included in the DEIR/DEIS. As a •
result, it is not possible to determine what bias may have existed in the manner in which the poll
was conducted and the survey results interpreted. Additionally, the DEIR/DEIS does not include
any factual data supporting the assumption that "direct carpool connectors between freeways
improve safety."
Absent from NEPA and CEQA are any references allowing the Lead Agencies to convey to
"participants" of a limited public opinion survey the Lead Agencies independent obligations to
present a factually and legally adequate DEIR/DEIS. Although the project's decision makers should
be influenced by the opinions of their constituents, those decision makers must be presented with a
full array of alternatives and a document providing a comparable- analysis between a variety of
"build" alternatives. Since the "HOV Lanes on SR -22 Alternative" meets the project's objectives
and would likely do so with lesser environmental costs, the Lead Agencies are obligated to include
that or a similar alternative among the alternatives considered in the DEIR/DEIS.
The project's design appears to be based on the supposition that the only design approach to the
development of HOV connectors is through the construction of an "elevated" route. Absent from
the DEIR/DEIS, however, is any evidence that any other design approach was ever considered.
Although there may exist supportive rationale for the elimination of other design concepts (e.g.,
construction of depressed roadway similar to the project design now being developed for the
Alameda Corridor), those concepts must first be presented, subjected to public and agency review,
and investigated through the presentation of a reasonable analysis prior to their rejection. Since no
such actions have occurred, in recognition of the presence of unmitigatable aesthetic impacts, the •
Lead Agencies have presented a deficient assessment of areasonable range of project alternatives
and must augment the existing analysis to ascertain whether other design solutions exist that would
accomplish the majority of the Lead Agencies objectives, and do so with: ,lesser visual impacts.
One option that appears to have been previously rejected "by the OCTA board' (p. 2 -6) and is
absent from the DEIR/DEIS is the construction. of HOV lanes absent the construction of "HOV
connectors" at freeway interchanges. Recognizing that the decision- making process often involves
tradeoffs, the visual impacts associated with either "build' alternative must be examined in the
context of other potential impacts (e.g., considerations) that would result from an improved
HOV network but absent HOV linkages between different freeways., In the absence of any
comparative analysis of an HOV system with "connectors' and one without those "connectors,' the
project's stakeholders are provided an incomplete assessment of a reasonable range of alternatives.
3.10 Selection of Wrong Horizon Year Prevents Long -Range Planning and Analysis
The 1998 RTP states: 'It is important to identify and preserve transportation corridors needed to
expand or enhance transportation for future generations... Ideally, the long -range corridors will
encourage planners and policy- makers to start preparing strategies for preserving corridors now.
Planning can prevent losing right -of -way needed for transportation beyond the year 2020. The first
step in this kind of planning for the future is to identify potential long -range corridors and
determine there is a need to preserve them... The information sources for long -range corridors
include: [11 Various long -range transportation studies; 121 Recommendations from Caltrans; [31
Transportation Corridor projects expected to be operational after 2020; and [4] Informal discussions •
with public agency staff' ' (1998 RTP, Section 6.1). The 1998 RTP specifically identifies the 1 -405
Freeway as a "Post 2020 Long -Range Corridor" (1998 RTP, Table 6.1).
State Route 221West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach - Page 30
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
•
Based on this regional policy statement, public agencies responsible for transportation
improvement projects must both adopt a long -range planning perspective and commence early
n efforts to identify future corridor requirements in order to respond to demands "beyond the year e
2020."
As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS, the project's purpose is to "improve both existing and future
mobility and enhance safety throughout the corridor while minimizing environmental and
economic impacts" (p. 1 -1). The document identifies the following four "goals ": (1) improve
mobility and enhance safety; (2) maximize cost - effectiveness of SR22AVOCC improvements; (3)
minimize adverse and maximize beneficial environmental impacts to SR22AWOCC communities;
and (4) minimize negative and maximize positive economic impacts to SR221WOCC communities
(p. 1 -2). Based on these statements, the Lead Agencies establish the project's . goals, evaluative
criteria, and basis for the identification and elimination of project alternatives In defining the
project's purpose, the DEIR/DEIS states "the purpose of the proposed SR- 22/Vdest Orange County
Connection project is to improve mobility (both existing and future) and enhance safety (p. 1 -15).
Since no quantitative goals are identified (e.g., specific volumetric increase In vehicles), the
project's goals are qualitative and allow for only relative comparisons between competing
alternatives. Among the stated objectives and absent from any statement of purpose is reference to
a particular target date as the specific horizon year to be used as the basis for traffic and
transportation planning.
Prior to the year 2000, it was reasonable to base traffic planning on a 20 year horizon, concluding
in the year 2020. Now, as we approach 2002, to suggest that 2020 remains an appropriate horizon
for major traffic improvements prevents anything approximating long -range planning. Although
absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any clear indication of the anticipated timeframe when project
construction can be realistically anticipated, from the information presented therein, it can be
ascertained that the project will not be completed until 2008 (e.g., "start date of 2005 and a
completion date of 2008," p. "4 -8 -10) or 2010 .(e.g., "a completion date of 2010," p. 4.8 -10). In a
best -case scenario, it is likely than construction would not commence until 2005 and be completed
any sooner than 2008 -2010. In comparison, the Briefing Book states that "the original schedule for
delivery of mainline SR -22 improvements was early 2009" (Briefing Book,. p. 21).
Based on the Lead Agencies own declarations (e.g., "Since the local agencies are in disagreement
with the proposed Centerline alignments, the project may be further delayed," p. 8-4), the actual
commencement and completion dates may be extended beyond those optimist projects.
As indicated in the Souther' kalifornia Association of Governments (SCAG) "Regional
Transportation Plan" (SCAG, April 2001) (2001 RTC) (2001 RTP), the SR -22/1 -405 HOV connection
project is identified as "regionally significant" and its "implementation schedule" is not anticipated
until 2010 (2001 RTP, Table 5.3,.p. 72). Therefore, within 1012 years of completion, the SR -22
Freeway will have again reached capacity and a similar environmental study and capital
improvement program will be required.
• A project that becomes outdated and necessitates further action ten years after its completion is
hardly an activity that serves to fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of 'present and
future generations of Americans" (Section 101[a], NEPA). Rather than utilizing the relatively short-.
State Route 22 1West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 31
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS-CA- 014)4 -D / SCH No. 98064001
term horizon year specified in the DEIR/DEIS, referencing the Caltrans' "Environmental Handbook," •
"one short- term/long -term dividing line that makes sense is the initial design life of the project,
which for highway and bridge projects is typically 20-50 years after they are built" (Environmental
Handbook, p. 3 -12)6 e
In 2020, there is no evidence to suggest that a similar implementation strategy will not again be
evoked by the Lead Agencies and additional properties purchased as added right -of -way is needed
for further traffic improvements (e.g., construction of additional general - purpose lanes). A recent
article in the Los Angeles Times indicates that Orange County is currently the strongest housing
market in the United States (e.g., "anticipated traffic growth would be spurred by future population
and economic growth within the SR -22 corridor and those geographic areas whose travelers would
use SR -22 for part of their trips," p. 3.7 -4). It is, therefore, likely that by 2020, additional
development will have occurred in proximity to the SR -22 Freeway. Future expansion will become
both more difficult and more costly as time goes by.
To embark on a multi - million dollar project with a shelf life of only 10 -12 years clearly seems near-
sighted and arbitrary (e.g., "The planning horizon for the Full Build Alternative is 2020,' . E. 2 -8).
Through that short- sightedness, the Lead Agencies limit their collective vision of the future and their
assessment of environmental impacts to a date and time which cannot be demonstrated to
represent anything more than an arbitrary date on an expanding spectrum of traffic growth and ever
increasing traffic impacts.
Nowhere in the DEIR/DEIS do the Lead Agencies indicate that technological advances or other •
conditions will confine traffic growth and demand to that which will exist in 2020. As a result, it
can be reasonably assumed, from a traffic perspective, that year 2021 conditions will be worse than
in 2020, year 2022 conditions will be worst than 2021, and so on. Even the area's regional council
of governments' 2001 RTP and its accompanying 2001 RTP FPEIR are based on a year 2025
horizon (e.g., "The 2001 RTP covers the period 2001- 2025," 2001..RTP, p. 23). The Lead Agencies,
therefore, materially misrepresent that the project's assumptions are "consistent with other future
planning efforts" (p. 2 -8).
As Indica� therein, "population is expected to increase by 40 percent from 1997 to 2025" (2001
RTP, p. 2) "In contrast, the DEIR/DEIS assumes that "between 1990 and 2020, the population in the
corridor cities Is predicted to grow by 32.7 percent" (p. 1 -7) and "population is expected to grow by
22 percent" between 1995 and 2020 (p.1 -8). Although these projections reflect different time
periods, it is immediately obvious that the Lead Agencies growth projections are substantially less
than those adopted by SCAG and, therefore, less than will likely occur not only over the
document's planning period but beyond (e.g., "anticipated traffic growth would be spurred by
future population and economic growth within the SR -22 corridor and those geographic areas
whose travelers would use the SR -22 for part of their trips,' p. 3.7 -4).
In addition, throughout the DEIR/DEIS, the Lead Agencies have sought to utilize 1990 Census and
Orange County Projections 96 (OCP -96) despite the availability of 2000 Census and OCP -2000
information. As a result, the 'baseline' information presented in the DEIR/DEIS does not reflect
current conditions or utilize the most recent data. The population circumstances, and environment
described in the DEIR/EIS have changed substantially. Since the current information differs from the •
set of assumptions upon which the DEIR/DEIS is based, the Lead Agencies' technical analysis needs
to be revised (updated) and the changes analyzed to determine to what extent 2000 Census and
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 32
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS -CA-Ot -04-D /SCH No. 98064001
• OCP -2000 data alter both the "baseline' discussion and future needs assessment. This revised
analysis will undoubtedly affect the conclusions reached in the DEIR/EIS and will require
recirculation on that basis alone.
As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS, "under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA, the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), and the Transportation Equity Act
of the 21" Century (TEA -21), proposed transportation projects must be derived from a long -range
transportation plan or Regional Transportation Plan' (p. 3.8 -3). Although formally adopted by
SCAG in April 2001, six months before the release of the DEIR/DEIS in August 2001 and in draft
form substantially before that time, the Lead Agencies' analysis of and reference to the "SCAG
Regional Transportation Plan' is with regards to the "1998 RTP" (p. 1 -12). Surprisingly, the "Draft
2001 RTP Update' is listed in Chapter 13.0 (Bibliography) in the DEIR/DEIS but no information
from that document, which was adopted substantially in advance of the release of the DEIR/DEIS, is
contained therein.
As a result, the "proposed transportation project' addressed in the DEIR/DEIS is clearly not derived
from the current RTP (e.g., "FHWA and FTA made a conformity determination on the SCAG's 1998
RTP on June 9, 1998," p. 4.8 -10) and fails to utilize the traffic models (e.g -, "Traffic forecasts were
developed using the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model," p. 3.7 -1) and projections in
the applicable "Regional Transportation Plan' (e.g., "Under the requirements of the CAAA, ISTEA,
and TEA -21, proposed transportation projects must be derived from an RTP that conforms with the
State air quality plans,' p. 4.8 -10).
• Even if traffic conditions reflected in the 1998 RTP exceed those identified in the 2001 RTP, not
only it is critical that the DEIR/DEIS be based on the most current growth projections and reflect the
largest possible planning period but the NEPA Lead Agency must document compliance with the
2001 RTP. Clearly, none of those requirements have been met based on the information and
analysis presented in the DEIR/DEIS.
As indicated in the 2001 RTP DPEIR, as cent
fieR;by SCAG in April 2001: "The 7998 RTP overstated
the growth forecasts for 2020 by about 4% (estimated at 22.3 million people, now estimated at
21.3 million). The 2001 RTP Update forecasts that the region will grow to 22.6 million by 2025"
(2001 RTP. PEIR, p. PH -23). In comparison, the California Department: of Finance project's that,
within the SCAG region, the year 2025 population will be approximately 23.4 million people"
(2001 RTP .PEIR, Table PH -12, p. PH- 26)':. or more than 1.1 million more than assumed in the
DEIR/DEIR. Based on a comparison of the 1998 RTP projections for 2020 and the 2001 RTP
projections for 2025, the DEIR/DEIS' analysis underestimates areawide population by between 0.3
and 1.1 million people.. If each individual were to account for ten daily trips (which would
accommodate all residential and non- residential trips), between 3.0 and 11.0 million daily trips are
not accounted for in the DEIR/DEIS. Clearly, some percentage of those trips would occur along the
SR -22 Freeway.
The Lead Agencies' failure to examine an appropriate horizon year is further emphasized by
statements in the DEIR/DEIS. As indicated therein, "State and federal procedures usually
recommend addressing a design year 20 years (Year 2025) after construction is completed. The
• demographic data required to forecast travel demand beyond 2020 is not available and is not
anticipated until July 2001 when SCAG, the MPO, adopts a new regional growth forecast" 13.7-
1). It is apparent that the Lead Agencies had knowledge of the SCAG 2025 forecasts substantially
State Route 221West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 33
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA-01-04-D / SCH No. 98064001
in advance of the document's release (e.g., "The Draft 2001 RTP Update was released by the •
Regional Council on December 14, 2000 and made available for public review and comment over
the next 60 days," 2001 RTP, p. 23).
The DEIR/DEIS notes: "Although CEQA and NEPA share many similarities, these are differences
between them that would have to be satisfied for this joint environmental document" (p. ill. One of
those differences relates to the development of technical data. Citing Section 1502.22 of the CEQ
Regulations:
A.,
When an agency is evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant adverse effects on
the human environment in an environmental impact, statement and there is
incomplete or unavailable information, the agency shall always made clear that
such information is lacking. (a) If the incomplete information relevant to reasonably
foreseeable significant adverse impacts is essential to !a reasoned choice among
alternatives and the overall costs of obtaining it are not exorbitant, the agency shall
include the information in the environmental impact .statement. (b) If the
information relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts cannot be
obtained because the overall costs of obtaining it are exorbitant or the means to
obtain it are not known, the agency shall includewithin the environmental impact
statement: (1) a statement that such information is incomplete or unavailable; (2) a
statement of the relevance of the incomplete or unavailable information to evaluate
reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human environment; (3) a
summary of existing credible scientific evidence which is relevant to evaluating the •
reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human environment; (4)
the agency's evaluation of such impacts based upon theoretical approaches or
research methods generally accepted in the scientific community. For the purpose
of this section, "reasonably foreseeable" includes.:impacts that have catastrophic
consequences, even if their probability of occurrence is low, provided that the
analysis . of the impacts is supported by credible scientific evidence, is not based on
pure conjecture, and is within the rule of reason.
Since projections concerning year 2025 conditions were available from SCAG substantially prior to
the release of the DEIR/DEIS, could have either been independently developed or provided by
SCAG in draft or final form, or independently developed by the FHWA and Caltrans through the
extrapolation of year 2020 projections to 2025, the Lead Agencies have no defensible rationale for
not including that information in the DEIR/DEIS and for not basing the traffic analysis upon year
2025 projections, in accordance with "State and federal procedures." It is further evident that the
Lead Agencies could have delayed the release of the DEIR/DEIS pending receipt of the updated
2025 traffic projections ...(which "were actually available to the Lead Agencies substantially in
advance of the document's release).
Lack of diligence or accessibility to interim projections fails to constitute a reasonable rationale for
the Lead Agencies' failure to independently develop and include the "information in the
environmental impact statement." Without reasonably accurate projections of future year
conditions, not only is the future "baseline" (i.e., "No Project Alternative ") potentially
mischaracterized but the improvement plans and range of alternatives formulated in response to
those deficiencies are based on potentially erroneous information (e.g., "The forecasted growth in •
the corridor accounts for the 15 sections operating at LOS F," p. 3.7 -5).
Slate Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 34
Draft Environmental Impact Report`Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA-01-04-D / SCH No. 98064001
• Referencing 23 USC 134 (Section 134), "it is in the national interest to encourage and promote the
safe and efficient management, operation, and development of surface transportation systems that
will serve the mobility needs of people and freight and foster economic growth and development
o within and through urbanized areas, while minimizing aransportation- related fuel consumption and
air pollution' (23 USC 134[a][1)) and "to accomplish the objective stated in paragraph (1),
metropolitan planning organizations designated under subsection (b), in cooperation with the State
and public transit operators, shall develop transportation plans and programs for urbanized areas of
the State" (23 USC 134[a][21). SCAG constitutes the area's 'metropolitan planning organization"
(MPO).
As further required in 23 USC 134(g)(1) and (2)(A), each MPO "shall prepare, and update
periodically, according to a schedule that the Secretary determines to be appropriate, a long -range
transportation plan for its metropolitan area in accordance with'the requirements of this subsection"
and "in formulating the long -range transportation plan, the metropolitan planning organization shall
consider factors described in subsection (f) as such factors relate to a 20-year forecast period."
Referencing the FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, in describing the purpose and need for the
proposed action, the agency's NEPA compliance document shall include a discussion of the
.relationship to any statewide plan or adopted urbane transportation plan together with an
explanation of the project's traffic forecasts that are substantially different from those estimates from
the 23 USC 134 (Section 134) planning process. ", As required under 23 USC 134(3)(D), 'each
project shall be consistent with the long -range transportation plan developed under subsection (g)
• for the area." Since SCAG's'long -range transportation plan" is based on ayear 2025 scenario, use
of a 2020 forecast is outdated, inconsistent'with the applicable urban transportation plan, and
produces a horizon year (upon which traffic forecasts are based) which is substantially different
than that contained in the 2001 RTP. No explanation of that difference is, however, presented
anywhere in the DEIR/DEIS. - i=
3.11 Failure to Consider the "Whole of the Action"
As defined in Section 15378(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "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." As further indicated in 23
CFR 771.111(f):
In order to ensure meaningful evaluation of alternatives and to avoid commitments
to transportation improvements before they are fully evaluated, the action evaluated
in each EIS or finding of no significant impact (FONSI) shall: (1) Connect logical
termini and be of sufficient length to address environmental matters on a broad
scope; (2) Have independent utility or independent significance, i.e., be usable and
be a reasonable expenditure even if no additional transportation improvements in
the area are made; and (3) Not restrict consideration of alternatives for other
reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements [emphasis added].
As indicated in DEIR/DEIS, in order "to mitigate impacts to the SR- 22/SR -55 HOV connector, it
• would be necessary to include an additional SR -55 HOV lane in each direction north of SR -22 for
some distance" (p. 4.7 -22). Since "this is beyond the scope of the SR- 22ANest Orange County
Connector" (p. 4.7 -22), that portion of the project has not been included under any of the 'build'
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 35
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA-01-04-D / SCH No. 98064001
alternatives examined by the Lead Agencies and the impacts of that action have not been included •
as part of the project's environmental analysis.
Similarly, in rejecting the "jeneral- purpose lanes" alternative (e.g., "transportation needs of the
study area [would be addressed] through expanding the capacity of the freeway by adding general-
purpose lanes in each direction on SR -22 between Valley View Street and SR-55," p. 2 -17), the
Lead Agencies' rationale for rejection was "a desire to preserve the long -term operational Flexibility
of added lanes to SR -22" (p. 2 -17). Based on that statement, it appears evident that the Lead
Agencies recognize the future need for additional "general - purpose lanesa along the SR -22 Freeway
corridor. The construction of "additional SR -55 HOV lane in each direction north of SR -22 for
some distance" (p. 4.7 -22) and "added lanes to SR -22° (p. 2-17), therefore, constitute "reasonably
foreseeable transportation improvements" (23 CFR 771.111 [a[31).
The Lead Agencies' efforts to fragment the larger improvement project into smaller components
appears to relate to a conscious effort to segregate the environmental impacts from the proposed
HOV improvements from those that would result from the construction of new general- purpose
lanes and to secure federal funding for the proposed improvements. As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS:
The General- Purpose Lanes Alternative was eliminated from further consideration
due to concerns with future air quality conformity ... The SR -22 corridor is located
in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) currently classified as
nonattainment for carbon monoxide (CC), ozone (03), and particulate matter
greater than 10 microns (PM10), with respect to air quality compliance under the
Federal and California Clean Air Acts. Federal Law [23 USC'.Section 134(l)]
prohibits funding for a significant increase in carrying capacity single- occupant
vehicles (general - purpose lanes) for regions classified as non - attainment for CO and
03 (pp. 2 -17 and 2-18).
Both NEPA and CEQA are intended to protect the environment, to the maximum extent feasible,
and are not dependent upon those funding source being pursued by the Lead Agencies. As a result,
the additionof new general - purpose lanes, in combination with the proposed HOV improvements
and the identification of the 1 -405 Freeway as a "Post 2020 Long -Range Corridor" (1998 RTP, Table
6.1), clearly constitute components of the "project" that must be addressed in the DEIR/DEIS. The
Lead Agencies' failure to include those reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements therein
demonstrates their failure to identify and evaluate "the whole of the action," thus producing a
deficient NEPA and CEQA document.
3.12 Project Fragmentation /Segregation Limits Analysis and the Range of Alternatives
Based on the rulings in Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of
California, the Lead Agency is required to define the pending project in a manner that ensures a
complete analysis.of impacts resulting from future expansion or continuation of the initial aspects of
project development. Such impacts must be assessed when the "future expansion or other actions"
are a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the project as initially conceived and where the future
expansion or action will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its effects.
A number of court cases have served to define an agency's obligations to examine later aspects of a •
proposed action. For example, in addressing the growth- inducing impacts associates with specific
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 36
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
• - project activities (i.e., roadway construction) that may facilitate subsequent development, the court
in City of Antioch v City Council of the City of Pittsburg concluded that "construction of the
roadway and utilities cannot be considered in isolation from the development it presages .... the
sole reason to construct the road and sewer project is to pr$vide a catalyst for further development
in the immediate area. Because construction of the project could not be undone, and because
achievement of its purpose would almost certainly have significant environmental impacts,
construction should not be permitted to commence until such impacts are evaluated in the manner
prescribed by CEQA."
Referencing Section 15003(f) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "CEQA was intended to be interpreted
in such a manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the
reasonable scope and statutory language." As indicated in Section 1500.1(c) of the CEQ
Regulations, "it is not better documents but better decisions that count. NEPA's purpose is not to
generate paperwork — even excellent paperwork — but to foster excellent action. ". The City,
therefore, asserts that the Lead Agencies have sought to fragment/segregate a larger project "the
purpose of the proposed SR- 22/West Orange County Connection project is to improve both existing
and future mobility ...With projected population and employment growth trends indicating
increased transportation volumes, SR -22 can be expected to experience worsening operational
deficiencies," p. 1 -1) by focusing only upon an incremental and arbitrary planning date that appears
to be in noway tied to further worsening environmental 'conditions in the future.
As required under Section 1501.2(b) of the ` CEQ Regulations, agencies shall "identify
• environmental effects and values in adequate detail'.. so they can be compared to economic and
technical analyses." The courts (Fritiofson v Alexander, among others) have further stated that
CEQ's- scaping regulations require connected, cumulative, and similar actions to be considered
together in the same EIS. Where . proposals are functionally or economically related, those
proposals must be considered in a single EIS. Clearly, future traffic growth and reasonably
foreseeable traffic improvements that will be required beyond 2020 constitute connected,
cumulative, and similar actions (e.g., "In concert with other transportation system improvements. .
.the Full Build Alternative `could contribute to increased pressure to revise land use plans to include
more development," p. 8 -2). Additionally, under NEPA, an agency has a duty to continue
reviewing environmental effects of a proposed action even after its initial approval. Citing Marsh v.
Oregon Natural Resources Council, "it would be incongruous with ... the Act's manifest concern
with preventing uninformed action, for the blinders to adverse effects, once unequivocally
removed, to be „restored prior to the completion of agency action simply because the relevant
proposal hasn ev initial approval.
The DEIR/DEIS states-.' "SR -22 is included in the goals and policies of the various jurisdictions within
the study area. Most of these are general policies such as the following ... Establish comprehensive
traffic- improvement programs" (p. 1 -15). Basing the entire analysis on 2020 conditions when other
agencies are now planning for and modeling 2025 conditions is anything but a "comprehensive
traffic- improvement program” ( "the information must be of high quality," 40 CFR 1500.1 [b]).
FHWA regulations outline three general principles at 23 CFR 771.111(f) that are to be used to
frame a highway project. In order to ensure meaningful evaluation of alternatives and to avoid
• commitments to transportation improvements before they are fully evaluated, the action evaluated
in each EIS or finding of no significant impact (FONSI) shall: (1) connect logical termini and be of
sufficient length to address environmental matters on a broad scope; (2) have independent utility or
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 37
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
independent significance (i.e., be usable and be a reasonable expenditure even if no additional •
transportation improvements in the area are made); and (3) not restrict consideration of alternatives
for other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements.
Pursuant to 23 CFR 771.111(f)(3), in order to ensure meaningful evaluation of alternatives and to
avoid commitments to transportation improvements before they are fully evaluated, the action
evaluated in each EIS or finding of no significant impact shall "not restrict consideration of
alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements." Notwithstanding that
obligation, further evidence of the Lead Agencies efforts to fragment a larger improvement program
for the SR -22 Freeway into smaller components (so as to avoid the disclosure of the totality of
environmental effects that would likely result from that larger is presented in the Lead
Agencies' rejection of the "general - purpose lanes" alternative. For that possible alternative,
"transportation needs of the study area [would be addressed] through expanding the capacity of the
freeway by adding general - purpose lanes in each direction on SR -22 between Valley View Street
and SR -55" (p. 2 -17). In rejecting that alternative, the Lead Agencies rationale included "a desire to
preserve the long -term operational Flexibility of added lanes to SR -22 ", (p. 2 -17). That statement.
suggests that additional "general- purpose lanes" constitute "reasonably foreseeable transportatiori`
improvements" that will be added to the SR -22 Freeway corridor in the future.
With regards to the metropolitan transportation planning process, 23 CFR 450.316(a) states that
"the following factors shall be explicitly considered, analyzed as appropriate, and reflected in the
planning process products. . . (10) Preservation of rights -of -way for construction of future
transportation projects, including future transportation corridors." Since the Lead Agencies are •
asserting the projects consistency with the RTP, environmental documentation prepared for any
transportation improvements associated with any RTP activity must include consideration of "future
transportation projects" that could also potentially affect that right -of- way... (13) The overall social,
economic, energy, and environmental effects of transportation decisions (including consideration of
the effects and impacts of the plan on the human, natural end'. man -made environment such as
housing, employment and community development), consultation with appropriate resource and
permit agencies to ensure early and continued coordination with environmental resource
protection and management plans, and appropriate emphasis on transportation - related air quality
problems.". -
Although- the above provisions relate to the obligations of the MPO, in recognition of the
relationship between the RTP and the proposed SR22/WOCC project, those same obligations must
be assumed to pass through to the assessment of those projects undertaken in furtherance of the
RTP. The two key elements identified in the above excerpt specifically relevant to the Lead
Agencies obligations under NEPA and''CEQA relate to the need for the agencies to adopt a long -
range perspective with regards to the manner in which the project is described and alternatives
formulated (i.e., "preservation of rights -of -way for construction of future transportation projects ")
and with regards to the manner in which the agencies approach their assessment of long -range and
cumulative environmental impacts (i.e., 'overall social, economic, energy, and environmental
effects of transportation decisions ").
The DEIR/DEIS indicates that in order "to mitigate impacts to the SR- 22/SR -55 HOV connector, it
would be necessary to include an additional SR -55 HOV lane in each direction north of SR -22 for
some distance... This is beyond the scope of the SR- 22NVest Orange County Connector" (p. 4.7- •
22). Since the need for "an additional SR -55 HOV lane" has been identified, the Lead Agencies
State gout. 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2081
City of Seal Beach Page 38
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
• cannot assume that those improvements will not be implemented either as part of the proposed
project or as a component of a follow -up project predicated by the traffic demands generated by the
5R22M/000 project (e.g., the need for the added lane would not exist except for the proposed
SR22M+OCC project). By narrowly defining the project as onity a HOV connector project, absent
additional general - purpose lanes, the resulting scope of the environmental analysis is insufficient to
address environmental matters on a broad scope.
As indicated by the DEIR/DEIS, both Caltrans and the FHWA have a predisposition to solving
capacity constraints by adding more travel lanes. It is, therefore, reasonably foreseeable that by
2020, Caltrans and FHWA will embark on another freeway widening project, seek to consume
more .adjoining homes, and displace a greater number of property owners than now indicated in
the DEIR/DEIS.
Since the way in which a problem is defined leads to and limits the range of solutions posited for its
resolutions, the City asserts that the Lead Agencies are unreasonably and to narrowly defining the
problem at hand and, in so doing, has both fragmented/segregated the project and inappropriately
restricted the range of alternatives that may be available to those agencies. For example, a project
with a longer -term vision and where a greater need is identified may be one that would necessitate
a greater number of "general - purpose lanes" as one of anumber of alternatives to accommodate
that need.
As the SR -22 Freeway transverses the City, intensive development now abuts the northern edge of
• that roadway. However, in the vicinity of the USNWS, the southern edge of the freeway is not only
in public ownership but is currently committed to agricultural use (e.g., "One area is located in Seal
Beach, within the United States Naval Weapons Station, between Seal Beach Boulevard and Old
Bolsa Chica Road ... At the time this document was prepared, these areas were being used as open
space," pp. 3.6-11 and 12; Figure 3.6-3, p. 3.6 -13). For a larger project (e.g., based on 2025
growth projections), a: southerly expansion becomes the logical planning conclusion and would
alter the project and range of alternatives now described in the DEI R/DEIS.
By defining the proposed project in the largest possible fashion, logically, the assessment of design
options would focus on a southerly expansio` the existing right -of -way rather than the
destruction of an even greater number of homes on a north side of the freeway. By artificially
constraining the project, the Lead Agencies have sought to piecemeal the project and, in so doing,
have sought to prevent an assessment of other alternatives that would result from that broader
perspective.
The Lead Agencies intent to fragment the project are not confined only to the manner in which the
project is described but also extend into the DEIR/DEIS' analysis of project - related and cumulative
environmental effects. For example, with regards to the document's discussion of impacts on
wetlands and waters of the United States associated with the "Full Build Alternative," the DEIR/DEIS
indicates that "the project will need to comply with.Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to address
'waters of the United States.' Section 404 permits will be required for the crossings identified
below, but coverage under existing Nationwide Permit 14, Linear Transportation Crossings, is
anticipated because permanent impacts would not exceed the thresholds for the nationwide permit
(0.2 hectare or 0.5 acres), as shown in Table 4.4-1" (p. 4.4 -1).
•
Slate Route 221lNesl Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 39
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
Table 4.4-1 (p. 4.4-2) lists six separate "waters of the United States" that will be directly impacted •
under the "Full Build Alternative.' Although none of the identified impacts on those jurisdictional
waters exceeds that threshold, individually, when examined collectively, "temporary impacts' total
5.82 acres and "permanent impacts' total 0.70 acres. As a result, the Lead Agencies seek to $ssen
that as long as impacts to any single individual jurisdictional area is less than the established
threshold, the totality of all project - related impacts (although collectively exceeding the threshold)
remain less than significant (i.e., 'permanent impacts would not exceed the threshold for this
nationwide permit [0.2 hectare or 0.5 acres], as shown in Table 4.4-1, resulting in less than
significant impacts," p. 4.4 -4). In reality, the project will be required to obtain an 'individual'
permit since the area of impact will exceed that authorized under Nationwide Permit (NWP) 14.
3.13 Failure of the Lead Agencies to Take a "Hard Look" at Environmental Consequences
The CEQ states that the purpose of the NEPA process is *to help public officials make decisions that
are based on understanding of environmental consequences" (40 CFR 1500.1[c]). As indicated in
the CEQ Regulations, "the primary purpose of an environmental impact statement is to serve as an
action- forcing device to insure that the policies and goals defined in the [National Environ ental
Policy] Act are infused into the ongoing programs and actions of the federal government. It shall
provide full and fair discussion of significant environmental impacts and shall inform decision
makers and the public' (40 CFR 1502.1) and 'impacts shall be discussed in proportion to their
significance' (40 CFR 1502.2[6]). '
Similarly, CEQA requires good faith, reasoned analysis in evaluating environmental impacts. A
legally adequate EIR must contain sufficient detail to help ensure the integrity of the process of
decision making by precluding stubborn .problems or serious criticism from being swept under the
rug. The EIR must contain sufficient facts and analysis . to show the analytic route the agency
followed. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice. In lieu of any
"reasoned analysis' of the, project and its potential impacts, the Lead Agencies offer only
generalized statements, :absent any evidence of detailed project- specific and site - specific
investigation, and unsupported conclusions. While the City certainly respects the judgement and
opinion of the Lead Agencies on transportation issues, the City and the public cannot be expected
to blindly . follow the Lead Agencies down this path without a more adequate and complete
examination of the environmental consequences.
The Lead Agencies failures are too numerous to list in their totality. With limited time and
resources, only examples of the DEIR/DEIS' defects can be identified and such examples should be
construed as inclusive of all such defects. In most instances, the text of the DEIR/DEIS does not
even present conclusions, leaving the reviewer and, therefore, the project's decision makers,
uncertain as to the significance of the identified pre- and post- mitigated environmental effect.
Since the proposed federal action constitutes a traffic improvement program, issues directly or
indirectly associated with transportation and circulation must logically constitute a major focus of
the DEIR/DEIS. Since traffic is a major contributor to air pollution and noise, the adequacy and
accuracy of those analyses are dependent upon the findings of a detailed traffic analysis. Since
freeway projects typically constitute large -scale public improvement activities, resulting in long-
term changes in both an areas visual characteristics and a region's traffic patterns, transportation
improvement projects often produce substantial visual impacts perceptible to large segments of the •
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 40
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
• region's population and particularly evident to those receptors located in close proximity to those
improvements.
As a result of the Lead Agencies failure to conduct a reasonable assessment of traffic and related
impacts, including the DEIR/DEIS' failure to examine year 2025 conditions, the DEIR/DEIS fails to
fulfill NEPA's obligation that the Lead Agencies take a 'hard look" at the project's environmental
consequences (Kleooe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 410 [19761) and provide a full disclosure of
those impacts "to the fullest extent possible' (Section 102, NEPA).
NEPA establishes a national policy of environmental protection and placed a responsibility upon
federal agencies to further specific environmental goals by "all practicable means, consistent with
other essential considerations of national policy" (Section 101 [6], NEPA). Section. 102 (2)(C) is one
of the "action- forcing" provisions intended as a directive that al gencies to assure consideration
of the environmental impact of their actions in decision making.'''.
The Lead Agencies both fail to fulfill their NEPA obligations and materially misrepresent both the
affected environment and the potential impacts that would likely result from the project's
implementation. From a traffic perspective, the assertion that "the 2020 data results in a 'worst -
case' scenario" (p. 3.7 -1) fails to acknowledge that traffic conditions will further deteriorate beyond
2020, year 2025 data is and has been readily available to the Lead Agencies, and the MPC's 2001
RTP is based on year 2025 conditions. „�''
3.14 Failure to Provide a Comprehensive Environmental Analysis -
As required under the Caltrans' Environmental: Handbook, in describing the required content of the
document's assessment of "environmental consequences and mitigation measures,' Caltrans
stipulates that "the impacts listed in the FHWA Technical Advisory (pages 17 through 37) must be
shown to be not significant either by discussion in this section_orby checklist item explanation'
(Environmental Handbook, p.3 -12).
As indicated in FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, those "environmental consequences"
include: (1) land use impacts; (2) farmland impacts; (3) social impacts; (4) relocation impacts; (5)
economic impacts; (6) joint development; (7) considerations relating to pedestrians and bicyclists;
(8) air quality impacts; (9) noise impacts; (10) water quality impacts; (11) permits; (12) wetland
impacts; (13) water body modification and wildlife impacts; (14) floodplain impacts; (15) wild and
scenic rivers; (16) coastal barriers; (17) coastal zone impacts; (18) threatened and endangered
species; (19) historic and archaeological preservation; (20) hazardous waste sites; (21) visual
impacts; (22) energy; and (23) construction impacts.
Notwithstanding that requirement, the DEIR/DEIS lacks any discussion of a number of the above
topics (e.g., land use, joint development, considerations relating to pedestrians and bicyclists,
.permits, coastal zone impacts, hazardous waste sites). Since no technical appendices accompanied
the DEIR/DEIS, it is not possible to discern what, if any, information was included as part of a
"checklist item explanation' or whether than information constitutes an adequate and reasonable
analysis of project - related and cumulative impacts.
• Similarly, the DEIR/DEIS lacks specific information required under CEQA. That information
includes, but may not be limited to: (1) areas of controversy and issues to be resolved (Section
Stale Route 22M19est Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 41
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
As defined in Section 15358 of the State CEQA Guidelines, "effects' include both direct or primary •
effects which are caused by the project and occur at the same time and place and indirect or
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 42
•
15123[b][2] -[3], State CEQA Guidelines); (2) a list of agencies that are expected to use the EIR in
their decision making (Section 15124[d][1][A], State CEQA Guidelines); (3) a list of permits and
other approvals required to implement the project (Section 15124[d][1][B], State CEQA Guidelines);
(4) a list of related environmental review and consultation requirements required by federal, Statet
and local laws (Section 15124[d][1][C], Sltate CEQA Guidelines); (4) all public agency decisions
subject to CEQA (Section 15124[d][21, State CEQA Guidelines); (5) any inconsistencies between the
proposed project and applicable general plans and regional plans (Section 15125[d], State CEQA
Guidelines); (6) potential environmental effects caused by the proposed mitigation measures
(Section 15126.4[a][1][D], State CEQA Guidelines); (7) an alternative site analysis (Section
15126.6[f][2], State CEQA Guidelines); and (8) page and section number of technical reports used
as the basis for any statements in the EIR (Section 15148, State CEQA Guidelines).
As a component of the "alternative site analysis,' since the project constitutes a transportation
improvement project, the Lead Agencies should examine other . possible freeway alignments that
could allow for project implementation but reduce or eliminate the project's potential significant
impacts on the City. - -
In the absence of the above information, the Lead Agencies have failed to produce an adequate
NEPA/CEQA compliance document that provides full disclosure and analysis of the project's
potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts, on the natural and human environment, thereby
failing to provide a comprehensive environmental analysis.
3.15 Failure to Consider Indirect and Secondary Impacts
•
As indicated in CEQ Forty Questions, ;f' 'environmental consequences' section should be
devoted largely to a scientific analysis'of "the direct and indirect environmental effects of the
proposed action and of each of the alternatives" (CEQ Forty Questions, Question 7). Throughout
the DEIR/DEIS contrafy3to, the policy direction provided in the FHWA Environmental Guidebook,
the Lead Ageing' ' tav -failed to. identify and consider the potential indirect and secondary impacts
of the proposed ro)ect. As indicated in the "Position Paper on Secondary and Cumulative Impact
Assessment" (FHWA, August 20, 1992), included in the FHWA Environmental Guidebook:
ti u
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the State highway agencies
recognize the growing need to include indirect impact assessments in project
environmental studies. The FHWA commitment to conduct comprehensive
environmental and public interest decision- making requires the collection and
presentation of all information relevant to a project, including its indirect
consequences and contribution to area -wide change [emphasis added].
As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS,. `the Full Build Alternative would serve substantially higher traffic
volumes. During the p.m. peak period, traffic is forecast to increase by 23 percent' (p. 4.7 -5). The
DEIR/DEIS further notes "the Reduced Build Alternative would serve higher traffic volumes
compared to the No Build Alternative, showing increases of eighteen and twelve percent" (p. 4.7-
5). Based on these statements, it is apparent that a greater number of motorists will be
accommodated on the SR -22 Freeway under either of the two "build" alternatives.
As defined in Section 15358 of the State CEQA Guidelines, "effects' include both direct or primary •
effects which are caused by the project and occur at the same time and place and indirect or
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 42
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
• secondary effects which are caused by the project and are later in time or farther removed in
distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. As a result, in assessing project impacts, it is not
sufficient to focus only on the physical changes to the environment associated with the proposed
improvements but the document must also consider the increased number of vehicles and
individuals that 'will be using those improvements and traversing those components of the regional
roadway network that may be directly or indirectly impacted by the proposed SR22/WOCC project.
The environmental analysis presented in various sections of the DEIR/DEIS is, therefore, deficient
since the Lead Agencies sole focus is upon the proposed improvements and not on the secondary
effects that those improvements will produce. For example, although "the study area may traverse
the active Newport- Inglewood fault zone" (p. 4.1 -2) and 'other faults in the area could produce
earthquakes that could damage the structures in the study area and result in injury or death" (p. 4.1-
3), the document mistakenly concludes that "the project would include only widening of an
existing facility in this area; it would not expose people to a new hazard" (pp. 4.1 -3 and 4.1 -4).
Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any analysis of the potential impacts upon the users of the proposed
improvements, focusing only on the physical improvements now under consideration and not on
the operational characteristics of the project from the perspective of future motorists traveling along
the SR -22 Freeway. Although freeways in the San Francisco area may also have been "designed
according to standard engineering practices and Caltrans specifications" (p. 4.1 -2), those practices
and specifications were not sufficient to ensure the structural stability of those improvements or
prevent the loss of life or property damage when subjected to a major earthquake event. As a result
• of the October 17,1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, several major highways, overpasses, and ground
thoroughfares were damaged and rendered d�eless'15Core for only a short time, others for as much
as a few years.
Seismic safety regulations and standards are an evolving design field. Whenever there is an
earthquake, civil engineers and other designers modify"' applicable standards (e.g., "Uniform
Building Code" requirements) based on information obtained from structural collapses produced by
those seismic events. The fact that a facility is designed to 'current' standards is, itself, no
assurance . that the structure will withstand future seismic events (e.g., until the late 1960s, non -
ductile concrete frames were commonly . used for buildings, bridges, and other structures; current
standards in California do not allow this type of structural system to be constructed in areas prone
to potential strong ground shaking).
Although absent from the DEIR/DEIS, as indicated in the preliminary engineering plans, the °405-
605 HOV Connector" will be elevated at the maximum approximately 75 feet above existing grade.
Although the project has been under consideration since at least 1989 (e.g., "In September 1989, a
Project Study Report was approved," p. 1 -10) and preliminary engineering plans were developed
prior to the document's release, absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any reference to any site - specific and
project - specific geotechnical, geologic, or seismic studies that have been prepared specifically for
the SR227WOCC project. _
The basis for the information presented in the DEIR/DEIS appears to be generalized data assembled
for the entire southern California area rather than for the unique conditions that now exist in close
• proximity to the project site. As a result, the Lead Agencies do not possess sufficient technical
information to derive defensible conclusions concerning the level of seismic and related risks or the
magnitude of any earthquakes that would affect the project over the project's life.
State Route 22lwesl Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 43
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA-01-04-D / SCH No. 98064001
Utilizing the Lead Agencies' own threshold criteria (i.e., 'potential for seismic hazards and ground
shaking activities; p. 4.1 -3), it is evident that the project area is susceptible to substantial seismic
hazards (e.g., 'The Seal Beach section of the Newport- Inglewood fault is considered - potentially
active and is included in the Earthquake Fault Zones established under the Alquist - Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act,' p. 3.1 -3). Notwithstanding "these conditions, the DEIR/DEIS ignores
the safety of future motorists that will be using the SR- 22ANOCC improvements (e.g., "During the
p.m. peak hour, traffic is forecast to increase by 23 percent,' p. 4.7 -5; 'The vehicles using the
Pacific Electric Arterial 139,900 per day] would include new trips,' p. 4.7 -16). In recognition of this
deficiency, the DEIR/DEIS fails to present an adequate analysis of the project's potential indirect
and secondary impacts.
��
3.16 Failure to Adequately Evaluate Cumulative Impacts
z
As indicated in Section 15130(x)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, 'a cumulative impact consists of
an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated'`in the EIR
together with other projects causing related impacts.' As further indicated in Section
15130(b)(1)(A)(3) therein,'lead agencies should define the geographic scope of the area affected by
the cumulative effect and provide a reasonable explanation for the geographic limitations used.'
The CEQ Regulations define 'cumulative effects' as "the impact: on the environment which results
from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other action' (40
CFR 1508.7). Cumulative impacts are those that- result from individually minor but collectively
significant actions taking place over a period bf time. The United States Supreme Court (Kleppe v.
Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 410) has determine jhat when actions will have cumulative environmental
impacts upon a region and are pending concurrently before an agency, that the environmental
consequences must be considered together.
Clearly, based on the regional improvement program outlined in the 1998 RTP and 2001 RTP, the
list of related projects identified in the 1998 RTP MFEIR and 2001 RTP FPEIR, the regional growth
forecasts contained in the general plans of those municipalities located along the SR -22 corridor,
and the independent actions and activities of the FHWA, Caltrans, and OCTA, a number of
additional "past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions,' not presented addressed in the
DEIR/DEIS, need to be considered as part of the Lead Agencies' cumulative impact analysis.
•
•
Although the DEIR/DEIS states that "anticipated traffic growth' affecting the SR -22 Freeway corridor
'would be spurred by future population and economic growth within the SR -22 corridor and those
geographic areas whose travelers . would use SR -22 for part of their trips' (p. 3.7 -4), the Lead
Agencies have sought to ignore the tributary area directly or indirectly affecting traffic volumes
along the SR -22 Freeway in formulating its basis for the assessment of cumulative impacts.
Although the DEIR/DEIS indicates that "related projects are those that may affect the construction,
operation, or use of the SR- 22/West Orange County Connection' (p. 2 -19), the Lead Agencies fail to
define a geographic area from which 'affects' may emanate and restricts the list of 'related
projects' to only those 'that have certified and adopted environmental documents' (p. 2 -19).
Under the Lead Agencies own definition, the SR22/WOCC project would not be included in any
CEQA or NEPA documents prepared for any other traffic improvement projects located within the •
Los Angeles metropolitan area.
State Route 22lWest Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 44
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
• Referencing the CEQ's "Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy
Act" (CEQ, January 1997) (CEQ Cumulative Effects), "agencies future actions and plans pertaining
to the identified resource of concern should be included if they are based on authorized plans of
permits. ..Agency gr regional planning documents can provide the analyst with a reasonable
projection of future activities and their modes of operation" (CEQ Cumulative Effects, p. 29).
SCAG's 2001 RTP constitutes an adopted `regional planning document" and contains a detailed list
of other "corridor" and related transportation improvements projects proposed or now underway
within the southern California area and, therefore, constitutes an appropriate source for the
identification of other projects that will be implemented within the same time frame as the
proposed project and which could produce cumulative environmental effects. As further indicated
in CEQ Cumulative Effects:
For a project- specific analysis, it is often sufficient to analyze effects within the
immediate area of he proposed action. When analyzing the contribution of this
proposed action to cumulative effects, however, the geographic boundaries of the
anaJysis almost always should be expanded. These expanded boundaries can be
thought of as differences in hierarchy or scale. Project- specific analysis are usually
conducted on the scale of counties, forest management units, or .installation
boundaries, whereas cumulative effects analysis should be conducted on the scale
of human communities, landscapes, watersheds, and airsheds ... A useful concept in
determining appropriate geographic boundaries for a cumulative effects analysis is
the project impact zone (CEQ Cumulative Effects, p. 12) 'x
• In determining how far into the future to analyze cumulative effee�tsT the analyst
should first consider the time frame of the project- specific analysis. If the effects of
the proposed action are projected to last five years, this time frame may be the most
appropriate for the cumulative effects analysis. The analyst should attempt to
identify actions: that could reasonably be expected to occur within that period (CEQ
Cumulative Effects, p. 16).
Commonly, analysts only include those plans for action which are funded or for
which other NEPA analysis is being prepared.- This approach does not meet the
letter of intent of CEQ's regulations. It underestimates the number of future
projects, because many viable actions may be in the early planning stage. .
.Including future actions in the study is much easier if an agency has already
developed a planning document that identifies proposed future actions and has
communicated these plans to other federal agencies and governmental bodies in the
affected region CEQ Cumulative Effects, p. 19).
Based on that definition, the inventory of "reasonably foreseeable future actions- that constitute the
basis for the assessment of cumulative impacts should not be limited to the abbreviated list of
"projects, that have certified and adopted environmental documents' (p. 2 -19), as represented by
the Lead Agencies, but must include a substantially greater inventory of actions, inclusive of those
currently under consideration by the FHWA, Caltrans, and those surface transportation projects
identified in the 2001 RTP which are part of SCAG's 2010 -2025 baseline assumptions (e.g., "In
• concert with other transportation system improvements. . .the Full Build Alternative could
contribute to increased pressure to revise land use plans to include more development," p. 8-2). For
a project that will not be completed before 2008 -2010 and which is based on year 2020 modeling,
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 45
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
it is unreasonable to limit the inventory of reasonably foreseeable future actions to only those that •
may now have "certified and adopted environmental documents."
As established in City of Antioch v. City Council (1986), a proper cumulative impact analysis must
be prepared "before a project gains irreversible momentum." It is, therefore, evident that the
DEIR/DEIS fails to present a factual and supportable cumulative impact assessment. Rather than the
approach now selected by the Lead Agencies, the DEIR/DEIS should be amended to represent that
document as a "tiered" analysis, building upon the information presented in SCAG's 2001 RTP
FPEIR. As indicated in the program -level analysis, "the lead agencies for individual projects may
use this PEIR as the basis of their regional and cumulative analysis" (2001 RTP DPEIR, p. 6).
Alternatively, CEQA provides local lead agencies the authority to formulate their cumulative impact
analysis upon either: (1) a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or
cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency; or (2)
a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan.. or related planning document
(Section 15130[b][7], State CEQA Guidelines). In basing its analysis on only those projects "that
have certified and adopted environmental documents" (p. 2 -19), it is evident that the Lead Agencies
have sought to artificially constrain the list of "foreseeable future actions" and "probable future
projects" and, in so doing, has presented a flawed and deficient cumulative impact analysis.
Since the project is designed to accommodate a "2020 traffic forecast" (p. 1 -3), a substantially
greater inventory of projects will logically come "on line" during that period than now assumed by
the Lead Agencies (e.g., "Where it is likely the scope of these projects may change during the
planning phase, consequently, their environmental impacts may be altered," p 8-4). As additional
•
projects are added, the potential for possible cumulative impacts increase. As a result, although the
-
Lead Agencies may have taken an authorized course, the course It elected to take is the one least
likely to produce accurate and useful information. Since "CEQA was intended to be interpreted in
such a manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable
scope of the statutory language ". (Section 15003[a, State CEQA Guidelines), the Lead Agencies have
failed to fulfill their statutory and regulatory obligations.
As defined. in 23 CFR 450.104, the proposed SR22AV000 project constitutes a "regionally
significant project." A "regionally significant project means a project (other than projects that may
be grouped in the STIP/FIP pursuant to Section 450.216 and Section 450.324) that is on a facility
which serves ]..regional transportation needs (such as access to and from the area outside of the
region, major ,d v'rity centers in the region, major planned developments such as new retail malls,
sports complexes'; <.etb., or transportation terminals as well as most terminals themselves) and would
normally be included in the modeling of a metropolitan area's transportation network, including, as
a minimum, all principal arterial . highways and all fixed guideway transit facilities that offer a
significant alternative to regional',. highway travel."
Under that definition, other "related projects" that should be addressed in the DEIR/DEIS that have
the potential for producing cumulative impacts include other activities that serve "regional
transportation needs." None of the "other projects and proposals within the area" (pp. 2 -19 and 2-
20) that "may also contribute to cumulative impacts when considered in conjunction with the SR-
22/West Orange County Connection" (p. 2 -19) encompass other projects that constitute
components of the "metropolitan area's transportation network" (e.g., project identified on the State
•
Transportation Improvement Program [STIP] and Federal Transportation Improvement Program
Stale Route 22/west Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 46
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA-01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
• [TIP]). By excluding those projects, the Lead Agencies seek to assert that the SR22AVOCC project
is not an integral part of that "transportation network," while at the same time arguing that the "SR-
22 is the only Orange County freeway that does not have an HOV facility" (p. 2 -1).
Although a short and inadequate list of "related projects" (pp. 2 -19 and 2 -20) are Identified, in the
DEIR/DEIS' cumulative impact analysis, the Lead Agencies present no analysis of the potential
environmental consequences of the proposed project in combination with the abbreviated list of
projects used as the basis for cumulative impact assessment (e.g., "There are several potential issue
areas for which none of the SR- 22/West Orange County Connection alternatives would contribute
to cumulative impacts, either because they would not result in impacts . or because impacts that
would occur can be fully mitigated or prevented through mitigation," p. 8 -4).. Among the topical
issues for which no cumulative impact analysis is presented include, but are not limited to
"transportation /circulation (positive impacts and impacts prevented by mitigation" (p. 8-5) and
"energy (no impacts under any alternatives)" (p. 8 -5). Additionally, despite the City's stated
concerns and the findings of the MPO, the DEIR/DEIS erroneously asserts "displacement would
result in minimal cumulative impacts" (p. 8-9).
Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any attempt to quantify the potential impacts associated with each of
the "related projects" which are identified and then to add those measurable impacts to those
attributable to the proposed project. While the analysis is purportedly `. 'based on their
environmental documents" (p. 8-4), the corresponding environmental documents that describe
those projects and their impacts are never referenced in the DEIR/DEIS (e.g., "These documents
• should be cited but not included in the EIR," .Section 15148, State CEQA Guidelines), thus
preventing reviewers from comparing the preliminary findings of the DEIR/DEIS with the adopted
findings of those lead agencies that certified those documents. -
Surprisingly, the list of "related projects" presented in the DEIR (pp. 2 -19 and 2 -20) differs from the
.list of "local projects [which] are being considered as part of the SR -22 West Orange County
Connection," as identified in the Briefing Book (Briefing Book, p. 10). For example, although the
Briefing Book' identifies the "Harbor Boulevard Smart Street project" (Briefing Book, p. 10), that
project is noticeably absent from the related proje 4 ( dentified in the DEIR/DEIS (i.e., 'Examples of
major projects in the SR -22 study area awaiting environmental approval are the Harbor Boulevard
Smart Street Feasibility Study," p. 2 -19). In one insta ce, the Lead Agencies assert that the 'Harbor
Boulevard Smart Street project" is "being considered as part" of the project, while, in another
instance, that same project is not being considered (e.g., "Only projects that have certified and
adopted environmental documents are included," p. 2 -19). This same inconsistency exists for the
"SR- 22/The City Drive chokepoint project" (Briefing Book, p. 10).
The level of detail required for a cumulative impacts analysis is not entirely clear under CEQA.
Some court decisions indicate an EIR must include objective measurements of a cumulative impact
when such data are reasonably available or can reasonably be produced by further study and are
necessary to ensure disclosure of the impact (Kings County Farm Bureau, supra, 221 Cal.App.3d
729 -730). Other decisions indicate a general, qualitative analysis is sufficient as long as impacts are
not minimized or ignored (Al Larson Boat Shoo Inc. v Board of Harbor Commissioners (1993) 18
Cal.App.4th 729, 748 -749). Since it is evident that the Lead Agencies' evaluation of the cumulative
• impacts of other related projects is based on adopted "environmental documents," a more detailed
evaluation of cumulative impacts is possible. No such analysis is, however, presented by the Lead
Agencies who fail to provide either objective measures or a qualitative analysis.
Slate Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 47
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA -01 -04 -D / 5CH No. 98064001
The cumulative impact analysis also succumbs to the same defects as identified for the document's •
project- specific analysis (e.g., lack of measurable threshold of significance criteria). Since thresholds
of significance are either ill defined or undefined, it is not possible to compare the identified impact
e against any particular yardstick to determine whether th@@ resulting cumulative impact exceeds some e
defined threshold standard. For example, the DEIR/DEIS states that cumulative impacts include
'decreased groundwater quality due to increased development above the groundwater basin' (p. 8-
8). As a threshold, the Lead Agencies establish the following non - measurable standard: 'Potential
on groundwater availability, use, or quality' (p. 4.2 -5). Since the DEIR/DEIS acknowledges
'decreased groundwater quality,' it would be logical to assume the existence of cumulative water
quality impacts.
Absent from the DEIR/DEIS, however, is any conclusionary statement (supportable by factual
evidence and duplicable analysis) as whether those impacts are significant or insignificant.
Cumulative impacts are not even addressed in Table 5.5 -1 (see pp. v- xxxv). As a result, absent from
the project's administrative record is any information allowing the Lead Agencies to make requisite
findings (e.g., 'The findings required by subsection [a] shall be supported by substantial evidence in
the record,' Section 15091 [b], State CEQA Guidelines).
As required under CEQ Cumulative Effects, 'decisions must be supported by the best analysis based
on the best data we have or are able to collect' (CEQ Cumulative Effects, p. 3)y and include
'rigorous analyses' (CEQ Cumulative Effects, p. 46). By presenting conclusory statements, absent
any technical analysis and without any assessment of the project's cumulative effects with regards
to the project's threshold criteria, the Lead Agencies violate NEPA's obligation to take a'hard look
at environmental consequences.' CEQ Cumulative Effects outlines an eight -step process that the
•
Lead Agency is encouraged to implement in identifying and assessing cumulative impacts. In
reviewing the DEIR/DEIS, it is evident that none of the following actions were conducted by the
Lead Agencies:
• Select the resources, ecosystems, and human communities considered in the project -
specific analysis to be those that could be affected cumulatively;
• Identify the important cause - and - effect relationships between human activities and
resources of concern using a network or systems diagram that focuses on the important
cumulative effects pathways;
❑ Adjust the geographic and nm O"'Undaries of the analysis based on cumulative cause -and-
effect relationships'
❑ Incorporate additional past, preset;; and reasonably foreseeable actions into the analysis as
indicated by the cumulative cauS4 nd -effect relationships;
❑ Determine the magnitude and significance of cumulative effects based on context and
intensity and present tables comparing the effects of the proposed action and alternatives to
facilitate decision making;. '
❑ Modify or add alternatives to avoid, minimize, or mitigate cumulative effects based on the
cause-andeffect pathways that contribute most to the cumulative effect on a resource; .
• Determine cumulative effects of the selected alternative with mitigation and enhancement
measures; and
• Explicitly address uncertainty in communicating predictions to decision- makers and the
public, and reduce uncertainty as much as possible through monitoring and adaptive
management (CEQ Cumulative Effects, p. 47).
State Route 22fWes Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 48
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
• 3.17 Implementation may Foreclose Other Transportation Options under Consideration
The DEIR/DEIS acknowledges that ISTEA and TEA -21 provide that "proposed transportation
projects must be derived from a long -range transportation plan or Regional Transportation Plan"
(p. 3.8 -3). The 2001 RTP 4defines "multi- modal" as "a mixture of the several modes of
transportation — transit, highways, non - motorized, etc." (2001 RTP, p. 189). As indicated therein,
the 2001 has been developed to 'serve as a catalyst for linking the various transportation agency
investments within the SCAG region to provide a cohesive, balanced and multi -modal
transportation system that addresses the regional goal and is consistent with federal and State
requirements" (2001 RTP, p. 3). Additionally, ISTEA and TEA -21 specifically requires consideration
of multi -modal solutions to the area's most pressing future transportation problems.
As evidenced throughout Los Angeles County, freeway rights -of -way can be utilized for fixed -rail
transit systems, creating multi -modal transportation corridors. New fixed -rail transit systems are
.currently under consideration in Orange County (e.g., "the envuontnentaldocument for the Orange
County Centerline Project, which includes construction of a 45- kilometer 128 -milel rail transit
system, is currently being prepared,' p. 3.67). In addition, SCAG's "Regional Mobility. Plan"
(SCAG, 1994) indicates "the availability of an exclusive lane for transit buses reduces conflicts with
mixed -flow traffic resulting in faster running times, reduced operating costs, lower bus emissions,
and improved passenger attraction."
As the County continues to grow and continued development of transportation systems geared
• exclusive to single- occupant vehicles (SOV) becomes increasingly cost prohibitive, regional transit
agencies will increase their focus on transit options. It is, therefore,: short- sighted of the Lead
Agencies to fail to consider transportation options that may foreclose . future options to construct
transit- oriented facilities (e.g., exclusive bus lanes, fixed -rail transit routes) as part of the proposed
project (e.g., "SR -22 does not include dedicated facilities for transit.. The availability of dedicated
transit facilities could result in indirect relief of traffic congestion,' p. 1 -2). Although a "Fixed
Guideway Alternative" (pp. 2 -16 and 2 -17) was initially considered, that alternative was rejected by
the Lead Agencies based on the Lead Agencies' assertion that the alternative lacked "public
support" and failed to "fulfill an important transportation goal of OCTA, which was to complete the
last major link in the county's HOV network" (p. 2 -17).
Prior to the State's first "diamond lane," it is highly likely that the concept of allocating a travel lane
to carpoolers was not a popular concept (i.e., lacked public support). The absence of that
popularity, however, did not prevent the State's transportation planners from moving forward in the
development of that system. Since . government is tasked with the responsibility of addressing
environmental and societal problems, it is irresponsible for the Lead Agencies to reject any
alternative "due to the lack of public support" (p. 2 -17).
The City asserts that any transportation facility planning for the SR -22 Freeway corridor must
include consideration of long -range transportation options. Since the DEIR/DEIS is based only on a
year 2020 horizon, transportation alternatives designed to address travel demands beyond that date
are totally ignored. More importantly, by failing to consider other long -term transportation
solutions, the Lead Agencies may, in fact, be foreclosing future improvement options that could be
formulated in response to those future transportation demands. As a result, in addition to adopting
•
a longer term planning focus, the DEIR/DEIS needs to be augmented to include consideration of
State Route 22/west Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 49
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA -01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
both more innovative transportation solutions (e.g., Intra- Regional High Speed Rail Maglev) and the •
development of multi -modal options.
3.18 Failure to Disclose Location of and Impacts from Construction Staging Areas
Although the document has a section entitled "construction- related impacts: (pp. 4.15 -1 through
4.15 -8), absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any reference to or discussion of the potential impacts
associated with any off -site construction staging areas that may be required for the storage,
assembly, or marshaling of equipment of construction personnel. Since the project may require
several years to complete (e.g., "it is likely that the project construction would be phased,' p. 2 -21),
the potential impacts that may result from the use of multiple staging areas (e.g., construction
vehicle traffic, potential disruption of traffic movements, obstruction of access,'. safety and security,
noise, air quality, hazardous wastes, visual impacts, etc.) can result in the creation of additional,
undisclosed impacts that extend beyond the project's right -of- way.';
For example, although the DEIR/DEIS notes that 'hazardous materials may be used during
construction of the Full Build Alternatives, such as paving materials, chemicals, and paints.. These
materials may be a potential health threat to people working on the project" (p. 4.15 -4), the Lead
Agencies ignore the reality that these same "health threats" (e.g., presence of explosive, flammable,
and toxic materials) may also extend to unsuspecting receptors located near the construction site
and staging areas.
Among the document's threshold of significance criteria, the Lead Agencies include the following:
"Visual impacts associated with views of construction staging areas" (p. 4.15 -6). In the absence of
•
any analysis and absent any mitigation measures addressing "construction staging areas,' the
document concludes "it is unlikely that all construction staging areas can be located
inconspicuously in the dense urban areas that border the project. Therefore, substantial short-term
impacts would remain after. mitigation for the construction period" (p. 4.15 -8). This conclusion,
however, addresses only the issue of potential visual impacts and ignores the other potential
environmental impacts that could be associated with multiple construction staging areas.
By failing to disclose the project's likely off-site staging areas, the Lead Agencies have presented an
incomplete description of the project, failed to identify all area of direct disturbance, and assess all
construction - related impacts. In the absence of that site- specific information, as well as additional
data concerning the project's construction and phasing, it is not possible to accurately assess the
project's construction -term impacts or formulate appropriate mitigation measures in response to
those reasonably foreseeable environmental effects.
For example, although the DEIR/DEIS notes that "during construction, temporary construction
easements on adjacent properties '. may be necessary. If these easements result in impacts that would
make the affected property unusable for its existing use, substantial impacts would occur' (p. 4.15-
2). Those "adjacent properties" that could be adversely impacted are, however, not identified nor
does the DEIR/DEIS contain any further discussion of the nature of any "substantial impacts" that
may be anticipated. As a result, although additional off -site impacts are disclosed, no attempts have
been made by the Lead Agencies to analyze those likely project- induced consequences. As
"mitigation,' the DEIR/DEIS contains the following measure (i.e., CON -FB-2, p. 4.15 -7):
•
State Route 221West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 50
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01- 04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
• If temporary construction easements are required and these easements result in an
inability for landowners to use their property as intended, additional substantial
impacts not foreseen in this document would occur. Supplemental environmental
analysis and documentation will be required. Following construction, affected
properties will be returned to their pre - construction conditions.
The above referenced mitigation measure fails to meet the definition of mitigation under NEPA
(e.g., 40 CFR 1508.2) or CEQA (e.g., Sections 15121 and 15370, State CEQA Guidelines)
and cannot be presented as a substitution for or in lieu of the project -level analysis required of the
Lead Agencies for the proposed project. The DEIR/DEIS should, therefore, describe under what
conditions would "adjacent properties" be impacted, what are the likely locations of those
properties, under what conditions or circumstances would "temporary construction easements' be
required, and for what duration. The DEIR/DEIS should include, as a mitigation measure, a
requirement that, prior to the commencement of any construction activities, the Lead Agencies
develop a construction access plan and the jurisdictions in which the affected properties reside
have the discretion to approve that plan or make substantive modifications thereto.
As indicated in the FHWA Environmental Guidebook, citing Technical Advisory T6160.2 (FHWA,
March 13, 1984), 'if a construction noise impact is anticipated at a particular sensitive receptor, use
of the model contained in 'Highway Construction Noise, Measurement, Prediction, and Mitigation'
to predict construction noise' (FHWA Technical Advisory T6160.2, p. 2). Since no reference to
that publication exists either in the document's text or bibliography (see p. 13 -3), it can be
• reasonably concluded that the authors of the DEIR/DEIS neither consulted the above technical
advisory nor sought to "model" construction noise in accordance with the methodology outlined
therein.
In order to mitigate construction noise, Technical Advisory T6160.2 states "careful project planning
can aid in locating noisy construction activities as far as possible from sensitive receptors or in area
where natural shielding is possible. Building temporary noise barriers or special equipment
enclosures is usually quite expensive and limited to use only in instances of sever construction
noise impacts' (Technical Advisory T6160.2, p. 4). From the above excerpt, use of 'noise barriers
or special equipment enclosures" would likely be deemed "infeasible" by the Lead Agencies. As a
result, increased emphasis needs to be placed on "locating noisy construction activities as far as
possible from sensitive receptors." No comparable mitigation measures are, however, presented in
the DEIR/DEIS and no performance standards or other criteria are presented (in the form of
mitigation) that would ensure that construction activities do not adversely impact nearby receptors.
Since it is apparent that reasonable and feasible noise mitigation measures exist that, if
implemented, would reduce the 'substantial impacts" (p. 4.15 -2) identified in the DEIR/DEIS, the
Lead Agencies failure to apply those measures so as to further reduce or eliminate that "potentially
significant impact (short- term)" (p, xix) represents a failure on the part of the Lead Agencies to fully
comply with their NEPA (e.g., 40 CFR 1500.211) and CEQA (e.g., Section 21002, Cl
obligations.
3.19 Failure to Determine Consistency with Applicable General and Regional Plans
• As indicated in FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, the document's evaluation of land use
impacts "should assess the consistency of the alternatives with the comprehensive development
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 51
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA-01-04-D / SCH No. 98064001
plans adopted for the area and other plans used in the development of the transportation plan
required by Section 134" (FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, p. 13). As further required under
Section 15125(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "the EIR shall discuss any inconsistencies between
the proposed project and applicable general and regional plans. Such regional plans include, but
are not limited to, the applicable air quality attainment or maintenance plan (or State
Implementation Plan), area -wide waste treatment and water quality control plans, regional
transportation plans, regional housing allocation plans, habitat conservation plans, natural
community conservation plans and regional land use plans for the protection of the coastal zone."
Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any land use impact assessment. Typically, a land use impact
assessment would include "current development trends and the State and /or local governmental
plans and policies on land use and growth in the area which will be impacted by the proposed
project. These plans and policies are normally reflected in the area's comprehensive development
plan, and include land use, transportation, public facilities, housing, community services, and other
areas. The land use discussion should assess the consistency of the alternatives with the
comprehensive development plans adopted for the area and (if applicable) other plans used in the
development of the transportation plan required by Section 134" (FHWA Technical Advisory
T6640.8A, p. 13). As indicated in Section 15125(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "the EIR'shall
discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans and
regional plans." In this case, it cannot be assumed that the land use assessment may simply be
glossed -over based on the fact that freeway uses already exist in the vicinity of the project.
Although the DEIR/DEIS contains reference to a number of local agency general plans (pp. 3.6-1
and 3.6 -8 through 11), the analysis of the project's consistency is related to a single sentence under
each of the alternatives (e.g., "this alternative is supportive of major land use policies defined by
Orange County's and affected cities general plans," p. 4.6 -2). Conclusory statements based on the
selection of only those policies that appear to support the proposed project fails to constitute an
reasoned analysis of the project's potential inconsistencies with local plans and policies. It is not
the intent of the environmental process to be self- promotional but to offer a thorough and objective
assessment of a proposed action and those mitigation measures and alternatives available to the
lead agency to reduce, avoid, or compensate for those impacts. Presented below are separate
discussions of the "City of Seal Beach General Plan' (General Plan) and other applicable plans that
appear to relate to the proposed SR22,WOCC project and for which the DEIR/DEIS has or should
include a consistency analysis.
❑ City of Seal Beach General Plan. With regards to the City's General Plan, numerous goals,
objectives, policies, and programs, potentially applicable to the proposed SR27lWOCC
project, have not been cited in the DEIR/DEIS. In the absence of those excerpts, the
DEIR/DEIS presents a one -sided and promotional perspective of the project that would or
may not exist based on a more comprehensive assessment of the totality of those goals,
objectives, policies, and programs contained therein.
F-1IL
•
As indicated in the City's Land Use Element (LUE), the following community goal has been
adopted by the City: "A goal of the City should be to maintain and promote those social and
physical qualities which enhance the character of the community and the environment in
which we live" (General Plan, LUE, Community Goal, p. 4). In addition, "Seal Beach •
should carefully consider the development of freeways, and /or rapid transit systems and
State Route 22tWest Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 52
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
• endorse such proposal only when it is considered to be in the community's best interest'
(General Plan, LUE, Community Goal, p. 6).
Since the SR22/WOCC proje a will result in the displacement of a number of families Sow
residing in the City and since it Is unclear whether those families will be able to relocated to
alternative housing in the City, the project does not appear to conform to the goals outlined
in the City's Land Use Element. In order to allow the City to "carefully consider" the
proposed project, which is identified in the General Plan as a "lifeline" project, Seal Beach
requires that the Lead Agencies prepare a technical adequate NEPA and CEQA document
that fully examines the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed
project. The presentation of a deficient and defective ERR. does not provide the City with
sufficient information to make an informed decision about the proposed project.
As indicated in the City's Housing Element (HE), it is the goal of the Ci-Nci assist and
facilitate the conservation, preservation and improvement of the City's existing housing
stock, which serves the existing and proposed housing needs of all economic segments of
the community" (General Plan, HE, Goal, pp. 48 and 58). Other applicable Housing
Element policies and programs include, but may not be limited to: (1) "Provide
compatibility of residential areas with surrounding.. uses through the separation of
incompatible uses, construction of adequate buffers and other land use controls" (General
Plan, HE, Polity, p. 49); (2) "Encourage the maintenance and rehabilitation of existing
owner - occupied and rental housing where feasible" (General Plan, HE, Po[it p. 58); (3)
• 'Promote the conservation and rehabilitation of older neighborhoods, preventing the
encroachment of incompatible commercial or industrial uses into established
neighborhoods" (General Plan, HE, Policy, p. 58); (4) "Provide an environment which is
safe, beautiful and aesthetically pleasing and which tends to strengthen individual and
family life" (General Plan, HE, Policy, p. 58);';(5) "Preserve and enhance residential
neighborhoods., and strengthen neighborhood identity (General Plan, HE, Policy, p. 58);
and (6) "Use zoning "and other land use controls to ensure the compatibility of residential
areas with surrounding uses" (General Plan, _HE, Program, p. 52).
The Lead Agencies plans' to demolish six or more homes within Seal Beach appears to be
contrary to each of the above referenced policies from the,City's Housing Element.
Demolition of housing units is contrary to the City's goal to "conserve" and "preserve" the
community's existing housing stock. The encroachment of the SR -22 Freeway into an
existing residential neighborhood,: that has existed for nearly as long at the SR -22 Freeway
itself, appears to violate the City's policy to promote "compatibility" through such devices
as physical separation and the provision of adequate buffers. The DEIR/DEIS, itself,
acknowledges that "in areas where houses are removed, the visual impact to the remaining
residential viewers cannot be fully mitigated" (p. 4.13 -34).
As indicated in the City's Noise Element (NE), it is the goal of the City to 'reduce the level
of noise, so that it causes less human stress or health damage and is not as likely to interfere
with human activities such as sleep, work, play or thought" (General Plan, NE, Goal, p. 6).
As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS, at 19 locations, -there would be an increase in the noise
• levels that is attributable to the Full Build Alternative that will not or cannot be fully abated
to less than or equal to the existing noise level" (p. 4.9 -27). Based on this declaration, the
project appears inconsistent with the City's Noise Element.
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach
Page 53
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
•
Referencing the City's Seismic Safety Element (SSE), numerous earthquake faults have been
identified in the region that could adversely affect people and property in Seal Beach. As
indicated therein: C
A major earthquake of magnitude 7 or greater (Richter) on the Newport-
. Inglewood fault could have serious effects on the lifelines (facilities such as
highways, bridges, electrical power lines, gas lines, water and sewage lines
and communication lines) in Seal Beach according to Special Publication
99, prepared by the Division of Mines and Geology and the Department of
Conservation. The hypothetical earthquake is postulated as a possible worst
case for emergency planning ...This planning scenario earthquake could
have the following major impacts in the Seal Beach area ...Garden Grove
Freeway is damaged at the intersection with the 405 Freeway. Moderate
damage at the Garden Grove/405 Freeway interchange combined with fill
settlements has blocked traffic on the Garden Grove Freeway for 36 hours?
'
The 405 Freeway is closed from Route 22 to San Diego Creek. This route in
the Westminster and Fountain Valley area has suffered considerable
pavement and liquefaction damage ... At the 405/605 Freeway interchange,
minor bridge damage in the interchange area has restricted traffic to single
lane (General Plan, SSE, pp. 26 -27).
In recognition of these and other related hazards affecting the City, Seal Beach requires the
concurrent submission of detailed geotechnical studies with preliminary development
•
applications. Related General Plan policies include, but are not limited to: (1) "Require a
Soils and geology report to be filed for all development projects as specified in the City's
Municipal Code" (General Plan; SSE, p. 52); (2) "Require geological surveys to be prepared
after on -site borings or subsurface explorations at the time subdivisions are submitted to the
City for approval ". (General Plan, SSE, p. 52); (3) "Require independent review of all
geologic and soils reports . as appropriate" (General Plan, SSE, p. 52); (4) "Determine the
liquefaction potential of a. site prior to development and require that specific measures be
taken, as necessary to reduce damage in an earthquake' (General Plan, SSE, p. 53).
As indicated on the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and
Geology's (DMG) "Official Map of Seismic Hazard Zones - Los Alamitos and Seal Beach
Quadrangles" (released March 25, 1999), that portion of the project site located within the
City is identified as "areas where historic occurrence of liquefaction, or local geological,
geotechnical and groundwater conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground
displacements such that mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code Section 2693(c)
would be required. ".. Because the site area is identified by the DMG as being located within
a'seismic hazard zone,' pursuant to Section 2697(a) of the PRC, "cities and counties shall
require, prior to the approval of a project located in a seismic hazard zone, a geotechnical
delineating any seismic hazard." As authorized under Section 2698 of
report defining and
the PRC, "nothing in this chapter is intended to prevent cities and counties from
establishing policies and criteria which are more strict than those established by the board."
State Route 22fWesl Orange County Connection Onober 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 54
I •
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS -CA- 01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
The Lead Agencies' election to defer the preparation of that report until after the DEIR/DEIS
is certified and the ROD published prevents the introduction of that critical information into
the project's environmental review and decision- making process.
e
Based on the above General rPlan excerpts, the City (which must be the ultimate
determinant of general plan consistency) concludes that, although there may exist select
policies that would appear to the support the proposed project (e.g., reduced congestion
and enhanced mobility), in general, the SR22/WOCC project is not consistent with the
City's General Plan. The statement in the DEIR/DEIS that "most of the Full Build Alternative
would be consistent with land use plans and policies" (p. 4.6-2) cannot be supported based
on the City's independent review of its General Plan.
❑ Regional Housing Needs Assessment.
State law requires that all regional councils of government determine the existing and future
housing needs of their respective regions. In the case of Seal Beach, the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) has determined the existing`.. and future needs for he
city through a process called the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).
SCAG allocates the future housing needs of a City based on a percentage of the overall
need for the region. In calculating the future need, SCAG factors in regional growth
forecasts, units needed to replace lost units, as well as units needed to maintain a healthy
• vacancy rate. In 1998 SCAG developed'. the RHNA forecasts based on population,
employment, and household forecasts from 1998 - 2005. Based on the forecasts SCAG has
determined that the construction need for Seal Beach during the 2000-2005 period is 295
units.
Providing new construction housing within the City is a very difficult task, as there are no
major undeveloped areas within the City zoned for residential use. Those remaining vacant
or underutilized sites have severe site constraints that hamper any land use development
proposals. The potential loss of an additional six residences will further tax the ability of
the City to comply with the provisions of the new construction demand of 25 units during
the time period of 2000 -2005. Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any indication of the impacts
on the impacted local jurisdiction's. in their specific ability to accommodate the necessary
construction of replacement housing for those housing units identified for potential
acquisition.
❑ State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Pursuant to 23 CFR 450.328(a), "after
approval by the MPO and the Governor, the TIP [federal Transportation Program] shall be
included without modification, directly or by reference, in the STIP program required under
23 USC 135 and consistent with Section 450.220, except that in non - attainment and
maintenance areas, a conformity finding by the FHWA and the FTA must be made before it
is included in the STIP." Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any indication of the SR22/WOCC's
inclusion in either the TIP or STIP. Without true examination of this issue, the DEIR/DEIS
does not provide the analytical road map to equip the project's decision maker or other
• stakeholders in making an informed decision about the project or other alternative courses
of action.
Sete gout. 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 55
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA- 01-04-D / SCH No. 98064001
❑ Air Quality Management Plan. Pursuant to 23 CFR 710.305, "the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) process, as described in FHWA's NEPA regulations in 23 CFR part 771,
normally must be conducted and concluded with a record of decision (ROD) or equivalent
before federal funds can be placed under agreement for acquisition of right-of-way. Where
applicable, a State also must complete Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401 et seq.) project level
conformity analysis."
Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 states, in part, that no federal
agency shall engage in, support in any way or provide financial assistance for, license or
permit, or approve any activity which does not conform to a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
after it has been approved or promulgated under Section 110 of that Clean Air Act (CAA).
Conformity to an implementation plan means: (1) conformity to an implementation plan's
purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of the national
ambient air quality standards and achieving expeditious` attainment of such standards; and
(2) that such activity will not: (a) cause or contribute to any new'.violation of any standard in
any area, (b) increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any standard in
any area, or (c) delay timely attainment of any standard or any !required interim emission
reductions or other milestones in any area. Pursuant to 40 CFR 93.150(a), no federal action
shall support an action that does not conform to an applicable implementation plan. A
federal agency must make a determination demonstrating that a federal action conforms to
the applicable implementation plan before the action is taken. Other than the above
reference, absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any factual evidence demonstrating the project's
conformity with the SIP. •
Although the DEIR/DEIS states the "FHWA and FTA [Federal Transit Administration] made a
conformity determination on the SCAG's 1998 RTP on June 9, 1998° (p. 4.8 -10), absent
from the DEIR/DEIS is any factual information that a reviewer can examine to independently
assess conformity. Conclusory remarks without true examination cannot equip the project's
decision maker or other stakeholders in making an informed decision about the project or
other alternative courses of action.
Water Quality Plans — Santa Ana River Basin (8) and Los Angeles Region (4). The project
site is located within the jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa
Ana Region (SARWQCB) and may include areas within the jurisdiction of the Regional
Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region (LARWQCB). The project is, therefore,
subject to the plans and policies outlined in "Water Quality Control Plan — Santa Ana River
Basin (8)" (SARWQCB, 1995) (Santa Ana Basin Plan) and may be subject to the 'Water
Quality Control Plan — Los Angeles Region (4) ( LARWQCB, 1995) (Los Angeles Basin Plan).
Since no reference is made to the Los Angeles Basin Plan, although the Lead Agencies
identify the San Gabriel River as being located "within the study area" (p. 3.2 -1), it must be
assumed that the Lead Agencies have fully investigated jurisdictional issues and determined
that no portion of the project is located within LARWQCB jurisdiction.
The Santa Ana Basin Plan describes the regulatory and guidance documents that control the
activities of the SARWQCB, the many beneficial uses associated with ground and surface
waterbodies within the basin, identify water quality objectives, and address the plan's •
implementation and monitoring. Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any analysis of the project's
consistency with the Santa Ana Basin Plan and the SARWQCB's `Nonpoint Source
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 56
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA-01-04-D / SCH No. 98064001
• Management Plan." Since the watershed discharges directly into `the Pacific Ocean at
Huntington Beach" (p. 3.2 -1), with the recent closures of State beaches along the Orange
County coastline, the DEIR/DEIS needs to address not only conformity with the Santa Ana
r Basin Plan, potential impacts upon receiving waters (e.g., "the most common contaminants
in highway runoff are heavy metals, inorganic salts, aromatic hydrocarbons, and suspended
solids," P. 4.2 -2), and the proposed Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented
by the Lead Agencies during the project's construction and subsequent operation.
3.20 Failure to Formulate a Reasonable Set of Threshold of Significance Criteria
In Hanley v. Kleindienst, the court stated that in deciding whether a major federal action will
"significantly" affect the environment, the federal lead agency is required to both review the
proposed action in light of the extent to which the action will cause adverse environmental effects
in excess of those created by existing uses in the area affected and to define the absolute
quantitative adverse environmental effects of the action itself, including the cumulative harm that
may result therefrom. Agencies must, therefore, affirmatively develop a reviewable environmental .
record for the purpose of a threshold determination under Section 102(2)(0) of NEPA. As indicated
in the CEQ Cumulative Effects:
Thresholds and criteria (i.e., levels of acceptable change) used to determine the
significance of effects will vary depending on the type of resource being analyzed,
the condition of the resource, and the importance of the resource as an issue (as
101 identified through scoping). Criteria can be .quantitative units of measure such as
those used to determine threshold values in economic impact modeling, or
qualitative units of measure such as the perceptions of visitors to a recreational area.
No matter how the criteria are derived, they should be directly related to the
relevant cause - and -effect relationships. The criteria used, including quantitative
thresholds if appropriate, should be clearly stated in the assessment document (CEQ
Cumulative Effects, p. 45).
j,,:
Similarly, one of the key components of the CEQA process is the determination whether a potential
impact is significant (e.g., "CEQA has thresholds . of significance, to be used as the bases for
determining mitigation," p. ii). Although the DEIR/DEIS includes what, at best, would be described
as an abbreviated list of threshold criteria, the Lead Agencies have formulated an unverifiable set of
thresholds that would serve to promote the project and to eliminate those criterion that would
result in a significance determination, thus requiring the development of mitigation measures (e.g.,
"Mitigation measures are not required for effects which are not found to be significant," Section
15126.4[a][3], State CEQA Guidelines) and additional project alternatives (e.g., "An EIR shall
describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which
would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially
lessen any of the significant effects of the project," Section 15126.6[a], State CEQA Guidelines).
Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is either any indication of the 50Urce(s) for the candidate threshold
criteria suggested or a statement that the presented criterion are, themselves, subject to debate,
discussion, and modification. Further, because the Lead Agencies have failed to provide criteria
• with measurable performance standards, the Lead Agencies cannot demonstrate that their proposed
mitigation measures ultimately will accomplish their purposes.
State Route 221West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 57
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
As indicated in the Caltrans' Environmental Handbook, "Appendix G of the [State] CEQA
is
Guidelines consists of a list of 26 different effects which a project may have on the environment
which often, but not always, would be considered significant" (Environmental Handbook, p. 2 -11).
Since the Lead Agencies purport that the DEIR/DEIS has been prepared "pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" (p. i), it would be logical for the Lead Agencies to utilize those
threshold of significance criteria contained in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Similarly,
since the DEIR/DEIS is logically tiered from SCAG's 2001 RTP FPEIR, those threshold of
significance criteria contained therein would be assumed to continue to apply to the SR22AVOCC
project. Criteria from Appendix G and the 2001 RTP FPEIR are, however, neither included nor is
the rationale for their rejection presented in the DEIR/DEIS. Should those criteria be included, the
document's findings would be substantially different (e.g., greater number of impacts and a greater
number of corresponding mitigation measures) than now presented by the Lead Agencies.
Based on a review of the DEIR/DEIS, it is evident that the following significance criteria, as
contained in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, were not considered by the Lead Agencies
in the preparation of the DEIR/DEIS. The Lead Agencies should: (1) explicitly state the agencies'
rationale for not including the following standards; (2) augment the DEIR/DEIS to contain sufficient
information and analysis addressing each of the following thresholds; (3) conduct a reassessment of
the project and its impacts based on the application of the following standards; and (4) recirculate
the DEIR/EIS for public comment in light of the substantial new information that must be added to
the draft - -
Land Use
• Physically divide an established community;
• Conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect;
• Conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan;
• Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other
infrastructure);
• Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere and/or displace substantial numbers of people,
'necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere;
• Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract;
• Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of Statewide importance, as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use; and/or
• Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland
of Statewide importance to non-agricultural use.
Earth Resources
< Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the •
risk of loss, injury, or death involving: (i) rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
State Route 22fWesl Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 58
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA -01 -04-D / SCH No. 96064001
® delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by
the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault (refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42); (ii) strong
e seismic ground shaking; (iii) seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction;
and /or (iv) landslides;
• Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil;
• Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable
as a result of the project, and potentially result in on -site or off -site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse;
• Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the "Uniform Building
Code" (1994), creating substantial risk to life or property.
• Water Resources
•
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements;
•
Substantially deplete ground water supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g; the production rate of
preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted);f'.:
•
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on the site or off the site;
•
•
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of 'a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on the site or
off the site;
•
Create or contribute to noff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
..polluted
runoff;
<
Substantially degrade water quality;
< +
Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
v
map;
Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flow;
<
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam; and/or
<
Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
• Biological Resources
• Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and
Game (CDFG) or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS);
•
• Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the
CDFG or USFWS;
Stale Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 59
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EIS -CA -01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 60
•
•
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means;
•
Interfe;e substantially with the movement of any native residentaor migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;
•
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such
as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; and/or
•
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural
community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat
conservation plan.
• Transportation and Circulation
•
Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load
and capacity of the street system (i.e., substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume -to- capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections);
•
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service .standard established
by the County congestion management agency for designed roads or highways;
•
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment);.,:..
•
Result in inadequate emergency access;
•
Result in inadequate parking capacity; and /or
•
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
•
transportation (e.g., bus tur"a''uts, bicycle racks).
x "
• Air Quality
•
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan;
•
Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation;
<
;;z Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which
` the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air
quality standards;
<
Expose sensitive receptors -- substantial air pollutant concentrations; and/or
<
•, ::Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
• Noise., s,
<
Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;
<
Expose persons to or generate excessive ground -borne vibration or ground -borne
noise levels,
<
. Produce a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project; and/or
<
Produce a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
•
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 60
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01- 04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
® Public Health and Safety
•
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials;
e •
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment;
•
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school;
•
Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code (CGC)
and create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment;
•
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan; and /or
•
Expose people or structures to a significant risk ofloss injury, or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjaceent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands.
• Public
Services and Facilities
•
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands;
•
Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new
•
or physically altered governmental need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: fire
protection; police protection; schools; parks;. and /or other public facilities;
•
Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such '. that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
"'.accelerated;
•
"`Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment; ".......
•
- Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB;
•
Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities
or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects;
•
Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects;
•
Require new or expanded water supply entitlements and resources;
•
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments;
•
Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the
•
project's solid waste disposal needs; and/or
State Route 22/WeA Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 61
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
Fail to comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid
waste.
Visual Resources e a
• Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
• Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway;
• Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings; and /or
• Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day
or nighttime views in the area.''
Cultural Resources
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of e historic resource as
defined in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines;
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource*
pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines;
• Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries;
and/or
• Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource, site, or unique
geologic feature.
• Growth Inducement •
• Conflict with any applicable land use plan; policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; and
• Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other. infrastructure.
• Threshold Standards Applicable to all Topical Issues
• Achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term
environmental goals;
• - Produce environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively
"considerable; and /or
• Cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
In addition, there exists other statutory and regulatory requirements and advisory recommendations
that are or may be applicable to the SR221WOCC project and establish or recommend specific and
applicable standards against which the project's specific impacts should be evaluated. Should all of
the above standards be applied, would the document have yielded different results? Would the
severity of any of the impacts change? Would new mitigation measure be recommended? Would
any new alternatives be considered?
Although not repeated herein, each of the threshold of significance criteria identified in the 2001 •
RTP FPEIR constitute additional programmatic threshold of significance criteria applicable to the
State Route 22/WeA Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 62
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
SHWA- EIS- CA -01 -04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
• SR22ANOCC project. The Lead Agencies should: (1) explicitly state the agencies' rationale for not
including the threshold standards identified therein; (2) augment the DEIR/DEIS to contain sufficient
information and analysis addressing each of those thresholds; and (3) conduct a reassessment of the
project and its potential impacts based on the application gf those standards.
As further indicated in Caltrans' Environmental Handbook, the existence of public controversy
constitutes an appropriate basis for establishing a threshold of significance. As indicated therein:
"Section 15064(h) of the [State] CEQA Guidelines indicates that there are additional factors to be
considered for projects where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that a project may
have a significant effect on the environment. One of the factors is whether there is 'serious public
controversy over environmental effects of a project.' An example would be a public body officially
stating this in the record. In such cases the [State CEQA] Guidelines indicated that a presumption
of significance should be made and an EIR prepared" (Environmental Handbook, p. 2 -11).
The City, through the submission of these comments hereby declares that the loss of one or more
homes or businesses in Seal Beach is controversial, constitutes a significant environmental effect for
the purpose of the environmental assessment of the proposed SR22ANOCC project, and requires
the formulation of reasonable and feasible mitigation measures and additional project alternatives
designed to substantially reduce or avoid the significance . of that effect.
3.21 Identified Threshold Criteria Lack Measurability
• As required under Section 15064.7(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "a threshold of significance is
an identifiable quantitative, qualitative, or performance level of a particular environmental effect,
non - compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the
agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less than
significant." In order to constitute a supportable threshold standard, the candidate standard must be
drafted in a fashion, capable of measurement.
In the absence: of well-drafted threshold standards, conforming to the requirements of Section
15064.7 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Lead Agencies have failed to present a measurable
standard for the evaluation of the project's impacts. The threshold standards identified in the
DEIR/DEIS are so general in nature that it is not possible to objectively evaluate the significance of
the project's impacts and verify the validity of the Lead Agencies preliminary findings.
Since "the 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 the significant environmental effects of such projects'
(Section 21002, CEQA) and since "mitigation measures are not required for effects which are not
found to be significant" (Section I5126.4[a][4], State CEQA Guidelines), the determination of
significance is a critical component of the CEQA process. Ill-defined threshold standards prevent
agencies from objectively evaluating the potential environmental consequences of their actions and
allow agencies to avoid imposing mitigation measures or exploring alternatives by establishing
thresholds that allow broad discretion in interpretation.
• Standards that are purely subjective (i.e., those that lack objectivity in their interpretation) can to
easily be manipulated by project proponents in favor of a predetermined outcome. Conversely,
standards that can be objectively evaluated and measured allow diverse groups and competing
State Route 22M'est Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 63
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01- 04-D /SCH No. 98064001
interests to independently validate the Lead Agencies preliminary conclusions, understand the basis •
for the document's findings, and support the incorporation or defend the non - inclusion of
mitigation measures. To often, that lack of objectivity is lacking in the threshold of significance
criteria listed in the DEIR/DEIS e.g., "Potential for seismic hazards and ground shaking $ctivities,"
p. 4.1 -3; "Potential for groundwater availability, use, or quality," p. 4.2 -5).
3.22 Failure to Formulate Reasonable Mitigation Measures
Unlike CEQA, where mitigation is required only for significant environmental effects, under NEPA,
reasonable mitigation may be required whenever an impact upon the natural or human
environment is identified (e.g., "Agencies shall focus on significant environmental issues and
alternatives," 40 CFR 1502.1).
As indicated in FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, "NEPA requires identification of adverse
impacts and mitigation of adverse impacts when mitigation is reasonable. NEPA does not focus on
assessment of whether each adverse impact is significant or not. Presence or absence of .'significant
impacts' as defined by NEPA is the determining factor of what type of environmental document is
appropriate. The NEPA definition of significant impact does not necessarily correlate with CEQA
identified 'significant effects.' Further, CEQA requires mitigation only when an impact is
designated as 'significant' under CEQA. This can result in :mitigation being identified under NEPA
that would not be identified under CEQA" (Technical Advisory T6640.8AQ, p. 6 -13).
Referencing the DEIR/DEIS, "CEQA has thresholds of significance, to be used as bases for •
determining mitigation. NEPA determines level of significance based on context and intensity.
Under NEPA, all impacts are discussed regardless of any thresholds amount and include mitigation
measures where reasonable" (p. ii). AS indicated in Caltrans' Environmental Handbook: 'The
similarity of NEPA and CEQA, together with the similarity in their application mean that when an
impact approaches the significance threshold for NEPA it also approaches the significance threshold
for CEQA — and vice verse' (Environmental Handbook, p. 2 -11). As indicated in the CEQ
Regulations:.;
'Significantly' as used in NEPA requires consideration of both context and intensity.
(a) Context. This means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in
several contexts such as society as a whole (human, national), the affected region,
the affected interests, and the locality. Significance varies with the setting of the
proposed action. For instance, in the case of a site - specific action, significance
would usually depend upon the effects in the locale rather than in the world as a
whole. Both: short- and long -term effects are relevant. (b) Intensity. This refers to the
severity of impact. Responsible officials must bear in mind that more than one
agency may make decisions about partial aspects of a major action. The following
should be considered in evaluating intensity: (1) Impacts that may be both beneficial
and adverse. .A significant effect may exist even if the federal agency believes that
on balance the effect will be beneficial. (2) The degree to which the proposed
action affects public health and safety. (3) Unique characteristics of the geographic
area. (4) The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment
are likely to be highly controversial. (5) The degree to which the effects on the
quality of the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or
unknown risks. (6) The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 64
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
• future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principal about a
future consideration. (n Whether the action is related to other actions with
individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. Significance exists if
e it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significantimpact on the environment.
Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it
down into small component parts. (8) The degree to which the action may adversely
affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of
significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. (9) The degree to which the
action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat. (10)
Whether the action threatens a violation of federal, state, or local law or
requirements imposed for the protection of the environment.
In a local context, the destruction of six homes and displacement of six families constitutes a
significant environmental effect. The DEIR/DEIS (see Table 5.5 -1), however, fails to even
acknowledge the existence of this impact, fails to offer any reasonable mitigation, and fails to
identify any of the 'build" alternatives that would serve to avoid or substantially lessen that
identified impact.
With regards to intensity, although the project may enhance regional mobility, that beneficial
impact is now proposed at the expense of those property owners and tenants whose homes will be
lost as a result of the proposed improvements. The City again states that such impact is both
• unacceptable and constitutes a significant impact upon the human environment. In Seal Beach, the
destruction of homes and displacement of individuals by federal and State agencies is highly
controversial. Although future freeway expansion is reasonably foreseeable (e.g., FHWA and
Caltrans' "desire to preserve the long -term operational flexibility of added lanes to SR -22," p. 2-17),
the Lead Agencies failure to consider 'a more southerly realignment alternative through the USNWS
constitutes a clear precedence for any future expansion plans.. The potential cumulative impacts of
those reasonably foreseeable events are never even addressed in the DEIR/DEIS. The Lead
Agencies failure to formulate one or more 'build" alternatives that seek to avoid the displacement
of homes and businesses constitutes violation of an adopted mitigation measures which was
represented by those agencies involved . in the development of the 2001 RTP as binding obligations
on lateiprejects conducted in furtherance of that transportation program..
In recognition of the above factors, with regards to context and intensity, project- induced impacts
on Seal Beach are clearly significant and, therefore, require the Lead Agencies to formulate
mitigation measures and explore other alternatives that would reduce or avoid those environmental
effects. Not only have the Lead Agencies failed to formulate reasonable mitigation measures and
explore a reasonable'' range of alternatives, but those agencies have also failed to present a
reasonable set of criterion that would allow other public agencies and the affected public to
independently evaluate the 'context and intensity" of the resulting impact and independently
validate the Lead Agencies preliminary environmental determination.
The City, therefore, asserts that the Lead Agencies are mandated under NEPA to formulate other
"reasonable mitigation measures' and alternatives in response to the proposed destruction of six or
• more homes and increased freeway encroachment within an established residential area in Seal
Beach.
