The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC AG PKT 2006-02-13 #LAGENDA REPORT DATE: February 13, 2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF COMMENT LETTER RE: DRAFT PROGRAM EIR FOR THE 2006 LONG -RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN BY ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Authorize Mayor to sign proposed Response Letter (please refer to Attachment 1 to review the proposed comment letter), and instruct staff to forward to the Planning Commission and Environmental Quality Control Board for information purposes. Receive and File Staff Report. BACKGROUND: On April 25, 2005 the City Council considered a Staff Report on "Approval of a Comment Letter re: Notice of Preparation of a Program EIR for the 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan" ( "NOP ") by the Orange County Transportation Authority ( "OCTA "). The City Council approved the comment letter and a copy is provided as Attachment 2 for the information of the City Council. OCTA has now released the "Draft 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan" ( "LRTP "), dated January 9, 2006 and the "Draft Program Environmental Impact Report" ( "DPEIR ") to evaluate environmental impacts of the proposed 2006 LRTP. The complete documents are not provided due to their length. The LRTP is 123 pages in length, and the DPEIR is 638 pages in length. A complete copy of each document is available at the Department of Development Services to review. The documents may also be downloaded at the Orange County Transportation Authority Web site, www.octd.net/Irtp. OVERVIEW OF 2006 LONG -RANGE TRANSPOR TA TION PLAN: As stated in the "Executive Summary" of the LRTP, the LRTP will: Agenda Item ZAMy Documents \CEQA\2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Draft EIR.00TA.CC Staff Report.do6LW\02 -07 -06 City Comment Letter re: Draft Program E1R for 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Prepared by Orange County Transportation Authority City Council Staff Report February 13, 2006 "... project the future needs of our population, and develop a plan to ensure that in 2030 the transportation system continues to contribute to a thriving Orange County. To accomplish this charge, the LRTP lays out three overarching goals: improve mobility; protect our transportation resources, and enhance the quality of life. It also outlines performance measures by which we can gauge our progress and refine our strategies along the way."' The LRTP will provide a blueprint for transportation improvements in Orange County and will include transportation improvements throughout the County for a planning horizon year of 2030. As indicated in the LRTP: "Over the next 30 years our population is projected to grow by 24 percent and employment will grow by 27 percent. Our population is also aging: the number of residents 65 years and older doubles between 2000 and 2030. More people and more jobs means more demand for transportation. In fact, we anticipate that the miles traveled by vehicles in Orange County will grow by nearly 40 percent between now and 2030, faster than both population and employment. Furthermore, by 2030 we will add almost three million more person trips per year to the transportation system, with most of them starting and ending within Orange County. Without improvements to the system, this will translate into more traffic congestion so that by 2030, during the morning rush, about half of the roadways in Orange County would be operating at speeds of less than 25 miles per hour and most of the freeways will be consistently or severely congested. ,2 In formulating the Draft 2006 LRTP, OCTA developed alternative sets of improvements, with varying levels of investment, and compared how they would perform. The alternatives are identified as: ❑ Constrained Alternative; ❑ Balanced Plan; and ❑ Unconstrained Alternative. "'The Constrained Alternative suggests that transportation finding will decline considerably in the future if the current Measure M one half -cent sales tax program sunsets in 2011. The Balanced Plan assumes maior new multi -modal transportation capacity is added to the system, and Orate County voters approve a 30 -year extension of the current "Draft 2006 Long Range Transportation Plan ", Orange County Transportation Authority, January 6, 2006, page v. 2 Op. Cit., page v and vi. 2 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Draft EIR.00TA.CC Staff Report City Comment Letter re: Draft Program EIR for 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Prepared by Orange County Transportation Authority City Council Staff Report February 13, 2006 Measure M transportation sales tax. The Unconstrained Alternative imagines a future where even more transportation capacity is added, but funding is not a limiting factor. All three alternatives are compared to a 'funded" Baseline derived from approved,. short -term, regional financial plans. (Emphasis added by Staff) The improvements in the Constrained Alternative result in minimally improved freeway and roadway speeds, compared to the Baseline, and delay due to traffic congestion is slightly reduced (see comparison table below). However, the Balanced Plan provides a multi -modal package of projects and programs that includes a significant expansion of transit services (bus, rail, and senior programs), freeway improvements (concentrating on correcting operational problems and expanding capacity within existing right -of -way), and an extension of the current Measure M programs for local street improvements and maintenance. Major components of the Balanced Plan include: • Expanding the Orange County f eeway system to remove bottlenecks and add new capacity primarily within the existing freeway rights -of- way • Enhancing street maintenance programs to reduce wear and tear on cars, buses, and trucks • Coordinating traffic signals across cities to improve traffic flow • Expanding street capacity at major bottleneck locations • Separating road and rail traffic with grade separations at key locations • Expanding the Metrolink commuter rail system with high frequency service to Los Angeles • Providing new transit connections to and from Metrolink stations • Connecting Metrolink service to new regional transportation systems and centers Maintaining low bus fares for seniors and the disabled • Expanding community-based shuttles to link people to shopping, medical facilities, and job centers • Improving water quality by dedicating funds to further enhance mitigations of water runofffrom freeways and roadways The Balanced Plan is projected to reduce delay due to congestion by 34 percent, compared to the Baseline, and improve morning peak freeway speeds by 23 percent. Morning peak arterial street speeds are projected to improve by 28 percent over the Baseline. Transit ridership is expected to increase by 26 percent, compared to the Baseline, with a moderate expansion of transit systems in the County. 3 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Draft EIR.00TA.CC Staff Report Figure 1 City Comment Letter re: Draft Program EIR for 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Prepared by Orange County Transportation Authority City Council Staff Report February 13, 2006 Effectiveness ofAlternative (Compared to Baseline) Measure of Constrained Balanced Unconstrained Effectiveness Alternative Plan Alternative Delay due to Delay reduced Delay reduced Delay reduced by congestion by 9% by 34% 41% Averagepeak Speed Speed Speed increased period freeway increased by increased by by 30% speed (AM) 6% 23% Averagepeak Speed Speed Speed increased period roadway increased by increased by by 40% speed (AM) 6% 28% Daily transit Increased by Increased by Increased by trips. 16% 26% 26% While the Unconstrained Alternative performs well, currently it is not feasible to implement given the revenues projected to be available for transportation in the future. In addition, the community and environmental impacts of the Unconstrained Alternative are likely higher than that of the Balanced Plan. As a result, the Balanced Plan provides the highest level of improvement, within reasonably available future resources, and is the preferred strategy for the 2006 LRTP." 3 Please refer to Attachment 3 to review summary pages of the projects contemplated under each of the alternatives discussed above and for the `Baseline (No Project" Alternative. The Draft 2006 LRTP discusses the financial requirements of the plan and a summary of that discussion is presented below with the full discussion provided as Attachment 4 for the information of the City Council. Also included with this attachment is a copy of Appendix C, "Project Summary List" for the "Constrained Alternative" and the "Balanced Plan". This Project Summary List provides a summary by transportation corridor of the contemplated projects under both financing scenarios, with estimated costs. "Financing the Plan Major Funding Challenges and Trends s Op. Cit., pages viii and ix. 4 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Draft EIR.00TA.CC Staff Report City Comment Letter re: Draft Program EIR for 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Prepared by Orange County Transportation Authority City Council StajfReport February 13, 2006 The way that transportation projects and services are funded in the new century is evolving. For many years, state and federal taxes on gasoline were the main source of funds for regional transportation projects. Unfortunately, state and federal gas taxes have not kept up with the costs of building new freeway lanes, roadways, and transit projects. Inflation has eroded this traditional source of transportation funds. At the same time, the number of miles traveled each year by vehicles in California, the Southern California region, and Orange County has increased as households own more cars and drive farther to work and recreational areas. This trend is expected to continue in the future as the distance between major job centers and residential areas grow. This is compounded by more people and more jobs moving into the region. While traditional revenues are declining, the need for new transportation projects continues, and maintenance needs increase because of increased wear and tear on the existing transportation system. Local Solutions Through Measure M Recognizing the uncertainty of state and federal funds, many counties across California, including Orange County, asked voters to approve local sales taxes with the specific purpose of funding transportation projects and services. Many such measures passed and have become a significant source of funds for roadway, highway, and transit projects, allowing local residents to better control their own transportation destiny. In 1990, Orange County voters approved Measure M, a 20 year program for transportation improvements funded by a one half -cent sales tax. Measure M allocates all sales tax revenues to specific Orange County transportation improvement projects in three major areas. — freeways, roadways, and transit. Completed major Measure Mprojects include: • new lanes added to the I -5, SR -55 and SR -91 Freeways; • a smoother and wider "El Toro Y, where the I -405 and I -5 join; • the launch of Metrolink commuter rail service and building of new stations; • bus discounts for seniors and the disabled; and • about $1.5 billion allocated for roadway widening and street repair. Measure M is currently funding the construction of a wider 12 -mile section of the SR -22 and the northern section of the I -5 from the SR -91 to the Orange /Los Angeles County line. 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Draft Ed.00TA.CC Staff Report City Comment Letter re: Draft Program EIR for 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Prepared by Orange County Transportation Authority City Council StajfReport February 13, 2006 Measure M expires in 2011 unless renewed by voters. By then, Measure M will have made possible nearly $4.2 billion worth of transportation improvements. Constrained Alternative Revenues (Without Future Measure M) Orange County can expect to receive $28 billion (2005 dollars) over the next 36 years to maintain, enhance, and operate the transportation system without an extension of Measure M While $28 billion is a significant future investment, most (96 percent) of these funds are committed to mandated projects and services including maintaining freeways, roadways, and running bus service. Only about 4 percent of these funds could be used to address future mobility problems in Orange County. That 4 percent equates to improving just a few major freeways in Orange County and is not sufficient to meet countywide transportation needs by 2030. A mixture of federal, state, and local sources comprise the future transportation revenues for the $28 billion Constrained Alternative. Local sources comprise 67 percent of these sources, and state and federal monies comprise the remaining 33 percent. These funds will be used for a combination of purposes including continuing investments in freeway operations, road maintenance, minor capacity increases, and continuing to operate the bus and Metrolink system. Balanced Plan Revenues (With Measure M Extension) Under the Balanced Plan, total transportation revenues increase to about $40.7 billion (2005 dollars). Implementation of the Balanced Plan relies on Orange County voters approving an extension of Measure M from 2011 to 2041 that would include a series of voter safeguards related to the continued funding. A mixture of federal, state, and local sources comprise the future transportation revenues for the $40.7 billion Balanced Plan. Local sources comprise 77 percent of these sources, and state and federal monies comprise the remaining 23 percent. The increase in the Balanced Plan local share from the Constrained Alternative is due to the addition of $11.862 billion of new Measure M funds, an increase in cities' local general fund revenues for transportation purposes, and continued operation of the 91 Express Lanes as a toll facility. 0 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Draft EIR.00TA.CC Staff Report City Comment Letter re: Draft Program EIR for 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Prepared by Orange County Transportation Authority City Council Staff Report February 13, 2006 These dollars would be a stable, dedicated source of funds for transportation. Orange County has a history of self -help, evidenced by the current Measure M and local developer fee programs. Coupled with a healthy local economy, these characteristics suggest Orange County would do well to continue dedicating local sales tax revenues to transportation. Figure 48 provides a summary of the estimated costs of implementing the Constrained Alternative and the Balanced Plan, .. The Unconstrained Alternative costs and revenues are not shown in these figures due to uncertainty with project costs and funding sources. Figure 48 Long -Range Transportation Plan Alternative Costs (In Millions) OVERVIEW OF DPEIR - 2006 LONG -RANGE TRANSPOR TA TION PLAN- The DPEIR indicates that: "Population growth within Orange County is expected to rise by approximately 15 percent between 2005 and 2030, from 3,094,461 to 3,552,742 million people. This increase in population will result in new vehicular and transit trips and will place additional demands on existing roadways, transit and rail facilities within Orange County. "5 A copy of the "Executive Summary" and Chapter 2, "Project Description" of the DPEIR is provided as Attachment 5 for the information of the City Council. 4 Op. Cit., pages 73 -76. s "Draft Program Environmental Impact Report -2006 Long Range Transportation Plan ", Orange County Transportation Authority, January 2006, page 3 -1. 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Draft EIR.00TA.CC Staff Report Constrained Alternative Balanced Plan Freeways $6,409 $11,580 Roadways $8,758 $13,290 Transit $12,837 $15,669 Other - $237 Total $18,004 $40,776 OVERVIEW OF DPEIR - 2006 LONG -RANGE TRANSPOR TA TION PLAN- The DPEIR indicates that: "Population growth within Orange County is expected to rise by approximately 15 percent between 2005 and 2030, from 3,094,461 to 3,552,742 million people. This increase in population will result in new vehicular and transit trips and will place additional demands on existing roadways, transit and rail facilities within Orange County. "5 A copy of the "Executive Summary" and Chapter 2, "Project Description" of the DPEIR is provided as Attachment 5 for the information of the City Council. 4 Op. Cit., pages 73 -76. s "Draft Program Environmental Impact Report -2006 Long Range Transportation Plan ", Orange County Transportation Authority, January 2006, page 3 -1. 