Slate Route 22RNest Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 65
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA -01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
3.23 Reliance on Mitigation Measures of Unknown Efficacy
As required under Section 15126.4(a)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "mitigation measures must
be fully enforceable through permit i conditions, agreements, or other legally- binding instrumgnts."
An agency cannot defer the formulation of mitigation measures until after project approval.
(Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino. supra, 202 Cal.App.3d 306 -314) nor can it rely on mitigation
measures of unknown efficacy (Kings County Farm Bureau et a/ v City of Hanford, 221
Cal.App.3d 727 -728). Numerous mitigation measures are, however, presented in the DEIR/DEIS
that fail to require specific actions or performance and are used as the Lead Agencies as an excuse
for the preparation of an adequate technical analysis (e.g., "Community meetings will be held to
explain to the area residents about the construction work, time involved, and the control measures
to be taken to reduce the impact of the construction noise," N0I- FB -11, p. 4.9 -2%
For example, although the text of the DEIR/DEIS contains no disclosure of "areas of historically high
or perched groundwater levels" (p. 4.1 -9), the DEIR/DEIS includes a mitigation measure that states,
in part, "all areas of historically high or perched groundwater levels: will be analyzed in detail
during project design to verify the potential for liquefaction. Should soils subject to liquefaction be
found, site - specific engineering techniques will be implemented" (p. 4.1 -9). Since the extent of the
potential liquefaction problem is never disclosed, it is not possible to ascertain the existence and
type of "site - specific engineering techniques" that can be effectively utilized and the potential
secondary impacts that could occur should those techniques be implemented.
While the DEIR/DEIS indicates that those techniques could include "importation of stable materials,
compaction of soils, permanent dewatering, and art 'achment of deep-set piles to bedrock or lower
•
density soils" (p. 4.1 -9), the Lead Agencies have included no analysis . indicating the feasibility of
these or other practices, the area potentially affected, the implication of these conditions in the
context of project design, and /or the impacts that might result,,fherefrom. Since preliminary
engineering plans have already been developed, the mitigation measure does not provide specific
information as to the timing of its application (e.g., 'analyzed in detail during project design ") or
present the Lead Agencies' rationale why that investigation cannot be performed and its findings
included in the DEIR/DEIS.
Additionally, the DEIR/DEIS notes that "construction noise is only considered to be substantial in
exceptional cases, such as pile driving and crack and seat pavement rehabilitation operations. .
.The Full Build Alternative may require pile driving and/or crack and seat pavement rehabilitation,
and substantial short-term impacts would occur" (pp. 4.15 -3 and 4.9 -28) and 'equipment that might
be used for the excavation and construction of the Full Build Alternative would have potentially
significant short term noise impacts to surrounding areas" (p. 4.9 -11).
As mitigation for this 'SO sfan l short-term impact," the Lead Agencies offer the following
mitigation measure: "In am where pile driving and similar activities would occur in close
proximity to noise - sensitive land uses, alternative methods of construction will be used, where
feasible" (NOI -FB-8, p. 4.9 -20; NCI -RB-7, p. 4.9 -20). No definition of "close proximity" is
presented; allowing the construction contractor to make that determination in the absence of any
acoustical analysis that would demonstrate the precise number and location of properties that
would be "substantially" impacted. Similarly, the construction contractor, motivated by economic
and scheduling considerations, is provided the discretion as to the potential "feasibility" of
alternative construction techniques. Since a public agency "must meet its own responsibilities
State Route 221West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 66
•
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS -CA- 01-04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
under CEQA" (Section 15020, State CEQA Guidelines), the Lead Agencies are precluded from
deferring to others (e.g., construction contractor) a determination of whether a specific action is
"feasible."
Since no definition of "feasibility" is provided in the DEIR/DEIS, no objective criteria exists upon
which that decision will be made. Through non - disclosure, the affected public is precluded from
submitting comments to the project's decision makers as to what is and is not 'feasible.'
Additionally, the Lead Agencies have failed to demonstrate that: (1) there exist "alternative methods
of construction" that are comparable to "pile driving and crack and seat pavement rehabilitation
operations "; (2) those alternative techniques (e.g., "vibration," p. 4.9 -20) will not result in the
introduction of additional undisclosed impacts; and (3) other mitigation measures (e.g., "Noise
barriers and noise barrier additions required for long -term noise abatement/mitigation will be
constructed during the initial stages,' NO]-FB -7, p. 4.9 -20) will produce any substantive mitigation
for construction -term noise impacts.
Examples of additional ineffectual mitigation measures include, but are not limited to the following
measures contained in the DEIR/DEIS. For brevity, the entire measure is or may not be repeated
below:
• Large native existing trees will be avoided to the maximum extent feasible where sufficient
area is available (BIO -FB -3, p. x; BIO -RB -2 p xii);
• Attempt to relocate these two service statre�ns to similar locations within the community
• (COM -FB -8, p. xv);_
❑ Noise barriers and noise barrier additions required for long -term mitigation will be
constructed during the initial stages, where feasible (NOI -FB -7, p, xix; N0I -RB -6, p. xxi);.
• As much as possible, existing landscaping within the State right -of -way will be preserved
(VIS -FB -2, p. xxviii; VIS- RB -2,'p. xxxii);
• Areas needed for construction will be minimized where feasible while maintaining safety
for construction workers and the public (VIS -FB -2, p. xxviii; VIS -RB -2, p. xxxii);
❑ Where possible, views of the freeway and associated elements, including noise barriers,
will be buffered from homes, schools, parks, . and similar uses by planting (VIS- FB -10, p.
xxxi);
❑ Where possible, objectionable views from the freeway, such as of open storage for
industrial uses, will be screened from view by use of highway planting (VIS- FB -11, p. xxxi);
❑ Where appropriate and feasible, construction staging will be located inconspicuously to
minimize adverse visual effects (CON -FB -3, p. xxxiii; CON -RB -2, p. xxxiv).
Each of these mitigation measures contain specific limiting language (e.g., "where feasible "),
allowing for the Lead Agencies or other parties to apply discretion as to whether these measures
will be implemented and, if implemented, to what extent. Those decisions will occur outside of
the NEPA/CEQA process and without opportunities for public or agency scrutiny. Similarly, no
measurable criteria or other performance standards are identified which will control agency
decisions. Since construction contracts are often allocated to the lowest bidder, any measures that
would likely result in the incurrence of costs can readily be deemed "infeasible" and not
implemented, either in part or in whole.
• Based on the apparent "voluntary" nature of these and other related mitigation measures, no
mitigating "benefit" can be assumed to derive from these measures. As a result, not only are these
Slate Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 67
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01 -04 -DI SCH No. 98064001
measures meaningless and unenforceable, but they provide no assurance that any environmental •
mitigation will result from their adoption as project conditions. In the absence of demonstrated or
demonstrable performance, these measures cannot serve as a factual basis to assert that otherwise
significant impacts will be reduced to a lests-than- significant level. C
3.24 Compliance with Standard Practices not Legitimate Thresholds or Mitigation
Section 15064(h) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires the Lead Agencies to determine that a
significant change in the environment caused by the project is not significant if the change
complies with a standard. A standard is defined, in part, as a requirement found in a statute,
ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, order, or other standard of general application adopted for
the purpose of environmental protection, including locally adopted thresholds of significance
(Section 15064[h][3], State CEQA Guidelines).
Several cases have considered and rejected the application of existing laws and regulations in lieu
of thresholds of significance. Compliance with such laws does not automatically render impacts
insignificant (Oro Fino Gold Mining Corporation v. County of El Dorado, 1990). Compliance with
adopted plans and policies has also been held not to be an adequate basis for concluding that a
project will not cause significant impacts. The project must be evaluated based on its impact on
the existing environment (see also Environmental Planning and Information Council v. County of El
Dorado, 1982; Cif of Carmel-lay-the-Sea v. Board of Supervisors, 1986).
t
As indicated in Communities for a Better Environment et al. v. California Resource Agency (2001), •
the court found this method of determining significance to be inconsistent with CEQA, in that it
does not provide guidance for determining when the application of certain standard is not
appropriate and does not allow the agencies to find that an effect is significant even if the record
contained evidence that it would be significant in a particular case.
The result of this invalidation is that the Lead .Agencies cannot rely exclusively on compliance with
a standard in determining that a certain environmental effect is less than significant. The project's
environmental impacts must still be evaluated, even when the project meets other environmental
standards.
At various places in the DEIR/DEIS, the Lead Agencies assert the following: "since all changes
would be designed according to standard engineering practices and Caltrans specifications, it
would be a less than significant impact" (p. 4.1 -2). Compliance with "standard engineering
practices" and "specifications" neither substitute for a reasoned technical analysis of the project's
potential impacts nor constitutes appropriate mitigation.
The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is classified as a non - attainment area for ozone (03) and
particulate matter (PMio). ' In recognition of these conditions, it is important that projects proposed
within the SCAB mitigate project- related air quality impacts to the maximum extent feasible. To
assist public agencies in the preparation of air quality analyses, the SCAQMD has prepared a
"CEQA Air Quality Handbook" (SCAQMD, April 1993) (SCAQMD Handbook). As indicated
therein, "the South Coast Air Basin is the only extreme non - attainment area in the United States"
(SCAQMD Handbook, p. 6 -1). As further indicated therein, "any project that contributes emissions
during construction or operation affects air quality. Therefore, the extent to which a project impacts
air quality should be evaluated ... The depth of the analysis will be in proportion to the level and
State Route 22/west Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 68
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA-01-04-D / 5CH No. 98064001
• significance of the emissions" (SCAQMD Handbook, p. 7 -1). The 5CAQMD further notes that the
EIR, "should identify all emissions associated with construction activities, including site preparation,
construction of new facilities, or modification of the existing facility or site" (SCAQMD Handbook,
p. 7 -2) and " mitigation is crucial to reducing a project's environmental impacts. A lead agency has
the authority to require changes in any or all activities involved in the project to lessen or avoid
significant impacts" (SCAQMD Handbook, pp. 7 -3 and 7 -4).
Although the DEIR/DEIS presents an analysis of operational air quality impacts, absent from the
document is any quantitative assessment of construction -term air quality impacts. In lieu of that
analysis, the Lead Agencies merely assert the project "would be required to comply with regional
rules, which would prevent substantial short-term air pollutant emissions. Compliance with the
regional rules is assumed for the project and, thus, substantial short -term impacts would not occur"
(p. 4.15 -2; see also p. 4.8 -9). If mere compliance with "regional rules" were the sole determinant
of a construction -term air quality impact, since compliance with existing rules and regulations is a
mandatory obligation upon all projects, no air quality analysis would ever be required. By failing
to conduct a reasonable investigation, meeting the analytical requirements of the SCAQMD, the
Lead Agencies seek not only to minimize the disclosure of significant environmental impacts and
avoid the imposition of mitigation measures, but has failed to present a sufficient analysis of
project- related impacts.
The SCAQMD Handbook establishes "screening tables" for the purpose of assessing air quality
impacts. Projects that do not exceed the threshold established therein would be presumed not to
• create a significant air quality impact; projects that exceed those thresholds would be presumed to
generate a significant air quality impact. For projects involving the construction of "paved roads,'
any local road generating "24,000 vehicle miles traveled ". (VMT) would be presumed to generate a
significant construction -term air quality impact (SCAQMD Handbook, Table 6 -3, p. 612). As
indicated in the DEIR/DEIS (i.e., Table 4.7 -2, p. 4.7 -2), for 2020, when the "no build" conditions
are subtracted from those: attributable to each of the other project alternatives, the °TSM /Expanded
Bus Service Alternative" will generate 73,460 VMT (10,114,110 — 10,040,650 — 73,460), the "Full
Build Alternative' will generate 413,140 VMT (10,453,790 — 10,040,650 = 413,140), and the
"Reduced Build Alternative" will generate 270,480 VMT (10,311,130 — 10,040,650 = 270,480).
As a result, excluding the "No Build Alternative, ', . each of the remaining alternatives must be
presumed to generate a significant air quality impact and more detailed project- specific analysis
and mitigation is required.
The Lead Agencies' fallacy can be further highlighted merely by focusing on a single pollutant.
Although the freeway pavement may be constructed of concrete, it is likely that the proposed
"Pacific Electric Arterial" will be constructed with an asphalt surface. The application of asphalt
creates volatile organic compounds(VOCs), which are "ozone precursors." As previously noted,
the SCAB is categorized as a non - attainment area for ozone.
Assuming that one -half of the proposed project's paving relates to the construction of the Pacific
Electric Arterial, a total of 30 acres of asphalt paving will be installed in the construction of that
new roadway (e.g., "The Full Build Alternative would add approximately 24 hectares 160 acres] of
pavement to the roadway," p. 4.2 -4). If asphalt is used, its application will create a considerable
• volume of VOC emissions. Assuming a minimum depth of 6 inches, approximately 24,200 cubic
yards of asphalt ([30 acres x 43,560 feet/acre x 0.5 foot depth] - 27 square feeVcubic yard =
24,000 cubic yards) would be required. Asphalt is regulated under SCAQMD Rule 1108, allowing
Stale Route 221West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 69
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS-CA- 01-04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
0.5 pounds of VOC per cubic yard of asphalt applied. Thus the 24,200 cubic yards of asphalt •
would produce 12,100 pounds of VOC.
These emissions would be additive with those associated with the paving equipment exhaust
emissions as well as the trucks necessary to deliver the asphalt and the worker vehicles. Site paving
for only a portion of the project is, therefore, projected to create emission levels substantially in
exceedence of the 75 pounds per day VOC criterion and 2.5 tons per quarter criterion established
by the SCAQMD.
It is, therefore, evident that construction -term air emissions will be significant and require extensive
mitigation. The DEIR/DEIS mistakenly and erroneously concludes, "substantial short-term impacts
would not occur" (p. 4.15 -2) for the "Full Build Alternative" and "substantial short-term impacts
would be negligible" (p. 4.15 -5) for the "Reduced Build Alternative" (see also Table S.5 -1, p. xvi).
The identification of significant construction -term air quality impacts constitutes "significant new
information" within the meaning of Section 15088.5(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines and requires
that the Lead Agencies amend, augment, incorporate all reasonable mitigation measures, and
recirculate the DEIR/DEIS for additional public comment.
Examples of the Lead Agencies attempt to suggest mitigation measures that merely obligate
compliance with existing standards (e.g., compliance with existing "Uniform Building Code"
standards) include, but are not limited to the following measures contained in the DEIR/DEIS. For
brevity, the entire measure is or may not be repeated below:
❑ Structures will be designed to resist the maximum credible earthquake associated with
•
nearby faults (GEO -FB-1, p. v);
❑ The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit requires Caltrans
stormwater discharges to meet water quality standards (HYD -FB -2, p. viii; HYD -RB -2, p. ix);
❑ The contractor shall comply with Caltrans' Standards and Specifications (NOI -FB -9, p. xix;
NOI -RB -8; p.xxi);
❑ The project will comply with standard construction practices and procedures (UTI -FB -1, p.
xxii; UTI -RB -1, p. xxn); and
❑ Other considerations recommended in the "Highway Design Manual" will be incorporated
-' into designs (VIS- FB-14, p. xxxi; VIS- RB -14, xxxiii).
As indicated under the DEIR/DEIS' discussion of the "affected environment" (i.e., "the
environmental impact statement shall.. succinctly describe the environment of the Beals] to be
affected or created by the alternauv% under consideration," 40 CFR 1502.15), the Lead Agencies
describe those conditions that now ez sst before project commencement. That discussion includes,
but is not limited to, the following,statemenC
fA
The contractor shall fully conform to the requirements of the Caltrans Statewide
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Permit,.
Order No. 99- 06 -DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000003, adopted by the State Water
Resources Control Board on July 15, 1999. When applicable, the contractor shall
also conform to the requirements of the General NPDES Permit for Construction
Activities, Order No. 92 -08 -DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002, and any subsequent
General Permit in effect at the time of construction (p. 3.2 -3).
•
State Route 22/west Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 70
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
• As a result, the Lead Agencies acknowledge their pre - existing obligations to conform to specific
obligations. Logically, "compliance with existing standards" must be assumed to be a part of any
project description. To, therefore, suggest that the project itself constitutes mitigation for the
impacts produced by the project suggests that the Lead Agencies now seep a waiver from those
standards (any such waiver would need to be identified as part of the project description) or that the
recommended mitigation measure is meaningless and will not serve to reduce any of the project's
identified impacts.
By identifying the above actions as mitigation measures, in essence, the Lead Agencies are stating,
'lets build the project in the manner we have already assumed and state that the project is 'self
mitigating' for the impacts that the project will create."
3.25 Presentation of Erroneous and Illusory Mitigation Measures
The CEQ Regulations define mitigation to include: (1) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking
a certain action or parts of an action; (2) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of
the action and its implementation; (3) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring
the affected environment; (4) reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of the action; and /or (5) compensating for the impact by
replacing or providing substitute resources or environments (40 CFR 1508.20). This ordered
approach to considering possible methods of mitigating impacts is known'.: as "mitigation
sequencing" and involves understanding the affected environment and assessing the project's
• potential effects throughout the development of the project.
As required under the State CEQA Guidelines, 'the EIR serves not only to protect the environment
but also to demonstrate to the public that it is being protected (County of Inyo v. Yortv, 32 Cal.
App.3d 795)" (Section 15003[6], State CEQA Guidelines) and "the purpose of CEQA is not to
generate paper, but,. to compel government at all levels to made decisions with environmental
consequences in mind" (Section - 15003[g], State CEQA Guidelines).
Throughout the DEIR/DEIS, the Lead Agencies seek to assert that compliance with existing laws and
regulations constitute reasonable and appropriate mitigation measures under NEPA and CEQA.
Since those same obligations would exist notwithstanding their identification in the DEIR/DEIS, in
reality, no mitigation has been proposed since the resulting action imposes no further obligations
upon the Lead Agencies or other parties. Since they serve no environmental benefit, the inclusion
of these illusory measures in the DEIR/DEIS is intended only to pacify the concerned public,
generally unaware of the complexities of the NEPA and CEQA process, that the Lead Agencies are
taking "appropriate" actions to protect the environment.
Examples of these illusory measures include, but are not limited to, the following mitigation
measures now proposed by the Lead Agencies. For brevity, the entire measure is or may not be
repeated, below:
a Structures will be designed to resist the maximum credible earthquake associated with
nearby faults (GEC FB-1, p. v; GEC -RB-1, p, vi);
• o Small structures will be strengthened to resist predicted ground movement (CEO -FB -3, p. vi;
GEO -RB-3, p. vi);
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 71
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA-01-04-D / SCH No. 98064001
❑
Appropriate foundation types and depths will be designed so that the ground movements
•
will not adversely affect the structure (GEO -FB -4, p. vi);
❑
Soil will be stabilized to eliminate the potential for liquefaction or to control its effects
(GEO -FB -5, p. vi; GEO -RB -5, p. vii);
C1
Appropriate erosion - control measures will be incorporated into the construction documents
and implemented during site preparation, grading, and construction (GEO -FB-7, p. vi; GE0-
RB-7, p. vii);
•
For all bridges and other structures to be constructed within 100 -year floodplains, specific
impacts to floodplain elevations will be analyzed (HYD -FB -1, p. viii; HYD -RB-1, p. ix);
•
The contractor shall fully conform to the requirements of the Caltrans Statewide NPDES
Storm Water Permit. . .When applicable, the contractor shall also conform to the
requirements of the General NPDES Permit for Construction Activities (HYD -FB -2, p. viii;
HYD -RB -2, p. ix);
•
The project will comply with the provisions of Section 1600 of the California Fish and
Game Code (BIO-FB -2, p. ix; BIO -RB -1, p. xii);
•
Potential impacts to the wetlands will be mitigated by the implementation of appropriate,
erosion or runoff controls (WET -FB -1, p. xii; WET -RB -1, p. xii); - MITI
•
If human remains and associated artifacts are encountered during ground - disturbing
activities, the provisions of PL -1 -1 -601, Section 5097.98 and .99 of the Public Resources
Code, and Section 7050 of the Health and Safety Code will be followed (CUL -FB -3, p. xiii;
CUL -RB -2, p. xiii);
•
The contractor will comply with the noise ordinances of County of Orange and the Cities of
Los Alamitos, Seal Beach, Westminster, Garden Grove, Santa Ana, and Orange," NOI -RB -5,
p. xix; NCI -RB-4, p. xxi);
•
•
The contractor shall comply with Caltrans' Standard Specifications, "Sound Control
Requirements," and all local sound - control and noise level rules, regulations, and
ordinances that apply (NOI -FB -9, p. xix; NOI -RB -8, p. xxi);
❑
The project will comply with the standard construction practices and procedures as
required by Caltrans (UTI -FB -1, p. xxii; UTI -RB-1, p. xxii);
•
A health and safety plan will be developed to guide all construction activities (HAZ -FB -2, p.
xxiv; HAZ -RB -2, p. xxvii);
•
Removal of above - ground and underground storage tanks, if present, may also be required
"HAZ -FB -4, p. xxiv, HAZ- RB -4,.p. xxvii);
❑
All structures that would be demolished as part of construction will undergo an evaluation
for the presence of asbestos - containing materials prior to demolition (HAZ -FB -6, p. xxv;
HAZ -RB -6, p. xxvii);
•
All structures that would be demolished as part of construction will also undergo an
evaluation for the presence of lead -based paint prior to demolition. The Resource
Conservation Recovery Act, 40 CFR 261, requires the generator of construction demolition
waste to characterize the wastes to determine if they are "hazardous wastes" with special
demolition requirements (HAZ -FB -7, p. xxvi; HAZ -RB -7, p. xxvii);
•
If shallow groundwater lenses are encountered during construction, appropriate dewatering
measures will be used to prevent impacts on construction ... Disposal of the excess water
will comply with applicable NPDES permit and Caltrans' standards (CON -FB -1, p. xxxiii;
CON -RB-1, p. xxxiv); and
❑
Construction techniques will be used to ensure the safety of construction workers and the
general public in the event of an earthquake (CON -FB -7, p. xxxiv).
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 72
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA-01-04-D / SCH No. 98064001
• As an example of how the above measures merely repeat existing obligations already imposed on
the Lead Agencies, the DEIR/DEIS states "construction would also be required to comply with
SCAQMD's Rule 1402, Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Removal Activities, during the
demolition or renovapion of asbestos - containing buildings and structures" e(p. 4.15 -2). If a
.requirement' already exists, and the impact assessment is based on compliance with all applicable
rules and regulations, what addition mitigation will be derived from any of the above referenced
measures?
In the absence of real mitigation (e.g., mitigation other than that already required under existing
laws, regulations, and agency standards), the Lead Agencies have no or have a substantially
diminished basis to assert that otherwise significant impacts would be reduced to below a level of
significance. The Lead Agencies failure to formulate reasonable and feasible mitigation measures
constitutes a violation of its NEPA and CEQA obligations and further demonstrates the inadequacy
of the DEIR/DEIS.
For example, although the Lead Agencies acknowledge that "runoff from the roadway would be the
most likely source of contamination to surface waters" and "receiving waters are susceptible to
contamination from these sources" (p. 4.2 -1) and "soil in unpaved area next to traffic lanes and
shoulders might be contaminated with lead from vehicle emissions" (p. 4.15 -3), absent from the
DEIR/DEIS is any analysis of the likely environmental impacts to surface waters and water quality
that would result from the introduction of large area of pavement (e.g., "the Full Build Alternative
would increase the amount of paved surface area by approximately 24 hectares 160 acres]," p. 4.2-
• 1) and the particulate, lead, and petrochemical discharge of automobiles (inclusive of both paved
and unpaved areas). The threshold criteria established by the Lead Agency has no direct
relationship to surface water quality (i.e., "potential for new /enlarged structures which may result in
change in floodplain elevation," p. 4.2 -2), thus limiting the range of mitigation measures that are
formulated in response to that identified impact.
It appears that the Lead Agencies are attempting to conceal the existence of significant
environmental impacts from the public by simply neglecting to identify a threshold of significance
against which the impact could be measured. Quite obviously, the DEIRMS will reveal no
significant impact related to water quality when the no threshold of significance in the DEIR/EIS
actually refers to the level of contaminants in surface'waters. It is ridiculous to assert that there will
be no impact on surface water quality from this project because there will be no change in the
fioodplain elevation. Will the project result in more contaminants entering surface water? If so,
will those contaminants cause the level 'thereof to exceed applicable, verifiable water quality
standards?
The manner in which the DEIR/DEIS is formulated prevents any direct comparison between the
identified impact and the mitigation measures which are nominated under any particular topical
issue (which typically includes numerous sub - issues). The Lead Agencies failure to illustrate the
linkage between impacts and mitigation serves to prevent reviewers from understanding any
"nexus' that may exist between the two. As required under Section 15126.4(a)(4)(A) and (B) of the
State CEQA Guidelines, "there must be an essential nexus (i.e., connection) between the mitigation
measure and a legitimate governmental interest" and "the mitigation measure must be 'roughly
• proportional' to the impacts of the project."
State Route 22/WeA Orange County Connection October 2001
City of seal Beach Page 73
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS -Ch -01 -041) /SCH No. 98064001
With regards to "hydrology, floodplains, and water quality," only two mitigation measures are
•
proposed for the project's increase in runoff (e.g., "the surface area of pavement on a roadway is
one determinant of the amount of runoff,' p. 4.2 -1), decrease in surface water quality (e.g., "the
most common contaminants in highway runoff are heavy metals, inorganic salts, aromatic
hydrocarbons, and suspended solids that accumulate °on the road surface," p. 4.2 -1), groundwater
quality impacts (e.g., "runoff from the roadway may result in increased contamination entering the
groundwater from percolation of surface waters," p. 4.2 -4), impacts on wetlands (e.g., "an increase
in runoff from the roadway due to an increased in paved area... may minimally affect wetlands,"
p. 4.2 -1; "wetlands could be affected by runoff or erosion from the project area during construction,
p. 4.4-5), downstream impacts affecting the Pacific Ocean (e.g., "only a small portion of the runoff
flows into the Santa Ana River," p. 4.2 -2), and conflicts with the applicable basin plan (e.g., the
project "may incremental affect the groundwater's beneficial uses," p. 4.2-2). -,
Although a total of four mitigation measures are cited in the DEIR/DEIS, two measures (i.e., HYD -
FB-1 and HYD -RB -1; HYD -FB -2 and HYD -RB -2) are merely duplications of one another. The first
set of mitigation measures requires the Lead Agencies to comply with existing County Flood
Control and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements with regards to bridge
clearance. The second set of mitigation measures requires the Lead Agencies to conform to existing
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).; requirements. Because these constitute
existing obligations, the Lead Agencies Seek to impose no obligations upon themselves other than
to comply with existing regulations and seek to assert that such compliance constitutes their only
requirements under NEPA and CEQA.
Doing nothing other than complying with the law does not constitute the identification of all
•
reasonable and all feasible mitigation measures. Similarly, doing nothing does not constitute a
legitimate rationale for concluding that one or more potentially significant hydrologic and water
quality impacts suddenly become less than significant. As indicated in CEQ Forty Questions:
The mitigation measures discussed in an EIS must cover the range of impacts of the
proposal. The measures must include . such things as design alternatives that would
d rease pollution emissions, construction impacts, esthetic intrusion, as well as
re' cation assistance, possible land use controls that could be enacted, and other
?#P&SsS'Lle effects. Mitigation measures must be considered even for impacts that by
'themselves would not be considered 'significant.' Once the proposal itself is
considered as a whole to have significant effects, all of its specific effects on the
environ t (whether or not 'significant) must be considered, and mitigation
measureost be developed where it is feasible to do so (CEQ Forty Questions,
Question 19[al).
As indicated in the FHWA�s.., "Environmental Policy Statement: A Framework to Strengthen the
Linkage Between Environm:: gntaf1and Highway Policy" (FHWA, 1994), the FHWA declares that it is
its policy to: (1) avoid, minimize, and mitigate to the fullest extent possible the adverse effects of
transportation programs and projects on the neighborhood, community, and natural resources; and
(2) seek opportunities to go beyond traditional project mitigation efforts and implement innovative
enhancement measures to help the project fit harmoniously within the community and natural
environs.
•
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 74
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
• Although the term "traditional project mitigation" is not specifically defined therein, it must be
assumed that mitigation includes: "(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action
or parts of an action. (b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and
its implementation. (c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected
environment. (d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations during the life of the action. (e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing
substantial resources or environments" (40 CFR 1508.20).
The application of existing laws and authorities, as indicated in each of the above referenced
mitigation measures, fails to both meet the definition of mitigation under NEPA and fails to fulfill
FHWA's commitment to "go beyond traditional project mitigation efforts and implement innovative
enhancement measures.' How does the DEIR/DEIS' failure to formulate reasonable and feasible
mitigation measures serve to meet the definition of "mitigation" under NEPA and fulfill the above
referenced declarations of agency policy?
3.26 Deferral of Technical Analysis and Mitigation Violates NEPA/CEQA Requirements
As indicated in CEQ Forty Questions, 'Section 1501.2(d) requires federal agencies to take steps
toward ensuring that private parties and State and local entities initiate environmental studies as
soon as federal involvement in their proposals can be foreseen. This section is intended to ensure
that environmental factors are considered at an early stage in the planning process and to avoid the
situation where the applicant for a federal permit or approval has completed planning and
• eliminated all alternatives to the proposed action by the time the EIR process commences or before
the EIS process has been completed" (CEQ" Forty Questions, Question 8). Although the Lead
Agencies are mandated to `ensure that environmental factors are considered at an early stage," as
evidence throughout the DEIR/DEIS, the Lead Agencies have sought to defer conducting critical
environmental analysis until a substantially later date when such information will have little if any
benefit with regards to the decision - making process.
As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS,. "the purpose of the proposed SR- 22/West Orange County
rU:s
Connectionv�o)ect is to improve. both existing and future mobility" (p. iii). Although never
specific all_ entifiied as such, the document constitutes a "project" EIR under CEQA, allowing the
proposed improvements to be constructed without the need for additional CEQA (and NEPA)
compliance`As indicated in Section 15146 of the State CEQA Guidelines: "The degree of
specificity in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity
described in the EIR ... An EIR on a construction project will necessarily be more detailed in the
specific effects of the project than .will`. be an EIR on the adoption of a local general plan or
comprehensive zoning ordinance.ait,ause the effects of the construction can be predicted with
greater accuracy."
Although represented as a construction -level document, the Lead Agencies seek to defer to a later
time and place, (following the completion of the NEPA and CEQA process) the preparation of
technical information that is critical to any reasoned assessment of the proposed project and its
environmental consequences. Rather than conducting that analysis as part of the NEPA and CEQA
process, the Lead Agencies either attempt to circumvent the need for that analysis altogether (e.g.,
• "During construction, temporary construction easements on adjacent properties may be necessary.
If these easements result in impacts that would make the affected property unusually for its existing
use, substantial impacts would occur," p. 4.15 -2) or seek to impose the preparation of those studies
State Route 22/weet Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 75
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA-01-04-D / SCH No. 98064001
as mitigation measures (e.g., "Detailed geotechnical studies will be performed for areas that will
support pavement or foundation in conjunction with detailed engineering design,' p. 4.1 -9).
not represented as such, in reality, the DEI DEIS constitutes a "second -tier' analysis
nAlthough
building upon the environmental investigation conducted by SCAG and contained in the 2001 RTP
°
FPEIR. Examples of 'first-tier' mitigation contained therein include the obligation that 'the project
implementing agencies shall ensure that geotechnical analysis be conducted within construction
areas to ascertain soil types and local faulting prior to preparation of project designs' (2001 RTP
DFEIR, p. ES -38). The Lead Agencies' election to defer the project- specific investigations outlined
in the 2001 RTP FPEIR and conduct the research required to fully address the impacts associated
with the SR22AVOCC project is clearly inconsistent with CEQA's requirement that the Lead
Agencies "focus [the analysis] on the significant effects on the environment" (Section 15143, State
CEQA Guidelines) and 'provide more meaningful public disclosure" (Section 21002.1(e), CEQA).
As a result, the Lead Agencies are precluded from deferring the preparation of a reasonable analysis
of project- related and cumulative environmental effects to later stages in the development. process.
This deferral of environmental assessment until after project approval violates CEQA's policy that
impacts be identified before project momentum reduces or eliminates the agency's flexibility to
subsequently change its course of action. More importantly, a deferred mitigation measure fails to
provide evidence that the impact for which the measure has been proposed can be effectively
mitigated to below a level of significance. Because of these actions, certain components of the
project remain undefined and the direct or secondary impacts from the deferred measures remain
unexplored in the DEIR/DEIS.
•
Examples of deferred mitigation include, but may not be limited to, the following measures
recommended in the DEIR/DEIS. For brevity, the entire mitigation measure is or may not be quoted
below, although identifying numbers are provided:
❑ Detailed geotechnical studies will be performed for areas that support pavement or
foundations in conjunction' with detailed engineering design to provide appropriate boring,
soil,' and fault information. This information . will be used to minimize potential adverse
impacts (GEO -FB -2, p. 4.1 -9);
* All areas of historically high or perched groundwater levels will be analyzed in detail
during project design to verify the potential for liquefaction (GEO -FB -2, p. 4.1 -9);
❑ Duringfinal engineering design, the area and thickness of expansive soils will be evaluated.
Measures that mitigate for expansive soils will be incorporated into the construction
documents (GEO -FB -6, p. 4.1 -9);.
❑ Appropriate erosion- control measures will be incorporated into the construction documents
and implemented during site preparation, grading and construction (GEO -FB -7, p. 4.1 -10);
❑ For all bridges and other structures to be constructed within 100 -year floodplains, specific
impacts to floodplain elevations will be analyzed at the design stage (HYD -FB -1; p. 4.2 -10;
HYD -RB -1, p. 4.2 -10); .
❑ Potential impacts to wetlands will be mitigated by the implementation of appropriate
erosion or runoff controls, to be designed and constructed as part of the widening of the
roadway along he west side of the 1 -405/1 -605 connector segment (WET -FB -1, p. 4.4-6;
WET -RB -1, p. 4.4 -6);
❑ If the Full Build Alternative is selected as the preferred alternative, a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) will be prepared that stipulates how the project will be carried out to
State Route 22/Weet Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 76
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA-01-04-D / SCH No. 98064001
® avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects, or to accept such effects. The MOA will clearly
and completely present specific mitigation measures to address the project's specific
adverse impacts (CUL -FB -2, p. 4.5 -4);
❑ There may need to be additional displacements ... Further analysis would be required in the
Final Relocation Impact Report (COM -FB -3, p. 4.6 -29);
• Replacement parking would be provided for Carl Karcher Enterprises in Orange on a nearby
off -site location or through construction of a parking garage on the north side of the existing
site (COM -FB-4, p. 4.6 -29; COM -RB -1, p. 4.6 -29);
• At the three commercial land uses with outdoor activities where noise levels with the Full
Build Alternative would exceed the NAC for commercial uses ... Caltrans will consult with
the property owners at these locations to determine their desire for noise barriers. Noise
barriers will not be provided unless commercial property owners at these locations request
them (NOI -FB -2, p. 4.9 -18; NOI -RB -2, p. 4.9 -25);
❑ Further study will be conducted to determine if after the construction of NB'1, additional
noise abatement is required for the school's classrooms... Further study will be conducted
to determine if after the construction of NB -12, additional noise abatement is required for
the school's classrooms (NOI -FB -3, p. 4.9 -18); and
❑ Additional study will be required during final design to determine how to mitigate .he
potential performance degradation of parallel noise barriers NB -24 and NB -25 (NOI -FB -4, p.
4.9 -19).
As indicated above, pursuant to Section 1502.22 of the CEQ Regulations: when there is incomplete
• or unavailable information, the NEPA Lead Agency "shall always made clear that such information
is lacking" and "if the incomplete information relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse
impacts is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives and the overall costs of obtaining it are
not exorbitant, the agency shall include the information in the environmental impact statement."
As a result, the NEPA Lead Agencies are obligated to complete the requisite analysis and include
the findings of that analysis in the DEIR/DEISi:,
When all ineffective, illusory, and deferred mitigation measures are extracted from the DEIR/DEIS,
virtually no mitigation measures remain. The remaining measures fail to full the Lead Agencies
obligations under NEPA and CECA`- -and are not sufficient to mitigate the numerous significant or
potentially significant impacts that will likely occur should either of the two "build" alternatives be
implemented.!.
The deferral of technical analysis critical to understanding the project's environmental impacts, as
indicated in each of the above referenced mitigation measures, fails to both meet the definition of
mitigation under NEPA and fails to fulfill FHWA's commitment to "go beyond traditional project
mitigation efforts and implement innovative enhancement measures." How does the DEIR/DEIS'
failure to formulate reasonable and feasible mitigation measures serve to meet the definition of
"mitigation" under NEPA and fulfill the above referenced declarations of agency policy?
It is somewhat disingenuous to suggest, as the DEIR/EIS does, that legally adequate mitigation
measures will be implemented at the "design stage" when it has already been established that
detailed project level design plans were completed well before the DEIR/EIS was drafted.
• 3.27 Failure to Examine Secondary Impacts
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 77
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
As indicated in Section 15378(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "project' means the whole of an •
action, which has a potential for resulting in either direct physical changes in the environment, or a
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." As further required under
Section 15126.4(a)(1)(D) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "if a mitigation measure would cause one
or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the
effects of the mitigation measures shall be discussed in less detail than the significant effects of the
project as proposed (Stevens v. City of Glendale [1981] 125 Cal.App.3d 986)."
A number of mitigation measures are identified in the DEIR/DEIS that will likely result in additional
environmental impacts (e.g., displacement and relocation) beyond those levels now analyzed
therein. Absent from the DEIR/DEIS, however, is any attempt by Lead Agencies to identify or
analyze the potential environmental consequences of those actions. For example, as mitigation for
traffic impacts, the DEIR/DEIS states: "Three intersections under the Full Build Alternative would
exceed CMP threshold criteria. Additional lanes will be required at these intersections, as shown in
Figure 4.7 -2. These ramp intersection modifications have been incorporated into the Full Build
Alternative" (TRA -FB -1, p. 4.7 -22) and "one intersection under the Reduced Build Alternative .
would exceed CMP threshold criteria. Additional lanes will be required at this Intersecuoti,, �as"
°Full
shown on Figure 4.7 -3" (TRA -RB -1, p. 4- 7 -22). As evidenced by the description of the Butid
Alternative" presented in Table 2.2 -3 (p. 2 -7) and the 'Reduced Build Alternative" presented in
Table 2.2-4 (p. 2 -12), those "ramp modifications" were never identified as "Full Build Alternative
Elements" (p. 2 -7) or "Reduced Build Alternative Elements" (p. 2 -12) and have not been addressed
under any of the other sections of the DEIR/DEIS.
As part of the document's community impact analysis, the Lead Agencies identify the following
•
mitigation measures: (1) "There may need to be additional displacements (removal of multi - family
units) within the [City Gardens] complex as a way to reduce the amount of parking required to
meet the current City of Santa Ana parking requirements. It would be speculative at this time to
identify additional units as displacements in an effort to meet-the current parking requirement.
Further analysis would be required in the Final Relocation Impact Report" (COM -FB -3, p. 4.6 -29);
and (2) Replacement parking would: be provided for Carl Karcher Enterprises in Orange on a nearby
off -site location or through construction of a parking garage on the north side of the existing site
(COM -FB -4, p. 4.6 -29; COM RBA.'' 4.6 -29). Based on these measures, the Lead Agencies
indicate that additional, uninvestigated "off -site" locations may be directly or directly impact
through the implementation of those measures.
Since the specific "off-site' locations are not identified, it is not possible to ascertain what, if any,
sensitive resources (e.g., wetlands, additional residential units or businesses requiring demolition)
may exist thereupon`' Since the precise boundaries of physical disturbance are never precisely
identified in the DFIR/DEIS, the Lead Agencies seek "carte blanche" authorization to produce
physical changes to any properties within the "project study area" (Figure 1.2.2, p. 1 -5).
In addition, as mitigation for the project's construction impacts, the DEIR/DEIS states, in part: "If
.
temporary construction easements are required and these easements result in an inability of
landowners to use their property as intended, additional substantial impacts not foreseen in this
document would. occur. Supplemental environmental analysis and documentation will be
required" (CON -FB -2, p. 4.15 -7). Although the Lead Agencies appear to confuse a declaration of a
project- relate impact from legitimate mitigation (e.g., "Pacific Electric arterial would be
incompatible with Garden Grove and Santa Ana general plan land use designation," p. 4.6 -39;
Stale Route 221West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 78
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA-01-04-D / SCH No. 98064001
• County Woods Apartment complex in Garden Grove west of Lewis Street would be acquired," p.
4.6 -39), the referenced measure does demonstrate that mitigation can produce 'substantial
impacts."
By the Lead Agencies own admission, insufficient information is now known regard the project's
construction -term impacts to: (1) to determine whether access will be maintained to the affected
properties; (2) whether alternative, short-term access will be required based on the preclusion of
existing access opportunities; and (3) the potential impacts that access constraints, limitations,
and /or prohibitions may have on those properties directly impacted and other properties that may
be indirectly impacted.
zSa
3.28 All Mitigation Measures and Analysis must originate from`tfie LeadAgencies
As required under Section 15020 of the State CEQA Guidelines, "each 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." Notwithstanding
that obligation, the Lead Agencies seek to defer to others their own responsibilities for conducting
an adequate environmental analysis and for formulating reasonable and feasible mitigation
measures based on the findings of that investigation.
For example, as mitigation for project- related noise impacts on specific commercial properties, the
• Lead Agencies seek to impose the following mitigation measure: "At the three commercial land
uses with outdoor activities where noise levels with the Full Build Alternative would exceed the
NAC for commercial uses ... Caltrans will consult with the property owners at these locations to
determine their desire for noise barriers. Noise barriers will not be provided unless commercial
property owners at these locations request them" (NOI -FB -2, p. 4.9 -18; N0I -RB -2, p. 4.9 -20).
Although the DEIR/DEIS. purports that the "Full Build Alternative" is "supportive of major land use
policies defined by Orange County's and affected cities general plans" (p. 4.6 -2), the obligations of
those general plans (i.e., noise elements) and the zoning provisions that serve to implement those
general plans (i.e., noise ordinances) appear to be ignored and the obligation for mitigation
conveyed to the individual "commercial property owners" rather than the local agencies in whose
jurisdiction those properties are located.. The "noise barrier" mitigation :proposal also fails to note
that the erection of any substantial new construction such as "noise barriers" at a local commercial
site would be subject to the land use controls applicable in the local jurisdiction. Because the
"noise barriers" are not specifically described in the document, it is impossible to determine
whether they could be legally erected on any of the commercial sites and whether such
construction would cause any environmental impacts.
Since noise barriers are only effective when there exist no breaks through which the noise can
travel, under the Lead Agencies mitigation, a "checkerboard" could be developed where some
"commercial property owners" request mitigation but adjoining owners prefer freeway visibility.
3.29 Monitoring Plans have not been Presented Demonstrating the Manner of Compliance
• As required under Section 15003(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the EIR shall "demonstrate"
to an apprehensive citizenry that the Lead Agencies have analyzed the environmental
implications of their actions. CEQA specifies: "The public agency shall adopt a reporting or
Stale Route 22AVest Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 79
Draft Environmental Impact Report(Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EIS- CA- 01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval,
adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or
monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation"
(Section 21081.6, CEQA). Under CEQA, the Lead Agencies are also responsible for ensuring
the implementation of those mitigation measures contained in thb resulting mitigation monitoring
or reporting program (MMRP) (Section 15097[a], State CEQA Guidelines).
Other federal agencies, such as the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), establish an obligation for an "environmental management and monitoring program"
(EMMP) when it is deemed necessary by the HUD - approving official (24 CFR 50.33[b]). If
required, the EMMP shall contain specific standards, safeguards, and commitments to be completed
during project implementation and shall specify the time periods) for conducting the evaluation
and monitoring of the applicant's compliance with the project agreements (24 CFR 50.22[c] -ld]). It
would seem reasonable that the FHWA has similar monitoring obligations as imposed upon HUD
and as required under CEQA.
As indicated in FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, "special instances may arise when a formal'"
program for monitoring impacts or implementation of mitigation measures will be appropriate ... In
those instances, the final EIS should describe the monitoring program" (FHWA Technical Advisory
T6640.8A, p. 12).
Since the Lead Agencies assert that otherwise significant impacts can be effectively reduced to
below a level of significance through the imposition of select mitigation measures, the Lead •
Agencies must demonstrate that a mechanism is in place or proposed which will ensure that the
stated measure is, in fact, implemented and, when implemented, accomplishes the results assumed.
Should the measure fail to produce the desired results, the Lead Agencies must have the ability,
capability, and accountability to compare the actual post - mitigated environment against the
assumed post - mitigated environment and, if required, take further corrective actions.
Should the adopted mitigation measures not be implemented or should they fall short of the
performance assumed or should those measures fail to accomplish the level of mitigation upon
which the DEIR/DEIS is based, the project's stakeholders need reasonable assurance that future
conditions will not be radically different that represented by the Lead Agencies and that plans have
been formulated and are "in place" to take additional actions to produce the results represented by
those agencies. In order to response to the legitimate concerns of "an apprehensive citizenry, the
DEIR/DEIS should include a draft MMRP /EMMP that can be reviewed in order to provide an
independent assessment of the program's likelihood of accomplishing its stated objectives (e.g.,
reduction or avoidance of significant or potentially significant environmental effects).
3.30 Recirculation and /or Preparation of a Supplement to the DEIR/DEIS Required
As indicated herein, numerous substantive defects have been identified with regards to the
DEIR/DEIS. As a result of those defects, there currently exists an inadequate and insufficient
environmental basis for the project's decision makers to made an informed decisions of the
potential environmental implications of the project, the range of alternatives that could be
implemented to reduce or avoid the generation of those impacts, and the reasonable and feasible
mitigations that could be imposed by the project's decision makers in response to those •
environmental effects.
State Route 221West Orange County Connection Oaober 2001
City of Seal Beach - Page 80
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EIS -CA- 01-04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
•
Pursuant to Section 1502.9(a) of the CEQ Regulations, "if a draft statement is so inadequate as to
preclude meaningful analysis, the agency shall prepare and circulate a revised draft of the
appropriate portion. As further indicatetd in Section 1502.9(c)(1)(ii) of the CEQ Regulations, federal
agencies shall prepare supplements to a draft EIS when "significant new circumstances or
information relevant to environmental concerns" that have a "bearing on the proposed action or its
impacts" are identified. Additionally, in accordance with Section 1500.1(b) of the CEQ Regulations,
"NEPA procedures must insure that environmental information is available to public officials and
citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken. The information must be of high
quality. Accurate scientific analysis, expert agency comments, and public scrutiny are essential to
implementing NEPA."
As indicated in 23 CFR 771.130(a), 'an EIS shall be supplemented whenever the [Federal Highway]
Administration determines that: (1) Changes to the proposed action would result in significant
environmental impacts that were not evaluated in the EIS; or (2) New information or circumstances
relevant to environmental concerns and bearings on the proposed action or its impacts would result.
in significant environmental impacts not evaluated in the EIS. In addition, 'a supplemental EIS m`
be required to address issues of limited scope, such as the extent of proposed mitigation or' ihe
evaluation of location or design variations for a limited portion of the overall project" (23 CFR
771.130[f]).
Similarly, CEQA mandates the recirculation of an environmental impact report (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" (Section 15088.5[a], State
CEQA Guidelines). As defined therein, "significant new information" requiring recirculation
includes 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 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
significant environmental impacts of the project; and /or (4) the draft EIR was so fundamentally and
basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were
precluded. Clearly, a number of these criteria apply as a result of the Lead Agencies
misrepresentation of future year conditions, failure to acknowledge the existence of significant
construction -term air quality impacts, failure to explore other possible alignment alternatives,
failure to present meaningful analysis and measurable threshold criteria, and presentation of
conclusory statements absent any supportive technical analysis, to name a few of the document's
defects.
On September 18, 2001, the City received a set of preliminary engineering plans for the subject
project. Those plans, dated December 2000, were clearly available long before the release of the
DEIR/DEIS (e.g., "this DEIR/DEIS includes analysis of the Full Build Alternative as illustrated on the
Preliminary Engineering Plans, State Route 22, for Project Report and Environmental Document, in
Orange County, From Interstate 605 to State Route 55 [Project Plans] [Parsons Brinckerhoff,
December 2000]," p. 2 -8); however, the corresponding level of detail concerning the proposed
• project is lacking therefrom (e.g., no preliminary engineering plans are included in the DEIR/DEIS).
The Lead Agencies election to release these documents, well into the comment period, constitutes
Stale Route 22/weA Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 81
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EIS- CA -01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
substantive new information regarding the specific characteristics of the project that are now absent •
from the DEIR/DEIS.
Clearly, then most accurate and current (i.e., year 2025) traffic prgjections constitute a critical
component of any planning effort that resulting in the implementation of traffic improvements and
whose purpose is purports to be the improvement of mobility and enhancement of public safety (p.
1 -2). Just as the structural integrity of any new house must be based on the foundation upon which
that house is built, the integrity of the DEIR/DEIS (inclusive of its technical analysis, mitigation
measures, and evaluation of project alternatives) must be based on a solid analytical foundation.
The decision to base the technical analysis on outdated (year 2020) traffic projections was at the
sole discretion of the Lead Agencies, despite the agencies' own acknowledgement that more
current information was available prior to the release of the DEIR/DEIS (e.g., "The demographic
data required to forecast travel demand beyond 2020 is not available and is not anticipated until
July 2001 when SCAG, the MPO, adopts a new regional growth forecast,' p. 3.7 -1).
Although the 2001 RTP FPEIR acknowledges that the displacement or relocation of "residences and
businesses though acquisition of land and buildings necessary for highway, arterial, and transit'
improvements" (2001 RTP DPEIR, p. ES-6) "remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation"
(2001 RTP DPEIR, p. ES -6), absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any indication that the destruction of
homes and displacement of families in Seal Beach are either an .impact warranting inclusion in the
document's summary table (see Table S.5 -1, pp. v -xxxv) or require any mitigation or evaluation of
other "build" alternatives. Similarly, although the MPO concludes . that such impacts are cumulative
significant, the Lead Agency fails to acknowledge the existence of those cumulative effects. Since •
the inclusion of those findings in the DEIR/DEIS constitutes "a new significant environmental
impact" and/or "a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact" (Section
15088.5[a], State CEQA Guidelines), recirculation of the document is required.
The obligation for technical adequacy rests with the Lead Agency and not the affected public
through their submission of comments on the DEIR/DEIS (e.g., "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,° Section 15020,
State CEQA Guidelines). Other than by reference aothe 1998 RTP and 2001 RTP, it is not the
responsibility of the City to conduct a new technical analysis of the proposed project comparing the
differences in traffic projections used in the DEIR/DEIS (from the 1998 RTP) with those used by the
MPO for regional traffic planning purposes (from the 2001 RTP).
The City believes that it is sufficient to note that there are substantial variations between the
projections utilized in the derivation of the 1998 RTP and the 2001 RTP and that the DEIR/DEIS
significantly underestimates future year traffic volumes along the SR -22 Freeway and other affected
arterial highways. Since 'much of the technical analysis and impact assessment relates, either
directly or indirectly, from traffic projections (e.g., mobile source air emissions, mobile source
noise projections), the failure to present an adequate traffic analysis translates into analytical
shortcomings in the remainder of the DEIR/DEIS and prevents any efforts to independently
determine project- related impacts or duplicate the Lead Agencies analyses.
As indicated elsewhere in these comments, project- related impacts will be substantially greater than
now disclosed by the Lead Agencies. For example, based on the analytical methodology •
established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), it can be easily
State Route 22AVest Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 82
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
• demonstrated that the project will produce significant construction -term air quality impacts. The
failure to disclose those impacts and the subsequent requirement that the Lead Agencies formulate
and adopt all reasonable mitigation measures in response to those impacts constitutes "significant
new information" and mandates recirculation of the DEIR/DEIS. e
Pursuant to the above requirements, since the agencies have failed to take the requisite "hard look"
at the project's potential impacts, the Lead Agencies are prohibited from taking any actions
concerning the proposed project until these defects are corrected, new notice provided, the
DEIR/DEIS corrected and recirculated and /or a new or supplemental DEIR/DEIS prepared and
disseminated for further public and agency review and comment.
4.0 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT /ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
The following comments are presented in response to specific comments, statements, and the
preliminary findings presented in the DEIR/DEIS. In order to facilitate the Lead Agencies' review,
these comments are categorized under each of the corresponding chapter heading of the
DEIR/DEIS. The City's failure to specifically comment on a section, statement, conclusion, or
mitigation measure in the DEIR/DEIS should not be construed by the Lead Agencies as the City's
acceptance of the information contained therein or the adequacy or accuracy of that information.
The City has obviously been constrained by time and resources, preventing a more comprehensive
evaluation of the project's environmental review record.' „;;
• 4.1 Summary
As required under FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, the document's summary shall include:
"(1) A brief description of the proposed FHWA action including route, termini, type of
improvements, number of lanes, length, county, city, state, and other information, as appropriate;
(2) A description of any major actions proposed by other.: governmental agencies in the same
geographic area as the proposed FHWA action; (3) A summary of all reasonable alternatives
considered; (4)`Asummary of major environmental impacts, both beneficial and adverse; (5) Areas
of controversy (including issues raised by agencies and the public); (6) Any major unresolved issues
with other agencies; and (n A list of other federal actions required for the proposed action (i.e.,
permit approvals, land transfer, Section 106 agreements, etcX (FHWA Technical Advisory
T6640.8A, p. 8). The majority of these required items are now absent from the DEIR/DEIS. As a
result, the summary presents an incomplete picture of the proposed project and necessitating
extensive review of the document in futile attempt to locate the above items.
As further required under the State CEQA Guidelines, "an EIR shall contain a brief summary of the
proposed actions and its consequences" (Section 15123[a], State CEQA Guidelines), "determining
whether a project may have a significant effect plays a critical role in the CEQA process" (Section
15064[a], State CEQA Guidelines), and "mitigation measures are not required for effects which are
not found to be significant" (Section 15126.4[a][3], State CEQA Guidelines). Based on a reading of
the document's text, the Lead Agency's preliminary determinations concerning the level of
significant impact and, therefore, the need for mitigation, is not always clear (e.g., "structures and
pavements associated with the Full Build Alternative would be susceptible to the types of failures
• discussed above," p. 4.1 -6).
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 83
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
As indicated in Table S.5 -1 (Summary of Impacts), only a limited number of 'impacts' contain any •
inference as to their level of significance before mitigation (e.g., "substantial noise increase," p. xvii;
.potentially significant noise impacts at commercial properties with outdoor uses," p. xvii).
Statements like "potential noise impact inside school classrooms" (p. xvii) provide insignificant
information to allow a reviewer to determine whether the Lead Agencies are stating that the
identified impact is either significant or less than significant prior to mitigation.
Similarly, when, under the "impact" column, the Lead Agencies only description of the identified
impact is "less than significant" (e.g., p. xxxiii), a reviewer is unable to determine the precise nature
of the impact that the project will produce. Noticeably absent from the summary table is any
discussion of the significance of the project's potential cumulative effects.
Since 'an environmental impact report is an informational document" (Section 21061, CEQA) and
since 'the EIR is to inform other governmental agencies and the public generally of the
environmental impacts of a proposed project" (Section 15003[c], State CEQA Guidelines,
insufficient information is provided in Table S.5 -1 (Summary of Impacts) as to the level of significant
of the pre - mitigated effects identified therein. In order for a reviewer to understanding the "nexus"
between the identified effect and the recommended mitigation measure, the summary table should
be expanded to include a column identifying the "level of significance before mitigation" (note that
there now exists a column entitled 'level of significance after mitigation ").
To constitute a mitigation measure under NEPA, the recommended action must avoid, minimize,
rectify, rehabilitate, restore, reduce, or compensate . for the impact for which the measure is
proposed (40 Cl 1508.20). Certain mitigation measures identified by the Lead Agencies (e.g.,
•
"There may need to be additional displacements within the complex, ", COM -FB -3, p. xv) fail to
accomplish any of those actions and, therefore, do not constitute legitimate mitigation measures
under NEPA.
As required under Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Lead Agencies are
required to 'describe any significant impacts, including those that can be mitigated but not reduced
to a level of insignificance." In at least one ase, the Lead Agencies conclude that the post -
mitigated level of significance is "unknown (p xv).. To the extent that the impact remains
significant, CEQA directs the Lead Agencies to determine whether other measures or alternatives
are available which would reduce or avoid that impact. The Lead Agencies cannot shirk their
responsibilities for the formulation of mitigation measures and alternatives merely through their
failure to make specific preliminary findings whether a particular impact remains significant.
When reviewing the text of the DEIR/DEIS, it is not possible to directly equate the statements in the
text and list of "impacts" included in the summary table, partly due to the Lead Agencies' failure to
include all referenced impacts in Table 5.5 -1 (Summary of Impacts). For example, under the
heading "topography," the text states the largest topographical changes that would result under the
Full Build Alternative is the new Pacific Electric Arterial and its interchange with SR -22. This new
element would require structures and retained fill for a portion of the arterial/interchange that is
elevated" (pp. 4.1 -1 and 4.1 -2). The DEIR/DEIS further states that the Lead Agencies' threshold of
significance criteria is the "potential to alter the configuration of the ground surface including its
relief and the position of its natural and man made features" (p. 4.1 -2). Based on the Lead
Agencies' own declaration, the project meets that criteria and would, therefore, produce a
•
significant topographic impact.
State Route 221WeA Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 84
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01- 04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
•
Notwithstanding that criteria, which was established by the Lead Agencies, the document attempts
to qualify that impact (i.e., "the Full Build Alternative would not appreciably alter the topography
a within the study area," p. 4.1 -2) to an extent not included in the criteria itself. In accordance with
the criteria, the threshold is established as the "potential" to alter the configuration of the ground
surface, not the extent of such alterations. The rationale for determining that the resulting physical
alteration of the site is less than significant is that the project will "be designed according to
standard engineering practices and Caltrans specifications" (p. 4.1 -2). The impact clearly exists
because or independent of the project's compliance with "standard engineering practices and
Caltrans specifications." Under the agencies' rationale, any project conforming to those practices
and specifications, notwithstanding the actual impact created and Ignoring.. the agencies own
threshold standards would be insignificant.
It is unclear what basis exists under NEPA or CEQA for the Lead Agencies to independently
establish their own threshold standards and then to ignore or fail to apply those self- imposed
standards against the impacts that each alternative will likely produce. It is unreasonable for the
Lead Agencies to state: "Although we exceed our own threshold of significance standards by
building a project that conforms to our standard practices, by conforming to those same standard
practices, the impact becomes less than significant."
Although a potentially significant impact is identified (i.e., potential to alter the configuration of
the ground surface ") and the Lead Agencies indicated that the project meets that criteria (i.e., "the
• largest topographic changes that would result under the Full Build Alternative is the new Pacific
Electric Arterial," pp. 4.1 -1 and 4.1 -2), the summary table contains no reference to *topography,'
lists no topographic impacts of any kind, contains no topographic mitigation, imposes no obligation
for the project to conform to "standard engineering practices" (although numerous other mitigation
measures contain that same obligation), and lists no level of significance with respect to that topical
issue. As a result, the summary table is not inclusive of all impacts identified in the document's
text. The summary table, therefore, fails to present anything approximating an accurate description
of the information contained elsewhere in the DEIR/DEIS.
4.2 Purpose and Need
As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS, the project's declared objectives are to: "[11 Improve mobility and
enhance safety in the SR- 22Mest Orange County Connection study area; [21 Maximize cost -
effectiveness of SR- 22ANest Orange o' y Connection improvements; [3] Minimize adverse and
maximize beneficial environmentah;.linpacts to SR- 22/West Orange County Connection
communities; [4] Minimize negative "'and maximize positive economic impacts to SR- 22AVest
Orange County Connection communities" (p. 1 -2).
Although the project is a "connection' project (e.g., "State Route 22/West Orange County
Connection'), only one of these "objectives" specifically address "improvements" to the.SR -22
Freeway. Conversely, the remaining three "objectives" identify other ideals that may or may not
have any specific relationship to the construction of "connection" improvements along that
highway (i.e., improve mobility, enhance safety, minimize adverse and maximize beneficial
• environmental impacts, minimize negative and maximize positive economic impacts). The
majority of the project's objectives, therefore, do not necessarily focus on the development of HOV
State Route 22 /WeA Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 85
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA -01 -04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
lanes nor do they limit the possible range of "build" alternatives to only those that include the
construction of HOV lanes.
Since the majority gf the project's objectives appear unrelated to a single definition of the project as
a 'connection' improvement, the Lead Agencies have failed to discuss "a range of alternatives,
including all 'reasonable alternatives," including "both improvements of existing highway(s) and
alternatives on new location[s]" (FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, pp. 9 -10). Although HOV
lanes may be one means of accomplishing improved mobility, it clearly is not the only means.
Referencing Section 15126.6(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "an EIR. shall describe a range of
reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain
most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the
significant effects of the project" [emphasis added]. In accordance therewith, if three of the four
stated objectives were accomplished (i.e., deleting the objective addressing the proposed
"connection improvements "), a larger range of possible alternatives could and should.}lave been
formulated and addressed as part of the DEIR/DEIS. kr
t.
As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS, the "refined set of conceptual alternatives" included a numbe of
additional alternatives not addressed in the DEIR/DEIS and not including "connection
improvements.' Those alternatives included, but were not limited to: (1) Refined Alternative 3:
Fixed Guideway; and (2) Refined Alternative 4: General- Purpose .Lanes. Although. the DEIR/DEIS
states: "The six refined alternatives were analyzed in detail during the technical evaluation
conducted for the MIS Evaluation Report. This technical evaluation, along with public input and •
polity considerations, resulted in OCTA Board approval . of a 'final' set of three conceptual
alternatives for study in this DEWEY (p. 2 -3). Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any further
explanation of what, if any, "technical evaluation" may have been performed and what 'policy
considerations" lead to the elimination of those alternatives. Any 'public input" that may have
occurred before the OCTA Board is independent of this NEPA and CEQA process and does not
substitute for the Lead Agencies obligations to fully involve the public as part of this environmental
process.
Since neither the "MIS Evaluation' Report" or the documentation supporting the 'OCTA Board
approval' are part of the ERR, those parties reviewing and commenting on this NEPA and CEQA
document are not provided with any supportive information upon which the rejection of those
alternatives was based. FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A requires the DEIR/DEIS to "explain
why 'other alternatives' were eliminated" (FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, p. 10). The above
referenced excerpt does not provide an adequate "explanation" for the rejection of those or other
alternatives.
As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS, "the lead agencies for this environmental review are the California
Department of Transportation for the CEQA documentation and the Federal Highway
Administration for the NEPA documentation" (p. 0. The DEIR/DEIR further notes: "The Orange
County Transportation Authority is a responsible agency under CEQA, and is a co-applicant with
Caltrans for Transportation Congestion Relief Program funding" (p. i).
The Lead Agencies cannot defer to or convey to OCTA (e.g., "This technical evaluation, along with •
public input and policy considerations, resulted in OCTA Board approval of a 'final' set of three
conceptual alternatives for study in the DEIR/DEIS," p. 2 -3), to another agency (e.g., 'According to
Stale Route 221West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 86
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA-01-04-D / SCH No. 98064001
• the SCAG letter, 'the range of alternatives studied in the SR -22 West Orange County Connection
Final MIS Evaluation Report is sufficient to meet the requirements of the regionally significant
transportation investments study guidelines," p. 2 -2) or to the public (e.g.,. "Alternative 5 was
e viewed as less desirable by the public compared to the other HOV alternatives,' p. 2 -18) the Lead
Agencies own obligations under NEPA and CEQA.
Although the actions of the "OCTA Board" may be a component of the Lead Agencies decision -
making process, it does not substitute for the independent actions and obligations that exist under
NEPA (e.g., 40 CFR 1508.16) and CEQA (e.g., Section 21002.1[dl, CEQA; Section 15020, State
CEQA Guidelines) upon those agencies. The FHWA and Caltrans cannot limit its assessment of
reasonable alternatives based exclusively on the actions of the¢OCTA, particularly when other
reasonable alternatives exist that fulfill most of the Lead Agencies
"declared objectives at a lesser
environmental cost.
4.3 Alternatives
Although the CEQA process allows the Lead Agencies to "incorporate by reference., (Section
15150, State CEQA Guidelines) into the DEIR/DEIS certain documents or information from
documents relevant to the proposed action, the Lead Agencies did not elect to avail themselves of
that opportunity. As a result, although there may have been an independent scoping process
whereby the OCTA formulated a set of project alternatives (e.g., "The results of that, analysis are
presented in detail in Section 4.0 of the MIS Report," p. 2 -1), neither the "MIS Evaluation Report"
• nor other components of the MIS process are not a part of the DEIR/DEIS and that document (as
prepared by others) and that process (administered by others) does' not substitute for the
independent actions of the Lead Agencies with regards to the adequacy of the DEIR/DEIS, including
the formulation of reasonable alternatives.
Referencing 23 CFR 450.318(0:
A major . investment study will include environmental studies which will be used for
environmental documents as described in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section:
(1) As a minimum the participating agencies will use the major investment study as
input to an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment prepared
subsequent to the completion of the study. In such a case, the major investment
study reports shall document the consideration given to alternatives and their
impacts; or (2) The participating agencies may elect to develop a draft
environmental impact statement or environmental assessment as part of the major
investment study. At any time after the completion of the study and the inclusion of
the major transportation investment in the plan and the TIP the participating
agencies may request the development of final environmental decision documents
required under NEPA for such major transportation investments, culminating in the
execution of a Record of Decision or Finding of No Significant Impact by the FHWA
and /or the ETA.
Since the DEIR/DEIS does not explicitly state that the MIS included 'environmental studies" and, if
• so, what studies were conducted at that time and their relevancy to this NEPA/CEQA process, the
MIS does not serve as a functional equivalent to the alternatives identification process imposed on
the Lead Agencies under NEPA and CEQA. Additionally, the DEIR/DEIS does not specifically state
State Route 22AVest Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 87
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
that the MIS is "part of the major investment study" (such as could occur through "incorporation by •
reference`). As a result, the information developed through that process serves only as "input to an
environmental impact statement" and does not constitute the EIS in and of itself. As indicated in 23
CFR 450.318(i), "where the environmental process has been initiated but not completed, the
FHWA and the FTA shall be consulted on appropriate modifications to meet tale requirements of
this section."
Even to the extent that the FHWA and FTA may have been participants to that study, any such
participation and consultation occurred outside of the NEPA process which commenced with the
release of the "Notice of Preparation" (NO% and publication of the "Notice of Intent" (NO0.
Events and activities that may have occurred prior to that time cannot be used as a supportable
rationale for the Lead Agencies' failure to consider a reasonable range of alternatives in the
DEIR/DEIS.
Under the heading "project phasing" (p. 2 -21), no specific information concerning the anticipated
date of construction, the proposed phasing plan, or the projected date of completion has been
provided. This lack of information and analysis is of concern to the City of Seal Beach since major
improvements to Seal Beach Boulevard are now proposed. As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS, the Lead
Agencies have identified the following "related project ':
Widening of Seal Beach Boulevard overcrossng of 1-405 is proposed to provide six
through lanes (three in each direction), sidewalks, bike lanes, and a median.
Roadway approaches would also be widened. Small amounts of additional rightof- •
way would be required for the widening (p. 2 -19). -
Absent from the DEIR/DEIS, however, is any discussion as to the potential impacts of the proposed
project upon the proposed widening of Seal Beach Boulevard to be undertaken in order to reduce
traffic impacts of the Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center project. Although City staff has been meeting
with representatives of Caltrans and the OCTA in an attempt to develop a coordinated program for
the reconstruction of this important regional transportation overpass so as not to require two
different construction phases, the issue of timing has yet to be resolved.
The resulting lack of resolution has a�Lrsely impacted the City's formulation and implementation
of traffic improvement plans and may result in the delay of the proposed improvements.
Alternatively, if the two projects were to advance independent of one another, there may exist
additional cumulative impacts not presently envisioned by the City, project costs may needlessly
increase as a result of the lack of coordinated phasing, and impacts upon motorists and proximal
land uses would increase either in intensity or in time of potential disruption. As a result, the
DEIR/DEIS needs to be augmented to include a discussion of Caltrans' plans to coordinate the
proposed improvements to Seal Beach Boulevard with the SR22NVOCC project.
4.4 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures
The manner in which each topical issue is addressed creates considerable confusion in attempting
to ascertain each alternative's potential impacts. For example, once a topical heading is introduced
(e.g., "topography," p. 4.1 -1), a brief description of each alternative's potential impacts is provided •
(e.g., "The largest topographical change that would result under the Full Build Alternative is the
new Pacific Electric Arterial and its interchange with SR -22. The new element would require
State Route 22AVest Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 88
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA-01-04-D / SCH No. 98064001
• structures and retained fill for the portion of the arterial/interchange that is elevated," p. 4.1 -1).
Following that description, the agencies' threshold of significance criteria is presented (e.g.,
`potential to alter the configuration of the ground surface," p. 4.1 -2). The text then presents another
discussion of each alternative (e.g., "The largest topographical change that would result under the
' Full Build Alternative is the new Pacific Electric Arterial and its interchange with SR -22. The new
element would require structures and retained fill for the portion of the arteriallnterchange that is
elevated," p. 4.1 -2).
In the example cited, the information presented before the discussion of the threshold criteria is
identical or similar to the information presented after the discussion of the threshold criteria. This
same repetitive approach exists throughout the DEIR/DEIS and appears so :frequently that references
to the text are to numerous to cite herein. In some instance the exact same text is repeated, in
others the sentences are slightly modified but no new information or analysis is presented. Since
no introduction is presented describing the document's format, the presentation of duplicative text
fails to provide additional useful information and needlessly adds to the length and complexity of
an already poorly structured document.
Needless repetition within the DEIR/DEIS is not confined to the document's analysis of each
alternative but includes the extensive duplication of the exact same text under the document's
discussion of other alternatives. For example, with regards to the DEIR/DEIS' discussion of
biological impact, under the analysis of the "Full Build Alternative," the Lead Agencies provide a
number of lengthy paragraphs describing the project's obligation to "comply with Section 404 of
• the Clean Water Act" (p. 4.4 -1). Other than the substitution of the term "Reduced Build
Alternative," the exact same information is again repeated under the analysis of the other "build'
alternative (see pp. 4.4-3 and 4.4 -4). The Lead Agencies appear to replace substantive analysis with
mere redundancy.
As required under Section 15126.4(a)(4)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, 'the mitigation measure
must be 'roughly proportional' to the impacts of the project." As a result of the highly confusing
nature of the DEIR/DEIS, the Lead Agencies' failure to formulate threshold of significance criteria
that allows for objective measurement, and the document's failure to clearly describe the level of
significance of the identified impacts prior to mitigation, it is not possible to equate a specific
mitigation measure with the environmental impact that the measure seeks to address.
In the absence of a clear relationship between impacts and those mitigation measures now
recommended by the Lead Agencies, the text of the DEIR/DEIS should be revised to: (1) redefine
each threshold standard in a fashion sufficient to allow a reviewer to independently compare that
threshold with each associated impact; (2) state the precise impact which is identified utilizing, to
the extent possible, a quantitative description of the projected impact; (3) clearly indicate the level
of significance prior to mitigation; (4) equate each mitigation measure with the corresponding
impact; (5) utilizing, to the extent possible, a quantitative description, demonstrate each measures
efficacy in reducing the identified impact; (6) re-examine the post- mitigated impact against the
quantitative threshold of significance criteria; and (n clearly describe the residual impact, including
an explanation why that impact remains significant or can be reduced to below a level of
significance.
• In many instances, the document's entire discussion of an alternative's potential impacts is
contained in one or two sentences. For a project of the potential magnitude and localized and
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection Odober 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 89
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EIS- CA -01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
regional environmental significance of the SR22ANOCC project, that level of analysis is woefully •
deficient and fails to adequately represent the project's potential impacts. By failing to accurately
describe and characterize the project's potential impacts, the project's decision makers and other
stakeholders are not provided sufficient information against which to formulates reasonable and
feasible mitigation measures.
Referencing FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, both the draft and final EIS shall include
"sufficient supporting information or results of analysis to establish the reasonableness of the
conclusions and impacts" (FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, p. 12). As required under Section
21061 of CEQA, "the purpose of an environmental impact report is to provide public agencies and
the public in general with detailed information about the effects which a proposed project is likely
to have on the environment" [emphasis added]. As further . required under the State CEQA
Guidelines, "while foreseeing the unforeseeable is not possible, an agency must use its best efforts
to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can" (Section 15144, State CEQA Guidelines), "the
degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the
underlying activity which is described in the EIR" (Section 15146, State CEQA Guidelines), and ".an..
evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but;jk6
sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible ... The courts have
looked not for perfection but for adequate, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure"
(Section 15151, State CEQA Guidelines).
As a NEPA/CEQA document intended to authorize the construction of specific transportation
improvements, the level of detail must be commensurate with the entitlements authorized •
thereunder. That level of detail is currently absent from the DEIR/DEIS and the defects therein are
so onerous as to require extensive augmentation, recirculation, and /or preparation of a
supplemental technical analysis prior to presentation to the project's decision makers and other
stakeholders.
F
For example, under the "Full Build Alternative," the Lead Agencies seek authorization to construct
a new Pacific Electric Arterial, with a length of "5.1 kilometers (3.2 miles)" (p. 2 -6) and a width of
approximately 100 feet (Figure 2.226, p. 2 -11). As a result, substantial new pavement will be
added to that approximately 38.6 acres acre, presently lacking any pavement. Although the
DEIR/DEIS notes that "runoff from the roadway would be the most likely: source of contaminants to
surface waters" and "the surface area of pavement on a roadway is one determinant of the amount
of runoff" (p,'4.2 -1), no reference is made to the drainage facilities that will be impacted by that
new roadway, the capacity of those drainage facilities to accommodate increased Flow (including
both pre- and post - project "Q" conditions), the presence of sensitive vegetation that may be
impacted, or the point of downstream discharge (e.g., Pacific Ocean).
The preponderance of the Lead Agencies analysis is contained in the following few sentences:
"These areas currently receive highway and roadway runoff, so existing vegetation is adapted to the
polluted conditions. The incremental increase in contaminants would not be expected to result in
the loss of this adapted vegetation" (p. 4.2 -1).
Since no attempt has been made to quantify the "incremental" increase, the Lead Agencies seek to
assert that any increase in surface flows would be less than significant. Similarly, since no attempt •
has been made to quantify the nature of "contaminants" to be added to those drainage facilities, the
Lead Agencies seek to assert that any increase in surface water contamination would have a de
State Route 22/WeA Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 90
U
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EIS- CA -01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
minimus impact upon receiving waters and vegetation. Neither of those identified impacts can be
universally considered to apply to all conditions, particularly in light of the identified beneficial
uses of the existing receiving waters (e.g., "municipal and domestic supply, non - contact recreation,
land groundwater recharge," p. 4.2 -1) such that no reason$ble analysis needs to be conducted.
As indicated above, a number of issues have been identified that are of major concern to the
residents of Seal Beach. Those concerns include, but are not limited to: (1) socioeconomic impacts
resulting from the proposed destruction of six or more housing units within Seal Beach; (2) aesthetic
impacts associated with the construction of sound walls; (3) aesthetic impacts associated with the
elevated HOV connectors; (4) noise impacts resulting from the realignment of travel lanes and the
construction of elevated HOV connectors; (5) light and glare impacts associated with the realigned
travel lanes and the elevated HOV connectors; (6) potential.. phasing Issues associated with the
design and construction of the Seal Beach Boulevard overpass; and (7) potential impacts to City
pump stations and water reservoir facilities adjacent to the SR -22 and 1 -405 Freeways.
In order to focus discussions on those issues, the following comments address those sections of the
DEIR/DEIS were those issues are primarily discussed. The Lead Agency should not construe the
City's election not to submit detailed comments addressing the remaining sections of the DEIR/DEIS
as the City's acceptance of the analysis and preliminary findings presented therein:
4.4.1 Community Impact Assessment
• As indicated in Caltran's Environmental Handbook, Volume 4 (Caltrans Community Impact
Assessment), "a basic first step in community impact analysis is to delineate the affected
socioeconomic environment for all the proposed project alternatives. Note that in preparing an
environmental document, area boundaries are likely to be drawn differently for several types of
studies: community impact assessments, historic and archeological resources, hazardous waste
materials, noise, and so forth. Delineation of the affected environment can facilitate identification
and analysis of community impacts. ..Delineation of the affected social and economic environment
will generally encompass community facilities, school districts, census tracts, and community
planning arS`'..Considerauon also should be given to understanding indirect project effects"
(Caltrans Community Impact Assessments, pp. 10 -11).
g
Throughout the DEIR/DEIS, the Lead Agencies represent the existence of a single "study area"
which is represented as being applicableto all topical issues. Since no factual basis is presented for
the delineation of that area, its delineation appears more arbitrary than fact - based. Although the
boundaries change, the study area is predominately linear in form and defined by major roadways
located to the north and south of the SR -22 Freeway. Since jurisdictional boundaries and traffic
tributary areas extend.. beyond the limits of the study area, the Lead Agencies have sought to
artificially confine the environmental assessment to a subarea constituting only a component of the
actual area wherein community impacts will likely occur.
Although Caltrans is identified as one of the Lead Agencies and "Caltrans Environmental Handbook
Volume 4" (p. 4.63) is referenced in the DEIR/DEIS, the community impact assessment guidelines
developed by that agency do not appear to have been followed in the preparation of the DEIR/DEIS
• and no explanation is provided as to why the Lead Agencies failed to conduct a community impact
assessment in accordance with Caltrans' Environmental Handbook.
Stale Route 22AVest Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 91
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
SHWA- EIS- CA -01- 04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
As described in Caltrans' Community Impact Assessment, "community cohesion is the degree to •
which residents have a 'sense of belonging' to their neighborhood ...Generally, the effect of a
transportation facility located through an older, established neighborhood is more severe than one
located through an area wherg the housing changes ownership every three to five yeads" (Caltrans
Community Impact Assessment, P. 49). Those homes located in Seal Beach now planned for
demolition have existed adjacent to the SR -22 Freeway for nearly as long as the freeway itself.
Ownership patterns have stayed relatively stable over that period, indicating the existence of a
highly cohesive neighborhood. As indicated therein:
One of the traditional tools for measuring community cohesion by transportation
departments across the country is by means of a "stability index" or mathematical
formula with numerical variables ... Essentially, the stability index is based on the
assumption that the longer people live in a community, more committed they
become to it and the more cohesive the community.. .In any event, it is essential
that all neighborhood and community studies be backed up with direct observation
and possibly other research measures ...Note if residents, either individually or
through their representatives, express particular concern for their neighborhood at
public meetings or through other forums. This is a useful measure of community '
cohesion" (Caltrans Community Impact Assessment, pp. 50 -51).
Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any reference to a "stability index' conducted by the Lead Agencies
as a means of assessing community cohesion. As indicated both herein and in previous comments
submitted by the City, Seal Beach has and will continue to express concerns for the proposed •
destruction of homes in the cohesive College Park East neighborhood.
While the DEIR/DEIS indicates that "there would be impacts to community cohesion in five
different neighborhoods" (p. 4.6 -4), the College Park East neighborhood is totally excluded from the
Lead Agencies' analysis.. -It is highly likely that College Park East residents would demonstrate a
longer tenure than residents in those multi - family neighborhoods addressed in the DEIR/DEIS (see
pp. 4.6-4 and, 4.6 -5). Since there is no reference to or analysis of that established area, it is not
surprising that the DEIR/DEIS fails to acknowledge either that project implementation will have a
significant' impact thereupon or that mitigation, of any kind, is warranted.
Potential mitigation measures identified in Caltrans' Community Impact Assessment include "shift
alignment,'.' 'reduce traffic lanes," and "reduce right -of -way width" (Caltrans Community Impact
Assessment, p.. 52). Why were none of these mitigation measures identified in the DEIR/DEIS?
Why did these possible mitigation measures not translate into the assessment of different freeway
alignments?
Under the document's assessment of community impacts, only a single threshold of significance
criteria has been established by the Lead Agencies, namely the "loss of parking" (p. 4.6 -9).
Although project implementation will likely result in "189 residential displacements" (p. 4.6 -11)
and the "displacement of 35 businesses and approximately 113 employees" (p. 4.6 -14), owing in
part to the transportation focus of the Lead Agencies, no comparable thresholds are identified for
the displacement of homes, businesses, lost employment opportunities, and other economic losses
of those parties most directly affected by the project. The destruction or reduction of established •
residential communities certainly must be viewed as being an "impact" on those communities. The
State Route 221Wesl Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 92
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EIS -CA- 01.04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
• DORMS cannot identify and disclose those impacts in its current form, since it failed to create
legally adequate thresholds of significance.
Similarly, other than through a general statement (e.g., "Neliative indirect effects such an increased
noise levels, visual intrusion, and property acquisition may affect these areas resulting in lower
property values and reduced community cohesion," p. 6.6 -2), no analysis of any kind is provided
for any diminution of property values or reduced quality of life by those individuals that will, either
directly or indirectly, be affected by freeway encroachment. Absent from the text of the DEIR/DEIS
is any indication of the potential significance of that impact (see p. 4.6 -2). Similarly, the summary
table contains no reference to "lower property values and reduced community cohesion" in and
proximal to the College Park East neighborhood.
In the absence of any threshold criteria, it is not surprising that the Lead Agencies presents both no
conclusions with regards to the potential significance of those project - related Impacts and presents
an unsupported and unsupportable conclusion that "displacements .would result in minimal
cumulative impacts" (p. 8 -9).
Since Orange County is identified as a "job rich" and "housing poor" area, any reduction in the
region's housing inventory would create a further jobs/housing imbalance and exacerbate areawide
planning efforts to address air quality conditions within this non-attainment area. Nowhere in the
DEIR/DEIS, however, do the Lead Agencies address the issue of jobs/housing balance and the
potential air quality and transportation consequences attributable to the area's imbalance.
• 4.4.2 Noise
The DEIR/DEIS states that the "noise analysis for the SR-22A/Vest Orange County Connection can be
found in the 'Traffic Noise Impact Technical Report' and 'Traffic Noise Technical Report Reduced
Build Alternative Addendum,' Parsons Brinckerhoff, December 2000 (under separate cover)" (p.
4.9 -1). The document, however, fails to indicate where copies of the above referenced studies can
be located. The DEIR/DEIS further notes:
Based on this feasibility and reasonabi lrty;analysis, the 'Preliminary Noise
Abatement Decision' has been made ...Duriog the public review period for the
DEIR/EIS, impacted residents, the general public, and local agencies will have the
opportunity to comment on the 'Preliminary Noise Abatement Decision.' These
opinions, which represent the last two considerations for reasonability will be
weighed in order to make the 'Final Noise Abatement Decision,' which will be
presented in the Final EIR/EIS (p. 4.9 -12).
Since those documents were not distributed with the DEIR/DEIS and since the mitigation measures
presented in the DEIR/DEIS are derived from that analysis (e.g., "Based on the Preliminary Noise
Abatement Analysis [Appendix 1.31, noise barriers are proposed for the Full Build Alternative ... Of
the 26 noise barriers considered in the reasonability analysis, only one barrier was determined not
to be reasonable [Table A, Appendix 1.31," p. 4.9 -13), the project's stakeholders are denied access
to critical information used to derive the Lead Agencies preliminary conclusions and are prevented
• from independently validating the data presented in the DEIR/DEIS. As a result, stakeholders are
prevented from submitting meaningful comments on the "preliminary noise abatement decision"
and, therefore, cannot hope to modify the results of that study or influence the outcome of the final
State Route 22 /West orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach _ Page 93
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EIS- CA- 01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
noise abatement decision. Again, this appears to be an attempt on the part of the Lead Agencies to •
'hide the ball' and preclude meaningful comment on the part of the public most affected by the
project.
Attempting to duplicate Caltrans' methodology is a very time consuming and costly endeavor and
cannot even commence without access to specific information (e.g., future peak -hour traffic
volumes) which serves as input data for computer modeling and which is not included in the
DEIR/DEIS. As a result, not only have the Lead Agencies precluded reasonable access to the
technical reports conducted specifically for the project but also access to technical data which is
critical to any independent review that could be conducted in an attempt to determine the validity
of the Lead Agencies' conclusions. -
For example, at the 1 -40511 -605 Freeway HOV connectors, a :new, elevated travel lane will be
constructed. Since the lane will be constructed at an elevation of about 75 -feet above the
mainline, no noise barriers or other intervening obstacles will block the sound waves emanating
from the freeway. Notwithstanding the likely exposure of nearby'. residents to higher noise levels
generated by vehicles utilizing this elevated HOV connector, no noise measurements or modeling
has been conducted in the Leisure World or Rossmoor areas of Seal Beach..."
As indicated under CEQA, the purpose of 'the EIR is to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry
that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its actions'
[emphasis added] (Section 15003[d], State CEQA Guidelines). Similarly, as required under
Caltrans' 'Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol' (Caltrans, October 1998) (Caltans Noise Protocol or •
Protocol), 'the Protocol applies to the assessment and disclosure of potential noise impacts of
project alternatives as identified within the scope of an environmental document as required by
NEPA/CEQA' [Emphasis Added] (Galt any Noise Protocol, p. 2)
In the absence of access to Caltrans analysis, it is not possible to, determine the assumptions used
with respect to the conveyance of that noise, the distances between source and receptors, the
highest hourly noise level, and the atmospheric or other attenuation assumed in the acoustical
model. In the absence of access to critical information, it is not possible to replicate the
document's acoustical analysis or determine whether the DEIR/DEIS does, in fact, represent the
highest predicted hourly noise level (e.g., 'Predict traffic noise levels using traffic characteristics
that will yield the worst hourly traffic noise impact on a regular basis for the design year,' Caltrans
Noise Protocol, p. 7). The presentation of conclusions with the supporting analysis is, therefore,
inconsistent with not only the purpose of the CEQA process but also CalTrans Noise Protocol.
As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS, 'under CEQA, a substantial noise increase may result in a significant
adverse environmental effect' (p. 4.9 -1). As further indicated in the DEIR/DEIS,'a five dB change is
a readily perceptible increase or decrease in sound level' (p. 3.9 -1). Since 'a readily perceptible'
change in noise levels constitutes an appropriate basis for defining 'a substantial noise increase,'
most communities utilize a 3 -5-dB increase as the threshold for significance under CEQA. It is
unreasonable for the Lead Agencies to suggest that a 12-dB increase constitutes an appropriate
threshold of significance criteria (e.g., 'There would be no impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to
less than substantial, as defined by Caltrans [i.e., a 12 dB increase],' p. 4.9 -26).
In many instances, thresholds of significance criteria are not set quantitative numbers but can vary •
based on the environmental values established by the community in which projects are proposed.
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 94
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
• Areas that are dependent upon future development may establish less restrictive standards that in
those areas that seek to control growth and where environmental considerations take on increased
importance. As evidenced by Seal Beach's recent efforts to minimize surface water pollution by
increasing street sweeping activities, the City places a high value on environmental quality.
0
Nowhere in the DEIR/DEIS, however, do the Lead Agencies seek to inform the project's decision
makers and other stakeholders that they have 'a say' in the environmental values which are
established in the DEIR/DEIS and which the proposed project should be evaluated. Although a 12-
d6 increase may have previously been utilized by Caltrans for other projects, that standard is
neither defined by statute or regulations and other standards can and, in some instances, should be
defined by the local agency where the project will occur. Since no factual basis is provided for the
use of a 12 dB standard, other than past practices of Caltrans (e.g, "Caltrans defines traffic noise
impacts as: Where there is a substantial noise increase, i.e., when the predicted noise levels with
the project would exceed existing noise levels by 12 dBA or more," p. 4.9 -1), the City challenges
that standard as failing to be reasonable for the jurisdiction in which the project is proposed.
Since "a readily perceptible increase' is defined by Caltrans as a 5-d6 increase, that standard
should be utilized, not a 12-dB increase. Seal Beach has utilized a 3 -dB increase in its independent
assessment of other projects and believes and contends that 3 -dB constitutes a more supportable
basis for assessing project- related and cumulative noise impacts. A 3 -5 -dB standard would result in
the need for additional mitigation beyond that now proposed by the Lead Agencies.
• As indicated in Table 4.9 -2 (pp. 4.9 -3 and 4), a number of receptors will experience a 5-dB or
greater increase in noise levels under the "Full Build Alternative." The Lead Agencies, however,
erroneously conclude "these increases in noise levels are anticipated to have less than significant
impacts to the areas listed" (p. 4.9 -10).' As a result, the Lead Agencies seek to minimize their
mitigation obligations, to the expense of those nearby receptors that will experience an increase or
five or more but less than twelve decibels.
As further indicated in the DEIR/DEIS, the Lead Agencies decision to include mitigation is
dependent not only on the projected increase in noise levels associated with the project but also
based on an undefined "reasonability analysis" ( "A, summary of the results of the reasonable
analysis,` including the number of residence benefited from each noise barrier, is presented in
Appendix 1.3," p. 4.9 -12) which appears to be based on economic considerations (e.g., "the
reasonable allowance for each wall will be recalculated during the design phase and if the cost of
any wall is not reasonable, they might be eliminated from this project," p. 4.9 -12). As further
indicated in Caltrans Noise Protocol, "the determination of reasonableness of noise abatement is
more subjective than the determination of its feasibility ...The overall reasonableness of noise
abatement is determined by considering a multitude of factors including but not necessarily limited
to the following ...cost of abatement" (Caltrans Noise Protocol, pp. 9 -10). Based on these
statements, it is evident that the Lead Agencies are not, in fact, firmly committing to the
construction of specific noise barriers since those barriers may "be eliminated from the project" if
found not to be cost effective.
As indicated in the CEQ Regulations, "if a cost - benefit analysis relevant to the choice among
• environmentally different alternatives is being considered for the proposed action, it shall be
incorporated by reference or appended to the statement as an aid in evaluating the environmental
consequences" (40 CFR 1502.23).
State Route 22fWest Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 95'
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01- 04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
Under CEQA, a Lead Agency's obligation for mitigation is not cost dependent. Costs are not
generally a factor in determining whether a Specific mitigation measure is or is not feasible. To the
extent costs are considered, however$ the determination is not based on a general model ( e.g.,
"$15,000 base allowance... The estimated actual cost per residence of the proposed noise
abatement for a location should be at or below the modified reasonable allowance per residence
for the noise abatement to be reasonable for that location," Caltrans Noise Protocol, pp. 11 and 13)
but relates to the nature of the impact created and the financial ability of the project proponents to
implement those measures. Since the project proponent is the federal (FHWA) and State (Caltrans)
governments and not "for profit" developers, economic factors should not be used as a basis for
excluding otherwise feasible mitigation measures (e.g., "one barrier was determined not to be
reasonable; p. 4.9 -13).
For a number of receptors in the Seal Beach area, the DEIR/DEIS indicates that "highest available
noise barrier is not feasible (will not reduce by at least 5 dBA" ((able 4.9 -7, p. 4.9 -14). To the
extent.that a "higher" barrier were to offer additional mitigation opportunities above those that
would result from the retention of the "lower" barrier, CEQA requires the Lead Agencies to
implement those added measures (e.g., *CEQA establishes a duty for public agencies to avoid or
minimize environmental damage where feasible," Section 15021[a], State CEQA. Guidelines).
As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS, "under CEQA, a project would have a significant effect on the
environment if it would increase substantially the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas, which is
defined by Caltrans as an increase of 12 dBA" (p. 4.9 -27). To the extent, however, that the Lead
Agencies assert that a 5-1BA decrease constitutes an appropriate basis for assessing a 'substantial'
noise reduction (e.g., "A public agency should not approve a project as proposed if there are
feasible alternatives or mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen any significant
effects that the project would have on the environment" [emphasis added], Section 15021[a][2],
State CEQA Guidelines), then the Lead Agencies cannot seek to apply a "double standard" whereby
those agencies assert that a.12 -dBA increase constitutes the basis for a substantial noise impact but
a 5 -dBA increase constitutes the basis for a substantial noise mitigation. Based on the Lead
Agencies failure to consider mitigation measures that do not achieve a 5-d BA reduction, there exists
further substantiation for revising the threshold of significance criteria to indicate that a 5-dBA
increase constitutes a significant acoustical impact
i
As indicated in Table 4.9 -7 (pp. 4.9-14 through 4.9 -18), at a number of locations, a new "4.9- meter-
high" sound wall is proposed. Based on' the specific location, the identified mitigation for that
identical wall ranges from 5 to 15 dBA. Although some variation would be predicted based on
different traffic conditions, the size of the variation raises questions with the accuracy of the Lead
Agencies' assessment;'. Again, since the supporting analysis has not been provided, it is not possible
to independently validate. the Lead Agencies' preliminary findings. The reason for such large
variations should, however, be justified as well as the determination that "existing 4.9 to 5.5 meter
(16 to 18 foot) noise barrier is highest available" (e.g., p. 4.9 -14). Similarly, if a "5,5 meter" noise
barrier is feasible, why is the height of the proposed sound walls limited to only '4.9 meters "?
Absent from the project's acoustical analysis is any discussion of or graphic representation of pre -
and post - project noise contours, with special emphasis on the predicted noise levels at all sensitive
receptor location areas. As required under FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, the DEIR/DEIS
shall include 'the extent of the impact (in decibels) at each sensitive area. This includes a
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 96
la
•
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA -01- 04 -D /SCH No. 98064001 -
• comparison of the predicted noise levels with both the FHWA noise abatement criteria and the
existing noise levels" (FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, p.,1 n.
Similarly, the. contains no reference to or discussion of construction staging areas or the
possible haul routes for construction materials. Since both construction staging operations and the
transport of equipment, materials, and manpower along local roadways can adversely effect nearby
receptors, the DEIR/DEIS needs to identify and examine the possible noise impacts associated with
those activities.
As indicated in FHWA Technical Advisory T6160.2 (FHWA, March 13, 1984), the FHWA noise
directive "contains requirements for the evaluation of highway construction noise ... Major urban
projects with unusually severe highway construction noise impacts require more extensive analysis.
Sensitive receptors should be identified, existing noise levels should be measured, construction
noise levels should be predicted, and impacts should be discussed so as to properly indicate their
severity" (FHWA Technical Advisory T6160.2, pp. 1 -2). Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any attempt
to specifically identify those sensitive receptors that will be impacted . by the project's construction.
The DEIR/DEIS states "noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders,
bulldozers, concrete mixers, and portable generators, can reach levels in the range of 67 to 98 dBA
at 15 meters" (p. 4.9 -10). In direct contrast, the Lead. Agencies then assert that construction noise
levels would not exceed "89 dBA at 15 meters" (Table 4.9 -6,: p. 4.9 -11). As :required under
Caltrans Noise Protocol, "normally, limits on construction noise levels should not exceed 86 dBA at
• a distance of 15 meters. If construction noise on any highway project is anticipated to be a
substantial problem, the following items should be examined during the project process: (a) Land -
uses or activities that may be affected by noise from construction of a project. (b) Measures
necessary to minimize or eliminate adverse construction noise impacts on the community that
could be incorporated in the plans and specifications" (Caltrans Noise Protocol, p. 3).
Absent from the DEIR/DEIS, however, is any effort to identify the specific 'land uses" that will likely
be impacted by construction activities. As such, since specific sensitive receptors have not been
identified that would likely be subjected to excessive construction noise levels, the Lead Agencies
seek to avoid their obligation to formulate specific mitigation measures addressing the impact
created by the project. It is, therefore, possible to determine whether the more "generic"
measures that is proposed will have any effectiveness with regards to the mitigation of noise at
those receptor locations.
Additionally, since "noise abatement is not designed for the second floor level" (Caltrans Noise
Protocol, P. 10), since most residential units located noise sensitive areas such as bedrooms on the
second floor, the DEIR/DEIS has failed to demonstrate that the proposed noise barriers will
effectively reduce, post - project noise levels in residential areas (including second -floor areas) to an
acceptable level (e.g., conformity with municipal noise standards).
Similarly, the analysis does not state whether interior noise levels at affected properties are based
on a "windows open" or "windows closed" condition. If interior standards can only be attained by
requiring affected receptors to keep their windows closed, the Lead Agencies then have a further
• obligation to include additional acoustical attenuation (e.g., triple -pane windows, increased
insulation, installation of air conditioning equipment) beyond the mere construction of sound walls.
Those additional attenuation measures must be imposed as a mitigation measure on this project.
State Route 22[West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 97
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01- 04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
•
Mitigation measures, in and of themselves, have the potential to produce significant environmental
effects. As required under the Caltrans Noise Protocol:
If the noise mitigation is expectedrto result in a significant adverse environmental
effect (such as by causing a visual intrusion on a scenic highway, blocking resident's
views, adverse effects on historic sites, etc.), an overall mitigation plan must be
developed. The plan should include consideration of competing environmental
resources. To accomplish this, sufficient information regarding the physical
characteristics, benefits, and detriments of the proposed mitigation is necessary so
that it can be balanced against the affected resources) ( Caltrans Noise Protocol, p.
19).
Based on the City's independent assessment of the proposed project, the City has concluded that
the implementation of the proposed sound barriers will, themselves, produce significant secondary
environmental effects upon both the College Park East residential community and upon Old Ranch
Tennis Club which have not been addressed in the DEIR/DEIS. Presently no sound wall exists in
direct proximity to Old Ranch Tennis Club and no sound wall appears to be proposed at that
location by the Lead Agencies. The absence of a proposed sound wall, however, may be the result
of the Lead Agencies' failure to consider this future public recreational facility as part of its
acoustical analysis. If considered, the analysis would likely identify the need for a new 4.9 -meter
sound wall to protect that public recreational facility from unacceptable noise levels. The
construction of a 16 -foot high masonry wall within an area potentially subject to significant seismic
forces and directly adjacent to an area where large congregations of children may be evident will
•
likely result in additional safety issues which do not presently exist at that location and which have "
not been addressed in the DEIR/DEIS..
As a result, the DEIR/DEIS,.needs to be augmented to include 'an overall mitigation plan"
acknowledging thepresence =of those secondary impacts and, as required, identifying such other
actions, conditions, and /or mitigation measures as may be required to adequately respond to those
currently undisclosed environmental consequences:'
4.4.3 Utilities*
Although the DEIR/DEIS indicates that the 'utilities' section "discusses the potential impacts of the
State Route 22ANest Orange County Connection project alternatives on known public major
-
utilities" (p. 4.11 -1), absent from the DEIR/DEIS is the identification and analysis of project- related
and cumulative impacts upon those public utilities and facilities located in Seal Beach. The
following information is submitted to assist in the identification of those facilities but is not
intended to substitute for the Lead Agencies' analysis of impacts upon those facilities.
Located adjacent to the existing SR -22 and 1 -405 Freeway rights-of-way are a number of public
facilities operated by the City, including pump stations and potable water reservoir facilities. No
reference to those facilities, however, is provided anywhere in the DEIR/DEIS. As a result, the
document fails to examine potential project- related and cumulative impacts on those facilities and
to formulate reasonable and feasible mitigation measures in response to those impacts.
Stale Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001.
City of Seal Beach Page 98
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA-01-04-D / SCH No. 98064001
• The Beverly Manor Reservoir, a 4- million gallon potable water reservoir, is located southwest of the
1-405 Freeway and Seal Beach Boulevard. A groundwater well and booster station also currently
operates at that site. In addition, there are currently three cellular towers located southerly of the 1-
405 right-of-way at this same location and an additional tower along Seal Beach Boulevard behind
the existing fire station located south of the reservoir. Since none of these facilities are even
referenced in the DEIR/DEIS, it is not possible for the City to determine what, if any, project- related
and cumulative impacts may result from the implementation of the SR22AVOCC project.
The proposed acquisition of additional right-of-way at that location could have significant impacts
on the existing compressed natural gas (CNG) fueling facility, City storage building, and cellular
communication towers located between the existing freeway right -of -way and the reservoir. In
addition, the project could produce significant impacts to City water operations if the existing
storage building cannot remain operational or should the project result in the loss of the existing
maintenance road to those properties along the north property line (e.g., adverse impacts on ability
to provide maintenance to remaining structures).
Relocation of existing gas and telephone lines would likely also be required. Insufficient room may
be available in the remaining City property for these utility lines due to the potential closure of the
reservoir.
To the extent that project implementation were to result in the temporary or permanent closure of
any of those facilities or utilities (e.g., Beverly Manor Reservoir), substantial undisclosed impacts
• could occur upon the City, its residents, and business community (e.g., inadequate water service to
accommodate community -wide and emergency demands): In recognitjon of the potential
disruption to service (e.g., "utilities would require temporary and /or permanent relocation.
Relocations could result in short-term service interruptions," p. 4.11 -1), the Lead Agencies error in
diminishing the potential significance of these impacts (e.g., 'would be minimal," p. 4.11 -1) or
suggesting that "standard construction practices" (p. 4.11 -1) may be all that is required in response
to the disruption of service
For example, with the possible closure and drainage of the Beverly Manor Reservoir, the City could
experience a citywide reduction in potable water supplies and fire fighting capabilities. Should
these "service interruptions" occur concurrently with a major seismic event or other disaster,
whereby major delivery mains to the City were also disrupted, there could be major health and
safety consequences which are neither addressed nor alluded to in the DEIR/DEIS. The Lead
Agencies' failure to identify these facilities, to determine the extent and duration of any potential
project- related and cumulative impacts thereupon, to analyze potential 'worst-case' scenarios that
could occur as a result of those impacts, and to formulate reasonable mitigation measures requiring
definitive actions as a precursor to any activities that might result in a disruption to those utilities
and facilities constitutes a serious defect with the DEIR/DEIS.
u
a,
4.4.4 Visual Resources
As indicated in the FHWA's "Environmental Impact Statement — Visual Impact Discussion" (FHWA
Visual Impact Discussion) included in the FHWA Environmental Guidebook, with regards to the
• analysis presented in the "environmental consequences" section of the EIS: 'There should be
sufficient information to clarify and support all conclusions concerning impacts. The information
should focus on the visual characteristics of the project and their effects on the viewers in the study
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 99
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA -01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
area including those with views from and views of the highway ... It should be recognized that the
construction of a highway, whether on existing or new alignment, will always cause some degree
of visual change in an area" (FWHA Visual Impact Discussion, pp. 6-7).
Referencing the FHWA's "Esthetics and Visual Quality Guidance Information" (FHWA, August 18,
1986), included in the FHWA Environmental Guidebook, "visual impacts arise as a result of any
alteration to the existing visual environment. For example, the widening of an existing highway can
result in significant visual impacts from the removal of vegetation, addition of signing, or simply
from the overall increase in scale of the new facility ... The FHWA has developed a methodology
that can be used to assess the visual impact of highway projects. The publication, 'Visual Impact
Assessment for Highway Projects' contains necessary information and guidance that can be
followed to produce an objective visual impact analysis."
Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any reference to FHWA's 'Visual Impact Assessment for Highway
Projects" (see p. 13 -3). Although the DEIR/DEIS references a "Visual Impact Assessment (December
2000)" and a "Reduced Build Alternative Visual Impact Assessment Addendum (December 2000)':..
(p. 4.13 -1), neither of those documents are referenced in Chapter 13.0 (Bibliography) nor does the
document state where copies of those reports can be reviewed.
Throughout the DEIR/DEIS' visual impact analysis, certain . qualitative terms have been established
by the Lead Agencies as a means of discussing visual changes (e.g., "Overall, the visual quality
would drop from high to moderately high, a low level of adverse visual change," p. 4.13 -3). Since
none of those terms are defined in the DEIR/DEIS, since those terms are not widely used, and since •
a common definition of those terms does not exist, there exists no basis for a reviewer to place
those terms or the impacts those terms denote into any understandable context. Since
"environmental impact statements shall be written in plain language' ,I(40 CFR 1502.8), the Lead
Agencies' election to create their own visual resource vocabulary creates serious problems in both
translation and only serves, inhibit the conveyance of critical" information to the project's
stakeholders. Similarly, the terms used do not equate, either directly or indirectly, to the threshold
of significance criteria established by the Lead Agencies to assess the significance of the resulting
visual change'(e.g., "reduction of visual quality," p.: 4.13 -11).
As required under Section 15148 of the State CEQA Guidelines, "the 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." The mere reference to
technical studies, which are not widely available for public review, does not meet the requirement
for disclosure and document citation established under the State CEQA Guidelines.
In order to assist in understanding the project's visual impacts, the Lead Agencies include a number
of computer simulations in the DEIR/DEIS. Unfortunately, no exhibit is presented indicating the
location or orientation of these "key viewpoints" and no discussion is provided with regards to how
these locations were selected (and other possible locations rejected). Similarly, by categorizing all
viewsheds as "suburban landscape units" (pp. 4.13 -1 and 4.13.3), "urban landscape units" (p. 4.13-
3), or "open space units" (p. 4.13 -3), the Lead Agencies provide a disservice to the affected public
by suggesting that all possible views of the project site from off -site areas can be categorized under
one of three headings (e.g., "a landscape unit is an area of distinct, but not necessarily
homogenous, visual character," p. 3.13 -3).
State Route 22M.sl Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 100
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA-01-04-D / SCH No. 98064001
• Seal Beach believes that none of the identified "units" (e.g., "At the Suburban Key Viewpoint, very
few changes would be visible," p. 4.13 -6; "Viewers at the Urban Key Viewpoint are mostly office
workers," p. 4.13 -9) accurately describe or characterize the project's visual impacts from City
receptors (e.g., College Park West, Leisure World, College Park East, or unincorporated Rossmoor)
and, therefore, underestimate the project's potential aesthetic impacts upon City residents (e.g.,
'Residents are among the most sensitive viewers to visual quality change,' p. 4.13 -6).
Although the Pacific Electric right -of -way is addressed, absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any analysis of
the potential visual impacts associated with the construction of the 1 -405/1 -605 HOV connector.
Because that roadway will be elevated above existing grade, not only will =it become highly visible
to an extensive off -site viewshed (e.g., "Some new views of the freeway as well as new views from
the freeway would be created," p. 4.13 -11) but the noise (e.g., traffic lanes would be moved nearer
to noise - sensitive receptors and the noise levels would change, ' . p. 4.9 -2), light intrusion (e.g.,
"some homes and mobile homes bordering the alignment that would be affected by the new light
levels,' p. 4.13 -28), and other associated impacts attributable to transportation facilities will be
unshielded by intervening landscaping or other structures. Therefore, not only will proximal
receptors have a direct view of the elevated connector but also the connector's presence will make
itself known through noise and light intrusion into adjoining residential areas.
Only a single mitigation measures, however, been identified in .response to they localized impacts
on Sensitive receptors. As indicated therein, "where possible, view of the freeway and associated
elements, including noise barriers, will be buffered from homes, schools, parks, and similar uses by
• planting' (VIS- FB -10, p. xxxi; VIS- RB -10, p. xxxiii); however, the document further indicated that
'in areas where the freeway would be elevated and noise barriers would be constructed there
would be no replanting' (p. 4.13 -24). As a result, since the 1- 405/1 -605 HOV connector is now
proposed in the areas of Rossmoor and Leisure World and a noise barrier is proposed in the area of
College Park East, the above referenced measure will provide no mitigation to those sensitive
receptors.
Since the Lead Agencies never: describe nor graphically illustrate the properties that will be
affected, there exists no method or mechanism to assist in the placement of "planting." Mature
plants typically require a number of years before they reach maturity and provide any visual
screening.,, Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any discussion of other interim strategies that could be
undertakenin the meantime to provide additional screening.
Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any guidance concerning the type, number, or size of any landscape
improvements proposed. Planting a 1- gallon shrub meets the Lead Agencies definition of
"planting' to the same extend that the planting of a 15- gallon box tree would. Obviously, a single
1- gallon groundcover and multiple 15- gallon trees have the potential to produce substantially
different mitigating benefits. As a result, the recommended measure is so broadly defined as to be
meaningless.
The DEIR/DEIS states that "important visual resources include areas where the visual environment is
particularly important to the function of the land use. In the SR- 22/West Orange County
Connection study area, these include parks, recreational areas, trails, and historic properties" (p.
• 4.13 -12). Although the DEIR/DEIS acknowledges that "the existing Bixby Old Ranch Tennis Club
[will be dedicated] to the City of Seal Beach as a public recreational facility' (p. 2 -19), absent from
the Lead Agencies inventory of "important visual resources" is the Old Ranch Tennis Club (see
Stale Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 101
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA-01-04-D / SCH No. 96064001
Table 4.13 -1, p. 4.13 -14). By failing to identify and address project- related impacts upon •
"important visual resources" in Seal Beach, the project's potential impacts will likely be greater
than now referenced in the DEIR/DEIS.
The DEIR/DEIS concludes that "widening and realignment of SR -22 would require the removal of
approximately 66 percent of existing vegetation" (p. 4.13 -24) for the "Full Build Alternative' and
"require the removal of approximately 60 percent of existing vegetation" (p. 4.13 -24) for the
"Reduced Build Alternative. Since mitigation must be directly related to the impact produced, it is
readily apparent that the Lead Agencies have failed to establish a set of mitigation measures that
will adequately compensate for the project's anticipated impacts. Corresponding mitigation
measures, or the applicable portion of those measures, as now identified in the DEIR/DEIS include:
❑ At locations where residential structures are removed and neighboring residences and /or
parks are exposed to new views of the freeways or freeway structures or intactness of the
neighborhood is affected, additional landscaping will be provided within the right -ol -way
or in remnant parcels remaining after acquisition of the homes (VIS -FB -1, p. 4.13 -29).
Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any narrative or graphic depicting those areas where
"intactness of the neighborhood is affected." Since the Lead Agencies have virtually ignored
project- related impacts upon the Rossmoor, Leisure: World, and College Park East
neighborhoods, to the extent that the DEIR/DEIS serves as the basis for that determination,
no mitigation will be provided in Seal Beach.
The above measure also contradicts VIS -FB -3, VIS FB 9, and VIS -FB -11 which specifies that J
mitigation beyond the State right -of -way will only be provided "if long -term maintenance by -
the local community can be assured." It is unreasonable for the Lead Agencies to convey to
the City and/or to a homeowners association an obligation for mitigation planting,
irrigation, and long -term maintenance of "remnant parcels." which are owned by Caltrans or
another public agency.
Since no actual commitments are made (e.g., precise nature of the proposed landscaping
within remnant parcels), the above measure offers no actual mitigation for impacts upon
those residential receptors located in close proximity to the proposed improvements.
❑ As much as possible, existing landscaping within the State right-of-way will be preserved.
Areas needed for construction will be minimized where feasible while maintaining safety
for construction workers and the public (VIS -FB -2, p. 4.13 -29).
This measure is meaningless since the project is assumed to result in the removal of
between 60 -66 percent of all existing landscaping. Preservation is proposed only where
deemed 'feasible. Since the election to retain any landscaping is further subject to the
legitimate safety considerations, the above measure offers no assurance that any
landscaping will be retained. As such the measure is meaningless and should be redrafted
to offer real mitigation.
❑ Under the direction of the Caltrans District Landscape Architect, where freeway
landscaping is removed due to the widening of the freeway or the realignment of ramps,
and where enough right-of-way is available, replacement landscaping will be provided. If
Slate Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 102
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA -01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
is necessary, available areas outside the State right-of-way will be used for replacement
landscaping, if long -term maintenance by the local community can be assured.
Replacement planting will be provided with sufficient irrigation and maintenance to ensure
survival (VIS e6 -3, p. 4.13 -29). C
The Lead Agencies have already disclosed that "in areas where the freeway would be
elevated and noise barriers would be constructed there would be no replanting" (p. 4.13-
24). As a result, the only opportunities for landscaping exist "outside the State right -of -way"
and, therefore, become the long -term obligation of the City and not the Lead Agencies.
Since the Lead Agencies are creating the impact, it is the function of those . agencies and not
the City to design, implement, and fund any mitigation' required in response to those
impacts.
To suggest that landscaping will be installed only "if necessary," allows the Lead Agencies
further discretion to take no action in response to the identified impact. From the
perspective of the City, the above measure is meaningless and should be redrafted to
provide actual mitigating benefits to the City and its residents.
o Noise barriers and other large structures will be visually softened through the use of vines,
at a minimum, with shrubs and trees used where sufficient right -of -way exists ...Where
there is no room for landscaping because the barrier is placed at the edge of shoulder, but
there is available land on the outside of the barrier, vines will be planted behind the barrier
• and trained to spill over the top of the barrier (VISFB -4, p. 4.13 -29)
To suggest landscaping planted on the outside of a freeway noise barrier will provide any
relief from the visual impacts created by the further Intrusion of the freeway and the
construction of a sound wall into an established' residential area because the vines may
eventually grow over the wall and provide visual relief to those residents in affected areas is
unrealistic. Alandscaped area that is wide enough to provide tree plantings is necessary
too effectively screen the noise barriers. ':1The above measure is meaningless and offers no
potential for the mitigation of visual impacts upon the City and its residents.
u The project designers will work with Caltrans and the local governments to avoid the
removal of trees to the maximum extent possible and to provide landscaping consistent
with local policies and to integrate the facility with adjacent communities ... Cooperative
agreements will be reached for the funding, installation, and maintenance of this
landscaping in excess of Caltrans standard landscaping (VIS -FB -9, p. 4.13 -30).
The DEI RID ready at 0 wledges that 60-66 percent of all landscaping will be removed
and that percent may increase (up to 100 percent) based on safety considerations. To,
therefore, suggest that the Lead Agencies will seek to "avoid the removal of trees" is both
inconsistent with the project's likely impacts and other recommended mitigation measures.
In addition, the above measure indicates that it is the Lead Agencies intend only to install
" Caltrans standard landscaping" and that anything in excess of that standard (independent of
• the project's actual impacts) then becomes the obligation of others. The above measure is
meaningless and offers no potential for the mitigation of visual impacts upon the City and
its residents.
Slate Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 103
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA -01- 04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
❑ Where possible, views of the freeway and associated elements, including noise barriers,
will be buffered from homes, schools, parks, and similar uses by planting (VIS- FB -10, p.
4.13 -30).
The above measure offer no actual mitigation since the application of this measure rests
exclusively with the Lead Agencies (i.e., "where possible% since the DEIR/DEIS has
indicated that mitigation may not be possible for all receptors, and since no criteria or
specifications are presented with regards to the nature of the 'planting' that may occur.
❑ Where possible, objectionable views from the freeway, such as open storage for industrial
uses, will be screened from view by use of highway planting. Replacement planting outside
the right-of-way will be used for this purpose if maintenance by local communities or
landowners can be assured (VIS- FB-11, pp. 4.13 -30 and 31).
The above measure offer no actual mitigation since the application of this measure rests
exclusively with the Lead Agencies (i.e., "where possible %,,since the DEIR/DEIS has y#
indicated that mitigation may not be possible for all receptors, and since no criteria or
specifications are presented with regards to the nature of the "planting" that may occur. In
addition, "replacement planting" will only be installed if the Lead Agencies can convey
responsibilities for the maintenance of that landscaping . to others (e.g., the City,
homeowners association, individual property owners).
❑ Highway planting will be appropriately scaled and oriented to the fjeeway viewer (VIS -FB-
12, p. 4.13 -31). .� .
Other than the authors of the'DEIR/DEIS, probably nobody else knows what the above
measure even means, . much less what (if any) obligation,the above measure places on the
Lead Agencies. The authors know what the measure means, since they have likely already
designed the "scaled and oriented" planting without any meaningful input from the public
or independent judgement by the Lead Agencies. Measures that are meaningless, such as
the above, provide no actual mitigating benefits since they cannot be demonstrated to
address the impact for which the measure is established and. since there effectiveness -
cannot be measured. If the above measure were to be deleted, it is highly likely that neither
the project nor the Lead Agencies' mitigation plans would be modified in any way.
All terms such as "where possible' or "when feasible" or "if necessary" or 'to the maximum extent
possible" provide the Lead Agencies blanket authority to take no actions to address the City's stated
concerns and, if those terms are to remain, must include a definitive set of standards that provide a
factual basis for determining the type of actions that will be conducted. In the absence of those
standards, any mitigation measure so conditioned will not provide any mitigating benefits. The
Lead Agencies failure to formulate mitigation measures that are "fully enforceable through permit
conditions" (Section 15126.4[a][21, State CEQA Guidelines) is merely a veiled attempt for those
agencies to circumvent their obligations for mitigation and alternatives analysis under NEPA and
CEQA.
The City asserts that no actual mitigation will result from the implementation of any of the above
referenced mitigation measures. Because they do not impose any actual obligations on the Lead
State Route 221Wesl Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach
Page 104
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01- 04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
• Agencies, even if implemented as described, there exists no assurance that any_of the affected
properties within Seal Beach would benefit, in any fashion, from there implementation. Since
significant visual impacts will continue to remain after mitigation (e.g., "the visual impact to the
remaining residential viewers cannot be fully mitigated and a residual visual impacto ould remain,'
p. 4.13 -34; "the removal of landscaping for widening of the freeways and realignment of
interchanges cannot be fully mitigated," p. 4.13 -34), the Lead Agencies are required to identify both
additional mitigation measures and project alternatives that would more effectively reduce or
eliminate project- related impacts.
The Lead Agencies cannot seek to hide behind their preliminary conclusion that significant visual
impacts will remain as justification for their failure to formulate more effective mitigation measures
and consider other "build" alternatives that would, in fact, result in the reduction or avoidance of
those significant environmental effects.
5.0 COOPERATINGIRESPONSIBLE AGENCY OBLIGATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES
As indicated herein, to the extent that any discretionary actions are or may be required from the
City, Seal Beach may be a cooperating agency under NEPA and a responsible agency under CEQA.
Although the City is not a federal agency, pursuant to the CEQ Regulations, "a State or local agency
of similar qualifications ... may by agreement with the lead agency become a cooperating agency"
(40 CFR 1508.5). As indicated in CEQ Forty Questions: "After a lead agency has been designated,
that agency has the responsibility to solicit cooperation from other federal agencies that have
• jurisdiction by law or special expertise on any environmental issue that should be addressed in the
EIS being prepared. Where appropriate, the lead agency should seek the cooperation of State or
local agencies of similar qualifications." Seal Beach has "special expertise" with regards to those
project- related and cumulative impacts within its jurisdiction..
As further indicated therein, "cooperating agencies (i.e., agencies with jurisdiction by law or special
expertise) and agencies that are authorized to develop or enforce environmental standards, must
comment on environmental impact statements within their jurisdiction, expertise or authority ... if
the cooperating agency determines that a draft EIS is.incomplete, inadequate or inaccurate, or it has
other comments, it should promptly make such Qortunents, conforming to the requirements of
specificity in Section 1503.3" (CEQ Forty Questionsuestion 14[cj).
Under CEQA, "the term 'responsible agency' includes all public agencies other than the lead
agency which have discretionary approval power over the project" (Section 15381, State CEQA
Guidelines). A responsible agency complies with CEQA by considering the DEIR/DEIS and by
reaching its own conclusions on whether and how to approve the project involved (Section
15096[a], State CEQA. Guidelines). Pursuant to Section 15096(g)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines:
"When an EIR has been prepared for a project, the responsible agency shall not approve the project
as proposed if the agency finds any feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures within its
powers that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effect the project would have on the
environment."
Since the DEIR/DEIS fails to identify those discretionary actions that may be required from the Lead
• Agencies and from other cooperating/responsible agencies with regards to the project's
implementation, insufficient information has been provided to allow for a formal determination of
the City's status as either a cooperating or responsible agency. Substantial evidence in the project's
State Route 2216vest Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 105
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
administrative record, however, suggests that one or more discretionary actions will be required
from the City either as a result or consequence of the proposed SR22/WOCC project.
r In order to preserve the City's rights under NEPA end CEQA, the City submits the following
additional comments to the Lead Agencies, asserting its potential status as a cooperating and/or
responsible agency.
5.1 Identification of Additional Alternatives
Based on a review of the DEIR/DEIS, as well as the City's own independent alternatives analysis, a
number of additional alternatives have been identified by the City, that are have not been addressed
by the Lead Agencies. The City's independent technical analysis . suggests that implementation of
one or more of the following alternatives would avoid or reduce one or more of the project's
potential significant impacts upon Seal Beach. Since these alternatives are not now addressed in
the DEIR/DEIS, the City requests that the Lead Agencies augment the DEIR/DEIS to include and
provide a thorough assessment of the following additional alternatives:
❑ °Realignment of Proposed Project — Revised Design Criteria" Alternative. The City has
conducted preliminary design investigations that focus on developing a realignment
alternative to the Caltrans proposed project from SR -22 to 1 -405. From our limited
assessment, it has been determined that the project could be realigned ._to the south
with no impacts to College Park East.. Further, the alternative project can be
accomplished within Caltrans right -of -way, i.e., no additional right-of-way required
for the project on the southerly side that would impact the 'Seal Beach Naval
ons Station. The alternative alignment considered pinch points at Primrose
Plac and the Navy property line on the south for the southbound SR 22 ramp.
The alternative alignment shifted the freeway to south approximately 3.6 meters.
This proposed realignment will miss the existing sound wall along Almond Avenue.
The project specifics are as follows: -
❑ SR -22 westbound to 1-405 northbound— increase control line radius to 1,215
meters with a longer curve length.
❑ 1-405 northbound at SR -22 westbound — increase control line radius to 703.6
meters with a longer curve length.
❑ 1405 northbound between stations 104 +00 to 105 +40 - add a 1,000 meter
curve.
❑ The HOV connector is shifted to the south approximately 3.6 meters. An 844
meter curve is provided at station 107 +40.
a 1-405 southbound - a 1,040.meter curve is added between stations 104 +00 to
107 +40.
❑ 1-405 southbound between stations 107 +40 to 109 +00 - add an 844 meter
radius curve.
❑ 1-405 southbound to SR -22 eastbound — the ramp configuration remains the
Same with the exception of adding a 610 meter curve at station 109 +30.
State Route 22hVesl Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 106
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA-01-04-D / SCH No. 98064001
•
This alignment alternative meets the design criteria Set for the project.
❑ "Preservation of ExiWng Homes and Reconfiguration of Local Street System "%Alternative.
As required under 23 CFR 710.509(a), "when publicly owned real property, including land
and /or facilities, is to be acquired for a federal -aid highway project, in lieu of paying the fair
market value for the real property, the State may provide compensation by functionally
replacing the publicly owned real property with another facility which will provide
equivalent utility." Federal and /or State right -0f -way acquisition efforts within Seal Beach,
as required for the SR221W000 project, would involve the acquisition of portions of one or
more local streets within the City.
Under this alternative, in lieu of the demolition of existing single-family units in the City,
J� the Lead Agencies would undertake the reconfiguration of affected roadways so as to allow
the re of existing homes in Seal Beach. Under this alternative, a portion of the
Almond Stree right-of-way, east of Almond Park, may need to be modified, parking .
restrictioblished, and /or the road converted to a one -way street. As a component of
this alternative or as a separate alternative, reduced freeway lane widths should be
considered to reduce future right -of -way requirements.
Design plans would need to be formulated to determine the feasibility and functionality of
this design concept. This design alternative would, however, constitute "functional
• replacement" within the meaning of the Code of Federal Regulations.
❑ "Southerly Alignment through the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station" Alternative.
Although impacts on Seal Beach residents are virtually ignored in the DEIR/DEIS, if the
information and analysis applied to different areas were equally applied to the City, a
number of significant . project- related impacts would be identified (e.g., displacement and
loss of neighborhood cohesion). As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS, 'the Naval Weapons Base
planning district makes up the entire area south of 1- 405/SR -22, between Seal Beach
Boulevard and Old Bolsa Chica Road" (p. 3 ,9)). The existing use of that area is indicated
as "prime farmland" (p. 3.6 -11). Since no source is cited for that statement, it is not possible
to determine whether the existing agricultural uses now evident within the USNWS is
"prime farmland" or merely allocated for an agricultural use.
While acknowledging the loss of "prime farmlands" may constitute a significant
environmental effect under CEQA, under this alternative only a narrow band of existing
agricultural use would be directly affected. This incremental reduction to a sensitive
resource would likely constitute a lesser environmental impact that the destruction of six or
more homes in Seal Beach and either the temporary or permanent displacement of their
occupants.
Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any analysis of or explanation for the Lead Agencies' failure
to consider an alternative right -of -way alignment that would involve federal lands within the
USNWS. The City believes that by realigning the proposed improvements to shift the
expanded right -of -way southward, not only would impacts on the City be reduced but
• additional right -of -way could be preserved for the future expansion of the 1 -405 Freeway,
identified as a "Post 2020 Long -Range Corridor."
Slate Route 221West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 107
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA-01-04-D / SCH No. 98064001
As authorized under 23 CFR 710.601, "federal land transfers" are authorized through the
submission of an application to a federal land owning agency, such as the United States
Department of the Navy (DON). Applications under this section shall include the following
e information:(1) the purpose for which the lands are to be used; (2) the estate or interest in
the land required for the project; (3) the federal -A project number or other appropriate
references; (4) the name of the federal agency exercising jurisdiction over the land and
identity of the installation or activity in possession of the land; (5) a map showing the survey
of the lands to be acquired; (6) a legal description of the lands desired; and (7) a statement
of compliance with NEPA and any other applicable federal environmental laws, including
the National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470[f]), and 23 USC 138. Absent from the
DEIR/DEIS is either any reference to these provisions or evidence of the Lead Agencies
discussions with the DON (see Chapter 11.0, pp. 11 1 through 11 2) with regards to the
allocation of lands within the USNWS for right-of-way purposes
The DEIR/DEIS should, therefore, be expanded to include a more southerly alignment
through the USNWS. Although dealing with the DON is probably more difficult that
dealing with the City, political expediency does not constitute asupportable basis for
ignoring a viable alternative whose implementation has the possibility of avoiding or
substantially reducing the potential impacts associated with the "build ". alternatives now
addressed in the DEIR/DEIS.
5.2 Identification of the City's Preferred Project
As indicated in CEQ Forty Questions, "if each agency has its own "preferred alternative," both can •
be identified in the EIS" (CEQ Forty Questions, Question 14[bl). In accordance therewith, subject
to its inclusion in the DEIR/DEIS and the Lead Agencies preparation of more detailed environmental
review therein, the City identifies the 'Realignment of Proposed Project — Revised Design Criteria"
Alternative as the City's 'preferred alternative." Implementation of that alternative would likely
result in the retention of all single- family residential units located within Seal Beach that are now
identified for displacement in the DEIR/DEIS and that may be displaced in the future as a result of
the future expansion of the 1 -405 Freeways.
Since nothing even approximating this alternative has been identified by the Lead Agencies and
either rejected from or included in the DEIR/DEIS, the project's environmental documentation
needs to be augmented, recirculated, or supplemented to include a comparable evaluation of this -
alternative.
6.0 EXTENSION OF THE CITY'S APPRECIATION
The City would like to extend its appreciation to the Lead Agencies for the opportunity to
participate in the NEPA and CEQA process. We look forward to an opportunity for a constructive
dialogue with regards to the items raised herein..
Prior to the release of the final NEPA/CEQA document, the recirculation of the DEIR/DEIS, and/or
the preparation of a supplemental analysis, representatives of the City would like to meet with
representatives of FHWA, Caltrans, and the OCTA to discuss the items and issues raised both in •
these comments and as may be submitted under separate cover. The City believes that such a
meeting may prove beneficial in resolving the issues of concern to the City and its constituents.
Stale Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 108
•
•
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
State Route 22 1West Orange County Connector
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
October 22, 2001
ENCLOSURE B
CITY OF SEAL BEACH SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMENTS - DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT, STATE " ROUTE
22/WEST ORANGE COUNTY CONNECTION
- FHWA- EIS- CA- 01- 04 -D /SCH NO. 980604001,
SUBMITTED BY CITY OF SEAL BEACH,
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES, DATED OCTOBER 8, 2001
10
City Com nt Laney
A
A
11
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
STATE ROUTE 22 /WEST ORANGE
COUNTY CONNECTION
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01- 04 -D /SCH NO. 980604001
Submitted to: -
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Attn: Michael G Ritchie, Division Administrator
980 Ninth Street, Suite 400'
Sacramento, California 95814 -2724
(916) 498 -5038
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DISTRICT 12
Attn: Cindy Quon, District Director
3347 Michaelson Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, California 92612 -8894
(949) 724 -2089
Submitted by:
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Attn: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
211 Eight Street
Seal Beach, California 90740
• (562) 431-2 52 7
October 8, 2001
F3
0
E
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
• 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUBMISSION OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS
1.1 Introduction
In response to the City of Seal Beach's (City of Seal Beach) review of the "Draft
Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Impact Statement - State Route 22/ West
Orange County Connection, FHWA- EIS- CA- 01 -04-D /SCH No. 980604001," dated August
2001 (DEIR/DEIS or DEIR/EIS), the .City hereby submits the following supplemental
comments to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA and to the California
Department of Transportation ( Caltrans) in those agencies joint role as, "lead '.. agency" under
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
The following comments are submitted to the FHWA (NEPA Lead Agency), to Caltrans
(CEQA Lead Agency), and to the OCTA by the City in response to the City's receipt and
preliminary review of the DEIR/DEIS. These supplemental comments are presented within
the comment period established by the NEPA Lead Agency and CEQA Lead Agency (Lead
Agencies) for the receipt of comments on the DEIR/DEIS and, by their submission, are
intended to become part of the environmental review record (ERR) for the proposed
• SR22/WOCC project. Any information contained in the ERR can be used by Seal Beach or
others should any judicial proceedings be brought against the Lead Agencies with regard to
their failures to fully comply with tht &'analytical and disclosure provisions of NEPA and
CEQA.
1.2 Submission of SupplemeAlCorrents
In accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the following
supplemental comments are presented to t , ead Agencies pursuant to the authority
provided to the City under Sections 21000(e) .1(a), 21082.1(b), 21092.4, and 21153
of CEQA and Sections 15044, 15084(c), 15086, 15096, 15201, and 15209 of the State
CEQA Guidelines and applicable provisions of the Caltrans/CTC CEQA Regulations and
Caltrans' Environmental Handbook. As public agencies, the Lead Agencies are obligated
under Section 21092.5(a) of CEQA to provide the City with draft written responses to each
of the comments raised or presented herein at least ten days prior to any formal actions by
the Lead Agencies on either the DLIR/DEIS or SR22(WOCC project. Presentation of these
and any additional comments that may be submitted under separate cover seek to preserve
the City's rights under Section 21177 of CEQA should such rights need to be subsequently
exercised.
Presented in the following section are a number of "supplemental comments" based on
information presented in the DEIR/DEIS. While, for descriptive purposes, certain sections
• of the DEIR/DEIS may be specifically referenced herein, these supplemental comments
State Route 22/wet Orange County Connection October 8, 2001
City of Seal Beach - Supplemental Comments Page 1
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
should not be perceived as limited to only those document sections explicitly referenced
but should be interpreted as applying or potentially applying to other components of the
Lead Agencies' analysis which relate to the specific supplemental comment being raised.
Although not presented in the form of a specific question, these supplemental comments
are clearly intended to elicit a formal written response from the Lead Agencies.
1.3 Supplemental Comments
Comment 1: Table 5.5 -1, SUMMARY OF IMPACTS, page xiv, does not indicate
any impact to the City of Seal Beach in the "Community Impacts"
section due to the acquisition of homes within the City. Community
cohesion, as discussed on page 4.6 -3 . would seem to indicate the
project would impact the cohesion of College Park East, even though
Caltrans does not make that determination.
A,.
While the DEIR/DEIS indicates that 'there would be impacts to
community cohesion in five different neighborhoods" (p. 4.64),
totally excluded from the Lea( Agencies analysis is the College Park
East neighborhood within Seal`Beach. It is highly likely that College
Park East residents would demonstrate a longer tenure than residents
in those multi - family neighborhoods addressed in the DEIR/DEIS (see •
pp. 4.6-4 and 4.6 -5). Since there is no reference to'or analysis of that
established area, it is not surprising that the DEIR/DEIS fails to
acknowledge,. either that project implementation will have a
significant impact thereupon or that mitigation, of any kind, is
warranted.
Potential mitigation measures identified in Caltrans' Community
Impact Assessment include "shift alignment," "reduce traffic lanes,"
and "reduce;... right -of -way width' ( Caltrans Community Impact
Assessment, pi 52). Why were none of these mitigation measures
identified in the DEIR/DEIS? Why did these possible mitigation _
measures not 'translate into the assessment of different freeway
alignments or project alternatives?
Comment 2: - .Secttion*L3.2, page 1 -12 — "SCAG Regional Transportation Plan' —
refer ;.e"' is to the 1998 RTP, the 2001 RTP has been adopted and
shou .4 be referenced, and impacts evaluated against the provisions of
the 2001 RTP. Please refer to the comments provided under Section
3.10 of Enclosure A.
Comment 3: Section 2.4.3, page 2 -19 — The Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center •
project has completed environmental review and is under
construction. The ultimate development will consist of approximately
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 8, 2001
City of Seal Beach - Supplemental Comments Page 2
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
is 287,000 square feet of retail and restaurant uses. Major tenants
include Target; Bed, Bath & Beyond; Ralph's Market; Sav -On Drugs;
Islands Restaurant; and Macaroni Grill. In addition other project
components include a 104 -room County Inn by Ayres and a 157 -unit
Sunrise Assisted Living complex for senior citizens.
Comment 4: Section 3.1.2, page 3.1 -3 — Indicate the expected magnitude and "g
force" of the Newport- Inglewood and Whittier faults. Without a
quantification of the "g- force" anticipated, it is uncertain as to whether
standard building code compliance measures would be sufficient to
mitigate seismic impacts to a level of less than significant, or if
construction standards greater than those within the adopted building
codes will be necessary. The Newport- Inglewood Fault is indicated to
have a maximum magnitude of 6.9 and is located within 5 km of the
proposed 1 -405/1 -605 HOV connectors, according to Map Sheet M -33
of "Maps of Known Active Fault Near - Source Zones in California and
Adjacent Portions of Nevada ", prepared by the California Department
of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology for the International
Conference of Building Officials, dated February 1998.
• Comment 5: Section 3.1.4, page 3.1-4 — Liquefaction - the discussion regarding
liquefaction does not include any reference to the maps prepared by
the California Division of Mines and Ceology. Maps have been
released indicating areas subject to liquefaction such that mitigation
as defined in Public Resources Code § 2693(c) would be required.
,'The document' should be revised to, indicate the provisions of the
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act would apply to all portions of the
";" "�.'` proposed . project withirt; the area mapped by the Los Alamitos
Quadrangle. Official Malp ated March 25, 1999. In addition, it is
assumed that other portion"��of the proposed project are also located
within other map quadrangles indicating additional areas subject to
liquefaction, and. those other mapped areas should also be delineated,
evaluated and mitigated.
Comment 6 Section 3.2.1.A, page 3.2 -1 — LOCATION — there is no discussion of
the San Gabriel River, which is west of the 1 -605 Freeway. Drainage
channels from the 1 -605 and 1-405 Freeways eventually enter into the
San Gabriel River either through the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin and
into the river, or directly into the river at other upstream locations
from the retarding basin inlet into the river. Since there is discussion
in Section 3.2.13, USE, it would seem appropriate to include a
• general description of the river as is done for the Santa Ana River and
Santiago Creek.
Slate Route 221West Orange County Connection October 8, 2DOI
City of Seal Beach — Supplemental Comments Page 3
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01- 04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
Comment 7: Section 3.2.1.6, last paragraph, page 3.2 -3 — there is no discussion as
to the status of the San Gabriel River as determined by the Los
Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. There should be a
general discussion as to the "impaired" status of the river, and the
chemicals of concern that result in that "impaired" status designation.
Comment 8: Section 3.2.1.C, page 3.2 -3 — end of first paragraph — It is stated that
"Water quality is not sampled within the study area." This in
incorrect. Water quality sampling has been conducted for many years
in the San Gabriel River at the outfall points of the power plants. The
document should be revised to provide a summary of the water
quality monitoring efforts and the results of that monitoring. The most
recent document the City has on file is "National Pollution. Discharge
Elimination System — 1999. Receiving Water Monitoring ..Report,
Haynes and AES Alamitos L.L.C. Generating Stations, Los Angel
est:
County, 1999 Survey ", prepared for Los Angeles Department of Water
and Power, Southern California Edison Company and AES Alamitos
L.L.C. by MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. Please contact MBC
Applied Environmental Science to obtain copies of the appropriate
receiving water quality monitoring reports: for use of the information
within those documents in revising this section of the environmental
documentation.
Comment 9: Section 3.2-LC, page 3.2 -3 — second paragraph, discusses the general
statewide permits that will be complied with under NPDES. Do the
pefmits issued by the Regional Boards, such as the Santa Ana
,a ,•Regional Board also apply? If so, will any future construction
activities be' required to comply with the effective regional water
quality permits at the time of project implementation? Will any future
project construction activities impacting the mouth of the San Gabriel
River comply with Los Angeles Regional Permit requirements since
runoff from the freeway will impact the mouth of the San Gabriel
River, and the mouth of the San Gabriel River is in the jurisdiction of
the Los AngetesJtegional Water Quality Control Board?
Comment 10: " Section 3.6.3, page 3.6 -14 — Reference is to 1990 Census and OCP-
96 throughout the DEIR/DEIS. The Lead Agencies have sought to
utilize, '1990 Census and Orange County Projections 96 (OCP -96)
despite the availability of 2000 Census and OCP -2000 information.
As a result, the "baseline" information presented in the DEIR/DEIS
does not reflect current conditions or utilize the most recent data.
Since the current information differs from the set of assumptions upon
which the DEIR/DEIS is based, the Lead Agencies' technical analysis
needs to be revised (updated) and the changes analyzed to determine
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 8, 2001
City of Seal Beach — Supplemental Comments Page 4
•
A
•
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
• to what extent 2000 Census and OCP -2000 data would alter both the
"baseline" discussion and future needs assessment.
Comment 11: Section 3.7, page 3.7 -1 — discussion references anticipated adoption
of 2001 RTP by SCAG. The 2001 RTP was adopted by SCAG in April
2001, 4 months prior to the release of the subject environmental
document. Utilization of the outdated and no longer applicable 998
RTP is unacceptable. Evaluation of consistency with the RTP must be
in accordance with the current RTP not one .previously in effect.
Again, please also refer to the discussion uncle ection 3.10 of
Enclosure A. x
Comment 12: Table 3.7 -1, "SR -22 CORRIDOR NO BUILD SCREENLINE
SUMMARY ', page 3.7 -2 — this table should be revised to include
information as to the corridor speed by screenline in Km /h and mph.
Comment 13: Table 3.7 -3, "YEAR 1996 AND 2020 TRAFFIC DEMAND (NO
BUILD) ", page 3.7 -5 — this table indicates future ADT and peak hour
traffic increases of 1.7% and 10.1 %, respectively. These numbers,
particularly for the ADT seem extremely .low In 'fight of the
• anticipated increases on'the other segments indicated. The table
indicates that the SR 22 will experience an increase of 23,000 ADT at
the Beach Boulevard -Knott Avenue segment, while the 1-405 Freeway
will only experience an ADT increase of 5,700. This seems highly
unlikely, as it would mean that more than 17,000 ADT would exit the
:SR'22 <between Knott Avenue and Valley View, before entering the I-
405. Please provide :a. detailed explanation of the information and
concerns discussed.
Commeu 4: Table 3.7 -5, REEWAY MRATIO AND LEVEL OF SERVICE —YEAR
1996 and YEA, 020 PEAK HOUR ", page 3.7 -7 — This table indicates
the capacity o HOV lane is assumed at 1,500 vphpl, while on
page 3.7 -6, then,:.- :cument indicates the capacity of the IM05 /1 -605 and
SR- 2211-405 cot .ectors are assumed to be 2,300 vphpl and the other
:ca necto : sumed at 1,500 vphpl. It is unclear as to the use of
", ren 'pl numbers, and the discrepancy needs to be.explained.
In "'; ition, the V/C and LOS for the northbound 1-405 seem
extremely understated in-comparison to the southbound 1-405 V/C
and LOS figures. It is unclear as to why there is a substantial increase
southbound, even including the HOV lanes, while the northbound
increases are minimal.
•
State Route 221Wesl Orange County Connection October 8, 2001
City of Seal Beach — Supplemental Comments Page 5
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA-01-04-D
/ SCH No. 98064001
Comment
15:
Section 3.8.2.C, page 3.8 -5 - the first paragraph discusses the 1998
SCAG RTP, the 2001 RTP has been adopted and should utilized to
determine compliance, not the 1998 RTP. Refer to Comment 11
above.
In addition, the second paragraph indicates that asbestos will not be
discussed. The City is concerned that asbestos may be a deposited
material on the freeway r -o-w from brake linings, etc. This matter
should be discussed with the Department of Toxic Substances Control
to determine if this is an issue to evaluate further.
Comment 16:
Table 3.9 -2, "EXISTING NOISE LEVELS ", page 3.9-4 Site 6 -A is not
located within the City of Seal Beach. Correct " and ..revise as
appropriate.
Comment 17:
Section 3.11.3, page 3.11 -1 - The second paragraph indicates a
facility in Santa Ana as the "only . large -scale water facility located
within the study area ". - This is incorrect, the City has a 4 million
gallon reservoir, Beverly Manor Reservoir, located southwest of the I-
405 Freeway and Seal Beach Boulevard, . in addition to well and
booster station located on the same property.. Provided as an
•
attachment are excerpts from "City of Seal Beach Water Master Plan
Review ", prepared by AKM Consulting Engineers for the City of Seal
Beach, dated April 2000. This provides additional information
regarding these important and essential facilities to the City of Seal
Beach.
In addition, Figure 3.11 -1 should be revised to also indicate those
facilities within the study area. There are also three cellular towers
located southerly of the freeway r -o-w at this same location, and an
additional tower along Seal Beach Boulevard behind the Fire Station
that is south of the reservoir facility.
Comment 18:
Section 3.13.4 -A, page 3.13 -6 - The first paragraph makes a reference
- the U.S. Naval Air Station, the reference should be to the U.S.
aval Weapons Station. .
Comment 19:
Tab[ 1 .13 -2, "VISUAL RESOURCES ", page 3.13 -9 - There is no
discussion as to the visual resources of the U.S. Naval Weapons
Station, which provides clear views from the 1 -405 Freeway to south
of Westminster Avenue, and between the 1405/SR -22 interchange
and Seal Beach Boulevard. This viewshed is approximately 9,000 feet
in length and provides an unobstructed view of approximately 1200
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 8, 2001
City of Seal Beach — Supplemental Comments Page 6
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS -CA -01 -04-1) / SCH No. 98064001
• acres of open space lands. There needs to be a discussion as to the
project impacts both to and from this viewshed.
Comment 20: Section 4.1.1.C, page 4.1 -1 — the second paragraph of this section
discusses changes in topography, and that fill or cut slopes would not
exceed that necessary to allow grade separation at interchanges.
There is no indication as to the height of the HOV connectors and the
above - referenced statements seem to be at most incomplete, and at
worst an incomplete discussion of the environmental impacts of this
important element of the proposed project.. "Draft Preliminary
Engineering Plans" have been available since December 2000 that
provide a great amount of detail as to the location, height, and
structural design of the HOV connectors. None of this detailed
information is presented in the DEIR/EIS, and the document therefore
is incomplete.
As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS, "this DEIR /EIS includes analysis of the
Full Build Alternative as illustrated on the Preliminary Engineering
Plans, State Route 22, for Project Report and Environmental
Document, in Orange County, From Interstate 605 to State Route 55
• (Project Plans) (Parsons Brinckerhoff, December 2000)" (p. 2-8). As
indicated, the "Full "Build Alternative" is identified as the "Project
Plans." Although the DEIR/DEIS was not released until August 21,
2001, preparation of engineering plans for a single alternative
commenced a year before the document's release. Similar project-
.r3' feGet design detail was not, however, commenced for any of the other
alternatives presented in the DEIR/DEIS.
Comm Section 4.12.C, page 4.1- he discussion indicates that since the
.. project would include widening of an existing facility in this
area: it would not expose people to a new hazard." There needs to
be a more complete discussion of the seismic impacts of the Newport-
Inglewood and Whittier Faults on the proposed HOV connectors
:.between the I- 605/1-105 and I- 405/SR -22 interchanges. The
construction of elevated HOV connectors is an increased seismic risk
issue .. that is not even discussed and there is no indication as to the
mitigation measures to be implemented to reduce those risks to an
acceptable level.
Comment 22: Section 4.2.2, page 4.2 -3 — Qualit : This section indicates surface
water runoffs only impact the Santa Ana River. Certain drainage
channels that receive runoff from the 1-405 and 1 -605 Freeways
• eventually or directly enter the San Gabriel River. The contaminant
levels of the surface runoff from the freeway will contribute
State Route 22/west Orange County Connection October 8, 2001
City of Seal Beach — Supplemental Comments Page 7
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
additional pollutant loads to the river, potentially increasing the level
of contamination within the river, and ultimately requiring additional
beach closures with Seal Beach. The analysis of this issue is
completely lacking and the conclusions are unsupported. A thorough
and complete evaluation of additional pollutant loads to the San
Gabriel River and the impact upon the water quality of the river needs
to be completed and re- circulated as part of a new environmental
document for additional public review and comments.
Comment 23: Table 4.2 -1, "CHANGES IN FLOODPLAINS - .FULL BUILD
ALTERNATIVE ', page 4.2 -7 - Under "Bixby Storm Channel" there is
discussion of the necessity to relocate the Seal Beach Boulevard
northbound on -ramp and the Bixby Channel:'. There !.'isno further
presentation in the document as to the location and alignment of
these proposed structures and facilities;" As part of Bixby Old Ranch
development immediately adjacent to the northbound on -ramp there
were extensive drainage and hydrology studies conducted to ensure
in new impacts to the storm water drainage facilities of Caltrans. The
City is concerned as to the impacts of the proposed and undefined
relocation of a freeway off -ramp and appurtenant facilities, as our
engineering analysis indicated that the Bixby Channel capacity is not •
sufficiently sized to meet current conditions. ',r Provided as an
attachment are excerpts from "Project Report Federal Channel
Facility No. C01 S06*. prepared for County of Orange Public Facilities
& Resources Department by Bryan McKinney, Civil Engineer, dated
kiruary 1999. This provides additional information regarding these
I
mportant. and essential facilities to the City of Seal Beach. If the
project proceeds, it is requested that the City have an opportunity to
review and comment on any proposed drainage improvements within
this area to ensure no new impacts upstream on private properties
would be created by the anticipated channel and on -ramp
improvements.
Comment 24:'- i,.. Section 4.2.4, page 4.2 -10 - Mitigation Measure HYD -FB -2 references
the NPDES Statewide permits. Please refer to Comment 9 regarding
the applicability of the regional board permits for the Los Angeles and
Santa Ana boards.
Comment 25: Section 4.5.5, page 4.54 - Mitigation Measure CUL -FB -1 indicates
"Qualified Native American personnel will be appointed and
authorized to monitor earthmoving activities associated with project
construction in the vicinity of previously recorded archaeological •
sites." A qualified archaeologist should also be present during those
earthmoving activities.
State Route 221West Orange county Connection October 8, 2001
City of Seal Beach — Supplemental Comments Page 8
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA -01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
is In addition, who determines what is "... in the vicinity of previously
recorded archaeological sites "? An archaeologist should make that
determination upon review of the appropriate documentation at the
appropriate regional information center and concurrence with the
State Historic Preservation Officer. The City of Seal Beach has an
Archaeological Advisory Committee that reviews archaeological
monitoring and testing programs within our community and provides
recommendations as to the adequacy of those programs. It is
requested that the Committee be allowed the opportunity to review
and provide comments on the proposed archaeological /Native
American monitoring program.
Comment 26: Section 4.6.1.C, page 4.6 -2 — There is discussion in the Farmland
paragraph that prime farmland occurs within. the Naval Weapons
Station and that this area is not contemplated for acquisition for the
project. The City suggests that although the loss of prime farmland
may not able to be mitigated, neither is the personal loss of homes
and the emotional damage to those families. CEQA provides for the
use of a "Statement of Overriding Consideration" when substantial
• environmental impacts cannot he mitigated. The project proponent's
should carefully consider the .significant impacts upon families
residing in residential homes against a potential loss of an unknown
amount of farmland.
Comment 27: 'Section 4.6.2.C, page 4.6-4 and 4.6-5 — The section on Community
Cohesion discusses the impacts to community cohesion, as defined
on page 4.6 -3 on various, community areas to be impacted by the
taking of homes. THERE IS NO DISUSSION AS TO THE IMPACTS
ON COLLEGE PARK EAST!,. Although the number of homes may be
small in relation to the other areas identified for acquisition, the
criteria for community cohesion set forth on page 4.6 -3 clearly apply
to this area. Tf° document needs revision to clearly and forthrightly
40t s the impacts upon the City of Seal Beach and the College Park
eighbor.'ood regarding this issue.
Comment 26: 4.6.3.C, page 4.6-13 — discusses the specific properties
ideated for acquisition, and utilizes 1999 average property values
for the Seal Beach residences. Given the strong real estate market
between 1999 and 2001, more current property value estimates
should be included, not only for Seal Beach, but all of the properties
indicated for acquisition. The economic impacts of acquisition are
• probably understated by a significant amount.
State Route 22/west Orange County Connection October 8, 2001
City of Seal Beach - Supplemental Comments Page 9
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01- 04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
Comment 29: Section 4.6.4.C, page 4.6 -24 — It is indicated that the estimated
property tax loss to Seal Beach is approximately $11,000.00 annually
and is therefore insignificant given the total property tax revenues
received by the City. On an annual basis that is questionable, as the
City has a very small budget surplus and any loss of revenues may
cause a cut -back in necessary services to the public. On a cumulative
basis, the loss becomes more significant, as it results in an ongoing
loss of cumulatively significant funds, including any interest on those
funds, that are no longer available for park; ad road maintenance
activities funded by the City General Fund e_.
Comment 30: Table 4.7-4, YEAR 2020 PM PEAK HOUR SCREENLINE
COMPARISON (BOTH DIRECTIONS), page 4.7-7 — ...This table
indicates a very small increase in volume, approximately 4-5%,
between the No Build and Full Build alternatives west of the SR- 22/1`-
405 interchange and between Glassell Street and Tustin Avenue
Those numbers seems incredibly low in comparison to the anticipated
volume increases along the other': identified segments of the SR -22
(ranging between 19 and 23%). There needs to be fuller discussion
as
to the projections and assumptions that result in this small
increase in
volume. The numbers seem to indicate that significant numbers of
•
drivers are exiting the 5R -22 prior to reaching° the SR -22/1 -405
- interchange or Glassell Street., The DEIR/EIS document should
include detailed trip allocation percentages along the entire freeway
route and at each interchange `on the route, including freeway to
- freeway interchanges and arterial street interchanges. This would
allow interested parties to understand the basic trip allocation
W
assumptions utilized in "the traffic analysis and allow for informed
comments on those assumptions. If that type of information is
available in the technical appendix, it should be'included within the
main DEIR'EIS document so that a general reader of the document
does not have to search extensively to obtain a clear and concise
understanding . of those assumptions.
Comment 31: Section 4.8.2.0 and D, page 4.8-4 — it is indicated in both sections
that the 2001 RTP is scheduled for adoption in April 2001. The 2001
RTP has been adopted, and all evaluation of consistency with the RTP
should be revised and recirculated for public review and comment in
light of the adopted provisions of the 2001 RTP. The consistency
evaluation is not accurate when done against an RTP that has been
superceded and no longer applicable. Also refer to Comment 2,
above, and to the comment provided under Section 3.10 of Enclosure
•
A.
State Route 22[West Orange County Connection October 8, 2001
City of Seal Beach — Supplemental Comments Page 10
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
• Comment 32: Section 4.8.6.C, page 4.8 -11 — It is indicated that the Full Build and
Reduced Build alternatives would create regional air quality impacts
that cannot be mitigated on an individual project level. It is further
indicated that the Full Build and Reduced Build Alternatives would
need to be included in the next RTP update. It is unclear if the "next
RTP update" is the 2001 or 2004 RTP. This should be clarified, and if
the reference is to the 2001 RTP, the document should indicate if the
project is consistent with the 2001 RTP, as the 2001 RTP was adopted
4 months prior to the release of the subject DEIR/EIS.
Comment 33: Section 4.9.1, page 4.1 -1 — the second paragraph from the bottom of
the page indicates Caltrans defined traffic noise impact criteria as
when existing noise levels are exceeded by 12dBA or more, or when
predicted noise levels approach (come within one dBA) or exceed the
NAC. There is no discussion as to noise impacts to' adjoining
..
properties in comparison to the impacted local government's noise
standards and any adopted local :thresholds of significance. The
Noise section is incomplete and not compliant with the provisions of
CEQA until those evaluations and proposed mitigation measures have
been included, and recirculated for public review and comment.
• Comment 34: Table 4.9 -2 and 4.9 -4, "EXITING AND FUTURE NOISE LEVELS —
FULL BUILD ALTERNATIVE" and "EXISTING AND FUTURE NOISE
LEVELS — REDUCED BUILD ALTERNATIVE -, page 4.9 -3 and 4.9 -7 —
AII monitored noise locations - withinSeal Beach are adversely
'impacted by the proposed project in accordance with the Caltrans
noise criteria indicated on page 4.1 -1. It is unclear as to if these noise
projections ?fully account for additional HOV connector noise
generation characteristics: pis assumed that the HOV Connectors at
1-405/1-605 and 1 -405 /SR -2 ") e to be elevated above existing elevated
connecting ramps.. and those designs are not provided within the
DEIR/EIS document.
Without an un erstandable presentation of the length and height of all
Preewayto- feeway HOV connectors, it is impossible for impacted
- junsdictfgnsand individuals to adequately understand the full nature
of the contemplated project. Without a full and complete disclosure
of these important project design details the document is flawed. This
information needs to be presented within the DEIR/EIS and re-
circulated for public review and comment. Noise, light, and glare
mitigation measures set forth in the DEIR/EIS may be totally
inadequate in reducing these impacts from substantial numbers of
• vehicles utilizing the HOV connectors upon adjoining properties and
neighborhoods.
Stale Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 8, 2001
City of Seal Beach - Supplemental Comments Page 11
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
•
Comment 35: Section 4.9.2, page 4.9 -10 — For both the Full Build and Reduced
Build alternatives it is indicated that "These increases in noise levels
are expected to have less than significant impacts to the areas listed
above." This conclusion is unsupported by the information in Tables
4.9 -2 and 4.94. Please see the discussion immediately above under
Comment 34.
Comment 36: Section 4.9.4, page 4.9 -12 — This section discusses the cosUbenefit
analysis procedure utilized by Caltrans to determine if provision of
a noise wall as sound mitigation is "feasible ". A number of criteria
are discussed. It is also indicated that "As more information such as
topographic surveys becomes available, the reasonable allowance for
each wall will be recalculated during the design phase and if the cost
of any wall is not reasonable, they might '. be eliminated from this-
project." This clearly indicates that committed mitigation measures
within the DEIR/EIS may not remain as a commitment. If that is 'the
case, the analysis should be revised to provide an analysis of each
proposed sound wall if it is eliminated', and the resultant noise
impacts to adjacent and nearby properties. The document should be
revised and re-circulated for public review and comments with this •
new information provided. It in unrealistic to indicate that necessary
mitigation measures to eliminate known and identified substantial
adverse impa- Id be eliminated based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Csis als icates that the highest noise barrier proposed is
h. The'analysis does not indicate the noise reduction
f'a higher wall system is provided by the use of retaining
logical ground revisions, etc. These alternatives should be
and discussed as the potential reduction in noise levels that
eated by these design alternatives may reduce noise levels
unt to reduce a significant impact to a less than significant
Comment 37: Section 4.9.4, page 4.9 -13 — Mitigation Measure NOI -FB -1 indicates
".'that the majority of proposed noise barriers have been determined to
bet.reasonable, based on a maximum height of 16 feet. This
mitigation measure indicates the height of the proposed noise barriers
as 4.7 meters, while Table 4.9 -7 and Table 4.9 -10 indicates the height
of new sound barrier walls at 4.9 meters. The inconsistency should
be corrected.
Comment 38: Table 4.9 -7 "EXISTING, PREDICTED, AND ABATED FUTURE NOISE •
LEVLELS FOR FULL BUILD ALTERNATIVE" and Table 4.9 -10
Stale Route 22Mcst Orange County Connection October 8, 2001
City of Seal Beach - Supplemental Comments Page 12
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
• "EXISTING, PREDICTED, AND ABATED FUTURE NOISE LEVLELS
FOR REDUCED BUILD ALTERNATIVE pages 4.9 -14 -17 and 4.9 -21-
24, respectively. Both of these tables indicate that the existing noise
barriers in Seal Beach will not be increased in height since the
anticipated noise reduction by so doing is less than 5d BA. The height
of the noise barrier at location 3 is only 14 feet. An analysis of the
noise reduction at this location is not specified in the DEIR/EIS. It
requested that the analysis for this location, and other locations within
the project area that are less than 16 -feet in height, be included within
the DEIR/EIS. This analysis and the determinations -: to support the
conclusion of no additional noise mitigation should be clearly and
specifically set forth. That information will allow the impacted local
jurisdictions and adjoining property owners to fully understand the
criteria utilized by Caltrans in determining that less than 'a SdBA
reduction is not feasible. Unless this information is clearly presented,
the document is unacceptable and should be revised and re- circulated
for additional public review and comment.
Further, it is believed that the majority . of the existing noise barriers
not slated for replacement may not comply with current state-of-the-
art seismic design standards. An analysis of these potentially
dangerous structures should be provided within Section 4.1, Geology
and Soils. If these structures are determined to be -a significant
seismic risk, .they . should be replaced or strengthened at the time of
the construction of the project improvements. This is particularly
`- important if the project construction activities such as vibration and
earth movement would adversely impact the structural integrity of
these old noise barriers.
Comment 39: Table 4.9 -9, "LOCAL NOISE ORDINANCE CONSTRUCTION
ABATEMENT /MITIGATION ", page 4.9 -20 — This table indicates the
hours of allowable i construction activity within each city impacted by
the proposed prefect. Seal Beach has recently amended its noise
ordinance, and the allowable hours on Saturday are now 8 AM to 8
PM. All other hours remain as stated. Please correct.
Comment 40: Section 4.9.4, page 4.9 -20 — Mitigation Measure NOI -FB-11 indicates
that community meetings will be held to explain to area residents the
construction work, time involved, and control measures to be taken.
It is requested that for the City of Seal Beach these community
meetings begin with a review of the draft work program, proposed
® time schedules, and proposed control measures. The community
should have an opportunity to provide comments and suggestions on
Stale Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 8, 2001
City of Seal Beach — Supplemental Comments Page 13
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
the proposed program prior to finalization and not just be informed as
to what will happen.
Comment 41: Section 4.9.5, page 4.9 -26 — The document determines that there will
be no impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to less than substantial,
as defined by Caltrans (i.e., a 12 dBA increase). There is no
discussion as to noise threshold of significance levels that may be
utilized by other local jurisdictions in evaluating significant traffic
noise impacts. Seal Beach has codified an'exterior noise level of
55dBA for residential development pursuant to Section 130.5 of the
Code of the City of Seal Beach. Other cities within the project area
probably have different outdoor noise standards codified. The
DEIR/EIS analysis is incomplete unless there is an evaluation of the
anticipated noise impacts of the project against each local
jurisdiction's noise standards. The document should be revised and!it:
re -circulated for local jurisdiction and interested public review of the
discussed noise impacts.
A 12dBA increase in sound levels Is comparable of the difference of
sound generation at 50 feet by a pump and a jackhammer. This is a •
significant noise level increase that is readily discernible to the normal
person. Within Seal Beach an Increase in 3d BA.is considered to be
significant enough to require evaluation in an environmental
document. Other cities again may utilize different threshold of
significance criteria in evaluating noise impacts of a proposed project.
Comment 42:.'._ - Section 4.9.5.C, page 4.9 -27 — The document indicates that a final
noise assessment analysis will be conducted and that a final decision
on the installation of noise abatement measures will be made upon
completion of the project design and the public involvement process.
Since the project as proposed will not reduce exterior noise levels
within the criteria acceptable to the City, it is requested that additional
noise mitigation measures such as additional insulation and double-
pane windows be provided to all homes within the determined 65
EOt cf, lone. These noise mitigation measures should be
n ino cost t o the subject resident and completed prior to the
in I f construction work. This will provide for additional noise
relies,.o the impacted resident's during the construction period.
Comment 43: Section 4.9.5.C, page 4.9 -28 — The document indicates that the Full
Build alternative may involve pile driving and/or crack and seal
pavement rehabilitation and that substantial short-term construction Q
impacts would occur. There is no delineation as to the areas along
the project that these construction methods may be necessary to
State Route 221west Orange County Connection October 8, 2001
City of Seal Beach — Supplemental Comments page 14
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA -01- 04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
• utilize, so it is impossible for a commenting party to indicate a
legitimate concern.
Therefore the document should be revised to indicate those areas
anticipated for this type of construction activity and provide certain
mitigation measures, i.e., no such construction activities between
5:00 PM and 8:00 AM, Monday through Friday and no such
construction activity on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays. In addition,
an inspection of each residence within 300 feet of the area proposed
for this construction shall occur prior to the start of such activity to
document all exterior building conditions. The project contractors
should be held responsible to repair all structural damage and
cosmetic damage to stucco in excess of 1W cracks to structures and all
windows and doors that are knocked out of alignment as a result of
these construction activities.
Comment 44: Figure 4.9-16 and Figure 4.9 -213 — Both figures indicate that a new
sound wall is to be constructed from the easterly City . boundary to
approximately the mid -point of Almond Park on the north side of the
1-405 freeway. Due to seismic safety concerns regarding the
• identified non -state wall from this point to Blue Bell Park, the City
requests that the non -state walls be removed: and replaced with new
sound barriers in the same configuration as proposed for NB -2 sound
barrier.
Comment 45: Section 4.1 0 1 C, page 4.10 -1 — Old Ranch Tennis Club and Blue Bell
Park. For both of these facilities it is indicated that the existing noise
-' barriers would remain in place, as the existing barriers are the highest
generally available. As Indicated previously, it is believed that the
majority of the existing noise' barriers not slated for replacement may
not comply with current state-of-the-art seismic design standards. An
analysis of these potentially dangerous structures should be provided
within Section 4.1, Geology and Soils. If these structures are
.uj..determined to be a significant seismic risk, they should be replaced or
Strengthened at the time of the construction of the project
In addition, there is no noise barrier between the 1-405 Freeway and
the majority of the Tennis Club property. The City requests that
Caltrans provide a noise barrier consistent with that proposed for NB-
C along the entire length of the Tennis Club property.
• Comment 46: Section 4.10.1C, page 4.10 -1 — Almond Park. It is indicated that
substantial visual impacts would occur due to the loss of homes
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 8, 2001
City of Seal Beach — Supplemental Comments Page 15
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
adjacent to Almond Park. If the residences are acquired and the
properties cleared, Caltrans should be responsible for development of
an appropriate open space utilization plan and long -term maintenance
program for those properties. The maintenance program -
responsibilities could be met by the provision of an annuity or other
financial mechanism to provide a long -term revenue source to
provide the required maintenance funding.
Comment 47: Table 4.11 -1 and Table 4.11 -2 — Both tables:'indicate that there will
impacts within Seal Beach to Southern Californi Edison (SCE),
Southern California Gas (SCG), water, sewerommunications
facilities at various locations within the commun'it'y°...liese tables also
indicate impacts to identified "high risk facilities" at the SCE
Substation at Beverly Manor Road; two 16 -inch SCG lines in Beverly
Manor Road; one 10 -inch, two 16 -inch, and one 34 -inch SCG lines
between the U.S. Naval Weapons Station and southbound' -1-405
Freeway. There is no explanation as to what aspects of the proposed
project would result in these impacts, as there are no right -of -way
acquisitions indicated in these areas within. the DEIR/EIS 'it is unclear
from the DEIR/EIS as to the location of these facilities, are they located •
within existing freeway rights of ways ?; -
If in fact right -0f -way I
tcuisitions are contemplated that would impact the
indicated utility facilities it is thernclear as to what the impacts may be
to the City of Seal Beach facilities within the triangular property located at
Seal Beach Boulevard, Beverly Manor Road, and the southbound 1-405
Freeway right -of- way „as. indicated under Section 3.11.3, page 3.11 -1,
above.
These potential impacts to City and other utility facilities need to be
thoroughly discussed, evaluated, and mitigated within a revised and
re- circulated environmental document.
Comment 48: ``- Section 4.12.5.0, page 4.12 -13 — Mitigation Measure HAZ -FB -1. This
mitigation measure requires the preparation of a Phase I Initial Site
Assessment (ISA) for each property proposed for acquisition. The City
of Seal Beach requests the capability to have a 30-day review and
comment period on the "draft” versions of all Phase I ISA's prepared
for properties within Seal Beach prior to approval of the final Phase I
ISA. In addition, the mitigation measure should be revised to indicate
this provision and also indicate the other agencies that will review
these documents, i.e., DTSC, Cal -EPA, SCAQMD, Orange County •
Environmental Health Agency, local jurisdictions, etc.
State Route 22/West orange County Connection October 8, 2001
City of Seal Beach — Supplemental Comments Page 16
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA -01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
iFurther, the City of Seal Beach requests the ability to review and
provide comments on "draft" versions of all site - specific health and
safety plans, site specific contaminant management plans and general
construction contingency plans for all City-owned sites and for all
utility facilities impacted within local city public rights -of -ways.
•
•
Comment 49: Section 4.12.5.C, page 4.12 -15 — Mitigation Measure HAZ -FB -6. It is
requested that the language of this condition be revised to indicate
that "demolition permits" will be obtained from the appropriate local
jurisdiction for all structures acquired and demolished as a
component of project implementation, and that such demolition
permit will not be issued until the appropriate asbestos report or
- clearance report is submitted to the local jurisdiction.'
Comment 50:
Comment 51:
Section 4.12.5.C, page 4.12 -16 — Mitigation Measure HAZ -FB -8. The
City of Seal Beach requests the ability to review and provide
comments on "draft" versions of all reports regarding aerially
deposited lead (ADL) within the City boundaries.
Section 4.13.1, page 4.13 -1 The last paragraph indicates that the
'Suburban Key Viewpoint' represents one of the most adverse visual
impacts that would' result from the Full Build Alternative. It is
requested that an additional "Suburban Key Viewpoint" be developed
to indicate the before and after views from Almond Park easterly
towards the homes identified for acquisition and the relocation of
—Almond Avenue and he proposed new noise barrier. This viewpoint
would seem to have?••••,auch greater visual impacts that the presented
"Suburban Key Viewl o v t in Figure 4.13 -1 on page 4.13 -2.
Section 4.13.1, page 4.13 6,`}View from the Freeway — This section
discusses views 'along the mainline of the freeway after project
implementation and provides at Figure 4.13 -4 a view simulation of a
typical view along the mainline travel route. It is requested that a
view simulation -be provided from both directions of all freeway-to-
freeway HOVconnectors. In reviewing this section of the DEIR/EIS
there is no definitive discussion as to the height, length, beginning
and ending points of any of these connectors. It is unbelievable that
the document does not discuss the impacts of what would seem to be
extensive elevated structures necessary to provide the proposed
freeway - to-freeway HOV connectors throughout the entire project
length. Based on those view simulations it may appropriate to
provide a view simulation from: the rear yards of homes along Martha
Ann- in Rossmoor; the Seal Beach Boulevard overpass at the 1-405
Slate Route 22/Wen Orange County Connection October 8, 2001
City of Seal Beach - Supplemental Comments Page 17
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS-CA -01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
a
•
Comment 57: Section 4.13.5, page 4.13 -24 — It is indicated that a loss of 66 percent
of existing freeway vegetation under the Full Build Alternative is
"potentially significant ". It would appear that a loss of 66 percent is
more than potentially significant. This impact should be indicated as •
significant and unavoidable and so indicated within the document.
This issue may require re- circulation.
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 8, 2001
City of Seal Beach - Supplemental Comments Page 18
towards the 1 -406/1 -605 HOV connectors; and from Bolsa Chica Road
north towards the 1 -405/SR -22 HOV connectors.
Comment 53:
Section 4.13.3.C, page 4.13 -12 — It is indicated that removal of
nearby houses would result in substantial and adverse visual impacts
if the resulting open space were not well maintained. If the
residences are acquired and the properties cleared, Caltrans should be
responsible for development of an appropriate open space utilization
plan and long -term maintenance program for those properties, with
approval of the plans and financing ....programsby the City. The
maintenance program responsibilities could be met by the provision
of an annuity or other financial mechanism to provide a long -term
revenue source to provide the require��=' intenance funding.
Comment 54:
Section 4.13.4.C, page 4.13 -16 — the discussion under the Full Build";,
Alternative indicates that improvements to the 1 -405 /Seal Beach
Boulevard interchange would result in a decrease in the amount of
landscaping in this area. The Document should be revised to clearly
indicate the nature and extent of the improvements, preferably with a
visual simulation of the impacted area in an existingand proposed
configuration.
Comment 55:
Table 4.13 -4, IMPACTS TO VISUAL RESOURCES IDENTIFIED IN
POLICY DOCUMENTS — FULL BUILD ALTERNATIVE, page 4.13 -16
— This table identifies four visual resources identified in various city
policy documents that would experience reductions in visual quality
_.
due to the proposed project. A visual simulation should be provided
for each of the identified locations for the existing and proposed
environment, and those visual simulations should be referenced in the
discussion regarding the Reduced Build Alternative.
Comment 56`.
Section 4.13.4, page 4.13 -22 — The "Thresholds of Significance for
CEQA" criteria does not include "inconsistency with local City
General Plans':'. This should be added as a threshold and all
subsequent evaluations should analyze the impacts of the proposed
project with the provisions of the appropriate local community
General', Plan provisions.
a
•
Comment 57: Section 4.13.5, page 4.13 -24 — It is indicated that a loss of 66 percent
of existing freeway vegetation under the Full Build Alternative is
"potentially significant ". It would appear that a loss of 66 percent is
more than potentially significant. This impact should be indicated as •
significant and unavoidable and so indicated within the document.
This issue may require re- circulation.
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 8, 2001
City of Seal Beach - Supplemental Comments Page 18
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH W A- EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D ! SCH No. 98064001
• Comment 58: Section 4.13.8, page 4.13 -29 — Mitigation Measures VIS -FB -1, VIS -FB-
3, and VIS -FB-4 should be revised to clearly indicate as follows:
• VIS -FB -1 — This measure should be revised to indicate that
Caltrans should be responsible for development of an appropriate
open space utilization plan and long -term maintenance program
for those properties, with approval of the plans and financing
programs by the City. The maintenance program responsibilities
could be met by the provision of an annuity or other financial
mechanism to provide a long -term revenue source to provide the
required maintenance funding.
• VIS -FB -3 — This measure should be revised to indicate Caltrans
should be responsible for the proposed landscaping outside of
Caltrans rights -of -ways. This should include development of an
appropriate open space utilization plan and longterm .
maintenance program for those properties, with approval of the
plans and financing programs by the impacted City. The
maintenance program responsibilities could be met by the
provision of an annuity or other financial mechanism to provide a
long -term revenue source to provide the required maintenance
• funding. For modifications to existing Caltrans rights-of-ways, the
impacted city should have the capability to review and provide
comments on the proposed re- landscaping plans.
• VIS -FB-4 _ Same comments as above as related to landscape
proposa s o1noise barrier walls
Comment 59... Section 4.13.8, page 4.13 -30 — Mitigation Measures VIS -FB -7, VIS -FB-
9, and'VIS -FB -10 should be revised to clearly indicate that all
proposals for additional landscape or other visual enhancement
treatments shall be reviewed and commented upon by the local
jurisdiction prior to final plan approval by Caltrans or OCTA.
Attachmen (2)
Attachment 1: Excerpts from "City of Seal Beach Water Master Plan Review
prepared by AKM Consulting Engineers for the City of Seal
Beach, dated April 2000
Attachment 2: Excerpts from "Project Report — Federal Channel Facility No.
C01S06 °. prepared for County of Orange Public Facilities &
Resources Department by Bryan McKinney, Civil Engineer,
• dated February 1999
x . .
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October B, 2001
City of Seal Beach — 5upplemental Comments Page 19
El
A
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
•
•
•
ATTACHMENT 1
EXCERPTS FROM "CITY OF SEAL BEACH WATER
MASTER PLAN REVIEW", PREPARED BY AKM
CONSULTING ENGINEERS FOR THE CITY OF SEAL
BEACH, DATED APRIL 2000
State Route 22I West Orange County Connection October 8, 2001
City of Seal Beach — Supplemental Comments Page 20
El
El
0
MAE
Ell
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
AT !FI ST LAS VITE 4
Prepared for
Cl
TY OF SEAL BEACH
211 8'h Street
Seal Beach, California 90740
Prepared by
AKM CONSULTING ENGINEERS
101 Pacifica, Suite 180
Irvine, Calf mia 92 618
(949) 758-733~
April 2000
IV
A
0
0
-46W SECTION 11
EXISTING SYSTEM
The City of Seal Beach provides service to approximately 7400 acres within the corporate
boundaries of the City. Rossmoor Shopping Center, although within the City corporate boundaries,
is served by Southern California Water Company. The Leisure World Retirement Community, with
3472 dwelling units, are served through a single master meter. The City maintains the water
distribution facilities and the fire hydrants within the Leisure World.
The City's water system consists of transmission and distribution mains, two storage reservoirs, two
,,. booster pumping stations, and three currently producing groundwater wells.
e
II -A SOURCES OF SUPPLY
The City has local access to groundwater and imported Metropolitan Water District (MWD) supplies.
The local groundwater production as a percentage of total demand is controlled by the Orange
County Water District by means of the Basin Production Percentage. This percentage can be
€7 exceeded but there are significant levies in the form of Basin Production Assessment for the excess
production. The Basin Production Percentage is currently set at 75 percent.
• Imported Water — The imported water is supplied by OC -35 Connection to MWO system
through the Municipal Water District of Orange County ( MWDOC) located at Springdale Street
and Westminster Avenue. This is a shared facility with City of Huntington Beach. Huntington
Beach operates the connection and communicates with MWDOC and MWD for the requested
flows. The maximum flow capacity for Seal Beach is 2.6 million gallons per day (MGD).
• Beverly Manor Well — The well, constructed in 1969, is housed in an enclosed building along
side the two booster pumps referred to as the Beverly Manor Booster. The well pump, driven by
a natural gas engine, pumps directly into the Beverly Manor Reservoir. It has a capacity of
2000 gpm. Well water is chlorinated at the reservoir inlet by means of a gas chlorinator, which
is budgeted for replacement with a hypochlorite generator -type disinfection unit during the
current fiscal year.
1 Balsa Chica Well — This well, constructed in 1979, is located on Balsa Chica Road south of the
San Diego Freeway. The well pump can be driven with an electric motor as well as a natural
gas engine. The well discharge pressure is maintained by varying the speed of electric motor
} by means of Toshiba Variable Frequency Drive or by a Murphy controller acting on the natural
7 gas engine. The maximum output into the distribution system is 2800 gpm at 68 psi. The well
water is disinfected by a newly installed Chlor -Tech hypochlorite generating unit.
• Leisure World Well - Leisure World Well is located behind a fenced enclosure in Leisure World
on Beverly Manor Road. Well pump is electrical motor - driven. The City has an existing time-of-
use agreement with Southern California Edison Company for cost savings. The well pumps into
Beverly Manor Reservoir but has the ability to pump directly into the Leisure World Distribution
System. Review of pump curves indicate neither condition is at optimum efficiency. Existing
surge tank at the site is not operational and the compressor has been removed. A new flow
meter has recently been installed. The well output is chlorinated by chlorine gas evaporator at
the site.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
WATER MASTER PLAN REVIEW ^^
A
L3
a
EXISTING SYSTEM
• Navy Booster Station - The Navy Reservoir Booster Station pressurizes the distribution
system, taking suction from the Navy Reservoir, and has three (3) horizontal split -case pumps
each driven by 75 HP electrical motors. The design capacity of each pump is 1250 gpm at 65
psi. Lead and lag pumps are rotated. The pump control is by means of an archaic speed
controller and Murphy pressure gauge. The control panel and pump controller unit is very old
vintage. Various modifications and revisions apparently were made over the years and can be
observed from numerous old and new relays and different types of wiring. The pumps and
piping appear to be reasonably well maintained. Pressure recorders are a few generations old.
Pump control system is archaic. It should be upgraded to Programmable Logic Control (PLC)
as soon as possible considering the importance of this station to the system. There are also
reported problems with the three (3) inlet valves (gate -type) into the station, which may have to
. be replaced.
• Beverly Manor Booster Station — Beverly Manor Booster Station is situated in the Same
building as the Beverly Manor Well. There are two vertical turbine pumps with a rated capacity
of 1400 gpm at 65 psi each driven by natural gas engines. The station takes suction from
Beverly Manor Reservoir and boost water to system pressure. The pumps are controlled by
Murphy gauges, which vary the engine speed to meet set discharge (system) pressures.
II -C RESERVOIRS
• Navy Reservoir — The Navy Reservoir is an aboveground steel structure constructed in 1963.
The reservoir water level is not at the system hydraulic gradient. The water system is a closed
system without free -water surface. Navy Reservoir acts as forebay for the Navy. Booster
Station. When system demand drops and system pressure builds an altitude valve at the
Reservoir inlet opens and allows excess supply to be stored in the Reservoir. Reservoir inlet
and outlet piping and vai4es do not meet current seismic standards. The reservoir access
hatch appears to be only 20 -inch diameter. The tank is 32 feet high with overflow at 31.5. It is
reported that the water level is maintained at about 22 feet. There are reported problems with
the two (2) inlet (plug -type) and the outlet (plug -type) valves, which may require replacement.
The Reservoir is cathodically- protected. The City has retained HARCO to annually inspect the
impressed current type cathodic protection system. Reservoir has not been painted since 1984
when repairs to interior coating were made. The City hires divers to inspect the interior
periodically. The latest diver report indicates serious corrosion problems related to
coating failure on the interior walls and the floor of the Navy Reservoir. Corrosion
protection is only provided by the cathodic protection system, which is considered to be
supplemental rather than primary means of protection.
Beverly Manor Reservoir — The reservoir was constructed in 1969 and has a storage capacity
of 4.0 MG. It is located next to the Beverly Manor Well and Booster Pump Station. It stores the
ground water pumped from Leisure World Well and Beverly Manor Well, and acts as forebay for
the Beverly Manor Booster Station. The in- ground Reservoir has 14 -foot vertical sides
constructed from concrete and thick rubber lined bottom. It is covered by rigid metal roof. The
Reservoir overflow is at 13.5 ft. from the floor. The system operators maintain a maximum
elevation of 12 feet above the floor. Water coming into and going out of the Reservoir is
disinfected by means of existing gas chlorinators. The inlet and outlet piping, along with
other structural elements of the reservoir, should be upgraded to current seismic
standards.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
WATER MASTER PLAN REVIEW
XAmtecity of Seal BeacNWater Master Plan (4-00)
II -3 ° q
rota
9 -
A
A
C
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA-01-04-D / SCH No. 98084001
•
C,
J
C1
ATTACHMENT 2
EXCERPTS FROM "PROJECT REPORT - FEDERAL
CHANNEL FACILITY NO. C01S06 ". PREPARED FOR
COUNTY OF ORANGE PUBLIC <''FACILITIES &
RESOURCES DEPARTMENT BY BRYAN WKINNEY,
CIVIL ENGINEER, DATED FEBRUARY 1999
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 8, 2001
City of Seal Beach — Supplemental Comments Page 21
�J
CJ
COUNTY OF ORANGE
PUBLIC FACILITIES & RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
VICKI L. WILSON, DIRECTOR
KENNETH R. SMITH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR/CHIEF ENGINEER
H. I. NAKASONE, MANAGER, PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
PROJECT REPORT
FEDERAL CHANNEL
FACILITY NO. COIS06
FROM LOS ALAMITOS CHANNEL (C01)
TO
THE GARDEN GROVE FREEWAY
PREPARED BY
BRYAN MCKINNEY, CIVIL ENGINEER
FEBRUARY 1999
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CHARLES SMITH
FIRST DISTRICT
JAMES SILVA
SECOND DISTRICT
• THOMAS W. WILSON
FIFTH DISTRICT
TODD SPITZER
THIRD DISTRICT
CYNTHIA COAD
FOURTH DISTRICT
El
•
• 2. INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
_ This project report will analyze C01 S06 from its confluence with COI to the Garden Grove Freeway and recommend
improvements to the system. There are tivee primary functions of this report: (1) to analyze the existing channel and to
determine its hydraulic capacity; (2) to develop and analyze various channel alternatives necessary to safely convey the
project's design discharge and to provide flood protection for adjacent properties and homeowners and (3) to develop a
construction phasing plan. The phasing plan will discuss the timing of the construction of the improvements
recommended for Federal Channel as they relate to the improvements recommended for Los Alamitos Channel and
the other channels tributary to COI.
Objectives for this report are:
A. Discuss the background and existing condition of the channel.
B. Discuss the engineering criteria used for the analysis, and the hydrologic, hydraulic, geotechnical, structural
and the environmental considerations.
C. Discuss past agreements and right-of-way requirements and recommend scheduling of the construction.
D. Provide preliminary cost estimates based on present dollar value.
E. Address local drainage, maintenance and utility concerns.
F. Identify necessary elements to prepare contract documents for construction of channel improvements.
• G. Finally, Present conclusions and recommendations for ultimate improvements.
This report will serve as a guideline to be used as a basis of design and a means of coordination with other agencies. It
will also assist the City Engineers' Flood Control Advisory Committee (CEFCAC) in making budgetary decisions.
3. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
3.1 History
COI S06 was constructed in two phases. The first phase was constructed in 1961 as part of the improvements for Leisure
World (Tract No. 4337) in the City of Seal Beach. Phase I of the channel originates at Seal Beach Boulevard and
extends downstream approximately 5,400 feet to its terminus at COI, where a drop structure was constructed. This
portion of CO I S06 was built along the same alignment as an exiting Navy drainage ditch that extended in a straight line
to the existing crossing of the 22 Freeway,
Phase 11 of the channel was constructed in 1966 as pan of improvements for Tract No. 5699. The channel originates as
Seal Beach Boulevard and extends upstream approximately 4,400 feet to the Garden Grove (22) Freeway, where itjoins
an existing double barrel RCB that goes under the freeway.
• _5_
A
Both phases were originally designed to convey a 25 -year discharge. The drainage patterns prior to the channel
construction were very similar to the post channel patterns to due the drainage ditches installed by the Navy to drain the
• Naval Weapons Station.
In 1969, the triple S' x 4' RCB at Seal Beach Boulevard was extended by 35 feet as pan of a project by the City of Seal
Beach to improve Seal Beach Boulevard.
in 1973, the City of Seal Beach approved the construction of a double barrel 12' x T RCB for the Cedar Crest Lane
crossing of COI S06 within the community of Leisure World.
During the recent storm of January 4, 1995, COl S06 water levels rose and flooding occurred at Westminster Avenue and
upstream within Leisure World. 26 apartment buildings and other structures within Leisure World experienced flooding
with depths of water up to 3 feet The estimated damage within Leisure World was 1 million to 2 million dollars.
Flooding problems were also experienced in College Park East in the City of Seal Beach due to the inability of local
drainage to drain into the Old Ranch Golf Course.
3.2 Background
Between C01 and Westminster Avenue, the channel is an earthen trapezoidal section with a base width of 12 feet and a
height of 12.5 feet Upstream of Westminster Avenue, the water goes through three 96" Corrugated
Metal Pipes (CMPs). Between the CMPs and Seal Beach Boulevard, the channel is a concrete lined trapezoidal section
with 1.5:1 side slopes. The base width is 12 feet and the height varies from 7 feet to 9 feet There are box culvert
crossings at El Dorado. Drive, Cedar Crest Lane, SL Andrews Drive, Burning Tree Lane and Del Monte Drive within the
Leisure World area. At Seal Beach Boulevard, a triple barrel S' x 4' RCB was constructed.
• Upstream of Seal Beach Boulevard, the channel is an earthen trapezoidal section with 1.5:1 side slopes. The base width
is 12 feet and the height varies from 6 feet to 7 feet. C01 S06 confluences with the existing Navy Channel just upstream
of Seal Beach Boulevard.
3.3 Previous Studies
No previous studies have been performed on this channel.
4. ALTERNATIVES
4.1 Do Nothing Alternative
This alternative consists of leaving the channel in is existing condition. No improvement would be constructed or
chamms made to the watershed drainage patterns. COI S06 would continue to flow with approximately 0.5 feet of
freeboard in the downstream reach adjacent to Leisure World during the 100 -year storm events. In the upstream reach of
COI S06 there would be no freeboard. While this alternative would be the least costly in time and money, it does not
meet OCFCD's goal of providing ultimate 100 -year flood protection.
0
El
0
13
• 5.3 Local Drainage
There are numerous medium and small inlets. A comprehensive list of the local drainage structures was senerated using
information gathered from the as -built plans for COIS06, and from records of permit applications. The list of local
drainage structures is included as Appendix A. -
There are no committed water surface elevations on -001 S06.
5,4 Hydraulics
The Surface and Pr Pressure Gradient "t(WSPG) Hydraulic Analysis Program FOS 15Po and the Army Corps of Engineers
HEC -RAS Hydraulic Analysis Program.
Hydraulic analyses were based on the assumption that local drainage improvements are adequate. The values used for
Manning's "n" are consistent with the County of Orange Design Manual.
5.4.1 Existing Condition
C01 S06 was originally designed to convey approximately a 25 -year discharge. Due to the extreme flatness of the slope
of the channel, COI S06 is a sub - critical channel. The water surface control is located at the downstream end of the
channel at its confluence with C01. Due to the proximity of the confluence with COI to COIBO1, the water surface in the
• basin is also taken as the control for CO1506.
This alternative analyzed the entire channel under existing conditions and assumes that the maximum channel capacity is
achieved when the banks of the channel were exceeded. The existing channel grads and cross sections were based on
as -built plans berween COI and Seal Beach Boulevard and on as -built plans supplemented by survey information
between Seal Beach Boulevard and the 22 Freeway.
Presently the COI system is deficient and requires improvement. Consequently, high water surfaces are frequently
experienced in the basin which severely diminishes COIS06's capacity. For purposes of this analysis, the original design
water surface of 0.0 for the basin was assumed as the control for COI 506, and the COI system is assumed to be full
improved. A sensitivity analysis was performed for hydraulic control that consisted of analyzing the channel with a
control water surface of -1 and +1. With the control at 0 and -1, the channel was able to convey the 100 -year design
discharge, but there was very little freeboard in many of the reachs. With the control at +I, the water was at the top of
bank with no freeboard at St. Andrews Drive.
A normal depth capacity analysis of COI S06. which excludes the effect of backwater generated by COIBOI indicates
that the channel capacity is greater than the 100 -year design discharge. For the reach from Seal Beach Boulevard to the
22 Freeway. the channel capacity is essentially equal to the design discharge and there is little or no freeboard. The
culverts were analyzed using normal depth control immediately downstream of the culvert. As shown in Table 3. all of
the culverts have the capacity to convey the design discharge with normal depth downstream control. The hydraulics of
the "Do Nothing" Alternative are shown on Exhibit 2 on the plan and profile sheets.
•
-Ii-
0
TABLES
• COIS06 EXISTING CHANNEL AND CULVERT NORMAL DEPTH CAPACITIES
DESIGN PERCENT
EXISTING DISCHARGE CAPACITY DESIGN
v
Railroad Culvert
Trpl 8' CMP
M
'•
"
El Dorado Drive Culvert
Dbl 10' x T
710
1,400
197%
Cedar Crest Dr. Culvert
Dbl 12'x7'
685
1,750
255%
St. Andrews Dr. Culvert
Dbl 8' x fi.5'
650
800
123%
Burning Tree Lane Culvert
Dbl S. x 6.5'
630
800
127%
Del Monte Drive Culvert
Dbl 8'x 6.5'
620
800
129%
Seal Beach Blvd. Culvert
irpl 8'x 4'
620
- 800
129%
22 Freeway Culvert
Dbl 8'x5'
340
500
14.1°x^
5.41 Improvement Alternatives
• A. Alternative I - Retarding Basin
The construction of a retarding basin on the Naval Weapons Station land could reduce peak discharges by 200 cfs so that
the upstream and downstream reaches could meet requirements with the existing channel sections. This would require
approximately 1 I 1 acre -feet of storage. Due to high groundwater the basin would have to be a large shallow basin and
approximately 16 acres of right -of -way would need to be acquired.
B. Alternative 11- Diversion of Drainage Area
The diversion of the Weapons Smtion drainage would reduce peak discharges in the Downstream Reach by up to 220 cfs
and would allow freeboard requirements to be met. The Upstream Reach would be able to convey the 100 -year
discharge, but freeboard requirements would not be met since the reduction in peak discharge is minimal in this reach.
However, since the adjacent Weapons Station land is currently undeveloped agricultural land, a design deviation
reducing freeboard is warranted. This alternative would work best for the Upstream Reach if implemented in
conjunction with Alternative VIII.
5.4.3 Downstream Alternatives
C. Alternative 111 - Rectangular Concrete Channel
Because of the flatness of the invert slope, improving the channel to a rectangular concrete section in the downstream
I • -12-
El
0
E
City Council Staff Report re:
Couideration of Comment Letter re:
State Route 221West Orange County Connector
• Draft Environmental Impact RepordEnvironmental Impact Statement
October 22, 2001
m °
ATTACHMENT 2
"STATE ROUTE 22/WEST ORANGE
COUNTY CONNECTION DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT ", DATED AUGUST 2001
Note: Complete document previously provided
to City Council, not provided due to length. It is
available for review at: the Los
• Alamitos/Rossmoor Library, Mary Wilson
Library, and Leisure World Library within Seal
Beach; the Office of the City Clerk; and the
Development Services Department. In addition,
a PDF version is available at the Caltrans
website at www.dot.ca.gov /distl2, along with an
on -line comment form and additional
information regarding the Draft EIR/EIS. A link
to the Caltrans website is provided on the City's
Web Page at www.ci.seal- beach.ca.us.
•
DEIR -EIS Re,ww.CC SUB Report 14
n
13
City Council Staff Report re:
Consideration of Comment Letter re:
State Route 22 /West orange County Connector
• Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
October 22, 2001
e °
ATTACHMENT 3
•
is
"BRIEFING BOOK — STATE ROUTE 22
WEST ORANGE COUNTY CONNECTION",
CALTRANS AND OCTA, DATED. AUGUST
30,2001
Note: Complete document previously provided
to City Council, not provided due to length.
DEIR -EIS Review.CC SOfffkpft is
A
Cl
City Council Staff Report re:
Cowideration of Comment Letter re:
State Route 221West Orange County Connector
• Dmft Environmental Impact ReporNEnvironmental Impact Statement
October 22, 2001
e
ATTACHMENT 4
•
PUBLIC COMMENT FORMS SUBMITTED
AT CALTRANS SEPTEMBER 26, 2001
PUBLIC HEARING. COMMENTS
SUBMITTED BY MAYOR DOANE,
COUNCILPERSON CAMPBELL, CITY
MANAGER BAHORSKI AND DIRECTOR
OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
WHITTENBERG
DEIR -EIS R wi .CC Suff Regm 16
A
A
Caltrans District 12 Orange County
Attention Division of Planning
Leslie Manderscheid
337 Michelson Drive, Suite 380
ine, CA 92612 -8894
Name (First Mr Last, or Organization):
Date:
William I. Doane, Mayor, City of Seal Beach
September 26, 2001
Address: 211 Eighth Street
City: Seal Beach
State: CA
Zip Code: 90740
Telephone (Optional): (562) 431 -2527
E -Mail (Oprionaq:
Document: Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement (DEIR/EIS)
Technical Report (specify)
Subsection ffapplicable):
Number: Title: Page:
Comments:
072x Use fMry ;�' �•��
The DEIR/EIS does not adequately address the environmental impacts of
_ a)a"
the proposed freeway -to- freeway HOV connector structures. There is no
delineation in the document as to the proposed location, and the
proposed height and length of these structures.
_
On September 18, 2001, the City received a copy of the "Draft
Preliminary Engineering Plans" for the subject project that are dated
_
December 2000. These plans provide greater detail as to the areas
proposed for acquisition and the location of the proposed noise barriers,
in addition to more detailed information on the length and height of the
proposed HOV freeway -to freeway connectors. This information was
available during the preparation of the DEIR/EIS and, in my opinion,
-
should have presented in the DEiRIEIS.
The DEIR/EIS is inadequate and requires re- circulation for additional
public review and comments that adequately describes the proposed
freeway -to- freeway HOV connector structures, including the height and
length of ramps, lighting, and other design features. In addition,
supplemental mitigation measures should be set forth to reduce impacts
to a less than significant level as much as possible in the areas of air
-
quality, visual, and light and glare impacts.
As indicated in the "Draft Preliminary Engineering Plans" for the subject
project that are dated December 2000, the following structures are
-
proposed:
CWy Docummc6SR- 22 DEIR- EIS\SR22 Public Comment Fmm - D ne.&c \LW\ -25 -01
Public Comments
❑ Total length of structure, including retained portions, is
approximately 6,700 feet (approximately 1.25 miles in length)
• Maximum height is approximately 75.5 feet above existing grade of
NB I405 Freeway lanes (at mid -point of lanes)
• Maximum height is approximately 70.6 feet above existing grade of
E SR -22 to N 1405 connector lanes (at mid -point of lanes) -
I -405 to SR -21 HOV Connector:
❑ Total length of structure, including retained portions, is
approximately 3,590 feet (approximately 0.7 mile in length)
❑ Maximum height in approximately 43 feet above existing grade of
NB 1-405 Freeway lanes
Replace Existine N405 -W22 Connector,
• Total length of structure is approximately 2,960 feet in length
(Shown on Plan Sheets L -5 and L -6); elevation change begins west
of Clubhouse 4 and ends westerly of Leisure World Manor
• Minimum clearance — 5.9 m (19.4 feet) at approximately Station
1375 +00 (clearance is above the at grade SB I-405 Main Line)
• Maximum height in approximately 45 feet above existing grade of I-
405 Freeway lanes (at mid -point of lanes) _
Replace Existine 5405 -E22 Connector: j
• Total length of structure is approximately 755 feet in length (Shown
on Plan Sheets L -11 and L -12); structure begins at east City
boundary and ends past NB 1 -405 Main Line (Garden Grove)
• Height of structure is indicated at the following locations:
❑ Minimum clearance — 10.9 m (35.7 feet) at approximately
Station 110+40 (clearance is above the at grade SB I405 Main
Line) (East of City boundary)
❑ Minimum clearance — 5.6 m (18.3 feet) at approximately Station
111 +80 (clearance is above the at grade NB I -405 Main Line in
Garden Grove)
• Maximum height in approximately 37 feet above existing grade of I-
405 Freeway lanes (at mid -point of lanes).
The City of Seal Beach has identified the following areas of potential
environmental impacts that require additional evaluation and the
development of appropriate mitigation measures relating to the proposed
freeway -to- freeway HOV connector structures:
❑ Aesthetic impacts upon College Park East and Leisure World of the
proposed freeway -to- freeway HOV connectors at I -405 to I -605 and
S= Public Comment Fmm. p . 2
SR -22 West Orange County Connection rupuc Uommerna
at I -405 to SR -22.