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Draft EIR.00TA.CC Staff Report City Comment Letter re: Draft Program EIR for 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Prepared by Orange County Transportation Authority City Council' Staff Report February 13, 2006 The DPEIR evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the "Proposed ,Plan". A DPEIR provides a regional consideration of cumulative effects and includes broad policy alternatives and program -wide mitigation measures. The DPEIR offers useful regional - scale analysis and mitigation for subsequent, site - specific environmental reviews conducted by implementing agencies as individual projects in the LRTP are developed. The focus of the environmental analysis in this DPEIR is on the potential regional -scale and cumulative impacts of implementation of the LRTP. The long -range planning horizon of 24 years (to 2030) necessitates that many of the highway, arterial, and transit projects included in the LRTP are identified at the conceptual level, and this document addresses environmental impacts to the level that they can be assessed without undue speculation. This DPEIR acknowledges the uncertainty and incorporates these realities into the methodology to evaluate the environmental effects of the LRTP, given its long- term planning horizon. The list of projects described in the DPEIR outline the anticipated improvements; however, these projects will be revisited every four years when the plan is reviewed, the need for projects is reassessed, and the availability of funding sources is evaluated. INTENDED USES OF THE PEIR: OCTA will use this PEIR as part of its review and approval of the LRTP. In addition, this PEIR will serve as the CEQA document for the Expenditure Plan for the proposed reauthorization of Measure M. Measure M is a 20 -year program of transportation improvements approved by the voters of Orange County in 1990 that is funded by a half - cent sales tax. Measure M allocates the sales tax revenues to specific Orange County transportation improvement projects in three major areas: ❑ freeways, ❑ roadways, and ❑ transit. As discussed above, the current program ends in 2011, The proposed reauthorization of Measure M forms the basis for the Proposed Plan (LRTP Balanced Plan). The projects contained in the proposed Measure M reauthorization are consistent with the projects added by the Proposed Plan over the Constrained Alternative (which assumes that Measure M is not reauthorized). Approval of the Final Investment Plan for the Measure M reauthorization would occur following certification of the Final PEIR and approval of the LRTP by the OCTA Board of Directors. The Final Investment Plan would be forwarded to the Orange County Board of Supervisors for their approval to place the Investment Plan on a future ballot for consideration by Orange County voters. The lead agencies for individual projects analyzed in this PEIR are required to prepare project -level CEQA documents. Approval of the LRTP and the DPEIR does not initiate the development of a specific project plan or authorize construction of any proiect proposed in the LRTP. Proiect -level analyses will be prepared by 8 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Draft EIR.00TA.CC Staff Report City Comment Letter re: Draft Program EIR for 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Prepared by Orange County Transportation Authority City Council Staff Report February 13, 2006 implementing agencies on a project by- project basis. 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. The lead agencies for individual projects would be able to use this PEIR as the basis of their regional and cumulative analysis as part of the required environmental analysis of any future project contemplated under the LRTP. Moreover, it is the intent of OCTA that member agencies and others may consider using the information contained within this PEIR in order to "tier" subsequent environmental documentation of individual projects in the region. Information from this document may also be incorporated into future County Congestion Management Programs and associated environmental documents, as applicable. The LRTP is intended to meet the changing socioeconomic, transportation infrastructure, financial, technological, and environmental conditions of the region. Individual projects are preliminarily identified in the LRTP; however, this PEIR is programmatic in nature and does not specifically analyze these projects. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Proposed Plan is made up of four components: freeways, roadways, transit, and environmental programs. The Proposed Plan includes significant transportation improvements that would partially address future congestion and mobility needs but would require supplemental local funding such as continuation of Orange County's transportation sales tax beyond its current expiration in 2011 in addition to the traditional annual revenues from State and federal transportation funding. The Proposed Plan includes improvements to existing freeways, toilways, roadways, and transit (bus and rail) systems as well as an environmental program aimed at offsetting the water quality impacts of existing and proposed transportation facilities. PROJECT OBJECTIVES: The goals of the LRTP include improving mobility, protecting transportation resources, and enhancing the quality of life in the County. Each goal and its corresponding objectives are described below: ❑ Improve mobility by ❑ Offering safe and reliable transportation choices; ❑ Providing an accessible transportation network; ❑ Minimizing increases in congestion; and ❑ Developing an integrated transportation network. n 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Draft EIR.00TA.CC Staff Report City Comment Letter re: Draft Program EIR for 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Prepared by Orange County Transportation Authority City Council Staff Report February 13, 1006 ❑ Protect transportation resources by ❑ Using the existing transportation network efficiently; ❑ Maintaining infrastructure; ❑ Promoting cost - effective and multimodal solutions; and ❑ Exploring creative solutions. ❑ Enhance the quality of life by ❑ Promoting coordinated planning; ❑ Minimizing community impacts; ❑ Supporting economic growth; and ❑ Protecting the environment. PROJECT CHAR,4 CTERISTICS. The LRTP is made up of four components: freeways, roadways, transit, and environmental programs. Each of these components is described below. The LRTP includes significant transportation improvements that would partially address future congestion and mobility needs but would require supplemental local funding such as continuation of Orange County's transportation sales tax beyond its current expiration in 2011 in addition to the traditional annual revenues from State and federal transportation funding. The Proposed Plan, referred to as the "Balanced Plan" in the LRTP, includes improvements to the existing freeways, tollways, roadways, and transit (bus and rail) systems beyond the projects that are currently funded as well as an environmental program aimed at offsetting the water quality impacts of existing and proposed transportation facilities. Freeways Approximately one -half of all miles traveled by vehicles in Orange County occur on the freeways. Orange County's freeway system provides a major transportation link internal to the County and carries the majority of the area's regional trips including travel between Orange County and other areas of Southern California. The existing freeways have developed into a mature network that has significantly expanded over the past 20 years. This expansion, from a total of 944 lane miles in 1986 to 1,354 lane miles in 2005 (a 43 percent increase), was critically needed to catch the system up with population and employment growth that occurred over the previous 30 years. Of these improvements, 246 lane miles of carpool facilities were constructed. Beyond current needs, the projections for 2030 indicate that vehicle miles will increase faster than population and employment, mostly due to longer trips or commutes. In short, freeway capacity must grow to meet future freeway travel demand. Orange County's freeway network is largely built out, making it a challenge to increase freeway capacity. Most of the major projects to update existing freeways such as 10 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Draft EIR.00TA.CC Staff Report _ City Comment Letter re: Draft Program EIR for 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Prepared by Orange County Transportation Authority City Council Staff Report February 13, 2006 widenings and interchange reconstruction have been completed. Consequently, the future program of freeway projects must focus on balancing improvements throughout the County, optimizing the existing system and minimizing right -of -way impacts. The following strategies were considered in developing the freeway component of the LRTP: ❑ Expand freeway capacity within existing right -of -way to the extent possible to accommodate the projected approximately 30 percent growth in travel. ❑ Fix chokepoints or operational constraints that prevent the existing freeway system from attaining its designed capacity. ❑ Complete the carpool /transitway system to maximize the person - carrying capacity of the freeways. ❑ Balance improvements throughout the freeway network so that traffic is smoothed Countywide for a consistently acceptable level of freeway travel. The DPEIR identifies LRTP Freeway Projects in Table 2.A (Complete Table provided as part of Attachment 6). Projects are identified on the following freeways within Orange County: ❑ Interstate 5 (I -5) ❑ Interstate 405 (I -405) ❑ Interstate 605 (I -605) ❑ State Route 22 (SR -22) ❑ State Route 55 (SR -55) ❑ State Route 57 (SR -57) ❑ State Route 91 (SR -91) ❑ State Route 73 (SR -73) ❑ Other Freeway and Toll Roads Freeway Projects identified that would have potential impacts upon Seal Beach are: ❑ Interstate 405 (I -405) ❑ Add one HOV lane in each direction between SR -22 to I -605. ❑ Add one general purpose lane in each direction from SR -73 to I -605. ❑ Construct I -405/I -605 HOV connector. ❑ State Route 22 (SR -22) ❑ Construct I- 405/SR -22 HOV connector. Roadways The Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) is Orange County's plan for a network of roadways that meets regional traffic needs. It was initially created in 1956 and has been updated regularly since. Similar to the freeway system, the planned network of roadways is mostly built (about 85 percent), which is not surprising since the County is considered generally "built -out" from a land development perspective with limited exceptions such 11 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Draft EIR.00TA.CC Staff Report City Comment Letter re: Draft Program E!R for 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Prepared by Orange County Transportation Authority City Council Staff Report February 13, 2006 as the eastern portions of the Cities of Anaheim and Orange, northern Irvine, and the remainder of Rancho Mission Viejo. As with freeway travel, demand on the street network is expected to increase significantly over the next 25 years. Even with the completion of the MPAH, greater capacity on the street system will be needed. In order to develop the street improvements to be implemented over the next 25 years, the following strategies were considered by OCTA: ❑ Continue to invest in maintenance to ensure that streets remain in good condition, last longer, and are less expensive to maintain over time. ❑ Expand street capacity within existing right -of -way to the extent possible, including completing the MPAH: ❑ Maximize use of the existing street system, employing technology wherever possible to improve operations such as Countywide signal coordination. The roadway components are described in Table 2.B (Complete Table provided as part of Attachment 6). The arterial street improvements shown for this alternative are those needed to fully complete the Master Plan of Arterial Highways ( "MPAH ") as currently defined as of January 2006. However, the MPAH is a dynamic process and is continually reviewed, in cooperation with local land use agencies, to insure that it reflects both the transportation and land use needs of the time. Some of the improvements to the MPAH shown for this alternative will be the subject of future study and could be revised or eliminated over the timeframe of the Long Range Transportation Plan. This alternative assumes that the MPAH will be completed consistent with the current definition of the MPAH by 2030. Roadway Projects identified that would potentially impact Seal Beach are: ❑ Flexible Local Funding Program — Fair -share program for local and residential street maintenance and transportation needs. ❑ Expand Street Capacity — Arterial street capacity improvements /complete Master Plan of Arterial Highways. ❑ Interjurisdictional Traffic Signal Synchronization — Synchronize traffic signals across jurisdictions and Smart Streets. ❑ Continuation of Existing Funded Programs for Local Streets — Gas tax street and road programs for maintenance and improvements; Complete existing Measure M program through 2011. Transit The current transit system includes an extensive network of local bus routes that provide service to most residential and employment areas of the County and several express bus routes and a well developed commuter rail (Metrolink and Amtrak) service that together provide for longer distance travel within the County and to neighboring counties. 12 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Draft EIR.00TA.CC Staff Report City Comment Letter re: Draft Program EIR for 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Prepared by Orange County Transportation Authority City Council Staff Report February 13, 2006 Demand for local bus service has increased steadily over the past 30 years, reaching the current level of 67.5 million riders (2004). And in just over 10 years since service began, the number of Orange County riders on the Metrolink commuter rail has increased from less than 145,000 passengers in 1993/1994 to over 3,000,000 passengers in 2003/2004. Local bus service is greater in the northern and central County, which is more densely developed, have lower median incomes, and have more households without an automobile, as well as a more consistent grid pattern of roadways that lend to an efficient bus - routing pattern. In addition to traditional local bus service, OCTA provides a shared - ride service (ACCESS) for people unable to use the regular bus service due to a disability. Orange County's Express Buses combine use of the freeway system and limited stops to provide commuters with faster service over longer distances. There are currently nine Express Bus routes in place using I -5, I -405, SR -91, and SR -57 to connect major employment centers and park- and -ride lots. Commuter rail includes both Metrolink and Amtrak. Metrolink has three routes through Orange County. There are 10 stations in Orange County that feed these lines, with one more to be added in 2006. Amtrak service through Orange County from San Diego to Los Angeles, complements Metrolink, although Amtrak trains do not stop at every Orange County station. Also, OCTA provides shuttle service timed with commuter rail schedules to carry passengers from the train stations to their places of work in the morning and back to the stations in the evening. There are currently 13 shuttles in operation, known as Stationlink. There are several trends that will affect the demand for transit in the future. Most significant are the anticipated increases in population and employment (24 percent and 27 percent, respectively). This growth will drive demand for increased transit services. It is noteworthy that the number of Orange County residents 55 years and older is projected to increase by 59 percent between 2005 and 2030. While this segment of the population is not necessarily transit - dependent as a whole, it is likely that many in the elderly population will require greater, specialized transit. The proposed LRTP is built on the following strategies for meeting future transit needs: ❑ Accommodate Orange County's growing, aging population. • Increase local bus service on corridors and in zones with the highest transit demand. • Expand local bus service into areas outside of the urbanized core. ❑ Attract a greater number of bus and commuter rail riders that are not transit - dependent (have an automobile, but choose transit). ❑ Increase speed, reliability, and frequency of commuter rail service through improved infrastructure (e.g., adding rail track, building new strategically located 13 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Draft EIR.00TA.CC Staff Report City Comment Letter re: Draft Program EIR for 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Prepared by Orange County Transportation Authority City Council Staff Report February 13, 2006 stations, -adding more daily trains and reverse service, and increasing connections between communities and Metrolink). ❑ Increase parking supply at Metrolink stations. The transit components are described in Table 2.0 (Complete Table provided as part of Attachment 6). Projects identified that would potentially impact Seal Beach are: ❑ Local Bus ❑ Expand Countywide bus services. ❑ Expand choices for senior /disabled. ❑ Express Bus — Implement express bus service on freeways. Environmental Programs The LRTP establishes a program for evaluating and mitigating water quality impacts associated with existing and proposed transportation facilities. This program will augment existing urban runoff treatment and mitigation that would be a part of all individual projects. The goal is to enhance and possibly consolidate individual project mitigations and deliver a coordinated high - quality urban runoff program. IDENTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE "PROPOSED PLAN": Table ES -1, located at the end of the "Executive Summary" summarizes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Plan, sets forth proposed "mitigation measures', and identifies any unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified in the DPEIR. For each potentially significant impact, at least one mitigation measure has been proposed to reduce the significance of the environmental impact. These mitigation measures would reduce the extent of the impact to below a level of significance for some environmental impacts, except for the following: ❑ Short-term construction- related emissions that exceed the SCAQMD thresholds; ❑ Short-term construction- related health risks associated with diesel exhaust; ❑ Loss of special- interest species and sensitive natural communities; ❑ Displacement of riparian habitat, federally protected wetlands, and waters of the U.S.; ❑ Habitat fragmentation and increased roadkill; ❑ Substantial adverse change to the significance of a known cultural resource; ❑ Direct or indirect destruction of a unique cultural resource; ❑ Disturbance of archaeological human remains; ❑ Damage to transportation infrastructure through surface rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslides; ❑ Long -term erosion and slope failure; ❑ Residual geologic and soil cumulative impacts in localized areas such as near. Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones and locations within Seismic Hazards Mapping Zones; 14 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Draft EIR.00TA.CC Staff Report City Comment Letter re: Draft Program EIR for 1006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Prepared by Orange County Transportation Authority City Council Staff Report February 13, 2006 ❑ Water quality impacts during construction and operation of projects; ❑ Water quality impacts caused by erosion and sedimentation; ❑ Community impacts (indirect air quality, noise, and aesthetics impacts) to land uses and sensitive receptors adjacent to some projects within the Proposed Plan; ❑ Cumulative community impacts (indirect air quality, noise, and aesthetics impacts) to land uses and sensitive receptors adjacent to some projects within the Proposed Plan; ❑ Long -term noise levels in excess of local noise standards or substantially increased over ambient levels; ❑ Long -term vibration impacts adjacent to expanded rail lines; ❑ Short-term construction noise levels in excess of local standards; ❑ Short-term vibration levels in excess of the annoyance threshold; ❑ Disruption or division of existing communities by separating community facilities, restricting community access, and eliminating community amenities; ❑ Visual impacts to important visual resources within designated Scenic Highways; and ❑ Effects to scenic resources visible from public vantage points; Potential Right- of- Way Acouisition Impacts: Section 4.11, Population and Housing, Impact 4.11 -2, Acquisition of rights -of -way would displace existing homes and businesses, discusses potential impacts of future right -of -way acquisition as part of future projects that might be carried out by other agencies and sets forth mitigation measures to address the impacts identified. This discussion is set forth below in its entirety for the information of the City Council: "Impact 4.11 -2: Acquisition of rights -of -way would displace existing homes and businesses. Development of highway, arterial, and transit projects identified in the Proposed Plan could result in the disturbance and/or loss of land currently used for residential or business purposes. The alignments of these projects have not been developed to the point that they can be reliably overlaid onto land use maps. However, these projects could potentially require the acquisition and relocation of homes and businesses. The Proposed Plan also includes several interchange improvement projects and arterial highway widenings that could result in the displacement of homes and businesses. Improvements to older interchanges and arterial highways in the northern and central portions of the County would be more susceptible to property acquisition due to the reduced setbacks and rights -of -way between existing land uses and existing transportation facilities. 15 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Draft EIR.00TA.CC Staff Report City Comment Letter re: Draft Program E1R for 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Prepared by Orange County Transportation Authority City Council Staff Report February 13, 2006 The acquisition and relocation of existing homes and businesses required by certain projects that are part of the Proposed Plan would be a significant impact of the Proposed Plan. Mitigation Measures 4.11 -B For projects with the potential to displace homes and/or businesses, project implementation agencies shall evaluate alternate route alignments and transportation facilities that minimize the displacement of homes and businesses. An iterative design and impact analysis would help in cases where impacts to homes or businesses are involved. Potential impacts shall be minimized to the extent feasible. Existing rights -of -way should be used to the furthest extent possible. 4.11 -C Project implementation agencies shall identify businesses and residences to be displaced. As required by law, relocation assistance shall be provided to displaced residents and businesses in accordance with the federal Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and the State of California Relocation Assistance Act, as well as any applicable City, County, and port policies. 4.11 -D Project implementation agencies shall develop a construction schedule that minimizes potential neighborhood deterioration from protracted waiting periods between right -of -way acquisition and construction. Level of Significance after Mitigation By providing relocation as required under State and federal law, Mitigation Measures 4.11 -B through 4.11 -D will reduce displacement impacts to less than significant levels. ,6 It is recommended that the City support Mitigation Measures 4.11 -B through 4.11 -D. Even though these Mitigation Measures are supported, staff is recommending that the City again take 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 Seal Beach Boulevard and Valley View Street, as was done as part of the City comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement re: "State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection" during 2001 and 2002. The proposed comment letter addresses this concern and recommendation. 6 Op. Cit., pages 4.11 -8 and 4.11 -9. 16 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Draft EQ2.00TA.CC Staff Report City Comment Letter re: Draft Program EIR for 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Prepared by Orange County Transportation Authority City Council Staff Report February 13, 2006 ALTERNATIVES: In addition to the "Proposed Plan" the DPEIR indicates that 4 alternatives are being evaluated in the DPEIR, summarized as follows: ❑ Alternative I - No Project /Baseline Alternative: The No Project (Baseline) Alternative includes projects and programs that have secured funding, have been assessed for their environmental impacts, and have been approved to be implemented. ❑ Alternative 2 — Constrained Alternative: The Constrained Alternative is a set of projects and services that can be completed within the County's traditional revenue sources for transportation improvements. It assumes that the current Measure M one - half -cent sales tax is not extended beyond 2011. ❑ Alternative 3 — Balanced II Alternative: The Balanced II Alternative includes all of the projects from the Proposed Plan with the exception of the high - occupancy toll (HOT) projects proposed along State Route (SR) 91. ❑ Alternative 4 — Unconstrained Alternative: The highest level of investment in the transportation system includes projects and services that could be implemented to meet Orange County's travel demand if funding was not an issue. Public Availability ofLRTP and DPEIR: A copy of the LRTP and DPEIR is available at the Department of Development Services for review. The LRTP and DPEIR is also available for review at the following local libraries: ❑ Mary Wilson Library, 707 Electric Avenue, Seal Beach ❑ Los Alamitos/Rossmoor Library, 12700 Montecito, Seal Beach The LRTP and DPEIR can also be downloaded at the OCTA Web site - www.octa.net/Irtp. Comment Period: The comment period on the DPEIR will conclude on February 27, 2006. Written comments may be submitted to: Orange County Transportation Authority Attn: Mr. Glen Campbell, Senior Transportation Analyst P. O. Box 14184 Orange, CA 92683 -1584 Telephone: (714) 560 -5712 Fax: (714) 560 -5794 E -Mail gcampbell @octa.net Future City Actions: 17 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Draft EIR.00TA.CC Staff Report City Comment Letter re: Draft Program EIR for 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Prepared by Orange County Transportation Authority City Council Staff Report February 13, 2006 Staff has prepared a response letter for consideration of the City Council relative to the DPEIR and supporting the Proposed Plan without taking any position on the reauthorization of Measure M at this time (Refer to Attachment 1). Due to the time limits for receiving comments, the Environmental Quality Control Board will not review this matter. The next meeting of the EQCB is March 1, 2006, after the deadline for receipt of comments. Therefore, the matter is before the City Council at this time for action. Upon completion of the public comment period on the DPEIR, OCTA will then prepare the "Final Program Environmental Impact Report" ( "FPEIR" ), and if scheduling permits, both the EQCB and the City Council will review the FPEIR document, with a formal comment letter regarding the FPEIR being approved by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT: Minimal impact. Existing staff resources have been allocated to review the DPEIR and prepare a comment letter for consideration by the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize Mayor to sign proposed Response Letter, and instruct staff to forward to the Planning Commission and Environmental Quality Control Board for information purposes. Receive and File Staff Report. NOTED e Whittenberg John` Director of Development Serd s City Attachments: (6) Attachment 1: Draft City Comment Letter re: "Draft Program EIR for the 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan" Attachment 2: City Comment Letter re: Notice of Preparation - Draft Program EIR for the 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan, April 25, 2005 Attachment 3: 2006 Long Range Transportation Plan: "The Plan" summary of projects included in: 18 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Draft EIR.00TA.CC Staff Report City Comment Letter re: Draft Program EIR for 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Prepared by Orange County Transportation Authority City Council Staff Report February 13, 2006 ❑ Baseline (No Project) ❑ Constrained Alternative. ❑ Balanced Plan ❑ Unconstrained Alternative Attachment 4: 2006 Long Range Transportation Plan: "Financing the Plan", pages 73 -77 and Appendix C: Project Summary List Attachment 5: Draft Program Environmental Impact Report - 2006 Long Range Transportation Plan: ❑ Table of Contents ❑ Executive Summary ❑ Chapter 2 —Project Description Attachment 6: Draft Program Environmental Impact Report - 2006 Long Range Transportation Plan; Long Range Transportation Plan Projects: ❑ Table 2A - Long Range Transportation Plan Freeway Projects ❑ Table 2B - Long Range Transportation Plan Roadway Projects ❑ Table 2C - Long Range Transportation Plan Transit Projects 19 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Draft EIR.00TA.CC Staff Report City Comment Letter re: Draft Program EIR.for 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Prepared by Orange County Transportation Authority City Council Staff Report February 13, 2006 ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT CITY COMMENT LETTER RE: "DRAFT PROGRAM EIR FOR THE 2006 LONG -RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN" 20 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Draft EIR.00TA.CC Stall Report February 13, 2006 Orange County Transportation Authority Attn: Mr. Glen Campbell, Senior Transportation Analyst P. O. Box 14184 Orange, CA 92683 -1584 Dear Mr. Campbell: SUBJECT: CITY OF SEAL BEACH COMMENTS RE: DRAFT PROGRAM EIR — 2006 LONG -RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN The City of Seal Beach has reviewed the above referenced Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ( DPEIR) and has several general comments and observations relative to the contents of the Draft Program EIR for the 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan document, which are set forth below. The City understands that lead agencies for future individual projects analyzed in this PEIR are required to prepare project -level CEQA documents and that approval of the LRTP and the DPEIR does not initiate the development of a specific proiect plan or authorize construction of any project proposed in the LRTP. Any future proiect - level analyses will be prepared by implementing agencies on a proiect by- proiect basis. Project - specific planning and implementation undertaken by each implementing agency will depend on a numlier-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. The City also understands that this PEIR will serve as the CEQA document for the Expenditure Plan for the proposed reauthorization of Measure M. Measure M is a 20 -year program of transportation improvements approved by the voters of Orange County in 1990 that is funded by a half -cent sales tax and which will expire in 2011, unless reauthorized. The proposed reauthorization of Measure M forms the basis for the Proposed Plan (LRTP Balanced Plan). The projects contained in the proposed Measure M reauthorization are Z:\My Documents\CEQA\2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Draft EIR.00TA.CC Comment Letter.doc\LW\02 -08 -06 . .. April 25, 2005 FILE -_ Orange County Transportation Authority Attn: Mr. Glen Campbell, Senior Transportation Analyst P. O. Box 14184 Orange, CA 92683 -1584 Dear Mr. Campbell: SUBJECT: CITY OF SEAL BEACH COMMENTS RE: NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF DRAFT PROGRAM EIR 2006 LONG -RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN The City of Seal Beach has reviewed the above referenced Notice of Preparation (NOP) and has several general comments and observations relative to the contents of the Draft Program EIR for the 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan document, which are set forth below. 