❑ Noise impacts of any elevated HOV connectors.
❑ Light and glare impacts of any elevated HOV connectors.
I •
SR22 Public Common Fmm - Doane 3
A
�l
11
Caltrans District 12 Orange County
Attention Division of Planning
c% Leslie Manderscheid
3.7 Michelson Drive, Suite 380
ine, CA 92612 -8894
Name (First MI Last, or Organization):
Date:
Patricia Campbell, Councilperson, City of Seal Beach
September 26, 200]
Address: 211 Eighth Street
City: Seal Beach
State: CA
Zip Code: 90740
Telephone (Optional): (562) 431 -2527
E -Mail (Optional):
Document: Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement (DEIR/EIS)
Technical Report (specify)
Subsection (Ijapplicable):
Number: Title: Page:
Comments:
oYce use omY
The DEIR/EIS does not adequately discuss and evaluate design
alternatives to the Full -Build or the Reduced Build Alternative to
eliminate the necessity of acquiring any residential structures within the
City. Potential design alternatives that should be evaluated by Caltrans
in a re- circulated DEIR/EIS should include but not be limited to:
• Realignment of freeway design to the south, requiring additional
land acquisition from the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station; not
impacting College Park East.
• Realignment of freeway design to the south, utilizing retaining walls
to not require additional land acquisition from the Seal Beach Naval
Weapons Station; not impacting College Park East.
• Reduction in the width of Almond Avenue and the use of approved
design variations in lane width for the freeway lanes to not require a
taking of the indicated residential structures. This alternative
analysis should evaluate no parking on the southerly side of Almond
Avenue east of Almond Park.
Any potential acquisition of residential structures within Seal Beach will
be strongly opposed by the City. All other alternatives should be
-
thoroughly evaluated and considered within the DEIR/EIS document.
Section 4.6.2.C, page 4.6-4 and 4.6 -5 — The section on Communiri
Cohesion discusses the impacts to community cohesion, as defined on
page 4.6 -3 on various community areas to be impacted by the taking of
homes. THERE IS NO DISUSSION AS TO THE IMPACTS ON
COLLEGE PARK EAST! Although the number of homes may be small
in relation to the other areas identified for acquisition, the criteria for
community cohesion set forth on page 4.6 -3 clearly apply to this area.
The document needs revision to clearly and forthrightly address the
impacts upon the City of Seal Beach and the College Park East
neighborhood regarding this issue.
QWy WcucuenU\SR -22 DEIR- EIS\SR22 Public Comment Fmm - Campbell.dcc \LP 9 -25 -01
impacts of the proposed Noise Walls upon College Park East residential
community and park facilities, including Old Ranch Tennis Club, which
is to be dedicated to the City by the Bixby Ranch Company. No
additional noise wall is proposed adjacent to Old Ranch Tennis Club.
The DEIR/EIS does not adequately address additional mitigation
measures to address significant, unavoidable noise impacts that will
remain upon implementation of the proposed noise walls. Additional
noise mitigation measures to be considered should include provision of
additional insulation and double -pane windows to all homes within the
determined 65 CNEL impact zone. These noise mitigation measures
should be provided at no cost to the subject resident and completed prior
to the initiation of construction work. This will provide for additional
noise relief to the impacted resident's during the construction period.
Section 4.9.4, page 4.9 -20 — Mitigation Measure NOI -FB -I1 indicates
that community meetings will be held to area residents the construction
work, time involved, and control measures to be taken. It is requested
that for the City of Seal Beach these community meetings begin with a
review of the draft work program, times schedules and control measures.
The community should have an opportunity to provide comments and
suggestions on the proposed program prior to finalization and not just
be informed as to what will happen. The City has specific concerns
regarding interim emergency access provisions, security provisions, and
other public health and safety issues.
Section 4.9.5.C, page 4.9 -28 — The document indicates that the Full Build
alternative may involve pile driving and/or crack and seal pavement
rehabilitation and that substantial short-term construction impacts would
occur. There is no delineation as to the areas along the project that these
construction methods may be necessary to utilize, so it is impossible for a
commenting party to indicate a legitimate concern. Therefore the document
should be revised to indicate those areas anticipated for this type of
construction activity and provide certain mitigation measures, i.e., no such
construction activities between 5:00 PM and 8:00 AM, Monday through
Friday and no such construction activity on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays.
In addition, an inspection of each residence within 300 feet of the area
proposed for this construction shall occur prior to the start of such activity to
document all exterior building conditions. The project contractors should be
held responsible to repair all structural damage and cosmetic damage to
stucco in excess of ''' /" cracks to structures and all windows and doors that
are knocked out of alignment as a result of these construction activities.
SR22 Public Comment Foem - CatWWI 2
Public Comments
Caltrans District 12 Orange County
Attention Division of Planning
c/o Leslie Manderscheid
337 Michelson Drive, Suite 380
ine, CA 92612 -8894
Name (First MILast, or Organization):
Date:
John Bahorski, City Manager, City of Seal Beach
September 26, 2001
Address: 211 Eighth Street
City: Seal Beach
State: CA
Zip Code: 90740
Telephone (optional): (562) 431 -2527, ext 300
E -Mail (Optional): jahorski @ci.seal - beach.ca.us
Document: Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement (DEIR/EIS)
Technical Report (specify)
Subsection (ljapplicable):
Number: Title: Page:
Comments:
once use o,ry
The DEIRIEIS does not adequately discuss and evaluate design
alternatives to the Full -Build or the Reduced Build Alternative to
eliminate the necessity of acquiring any residential structures within the
City. Potential design alternatives that should be evaluated by Caltrans
should include but not be limited to:
❑ Realignment of freeway design to the south, requiring additional
land acquisition from the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station; not
impacting College Park East.
❑ Realignment of freeway design to the south, utilizing retaining walls
to not require additional land acquisition from the Seal Beach Naval
Weapons Station; not impacting College Park East.
❑ Reduction in the width of Almond Avenue and the use of approved
design variations in lane width for the freeway lanes to not require a
taking of the indicated residential structures. This alternative
-
analysis should evaluate no parking on the southerly side of Almond
Avenue east of Almond Park.
Any potential acquisition of residential structures within Seal Beach will
be strongly opposed by the City. All other alternatives should be
thoroughly evaluated and considered within the DEIR/EIS document.
There is no discussion as to the impacts of the proposed project upon the
proposed widening of the Seal Beach Boulevard that the City is
preparing to undertake to reduce traffic impacts of the Bixby old Ranch
Towne Center project. City staff has been meeting for many months
with Caltrans and OCTA staff to attempt to develop a coordinated
program for the reconstruction of this important regional transportation
overpass to not require two different phases of development of this
facility; a widening project to provide 3 through lanes and the
appropriate left turn facilities in accordance with the requirements of the
Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center development approvals; and a
C:WyD utu 6USR -22 DEIR- EMSR22 Public Comment Forth- Batonkil.do6LWW-25 -01
SR -22 West Orange
County Connection Public Comments
lengthening project to allow the proposed provision of additional HOVE
lanes in both directions on the 1405 at this location, as proposed by the
0 3 't
Full Build and Reduced Build alternatives.
The City has a 4 million gallon reservoir, Beverly Manor Reservoir,
located southwest of the I-405 Freeway and Seal Beach Boulevard, in
addition to a well and booster station located on the same property. It is
unclear as to the impacts of the proposed project to these facilities.
Tables 4.11 -1 and 4.11 -2 indicate potential impacts to several other
public utility facilities along Beverly Manor Road and Seal Beach
-
Boulevard. Have the City facilities been overlooked? There needs to be
a clarification regarding the status of the City -owned facilities. In
addition, Figure 3.11 -1 should be revised to also indicate those facilities
within the study area. There are also three cellular towers located
southerly of the freeway r -o -w at this same location, and an additional
tower along Seal Beach Boulevard behind the Fire Station that is south
of the reservoir facility.
Section 3.2.1.C, page 3.2 -3 — end of first paragraph — It is stated that "Water
quality is not sampled within the study area" This in incorrect. Water
quality sampling has been conducted for many years in the San Gabriel
River at the outfall points of the power plants. The document should be
revised to provide a summary of the water quality monitoring efforts and the
results of that monitoring. The most recent document the City has on file is
"National Pollution Discharge Elimination System — 1999 Receiving Water
Monitoring Report, Haynes and AES Alamitos L.L.C. Generating Stations,
Los Angeles County, 1999 Survey", prepared for Los Angeles Department
of Water and Power, Southern California Edison Company and AES
Alamitos L.L.C. by MBC Applied Environmental Sciences.
Section 4.2.2, page 4.2 -3 — Cush : This section indicates surface water
runoffs only impact the Santa Ana River. Certain drainage channels that
receive runoff from the I -405 and I -605 Freeways eventually or directly
enter the San Gabriel River. The contaminant levels of the surface run-
off from the freeway will contribute additional pollutant loads to the
river, potentially increasing the level of contamination within the river,
and ultimately requiring additional beach closures with Seal Beach. The
analysis of this issue is completely lacking and the conclusions and
unsupported. A thorough and complete evaluation of additional
pollutant loads to the San Gabriel River and the impact upon the water
quality of the river needs to be completed and re- circulated as part of a
new environmental document for additional public review and
comments.
Section 4.6.4.C, page 4.6 -24 — It is indicated that the estimated property
tax loss to Seal Beach is approximately $11,000.00 annually and is
therefore insignificant given the total property tax revenues received by
the City. On an annual basis that is questionable, as the City has a very
small budget surplus and any loss of revenues may cause a cut -back in
SR22 Public Co=wt Fmm - Bal nU 2
- _ -1
I {-IVll�_VVI11 /lllil
necessary services to the public. On a cumulative basis, me Loss
becomes more significant, as it results in an ongoing loss of
cumulatively significant funds, including any interest on those funds,
that are no longer available for park and road maintenance activities
funded by the City General Fund.
Table 4.11 -1 and Table 4.11 -2 — Both tables indicate that there will
impacts within Seal Beach to Southern California Edison (SCE),
Southem California Gas (SCG), water, sewer and communications
facilities at various locations within the community. These tables also
indicate impacts to identified "high -risk facilities" at the SCE Substation
at Beverly Manor Road; two 16 -inch SCG lines in Beverly Manor Road;
one 10 -inch, two 16 -inch, and one 34 -inch SCG lines between the U.S.
Naval Weapons Station and southbound 1-405 Freeway. There is no
explanation as to what aspects of the proposed project would result in
these impacts, as there are no right -of -way acquisitions indicated in these
areas within the DEIR/EIS. It is unclear from the DEIR/EIS as to the
location of these facilities, are they located within existing freeway
rights -of -ways?
I •
SIM Fablic Comment Fong - BahorsUl 3
A
•
0
s District 12 Orange County
on Division of Planning
lie Manderscheid
ichelson Drive, Suite 380
CA 92612 -8894
irst MILasr, or Organization): Date:
ittenberg, Director of Development Services September 26, 2001
Seal Beach
l
s: 211 Eighth Street
eal Beach
State: CA
Zip Code: 90740
one (Optiona0: (562) 431 -2527, ext 313
E -Mail (optional): 1Whittenberg(a,) l- beach.ca.us
ocument: Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement (DEIR/EIS)
Technical Report (specify)
Subsection (fjapplicable):
Number: Title: Page:
Comments:
OFics. dao9
On September 18, 2001, the City received a copy of the "Draft
Preliminary Engineering Plans" for the subject project that are dated
December 2000. These plans provide greater detail as to the areas
proposed for acquisition and the location of the proposed noise barriers,
'
in addition to more detailed information on the length and height of the
proposed HOV freeway -to freeway connectors. This information was
6
available during the preparation of the DEIR/EIS and, in my opinion,
,
should have in the DEIR/EIS. The information in these "Draft
" -' .7 „'
presented
Preliminary Engineering Plans” needs to be incorporated into a re-
circulated DEIR/EIS to allow the public and all impacted agencies a fair
opportunity to review the details of the proposed project. The re-
circulated document should the provide more detailed environmental
evaluation of the impacts of the proposed acquisitions, freeway -to-
freeway HOV connectors and noise walls and additional mitigation
measures to reduce the identified impacts. The document as currently
being circulated is inadequate and does not provide a full disclosure of
the project components.
Figure 2 -2 -2A and 2 -2-4A, Typical Sections — Full Build and Reduced
-.
Build Alternatives, do not indicate the height that the freeway to freeway
HOV connectors will be at. It is impossible to determine the aesthetic
impacts to adjoining areas, particularly residential and public facilities
by the proposed structures. Aesthetic impacts cannot be adequately
determined, evaluated, and mitigated to any understandable level until
that analysis and information is provided. The DEIR/EIS document
needs to be revised and re- circulated for additional public comments that
adequately describe the proposed structures, including the height and
length of ramps, lighting, and other design features. In addition,
supplemental mitigation measures should be set forth to reduce impacts
to a less than significant level as much as possible in the areas of visual,
C:W y Docuinmo \SR -22 DEIR- ElS\.SR22 Public Comment Fom - Whincnbcg.dcc \LW W9 -25Al
K -[z west orange Gounty Connection Public Comments
Tight and glare impacts.
Use of 1990 Census and Orange County Projections 96 (OCP -96) are
used throughout the document. Certain 2000 Census information has
been available for several months, and OCP 2000 information is also
available. That important new "baseline" information should be used
throughout the document, as it provides a much more recent picture of
the overall area, and could result in different conclusions regarding
significant impacts. Request revisions throughout the document as
appropriate to incorporate the 2000 Census and OCP 2000.
Table 3.7 -3, "YEAR 1996 AND 2020 TRAFFIC DEMAND (NO
BUILD) ", page 3.7 -5 — this table indicates future ADT and peak hour
traffic increases of 1.7% and 10.1 %, respectively. These numbers,
particularly for the ADT, seem extremely low in light of the anticipated
increases on the other segments indicated. The table indicates that the
SR -22 will experience an increase of 23,000 ADT at the Beach
Boulevard -Knott Avenue segment, while the I-405 Freeway will only
experience an ADT increase of 5,700. This seems highly unlikely, as it
would mean that more than 17,OOOADT would exit the SR -22 between
Knott Avenue and Valley View, before entering the I -405.
Table 3.13 -2, "VISUAL RESOURCES ", page 3.13 -9 — There is no
discussion as to the visual resources of the U.S. Naval Weapons Station,
which provides clear views from the I-405 Freeway to south of
Westminster Avenue, and between the I- 405/SR -22 interchange and Seal
Beach Boulevard. This viewshed is approximately 9,000 feet in length
and provides an unobstructed view of approximately 1200 acres of open -
space lands.
Section 4.1.2.0, page 4.1 -3 — The discussion indicates that since the "...
project would include only widening of an existing facility in this area: it
would not expose people to a new hazard." There needs to be a more
complete discussion of the seismic impacts of the Newport- Inglewood
and Whittier Faults on the proposed HOV connectors between the 1-
60511 -405 and I- 405/SR -22 interchanges. The construction of elevated
HOV connectors is an increased seismic risk issue that is not even
discussed and there is no indication as to the mitigation measures to be
implemented to reduce those risks to an acceptable level.
The DEHUEIS document should include detailed trip allocation
percentages along the entire freeway route and at each interchange on
the route, including freeway to freeway interchanges and arterial street
interchanges. This would allow interested parties to understand the basic
trip allocation assumptions utilized in the traffic analysis and allow for
informed comments on those assumptions. If that type of information is
available in the technical appendix, it should be included within the main
DEIR/EIS document so that a general reader of the document does not
have to search extensively to obtain a clear and concise understanding of
SK22 Public Comment Fmm - Wbittenbali 2
J
Public Comments
Without an understandable presentation of the length and height of all
freeway -to- freeway HOV connectors, it is impossible for impacted
jurisdictions and individuals to adequately understand the full nature of
the contemplated project. Without a full and complete disclosure of
these important project design details the document is flawed. This
information needs to be presented within the DEIR/EIS and re- circulated
for public review and comment. Noise, light, and glare mitigation
measures set forth in the DEIR/EIS may be totally inadequate in
reducing these impacts from substantial numbers of vehicles utilizing the
HOV connectors upon adjoining properties and neighborhoods.
Section 4.9.4, page 4.9 -12 — This section discusses the cost/benefit
analysis procedure utilized by Caltrans to determine if the provision of a
noise wall as sound mitigation is "feasible ". A number of criteria are
discussed. It is also indicated that "As more information such as
topographic surveys becomes available, the reasonable allowance for
each wall will be recalculated during the design phase and if the cost of
any wail is not reasonable, they might be eliminated from this project"
This clearly indicates that committed mitigation measures within the
DEIR/EIS may not remain as commitment's. If that is the case, the
analysis should be revised to provide an analysis of each proposed sound
wall if it eliminated, and the resultant noise impacts to adjacent and
nearby properties. The document should be revised and re- circulated for
public review and comments with this new information provided. It in
unrealistic to indicate that necessary mitigation measures to eliminate a
known and identified substantial adverse impact would be eliminated
based on a cost/benefit analysis.
The analysis also indicates that the highest noise barrier proposed is 16
feet high. The analysis does not indicate the noise reduction provided if -
a higher wall system is provided by the use of retaining walls,
topological ground revisions, etc. These alternatives should be evaluated
and discussed as the potential increase in noise reduction that may be
created.
Table 4.9 -7 "EXISTING, PREDICTED, AND ABATED FUTURE
NOISE LEVLELS FOR FULL BUILD ALTERNATIVE" and Table
4.9 -10 "EXISTING, PREDICTED, AND ABATED FUTURE NOISE
LEVLELS FOR REDUCED BUILD ALTERNATIVE ", pages 4.9 -14-
.17 and 4.9- 21 -24, respectively. Both of these tables.indicate that the
existing noise barriers in Seal Beach will not be increased in height since
the anticipated noise reduction by so doing is less than SdBA. The
height of the noise barrier at location 3 is only 14 feet. An analysis of
the noise reduction at this location is not specified in the DEIR/EIS. It
requested that the analysis for this location, and other locations within
the project area that we less than 16 -feet in height be included within the
DEIR/EIS. This analysis and the determinations to support the
SR2 Public Comment Form - Wtun nberg 3
conclusion of no additional noise mitigation should be clearly and
specifically set forth. That information will allow the impacted local
jurisdictions and adjoining property owners to fully understand the
criteria utilized by Caltrans in determining that less than a SdBA
reduction is not feasible. Unless this information is clearly presented,
the document is unacceptable and should be revised and re- circulated for
additional public review and comment.
Section 4.13.1, page 4.13 -6, View from the Freeway — This section
discusses views along the mainline of the freeway after project
implementation and provides at Figure 4.134 a view simulation of a
typical view along the mainline travel route. It is requested that a view
simulation be provided from both directions of all freeway -to- freeway
HOV connectors. In reviewing this section of the DEIR/EIS there is no
definitive discussion as to the height, length, beginning and ending
points of any of these connectors. It is an inadequate presentation of
information to the public when the document does not discuss the
impacts of what would seem to be extensive elevated structures
necessary to provide the proposed freeway -to- freeway HOV connectors
throughout the entire project length. Based on those view simulations it
may appropriate to provide a view simulation from: the rear yards of
homes along Martha Ann in Rossmoor, the Seal Beach Boulevard
overpass at the I-405 towards the I -406/1 -605 HOV connectors; and from
Bolsa Chica Road north towards the I- 405/SR -22 HOV connectors.
Section 4.13.8, page 4.13 -29 — Mitigation Measures VIS -1713-1, VIS -FB-
3, and VIS -FB4 should be revised to clearly indicate as follows:
❑ VIS -FB -I — This measure should be revised to indicate that Caltrans
should be responsible for development of an appropriate open space
utilization plan and long -term maintenance program for those
properties, with approval of the plans and financing programs by the
City. The maintenance program responsibilities could be met by the
provision of an annuity or other financial mechanism to provide a
long -term revenue source to provide the required maintenance
funding.
❑ VIS -FB -3 — This measure should be revised to indicate Caltrans
should be responsible for the proposed landscaping outside of
Caltrans rights -of -ways. This should include development of an
appropriate open space utilization plan and long -term maintenance
program for those properties, with approval of the plans and
financing programs by the impacted City. The maintenance
program responsibilities could be met by the provision of an annuity
or other financial mechanism to provide a long -term revenue source
to provide the required maintenance funding. For modifications to
existing Caltrans rights -of -ways, the impacted city should have the
capability to review and provide comments on the proposed re-
landscaping plans.
❑ VIS -17134 — Same comments as above as related to landscape
proposals for noise barrier walls.
SRII Public Couunent Form - whittenbecg 4
Public Comments
r
J
City Council Staff Report re:
Consideration of Comment Letter re:
State Route 221West Orange County Connector
• Draft Environmental Impact Repot/Environmental Impact Statement
October 22, 2001
0 C
ATTACHMENT 5
•
•
CITY OF SEAL BEACH COMMENT
LETTER TO ORANGE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY RE:
NOTICE OF INITIATION OF STUDIES - SR-
22 AND I405 IMPROVEMENTS,
DEIR -EIS Review.CC Staff Re n 17
June 22, 1998 '
Orange County Transportation Authority
Attu: Clarita Iao, Principal Project Manage
555 South Main Street
Orange, CA 92863 -1584
Dear Ms. Lao: OF
SUBJECT: CITY
ANON OFEAC�COMIVIENrSRRE: NOTICE 5
IMPROVEMENTS
The City of Seal Beach has revlewcn the "Notice of Initiation of Studies,. date y [he
1998 and the attached 'Notice of preparanon ", dated May 21, 1998, and appreciates
opportunity to pmvide comments on those documents.
The City of Scat Bach ha eCnatnry of orange Master Plan of Arterial hHighrways
Management Areas (GMAS),
and other funding sources for a bridge- widening project at Seal Beach Boulevard- The
City is currently processing a Draft EIR for the Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Project'
and will begin the public hearing process for the requested Central Plan amendments and
Zone Changes for the proposed project in July- August, 1998. Development Impact fees
from the proposed project would provide the majority of the local thatching funds for the
bridge - widening projxt. The City of Sal Beach is concerned about coordination issues
relating to the bridge widening project and the impacts of the various alternatives being
considered by OCiA and Caltrans in relation to this portion of the project area. The City
requests early consultation between our staff and OCTA/Caltrans staff to resolve issues of
concem.
The City takes this opportunity to go on record as being extremely concealed aboouany
right-of-way, acquisition that would impact the College Park Fart neighborhood.
the I-405 freeway between Sal Beach Boulevard and Valley View Street. This
neighborhood is located immediately adjacent to the 1.405 Ftccway right -of -way, and any
further encroachment into this residential neighborhood would be extremely detrimental to
the neighborhood and to the City of Seal Bach.
e:.mr [bcuvem.iEnl5i5x -]_' 4iii�.iu,n of 5ud'e. I.+ier.CC.dxLLw'.D6 -10.06
C;y ofs,.l B""M Cwrvn.a t< "r n;
SA -221N+ &. ejSrudr"r
lw. 22. IM
In reviewing the "Notice of Preparation ", the City has three comments regarding the
Initial Study Checklist The fist oomment dates to page 13, Item l.d, — Affect
agricultural resources. It is noted that the Initial Study indicates any impacts to prime
farmlands "are expected to be less than significant ". Appendix G of the California
FstvironmenW Quality Act (CEQA) states that a Projw will have a significant impact if it
would "convert prime" agricultural lands to non - agricultural use or impair the agricultural
productivity of -prime" agricultural land. Therefore, any loss of "prime agricultural
land" is a significant impact under CEQA, and the initial Study should be revised to
indicate this potential significant impact
Secondly, page 19 discusses air quality impacts. The City requests the air quality analysis
include an analysis of CO "hotspots" at adjacent freeway on/off ramp locations, and
development of appropriate mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a level of
insignifitanm.
Lastly, page 29 discusses impacts to existing recreational opportunities. This section
should be revised to indicate the City of Seal Beach is currently processing a development
application for the Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center project which, if ultimately approved
by the City Council, would dedicate the existing Bixby Old Ranch Tennis Club to the City
Of Seal Beach as a public recreation facility. This existing recreation facility is located
immediately adjacent to the 1-405 Freeway. In addition, this section should indicate if the
Proposed project would impact the existing bicycldequestrian trail along the San Gabriel
River, which is a regional trail providing access from the pacific Ocean to the San Gabriel
Mountains.
Please provide copies of future documentation regarding this project to Mr. I,=
Whittenberg, Director of Development Smites, City of Seat Beach, 211 Eighth Street,
Sea. Beach, bm 90740. If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact
Mr. Whittutberg at (562) 431 -2527, extension 213. He will be most happy to provide
clarification or additional information.
Sincerely,
B
Mayor, City of Seal Beach
m: City Council
planning Commission
Environmental Quality Control Board
City Manager ' Director of Development Services
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SR- 21 -1 Sw ie, I'v r.CC.dm
I
City Council Staff Report re:
Consideration of Comment Letter re:
State Route 22 1West Orange County Connector
• Draft Environmental Impact ReportlEnvironmenml Impact Statement
October 21, 2001
v °
ATTACHMENT 6
•
F-1 L
RESOLUTION NO. , A RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SEAL BEACH AUTHORIZING BUDGET
AMENDMENTS FOR THE 2001 -2002 FISCAL
YEAR
DEIR -EIS Re mi .CC Staff Report 18
A
0
0 t+�F SEA! BF.✓
9 p =.
" "�`� Memorandum
To: Mayor Doane and Members of the City Council
Attention: John Bahorsld, City Manager
Quinn Barrow, City Attorney 0�
From: Lee Whittenberg Director of Development Services
Date: October 18, 2001
SUBJECT: EQCB REVISIONS TO CITY COMMENT LETTER —
DEIR/EIS on SR- 22/WEST ORANGE COUNTY
CONNECTION
The Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) considered the draft City comment letter
on the DEIR/EIS on October 18, and recommends the following amendments to the letter be
incorporated into the final letter as approved by the City Council:
Comment Letter:
Comment Letter — Page 2, paragraph 2, line 2:
Comment Letter — Page 3, paragraph 2, line 5
"adverse".
Comment Letter — Page 4, last paragraph,
"Primrose Circle".
Enclosure A•
Add a comma after "unaltered ".
: After the word "avoid ", add the word
line 10: Change "Primrose Place" to
❑ Enclosure A — page 3, line 1: Revise to read as follows: ".. City's concerns remain
unheeded and the two "build" project alternatives remain unaltered, or new right-of-way
alignment and/or design ahernadves added and idendfied as the `preferred project"
by the Lead Agencies, the comments presented herein .." (Note: language added
indicated by bold and italics.)
AGENDA ITEM,
C:My �R -22 DEIR- EISTQCBCa� Manodoc V. ]� M]
Memorandum to City Council re: EQCR Comments on Draft Comment Letter
forDEIMS— SR- 22IWest Orange County Connection
October 18, 2001
❑ Enclosure A — page 57, Section 3.20, paragraph 3, line 6: Add " "not" between `thus"
and `requiring„
Enclosure B•
Enclosure B — page 14, Comment 40: Add a final sentence to read as follows: "!n addition,
the City requests that particular attention be paid to property security issues in developing
the referenced control measures The loss of the existing noise barrier walls will expose
the College Park East community to potential criminal activity if appropriate measures
are not taken to alleviate direct access from the freeway to the residential community."
(Note: language added indicated by bold and italics.)
EQCR Comment M.
October 18, 2001
STAFF REPORT
E I
MS
To: - Chairperson and Members of the Environmental Quality Control Board
From: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
SUBJECT: REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF COMMENT LETTER
RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT /ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
RE: "STATE ROUTE 22/WEST ORANGE COUNTY
CONNECTION" - CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, ORANGE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, AND FEDERAL
HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
BACKGROUND:
Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration ("FHA") (collectively "the lead agencies ")
have released a Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
( "DEWEIS ") for a project they describe as the "State Route 22/West Orange County
Connection." As described more fully below, the City Council has directed staff to conduct a
thorough review and comment on the DEIR/EIS. Our review of the DEIR/EIS has revealed
numerous shortcomings in the document. As the review process by the City is now concluded, it
is essential that the City submit written comments to the agencies involved regarding the
adequacy of the DEIRJEIS document. The timely submittal of written comments serves two
basic purposes. First, the City's comment letter contains a significant amount of information that
should help guide the decision- making process in a direction that will lessen the significant
impacts of the potential project on the City. Second, if the City's suggestions are ultimately
ignored or rejected, providing timely written comments will protect the City's subsequent right
to bring a legal challenge if the project is approved in a form that is unacceptable to the City, or
through a process that does not comply with the law.
The environmental review of this project is proceeding on a dual track simultaneously. A draft
EIR has been prepared by OCTA and Caltrans pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act ( "CEQA ") because state and local agencies are proposing to undertake a project that will
have significant effects on our environment. The Federal Highway Administration has caused an
Environmental Impact Statement to be prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
C:Wy DocummbSRQ2 DEIR- EIS \DEIR- EIS.EQCB Smff Re ort.&c \LW\IO -0MI
Environmental Quality Control Board StaffRepon re:
Consideration of Comment Letter re:
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connector
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
o October 18, 2001
0
Act ( "NEPA ") because federal funds are proposed to be spent on the project. Although CEQA
and NEPA permit the use of this joint EUVEIS process, slightly different rules regarding the
legal adequacy of required documents apply in certain situations. The City's draft comment
letter addresses both CEQA and NEPA issues.
PROJECT OVERVIEW, PROJECT ALTERNATIVES AND POTENTIAL
AREAS OF CONCERN TO CITY OF SEAL BEACH:
Project Overview:
The project under consideration in the DEIR/EIS proposes to improve State Route 22 (SR -22) from
SR -55 to I-405 (20.1 km) and 1405 from SR -22 to I -605 (5.3 km) inclusive of the freeway -to-
freeway interchanges, as well as a section of the former Pacific Electric right -of -way between SR-
22 in the City of Garden Grove and Bristol Street in downtown Santa Ana (4.5. km). The entire
project is known as the SR- 22/West Orange County Connection.
The freeways, major surface streets and interchanges proposed to be improved by this project
have insufficient capacity to handle existing and projected travel demand between the SR -55
interchange and the Los Angeles County line, and to and from destinations within the corridor.
The situation is aggravated by inadequate freeway interchanges, lack of continuous parallel
arterial routes and available arterial/intersection capacity, absence of alternatives to single -
occupant- vehicle travel (HOV lanes or transit services); and lack of a major program of
Transportation System Management (TSM) /Enhanced Bus strategies.
Potential transportation improvements considered as part of the SR- 22/West Orange County
Connection project include:
• A new High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane in both directions between the 1-405 and SR-
55
• An additional HOV lane in both directions of I -405 between I -605 and SR -22
• Direct freeway -to- freeway HOV connectors between:
❑ I -605 and I405 (both directions)
❑ I405 and SR -22 (both directions)
❑ Eastbound SR -22 and southbound I -5
❑ Northbound I -5, and westbound SR -22
❑ Eastbound SR -22 and northbound SR -55
❑ Southbound SR -55 and westbound SR -22
• A continuous auxiliary lane in both directions of SR -22 between Beach Boulevard and I -5
nE1R- EIS.EQC8 StlffRa ,m 2
Environmental Quality Control Board Staff Report re:
Consideration of Comment Letter re:
State Route 221West Orange County Connector
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
October 18, 2001
❑ A new limited- access arterial branching south from SR -22 along the former Pacific Electric
right -of -way to central Santa Ana
Project Alternatives:
Both CEQA and NEPA, to some extent, require the preparing agencies to review a range of
alternatives to the proposed project in an effort to find alternatives that might meet some or all of
the goals of the preparing agencies while eliminating or reducing one or more environmental
impacts. The SR- 22/West- Orange County Connection project alternatives examined in the
DEIIUEIS involve transportation improvements to the SR -22 corridor, including portions of the 1-
405 and 1 -605.
Alternatives under consideration include:
• No Build Alternative — Both CEQA and NEPA require environmental documents to
consider a no- action or no- project alternative. This alternative represents the status quo, or
what would happen if none of the project elements included in the other alternatives were
implemented. The No Build Alternative encompasses only improvements to the
transportation network that have already been approved and funded. No capital
improvements for SR -22 are included under this alternative. The No Build Alternative
represents the existing highway, HOV, bus, fixed guideway, and Advanced Transportation
Systems (ATS), plus all transportation improvements programmed to be implemented by
2020, as outlined in OCTA's Fast Forward Long -Range Transportation Plan (FFTP)
Baseline Scenario.
• TSM/Expanded Bus Service Alternative — The TSM/Expanded Bus Service Mtemative
includes all of the improvements outlined in the No Build Alternative, in conjunction with
additional TSM and transit service strategies in the SR -22 corridor, such as more buses,
extended routes, and shorter headways (less time between buses): This alternative does not
include any capital improvements to the SR -22.
❑ Full Build rlltemative (Project Proposed) — The Full Build Alternative includes all of the
elements of the No Build and the TSM/Expanded Bus Service Alternatives, as well as the
specific project elements discussed above under `Project Overview'.
❑ Reduced Build Alternative — This alternative was created by eliminating certain elements
of the Full Build Alternative. The three major elements not included in this alternative are:
❑ The new arterial in the Pacific Electric right -of -way into Santa Ana;
❑ The HOV connectors between the SR -22 and 1 -5; and
❑ The HOV connectors between the SR -22 and SR -55.
These elements were eliminated to reduce environmental impacts related primarily to right -
of -way acquisition.
DE1R.EIS.EQC13 Statr Re oft
Environmental Quality Control Board SlaffRepon re:
Consideration ojComment Letter re.'
State Route 11/West Orange County Connector
Draft Environmental Impact ReportlEnvironmental Impact Statement
October 18. 2001
A copy of the complete Draft EIR/EIS document has previously been provided to the EQCB to
allow additional time for their review. One of the City's chief concerns after reviewing the
DEIR/EIS is the preparing agencies' inadequate analysis of alternatives to the project. The limited
exploration of alternatives in the DEIR/EIS makes it appear that the project may have been pre -
detemvned.
In addition, a "Briefing Book" has been distributed by Caltrans and OCTA, and this document
provides- a summary of project alternatives, project benefits, project impacts and right -of -way
needs, proposed soundwalls, public review and outreach, cost estimates and time schedule. A copy
of the "Briefing Book" is has also previously been provided to the City Council.
Areas of Concern to City of Seal Beach:
Given the issues of concern identified by staff, the City Council was requested and approved a
contract with Environmental Impact Sciences to review the DEIR/EIS and prepare a
comprehensive comment letter as to the adequacy of the document in complying with the legal
provisions of CEQA and NEPA. Refer to Attachment 1 for the draft comment letter. The
consultant has been coordinating his review with those of city staff, including the Planning
Department, City Attorney, and the contract traffic engineer, Bill Zimmerman. A thorough
review of the subject DEIR/EIS by City Council retained consultants and city staff has identified
the following major areas of concern that required detailed review, analysis, and formulation of
comments and concerns in the attached draft comment letter for EQCB and City Council
consideration:
❑ Potential acquisition of 6 homes within College Park East alone Almond Avenue
east of Almond Park. Design alternatives were investigated and have been proposed
by the City as project alternatives to eliminate the necessity of acquiring any residential
structures within the City. Design alteratives that are included within the proposed
comment letter include but are not limited to:
"Realignment of Proposed Project — Revised Design Criteria" Altemative. The
City has conducted preliminary design investigations that focus on developing a
realignment alterative to the Caltrans proposed project from SR -22 to I -405. From
our limited assessment, it has been determined that the project could be realigned to
the south with no impacts to College Park East. Further, the alterative project can be
accomplished within Caltrans right -of -way, i.e., no additional right -of -way required
for the project on the southerly side that would impact the Seal Beach Naval Weapons
Station. The alternative alignment considered pinch points at Primrose Place and the
Navy property line on the south for the southbound SR 22 ramp.
DEIR- EIS.EQCB staff Report
Environmental Quality Control Board Staff Report re:
Consideration of Comment Letter re:
State Route 221Wesi Orange County Connector
Draft Environmental Impact ReportlEnvironmental Impact Statement
October 18, 2001
The alternative alignment shifted the freeway to south approximately 3.6 meters. This
proposed realignment will miss the existing sound wall along Almond Avenue. The
project specifics we as follows:
❑ SR 22 westbound to 1 -405 northbound — increase control line radius to 1,215
meters with a longer curve length.
❑ 1 -405 northbound at SR 22 westbound — increase control line radius to 703.6
meters with a longer curve length.
❑ 1 -405 northbound between stations 104 +00 to 105 +40 - add a 1,000 -meter curve.
• The HOV connector is shifted to the south approximately 3.6 meters. An 844 -
meter curve is provided at station 107 +40.
• I405 southbound — add a 1,040 -meter curve between stations 104 +00 to 107 +40.
❑ I405 southbound between stations 107 +40 to 109 +00 - add an 844 -meter radius
curve.
❑ I405 southbound to SR 22 eastbound — the ramp configuration remains the same
with the exception of adding a 610 -meter curve at station 109 +30.
❑ Preservation of existing homes and reconfiguration of local street system
alternative. This alternative is proposed by reducing the width of Almond Avenue
and the use of approved design variations in lane width for the freeway lanes to not
require a taking of the indicated residential structures. This could result in no puking
on one or both sides of Almond Avenue east of Almond Park for a distance of
approximately 3 blocks (to Rose Circle).
❑ Southerly alignment impacting the northern portion of the Seal Beach Naval
Weapons Station alternative. This alternative proposes the relocation of the entire
freeway southerly to not require the taking of the identified homes in College Park
East on the north side of Almond Drive east of Almond Park. This alternative would
possibly require the acquisition of up to a 10 -foot sliver of land in an area necessary
to accommodate the widening.
These alternatives would reduce or eliminate one or more environmental impacts and should
have been included in the DEIR/EIS.
4 Aesthetic impacts of Noise Walls upon College Park East residential communitv and
park facilities - includine Old Ranch Tennis Club which is to dedicated to the City
by the Bixby Ranch Company.
DE1R- E1S.EQCB Soff Re,n
Environmental Quality Control Board Staff Report re.
Consideration of Comment Letter re:
State Route 22 13'est Orange County Connector
Draft Environmental Impact Reporanwronmental Impact Statement
October 18, 2001
❑ Aesthetic impacts upon College Park East and Leisure World of the Proposed
freeway -to- freeway HOV connectors at 1405 to 1 -605 and at I -405 to SR -22.
• Noise impacts of realignments of travel lanes, including noise impacts of anv
elevated HOV connectors.
• Light and glare impacts of realigned travel lanes and any elevated HOV connectors.
❑ Potential Phasing issues in the desian/construction of the Seal Beach Boulevard
overpass at the I405.
❑ Potential impacts to city Pump stations water reservoir facilities and other
public/orivate uses adjacent to the I405 and SR -22 This could have significant cost
impacts to the City and its residents.
The comment letter prepared focuses on the following primary areas of deficiency of the DEIR/EIS
document:
• Evidence of the Lead Agencies predetermination and lack of objectivity
• Failure to make critical documents readily available for public and agency review
• Failure to represent the DEIR/EIS as a "Tiered" Environmental Document
• Failure to provide an adequate description of "Alternatives" under consideration
• Failure to identify the "Preferred Project" despite its obvious existence
❑ Lack of comparable alternatives analysis
❑ Failure to present a reasonable range of Project Alternatives
• Failure to consider other alternative alignments and rights-of-way
• Failure to consider other alternative project designs
• Selection of wrong "Horizon Year" prevents long -range planning and analysis
❑ Failure to consider the "Whole of the Action"
❑ Project fragmentation/segmentation limits analysis and the range of alternatives
❑ Failure of the Lead Agencies to take a "hard look" at environmental consequences
❑ Failure to provide a comprehensive environmental analysis
• Failure to consider indirect and secondary impacts
• Failure to adequately evaluate cumulative impacts
• Implementation may foreclose other transportation options under consideration
• Failure to disclose location of and impacts from construction staging areas
• Failure to determine consistency with applicable General and Regional plans
• Failure to formulate a reasonable set of" Cbresholds of Significance Criteria"
• Identified Threshold criteria lack measurability
• Failure to formulate reasonable mitigation measures
DEIR- EIS.EQCB Suff Report 6
Environmental Quality Control Board Staff Report re:
Consideration of Comment Letter re:
State Route 22/W6t Orange County Connector
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
October 18, 2001
❑ Reliance on mitigation measures of unknown efficacy
❑ Compliance with standard practices not legitimate thresholds or mitigation
a Presentation of erroneous and illusory mitigation measures
❑ Deferral of technical analysis and mitigation violates NEPA/CEQA requirements
❑ All mitigation measures and analysis must originate from the Lead Agencies
❑ Monitoring Plans have-not been presented demonstrating the manner of compliance
❑ Recirculation and/or preparation of a Supplement to the DEIR/EIS required.
"Enclosure A" of the draft comment letter provides extensive- and thorough discussion regarding
the requirements of NEPA and CEQA in preparing a DEIS/EIR document, indicates where the
document has fallen short of those requirements, and provides appropriate recommendations as to
the necessary corrective actions to bring the document into compliance with the appropriate NEPA
and CEQA provisions.
This comment letter is focused primarily on the overarching issues and document deficiencies that
require extensive modifications to the document, potentially requiring either re- circulation of a
completely revised document or the preparation of a "Supplemental' DEIRIEIS. Given the
extensive amount of review and preparation of the draft comment letter, the short time period for
that evaluation to occur within, and the focus on those issues identified above, the draft comment
letter does not deal extensively with minor technical corrections or concerns: it deals with those
major deficiencies that need to be thoroughly addressed to address the legal and procedural
deficiencies. "Enclosure B" of the draft comment letter discusses technical corrections or concerns.
Staff would urge members of the EQCB to address any issues of concern not directly addressed in
the draft comment letter in their separate communication to Caltrans by the October 30 comment
deadline. Time constraints will not allow staff to significantly revise the draft comment letter
before the scheduled City Council consideration on October 22, this coming Monday.
Previous Review by EQCB and City Council:
In May 1998 the City received the "Notice of Initiation of Studies/Notice of Preparation — SR 22
and I -405 Improvements ". The City Council authorized the Mayor to sign a comment letter
regarding concerns of the City regarding the proposed project on June 22, 1998. A copy of the
1998 comment letter is provided as Attachment 5 for the information of the EQCB. The major
issues of concern in the 1998 comment letter were:
❑ Extremely concerned about any right -of -way acquisition that would impact the College
Park East neighborhood, north of the I -405 freeway between Seal Beach Boulevard and
Valley View Street. This neighborhood is located immediately adjacent to the I -405
DEIR- EIS.EQCB Staff Report 7
Environmental Quality Control Board StafReport re:
Consideration of Comment Letter re:
State Route 11 1West Orange County Connector
Draft Environmental Impact ReporUEnvironmental Impact Statement
October 18, 2001
Freeway right -of -way, and any further encroachment into this residential neighborhood
would be extremely detrimental to the neighborhood and to the City of Seal Beach.
The Initial Study indicated any impacts to prime farmlands "are expected to be less than
significant ". Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) states
that a project will have a significant impact if it would `convert prime" agricultural lands
to non - agricultural use or impair the agricultural productivity of "prime" agricultural
land. Therefore, any loss of "prime agricultural land" is a significant impact under
CEQA, and the Initial Study should be revised to indicate this potential significant
impact.
The City requested the air quality analysis include an analysis of CO "hotspots" at
adjacent freeway onloff ramp locations, and development of appropriate mitigation
measures to reduce impacts to a level of insignificance.
Impacts to existing recreational opportunities should indicate the City of Seal Beach is
currently processing a development application for the Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center
project which, if ultimately approved by the City Council, would dedicate the existing
Bixby Old Ranch Tennis Club to the City of Seal Beach as a public recreation facility.
This existing recreation facility is located immediately adjacent to the I405 Freeway. In
addition, this section should indicate if the proposed project would impact the existing
bicycle/equestrian trail along the San Gabriel River, which is a regional trail providing
access from the Pacific Ocean to the San Gabriel Mountains.
Environmental Impact Statement ":
OCTA and Caltrans have released the "State Route 22/West Orange County Connection Draft
Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Impact Statement" (DEIR/EIS) relative to the
proposed project, dated August 2001. A copy of the "State Route 22/West Orange County
Connection Draft Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Impact Statement" is
available at the Department of Development Services and the Office of the City Clerk at City Hall.
Hard copies are available at the Los Alamitos/Rossmoor Library, Mary Wilson Library, and
Leisure World Library within Seal Beach and the Garden Grove Regional Library. In addition, a
PDF version is available at the Caltrans website at www.dot.ca.eov /distl2, along with an on -line
comment form and additional information regarding the Draft EB2/EIS. A link to the Caltans
website is provided on the City's Web Page at www.ci.seal- beach.ca.us.
DEIR -EIS EQCB Sudr Re n
Environmental Quality Control Board Staff Report re:
Consideration of Comment Letter re:
State Route 12 1West Orange County Connector
Draft Environmental Impact ReportlEnvironmental Impact Statement
October 18, 2001
Public Comment Period:
The public comment period on the DERVEIS is August 31 to October 30, 2001. Written comments
will be accepted on the document until 5:00 P.M., October 30. A comment form is available at the
Caltrans website at www.dot.ca.Rov /distl2. Comments may also be submitted by mail to:
Caltrans District 12 Orange County
Attention: Division of Planning
c/o Leslie Manderscheid
3337 Michaelson Drive, Suite 380
Irvine, CA 92612 -8894
Communitv Presentation
A Community Presentation was conducted in the City Council Chambers on Tuesday, September
18 at 7:00 P.M. to allow city staff to present a presentation of the project and the project
alternatives. This community presentation focused on the overall project, with an emphasis as to
impacts directly affecting the City of Seal Beach and on providing information regarding the
EIR/EIS public review time period and the following decision process by Caltrans and OCTA.
Public Hearines:
Two public hearings were be held by Caltrans to afford interested parties the opportunity to learn of
the proposed project. Mayor Bill Doane, Couneilperson Patti Campbell, City Manger John
Bahorski and Director of Development Services Lee Whittenberg attended on behalf of the City
and provided written comments to Caltrans. Copies of those written comments are provided as
Attachment 4 for the information of the EQCB.
Upon the close of the public comment period, Caltrans will prepare a "Response to Comments"
document and the Final EIR/EIS, or a recirculated DE]R/EIS or a Supplemental DEIR/EIS will be
prepared. Upon completion of those documents Caltrans and OCTA will schedule additional
hearings to consider adoption of the Final EIR/EIS and take an action to approve or disapprove the
project or a project alternative.
RECOMWENDATION:
Staff recommends the EQCB review the Draft EIR/EIS, approve the draft comment letter with any
revisions determined appropriate, and authorize the Chairperson to sign after final approval by the
City Council. Authorize members of the Board to provide any additional separate comments
DER- EMEQCBStaff Re n 9
Environmental Quality Control Board Staff Report re:
Consideration of Comment Letter re:
State Route 22IWest Orange County Connector
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
October 18, 2001
directly to Caltrans with a copy to the Director of Development Services. Receive and File the
Staff Report. '
ee Whittenberg, Director
Department of Development S ' es
Attachments: (5)
Attachment 1: Draft Comment Letter re: "Draft Environmental Impact Report and
Environmental Impact Statement (SCH 98064001), State Route
22/West Orange County Connection"
Attachment 2: "State Route 22/West Orange County Connection Draft
Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Impact
Statement ", dated August 2001
Note: Complete document previously provided to City Council, not
provided due to length. It is available for review at: the Los
Alamitos/Rossmoor Library, Mary Wilson Library, and Leisure
World Library within Seal Beach; the Office of the City Clerk; and
the Development Services Department. In addition, a PDF version
is available at the Caltrans website at www.dot.ca.eov /distl2, along
with an on -line comment form and additional information regarding
the Draft EIRIEIS. A link to the Catms website is provided on the
City's Web Page at www.ci.seal- beach.ca.us.
Attachment 3: `Briefing Book — State Route 22 West Orange County
Connection ", Caltrans and OCTA, dated August 30, 2001
Note: Complete document previously provided. to EQCB, not
provided due to length.
Attachment 4: Public Comment Forms submitted at Caltrans September 26, 2001
Public Hearing. Comments submitted by Mayor Doane,
Councilperson Campbell, City Manager Bahorski and Director of
Development Services Whittenberg
DUR- EIS.EQCB Spff Report 10
Environmental Quality Control Board Staff Report re:
Consideration of Comment Letter re:
State Route 221West Orange County Connector
Draft Environmental Impact ReportlEnvironmental Impact Statement
October 18, 2001
0
Attachment 5: City of Seal Beach Comment Letter to Orange County
Transportation Authority re: Notice of Initiation of Studies — SR-
22 and 1-405 Improvements, letter dated June 22, 1998
DEIR- EIS.EQCB Suff Report 11
Environmental Quality Contra! Board Staff Report re:
Consideration of Comment Letter re:
State Route 22 1West Orange County Connector
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
October 18, 2001
ATTACHMENT 1
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SCH
98064001), STATE ROUTE 22/WEST ORANGE
COUNTY CONNECTION"
DEIR- EIS.EQCB Staff Rep n 12
October 22, 2001
Calttans District 12 Orange County
Attention: Division of Planning
cto Leslie Manderscheid
3337 Michaelson Drive, Suite 380
Irvine, CA 92612 -8894
SUBJECT: CITY OF SEAL BEACH COMMENTS RE: "DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (FHWA -EIS-
CA- 01 -04 -D /SCH 98064001), STATE ROUTE 221WEST
ORANGE COUNTY CONNECTION"
Dear Ms. Manderscheid
The Environmental Quality Control Board and the City Council of the City of Seal
Beach have reviewed the entire DEIR/EIS document referenced above. The Environmental
Quality Control Board (EQCB) considered and discussed the subject document on October
18, 2001. The EQCB authorized the Chairman to sign this letter indicating the official
comments of the EQCB of the City of Seal Beach. The City Council considered and
discussed the subject document on October 22, The City Council authorized the
Mayor to sign this letter indicating the; official comments of the City of Seal Beach.
The City's review of the DEIR/DEIS is undertaken, in part, in accordance with
and in furtherance of the requirements of the "City of Seal Beach General Plan" (General
Plan). As indicated in the City's Housing Element Program Implementation Review,"
the City shall `review all land use changes for impacts on community facilities and
services" (General Plan, Housing Element, p. 69). More specifically, the Housing
Element directs the City; to "encourage the maintenance and rehabilitation of existing
owner- occupied and rental housing where feasible" (General Plan, Housing Element,
Policy, p. 58). The proposed destruction of six or more housing units within Seal Beach
and the public acquisition of additional properties within the City, as required for the
proposed State Route 22/West Orange County Connection (SR22/WOCC) project,
appears inconsistent with a number of major policies found in the Seal Beach General
Plan.
CNyDwc enm \SR -22 DEIR -EMCity Comment LenecdmcLWV0 -09 -01
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
State Route 22IWest Orange County Connector
Draft Environmental Impact ReportlEnvironmental Impact Statement
October 22, 2001
The City will not support and will adamantly oppose the planned destruction of
homes within the City and the displacement of those families that now call Seal Beach
"home." From the perspective Of residential displacement, both the "Full Build
Alternative" and the "Reduced Build Alternative" result in the same loss of existing
housing inventory in Seal. Beach (see Table 4.6 -3, p. 4.6 -11 and Table 4.6 -7, p. 4.6 -19).
As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS: "It is important to note that a Reduced Build Alternative
was added to the original proposed project then known as the Build Alternative. This
alternative was included to minimize right -of -way and environmental impacts" (pp. 8 -8
and 8 -9). Based on that statement, there exists no reason that additional alternatives
could not also be formulated to further "minimize right -of -way and environmental
impacts," including the avoidance of impacts upon the six or more homes designed for
destruction in Seal Beach.
To the extent that the City's concerns remain unheeded and the two "build"
project alternatives remains unaltered or new right -of -way alignment and/or design
alternatives added and identified as the "preferred project" by the Lead Agencies, the
comments presented herein, as well as such other comments as may be submitted by the
City, its constituents, and others under separate cover, will be used as a basis for the
City's pursuit of other remedies as established under law. We request that specific
written responses be provided to each of the City's comments, that the comments and
your responses be made a part of the FinalEIR/EIS document and the record of this
proceeding. More fundamentally, the City of Seal Beach strongly requests that OCTA,
Caltrans and the Federal Highway: Administration give the warranted attention to our
comments and revise the document and the project accordingly.
In submitting the following comments, the City is not asserting its overall
opposition to the proposed SR22/WOCC project but seeks to forcefully convey to the
FHWA,.to Caltrans, and to other cooperating and responsible agencies, including the
Orange. County Transportation Authority (OCTA), that the impacts associated with the
project on Seal Beach and its residents are clearly unacceptable to the City. As a result,
the two "build" project alternatives presently outlined in the DEIR/DEIS (i.e., "Full Build
Alternative" and "Reduced Build Alternative ") are not acceptable and must be modified
to avoid or substantially lessen those direct and indirect impacts upon this community. If
so modified, either through a realignment of the proposed right -of -way and/or through
the identification of an additional. "build" alternative, the City believes that it can support
a modified or alternative transportation improvement project.
The City, however, believes that feasible solutions exist that would reduce
project - related impacts upon the human environment to an acceptable level. If a
cooperative environment; in fact, exists between the project sponsors and the project's
other stakeholders, such that the "build" project is subsequently modified or another
alternative formulated in response to the City's concerns, Seal Beach is prepared to
support a "build" project scenario and provide whatever coordination and cooperation
may be needed to facilitate the proposed improvements to the SR -22 Freeway. The
following comments, including the comments provided within the attachments to this
City Comment Lenin
City of Seal Beach Comment better re:
State Route 221West Orange County Connector
Drell Environmental Impact ReportlEnvironmental Impact Statement
October 22, 1001
cover letter, are intended to move the FHWA, Caltrans, and OCTA away from their
current "build" project description to one that both fulfills those agencies' objectives
while eliminating unacceptable impacts upon Seal Beach.
e
As indicated in Section 21082.2(a) and (e) of CEQA, statements in an
environmental impact report (EIR) "shall not be deemed determinative of whether the
project may have a significant effect on the environment," rather "the lead agency shall
determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment based on
substantial evidence in light of the whole record." As evidenced, in part, by these
comments, the City does not believe that the document's authors' adequately assessed
and disclosed the project's potential impacts on this community. Amongst its failings,
the document's threshold standards (against which impacts are evaluated) ignore the
project's context, suggesting that significant local impacts (e.g, destruction of homes) do
not constitute an impact worthy of mitigation, such as the consideration of other possible
alternatives (e.g., design changes, alternative alignments) thaf could avoid or substantially
lessen those impacts. *?`w
In accordance with NEPA, all "federal agencies shall to the fullest extent
possible: Use all practicable means consistent with the requirements of the Act [NEPA]
and other essential considerations of national policy, to restore and enhance the quality of
the human environment and avoid or minimize any possible adverse effects of their
actions on the quality of the human environment" (40 CFR 1500.2[q)., The need to avoid
impacts upon the City's human environment is, therefore, of paramount importance to all
parties.
Additional potential project - induced impacts to existing public facilities within
Seal Beach, including direct or indirect impacts, are not even addressed in the
DEIR%DEIS and constitute a substantive defect with the project's environmental analysis.
Those existing public facilities include
• The 4- million gallon Beverly Manor, _eservoir
• Existing compressed natural gas (CNG) fueling facilities'
❑ City storage building, and
❑ Cellular communication. towers.
Additional project relatei ands cumulative impacts to the City include, but may
not be limited to: C
13 Aesthetic imps;:. :'of sound walls upon the College Park East residential
community and park facilities, including the Old Ranch Tennis Club
• Aesthetic impacts upon the residential areas of College Park East, Leisure
World, and Rossmoor associated with the'elevated, high- occupancy vehicle
(HOV) connectors
• Noise impacts resulting from the realignment of travel lanes, including noise
impacts resulting from the construction of elevated HOV connectors
• Light and glare impacts associated with the realigned travel lanes and the
elevated HOV connectors
City con mt unrr
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
State Route 221FVest Orange County Connector
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmemal Impact Statement
October 22, 2001
Potential phasing issues in the design and construction of the Seal Beach
Boulevard overpass at the San Diego (1 -405) Freeway; and
Potential impacts to City pump stations and water reservoir facilities adjacent
to the Garden Grove (SR -22) and I405 Freeway.
By referencing the above. issues, Seal Beach is neither stating that other
environmental concerns are not of equal importance to the City nor that the City accepts
the analysis and preliminary findings of the Lead Agencies with regards to the other
topical issues addressed or not addressed in the DEIR/DEIS.
The comments presented herein are intended to convey, in the most forceful of
fashions, the City's environmental concerns, primarily as they relate to impacts on the
human environment. It is not the responsibility of the commenter to "dot every `i' and
cross every `t "' with regards to a document that it has scant time to review and limited
resources to allocate. The following comments, provided as attachments to this cover
letter, are more synoptic in nature and not as inclusive as'greater time and resources .
would allow.
Identification of Additional Alternatives:
In order to preserve the City's rights under NEPA and CEQA, the City submits
the following additional comments to the Lead Agencies, asserting its potential status as a
cooperating and/or responsible agency.
Based on a review of the DEMDEIS, as well as the City's own independent
alternatives analysis, a number of additional alternatives have been identified by the City
that have not been addressed . by the Lead Agencies. The City's independent technical
analysis suggests that implementation of one or more of the following alternatives would
avoid or reduce one or more of the project's potential significant impacts upon Seal
Beach. Since these alternatives are not now addressed in the DEIRIDEIS, the City
requests that the Lead Agencies aus", ent the DEIR/DEIS to include and provide a
thorough assessment of the following additional alternatives.
❑ `Realignment of Proposed Project — Revised Design Criteria"
Alternative. The City has conducted preliminary design investigations
that focus on developing a realignment .alternative to the Caltrans
proposed project from SR -22 to 1 -405. From our limited assessment, it
has been determined that the project could be realigned to the south with
no impacts to College Park East. Further, the alternative project can be
accomplished within Caltrans right -of -way, i.e., no additional right-of-way
required for the project on the southerly side that would impact the Seal
Beach Naval Weapons Station. The alternative alignment considered
pinch points at Primrose Place and the Navy property line on the south for
the southbound SR 22 ramp.
City Comment Loner
City of Sea/ Beach Comment Getter re:
State Route 22IWut Orange County Connector
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
October 22, 2001
The alternative alignment shifted the freeway to south approximately 3.6
meters. This proposed realignment will miss the existing sound wall along
Almond,Avenue. The project specifics are as follows:
• SR -22 westbound to I-405 northbound — increase control line radius to
1,215 meters with a longer curve length.
• I405 northbound at SR -22 westbound — increase control line radius to
703.6 meters with a longer curve length.
❑ I405 northbound between stations 104 +00 to 105 +40 - add a 1,000
meter curve. -
❑ The HOV connector is shifted to the south approximately 3.6 meters.
An 844 meter curve is provided at station 107 +40.
❑ I -405 southbound - a 1,040 meter curve is added between stations
104 +00 to 107 +40.
❑ I405 southbound between stations 197 +40 to 109 +00 - add an 844
meter radius curve.
❑ I405 southbound to SR -22 eastbound — the ramp configuration >.
remains the same with the exception of adding a 610 meter curve at
station 109 +30.
This alignment alternative meets the design criteria set for the project.
"Preservation of Existing Homes and Reconfiguration of Local Street
System" Alternative. As required under 23 CFR 710.509(a), "when
publicly owned real property, including land and /or facilities, is to be
acquired for a federal -aid highway project, in lieu of paying the fair
market value for the real property, the State may provide compensation by
functionally: replacing the publicly owned real property with another
facility which will provide equivalent utility." Federal and/or State right -
of -way acquisition efforts within Sea] Beach, as required for the
SR22 /WOCC project, would involve the acquisition of portions of one or
more local streets within the City.
Under this alternative, in lieu of the demolition of existing single - family
units in the City, the Lead Agencies would undertake the reconfiguration
of affected roadways so as to allow the retention of existing homes in Seal
Beach. Under this alternative, a portion of the Almond Street right -of-
way, east of Almond Park, may need to be modified, parking restrictions
established, and/or the road converted to a one -way street. As a
component of this alternative or as a separate alternative, reduced freeway
lane widths should be considered to reduce future right -of -way
requirements.
Design plans would need to be formulated to determine the feasibility and
functionality of this design concept. This design alternative would,
City Comment L Wr
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
State Route 221West Orange County Connector
Draft Environmental Impact RepordEnvironmental Impact Statement
October 22, 2001
however, constitute "functional replacement" within the meaning of the
Code of Federal Regulations.
a
"Southerly Alignment through the Seal Beach Naval Weapons
Station" Alternative. Although impacts on Seal Beach residents are
virtually ignored in the DEIR/DEIS, if the information and analysis
applied to different areas were equally applied to the City, a number of
significant project - related impacts would be identified (e.g.,; displacement
and loss of neighborhood cohesion). As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS, "the
Naval Weapons Base planning district makes up the entire area south of I-
405/SR-22, between Seal Beach Boulevard and Old Bolsa Chica Road" (p.
3.6 -6). The existing use of that area is indicated as `prime farmland" (p.
3.6 -11). Since no source is cited for that statement, it is not possible to
determine whether the existing agricultural uses now evident within the :..
USNWS is "prime farmland" or merely allocated for an agricultural use.
While acknowledging the loss of "prime farmlands" may constitute a
significant environmental effect under CEQA, under this alternative only a
narrow band of existing agricultural use would be directly affected. This
incremental reduction to a sensitive resource would likely constitute a
lesser environmental impact that the destruction of six or more homes in
Seal Beach and either the temporary or permanent displacement' of their
occupants. -
Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any analysis of or explanation for the Lead
Agencies' failure to consider an alternative right -of -way alignment that
would involve federal lands within the USNWS. The City believes that by
realigning the proposed improvements to shift the expanded right -of -way
- southward, not only would impacts on the City be reduced but additional
right -of -way could be preserved for the future expansion of the I405
..Freeway, identified as a "Post 2020 Long -Range Corridor. "'
As 'authorized under 23 CFR 710.601, "federal land transfers" are
authorized through the submission of an application to a federal land _
owning agency, such as the United States Department of the Navy (DON).
Applications under this section shall include the following infarmatiou:(1)
the purpose for which the lands are to be used; (2) the estate or interest in
the land required for the project; (3) the federal -aid project number or
other appropriate references; (4) the time of the federal agency exercising
jurisdiction over the land and identity of the installation or activity in
possession of the land; (5) a map showing the survey of the lands to be
acquired; (6) a legal description of the lands desired; and (7) a statement
of compliance with NEPA and any other applicable federal environmental
laws, including the National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470[f]),
and 23 USC 138. Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is either any reference to
City comment Lena
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
State Route 121West Orange County Connector
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
October 22, 2001
these provisions or evidence of the Lead Agencies discussions with the
DON (see Chapter 11.0, pp. 11 -1 through 11 -2) with regards to the
allocation of lands within the USNWS for right -of -way purposes. e
The DEIR/DEIS should, therefore, be expanded to include a more
southerly alignment through the USNWS. Although dealing with the
DON is probably more difficult that dealing with the City, political
expediency does not constitute a supportable basis for ignoring a viable
alternative whose implementation has the possibility of avoiding or
substantially reducing the potential impacts associated with 'the !`build"
alternatives now addressed in the DEIR/DEIS.
Identification of the City's Preferred Project Alternative"
As indicated in the Council of Environmental Qualn s. (CEQ) Forty Questions,
`if each agency has its own "preferred alternative," both can be identified in the EIS
(CEQ Forty Questions, Question 14[b]). In accordance therewith, subject to its inclusion
in the DEIR/DEIS and the Lead Agencies preparation of more detailed environmental
review therein, the City identifies the "Realignment of Proposed Project — Revised
Design Criteria" Alternative as the City's `preferred alternative." Implementation of
that alternative would likely result in the retention of all single- family residential units
located within Seal Beach that are now identified for displacement in the DEIR/DEIS and
that may be displaced in the future `asa result of the future expansion of the I-405
Freeways.
Since nothing even approximating this alternative has een identified by the Lead
Agencies and either rejected from `or .included in the DEIR/DEIS, the project's
environmental documentation needs to be augmented, re- circulated, or supplemented to
include a comparable evaluation of this alternative.
The City would like to extend its appreciation to the Lead Agencies for the
opportunity to participate in the NEPA and CEQA process. We look forward to an
opportunity for a constructive dialogue with regards to the items raised herein.
Prior to the release of the final NEPA/CEQA document, the recirculation of the
DEIR/DEIS, and/or the preparation of a supplemental analysis, representatives of the
City would like to meet -aWrepresentatives of FHWA, Caltrans, and the OCTA to
n.=
discuss the items and "issues raised both in these comments and as may be submitted
under separate cover. The City believes that such a meeting may prove beneficial in
resolving'the issues of concern to the City and its constituents.
Please contact Mr. John Bahorski, City Manager or Mr. Lee Whittenberg, Director
of Development Services, City Hall, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, 90740 if you have
questions concerning this. Mr. Bahorski can be reached at (562) -431 -2527, extension 300
and Mr. Whittenberg can be reached at (562) 431 -2527, extension 313.
City Comment Utter
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re.
State Route 221Wiut Orange County Connector
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
October 11, 1001
Sincerely,
William J. Doane
Joseph Porter III, Chairman
Mayor
Environmental Quality Control Board
City of Seal Beach
City of Seal Beach
Attachments: (2)
Enclosure A:
City of Seal Beach Comments — Draft Environmental Impact
Report and Environmental Impact Statement, State Route
22/West Orange County Connection — FHWA- EIS- CA -01-
04-D /SCH No. 980604001, submitted by City of Seal Beach,
Office of City Manager, dated October 2001
Enclosure B:
City of Seal Beach Supplemental Comments,' — Draft
Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Impact
Statement, State Route 22/West Oraaga County Connection
— FHWA- EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D /SCH No. 980604001, submitted
by City of Seal Beach, Department of Development Services,
dated October 8, 2001
Distribution:
Seal Beach City Council
Seal Beach Planning Commission
City Manager
Director of Development Services
City Commem Leiter
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
State Route 221West Orange County Connector
Draft Environmental Impact ReportlEnvironmental Impact Statement
October 21,1001
ENCLOSURE A
CITY OF SEAL BEACH COMMENTS -
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT, STATE ROUTE 22AVEST
ORANGE COUNTY CONNECTION - FHWA-
EIS- CA- 01- 04 -DISCH NO. 980604001,
SUBMITTED BY CITY OF SEAL BEACH,
OFFICE OF CITY MANAGER, DATED
City Comment Letter
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
COMMENTS
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
STATE ROUTE 22 /WEST ORANGE
COUNTY CONNECTION
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01- 04 -D /SCH NO. 980604001
Submitted to:
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Attn: Michael G. Ritchie, Division Administrator
980 Ninth Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, California 95814 -2724
(916) 498 -5038
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DISTRICT 12
Attn: Cindy Quon, District Director
3347 Michaelson Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, California 92612 -8894
(949) 724 -2089
Submitted by:
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Attn: John Bahorski, City Manager
211 Eight Street
Seal Beach, California 90740
(562) 431 -2527
October 2001
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 1
Table of Contents
Section
Page
a
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUBMISSION OF COMMENTS
1
1.1
Introduction
1
1.2
Submission of Comments
3
'^'"
2.0 AUTHORITY TO COMMENT
6
3.0 GENERAL COMMENTS
7
3.1
Evidence of the Lead Agencies' Predetermination and Lack of Objectivity
7
3.2
Failure to Make Critical Documents Available for Public and Agency Review
8
3.3
Failure to Represent the DEIR/DEIS as a "Tiered" Environmental Document
11
3.4
Failure to Provide an Adequate Description of the Alternatives under
Consideration
15
3.5
Failure to Identify the "Preferred Project" Despite its Obvious Existence
19
3.6
Lack of Comparable Alternatives Analysis
22
3.7
Failure to Present a Reasonable Range of Project Alternatives
22
3.8
Failure to Consider other Alternative Alignments and Rights -of -Way
26
3.9
Failure to Consider other Alternative Project Designs
28'
3.10
Selection of Wrong Horizon Year Prevents Long -Range Planning and Analysis
30
3.11
Failure to Consider the "Whole of the Action"
35
3.12
Project Fragmentation/Segr g tion Limits Analysis and the Range of Alternatives
36
3.13
Failure of the Lead Agencies �(o Take a "Hard Look" at Environmental
Consequences.
40
3.14
Failure to Provide a Comprehensive Environmental Analysis
41
3.15
Failure to Consider Indirect and Secondary Impacts
42
3.16
Failure to Adequately. Evaluate Cumulative Impacts
44
3.17
Implementation may Foreclose Other Transportation Options under Consideration
49
3.18
Failure to Disclose Location of and Impacts from Construction Staging Areas
50
3.19
Failure to Determine Consistency with Applicable General and Regional Plans
51
3.20
Failure to Formulate a Reasonable Set of Threshold of Significance Criteria
57
3.21
Identified Threshold Criteria Lack Measurability
63
3.22
Failure to Formulate Reasonable Mitigation Measures
64
3.23
Reliance on Mitigation Measures of Unknown Efficacy
66
3.24
Compliance. with Standard Practices not Legitimate Thresholds or Mitigation
68
3.25
Presentation of Erroneous and Illusory Mitigation Measures
71
3.26
Deferral of Technical Analysis and Mitigation Violates NEPA/CEQA Requirements
75
3.27
Failure to Examine Secondary Impacts
77
3.28
All Mitigation Measures and Analysis must Originate from the Lead Agencies
79
3.29
Monitoring Plans have not been Presented Demonstrating the Manner of
Compliance
79
3.30
Recirculation and/or Preparation of a Supplement to the DEIR/DEIS Required
80
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 1
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01- 04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
Table of Contents (Continued)
Section page
4.0 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT /ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 83
4.1 Summary 83
4.2 Purpose and Need 85
4.3 Alternatives 87
4.4 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures'' 88
4.4.1 Community Impact Assessment 91
4.4.2 Noise 93
4.4.3 Utilities 98
4.4.4 Visual Resources 99
5.0 COOPERATING /RESPONSIBLE AGENCY OBLIGATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES 105,
5.1 Identification of Additional Alternatives 106
5.2 Identification of the City's Preferred Pr
ge 108
6.0 EXTENSION OF THE CITY'S APPRECIATION 108
State Route 22 1West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page ii
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUBMISSION OF COMMENTS
1.1 Introduction
In response to the City of Seal Beach's (City or Seal Beach) review of the "Draft Environmental
Impact Report and Environmental Impact Statement - State Route 22/West Orange County
Connection, FHWA- EIS-CA- 01 -04 -D/SCH No. 980604001," dated August 2001 (DEIR/DEIS or
DEIR/EIS), the City hereby submits the following comments to the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) and to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in those agencies joint role
as "lead agency" under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). The City requests that the lead agencies provide written responses to these
comments as required by CEQA, and that the comments and responses become a part of the Final
EIR/EIS for this project. In many cases, as indicated below, adequate responses to the City's
comments will necessitate substantial revisions to, and recirculation of, the DEIR/EIS.
The City's review of the DEIR/DEIS is undertaken, in part, in accordance with and in furtherance of
the requirements of the "City of Seal Beach General Plan" (General Plan). As indicated in the City's
"Housing Element Program Implementation Review," the City shall "review all land use changes for
impacts on community facilities and services" (General Plan, Housing Element, p. 69). More
specifically, the Housing Element directs the City to "encourage the maintenance and rehabilitation
of existing owner-occupied and rental housing where feasible" (General Plan, Housing Element,
Polity, p. 58). The proposed destruction of six or more housing units within Seal Beach and the
public acquisition of additional properties within the City, as required for the proposed State Route
22AVest Orange County Connection (SR22/WOCO project, appears inconsistent with a number of
major policies found in the Seal Beach General Plan.-
Project - induced impacts to existing public' facilities within Seal Beach, including direct or indirect
impacts to the 4- million gallon Beverly Manor Reservoir, existing compressed natural gas ICING)
fueling facilities, City storage building, and cellular communication towers, are not even addressed
in the DEIR/DEIS and constitute a substantive defect with the project's environmental analysis.
m,c
•M >.
AdditionaE prolec[- related and cumulative impacts to the City include, but may not be limited to: (1)
aesthetic.` impacts of sound walls upon. the College Park East residential community and park
facilities, including the Old Ranch Tennis Club; (2) aesthetic impacts upon the residential areas of
College Park West, College Park East, Leisure World, and Rossmoor associated with the elevated,
high - occupancy;. vehicle (HOV) connectors; (3) noise impacts resulting from the realignment of
travel lanes, including noise impacts resulting from the construction of elevated HOV connectors;
(4) light and glare impacts associated with the realigned travel lanes and the elevated HOV
connectors; (5) potential phasing issues in the design and construction of the Seal Beach Boulevard
overpass at the San Diego (I -405) Freeway; and (6) potential impacts to City pump stations, water
reservoir, and other utility facilities adjacent to the Garden Grove (SR -22) and 1 -405 Freeway. By
referencing the above issues, Seal Beach is neither stating that other environmental concerns are
not of equal importance to the City nor that the City accepts the analysis and preliminary findings
of the lead agencies with regards to the other topical issues addressed or not addressed in the
DEIR/DEIS.
In submitting the following comments, the City is not asserting its overall opposition to the
proposed SR22/WOCC project but seeks to forcefully convey to the FHWA, to Caltrans, and to
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 1
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA -01- 04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
other cooperating and responsible agencies, including the Orange County Transportation Authority
(OCTA), that the impacts associated with the project on Seal Beach and its residents are clearly
unacceptable to the City. As a result, the two 'build' project alternatives presently outlined in the
DEIR/DEIS (i.e., "Full Build Alternative' and 'Reduced Build Alterna ive') are not acceptable and
must be modified to avoid or substantially lessen those direct and indirect impacts upon this
community. If so modified, either through a realignment of the proposed right -of -way and/or
through the identification of an additional "build' alternative, the City believes that it can support a
modified or alternative transportation improvement project.
The comments presented herein are intended to convey, in the most forceful of fashions, the City's
environmental concerns, primarily as they relate to impacts on the human environment. It is not
the responsibility of the commentator to 'dot. every 'i' and cross every 't" with regards to a
document that it has scant time to review and limited resources to allocate. The following
comments are, therefore, more synoptic in nature and not as inclusive as would greater time and
resources would allow.
As indicated in Section 21082.2(a) and (e) of CEQA, statements in an environmental impact report
(EIR) 'shall not be deemed determinative of whether the project may have a significant effect on the
environment,' rather "the lead agency shall determine whether project may have a significant
effect on the environment based on substantial evidence in light of the whole record.' As
evidenced, in part, by these comments, the City does not believe that the document's authors'
adequately assessed and disclosed the project's potential impacts on this community. Amongst its
failings, the project proponents' threshold standards (against which impacts are evaluated) ignore
the project's context, suggesting that significant local impacts (e.g., destruction of homes) does not
constitute an impact worthy of mitigation, such as the consideration of other possible alternatives
(e.g., design changes, alternative alignments) that could avoid or substantially lessen those impacts.
In accordance with NEPA,. all "federal agencies shall to the fullest extent possible: Use all
practicable means consistent with the requirements of the [National Environmental Policy] Act and
other essential considerations of nation policy, to restore and enhance the quality of the human
environment and avoid or minimize any possible adverse effects of their actions on the quality of
the human environment' (40 CFR 1300.2[f[). The need to avoid impacts upon the City's human
environment is, therefore, of paramount importance to all parties.
The City will not support and will adamantly oppose the planned destruction of homes within the
City and the displacement of those families that now call Seal Beach "home.' From the perspective
of residential displacement, both the -Full Build Alternative' and the 'Reduced Build Alternative'
result in the same loss to the existing . housing inventory in Seal Beach (see Table 4.6-3, p. 4.6 -11
and Table 4.6 -7, p. 4.6 -19). As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS: "It is important to note that a Reduced
Build Alternative was added to the original proposed project then known as the Build Alternative.
This alternative was included to minimize right -of -way and environmental impacts' (pp. 8-8 and 8-
9). Based on that statement, there exists no reason that additional alternatives could not also be
formulated to further "minimize right -of -way and environmental impacts,' including the avoidance
of impacts upon the six or more homes designed for destruction in Seal Beach.
As described more fully below, the two 'build' project alternatives must be altered dramatically. A
new right -of -way alignment and /or design alternatives that do not adversely and disproportionately
effect the citizens of Seal Beach must be explored by the lead agencies. To the extent that the
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 2
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01- 04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
City's concerns remain unheeded and the two "build" project alternatives remain unaltered, the
comments presented herein, as well as such other comments as may be submitted by the City, its
constituents, and others under separate cover, will be used as a basis for the City's pursuit of other
remedies as established under law.
The City, however, believes that feasible solutions exist that would reduce project - related impacts
upon the human environment to an acceptable level. If a cooperative environment, in fact, exists
between the project sponsors and the project's other stakeholders, such that the "build" project is
subsequently modified or another alternative formulated in response to the City's concerns, Seal
Beach is prepared to support a "build" project scenario and provide whatever coordination and
cooperation may be needed to facilitate the proposed improvements to the SR -22 Freeway. The
following comments are intended to move the FHWA, Caltrans,,and OCTA away from their current
"build" project description to one that fulfills those agencies' objectives . while eliminating
unacceptable impacts upon Seal Beach.
1.2 Submission of Comments }w'
The following comments are submitted to the FHWA (NEPA Lead Agency), to Caltrans (CEQA Lead
Agency), and to the OCTA by the City in response to the City's receipt and preliminary review of
the DEIR/DEIS. These comments are presented within the ''comment period established by the
NEPA Lead Agency and CEQA Lead Agency (Lead Agencies) for the receipt of comments on the
DEIR/DEIS and, by their submission, are intended to become 'part of the environmental review
record (ERR) for the proposed SR22/WOCC project. Any information contained in the ERR can be
used by Seal Beach or others should any judicial proceedings be brought against the Lead Agencies
with regard to their failures to fully comply with the analytical and disclosure provisions of NEPA
and CEQA.
As represented by the Lead Agencies, the DEIR/DEIS has been prepared in compliance with the
provisions of CEQA, as codified in Section 21000 et seq. in the Public Resources Code (PRQ and
NEPA, as codified in Title 42, Section 4321 et seq., of the United States Codes (USQ. As defined
under NEPA, the proposed SR22/WOCC project constitutes a 'major federal action affecting the
quality of the human environment" (Section 102[2][C],;;NEPA). A "major federal action" includes
actions with effects that may be major and are potentially subject to federal control and
responsibility, including projects and programs entirely or partially financed, assisted, conducted,
regulated, or approved by federal agencies.
The basic tenet of NEPA is "to use all practical means and measures ...to create and maintain
conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social,
economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans" (Section 101[a],
NEPA). Iris, therefore, the responsibility of the FWHA "to use all practical means" to "assure for all
Americans safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings"
(Section 101[b][21, NEPA). As further indicated in NEPA, federal agencies are required to consider
environmental values in decision making through the preparation of a "detailed statement" on
"major federal actions" and consider "alternatives to the proposed action" (Section 102[7][C][iii],
NEPA) designed to "avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human
environment" (40 CFR 1502.1). When alternatives or other modifications are readily available that
would serve to eliminate or substantially reduce significant project- related impacts upon the
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 3
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Stateftient
FHWA- EIS- CA -01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
"human environment" (40 CFR 1508.14), NEPA directs public agencies to actively pursue those
alternatives.
Notwithstanding. the existence of other alternatives whose implementation would reduce or
eliminate one or more of the project's impacts upon Seal Beach, the Lead Agencies have limited
the project's environmental analysis to only two "build" project scenarios producing comparable
impacts upon the City. The Lead Agencies failure to identify and consider other "build" alternatives
producing lesser impacts is, therefore, clearly inconsistent with the basic tenet of NEPA.
Similarly, as required under CEQA, "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' (Section 21002, CEQA) and "each
public agency shall mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment of projects that it
carries out or approves whenever it is feasible to do so" (Section 21002.1 [b], CEQA). Since it is the
goal of the State that all public agencies regulate their actions "so that major consideration is given
to preventing environmental damage" (Section 21000[g], CEQA), publicly sponsored development...
projects (such as the SR22/WOCC project) may, therefore, need to be constrained or otherwise`
limited by the ability of those same public agencies to fully mitigate the environmental effects of
their own actions. As indicated herein, the Lead Agencies have the ability 4o accomplish the
project's objectives white avoiding significant impacts Seal Beach. The Lead Agencies failure
to pursue those alternative actions constitutes a violation of CEQA.
In addition to NEPA and CEQA, the DEIR/DEIS must conform to anumber of other related
documents, including the Council of Environmental Quality's (CEQ) "Regulations for Implementing
the Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act" (CEQ Regulations), codified in 40 CFR
Parts 1500 -1508 and established in response to Executive Order 11514 (March 5, 1970). Pursuant
to the CEQ Regulations, "agencies shall integrate the NEPA process with other planning at the
earliest possible time to insure that planning and decisions reflect environmental values, to avoid
delays later in the process, and to head off potential conflicts" (40 CFR 1501.2). Prior to the release
of the DEIR/DEIS, Seal Beach received no prior notification that a number of existing residential
units within the City would be 'destroyed to accommodate the proposed improvements. If so
consulted, Seal Beach would have willingly worked with the Lead Agencies to formulate other
'build' project alternatives that would: have avoided those disastrous impacts to the City's residents.
The Lead Agencies' failure to fully involve the City in the planning process only serves to
demonstrate those agencies' failure to comply with applicable environmental requirements, and
provides substantial evidence that the outcome of this decision - making process is predetermined.
Specifically, Caltrans has failed to consult with the City as a public agency with transportation
facilities in its jurisdiction which could be affected by the project — such as major local arterials — in
violation of Public Resources Code Section 21092.4.
In addition to the CEQ Regulations, although not explicitly referenced in the DEIR/DEIS, the
following documents serve to define and establish specific requirements upon the Lead Agencies
with regards to the project's environmental documentation. As a result, the following documents
are cited herein and the statutory and regulatory requirements outlined therein constitute binding
obligations upon the Lead Agencies: (1) the FHWA's "Environmental Guidebook," dated October
1999 (FHWA Environmental Guidebook); (2) FHWA's Technical Advisory T6640.8A, "Guidance
for Preparation of Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents," dated October 30, 1987 (FHWA
Technical Advisory T6640.8A); (3) Caltrans/California Transportation Commission's "Regulations
State Route UfWest Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 4
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS-CA -01 -04 -0 / SCH No. 98064001
for Implementing CEQA" (Caltrans/CTC CEQA Regulations), codified in Title 21, Division 2,
Chapter 11, Sections 1501 - 1512.3 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR); (4) Caltrans'
"Environmental Handbook, Volumes 1, 3, and 4," dated March 6, 1995, January 2000, and June
1997, respectively ( Caltrans Environmental rHandbook); (5) FHWA/Caltrans' "Joint Federal
Highway Administration California Division and California Department of Transportation 'Standard
Reference' of Federal Environmental Legislation Affecting Transportation and Guidance on
Preparing NEPA Documents and Section 4(f) Evaluations," dated January 1999 (Standard
Reference); and (6) the 'Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act' (State CEQA
Guidelines), codified in Section 15000 et seq. in Title 14, Chapter 3, of the CCR. Additional
information concerning the SR22/WOCC project has been obtained from OCTA's "State Route 22
West Orange County Connection Briefing Book; dated August 30, 2001 (Briefing Book), as well as
from a number of other cited sources.
Although each of these documents is referenced extensivelyf Herein, unless otherwise noted, all
page references cited in these comments relate to information presented in the DEIR/DEIS. Page
references to other documents may reflect the corresponding page number found in documents
"downloaded" from the Internet, which could differ from the original published text. Those and
other citations are presented for convenience only and any errors, exclusions, or misstatements in
those citations or in these comments are unintended and should not be used by the Lead Agencies
as a defensible rationale for avoiding the preparation of a detailed technical response to those
issues, comments, or inquires presented herein. Similarly, all such issues, comments, and inquires
should be interpreted as broadly as practical and reasonable to ensure the preparation of an
adequate technical written response. In that context, although a comment or statement may be
presented in response to a specific item of information presented in the DEIR/DEIS, to the extent
that the comment or statement may also be relevant to other items or analyses contained therein,
the comment or statement should not be construed as relevant only to the item or analyses for
which the comment or statement is first presented. For brevity, each specific comment or statement
is not repeated with regards its application to other information contained in the DEIR/DEIS and
should be interpreted as broadly as reasonably possible.
Certain words extracted from other documents, which are capitalized or presented in lower case in
the cited text, have been modified herein. Such modifications, however, are not intended to
change the meaning or context of those words but merely to provide internal consistency
throughout these comments or to facilitate placement of those excerpts into the context of the
specific comment.
Although each sentence herein may not be structured in the form of a specific question, each of the
statements presented in this document are intended to elicit a formal written response from the
Lead Agencies. Each sentence, statement, declaration, issue, or inquiry herein constitutes a specific
"substantive comment" on the DEIR/DEIS and, as such, requires a formal written response by the
Lead Agencies (e.g., 40 CFR 1303.4; Section 15088[a], State CEQA Guidelines). Similarly, all
references to the singular should also be interpreted to apply to the plural since specific. City
comments have or may have application to other statements in the DEIR/DEIS where those same
comments would be relevant. Also, specific words used herein are intended to have multiple
meanings. For example, because of their potential interrelationship, the terms 'alternatives' and
"mitigation measures" are assumed to be interchangeable.
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 5
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EI5- CA -01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
Under NEPA, as required under 23 CFR 771.125(a)(2), "every reasonable effort shall be made to
resolve interagency disagreements on actions before processing the final EIS.' The City, therefore,
requests an opportunity to meet with representatives of the FHWA, Caltrans, and OCTA to more
thoroughly discuss thg City's comments and concerns in order to seek information in response to
those comments and resolution of those concerns prior to the release of the "final EIS' and prior to
the finalization of the NEPA and CEQA process. Similarly, as required under 23 CFR 771.125(g),
"the final EIS shall be transmitted to any persons, organizations, or agencies that made substantive
comments on the draft EIS or requested a copy, no later than the time the document is filed with
EPA [United States Environmental Protection Al In accordance therewith, the City requests
copies of not only the 'final EIS' but also of all environmental notices and all related documents
associated therewith.
Under CEQA, the California Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that CEQA's procedures must be
"scrupulously followed," because CEQA's environmental review process 1. protects not only the
environment but also informed self - government" (Laurel Heights Improvement Association of San
Francisco, Inc. v. Regents of the University of California, 47 Cal.3d 376, 392). The following,,
comments are, therefore, submitted for the purpose of assisting the Lead Agencies in fulfilling the
legislative intent of NEPA and CEQA, are submitted to identify specific deficiencies with the
DEIR/DEIS that precludes the FHWA and Caltrans from taking any action on any of the "build'
project alternatives pending the resolution or correction of those defects, and seek to.. promote the
identification and selection of other possible "build' project alternatives which will minimize or
avoid significant environmental effects on the City and its residents.
These comments are not intended to be inclusive of all comments submitted by the City but are
intended to augment both the City's previous written comments and other comments, whether
submitted by the City, its residents, or business community, on the DEIR/DEIS and on the
SR22NVOCC project.
2.0 AUTHORITY TO COMMENT
In accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the following
comments are presented to the Lead Agencies pursuant to the authority provided to the City under
Sections 21000(e), 21003.1(a), 21082.1(6), 21092.4, and 21153 of CEQA and Sections 15044,
15084(4, 15086, 15096, 15201, and 15209 of the State CEQA Guidelines and applicable
provisions of the Caltrans/CTC CEQA Regulations and Caltrans' Environmental Handbook. As
public agencies, the Lead Agencies are obligated under Section 21092.5(a) of CEQA to provide the
City with draft written responses to each of the. comments raised or presented herein at least ten
days prior to any formal actions by the Lead Agencies on either the DEIR/DEIS or SR22NVOCC
project. Presentation of these and any additional comments that may be submitted under separate
cover seek to preserve the City's rights under Section 21177 of CEQA should such rights need to be
subsequently exercised.
Upon receipt of the Lead Agencies' draft written responses to the City's comments, the City may
again elect to provide further written and /or oral comments to the Lead Agencies and requests that
any such additional comments be provided to the project's decision makers as part of their
deliberations and prior to any final action of the proposed project.
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 6
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
In accordance with the provisions of NEPA and the CEQ Regulations, the following comments are
presented to the Lead Agencies pursuant to the authority provided to the City under Section 102 of
NEPA and Sections 1500.1(b), 1500.2(b) and (d), 1501.1(b), 1501.2(d)(2), 1501.7(a), 1502.19,
e 1503.1, 1503.2, 1503.3, and 1508.5 of the CEQ Regulations and applicable provisions of the
FHWA Environmental Guidebook. As required under Section 1503.4 of the CEQ Regulations, the
Lead Agencies are required to assess, consider, and respond to the comments raised by the City.
3.0 GENERAL COMMENTS
Presented in the following section are a number of 'general comments' based on information
presented in the DEIR/DEIS. While, for descriptive purposes, certain sections of the DEIR/DEIS may
be specifically referenced herein, the City's comments should not be perceived as limited to only
those document sections explicitly referenced but should be interpreted as applying or potentially
applying to other components of the Lead Agencies' analysis which relate to the specific comment
being raised. Although not presented in the form of a specific question, the City's comments are
clearly intended to elicit a formal written response from the Lead Agencies.
In interpreting these comments, the Lead Agencies should not seek to utilize the specific reference
or references cited as a reason or excuse for limiting the preparation of written: responses to the
issues and concerns that have been raised. The Lead: Agencies should offer as comprehensive a
response to the City's comments as may be possible.
The sequence in which the following comments are presented should not be seen as any attempt
by the City at prioritization of these comments by the Lead Agencies. All comments should be
given equal 'weight and importance," notwithstanding where they may „appear in the ERR.
3.1 Evidence of the Lead
As required under Section 1502.5 of the'CEQ Regulations, the project's environmental impact
statement (EIS) shall "serve practically as an important contribution to the decision making process
and will not be used to rationalize or justify decisions already made.' As indicated in the
DEIR/DEIS, 'recognizing that this project is in response to the increased demands placed on the SR-
22 both by local land use development as well as by regional demands for an east -west corridor,
the impacts that it may cause are more than balanced by the benefit it is providing' (p. v). Under
CEQA and NEPA, the determination whether the project's benefits outweigh the environmental
costs is made by the project's decision makers (and not the authors of the DEIR/DEIS) and is
typically deferred until the document is finalized (and all input received and all comments fully
addressed), and not presented as a fait accompli upon the release of the initial draft.
As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS, "this DEIR/EIS includes analysis of the Full Build Alternative as
illustrated on the Preliminary Engineering Plans, State Route 22, for Project Report and
Environmental Document, in Orange County, From Interstate 605 to State Route 55 (Project Plans)
(Parsons Brinckerholf, December 2000)” (p. 2 -8). As indicated, the 'Full Build Alternative' is
identified as the 'Project Plans.' Although the DEIR/DEIS was not released until August 21, 2001,
preparation of engineering plans for a single alternative commenced a year before the document's
release. Similar project-level design detail was not, however, commenced for any of the other
alternatives presented in the DEIR/DEIS.
State Route 22IWest Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 7
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA -01- 04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
The project's engineering plans were prepared by "Parsons Brinkerhoff" (p. 2 -8). In addition, either
the entirety or major sections of the DEIR/DEIS also appear to have been prepared by "Parsons
Brinkerhoff" (pp. 12 -1 through 12 -5). Under what authority was Parsons Brinckerhoff authorized to
prepare project -level plants for a single alternative prior to the completion of the CEQA/NEPA
process? Was any CEQA/NEPA review undertaken at the time the Lead Agencies made the
decision to prepare such plans? If not, why not?
When the firm responsible for the preparation of engineering drawings is the same firm responsible
for the environmental critique of those drawings, it is highly unlikely that the firm would offer
substantive criticism of its own work product or objectively consider other options that may reduce
that firm's continuing design work. In this case, Parsons Brinkerhoff is in essentially the same
position as a planning consultant employed by the owner of a private development project to draft
an EIR/EIS for a project that the same consultant is helping to design. In this case, . there is simply no
evidence to indicate that the Lead Agencies have submitted this DEIR/DEIS to the kind of
independent review by professionals other than the designers of the project that would give the
public confidence that environmental issues have been adequately . identified and mitigated. One
purpose of the CEQA/NEPA requirements relating to "independent judgement" is to ensure that the
claims of a project designer and developer are not just accepted at face value. It strains credulity,
for example, to assume that the company that designed a particular project is going to suggest ways
that the project could be better designed to avoid environmental impacts. Since NEPA, CEQA and
various state and federal laws require that consultants and drafters'. of environmental documents
exercise independence in their work, the potential conflicts that can result from duality of roles
raises serious concerns with the document's objectivity. The Lead Agencies' failure to seek an
independent third party to prepare the DEIR/DEIS ocieview the document prior to its release calls
into serious question the adequacy of the entire document and the Lead Agencies' decision - making
process.
As indicated in Section 102(D) of NEPA (42 USC 4332), "the procedures in this subparagraph shall
not relieve the federal official .. of his responsibilities for the scope, objectivity, and content of the
entire statement or of any other responsibility under this Act." As further required under Section
1502.14(a) of the CEQ Regulations, the Lead Agencies are obligated to "rigorously explore and
objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives." Similarly, Section 1502.1 of the CEQ Regulations
indicates that the purpose of NEPA is to "provide full and fair discussion' of the project's significant
environmental impacts. As further indicated in the CEQ's "Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning
CEQ's National. Environmental Policy Regulations, as published in the Federal Register (Volume 46,
No. 55, March 17, 1981) (CEQ Forty Questions), 'the Statement must be objectively prepared and
not slanted to support the choice of the agency's preferred alternative over the other reasonable and
feasible alternatives'. (CEQ Forty Questions, Question 4[c]).
It is the function of the project's decision makers to balance the environmental costs against the
project's potential benefits. Inclusion of the above statement in the DEIR/DEIS suggests that a
determination has already been made that the project's significant and potentially significant
environmental consequences have been "balanced' by the project's benefits.
3.2 Failure to Make Critical Documents Available for Public and Agency Review
As required under 23 CFR 771.123(g), "the draft EIS shall be made available to the public and
transmitted to agencies for comment no later than the time the document is filed with the
Slate Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 8
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA -01- 04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
Environmental Protection Agency in accordance with 40 CFR 1506.9. The draft HIS shall be
transmitted to: (1) Public officials, interest groups, and members of the public known to have an
interest in the proposed action or the draft EIS; (2) Federal, State and local government agencies
,expected to have jurisdiction or responsibility over, or onterest or expertise in, the action. Copies
shall be provided directly to appropriate State and local agencies, and to the State
intergovernmental review contacts established under Executive Order 12372." It is assumed that
the term "shall" (e.g., "the draft EIS shall be made available) constitutes a binding obligation on the
part of the FHWA.
The DEIR/DEIS states that the information presented in the project's environmental analysis is
derived from a number of other documents including, but not limited to, Floodplain Evaluation
Report, Natural Environmental Study, Draft Relocation Impact Report, Traffic/Circulation Impact
Report, Air Quality Technical Report, Traffic Noise Impact Report, Initial Site Assessment, Visual
Impact Assessment" (p. xxxvii). Specifically, the DEIR/DEIS identifies, among others, the following
technical documents that were not disseminated with the DEIR/DEIS and not made available to the
City:
❑ "OCTA's 'The Corridor Major Investment Study Final Evaluation'.' Report,' which was
adopted by the OCTA Board on June 9, 1997' (p. 2 -5) S.
❑ "Floodplain Evaluation Report' (December, 2000) and the 'Floodplain'Evaluation Report
Reduced Alternative Addendum' (December, 2000)" (p. 4.2 -1);
❑ "SR- 22/West Orange County Connection NES' (December 2000). and the'NES Reduced
Build Alternative Addendum' (December 2000) (under separate cover)" (p. 4.3 -1);
❑ "'SR- 22/West Orange County Co ecti on Historic Property Survey Report' (December
2000)" (p. 4.5 -1); r "
13 "SR-22A/Vest Orange County= Connection Draft Relocation Impact Report' (December
2000) and 'DRIR Reduced Build Alternative Addendum' (December 2000); and the FHWA
report, 'Summary: Economic Impacts of Federal -Aid Highway Investment' (2000)" (p. 4.6 -1);
• "SR- 22NVest Orange'. County Connection Traffic/Circulation Impact Report' (May 2001) and
'Traffic/Circulation Report Reduced Build Alternative Addendum' (May 2001)" (p. 4.7 -1);
• "'SR -22 West Orange County Connection Air Quality Technical Report' (january 2001) and
the 'Air Quality Technical Report Reduced BuiTd.Alternative Addendum' (January 2001)" (p.
4.8 -1);
❑ "'Traffic Noise Impact Technical Report' and 'Traffic Noise Technical Report Reduced Build
Alternative Addendum,' Parsons Brinckerhoff, December 2000 (under separate cover)" (p.
4.9 -1);
❑ "Preliminary Noise Abatement Decision' (p. 4.9 -12);
❑ "5R -22 West Orange County Connection Initial Site Assessment" [December 20001 and the
"Draft ISA Reduced Build Alternative Addendum" [December 20001 [p. 4.12 -1]; and
❑ SR- 22/West Orange County Connection Visual Impact Assessment' (December 2000) and
the 'Reduced Build Alternative Visual Impact Assessment Addendum' (December 2000)
(under separate cover)" (p. 4.13 -1); .
None of the above referenced studies are readily available in the public domain, have not been
provided to the City or its constituents, were not concurrently released with the DEIR/DEIS, and are
not available for review in an electronic format (e.g., on the Internet). In addition, many of these
documents appear not to be available directly from the Lead Agencies but must be obtained either
from the OCTA (e.g., Footnote 2, p. iv; Footnote 2, p. 2 -5; Footnotes 4-5, p. 1 -12; Footnote 6, p. 1-
Stale Route 22fWest Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 9
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA-01-04-D / SCH No. 98064001
13; Footnote 7, p. 1 -14; Footnote 2, p. 2 -5; Footnote 3, p. 2 -8; Footnote 12, p. 2 -21) or from other
sources, thus making it difficult or impossible to obtain copies of and review these reports within
the limited comment period provided by the Lead Agencies. In the absence of access to those
supportive materials or an accompanying definition of acronyms and abbreviations in the
DEIR/DEIS, even the terminology presented in the DEIR/DEIS cannot be placed in any
understandable context (e.g., "consisting of sub - alternatives 6A, 6B, and 6C," p. 2 -2).
NEPA is intended to ensure that federal agencies make informed, carefully calculated decisions
when acting in such a way as to affect the environment and also enables dissemination of relevant
information to external audiences potentially affected by the agency's" decision (Robertson v.
Methow, Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 349 [19891). Similarly,'.: referencing Section 21003(b) of
CEQA, "documents prepared pursuant to this division [shall] be organized and written in a manner
that will be meaningful to decision makers and to the public." As further indicated in Section
21005 therein, "the Legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of the state that
noncompliance with the information disclosure provisions of this division which preclude relevant
information from being presented to the public agency, or noncompliance with substantives,
requirements of this division may constitute a prejudicial abuse of discretion."
Throughout the DEIR/DEIS, the Lead Agencies make numerous references to documents which are
not broadly available to the public, not available at the offices of the Lead Agencies, and are not
adequately notated to allow the affected public to identify and locate or request copies of those
documents. For example, although the DEIR/DEIS notes that the "FHWA and`'FTA made a
conformity determination on the SCAG's 1998 RTP on June 9, 1998 ". (p. 4.8 -10) and, through a
footnote reference, indicates that the document is 'available at OCTA" (Footnote 3), no further
information concerning . that "conformity determination' is presented in the DEIR/DEIS, no
reference to that document is presented in Chapter 13.0 (Bibliography), and the referenced study is
not "incorporated by reference' (Section 15150, State CEQA. Guidelines). The DEIR/DEIS does not
identify the OCTA as ...a "lead agency" but rather as a "responsible agency" under CEQA (e.g.,
OCTA is represented as "a responsible agency under CEQA," p. i) and an undesignated but likely a
"cooperating.. agency under NEPA. Additionally, the DEIR/DEIS does not disclose the OCTA's
hours of operation or the name of any party (e.g., custodian of records) that could be contacted to
obtain information or copies of those documents "available at OCTA."
By requiringthe affected public to contact other agencies merely to review source information used
in the preparation of the DEIR/DEIS, the Lead Agencies have failed to make that information readily
available to the general public and have, therefore, failed to meet their 'own responsibilities under
CEQA" (Section 15020, State CEQA Guidelines) with regards to the disclosure of critical data.
NEPA has twin aims. First, it "places upon an agency the obligation to consider every significant
aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action" (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v.
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 553). Second, it ensures that the agency will
inform the public that it has indeed considered environmental concerns, in its decision making
process (Weinberger v. Catholic Action of Hawaii /Peace Education Proiect, 454 U.S. 139, 143
[19811). An analysis, without full public disclosure, is analogous to no analysis at all since the
public's access to that information is the same under both instances.
In the absence of full access to those technical studies utilized by the Lead Agencies to support the
statements presented in the DEIR/DEIS, the affected public has no ability to independently validate
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 10
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D/ SCH No. 98064001
or refute the Lead Agencies preliminary findings. By equipping one side in an argument with all
the tools it needs and by failing to provide the other side with equal access to those same tools, the
Lead Agencies have created an non -level playing field to the disadvantage of those public agencies
and representatives of the general public who choose to participate in the NEPA/CEQA process.
3.3 Failure to Represent the DEIR/DEIS as a "Tiered" Environmental Document
As indicated in 23 CFR 771.111(g), "for major transportation actions, the tiering of EISs as discussed
in the CEQ Regulation (40 CFR 1502.20) may be appropriate. The first tier EIS would focus on
broad issues such as general location, mode choice, and area -wide air quality and land use
implications of the major alternatives. The second tier would address site- specific details on project
impacts, costs, and mitigation measures.'
Pursuant to 23 CFR 450.322(a), "the metropolitan transportation planning process shall include the
development of a transportation plan addressing at least a twenty year planning horizon. The plan
shall include both long -range and short-range strategiestactions that lead to the development of an
integrated intermodal transportation system that facilitates the efficient movement of people and
goods... The transportation plan must be approved by the MPO." As further indicated therein, for
major transportation investments for which analyses are not complete, the transportation plan shall
'indicate that the design concept and scope (mode and alignment) have not been fully determined
and will require further analysis' (23 CFR 450.322[glt8l).
As required under 23 USC 134(3)(D), "each project shall be consistent with the long -range
transportation plan developed under subsection (g),;for the area." As further indicated under 23
USC 134(4)(A), "all federally funded projects carried out within the boundaries of a transportation
management area under this title (excluding projects carried out on the National Highway System
and projects carried out under the bridge program or the Interstate maintenance program) or under
Chapter 53 of Title 49 shall be selected for implementation from the approved transportation
improvement program by the metropolitan planning organization designated for the area in
consultation with the State and any affected public transit operator.- As a result, there clearly exists
a direct relationship between the SR22/WOCC project and the transportation planning efforts of
SCAG, acting as the area's MPO (e.g., "As the federally designated MPO for a major portion of
Southern California, SCAG adopts and periodically updates a long -range RTP,' p. 1 -12).
Prior to adoption of the "1998 Regional Transportation Plan" (1998 RTP), SCAG certified a "Master
Environmental Impact Report" for the 1998 RTP 0998 RTP MFEIR). As part of a comprehensive
update of the 1998 RTP, SCAG subsequently elected to discard the "master EIR' in favor of a new
"program EIR" and to change the horizon year used for planning purposes from 2020 to 2025.
Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any reference to the 1998 RTP MFEIR. Since the Lead Agencies seek
to assert consistency with the 1998 RTP, that consistency determination must also include
consistency with and conformance to the programmatic analysis and program -level mitigation
measures contained in the 1998 RTP MFEIR. No such analysis, however, is presented in the
DEIR/DEIS.
If the proposed SR22/WOCC project was not, however, specifically identified in the 1998 RTP, in
accordance with the provision of State CEQA Guidelines, the 1998 RTP MFEIR may not serve as a
supportable first -tier EIR (e.g., the certified master EIR shall not be used in accordance with this
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 11
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
article if either [i] it was certified more than five years prior to the filing of an application for a later
project, or [iij a project not identified in the certified master EIR as an anticipated subsequent
project is approved and the approved project may affect the adequacy of the master EIR,' Section
15179, State CEQA Guidelines). ,
In April 2001, SCAG certified the 2001 RTP FPEIR and adopted the 2001 RTP. Construction of
HOV lanes on the SR -22 Freeway was identified as a "HOV Connector Project" in the 2001 RTP
(2001 RTP, Table 5.3, p. 72). Although the SR -22 Freeway'HOV connector project" is identified
in the 2001 RTP, the level of analysis presented therein did not include project - specific alignment,
right -of -way, or engineering studies, relegating those activities to other implementing agencies at a
later date. The proposed SR22AVOCC constitutes such a later project and is directly linked to
regional planning efforts of SCAG.
As indicated in the 2001 RTP FPEIR: "Project -level analysis will be prepared by implementing
agencies on a project -by- project. basis" (2001 RTP DPEIR,. p. PD -2), and "The lead agencies for
individual projects analyzed in this PEIR [program EIR] are required to prepare project level CEQA.
documents. The lead agencies for individual projects may use this PEIR as the basis of their
regional and cumulative analysis. Moreover, it is the intent of SCAG that member agencies and
others use the information contained within the PEIR in order to 'tier' subsequent environmental
documentation of individual projects in the region" (2001 RTP DPEIR, p. 6).
"Tiering' is a concept that is integral to both the CEQA (e.g., Section 13152, State CEQA
Guidelines) and NEPA (e.g., 40 CFR 1502.20) process and serves to link earlier program -level
analyses (such as that contained in the 1998 RTP MFEIR and 2001 RTP FPEIR) with the more
specific project-level investigations undertaken in furtherance of the overall development program
(such as the DEIR/DEIS). The Lead Agencies, however, never acknowledge the existence of either
the 1998 RTP WEIR or the 2001 RTP FPEIR and the DEWDEIS contains no description as to why
tiering was not considered nor the rationale for its rejection when such an approach seems a logical
transition from a regionalized assessment of need to a jocalized response to that need (e.g.,
"Because SR -22 provides an east/west connection to the primary north/south freeways in the region.
..it is an important link to the regional transportation network," P. 1 -9).
As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS, the proposed SR22AVOCC project must be consistent with the
current RTP (e.g., "Under the requirements of the CAAA, ISTEA, and TEA -21, proposed
transportation projects must be derived from an RTP," p. 4.8 -10). Since the SR22/WOCC project is
'derived' from the 2001 RTP, the environmental analysis that accompanied that document (i.e.,
2001 RTP FPEIR) is directly relevant to the current NEPA/CEQA review. As indicated therein, "the
lead agencies for individual projects analyzed in this PEIR are required to prepare project level
CEQA documents... Moreover, it is the intent of SCAG that member agencies and others use the
information contained within the PEIR in order to 'tier' subsequent environmental documentation
of individual projects in the region' (2001 RTP DPEIR, p. 6).
As indicated in Section 15168(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "subsequent activities in the
program must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional
environmental document must be prepared.' Section 15005 of the State CEQA Guidelines states
that "must' or 'shall' identifies a mandatory element which all public agencies are required to
follow." Notwithstanding that obligation, the DEIR/DEIS makes no reference to the 2001 RTP
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 12
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
FPEIR, therefore, indicating the Lead Agencies' failure to review and consider the information and
findings therein.
As forthgr indicated in Section 15152(d) of the State CEQA Guigelines: "Where an EIR has been
prepared and certified for a program, plan, policy, or ordinance consistent with the requirements of
this section, any lead agency for a later project pursuant to or consistent with the program, plan,
policy, or ordinance should limit the EIR or negative declaration on the later project to effects
which: (1) Were not examined as significant effects on the environment in the prior EIR; or (2) Are
susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by the choice of specific revisions in the project,
by the imposition of conditions, or other means."
In addition to assessing cumulative environmental impact, the 2001 RTP FPEIR established specific
"threshold of significance" criteria and program -level "mitigation measures" which were intended
to apply to later projects conducted in furtherance of the 2001 RTP. As indicated therein, "the
Mitigation Monitoring Program for the 2001 RTP Update PEIR has been prepared pursuant to
Section 21081(x) of the Public Resources Code. Prior to approving the 2001 RTP Update, the
SCAG Regional Council made the following findings... SCAG will require that each implementing
agency shall identify accountable enforcement agencies and monitoring agencies for individual
project mitigation measures/conditions adopted as part of the 2001 RTP Update EIR" (2001 RTP
DPEIR, pp. 7 -8). From that statement, it is obvious that SCAG intended the mitigation measures
contained in the 2001 RTP FPEIR to become binding obligations on later projects, such as the
proposed SR221WOCC.
As indicated in Caltrans' "Local Assistance Procedures Manual" (Caltrans, March 15, 2001), "the
local agency is responsible for insuring that mitigation measures presented as commitments in
environmental documents, and that conditions and restrictions, associated with regulatory permits,
are incorporated into appropriate contract documents, plans, specifications, and estimates prior to
proceeding with major . construction activities such as land acquisition or construction... Failure to
meet mitigation commitments may render the project ineligible for federal reimbursement.
Omission or modification of a mitigation commitment, thereby creating new significant
environmental effects will result in the need to prepare a re- evaluation to assess any changes that
have occurred and their effect on the validity of the environmental document" (Local Assistance
Procedures Manual, p.. 12 -2). Caltrans was a participant in the development of the 2001 RTP and
2001 RTP FPEIR and was fully aware of the commitments and program-level mitigation measures
contained therein.
Since the DEIR/DEIS contains no reference to the 2001 RTP FPEIR and since none of the program -
level mitigation measures are cited therein, the DEIR/DEIS fails to acknowledge the obligations
established under the 2001 RTP FPEIR upon the proposed project and ignores the commitments
previously make by the MPO =applicable to the SR22/WOCC project. Specific program -level
mitigation measures identified in the 2001 RTP FPEIR include, but are not limited to, the following:
❑ For projects with the potential to displace homes and /or businesses. Project implementation
agencies shall evaluate alternative route alignments and transportation facilities that
minimize the displacement of homes and businesses. Potential impacts shall be minimized
to the extent feasible. If possible, existing rights-of -way should be used (2001 RTP, DPEIR,
p. ES -6);
Stale Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 13
Draft Environmental Impact ReportlEnvironmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01- 04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
• Prior to commencing construction activities on individual projects, project implementation
agencies shall comply with applicable federal, State and applicable city and county land
use plans, policies, and regulations (2001 RTP, DPEIR, p. ES -8);
• All mitigation measures should be included in project -level analysis as appropriate. The
project proponent or local jurisliction shall be responsible for ensuring adherence to the
mitigation measures prior to construction. SCAG shall be provided with documentation of
compliance with mitigation measures (2001 RTP, DPEIR, pp. ES -16, 19, and 20);
❑ The project implementation agency shall ensure that prior to construction all necessary
local and State road and railroad encroachment permits are obtained. The project
implementation agency shall also comply with all applicable conditions of approval. As
deemed necessary by the governing jurisdiction, the road encroachment permits may
require the contractor to prepare a traffic control plan in accordance with professional
engineering standards prior to construction (2001 RTP, DPEIR, pp. ES -48 and 49);
❑ The growth inducing potential of individual projects should be carefully evaluated so that
the full implications of the project are understood. Individual environmental documents
shall quantify indirect impacts on public services and utilities to the extent feasible. Lead
and responsible agencies should then make any necessary adjustments to the applicable'
General Plan. Any such identified adjustment shall be communicated to SCAG (2001 RTP,
DPEIR, p. ES -49); and
❑ Projects identified in the 2001 RTP Update that require wastewater service, solid waste
collection, and/or potable water service will coordinate with the local 'public works
department to ensure that the existing public: services and utilities would be able to handle
the increase. If the current infrastructure servicing the project site is found to be inadequate,
infrastructure improvements for the appropriate public service or utility shall be identified in
each project's CEQA documentation (2001 RTP, DPEIR, p. ES -49).
Based on the above measures, although never identified in the DEIR/DEIS, the City may be a
responsible agency, under CEQA and acooperating agency under NEPA since one or more
discretionary actions (e.g.,: encroachment permit, General Plan amendment) may be required
project components. As indicated in the CEQ. Forty Questions: "If the lead agency leaves out a
signlfican ttssue or ignores the advise and expertise of the cooperating agency, the EIS may be
found later to be inadequate. Similarly, where cooperating agencies have their own decisions to
make and they intend to adopt the environmental impact statement and.base their decisions on it,
one document should include all of the information necessary for the decisions by the cooperating
agencies. Otherwise they may be forced to duplicate the EIS process by issuing a new, more
complete HIS or Supplemental EIS, even though the original EIS could have sufficed if it had been
properly done at the outset' (CEQ Forty Questions, Question 14[b]).
As a potential responsble . agency under CEQA, prior to project commencement, the City will be
required to utilize the DEIR/DEIS as the environmental basis for those discretionary approvals. As
indicated in Section I5086(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines:
If a responsible agency believes that the final EIR or negative declaration prepared
by the lead agency is not adequate for use by the responsible agency, the
responsible agency must either: (1) Take the issue to court within 30 days after the
lead agency files a notice of determination; (2) Be deemed to have waived any
objection to the adequacy of the EIR or negative declaration; (3) Prepare a
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 14
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EIS- CA -01 -04.D / SCH No. 98064001
subsequent EIR if permissible under Section 15162; or (4) Assume the lead agency
role as provided in Section 15052(x)(3).
As indicated in Section 15152(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "tiering does not excuse the lead
agency from adequately analyzing reasonably foreseeable significant environmental effects of the
project and does not justify deferring such analysis to a later tier EIR or negative declaration.' As
indicated herein, the City has concluded that the DEIR/DEIS contains numerous defects that can
only be rectified through either the document's augmentation and subsequent recirculation or
through the preparation of a supplemental analysis. Additionally, the City has concluded that the
DEIR/DEIS fails to present an adequate assessment of those project- related and cumulative impacts
identified herein as being City concerns.
To the extent that those defects are not corrected, as a responsible agency, Seat Beach will be
required to undertake those actions authorized under Section 15086(e) of the State CEQA
Guidelines. To the extent that any permits or approvals may be required from the City prior to the
commencement of any work on the proposed project, additional delays can be anticipated as the
City undertakes sufficient environmental analysis to address and fully mitigate those impacts.
As a tiered document, some or all of the information contained in the 2001 RTP FPEIR remains
applicable to the proposed project. In addition to the cumulative impact assessment, the 2001 RTP
FPEIR's "threshold of significance' criteria and program -level mitigation measures continue to apply
to those later activities undertaken in furtherance of that program. Absent from the DEIR/DEIS,
however, is any reference to either the threshold standards or adopted mitigation measures
contained in the 2001 RTP FPEIR.
Since the proposed project exists as a result of its inclusion in the 2001 RTP, the Lead Agencies
cannot turn a'blind eye' to the relationship between th610O1 RTP FPEIR and the DEIR/DEIS. By
ignoring that relationship, the Lead Agencies' actions serve-to diminish the valuable efforts and
contribution by all stakeholders who contributed to the development of that regional transportation
plan and its accompanying environmental documentation. It is often said: "Those who ignore the
lessons of history are doomed to repeat the mistakes.of the past.' In the same context, by failing to
acknowledge the clear and direct linkage between: he 2001 RTP FPEIR and the DEIR/DEIS, the
Lead 'Agencies are likely to overlook the sigmfi ant environmental: impacts and corrective
mitigation measures formulated through the development of that first -tier document.
3.4 Failure to Provide an Adequate Description of the Alternatives under Consideration
Referencing the FHWA/Caltrans' Standard Reference, 'each alternative should be briefly described
using maps or other visual aids such as photographs, drawings, or sketches to help explain the
various alternatives." Additionally, "all reasonable alternatives under consideration (including the
no-build) need to be developed to a comparable level of detail in the draft EIS so that their
comparative merits may be evaluated (40 CFR 1502.14[6]).'
As required under FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, the discussion of each "build' alternative
should be sufficient to provide 'a clear understanding of each alternative's termini, location, costs,
and the project concept (number of lanes, right-of -way requirements, median width, access control,
etc.). Where land has been or will be reserved or dedicated by local government(s), donated by
individuals, or acquired through advanced or hardship acquisition for use as highway right -of -way
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 15
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA -01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
for any alternative under consideration, the draft EIS should identify the status and extent of such
property and the alternatives involved" (FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, pp. 10 -11). That
level of detail is presently absent from the DEIR/DEIS as is any substantial information concerning
the specific characteristics of the project (e.g., full extent of additional right -of -way required,.
specific design characteristics of the proposed improvements).
As required under Section 15124(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the description of the project
shall include "the precise location and boundaries of the proposed project shall be shown on a
detailed map, preferably topographic. The location of the project shall also appear on a regional
map." Webster defines "precise" as meaning "exactly or sharply defined or stated" or "minutely
exact." Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is anything even approximating. a "narrative or graphic
description of the project's "precise location." What is offered is a map (Figure 1.2 -2, p. 1 -6)
depicting the 'project study area" (e.g., "Figure 1.2 -2, Project Study Area Map, shows the SR-
22Mrest Orange County Connection study area," p. 1 -2). Based on the map scale, the 'study area'
comprises a band up to 2 -miles wide and about 10 -miles long, or an area of about 20 square miles.
Although direct impacts are likely to occur in close proximity to the SR -22 Freeway, from the
information presented in the DEIR/DEIS, it is not possible to "precisely' define those areas, located
beyond the existing Caltrans' right-of-way that will be impacted by the project..
While those individual sites earmarked for acquisition may be Identified, from the data presented,
the City is unable to determine whether a "full" or only "partial" take of those properties is
requested or will be required, what public rights -of -way will be impacted and to what extent (e.g.,
"both the Full Build and Reduced Impact Build options do require right of way," Briefing Book, p.
13). In the absence of that information, it is difficult to envision the post - project environment in
other than a broad general sense. The City is unable to determine how traffic patterns within the
College Park East neighborhood will be impacted, the location and intended use of any "residual"
parcels not directly needed for right -of -way purposes, or the specific characteristics of the proposed
encroachment into that neighborhood, so as to determine the project's potential indirect impacts on
those proximal properties (e.g., remaining single- family homes, Bixby Old Ranch Tennis Club) not
identified as proposed acquisition sites.
The DEIR/DEIS does go on to state: "Figure 2.2 -1 shows the proposed Full Build Alternative route
map and locations of the proposed capital improvements" (p. 2 -7). The . "proposed improvements"
are delineated as a broad line extending' along the entire length of the project and the "proposed
intersection improvements' and "proposed Interchange improvements" are represented by symbols
that are at least one -third mile in dimension. Again, from the information provided, it is not
possible to ascertain` the "precise location" of the proposed improvements, much less the location
and size of those adjoining properties where additional right -of -way is proposed for acquisition.
Surprisingly, the Briefing Book contains a greater description of the proposed improvements than
contained in the DEIR/DEIS. Since the information in the Briefing Book was available to the Lead
Agencies at the time the DEIR/DEIS was released, there can be no explanation for the Lead
Agencies withholding of critical information necessary to understand the project now under
consideration. Since the Briefing Book is not referenced in the DEIR/DEIS, is not incorporated by
reference therein, and has not been widely disseminated to all project stakeholders, the information
and statements in the Briefing Book cannot be used as a substitute for information and analysis that
should be and clearly could have been included in the DEIR/DEIS. The information in the Briefing
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 16
Draft Environmental Impact Report(Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS -CA -01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
Book should be incorporated into the DEIR/EIS, the analysis revisited based on the information in
the Briefing Book, and the entire document should be recirculated.
Since substantiaelly greater information about the precise location of proposed improvements was
available to the Lead Agencies prior to the release of the DEIR/DEIS, the agencies election not to
include that level of detail was, therefore, a conscious decision whose purpose could only have
been to create confusion (e.g., lack of full disclosure) as to the precise nature of the proposed action
so as to allow the Lead Agencies the broadest possible discretion in interpreting and implementing
the project. The FHWA Technical Advisory T664O.8A identifies and appears to encourage non-
disclosure (e.g., "care should be taken to avoid unnecessary specifying features which preclude
cost - effective final design options," FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, p.111) in direct
contradiction to NEPA's "action- forcing' provisions to make sure that federal agencies act
according to the letter and spirit of the [National Environmental Policy] Act' (40 CFR 1500.1 [a]) and
the degree of specificity required under CEQA (e.g., Section 15146[a], State CEQA Guidelines).
From the level of detail presented (or more specifically not presented), it is not possible to
"precisely" determine what, if any, areas beyond the existing right -of -way will be directly: or
indirectly impacted by the proposed improvements. In the absence of that information, there exists
an insufficient basis to: (1) identify the areas of physical disturbance (e.g., location; width and
length; existing land uses; existing characteristics of those sites; type and use of adjoining
properties) associated with the "build" alternatives; (2) independently determine any project - related
impacts thereupon; and/or (3) validate the preliminary information presented in the DEIR/DEIS.
Similarly, the Lead Agencies appear to be presenting a "moving target" that is likely subject to
further change following the release of the DEIR/DEIS and the receipt of comments thereupon. As
indicated in the DEIR/DEIS, "if the Full. Build Alternative is selected as the preferred alternative after
the DEIR/DEIS public review period, various alignment refinements included in the Reduced Build
Alternative, discussed below, may be considered for implementation as part of the Full Build
Alternative" (p. 2 -8). Since opportunities for further public and agency review and comment will
be substantially curtailed following the end of the comment period on the DEIR/DEIS, the public's
ability to independently review and submit supplemental comment on any such "alignment
refinements" will be limited. It is unreasonable to ...fail to disclose the 'precise location" of the
project.. and then state that changes to the project are likely to occur "after the DEIR/EIS public
review period."
As a result, it is extremely difficult for the City and its constituents to fully understand the physical
characteristics of the proposed project, the precise area of any real property that is now suggested
for public acquisition, the height and associated dimensions of the proposed improvements, etc. In
the absence of that critical information, the affected public can neither fully comment on the
project's potential impacts nor independently verify the accuracy of the Lead Agencies preliminary
conclusions (e.g., insufficient information is presented to allow the City to conduct an independent
acoustical analysis).
As indicated in Caltrans' Environmental Handbook, even before embarking on a description of the
proposed project, the document is required to present a detailed discussion of the "purpose of and
need for [the] project.° Although the DEIR/DEIS contains some generalized information, the level
of detail therein is not commensurate with that presented in the Environmental Handbook. As
indicated therein, "the evaluation of need is to be based on current and future conditions, not on
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 17
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA -01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
the assumption that prior decisions are still valid, and an objective and analytical definition of the
'problem.' Factual, and wherever possible, quantifiable justification should be included to back up
statements of need" (Environmental Handbook, p. 3 -3).
For those projects designed to address capacity problems, such as the SR22M/OCC (e.g.,
"addressing the capacity deficiency problem, which is also associated with congestion - related
accidents," p. 1 -1), the following information is identified: (1) hours of congestion being
experienced and reasons for congestion; (2) present and projected average daily traffic (ADT), peak
hour volumes (PHV), and level of service (LOS) in words; and (3) basis for projected ADT,
including the reference pages in the document where these factors are discussed in detail. For
projects addressing safety problems, the following information is identified: (1) personal injury and
fatality rates vs. Statewide rates; (2) reasons why accidents are happening; and (3) safety benefits of
the project. For operational deficiencies, the document shall contain an explicit description of the
problem(s).
It is not sufficient for the DEIR/DEIS to merely indicate that "some portions of existing SR -22 do not
conform to current State and federal highway design standards" and that 'congestion- related
accidents are linked to these problems" (p. 1 -1) or that "geometric improvements to the freeway
and on - &-off ramps are generally expected to reduce run - off - the -road and hit- object type accidents"
(p. 1 -1). Rather than presenting detailed information concerning.: accidents within the project area,
the document merely references 'information compiled by Caltrans' Traffic Accident t' Surveillance
and Analysis System Table C -High Accident Concentration Locations" (p. 1 -1) which is neither
included in the DEIR/DEIS nor cited in Chapter 13.0 (Bibliography). Similarly, although the
DEIR/DEIS suggests "high accident rates" (p. 1 -2), no information is provided comparing localized
conditions with Statewide accident rates. Other than a reference to a percent increase over 1996
conditions, no information concerning hours of congestion or future year ADT /PHV is provided.
Caltrans' Environmental Handbook goes on to list the information that "shall" be provided as part
of the project description. Although identified in the handbook, the DEIR/DEIS fails to include a
detailed map showing project limits and adjacent facilities. The handbook notes that "good exhibits
are also essential for a clear understanding of he project features" (Environmental Handbook, p. 3-
4). Nowhere in the DEIR/DEIS, however, are any exhibits presented depicting: (1) the precise
location of those "189 residential displacements" (p. 4.6 -11), including those area where a "full" or
.partial take" of property will be required and the precise extent of that take; (2) any additional
right -of -way that may be required, including the precise length of encroachment onto other public
or privately owned properties now abutting the Caltrans' right -of -way; (3) the precise location and
dimensions of the "Pacific Electric right -of -way" (p. 2 -7); (4) the location and height above existing
grade of all "HOV direct connector. ramps" (p. 2 -7); (5) the location, height, and length of any
associated sound walls; and (6). other related design elements (e.g., type of paving materials, extent
of excavation required, construction staging areas, etc.).
On September 18, 2001, the City subsequently received a set of "draft preliminary engineering
plans," dated December 2000. Despite their existence, no explanation was, however, provided
why these drawings were not included in the DEIR/DEIS (e.g., "This DEIR/EIS includes analysis of
the Full Build Alternative as illustrated on the Preliminary Engineering Plans," pp. 2 -7 and 2 -8). The
Lead Agencies failure to incorporate these documents and that level of information in the
DEIR/DEIS and the City's receipt of these "plans" well within the comment period established for
the DEIR/DEIS has unreasonably restricted the City's ability to provide meaningful comments
Stale Route 22IWeA Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 18
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EIS- CA- 01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
thereupon in the context of Seal Beach's comments on the DEIR/DEIS (e.g., the draft preliminary
engineering plans appear only to be "available at OCTA," Footnote 3, p. 2 -8). Similarly, since these
engineering drawings have not been disseminated to the City's constituents nor has notice of their
availability been provided by the Lead Agencies, the affected public is precluded from submitting
meaningful comments on the DEIR/DEIS and the additional information concerning the project that
may be contained on those "draft preliminary engineering plans."
Although the DEIR/DEIS indicates that these "preliminary engineering plans" are 'available at
OCTA" (Footnote 3, p. 2 -8), the OCTA is represented as "a responsible agency under CEQA" (p. i)
and is not identified as one of the two joint "lead agencies" for CEQA or NEPA compliance. As
required under CEQA, "a public agency must meet its own responsibilities under CEQA' and the
"lead agency is responsible for the adequacy of its environmental documents" (Section 15020, State
CEQA Guidelines). By failing to include anything approximating sufficient information about the
specific or precise design and engineering characteristics of the project, the Lead Agencies have
released a deficient environmental document, relegating to a "responsible agency" (e.g., OCTA) the
function of making detailed. information .concerning. the project's design and engineering
characteristics available to the project's stakeholders.
3.5 Failure to Identify the °Preferred Project" Despite its Obvious Existence
As indicated in CEQ Forty Questions, "the agency EIS staff is encouraged to -make
recommendations of the environmentally preferred alternative(s) during EIS preparation. In any
event the lead agency official responsible for the EIS is encouraged to identify the environmentally
preferable alternatives) in the EIS" (CEQ Forty Questions, Question 61b]).
As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS: "The mainline improvements of the SR- 22/West Orange County
Connection Project (Full Build Alternative or Reduced Build Alternative) is included in the 1998
RTP as Project ID 0RA000195 and Project Description: Design, Right -of -Way, and construction to
build mainline HOV lanes for SR -22 from Valley View Street to Glassell Street, with a completion
date of 2010" (p. 4.8 -10). By suggesting that the "build" alternatives are consistent with the '11998
RTP," because consistency is a requirement for project funding, the Lead Agencies are, in essence,
declaring the "build" alternatives to be the "preferred project."
In describing the project, the DEIR/DEIS notes that the "SR -22 is the only Orange County freeway
that does not have an HOV facility. The absence of HOV lanes on the SR -22 freeway is the missing
link in the Orange, County HOV system - The proposed project would potentially provide for HOV
system continuity and connectivity" (p: 2 -1) and "improving the availability of travel choices under
study could help 'close the gap' in the Orange County High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) system" (p.
2 -1). Additionally, in Lead Agencies rejecting of the 'fixed guideway" alternative and the "general -
purpose lanes" alternative, the rationale for that rejection was those alternatives' inability 'to meet
an important transportation goat, completion of Orange County's HOV system" (p. 2-17). Similarly,
the "HOV lanes on SR -22" alternative was rejected since "it lacked direct freeway - to-freeway HOV
connectors" (p. 2 -18). It is, therefore, evident that the project's goal is the construction of HOV
lanes that can only be accomplished through the implementation of the two "build" alternatives.
Note that the project, itself, is entitled the "West Orange County Connector.' As a result, based on
the project's title and the above declaration, it is apparent that anything other than a "connector"
project will ultimately be rejected by the Lead Agencies since such action would not fulfill the
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 19
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01- 04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
project's explicit and /or implicit objectives. It is evident that the Lead Agencies primary emphasis
is developing a HOV system, with direct connectors, for the SR -22 Freeway. Therefore, it is further
evident that a HOV -based alternative constitutes the Lead Agencies "preferred project." Similarly, it
C is further evident that the "TSM/Expanded Bus Servile Alternative" will ultimately be rejected since
it 'does not include any capital improvements to SR -22" (p. 2 -5).
As indicated in 23 USC 134(1)(1) (Additional Requirements for Certain Non - attainment Areas),
"notwithstanding any other provisions of this title or Chapter 53 of Title 49, for transportation
management areas classified as non - attainment for ozone or carbon monoxide pursuant to the
Clean Air Act, federal funds may not be programmed in such area for any highway project that will
result in a significant increase in carrying capacity for single- occupant vehicles unless the project is
part of an approved congestion management system." As noted in the DEIR/DEIS, "the South Coast
Air Basin does not attain State and federal Ambient Air Quality Standards for four of the six criteria
air pollutants" (p: 3.8 -2). As further indicated in the 1998 RTP: "The South Coast Air Basin faces
the most serious air quality problems in the region. Despite improvements, it has the worst air
pollution in the United States" (1998 RTP, Section 4.8). -
In describing the purpose of the project, the DEIR/DEIS indicates that "the SR -22 corridor has
insufficient capacity" and "SR -22 does not meet the capacity needs of the area' (pp. 1 -1 and 1 -15)
and "the SR -22 corridor has insufficient capacity on both the freeway and major adjacent surface
streets to handle existing and projected 2020 travel demand" (p. 1 -2). The DEIR/DEIS further
indicates that the proposed SR22/W000 "improvements are anticipated to provide a higher level
of operation for existing and anticipated traffic volumes" (p. iii). The provision of additional
capacity is, therefore, clearly represented as the project's intent.
As indicated in FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, 'for all major projects in these urbanized
areas, HOV lanes should be considered." As further indicated in the DEIR/DEIS, "the No Build
Alternative does not include any HOV connectors" and "the TSM /Expanded Bus Service Alternative
does not include HOV connectors" (p. 4.7 -13).
In describing the project, the Lead Agency states that "the State Route 22 (SR- 22)NVest Orange
County Connection project involves transportation improvements to the SR -22 corridor, as well as
portions of 1 -405 and 1 -605, in Orange County" (p. 8 -7). Since the project is defined by the Lead
Agencies as a project which "involves .. transportation improvements to the SR -22 corridor" and
since the project's stated goals include the intent to "improve mobility" and maximize the cost -
effectiveness of the proposed "improvements" (p. 1 -2), some of the alternatives identified in the
DEIR/DEIS will quickly be eliminated since they fail to fulfill those objectives. As indicated in the
DEIR/DEIS, "under the no build alternative, traffic is projected to worsen" (p. 2-4) and "the
TSM/Expanded Bus Service. Alternative does not include any capital improvements" (p. 2 -5). Based
on the Lead Agency's own project description and declared goals, neither the "No Build
Alternative" nor the "TSM /Expanded Bus Service Alternative" meet the project definition and fail to
accomplish the project objectives. .
Thus, the DEIR/DEIS fails to explicitly state the Lead Agencies' "preferred project." For the average
reader, denied access to the various resources on which the DEIR/EIS is based, the Lead Agencies'
conduct in this regard constitutes "hiding the ball." Referencing the DEIR/DEIS, "this DEIRAIS
includes analysis of the Full Build Alternative as illustrated on the Preliminary Engineering Plans,
State Route 22, for Project Report and Environmental Document, in Orange County, From Interstate
State Route 22 1West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 20
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EIS- CA -01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
605 to State Route 55 (Project Plans) (Parsons Brinckerhoff, December 2000)' (p. 2 -8) (Preliminary
Engineering Plans). For no other alternatives) have the Lead Agencies prepared or referenced the
existence of any "preliminary' or 'conceptual' engineering plans.
Since the Code of Federal' Regulations (23 CFR 771.113) prohibits starting work onthe final design
phase of a federally funded project until after approval of the final environmental document, it is
understandable that no final plans have yet to be formulated. However, why would the Lead
Agencies develop 'preliminary engineering plans' for a single alternative unless that alternative was
the agencies' 'preferred project'?
Additionally, the DEIR/DEIS includes the following text: 'Note: If the Full Build Alternative is
selected as the preferred alternative after the DEIR/DEIS public review period, various alignment
refinements included in the Reduced Build Alternative, discussed below, may be considered for
implementation as part of the Full Build Alternative' (p. 2 -8). This Note calls into question the
conclusions regarding environmental impacts that result from the alignment of the proposed
project. There is no way for the reader to be confident that environmental impacts of the project
have been identified and mitigated if the Lead Agencies know already that they may consider
changes to the alignment after the DEIR/EIS is completed. No comparable notation exists for any of
the other alternatives identified in the DEIR/DEIS. The inclusion of the above statement constitutes
further evidence of the Lead Agencies intent to identify the -'Full Build Alternative' of a
°refinement' thereof as the 'preferred project.' It is, therefore, evident that the Lead `Agencies now
know that the 'Full Build Alternative,' or a close variation thereof, constitutes the Lead Agencies'
'preferred project.' As indicated in FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, 'in those situations
where the HA [highway agency] has officially identified a "preferred" alternative based on its early
coordination and environmental studies, the HA should so indicate in the draft EIS.'
The Lead Agencies failure to disclose the "preferred prolect"despite its obvious existence prevents
the submission of meaningful comments 64,the DEIR/DEIS, creates unnecessary confusion to an
already complex environmental document, and suggests the lack of forthright fullness on the part of
the document's authors. Further,: the Lead 'alternatives' approach to the process of
supplying ,;a project description violates CEQA's requirement that the DER must include an
'accurate, stable and finite project' description. The Lead Agencies' inability, or unwillingness, to
publicly disclose a stable and finite description of the project they propose to undertake is amply
demonstrated by the notes referenced above that indicate the Lead Agencies are likely to revise
even the alignment of the chosen alternative at some future date. As required under Section
1502.14(e) of the .CEQ Regulations, the Lead Agencies shall 'identify the agency's preferred
alternative or alternatives, if one or more `exists, in the draft statement and identify such alternative
in the final statement unless another law prohibits the expression of such a preference.' The City is
not aware of any law that would prohibit the Lead Agencies from expressing a preference in this
case.
As further indicated in CEQ Forty Questions, 'the 'agency's preferred alternative' is the alternative
which the agency believes would fulfill its statutory mission and responsibilities, giving
consideration to economic, environmental, technical and other factors' (CEQ Forty Questions,
Question 4[a]) and 'the agency EIS staff is encouraged to make recommendations of the
environmentally preferred alternative(s) during HIS preparation' (CEQ Forty Questions, Question
6[b]).
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 21
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA -01- 04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
Although the project constitutes an HOV improvement program, there exists only two "build'
alternatives in the DEIR/DEIS that include HOV components. Even if the "Full Build Alternative"
has not been identified as the "preferred project,' it is evident that the "Full Build' and /or the
e 'Reduced Build' alternatives constitute variations of the head Agencies' "preferred project.'
Although the remaining alternatives examined in the DEIR/DEIS may not be illusory, those
alternatives merely constitute the agencies' efforts to fulfill their own statutory and regulatory
requirements. Since neither of those alternatives meet the project's declared objectives, they do
not constitute reasonable or meaningful alternatives for the purpose of environmental compliance
(e.g., 'The range of possible alternatives to the proposed project shall . include those that could
feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project," Section 15126.6[c], State CEQA
Guidelines) and will, therefore, be quickly dispatched in favor of one or both of the document's
'build' alternatives. ,d
3.6 Lack of Comparable Alternatives Analysis arm 01 A Ndescr�[b a
FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A states that "each alternative should be briefly SMmaps or other visual aids such as photographs, drawings, or sketches to help explain the aous
alternatives. The material should provide a clear understanding of each alternative's termini,
location, costs, and the project concept (number of lanes, right -of -way requirements, median width,
access control, etc.)... All reasonable alternatives under consideration (including the no-build)
need to be developed to a comparable level of detain in the draft EIRso that their comparative
merits may be evaluated (40 CFR 1502.14[b] and [d])" (FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, pp.
10 -11). As further indicated in CEQ Forty Questions:
The degree of analysis devoted to each alternative in the EIS is to be substantially
similar to that devoted to the "proposed action.' Section 1502.14 is titled
" Alternatives .. including the proposed action' to reflect such comparable treatment.
Section. 1502:14(6) specifically requires "substantial treatment" in the EIS of each
alternative including the proposed action. This regulation does not dictate the
amount of information to be provided, but rather, prescribes a level of treatment,
which may in turn require varying amounts of information, to enable a reviewer to
"evaluate and compare alternatives (CEQ Forty Questions, Question 5[b]).
The Lead Agencies state "this DEIR/DEIS includes analysis of the Full Build Alternative as illustrated
on the Preliminary Engineering Plans, State Route 22, for Project Report and Environmental
Document, in Orange County, From Interstate 605 to State Route 55 (Project Plans) (Parsons
Brinckerhoff, December 2000)" (pp. 2 -.7 and 2 -8). Since no comparable 'engineering plans" have
been prepared for any of the other alternatives and since the analysis of those other alternatives is
not based on any such "preliminary engineering plans," the Lead Agencies have failed to comply
with NEPA by presenting an inconsistent level of analysis for those alternatives addressed in the
DEIR/DEIS.
3.7 Failure to Present a Reasonable Range of Project Alternatives
As indicated in Section 101(c) of NEPA, "the Congress recognizes that each person should enjoy a
healthful environment and that each person has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation
and enhancement of the environment.'
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection Ocober 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 22
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA -01- 040 /SCH No. 98064001
As required under 23 USC 134(3)(D), "each project shall be consistent with the long -range
transportation plan developed under subsection (g) for the area." Relative to the proposed project,
the "long -range transportation plan' is the Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG)
2001 "Regional Transportation Plan" (2001 RTP). Prior to adopting that plan, SCAG prepared a
'Draft Program Environmental Impact Report — 2001 Regional Transportation Plan Update" (SCAG,
February 1, 2001) (2001 RTP DPEIR) and subsequently adopted a "Final Program Environmental
Impact Report - 2001 Regional Transportation Plan Update" (SCAG, April 2001) (2001 RTP FPEIR)
that included reference to the SR22/WOCC project. With regard to "population, employment, and
housing, SCAG identified the following impact:
The project could potentially displace or relocate residences and businesses through
acquisition of land and buildings necessary for highway, arterial, and transit
improvements. This would be considered a potentially significant impact (2001 RTP
DPEIR, p. ES-6).
As a result of the environmental analysis conducted by SCAG in accordance with CEQA, a number
of mitigation measures where adopted and which SCAG mandated as requirements for "each
implementing agency" (2001 RTP DPEIR, pp. 7 -8). :.Those mitigation measures include the
following measure relating to projects with the potential to displace homes and /or businesses:
Project implementation agencies shall evaluate alternative route alignments and
transportation facilities that minimize the displacement of homes and businesses.
Potential impacts shall be minimized to the extent feasible If.:,possible, existing
rights-of-way should be used (2001 RTP, DPEIR, p ES -6) -
Even after the implementation of all available mitigation mein res, the area's regional
transportation planning agency concluded: "This impact would remain significant and unavoidable
after mitigation due to the potential large number of displacements that could occur with
construction of all the proposed facilities" (2001 RTP, DPEIR, p. ES -6).
The MPO indicates that the "displacement of homes and businesses" constitutes a significant
project - related and cumulative impact. That determination obligates the;Lead Agencies to conduct
later project- specific analyses that would serve to reduce or avoid those adverse environmental
consequences. ` Referencing CEQ Cumulative Effects: "If it is determined that significant cumulative
effects would occur as a result of a proposed action, the project proponent should avoid, minimize,
or mitigate adverse effects by modifying or adding alternatives ... it is important to remember that
the goal of the NEPArprocess is to reduce adverse environmental effects, including cumulative
effects" (CEQ Cumulative Effects, pp. 45 -46).
Although not disclosed as such in the DEIR/DEIS, with regards to project - related impacts on Seal
Beach, one area of potential significant environmental effect relates to the potential displacement of
six residential units under the "Full Build Alternative" (e.g., Table 4.6-3, p. 4.6 -11; Figure 4.6 -1A)
and under the 'Reduced Build Alternative" (e.g., Table 4.6-7, p. 4.6 -19; Figure 4.6 -2A). Although
no displacement activities are anticipated under the "TSM/Expanded Bus Service Alternative" (e.g.,
"the TSM/Expanded Bus Service Alternative would not result in any displacement," p. 4.6 -11), it is
likely that this latter alternative will be rejected by the Lead Agencies since it "does not include any
capital improvements to SR-22" (p. iv) and, therefore, fails to meet the project's declared goals.
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 23
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EIS- CA- 01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
As indicated in FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, "the draft EIS must discuss a range of
alternatives, including all 'reasonable alternatives" [emphasis added] (FHWA Technical Advisory
T6640.8A, p. 9). As further . indicated therein, with regards to the identification and assessment of
"build" alternatives, the advisory states: "Both improvements gf existing highway(s) and alternatives
on new locations should be evaluated. A representative number of reasonable alternatives must be
presented and evaluated in detail in the draft EIS (40 CFR 1502.14[a]) ... Where there is a large
number of alternatives, only a representative number of the most reasonable examples, covering
the full range of alternatives, must be presented" (FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, p. 10).
The City believes that the selection of only a single right -of -way fails to provide the project's
decision makers and stakeholders with either a "representative number" or a "full range" of
alternatives.
Only four alternatives are examined in the DEIR/DEIS. Those alternatives can generally be
described as constituting two "non - build" alternatives and two "build" alternatives. Although the
Lead Agencies would assert that the "TSM/Expanded Bus Service Alternative" would more
appropriately be categorized among the "build" alternatives, in reality,. few actual improvementsc,
are proposed under that option (e.g., "The TSM alternative represents implementation of lower - cost;"
capital improvements, such as increased bus service with associated arterial improvements," p. iv;
"Since this alternative would not include major arterial and freeway improvements, the goals of
these cities for overall transportation mobility would go unmet," p. 4.6 -1; "this alternative does not
propose construction on the freeways; p. 4.9 -13; "there would be no change to the SR -22," p.
4.13 -16). However, since "the TSNVExpanded Bus Service Alternative does not include any capital
improvements to SR -22" (p. iv),, with regards to the SR -22 Freeway, that alternative represents a
"non - build" option. As indicated in the DEDEIS:
.W
The TSM/Expanded Bus Service Alternative includes all of the improvements
outlined in the No Build Alternative, such as OCTA's FFTP Baseline Scenario and
The Corridor MIS No Build and TSM Alternatives. In conjunction with these
improvements, the T5M/Expanded Bus Service Alternative incorporates additional
TSM strategies for the SR -22 corridor. The TSM /Expanded Bus Service Alternative
would include various improvements such as increased capacity and speed on
Garden Grave Boulevard, Trask Avenue, and Westminster Boulevard/17" Street
'.. within the existing curb (p. 2 -5). ,
As a result, the only apparent distinction between the "No Build Alternative" and the
"TSM/Expanded Bus Service Alternative" are the introduction of additional buses along the SR -22
Freeway and the construction of limited improvements along streets which are not subject to
Caltrans jurisdiction and can be implemented by local jurisdictions independent of the
SR22/WOCC project. Clearly, the "TSM/Expanded Bus Service Alternative' is, in no way, similar to
the other "build" alternatives addressed in the DEIR/DEIS (e.g., "TSM/Expanded Bus Service
Alternative strategies are primarily operational," p. 2 -5) since the primary purpose of the
SR22ANOCC project appears to be the implementation of capacity improvements to the Garden
Grove Freeway.
Of the two "build' alternatives addressed in the DEIR/DEIS, both have comparable impacts to Seal
Beach with regards to residential displacement, aesthetic impacts, and noise intrusion. From the
perspective of direct impacts to the City, there exists no substantive difference between those
alternatives. As a result, based on the provisions of NEPA and its implementing guidelines, and as
State Route 22/WeA Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 24
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
required under the 2001 RTP FPEIR, the Lead Agencies are directed to explore other alternatives
that would allow for the "preservation" of the existing environment and "minimize the
displacement of homes and businesses.' The City asserts that by failing to formulate one or more
"build" alternatives that avoid the destruction of homes within Seal Beach, the Lead Agenci s have
failed to formulate a reasonable range of alternatives, including possible "new locations' wich, if
implemented, would result in the "preservation' of those homes.
The DEIR/DEIS states that "with the loss of homes, landscaping, and the new direct views of
freeway elements, visual quality would be dramatically affected in residential neighborhoods. It is
anticipated that there would be potentially significant impacts to visual quality in residential
neighborhoods" (p. 4.13 -10). Referencing Section 15126.6(f) of the State'CEQA Guidelines, "the
range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by the 'rule of reason' that requires the EIR to
set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned. choice. The alternatives shall be
limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.'
Based on the Lead Agencies' own disclosure of `significant impacts to visual quality in residential
neighborhoods'. and the City's declaration that the loss of six or more homes would, itself, 66
significant, CEQA directs the Lead Agencies to investigate other alternatives whose implementation"
would result in the reduction or avoidance of those declared significant impacts, while s'till
allowing the Lead Agencies to accomplish the project's stated intent.
Of the four alternatives now presented in the DEIR/DEIS, only two alternatives (i.e., "Full Build
Alternative' and "Reduced Build Alternative ") seek to accomplish the Lead Agencies declared
objectives. Conversely, the remaining two alternatives (i.e., "No Build Alternative" and "TSM/
Expanded Bus Service Alternatives') fail to fulfill the Lead Agencies' objectives, fail to minimize
significant or potentially significant impacts upon the City, and have been included in the
DEIR/DEIS solely as a result of statutory or agency regulations. Referencing FHWA Technical
Advisory T6640.8.A, the range of alternatives that should be considered include: (1) the 'no action"
alternative (i.e., required under 40 CFR 1502..14[d]); (2) Transportation System Management (TSM)
alternative (e.g.,. the TSM alternative includes those activities which maximize the efficiency of the
present system); (3) mass transit; and (4) build alternatives (e.g., both improvement of existing
highway(sj and alternatives on new locations). As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS, a mass transit
alternative (i.e., fixed guideway) was rejected by the Lead Agencies (see pp. 2 -16 and 17) and has
not been carried forward therein. ,
The Lead Agencies will ultimately reject as either infeasible or as failing to meet the project's
objectives both. the "No Build Alternative" and the "TSM/Expanded Bus Service Alternative' and
focus the agencies' discussion on one or more of the "build' alternatives. The Lead Agencies must,
therefore, identify and "rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives" (40
CFR 1502.14[a]) from the universe of all "build" alternatives that could be formulated. Since both
"build" alternatives addressed in the DEIR/DEIS have comparable impacts upon the City, from Seal
Beach's perspective, the Lead Agencies have clearly failed to identify and fully consider other
"reasonable alternatives which would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of
the human environment" (40 CFR 1502.1).
For example, through much of the City, the SR -22 Freeway abuts the 5,256 -acre United States
Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach (USNWS). Along the freeway, the adjoining area within the
base is presently allocated for agricultural use (e.g., row crops). Although no homes or businesses
exist along that segment, the Lead Agencies have failed or refused to examine a more southerly
Slate Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 25
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EIS- CA- 01 -04.D / SCH No. 98064001
alignment that would avoid the loss of existing homes located on the north side of the freeway.
Shifting the proposed freeway alignment a few feet to the south through the City would likely result
in the preservation of those existing homes and the avoidance of significant impacts upon the City
and its residents. The City specifically requests that the Lead A4gencies include and thoroughly
analyze a realigned alternative that would shift the proposed freeway south onto the USNWS
property, rather than into the backyards and homes of Seal Beach residents. The DEIR/EIS should
be revised and recirculated to address that question, as well as others identified therein.
The Lead Agencies' requirement for the assessment of "alternative locations" to the proposed
project is contained in Section 15126(1)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines which stipulates: "The key
question and first step in analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be
avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Only locations that
would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered
for inclusion in the EIR." Although the Lead Agencies fail to specifically address the impacts
associated with the destruction of six homes in Seal Beach, the DEIR/DEIS indicates that
"displacement" and 'loss of community cohesiveness' (p. xiv) constitute a "potentially significant
impact." The question to the Lead Agencies then becomes `can the impacts associated with
displacement be avoided or substantially lessened through the realignment or relocation of the
proposed improvements?
As required under Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "where there are impacts that
cannot be alleviated without imposing an alternative design, their implications and the reasons why
the project is being proposed, notwithstanding their effects, should be described." If the Lead
Agencies conclude that no feasible alternative locations, alignments, rights -o €way, or designs exist
that would reduce or avoid the project's potential impacts, the Lead Agencies must disclose: (1)
their concerted efforts to identify such actions; (2) the list of all such actions considered; and (3) the
reasons why such actions were rejected or could not be feasibly implemented (Section
15126[f][2][B], State. CEQA Guidelines).:. Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any supportive evidence
documenting either the Lead Agencies investigation of or reasons for failing to consider variations
in the proposed SR -22 Freeway alignment that would result in the avoidance or reduction of
impacts to affected residents and businesses.
3.8 Failure to Consider Other Alternative Alignments and Rights -of -Way
Although the SR-22 Freeway "HOV connector project" was included in the 2001 RTP (2001 RTP,
Table 5.3, p..72), neither the 2001 RTP nor the 2001 RTP FPEIR included a specific alignment or
right -or -way for that project. Referencing the 2001 RTP FPEIR, "project specific planning and
implementation undertaken by each implementing agency will depend on a number of issues,
including: policies, programs and projects adopted at the local level; restrictions on federal, State,
and local transportation funds; the results of feasibility studies for particular corridors; and further
environmental review of proposed projects' (2001 RTP DPEIR, p. PD-2).
For both of the "build" alternatives presented in the DEIR/DEIS, the Lead Agencies present only
variations of a single alignment. Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any discussion or analysis of an
alternative alignment(s) that could accomplish the project's stated objectives or rationale for the
DEIR/DEIS' reasons for failing to evaluate other possible rights-of-way. Similarly, none of the
"initial set of conceptual alternatives" (p. 2 -2) identified in the DEIR/DEIS appear to be the result of
a detailed feasibility study or other alignment study. By suggesting that only a single alignment (as
State Route 22/west Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 26
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
the DEIR/DEIS does by its failure to identify other alignments) is available for all "build" alternatives
(absent substantial technical analysis, full disclosure, and public and peer review as part of the
environmental process), the Lead Agencies have artificially and inappropriately narrowed the range
of alternatives that could and should beoconsidered in the DEIR/DEIS. C
Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any indication that one of the discretionary actions now under
consideration and, therefore, subject to public debate, modification, and further environmental
analysis is a final alignment determination. By withholding that information, the Lead Agencies
have limited the submission of meaningful public comments on the DEIR/DEIS since the
document's reviewers are led to believe (through the DEIR/DEIS' failure to disclose) that no final
alignment determination has yet to be made.
Although a major investment study (MIS) (e.g., "The entire alternative screening process is
documented in the MIS (available at Caltrans, OCTA, and major libraries)," p. iii; "The MIS
technical analysis is presented in the MIS Evaluation Report," (p. 2 -16); "This MIS Evaluation Report
does not recommend alternatives," (p.10 -1) and project study report (PSR) (e.g., "With IN
completion of the MIS Evaluation Report, the study process began with implementation of th'
Project Study Report," p.10 -1) have been prepared and are referenced in the DEIR/DEIS, theMls
and PSR were not subject to any detailed environmental review, the public was not widely invited
to participate in that development of those work efforts, the MIS and PSR were not disseminated
with the DEIR/DEIS nor are the key elements summarized therein, and neither the MIS nor the PSR
are referenced in Chapter 13.0 (Bibliography) of the DEIR/DEIS.
As required under 23 CFR 771.105(a), it is the policy of the FHWA that "to the fullest extent
possible, all environmental investigations, reviews, and consultations be coordinated as a single
process, and compliance with all applicable environmental requirements be reflected in the
environmental document required by this regulation." It is, :therefore, unreasonable and
inappropriate for the Lead Agencies to segregate the "alternative screening process" from the NEPA
process and fail.. to fully and faithfully disclose the screening criteria, totality of alternatives
considered, specific performance of each alternative with regards to the established criteria,
comparative ranking of each alternative, and supportive documentation associated with that
process as part of the DEIR/DEIS. Similarly, the Lead Agencies should document all public
outreach efforts, including identification of all notices, parties contacted, and public meetings
conducted as part of that "alternative screening process."
The DEIR/DEIS fails to note whether the MIS or PSR included either a general or detailed evaluation
of alternative alignments. As such, in the absence of that information, there exists no factual basis
in the DEIR/DEIS to assume the availability of only a single alignment for all "build" alternatives.
By limiting the environmental analysis to a single alignment, other possible alignments (e.g., a
southerly alignment through the USNWS) are never considered and the comparable impacts
associated with those alternative routes never examined nor presented for public and agency
consideration. As indicated in the CEQ Regulations, alternatives are "the .heart of the
environmental impact statement" (40 CFR 1502.14). The intent of the alternatives analysis is not to
present slight variations of a single course of action but to "present the environmental impacts of
the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues and
providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision makers and the public" (40 CFR
1502.14).
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2101
City of Seal Beach Page 27
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS-CA- 01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
In People Against Nuclear Energy v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the court stated
that "NEPA procedures are designed to ensure that environmental information is available to public
officials and citizens before decisions are made, so that environmental considerations are part of
the agency's decision making process" and "government must not proceed to make decisions that
might have a momentous effect ...on community well -being of its citizens without first giving
careful, responsible consideration to the consequences its actions might have. By enacting NEPA,
Congress meant to assure that no federal decision — especially one of this importance — would be
made in the shadow of environmental ignorance" (678 F. 2d 234 -235 [19821).
The Lead Agencies failure to consider a broad array of right -of -way options, particularly in areas
where such options could reduce substantial impacts on the human environment (e.g., destruction
of homes and displacement of residents), serves to limit dialogue, discussions, and environmental
analysis to an artificially constrained set of alternatives. Rather than first seeking to answer the
question "which rightof -way would likely produce the least environmental consequences ?' the
Lead Agencies have narrowed the question presented to the project's stakeholders to "how can we
reduce the impacts within the single right -of -way selected ?' By bypassing the first question and /of
by failing to allow the project's stakeholders to fully participate in the right -of -way selection
process, there clearly is a "momentous effect' since the range of choices are now limited and the
resulting environmental analysis is confined to what, if any, mitigation measures can be reasonably
and feasibly implemented should the single "build' alternative (masquerading as two alternatives
proposed within the same right-of-way) be selected?
The City believes that the Lead Agencies failure to identify and consider, as part of the DEIR/DEIS,
alternative rightsof -way, including those rights -of -way required - to accommodate future
"transportation corridor" improvement projects (e.g., the 1 -405 Freeway is identified in the 1998
RTP as a "Post 2020 Long -Range Corridor' [1998 RTP, Table 6.11, indicating the need to preserve
additional right -of -way for future expansion), is contrary to the intent of NEPA and CEQA. The City
further believes that there exist other possible freeway alignments that, if implemented, will reduce
some or all of the substantial environmental effects on Seal Beach and its residents.
3.9 Failure to Consider Other Alternative Project Designs
As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS: (1) "this change from a soft landscaped edge to a hard - surface edge
would also represent a potentially substantial adverse impact' (p. 4.13 -6); (2) 'the new views
related to the Full Build Alternative are anticipated to be potentially significant' (p. 4.13 -11); (3)
'the new views related to the Reduced Build Alternative are anticipated to be potentially
significant' (p. 4.13 -12); (4) "the visual impact to the remaining residential viewers cannot be fully
mitigated and a residual visual impact would remain' (p. 4.13 -34); (5) "the removal of landscaping
for widening of the freeways and realignment of interchanges cannot be fully mitigated' (p. 4.13-
34); and (6) 'the addition of elevated connectors... would also result in- unmitigatable blockage of
views' (p. 4.13 -34). Although the DEIR/DEIS' assessment of visual impacts is inadequate and
deficient, based on the Lead Agencies own declarations, significant visual impacts will be produced
by either of the two "build" alternatives that cannot be reduced to below a level of significance.
Since no mitigation measures have been identified by the Lead Agencies that can effectively reduce
the project's visual impacts to an insignificant level, the Lead Agencies are obligated under CEQA
(e.g., Section 21002, CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines (e.g., Sections 15021[a][2] and
15041[a], State CEQA Guidelines) to identify and consider other alternatives that could eliminate
State Route 22/west Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 28
Draft Environmental Impact Report(Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
those impacts. Other than the two "non - build" alternatives examined in the DEIR/DEIS (i.e., "No
Build Alternative" and "TSM/Expanded Bus Service Alternative'), absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any
analysis of other potential design options (e.g., elimination of the elevated connectors) proposed in
response to the project's significant visual ompacts. C
Similarly, as indicated in CEQ Forty Questions, "when there are potentially a very large number of
alternatives, only a reasonable number of examples, covering the full spectrum of alternatives, must
be analyzed and compared in the EIS' [emphasis added] (CEQ Forty Questions, Question 1[b]).
The consideration of only two "build" alternatives which appear identical except for the inclusion
of the Pacific Electric Arterial, both operating within the same alignment and utilizing the same
design solutions, fails to represent a reasonable "full spectrum of alternatives' for the fulfillment of
the project's declared objectives. Of the four project "goals' only a single. goal references HOV
improvements (i.e., "maximize cost - effectiveness of the SR- 22/Est Orange County Connector
improvements,' p. 1 -2), while the preponderance of goals stress mobility, safety,
environmental impacts, and positive economic impacts (see p. '.1 -2). -Those objectives do not
explicitly require the construction of "HOV connectors.'
Although not specifically addressed in the DEIR/DEIS, the City has concluded that the proposed
SR22/WOCC project will produce significant visual impacts to established residential areas and
recreational facilities in Seal Beach through the construction of new sound walls, elevated HOV
connectors, and through the introduction of new sources of light and glare. Since neither the "No
Build Alternative' nor the "TSM/Expanded Bus Service Alternative' will produce those same effects,
the identified impacts relate to the project's currently . proposed improvements. Modifications to the
project's design (e.g., elimination or modification of the proposed elevated'' connectors) could,
therefore, constitute an effective means of eliminating or substantially reducing those impacts.
As indicated in Caltrans' "Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol" (Caltrans, .0 ober 1998) (Caltrans Noise
Protocol or Protocol), "noise abatement measures may include, but are not limited to ... Avoiding
the project impact by using design alternatives that result in lessening the noise effect, such as
altering horizontal and vertical alignments to avoid a noise impact" (Caltrans Noise Protocol, p.
25).
By eliminating the proposed freeway .connectors, many of the project's potential impacts to Seal
Beach could be eliminated or substantially. reduced. One possible alternative available to the Lead
Agencies, which was rejected prior to the release of the DEIR/DEIS, is the "HOV Lanes on SR -22
Alternative" (p. 2 -18). As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS: "This HOV Alternative performed well in the
technical analysis conducted for the MIS. as it maximized transportation benefits at the lowest cost
compared to the other build alternatives. This alternative would complete the countywide HOV
system, fulfilling an important transportation goal" (p. 2 -18). It is, therefore, apparent that this
alternative meets the majority of "goals" established by the Lead Agency for the proposed project.
The Lead Agencies rationale for rejecting this and other alternatives appears to be "public opinion'
(i.e., 'Through surveys of the project area and countywide public opinion polls, participants voiced
concerns about the safety and congestion impacts of vehicles moving between HOV and general -
purpose lanes as they transition between freeways. Surveys indicated that the public generally
believe direct carpool connectors between freeways improve safety and overall efficiency of the
HOV system," p. 2 -18) and/or "public support" (e.g., the Fixed Guideway Alternative was
eliminated from further consideration due to lack of public support in the SR -22 corridor study
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 29
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Errvironmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EIS- CA -01 -04-D / 5CH No. 98064001
area," p. 2 -17). None of the referenced "surveys" are, however, included in the DEIR/DEIS. As a
result, it is not possible to determine what bias may have existed in the manner in which the poll
was conducted and the survey results interpreted. Additionally, the DEIR/DEIS does not include
any factual data supporting the assumption that "direct carpool connectors between freeways
improve safety.'
Absent from NEPA and CEQA are any references allowing the Lead Agencies to convey to
"participants" of a limited public opinion survey the Lead Agencies independent obligations to
present a factually and legally adequate DEIR/DEIS. Although the project's decision makers should
be influenced by the opinions of their constituents, those decision makers must be presented with a
full array of alternatives and a document providing a comparable analysis between a variety of
'build' alternatives. Since the "HOV Lanes on SR -22 Alternative" meets the project's objectives
and would likely do so with lesser environmental costs, the Lead Agencies are obligated to include
that or a similar alternative among the alternatives considered in the DEIR/DEIS.
The project's design appears to be based on the supposition that the only design approach to the
development of HOV connectors is through the construction of an "elevated" route. Absent from
the DEIR/DEIS, however, is any evidence that any other design approach was ever considered.
Although there may exist supportive rationale for the elimination of other design concepts (e.g.,
construction of depressed roadway similar to the project design now being developed for the
Alameda Corridor), those concepts must first be presented, subjected to public and agency review,
and investigated through the presentation of a reasonable analysis prior to their rejection. Since no
such actions have occurred, in recognition of the presence of unmitigatable aesthetic impacts, the
Lead Agencies have presented a deficient assessment of a reasonable range of project alternatives
and must augment the existing analysis to ascertain whether other design solutions exist that would
accomplish the majority of the Lead Agencies objectives, and do so with lesser visual impacts.
One option that appears to have been previously rejected "by the OCTA board" (p. 2 -6) and is
absent from the DEIR/DEIS is the construction of HOV lanes absent the construction of "HOV
connectors" at freeway interchanges. Recognizing that the decision-making process often involves
tradeoffs, the visual impacts associated with either "build" alternative must be examined in the
context of other potential impacts (e.g., safety considerations) that would result from an improved
HOV network but absent HOV linkages between different freeways.: In the absence of any
comparative analysis of an HOV system'. with "connectors" and one without those "connectors," the
project's stakeholders are provided an incomplete assessment of a reasonable range of alternatives.
3.10 Selection of Wrong Horizon Year Prevents Long -Range Planning and Analysis
The 1998 RTP states:l: "It is important to identify and preserve transportation corridors needed to
expand or enhance trans citation for future generations... Ideally, the long -range corridors will
planners encourage and
g p pgfity- makers to start preparing strategies for preserving corridors now.
Planning can prevent losing right -of -way needed for transportation beyond the year 2020. The first
step in this kind of planning for the future is to identify potential long -range corridors and
determine there is a need to preserve them... The information sources for long -range corridors
include: [11 Various long -range transportation studies; [2] Recommendations from Caltrans; [3]
Transportation Corridor projects expected to be operational after 2020; and [4] Informal discussions
with public agency staff ' ' (1998 RTP, Section 6.1). The 1998 RTP specifically identifies the 1 -405
Freeway as a "Post 2020 Long -Range Corridor" (1998 RTP, Table 6.1).
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach - Page 30
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
Based on this regional policy statement, public agencies responsible for transportation
improvement projects must both adopt a long -range planning perspective and commence early
efforts to identify future corridor requirements in order to respond to demands "beyond the year e
2020."
As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS, the project's purpose is to "improve both existing and future
mobility and enhance safety throughout the corridor while minimizing environmental and
economic impacts" (p. 1 -1). The document identifies the following four "goals ': (1) improve
mobility and enhance safety; (2) maximize cost -effectiveness of SR22NJOCC improvements; (3)
minimize adverse and maximize beneficial environmental impacts to SR22ANOCC communities;
and (4) minimize negative and maximize positive economic impacts to SR221WOCC communities
(p. 1 -2). Based on these statements, the Lead Agencies establish the project's goals, evaluative
criteria, and basis for the identification and elimination of project alternatives. in defining the
project's purpose, the DEIR/DEIS states "the purpose of the proposed SR- 22NVest Orange. County
Connection project is to improve mobility (both existing. and future) and enhance safety' (pj'9.- 15):',
Since no quantitative goals are identified (e.g., specific volumetric increase in vehicles), the
project's goals are qualitative and allow for only relative comparisons between competing
alternatives. Among the stated objectives and absent from any statement of purpose is reference to
a particular target date as the specific horizon year to be used as the basis for traffic and
transportation planning.
Prior to the year 2000, it was reasonable to base traffic planning on a 20 -year horizon, concluding
in the year 2020. Now, as we approach 2002, to suggest that 2020 remains an appropriate horizon
for major traffic improvements prevents anything approximating long -range planning. Although
absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any clear indication of the anticipated timeframe when project
construction can be realistically anticipated, from the information presented therein, it can be
ascertained that the project will not be completed until 2008 (e.g., "start date of 2005 and a
completion date of 2008," p. 4.8 -10) or 2010 (e.g., "a completion date of 2010," p. 4.8 -10). In a
best -case scenario, it is likely than construction would not commence until 2005 and be completed
any sooner than 2008 -2010. In comparison, the Briefing Book states that "the original schedule for
delivery mainline SR -22 improvements was early 2009" (Briefing Book, p. 21).
Based on the Lead Agencies own declarations (e.g., "Since the local agencies are in disagreement
with the proposed Centerline alignments, the project may be further delayed; p. 8-4), the actual
commencement and completion dates may be extended beyond those optimist projects.
As indicated in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) "Regional
Transportation Plan" (SCAG, April 2001) (2001 RTC) (2001 RTP), the SR -22A -405 HOV connection
project is identified as "regionally significant" and its "implementation schedule" is not anticipated
until 2010 (2001 RTP, Table 3.3,. p. 72). Therefore, within 10-12 years of completion, the SR -22
Freeway will have again reached capacity and a similar environmental study and capital
improvement program will be required.
A project that becomes outdated and necessitates further action ten years after its completion is
hardly an activity that serves to fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of "present and
future generations of Americans" (Section 101(a], NEPA). Rather than utilizing the relatively short-
Stale Route 22M'est Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 31
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA-01-04-D / SCH No. 98064001
term horizon year specified in the DEIR/DEIS, referencing the Caltrans "Environmental Handbook,"
'one short- term/long -term dividing line that makes sense is the initial design life of the project,
which for highway and bridge projects is typically 20-50 years after they are built' (Environmental
Handbook, p. 3 -12)0
a
In 2020, there is no evidence to suggest that a similar implementation strategy will not again be
evoked by the Lead Agencies and additional properties purchased as added right -of -way is needed
for further traffic improvements (e.g., construction of additional general - purpose lanes). A recent
article in the Los Angeles Times indicates that Orange County is currently the strongest housing
market in the United States (e.g., 'anticipated traffic growth would be spurred by future population
and economic growth within the SR -22 corridor and those geographic areas whose travelers would
use SR -22 for part of their trips,' p. 3.7 -4). It is, therefore, likely that by 2020, additional
development will have occurred in proximity to the SR -22 Freeway. Future expansion will become
both more difficult and more costly as time goes by.
To embark on a multi - million dollar project with a shelf life of only 10-12 years clearly seems near-
sighted and arbitrary (e.g., "The planning horizon for the Full Build Alternative is 2020," p. 2 -8).
Through that short- sightedness, the Lead Agencies limit their collective vision of the future and their
assessment of environmental impacts to a date and time which cannot be demonstrated to
represent anything more than an arbitrary date on an expanding spectrum of traffic growth and ever
increasing traffic impacts.
Nowhere in the DEIR/DEIS do the Lead Agencies indicate that technological advances or other
conditions will confine traffic growth and demand to that which will exist in 2020. As a result, it
can be reasonably assumed, from a traffic perspective, that year 2021 conditions will be worse than
in 2020, year 2022 conditions will be worst than 2021, and so on. Even the area's regional council
of governments' 2001 RTP and its accompanying 2001 RTP FPEIR -are based on a year 2025
horizon (e.g., "The 2001 RTP covers the period 2001 - 2025," 2001:. RTP, p. 23). The Lead Agencies,
therefore, materially misrepresent that the project's assumptions are 'consistent with other future
planning efforts" (p. 2 -8).
As indicated therein, 'population is expected to increase by 40 percent from 1997 to 2025" (2001
RTP, p. 2). In contrast, the DEIR/DEIS assumes that "between 1990 and 2020, the population in the
corridor cities .,is predicted to grow by 32.7 percent" (p. 1 -7) and 'population is expected to grow by
22 percent" between 1995 and 2020 (p 1 -8). Although these projections reflect different time
periods, it is immediately obvious that the Lead Agencies growth projections are substantially less
than those adopted by SCAG and, therefore, less than will likely occur not only over the
document's planning period but beyond (e.g., 'anticipated traffic growth would be spurred by
future population and economic growth within the SR -22 corridor and those geographic areas
whose travelers would use the SR -22 for part of their trips," p. 3.7 -4).
In addition, throughout the DEIR/DEIS, the Lead Agencies have sought to utilize 1990 Census and
Orange County Projections 96 (OCP -96) despite the availability of 2000 Census and OCP -2000
information. As a result, the 'baseline" information presented in the DEIR/DEIS does not reflect
current conditions or utilize the most recent data. The population circumstances, and environment
described in the DEIRAIS have changed substantially. Since the current information differs from the
set of assumptions upon which the DEIR/DEIS is based, the Lead Agencies' technical analysis needs
to be revised (updated) and the changes analyzed to determine to what extent 2000 Census and
Slate Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2004
City of Seal Beach Page 32
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
OCP -2000 data alter both the "baseline" discussion and future needs assessment. This revised
analysis will undoubtedly affect the conclusions reached in the DEIR/EIS and will require
recirculation on that basis alone.
As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS, "under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA, the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), and the Transportation Equity Act
of the 21" Century (TEA -21), proposed transportation projects must be derived from a long -range
transportation plan or Regional Transportation Plan" (p. 3.8 -3). Although formally adopted by
SCAG in April 2001, six months before the release of the DEIR/DEIS in August 2001 and in draft
form substantially before that time, the Lead Agencies' analysis of and'. reference to the "SLAG
Regional Transportation Plan" is with regards to the "1998 RTP" (p.'1 -12). Surprisingly, the "Draft
2001 RTP Update" is listed in Chapter 13.0 (Bibliography) in the DEIR/DEIS but no information
from that document, which was adopted substantially in advance of the release of the DEIR/DEIS, is
contained therein.
As a result, the "proposed transportation project" addressed in the DEIR/DEIS is clearly not derived
from the current RTP (e.g.,'FHWA and FTA made a conformity determination on the SCAG's 1998
RTP on June 9, 1998," p. 4.8 -10) and fails to utilize the traffic models (e.g., "Traffic forecasts were
developed using the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model," p. 3.7 -1) and projections in
the applicable "Regional Transportation Plan" (e.g., "Under the requirements of the CAAA, ISTEA,
and TEA -21, proposed transportation projects must be derived from an RTP that conforms with the
State air quality plans," p. 4.8 -10).
Even if traffic conditions reflected in the 1998 RTP exceed those identified in the 2001 RTP, not
only it is critical that the DEIR/DEIS be based on the most current growth projections and reflect the
largest possible planning period but the NEPA Lead Agency must document compliance with the
2001 RTP. Clearly, none of those requirements have been met based on the information and
analysis presented in the DEIR/DEIS.
As indicated in the 2001 RTP DPEIR, as certified by SCAG in April 2001: "The 1998 RTP overstated
the growth forecasts for 2020 by about 4% (estimated at 22.3 million people, now estimated at
21.3 million). The 2001 RTP Update forecasts that,[e,; region will grow to 22.6 million by 2025"
(2001 RTP PEIR, p. PH -23). In comparison, the Ca if Department. of Finance project's that,
within the SCAG region, the year 2025 population will be approximately 23.4 million people"
(2001 RTP PEIR, Table PH -12, p. PH -26) or more than 1.1 million more than assumed in the
DEIR/DEIR.Based on a comparison of the 1998 RTP projections for 2020 and the 2001 RTP
projections for 2025, the DEIR/DEIS' analysis underestimates areawide population by between 0.3
and 1.1 million people. If each individual were to account for ten daily trips (which would
accommodate all residential and non - residential trips), between 3.0 and 11.0 million daily trips are
not accounted for in the DEIR/DEIS. Clearly, some percentage of those trips would occur along the
SR -22 Freeway.
The Lead Agencies' failure to examine an appropriate horizon year is further emphasized by
statements in the DEIR/DEIS. As indicated therein, "State and federal procedures usually
recommend addressing a design year 20 years (Year 2025) after construction is completed. The
demographic data required to forecast travel demand beyond 2020 is not available and is not
anticipated until July 2001 when SCAG, the MPO, adopts a new regional growth forecast" (p. 3.7-
1). It is apparent that the Lead Agencies had knowledge of the SCAG 2025 forecasts substantially
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 33
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EIS- CA- 01 -04.D / SCH No. 98064001
in advance of the document's release (e.g., "The Draft 2001 RTP Update was released by the
Regional Council on December 14, 2000 and made available for public review and comment over
the next 60 days,' 2001 RTP, p. 23).
The DEIR/DEIS notes: "Although CEQA and NEPA share many similarities, these are differences
between them that would have to be satisfied for this joint environmental document' (p. ii). One of
those differences relates to the development of technical data. Citing Section 1502.22 of the CEO
Regulations:
When an agency is evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant adverse effects on
the human environment in an environmental impact: statement and there is
incomplete or unavailable information, the agency shall, always made clear that
such information is lacking. (a) If the incomplete information relevant to reasonably
foreseeable significant adverse impacts is essential to '.a reasoned choice among
alternatives and the overall costs of obtaining it are not exorbitant, the agency shall
include the information in the environmental impact statement. (b) If the
information relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts cannot be
obtained because the overall costs of obtaining it are exorbitant or the means to
obtain it are not known, the agency shall include within the environmental impact
statement: (1) a statement that such information is incomplete or unavailable; (2) a
statement of the relevance of the incomplete or unavailable information to evaluate
reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human environment; (3) a
summary of existing credible scientific evidence which is relevant to evaluating the
reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human environment, (4)
the agency's evaluation of such impacts based upon theoretical approaches or
research methods generally accepted in the scientific community. For the purpose
of this section, "reasonably foreseeable" includes impacts that have catastrophic
consequences, even if their probability of occurrence is low, provided that the
analysis of the impacts . is supported by credible scientific evidence, is not based on
pure con)ecture, and is within the rule of reason.
Since prolec ions concerning year 2025 conditions were available from SCAG substantially prior to
the release of the DEIR/DEIS, could have either been independently developed or provided by
SCAG in draft or final form, or independently developed by the FHWA and Caltrans through the
extrapolation of year 2020 projections to 2023, the Lead Agencies have no defensible rationale for
not including: that information in the DEIR/DEIS and for not basing the traffic analysis upon year
2025 projections, in accordance with "State and federal procedures.' It is further evident that the
Lead Agencies could: have delayed the release of the DEIR/DEIS pending receipt of the updated
2025 traffic projections (which were actually available to the Lead Agencies substantially in
advance of the document's release).
Lack of diligence or accessibility to interim projections fails to constitute a reasonable rationale for
the Lead Agencies' failure to independently develop and include the "information in the
environmental impact statement." Without reasonably accurate projections of future year
conditions, not only is the future "baseline' (i.e., "No Project Alternative') potentially
mischaracterized but the improvement plans and range of alternatives formulated in response to
those deficiencies are based on potentially erroneous information (e.g., "The forecasted growth in
the corridor accounts for the 15 sections operating at LOS F,' p. 3.7 -5).
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 34
Draft Environmental Impact Report(Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
Referencing 23 USC 134 (Section 134), "it is in the national interest to encourage and promote the
safe and efficient management, operation, and development of surface transportation systems that
will serve the mobility needs of people and freight and foster economic growth and development
within and through urbanized areas, while minimizing transportation- related fuel consumption and
air pollution" (23 USC 134[a][11) and "to accomplish the objective stated in paragraph (1),
metropolitan planning organizations designated under subsection (b), in. cooperation with the State
and public transit operators, shall develop transportation plans and programs for urbanized areas of
the State" (23 USC 134[a][2]). SCAG constitutes the area's "metropolitan planning organization"
(MPO).
As further required in 23 USC 134(8)(1) and (2)(A), each MPO "shall prepare, and update
periodically, according to a schedule that the Secretary determines to be appropriate, a long- range,
transportation plan for its metropolitan area in accordance with the requirements of this subsection"
and "in formulating the long -range transportation plan, the metropolitan planning organization shall
consider factors described in subsection (0 as such factors relate to a20 -year forecast period."
Referencing the FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, in describing the purpose and need for the
proposed action, the agency's NEPA compliance document shall include a discussion of the
"relationship to any statewide plan or adopted urban transportation plan together with an
explanation of the project's traffic forecasts that are substantially different from those estimates from
the 23 USC 134 (Section 134) planning process. As required under 23 USC 134(3)(D), "each
project shall be consistent with the long -range transportation plan developed under subsection (p,)
for the area." Since SCAG's "long -range transportation plan" is based an ;a year 2025 scenario, use
of a 2020 forecast is outdated, inconsistent with the applicable urbane: transportation plan, and
produces a horizon year (upon which traffic forecasts are based) which is substantially different
than that contained in the 2001 RTP. No explanation of that difference is, however, presented
anywhere in the DEIR/DEIS.
3.11 Failure to Consider the "Whole of the Action"
As defined in Section 15378(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "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." As further indicated in 23
CFR 771.111(0:
In order to ensure meaningful evaluation of alternatives and to avoid commitments
to transportation improvements before they are fully evaluated, the action evaluated
in each EIS or finding of no significant impact (FONSI) shall: (1) Connect logical
termini and be of sufficient length to address environmental matters on a broad
scope; (2) Have independent utility or independent significance, i.e., be usable and
be a reasonable expenditure even if no additional transportation improvements in
the area are made; and (3) Not restrict consideration of alternatives for other
reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements [emphasis added].
As indicated in DEIR/DEIS, in order "to mitigate impacts to the SR- 22/SR -55 HOV connector, it
would be necessary to include an additional SR -55 HOV lane in each direction north of SR -22 for
some distance" (p. 4.7 -22). Since "this is beyond the scope of the SR- 221VVest Orange County
Connector" (p. 4.7 -22), that portion of the project has not been included under any of the "build"
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 35
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EIS- CA- M -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
alternatives examined by the Lead Agencies and the impacts of that action have not been included
as part of the project's environmental analysis.
Similarly, in rejecting the "general- purpose lanes' alternative (e.g., 'transportation rneeds of the add
study area [would be addressed] through expanding the capacity of the freeway by ing general -
purpose lanes in each direction on SR -22 between Valley View Street and SR -55,' p. 2 -17), the
Lead Agencies' rationale for rejection was 'a desire to preserve the long -term operational flexibility
of added lanes to SR -22' (p. 2 -17). Based on that statement, it appears evident that the Lead
Agencies recognize the future need for additional 'general- purpose lanes' along the SR -22 Freeway
corridor. The construction of 'additional SR -55 HOV lane in each direction north of SR -22 for
some distance' (p. 4.7 -22) and "added lanes to SR -22' (p. 2 -17), therefore, constitute "reasonably
foreseeable transportation improvements' (23 CFR 771.111[0[31).
The Lead Agencies' efforts to fragment the larger improvement project into smaller components
appears to relate to a conscious effort to segregate the environmental impacts from the proposed
HOV improvements from those that would result from the construction of new general- purpose
lanes and to secure federal funding for the proposed improvements. As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS:
The General- Purpose Lanes Alternative was eliminated from further consideration
due to concerns with future air quality conformity ... The SR -22 corridor is located
in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). jurisdiction, currently classified as
nonattainment for carbon monoxide (CO), .ozone (03), and .particulate matter
greater than 10 microns (PM70), with respect to air quality compliance under the
Federal and California Clean Air. Acts. Federal Law [23 USC' Section 134(b]
prohibits funding for a significant increase in carrying capacity; for single- occupant
vehicles (general - purpose lanes) for regions classified as non - attainment for CO and
03 (pp. 2 -17 and 2-18).
Both NEPA and CEQA are intended to protect the environment, to the maximum extent feasible,
and are not dependent upon those funding source being pursued by the Lead Agencies. As a result,
the addition of new general - purpose lanes, in combination with the proposed HOV improvements
and the identification of the I -405 Freeway as a "Post 2020 Long -Range Corridor' (1998 RTP, Table
6.1), clearly constitute components of the 'project" that must be addressed in the DEIR/DEIS. The
Lead Agencies' failure to include those reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements therein
demonstrates their failure to identify and evaluate "the whole of the action,' thus producing a
deficient NEPA and CEQA document.
3.12 Project Fragmentation /Segregation Limits Analysis and the Range of Alternatives
Based on the rulings in Laurel Heights Improvement Association v Regents of the University of
California, the Lead Agency . is required to define the pending project in a manner that ensures a
complete analysis.of impacts resulting from future expansion or continuation of the initial aspects of
project development. Such impacts must be assessed when the 'future expansion or other actions'
are a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the project as initially conceived and where the future
expansion or action will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its effects.
A number of court cases have served to define an agency's obligations to examine later aspects of a
proposed action. For example, in addressing the growth- inducing impacts associates with specific
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 36
Draft Environmental Impact Report(Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA -01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
project activities (i.e., roadway construction) that may facilitate subsequent development, the court
in City of Antioch v. City Council of the City of Pittsburg concluded that "construction of the
roadway and utilities cannot be considered in isolation from the development it presages .... the
sole reason to construct the road and sewer project is to prgvide a catalyst for further development
in the immediate area. Because construction of the project could not be undone, and because
achievement of its purpose would almost certainly have significant environmental impacts,
construction should not be permitted to commence until such impacts are evaluated in the manner
prescribed by CEQA."
Referencing Section 15003(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "CEQA was intended to be interpreted
in such a manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the
reasonable scope and statutory language." As indicated in Section 1500.1 {c) of the CEO
Regulations, "it is not better documents but better decisions that count. NEPA's purpose is not to
generate paperwork — even excellent paperwork — but to foster excellent action." The City,
therefore, asserts that the Lead Agencies have sought to fragment/segregate a larger project "the
purpose of the proposed SR- 22/West Orange County Connection project is to improve both existing
and future mobility ...With projected population and employment . growth trends indicating
increased transportation volumes, SR -22 can be expected to experience worsening operational
deficiencies," p. 1 -1) by focusing only upon an incremental and arbitrary planning date that appears
to be in no way tied to further worsening environmental conditions in the future. .
As required under Section 1501.2(b) of the'CEQ Regulations, agencies shall "identify
environmental effects and values in adequate detail so they can be compared to economic and
technical analyses." The courts (Fritiofson - vAlexander, among others) have further stated that
CEQ's scoping regulations require connected, cumulative, and similar actions to be considered
together in the same EIS. Where proposals are functionally or economically related, those
proposals must be considered in a'single EIS. Clearly, future traffic growth and reasonably
foreseeable traffic improvements that will be required beyond 2020 constitute connected,
cumulative, and similar actions (e.g., "In concert with other transportation system improvements. .
.the Full Build Alternative could contribute to increased pressure to revise land use plans to include
more development,' p. 8 -2). Additionally, 'under NEPA, an agency has a duty to continue
reviewing . environmental effects of a proposed action even after its initial approval. Citing Marsh v.
Oregon Natural Resources Council, "it would be incongruous with. ..the Act's manifest concern
with preventing uninformed action, for the blinders to adverse effects, once unequivocally
removed, to be restored prior to the completion of agency action simply because the relevant
proposal has received initial approval."
The DEIR/DEIS states: "SR-22 is included in the goals and policies of the various jurisdictions within
the study area. Most of these are general policies such as the following ... Establish comprehensive
traffic- improvement programs" (p. 1-13). Basing the entire analysis on 2020 conditions when other
agencies are now planning for and modeling 2025 conditions is anything but a "comprehensive
traffic- improvement program" ("the information must be of high quality," 40 CFR 1500.1[b]).
FHWA regulations outline three general principles at 23 CFR 771.111(1) that are to be used to
frame a highway project. In order to ensure meaningful evaluation of alternatives and to avoid
commitments to transportation improvements before they are fully evaluated, the action evaluated
in each EIS or finding of no significant impact (FONSI) shall: (1) connect logical termini and be of
sufficient length to address environmental matters on a broad scope; (2) have independent utility or
Stale Route 221West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 37
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
independent significance (i.e., be usable and be a reasonable expenditure even if no additional
transportation improvements in the area ire made); and (3) not restrict consideration of alternatives
for other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements.
Pursuant to 23 CFR 771.111(fi(3), in order to ensure meaningful evaluation of alternatives and to
avoid commitments to transportation improvements before they are fully evaluated, the action
evaluated in each EIS or finding of no significant impact shall "not restrict consideration of
alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements." Notwithstanding that
obligation, further evidence of the Lead Agencies efforts to fragment a larger improvement program
for the SR -22 Freeway into smaller components (so as to avoid the disclosure of the totality of
environmental effects that would likely result from that larger project) is presented in the Lead
Agencies' rejection of the "general - purpose lanes" alternative. For that possible alternative,
'transportation needs of the study area [would be addressed] through expanding the capacity of the
freeway by adding general - purpose lanes in each direction on SR -22 between Valley View Street
and SR -55" (p. 2 -17). In rejecting that alternative, the Lead Agencies rationale included "a desire to
preserve the long -term operational flexibility of added lanes to SR -22" (p. 2 -17). That statement .
suggests that additional "general - purpose lanes" constitute "reasonably foreseeable transportation
improvements" that will be added to the SR -22 Freeway corridor in the future.
With regards to the metropolitan transportation planning process, 23 CFR 450.316(a) states that
'the following factors shall be explicitly considered, analyzed as appropriate, and reflected in the
planning process products. . . (10) Preservation of rights -of -way' for construction of future
transportation projects, including future transportation corridors." Since the Lead Agencies are
asserting the projects consistency with the RTP, environmental documentation prepared for any
transportation improvements associated with any RTP activity: must include consideration of "future
transportation projects" that could also .�,, potentially affect that right -of- way... (13) The overall social,
economic, energy, and environmentaT,effects of transportation decisions (including consideration of
the effects and impacts: of the plan on the human, natural and man -made environment such as
housing, employment and community development), consultation with appropriate resource and
permit agencies to ensure early and continued coordination with environmental resource
protection and management plans, and appropriate emphasis on transportation - related air quality
problems."
Although the above provisions relate to the obligations of the MPO, in recognition of the
relationship between the RTP and the proposed SR22/WOCC project, those same obligations must
be assumed to pass through to the assessment of those projects undertaken in furtherance of the
RTP. The two key . elements identified in the above excerpt specifically relevant to the Lead
Agencies obligations. under NEPA and CEQA relate to the need for the agencies to adopt a long -
range perspective with regards to the manner in which the project is described and alternatives
formulated (i.e., "preservation of rights -of -way for construction of future transportation projects ")
and with regards to the manner in which the agencies approach their assessment of long -range and
cumulative environmental impacts (i.e., "overall social, economic, energy, and environmental
effects of transportation decisions ").
The DEIR/DEIS indicates that in order "to mitigate impacts to the SR- 22/SR -55 HOV connector, it
would be necessary to include an additional SR -55 HOV lane in each direction north of SR -22 for
some distance... This is beyond the scope of the SR- 22/West Orange County Connector" (p. 4.7-
22). Since the need for "an additional SR -55 HOV lane" has been identified, the Lead Agencies
State Route 221West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 38
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA -01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
cannot assume that those improvements will not be implemented either as part of the proposed
project or as a component of a follow -up project predicated by the traffic demands generated by the
SR22JWOCC project (e.g., the need for the added lane would not exist except for the proposed
SR22AMOCC project). By narrowly defining the project as onV a HOV connector project, absent
additional general - purpose lanes, the resulting scope of the environmental analysis is insufficient to
address environmental matters on a broad scope.
As indicated by the DEIR/DEIS, both Caltrans and the FHWA have a predisposition to solving
capacity constraints by adding more travel lanes. It is, therefore, reasonably foreseeable that by
2020, Caltrans and FHWA will embark on another freeway widening project, seek to consume
more adjoining homes, and displace a greater number of property owners than now indicated in
the DEIR/DEIS.
Since the way in which a problem is defined leads to and limits the range of solutions posited for its
resolutions, the City asserts that the Lead Agencies are unreasonably and to narrowly defining the
problem at hand and, in so doing, has both fragmented/segregated the project and inappropriatef
restricted the range of alternatives that may be available to those agencies. For example, a prgje
with a longer -term vision and where a greater need is identified may be one that would necessitate
a greater number of "general - purpose lanes" as one of a number of alternatives to accommodate
that need.
As the SR -22 Freeway transverses the City, intensive development now abuts the northern edge of
that roadway. However, in the vicinity of the USNWS, the southern edge of the freeway is not only
in public ownership but is currently committed to agricultural use (e.g., "One area is located in Seal
Beach, within the United States Naval Weapons Station,: between Seal Beach Boulevard and Old
Bolsa Chica Road ... At the time this document was prepared, these areas were being used as open
space," pp. 3.6-11 and 12; Figure 3.6 -3,. F. 3.6 -13). For a larger: project (e.g., based on 2025
growth projections), asoutherly expansion becomes the logical planning conclusion and would
alter the project and range of alternatives now described in the DEIR/DEIS.
By defining the proposed project in largest possible fashion, logically, the assessment of design
options, would focus on a southerly expansion of the existing right - of-way rather than the
destruction of an even greater number of homes on the north side of the freeway. By artificially
constraining the project, the Lead Agencies have sought to piecemeal the project and, in so doing,
have sought to prevent an assessment of other alternatives that would result from that broader
perspective.-
The Lead Agencies intent to fragment the project are not confined only to the manner in which the
project is described but also extend into the DEIR/DEIS' analysis of project- related and cumulative
environmental effects. For example, with regards to the document's discussion of impacts on
wetlands and waters of the United States associated with the "Full Build Alternative,' the DEIR/DEIS
indicates that the project will need to comply with.Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to address
'waters of the United States.' Section 404 permits will be required for the crossings identified
below, but coverage under existing Nationwide Permit 14, Linear Transportation Crossings, is
anticipated because permanent impacts would not exceed the thresholds for the nationwide permit
(0.2 hectare or 0.5 acres), as shown in Table 4.4-l' (p. 4.4 -1).
State Route 2216vest Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 39
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA -01- 04.D /SCH No. 98064001
Table 4.4-1 (p. 4.4-2) lists six separate 'waters of the United States" that will be directly impacted
under the "Full Build Alternative." Although none of the identified impacts on those jurisdictional
waters exceeds that threshold, individually, when examined collectively, "temporary impacts" total
5.82 acres and "permanent impacts "a otal 0.70 acres. As a result, the Lead Agencies seek to Issert
that as long as impacts to any single individual jurisdictional area is less than the established
threshold, the totality of all project - related impacts (although collectively exceeding the threshold)
remain less than significant (i.e., "permanent impacts would not exceed the threshold for this
nationwide permit 10.2 hectare or 0.5 acres], as shown in Table 4.4-1, resulting in less than
significant impacts," p. 4.4 -4). In reality, the project will be required to obtain an "individual"
permit since the area of impact will exceed that authorized under Nationwide Permit (NWP) 14.
3.13 Failure of the Lead Agencies to Take a "Hard Look" at Environmental Consequences
The CEQ states that the purpose of the NEPA process is "to help public officials make decisions that
are based on understanding of environmental consequences" (40 CFR 1500.1[c]). As indicated in
the CEQ Regulations, "the primary purpose of an environmental impact statement is to serve as an
action- forcing device to insure that the policies and goals defined in the [National Environmental
Polity] Act are infused into the ongoing programs and actions of the federal government. It shall
provide full and fair discussion of significant environmental impacts and shall inform decision
makers and the public" (40 CFR 1502.1) and "impacts shall be discussed in proportion to their
significance" (40 CFR 15O2.2[b]).
Similarly, CEQA requires good faith, reasoned analysis in evaluating environmental impacts. A
legally adequate EIR must contain sufficient detail to help ensure the integrity of the process of
decision making by precluding stubborn problems or serious criticism from being swept under the
rug. The EIR must contain sufficient facts and analysis: to show the analytic route the agency
followed. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice. In lieu of any
"reasoned analysis' of the project and its potential impacts, the Lead Agencies offer only
generalized statements, absent any evidence of detailed project - specific and site - specific
investigation, and unsupported conclusions. While the City certainly respects the judgement and
opinion of the Lead Agencies on transportation issues, the City and the public cannot be expected
to blindly: follow the Lead Agencies down this path without a more adequate and complete
examinaadn of the environmental consequences. ,
The Lead'Agencies failures are too numerous to list in their totality. With limited time and
resources, only examples of the DEIR/DEIS' defects can be identified and such examples should be
construed as inclusive of all such defects. In most instances, the text of the DEIR/DEIS does not
even present conclusions, leaving the reviewer and, therefore, the project's decision makers,
uncertain as to the significance of the identified pre- and post - mitigated environmental effect.