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 of Seal Beach continues to be concerned about coordination issues relating to the bridge widening project and the impacts of the various transportation project alternatives being considered by OCTA and Caltrans in relation to this portion of the project area. The City requests early consultation between our staff and OCTA staff to resolve issues of concern relative to this project. The City takes this opportunity to again 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 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. This issue was extensively discussed between OCTA and the City during the consideration of the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement re: "State Route 22/West Orange County Connection" during 2001 and 2002. Z:\My Documents \CEQA\2006 Long Range Transportation Plan.City Comment Letter.doc\Lw\04 -25 -05 City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: Notice of Preparation of Draft Program EIR- 2006 Long Range Transportation Plan April 25, 2005 Further, the City is aware of the ongoing I -405 Major Investment Study ( "MIS ") and requests that project alternatives identified within the MIS study be adequately evaluated within the DPEIR as part of the various alternatives being evaluated within the DPEIR. OCTA should be conducting early consultation' meetings with the California Department of Transportation and the Sou em Califomip;Association of Governments, and other appropriate transportation planning entities, to ascertain any long -range transportation planning projects that those agencies are contemplating, such as the "Goods Movements Study" to allow for a thorough evaluation of cumulative and growth - inducing impacts within the DPEIR document. Also, potential high speed rail projects that are proposed within Orange County need to be considered and evaluated within the DPEIR document. During the public comment period on the Draft EIR, our City will provide comments and concerns as determined appropriate. Again, our primary concerns would be related to potential adverse aesthetic, air quality, noise, localized traffic, hydrology /water quality, cumulative, and growth inducing impacts to the City of Seal Beach and its residents. The City Council considered and discussed the NOP on April 25, 2005, 2003 and authorized the Mayor to sign this letter, representing the official comments of the City of Seal Beach. Thank you for your consideration of the comments of the City of Seal Beach. Please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services, City Hall, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, 90740, telephone (562) 431 -2527, extension 313 if you have any questions regarding this matter. In addition, please provide four (4) copies of the Draft EIR on this project to Mr. Whittenberg, so the City can have a copy available at City Hall and at each library within the City available for public review during the public comment period. The City would also request a PDF formatted -copy of the DEK including,all technical appendices, be forwarded to Mr. Whittenberg at the time of distribution so that it might be posted on our web page for interested citizen's to view and prepare any comments they may wish to forward to OCTA on this project during the public comment period. Sincerely, Paul Yost Mayor, City of Seal Beach Distribution: Seal Beach City Council Seal Beach Planning Commission Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board City Manager Director of Development Services Director of Public Works /City Engineer 2006 Long Range Transportation Plm.City Comment Letter 2 City Comment Letter re: Draft Program EIR for 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Prepared by Orange County Transportation Authority City Council Staff Report February 13, 2006 ATTACHMENT 3 2006 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN: "THE PLAN" SUMMARY OF PROJECTS INCLUDED IN: ❑ BASELINE (NO PROJECT) ❑ CONSTRAINED ALTERNATIVE ❑ BALANCED PLAN ❑ UNCONSTRAINED ALTERNATIVE 25 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Draft HIR.00TA.CC Staff Report 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Baseline (No Project) The Plan The Baseline is our starting point. It is comprised of projects or services that have secured funding and have been assessed for their environmental impacts and approved to be implemented. The Baseline includes the set of Orange County projects that are in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program or "RTIP," the Southem California region's six - year capital programming document that has been adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), as well as other locally funded and environmentally cleared projects. In essence, the Baseline is a "No Project" alternative, being made up of projects that would occur if no preferred Long -Range Transportation Plan was approved. The major projects in the Baseline include: Freeways • Widening and improvements on the I -5 North from SR -91 to the Los Angeles County Line Widening and improvements on SR -22 Auxiliary Lanes on I -405 from Magnolia to Beach Boulevard and from SR -133 to Jeffrey Completion of the southern portion of the Foothill Transportation Corridor and widening of the toll road system to its planned width Roadways • Widening of Bristol Street • Completion of Measure M roadway projects Transit Initiation of a Bus Rapid Transit program on Orange County roadways Expanded Metrolink service to provide frequent intra -county service Final Draft -51- OCTA "Baseline projects are derived from regionally - approved financial plans." 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan The Plan Constrained Alternative The Constrained Alternative is a set of projects and services that can be carried out within Orange County's traditional revenue sources for transportation improvements. It assumes that the current Measure M one half -cent sales tax sunsets in 2011. The improvements in the Constrained Alternative include the following major projects, in addition to the Baseline projects mentioned previously. Freeways • On the I -405, add auxiliary Lanes from Euclid Avenue to Beach Boulevard and from SR -133 to Jeffrey Road • On the SR -91, widen from SR -241 to SR -71 • Construction of HOV drop ramps and HOV connectors on I -405, SR -22, SR-55,1-605, and SR -57 • Add HOV lanes on the SR -73 between the I -405 and MacArthur Boulevard • Completion of the southern portion of the Foothill Transportation Corridor • Accelerate capacity on SR -73, SR -133, SR -241, and SR -261 • On the I -5, widen from SR -57 to the Los Angeles County Line; improve access from Crown Valley Parkway to Avery Parkway; and improve interchanges at the El Toro "Y" area, Culver Drive, Oso Parkway, Avenida Pico, Camino Capistrano, and Stonehill Drive • On the SR -22, widen from I -405 to SR -55 • On the SR -55, widen from Dyer to Edinger • Freeway Service Patrol to 2010 Roadways • Street maintenance with available funds • Completion of Measure M roadway projects • Implementation of developer fee - funded roadway projects • Limited street widening with available funds Transit Expanded countywide bus service, including express buses Expansion of the Bus Rapid Transit program on Orange County roadways Development of Intermodal Centers Final Draft -55- OCTA "The Constrained Alternative is limited to traditional funding sources." 2006 Lang -Range Transportation Plan he Plan Balanced Plan The Balanced Plan provides greater improvement to the transportation system. It includes projects and services that can be implemented with a higher level of investment, which is achieved if the traditional funds are supplemented with a voter - approved local one half -cent sales tax beyond 2011. The Balanced Plan includes the projects in the Baseline and Constrained Alternatives, and adds these major improvements: Freeways • Widen the I -5 from the SR -55 to El Toro Road, from the I -405 to the SR -73, and from PCH to Avenida Pico; also, additional carpool lane capacity from the SR -55 to the SR -57 • Improve I -5 interchanges and ramps at the SR -55, the SR- 22/SR -57 juncture, the El Toro "Y ", Ortega Highway, Avery Parkway, La Paz Road, and Jamboree Road • On the I -405, widen between the I -5 and SR -55, and between the SR -73 and the I -605, and improve interchanges and ramps • Upgrade SR -22 interchanges at Euclid Street, Brookhurst Street, and Magnolia Street • Add lanes to the SR -55 between the SR -22 and I -405; also, improve access to the SR -55 between the SR -91 and SR -22 • On the SR -57, add a northbound lane from Katella Avenue to Lincoln Avenue, from Orangethorpe Avenue to Lambert Road, and construct a northbound truck lane from Lambert Road to Tonner Canyon Road; also, improve interchanges at Lambert Road and at the SR -91 • On the SR -91, add capacity from the SR -241 to the I.15; add lanes from SR -55 to SR -241; improve ramps and interchanges at the SR -241, SR- 55, and SR -57; add capacity from the SR -57 to 1 -5; and improve access to the SR -91 between the SR -55 and SR -57 • Improve I -605 interchange at Katella Avenue and improve freeway access in the Los Alamitos area • Continue Freeway Service Patrol beyond 2010 Roadways • Continue the Fair -Share Program for local street maintenance and transportation needs • Continue regional street capacity improvements • Synchronize traffic signals across jurisdictions and smart streets Transit Implement all day high frequency Metrolink service north of Fullerton (rail capacity and facility improvements) Expand bus services, including high capacity transit service connecting with Metrolink and proposed high speed rail systems, services for seniors and the disabled, community -based shuttles Construct high priority railroad grade separations on the Metrolink line and implement a safe stops program Final Draft _59- OCTA "The Balanced Plan has more funds to work with and achieves a higher level of improvement." - 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Unconstrained Alternative The Plan The Unconstrained Alternative is the highest level of investment in the transportation system, a look at the optimum combinations of projects and services that could be implemented to meet Orange County's travel demand, if funds were not an issue. In essence, the Baseline and Unconstrained Alternatives are "bookends" providing the lowest and highest level of improvement. The Unconstrained Alternative includes all the previously mentioned projects plus the following: Freeways • Further widening of I-405 from SR -73 to I -605. • Complete SR -55 via a highway or expressway tunnel in Costa Mesa • Implement recommendations from the Riverside- Orange County MIS study • Widen SR -57 to SR -60 (funded by Los Angeles County) • Widen SR -91 from I -5 to Los Angeles County Line and further widen SR -91 between I -5 and SR -57 • Build the connection between SR -73 and future SR -241 • Extend SR -57 to I -405 along the Santa Ana River Roadways • Further expand countywide traffic signal coordination • Continue grade separation of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe freight railway Transit • Construct additional railroad grade separations and quiet zones • Provide funding for high speed rail/maglev systems • Expand transit extensions to Metrolink • Provide funding to relocate railroad tracks south of Laguna Niguel to allow for expanded Metrolink service and extend high frequency service to San Clemente Final Draft -67- OCTA "The Unconstrained Alternative shows what we could accomplish if funds weren't a limiting factor." City Comment Letter re: Draft Program E!R for 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Prepared by Orange County Transportation Authorily City Council Staff Report February 13, 2006 ATTACHMENT 4 2006 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN: "FINANCING THE PLAN ", PAGES 73 -77 AND APPENDIX C: PROJECT SUMMARY LIST 26 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Draft EIR.00TA.CC Staff Report 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan The Plan Figure 47 Transit Ridership Increases by Alternative (compared to Baseline Measure Constrained Balanced Plan Unconstrained Alternative Alternative Daily Local Bus Increased by Increased by Increased by Trips 13% 16% 17% Daily Commuter Increased by Increased by Increased by Rail Trips 30% 100% 98% Daily Total Transit Increased by Increased by Increased by Trips (including 16% 26% 26% express bus The Preferred Plan The Baseline and Unconstrained Alternatives provide points of reference for analysis. If nothing but the Baseline projects were carried out between now and 2030, the level of service on Orange County's transportation networks would decline- dramatically. While the Unconstrained Alternative set of projects perform the best, they are not currently doable given projected revenues. Comparing the projected performance of the remaining alternatives, the Balanced Plan provides the highest level of improvement for Orange County travelers and is the preferred Long - Range Transportation Plan Alternative. It is important to note that this level of improvement is only possible if additional local revenues become available —a reasonable assumption, but critically dependent on voter approval of an extension to the one half -cent sales tax for transportation, Measure M. Major Funding Challenges and Trends The way that transportation projects and services are funded in the new century is evolving. For many years, state and federal taxes on gasoline were the main source of funds for regional transportation projects. Unfortunately, state and federal gas taxes have not kept up with the costs of building new freeway lanes, roadways, and transit projects. Inflation has eroded this traditional source of transportation funds. At the same time, the number of miles traveled each year by vehicles in California, the Southern California region, and Orange County has increased as households own more cars and drive farther to work and recreational areas. This trend is expected to continue in the future as the distance between major job centers and residential areas grow. This is compounded by more people and more jobs moving into the region. Final Draft -73- OCTA "The Balanced Plan results in substantially more transit trips." "The Balanced Plan is the Preferred Alternative for the 2006 Long Range Transportation Plan." 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan The Plan While traditional revenues are declining, the need for new transportation projects continues, and maintenance needs increase because of increased wear and tear on the existing transportation system. Local Solutions Through Measure M Recognizing the uncertainty of state and federal funds, many counties across California, including Orange County, asked voters to approve local sales taxes with the specific purpose of funding transportation projects and services. Many such measures passed and have become a significant source of funds for roadway, highway, and transit projects, allowing local residents to better control their own transportation destiny. "The cost of providing In 1990, Orange County voters approved Measure M, a 20 -year program for transportation improvements funded by a one half -cent sales tax. transportation Measure M allocates all sales tax revenues to specific Orange County has outpaced transportation improvement projects in three major areas — freeways, traditional roadways, and transit. Completed major Measure M projects include: revenues like • new lanes added to the I -5, SR -55 and SR -91 Freeways; state and federal • a smoother and wider "El Toro Y," where the I -405 and I -5 join; gas taxes." • the launch of Metrolink commuter rail service and building of new stations; • bus discounts for seniors and the disabled; and • about $1.5 billion allocated for roadway widening and street repair. Measure M is currently funding the construction of a wider 12 -mile section of the SR -22 and the northern section of the I -5 from the SR -91 to the OrangAos Angeles County line. Measure M expires in 2011 unless renewed by voters. By then, Measure M will have made possible nearly $4.2 billion worth of transportation improvements. Constrained Alternative Revenues (Without Future Measure M) Orange County can expect to receive $28 billion (2005 dollars) over the next 36 years to maintain, enhance, and operate the transportation system without an extension of Measure M. While $28 billion is a significant future investment, most (96 percent) of these funds are committed to mandated projects and services including maintaining freeways, roadways, and running bus service. Only about 4 percent of these funds could be used to address future mobility problems in Orange County. That 4 percent equates to improving just a few major freeways in Orange County and is not sufficient to meet countywide transportation needs by 2030. Final Draft -74- OCTA 2006 Lang -Range Transportation Plan The Plan A mixture of federal, state, and local sources comprise the future transportation revenues for the $28 billion Constrained Alternative. Local sources comprise 67 percent of these sources, and state and federal monies comprise the remaining 33 percent. These funds will be used for a combination of purposes including continuing investments in freeway operations, road maintenance, minor capacity increases, and continuing to operate the bus and Metrolink system. Balanced Plan Revenues (With Measure M Extension) Under the Balanced Plan, total transportation revenues increase to about $40.7 billion (2005 dollars). Implementation of the Balanced Plan relies on Orange County voters approving an extension of Measure M from 2011 to 2041 that would include a series of voter safeguards related to the continued funding. A mixture of federal, state, and local sources comprise the future transportation revenues for the $40.7 billion Balanced Plan. Local sources comprise 77 percent of these sources, and state and federal monies comprise the remaining 23 percent. The increase in the Balanced Plan local share from the Constrained Alternative is due to the addition of $11.862 billion of new Measure M funds, an increase in cities' local general fund revenues for transportation purposes, and continued operation of the 91 Express Lanes as a toll facility. The new funds from a Measure M extension would be used for: • expanding the Orange County freeway system to remove bottlenecks and add new capacity primarily within the existing freeway rights -of -way; • enhancing street maintenance programs to reduce wear and tear on cars, buses, and trucks; • coordinating traffic signals across cities to improve traffic flow; • expanding street capacity at major bottleneck locations; • separating road and rail traffic with grade separations at key locations; • expanding the Metrolink commuter rail system with high - frequency service to Los Angeles; • providing new transit connections to and from Metrolink stations; • connecting Metrolink service to new regional transportation systems and centers; • lowering bus fares for seniors and the disabled; Final Draft : 75 - OCTA "An extension of Measure M will generate $11.8 billion for future transportation in Orange County." 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan The Plan • expanding community-based shuttles to link people to shopping, medical facilities, and job centers; and • improving water quality by augmenting existing strategies and further addressing Orange County's transportation system water runoff. These dollars would be a stable, dedicated source of funds for transportation. Orange County has a history of self -help, evidenced by the current Measure M and local developer fee programs. Coupled with a healthy local economy, these characteristics suggest Orange County would do well to continue dedicating local sales tax revenues to transportation. Figure 49 provides a summary of the estimated costs of implementing the Constrained Alternative and the Balanced Plan, while figure 50 provides a summary of transportation revenues by alternative. The Unconstrained Alternative costs and revenues are not shown in these figures due to uncertainty with project costs and funding sources. Figure 48 Long -Range Transportation Plan Alternative Costs (In Millions) Final Draft -76- OCTA Constrained Alternative Balanced Plan Freeways $6,409 $11,580 Roadways $8,758 $13,290 Transit $12,837 $15,669 Other $237 Total $28,004 $40,776 Final Draft -76- OCTA 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan The Plan Figure 49 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Sources Summary (2005 Dollars) Sot46S'OF, FUNDS •' ` - ,- '?' -_: :Constrained Aliernanv< _;�t.�"'= Balanecil Plen.' Local Sources 2,003,225,440 $ 2,003,225,440 Measure M to 3Q FY 2011 $ 1,486,504,110 $ 1,486,504,110 Net Measure M 4Q FY 2011 to 2041 - 11,565,450,000 General fund (cities' Maintenance of Effort; 36 yrs.) 1,557,036,436 2,463 572,655 Transportation Development Act/Local Tmnsp. Fund 6,472,845,287 6,472,845,287 Property Tax Revenue 431,913,599 431,913,599 Transit Fares 2,942,701,826 2,942,701,826 Gas Tax Exchange to OCTA 161,452,920 161,452,920 Gas Tax Subventions 2,641,011,158 2,641,011,158 Service Authority for Freeways and Expressways (SAFE) 66,085,877 66,085,877 Tolls (TCA system and 91 Express Lanes) 1,618,000,000 1,918,000,000 Developer fees ($25 m, a year . 36 yrs.) 900,000,000 900,000,000 Misc $ 374,300,000 $ 374,300,000 Subtotal Local Sources: S 18,651,851,213 $ 31,423,837,433 Score Sources Prop 42 Subventions $ 2,003,225,440 $ 2,003,225,440 State Transit Assistance Fund (STAF) 734,871,483 734,871,483 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) 2,161,895,517 2,161,895,517 State Highway Operations& Protection Program (SHOPP) 1,083,946,022 1,083,946 022 Unfunded Subtotal State Sources: 55,983,938,462 $5,983,938,462 Federal Sources Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) $ 985,471 405 $ 985,471,405 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Imprv'mt Pmg (CMAQ) 1,191,620,311 1,191,620,311 Section 5307, Federal Transit Formula Funds 1,060,795,411 1,060,795,411 Section 5309, New Starts 111,441,497 111,441,497 Other Demonstration Projects 18,538,763 18,538,763 Unfunded - - Subtotal Federal Sources 5 3,367,867,387 $ 3,367,867,387 Total All Sources $ 28.003.657.063 $ 40.775.643.282 Notes: Measure M 11 forecast per Board direction 10/17/2005 Future MOE adjusted to CPI beginning 2006 Federal sources under review and subject to final apportionments Final Draft -77- OCTA 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan The Plan Conclusion c' d. By implementing the Balanced Plan, we achieve the three fundamental goals of New Directions: improving mobility, protecting Orange County's transportation resources, and enhancing our quality of life. The projects and services in the Balanced Plan offer visitors, residents and workers safe and reliable transportation choices, and greater accessibility because of increased service and improved system wide efficiency. The Balanced Plan also includes considerable investment in maintaining our transportation networks. Collectively, the projects in the Balanced Plan will minimize increases in congestion and travel time. By involving local jurisdictions, other agencies and the public in the development and implementation of the Plan, we promote mobility and economic growth while minimizing community and environmental impacts. As the elements of the New Directions Balanced Plan become reality, each project— whether a new bus line, rail car, coordinated signal, carpool lane or pavement repair project —will contribute to our quality of life, and help make Orange County a great place to live, work, and visit. Final Draft -78- OCTA 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Appendix C Appendix C: Project List Summary Figure 58 Final Draft C -1 OCTA 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Appendix C Final Draft C -2 OCTA 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Appendix C Final Draft C -3 OCTA 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Appendix C Final Draft C -4 OCTA 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Appendix C Final Draft C -5 OCTA 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Appendix C i „;. ,u,"TotalConst�ainetlAlterna[rve� " y*�t$28;004, Total Balanced Plan $12,772 -'ar Total(Cumulattve : $28;004 Total Cumulative.' `$40,776- .'�,''';. a Runoff. Quality/Urban $237,_ r_ Total:Envrronmental- - _Total Environmental - ;. $237:. i „;. ,u,"TotalConst�ainetlAlterna[rve� " y*�t$28;004, Total Balanced Plan $12,772 -'ar Total(Cumulattve : $28;004 Total Cumulative.' `$40,776- .'�,''';. a Final Draft C -6 OCTA City Comment Letter re: Draft Program EIR for 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Prepared by Orange County Transportation Authority City Council Staff Report February 13, 2006 ATTACHMENT 5 DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - 2006 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN: ❑ TABLE OF CONTENTS ❑ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ❑ CHAPTER 2 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION 27 2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan DWI EIR.00TA.CC Staff Report JANUARY 2006 PA0Cf531\DPEQL\b1mk page.dm (01/06106) 2006 OCTA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN PEIR ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA This page intentionally left blank PROPOSED DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2oo6 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SCH NO. 2005041038 Prepared for. Orange County Transportation Authority 550 South Main Street P.O. Box 14184 Orange, California 92863 -1584 (714) 560 -OCTA (6282) Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 20 Executive Park, Suite 200 Irvine, California 92614 -4731 (949) 553 -0666 January 2oo6 JANUARY $SSS P w=5311nrrneVAwk pop dGC (01/06/06) 2006 OOTA LONG lAROR TRANSPORTATION PLAN PRIX ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA This page intentionally left blank 2996 GCTA LONG ■ANGa Ta N)ORTATION PLAN Pail GCC1Yata 1985 ONANOa COUNTY. CALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVESUMMARY ................................................. ............................... ............... ... ... ES-1 PURPOSEOF THE PEIR ...................................................................... ............................... ES -1 PROJECTLOCATION ........................................................ ............................... ES -1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................... ............................... ES -2 PROJECTOBJECTIVES ....................................................................... ............................... ES -2 ALTERNATIVES.................................................................................. ............................... ES -2 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED ..... ............................... ES -3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.._ ........................................................ ............................... ES -3 10 INTRODUCTION ... . .. . ....... ............. .. .......... .. .. ....... ....... ............. ........... .. .... ..... ... ..... 1-1 I 1 PURPOSE OF THE PEIR ......................................................... ............................1 -1 1.2 SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY ........... . .. . ............. ..... . ..... .. .. .... ...... . ................. 1-1 1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THE PEIR ............. ........ ........ ..... .... ..... .. .. ...... . ...... . ........ 1-2 1.4 NOTICE OF PREPARATION . ..... ......... .. ....... ... .......... ..... .. .. . ........... . . ... ... ...... 1-3 1.5 CONTACT PERSONS ..... .... ... ....... ..... . .. . ....... . . ...... ...... ....... ........................... ... 1-5 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....... ............................................ ............................... 2 -1 2.1 BACKGROUND AND LOCATION .. . .... ..... . ...... ... ..... ...... .. .. . . . ... .. ... . ... .... 2-1 2.2 PURPOSE OF THE LRTP ............. ............................... ......... . ... . .......... ....... 2-3 2.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES . ..... ........................................................................................... 2-3 2.4 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS ........... .......................................................................... 2-4 2.5 PROPOSED PLAN AND LRTP PEIR ALTERNATIVES ......................................... .... 2-11 2 6 INTENDED USES OF THE PEIR .................................. ................................................ 2-13 2.7 RESPONSIBLE AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES .................................... ...........................2 -13 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ..... .............................. . ............ .... ............................... . . ..... 3-1 3.1 TRANSPORTATION .... ........ ................... .. ............................... ..3 -1 3 2 GEOLOGY/TOPOGRAPHY ....................... .. ............................... ......3 -4 3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......... ............................................................. ............ ...... 3-5 3.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES ....... ...... ...... . ... ...... . . .. ....... . . ..... . ... ...... 3-5 3.5 AIR QUALITY . . ......... ... .......... . .. .... . . . .... ... .. ........... . ...... .. ... ............ ...... ......... 3-5 3.6 LAND USE ... ............................................ .. ......... ... ....... ................... . .. ... .... .. ... ..... 3-5 3.7 WATER RESOURCES .............................. . ... ...... .. . . .. . .. . .. .. .. . ..... ..... . 3-6 3 8 POPULATION ............ ............................... ... . . ... .......... .. .. .... .. ... .. .. .. ......... 3-6 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .......................................... ............................... 4 -1 4.1 AIR QUALITY .............. ......... . .. .......... ... ............................... ... ............ ... . . ..... 4.1-1 4.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ..................................................... ............................... 4.2 -1 4.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES .......................................... . . ................... .. .......... . ....... 4.3-1 4.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .................................................. .............................................. 4.4-1 4.5 ENERGY ............................................................ . .......................................................... 4.5-1 4.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .................................. ..........................4.6 -1 4.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ........................................... ..........................4.7 -1 4.8 LAND USE ................................................... .................................................................. 4.8-1 4.9 NOISE AND VIBRATION ................................................................... ..........................4.9 -1 P tOCTSIMPRIR \Table of Coutaam doe a0110M* DRCRNSRI 2922 2169 OCTA LONG RANON TRANSPORTATION PLAN rail ORANOR COUNTY. CALIPORNIA 4.10 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES .............. ............................... .........................4.10 -1 4.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING ........................................ ....................................... 4.11-1 4.12 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION .... .. . ....... .......................................... 4.12-1 4.13 VISUAL RESOURCES ... ............................... . .. ............ ........................ ...... ......... 4.13-1 5 0 ALTERNATIVES .. . ............ ... ... . .. . .......... ... .... ......... .. ....... ............................ . .... .... .... 5-1 5.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................... .... ............................................. 5-1 5.2 PROPOSED PLAN ............................................................................ ............................5 -2 5.3 NO PROJECT ( BASELINE) ALTERNATIVE ................................. ............................5 -4 5.4 CONSTRAINED ALTERNATIVE .................................................. ...........................5 -11 5.5 BALANCED R ALTERNATIVE ..................................................... ...........................5 -29 5.6 UNCONSTRAINED ALTERNATIVE .......................... ............................... 5-43 5.7 COMPARISON OF ALL ALTERNATIVES .. . ... . .............. ...... . ..... ... .. ..... ..... 5-58 5.8 IDENTIFICATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE......... ..... .. ..... . .. .................. ...... . ......... . ... .... .... . ....... ... ..... 5-58 6.0 LONG -TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJ ECT ..... ..... . .. ........... ... . . . ... . 6-1 6.1 GROWTH INDUCEMENT ..... . . . . ....... . . ....... .. . .. .. .... ....... . ... . . . . .......... ... . 6-1 62 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION................................... ............................... ....... .... 6 -3 6.3 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ........................... .............. 6-4 7.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ......... ............................... 7 -1 7.1 MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS .......................... ............................7 -1 7.2 MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES ............................... ............................7 -1 8.0 REPORT AUTHORS, REFERENCES AND ACRONYM LIST ................... ..............................1 8 1 LEAD AGENCY PERSONNEL AND REPORT AUTHORS........ I 8 2 REFERENCES ......................... 8.3 ACRONYM LIST .......................... . P10 03IMPMUabk ofConimu doesol /o 62 ..2 ............................... .............................11 2115 OOTA LONG MANOR TRANSPORTATION PLAN FEIR DICRNEER loos ORANOR COUNTY. CALIFORNIA FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURES Figure 2 1: Project Location .................................... ............................... ..... .......... ...2 -2 Figure 3.1: 2000 Orange County Population Density ......... .... ........... ..................... ... . . ............... 