Since the proposed federal action constitutes a traffic improvement program, issues directly or
indirectly associated with transportation and circulation must logically constitute a major focus of
the DEIR/DEIS. Since traffic is a major contributor to air pollution and noise, the adequacy and
accuracy of those analyses are dependent upon the findings of a detailed traffic analysis. Since
freeway projects typically constitute large-scale public improvement activities, resulting in long-
term changes in both an areas visual characteristics and a region's traffic patterns, transportation
improvement projects often produce substantial visual impacts perceptible to large segments of the
Stale Route 22fWest Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 40
• Draft Environmental Impact ReporUEnvironmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA-01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
region's population and particularly evident to those receptors located in close proximity to those
improvements.
As a result of the Lead Agencies failure to conduct a reasonable assessment of traffic and related
impacts, including the DEIR/DEIS' failure to examine year 2025 conditions, the DEIR/DEIS fails to
fulfill NEPA's obligation that the Lead Agencies take a "hard look" at the project's environmental
consequences (Kleoce v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 410 [19761) and provide a full disclosure of
those impacts "to the fullest extent possible" (Section 102, NEPA).
NEPA establishes a national policy of environmental protection and placed a responsibility upon
federal agencies to further specific environmental goals by "all practicable means, consistent with
other essential considerations of national. policy" (Section 101 [bl, NEPA). Section 102 (2)(Q is one
of the "action- forcing" provisions intended as a directive that "all agencies to assure consideration
of the environmental impact of their actions in decision making."
The Lead Agencies both fail to fulfill their NEPA obligations and materially misrepresent both the
affected environment and the potential impacts that would likely result from the project's
implementation. From a traffic perspective, the assertion that "the 2020 data results in a 'worst -
case' scenario' (p. 3.7 -1) fails to acknowledge that traffic conditions will further deteriorate beyond
2020, year 2025 data is and has been readily available to the Lead Agencies, and the MPO's 2001
RTP is based on year 2025 conditions.
3.14 Failure to Provide a Comprehensive Environmental Analysis
As required under the Caltrans' Environmental Handbook, in describing the required content of the
document's assessment of "environmental consequences and mitigation measures," Caltrans
stipulates that "the impacts listed in the FHWA Technical Advisory (pages 17 through 37) must be
shown to be not significant either by discussion in this section or by checklist item explanation'
(Environmental Handbook, p. 3 -12).
sK
As indical Id FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, those "environmental consequences"
include 6l and use impacts, (2) farmland impectsv social impacts; (4) relocation impacts; (5)
economic,impacts; (6) joint development; (7) considerations relating to pedestrians and bicyclists;
(8) air quality impacts; (9) noise impacts;.. (10) water quality impacts; (11) permits; (12) wetland
impacts; (13)-water body modification and:wildlife impacts; (14) floodplain impacts; (15) wild and
scenic rivers; (16) coastal barriers; (17) coastal zone impacts; (18) threatened and endangered
species; (19) historic and archaeological preservation; (20) hazardous waste sites; (21) visual
impacts; (22) energy; and (23) construction impacts.
Notwithstanding that requirement, the DEIR/DEIS lacks any discussion of a number of the above
topics (e.g., land use, joint development, considerations relating to pedestrians and bicyclists,
.permits, coastal zone impacts, hazardous waste sites). Since no technical appendices accompanied
the DEIR/DEIS, it is not possible to discern what, if any, information was included as part of a
"checklist item explanation" or whether than information constitutes an adequate and reasonable
analysis of project- related and cumulative impacts.
Similarly, the DEIR/DEIS lacks specific information required under CEQA. That information
includes, but may not be limited to: (1) areas of controversy and issues to be resolved (Section
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 41
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01- 04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
15123[b][2] -[3], State CEQA Guidelines); (2) a list of agencies that are expected to use the EIR in
their decision making (Section 15124(d][1][A], State CEQA Guidelines); (3) a list of permits and
other approvals required to implement the project (Section 15124[d](1][S], State CEQA Guidelines);
(4) a list of related environmental review and consultation requirements required by federal, State
b
and local laws (Section 15124(d][1][C], gate CEQA Guidelines); (4) all public agency decisions
subject to CEQA (Section 15124[d][21, State CEQA Guidelines); (5) any inconsistencies between the
proposed project and applicable general plans and regional plans (Section 15125[d], State CEQA
Guidelines); (6) potential environmental effects caused by the proposed mitigation measures
(Section 15126.4[a](1][D], State CEQA Guidelines); (7) an alternative site analysis (Section
15126.6[f][2], State CEQA Guidelines); and (8) page and section number of technical reports used
as the basis for any statements in the EIR (Section 15148, State CEQA Guidelines).
As a component of the "alternative site analysis," since the project constitutes a transportation
improvement project, the Lead Agencies should examine other possible freeway alignments that
could allow for project implementation but reduce or eliminate the project's potential significant
impacts on the City.
In the absence of the above information, the Lead Agencies have failed to produce an adequate
NEPA/CEQA compliance document that provides full disclosure and analysis of the project's
potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts, on the natural and human environment, thereby
failing to provide a comprehensive environmental analysis.
3.15 Failure to Consider Indirect and Secondary Impacts -
As indicated in CEQ Forty Questions,: 'the 'environmental consequences' section should be
devoted largely to a scientific analysis of the direct and indirect environmental effects of the
proposed action and of each of the alternatives° (CEQ Forty Questions, Question 7). Throughout
the DEIR/DEIS, contrary to the policy direction provided in the FHWA Environmental Guidebook,
the Lead Agencies have failed to identify and consider the potential indirect and secondary impacts
of the proposed project. As indicated in the "Position Paper on Secondary and Cumulative Impact
Assessment" (FHWA, August 20, 1992), included in the FHWA Environmental Guidebook:
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the State highway agencies
recognize the growing need to include indirect impact assessments in project
environmental studies. The FHWA commitment to conduct comprehensive
environmental and public interest decision- making requires the collection and
presentation of all information relevant to a project, including its indirect
consequences and contribution to area -wide change [emphasis added].
As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS;: "the Full Build Alternative would serve substantially higher traffic
volumes. During the p.m. peak period, traffic is forecast to increase by 23 percent" (p. 4.7 -5). The
DEIR/DEIS - further notes "the Reduced Build Alternative would serve higher traffic volumes
compared to the No Build Alternative, showing increases of eighteen and twelve percent" (p. 4.7-
5). Based on these statements, it is apparent that a greater number of motorists will be
accommodated on the SR -22 Freeway under either of the two "build" alternatives.
As defined in Section 15358 of the State CEQA Guidelines, "effects" include both direct or primary
effects which are caused by the project and occur at the same time and place and indirect or
Slate Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 42
Y'
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA-01-04-D / SCH No. 98064001
secondary effects which are caused by the project and are later in time or farther removed in
distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. As a result, in assessing project impacts, it is not
sufficient to focus only on the physical changes to the environment associated with the proposed
improvements but the document must also consider the increased unumber of vehicles and
individuals that will be using those improvements and traversing those components of the regional
roadway network that may be directly or indirectly impacted by the proposed SR22/WOCC project.
The environmental analysis presented in various sections of the DEIR/DEIS is, therefore, deficient
since the Lead Agencies sole focus is upon the proposed improvements and not on the secondary
effects that those improvements will produce. For example, although "the study area may traverse
the active Newport- Inglewood fault zone" (p. 4.1 -2) and "other faults in the area could produce
earthquakes that could damage the structures in the study area and result in injury or death" (p. 4.1-
3), the document mistakenly concludes that "the project would include only widening of an
existing facility in this area; it would not expose people to a new hazard" (pp. 4.1 -3 and 4.1 -4).
Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any analysis of the potential impacts upon the users of the proposed
improvements, focusing only on the physical improvements now under consideration and not on
the operational characteristics of the project from the perspective of future motorists traveling along
the SR -22 Freeway. Although freeways in the San Francisco area may also have been "designed
according to standard engineering practices and Caltrans specifications" (p. 4.1 -2), those practices
and specifications were not sufficient to ensure the structural stability of those improvements or
prevent the loss of life or property damage when subjected to a major earthquake event. As a result
of the October 17,1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, several major highways, overpasses, and ground
thoroughfares were damaged and rendered useless, some for only a short time, others for as much
as a few years.
Seismic safety regulations and standards are an evolving design field. Whenever there is an
earthquake, civil engineers and other designers modify applicable standards (e.g., "Uniform
Building Code" requirements) based on information obtained from structural collapses produced by
those seismic events. The fact that a facility is designed to "current" standards is, itself, no
assurance that the structure will lwithstand future seismic events (e.g., until the late 1960s, non -
ductile concrete frames were commonly used for buildings, bridges, and other structures; current
standards in California do not allow this type of structural system to be constructed in areas prone
to potential strong ground shaking).
Although absent from the DEIR/DEIS, as indicated in the preliminary engineering plans, the "405-
605 HOV Connector" will be elevated at the maximum approximately 75 feet above existing grade.
Although the project has been under consideration since at least 1989 (e.g., "In September 1989, a
Project Study Report was approved,' p. 1 -10) and preliminary engineering plans were developed
prior to the document's release, absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any reference to any site - specific and
project- specific geotechnical, geologic, or seismic studies that have been prepared specifically for
the SR221WOCC project.
The basis for the information presented in the DEIRMEIS appears to be generalized data assembled
for the entire southern California area rather than for the unique conditions that now exist in close
proximity to the project site. As a result, the Lead Agencies do not possess sufficient technical
information to derive defensible conclusions concerning the level of seismic and related risks or the
magnitude of any earthquakes that would affect the project over the project's life.
State Route 22/west Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 43
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
Utilizing the Lead Agencies' own threshold criteria (i.e., "potential for seismic hazards and ground
shaking activities," p. 4.1 -3), it is evident that the project area is susceptible to substantial seismic
hazards (e.g., "The Seal Beach section of the Newport- Inglewood fault is considered potentially
active and is included in the Earthquake Fault Zones established under the Alquist - Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act," p. 3.1 -3). Notwithstanding these conditions, the DEIR/DEIS ignores
the safety of future motorists that will be using the SR- 221WOCC improvements (e.g., "During the
p.m. peak hour, traffic is forecast to increase by 23 percent," p. 4.7 -5; "The vehicles using the
Pacific Electric Arterial 139,900 per day] would include new trips," p. 4.7 -16). In recognition of this
deficiency, the DEIR/DEIS fails to present an adequate analysis of the project's potential indirect
and secondary impacts.
3.16 Failure to Adequately Evaluate Cumulative Impacts
a
As indicated in Section 15130(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "a cumulative impact consists of
an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR
together with other projects causing related impacts.' As further indicated in Section
15130(b)(1)(A)(3) therein, "lead agencies should define the geographic scope of the area affected by
the cumulative effect and provide a reasonable explanation for the geographic limitations used.'
The CEQ Regulations define "cumulative effects" as "the impact on the environment which results
from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present `and reasonably
foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other action" (40
CFR 1508.7). Cumulative impacts are those that result from individually minor but collectively
significant actions taking place over a period of time. The United States Supreme Court Weppe v.
Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 410) has determined that when actions will have cumulative environmental
impacts upon a region and are pending., concurrently before an agency, that the environmental
consequences must be considered together.
Clearly, based on the regional improvement program outlined in the 1998 RTP and 2001 RTP, the
list of related projects identified in the 1998 RTP MFEIR and 2001 RTP FPEIR, the regional growth
forecasts contained in the general plans of those municipalities located along the SR -22 corridor,
and the independent actions and activities of the FHWA, Caltrans, and OCTA, a number of
additional "past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions," not presented addressed in the
DEIR/DEIS, need to be considered as part of the Lead Agencies' cumulative impact analysis.
Although the DEIR/DEIS states that "anticipated traffic growth" affecting the SR -22 Freeway corridor
"would be spurred by future population and economic growth within the SR -22 corridor and those
geographic areas whose travelers would use SR -22 for part of their trips" (p. 3.7 -4), the Lead
Agencies have sought to ignore the tributary area directly or indirectly affecting traffic volumes
along the SR -22 Freeway in formulating its basis for the assessment of cumulative impacts.
Although the DEIR/DEIS indicates that "related projects are those that may affect the construction,
operation, or use of the SR- 22M/est Orange County Connection" (p. 2 -19), the Lead Agencies fail to
define a geographic area from which "affects" may emanate and restricts the list of "related
projects" to only those "that have certified and adopted environmental documents" (p. 2 -19).
Under the Lead Agencies own definition, the SR22/WOCC project would not be included in any
CEQA or NEPA documents prepared for any other traffic improvement projects located within the
Los Angeles metropolitan area.
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 44
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS-CA- 01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
Referencing the CEQ's "Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy
Act" (CEQ, January 1997) (CEQ Cumulative Effects), "agencies future actions and plans pertaining
to the identified resource of concern should be included if they are based on authorized plans or
permits ...Agency Sr regional planning . documents can provide the anal st with a reasonable
projection of future activities and their modes of operation" (CEQ Cumulative Effects, p. 29).
SCAG's 2001 RTP constitutes an adopted "regional planning document" and contains a detailed list
of other "corridor' and related transportation improvements projects proposed or now underway
within the southern California area and, therefore, constitutes an appropriate source for the
identification of other projects that will be implemented within the same time frame as the
proposed project and which could produce cumulative environmental effects As, urther indicated
in CEQ Cumulative Effects:'
For a project - specific analysis, it is often sufficient toanalyze effects within the
immediate area of he proposed action. When analyzing the contribution of this
proposed action to cumulative effects, however, the geographic boundaries of the
analysis almost always should be expanded. These expanded boundaries can be
thought of as differences in hierarchy or scale. Project - specific analysis are usually
conducted on the scale of counties, forest management units,. or Installation
boundaries, whereas cumulative effects analysis should be conducted on the scale
of human communities, landscapes, watersheds, and airsheds ... A useful concept in
determining appropriate geographic boundaries for a cumulative effects analysis is
the project impact zone (CEQ Cumulative Effects, p. 12).
In determining how far into the future to analyze cumulative effects, the analyst
should first consider the time frame of the project- specific analysis. If the effects of
the proposed action are projected to last five years, this time frame may be the most
appropriate for the cumulative effects analysis. '. The analyst should attempt to
identify actions that could reasonably be expected to occur within that period (CEQ
Cumulative Effects, p. 16).
Commonly, analysts only include those plans for action which are funded or for
which other NEPA analysis is being prepared.: This approach does not meet the
letter of intent of CEQ's regulations. It underestimates the ,number of future
projects, because many viable actions may be in the early planning stage. .
.Including future actions in the study is much easier if an agency has already
developed a planning document that identifies proposed future actions and has
communicated these plans to other federal agencies and governmental bodies in the
affected region (CE�Q., Cumulative Effects, p. 19).
Based on that definition,hz inventory of "reasonably foreseeable future actions" that constitute the
basis for the assessment of "cumulative impacts should not be limited to the abbreviated list of
"projects. that have certified and adopted environmental documents" (p. 2 -19), as represented by
the Lead Agencies, but must include a substantially greater inventory of actions, inclusive of those
currently under consideration by the FHWA, Caltrans, and those surface transportation projects
identified in the 2001 RTP which are part of SCAG's 2010-2025 baseline assumptions (e.g., "In
concert with other transportation system improvements. . .the Full Build Alternative could
contribute to increased pressure to revise land use plans to include more development,' p. &2). For
a project that will not be completed before 2008 -2010 and which is based on year 2020 modeling,
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 45
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
it is unreasonable to limit the inventory of reasonably foreseeable future actions to only those that
may now have "certified and adopted environmental documents."
As established in City of Antioch v City Council (1986), a proper cumulative impact analysis must
be prepared "before a project gains irreversible momentum.' It is, therefore, evident that the
DEIR/DEIS fails to present a factual and supportable cumulative impact assessment. Rather than the
approach now selected by the Lead Agencies, the DEIR/DEIS should be amended to represent that
document as a "tiered" analysis, building upon the information presented in SCAG's 2001 RTP
FPEIR. As indicated in the program -level analysis, "the lead agencies for individual projects may
use this PEIR as the basis of their regional and cumulative analysis" (2001 RTP DPEIR, p. 6).
Alternatively, CEQA provides local lead agencies the authority to formulate their cumulative impact
analysis upon either: (1) a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or
cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency; or (2)
a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document
(Section 15130[b][1], State CEQA Guidelines). In basing its analysis on only those projects 'that..
have certified and adopted environmental documents" (p. 2 -19), it is evident that the Lead Agencies
have sought to artificially constrain the list of "foreseeable future actions" and "probable future
p"
projects' and, in so doing, has presented a Flawed and deficient cumulative i a analysis.
Since the project is designed to accommodate a '2020 traffic forecast" (p. 1-'3j`,
a'- substantially
greater inventory of projects will logically come "on line" during that period than now assumed by
the Lead Agencies (e.g., "Where it is likely the scope of these projects may change during the
planning phase, consequently, their environmental impacts may be altered," p 8-4). As additional
projects are added, the potential for possible cumulative impacts increase. As a result, although the
Lead Agencies may have taken an authorized course, the course it elected to take is the one least
likely to produce accurate and useful information. Since "CEQA was intended to be interpreted in
such a manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable
scope of the statutory language' (Section 15003[f], State CEQA Guidelines), the Lead Agencies have
failed to fulfill their statutory and regulatory obligations.
As defined in 23 CFR 450.104, the proposed SR22M/OCC project constitutes a "regionally
significant project." A "regionally significant project means a project (other than projects that may
be grouped in the STIPMP pursuant to Section 450.216 and Section 450.324) that is on a facility
which serves regional transportation needs (such as access to and from the area outside of the
region, major activity centers in the region, major planned developments such as new retail malls,
sports complexes, etc., or transportation terminals as well as most terminals themselves) and would
normally be included in the modeling of a metropolitan area's transportation network, including, as
a minimum, all principal arterial highways and all fixed guideway transit facilities that offer a
significant alternative to regional highway travel."
Under that definition, other "related projects" that should be addressed in the DEIR/DEIS that have
the potential for producing cumulative impacts include other activities that serve "regional
transportation needs." None of the "other projects and proposals within the area" (pp. 2 -19 and 2-
20) that "may also contribute to cumulative impacts when considered in conjunction with the SR-
22/West Orange County Connection" (p. 2 -19) encompass other projects that constitute
components of the "metropolitan area's transportation network" (e.g., project identified on the State
Transportation Improvement Program [STIP] and Federal Transportation Improvement Program
Slate Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 46
Draft Environmental Impact Report(Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA -01- 04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
[TIP]). By excluding those projects, the Lead Agencies seek to assert that the SR22/WOCC project
is not an integral part of that "transportation network," while at the same time arguing that the "SR-
22 is the only Orange County freeway that does not have an HOV facility" (p. 2 -1).
0
Although a short and inaaequate list of "related projects" (pp. 2 -19 and 2 -20) are identified, in the
DEIR/DEIS' cumulative impact analysis, the Lead Agencies present no analysis of the potential
environmental consequences of the proposed project in combination with the abbreviated list of
projects used as the basis for cumulative impact assessment (e.g., "There are several potential issue
areas for which none of the SR- 22/West Orange County Connection alternatives would contribute
to cumulative impacts, either because they would not result in impacts or because impacts that
would occur can be fully mitigated or prevented through mitigation," p. 8 -4). Among the topical
issues for which no cumulative impact analysis is presented include, but are not limited to
"transportation/circulation (positive impacts and impacts prevented by mitigation" (p. 8-5) and
"energy (no impacts under any alternatives)" (p. 8-5). Additionally, despite the City's stated
concerns and the findings of the MPO, the DEIR/DEIS erroneously.! asserts "displacement would
result in minimal cumulative impacts" (p. 8-9).
Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any attempt to quantify the potential impacts associated with each of
the "related projects" which are identified and then to add those measurable impacts to those
attributable to the proposed project. While the analysis is purportedly "based on their
environmental documents" (p. 8-4), the corresponding environmental documents that describe
those projects and their impacts are never referenced in the DEIR/DEIS (e.g., "These documents
should be cited but not included in the EIR," ction 15148, State CEQA Guidelines), thus
preventing reviewers from comparing the ,prelminary'findings of the DEIR/DEIS with the adopted
findings of those lead agencies that certified those documents.
£
Surprisingly, the list of "related projects" presented in the DEIR (pp. 2 -19 and 2 -20) differs from the
list of "local projects [which] are being considered as part of the SR -22 West Orange County
Connection," as identified in the Briefing Book (Briefing Book, p. 10). For example, although the
Briefing Book identifies the "Harbor Boulevard Smart Street project" (Briefing Book, p. 10), that
project is noticeably absent from the related projects., identified in the DEIR/DEIS (i.e., "Examples of
major projects in the SR -22 study area awaiting eI - .. mental approval are the Harbor Boulevard
Smart Street Feasibility Study," p. 2 -19). In one instance, the Lead Agencies assert that the "Harbor
Boulevard Smart Street project" is "being considered as part" of the project, while, in another
instance, that same project is not being considered (e.g., "Only projects that have certified and
adopted environmental documents are included," p. 2 -19). This same inconsistency exists for the
"SR- 22/rhe City Drive chokepoint project" (Briefing Book, p. 10).
The level of detail required for a cumulative impacts analysis is not entirely clear under CEQA.
Some court decisions indicate an EIR must include objective measurements of a cumulative impact
when such data are reasonably available or can reasonably be produced by further study and are
necessary to ensure disclosure of the impact (Kings County Farm Bureau, supra, 221 Cal.App.3d
729 -730). Other decisions indicate a general, qualitative analysis is sufficient as long as impacts are
not minimized or ignored (Al Larson Boat Shoo Inc v Board of Harbor Commissioners (1993) 18
Cal.App.4th 729, 748 -749). Since it is evident that the Lead Agencies' evaluation of the cumulative
impacts of other related projects is based on adopted "environmental documents," a more detailed
evaluation of cumulative impacts is possible. No such analysis is, however, presented by the Lead
Agencies who fail to provide either objective measures or a qualitative analysis.
Stale Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 47
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
The cumulative impact analysis also succumbs to the same defects as identified for the document's
project - specific analysis (e.g., lack of measurable threshold of significance criteria). Since thresholds
of significance are either ill defined or undefined, it is not possible to compare the identified impact
a against any particular yardstick to determine whether thgg resulting cumulative impact exceeds some
defined threshold standard. For example, the DEIR/DEIS States that cumulative impacts include
'decreased groundwater quality due to increased development above the groundwater basin' (p. 8-
8). As a threshold, the Lead Agencies establish the following non - measurable standard: "Potential
on groundwater availability, use, or quality' (p. 4.2 -5). Since the DEIR/DEIS acknowledges
'decreased groundwater quality,' it would be logical to assume the existence of cumulative water
quality impacts.
Absent from the DEIR/DEIS, however, is any conclusionary statement (supportable by factual
evidence and duplicable analysis) as whether those impacts are significant or.. insignificant.
Cumulative impacts are not even addressed in Table 5.5 -1 (see pp. v- xxxv). As a result, absent from
the project's administrative record is any information allowing the Lead. Agencies to make requisite
findings (e.g., "The findings required by subsection (a] shall be supported by substantial evidence ink,
the record,' Section 15O91[b], State CEQA Guidelines).
As required under CEQ Cumulative Effects, "decisions must be supported by the best analysis based
on the best data we have or are able to collect" (CEQ Cumulative Effects, p..3) and include
"rigorous analyses' (CEQ Cumulative Effects, p. 46)': By presenting conclusory statements, absent
any technical analysis and without any assessment of the project's cumulative effects with regards
to the project's threshold criteria, the Lead Agencies violate NEPA's obligation to take a "hard look
at environmental consequences." CEQ Cumulative Effects outlines an eight-step process that the
Lead Agency is encouraged to implement in identifying and assessing . cumulative impacts. In
reviewing the DEIR/DEIS, it is evident .that none of the following actions were conducted by the
Lead Agencies: tF
❑ Select the resources, ecosystems, and human communities considered in the project-
specific analysis to be those that could be affected cumulatively;
❑ Identify the important cause- and - effect relationships between human activities and
resources of concern using a network or systems diagram that focuses on the important
cumulative effects pathways;
❑ Adjust the geographic and time boundaries of the analysis based on cumulative cause -and- -
effect relationships'
❑ Incorporate additional past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions into the analysis as
indicated by the cumulative cause - and -effect relationships;
❑ Determine the magnitude and significance of cumulative effects based on context and
intensity and present tables comparing the effects of the proposed action and alternatives to
facilitate decision making;.
❑ Modify or add alternatives to avoid, minimize, or mitigate cumulative effects based on the
cause - and -effect pathways that contribute most to the cumulative effect on a resource;
C3 Determine cumulative effects of the selected alternative with mitigation and enhancement
measures; and
❑ Explicitly address uncertainty in communicating predictions to decision- makers and the
public, and reduce uncertainty as much as possible through monitoring and adaptive
management (CEQ Cumulative Effects, p. 47).
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach
Page 48
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA -01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
3.17 Implementation may Foreclose Other Transportation Options under Consideration
The DEIR/DEIS acknowledges that ISTEA and TEA -21 provide that "proposed transportation
projects must be derived from a long -range transportation plan or Regional Transportation Plan"
(p. 3.8 -3). The 2001 RTP defines "multi - modal" as "a mixture of the several modes of
transportation —transit, highways, non - motorized, etc." (2001 RTP, p. 189). As indicated therein,
the 2001 has been developed to "serve as a catalyst for linking the various transportation agency
investments within the SCAG region to provide a cohesive, balanced and multi -modal
transportation system that addresses the regional goal and is consistent with federal and State
requirements" (2001 RTP, p. 3). Additionally, ISTEA and TEA -21 specifically requires consideration
of multi -modal solutions to the area's most pressing future transportation problems.
As evidenced throughout Los Angeles County, freeway rights -of -way can be utilized for fixed -rail
transit systems, creating multi -modal transportation corridors." New fixed -rail transit systems are
currently under consideration in Orange County (e.g., "the environmental document for the Orange
County Centerline Project, which includes construction of a 45- kilometer [28- mile]. rail transit
system, is currently being prepared," p. 3.6 -7). In addition, SCAG's "Regional Mobility Plan"
(SCAG, 1994) indicates "the availability of an exclusive lane for transit buses reduces conflicts with
mixed -Flow traffic resulting in faster running times, reduced operating costs, lower bus emissions,
and improved passenger attraction."
As the County continues to grow and continued development of transportation systems geared
exclusive to single-occupant vehicles (SOV) becomes increasingly cost prohibitive, regional transit
agencies will increase their focus on transit options. It is;: therefore, short- sighted of the Lead
Agencies to fail to consider transportation options that may foreclose future options to construct
transit - oriented facilities (e.g., exclusive bus lanes, fixed -rail transit routes) as part of the proposed
project (e.g., "SR -22 does not include, dedicated facilities for transit. The availability of dedicated
transit facilities could result in indirect relief of traffic congestion," p. 1 -2). Although a "Fixed
Guideway Alternative' (pp. 2-16. and 2 -17) was initially considered, that alternative was rejected by
the Lead Agencies based on the Lead Agencies' assertion that the alternative lacked "public
support" and failed to "fulfill an important transportation goal of OCTA, which was to complete the
last major ink in the county's HOV network" (p. 2 17).,
Prior to the State's first "diamond lane," it is highly likely that the concept of allocating a travel lane
to carpoolers was not a popular concept (i.e., lacked public support). The absence of that
popularity, however, did not prevent the State's transportation planners from moving forward in the
development of that system. Since . government is tasked with the responsibility of addressing
environmental and societal problems, it is irresponsible for the Lead Agencies to reject any
alternative "due to the lack of public support" (p. 2 -17).
The City asserts that any transportation facility planning for the SR -22 Freeway corridor must
include consideration of long -range transportation options. Since the DEIR/DEIS is based only on a
year 2020 horizon, transportation alternatives designed to address travel demands beyond that date
are totally ignored. More importantly, by failing to consider other long -term transportation
solutions, the Lead Agencies may, in fact, be foreclosing future improvement options that could be
formulated in response to those future transportation demands. As a result, in addition to adopting
a longer term planning focus, the DEIR/DEIS needs to be augmented to include consideration of
State Route 22/We,4 Orange County Connection October 2601
City of Seal Beach Page 49
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01- 04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
both more innovative transportation solutions (e.g., Intra- Regional High Speed Rail Maglev) and the
development of multi -modal options.-
3.18 Failure to Disclose Location of and Impacts from Construction Staging Areas
Although the document has a section entitled "construction - related impacts: (pp. 4.15 -1 through
4.15 -8), absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any reference to or discussion of the potential impacts
associated with any off -site construction staging areas that may be required for the storage,
assembly, or marshaling of equipment of construction personnel. Since the project may require
several years to complete (e.g., "it is likely that the project construction would be phased," p. 2 -21),
the potential impacts that may result from the use of multiple - stagingareas (e.g., construction
vehicle traffic, potential disruption of traffic movements, obstruction of access, safety and security,
noise, air quality, hazardous wastes, visual impacts, etc.) can result in the creation of additional,
undisclosed impacts that extend beyond the project's right -of -way.
For example, although the DEIR/DEIS notes that "hazardous materials may be used during
construction of the Full Build Alternatives, such as paving materials, chemicals, and paints. These
materials may be a potential health threat to people working on the project" (p. 4.15 -4), the Lead
Agencies ignore the reality that these same "health threats" (e.g., presence of explosive, flammable,
and toxic materials) may also extend to unsuspecting receptors located near the construction site
and staging areas.
Among the document's threshold of significance criteria, the Lead Agencies include the following:
"Visual impacts associated with views of construction staging. areas" (p. 4.15 -6). In the absence of
any analysis and absent any mitigation measures addressing "construction staging areas," the
document concludes 'it is unlikely that all construction staging areas can be located
inconspicuously in the dense urban areas that border the project. Therefore, substantial short-term
impacts would remain after mitigation for the construction period" (p. 4.15 -8). This conclusion,
however, addresses only the issue of potential visual impacts and ignores the other potential
environmental impacts that could be associated with multiple construction staging areas.
By failing to disclose the project's likely off -site staging areas, the Lead Agencies have presented an
incomplete description of the project, failed to identify all area of direct disturbance, and assess all
construction - related impacts. In the absence of that site - specific information, as well as additional
data concerning the project's construction and phasing, it is not possible to accurately assess the
project's construction -term impacts or formulate appropriate mitigation measures in response to
those reasonably foreseeable environmental effects.
For example, although the DEIR9DEI56tlnotes that "during construction, temporary construction
easements on adjacent properties may be necessary. If these easements result in impacts that would
make the affected property unusable for its existing use, substantial impacts would occur" (p. 4.15-
2). Those "adjacent properties" that could be adversely impacted are, however, not identified nor
does the DEIR/DEIS contain any further discussion of the nature of any "substantial impacts" that
may be anticipated. As a result, although additional off -site impacts are disclosed, no attempts have
been made by the Lead Agencies to analyze those likely project- induced consequences. As
"mitigation," the DEIR/DEIS contains the following measure (i.e., CON -FB -2, p. 4.15 -7):
State Route 22Avest Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach
Page 50
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- GA -01- 04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
If temporary construction easements are required and these easements result in an
inability for landowners to use their property as intended, additional substantial
impacts not foreseen in this document would occur. Supplemental environmental
analysis and document$tion will be required. Following construction, affected
properties will be returned to their pre-construction conditions.
The above referenced mitigation measure fails to meet the definition of mitigation under NEPA
(e.g., 40 CFR 1508.2) or CEQA (e.g., Sections 15126.4[al[2) and 15370, State CEQA Guidelines)
and cannot be presented as a substitution for or in lieu of the project-level analysis required of the
Lead Agencies for the proposed project. The DEIR/DEIS should, _therefore, describe under what
conditions would "adjacent properties" be impacted, what are the likely „locations of those
properties, under what conditions or circumstances would "temporary construction easements" be
required, and for what duration. The DEIR/DEIS should include, as a mitigation measure, a
requirement that, prior to the commencement of any construction activities, the Lead Agencies
develop a construction access plan and the jurisdictions in which the affected properties reside
have the discretion to approve that plan or make substantive modifications thereto.
As indicated in the FHWA Environmental Guidebook, citing Technical Advisory T6160.2 (FHWA,
March 13, 1984), "if a construction noise impact is anticipated at a particular sensitive receptor, use
of the model contained in 'Highway Construction Noise, Measurement, Prediction, and Mitigation'
to predict construction noise" (FHWA Technical Advisory T6160.2, p. 2). Since no'. reference to
that publication exists either in the document's text or bibliography (see F. 13 -3), it can be
reasonably concluded that the authors of the DEIR/DEIS neither consulted the above technical
advisory nor sought to "model" construction noise .'in accordance with the methodology outlined
therein. - -
In order to mitigate construction noise, Technical Advisory T61602 states "careful project planning
can aid in locating noisy construction activities as far as possible from sensitive receptors or in area
where natural shielding. is possible. Building temporary noise barriers or special equipment
enclosures is usually quite expensive and limited to use only in instances of sever construction
noise impacts" (Technical Advisory T6160.2, p. 4). From the above excerpt, use of 'noise barriers
or special equipment enclosures" would likely bedeemed "infeasible" by the Lead Agencies. As a
result, '. increased emphasis needs to be placed on "locating noisy construction activities as far as
possible from sensitive receptors." No comparable mitigation measures are, however, presented in
the DEWDEIS and no performance standards or other criteria are presented (in the form of
mitigation) that would ensure that construction activities do not adversely impact nearby receptors.
Since it is apparent that reasonable and feasible noise mitigation measures exist that, if
implemented, would reduce the "substantial impacts" (p. 4.15 -2) identified in the DEIR/DEIS, the
Lead Agencies failure to apply those measures so as to further reduce or eliminate that 'potentially
significant impact (short- term)' .(p. xix) represents a failure on the part of the Lead Agencies to fully
comply with their NEPA (e.g., 40 CFR 15O0.2[fj) and CEQA (e.g., Section 21002, CEQA)
obligations.
3.19 Failure to Determine Consistency with Applicable General and Regional Plans
As indicated in FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, the document's evaluation of land use
impacts "should assess the consistency of the alternatives with the comprehensive development
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 51
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
plans adopted for the area and other plans used in the development of the transportation plan
required by Section 134" (FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, p. 13). As further required under
Section 15125(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, 'the EIR shall discuss any inconsistencies between
the prooposed project and applicable general and regional plans. Such regional plans include, but
are not limited to, the applicable air quality attainment or maintenance plan (or State
Implementation Plan), area -wide waste treatment and water quality control plans, regional
transportation plans, regional housing allocation plans, habitat conservation plans, natural
community conservation plans and regional land use plans for the protection of the coastal zone."
Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any land use impact assessment. Typically, a land use impact
assessment would include 'current development trends and the State and /or local governmental
plans and policies on land use and growth in the area which will be impacted by the proposed
project. These plans and policies are normally reflected in the area's comprehensive development
plan, and include land use, transportation, public facilities, housing, community services, and other
areas. The land use discussion should assess the consistency of the alternatives with the
comprehensive development plans adopted for the area and (if applicable) other plans used in the
development of the transportation plan required by Section 134" (FHWA Technical Advisory
T6640.8A, p. 13). As indicated in Section 15125(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "the EIR Shall
discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans and
regional plans.' In this case, it cannot be assumed that the land use assessment may simply be
glossed -over based on the fact that freeway uses already exist in the vicinity of the project.
Although the DEIR/DEIS contains reference to a number of local agency general plans (pp. 3.6-1
and 3.6-8 through 11), the analysis of the project's consistency is related to a'single sentence under
each of the alternatives (e.g., "this alternative is supportive of major land use policies defined by
Orange County's and affected cities general plans," p. 4.6 -2). Conclusory statements based on the
selection of only those policies that appear to support the proposed project fails to constitute an
reasoned analysis of the project's potential inconsistencies with local plans and policies. It is not
the intent of the environmental process to be self - promotional but to offer a thorough and objective
assessment of a proposed action.. and those mitigation measures and alternatives available to the
lead agency to reduce, avoid, or compensate for those impacts. Presented below are separate
discussions of the "City of Seal Beach General Plan ' , ..(General Plan) and other applicable plans that
appear to relate to the proposed SR22,!WOCC project and for which the DEIR/DEIS has or should
include a consistency analysis.
❑ City of Seal Beach General Plan. With regards to the City's General Plan, numerous goals,
objectives, policies, and programs, potentially applicable to the proposed SR22ANOCC
project, have not been cited in the DEIR/DEIS. In the absence of those excerpts, the
DEIR/DEIS presents a one -sided and promotional perspective of the project that would or
_ may not exist based on a' more comprehensive assessment of the totality of those goals,
objectives, policies, and programs contained therein.
As indicated in the City's Land Use Element (LUE), the following community goal has been
adopted by the City: "A goal of the City should be to maintain and promote those social and
physical qualities which enhance the character of the community and the environment in
which we live" (General Plan, LUE, Community Goal, p. 4). In addition, "Seal Beach
should carefully consider the development of freeways, and /or rapid transit systems and
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 52
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA-01-04-D / SCH No. 98064001
endorse such proposal only when it is considered to be in the community's best interest"
(General Plan, LUE, Community Goal, p. 6).
Since the SR221WOCC projecbt will result in the displacement of a number of families now
residing in the City and since it is unclear whether those families will be able to relocated to
alternative housing in the City, the project does not appear to conform to the goals outlined
in the City's Land Use Element. In order to allow the City to "carefully consider" the
proposed project, which is identified in the General Plan as a "lifeline" project, Seal Beach
requires that the Lead Agencies prepare a technical adequate NEPA and CEQA document
that fully examines the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed
project. The presentation of a deficient and defective ERR does not provide the City with
sufficient information to make an informed decision about the proposed project.
As indicated in the City's Housing Element (HE), it is the goal of the City "to assist and
facilitate the conservation, preservation and improvement of the City's existing . housing
stock, which serves the existing and proposed housing needs of all economic segments of
the community" (General Plan, HE, Goal, pp. 48 and 58). Other applicable Housing
Element policies and programs include, but may not be limited to: (1) "Provide
compatibility of residential areas with surrounding uses through the separation of
incompatible uses, construction of adequate buffers and other land use controls" (General
Plan, HE, Policy, p. 49); (2) 'Encourage the maintenance and rehabilitation of existing
owner - occupied and rental housing where feasible" (General Plan, HE, Policy, p. 58); (3)
"Promote the conservation and rehabilitation of older neighborhoods, preventing the
encroachment of incompatible commercial or industrial uses into established
neighborhoods" (General Plan, HE, Policy, p. 58); (4) Provid ' a. n environment which is
safe, beautiful and aesthetically pleasing and which tends to�� strengthen individual and
family life" (General Plan, HE; Policy, p. 58);`,(5) "Preserve and enhance residential
neighborhoods and strengthen neighborhood identity" (General Plan, HE, Policy, p. 58);
and (6) "Use zoning and other land use controls to ensure the compatibility of residential
areas with surrounding uses" (General Plan, HE, Program, p. 52).
The Lead Agencies plans' to demolish six or more homes within Seal Beach appears to be
contrary to each of the above ;referenced policies from the,City's Housing Element.
Demolition of housing units is contrary to the City's goal to "conserve" and "preserve" the
community's existing housing stock. The encroachment of the SR -22 Freeway into an
existing . residential neighborhood, that has existed for nearly as long at the SR -22 Freeway
itself, appears to violate the City's policy to promote 'compatibility' through such devices
as physical separation and'.. :the provision of adequate buffers. The DEIR/DEIS, itself,
acknowledges that "in areas where houses are removed, the visual impact to the remaining
residential viewers cannot be fully mitigated" (p. 4.13 -34).
As indicated in the City's Noise Element (NE), it is the goal of the City to "reduce the level
of noise, so that it causes less human stress or health damage and is not as likely to interfere
with human activities such as sleep, work, play or thought" (General Plan, NE, Goal, p. 6).
As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS, at 19 locations, "there would be an increase in the noise
levels that is attributable to the Full Build Alternative that will not or cannot be fully abated
to less than or equal to the existing noise level" (p. 4.9 -27). Based on this declaration, the
project appears inconsistent with the City's Noise Element.
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 53
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
Referencing the City's Seismic Safety Element (SSE), numerous earthquake faults have been
identified in the region that could adversely affect people and property in Seal Beach. As
indicated therein:
A major earthquake of magnitude 7 or greater (Richter) on the Newport-
Inglewood fault could have serious effects on the lifelines (facilities such as
highways, bridges, electrical power lines, gas lines, water and sewage lines
and communication lines) in Seal Beach according to Special Publication
99, prepared by the'Division of Mines and Geology and the Department of
Conservation. The hypothetical earthquake is postulated as possible worst
case for emergency planning ...This planning' scenario earthquake could
have the following major impacts in the Seal Beach area ... Garden Grove
Freeway is damaged at the intersection with the 405. Freeway. Moderate
damage at the Garden Grove/405 Freeway interchange combined with fill
settlements has blocked traffic on the Garden Grove Freeway for 36 hours.
The 405 Freeway is closed from Route 22 to San Diego Creek. This route in
the Westminster and Fountain Valley area has suffered . considerable
pavement and liquefaction damage ... At the 405/605 Freeway interchange,
minor bridge damage in the interchange area has restricted traffic to a single
lane (General Plan, SSE, pp. 26 -27). '
In recognition of these and other related hazards affecting the City, Seal Beach requires the
concurrent submission of detailed geotechnical studies with preliminary development
applications. Related General Plan . policies include, but are not limited to: (1) "Require a
soils and geology report to be filed for all development projects as specified in the City's
Municipal Code" (General Plan, SSE, p. 52); (2) "Require geological surveys to be prepared
after on -site borings or subsurface explorations at the time subdivisions are submitted to the
City for approval' (General Plan, SSE, p. 52); (3) "Require independent review of all
geologic and soils reports as appropriate" (General Plan, SSE, p. 52); (4) "Determine the
liquefaction potential of a site prior to development and require that specific measures be
taken; as necessary to reduce damage in an earthquake" (General Plan, SSE, p. 53).
As indicated on the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and
Geology's (DMG) "Official Map of Seismic Hazard Zones - Los Alamitos and Seal Beach
Quadrangles' (released March 25, 1999), that portion of the project site located within the
City is identified as "areas where historic occurrence of liquefaction, or local geological,
geotechnical and groundwater conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground
displacements such that mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code Section 2693(c)
would be required." Because the site area is identified by the DMG as being located within
a'seismic hazard zone," pursuant to Section 2697(a) of the PRC, "cities and counties shall
require, prior to the approval of a project located in a seismic hazard zone, a geotechnical
report defining and delineating any seismic hazard." As authorized under Section 2698 of
the PRC, "nothing in this chapter is intended to prevent cities and counties from
establishing policies and criteria which are more strict than those established by the board."
State Route 22IWest Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 54
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EIS-CA -01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
The Lead Agencies' election to defer the preparation of that report until after the DEIR/DEIS
is certified and the ROD published prevents the introduction of that critical information into
the project's environmental review and decision - making process.
Based on the above General Plan excerpts, the City (which must be the ultimate
determinant of general plan consistency) concludes that, although there may exist select
policies that would appear to the support the proposed project (e.g., reduced congestion
and enhanced mobility), in general, the SR22/WOCC project is not consistent with the
City's General Plan. The statement in the DEIR/DEIS that "most of the Full Build Alternative
would be consistent with land use plans and policies" (p 4.6-2) Cannot be supported based
on the City's independent review of its General Plan. ''
❑ Regional Housing Needs Assessment. r.° t
State law requires that all regional councils of government determine the existing and future
housing needs of their respective regions. In the case of Seal Beach, the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) has determined the existing and future needs for he
city through a process called the Regional Housing Needs Assessment(RHNA).
SCAG allocates the future housing needs of a City based on a percentage of the overall
need for the region. In calculating the future need, SCAG factors in regional growth
forecasts, units needed to replace lost units, as well as units needed to maintain a healthy
vacancy rate. In 1998 SCAG developed the RHNA forecasts based on population,
employment, and household forecasts from 1998 -2005. Based on the forecasts SCAG has
determined that the construction need for Seal Beach during the 20002005 period is 295
units.
Providing new construction housing within the City is a very difficult task, as there are no
major undeveloped areas within the City zoned for residential use. Those remaining vacant
or underutilized sites have severe site constraints that hamper any land use development
proposals. The potential loss of an additional six residences will further tax the ability of
the City to comply with the provisions of the new construction demand of 25 units during
the time period of 20002005. Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any indication of the impacts
on the impacted local jurisdictions in their specific ability to accommodate the necessary
construction of replacement housing for those housing units identified for potential
acquisition.
❑ State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Pursuant to 23 CFR 450.328(a), "after
approval by the MPO and the Governor, the TIP [federal Transportation Program[ shall be
included without modification, directly or by reference, in the STIP program required under
23 USC 135 and consistent with Section 450.220, except that in non - attainment and
maintenance areas, a conformity finding by the FHWA and the FTA must be made before it
is included in the STIP." Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any indication of the SR22M/OCC's
inclusion in either the TIP or STIP. Without true examination of this issue, the DEIR/DEIS
does not provide the analytical road map to equip the project's decision maker or other
stakeholders in making an informed decision about the project or other alternative courses
of action.
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 55
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EIS- CA- 01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
o Air Quality Management Plan. Pursuant to 23 CFR 710.305, 'the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) process, as described in FHWA's NEPA regulations in 23 CFR part 771,
normally must be conducted and concluded with a record of decision (ROD) or equivalent
before federal funds can be placed under agreement for acquisition of right -of -way. Where
applicable, a State also must complete Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401 et seq.) project level
conformity analysis.'
Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 states, in part, that no federal
agency shall engage in, support in any way or provide financial assistance for, license or
permit, or approve any activity which does not conform to a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
after it has been approved or promulgated under Section -110 of that Clean Air Act (CAA).
Conformity to an implementation plan means: (1) conformity to an implementation plan's
purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of the national
ambient air quality standards and achieving expeditious attainment of such standards; and
(2) that such activity will not: (a) cause or contribute to any new violation of any standard in
any area, (b) increase the frequency or severity of any existing . violation of any standard fn::..
any area, or (c) delay timely attainment of any standard or any required interim emission
reductions or other milestones in any area. Pursuant to 40 CFR 93.150(a), no federal action
shall support an action that does not conform to an applicable implementation plan. A
federal agency must make a determination demonstrating that a federal action conforms to
the applicable implementation plan before the action is taken. Other than the above
reference, absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any factual evidence demonstrating the project's
conformity with the SIP.
Although the OEIR/DEIS states the "FHWA and FTA (Federal Transit Administration] made a
conformity determination on the SCAG's 1998 RTP on June. 9,,'1998' (p. 4.8 -10), absent
from the DEIR/DEIS is any factual information that areviewer can examine to independently
assess conformity; Conclusory remarks without true` examination cannot equip the project's
decision maker or other stakeholders in making an informed decision about the project or
other alternative courses of action.
o Water Quality Plans — Santa Ana River Basin (8) and Los Angeles Region (4). The project
site is located within the jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa
Ana Region (SARWQCB) and may include areas within the jurisdiction of the Regional
Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region (LARWQCB). The project is, therefore,
subject to the plans and policies outlined in 'Water Quality Control Plan — Santa Ana River
Basin (BY (SARWQCB, 1995) (Santa Ana Basin Plan) and may be subject to the 'Water
Quality Contr6Plan Los. Angeles Region (4) ( LARWQCB, 1995) (Los Angeles Basin Plan).
Since no reference is made to the Los Angeles Basin Plan, although the Lead Agencies
identify the San Gabriel River as being located "within the study area' (p. 3.2 -1), it must be
assumed that the Lead Agencies have fully investigated jurisdictional issues and determined
that no portion of the project is located within LARWQCB jurisdiction.
The Santa Ana Basin Plan describes the regulatory and guidance documents that control the
activities of the SARWQCB, the many beneficial uses associated with ground and surface
waterbodies within the basin, identify water quality objectives, and address the plan's
implementation and monitoring. Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any analysis of the project's
consistency with the Santa Ana Basin Plan and the SARWQCB's 'Nonpoint Source
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach
Page 56
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA -01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
Management Plan." Since the watershed discharges directly into 'the Pacific Ocean at
Huntington Beach" (p. 3.2 -1), with the recent closures of State beaches along the Orange
County coastline, the DEIR/DEIS needs to address not only conformity with the Santa Ana
Basin Plan, potential impacts upon rgceiving waters (e.g., "the most common contaminants
in highway runoff are heavy metals, inorganic salts, aromatic hydrocarbons, and suspended
solids,' p. 4.2 -2), and the proposed Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented
by the Lead Agencies during the project's construction and subsequent operation.
3.20 Failure to Formulate a Reasonable Set of Threshold of Significance Criteria
In Hanley v. Kleindienst the court stated that in deciding whether a major federal action will
"significantly" affect the environment, the federal lead agency is required to both review the
proposed action in light of the extent to which the action will cause adverse environmental effects
in excess of those created by existing uses in the area affected and to define the absolute
quantitative adverse environmental effects of the action itself, including the cumulative harm that
may result therefrom. Agencies must, therefore, affirmatively develop a reviewable environmental
record for the purpose of a threshold determination under Section 102(2)(CF of NEPA. As indicated
in the CEQ Cumulative Effects:
Thresholds and criteria (i.e., levels of acceptable change) used to determine the
significance of effects will vary depending on the type of resource being analyzed,
the condition of the resource, and the importance of the resource as an issue (as
identified through scoping). Criteria can be quantitative units of measure such as
those used to determine threshold '. values in economic impact:, modeling, or
qualitative units of measure such as the perceptions of visitors to a recreational area.
No matter how the criteria are derived, they should be directly related to the
relevant cause -and- effect relationships. The criteria, used, including quantitative
thresholds if appropriate, should be clearly stated in the assessment document (CEQ
Cumulative Effects p: ,n 45). s'
�
Similarly, one of the key components of the CE h rocess is the determination whether a potential
impact insignificant (e.g., 'CEQA ` has thresho�osignificance, to be used as the bases for
determining mitigation; p. ii). Although the DEIR/DEIS includes what, at best, would be described
as an abbreviated list of threshold criteria, the Lead Agencies have formulated an unverifiable set of
thresholds that would serve to promote the project and to eliminate those criterion that would
result in a significance determination, thus, requiring the development of mitigation measures (e.g.,
"Mitigation measures are not required for effects which are not found to be significant," Section
15126.4[al[31, State CEQA Guidelines) and additional project alternatives (e.g., "An EIR shall
describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which
would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially
lessen any of the significant effects of the project," Section 15126.6(aj, State CEQA Guidelines).
Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is either any indication of the source(s) for the candidate threshold
criteria suggested or a statement that the presented criterion are, themselves, subject to debate,
discussion, and modification. Further, because the Lead Agencies have failed to provide criteria
with measurable performance standards, the Lead Agencies cannot demonstrate that their proposed
mitigation measures ultimately will accomplish their purposes.
State Route 22/Weat Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 57
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01- 04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
As indicated in the Caltrans' Environmental Handbook, "Appendix G of the (State] CEQA
Guidelines consists of a list of 26 different effects which a project may have on the environment
which often, but not always, would be considered significant" (Environmental Handbook, p. 2 -11).
Since the Lead Agencies purport that the DEIR/DEIS has been prepared 'pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" (p. i), it would be logical for the Lead Agencies to utilize those
threshold of significance criteria contained in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Similarly,
since the DEIR/DEIS is logically tiered from SCAG's 2001 RTP FPEIR, those threshold of
significance criteria contained therein would be assumed to continue to apply to the SR22M/OCC
project. Criteria from Appendix G and the 2001 RTP FPEIR are, however, neither included nor is
the rationale for their rejection presented in the DEIR/DEIS. Should those criteria be included, the
document's findings would be substantially different (e.g., greater number of impacts and a greater
number of corresponding mitigation measures) than now presented by the Lead Agencies.
Based on a review of the DEIR/DEIS, it is evident that the following significance criteria, as
contained in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, were not considered by the Lead Agencies
in the preparation of the DEIR/DEIS. The Lead Agencies should: (1) explicitly state the agencies'
rationale for not including the following standards; (2) augment the DEIR/DEIS to contain sufficient
information and analysis addressing each of the following thresholds; (3) conduct a reassessment of
the project and its impacts based on the application of the following standards; and (4) recirculate
the DEIR/EIS for public comment in light of the substantial ❑ew. information that must be added to
the draft
• Land Use
• Physically divide an established community,
• Conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect;
• Conflict with an applicable'. habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan;
• Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other
infrastructure);
• '',. ! Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere and/or displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere;
• Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract;
• Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of Statewide importance, as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use; and /or
• Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland
of Statewide, importance to non - agricultural use.
Earth Resources
< Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving: (i) rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
State Route 221West Orange County Connection October 2081
City of Seal Beach
Page 58
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by
the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault (refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42); (ii) strong
seismic ground shaking; (iii) seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction;
and /or (iv) landslides;
• Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil;
• Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable
as a result of the project, and potentially result in on -site or off -site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse;
• Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the "Uniform Building
Code" (1994), creating substantial risk to life or property.
• Water Resources
• Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements;
• Substantially deplete ground water supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of
preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted);
• Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on the site or off the site;
• Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course: of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would resuin flooding on the site or
off the site;
• Create or contribute to runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff;
• Substantially degrade water quality;
<'' Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance. Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map;
<H Place within a 100 -year ..flood hazard area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flow;
• Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam; and/or
• Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
• Biological Resources
• Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, . sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, . policies, or regulations, or by the California. Department of Fish and
Game (CDFG) or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS);
• Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the
CDFG or USFWS;
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 59
Draft Environmental Impact ReportlEnvironmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA -0t -04-D /SCH No. 98064001
• Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means;
• Interfe;e substantially with the movement of any native residen`or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;
• Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such
as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; and/or
• Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural
community conservation plan, or other approved local, regionalaor State habitat
conservation plan.
Transportation and Circulation
• Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load
and capacity of the street system (i.e., substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume- to-capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections);
• Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established
by the County congestion management agency: for designed roads or highways;'
• Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., .sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.., farm equipment);
• Result in inadequate emergency access "-.
• Result in inadequate parking capacity; and /or
• Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks).
Air Quality
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan;
• Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
cgS%lity violation;..
• (Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air
quality standards;
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial air pollutant concentrations; and /or
< Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Noise
• Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;
• Expose persons to or generate excessive ground -borne vibration or ground -borne
noise levels;:
< . Produce a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project; and/or
< Produce a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
Stale Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 60
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA -01 -04-D /SCH No. 98064001
• Public Health and Safety
< Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials;
< Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment;
< Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school;
< Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code (CGC)
and create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment;
< Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan; and /or
< Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands.
Public Services and Facilities
< Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, . or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands;
< Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated '. with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities, . need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: fire
protection; police protection; schools; parks; and /or other public facilities;
< Increase the use of existing' neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated;
< Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment,
< Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB;
< Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities
or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects;
< Require °`' "or result In the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects;
< Require new or expanded water supply entitlements and resources;
< Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments;
< Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs; and /or
State Route 22/west Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 61
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA- o1- 04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
< Fail to comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid
waste.
• Visual Resources r a
• Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
• Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway;
• Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings; and /or
• Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day
or nighttime views in the area.
• Cultural Resources
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource as
defined in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines;
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource .
pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines;.
• Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries;
and/or
• Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource, site, or unique
geologic feature.
• Growth Inducement
• Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regerla ion of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; and
• Induce substantial population . growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
Al,environmental of'roads or other infrastructure.: ld Standards Applicable to all Topical Issues
Achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long -term
goals;
":duce environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively
ons.'trable; and /or
< Ca`u' substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
In addition, there exists'other statutory and regulatory requirements and advisory recommendations
that are or may be applicable to the SR22/WOCC project and establish or recommend specific and
applicable standards against which the project's specific impacts should be evaluated. Should all of
the above standards be applied, would the document have yielded different results? Would the
severity of any of the impacts change? Would new mitigation measure be recommended? Would
any new alternatives be considered?
Although not repeated herein, each of the threshold of significance criteria identified in the 2001
RTP FPEIR constitute additional programmatic threshold of significance criteria applicable to the
State Route 22iwest Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach
Page 62
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA-01-04-D / SCH No. 98064001
SR22ZWOCC project. The Lead Agencies should: (1) explicitly state the agencies' rationale for not
including the threshold standards identified therein; (2) augment the DEIR/DEIS to contain sufficient
information and analysis addressing each of those thresholds; and (3) conduct a reassessment of the
project and its potential impacts based on the application gf those standards.
As further indicated in Caltrans' Environmental Handbook, the existence of public controversy
constitutes an appropriate basis for establishing a threshold of significance. As indicated therein:
"Section 15064(h) of the [State] CEQA Guidelines indicates that there are additional factors to be
considered for projects where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that a project may
have a significant effect on the environment. One of the factors is whether.. there is 'serious public
controversy over environmental effects of a project.' An example would be public body officially
stating this in the record. In such cases the [State CEQA] Guidelines indicated that a presumption
of significance should be made and an EIR prepared" (Environmental Handbook, p. 2 -11).
The City, through the submission of these comments hereby declares that the loss of one or more
homes or businesses in Seal Beach is controversial, constitutes a significant environmental effect for
the purpose of the environmental assessment of the proposed SR22NVOCC project, and requires
the formulation of reasonable and feasible mitigation measures and additional project alternatives
designed to substantially reduce or avoid the significance of that effect.
3.21 Identified Threshold Criteria Lack Measurability
As required under Section 15064.7(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "a threshold of significance is
an identifiable quantitative, qualitative, or performance level of a particular environmental effect,
noncompliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the
agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less than
significant." In order to constitute a supportable threshold standard, the candidate standard must be
drafted in a fashion capable of measurement.
In the absence of well - drafted threshold standards, conforming to the requirements of Section
15064.7 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Lead Agencies have failed to present a measurable
standard for the evaluation of the project's impacts. The threshold standards identified in the
DEIR/DEIS are so general in nature that it is not possible to objectively evaluate the significance of
the project's impacts and verify the validity of the Lead Agencies preliminary findings.
Since "the 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"
(Section 21002, CEQA} and since "mitigation measures are not required for effects which are not
found to be significant" (section 15126.4[a][4], State CEQA Guidelines), the determination of
significance is a critical component of the CEQA process. Ill -defined threshold standards prevent
agencies from objectively evaluating the potential environmental consequences of their actions and
allow agencies to avoid imposing mitigation measures or exploring alternatives by establishing
thresholds that allow broad discretion in interpretation.
Standards that are purely subjective (i.e., those that lack objectivity in their interpretation) can to
easily be manipulated by project proponents in favor of a predetermined outcome. Conversely,
standards that can be objectively evaluated and measured allow diverse groups and competing
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 63
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
interests to independently validate the Lead Agencies preliminary conclusions, understand the basis
for the document's findings, and support the incorporation or defend the non - inclusion of
mitigation measures.. To often, that lack of objectivity is lacking in the threshold of significance
criteria listed in the DEIR/DEIS 6e.g., "Potential for seismic hazards and ground shaking $ctivities,°
p. 4.1 -3; "Potential for groundwater availability, use, or quality," p. 4.2 -5).
3.22 Failure to Formulate Reasonable Mitigation Measures
Unlike CEQA, where mitigation is required only for significant environmental effects, under NEPA,
reasonable mitigation may be required whenever an impact upon the natural or human
environment is identified (e.g., "Agencies shall focus on significant envlronrzental issues and
alternatives," 40 CFR 1502.1). vi
As indicated in FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, "NEPA_.Yeguires "identification of adverse
impacts and mitigation of adverse impacts when mitigation is reasonable. NEPA does not focus on
assessment of whether each adverse impact is significant or not. Presence or absence of'significant
impacts' as defined by NEPA is the determining factor of what type of environmental docu mentM,r. a
s"
appropriate. The NEPA definition of significant impact does not necessarily correlate with -CEQA
identified 'significant effects.' Further, CEQA requires mitigation only when an impact is
designated as 'significant' under CEQA. This can result in mitigation being identified under NEPA
that would not be identified under CEQA" (Technical Advisory T6640.8AQ, p. 6 -13).
Referencing the DEIR/DEIS, "CEQA has thresholds of significance, to be used as bases for
determining mitigation. NEPA determines level of significance based on context and intensity.
Under NEPA, all impacts are discussed regardless of any thresholds amount and include mitigation
measures where reasonable" (p. ii). As indicated in Caltrans' Environmental Handbook: 'The
similarity of NEPA and CEQA, together with the similarity , in their application mean that when an
impact approaches the significance threshold for NEPA it also approaches the significance threshold
for CEQA — and vice verse" (Environmental.:.. Handbook, p. 2 -11). As indicated in the CEQ
Regulations:_
"Significantly" as used in NEPA requires consideration of both context and intensity.
(a) Context. This means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in
several contexts such as society as a whole (human, national), the affected region,
the affected interests, and the locality. Significance varies with the setting of the
proposed action. For instance, in the case of a site - specific action, significance
would usually depend upon the effects in the locale rather than in the world as a
whole. Both short- and long -term effects are relevant. IN Intensity. This refers to the
severity of impact. Responsible officials must bear in mind that more than one
agency may make decisions about partial aspects of a major action. The following
should be considered in evaluating intensity: (1) Impacts that may be both beneficial
and adverse. .A significant effect may exist even if the federal agency believes that
on balance the effect will be beneficial. (2) The degree to which the proposed
action affects public health and safety. (3) Unique characteristics of the geographic
area. (4) The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment
are likely to be highly controversial. (5) The degree to which the effects on the
quality of the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or
unknown risks. (6) The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 64
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principal about a
future consideration. (n Whether the action is related to other actions with
individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. Significance exists if
a it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment.
o
Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it
down into small component parts. (8) The degree to which the action may adversely
affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of
significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. (9) The degree to which the
action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat. (10)
Whether the action threatens a violation of federal, state, or local law or
requirements imposed for the protection of the environment.
In a local context, the destruction of six homes and displacement of six families constitutes a
significant environmental effect. The DEIR/DEIS (see Table 5.5 -1), however, fails to even
acknowledge the existence of this impact, flails to offer any reasonable mitigation, and fails to
identify any of the "build" alternatives that would serve to avoid or substantially lessen that
identified impact.
With regards to intensity, although the project may enhance regional mobility, that beneficial
impact is now proposed at the expense of those property owners and tenants whose homes will be
lost as a result of the proposed improvements. The City again states that such impact is both
unacceptable and constitutes a significant impact upon the human environment. In Seal Beach, the
destruction of homes and displacement of individuals by federal and State agencies is highly
controversial. Although future freeway "expansion is reasonably foreseeable (e.g., FHWA and
Caltrans' "desire to preserve the long -term operational flexibility of added lanes to SR -22," p. 2-17),
the Lead Agencies failure to consider amore southerly realignment alternative through the USNWS
constitutes a clear precedence for any future expansion plans. The potential cumulative impacts of
those reasonably; foreseeable events are never even addressed in the DEIR/DEIS. The Lead
Agencies failure to formulate one or more "build" alternatives that seek to avoid the displacement
of homes and businesses constitutes `a violation of an adopted mitigation measures which was
represented by those agencies involved in the development of the 2001 RTP as binding obligations
on later projects conducted in furtherance of that transportation program.:
In recognition of the above factors, with regards to context and intensity, project- induced impacts
on Seal Beach are clearly significant and, therefore, require the Lead Agencies to formulate
mitigation measures and explore other alternatives that would reduce or avoid those environmental
effects. Not only have the Lead Agencies failed to formulate reasonable mitigation measures and
explore a reasonable range of alternatives, but those agencies have also failed to present a
reasonable set of criterion that would allow other public agencies and the affected public to
independently evaluate the "context and intensity" of the resulting impact and independently
validate the Lead Agencies preliminary environmental determination.
The City, therefore, asserts that the Lead Agencies are mandated under NEPA to formulate other
"reasonable mitigation measures" and alternatives in response to the proposed destruction of six or
more homes and increased freeway encroachment within an established residential area in Seal
Beach.
State Route 22M'est Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 65
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
3.23 Reliance on Mitigation Measures of Unknown Efficacy
As required under Section 15126.4(a)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "mitigation measures must
be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally- binding instruments."
An agency cannot defer the formulation of mitigation measures until after project approval.
(Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino supra, 202 Cal.App.3d 306 -314) nor can it rely on mitigation
measures of unknown efficacy (Kings County Farm Bureau et al v City of Hanford, 221
Cal.App.3d 727 -728). Numerous mitigation measures are, however, presented in the DEIR/DEIS
that fail to require specific actions or performance and are used as the Lead Agencies as an excuse
for the preparation of an adequate technical analysis (e.g., "Community' meetings will be held to
explain to the area residents about the construction work, time involved, and the control measures
to be taken to reduce the impact of the construction noise,' NOI- FB -11, p. 4.9 -20).
For example, although the text of the DEIR/DEIS contains no disclosure of "areas of historically high
or perched groundwater levels' (p. 4.1 -9), the DEIR/DEIS includes a mitigation measure that states,
in part, 'all areas of historically high or perched groundwater levels will be analyzed in detail
during project design to verify the potential for liquefaction. Should soils subject to liquefaction be
found, site - specific engineering techniques will be implemented" (p. 4.1 -9). Since the extent of the
potential liquefaction problem is never disclosed, it is not possible to ascertain the existence and
type of 'site- specific engineering techniques' that can be effectively utilized and the potential
secondary impacts that could occur should those techniques be implemented.
While the DEIR/DEIS indicates that those techniques could include "importation of stable materials,
compaction of soils, permanent dewatering; and attachment of deep -set piles to bedrock or lower
density soils" (p. 4.1 -9), the Lead Agencies have included no analysis indicating the feasibility of
these or other practices, the area potentially affected, the implication of these conditions in the
context of project design, and/or the impacts that might result therefrom. Since preliminary
engineering plans have already been developed, the mitigation measure does not provide specific
information as to the timing of its application (e.g., "analyzed in detail during project design ') or
present the Lead Agencies' rationale why that investigation cannot be performed and its findings
included i tfie DEIR/DEIS.
Additionally, the DEIR/DEIS notes that 'construction noise is only considered to be substantial in
exceptional cases, such as pile driving and crack and seat pavement rehabilitation operations. .
.The Full Build Alternative may require pile driving and/or crack and seat pavement rehabilitation,
and substantial short-term impacts would occur" (pp. 4.15 -3 and 4.9 -28) and "equipment that might
be used for the excavation and construction of the Full Build Alternative would have potentially
significant short term noise impacts to surrounding areas" (p. 4.9 -11).
As mitigation for this "substantial short-term impact," the Lead Agencies offer the following
mitigation measure: 'In areas where pile driving and similar activities would occur in close
proximity to noise - sensitive land uses, alternative methods of construction will be used, where
feasible' (NOI -FB -8, p. 4.9 -20; NOI -RB -7, p. 4.9 -20): No definition of 'close proximity' is
presented; allowing the construction contractor to make that determination in the absence of any
acoustical analysis that would demonstrate the precise number and location of properties that
would" be 'substantially' impacted. Similarly, the construction contractor, motivated by economic
and scheduling considerations, is provided the discretion as to the potential 'feasibility' of
alternative construction techniques. Since a public agency "must meet its own responsibilities
State Route 22IWest Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 66
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EIS- CA -01 -04D / SCH No. 98064001
under CEQA' (Section 15020, State CEQA Guidelines), the Lead Agencies are precluded from
deferring to others (e.g., construction contractor) a determination of whether a specific action is
"feasible."
Since no lefinition of "feasibility' is provided in the DEIR/DEIS, no objective criteria exists upon
which that decision will be made. Through non - disclosure, the affected public is precluded from
submitting comments to the project's decision makers as to what is and is not "feasible."
Additionally, the Lead Agencies have failed to demonstrate that: (1) there exist "alternative methods
of construction" that are comparable to "pile driving and crack and seat pavement rehabilitation
operations'; (2) those alternative techniques (e.g.,. "vibration," p. 4.9 -20) will not result in the
introduction of additional undisclosed impacts; and (3) other mitigation measures (e.g., "Noise
barriers and noise barrier additions required for long -term noise abatemeni/mitigation will be
constructed during the initial stages,' NOI -FB-7, p. 4.9 -20) will:,; produce any substantive mitigation
for construction -term noise impacts.
Examples of additional ineffectual mitigation measures include, but are not limited to the following
measures contained in the DEIR/DEIS. For brevity, the entire measure is or may not be repeated
below:
❑ Large native existing trees will be avoided to the maximum extent feasible where sufficient
area is available (BIO -FB -3, p. x; BI0-RB -2, p. xii);
❑ Attempt to relocate these two service stations to similar locations within the community
(COM -FB -8, p. xv);
❑ Noise barriers and noise barrier additions required for long -term mitigation will be
constructed during the initial stages, where feasible (NOI -FB -7, p. xix; NOI -RB -6, p. xxi);
❑ As much as possible, existing landscaping within the State right -of -way will be preserved
(VIS -FB -2, p. xxviii; VIS -RB -2, p xxxii); ^dr
❑ Areas needed for construction will be minimized wherefi asible while maintaining safety
for construction workers and the public (VIS -FB -2, p. xxviii; VIS -RB -2, p. xxxii);
❑ Where possible, views of the freeway and associated elements, including noise barriers,
will be buffered from homes, schools, parks, and similar uses by planting (VIS- FB -10, p.
xxxi);
• Where possible, objectionable views from the freeway, such as of open storage for
industrial uses, will be screened from view by use of highway planting (VIS- FB -11, p. xxxi);
• Where: appropriate and feasible, construction staging will be located inconspicuously to
minimize adverse visual effects (CON -FB -3, p. xxxiii; CON -RB -2, p. xxxiv).
Each of these mitigation measures contain specific limiting language (e.g., "where feasible'),
allowing for the Lead Agencies or other parties to apply discretion as to whether these measures
will be implemented and„ if implemented, to what extent. Those decisions will occur outside of
the NEPA/CEQA process and without opportunities for public or agency scrutiny. Similarly, no
measurable criteria or othe "r performance standards are identified which will control agency
decisions. Since construction contracts are often allocated to the lowest bidder, any measures that
would likely result in the incurrence of costs can readily be deemed "infeasible" and not
implemented, either in part or in whole.
Based on the apparent "voluntary" nature of these and other related mitigation measures, no
mitigating "benefit' can be assumed to derive from these measures. As a result, not only are these
State Route 22lwest Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 67
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS-CA- 01-04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
measures meaningless and unenforceable, but they provide no assurance that any environmental
mitigation will result from their adoption as project conditions. In the absence of demonstrated or
demonstrable performance, these measures cannot serve as a factual basis to assert that otherwise
significant impacts will be reduced to a leis- than - significant level. i
3.24 Compliance with Standard Practices not Legitimate Thresholds or Mitigation
Section 15064(h) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires the Lead Agencies to determine that a
significant change in the environment caused by the project is not significant if the change
complies with a standard. A standard is defined, in part, as a requirement found in a statute,
ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, order, or other standard of general application adopted for
the purpose of environmental protection, including locally adopted thresholds of significance
(Section 15064[h][3], State CEQA Guidelines)."
Several cases have considered and rejected the application of existing laws and regulations in lieu
of thresholds of significance. Compliance with such laws does not automatically render impacts
insignificant (Oro Fino Gold Mining Corooration v. County of El Dorado, 1990). Compliance with
adopted plans and policies has also been held not to be an adequate basis for concluding that a
project will not cause significant impacts. The project must be evaluated based on its impact on
the existing environment (see also Environmental Planning and Information Council v County of El
Dorado, 1982; City of Carmel-lay-the-Sea v Board of Supervisors, 1986).
As indicated in Communities for a Better Environment et al v 'California Resource Agency (2001),
the court found this method of determining significance to be inconsistent with CEQA, in that it
does not provide guidance for determining when the application of a certain standard is not
appropriate and does not allow the agencies to find that an effect is significant even if the record
contained evidence that it would be significant in a particular case.
The result of this invalidation is that the Lead Agencies cannot rely exclusively on compliance with
a standard in determining that a certain environmental effect is less than significant. The project's
environmental impacts must still he evaluated, even when the project meets other environmental
standards.
At various places in the DEIR/DEIS, the Lead Agencies assert the following: "since all changes
would be designed according to standard engineering practices and Caltrans specifications, it
would be a less than significant impact" (p. 4.1 -2). Compliance with "standard engineering
practices" and 'specifications" neither substitute for a reasoned technical analysis of the project's
potential impacts nor constitutes appropriate mitigation.
The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is classified as a non - attainment area for ozone (03) and
particulate matter (PMio). " In recognition of these conditions, it is important that projects proposed
within the SCAB mitigate project - related air quality impacts to the maximum extent feasible. To
assist public agencies in the preparation of air quality analyses, the SCAQMD has prepared a
"CEQA Air Quality Handbook" (SCAQMD, April 1993) (SCAQMD Handbook). As indicated
therein, "the South Coast Air Basin is the only extreme non - attainment area in the United States"
(SCAQMD Handbook, p. 6-1). As further indicated therein, "any project that contributes emissions
during construction or operation affects air quality. Therefore, the extent to which a project impacts
air quality should be evaluated ... The depth of the analysis will be in proportion to the level and
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 68
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EISU- 01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
significance of the emissions" (SCAQMD Handbook, p. 7 -1). The SCAQMD further notes that the
EIR, "should identify all emissions associated with construction activities, including site preparation,
construction of new facilities, or modification of the existing facility or site" (SCAQMD Handbook,
p. 7 -2) and 'mitigation is crucial to reducing a project's environmental idnpacts. A lead agency has
the authority to require changes in any or all activities involved in the project to lessen or avoid
significant impacts' (SCAQMD Handbook, pp. 7 -3 and 7 -4).
Although the DEIR/DEIS presents an analysis of operational air quality impacts, absent from the
document is any quantitative assessment of construction -term air quality impacts. In lieu of that
analysis, the Lead Agencies merely assert the project "would be required to comply with regional
rules, which would prevent substantial short-term air pollutant emissions. Compliance with the
regional rules is assumed for the project and, thus, substantial short -term impacts would not occur"
(p. 4.15 -2; see also p. 4.8 -9). If mere compliance with "regional rules" were the sole determinant
of a construction -term air quality impact, since compliance with existing rules and regulations is a
mandatory obligation upon all projects, no air quality analysis would ever be required:, By failing
to conduct a reasonable investigation, meeting the analytical requirements of the SCAQMD, the
Lead Agencies seek not only to minimize the disclosure of significant environmental impacts and
avoid the imposition of mitigation measures, but has failed to present a sufficient analysis of
project- related impacts.
The SCAQMD Handbook establishes "screening tables" for the purpose of assessing air quality
impacts. Projects that do not exceed the threshold established therein would be presumed not to
create a significant air quality impact; projects that exceed those thresholds would be presumed to
generate a significant air quality impact. For projects involving the construction of "paved roads,"
any local road generating "24,000 vehicle miles traveled "...(VMT) would be presumed to generate a
significant construction -term air quality impact (SCAQMD Handbook, Table 6-3, p. 6-12). As
indicated in the DEIR/DEIS (i.e., Table 4.7 -2, p. 4.7 -2), for 2020, when the "no build" conditions
are subtracted from those attributable to each of the other project alternatives, the "TSM/Expanded
Bus Service Alternative" will generate 73,460 VMT (10,114,110 — 10,040,650 - 73,460), the "Full
Build Alternative" will generate 413,140 VMT (10,453,790 — 10,040,650 — 413,140), and the
"Reduced Build Alternative" will generate 270,480 VMT (10,311,130 — 10,040,650 — 270,480).
As a result, excluding the "No Build Alternative, each of the remaining alternatives must be
presumed to generate a significant air quality impact and more detailed project- specific analysis
and mitigation is required.
The Lead Agencies' fallacy can be further highlighted merely by focusing on a single pollutant.
Although the freeway pavement may be constructed of concrete, it is likely that the proposed
"Pacific Electric Arterial" will be constructed with an asphalt surface. The application of asphalt
creates volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which are "ozone precursors." As previously noted,
the SCAB is categorized as a non - attainment area for ozone.
Assuming that one -half of the proposed project's paving relates to the construction of the Pacific
Electric Arterial, a total of 30 acres of asphalt paving will be installed in the construction of that
new roadway (e.g., "The Full Build Alternative would add approximately 24 hectares 160 acres] of
pavement to the roadway," p. 4.2 -4). If asphalt is used, its application will create a considerable
volume of VOC emissions. Assuming a minimum depth of 6 inches, approximately 24,200 cubic
yards of asphalt ([30 acres x 43,560 feet/acre x 0.5 foot depth] > 27 square feet/cubic yard -
24,000 cubic yards) would be required. Asphalt is regulated under SCAQMD Rule 1108, allowing
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 69
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EIS -CA- 01-04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
0.5 pounds of VOC per cubic yard of asphalt applied. Thus the 24,200 cubic yards of asphalt
would produce 12,100 pounds of VOC.
These emissions would be additive with those associated with the paving equipment exhaust o
emissions as well as the trucks necessary to deliver the asphalt and the worker vehicles. Site paving
for only a portion of the project is, therefore, projected to create emission levels substantially in
exceedence of the 75 pounds per day VOC criterion and 2.5 tons per quarter criterion established
by the SCAQMD.
It is, therefore, evident that construction -term air emissions will be significant and require extensive
mitigation. The DEIR/DEIS mistakenly and erroneously concludes, "substantial short -term impacts
would not occur" (p. 4.15 -2) for the "Full Build Alternative'. and "substantial short -term impacts
would be negligible" (p. 4.15 -5) for the 'Reduced Build Alternative" (see also Table S.5 -1, p. xvi).
The identification of significant construction -term air quality impacts constitutes 'significant new
information" within the meaning of Section 151 of the State CEQA Guidelines and requires
that the Lead Agencies amend, augment, incorporate all reasonablez mitigation measures and
recirculate the DEIR/DEIS for additional public comment
ro.
Examples of the Lead Agencies attempt to suggest mitigation measures that merely obligate
compliance with existing standards (e.g., compliance with existing "Uniform. Building Code"
standards) include, but are not limited to the following measures contained in the DEIR/DEIS. For
brevity, the entire measure is or may not be repeated below:
• Structures will be designed to resist the maximum credible earthquake associated with
nearby faults (GEO -FB -1, p. v);
• The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit requires Caltrans
stormwater discharges to meet water quality standards (HYD -FB -2, p. viii; HYD -RB -2, p. ix);
❑ The contractor shall comply with Caltrans' Standards and Specifications (NOI -FB -9, p. xix;
NOI -RB -8, p xxi);
• The rotect will comply with standard construction practices and pro_ cedures (UTI -FB -1, p.
xxf]:a FRB -1, p. xxii); and
• Ot er considerations recommended in the 'Highway Design Manual" will be incorporated
' into designs (VIS -PB 14, p. xxxr`VIS- RB -14, xxxiii). ,
As indicated under the DEIR/DEIS''dscussion of the "affected environment' (i.e., "the
environmental impact statement shall succinctly describe the environment of the area[s] to be
affected or created'. by the alternatives under consideration,' 40 CFR 1502.15), the Lead Agencies
describe those conditions that now exist before project commencement. That discussion includes,
but is not limited to the following. statement:
The contractor shall fully conform to the requirements of the Caltrans Statewide
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Permit,.
Order No. 99- 06 -DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000003, adopted by the State Water
Resources Control Board on July 15, 1999. When applicable, the contractor shall
also conform to the requirements of the General NPDES Permit for Construction
Activities, Order No. 92 -08 -DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002, and any subsequent
General Permit in effect at the time of construction 13.2-3).
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 70
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA -01 -04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
As a result, the Lead Agencies acknowledge their pre-existing obligations to conform to specific
obligations. Logically, "compliance with existing standards" must be assumed to be a part of any
project description. To, therefore, suggest that the project itself constitutes mitigation for the
impacts produced 4y the project suggests that the Lead Agencies now seek a waiver from those
standards (any such waiver would need to be identified as part of the project °description) or that the
recommended mitigation measure is meaningless and will not serve to reduce any of the project's
identified impacts.
By identifying the above actions as mitigation measures, in essence, the Lead Agencies are stating,
'lets build the project in the manner we have already assumed and state that the project is 'self
mitigating' for the impacts that the project will create." n kb, t,
t
3.25 Presentation of Erroneous and Illusory Mitigation Measures
The CEQ Regulations define mitigation to include: (1) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking
a certain action or parts of an action; (2) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of
the action and its implementation; (3) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring
the affected environment; (4) reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of the action; and /or (5) compensating for the impact by
replacing or providing substitute resources or environments (40 CFR 1508.20)` This ordered
approach to considering possible methods of mitigating impacts .. is known as "mitigation
sequencing" and involves understanding the affected environment and assessing the project's
potential effects throughout the development of the project.
As required under the State CEQA Guidelines, "the EIR serves not only to protect the environment
but also to demonstrate to the public that it is being protected (County of Invo v. Yen , 32 Cal.
App.3d 795)" (Section 15003[b], State CEQA Guidelines) and the.purpose of CEQA is not to
generate paper, but to compel government at all levels to made decisions with environmental
consequences in mind" (Section 15003[g], State CEQA Guidelines).
Throughout the DEIR/DEIS, the Lead Agencies seek to assert that compliance with existing laws and
regulations constitute reasonable and appropriate) mitigation measures under NEPA and CEQA.
Since those same obligations would exist notwithstanding their identification in the DEIR/DEIS, in
reality, no mitigation has been proposed since the resulting action imposes no further obligations
upon the Lead Agencies or other parties. Since they serve no environmental benefit, the inclusion
of these illusory . :measures in the DEIR/DEIS is intended only to pacify the concerned public,
generally unaware of the complexities of the NEPA and CEQA process, that the Lead Agencies are
taking "appropriate" actions to protect the environment.
Examples of these illusory measures include, but are not limited to, the following mitigation
measures now proposed by the Lead Agencies. For brevity, the entire measure is or may not be
repeated. below:
❑ Structures will be designed to resist the maximum credible earthquake associated with
nearby faults (GEO -FB -1, p. v; GEO -RB -1, p. vi);
❑ Small structures will be strengthened to resist predicted ground movement (GEC -FB -3, p. vi;
GEO -RB -3, p. vi);
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 71
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
• Appropriate foundation types and depths will be designed so that the ground movements
will not adversely affect the structure (GEO -FB -4, p. vi);
• Soil will be stabilized to eliminate the potential for liquefaction or to control its effects
o (GEO -FB-5, p. vi; GEO -RB -5, p. vii); 0 0
• Appropriate erosion- control measures will be incorporated into the construction documents
and implemented during site preparation, grading, and construction (GEO -FB-7, p. vi; GEO-
RB-7, p. vii);
• For all bridges and other structures to be constructed within 100 -year floodplains, specific
impacts to floodplain elevations will be analyzed (HYD -FB -1, p. viii; HYD -RB -1, p. ix);
• The contractor shall fully conform to the requirements of the Caltrans Statewide NPDES
Storm Water Permit. . .When applicable, the contractor shall also'. conform to the
requirements of the General NPDES Permit for Construction Activities (HYD -FB -2, p. viii;
HYD -RB -2, p. ix);
• The project will comply with the provisions of Section 1600 of the California Fish and
Game Code (BIO -FB-2, p. ix; BIO -RB -1, p. xii);
❑ Potential impacts to the wetlands will be mitigated by the implementation of appropriate .
erosion or runoff controls (WET -FB -1, p. xii; WET -RB -1, p. xii);
• If human remains and associated artifacts are encountered during ground- disturbing
activities, the provisions of PL -1 -1 -601, Section 5097.98 and .99 of the Public Resources
Code, and Section 7050 of the Health and Safety Code will be followed (CUL -FB -3, p. xiii;
CUL -RB -2, p. xiii);
• The contractor will comply with the noise ordinances of County of Orange and the Cities of
Los Alamitos, Seal Beach, Westminster, Garden Grove, Santa Ana, and Orange," NOI -RB -5,
p. xix; NC[-RB-4, p. xxi);
❑ The contractor shall comply with Caltrans' Standard Specifications, "Sound Control
Requirements," and all local sound - control and noise level rules, regulations, and
ordinances that apply (NOI -FB -9, p. Ax; NOI -RB -8, p.xxi);
❑ The project . will comply with the standard construction practices and procedures as
required by Caltrans (UTI -FB -1, p. xxii; UTI -RB -1, p, xxt);
❑ A health and safety plan will be developed to guide all construction activities (HAZ -FB -2, p.
xxiv;. HAZ -RB -2, p. xxvii).
❑ Removal of above - ground and underground storage tanks, if present, may also be required
"HAZ -FB -4, p, xxiv; HAZ -RB -4, p. xxvii); '1
❑ All structures that would be demolished as part of construction will undergo an evaluation
for the presence of asbestos- containing materials prior to demolition (HAZ -FB -6, p. xxv;
HAZ -RB -6, p. xxvii);
❑ All structures that would be demolished as part of construction will also undergo an
evaluation for the presence of lead -based paint prior to demolition. The Resource
Conservation Recovery Act, 40 CFR 261, requires the generator of construction demolition
waste to characterize the wastes to determine if they are "hazardous wastes" with special
demolition requirements (HAZ -FB -7, p. xxvi; HAZ -RB -7, p. xxvii);
❑ If shallow groundwater lenses are encountered during construction, appropriate dewatering
measures will be used to prevent impacts on construction ... Disposal of the excess water
will comply with applicable NPDES permit and Caltrans' standards (CON -FB -1, p. xxxiii;
CON -RB -I, p. xxxiv); and
❑ Construction techniques will be used to ensure the safety of construction workers and the
general public in the event of an earthquake (CON -FB -7, p. xxxiv).
Stale Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 72
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EIS- CA -01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
As an example of how the above measures merely repeat existing obligations already imposed on
the Lead Agencies, the DEIR/DEIS states "construction would also be required to comply with
SCAQMD's Rule 1402, Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Removal Activities, during the
demolition or renov$tion of asbestos- containing buildings and structures" P. 4.15 -2). If a
"requirement" already exists, and the impact assessment is based on compliance with all applicable
rules and regulations, what addition mitigation will be derived from any of the above referenced
measures?
In the absence of real mitigation (e.g., mitigation other than that already required under existing
laws, regulations, and agency standards), the Lead Agencies have no or have a substantially
diminished basis to assert that otherwise significant impacts would be reduced to below a level of
significance. The Lead Agencies failure to formulate reasonable and feasible mitigation measures
constitutes a violation of its NEPA and CEQA obligations and further demonstrates the inadequacy
of the DEIR/DEIS.
For example, although the Lead Agencies acknowledge that "runoff from the roadway would be the
most likely source of contamination to surface waters" and "receiving waters are susceptible to
contamination from these sources" (p. 4.2 -1) and "soil in unpaved area next to traffic lanes and
shoulders might be contaminated with lead from vehicle emissions" (p. 4.15 -3)',. .absent from the
DEIR/DEIS is any analysis of the likely environmental impacts to surface waters and water quality
that would result from the introduction of large area of pavement (e.g., "the Full Build Alternative
would increase the amount of paved surface area by approximately 24 hectares [60 aa cres]," p. 4.2-
1) and the particulate, lead, and petrochemical discharge of automobiles (inclusive of both paved
and unpaved areas). The threshold criteria established by the Lead Agency has no direct
relationship to surface water quality (i.e., "potential for new /enlarged structures which may result in
change in foodplain elevation," p. 42 -2), thus limiting the range of mitigation measures that are
formulated in response to that identified impact.
It appears that the Lead Agencies are attempting to conceal the existence of significant
environmental impacts from the public by simply . neglecting to identify a threshold of significance
against which the impact could be measured. Quite obviously, the.DEIR/EIS will reveal no
significant impact related to water quality when the no threshold of significance in the DEIR/EIS
actually refers to the level of contaminants in surface waters. It is ridiculous to assert that there will
be no impact on surface water quality from this project because there will be no change in the
floodplain elevation. Will the project result in more contaminants entering surface water? If so,
will those contaminants cause the level °.thereof to exceed applicable, verifiable water quality
standards?
The manner in which the DEIR/DEIS is formulated prevents any direct comparison between the
identified impact and the mitigation measures which are nominated under any particular topical
issue (which typically includes numerous sub - issues). The Lead Agencies failure to illustrate the
linkage between impacts and mitigation serves to prevent reviewers from understanding any
"nexus" that may exist between the two. As required under Section 15126.4(a)(4)(A) and (B) of the
State CEQA Guidelines, "there must be an essential nexus (i.e., connection) between the mitigation
measure and a legitimate governmental interest" and "the mitigation measure must be 'roughly
proportional' to the impacts of the project."
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 73
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA -01- 04 -D/ SCH No. 98064001
With regards to 'hydrology, floodplains, and water quality,' only two mitigation measures are
proposed for the project's increase in runoff (e.g., "the surface area of pavement on a roadway is
one determinant of the amount of runoff," P. 4.2 -1), decrease in surface water quality (e.g., 'the
most common contaminants in highway runoff are heavy metals, inorganic salts, aromatic
hydrocarbons, and suspended solids that accumulateoon the road surface,' p. 4.2 -1), groundwater
quality impacts (e.g., "runoff from the roadway may result in increased contamination entering the
groundwater from percolation of surface waters," p. 4.2 -4), impacts on wetlands (e.g., "an increase
in runoff from the roadway due to an increased in paved area... may minimally affect wetlands,'
p. 4.2 -1; "wetlands could be affected by runoff or erosion from the project area during construction,
p. 4.4-5), downstream impacts affecting the Pacific Ocean (e.g., "only a small portion of the runoff
flows into the Santa Ana River," p. 4.2 -2), and conflicts with the applicable basin plan (e.g., the
project "may incremental affect the groundwater's beneficial uses," p 4 2- 2)
Although a total of four mitigation measures are cited in the DEIR/DEIS, two measures (i.e., HYD -
FB-1 and HYD -RB -1; HYD -FB -2 and HYD -RB -2) are merely duplications of one another. The first
set of mitigation measures requires the Lead Agencies to comply with existing County Flood
Control and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements with regards to bridge
clearance. The second set of mitigation measures requires the Lead Agencies to conform to existing
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. Because these constitute
existing obligations, the Lead Agencies seek to impose no obligations upon themselves other than
to comply with existing regulations and seek to assert that such compliance constitutes their only
requirements under NEPA and CEQA.
Doing nothing other than complying with the law does not constitute the identification of all
reasonable and all feasible mitigation measures. Similarly, doing nothing does not constitute a
legitimate rationale for concluding that one or more potentially significant hydrologic and water
quality impacts suddenly become less than significant. As indicated in CEQ Forty Questions:
The mitigation measures discussed in an EIS must cover the range of impacts of the
proposal. The measures must include such things as design alternatives that would
decrease pollution emissions, construction impacts, esthetic intrusion, as well as
relocation assistance, possible land use controls that could be enacted, and other
possible effects. Mitigation measures must be considered even for impacts that by
themselves would not be considered 'significant.' Once the proposal itself is
considered as a whole to have significant effects, all of its specific effects on the
environment (whether or not'significant9 must be considered, and mitigation
measures must be developed where it is feasible to do so (CEQ Forty Questions,
Question 19[al).
As indicated in the FHWA's "Environmental Policy Statement: A Framework to Strengthen the
Linkage Between Environmental and Highway Policy" (FHWA, 1994), the FHWA declares that it is
its policy to: (1) avoid, minimize, and mitigate to the fullest extent possible the adverse effects of
transportation programs and projects on the neighborhood, community, and natural resources; and
(2) seek opportunities to go beyond traditional project mitigation efforts and implement innovative
enhancement measures to help the project fit harmoniously within the community and natural
environs.
State Route 221West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 74
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA -01- 04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
Although the term "traditional project mitigation" is not specifically defined therein, it must be
assumed that mitigation includes: "(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action
or parts of an action. (b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and
its implementation. (c) Recttifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restorip the affected
environment. (d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations during the life of the action. (e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing
substantial resources or environments" (40 CFR 1508.20).
The application of existing laws and authorities, as indicated in each of the above referenced
mitigation measures, fails to both meet the definition of mitigation under NEPA and fails to fulfill
FHWA's commitment to "go beyond traditional project mitigation efforts and implement innovative
enhancement measures." How does the DEIR/DEIS' failure to formulate reasonable and feasible
mitigation measures serve to meet the definition of "mitigation" under NEPA and fulfill the above
referenced declarations of agency policy ?'.°ts.
3.26 Deferral of Technical Analysis and Mitigation Violates NEPA/CEQA Requirements
As indicated in CEQ Forty Questions, "Section 1501.2(d) requires federal agencies to take steps
toward ensuring that private parties and State and local entities initiate environmental studies as
soon as federal involvement in their proposals can be foreseen. This section is intended to ensure
that environmental factors are considered at an early. stage in the planning process and to avoid the
situation where the applicant for a federal permit or approval has completed planning and
eliminated all alternatives to the proposed action by the time the EIR process commences or before
the EIS process has been completed" (CEQ'Forty Questions, Question 8). Although the Lead
Agencies are mandated to 'ensure that environmental factors are considered at an early stage," as
evidence throughout the DEIR/DEIS, the Lead Agencies have sought to defer conducting critical
environmental analysis until a substantially later date when such information will have little if any
benefit with regards to the decision-making process.
As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS, "the purpose of the proposed SR- 22NVest Orange County
Connection project is to improve both existing and future mobility" (p. iii). Although never
specifically identified as such, the document constitutes a "project" EIR under CEQA, allowing the
proposed improvements to be constructed without the need for additional CEQA (and NEPA)
compliance. As indicated in Section 15146 of the State CEQA Guidelines: "The degree of
specificity in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity
described in the EIR ... An EIR on a construction project will necessarily be more detailed in the
specific effects of the project than will be an EIR on the adoption of a local general plan or
comprehensive zoning ordinance because the effects of the construction can be predicted with
greater accuracy."
Although represented as a construction -level document, the Lead Agencies seek to defer to a later
time and place. (following the completion of the NEPA and CEQA process) the preparation of
technical information that is critical to any reasoned assessment of the proposed project and its
environmental consequences. Rather than conducting that analysis as part of the NEPA and CEQA.
process, the Lead Agencies either attempt to circumvent the need for that analysis altogether (e.g.,
"During construction, temporary construction easements on adjacent properties may be necessary.
If these easements result in impacts that would make the affected property unusually for its existing
use, substantial impacts would occur," p. 4.15 -2) or seek to impose the preparation of those studies
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 75
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EIS- CA- 01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
as mitigation measures (e.g., 'Detailed geotechnical studies will be performed for areas that will
support pavement or foundation in conjunction with detailed engineering design,' p. 4.1 -9).
Although not represented as such, in reality, the DEI DEIS constitutes a 'second -tier' analysis
building upon the environmental investigation conducted by SCAG and contained in the 2001 RTP
FPEIR. Examples of 'first-tier' mitigation contained therein include the obligation that 'the project
implementing agencies shall ensure that geotechnical analysis be conducted within construction
areas to ascertain soil types and local faulting prior to preparation of project designs' (2001 RTP
DFEIR, p. ES -38). The Lead Agencies' election to defer the project- specific investigations outlined
in the 2001 RTP HEIR and conduct the research required to fully address the impacts associated
with the SR221WOCC project is clearly inconsistent with CEQA's requirement that the Lead
Agencies 'focus [the analysis] on the significant effects on the environment" (Section 15143, State
CEQA Guidelines) and 'provide more meaningful public disclosure" (Section 21002.1(e), CEQA).
As a result, the Lead Agencies are precluded from deferring the preparation of a reasonable analysis
of project - related and cumulative environmental effects to later stages in the development process'.
This deferral of environmental assessment until after project approval violates CEQA's policy that
impacts be identified before project momentum reduces or eliminates the agency's flexibility to
subsequently change its course of action. More importantly, a deferred mitigation measure fails to
provide evidence that the impact for which the measure has been proposed can be effectively
mitigated to below a level of significance. Because of these actions, certain components of the
project remain undefined and the direct or secondary impacts from the deferred measures remain
unexplored in the DEIR/DEIS.
Examples of deferred mitigation include, but may not be limited to, the following measures
recommended in the DEIR/DEIS. For brevity, the entire mitigation measure is or may not be quoted
below, although identifying numbers are provided:
❑ Detailed geotechnical studies will be performed for areas that support pavement or
foundations in conjunction with detailed engineering design to provide appropriate boring,
soil, and fault information. This information will be used to minimize potential adverse
impacts (GEO -FB-2, p. 4.1 -9);
❑ All areas of historically high or perched groundwater levels will 'be analyzed in detail
during project design to verify the potential for liquefaction (CEO -FB-2, p. 4.1 -9);
❑ During . final engineering design, . the area and thickness of expansive soils will be evaluated.