3-2 Figure 3 2: 2030 Orange County Population Density ............................................. ............................3 -3 Figure4.2.1: Habitat Types .................................................................................... ..........................4.2 -3 Figure 4.2.2: Critical Habitat ................................................................................. .........................4.2 -13 Figure 4.2.3: Conservation Areas .......................................................................... .........................4.2 -17 Figure 4.4.1: Regional Fault Map ........................................................................... ..........................4.4 -2 Figure 4.6.1: Hazardous Release Locations ..... . .. .. ...... ...... .... .... .... .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .......... 4.6-4 Figure 4.7.1 • Watersheds and Major Creeks .... ................................................ ......... .. .. .... ........ 4.7-2 Figure 4.7.2: Groundwater Basins ....... ........................... . ....... ... . .. .. . .. ..... .. .. ... . .. ......... .... 4.7-4 Figure 4.7.3. 100 -Year Floodplain Map .................. ............................... ....... ....................... 4.7-5 Figure 4.8.1: Existing Land Use ..... . ...... . ... .. .... . ............... ... .... . ..... ....... . .................. .. ..... 4.8-2 Figure 4.8.2. County Planned Land Uses ......................... ............................... . .......... . 4.8-5 Figure 4.8 3. Regional Statistical Areas ........................ ............................... ............ .48-6 Figure 4.9.1. Noise Impact Criteria for Transit Projects ............. ............................... 4.9 -10 Figure 4.11 1: Population by Ethnicity, Orange County (2000 - 2004) .. ....... .... .. .. .... ........ 4.11-4 Figure 4.12.1: Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways .......... .. ..... ... .. ..... . ... ......... 4.12-3 Figure 4.12.2: Orange County Bikeway Master Plan ............. ............................... .........................4.12 -5 Figure 4.12.3A: Existing AM Peak -Hour Congestion Levels ............... ..... . ... ................ ........... 4.12-8 Figure 4.12.3B. Existing PM Peak -Hour Congestion Levels ........... .......... . ................................ 4.12-9 Figure 4.12.3C: Existing AM Peak -Hour HOV Congestion Levels .................... ........................4.12 -10 Figure 4.12.3D: Existing PM Peak -Hour HOV Congestion Levels ..................... ........................4.12 -11 Figure 4.12AA: 2030 No Project Lanes ................................ ............................... ........................4.12 -15 Figure 4.12AB 2030 with Proposed Plan Lane Additions ... .. . ........... .. .. ................... . ....... 4.12-16 Figure 4.12.5A: 2030 No Project (Baseline) AM Peak -Hour Congestion Levels. ........... 4.12 -18 Figure 4 12.5B: 2030 No Project (Baseline) PM Peak -Hour Congestion Levels .. .. ..... ..... ...... 4.12-19 Figure 4.12.5C: 2030 No Project (Baseline) AM Peak -Hour HOV Congestion Levels ..... .... ... 412-20 Figure 4.12.51): 2030 No Project (Baseline) PM Peak -Hour HOV Congestion Levels . .... .. ... 4.12-21 Figure 4.12.6A: 2030 with Proposed Plan AM Peak -Hour Congestion Levels .... .......... .. ...... 4.12-22 Figure 4.12.6B: 2030 with Proposed Plan PM Peak -Hour Congestion Levels ......................4 12 -23 Figure 4.12.60 2030 with Proposed Plan AM Peak -Hour HOV Congestion Levels ....... ... .. .. 4.12-24 Figure 4.12.6D: 2030 with Proposed Plan PM Peak -Hour HOV Congestion Levels... .. ... . .. .4.12-25 Figure 5.1: 2030 with Proposed Plan Lane Additions. ... . .... . ......... ... . .. ... ... . .... .... .. .... ... . 5-12 Figure 5.2A• 2030 with Proposed Plan AM Peak Hour Congestion Levels ...... ............ ... . ..... . .. 5-13 Figure 5 2B: 2030 with Proposed Plan PM Peak Hour Congestion Levels .... ................................. 5-14 Figure 5.2C: 2030 with Proposed Plan AM Peak Hour HOV Congestion Levels .......................... . 5-15 Figure 5 2D. 2030 with Proposed Plan PM Peak Hour HOV Congestion Levels . ...........................5 -16 Figure 5.3: 2030 Constrained Alternative Lane Additions ..................................... ...........................5 -24 Figure 5AA: 2030 Constrained Alternative AM Peak Hour Congestion Levels ... ...........................5 -25 Figure 5AB: 2030 Constrained Alternative PM Peak Hour Congestion Levels .... ...........................5 -26 Figure 5AC: 2030 Constrained Alternative AM Peak Hour HOV Congestion Levels . ................... 5-27 Figure 5.41): 2030 Constrained Alternative PM Peak Hour HOV Congestion Levels .... ................ 5-28 Figure 5.5: 2030 Balanced 11 Alternative Lane Additions ..................................... ...........................5 -38 P k=531MPERUAble of Commts doe E01I06I06E iii Ol O■Hlil MI 2969 OOTA LONG 1wKOi T1IJIaa O1TATION ILIA 7111 OLMOL COUNTY. C�ZPOINIA Figure 5.6A: 2030 Balanced II Alternative AM Peak Hour Congestion Levels .... ...........................5 -39 Figure 5.6B: 2030 Balanced II Alternative PM Peak Hour Congestion Levels ..... ...........................5 -40 Figure 5.6C: 2030 Balanced II Alternative AM Peak Hour HOV Congestion Levels ............. ........ 5-41 Figure 5.613: 2030 Balanced II Alternative PM Peak Hour HOV Congestion Levels .............. . ..... 5-42 Figure 5.7: 2030 Unconstrained Alternative Lane Additions ..... ...................... ....... ......... ........... . 5-53 Figure 5 8A• 2030 Unconstrained Alternative AM Peak Hour Congestion Levels . . ....... .. ...... .. . 5-54 Figure 5.8B: 2030 Unconstrained Alternative PM Peak Hour Congestion Levels .. ........................ 5-55 Figure 5.8C: 2030 Unconstrained Alternative AM Peak Hour HOV Congestion Levels .................5 -56 Figure 5.81): 2030 Unconstrained Alternative PM Peak Hour HOV Congestion Levels .................5 -57 TABLES Table ES -1: 2006 LRTP Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................. ............................... ES -5 Table 2 A: LRTP Freeway Projects ................. . ... ........ .... . ..... . ......... . . . ........... .. ...... ..... ... 2-6 Table 2.B: LRTP Roadway Projects ............................................... ............................... 2 -10 Table 2 C: LRTP Transit Projects ........... ... . ....... . . . . . ...... . ....... ............ .. . ............... . ... .. ... 2-12 Table 2.D: Potential Responsible and Trustee Agencies. . .... .... .. . ... . ......... ........................ 2 -14 Table 4.1 1: Ambient Air Quality Standards ........................ .. ... ... .. ........ .. ... ...... .. . .... .. 4.1-2 Table 4 1.2: Summary of Potential Health and Environmental Effects of the Major Criteria Air Pollutants.... . .. . ............ ...... ... ... . . .. . . . .... ... ..... . . . .. . ... . . .. . ... .... .. ... .... ....... . . 4.1-4 Table 4.13: Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin .......................4 1 -6 Table 4.1.4a: Ambient Air Quality Data ............ ................. ................ .................. ........... . ....... 4.1-10 Table 4.1.4b: Ambient Air Quality Data ...... ............. . ....... .... . . ............... ............................... 4.1-11 Table 4 1.5: VMT Comparisons (in thousands of miles per day) ......................... .........................4.1 -17 Table 4.1.6: Existing and Future Emissions (tons per day) ................................... .........................4.1 -18 Table 4.1.7: Heavy -Duty Truck Emissions ........................................................... .........................4.1 -20 Table 4.2.1: Habitat Types within Orange County ..................... ................ ................. .................. 4.2-2 Table 4 2.2: Critical Habitat within Orange County .... ........... ..............................4 2 -12 Table 4 2.3 Target and Identified Species Receiving Regulatory Coverage Under the Central /Coastal NCCP/HCP ........... ..... .............................. .................... .... ............................................ .... 4.2-16 Table 4.3.1: California Historic Landmarks (Orange County) ..... . ......... ................ .... .. .. ... . . .. 4.3-2 Table 4.3.2 National Register of Historic Places ................. ..4 3 -2 Table 4.3.3: Paleontological Sensitivity in Orange County .................... ..............................4 3 -9 Table 4 4.1 • Major Historic Earthquakes on Active Faults Traversing the Orange County Region 4 4 -1 Table 4.5.1 • Annual Transportation Energy Consumption in the SCAG Region for Base Years as Indicated................. ............................... ................. ............................... 4.5-4 Table 4.5.2: Projected Regional Transportation Fuel Consumption (thousand of gallons perday) .............................................................. ..............................4 5 -11 Table 4.7.1: Prionty Project Categories .... . ................... ... ................... . .......................... . ... . . . 4.7-9 Table 4.7 2: Site Design and Source Control BMPs to be Considered for Each Project in the ProposedPlan ............ .......... ........................... ...................................................... ............. 4.7-12 Table 4.9.A: Typical Noise Levels ..................... .................................. .................... ..................... 4.9-3 Table 4.9.B: Human Response to Different Levels of Groundbome Noise and Vibration .. ........... 4.9-7 Table 4.9.C: Activity Categories and NAC ........................................................... ..........................4.9 -9 Table 4.9.D: Noise Levels Defining Impact for Transit Projects i ......................... .........................4.9 -11 Table 4.9.E: Land Use Categories and Metrics for Transit and Highway Noise Impact Criteria..4.9 -13 P \OC17331TPPAnTable of Colomildoc 221/061061 DECl NIll 1011 1011 OCTA LONG RANGE TIANIPORTATION PLAN P111 ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA Table 4.9 F: Groundbome Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria ........................... .........................4.9 -14 Table 4.9.0: Groundbome Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria for Special Buildings ................4.9 -15 Table 4.9.H: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels ...................................... .................. 4.9-20 Table 4.10.1: Permitted Active Solid Waste Landfills in Orange County ........... . ... .... ............ 4.10-2 Table 4.10.2: Diversion Rate Summary for Orange County .. .................................... .. .......... . . 4.10-3 Table 4 11 1: 2030 County Growth Forecast—Total Population by Jurisdiction. .. .. ... .. .. .. . .4 11 -2 Table 4.11.2: 4Age Distribution, Orange County (1990 - 2000) ....................... ...........................4.114 Table 4.12.1: Comparison of Trip Characteristics ................ ............................... ........................4.12 -14 Table 4.13.1: Caltrans Scenic Highways Program— Examples of Visual Quality Intrusions ........ 4.13 -2 Table 5.1: No Project (Baseline) Alternative Projects ............................................ ............................5 -5 Table 5.2: No Project (Baseline) VMT and Emissions Comparison (tons per day) ............................5 -6 Table 5.3: No Project (Baseline) Fuel Consumption (thousands of gallons per day) ........................5 -8 Table 5 4: Transportation Impact Alternatives Analysis- No Project (Baseline) Alternative ......5 -1 l Table 5.5: Constrained Alternative Projects .................. . .... .. ...... ......................... . .. .. .. ... ....... 5-18 Table 5.6• Constrained Alternative VMT and Emissions Comparison (tons per day) .............. ... ..5-18 Table 5.7. Constrained Alternative Fuel Consumption ..... .. ................ .... .. . ... .... .. .. .. .. ....... 5-20 Table 5 8. Transportation Impact Alternatives Analysis: Constrained Alternative ....................... 5 -23 Table 5 9. Balanced Il Alternative Projects ............... . ... .. .. ...... ... ... .. . . ....... ... . .... .......... .... 5-29 Table 5 10: Balanced II Alternative VMT and Emissions Comparison (tons per day) ... . .. ........ ... 5-33 Table 5.11: Balanced II Alternative Fuel Consumption (thousands of gallons per day) .... ..... .... .. 5-34 Table 5.12: Transportation Impact Alternatives Analysis: Balanced II Alternative .. .. ... ... .... .. 5-37 Table 5.13• Unconstrained Alternative Projects ... ... ....... . ..... ....... ... ... .. .. ... .. .... ... ....... . ..... . 5-43 Table 5.14: Unconstrained Alternative VMT and Emissions Comparison (tons per day) ................5-47 Table 5.15: Unconstrained Alternative Fuel Consumption (thousands of gallons per day) .......... ... 5-49 Table 5.16: Transportation Impact Alternatives Analysis: Unconstrained Alternative .. .......... ....... 5-52 Table 5.17: Alternatives Comparison of Impacts ................................................... ...........................5 -59 Table 7.A: Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule and Monitoring Checklist ..... ................. 7-3 P 10 MADPEnnT" orrmtms doe *01/0606N v GRCRrRR■ Rees APPENDICES Appendix A: Scoping Summary Report Appendix B: Air Quality Appendix C: Sensitive Species List Appendix D Hazardous Waste Database Search P \OM310PEat\7Rble of Coomm doe 41/06106, 2196 OCTA LONG RANG[ TRANSPORTATION PLAN MR GRANGR COUNTY. CALIFORNIA 1111 OCTA LONG lANOI TRANSPORTATION PLAN 1111 JANCART 1161 OLANOI COUNTY. CALIlO1NIA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Executive Summary has been prepared for the Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the proposed 2006 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP; Proposed Plan) located in Orange County (County). This PEIR has been prepared by Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) to analyze the LRTP potential impacts on the environment; to discuss alternatives; and to propose mitigation measures that will offset, lessen, or avoid significant environmental impacts. (Prior to consideration of the 2006 PER OCTA will consider this PEIR for certification.) For a detailed description of the LRTP, the Proposed Plan, its impacts, recommended mitigation, alternatives, and the its long -term implications, the reader is referred to Chapters 2 0, 4 0, 5.0, and 6 0 of this PEIR. A Notice of Preparation (NOP), which described the LRTP and alternatives under evaluation and the purpose of the PER was distributed for public review in April 2005. Three scoping meetings were held during the public review period for the NOP to solicit public input regarding potential environmental effects that should be considered in the PEIR. PURPOSE OF THE PEIR This PEIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.). Under the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, OCTA is the Lead Agency for environmental review and must evaluate the environmental effects of the LRTP. The intent of this PEIR is to inform the OCTA Board of Directors, local agencies, and the general public of any significant adverse environmental impacts that may be associated with the planning, construction, or operation of the improvements and programs identified in the LRTP and to identify appropriate feasible mitigation measures that may be adopted to reduce or eliminate these impacts. This PEIR also includes evaluation of reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Plan, including the No P%lect (Baseline) Alternative, Constrained Alternative, Balanced II Alternative, and Unconstrained Alternative. Each of these alternatives is described below and in Chapter 5.0 of this PEIR. PROJECT LOCATION Orange County boundaries defined the entirety of the project location for the LRTP. Orange County is located along Pacific Ocean between Los Angeles County to the north and northwest, San Bernardino County to the northeast, Riverside County to the east, and San Diego County to the southeast. Orange County stretches approximately 40 miles along the coast and extends inland approximately 20 miles, covering 798 square miles.' I Orange County General Plan, 2004. P 10CM11DPMTxmWve Summary dx+O1105M6P ES -1 ]ANNART f0�i 3901 OCTA LONG IANGR TRANNPORTATICN PLAN PRI■ ORANOR COUNTY. CALIFORNIA PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Proposed Plan is made up of four components: freeways, roadways, transit, and environmental programs. The Proposed Plan includes significant transportation improvements that would partially address future congestion and mobility needs but would require supplemental local funding such as continuation of Orange County's transportation sales tax beyond its current expiration in 2011 in addition to the traditional annual revenues from State and federal transportation funding. The Proposed Plan includes improvements to existing freeways, tollways, roadways, and transit (bus and rail) systems as well as an environmental program aimed at offsetting the water quality impacts of existing and proposed transportation facilities. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The goals of the LRTP include improving mobility, protecting transportation resources, and enhancing the quality of life in the County. Each goal and its corresponding objectives are described below: Improve mobility by • Offering safe and reliable transportation choices; • Providing an accessible transportation network; • Minimizing increases in congestion; and • Developing an integrated transportation network. • Protect transportation resources by • Using the existing transportation network efficiently; • Maintaining infrastructure; o Promoting cost - effective and multlmodal solutions; and o Exploring creative solutions. • Enhance the quality of life by • Promoting coordinated planning, • Minimizing community impacts; • Supporting economic growth; and o Protecting the environment. ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives to the Proposed Plan are analyzed in Chapter 5.0 of this PEIR. • No Project (Baseline) Alternative. The No Project (Baseline) Alternative includes projects and programs that have secured finding, have been assessed for their environmental impacts, and have been approved to be implemented. P XXT531)DPm WxGC=ve aumm y do<•01ro5M, ES -2 ft•• OOTA LONG RANGS TRANSPORTATION PLAN PLIi JANU"T S•SS ORANGE COUNTT. 0ALIPORN1A • Constrained Alternative. The Constrained Alternative is a set of projects and services that can be completed within the County's traditional revenue sources for transportation improvements. It assumes that the current Measure M one -half- -cent sales tax is not extended beyond 2011. • Balanced H Alternative. The Balanced II Alternative includes all of the projects from the Proposed Plan with the exception of the high - occupancy toll (HOT) projects proposed along State Route (SR) 91. • Unconstrained Alternative. The highest level of investment in the transportation system includes projects and services that could be implemented to meet Orange County's travel demand if funding was not an issue. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED Section 15123 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that areas of controversy, including issues raised by other agencies and the public, be identified in the Executive Summary. No areas of controversy were identified through the NOP /scoping process. Issues to be resolved include the following discretionary actions to be taken by the OCTA Board of Directors- . Certification of the PEIR • Selection of the Proposed Plan as the Preferred Plan • Adoption of the LRTP ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Table ES.1 located at the end of this Executive Summary summarizes the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Plan, mitigation measures, and any remaining unavoidable adverse Impacts identified in the PEIR In accordance with Section 15128 of the CEQA Guidelines, the following topics were deemed to have less than significant impacts and are not discussed separately in the PEIR: • Agricultural Resources • Mineral Resources • Recreation Resources The improvements identified in the Proposed Plan are located within urban areas and/or adjacent to existing facilities and would not likely result in effects to mineral resources. Impacts to agricultural and recreational resources are discussed in Chapter 4.8, Land Use. For each potentially significant impact, at least one mitigation measure has been proposed to reduce the significance of the environmental impact These mitigation measures would reduce the extent of the impact to below a level of significance for some environmental impacts, except for the following: P X=531WEIR a m m" SOmmuy doe •01/05/06» ES -3 J"OARY 2666 IBIS OCTA LONO MANOR TRANSPORTATION PLAN PMIM ORANOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA • Short-term construction - related emissions that exceed the SCAQMD thresholds • Short-term construction - related health risks associated with diesel exhaust • Loss of special- interest species and sensitive natural communities • Displacement of riparian habitat, federally protected wetlands, and waters of the U.S. • Habitat fragmentation and increased roadkill • Substantial adverse change to the significance of a known cultural resource • Direct or indirect destruction of a unique cultural resource • Disturbance of archaeological human remains • Damage to transportation infrastructure through surface rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslides • Long -term erosion and slope failure • Residual geologic and soil cumulative impacts in localized areas such as near Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones and locations within Seismic Hazards Mapping Zones • Water quality impacts during construction and operation of projects • Water quality impacts caused by erosion and sedimentation • Community impacts (indirect air quality, noise, and aesthetics impacts) to land uses and sensitive receptors adjacent to some projects within the Proposed Plan • Cumulative community impacts (indirect air quality, noise, and aesthetics impacts) to land uses and sensitive receptors adjacent to some projects within the Proposed Plan • Long -term noise levels in excess of local noise standards or substantially increased over ambient levels • Long -term vibration impacts adjacent to expanded rail lines • Short-term construction noise levels in excess of local standards • Short-term vibration levels in excess of the annoyance threshold • Disruption or division of existing communities by separating community facilities, restricting community access, and eliminating community amenities • Visual impacts to important visual resources within designated Scenic Highways • Effects to scenic resources visible from public vantage points PN=53iWEME ecubwsummary &ca0w5as2 ES-4 JANUARY 2010 Table ES -1: 2006 LRTP Impacts and Mitigation Measures 1000 OUTA LONG RANGE TRANiPORTATION PLAN Pell ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA Potential Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measure Level of Significance 4.1 Air Quality Impact 4.1 -1. Short-Term Nftd 4.1-A. Prior to approval of individual projects, the Lead Agency shall evaluate Significant residual impacts could (Construction) Regional Impacts potential short -term air quality impacts as part of the project's envuonmental review This remain after mitigation for some review shall identify the existing air quality condition, evaluate potential project impact, impievements included in the Short -term construction - related and identify appropriate measures to be implemented during constiucten These measures Proposed Plan. emissions that exceed the SCAQMD include compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 The following additional an quality thresholds. mitigation measures should be considered as part of the project -level environmental review. • Revegetate exposed earth surfaces following construction • Apply watei or dust suppressants to exposed earth surfaces to control emissions. • Cessation of all excavating and grading activities during second stage smog alerts and periods of high winds • Cover all trucks hauling dirt, send, soil, or other loose materials off -site or wetted or shall mamtam at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance between the top of the load and the top of the trader) • Treat the surface of all construction roads that have high traffic volumes with base material or decomposed granite, or pavement or otherwise stabilizing technique. • Clean public streets at frequent intervals or at least three tunes a week if visible soil material has been carried onto adjacent public roads • Visually inspect of construction equipment prior to leaving the site and loose dirt shall be washed off with wheel washers as necessary • Apply water of non -toxic sod stabilizers as needed to reduce off -site transport of fugitive dust from all unpaved staging areas and other unpaved surfaces • Maintain traffic speeds on all unpaved surfaces below 23 mph • Implement all feasible energy -saving measures, such as the use of low sulfur or other alternative fuels in construction equipment, utilizing electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel power generators and/or gasoline power generators • Schedule all deliveries related to construction activities that affect traffic flow to occur during off -peak hours (e g, 10 00 am. and 3.00 p.m ) and coordinate them to achieve consolidated truck trips. When the movement of construction materials and/or equipment impacts traffic flow, temporary traffic control shall be provided to improve traffic flow (e g, nag person) Impact 4.1 -2. Short-Term Localized MM 4.1 -B. Prior to project approval, for all majoi individual freeway projects, the Lead Significant residual impact could Impacts. Agency shall evaluate short -term TAC/bealth risks as part of the project's environmental remain after mitigation review. The evaluation shall assess the exposure of sensitive receptors near each project to Short-term construction - related health TACs and determim the resin ' health asks Measures shall be considered, such as P %OCr531WEIMEmative Suneuvy doe 41105M6a ES-5 JANUARY area f /re OOTA LONG RANGE TRANAPORTATION PLAN Pala ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA Potential Envnronmentai Im acts Mitigation Measure Level of Significance risks associated with diesel exhaust, equipping construction equipment with diesel particulate naps and the use of low-suifilr or other alternative fuels in construction equipment to mitiam potential impacts. 4.2 Biological Resources Impact 4.2-1: Surface disturbance MM 4.2 -A. Special- Interest Species and Sensitive Natural Communities. Dining the Significant residual impacts could could dowdy affect threatened, planning process and environmental review for individual projects in the Proposed Plan, the remain after mitigation for some endangered, and/or special - interest Lead Agency for the project shall conduct comprehensive biological resources assessment improvements included in the species and sensitive natural to evaluate and mitigate direct and indirect impacts to sensitive natural communities and Proposed Plan. communities outside of designated special- interest species The assessment would include consideration of avoidance or NCCP/HCP amts. redesign to maniwze impoeb through project design Additionally, mitigation measures shall be identified to mitigate remaining impacts to these resources The types of mitigation to be considered for each project are discussed below Compensation for Lou of Habitat. A mitigation plan identrfymg specific measures to compensate for permanent habitat loss due to project Implementation shall be developed. The mitigation plan will consider m -kind habitat acquisition, habitat enhancement and long -term morutming, or participation in regional conservation programs such as the Central/Coastal NCCP/HCP and the Southern Subregion NCCP Construction Minimization Measures. Implement measures during construction, such in • When possible, vegetation removal and loud constmehon activities (greater than 60 dBA) will be scheduled outside of the breeding season for special - interest ammal species known to occur in the area • Night time lighting shall be directed away from areas known to support special- interest animal species • Field surveys will be conducted Immediately prior to vegetation removal If special - interest species am found to be present, then constiucton should be delayed in that area until breeding activity is completed or the species can be relocated • Dinng consnructon, sermaitive habitat areas should be clearly marked and monitored by qualified biologists • Construction crews will be educated regarding the sensitive nature of the work area and the importance of avoiding disturbance of sensitive habitat areas. Invasive Species Prior to approval of individual Proposed Plan projects, the lead agency for that project shall ensure that project landscaping complies with applicable guidelines and requirements regarding plant materials. Measures shall be taken during Construction to reduce the transport of involve svcczcs ono and out of construction sites Impact 4.2-2: Potential direct impacts MM 4.2 -11. Riparian habitat, federally protected wetlands, and jurisdictional waters Significant residual impacts could to riparian habitat, wetlands, and of the U.S. Dining the planning process and envionmental review for individual projects remain after mitigation for some jurisdictional waters individual I the ro sad lair, the Lead A enc for the ro act shall conduct a wetlands and be vements included in the P W(75311UPHR%awcutive Summery doe 41/05M& ES -6 JAM GAEY 3661 1111 OOTA LONG RANGE TEANRPOETATION PLAN Ptil ORANGE OOONTY. OALIPORNIA Potential Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measure Level of Significance projects in the Proposed Plan may jurisdictional waters determination and assessment of direct and indirect impacts to waters Proposed Plan occur due to temporary disturbance of the U.S. The assessment would include consideration of avoidance or redesign to during construction, permanent minimize impacts through project design Additionally, mitigation measures shall be disturbance, or loss due to discharge of identified to mitigate the remaining impacts to these resources. Types of mitigation to be fill material. Indirect impacts may considered for each project include the fbllowmg occur due to contamination by Avoidance and Minimization during Design. Measures should be taken to limit Gunpoint source pollutants, alteration temporary disturbance to minimum areas necessary for construction. The project design of hydrologic regmie, mcreased should carefully consider the placement of haul roads, storage yards, and staging emu with erosion, and siltation caused by respect to jurisdictional waters and associated habitats Culverts, drainage systems, and vegetation removal. bridges should be designed to avoid increasing or decreasing peak flow, to maintain hydrologic continuity within drainage systems, and to avoid permanent diversion of natural Flows. Compensation for Loss of Riparian Habitat. Develop a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) that ensures no net loss of riparian habitat value or acreage. The BMW will include compensation for permanent disturbance or loss by providing alternate or substitute resources, construction minimization measures, and identify a success criterion for percent cover of native wetland vegetation, an establishment period for the replacement habitat, as well as regular maintenance and monitoring activities to ensure the success of the mitigation plan. Regulatory Permitting. Mitigation may require the following permits from the respective resource agencies (1) Section 404 Permit, Corps, (2) Section 401 Water Quality Certification, RWQCB, (3) Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement, CDFG, and (4) authorization for impacts to endangered species either through provisions in an NCCP/HCP, SAMP HCP, or through formal Section 7 consultation between USFWS and the Corps. These permits will require, at a mmrmum, the preparation of a mitigation plan and the provisions for the protection of special - interest species as described above. The proposed project will comply with all terms and conditions set forth in the permits issued by the resource agencies. Impact 4.2-3. Wildlife movement and MM 4.2-C. During the planning process and environmental review for individual projects Significant residual impacts could habitat linkage values could be limited in the Proposed Plan, the lead agency for the project shall conduct site - specific analyses of remain after mitigation for some by severing, constricting, or increasing opportunities to preserve or improve habitat linkages with areas on and off Rite Measures improvements included in the fragmentation of linkages, which could include providing wildlife crossings/access at appropriate locations and providing fencing Proposed Plan. contribute to increased incidence of to minimize the probability of road - related injury to wildlife. roadkill Impact 4.24. Migratory birds may be MM 4.2 -D. To the extent feasible and practical, vegetation removal shall be conducted Less than significant after affected by removing or disturbing outside the active nesung Reason for migratory buds anticipated to be present in the study mitigation active nests during construction area If vegetation clearing must be scheduled during the acting nesting season for activities. migratory buds, a qualified biologist will conduct surveys for active bud nesturg no more than 10 des piior to my clew' of ve tation The location of any active migratory bird P =175310PFAtWP ove Summary doe 01105106a JANUARY 2006 2949 OGTA LONG RAMOS TRANaPORTATION PLAN PEAR GRANGE OOUNTT. CALIFORNIA Potential Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measure Level of Significance nests will be mapped by the biologist All construction activities in close proximity to active nests shall be delayed or otherwise modified as necessary to prevent nest failure caused by construction activities. Impact 4.2 -5. Local Plans and MM 4.2 -E. Prim to environmental approval of pijects identified in the Proposed Plan, the Less than significant after Policies. Projects in the Proposed Plan lead agency shall evaluate potential conflicts and ensure compliance with all local tree mitigation. have the potential to conflict with local protection ordinances, general plans, and other local policies plans and policies, including local tree ordinances Cumulative Impact The individual MM 4.2.A -41 E would be applied to mitigate the cumulative impact Cumulatively significant residual projects within the Proposed Plan that impacts could remain for some affect natural areas have the potential projects included in the Proposed to create significant cumulative Plan. impacts to special- interest species, sensitive natural communities, iipanan habitat, federally protected wetlands, waters of the U.S, wildlife movement, and migratory birds. 