Measures that mitigate for expansive soils will be incorporated into the construction
documents (GEO -FB -6, p. 4.1 -9);
❑ Appropriate erosion- control measures will be incorporated into the construction documents
and implemented during site preparation, grading and construction (GEO -FB -7, p. 4.1 -10);
❑ For all bridges and" other structures to be constructed within 100 -year floodplains, specific
impacts to floodplain :elevations will be analyzed at the design stage (HYD -FB -1, p. 4.2 -10;
HYD -RB -1, p. 4.2 -10)
• Potential impacts to wetlands will be mitigated by the implementation of appropriate
erosion or runoff controls, to be designed and constructed as part of the widening of the
roadway along he west side of the 1 -405/1 -605 connector segment (WET -FB -1, p. 4.4-6;
WET -RB -1, p. 4.4 -6);
• If the Full Build Alternative is selected as the preferred alternative, a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) will be prepared that stipulates how the project will be carried out to
State Route 22/west Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 76
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA-01-04-D / SCH No. 98064001
avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects, or to accept such effects. The MOA will clearly
and completely present specific mitigation measures to address the project's specific
adverse impacts (CUL -FB -2, p. 4.5 -4);
• There may need to be additional displacements ... Further analysis would be required in the
Final Relocation Impact Report (COM -FB -3, p. 4.629);
• Replacement parking would be provided for Carl Karcher Enterprises in Orange on a nearby
off -site location or through construction of a parking garage on the north side of the existing
site (COM -FB -4, p. 4.629; COM -RB-1, p. 4.629);
• At the three commercial land uses with outdoor activities where noise levels with the Full
Build Alternative would exceed the NAC for commercial uses ... Caltrans will consult with
the property owners at these locations to determine their desire for noise barriers. Noise
barriers will not be provided unless commercial property owners at these locations request
them (NOI -FB -2, p. 4.9 -18; NO[-RB-2, p. 4.9 -25);
• Further study will be conducted to determine if after the construction of NB -11, additional
noise abatement is required for the school's classrooms.. Further study will be conducted
to determine if after the construction of NB -1.2, additional noise abatement is required for
the school's classrooms (NO[-FB -3, p. 4.9 -18); and
• Additional study will be required during final design to determine how to mitigate the
potential performance degradation of parallel noise barriers NB -24 and NB -25 (NOI -FB -4, p.
4.9 -19).
As indicated above, pursuant to Section 1502.22 of the CEQ Regulations, when there is incomplete
or unavailable information, the NEPA Lead Agency "shall always made clear that such information
is lacking" and 'if the incomplete information relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse
impacts is essential to a reasoned choice ng alternatives and the overall costs of obtaining it are
not exorbitant, the agency shall include�t- information in the environmental impact statement."
As a result, the NEPA Lead Agencies air o Iigated to complete the requisite analysis and include
the findings of that analysis in the DEIR/Df
When all ineffective, illusory, and deferred i 'ation measures are extracted from the DEIWDEIS,
virtually no mitigation measures remain. The`remaining measures fail to full the Lead Agencies
obligations under NEPA and CEQA and are not sufficient to mitigate the numerous significant or
potentially significant impacts that will likely occur should either of the two "build" alternatives be
implemented.
The deferral of technical analysis critical to understanding the project's environmental impacts, as
indicated in each of the above referenced mitigation measures, fails to both meet the definition of
mitigation under NEPA and fails to fulfill FHWA's commitment to "go beyond traditional project
mitigation efforts and implement innovative enhancement measures." How does the DEIWDEIS'
failure to formulate reasonable and feasible mitigation measures serve to meet the definition of
'mitigation" under NEPA and fulfill the above referenced declarations of agency policy?
It is somewhat disingenuous to suggest, as the DEIWEIS does, that legally adequate mitigation
measures will be implemented at the "design stage" when it has already been established that
detailed project level design plans were completed well before the DEIWEIS was drafted.
3.27 Failure to Examine Secondary Impacts
State Route 221West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 77
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA -01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
As indicated in Section 15378(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "project' means the whole of an
action, which has a potential for resulting in either direct physical changes in the environment, or a
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." As further required under
Section 15126.4(a)(1)(D) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "if amitigation measure would cause one
or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the
effects of the mitigation measures shall be discussed in less detail than the significant effects of the
project as proposed (Stevens v. City of Glendale [1981] 125 Cal.App.3d 986)."
A number of mitigation measures are identified in the DEIR/DEIS that will likely result in additional
environmental impacts (e.g., displacement and relocation) beyond those levels now analyzed
therein. Absent from the DEIR/DEIS, however, is any attempt by the Lead Agencies to identify or
analyze the potential environmental consequences of those actions. For example, as mitigation for
traffic impacts, the DEIR/DEIS states: "Three intersections under the Full Build Alternative would
exceed CMP threshold criteria. Additional lanes will be required at these intersections, as shown in
Figure 4.7 -2. These ramp intersection modifications have been incorporated into the Full Build
Alternative" (TRA -FB-1, p. 4.7 -22) and "one intersection under the Reduced Build Alternative,.
would exceed CMP threshold criteria. Additional lanes will be required at this intersection, as
shown on Figure 4.7 -3" (FRA -RB -1, p. 4- 7 -22). As evidenced by the description of the "Full Build
Alternative" presented in Table 2.2 -3 (p. 2 -7) and the "Reduced Build Alternative" presented in
Table 2.2 -4 (p. 2 -12), those "ramp modifications" were never identified as "Full Build Alternative
Elements" (p. 2 -7) or "Reduced Build Alternative Elements" (p. 2- 12) and have not been addressed
under any of the other sections of the DEIR/DEIS.
As part of the document's community impact analysis, the Lead Agencies identify the following
mitigation measures: (1) "There may need to be additional displacements (removal of multi - family
units) within the [City Gardens] complex as a way to reduce the amount of parking required to
meet the current City of Santa Ana parking requirements. It would be speculative at this time to
identify additional units as displacements in an effort to meet the current parking requirement.
Further analysis would be required in the Final Relocation Impact Report" (COM -FB -3, p. 4.6 -29);
and (2) Replacement parking would be provided for Carl Karcher Enterprises in Orange on a nearby
off -site location or through construction of a parking . garage on the north side of the existing site
(COM -FB -4, F. 4.6 -29; COM -RB -1, p], 4.6 -29). Based on these measures, the Lead Agencies
indicate that additional, uninvestigated. "off -site" locations may be directly or directly impact
through the implementation of those measures.
Since the specific ".off -site" locations are not identified, it is not possible to ascertain what, if any,
sensitive resources (e.g., wetlands, additional residential units or businesses requiring demolition)
may exist thereupon. Since the.precise boundaries of physical disturbance are never precisely
identified in the DEIR/DEIS, the Lead Agencies seek 'carte blanche' authorization to produce
physical changes to any properties within the "project study area" (Figure 1.2.2, p. 1 -5).
In addition, as mitigation for the project's construction impacts, the DEIR/DEIS states, in part: "If
temporary construction easements are required and these easements result in an inability of
landowners to use their property as intended, additional substantial impacts not foreseen in this
document would occur. Supplemental environmental analysis and documentation will be
required" (CON -FB -2, p. 4.15 -7). Although the Lead Agencies appear to confuse a declaration of a
project- relate impact from legitimate mitigation (e.g., "Pacific Electric arterial would be
incompatible with Garden Grove and Santa Ana general plan land use designation," p. 4.6 -39;
Slate Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 78
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA -01 -04 -D /SOH No. 98064001
County Woods Apartment complex in Garden Grove west of Lewis Street would be acquired," p.
4.6 -39), the referenced measure does demonstrate that mitigation can produce "substantial
impacts.'
By the Lead Agencies own admission, insufficient information is now known regard the project's
construction -term impacts to: (1) to determine whether access will be maintained to the affected
properties; (2) whether alternative, short-term access will be required based on the preclusion of
existing access opportunities; and (3) the potential impacts that access constraints, limitations,
and/or prohibitions may have on those properties directly impacted and, ther properties that may
be indirectly impacted.
3.28 All Mitigation Measures and Analysis must originate from the Lead Agencies
As required under Section 15020 of the State CEQA Guidelines, "each 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." Notwithstanding
that obligation, the Lead Agencies seek to defer to others their own responsibilities for conducting
an adequate environmental analysis and for formulating reasonable and feasible mitigation
measures based on the findings of that investigation.
For example, as mitigation for project - related noise impacts on specific commercial properties, the
Lead Agencies seek to impose the following mitigation measure: "At the three commercial land
uses with outdoor activities where noise levels with the Full Build Alternative would exceed the
NAC for commercial uses ...Caltrans will consult with the property owners at these locations to
determine their desire for noise barriers. Noise barriers will not be provided unless commercial
property owners at these locations request them" (NO[-FB -2, p.,4.9 -18; NOI-RB-2, p. 4.9 -20).
Although the DEIR/DEIS purports that the 'Full Build Alternative" is supportive of major land use
policies defined by Orange County's and affected cities general plans' (p. 4.6 -2), the obligations of
those general. plans (i.e., noise elements) and the zoning provisions that serve to implement those
general plans (i.e., noise ordinances) to be ignored and the obligation for mitigation
conveyed to the individual °commercial. property owners" rather than the local agencies in whose
jurisdiction those properties are located.. The 'noise barrier' mitigation,proposal also fails to note
that the erection of any substantial new construction such as "noise barriers' at a local commercial
site would be subject to the land use controls applicable in the local jurisdiction. Because the
'noise barriers" are not specifically described in the document, it is impossible to determine
whether they could be legally erected on any of the commercial sites and whether such
construction would cause any environmental impacts.
Since noise barriers are only effective when there exist no breaks through which the noise can
travel, under the Lead Agencies mitigation, a 'checkerboard' could be developed where some
"commercial property owners" request mitigation but adjoining owners prefer freeway visibility.
3.29 , Monitoring Plans have not been Presented Demonstrating the Manner of Compliance
As required under Section 15003(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the EIR shall "demonstrate"
to an apprehensive citizenry that the Lead Agencies have analyzed the environmental
implications of their actions. CEQA specifies: "The public agency shall adopt a reporting or
Stale Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 79
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval,
adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or
monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation"
(Section 21081.6, CEQA). Under CEQA, the Lead Agencies are also responsible for ensuring
the implementation of those mitigation measures contained in thb resulting mitigation monitoring
or reporting program (MMRP) (Section 15097[a], State CEQA Guidelines).
Other federal agencies, such as the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), establish an obligation for an 'environmental management and monitoring program'
(EMMP) when it is deemed necessary by the HUD - approving official (24 CFR 50.33[ti If
required, the EMMP shall contain specific standards, safeguards, and commitments to be completed
during project implementation and shall specify the time period(s) for conducting the evaluation
and monitoring of the applicant's compliance with the project agreements (24 CFR 50.22[c] -[d]). It
would seem reasonable that the FHWA has similar monitoring-obligations as imposed. upon HUD
and as required under CEQA.
As indicated in FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, 'special instances may arise when a formal
program for monitoring impacts or implementation of mitigation measures will be appropriate: - -in
those instances, the final EIS should describe the monitoring program" (FHWA Technical Advisory
T6640.8A, p. 12).
Since the Lead Agencies assert that otherwise significant impacts can be effectively reduced to
below a level of significance through the imposition of select mitigation measures, the Lead
Agencies must demonstrate that a mechanism is in place or proposed which will ensure that the
stated measure is, in fact, implemented and, when implemented, accomplishes the results assumed.
Should the measure fail to produce the desired results, the Lead Agencies must have the ability,
capability, and accountability to compare the actual post - mitigated environment against the
assumed post- mitigated environment and, if required, take further corrective actions.
Should the adopted mitigation measures not be implemented or should they fall short of the
performance assumed or should those measures fail to accomplish the level of mitigation upon
which the DEIR/DEIS is based, the project's stakeholders need reasonable assurance that future
conditions will not be radically different that represented by the Lead Agencies and that plans have
been formulated and are 'in place' to'take additional actions to produce Ithe results represented by
those agencies. In order to response to the legitimate concerns of 'an apprehensive citizenry, the
DEIR/DEIS should include a draft MMRP /EMMP that can be reviewed in order to provide an
independent assessment of the program's likelihood of accomplishing its stated objectives (e.g.,
reduction or avoidancta of significant or potentially significant environmental effects).
"'
tw
3.30 Recirculation and /or Preparation of a Supplement to the DEIR/DEIS Required
As indicated herein, numerous substantive defects have been identified with regards to the
DEIR/DEIS. As a result of those defects, there currently exists an inadequate and insufficient
environmental basis for the project's decision makers to made an informed decisions of the
potential environmental implications of the project, the range of alternatives that could be
implemented to reduce or avoid the generation of those impacts, and the reasonable and feasible
mitigations that could be imposed by the project's decision makers in response to those
environmental effects.
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 80
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA-01-04-D / SCH No. 98064001
Pursuant to Section 1502.9(a) of the CEQ Regulations, "if a draft statement is so inadequate as to
preclude meaningful analysis, the agency shall prepare and circulate a revised draft of the
appropriate portion. As further indicateld in Section 1502.9(c)(1)(ii) of the CEQ Regulations, fedetral
agencies shall prepare supplements to a draft EIS when "significant new circumstances or
information relevant to environmental concerns" that have a "bearing on the proposed action or its
impacts" are identified. Additionally, in accordance with Section 1500.1(b) of the CEQ Regulations,
"NEPA procedures must insure that environmental information is available to public officials and
citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken. The information must be of high
quality. Accurate scientific analysis, expert agency comments, and public scrutin are essential to
implementing NEPA."
As indicated in 23 CFR 771.130(a), "an EIS shall be supplemented whenever lthe [Federal Highway]
Administration determines that: (1) Changes to the proposed action would result in significant
environmental impacts that were not evaluated in the EIS; or (2) New information or circumstances
relevant to environmental concerns and bearings on the proposed action or its impacts would result
in significant environmental impacts not evaluated in the EIS. In addition, 'a supplemental EIS may
be required to address issues of limited scope, such as the extent of proposed mitigation or the
evaluation of location or design variations for a limited portion of the overall project" (23 CFR
771.130[f]).
Similarly, CEQA mandates the recirculation of an environmental impact report (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" (Section 15088.5[a], State
CEQA Guidelines). As defined therein, "significant n -information' requiring recirculation
includes a disclosure showing that: (1) a new significant ironmental.. impact would result from
the project or from a new mitigation measure propo -:be °� plemented; (2) a substantial
increase in the severity. of an environmental impact woul r_- uOuunless mitigation 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
significant environmental impacts of the project; and /or (4) the draft EIR was so fundamentally and
basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were
precluded.. Clearly, a number of these criteria' apply as a result of the Lead Agencies
misrepresentation of future year conditions, failure to acknowledge the existence of significant
construction -term air quality impacts, failure to explore other possible alignment alternatives,
failure to present:. meaningful analysis and measurable threshold criteria, and presentation of
conclusory statements absent any supportive technical analysis, to name a few of the document's
defects.
On September 18, 2001, the City received a set of preliminary engineering plans for the subject
project. Those plans, dated December 2000, were clearly available long before the release of the
DEIR/DEIS (e.g., "this DEIR/DEIS includes analysis of the Full Build Alternative as illustrated on the
Preliminary Engineering Plans, State Route 22, for Project Report and Environmental Document, in
Orange County, From Interstate 605 to State Route 55 [Project Plans] [Parsons Brinckerhoff,
December 20001,' p. 2 -8); however, the corresponding level of detail concerning the proposed
project is lacking therefrom (e.g., no preliminary engineering plans are included in the DEIR/DEIS).
The Lead Agencies election to release these documents, well into the comment period, constitutes
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 81
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
substantive new information regarding the specific characteristics of the project that are now absent
from the DEIR/DEIS.
Clearly, the. most accurate and current (i.e., year 2025) traffic projections constitute a critical
component of any planning effort that resulting in the implementation of traffic improvements and
whose purpose is purports to be the improvement of mobility and enhancement of public safety (p.
1 -2). Just as the structural integrity of any new house must be based on the foundation upon which
that house is built, the integrity of the DEIR/DEIS (inclusive of its technical analysis, mitigation
measures, and evaluation of project alternatives) must be based on a solid analytical foundation.
The decision to base the technical analysis on outdated (year 2020) traffic projections was at the
sole discretion of the Lead Agencies, despite the agencies' own acknowledgement that more
current information was available prior to the release of the DEIR/DEIS (e.g., "The demographic
data required to forecast travel demand beyond 2020 is not available and is not anticipated until
July 2001 when SCAG, the MPO, adopts a new regional growth forecast,' d. 3.7 -1).'
Although the 2001 RTP FPEIR acknowledges that the displacement or relocation of 'residences and
businesses though acquisition of land and buildings necessary for highway, arterial, and transit
improvements' (2001 RTP DPEIR, p. ES -6) 'remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation'
(2001 RTP DPEIR, p. ES-6), absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any indication that the destruction of
homes and displacement of families in Seal Beach are either an impact warranting inclusion in the
document's summary table (see Table S.5 -1, pp. v -xzxv) or require any mitigation or evaluation of
other 'build' alternatives. Similarly, although the MPO concludes that such impacts are cumulative
significant, the Lead Agency fails to acknowledge the existence of those cumulative effects. Since
the inclusion of those findings in the DEIR/DEIS constitutes "a new significant environmental
impact' and/or 'a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact' (Section
15088.5[a], State CEQA Guidelines), recirculation of the document is required.
The obligation for technical adequacy rests with the Lead Agency and not the affected public
through their submission of comments on the DEIR/DEIS (e.g., '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 wor E.QA requires the lead agency to accomplish; Section 15020,
State CEQA Guidelines). Other t an,rby reference to the 1998 RTP and 2001 RTP, it is not the
responsibility of the City to conduct anew technical analysis of the proposed project comparing the
differences in traffic projections used in the DEIR/DEIS (from the 1998 RTP) with those used by the
MPO for regional traffic planning purposes (from the 2001 RTP).
The City believes that it is sufficient to note that there are substantial variations between the
projections utilized in the derivation of the 1998 RTP and the 2001 RTP and that the DEIR/DEIS
significantly underestimates future year traffic volumes along the SR -22 Freeway and other affected
arterial highways. Since: much' of the technical analysis and impact assessment relates, either
directly or indirectly, from traffic projections (e.g., mobile source air emissions, mobile source
noise projections), the failure to present an adequate traffic analysis translates into analytical
shortcomings in the remainder of the DEIR/DEIS and prevents any efforts to independently
determine project - related impacts or duplicate the Lead Agencies analyses.
As indicated elsewhere in these comments, project- related impacts will be substantially greater than
now disclosed by the Lead Agencies. For example, based on the analytical methodology
established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), it can be easily
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 82
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
demonstrated that the project will produce significant construction -term air quality impacts. The
failure to disclose those impacts and the subsequent requirement that the Lead Agencies formulate
and adopt all reasonable mitigation measures in response to those impacts constitutes "significant
new information" and mandates recirculation of the DEIR/DEIS. e
Pursuant to the above requirements, since the agencies have failed to take the requisite "hard look"
at the project's potential impacts, the Lead Agencies are prohibited from taking any actions
concerning the proposed project until these defects are corrected, new notice provided, the
DEIR/DEIS corrected and recirculated and/or a new or supplemental DEIR/DEIS prepared and
disseminated for further public and agency review and comment.
4.0 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT /ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
The following comments are presented in response to specific comments, statements, and the
preliminary findings presented in the DEIR/DEIS. In order to facilitate the Lead Agencies' review,
these comments are categorized under each of the corresponding chapter heading of the
DEIR/DEIS. The City's failure to specifically comment on a section, statement, conclusion, or
mitigation measure in the DEIR/DEIS should not be construed by the Lead Agencies as the City's
acceptance of the information contained therein or the adequacy or accuracy of that information.
The City has obviously been constrained by time and resources, preventing a more comprehensive
evaluation of the project's environmental review record.
4.1 Summary
As required under FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, the document's summary shall include:
°(1) A brief description of the p 0 o, #'d FHWA action including route, termini, type of
improvements, number of lanes, lengt ` ounty, city, state, and other' information, as appropriate;
(2) A description of any. major actio proposed by other governmental agencies in the same
geographic area as the proposed FHWA! action; (3) A summary of all reasonable alternatives
considered; (4) A summary of major environmental impacts, both beneficial and adverse; (5) Areas
of controversy (including issues raised by agencies and the public); (6) Any major unresolved issues
with other agencies; and (7) A list of other federal actions required for the proposed action (i.e.,
permit approvals, land transfer, Section 106 agreements, etcX (FHWA Technical Advisory
T6640.8A, p. 8). The majority of these required items are now absent from the DEIR/DEIS. As a
result, the summary presents an incomplete picture of the proposed project and necessitating
extensive review of the document in futile attempt to locate the above items.
As further required under the State CEQA Guidelines, "an EIR shall contain a brief summary of the
proposed actions and its consequences" (Section 15123[a], State CEQA Guidelines), 'determining
whether a project may have a significant effect plays a critical role in the CEQA process" (Section
15064[a], State CEQA Guidelines), and "mitigation measures are not required for effects which are
not found to be significant" (Sect ' ion 15126.4[a][3], State CEQA Guidelines). Based on a reading of
the document's text, the Lead Agency's preliminary determinations concerning the level of
significant impact and, therefore, the need for mitigation, is not always clear (e.g., "structures and
pavements associated with the Full Build Alternative would be susceptible to the types of failures
discussed above," p. 4.1 -6).
State Route 221West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 83
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA -01 -04 -D/ SCH No. 98064001
As indicated in Table S.5 -1 (Summary of Impacts), only a limited number of "impacts" contain any
inference as to their level of significance before mitigation (e.g., "substantial noise increase," p. xvii;
"potentially significant noise impacts at commercial properties with outdoor uses," p. xvii).
Statements like "potential noise impact inside school classrooms" (p. xvii) provide insignificant
information to aglow a reviewer to determine whether the Lead Agencies are stating that the
identified impact is either significant or less than significant prior to mitigation.
Similarly, when, under the "impact" column, the Lead Agencies only description of the identified
impact is "less than significant" (e.g., p. xxxiii), a reviewer is unable to determine the precise nature
of the impact that the project will produce. Noticeably absent from the summary table is any
discussion of the significance of the project's potential cumulative effects.
Since "an environmental impact report is an informational document" (Section 21061, CEQA) and
since "the EIR is to inform other governmental - agencies and the public generally of the
environmental impacts of a proposed project" (Section 15003[cj, State CEQA. Guidelines,
insufficient information is provided in Table S.5 -1 (Summary of Impacts) as to the level of significant
of the pre - mitigated effects identified therein. In order for a reviewer to understanding the "nexus"
between the identified effect and the recommended mitigation measure, the summary table should
be expanded to include a column identifying the "level of significance before mitigation" (note that
there now exists a column entitled "level of significance after mitigation').
To constitute a mitigation measure under NEPA, the recommended action must avoid, minimize,
rectify, rehabilitate, restore, reduce, or compensate for the impact for which the measure is
proposed (40 CFR 1508.20). Certain mitigation measures identified by the lead Agencies (e.g.,
"There may need to be additional displacements within the complex," CCM -FB -3, p. xv) fail to
accomplish any of those actions and, therefore, do not constitute legitimate mitigation measures
under NEPA
As required under Section 15126.2(6) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Lead Agencies are
required to "describe any significant impacts, including those that can be mitigated but not reduced
to a level of insignificance." In at least one case, the Lead Agencies conclude that the post -
mitigated level of significance is "unknown" (p.,xv). To the extent that the impact remains
significant, CEQA directs the Lead Agencies to determine whether other measures or alternatives
are available which would reduce or avoid that impact. The Lead Agencies cannot shirk their
responsibilities for the formulation of mitigation measures and alternatives merely through their
failure to make specific preliminary findings whether a particular impact remains significant.
When reviewing the text of the DEIR/DEIS, it is not possible to directly equate the statements in the
text and list of "impacts" included in the summary table, partly due to the Lead Agencies' failure to
include all referenced impacts in Table 5.5 -1 (Summary of Impacts). For example, under the
heading "topography," the text states "the largest topographical changes that would result under the
Full Build Alternative is the new Pacific Electric Arterial and its interchange with SR -22. This new
element would require structures and retained fill for a portion of the arterial/interchange that is
elevated" (pp. 4.1 -1 and 4.1 -2). The DEIR/DEIS further states that the Lead Agencies' threshold of
significance criteria is the "potential to alter the configuration of the ground surface including its
relief and the position of its natural and man made features" (p. 4.1 -2). Based on the Lead
Agencies' own declaration, the project meets that criteria and would, therefore, produce a
significant topographic impact.
State Route 221West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of seal Beach Page 84
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01- 04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
Notwithstanding that criteria, which was established by the Lead Agencies, the document attempts
to qualify that impact (i.e., "the Full Build Alternative would not appreciably alter the topography
within the study area," p. 4.1 -2) to an extent . ngt included in the criteria itself. In accordance with
the criteria, the threshold is established as the "potential" to alter the configuration of the ground °
surface, not the extent of such alterations. The rationale for determining that the resulting physical
alteration of the site is less than significant is that the project will "be designed according to
standard engineering practices and Caltrans specifications" (p. 4.1 -2). The impact clearly exists
because or independent of the project's compliance with "standard engineering practices and
Caltrans specifications." Under the agencies' rationale, any project conforming to those practices
and specifications, notwithstanding the actual impact created and ignoring the agencies own
threshold standards would be insignificant
It is unclear what basis exists under NEPA or CEQA for the Lead Agencies to independently
establish their own threshold standards and then to ignore or fail to apply those self-imposed
standards against the impacts that each alternative will likely produce. It is unreasonable for the
Lead Agencies to state: "Although we exceed our own threshold of significance standards by
building a project that conforms to our standard practices, by conforming to those same standard
practices, the impact becomes less than significant."
Although a potentially significant impact is identified (i.e., "potential to alter the configuration of
the ground surface') and the Lead Agencies indicated that the project meets that criteria (i.e., "the
largest topographic changes that would result under the Full :Build Alternative is the new Pacific
Electric Arterial," pp. 4.1 -1 and 4.1 -2), the summary . table contains no reference to "topography,"
lists no topographic impacts of any kind, contains no topographic mitigation, imposes no obligation
for the project to conform to 'standard engineering practices" (although.. numerous other mitigation
measures contain that same obligatido), and lists no level of significance with respect to that topical
issue. As a result, the summary table is not inclusive of all impacts identified in the document's
text. The summary table, therefore, fails to present anything approximating an accurate description
ofthe information contained elsewhere in the DEIfUDEIS.
4.2 Purpose and Need
As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS, the project's declared objectives are to: "[1] Improve mobility and
enhance safety in the SR- 22/West Orange County Connection study area; [21 Maximize cost -
effectiveness of SR- 22/West Orange County Connection improvements; [3] Minimize adverse and
maximize beneficial environmental impacts to SR- 22/West Orange County Connection
communities; [4] Minimize negative and maximize positive economic impacts to SR- 22/West
Orange County Connection communities" (p. 1 -2).
Although the project is a "connection" project (e.g., "State Route 22MVest Orange County
Connection "), only one of these 'objectives' specifically address 'improvements' to the, SR -22
Freeway. Conversely, the remaining three "objectives" identify other ideals that may or may not
have any specific relationship to the construction of "connection" improvements along that
highway (i.e., improve mobility, enhance safety, minimize adverse and maximize beneficial
environmental impacts, minimize negative and maximize positive economic impacts). The
majority of the project's objectives, therefore, do not necessarily focus on the development of HOV
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 85
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 0"4 -D /SCH No. 98064001
lanes nor do they limit the possible range of "build" alternatives to only those that include the
construction of HOV lanes.
Since the majority gf the project's objectives appear unrelated to a single def onition of the project as
a "connection" improvement, the Lead Agencies have failed to discuss "a range of alternatives,
including all 'reasonable alternatives," including "both improvements of existing highway(s) and
alternatives on new location[sj' (FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, pp. 9 -10). Although HOV
lanes may be one means of accomplishing improved mobility, it clearly is not the only means.
Referencing Section 15126.6(x) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "an EIR''shall describe a range of
reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain
most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially . lessen any of the
significant effects of the project' [emphasis added]. In accordance therewith, if three of the four
stated objectives were accomplished (i.e., deleting the objective addressing the proposed
"connection improvements'), a larger range of possible alternatives could and should have been
formulated and addressed as part of the DEIR/DEIS.
As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS, the "refined set of conceptual alternatives' included a number of
additional alternatives not addressed in the DEIR/DEIS and not including "connection
improvements.' Those alternatives included, but were not limited to: (1) Refined Alternative 3:
Fixed Guideway; and (2) Refined Alternative 4: General- Purpose Lanes. Although the DEIR/DEIS
states: "The six refined alternatives were analyzed in detail during the technical evaluation
conducted for the MIS Evaluation Report. This technical evaluation, along with public input and
polity considerations, resulted in OCTA Board approval of a 'final' set of three conceptual
alternatives for study in this DEIR/EIS" (p. 2 -3). Absent from the 'DEIR/DEIS is any further
explanation of what, if any, "technical evaluation" may have been performed and what "policy
considerations' lead to the elimination of those alternatives.'. Any "public input" that may have
occurred before the OCTA Board is independent of this NEPA and CEQA process and does not
substitute for the Lead Agencies obligations to fully involve the public as part of this environmental
process.
Since neither the "MIS Evaluation Report" or the documentation supporting the "OCTA Board
approval' are part of the ERR, those parties reviewing and commenting. on this NEPA and CEQA
document are not provided with any supportive information upon which the rejection of those
alternatives was based. FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A requires the DEIR/DEIS to "explain
why 'other alternatives' were eliminated' (FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, p. 10). The above
referenced excerpt: does not provide an adequate "explanation" for the rejection of those or other
alternatives.
As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS, "the lead agencies for this environmental review are the California
Department of Transportation for the CEQA documentation and the Federal Highway
Administration for the NEPA documentation' (p. i). The DEIR/DEIR further notes: "The Orange
County Transportation Authority is a responsible agency under CEQA, and is a co- applicant with
Caltrans for Transportation Congestion Relief Program funding' (p. i).
The Lead Agencies cannot defer to or convey to OCTA (e.g., "This technical evaluation, along with
public input and policy considerations, resulted in OCTA Board approval of a 'final' set of three
conceptual alternatives for study in the DEIR/DEIS," p. 2 -3), to another agency (e.g., "According to
State Route 22AVest Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 86
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
the SCAG letter, 'the range of alternatives studied in the SR -22 West Orange County Connection
Final MIS Evaluation Report is sufficient to meet the requirements of the regionally significant
transportation investments study guidelines,' p. 2 -2) or to the public (e.g., 'Alternative 5 was
viewed as less desirable by the public compared ato the other HOV alternatives," p. 2 -18) the Lead
Agencies own obligations under NEPA and CEQA.
Although the actions of the "OCTA Board" may be a component of the Lead Agencies decision -
making process, it does not substitute for the independent actions and obligations that exist under
NEPA (e.g., 40 CFR .1508.16) and CEQA (e.g., Section 21002.1[dl, CEQA; Section 15020, State
CEQA Guidelines) upon those agencies. The FHWA and Caltrans cannot limit its assessment of
reasonable alternatives based exclusively on the actions of the OCTA, particularly when other
reasonable alternatives exist that fulfill most of the Lead Agencies declared objectives at a lesser
environmental cost.
4.3 Alternatives
Although the CEQA process allows the Lead Agencies to "incorporate by reference" (Section
15150, State CEQA Guidelines) into the DEIR/DEIS certain documents . or information from
documents relevant to the proposed action, the Lead Agencies did not elect to avail themselves of
that opportunity. As a result, although there may have been an independent seeping process
whereby the OCTA formulated a set of project alternatives (e.g., "The results of that analysis are
presented in detail in Section 4.0 of the MIS Report," p. 2 -1), neither the "MIS Evaluation Report'
nor other components of the MIS process are not part of the DEIR/DEIS and that document (as
prepared by others) and that process (administered by others) does not substitute for the
independent actions of the Lead Agenci"ith regards to the adequacy of the DEIR/DEIS, including
the formulation of reasonable alternatives':i'
Referencing 23 CFR 450.31 8(fi:
A major investment study will include environmental studies which will be used for
environmental documents as described in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section:
(1) As a minimum the participating agencies will use the major investment study as
input to an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment prepared
subsequent to the completion of the study. In such a case, the major investment
study reports shall document the[ consideration given to alternatives and their
impacts; or (2) The participating agencies may elect to develop a draft
environmental impact statement or environmental assessment as part of the major
investment study. At any time after the completion of the study and the inclusion of
the major transportation investment in the plan and the TIP the participating
agencies may request the development of final environmental decision documents
required under NEPA for such major transportation investments, culminating in the
execution of a Record of Decision or Finding of No Significant Impact by the FHWA
and/or the FTA.
Since the DEIR/DEIS does not explicitly state that the MIS included "environmental studies" and, if
so, what studies were conducted at that time and their relevancy to this NEPA/CEQA process, the
MIS does not serve as a functional equivalent to the alternatives identification process imposed on
the Lead Agencies under NEPA and CEQA. Additionally, the DEIR/DEIS does not specifically state
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 87
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA -01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
that the MIS is "part of the major investment study' (such as could occur through "incorporation by
reference'). As a result, the information developed through that process serves only as "input to an
environmental impact statement' and does not constitute the EIS in and of itself. As indicated in 23
CFR 450.318(1), 'where the environmental process has been initiated but not completed, the
FHWA and the FTA shall be consulted on appropriate modifications to meet the requirements of
this section.'
Even to the extent that the FHWA and FTA may have been participants to that study, any such
participation and consultation occurred outside of the NEPA process which commenced with the
release of the "Notice of Preparation" (NOP) and publication of the "Notice of Intent' (NOI).
Events and activities that may have occurred prior to that time cannot be used as a supportable
rationale for the Lead Agencies' failure to consider a reasonable range of alternatives in the
DEIR/DEIS.
Under the heading "project phasing' (p. 2 -21), no specific information concerning the anticipated
date of construction, the proposed phasing plan, or the projected date of completion has been
provided. This lack of information and analysis is of concern to the City of Seal Beach since major
improvements to Seal Beach Boulevard are now proposed. As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS, the Lead
Agencies have identified the following "related project ':
Widening of Seal Beach Boulevard overcrossing of 1 -405 is proposed to provide six
through lanes (three in each direction), sidewalks, bike lanes, and a median.
Roadway approaches would also be widened_ Small amounts of additional right-of-
way would be required for the widening (p. 2-19).
Absent from the DEIR/DEIS, however, is any discussion as to the potential impacts of the proposed
project upon the proposed widening of Seal Beach Boulevard to be undertaken in order to reduce
traffic impacts of the Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center project. Although City staff has been meeting
with representatives of Caltrans and the OCTA in an attempt to develop a coordinated program for
the reconstruction of this important regional transportation overpass so as not to require two
different construction phases, the issue of timing has yet to be resolved.
The resulting lack of resolution has adversely impacted the City's formulation and implementation
of traffic improvement plans and may result in the delay of the proposed improvements.
Alternatively, if the two projects were.. to advance independent of one another, there may exist
additional cumulative impacts not presently envisioned by the City, project costs may needlessly
increase as a result of the lack of coordinated phasing, and impacts upon motorists and proximal
land uses would increase either in intensity or in time of potential disruption. As a result, the
DEIR/DEIS needs to be :augmented to include a discussion of Caltrans' plans to coordinate the
proposed improvements to,Seal Beach Boulevard with the SR22/WOCC project.
4.4 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures
The manner in which each topical issue is addressed creates considerable confusion in attempting
to ascertain each alternative's potential impacts. For example, once a topical heading is introduced
(e.g., "topography; p. 4.1 -1), a brief description of each alternative's potential impacts is provided
(e.g., "The largest topographical change that would result under the Full Build Alternative is the
new Pacific Electric Arterial and its interchange with SR -22. The new element would require
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 88
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01-04-D / SCH No. 98064001
structures and retained fill for the portion of the arteriallnterchange that is elevated," p. 4.1 -1).
Following that description, the agencies' threshold of significance criteria is presented (e.g.,
"potential to alter the configuration of the ground surface,' p. 4.1 -2). The text then presents another
discussion of each alternative (e.g., "The largest topographical change that would result under the
Full Build Alternative is the new Pacific Electric Arterial and its interchange with SR -22. The new
element would require structures and retained fill for the portion of the arteriallnterchange that is
elevated; p. 4.1 -2).
In the example cited, the information presented before the discussion of the threshold criteria is
identical or similar to the information presented after the discussion of the threshold criteria. This
same repetitive approach exists throughout the DEIR/DEIS and appears so frequently that references
to the text are to numerous to cite herein. In some instance the exact same text is repeated, in
others the sentences are slightly modified but no new information or analysis is presented. Since
no introduction is presented describing the document's format, the presentation of duplicative text
fails to provide additional useful information and needlessly adds to the length and complexity of
an already poorly structured document.
Needless repetition within the DEIR/DEIS is not confined to the document's analysis of each
alternative but includes the extensive duplication of the exact same text under the document's
discussion of other alternatives. For example, with regards to the DEIR/DEIS' discussion of
biological impact, under the analysis of the "Full Build Alternative,". the Lead Agencies provide a
number of lengthy paragraphs describing the project's obligation to 'comply with Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act" (p. 4.4-1). Other than the substitution of the term "Reduced Build
Alternative,' the exact same information is again repeated under the analysis of the other "build'
alternative (see pp. 4.4-3 and 4.4-4). The Lead Agencies appear to replace substantive analysis with
mere redundancy.
As required under Section 15126.4(a)(4)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "the mitigation measure
must be 'roughly proportional`. to the impacts of the project." As a result of the highly confusing
nature of the DEIR/DEIS, the Lead Agencies' failure to formulate threshold of significance criteria
that allows for objective measurement, and the document's failure to clearly describe the level of
significance of the identified impacts prior to mitigation, it is not possible to equate a specific
mitigation measure with the environmental impact that the measure seeksto address.
In the absence of a clear relationship . between impacts and those mitigation measures now
recommended by the Lead Agencies, the text of the DEIR/DEIS should be revised to: (1) redefine
each threshold standard in a fashion sufficient to allow a reviewer to independently compare that
threshold with each associated impact; (2) state the precise impact which is identified utilizing, to
the extent possible, a quantitative description of the projected impact; (3) clearly indicate the level
of significance prior to mitigation; (4) equate each mitigation measure with the corresponding
impact; (5) utilizing, to the extent possible, a quantitative description, demonstrate each measures
efficacy in reducing the identified impact; (6) reexamine the post - mitigated impact against the
quantitative threshold of significance criteria; and (n clearly describe the residual impact, including
an explanation why that impact remains significant or can be reduced to below a level of
significance.
In many instances, the document's entire discussion of an alternative's potential impacts is
contained in one or two sentences. For a project of the potential magnitude and localized and
Stale Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 89
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EIS- CA -01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
regional environmental significance of the SR22/WOCC project, that level of analysis is woefully
deficient and fails to adequately represent the project's potential impacts. By failing to accurately
describe and characterize the project's potential impacts, the project's decision makers and other
stakeholders are not prod ided sufficient information against which to formulates reasonable and
feasible mitigation measures.
Referencing FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, both the draft and final EIS shall include
"sufficient supporting information or results of analysis to establish the reasonableness of the
conclusions and impacts" (FHWA Technical Advisory T6640ZA, p. 12). As required under Section
21061 of CEQA, "the purpose of an environmental impact report is to provide public agencies and
the public in general with detailed information about the effects which a proposed project is likely
to have on the environment" [emphasis added]. As further '. required under the State CEQA
Guidelines, "while foreseeing the unforeseeable is not possible,' an agency must use its best efforts
to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can" (Section 15144, State CEQA Guidelines), "the
degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the
underlying activity which is described in the EIR" (Section 15146, State CEQA Guidelines), and
evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive,:bul=,
sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible ... The courts have
looked not for perfection but for adequate, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure"
(Section 15151, State CEQA Guidelines)..
As a NEPA/CEQA document intended to authorize the construction of specific transportation
improvements, the level of detail must be commensurate with the entitlements authorized
thereunder. That level of detail is currently absent from the DEIR/DEIS and the'defects therein are
so onerous as to require extensive .augmentation, recirculation, and /or preparation of a
supplemental technical analysis prior . to presentation to the project's decision makers and other
stakeholders.
For example, under the "Full Build Alternative," the Lead Agencies seek authorization to construct
a new Pacific Electric Arterial, with length of "5.1 kilometers (3.2 miles)" (p. 2 -6) and a width of
approximately 100 feet (Figure 2.2.26, p. 2 -11). As a result, substantial new pavement will be
added to that approximately 38.6 acres acre, presently lacking any pavement. Although the
DEIR/DEIS notes that "runoff from the roadway would be the most likelysource of contaminants to
surface waters" and "the surface area of pavement on a roadway is one determinant of the amount
of runoff' (p. 4.2 -1), no reference is made to the drainage facilities that will be impacted by that
new roadway, the capacity of those drainage facilities to accommodate increased flow (including
both pre and post-project "Q" conditions), the presence of sensitive vegetation that may be
impacted, or the point of downstream discharge (e.g., Pacific Ocean).
The preponderance of the Lead Agencies analysis is contained in the following few sentences:
"These areas currently receive:. highway and roadway runoff, so existing vegetation is adapted to the
polluted conditions. The incremental increase in contaminants would not be expected to result in
the loss of this adapted vegetation" (p. 4.2.1).
Since no attempt has been made to quantify the "incremental" increase, the Lead Agencies seek to
assert that any increase in surface flows would be less than significant. Similarly, since no attempt
has been made to quantify the nature of "contaminants" to be added to those drainage facilities, the
Lead Agencies seek to assert that any increase in surface water contamination would have a de
State Route 22IWest Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 90
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
minimus impact upon receiving waters and vegetation. Neither of those identified impacts can be
universally considered to apply to all conditions, particularly in light of the identified beneficial
uses of the existing receiving waters (e.g., "municipal and domestic supply, non - contact recreation,
end groundwater recharge,' p. 4.2 -1) such that no reasonble analysis needs to be conducted.
As indicated above, a number of issues have been identified that are of major concern to the
residents of Seal Beach. Those concerns include, but are not limited to: (1) socioeconomic impacts
resulting from the proposed destruction of six or more housing units within Seal Beach; (2) aesthetic
impacts associated with the construction of sound walls; (3) aesthetic impacts associated with the
elevated HOV connectors; (4) noise impacts resulting from the realignment of travel lanes and the
construction of elevated HOV connectors; (5) light and glare impacts associated with the realigned
travel lanes and the elevated HOV connectors; (6) potential phasing issues associated with the
design and construction of the Seal Beach Boulevard overpass; and (7) potential impacts to City
pump stations and water reservoir facilities adjacent to the SR -22 and 1 -405 Freeways:
In order to focus discussions on those issues, the following comments address those sect Kris of thee,
DEIR/DEIS were those issues are primarily discussed. The Lead Agency should not construe the
City's election not to submit detailed comments addressing the remaining sections of the DEIR/DEIS
as the City's acceptance of the analysis and preliminary findings presented therein.
4.4.1 Community Impact Assessment
As indicated in Caltran's Environmental Handbook, Volume 4 (Caltrans Community Impact
Assessment), "a basic first step in community impact analysis is to delineate the affected
socioeconomic environment for all the proposed project alternatives. Note that in preparing an
environmental document, area boundarare likely to be drawn differently for several types of
studies: community impact assessme historic and archeological „resources, hazardous waste
materials, noise, and so forth. Delinea i n: of the affected environment can facilitate identification
and analysis of community impacts ... Dlineation of the affected social and economic environment
will generally encompass community facilities, school districts, census tracts, and community
planning areas ...Consideration also should be given to understanding indirect project effects”
(Caltrans Community Impact Assessment, pp. 10 -11).
Throughout DEIR/DEIS, the Lead Agencies represent the existence of a single "study area"
which is iepresented as being applicable to all topical issues. Since no factual basis is presented for
the delineation of that area, its delineation appears more arbitrary than fact- based. Although the
boundaries change;:, the study area is predominately linear in form and defined by major roadways
located to the north and south of the SR -22 Freeway. Since jurisdictional boundaries and traffic
tributary areas extend beyond the limits of the study area, the Lead Agencies have sought to
artificially confine the environmental assessment to a subarea constituting only a component of the
actual area wherein community impacts will likely occur.
Although Caltrans is identified as one of the Lead Agencies and "Caltrans Environmental Handbook
Volume 4" (p. 4.63) is referenced in the DEIR/DEIS, the community impact assessment guidelines
developed by that agency do not appear to have been followed in the preparation of the DEIR/DEIS
and no explanation is provided as to why the Lead Agencies failed to conduct a community impact
assessment in accordance with Caltrans' Environmental Handbook.
Stale Route 22[West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 91
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA-01-04-D / SCH No. 98064001
As described in Caltrans' Community Impact Assessment, "community cohesion is the degree to
which residents have a 'sense of belonging' to their neighborhood ...Generally, the effect of a
transportation facility located through an older, established neighborhood is more severe than one
located through an area wherg the housing changes ownership every three to five years" (Caltrans
Community Impact Assessment, p. 49). Those homes located in Seal Beach now planned for
demolition have existed adjacent to the SR -22 Freeway for nearly as long as the freeway itself.
Ownership patterns have stayed relatively stable over that period, indicating the existence of a
highly cohesive neighborhood. As indicated therein:
One of the traditional tools for measuring community cohesion by transportation
departments across the country is by means of a "stability index" or mathematical
formula with numerical variables ...Essentially, the stability index is based on the
assumption that the longer people live in a community, . the more committed they
become to it and the more cohesive the community .. ".In any event, it is essential
that all neighborhood and community studies be backed up with direct observation
and possibly other research measures ...Note if residents, either individually or a
through their representatives, express particular concern for their neighborhood at '� �,.
public meetings or through other forums. This is a useful measure of. community
cohesion" (Caltrans Community Impact Assessment, pp 50-51). ., c
Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any reference to a "stability index" conducted by t e, Lead Agencies
as a means of assessing community cohesion. As indicated both herein and in previous comments
submitted by the City, Seal Beach has and will continue to express concerns for the proposed
destruction of homes in the cohesive College Park East neighborhood.
While the DEIR/DEIS indicates that "there would be impacts to community cohesion in five
different neighborhoods" (p. 4.6 -4), the College Park East neighborhood is totally excluded from the
Lead Agencies' analysis.. It is highly likely that College Park East residents would demonstrate a
longer tenure than residents in those multi - family neighborhoods addressed in the DEIR/DEIS (see
pp. 4.6-4 and 4.6 -5). Since there is no reference to or analysis of that established area, it is not
surprising that the DEIR/DEIS fails to acknowledge either that project implementation will have a
significant impact thereupon or that mitigation, of any kind, is warranted. .
-Ir
Potential mitigation measures identified in Caltrans' Community Impact Assessment include "shift
alignment," "reduce traffic lanes," and "reduce right -of -way width" (Caltrans Community Impact
Assessment, p. 52). Why were none of these mitigation measures identified in the DEIR/DEIS?
Why did these possible mitigation measures not translate into the assessment of different freeway
alignments?
Under the document's assessment of community impacts, only a single threshold of significance
criteria has been established by the Lead Agencies, namely,the "loss of parking" (p. 4.6.9).
Although project implementation will likely result in "189 residential displacements' (p. 4.6 -11)
and the "displacement of 35 businesses and approximately 113 employees" (p. 4.6 -14), owing in
part to the transportation focus of the Lead Agencies, no comparable thresholds are identified for
the displacement of homes, businesses, lost employment opportunities, and other economic losses
of those parties most directly affected by the project. The destruction or reduction of established
residential, communities certainly must be viewed as being an "impact" on those communities. The
State Route 22IWest Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 92
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA -01-04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
DEIR/EIS cannot identify and disclose those impacts in its current form, since it failed to create
legally adequate thresholds of significance.
Similarly, other than through a general statement (e.g., "Negative indirect effects such an increased
noise levels, visual intrusion, and property acquisition may affect these areas resulting in lower
property values and reduced community cohesion," p. 6.6 -2), no analysis of any kind is provided
for any diminution of property values or reduced quality of life by those individuals that will, either
directly or indirectly, be affected by freeway encroachment. Absent from the text of the DEIR/DEIS
is any indication of the potential significance of that impact (see p. 4.6 -2). Similarly, the summary
table contains no reference to "lower property values and reduced community cohesion" in and
proximal to the College Park East neighborhood.
In the absence of any threshold criteria, it is not surprising that the Lead Age ncies' presents both no
conclusions with regards to the potential significance of those project - related impacts and presents
an unsupported and unsupportable conclusion that "displacements would result in minimal
cumulative impacts" (p. 8 -9).
Since Orange County is identified as a "job rich" and "housing poor" area, any reduction in the
region's housing inventory would create a further jobs/housing imbalance and exacerbate areawide
planning efforts to address air quality conditions withimthis non - attainment area. Nowhere in the
DEIR/DEIS, however, do the Lead Agencies address the issue of jobs/housing balance and the
potential air quality and transportation consequences attributable to the area's imbalance.
4.4.2 Noise
The DEIR/DEIS states that the "noise analysts for the SR-22A/Vest Orangeunty Connection can be
found in the 'Traffic Noise Impact Technical Report' and 'Traffic Noise ,
oise Technical Report Reduced
Build Alternative Addendum,' Parsons Brinckerhoff, December 2000 (under separate cover)" (p.
4.9 -1). The document, however, fails to indicate where copies of the above referenced studies can
be located. The DEIR/DEIS further notes:
Based on this feasibility and reasonability - analysis, the 'Preliminary Noise
Abatement Decision' has been made ...During the public review period for the
DEIRTIS, impacted residents, the general public, and local agencies will have the
opportunity to comment on the 'Preliminary Noise Abatement Decision.' These
opinions, which represent the last two considerations for reasonability will be
weighed in order to make the 'Final Noise Abatement Decision,' which will be
presented in the Final EIR/EIS -(p. 4.9 -12).
Since those documents were no istributed with the DEIR/DEIS and since the mitigation measures
presented in the DEIR/DEIS are derived from that analysis (e.g., "Based on the Preliminary Noise
Abatement Analysis [Appendix 1.31, noise barriers are proposed for the Full Build Alternative ... Of
the 26 noise barriers considered in the reasonability analysis, only one barrier was determined not
to be reasonable [Table A, Appendix 1.3j," p. 4.9 -13), the project's stakeholders are denied access
to critical information used to derive the Lead Agencies preliminary conclusions and are prevented
from independently validating the data presented in the DEIR/DEIS. As a result, stakeholders are
prevented from submitting meaningful comments on the "preliminary noise abatement decision"
and, therefore, cannot hope to modify the results of that study or influence the outcome of the final
State Route 22 /Weri Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 93
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA-01-04-D / SCH No. 98064001
noise abatement decision. Again, this appears to be an attempt on the part of the Lead Agencies to
"hide the ball" and preclude meaningful comment on the part of the public most affected by the
project.
Attempting to duplicate Caltrans' methodology is a very time consuming and costly endeavor and
cannot even commence without access to specific information (e.g., future peak -hour traffic
volumes) which serves as input data for computer modeling and which is not included in the
DEIR/DEIS. As a result, not only have the Lead Agencies precluded reasonable access to the
technical reports conducted specifically for the project but also access to technical data which is
critical to any independent review that could be conducted in an attempt to determine the validity
of the Lead Agencies' conclusions.
For example, at the 1- 405/1 -605 freeway HOV connectors, a new, elevated travel lane will be
constructed. Since the lane will be constructed at an elevation of about 75 -feet above the
mainline, no noise barriers or other intervening obstacles will block the sound waves emanating
from the freeway. Notwithstanding the likely exposure of nearby residents to higher noise levers',
generated by vehicles utilizing this elevated HOV connector, no noise measurements or ro, If
has been conducted in the Leisure World or Rossmoor areas of Seal Beach..
As indicated under CEQA, the purpose of 'the EIR is to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry
that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its actions"
[emphasis added] (Section 15003[d], State CEQA'. Guidelines). Similarly, as required under
Caltrans' °Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol" (Caltrans, October 1998) "(Caltans Noise Protocol or
Protocol), "the Protocol applies to the assessment and disclosure of potential noise impacts of
project alternatives as identified within the scope of an environmental document as required by
NEPA/CEQA° [Emphasis Added] (Caltrans Noise Protocol, p. 2).
In the absence of access to Caltrans' analysis, it is not possible to determine the assumptions used
with respect to the conveyance of that noise, the distances between source and receptors, the
highest hourly noise level, and the atmospheric or other attenuation assumed in the acoustical
model. In the absence of access to critical information, it is not possible to replicate the
document's acoustical analysis or determine whether the DEIR/DEIS does, in fact, represent the
highest predicted hourly noise level (e.g., 'Predict traffic noise levels using traffic characteristics
that will yield the worst hourly traffic noise impact on a regular basis for the design year," Caltrans
Noise Protocol, p. 7). The presentation of conclusions with the supporting analysis is, therefore,
inconsistent with not only the purpose of the CEQA process but also Cal-Frans Noise Protocol.
As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS, "under CEQA, a substantial noise increase may result in a significant
adverse environmental effect" (p. 4.9 -1). As further indicated in the DEIR/DEIS, 'a five dB change is
a readily perceptible increase or decrease in sound level" (p. 3.9 -1). Since "a readily perceptible"
change in noise levels constitutes an appropriate basis for defining "a substantial noise increase,"
most communities utilize a 3 -5 -dB increase as the threshold for significance under CEQA. It is
unreasonable for the Lead Agencies to suggest that a 12-dB increase constitutes an appropriate
threshold of significance criteria (e.g., "There would be no impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to
less than substantial, as defined by Caltrans [i.e., a 12 dB increase]," p. 4.9 -26).
In many instances, thresholds of significance criteria are not set quantitative numbers but can vary
based on the environmental values established by the community in which projects are proposed.
Stale Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 94
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS-CA -01- 04-D /SCH No. 98064001
Areas that are dependent upon future development may establish less restrictive standards that in
those areas that seek to control growth and where environmental considerations take on increased
importance. As evidenced by Seal Beach's recent efforts to minimize surface water pollution by
increasing street sweeping activities, the City places a high value in environmental quality.
Nowhere in the DEIR/DEIS, however, do the Lead Agencies seek to inform the project's decision
makers and other stakeholders that they have "a say" in the environmental values which are
established in the DEIR/DEIS and which the proposed project should be evaluated. Although a 12-
dB increase may have previously been utilized by Caltrans for other projects, that standard is
neither defined by statute or regulations and other standards can and, in some instances, should be
defined by the local agency where the project will occur. Since no factual basis is provided for the
use of a 12 dB standard, other than past practices of Caltrans. (e.g., "Caltrans defines traffic noise
impacts as: Where there is a substantial noise increase, i.e., when the predicted noise levels with
the project would exceed existing noise levels by 12 dBA or more," p. 4.9 -1), the City challenges
that standard as failing to be reasonable for the jurisdiction in which the project is proposed.
Since "a readily perceptible increase" is defined by Caltrans as a 5 -dB increase, that standard
should be utilized, not a 12-dB increase. Seal Beach has utilized a 3 -dB increase in its independent
assessment of other projects and believes and contends that 3-dB constitutes amore supportable
basis for assessing project - related and cumulative noise impacts. "A 3 -5 -dB standard would result in
the need for additional mitigation beyond that now proposed by the Lead Agencies.
As indicated in Table 4.9 -2 (pp. 4.9 -3 and 4), a number of receptors will experience a 5-dB or
greater increase in noise levels under the 'Full Build Alternative." The Lead Agencies, however,
erroneously conclude "these increases in noise levels are anticipated to have less than significant
impacts to the areas listed" (p. 4.9 -10). As a result, the Lead Agencies seek to minimize their
mitigation obligations, to the expense of those nearby receptors that will experience an increase or
five or more but less than twelve decibels.
As further indicated in the DEIR/DEIS, the Lead Agencies decision to include mitigation is
dependent not only on the projected increase in noise levels associated with the project but also
based on an undefined "reasonability analysis ( "A summary of the results of the reasonable
analysis, including the number of residence benefited from each noise barrier, is presented in
Appendix 1.3," p. 4.9 -12) which appears to be based on economic considerations (e.g., "the
reasonable allowance for each wall will be recalculated during the design phase and if the cost of
any wall is not reasonable, they might be eliminated from this project," p. 4.9 -12). As further
indicated in Caltrans Noise Protocol, "the determination of reasonableness of noise abatement is
more subjective than the determination of its feasibility ...The overall reasonableness of noise
abatement is determined by considering a multitude of factors including but not necessarily limited
to the following ...cost of abatement" (Caltrans Noise Protocol, pp. 9 -10). Based on these
statements, it is evident that the Lead Agencies are not, in fact, firmly committing to the
construction of specific noise barriers since those barriers may "be eliminated from the project" if
found not to be cost effective.
As indicated in the CEQ Regulations, "if a cost -benefit analysis relevant to the choice among
environmentally different alternatives is being considered for the proposed action, it shall be
incorporated by reference or appended to the statement as an aid in evaluating the environmental
consequences" (40 CFR 1502.23).
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 95
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA -01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
Under CEQA, a Lead Agency's obligation for mitigation is not cost dependent. Costs are not
generally a factor in determining whether a specific mitigation measure is or is not feasible. To the
extent costs are considered, however, the determination is not based on a general model (e,.g.,
"$15,000 base allowance... The estimated actual cost per residence of the proposed noise
abatement for a location should be at or below the modified reasonable allowance per residence
for the noise abatement to be reasonable for that location,' Caltrans Noise Protocol, pp. 11 and 13)
but relates to the nature of the impact created and the financial ability of the project proponents to
implement those measures. Since the project proponent is the federal (FHWA) and State (Caltrans)
governments and not "for profit" developers, economic factors should not be used as a basis for
excluding otherwise feasible mitigation measures (e.g., "one barrier was determined not to be
reasonable; p. 4.9 -13).
For a number of receptors in the Seal Beach area, the DEIR/DEIS indicates that "highest available
noise barrier is not feasible (will not reduce by at least 5 dBA)" (Table 4.9 -7, p.- 4.9 -14). To the
extent that a "higher" barrier were to offer additional mitigation opportunities above those that
would result from the retention of the "lower" barrier, CEQA requires the Lead Agencies to
implement those added measures (e.g., "CEQA establishes a duty for public agencies to avoid or
minimize environmental damage where feasible; Section 15021 [a], State CEQA Guidelines).
As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS, "under CEQA, a project would have a significant effect on the
environment if it would increase substantially the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas, which is
defined by Caltrans as an increase of 12 dBA" (p..4.9 -27). To the extent, however, that the Lead
Agencies assert that a SABA decrease constitutes an appropriate basis for assessing a "substantial"
noise reduction (e.g., "A public agency should not approve a project as proposed if there are
feasible alternatives or mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen any significant
effects that the project would have on the environment" [emphasis added], Section 15021[a][2],
State CEQA Guidelines),: then the Lead Agencies cannot seek to apply a "double standard" whereby
those agencies assert that a 12-d BA increase constitutes the basis for a substantial noise impact but
a 5-dBA increase constitutes the basis for asubstantial noise mitigation. Based on the Lead
Agencies failure to consider mitigation measures that do not achieve a 5-d BA reduction, there exists
further substantiation for revising the threshold of significance criteria to ,indicate that a 5 -dBA
increase constitutes a significant acoustical impact.
As indicated in Table 4.9-7 (pp. 4.9 -14 through 4.9 -18), at a number of locations, a new "4.9- meter-
high" sound wall is proposed. Based on the specific location, the identified mitigation for that
identical wall ranges from 5 to 15 dBA. Although some variation would be predicted based on
different traffic conditions, the size of the variation raises questions with the accuracy of the Lead
Agencies' assessment. Again, since the supporting analysis has not been provided, it is not possible
to independently validate the Lead Agencies' preliminary findings. The reason for such large
variations should, however, be justified as well as the determination that "existing 4.9 to 5.5 meter
(16 to 18 foot) noise barrier is highest available" (e.g., p. 4.9 -14). Similarly, if a '5.5 5 meter" noise
barrier is feasible, why is the height of the proposed sound walls limited to only *4.9 meters °i
Absent from the project's acoustical analysis is any discussion of or graphic representation of pre -
and post - project noise contours, with special emphasis on the predicted noise levels at all sensitive
receptor location areas. As required under FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, the DEIR/DEIS
shall include "the extent of the impact (in decibels) at each sensitive area. This includes a
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 96
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS-CA -01- 04 -D /SCH No. 98064001 -
comparison of the predicted noise levels with both the FHWA noise abatement criteria and the
existing noise levels" (FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, p.,17).
Similarly, thG, DEIR/DEIS contains no reference to or discussion of construction staging areas or the
possible haul routes for construction materials. Since both construction staging operations and the
transport of equipment, materials, and manpower along local roadways can adversely effect nearby
receptors, the DEIR/DEIS needs to identify and examine the possible noise impacts associated with
those activities.
As indicated in FHWA Technical Advisory T6160.2 (FHWA, March 13' 984), the FHWA noise
directive "contains requirements for the evaluation of highway construction noise ... Major urban
projects with unusually severe highway construction noise impacts require more extensive analysis.
Sensitive receptors should be identified, existing noise levels;,should be measured, construction
noise levels should be predicted, and impacts should be discussed so as to properly indicate their
severity" (FHWA Technical Advisory T6160.2, pp. 1 -2). Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any attempt
to specifically identify those sensitive receptors that will be impacted by the project's construction.
The DEIR/DEIS states 'noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders,
bulldozers, concrete mixers, and portable generators, can reach levels in the range of 67 to 98 dBA
at 15 meters" (p. 4.9 -10). In direct contrast, the Lead Agencies then assert that construction noise
levels would not exceed °89 d8A at 15 meters" (Table 4.9 -6, p. 4.9 -11). As required under
Caltrans Noise Protocol, "normally, limits on construction noise levels should not exceed 86 dBA at
a distance of 15 meters. If construction noise on any highway project is anticipated to be a
substantial problem, the following items should be examined during the project process: (a) Land -
uses or activities that may be affected by noise from construction of a project. (b) Measures
necessary to minimize or eliminate adverse construction noise impacts on the community that
could be incorporated in the plans and spenfications" ( Caltrans. oise Protocol, p. 3).
Absent from the DEIR/DEIS, however, is any effort to identify the specific "land uses" that will likely
be impacted . by construction activities. As such, since specific sensitive receptors have not been
identified that would likely be subjected to excessive construction noise levels, the Lead Agencies
seek to avoid their obligation to formulate specific mitigation measures addressing the impact
created by the project. It is, therefore, not possible to determine whether the more "generic"
measures that is proposed will have any effectiveness with regards to the mitigation of noise at
those receptor locations.
Additionally, since 'noise abatement is not designed for the second floor level' ( Caltrans Noise
Protocol, p. 10), since most residential units located noise sensitive areas such as bedrooms on the
second Floor, the DEIR/DEIS has failed to demonstrate that the proposed noise barriers will
effectively reduce, post - project noise levels in residential areas (including second -Floor areas) to an
acceptable level (e.g., conformity with municipal noise standards).
Similarly, the analysis does not state whether interior noise levels at affected properties are based
on a "windows open" or "windows closed" condition. If interior standards can only be attained by
requiring affected receptors to keep their windows closed, the Lead Agencies then have a further
obligation to include additional acoustical attenuation (e.g., triple -pane windows, increased
insulation, installation of air conditioning equipment) beyond the mere construction of sound walls.
Those additional attenuation measures must be imposed as a mitigation measure on this project.
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 97
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
Mitigation measures, in and of themselves, have the potential to produce significant environmental
effects. As required under the Caltrans Noise Protocol:
If the noise mitigation is expected to result in a significant adverse environmental e
effect (such as by causing a visual intrusion on a scenic highway, blocking resident's
views, adverse effects on historic sites, etc.), an overall mitigation plan must be
developed. The plan should include consideration of competing environmental
resources. To accomplish this, sufficient information regarding the - physical
characteristics, benefits, and detriments of the proposed mitigation is necessary so
that it can be balanced against the affected resource(s) ( Caltrans Noise Protocol, p.
r
19). "
Based on the City's independent assessment of the proposed project, the City has concluded that
the implementation of the proposed sound barriers will, themselves, produce significant secondary
environmental effects upon both the College Park East residential community and upon Old Ranch
Tennis Club which have not been addressed in the DEIR/DEIS. Presently no sound wall exists in
direct proximity to Old Ranch Tennis Club and no sound wall appears to be proposed at that
location by the Lead Agencies. The absence of a proposed sound wall, however, may be the result
of the Lead Agencies' failure to consider this future public recreational facility as part of its
acoustical analysis. If considered, the analysis would likely identify the need for a new 4.9 -meter
sound wall to protect that public recreational facility from unacceptable noise levels. The
construction of a 16 -foot high masonry wall within an area potentially subject to significant seismic
forces and directly adjacent to an area where large congregations of children may be evident will
likely result in additional safety issues which do not presently exist at that location and which have
not been addressed in the DEIR/DEIS.
As a result, the DEIR/DEIS needs to be augmented to include 'an overall mitigation plan'
acknowledging the presence of those secondary impacts and, as required, identifying such other
actions, conditions, and /or mitigation measures as may be required to adequately respond to those
currently undisclosed environmental consequences.:.:..
4.4.3 Utilities
Although the DEIR/DEIS indicates that the 'utilities' section "discusses the potential impacts of the
State Route 22A/Vest Orange County Connection project alternatives on known public major
utilities' (p. 4.11 1), absent from the DEIR/DE15 is the identification and analysis of project- related
and cumulative impacts upon those public utilities and facilities located in Seal Beach. The
following information is''submitted to assist in the identification of those facilities but is not
intended to substitute for the Lead Agencies' analysis of impacts upon those facilities.
Located adjacent to the existing SR -22 and 1-405 Freeway rights -of -way are a number of public
facilities operated by the City, including pump stations and potable water reservoir facilities. No
reference to those facilities, however, is provided anywhere in the DEIR/DEIS. As a result, the
document fails to examine potential project- related and cumulative impacts on those facilities and
to formulate reasonable and feasible mitigation measures in response to those impacts.
State Route 22AVest Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 98
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS-CA- 01-040 /SCH No. 98064001
The Beverly Manor Reservoir, a 4- million gallon potable water reservoir, is located southwest of the
1 -405 Freeway and Seal Beach Boulevard. A groundwater well and booster station also currently
operates at that site. In addition, there are currently three cellular towers located southerly of the 1-
405 right -of -way at this same location and an additional tower along Se %l Beach Boulevard behind
the existing fire station located south of the reservoir. Since none of these facilities are even
referenced in the DEIR/DEIS, it is not possible for the City to determine what, if any, project- related
and cumulative impacts may result from the implementation of the SR22/WOCC project.
The proposed acquisition of additional right-of-way at that location could have significant impacts
on the existing compressed natural gas (CNG) fueling facility, City storage building, and cellular
communication towers located between the existing freeway right -of -way and the reservoir. In
addition, the project could produce significant impacts to City water operations if the existing
storage building cannot remain operational or should the project result in the loss of the existing
maintenance road to those properties along the north property line (e.g., adverse impacts on ability
to provide maintenance to remaining structures).
Relocation of existing gas and telephone lines would likely also be required.. Insufficient room may
be available in the remaining City property for these utility lines due to the potential closure of the
reservoir.
To the extent that project implementation were to result in the temporary or permanent closure of
any of those facilities or utilities (e.g., Beverly Manor Reservoir), substantial undisclosed impacts
could occur upon the City, its residents, and business community (e.g., inadequate water service to
accommodate community-wide and emergency's demands):'' In recognition of the potential
disruption to service (e.g., "utilities would require temporary and /or permanent relocation.
Relocations could result in short-term service interruptions," p. 4.11 -1),. the Lead Agencies error in
diminishing the potential significance of these impacts (e.g., "would be minimal," p. 4.11 -1) or
suggesting that - standard construction practices" (p. 4.11 -1) may be all that is required in response
to the disruption of service.
For example, with the possible closure and drainage of the Beverly Manor Reservoir, the City could
experience citywide reduction in potable water supplies and fire fighting capabilities. Should
these "service interruptions" occur concurrently with a major seismic event or other disaster,
whereby major delivery mains to the City were also disrupted, there could be major health and
safety consequences which are neither addressed nor alluded to in the DEIR/DEIS. The Lead
Agencies' failure to identify these facilities, to determine the extent and duration of any potential
project- related and cumulative impacts thereupon, to analyze potential 'worst-case' scenarios that
could occur as a result of those impacts, and to formulate reasonable mitigation measures requiring
definitive actions as a. precursor to any activities that might result in a disruption to those utilities
and facilities constitutes a serious defect with the DEIR/DEIS. ,
4.4.4 Visual Resources
As indicated in the FHWA's "Environmental Impact Statement — Visual Impact Discussion" (FHWA
Visual Impact Discussion) included in the FHWA Environmental Guidebook, with regards to the
analysis presented in the "environmental consequences" section of the EIS: "There should be
sufficient information to clarify and support all conclusions concerning impacts. The information
should focus on the visual characteristics of the project and their effects on the viewers in the study
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 99
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA-EIS-CA-01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
area including those with views from and views of the highway ... it should be recognized that the
construction of a highway, whether on existing or new alignment, will always cause some degree
of visual change in an area' (FWHA Visual Impact Discussion, pp. 6-7).
Referencing the FHWA's "Esthetics and Visual Quality Guidance Information' (FHWA, August 18,
1986), included in the FHWA Environmental Guidebook, "visual impacts arise as a result of any
alteration to the existing visual environment. For example, the widening of an existing highway can
result in significant visual impacts from the removal of vegetation, addition of signing, or simply
from the overall increase in scale of the new facility ... The FHWA has developed a methodology
that can be used to assess the visual impact of highway projects. The publication, 'Visual Impact
Assessment for Highway Projects' contains necessary information and .'guidance that can be
followed to produce an objective visual impact analysis.'
Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any reference to FHWA's "Visual Impact Assessment for Highway
Projects" (see p. 13 -3). Although the DEIR/DEIS references a "Visual Impact Assessment (December
2000)' and a'Reduced Build Alternative Visual Impact Assessment Addendum (December 2000K
(p. 4.13 -U, neither of those documents are referenced in Chapter 13.0 (Bibliography) nor c ',
Ihe-
document state where copies of those reports can be reviewed.
Throughout the DEIR/DEIS' visual impact analysis, certain qualitative terms have been established
by the Lead Agencies as a means of discussing visual changes (e.g,, 'Overall, the visual quality
would drop from high to moderately high, a low level of adverse visual change," p. 4.13 -3). Since
none of those terms are defined in the DEIR/DEIS, since those terms are not widely used, and since
a common definition of those terms does not exist, there exists no basis fora reviewer to place
those terms or the impacts those terms denote into any understandable context. Since
"environmental impact statements shall be written in plain language" „(40 CFR 1502.8), the Lead
Agencies' election to create their own visual resource vocabulary creates serious problems in both
translation and only serves to inhibit the conveyance of critical information to the project's
stakeholders. Similarly, the terms used do not equate, either directly or indirectly, to the threshold
of significance criteria established by the Lead Agencies to assess the significance of the resulting
visual change (e.g., "reduction of visual quality," p. 4.13 -11).
As required under Section 15148 of the State CEQA Guidelines, "the OR 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.' The mere reference to
technical studies, . which are not widely available for public review, does not meet the requirement
for disclosure and document citation established under the State CEQA Guidelines.
In order to assist in understanding the project's visual impacts, the Lead Agencies include a number
of computer simulations in the DEIR/DEIS. Unfortunately, no exhibit is presented indicating the
location or orientation of these "key viewpoints' and no discussion is provided with regards to how
these locations were selected (and other possible locations rejected). Similarly, by categorizing all
viewsheds as 'suburban landscape units- (pp. 4.13 -1 and 4.13.3), "urban landscape units' (p. 4.13-
3), or "open space units" (p. 4.13 -3), the Lead Agencies provide a disservice to the affected public
by suggesting that all possible views of the project site from off -site areas can be categorized under
one of three headings (e.g., "a landscape unit is an area of distinct, but not necessarily
homogenous, visual character,' p. 3.13 -3).
State Route 22 1West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 100
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA -01- 04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
Seal Beach believes that none of the identified 'units' (e.g., 'At the Suburban Key Viewpoint, very
few changes would be visible,' p. 4.13 -6; 'Viewers at the Urban Key Viewpoint are mostly office
workers,' p. 4.13 -9) accurately describe or characterize the project's visual impacts from City
receptors (e.g., College Park West, Leisure World, College Park East, or unincorporated Rossmoor)
and, therefore, underestimate the project's potential aesthetic impacts upon City residents (e.g.,
'Residents are among the most sensitive viewers to visual quality change,' p. 4.13 -6).
Although the Pacific Electric right -of -way is addressed, absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any analysis of
the potential visual impacts associated with the construction of the 1 -405 /I -605 HOV connector.
Because that roadway will be elevated above existing grade, not only will it become highly visible
to an extensive off -site viewshed (e.g., 'Some new views of the freeway as well as new views from
the freeway would be created,' p. 4.13 -11) but the noise (e.g., traffic lanes would be moved nearer
to noise - sensitive receptors and the noise levels would change,' p. 4.9 -2), light intrusion (e.g.,
'some homes and mobile homes bordering the alignment that would be affected by the new light
levels,' p. 4.13 -28), and other associated impacts attributable to transportation facilities . will be
unshielded by intervening landscaping or other structures. Therefore, not only will proximal
receptors have a direct view of the elevated connector but also the connector's presence will make
itself known through noise and light intrusion into adjoining residential areas.
Only a single mitigation measures, however, been identified in response to the localized impacts
on sensitive receptors. As indicated therein, 'where possible, view of the freeway and associated
elements, including noise barriers, will be buffered from homes, schools, parks, and similar uses by
planting' (VIS- FB -10, p. xxxi; VS- RB -10, p. xxxiii) however, the document further indicated that
'in areas where the freeway would be elevated and noise barriers would be constructed there
would be no replanting' (p. 4.13 -24). As'a result, since the 1- 405 /1 -605 HOV connector is now
proposed in the areas of Rossmoor and Leisure World and a noise barrier is proposed in the area of
College Park East, the above referenced measure will provide no mitigation to those sensitive
receptors.
Since the Lyea.%T' encies never describe nor graphically illustrate the properties that will be
affected, the exists no method or mechanism to assist in the placement of 'planting.' Mature
plants typically require a number of years before they reach maturity and provide any visual
screening. Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any discussion of other interim strategies that could be
undertaken in the meantime to provide additional screening.
Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any guidance concerning the type, number, or size of any landscape
improvements proposed. Planting 1- gallon shrub meets the Lead Agencies definition of
°planting' to the same extend that the planting of a 15- gallon box tree would. Obviously, a single
1- gallon groundcover and multiple 15- gallon trees have the potential to produce substantially
different mitigating benefits.. As a result, the recommended measure is so broadly defined as to be
meaningless.
The DEIR/DEIS states that 'important visual resources include areas where the visual environment is
particularly important to the function of the land use. In the SR- 22/West Orange County
Connection study area, these include parks, recreational areas, trails, and historic properties' (p.
4.13 -12). Although the DEIR/DEIS acknowledges that 'the existing Bixby Old Ranch Tennis Club
[will be dedicated] to the City of Seal Beach as a public recreational facility' (p. 2 -19), absent from
the Lead Agencies inventory of 'important visual resources' is the Old Ranch Tennis Club (see
State Route 22IWest Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 101
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA -01 -04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
Table 4.13 -1, p. 4.13 -14). By failing to identify and address project- related impacts upon
"important visual resources" in Seal Beach, the project's potential impacts will likely be greater
than now referenced in the DEIR/DEIS.
The DEIR/DEIS concludes that "widening and realignment of SR -22 would require the removal of
approximately 66 percent of existing vegetation" (p. 4.13 -24) for the "Full Build Alternative" and
"require the removal of approximately 60 percent of existing vegetation" (p. 4.13 -24) for the
"Reduced Build Alternative. Since mitigation must be directly related to the impact produced, it is
readily apparent that the Lead Agencies have failed to establish a set of mitigation measures that
will adequately compensate for the project's anticipated impacts. Corresponding mitigation
measures, or the applicable portion of those measures, as now identified in the DEIR/DEIS include:
❑ At locations where residential structures are removed and neighboring residences and /or
parks are exposed to new views of the freeways or freeway structures or intactness of the
neighborhood is affected, additional landscaping will be provided within the right -of -way
or in remnantparce /s remaining after acquisition of the homes (VIS -FB -1, p. 4.13 -29). I'".;,,
Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any narrative or graphic depicting those areas where
'intactness of the neighborhood is affected." Since the Lead Agencies have virtually ignored
project- related impacts upon the Rossmoor, Leisure. World, and College Park East
neighborhoods, to the extent that the DEIR/DEIS serves as the basis for that determination,
no mitigation will be provided in Seal Beach.
The above measure also contradicts VIS -FB -3, VIS -FB -9, and VIS -FB -1 t which specifies that
mitigation beyond the State right -of -way will only be provided "if long -term maintenance by
the local community can be assured." It is unreasonable for the Lead Agencies to convey to
the City and /or to a homeowners association an obligation for mitigation planting,
irrigation, and long -term maintenance of "remnant parcels" which are owned by Caltrans or
another public agency. ?
Since no actual commitments are made (e.g.,_ precise nature of the proposed landscaping
within remnant parcels), the above measure offers no actual mitigation for impacts upon
those residential receptors located in close proximity to the proposed improvements.
D As much as possible, existing landscaping within the State right -of -way will be preserved.
Areas needed for construction will be minimized where feasible while maintaining safety
for construction workers and the public (VIS -FB -2, p. 4.13 -29).
This measure is meaningless since the project is assumed to result in the removal of
between 60-66 percent of all existing landscaping. Preservation is proposed only where
deemed "feasible." Since the election to retain any landscaping is further subject to the
legitimate safety considerations, the above measure offers no assurance that any
landscaping will be retained. As such the measure is meaningless and should be redrafted
to offer real mitigation.
❑ Under the direction of the Caltrans District Landscape Architect, where freeway
landscaping is removed due to the widening of the freeway or the realignment of ramps,
and where enough right -of- -way is available, replacement landscaping will be provided. If
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 102
I
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EIS- CA -01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
necessary, available areas outside the State right -of- -way will be used for replacement
landscaping, if long -term maintenance by the local community can be assured.
Replacement planting will be provided with sufficient irrigation and maintenance to ensure
survival (VIS- FaB -3, p. 4.13 -29). a
The Lead Agencies have already disclosed that "in areas where the freeway would be
elevated and noise barriers would be constructed there would be no replanting" (p. 4.13-
24). As a result, the only opportunities for landscaping exist - outside the State rightof -way"
and, therefore, become the long -term obligation of the City and not the Lead Agencies.
Since the Lead Agencies are creating the impact, it is the function of those agencies and not
the City to design, implement, and fund any mitigation required in response to those
impacts.
To suggest that landscaping will be installed only "if necessary,' allows the Lead Agencies
further discretion to take no action in response to the identified impact. From the
perspective of the City, the above measure is meaningless and should be redrafted to
provide actual mitigating benefits to the City and its residents. "
• Noise barriers and other large structures will be visually softened through the use of vines,
at a minimum, with shrubs and trees used where sufficient right -of -way exists ...Where
there is no room for landscaping because the barrier is placed at the edge of shoulder, but
there is available land on the outside of the barrier, vines will be planted behind the barrier
and trained to spill over the top of the barrier (VIS -1`134, p. 4.13 -29)
To suggest landscaping planted on the outside of a freeway noise barrier will provide any
relief from the visual impacts created by the further intrusion of the freeway and the
construction of a sound wall . into an established residential area because the vines may
eventually grow over the wall and provide visual relief to those residents in affected areas is
unrealistic- A landscaped area that is wide enough to provide tree plantings is necessary
too effectively screen the noise barriers. The above measure is meaningless and offers no
potential for the mitigation of visual impacts upon the City and its residents.
❑." The project designers will work with Caltrans and the local governments to avoid the
removal of trees to the maximum extent possible and to provide landscaping consistent
with focal policies and to integrate . the facility with adjacent communities ... Cooperative
agreements, will be reached for the funding, installation, and maintenance of this
landscaping in excess of Caltrans standard landscaping (VIS -FB-9, p. 4.13 -30).
The DEI RUDE IS already acknowledges that 60-66 percent of all landscaping will be removed
and that percent may increase (up to 100 percent) based on safety considerations. To,
therefore, suggest that the Lead Agencies will seek to 'avoid the removal of trees" is both
inconsistent with the project's likely impacts and other recommended mitigation measures.
In addition, the above measure indicates that it is the Lead Agencies intend only to install
" Caltrans standard landscaping" and that anything in excess of that standard (independent of
the project's actual impacts) then becomes the obligation of others. The above measure is
meaningless and offers no potential for the mitigation of visual impacts upon the City and
its residents.
Slate Route 22lWest Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 103
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA -EIS- C.P. -01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
Where possible, views of the freeway and associated elements, including noise barriers,
will be buffered from homes, schools, parks, and similar uses by planting (VIS- FB -10, p.
4.13 -30). _
The above measure offer no actual mitigation since the application of this measure rests
exclusively with the Lead Agencies (i.e., "where possible "), since the DEIR/DEIS has
indicated that mitigation may not be possible for all receptors, and since no criteria or
specifications are presented with regards to the nature of the 'planting' that may occur.
Where possible, objectionable views from the freeway, such as open storage for industrial
uses, will be screened from view by use of highway planting. Replacement planting outside
the rightof -way will be used for this purpose if maintenance by local communities or
landowners can be assured (VIS- FB-11, pp. 4.13 -30 and '31).
The above measure offer no actual mitigation since the application of this measure rests
exclusively with the Lead Agencies (i.e., "where possible "), since the DEIR/DEIS has
indicated that mitigation may not be possible for all receptors, and since no criteria or
specifications are presented with regards to the nature of the "planting" that may occur. In
addition, "replacement planting" will only be installed if the Lead Agencies can convey
responsibilities for the maintenance of that landscaping to others (e.g., the City,
homeowners association, individual property owners).
Highway planting will be appropriately scaled and oriented to the freeway viewer (VIS -FB-
12, p. 4.13 -31).
Other than the authors of the DEIR/DEIS, probably nobody else knows what the above
measure even means, much less what (if any) obligation the above measure places on the
Lead Agencies.. The authors know what the measure means, since they have likely already
designed the 'scaled and "oriented" planting without any meaningful input from the public
or independent judgement by the Lead Agencies. Measures that are meaningless, such as
the above, provide no actual mitigating benefits since they cannot be demonstrated to
address the impact for which the measure is established and since there effectiveness
cannot be measured. If the above measure were to be deleted, it is highly likely that neither
the project nor the Lead Agencies' mitigation plans would be modified in any way.
All terms such as "where possible" or "when feasible" or "if necessary" or "to the maximum extent
possible" provide the Lead Agencies blanket authority to take no actions to address the City's stated
concerns and, if those terms are to remain, must include a definitive set of standards that provide a
factual basis for determining . the type of actions that will be conducted. In the absence of those
standards, any mitigation measure so conditioned will not provide any mitigating benefits. The
Lead Agencies failure to formulate mitigation measures that are "fully enforceable through permit
conditions" (Section 15126.4[al[21, State CEQA Guidelines) is merely a veiled attempt for those
agencies to circumvent their obligations for mitigation and alternatives analysis under NEPA and
CEQA.
The City asserts that no actual mitigation will result from the implementation of any of the above
referenced mitigation measures. Because they do not impose any actual obligations on the Lead
State Route 22/west Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 104
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS-CA -0 1 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
Agencies, even if implemented as described, there exists no assurance that any of the affected
properties within Seal Beach would benefit, in any fashion, from there implementation. Since
significant visual impacts will continue to remain after mitigation (e.g., "the visual impact to the
remaining residential viewers cannot be fully mitigated and a residual visual impact e ould remain,"
p. 4.13 -34; "the removal of landscaping for widening of the freeways and realignment of
interchanges cannot be fully mitigated,' p. 4.13 -34), the Lead Agencies are required to identify both
additional mitigation measures and project alternatives that would more effectively reduce or
eliminate project- related impacts.
The Lead Agencies cannot seek to hide behind their preliminary conclusion that significant visual
impacts will remain as justification for their failure to formulate more effective mitigation measures
and consider other 'build' alternatives that would, in fact, result in the reduction or avoidance of
those significant environmental effects.
5.0 COOPERATING /RESPONSIBLE AGENCY OBLIGATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES
As indicated herein, to the extent that any discretionary actions are or may be required from the
City, Seal Beach may be a cooperating agency under NEPA and a responsible agency under CEQA.
Although the City is not a federal agency, pursuant to the CEQ Regulations, "a State or local agency
of similar qualifications ... may by agreement with the lead agency become a cooperating agency"
(40 CFR 1508.5). As indicated in CEQ Forty Questions: "After a lead agency has been designated,
that agency has the responsibility to solicit cooperation from other federal agencies that have
jurisdiction by law or special expertise on any environmental issue that should be addressed in the
EIS being prepared. Where appropriate, the lead agency should seek the cooperation of State or
local agencies of similar qualifications." Seal Beach has "special expertise" with regards to those
project- related and cumulative impacts within its jurisdiction.
As further indicated therein, "cooperating agencies (i.e., agencies with jurisdiction by law or special
expertise) and agencies that are authorized to develop or enforce environmental standards, must
comment on environmental impact statements within their jurisdiction, expertise or authority ... if
the cooperating agency determines that a draft HIS is incomplete, inadequate or inaccurate, or it has
other comments, it should promptly make such comments, conforming to the requirements of
specificity in Section 1503.3' (CEQ Forty Questions, Question 14[c]).
Under CEQA, "the term 'responsible agency' includes all public agencies other than the lead
agency which have discretionary approval power over the project' (Section 15381, State CEQA
Guidelines). A` responsible agency complies with CEQA by considering the DEIR/DEIS and by
reaching its own conclusions on whether and how to approve the project involved (Section
15096[a], State CEQA Guidelines).. Pursuant to Section 15096(8)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines:
"When an EIR has been prepared for a project, the responsible agency shall not approve the project
as proposed if the agency finds any feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures within its
powers that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effect the project would have on the
environment."
Since the DEIR/DEIS fails to identify those discretionary actions that may be required from the Lead
Agencies and from other cooperating/responsible agencies with regards to the project's
implementation, insufficient information has been provided to allow for a formal determination of
the City's status as either a cooperating or responsible agency. Substantial evidence in the project's
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 105
-Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA -01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
administrative record, however, suggests that one or more discretionary actions will be required
from the City either as a result or consequence of the proposed SR22/WOCC project.
a
In order to preserve the City's rights under NEPA anq CEQA, the City submits the following
additional comments to the Lead Agencies, asserting its potential status as a cooperating and/or
responsible agency.
5.1 Identification of Additional Alternatives
Based on a review of the DEIR/DEIS, as well as the City's own independent alternatives analysis, a
number of additional alternatives have been identified by the City that are have not been addressed
by the Lead Agencies. The City's independent technical analysis suggests that implementation of
one or more of the following alternatives would avoid or reduce one or more of the project's
potential significant impacts upon Seal Beach. Since these alternatives are not now addressed in
the DEIR/DEIS, the City requests that the Lead Agencies augment theDEIR/DEIS to include and
provide a thorough assessment of the following additional alternatives:
❑ "Realignment of Proposed Project — Revised Design Criteria' Alternative. The City has
conducted preliminary design investigations that focus on developing a realignment
alternative to the Caltrans proposed project from SR -22 to 1 -405. From our limited
assessment, it has been determined that the project could be realigned to the south
with no impacts to College Park East. Further, the alternative project can be
accomplished within Caltrans right -of -way, i.e., no additional right -of -way required
for the project on the southerly 1. side that would impact the Seal Beach Naval
Weapons Station. The alternative alignment considered pinch points at Primrose
Place and the Navy property line on the south for the southbound SR 22 ramp.
The alternative alignment shifted the freeway to south approximately 3.6 meters.
This proposed realignment will miss the existing sound wall along Almond Avenue.
The project specifics are as follows:
❑ SR -22 westbound to 1 -405 northbound — increase control line radius to 1,215
meters with a longer curve length.
❑ 1 -405 northbound at SR -22 westbound — increase control line radius to 703.6
meters with a longer curve length.
❑ 1 -405 northbound between stations 104 +00 to 105 +40 - add a 1,000 meter
curve.
❑ The HOV connector is shifted to the south approximately 3.6 meters. An 844
meter curve is provided at station 107 +40.
❑ 1-405 southbound - a 1,040 meter curve is added between stations 104 +00 to
107 +40.
❑ 1-405 southbound between stations 107 +40 to 109 +00 - add an 844 meter
radius curve.
❑ 1-405 southbound to SR -22 eastbound — the ramp configuration remains the
same with the exception of adding a 610 meter curve at station 109 +30.
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 106
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS-CA -01- 04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
Agencies, even if implemented as described, there exists no assurance that any of the affected
properties within Seal Beach would benefit, in any fashion, from there implementation. Since
significant visual impacts will continue to remain after mitigation (e.g., 'the visual impact to the
remaining residential viewers cannot be fully mitigated and a residual visual impact o ould remain,"
p. 4.13 -34; "the removal of landscaping for widening of the freeways and realignment of
interchanges cannot be fully mitigated," p. 4.13 -34), the Lead Agencies are required to identify both
additional mitigation measures and project alternatives that would more effectively reduce or
eliminate project- related impacts.
The Lead Agencies cannot seek to hide behind their preliminary conclusion that significant visual
impacts will remain as justification for their failure to formulate more effective mitigation measures
and consider other "build' alternatives that would, in fact, result in the reduction or avoidance of
those significant environmental effects.
5.0 COOPERATING /RESPONSI BLE AGENCY OBLIGATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES
As indicated herein, to the extent that any discretionary actions are or may be required from the
City, Seal Beach may be a cooperating agency under NEPA and a responsible agency under CEQA.
Although the City is not a federal agency, pursuant to the CEQ Regulations, "a State or local agency
of similar qualifications ... may by agreement with the lead agency become a cooperating agency"
(40 CFR 1508.5). As indicated in CEQ Forty Questions: "After a lead agency has been designated,
that agency has the responsibility to solicit cooperation from other federal agencies that have
jurisdiction by law or special expertise on any environmental issue that should be addressed in the
EIS being prepared. Where appropriate, the lead agency should seek the cooperation of State or
local agencies of similar qualifications.' .`Seal Beach has "special expertise' with regards to those
project- related and cumulative impacts within its jurisdiction.
As further indicated therein, "cooperating agencies (i.e., agencies with jurisdiction by law or special
expertise) and agencies that are authorized tozdevelop or enforce environmental standards, must
comment on environmental impact statements within their jurisdiction, expertise or authority ... if
the cooperating agency determines that a draft EIS is incomplete, inadequate or inaccurate, or it has
other comments, it should promptly make such co,,ments, conforming to the requirements of
specificity in Section 1503.3" (CEQ Forty Questions'
uestions, Question 14[c]). ,
Under CEQA, "the term 'responsible agency' includes all public agencies other than the lead
agency which have discretionary approval power over the project" (Section 15381, State CEQA
Guidelines). A responsible agency complies with CEQA by considering the DEIR/DEIS and by
reaching its own conclusions on whether and how to approve the project involved (Section
15096[a], State CEQA Guidelines). Pursuant to Section 15096(g)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines:
'When an EIR has been prepared for a project, the responsible agency shall not approve the project
as proposed if the agency finds any feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures within its
powers that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effect the project would have on the
environment.'
Since the DEIR/DEIS fails to identify those discretionary actions that may be required from the Lead
Agencies and from other cooperating/responsible agencies with regards to the project's
implementation, insufficient information has been provided to allow for a formal determination of
the City's status as either a cooperating or responsible agency. Substantial evidence in the project's
State Route 22/West Orange County Connxtion October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 105
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA -01 -04-D / 5CH No. 98064001
administrative record, however, suggests that one or more discretionary actions will be required
from the City either as a result or consequence of the proposed SR22/WCCC project.
" In order to preserve the City's rights under NEPA fend CEQA, the City submits the following
additional comments to the Lead Agencies, asserting its potential status as a cooperating and/or
responsible agency.
5.1 Identification of Additional Alternatives
Based on a review of the DEIR/DEIS, as well as the City's own independent alternatives analysis, a
number of additional alternatives have been identified by the City that are have not been addressed
by the Lead Agencies. The City's independent technical analysis suggests that implementation of
one or more of the following alternatives would avoid or reduce one or more of the project's
potential significant impacts upon Seal Beach. Since these alternatives are not now addressed in
the DEIR/DEIS, the City requests that the Lead Agencies augment the DEIR/DEIS to include and
provide a thorough assessment of the following additional alternatives:
❑ "Realignment of Proposed Project — Revised Design Criteria" Alternative. The City has
conducted preliminary design investigations that focus on developing a realignment
alternative to the Caltrans proposed project from SR -22 to 1405. From our limited
assessment, it has been determined that the project could be realigned to the south
with no impacts to College Park East. Further, the alternative project can be
accomplished within Caltrans right -of -way, i.e., no additional right -of -way required
for the project on the southerly side that would impact the Seal Beach Naval
Weapons Station. The alternative alignment considered pinch points at Primrose
Place and the Navy property line on the south for the southbound SR 22 ramp.
The alternative alignment shifted the freeway to south approximately 3.6 meters.
This proposed realignment will miss the existing sound wall along Almond Avenue.
The project specifics are as follows:
❑ SR -22 westbound to 1 -405 northbound — increase control line radius to 1,215
meters with a longer curve length.
❑ 1 -405 northbound at SR -22 westbound — increase control line radius to 703.6
meters with a longer curve length.
❑ 1-405 northbound between stations 104 +00 to 105 +40 - add a 1,000 meter
curve.
❑ The HOV connector is shifted to the south approximately 3.6 meters. An 844
meter curve is provided at station 107 +40.
❑ 1-405 southbound - a 1,040 meter curve is added between stations 104 +00 to,
107 +40.
❑ 1-405 southbound between stations 107 +40 to 109 +00 - add an 844 meter
radius curve.
❑ 1405 southbound to SR -22 eastbound — the ramp configuration remains the
same with the exception of adding a 610 meter curve at station 109 +30.
Slate Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 106
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA -01 -04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
This alignment alternative meets the design criteria set for the project.
"Preservation of ExiAng Homes and Reconfiguration of Local Street System ",Alternative.
As required under 23 CFR 710.509(a), "when publicly owned real property, including land
and/or facilities, is to be acquired for a federal -aid highway project, in lieu of paying the fair
market value for the real property, the State may provide compensation by functionally
replacing the publicly owned real property with another facility which will provide
equivalent utility." Federal and /or State right -of -way acquisition efforts within Seal Beach,
as required for the SR22NVOCC project, would involve the acquisition of portions of one or
more local streets within the City.
Under this alternative, in lieu of the demolition of existing single - family units in the City,
the Lead Agencies would undertake the reconfiguration of affected roadways so as to allow
the retention of existing homes in Seal Beach. Under this alternative, a portion of the
Almond Street right -of -way, east of Almond Park, may need to be modified, parking
restrictions established, and/or the road converted to a one -way street. As a component of
this alternative or as a separate alternative, reduced freeway lane widths should be
considered to reduce future right -of -way requirements.
Design plans would need to be formulated to determine the feasibility and functionality of
this design concept. This design alternative would, however, "functional
replacement" within the meaning of the Code of Federal Regulations.
"Southerly Alignment through the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station" Alternative.
Although impacts on Seal Beach residents are virtually ignored in the DEIR/DEIS, if the
information and analysis applied to different areas were equally applied to the City, a
number of.sigrificant project - related impacts would be identified (e.g., displacement and
loss of neighborhood cohesion). As indicated in the DEIR/DDS, "the Naval Weapons Base
planning district makes up the entire area south of 1- 405/SR -22, between Seal Beach
Boulevard and Old Bolsa Chica Road" (p. 3.6-6). The existing use of that area is indicated
as 'prime farmland" (p. 3.6 -11). Since no source is cited for that statement, it is not possible
': -to determine whether the existing agricultural uses now evident within the USNWS is
"prime farmland" or merely al located for an agricultural use.
While acknowledging the loss of 'prime farmlands" may constitute a significant
environmental effect under CEQA, under this alternative only a narrow band of existing
agricultural use would be directly affected. This incremental reduction to a sensitive
resource would likely constitute lesser environmental impact that the destruction of six or
more homes in Seal Beach and either the temporary or permanent displacement of their
occupants. :' k r
Absent from the DEIR/DEIS is any analysis of or explanation for the Lead Agencies' failure
to consider an alternative right -of -way alignment that would involve federal lands within the
USNWS. The City believes that by realigning the proposed improvements to shift the
expanded right -of -way southward, not only would impacts on the City be reduced but
additional right -of -way could be preserved for the future expansion of the 1 -405 Freeway,
identified as a "Post 2020 Long -Range Corridor."
Stale Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 107
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
As authorized under 23 CFR 710.601, "federal land transfers" are authorized through the
submission of an application to a federal land owning agency, such as the United States
Department of the Navy (DON). Applications under this section shall include the following
a information:(i) the purpose for which the lands are to be used; (2) the estate or interest in
the land required for the project; (3) the federal -aid project number or other appropriate
references; (4) the name of the federal agency exercising jurisdiction over the land and
identity of the installation or activity in possession of the land; (5) a map showing the survey
of the lands to be acquired; (6) a legal description of the lands desired; and (7) a statement
of compliance with NEPA and any other applicable federal environmental laws, including
the National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470[fj), and 23 USC 138. Absent from the
DEIR/DEIS is either any reference to these provisions or evidence of the Lead Agencies
discussions with the DON (see Chapter 11.0, pp. 11 -1 through 11 -2) with regards to the
allocation of lands within the USNWS for right -of -way purposes.
The DEIR/DEIS should, therefore, be expanded to include more southerly alignment
through the USNWS. Although dealing with the DON is probably more difficult that
dealing with the City, political expediency does not constitute a supportable basis for
ignoring a viable alternative whose implementation has the possibility of avoiding or
substantially reducing the potential impacts associated with the "build" alternatives now
addressed in the DEIR/DEIS.
m
5.2 Identification of the City's Preferred Project
As indicated in CEQ Forty Questions, "if each agency has its own "preferred alternative," both can
be identified in the EIS" (CEQ Forty Questions, Question 14[hj). In accordance therewith, subject
to its inclusion in the DEIR/DEIS and the Lead Agencies preparation of more detailed environmental
review therein, the City identifies the 'Realignment of Proposed Project — Revised Design Criteria'
Alternative as the City's "preferred alternative." Implementation of that alternative would likely
result in the retention of all single- family residential units located within Seal Beach that are now
identified for displacement in the DEIRIDEIS and that may be displaced in the future as a result of
the future expansion of the 1 -405 Freeways.
Since nothing even approximating this alternative has been identified by the Lead Agencies and
either rejected from or included in the DEIR/DEIS, the project's environmental documentation
needs to be augmented, recirculated, or supplemented to include a comparable evaluation of this
alternative.
6.0 EXTENSION OF THE CITY'S APPRECIATION
The City would like to extend its appreciation to the Lead Agencies for the opportunity to
participate in the NEPA and CEQA process. We look forward to an opportunity for a constructive
dialogue with regards to the items raised herein..
Prior to the release of the final NEPA/CEQA document, the recirculation of the DEIR/DEIS, and/or
the preparation of a supplemental analysis, representatives of the City would like to meet with
representatives of FHWA, Caltrans, and the OCTA to discuss the items and issues raised both in
these comments and as may be submitted under separate cover. The City believes that such a
meeting may prove beneficial in resolving the issues of concern to the City and its constituents.
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 2001
City of Seal Beach Page 108
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
State Route 22 1West Orange County Connector
Draft Environmental Impact ReportlEnvironmental Impact Statement
October 22, 2001
t
ENCLOSURE B
CITY OF SEAL BEACH SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMENTS - DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT, STATE :ROUTE
22/WEST ORANGE COUNTY CONNECTION
- FHWA- EIS- CA- 01- 04 -D /SCH NO. 980604001,
SUBMITTED BY CITY OF SEAL BEACH,
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES, DATED OCTOBER 8, 2001
City commem (.error 10
t
City commem (.error 10
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
STATE ROUTE 22 /WEST ORANGE
COUNTY CONNECTION
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01- 04 -D /SCH NO. 980604001
submitted to:
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Attn: Michael C. Ritchie, Division Administrator
980 Ninth Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, California 95814 -2724
(916) 498 -5038
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DISTRICT 12
Attn: Cindy Quon, District Director
3347 Michaelson Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, Cal ifom i a 92612 -8894
(949) 724 -2089
Submitted by:
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Attn: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
211 Eight Street
Seal Beach, California 90740
(562) 431 -2527
October 8, 2001
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EIS- CA- 01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUBMISSION OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS
1.1 Introduction
In response to the City of Seal Beach's (City of Seal Beach) review of the "Draft
Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Impact Statement - State Route 22/West
Orange County Connection, FHWA - EIS- CA- 01 -04-D /SCH No. 980604001," dated August
2001 (DEIR/DEIS or DEIR/EIS), the City hereby submits the following supplemental
comments to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and to ='the California
Department of Transportation ( Caltrans) in those agencies joint role as °lead agency" under
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
The following comments are submitted to the FHWA (NEPA Lead Agency), to Caltrans
(CEQA Lead Agency), and to the OCTA by the City in response to the City's receipt and
preliminary review of the DEIR/DEIS. These supplemental comments are presented within
the comment period established by the NEPA Lead Agency and CEQA Lead Agency (Lead
Agencies) for the receipt of comments on the DEIR/DEIS and, their submission, are
intended to become part of the environmental review record (ERR) for the proposed
SR22/WOCC project. Any information contained in the ERR can be used by Seal Beach or
others should any judicial proceedings be brought against the Lead Agencies with regard to
their failures to fully comply with the analytical and disclosure provisions of NEPA and
CEQA.
1.2 Submission of Supplemental Comments ._
In accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the following
supplemental comments are presented to the Lead Agencies pursuant to the authority
provided to the City under Sections 21000(e), 21003.1(a), 21082.1(b), 21092.4, and 21153
of CEQA. and Sections 15044, 15084(4, 15086, 15096, 15201, and 15209 of the State
CEQA Guidelines and applicable provisions of the Caltrans/CTC CEQA Regulations and
Caltrans' Environmental Handbook. As public agencies, the Lead Agencies are obligated
under Section 21092.5(a) of CEQA to provide the City with draft written responses to each
of the comments raised or presented herein at least ten days prior to any formal actions by
the Lead Agencies on either the DEIR/DEIS or SR221W0CC project. Presentation of these
and any additional comments that may be submitted under separate cover seek to preserve
the City's rights under Section 21177 of CEQA should such rights need to be subsequently
exercised.
Presented in the following section are a number of "supplemental comments" based on
information presented in the DEIR/DEIS. While, for descriptive purposes, certain sections
of the DEIR/DEIS may be specifically referenced herein, these supplemental. comments
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 8, 2001
City of Seal Beach - Supplemental Comments Page 1
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
should not be perceived as limited to only those document sections explicitly referenced
but should be interpreted as applying or potentially applying to other components of the
Lead Agencies' analysis which relate to the specific supplemental comment being raised.
Although not presented in the form of a specific question, these supplemental comments
are clearly intended to elicit a formal written response from the Lead Agencies.
1.3 Supplemental Comments
Comment 1: Table S.5-1, SUMMARY OF IMPACTS, page?'xiv, does not indicate
any impact to the City of Seal Beach in the 'Community Impacts"
section due to the acquisition of homes within the City. Community
cohesion, as discussed on page 4.6 -3 would seem to indicate the
project would impact the cohesion of College: Park East, even though
Caltrans does not make that determination.
1
While the DEIR/DEIS indicates that "there would be impacts to
community cohesion in five different neighborhoods" (p. 4.6 -4),
totally excluded from the Lead Agencies analysis is the College Park
East neighborhood within Seal Beach. It is highly likely that College
Park East residents would demonstrate a longer tenure than residents
in those multi - family neighborhoods addressed in. the DEIR/DEIS (see
pp. 4.611 and 4.6-5). Since there is no reference to or analysis of that
established area, it is not surprising that the DEIR/DEIS fails to
acknowledge either that project implementation will have a
significant impact thereupon or that mitigation, of any kind, is
'warranted.
Potential. mitigation measures identified in Caltrans' Community
Impact Assessment includ` "shift alignment," "reduce traffic lanes,"
and "reduce right of -wa idth" (Caltrans 'Community Impact
Assessment, p. 52). Why were none of these mitigation measures
identified in the DEIR/DEIS? Why did these possible mitigation
measures not translate into the assessment of different freeway
alignments o:- project alternatives?
Comment 2: , page 1 -12 — "SCAG Regional Transportation Plan" —
re %rence` is to the 1998 RTP, the 2001 RTP has been adopted and
should be referenced, and impacts evaluated against the provisions of
the 2001 RTP. Please refer to the comments provided under Section
3.10 of Enclosure A.
Comment 3: Section 2.4.3, page 2 -19 — The Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center
project has completed environmental review and is under
construction. The ultimate development will consist of approximately
State Route 221West Orange County Connection October B, 2001
City of Seal Beach — Supplemental Comments Page 2
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EIS- CA -01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
287,000 square feet of retail and restaurant uses. Major tenants
include Target; Bed, Bath & Beyond; Ralph's Market; Sav -On Drugs;
Islands Restaurant; and Macaroni Grill. In addition other project
components include a 104-room County Inn by Ayres and a 157 -unit
Sunrise Assisted Living complex for senior citizens.
Comment 4: Section 3.1.2, page 3.1 -3 — Indicate the expected magnitude and "g
force" of the Newport- Inglewood and Whittier faults. Without a
quantification of the "g- force" anticipated, it is uncertain as to whether
standard building code compliance measures would be sufficient to
mitigate seismic impacts to a level of less than significant, or if
construction standards greater than those within the adopted building
codes will be necessary. The Newport- Inglewood Fault is indicated to
have a maximum magnitude of 6.9 and is located within 5 km of the
proposed 1405/1 -605 HOV connectors, according to Map Sheet M -33
of "Maps of Known Active Fault Near - Source Zones in California and
Adjacent Portions of Nevada ", prepared by the California Department
of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology for the..lnternational
Conference of Building Officials, dated February 1998
Comment 5: Section 3.1.4, page 3.1-4 -. Liquefaction the discussion regarding
liquefaction does not include any reference to the maps prepared by
the California Division of Mines and Geology. Maps have been
released indicating areas subject to liquefaction such that mitigation
as defined in Public Resources Code § 2693(c) would be required.
:I The document should be revised to indicate the provisions of the
'Seismic Hazards Mapping Act would apply to all portions of the
proposed project within- the area mapped by the Los Alamitos
Quadrangle Official Map, dated March 25, 1999. In addition, it is
assumed that other portions of the proposed roject are also located
within other map'. quadrangles indicating adStional areas subject to
liquefaction, and those other mapped areas should also be delineated,
evaluated and mitigated.
Comment 6: 'Section 3.2.1.A, page 3.2 -1 — LOCATION — there is no discussion of
' the San. Gabriel River, which is west of the 1 -605 Freeway. Drainage
channels from the 1 -605 and 1405 Freeways eventually enter into the
San Gabriel River either through the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin and
into the river, or directly into the river at other upstream locations
from the retarding basin inlet into the river. Since there is discussion
in Section 3.2.1.6, USE, it would seem appropriate to include a
general description of the river as is done for the Santa Ana River and
Santiago Creek.
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 8, 2001
City of Seal Beach — Supplemental Comments Page 3
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA -01 -04 -D / 5CH No. 98064001
Comment 7: Section 3.2.1.8, last paragraph, page 3.2 -3 — there is no discussion as
to the status of the San Gabriel River as determined by the Los
Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. There should be a
general discussion as to the "impaired' status of the river, and the
chemicals of concern that result in that "impaired' status designation.
Comment 8: Section 3.2.1.C, page 3.2 -3 — end of first paragraph — It is stated that
"Water quality is not sampled within the study area.' This in
incorrect. Water quality sampling has been conducted for many years
in the San Gabriel River at the outfall points of the power plants. The
document should be revised to provide a summary of the water
quality monitoring efforts and the results of that monitoring. The most
recent document the City has on file is "National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System — 1999 Receiving Water Monitoring Report,
Haynes and AES Alamitos L.L.C. Generating Stations, Los Angeles'.
County, 1999 Survey', prepared for Los Angeles Department of Water
and Power, Southern California Edison Company and AES Alamitos
L.L.C. by MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. Please contact MBC
Applied Environmental Science to obtain copies of the appropriate
receiving water quality monitoring reports for use of the information
within those documents in revising this section of the environmental
documentation.
Comment 9: Section 3.2.1.C, page 3.2 -3 — second paragraph, discusses the general
statewide permits that will be complied with under NPDES. Do the
;}.permits issued by the Regional Boards, such as the Santa Ana
Regional Board also apply? If so, will any future construction
activities 'be required to comply with the effective regional water
quality permits at the time of project implementation? Will any future
project construction activities impacting the mouth of the San Gabriel
River comply with Los Angeles Regional Permit requirements since
runoff from the freeway will impact the mouth of the San Gabriel
River, and the mouth of the San Gabriel River is in the jurisdiction of
the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Comment 10: Section 3.6.3, page 3.6 -14 — Reference is to 1990 Census and OCP-
96 throughout the DEIR/DEIS. The Lead Agencies have sought to
utilize 1990 Census and Orange County Projections 96 (OCP -96)
despite the availability of 2000 Census and OCP -2000 information.
As a result, the "baseline' information presented in the DEIR/DEIS
does not reflect current conditions or utilize the most recent data.
Since the current information differs from the set of assumptions upon
which the DEIR/DEIS is based, the Lead Agencies' technical analysis
needs to be revised (updated) and the changes analyzed to determine
Stale Route 22lWest Orange County Connection October B, 2001
City of Seal Beach — Supplemental Comments Page 4
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS-CA -01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
to what extent 2000 Census and OCP -2000 data would alter both the
'baseline' discussion and future needs assessment.
Comment 11: Section 3.7, page 3.7 -1 — discussion references anticipated adoption
of 2001 RTP by SCAG. The 2001 RTP was adopted by SCAG in April
2001, 4 months prior to the release of the subject environmental
document. Utilization of the outdated and no longer applicable 998
RTP is unacceptable. Evaluation of consistency with the RTP must be
in accordance with the current RTP, not one previously in effect.
Again, please also refer to the discussion under Section 3.10 of
Enclosure A.
Comment 12: Table 3.7 -1, 'SR -22 CORRIDOR NO BUILD SCREENLINE
SUMMARY', page 3.7 -2 — this table should be revised to include
information as to the corridor speed by screenline in Km /h and mph.
Comment 13:
Table 3.7 -3, 'YEAR 1996 AND 2020 TRAFFIC DEMAND (NO
BUILD)', page 3.7 -5 — this table indicates future ADT and peak hour
traffic increases of 1.7% and 10.190, respectively. These numbers,
particularly for the ADT;: seem extremely low in "light of the
anticipated increases on the other segments indicated. The table
indicates that the SR -22 will experience an increase of 23,000 ADT at
the Beach Boulevard -Knott Avenue segment, while the 1-405 Freeway
will only experience an ADT increase of 5,700. This seems highly
unlikely, as it would mean that more than 17,000 ADT would exit the
SR -22 between Knott Avenue and Valley View, before entering the I-
405. ' Please provide a. detailed explanation of the information and
concerns discussed.
Table 3.7 -5, 'FREEWAY V/C RATIO AND LEVEL OF SERVICE — YEAR
1996 and YEAR 2020 PEAK HOUR', page 3.7 -7 — This table indicates
the capacity of the HOV lane is assumed at 1,500 vphpl, while on
page 3,7 -6, the document indicates the capacity of the 1 -405/1 -605 and
SR -22/1 -405 connectors are assumed to be 2,300 vphpl and the other
connectors are assumed at 1,500 vphpl. It is unclear as to the use of
different vphpl numbers, and the discrepancy needs to be explained.
In addition, the V/C and LOS for the northbound 1405 seem
extremely understated im comparison to the southbound 1-405 V/C
and LOS figures. It is unclear as to why there is a substantial increase
southbound, even including the HOV lanes, while the northbound
increases are minimal.
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 8, 2001
City of Seal Beach — Supplemental Comments Page 5
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01- 04 -D/ SCH No. 98064001
Comment 1.5: Section 3.8.2.C, page 3.8 -5 — the first paragraph discusses the 1998
SCAG RTP, the 2001 RTP has been adopted and should utilized to
determine compliance, not the 1998 RTP. Refer to Comment 11
above.
In addition, the second paragraph indicates that asbestos will not be
discussed. The City is concerned that asbestos may be a deposited
material on the freeway r-o -w from brake linings, etc. This matter
should be discussed with the Department of Toxic Substances Control
to determine if this is an issue to evaluate further.
Comment 16:
Table 3.9 -2, "EXISTING NOISE LEVELS ", page 3.9-1 — Site 6 -A is not
located within the City of Seal Beach. Correct and revise as
appropriate.
Comment 17:
Section 3.11.3, page 3.11 -1 — The second paragraph indicates ':a
facility in Santa Ana as the "only large -scale water facility located
within the study area '. This is incorrect, the City has a 4 million
gallon reservoir, Beverly Manor Reservoir, located southwest of the 1-
405 Freeway and Seal Beach Boulevard, in :addition toga well and
booster station located on the same property. Provided as an
attachment are excerpts from "City of Seal Beach Water Master Plan
Review', prepared by AKM Consulting Engineers for the City of Seal
Beach, dated April 2000. This provides additional information
regarding these important and essential facilities to the City of Seal
c`Beach..
In addition, Figure 3.11 -1 should be revised to also indicate those
facilities within the study area. There are also three cellular towers
located southerly of the freeway r -o -w at this same location, and an
additional tower along Seal Beach Boulevard behind the Fire Station
that is south of the reservoir facility.
Comment 18.a
Section 3.13.4_?y'Ipage 3.13 -6 — The first paragraph makes a reference
to the U.S. Naval Air Station, the reference should be to the U.S.
Naval Weapons Station.
Comment 19:
Tabl 3.13 -2, "VISUAL RESOURCES*, page 3.13 -9 — There is no
discussion as to the visual resources of the U.S. Naval Weapons
Station, which provides clear views from the 1-405 Freeway to south
of Westminster Avenue, and between the 1- 405/SR -22 interchange
and Seal Beach Boulevard. This viewshed is approximately 9,000 feet
in length and provides an unobstructed view of approximately 1200
Stale Route 22IWest Orange County Connection October 8, 2001
City of Seal Beach - Supplemental Comments Page 6
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS-CA -0I -04-D /SCH No. 98064001
acres of open space lands. There needs to be a discussion as to the
project impacts both to and from this viewshed.
Comment 20: Section 4.1.1.C, page 4.1 -1 — the second paragraph of this section
discusses changes in topography, and that fill or cut slopes would not
exceed that necessary to allow grade separation at interchanges.
There is no indication as to the height of the HOV connectors and the
above- referenced statements seem to be at most incomplete, and at
worst an incomplete discussion of the environmental impacts of this
important element of the proposed project.}, "Draft Preliminary
Engineering Plans" have been available since December 2000 that
provide a great amount of detail as to the location'., height, and
structural design of the HOV connectors. None of this detailed
information is presented in the DEIR/EIS, and the document therefore
is incomplete.
As indicated in the DEIR/DEIS, "this DEIR/EIS includes analysis of the
Full Build Alternative as illustrated on the Preliminary Engineering
Plans, State Route 22, for Project Report and Environmental
Document, in Orange County, From Interstate 605 to State Route 55
(Project Plans) (Parsons Brinckerhoff,.December 2000)' (p. 2 -8). As
indicated, the 'Full .Build .Alternative' is identified as the `Project
Plans." Although the DEIR/DEIS was not released until August 21,
2001, preparation of engineering plans for a single alternative
commenced a year before the document's' release. Similar project -
esign detail was not, however, commenced for any of the other
Malt'
. resented in the DEIR/DEIS.
Section 4. �C, page 4.1 -3' - The discussion indicates that since the ".
..project would include only widening of an existing facility in this
area: it would' not expose people to a new hazard.' There needs to
be a more complete discussion of the seismic impacts of the Newport-
Inglewood and Whittier Faults on the proposed HOV connectors
between the I -605 /1 -405 and 1- 4051SR -22 interchanges. The
construction of elevated HOV connectors is an increased seismic risk
issue that is not even discussed and there is no indication as to the
mitigation measures to be implemented to reduce those risks to an
acceptable level.
Comment 22: Section 4.2.2,
page 4.2 -3 — Quality: This
section
indicates surface
water runoffs
only impact the Santa Ana
River.
Certain drainage
channels that
receive runoff from the 1405 and
1 -605 Freeways
eventually or directly . enter the San Gabriel
River.
The contaminant
levels of the
surface run -off from the
freeway
will contribute
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 8, 2001
City of Seal Beach — Supplemental Comments Page 7
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA -01 -04D /SCH No. 98064001
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 8, 2001
ON of Seal Beach — Suoolemental Comments Page 8
additional pollutant loads to the river, potentially increasing the level
of contamination within the river, and ultimately requiring additional
beach closures with Seal Beach. The analysis of this issue is
completely lacking and the conclusions are unsupported. A thorough
and complete evaluation of additional pollutant loads to the San
Gabriel River and the impact upon the water quality of the river needs
to be completed and re -circulated as part of a new environmental
document for additional public review and comments.
Comment 23:
Table 4.2 -1, 'CHANGES IN FLOODPLAINS — FULL BUILD
ALTERNATIVE ", page 4.2 -7 — Under "Bixby Storm Channel" there is
discussion of the necessity to relocate the Seal Beach Boulevard
northbound on -ramp and the Bixby Channel. There is no further
presentation in the document as to the location and alignment of
these proposed structures and facilities: As part of Bixby Old Ranch'
development immediately adjacent to the northbound on -ramp there
were extensive drainage and hydrology studies conducted to ensure
in new impacts to the storm water drainage facilities of Caltrans. The
City is concerned as to the impacts of the proposed and undefined
relocation of a freeway off -ramp and appurtenant facilities, as our
engineering analysis indicated that the Bixby Channel capacity is not
sufficiently Sized to meet current conditions. !' Provided as an
attachment are excerpts from :"Project Report — Federal Channel
Facility No. C01 S06 ". prepared for County of Orange Public Facilities
& Resources Department by Bryan N1cKinney, Civil Engineer, dated
February 1999. This,. provides additional information regarding these
important and essential facilities to the City of Seal Beach. If the
project proceeds, it is requested that the City have an opportunity to
review and comment on any proposed drainage improvements within
this area to ensure no new impacts upstream on private properties
would be created by the anticipated channel and on -ramp
improvements.
Comment 24.
::.Section 4.2.4, page 4.2 -10 — Mitigation Measure HYD -FB -2 references
the NPDES Statewide permits. Please refer to Comment 9 regarding
the applicability of the regional board permits for the Los Angeles and
Santa Ana boards.
Comment 25:
Section 4.5.5, page 4.5-4 — Mitigation Measure CUL -FB -1 indicates
"Qualified Native American personnel will be appointed and
authorized to monitor earthmoving activities associated with project
construction in the vicinity of previously recorded archaeological
Sites." A qualified archaeologist should also be present during those
earthmoving activities.
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 8, 2001
ON of Seal Beach — Suoolemental Comments Page 8
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
PH WA- EIS- CA -01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
In addition, who determines what is "... in the vicinity of previously
recorded archaeological sites "? An archaeologist should make that
determination upon review of the appropriate documentation at the
appropriate regional information center and concurrence with the
State Historic Preservation Officer. The City of Seal Beach has an
Archaeological Advisory Committee that reviews archaeological
monitoring and testing programs within our community and provides
recommendations as to the adequacy of those programs. It is
requested that the Committee be allowed the opportunity to review
and provide comments on the proposed archaeological /Native
American monitoring program. -
Comment 26: Section 4.6.1.C, page 4.6 -2 — There Is discussion in the Farmland
paragraph that prime farmland occurs within the Naval "Weapons
Station and that this area is not contemplated for acquisition for the
project. The City suggests that although the loss of prime farmland
may not able to be mitigated, neither is the personal . loss of homes
and the emotional damage to those families. CEQA provides for the
use of a "Statement of Overriding Consideration" when substantial
environmental impacts cannot be mitigated. The project proponent's
should carefully consider.,.the significant impacts upon families
residing in residential homes against a potential loss of an unknown
amount of farmland.
Comment 27 Section. 4.6.2.C, page 4.6-4 and 4.65 — The section on Community
Cohesion discusses the. impacts to community cohesion, as defined
on pa g6'-3 on various community areas to be impacted by the
taking of homes THERE IS',NO- DISUSSION AS TO THE IMPACTS
ON COLLEGE PARK EASTIIthough the number of homes may be
small in relation to the other areas identified for acquisition, the
criteria for community cohesion set forth on page 4.6 -3 clearly apply
to this area. The..document needs revision to clearly and forthrightly
address the irrr „s upon the City of Seal Beach and the College Park
t neig or rod regarding this issue.
Comment 28: - 4'.6.3.C, page 4.6 -13 — discusses the specific properties
ideated for acquisition, and utilizes 1999 average property values
for the Seal Beach residences. Given the strong real estate market
between 1999 and 2001, more current property value estimates
should be included, not only for Seal Beach, but all of the properties
indicated for acquisition. The economic impacts of acquisition are
probably understated by a significant amount.
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 8, 2001
City of Seal Beach - Supplemental Comments Page 9
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA -01 -04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
Comment 29: Section 4.6.4.C, page 4.6 -24 — It is indicated that the estimated
property tax loss to Seal Beach is approximately $11,000.00 annually
and is therefore insignificant given the total property tax revenues
received by the City. On an annual basis that is questionable, as the
City has a very small budget surplus and any loss of revenues may
cause a cut -back in necessary services to the public. On a cumulative
basis, the loss becomes more significant, as it results in an ongoing
loss of cumulatively significant funds, including any interest on those
funds, that are no longer available for park and road maintenance
activities funded by the City General Fund.
Comment 30: Table 4.7-4, YEAR 2020 PM PEAK HOUR SCREENLINE
COMPARISON (BOTH DIRECTIONS), page'. 4.7 -7 — This table
indicates a very small increase in volume, approximately 45%,
between the No Build and Full Build alternatives west of the SR-2211-
405 interchange and between Glassell Street and Tustin Avenue.
Those numbers seems incredibly low in comparison to the anticipated
volume increases along the other identified segments of the SR -22
(ranging between 19 and 23%). There needs to be fuller discussion as
to the projections and assumptions that result in this small increase in
volume. The numbers seem to indicate that significant numbers of
drivers are exiting the SR -22 prior to reaching the SR -22/I -405
interchange or Glassell Street- The DEIR/EIS document should
include detailed trip allocation percentages . along the entire freeway
route and at each interchange on the route, including freeway to
freeway interchanges arterial street interchanges. This would
allow interested parties to understand the basic trip allocation
assumptions utilized in the traffic analysis and allow for informed
comments on .those assumptions. If that type of information is
available in the technical appendix, it should be included within the
main DEIR/EISdocument so that a general reader of the document
does not have to search extensively to obtain a clear and concise
understanding . of those assumptions.
Comment 31: ection 4.8,2:C and D, page 4.8-4 — it is indicated in both sections
the,2001 RTP is scheduled for adoption in April 2001. The 2001
RT Ss een adopted, and all evaluation of consistency with the RTP
should`be revised and re- circulated for public review and comment in
light of the adopted provisions of the 2001 RTP. The consistency
evaluation is not accurate when done against an RTP that has been
superceded and no longer applicable. Also refer to Comment 2,
above, and to the comment provided under Section 3.10 of Enclosure
A.
State Route 22/ West Orange County Connection October 8, 2001
City of Seal Beach — Supplemental Comments Page 10
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FI-WA- EIS-CA -01- 04 -D /SCH No. 98064001
Comment 32:
Section 4.8.6.C, page 4.8 -11 — It is indicated that the Full Build and
Reduced Build alternatives would create regional air quality impacts
that cannot be mitigated on an individual project level. It is further
indicated that the Full Build and Reduced Build Alternatives would
need to be included in the next RTP update. It is unclear if the "next
RTP update" is the 2001 or 2004 RTP. This should be clarified, and if
the reference is to the 2001 RTP, the document should indicate if the
project is consistent with the 2001 RTP, as the 2001 RTP was adopted
4 months prior to the release of the subject DEIR/EIS.
Comment 33:
Section 4.9.1, page 4.1 -1 — the second paragraph from the bottom of
the page indicates Caltrans defined traffic noise impact criteria as
when existing noise levels are exceeded. by 12dBA or more, or when
predicted noise levels approach (come within one HAI or exceed the
NAC. There is no discussion as to noise impacts to adjoining
properties in comparison to the impacted local government's noise
standards and any adopted local thresholds of significance. The
Noise section is incomplete and not compliant with the provisions of
CEQA until those evaluations and proposed mitigation measures have
been included, and recirculated for public review and comment.
Comment 34:
Table 4.9 -2 and 4.9-4, "EXITING AND FUTURE NOISE LEVELS —
FULL BUILD ALTERNATIVE" and "EXISTING AND FUTURE NOISE
LEVELS — REDUCED BUILD ALTERN'ATIVE', page 4.9 -3 and 4.9 -7 —
AII monitored` noise locations' - within Seal Beach are adversely
.impacted by the proposed project in accordance with the Caltrans
noise criteria indicated on page 4.1 -1. It is unclear as to if these noise
projections fully account for additional HOV connector noise
generation characteristics. It is assumed that the HOV Connectors at
1 -405/1 -605 and 1- 105 /SR -2'2 are to be elevated above existing elevated
connecting ramps and those designs are not provided within the
DORMS document.
'-
Without an understandable presentation of the length and height of all
-
freeway -to- freeway HOV connectors, it is impossible for impacted
jurisdictions and individuals to adequately understand the full nature
of the contemplated project. Without a full and complete disclosure
of Ifiee important project design details the document is flawed. This
'
information needs to be presented within the DEIR/EIS and re-
circulated for public review and comment. Noise, light, and glare
mitigation measures set forth in the DEIR/EIS may be totally
inadequate in reducing these impacts from substantial numbers of
vehicles utilizing the HOV connectors upon adjoining properties and
neighborhoods.
Slate Route 22lWeA Orange County Connection October 8, 2001
City of Seal Beach — Supplemental Comments Page 11
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA- 01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
Comment 35: Section 4.9.2, page 4.9 -10 — For both the Full Build and Reduced
Build alternatives it is indicated that "These increases in noise levels
are expected to have less than significant impacts to the areas listed
above." This conclusion is unsupported by the information in Tables
4.9 -2 and 4.9-4. Please see the discussion immediately above under
Comment 34.
Comment 36:
Section 4.9.4, page 4.9 -12 — This section discusses the cost/benefit
analysis procedure utilized by Caltrans to determine if the provision of
a noise wall as sound mitigation is "feasible". Anumber of criteria
are discussed. It is also indicated that "As more information such as
topographic surveys becomes available, the.. reasonable allowance for
each wall will be recalculated during the design phase and if the cost
of any wall is not reasonable, they might be eliminated from this
project." This clearly indicates that committed mitigation measures
within the DEIR/EIS may not remain as a commitment. If that is the
case, the analysis should be revised to provide an analysis of each
proposed sound wall if it.. is eliminated, . and the resultant noise
impacts to adjacent and nearby properties. The document should be
revised and re-circulated for public review and comments with this
new information provided. It in unrealistic to indicate that necessary
mitigation measures to eliminate a known and identified substantial
adverse impact would be eliminated based on cost/benefit analysis.
The analysis also indicates that the highest noise barrier proposed is
16 feet. high. The analysis does not indicate the noise reduction
provided if a higher wall system is provided by the use of retaining
walls, topological ground revisions, etc. These alternatives should be
and discussed as the potential reduction in noise levels that
A
evaluated
may be created by these design alternatives may reduce noise levels
in amount to reduce a significant impact to a less than significant
an
"
impact.
Comment 37:
- Section 4.9.4, page 4.9 -13 — Mitigation Measure NOI -FB -1 indicates
that the majority of proposed noise barriers have been determined to
be reasonable, based on a maximum height of 16 feet. This
mitigation measure indicates the height of the proposed noise barriers
as 4.7 meters, while Table 4.9 -7 and Table 4.9 -10 indicates the height
of new sound barrier walls at 4.9 meters. The inconsistency should
be corrected.
Comment 38:
Table 4.9 -7 "EXISTING, PREDICTED, AND ABATED FUTURE N0I5E
LEVLELS FOR FULL BUILD ALTERNATIVE" and Table 4.9 -10
Stale Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 8, 2001
rrr„ ,.a Soil Raarh — Suoolemental Comments Page 12
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EIS- CA -01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
'EXISTING, PREDICTED, AND ABATED FUTURE NOISE LEVLELS
FOR REDUCED BUILD ALTERNATIVE pages 4.9 -14-17 and 4.9 -21-
24, respectively. Both of these tables indicate that the existing noise
barriers in Seal Beach will not be increased in height since the
anticipated noise reduction by so doing is less than SdBA. The height
of the noise barrier at location 3 is only 14 feet. An analysis of the
noise reduction at this location is not specified in the DEIR/EIS. It
requested that the analysis for this location, and other locations within
the project area that are less than 16 -feet in height, be included within
the DEIR/EIS. This analysis and the determinations ';'to support the
conclusion of no additional noise mitigation should be clearly and
specifically set forth. That information will allow the impacted local
jurisdictions and adjoining property'' owners to fully understand the
criteria utilized by Cdltrans in determining . that less than a SdBA
reduction is not feasible. Unless this information is clearly presented,
the document is unacceptable and should be revised and re- circulated
for additional public review and comment.
Further, it is believed that the majority of the existing noise barriers
not slated for replacement may not comply with current state- of -the-
art seismic design standards. An analysis of these potentially
dangerous structures should be provided within Section 4.1, Geology
and Soils. If these structures are determined to be a significant
seismic risk, they should be replaced or strengthened at the time of
the construction of the project improve'merlts. This is particularly
important if the project construction`acttvities such as vibration and
earth movement would adversely impact the structural integrity of
these old noise barriers..
9: Table 4.9 -9; LOCAL NOISE ORDINANCE CONSTRUCTION
ABATEMENT /MITIGATION ", page 4.9 -20 — This table indicates the
hours of allowable construction activity within each city impacted by
the proposed project. Seal Beach has recently amended its noise
ordinance, and the allowable hours on Saturday are now 8 AM to 8
-Rm. All otfierhours remain as stated. Please correct.
Comment 40: Sed;WA4, page 4.9 -20 — Mitigation Measure NOI -FB -11 indicates
that community meetings will be held to explain to area residents the
construction work, time involved, and control measures to be taken.
It is requested that for the City of Seal Beach these community
meetings begin with a review of the draft work program, proposed
time schedules, and proposed control measures. The community
should have an opportunity to provide comments and suggestions on
State Route 22 /west Orange County Connection October 8, 2001
City of Seal Beach - Supplemental Comments Page 13
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
the proposed program prior to finalization and not just be informed as
to what will happen.
Comment 41:
Section 4.9.5, page 4.9 -26 — The document determines that there will
be no impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to less than substantial,
as defined by Caltrans (i.e., a 12 dBA increase). There is no
discussion as to noise threshold of significance levels that may be
utilized by other local jurisdictions in evaluating significant traffic
noise impacts. Seal Beach has codified an exterior noise level of
55dBA for residential development pursuant to Section) I3D -5 of the
Code of the City of Seal Beach. Other cities within the project area
probably have different outdoor noise standards codified. The
DEIR/EIS analysis is incomplete unless there is an evaluation of the
anticipated noise impacts of the project against each local
jurisdiction's noise standards. The document should be revised and
re- circulated for local jurisdiction and interested public review, , pfth'e'
eviewof..th'e'
discussed noise impacts.
A 12dBA increase in sound levels is comparable of the difference of
sound generation at 50 feet by a pump and a jackhammer. This is a
significant noise level increase that is readily discernible to the normal
person. Within Seal Beach an increase in 3dBA -is considered to be
Significant enough to require evaluation in an environmental
document. Other cities again may utilize" different threshold of
significance criteria in evaluating noise impacts of a proposed project.
Comment 42:
r.':
ecuon 4.9.3.C, page 4.9 -27 — The document indicates that a final
nois e assessment analysis will be conducted and that a final decision
on the installation of noise abatement measures will be made upon
<
completion of the project design and the public involvement process.
Since the project as proposed will not reduce exterior noise levels
within the criteria' acceptable to the City, it is requested that additional
noise mitigation measures such as additional insulation and double -
:;.pane windows be provided to all homes within the determined 65
'.CNEL impact zone. These noise mitigation measures should be
provided at no cost to the subject resident and completed prior to the
initiation of construction work. This will provide for additional noise
relief to the impacted resident's during the construction period.
Comment 43:
Section 4.9.5.C, page 4.9 -28 — The document indicates that the Full
Build alternative may involve pile driving and/or crack and seal
pavement rehabilitation and that substantial short-term construction
impacts would occur. There is no delineation as to the areas along
the project that these construction methods may be necessary to
Slate Route 22fWest Orange County Connection October 8, 2001
City of Seal Beach — Supplemental
Comments Page 14
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA- EIS- CA -01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
utilize, so it is impossible for a commenting party to indicate a
legitimate concern.
Therefore the document should be revised to indicate those areas
anticipated for this type of construction activity and provide certain
mitigation measures, i.e., no such construction activities between
5:00 PM and 8:00 AM, Monday through Friday and no such
construction activity on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays. In addition,
an inspection of each residence within 300 feet of the area proposed
for this construction shall occur prior tq'the start of such activity to
document all exterior building conditions. The project contractors
should be held responsible to repair all structural damage and
cosmetic damage to stucco in excess 'of%" cracks to structures and all
windows and doors that are knocked out of alignment as a result of
these construction activities.
Comment 44: Figure 4.9 -1B and Figure 4.9 -2B — Both figures indicate that a new
sound wall is to be constructed from the easterly City boundary to
approximately the mid -point of Almond Park on the north side of the
1-405 freeway. Due to` seismic safety concerns regarding the
identified non -state wall from this point to Blue Bell Park, the City
requests that the non- state,walls be removed and replaced with new
sound barriers in the same" configuration as proposed for NB -2 sound
barrier.
Comment 45. Section 4.10.1C, page 4.10 -1 — Old Ranch Tennis Club and Blue Bell
Park. For both of these facilities it is indicated that the existing noise
barriers would remain in place, as the existing barriers are the highest
=t •, ' generally available. As indicated previously, it is believed that the
majority of the existing noise barriers not slated for replacement may
not comply with current state -of -the -art seismic design standards. An
analysis of these potentially dangerous structures should be provided
within Section 4.1, Geology and Soils. If these structures are
determined to be a significant seismic risk, they should be replaced or
rengthened.; at the time of the construction of the project
In addition, there is no noise barrier between the 1 -405 Freeway and
the majority of the Tennis Club property. The City requests that
Caltrans provide a noise barrier consistent with that proposed for NB-
C along the entire length of the Tennis Club property.
Comment 46: Section 4.10.1C, page 4.10 -1 — Almond Park. It is indicated that
substantial visual impacts would occur due to the loss of homes
State Route 22/west Orange County Connection October 8, 2001
City of Seal Beach - Supplemental Comments Page 15
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01 -04 -1 No. 98064001
adjacent to Almond Park. If the residences are acquired and the
properties cleared, Caltrans should be responsible for development of
an appropriate open space utilization plan and long -term maintenance
program for those properties. The maintenance program
responsibilities could be met by the provision of an annuity or other
financial mechanism to provide a long -term revenue source to
provide the required maintenance funding.
Comment 47:
Table 4.11 -1 and Table 4.11 -2 — Both tables' indicate that there will
impacts within Seal Beach to Southern California Edison (SCE),
Southern California Gas (SCG), water; sewer and communications
facilities at various locations within the community. These tables also
indicate impacts to identified "high -risk facilities" at the SCE
Substation at Beverly Manor. Road; two 116 -inch SCG lines in Beverly
Manor Road; one 10 -inch, two 16 -inch, and one 34 -inch SCG lines` -
between the U.S. Naval Weapons Station and southbound (1 -4,05
Freeway. There is no explanation as to what aspects of the proposed
project would result in these impacts, as there are no right -of -way
acquisitions indicated in these areas within the DEIR/EIS..:It is unclear
from the DEIR/EIS as to the location of these facilities, are they located
within existing freeway rights -of -ways?
If in fact right-of-way acquisitions are contemplated that would impact the
indicated utility facilities it is then unclear as to what the impacts may be
to the City of Seal Beach facilities within the triangular property located at
Seal Beach Boulevard, Beverly Manor Road, and the southbound 1-405
Freeway rightof -way; as indicated under Section 3.11.3, page 3.11 -1,
above.
These potential impacts to City and other utility facilities need to be
•'
thoroughly discussed, evaluated, and mitigated within a revised and
re- circulated environmental document.
Comment 48: Section 4.125.C, page 4.12 -13 — Mitigation Measure HAZ -FB -1. This
> mitigation measure requires the preparation of a Phase I Initial Site
Assessment (ISA) for each property proposed for acquisition. The City
of Seal Beach requests the capability to have a 30-day review and
comment period on the "draft" versions of all Phase I ISA's prepared
for properties within Seal Beach prior to approval of the final Phase I
ISA. In addition, the mitigation measure should be revised to indicate
this provision and also indicate the other agencies that will review
these documents, i.e., DTSC, Cal -EPA, SCAQMD, Orange County
Environmental Health Agency, local jurisdictions, etc.
Slate Route 22/west Orange County Connection October 8, 2001
City of Seal Beach — Supplemental Comments Page 16
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA -01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
Further, the City of Seal Beach requests the ability to review and
provide comments on "draft" versions of all site - specific health and
safety plans, site specific contaminant management plans and general
construction contingency plans for all City-owned sites and for all
utility facilities impacted within local city public rights -of -ways.
Comment 49:
Section 4.12.5.C, page 4.12 -15 — Mitigation Measure HAZ -FB -6. It is
requested that the language of this condition be revised to indicate
that "demolition permits" will be obtained from the appropriate local
jurisdiction for all structures acquired and demolished as a
component of project implementation, and that such demolition
permit will not be issued until the. appropriate asbestos report or
clearance report is submitted to the local jurisdiction.
Comment 50:
Section 4.12.5.C, page 4.12 -16 — Mitigation Measure HAZ -FB -8. The
City of Seal Beach requests the ability to review and provide
comments on "draft" versions all reports regarding aerially
deposited lead (ADL) within the City boundaries.
Comment 51:
Section 4.13.1, page 4.13-1 — The last paragraph indicates that the
'Suburban Key Viewpoiry. represents one of the most adverse visual
impacts that wou W tom the Full Build ,Alternative. It is
"res
requested that a a itional "Suburban Key Viewpoint" be developed
to indicate the We (ore and after views from Almond Park easterly
towards the "5Uo46s identified for ..acquisition and the relocation of
'.Almond Avenue and the proposed new noise barrier. This viewpoint
would seem to have much greater visual impacts that the presented
r
"Suburban; Key Viewpoint" in Figure 4.13 -1 on page 4.13 -2.
z
Comnte..
52:
Section 4.13. 1, page 4.1 3 6, View from the Freeway — This section
discusses views .'along the mainline of the freeway after project
implementation and provides at Figure 4.13 -4 a view simulation of a
„
typical view along the mainline travel route. It is requested that a
view simulation be provided from both directions of all freeway -to-
.ne�eway HOV connectors. In reviewing this section of the DEIR/EIS
Were Is no definitive discussion as to the height, length, beginning
and ending points of any of these connectors. It is unbelievable that
the document does not discuss the impacts of what would seem to be
extensive elevated structures necessary to provide the proposed
freeway -to- freeway HOV connectors throughout the entire project
length. Based on those view simulations it may appropriate to
provide a view simulation from: the rear yards of homes along Martha
Ann in Rossmoor; the Seal Beach Boulevard overpass at the 1-405
State Route 22 /We# Orange County Connection October 8, 2001
City of Seal Beach - Supplemental Comments Page 1
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01 -04 -D / SCH No. 98064001
towards the 1 -406/1 -605 HOV connectors; and from Bolsa Chica Road
north towards the 1- 405/SR -22 HOV connectors.
Comment 53:
Section 4.13.3.C, page 4.13 -12 — It is indicated that removal of
nearby houses would result in substantial and adverse visual impacts
if the resulting open space were not well maintained. If the
residences are acquired and the properties cleared, Caltrans should be
responsible for development of an appropriate open space utilization
plan and long -term maintenance program for those properties, with
approval of the plans and financing programs by the City. The
maintenance program responsibilities could be met by the provision
of an annuity or other financial mechanism to provide a long -term
revenue source to provide the required maintenance funding.
Comment 54:
Section 4.13.4.C, page 4.13 -16 — the discussion under the Full Build..
Alternative indicates that improvements to the 1 -405 /Seal !Beach
Boulevard interchange would result in a decrease in the amount of
landscaping in this area. The Document should be revised to clearly
indicate the nature and extent of the improvements, preferably with a
visual simulation of the impacted area in an existing and proposed
configuration.
Comment 55:
Table 4.13 -4, IMPACTS TO VISUAL RESOURCES IDENTIFIED IN
POLICY DOCUMENTS — FULL BUILD ALTERNATIVE, page 4.13 -16
— This table identifies four visual resources identified in various city
policy documents that would experience reductions in visual quality
due to the proposed project. A visual simulation should be provided
for each of the identified locations for the existing and proposed
environment, and those visual simulations should be referenced in the
discussion regarding the Reduced Build Alternative.
Comment 56:
Section 4.13.4, page 4.13 -22 — The "Thresholds of Significance for
CEQA° criteria does not include "inconsistency with local City
General Plans". lr' This should be added as a threshold and all
`. subsequent evaluations should analyze the impacts of the proposed
project with the provisions of the appropriate local community
General Plan provisions.
Comment 57: Section 4.13.5, page 4.13 -24 — It is indicated that a loss of 66 percent
of existing freeway vegetation under the Full Build Alternative is
"potentially significant ". It would appear that a loss of 66 percent is
more than potentially significant. This impact should be indicated as
significant and unavoidable and so indicated within the document.
This issue may require re- circulation.
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 8, 2001
City of Seal Beach — Supplemental Comments Page 18
braft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA -01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
Comment 58: Section 4.13.8, page 4.13 -29 - Mitigation Measures VIS -FB -1, VIS -FB-
3, and VIS -FB-4 should be revised to clearly indicate as follows:
• VIS -FB -1 - This measure should be revised to indicate that
Caltrans should be responsible for development of an appropriate
open space utilization plan and long -term maintenance program
for those properties, with approval of the plans and financing
programs by the City. The maintenance program responsibilities
could be met by the provision of an annuity or other financial
mechanism to provide a long - term .. revenue source to provide the
required maintenance funding.
• VIS -FB -3 - This measure should'' be revised to indicate Caltrans
should be responsible for the proposed landscaping outside of
Caltrans rights-of-ways. This should include development of an
appropriate open space- utilization ;plan and Ion-term
maintenance program for those properties, with approval `of. the
plans and financing programs by the impacted City. The
maintenance program responsibilities could be met by the
provision of an annuity or other financial mechanism to provide a
Jong -term revenue source to provide the required maintenance
funding. For modifications to existing Caltrans rights -of -ways, the
impacted city should have the capability to review and provide
comments on the proposed re.fandscaping plans. -
❑ VIS -FBAv. Same comments above as related to landscape
proposal's for olse barrier walls..
'N
Comment 59 ° Section 4.13.8, page 4- 1.3 -30 - Mitigation Measures VIS -FB -7, VIS -FB-
9, and VIS -FB -10 should be revised to clearly indicate that all
y,, proposals for additional landscape or other visual enhancement
,;y treatments shall be reviewed and commented upon by the local
., jurisdiction priorto final plan approval by Caltrans or OCTA.
nenf (2)
Attachmen 1 '., Excdro s from "City of Seal Beach Water Master Plan Review ",
re red by AKM Consulting Engineers for the City of Seal
ch, dated April 2000
Attachment 2: Excerpts from "Project Report - Federal Channel Facility No.
CO1S06 °. prepared for County of Orange Public Facilities &
Resources Department by Bryan McKinney, Civil Engineer,
dated February 1999
Stale Route 22IWest Orange County Connection October 8, 2001
City of Seal Beach - Supplemental Comments Page 19
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FH WA- EIS- CA -01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
ATTACHMENT 1
EXCERPTS FROM "CITY OF SEAL BEACH WATER
State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection October 8, 2001
City of Seal Beach — Supplemental Comments Page 20
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
WATER MASTER PLAN I '
y
Prepared for
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
2'11 8"i Street
Sea! Beach, California 90740
-�
Prepared by
AKM CONSULTING ENGINEERS
101 Paclfioa, Suits 180
Irvine, California 92618
(949) 758 -7333
April 2000
Mi;sv
i.''
SECTION 11
EXISTING SYSTEM
The City of Seal Beach provides service to approximately 7400 acres within the corporate
boundaries of the City. Rossmoor Shopping Center, although within the City corporate boundaries,
is served by Southern California Water Company. The Leisure World Retirement Community, with
3472 dwelling units, are served through a single master meter. The City maintains the water
distribution facilities and the fire hydrants within the Leisure World.
The City's water system consists of transmission and distribution mains, two storage reservoirs, two
booster pumping stations, and three currently producing groundwater wells.
II -A SOURCES OF SUPPLY
The City has local access to groundwater and imported Metropolitan Water District (MWD) supplies.
The local groundwater production as a percentage of total demand is controlled by the Orange
County Water District by means of the Basin Production Percentage. This percentage can be
exceeded but there are significant levies in the form of Basin Production Assessment for the excess
production. The Basin Production Percentage is currently set at 75 percent.
• Imported Water — The imported water is supplied by OC -35 Connection to MWD system
through the Municipal Water District of Orange County ( MWDOC) located at Springdale Street
and Westminster Avenue. This is a shared facility with City of Huntington Beach. Huntington
Beach operates the connection and communicates with MWDOC and MWD for the requested
flows. The maximum flow capacity for Seal Beach is 2.6 million gallons per day (MGD).
• Beverly Manor Well — The well, constructed in 1969, is housed in an enclosed building along
side the two booster pumps referred to as the Beverly Manor Booster. The well pump, driven by
a natural gas engine, pumps directly into the Beverly Manor Reservoir. It has a capacity of
2000 gpm. Well water is chlorinated at the reservoir inlet by means of a gas chlorinator, which
is budgeted for replacement with a hypochlorite generator -type disinfection unit during the
current fiscal year.
• Bolsa Chica Well — This well, constructed in 1979, is located on Boise Chico Road south of the
San Diego Freeway. The well pump can be driven with an electric motor as well as a natural
gas engine. The well discharge pressure is maintained by varying the speed of electric motor
by means of Toshiba Variable Frequency Drive or by a Murphy controller acting on the natural
gas engine. The maximum output into the distribution system is 2800 gpm at 68 psi. The well
water is disinfected by a newly installed Chlor -Tech hypochlorite generating unit.
€J Leisure World Well - Leisure World Well is located behind a fenced enclosure in Leisure World
on Beverly Manor Road. Well pump is electrical motor - driven. The City has an existing time -of-
use agreement with Southern California Edison Company for cost savings. The well pumps into
Beverly Manor Reservoir but has the ability to pump directly into the Leisure World Distribution
System. Review of pump curves indicate neither condition is at optimum efficiency. Existing
surge tank at the site is not operational and the compressor has been removed. A new flow
meter has recently been installed. The well output is chlorinated by chlorine gas evaporator at
the site.
I
CITY OF SEAL BEACH I -1
set WATER MASTER PLAN REVIEWm
�•Ij )(Aorta City of seal Oewh%waer Master Plan (4-00)
EXISTING SYSTEM
• Navy Booster Station - The Navy Reservoir Booster Station pressurizes the distribution
system, taking suction from the Navy Reservoir, and has three (3) horizontal split -case pumps
each driven by 75 HP electrical motors. The design capacity of each pump is 1250 gpm at 55
psi. Lead and lag pumps are rotated. The pump control is by means of an archaic speed
controller and Murphy pressure gauge. The control panel and pump controller unit is very old
vintage. Various modifications and revisions apparently were made over the years and can be
observed from numerous old and new relays and different types of wiring. The pumps and
piping appear to be reasonably well maintained. Pressure recorders are a few generations old.
Pump control system is archaic. It should be upgraded to Programmable Logic Control (PLC)
as soon as possible considering the importance of this station to the system. There are also
reported problems with the three (3) inlet valves (gate -type) into the station, which may have to
{� be replaced.
• Beverly Manor Booster Station — Beverly Manor Booster Station is situated in the same
building as the Beverly Manor Well. There are two vertical turbine pumps with a rated capacity
of 1400 gpm at 65 psi each driven by natural gas engines. The station takes suction from
Beverly Manor Reservoir and boost water to system pressure. The pumps are controlled by
Murphy gauges, which vary the engine speed to meet set discharge (system) pressures.
II -C RESERVOIRS
Navy Reservoir — The Navy Reservoir is an aboveground steel structure constructed in 1963.
The reservoir water level is not at the system hydraulic gradient. The water system is a closed
system without -a free -water surface. Navy Reservoir acts as forebay for the Navy. Booster
Station. When system demand drops and system pressure builds an altitude valve at the
Reservoir inlet opens and allows excess supply to be stored in the Reservoir. Reservoir inlet
and outlet piping and valves do not meet current seismic standards. The reservoir access
hatch appears to be only 20 -inch diameter. The tank is 32 feet high with overflow at 31.5. It is
reported that the water level is maintained at about 22 feet. There are reported problems with
the two (2) inlet (plug -type) and the outlet (plug -type) valves, which may require replacement.
The Reservoir is cathodically -protected. The City has retained HARCO to annually inspect the
impressed current type cathodic protection system. Reservoir has not been painted since 1984
when repairs to interior coating were made. The City hires divers to inspect the interior
periodically. The latest diver report indicates serious corrosion problems related to
coating failure on the interior walls and the floor of the Navy Reservoir. Corrosion
protection is only provided by the cathodic protection system, which is considered to be
supplemental rather than primary means of protection.
- Beverly Manor Reservoir — The reservoir was constructed in 1969 and has a storage capacity
of 4.0 MG. It is located next to the Beverly Manor Well and Booster Pump Station. It stores the
ground water pumped from Leisure World Well and Beverly Manor Well, and acts as forebay for
_ the Beverly Manor Booster Station. The in- ground Reservoir has 14 -foot vertical sides
constructed from concrete and thick rubber lined bottom. It is covered by rigid metal roof. The
Reservoir overflow is at 13.5 ft. from the floor. The system operators maintain a maximum
elevation of 12 feet above the floor. Water coming into and going out of the Reservoir is
disinfected by means of existing gas chlorinators. The inlet and outlet piping, along with
other structural elements of the reservoir, should be upgraded to current seismic
standards.
CITY OF SEAL R BEACH
PLAN I -3 p
WATER MASTER PLAN REVIEW 9'-
X. %11s ,�, of Seai Beacn \wafer Maser Pw 14 -0QI
brah Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA - EIS- CA -01 -04-D / SCH No. 98064001
ATTACHMENT 2
EXCERPTS FROM "PROJECT REPORT - FEDERAL
CHANNEL FACILITY NO. C01S06 ". PREPARED FOR
COUNTY OF ORANGE PUBLIC FACILITIES &
RESOURCES DEPARTMENT BY BRYAN MCKINNEY,
CIVIL ENGINEER, DATED FEBRUARY 1999
11ik.'
State Route 22/West Orange County Connection October 8, 2001
City of Seal Beach — Supplemental Comments Page 21
COUNTY OF ORANGE
PUBLIC FACILITIES & RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
VICKI L. WILSON, DIRECTOR
:1 11. '1111 ly'llill'obju. Wa 1:
H. I. NAKASONE, MANAGER PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT DMSION
PROJECT REPORT
FEDERAL CHANNEL
FACILITY NO. C01S06
FROM LOS ALAMITOS CHANNEL (C01)
TO
THE GARDEN GROVE FREEWAY
PREPARED BY
BRYAN MCKINNEY, CIVIL ENGINEER
FEBRUARY 1999
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CHARLES SMITH TODD SPITZER
FIRST DISTRICT THIRD DISTRICT
JAMES SILVA CYNTHIA COAD
SECOND DISTRICT FOURTH DISTRICT
THOMAS W. WILSON
FIFTH DISTRICT
2. INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
This project report will analyze CO IS06 from its confluence with COI to the Garden Grove Freeway and recommend
improvements to the system. There are three primary functions of this report: (1) to analyze the existing channel and to
determine its hydraulic capacity; (2) to develop and analyze various channel alternatives necessary to safely convey the
project's design discharge and to provide flood protection for adjacent properties and homeowners and (3) to develop a
construction phasing plan. The phasing plan will discuss the timing of the construction of the improvements
recommended for Federal Charnel as they relate to the improvements recommended for Los Alamitos Channel and
the other channels tributary to COI.
Objectives for this report are:
A. Discuss the background and existing condition of the channel.
B. Discuss the engineering criteria used for the analysis, and the hydrologic, hydraulic, geotechnical, structural
and the environmental considerations.
C. Discuss past agreements and right -of -way requirements and recommend scheduling of the construction.
D. Provide preliminary cost estimates based on present dollar value.
E. Address local drainage, maintenance and utility concerns.
F. Identify necessary elements to prepare contract documents for construction of channel improvements.
G. Finally, Present conclusions and recommendations for ultimate improvements.
This report will serve as a guideline to be used as a basis of design and a means of coordination with other agencies. It
will also assist the City Engineers' Flood Control Advisory Committee (CEFCAC) in making budgetary decisions.
3. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
3.1 History
COIS06 was constructed in two phases. The first phase was constructed in 1961 as part of the improvements for Leisure
World (Tract No. 4337) in the City of Seal Beach. Phase 1 of the channel originates at Seal Beach Boulevard and
extends downstream approximately 5,400 feet to its terminus at C01, where a drop structure was constructed. This
portion of C01 S06 was built along the same alignment as an exiting Nary drainage ditch that extended in a straight line
to the existing crossing of the 22 Freeway.
Phase II of the channel was constructed in 1966 as part of improvements for Tract No. 5699. The channel originates as
Seal Beach Boulevard and extends upstream approximately 4,400 feet to the Garden Grove (22) Freeway, where itjoins
an existing double barrel RCB that goes under the freeway.
-5-
Both phases were originally designed to convey a 25 -year discharge. The drainage patterns prior to the channel
construction were very similar to the post channel patterns to due the drainage ditches installed by the Navy to drain the
Naval Weapons Station.
In 19692 the triple 8'x 4' RCB at Seal Beach Boulevard was extended by 35 feet as part of a project by the City of Seal
Beach to improve Seal Beach Boulevard.
in 1973, the City of Seal Beach approved the construction of a double barrel 12' x 7' RCB for the Cedar Crest Lane
crossing of COIS06 within the community of Leisure World.
During the recent storm of January 4, 1995, COIS06 water levels rose and flooding occurred at Westminster Avenue and
upstream within Leisure World. 26 apartment buildings and other structures within Leisure World experienced flooding
with depths of water up to 3 feet. The estimated damage within Leisure World was l million to 2 million dollars.
Flooding problems were also experienced in College Park East in the City of Seal Beach due to the inability of local
drainage to drain into the Old Ranch Golf Course.
3.2 Background
Between COI and Westminster Avenue, the channel is an earthen trapezoidal section with a base width of 12 feet and a
height of 12.5 feet. Upstream of Westminster Avenue, the water goes through three 96" Corrugated
Metal Pipes (CMPs). Between the CMPs and Seal Beach Boulevard, the channel is a concrete lined trapezoidal section
with 1.5:1 side slopes. The base width is 12 feet and the height varies from 7 feet to 9 feet. There are box culvert
crossings at El Dorado. Drive, Cedar Crest Lane, St. Andrews Drive, Burning Tree Lane and Del Monte Drive within the
Leisure World area. At Seal Beach Boulevard, a triple barrel S' x 4' RCB was constructed.
Upstream of Seal Beach Boulevard, the channel is an earthen trapezoidal section with 1.5:1 side slopes. The base width
is 12 feet and the height varies from 6 feet to 7 feet. C01 S06 confluences with the existing Navy Channel just upstream
of Seal Beach Boulevard.
33 Previous Studies
No previous studies have been performed on this channel.
4. ALTERNATIVES
4.1 Do Nothing Alternative
This alternative consists of leaving the channel in its existing condition. No improvement would be constructed or
changes made to the watershed drainage patterns. COI S06 would continue to flow with approximately 0.5 feet of
freeboard in the downstream reach adjacent to Leisure World during the 100 -year storm events. In the upstream reach of
COI S06 there would be no freeboard. While this alternative would be the least costly in time and money, it does not
meet OCFCD's goal of providing ultimate 100 -year flood protection.
-6-
5.3 Local Drainage
There are numerous medium and small inlets. A comprehensive list of the local drainage structures was generated using
information gathered from the as -built plans for COI S06, and from records of permit applications. The list of local
drainage structures is included as Appendix A.
There are no committed water surface elevations on COI S06.
5.4 Hydraulics
The computer models used for the hydraulic analysis were the Los Angeles Counry Flood Control District "Water
Surface and Pressure Gradient" (WSPG) Hydraulic Analysis Program FOS 15P, and the Army Corps of Engineers
HEC -RAS Hydraulic Analysis Program.
Hydraulic analyses were based on the assumption that local drainage improvements are adequate. The values used for
Manning's "n" are consistent with the County of Orange Design Manual.
5.4.1 Existing Condition
COIS06 was originally designed to convey approximately a 25 -year discharge. Due to the extreme flatness of the slope
of the channel, CO I S66 is a sub - critical channel. The water surface control is located at the downstream end of the
channel at its confluence with CO 1. Due to the proximity of the confluence with COI to COIBO1, the water surface in the
basin is also taken as the control for COI S06.
This alternative analyzed the entire channel under existing conditions and assumes that the maximum channel capacity is
achieved when the banks of the channel were exceeded. The existing channel grades and cross sections were based on
as -built plans between Col and Seal Beach Boulevard and on as -built plans supplemented by survey information
between Seal Beach Boulevard and the 22 Freeway.
Presently the COL system is deficient and requires improvement. Consequently, high water surfaces are frequently
experienced in the basin which severely diminishes COI S06's capacity. For purposes of this analysis, the original design
water surface of 0.0 for the basin was assumed as the control for COI S06, and the COI system is assumed to be full
improved. A sensitivity analysis was performed for hydraulic control that consisted of analyzing the channel with a
control water surface of -1 and +1. With the control at 0 and -1, the channel was able to convey the 100 -year design
discharge, but there was very little freeboard in many of the reaches. With the control at *1, the water was at the top of
bank with no freeboard at St. Andrews Drive.
A normal depth capacity analysis of CO S06. which excludes the effect of backwater generated by COIBOI indicates
that the channel capacity is greater than the 100 -year design discharge. For the reach from Seal Beach Boulevard to the
22 Freeway, the channel capacity is essentially equal to the design discharge and there is little or no freeboard. The
culverts were analyzed using normal depth control immediately downstream of the culvert. As shown in Table 3, all of
the culverts have the capacity to convey the design discharge with normal depth downstream control. The hydraulics of .
the "Do Nothing" Alternative are shown on Exhibit 2 on the plan and profile sheets.
-Ii-
TABLE 3
COIS06 EXISTING CHANNEL AND CULVERT NORMAL DEPTH CAPACITIES
5.4.2 Improvement Alternatives
A. Alternative I - Retarding Basin
The construction of a retarding basin on the Naval Weapons Station land could reduce peak discharges by 200 cfs so that
the upstream and downstream reaches could meet requirements with the existing channel sections. This would require
approximately 111 acre -feet of storage. Due to high groundwater the basin would have to be a large shallow basin and
approximately 16 acres of right -of -way would need to be acquired.
B. Alternative 11- Diversion of Drainage Area
The diversion of the Weapons Station drainage would reduce peak discharges in the Downstream Reach by up to 220 cis
and would allow freeboard requirements to be met. The Upstream Reach would be able to convey the 100 -year
discharge, but freeboard requirements would not be met since the reduction in peak discharge is minimal in this reach.
However, since the adjacent Weapons Station land is currently undeveloped agricultural land, a design deviation
reducing freeboard is warranted. This alternative would work best for the Upstream Reach if implemented in
conjunction with Alternative Vlll.
5.4.3 Downstream Alternatives
C. Alternative III - Rectangular Concrete Channel
Because of the flatness of the invert slope, improving the channel to a rectangular concrete section in the downstream
-12-
DESIGN
PERCENT
EXISTING
DISCHARGE
CAPACITY
DESIGN
CROSSING
SIZE
(CFS)
(CFS)
DISCHARGE (%)
Railroad Culvert
Trpl 8' CIYIP
750
1,400
187%
El Dorado Drive Culvert
Dbl 10'x T
710
1,400
197%
Cedar Crest Dr. Culvert
Dbl 12'x 7'
685
1,750
255%
SL Andrews Dr. Culvert
Dbl 9'x 6.5'
650
800
123%
Burning Tree Lane Culvert
Dbl 8'x 6.5'
630
Soo
127%
Del Monte Drive Culvert
Dbl 8' x 6.5'
620
800
129%
Seal Beach Blvd. Culvert
Trpl 8' x 4'
620
800
129%
22 Freeway Culvert
Dbl 8'x5'
340
500
14.7
5.4.2 Improvement Alternatives
A. Alternative I - Retarding Basin
The construction of a retarding basin on the Naval Weapons Station land could reduce peak discharges by 200 cfs so that
the upstream and downstream reaches could meet requirements with the existing channel sections. This would require
approximately 111 acre -feet of storage. Due to high groundwater the basin would have to be a large shallow basin and
approximately 16 acres of right -of -way would need to be acquired.
B. Alternative 11- Diversion of Drainage Area
The diversion of the Weapons Station drainage would reduce peak discharges in the Downstream Reach by up to 220 cis
and would allow freeboard requirements to be met. The Upstream Reach would be able to convey the 100 -year
discharge, but freeboard requirements would not be met since the reduction in peak discharge is minimal in this reach.
However, since the adjacent Weapons Station land is currently undeveloped agricultural land, a design deviation
reducing freeboard is warranted. This alternative would work best for the Upstream Reach if implemented in
conjunction with Alternative Vlll.
5.4.3 Downstream Alternatives
C. Alternative III - Rectangular Concrete Channel
Because of the flatness of the invert slope, improving the channel to a rectangular concrete section in the downstream
-12-
Environmental Quality Control Board Staff Report re:
Consideration of Comment Letter re:
State Route 221Wwt Orange County Connector
Draft Environmental Impact ReportlEnvlronmental Impact Statement
October 18, 2001
0
"STATE ROUTE 221WEST ORANGE COUNTY
CONNECTION DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT ", DATED AUGUST 2001
Note: Complete document previously provided to City
Council, not provided due to length. It is available for
review at: the Los Alamitos/Rossmoor Library, Mary
Wilson Library, and Leisure World Library within
Seal Beach; the Office of the City Clerk; and the
Development Services Department. In addition, a PDF
version is available at the Caltrans website at
www.dot.ca.2ov /distl2, along with an on -line comment
form and additional information regarding the Draft
EIR/EIS. A link to the Caltrans website is provided on
the City's Web Page at www.ciseal- beach.ca.us.
DEIR- EIS.EQCB Stffii Re n 13
Environmental Quality Control Board Staff Report re:
Consideration of Comment Letter re:
State Route 22IWest Orange County Connector
Oral? Environmental Impact ReportlEnvironmental Impact Statement
October 18, 2001
ATTACHMENT 3
"BRIEFING BOOK - STATE ROUTE 22 WEST
ORANGE COUNTY CONNECTION ", CALTRANS
AND OCTA, DATED AUGUST 30, 2001
Note: Complete document previously provided to
EQCB, not provided due to length.
DEIR- EIS.EQCB Sufi Report 14
Environmental Quality Control Board Staff Report re:
Consideration of Comment Letter re:
State Route 221West Orange County Connector
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
e October 18, 2001
0
ATTACHMENT 4
PUBLIC COMMENT FORMS SUBMITTED AT
CALTRANS SEPTEMBER 26, 2001 PUBLIC
HEARING. COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY
MAYOR DOANE, COUNCILPERSON
CAMPBELL, CITY MANAGER BAHORSKI AND
DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
WHITTENBERG
DEIR- EIS.EQCS Staff Re n 15
Caltrans District 12 Orange County
Attention Division of Planning
C/o Leslie Manderscheid
3337 Michelson Drive, Suite 380
Irvine, CA 92612 -8894
Name (FirstMllasq or Organi.-adon):
Date:
William J. Doane, Mayor, City of Seal Beach
September 26, 2001
Address: 211 Eighth Street
City: Seal Beach
State: CA
Zip Code: 90740
Telephone (opnona0: (5)2) 431 -2527
E-mail (Optionao:
Document: Draft Environmental Impact Report(Statement (DEIR/EIS)
Technical Report (specify)
Subsection (lfappucable):
Number: Title: Page:
Comments:
Cf5ce Use Only
The DEIR/EIS does not adequately address the environmental impacts of
the proposed freeway -to- freeway HOV connector structures. There is no
delineation in the document as to the proposed location, and the
proposed height and length of these. structures.
On September 18, 2001, the City received a copy of the "Draft
Preliminary Engineering Plans" for the subject project that are dated
December 2000. These plans provide greater detail m to the areas
proposed for acquisition and the location of the proposed noise barriers,
in addition to more detailed information on the length and height of the
proposed HOV freeway -to freeway connectors. This information was
available during the preparation of the DEIR/EIS and, in my opinion,
should have presented in the DEIR/EIS.
The DEIR/EIS is inadequate and requires re- circulation for additional
public review and comments that adequately describes the proposed
freeway -to- freeway HOV connector structures, including the height and
length of ramps, lighting, and other design features. In addition,
supplemental mitigation measures should be set forth to reduce impacts
to a less than significant level as much as possible in the areas of air
quality, visual, and light and glare impacts.
-
As indicated in the "Draft Preliminary Engineering Plans" for the subject
-
project that we dated December 2000, the following structures are
-
proposed:
-
Y t
C:WY DocumcctASR -22 DEIR- EIS15R22 Public Comment Fono- Doane.toc \LVn09 -25 4)1
Public Comments
l 05 Hnector:
❑ Total length of structure, including retained portions, is
approximately 6,700 feet (approximately I.25 miles in length)
❑ Maximum height is approximately 75.5 feet above existing grade of
NB 1-405 Freeway lanes (at mid -point of lanes)
❑ Maximum height is approximately 70.6 feet above existing grade of
E SR -22 to N 1-405 connector lanes (at mid -point of lanes)
1- -405 to SR -22 HOV Connector:
❑ Total length of structure, including retained portions, is
approximately 3,590 feet (approximately 0.7 mile in length)
❑ Maximum height in approximately 43 feet above existing grade of
NB 1405 Freeway lanes
Replace Existin¢ N405 -W22 Connector:
o Total length of structure is approximately 2,960 feet in length
(Shown on Plan Sheets L -5 and L -6); elevation change begins west
of Clubhouse 4 and ends westerly of Leisure World Manor
❑ Minimum clearance — 5.9 in (19.4 feet) at approximately Station
1375 +00 (clearance is above the at grade SB I405 Main Line)
o Maximum height in approximately 45 feet above existing grade of I-
405 Freeway lanes (at mid -point of lanes)
Replace Existin 5405 -E22 Connector:
• Total length of structure is approximately 755 feet in length (Shown
on Plan Sheets L -11 and L -12); structure begins at east City
boundary and ends past NB 1 -405 Main Line (Garden Grove)
• Height of structure is indicated at the following locations:
❑ Minimum clearance — 10.9 in (35.7 feet) at approximately
Station 110+40 (clearance is above the at grade SB I -405 Main
Line) (East of City boundary)
❑ Minimum clearance — 5.6 in (18.3 feet) at approximately Station
111 +80 (clearance is above the at grade NB 1 -405 Main Line in
Garden Grove)
• Maximum height in approximately 37 feet above existing grade of I-
405 Freeway lanes (at mid -point of lanes).
The City of Seal Beach has identified the following areas of potential
environmental impacts that require additional evaluation and the
development of appropriate mitigation measures relating to the proposed
freeway -to- freeway HOV connector structures:
o Aesthetic impacts upon College Park East and Leisure World of the
or000sed freeway -to- freeway HOV connectors at I -405 to I -605 and
Sa22 Nbli. Commm[ From -Doane 2
= Pablic Conn Fofm. Wane
Saltrans,District 12 Orange County
Attention Division of Planning
c/o Leslie Manderscheid
3337 Michelson Drive, Suite 380
Irvine, CA 92612 -8894
Name (First MILas{ or Organization):
Date:
Patricia Campbell, Councilperson, City of Seal Beach
September 26, 2001
Address: 211 Eighth Street
City: Seal Beach
State: CA
Zip Code: 90740
Telephone (Optional): (562) 431 -2527
E -Mall (Optional):
Document: Draft Environmental Impact Report(Statement (DEIR/EIS)
Technical Report (specify)
Subsection (Ijapplicable):
Number: Title: Page:
Comments:
The DEIR/EIS does not adequately discuss and evaluate design office Use omy
alternatives to the Full -Build or the Reduced Build Alternative to
eliminate the necessity of acquiring any residential structures within the
City. Potential design alternatives that should be evaluated by Caltrans
in a re- circulated DEIR/EIS should include but not be limited to:
❑ Realignment of freeway design to the south, requiring additional
land acquisition from the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station; not
impacting College Park East.
❑ Realignment of freeway design to the south, utilizing retaining walls
to not require additional land acquisition from the Seal Beach Naval
Weapons Station; not impacting College Park East.
o Reduction in the width of Almond Avenue and the use of approved
design variations in lane width for the freeway lanes to not require a
taking of the indicated residential structures. This alternative
analysis should evaluate no parking on the southerly side of Almond
Avenue east of Almond Park.
Any potential acquisition of residential structures within Seal Beach will
be strongly opposed by the City. All other alternatives should be
thoroughly evaluated and considered within the DEIRIEIS document.
I
Section 4.6.2.C, page 4.6-4 and 4.6 -5 — The section on Community
Cohesion discusses the impacts to community cohesion, as defined on
page 4.6 -3 on various community areas to be impacted by the taking of
homes.' THERE IS NO DISUSSION AS TO THE IMPACTS ON
COLLEGE PARK EAST! Although the number of homes may be small
in relation to the other areas identified for acquisition, the criteria for
community cohesion set forth on page 4.6 -3 clearly apply to this area.
The document needs revision to clearly and forthrightly address the
impacts upon the City of Seal Beach and the College Park East
neighborhood regarding this issue.
I
C:Wy Docummu\SRS'_ DEIR-EISs!iM Public Comment Form - Campbell doc \LWA9 -8 -01
;R -22 West Oranqe County Connection Public Comments
The City of Seal Beach is concerned regarding the noise and aesthetic
impacts of the proposed Noise Walls upon College Park East residential
community and park facilities, including Old Ranch Tennis Club, which
is to be dedicated to the City by the Bixby Ranch Company. No -
additional noise wall is proposed adjacent to Old Ranch Tennis Club.
The DEIR/EIS does not adequately address additional mitigation
measures to address significant, unavoidable noise impacts that will
remain upon implementation of the proposed noise walls. Additional
noise mitigation measures to be considered should include provision of
additional insulation and double -pane windows to all homes within the
determined 65 CNEL impact zone. These noise mitigation measures
should be provided at no cost to the subject resident and completed prior
to the initiation of construction work. This will provide for additional
noise relief to the impacted resident's during the construction period.
Section 4.9.4, page 4.9 -20 — Mitigation Measure NOI -FB -11 indicates
that community meetings will be held to area residents the construction
work, time involved, and control measures to be taken. It is requested
that for the City of Seal Beach these community meetings begin with a
review of the draft work program, times schedules and control measures.
The community should have an opportunity to provide comments and
suggestions on the proposed program prior to finalization and not just
be informed as to what will happen. The City has specific concerns
regarding interim emergency access provisions, security provisions, and
other public health and safety issues.
Section 4.9.5.C, page 4.9 -28 — The document indicates that the Full Build
alternative may involve pile driving and/or crack and seal pavement
rehabilitation and that substantial short-term construction impacts would
occur. There is no delineation as to the areas along the project that these
construction methods may be necessary to utilize, so it is impossible for a
commenting party to indicate a legitimate concern. Therefore the document
should be revised to indicate those areas anticipated for this type of
construction activity and provide certain mitigation measures, i.e., no such
construction activities between 5:00 PM and 8:00 AM, Monday through
Friday and no such construction activity on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays.
In addition, an inspection of each residence within 300 feet of the area
proposed for this construction shall occur prior to the start of such activity to
document all exterior building conditions. The project contractors should be
held responsible to repair all structural damage and cosmetic damage to
stucco in excess of Y.." cracks to structures and all windows and doors that
are knocked out of alignment as a result of these construction activities.
SRP_ Public Comment Form - Campbell 2
C?Itrans,District 12 Orange County
Attention Division of Planning
c/o Leslie Manderscheid
3337 Michelson Drive, Suite 380
Irvine, CA 92612 -8894
Name (First MILaA or O pani:adon):
John Bahorski, City Manager, City of Seat Beach
7Steember26,2001
Address: 211 Eighth Street
City: Seal Beach
State: CA
Zip Code: 90740
Telephone (Optional): (562) 431 -2527, ext 300
E-mail (Optional): jahorski @ci.seal- beach.ca.us
Document: Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement (DEIR/EIS)
Technical Report (specify)
Subsection (Ijapriticable):
Number: Title: Page:
Comments:
Gfrce Use Only
The DEDR/EIS does not adequately discuss and evaluate design
alternatives to the Full -Build or the Reduced Build Alternative to
eliminate the necessity of acquiring any residential structures within the
City. Potential design alternatives that should be evaluated by Caltrans
j
should include but not be limited to:
-
❑ Realignment of freeway design to the south, requiring additional
land acquisition from the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station; not
impacting College Park East.
❑ Realignment of freeway design to the south, utilizing retaining walls
to not require additional land acquisition from the Seal Beach Naval
Weapons Station; not impacting College Park East.
❑ Reduction in the width of Almond Avenue and the use of approved
design variations in lane width for the freeway lanes to not require a
taking of the indicated residential structures. This alternative
analysis should evaluate no parking on the southerly side of Almond
i
Avenue east of Almond Park.
Any potential acquisition of residential structures within Seal Beach will
be strongly opposed by the City. All other alternatives should be
thoroughly evaluated and considered within the DEIRJEIS document.
There is no discussion as to the impacts of the proposed project upon the
proposed widening of the Seat Beach Boulevard that the City is
preparing to undertake to reduce traffic impacts of the Bixby old Ranch
Towne Center project. City staff has been meeting for many months
with Caltrans and OCTA staff to attempt to develop a coordinated
program for the reconstruction of this important regional transportation
overpass to not require two different phases of development of this
facility; a widening project to provide 3 through lanes and the
appropriate left turn facilities in accordance with the requirements of the
Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center development approvals; and a
C:Wy nacumrna \SR -22 nEIR- EISSft22 Public Comment Foam - 6olmakiL4ac \LW9 -25 -01
SR -22 West Oranoe County Connection Public Comments
lengthening project to allow the proposed provision of additional HOV
lanes in both directions on the 1-405 at this location, as proposed by the
Full Build and Reduced Build alternatives.
The City has a 4 million gallon reservoir, Beverly Manor Reservoir,
located southwest of the 1-405 Freeway and Seal Beach Boulevard, in
addition to a well and booster station located on the same property. It is
unclear as to the impacts of the proposed project to these facilities.
Tables 4.11 -1 and 4.11 -2 indicate potential impacts to several other
public utility facilities along Beverly Manor Road and Seal Beach
Boulevard. Have the City facilities been overlooked? There needs to be
a clarification regarding the status of the City-owned facilities. In
addition, Figure 3.11 -1 should be revised to also indicate those facilities
within the study area. There are also three cellular towers located
southerly of the freeway r -o -w at this same location, and an additional
tower along Seal Beach Boulevard behind the Fire Station that is south
of the reservoir facility.
Section 3.2.1.C, page 3.2 -3 — end of fast paragraph — It is stated that "Water
quality is not sampled within the study area." This in incorrect. Water
quality sampling has been conducted for many years in the San Gabriel
River at the outfall points of the power plants. The document should be
revised to provide a summary of the water quality monitoring efforts and the
results of that monitoring. The most recent document the City has on file is
"National Pollution Discharge Elimination System — 1999 Receiving Water
Monitoring Report, Haynes and AES Alamitos L.L.C. Generating Stations,
Los Angeles County, 1999 Survey", prepared for Los Angeles Department
of Water and Power, Southern California Edison Company and AES
Alamitos L.L.C. by MBC Applied Environmental Sciences.
Section 4.2.2, page 4.2 -3 — ali : This section indicates surface water
runoffs only impact the Santa Ana River. Certain drainage channels that
receive runoff from the 1-405 and I -605 Freeways eventually or directly
enter the San Gabriel River. The contaminant levels of the surface run-
off from the freeway will contribute additional pollutant loads to the -
river, potentially increasing the level of contamination within the river,
and ultimately requiring additional beach closures with Seal Beach. The
analysis of this issue is completely lacking and the conclusions and
unsupported. A thorough and complete evaluation of additional
pollutant loads to the San Gabriel River and the impact upon the water
quality of the river needs to be completed and re- circulated as part of a
new environmental document for additional public review and
comments.
Section 4.6.4.C, page 4.6 -24 — It is indicated that the estimated property
tax loss to Seal Beach is approximately 511,000.00 annually and is
therefore insignificant given the total property tax revenues received by
the City. On an annual basis that is questionable, as the City has a very
small budget surplus and any loss of revenues may cause a cut -back in
Sa22 Public Comment Fmm - Bahonl it 2
m -« rven orange county Connection Public Comments
necessary services to the public. On a cumulative basis, the loss
becomes more significant, as it results in an ongoing loss of
cumulatively significant funds, including any interest on those funds,
that are no longer available for park and road maintenance activities
funded by the City General Fund.
Table 4.11 -1 and Table 4.11 -2 — Both tables indicate that there will
impacts within Seal Beach to Southern California Edison (SCE),
Southern California Gas (SCG), water, sewer and communications
facilities at various locations within the community. These tables also
indicate impacts to identified "high -risk facilities" at the SCE Substation
at Beverly Manor Road; two 16 -inch SCG lines in Beverly Manor Road;
one 10 -inch, two 16 -inch, and one 34 -inch SCG lines between the U.S.
Naval Weapons Station and southbound I -405 Freeway. There is no
explanation as to what aspects of the proposed project would result in
these impacts, as there are no right -of -way acquisitions indicated in these
areas within the DEIR/EIS. It is unclear from the DEIR/EIS as to the
location of these facilities, are they located within existing freeway
rights -of -ways?
SU2 Nblic Commmt Fmm - Bahorskil
Caltrans District 12 Oran a County
g
Attention Division of Planning
C/o Leslie Manderscheid
3337 Michelson Drive, Suite 380
Irvine, CA 92612 -8894
Name (First bf1 Las" or Organization): Date:
Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services September 26, 2001
City of Seal Beach
Address: 211 Eighth Street
City: Seal Beach State: CA Zip Code: 90740
Telephone (optional: (562) 431 -2527, ext 313 1 E -Mail (Optional): Whittenberg@ci.seal-beach.ca.us
Document: Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement (DEDLEIS)
Technical Report (specify)
Subsection (Ijapplicable):
Number: Title: Page:
Comments:
On September 18, 2001, the City received a copy of the "Draft
Preliminary Engineering Plans" for the subject project that are dated
December 2000. These plans provide greater detail as to the areas
proposed for acquisition and the location of the proposed noise barriers,
in addition to more detailed information on the length and height of the
proposed HOV freeway -to freeway connectors. This information was
available during the preparation of the DEIR/EIS and, in my opinion,
should have presented in the DEIR/EIS. The information in these "Draft
Preliminary Engineering Plans" needs to be incorporated into a re-
circulated DEIR/EIS to allow the public and all impacted agencies a fair
opportunity to review the details of the proposed project. The re-
circulated document should the provide more detailed environmental
evaluation of the impacts of the proposed acquisitions, freeway -to-
freeway HOV connectors and noise walls and additional mitigation
measures to reduce the identified impacts. The document as currently
being circulated is inadequate and does not provide a full disclosure of
the project components.
Figure 2 -2 -2A and 2 -24A, Typical Sections — Full Build and Reduced
Build Alternatives, do not indicate the height that the freeway to freeway
HOV connectors will be at. It is impossible to determine the aesthetic
impacts to adjoining areas, particularly residential and public facilities
by the proposed structures. Aesthetic impacts cannot be adequately
t "; - ^?f•�e; e
determined, evaluated, and mitigated to any understandable level until
that analysis and information is provided. The DEIR/EIS document
needs to be revised and re- circulated for additional public comments that
adequately describe the proposed structures, including the height and
length of ramps, lighting, and other design features. In addition,
supplemental mitigation measures should be set forth to reduce impacts
to a less than significant level as much as possible in the areas of visual,
C:WY Wo -me-U\ R -22 DEIR- EIS\SU2 P b is Comment F-- - Whinenbag.da \LW109 -2S -0I
R -22 West Orange County Connection Public Comments
light and glare impacts.
Use of 1990 Census and Orange County Projections 96 (OCP -96) are
used throughout the document. Certain 2000 Census information has
been available for several months, and OCP 2000 information is also
available. That important new "baseline" information should be used
throughout the document, as it provides a much more recent picture of
the overall area, and could result in different conclusions regarding
significant impacts. Request revisions throughout the document as -
appropriate to incorporate the 2000 Census and OCP 2000.
Table 3.7 -3, "YEAR 1996 AND 2020 TRAFFIC DEMAND (NO
- BUILD) ", page 3.7 -5 — this table indicates future ADT and peak hour
traffic increases of 1.7% and 10.1 %, respectively. These numbers,
particularly for the ADT, seem extremely low in light of the anticipated
increases on the other segments indicated. The table indicates that the
SR -22 will experience an increase of 23,000 ADT at the Beach
Boulevard -Knott Avenue segment, while the I-405 Freeway will only
experience an ADT increase of 5,700. This seems highly unlikely, as it
would mean that more than 17,000ADT would exit the SR -22 between
Knott Avenue and Valley View, before entering the I -405.
Table 3.13 -2, "VISUAL RESOURCES ", page 3.13 -9 — There is no
discussion as to the visual resources of the U.S. Naval Weapons Station,
which provides clear views from the I-405 Freeway to south of
Westminster Avenue, and between the I- 405 /SR -22 interchange and Seal
Beach Boulevard. This viewshed is approximately 9,000 feet in length
and provides an unobstructed view of approximately 1200 acres of open
space lands.
Section 4.1.2.C, page 4.1 -3 —The discussion indicates that since the "...
project would include only widening of an existing facility in this area: it
would not expose people to a new hazard." There needs to be a more
complete discussion of the seismic impacts of the Newport - Inglewood
and Whittier Faults on the proposed HOV connectors between the I-
605/I -405 and I- 4051SR -22 interchanges. The construction of elevated
HOV connectors is an increased seismic risk issue that is not even
discussed and there is no indication as to the mitigation measures to be
implemented to reduce those risks to an acceptable level. -
The DEIR/EIS document should include detailed trip allocation
percentages along the entire freeway route and at each interchange on
the route, including freeway to freeway interchanges and arterial street
interchanges. This would allow interested parties to understand the basic
trip allocation assumptions utilized in the traffic analysis and allow for -
informed comments on those assumptions. If that type of information is
available in the technical appendix, it should be included within the main
DEIR/EIS document so that a general reader of the document does not
have to search extensively to obtain a clear and concise understanding of
2
SR22 Public Comment Form - Whinenbert
m -« vvest orange t;ounty Connection Public Comments
those assumptions.
Without an understandable presentation of the length and height of all
freeway -to- freeway HOV connectors, it is impossible for impacted
jurisdictions and individuals to adequately understand the
full nature of
the contemplated project. Without a full and complete disclosure of
these important project design details the document is flawed. This
information needs to be presented within the DEIR/EIS and re- circulated
for public review and comment. Noise, light, and glare mitigation
measures set forth in the DEIR/EIS may be totally inadequate in
reducing these impacts from substantial numbers of vehicles utilizing the
HOV connectors upon adjoining properties and neighborhoods.
Section 4.9.4, page 4.9 -12 — This section discusses the cost(benefit
analysis procedure utilized by Caltrans to determine if the provision of a
noise wall as sound mitigation is "feasible". A number of criteria are
discussed. It is also indicated that "As more information such as
topographic surveys becomes available, the reasonable allowance for
each wall will be recalculated during the design phase and if the cost of
any wall is not reasonable, they might be eliminated from this project."
This clearly indicates that committed mitigation measures within the
DEIR/EIS may not remain as commitment's. If that is the case, the
analysis should be revised to provide an analysis of each proposed sound
wall if it eliminated, and the resultant noise impacts to adjacent and
nearby properties. The document should be revised and re- circulated for
public review and comments with this new information provided. It in
unrealistic to indicate that necessary mitigation measures to eliminate a
known and identified substantial adverse impact would be eliminated
based on a cost/benefit analysis. -
The analysis also indicates that the highest noise barrier proposed is 16
feet high. The analysis does not indicate the noise reduction provided if
a higher wall system is provided by the use of retaining walls,
topological ground revisions, etc. These alternatives should be evaluated
and discussed as the potential increase in noise reduction that may be
created.
Table 4.9 -7 "EXISTING, PREDICTED, AND ABATED FUTURE
NOISE LEVLELS FOR FULL BUILD ALTERNATIVE" and Table
4.9 -10 `EXISTING, PREDICTED, AND ABATED FUTURE NOISE
LEVLELS FOR REDUCED BUILD ALTERNATIVE ", pages 4.9 -14-
.17 and 4.9- 21 -24, respectively. Both of these tables.indicate that the
existing noise barriers in Seal Beach will not be increased in height since
the anticipated noise reduction by so doing is less than SdBA. The
height of the noise barrier at location 3 is only 14 feet. An analysis of
the noise reduction at this location is not specified in the DEIR/EIS. It
requested that the analysis for this location, and other locations within
the project area that are less than 16 -feet in height be included within the i
DEIR/EIS. This analysis and the determinations to support the
SR22 Public Commmt Fume - Wh,ae.bc
SR 22 West Orange County Connection Public Comments
conclusion of no additional noise mitigation should be clearly and
specifically set forth. That information will allow the impacted local
jurisdictions and adjoining property owners to fully understand the
criteria utilized by Caltrans in determining that less than a 5dBA i
reduction is not feasible. Unless this information is clearly presented,
the document is unacceptable and should be revised and re- circulated for
additional public review and comment.
Section 4.13.1, page 4.13 -6, View from the Freeway — This section
discusses views along the mainline of the freeway after project
implementation and provides at Figure 4.13 -4 a view simulation of a
typical view along the mainline travel route. It is requested that a view
simulation be provided from both directions of all freeway -to- freeway
HOV connectors. In reviewing this section of the DEIR/EIS there is no
definitive discussion as to the height, length, beginning and ending
points of any of these connectors. It is an inadequate presentation of
information to the public when the document does not discuss the -
impacts of what would seem to be extensive elevated structures
necessary to provide the proposed freeway -to- freeway HOV connectors
throughout the entire project length. Based on those view simulations it
may appropriate to provide a view simulation from: the rear yards of
homes along Martha Ann in Rossmoor, the Seal Beach Boulevard -
overpass at the 1-405 towards the I -406/1 -605 HOV connectors', and from
Bolsa Chica Road north towards the 1- 405/SR -22 HOV connectors.
Section 4.13.8, page 4.13 -29 — Mitigation Measures VIS -FB -1, VIS -FB-
3, and VIS -1713-4 should be revised to clearly indicate as follows:
o VIS -FB -1 — This measure should be revised to indicate that Caltrans
should be responsible for development of an appropriate open space
utilization plan and long -term maintenance program for those
properties, with approval of the plans and financing programs by the
City. The maintenance program responsibilities could be met by the
provision of an annuity or other financial mechanism to provide a
long -term revenue source to provide the required maintenance
funding.
❑ VIS -FB -3 — This measure should be revised to indicate Caltrans
should be responsible for the proposed landscaping outside of
Caltrans rights -of -ways. This should include development of an
appropriate open space utilization plan and long -term maintenance
program for those properties, with approval of the plans and
financing programs by the' impacted City. The maintenance'
program responsibilities could be met by the provision of an annuity
or other financial mechanism to provide a long -term revenue source
to provide the required maintenance funding. For modifications to
existing Caltrans rights -of -ways, the impacted city should have the
capability to review and provide comments on the proposed re-
landscaping plans.
❑ VIS -FB -4 — Same comments as above as related to landscape
proposals for noise barrier walls
aazz Public Commrnc Form - Whincnberg
a
Environmental Quality Control Board StafjRepon re:
Consideration of Comment Letter re.-
State Route 221Ww Orange County Connector
Draft Environmental Impact ReportlEnvironmental Impact Statement
October 18, 2001
ATTACHMENT 5
CITY OF SEAL BEACH COMMENT LETTER TO
ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY RE: NOTICE OF INITIATION OF
STUDIES - SR -22 AND I -405 IMPROVEMENTS,
LETTER DATED JUNE 22, 1998
DEIR- E1&EQCB Staff Report 16
June 22, 1998
Orange County Transportation Authority
Attn: Chaita Lao, Principal Project Manager
555 South Main Street
Orange, CA 92863 -1584
Dear Ms. Lao:
SUBJECT: CITY OF SEAL BEACH COMMENTS RE: NOTICE OF
INITIATION OF STUDIES — SR 22 AND 1405
IMPROVEMENTS
The City of Seal Beach has reviewed the "Notice of Initiation of Studies, dated May 26,
1998 and the attached 'Notice of Preparation ", dated May 21, 1998, and appreciates the
opportunity to provide comments on those documents.
The City of Seal Beach has funding approval through Measure M, the Growth
Management Areas (GMAS), the County of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways,
and other funding sources for a bridge- widening project at Seal Beach Boulevard. The
City is currently processing a Draft EIR for the Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Project,
and will begin the public hearing process for the requested General Plan amendments and
Zone Changes for the proposed project in July- August, 1998. Development Impact fees
from the proposed project would provide the majority of the lad matching funds for the
bridgo-widening project. The City of Seal Beach is concerned about coordination issues
relating to the bridge widening project and the impacts of the various alternatives being
considered by OCt'A and Caltrans in relation to this portion of the project area. The Ciry
requests early consultation between our staff and OCfAlCaltrans staff to resolve issues of
concern.
The City takes this opportunity to go on record as being extremely concerned about any
right-of-way acquisition that would 'impact the College Park East neighborhood, north of
the I-405 freeway between Sal Beach Boulevard and Valley View Street. This
neighborhood is located immediately adjacent to the 1-405 Freeway right -of -way, and any
further encroachment . into this residential neighborhood would be extremely detrimental to
the neighborhood and to the City of Seal Hach.
C:U1r Oacuvem.rEA5150. -L' Ini6ni�n of 5udin I.um.CC.docLLwa6 -19Aa
ca, oft.a! 11, h Camm.. t .er
sec -zz,
J., 22. Je �I
Ivne 22. 9Rt
In reviewing the "Notice of Preparation ", the City has three comments regarding the
Initial Study Checklist. The first comment relates to page 13, Item I.d. - Affect
agricultural resources. It is noted that the Initial Study indicates any impacts to prime
farmlands "are expected to be less than significant", Appendix G of the CalitBmia
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) states that a project will have a significant impact if it
would "convert prime" agricultural lands to non - agricultural use or impair the agricultural
productivity of " prime" agricultural land. Therefore, any loss of "prime agricultural
land" is a significant impact under CEQA, and the Initial Study should be revised to
indicate this potential significant impact-
Secondly, page 19 discusses air quality impacts. The City requests the air quality analysis
include an analysis of CO "hotspois" at adjacent freeway onloff ramp locations, and
development of appropriate mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a level of
) 6gnificancc. -
Lastly, page 29 discusses impacts to existing recreational opportunities. This section
should be revised to indicate the City of Sea] Beach is currently processing a development
application for the Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center project which, if ultimately approved
by the City Council, would dedicate the existing Bixby Old Ranch Tennis Club to the City
of Seal Beach as a public recreation facility. This existing recreation facility is located
immediately adjacent to the 1-405 Freeway. In addition, this section should indicate if the '
proposed project would impact the existing bicycle/equestrian trail along the San Gabriel
River, which is a regional trail providing access from the Pacific Ocean to the San Gabriel
Mountains.
Please provide copies of future documentation regarding this project to Mr. Lee
Whittenberg, Director of Development Services, City of Seal Beach, 211 Eighth Street,
Seal Beach, CA 90740. If you have any questions regarding this matter picasc contact
Mr. Whittenberg at (562) 431 -2527, extension 213. He will be most happy to provide
clarification or additional information.
Sincerely,
B' w
Mayor, city of Seal Beach
or: City Council
Planning Commission -
Environmental Quality Control Board
City Manager ' Director of Development Services
Director of Public WorksXity Engineer
SK-22 inik,n .or Wale.,.".r.ee.am
LEISURE WORLD NEWS PAGE 01
October 22, 2001
To All of the Honorable Council Members
City of Seal Beach
Dear Council Members:
Regarding the proposal to modify SR -22, please consider these thoughts:
I am a 30 -year resident of Seal Beach, and for the last eight have been living in College Park East. I am
against every aspect of the proposed freeway modification.
The idea of encroaching on city property by narrowing any portion of Almond Avenue is unacceptable, even
more so if it forces residents from their homes.
The old saying "A man's home is his castle" may be trite, but is, none the less, meaningful. Of course being
forced from one's home, whether it has been one's residence for one year or 30, is the worst attack on that
castle.
Even if modifications do not encroach, those of us who live in proximity to the proposed "improvements"
will also have our "castles" attacked to some degree.
The goal of the freeway "improvements" is to speed up commuters' travel through this stretch of freeway.
What will it cost to save these commuters a few minutes of travel time?
• Millions of dollars in design and construction costs
• More millions in relocation expenses if houses are removed
• More millions to remaining College Park East residents in terms of lowered property values
• Incalculable cost to the quality of life of remaining College Park Residents who will have to live 24 hours a
day, 365 days a year with increased noise, dust, pollution, light and glare, all to save commuters a few
minutes
• Incalculable cost to the health of the remaining College Park Residents who will have increased health risk
from the increased air pollution and noise pollution caused by greater freeway speed
I ask you to review very carefully the benefits promised by these "improvements" and to consider just who
will be the recipients of those benefits. It will not be the Seal Beach residents of College Park East. We will
suffer. It will be non - residents passing through our city. They will save a few minutes as they speed through
Seal Beach.
Please do all you can to stop this project. Remember to whom you owe your allegiance... it is not the people
passing through; it is those of us who live here. The commuters will get the few minutes of benefit. Your fellow
residents will get 24 hours a day of nuisance and health risk.
Thank you for your help.
Sincere)
David G. Saunders
3661 Oleander St.
Seal Beach, CA
90740
(hm) 5% -6961 (wk) 431 -6586, ext. 384
OCT -22 -2001 1400 5625981617 99% P.01
YY"