4.3 Cultural Resources Impact 43-1. Transportation MM 4.3 -A. For all projects requiring ground disturbance, the lead agency shall evaluate Significant residual impacts could improvements and programs included historic resources impacts as part of the project's environmental review A records search at remain after mitigation for some in the Proposed Plan may affect the SCCIC of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) shall be projects included in the Proposed historic resources conducted during environmental review pursuant to CEQA or NEPA to identify previously Plan recorded resources that may be impacted by the project and to determine if the project area has been adequately surveyed. In the event that no previous surveys have been conducted, a recommendation will be made by the SCCIC as to whether a survey is warranted based on the sensitivity of the project area for historic resources. If there are historic resources that may be directly or indirectly impacted, a qualified architectural historian shall evaluate the impact of undertakings on resources included in or eligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR registers in accordance with State and federal regulations The evaluation of the direct and indirect impacts to historic resources should extend at least 1,000 feet from new constriction, as appropriate to the surrounding setting A structure whose historic value has not been previously assessed but is within the impact area of a project shall be evaluated for listing the National and California Registers MM 4.3 -B. Construction activities should be conducted to avoid impacts to significant historic resources If this is not possible, a qualified architectural historian sliall be retained to document and evaluate these resources This documentation may include but is not limited to interviews, photographs, architectural drawings, and additional research. Monitoring dining construction may also be recommended depending on the sensitivity of the area P 1=531113PEIRMIa ow Summary doe E01/05M6a JANUARY foss 1846 OOTA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Pat& ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Potential Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measure Level of Significance Impact 43-2. Earthmovmg MM 4.3-C. Prior to construction activities, the piject implementation agencies Shall Significant residual Impacts could construction activities as a result of consult the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to determine whether known remain after mitigation for some Implementing the Proposed Plan have Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) and/or sacred sites are in the project area The projects included in the Proposed the potential to impact archaeological NAHC will then identify specific Native American groups or individuals to be Contacted Plan resources that may have concerns or additional lafbrmation. A records search shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist at the SCCIC to identify archaeological sites and previous surveys peifomted within the project area A qualified archaeologist shall be retained to conduct archaeological surveys if necessary, depending on the resource sensitivity of the area. If resources are determined to be present, the archaeologist will make recommendations tegarding what work is required to determine their significance Construction activities shall be Conducted to avoid archaeological resources If this is not possible, impacts on the resources will have to be assessed and mitigated prior to construction Mitigation measures could include intensive documentation, subsurface testing, and construction monitoring by a qualified archaeologist of all earthmovmg activities MM 4.3.D. Project implementation agencies shall s top construction activities and excavation if cultural resources are encountered until a qualified archaeologist can assess the find and determine its Significance. If required, salvage operations shall be conducted. Impact 4.3 -3. Earthmoving MM 4.3 -E. As part of the environmental review fin each individual project, it qualified Significant residual Impacts could construction activities as a result of paleontologist shall be retained by the lead agencies to conduct a locality search and to remain after mitigation for some implementing the Proposed Plan have identify and evaluate areas with the potential to yield paleontological resources. A field projects included m the Proposed the potential to Impact paleontological survey shall also be conducted in these areas if appropuate The findings of the Plan resources paleontological assessment shall be incorporated into the envuonmental document MM 43 -F. Construction activities shall avoid any known paleontological resources. If this is not possible, a management plan outlining how resources will be salvaged shall be prepared for areas of high Sensitivity. These areas shall be monitored by a qualified paleontologist during construction activities Any fossil remains encountered shall be curated at an appropriate institution where they can be studied and/or displayed MM 4.3 -G. If unknown paleontological resources are encounteied, all construction activities shall be halted and the area avoided until a qualified paleontologist can nams the find and determine Its significance If reguned, salvage operations shall be conducted Impact 434. Earthmovmg MM 4.3 -H. If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section Significant residual impacts could Construction activities as a result of the 7050 5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a remain after mitigation for some Proposed Plan have the potential to determination of origin and disposition pursuant to State Public Resources Code Section I pijects included in the Proposed ins act archaeological human remains 5097 98 The Co= Coroner must be notified of the find immediate(. If the remains are Plan P =5310PEIRWmecuGVe Summary doe E01/05106a JANUARY 2001 Sill OOTA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN PRIR ORANGE OOUNTY. GALIPORNIA Potential Environmental Impacts Mid lion Measure Level of Significance determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MIA). With the permission of the landowner or hisTher authorized representative, the descendant may inspect the site of the discovery. The descendant shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains _ and items associated with Native American bunals. If cultural materials are discovered during any excavation, a qualified archaeologist must be notified to assess the significance of such material Cumulative Impact The Proposed MM 4.3 -A-4 3 -H would be applied to mitigate the cumulative impact Significant residual cumulative Plan has the potential to create impacts could remain titer significant impacts to historic mitigation for some projects resources, archaeological resources, included in the Proposed Plan paleontological resources, and archaeological human remains Projects along existing highway facilities would likely have less impact on cultural resources than new protects in previously undisturbed sod Future development within Orange County also has the potential to result in similar significant impacts to these resources. 4.4 Geological Resources Impact 4.4 -1. Seismic events can MM 4.4-A. As part of environmental review and approval of individual projects and Significant residual impacts could damage transportation infrastructure programs, the Lead Agency shall evaluate protect geologic and seismic conditions and remain after mitigation for some through surface mpmre, ground potential impacts As part of this evaluation, projects shall be reviewed for compliance with projects included in the Proposed shaking, liquefaction, and landslides. Caltraos, County, and City code requirements for seismic ground shaking, as appropriate. Plan. The design of projects shall consider seismicity of the site, soil response at the site, and dynamic characteristics of the structure, in compliance with the appropriate California Budding Code standards for construction in or near fault zones. Projects located within or across Alquist -Pnolo Zones Earthquake Fault Zones must comply with design requirements provided in Special Publication 117, published by the CGS13, as well as relevant local, regional, State, and federal design criteria for construction in seismic areas Appropriate mm ation measures shall be identified as part of this evaluation Impact 4.4 -2. Grading and earth MM 4.4 -B. As part of environmental review and approval of individual projects and Significant residual impacts will modifications could increase long -term programs, the Lead Agency shall evaluate project geologic conditions for unstable slopes remain after mitigation for some erosion potential and slope failure and potential landslide hazards. As part of this evaluation, projects shall be reviewed for improvements included in the compliance with Caltrans, County, and City code requirements for construction on slopes, Proposed Plan. as !Mropriate Project design shall avoid potential landslide areas and unstable slopes. P W175310PEIRUISecutive Summary doe 41105106P ES -10 JANUARY 1111 2111 OOTA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Pall ORANGE COUNTY. OALIPORNIA Potential Environmental Impacts Miti ation Measure Level of Significance Appropriate mitigation measures shall be identified as part of this evaluation MM 4.4-C. As part of environmental review and approval of individual projects and programs, the Lead Agency shall evaluate potential slope instability and erosion impacts of the project Project design shall provide adequate slope dramage and appropriate landscaping to min mtae the occurrence of slope Instability and erosion Appropriate mitigation measures shall be Identified as pan of this evaluation. Impact 4.4-3. Expansive or unstable MM 4.4 -D. Prior to individual project approvals, the Lead Agency for projects within the Less than significant levels after soils could lead to subsidence, damage Proposed Plan shall ensure that geoteelmical Investigations are conducted by a qualified mitigation to property, and risks to public safety geologist to identify the potential for subsidence and expensive soils and evaluated in the environmental documentation prepared for the project Recommended corrective measures, such as structural remfarccincrit and replacing soil with engineered fill, shall be implemented in project designs MM 4.4 -E. Prior to Individual project approvals, the Lead Agencies shall ensure that, new and abandoned wells are identified within construction areas to ensure the stability of nearby soils Environmental documentation prepared for any project shall evaluate the potential for subsidence due to prior extraction activities, either petroleum or water, and into rate mitigation measures Cumulative Impacts. The actions MM 4.4 A-4.4 -E are generally expected to mrntmize or avoid potential hazards due to Significant residual cumulative considered by the Proposed Plan have geologic and seismic factors. Additionally, appropriate use of engineering technologies, Impacts could remain alter the potential to cause cumulatively when coupled with siting considerations, would substantially lessen the potential geology mitigation for some projects considerable adverse effects on human and soil Impacts of cumulative development included in the Proposed Plan. beings when considered at the regional maim 4.5 Energy Impact 4.5.1. Operational Energy MM 4.5 -A. Dining the design and approval of structures, such as transit stations and bus Less than significant impact after Consumption. stops, the ncotporation of anew-efficient measures beyond Title 24 of the Uniform mitigation. Building Code (UBC) shall be considered by the Lead Agencies. Implementahon of LEEDS standards shall also be considered. Types of energy efficiency measures could include • Use of solar panels fur lighting of all bus stops • Incorporating LEEDS standards such as o Verify that the building's energy related systems me installed, calibrated and perform according to the owner's project requirements, basis of design, and construction documents o Design the building envelope, HVAC, lighting, and other systems to maximize energy Performance o When reusing Existi HVAC stems, conduct an inventory to identify equipment P %=531MDPffitM3*=tnz Sunumay doe E01ro5t0eA ES -11 JANUARY 2000 2000 OOTA LONO RANOR TRANSPORTATION PLAN PEIR ORANGE OOUNTT, OALIrORN1A Potential Environmental impacts Mitigation Measure Level Mitgnifleance that uses CFC refrigerants and provide a replacement schedule for these refrigerants. For new bmldmgs, specify new HVAC equipment in the base budding that uses no CFC refrigerants o Achieve increasing levels of energy performance above the baseline in the prerequisite standard to reduce environmental and economic impacts associated with excessive energy use. o Assess the project for non - polluting and renewable energy potential including solar, wind, geothermal, low- impact hydro, biomass and bin -gas strategies When applying these strategies, take advantage of net matermg with the local utility 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact 4.6 -2. Accidental releases of MM 4 6-A. The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), through ongoing Less than significant impact after hazardous materials into the intergovernmental coordination efforts, shall encourage USDOT, the Office of Emergency mitigation. environment nt Semces, and Caltrans to continue to conduct driver safety training programs and encourage the private sector to continue conducting driver safety training MM 4 6 -11. OCTA, through ongoing intergovernmental coordination efforts, shall encourage the USDOT and the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to continue to enforce speed hmits and existing regulations governing goods movement and hazardous materials transportation Impact 4.6.3. Disturbance of MM 4.6-C. Prior to approval of any project in the Proposed Plan, the Lead Agency shall Less then significant Impact after contaminated property during the conduct an assessment of any potential recognized environmental conditions related to mitigation construction of new or the expansion hazardous waste that includes a database of contaminated sites in close proximity to the of existing transportation ficdrtnes project As part of the planning and environmental clearance process, when contaminated sites am identified, the Lead Agency shall develop appropriate mitigation measures to assure that worker and public exposure is mmu uzed to an acceptable level and to prevent any further environmental contamination as a result of construction Cumulative Impacts. The Proposed Compliance with federal, State, and local regulations concerning the storage and handling Less than significant impact after Plan would cumulatively contribute to of hazardous materials and/or waste, its well as MM 4.6 -A through 4.6 -C, would reduce the mitigation the intensity of development in Orange potential for significant public health and safety impacts from hazardous materials to occur. county. 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 4.7-1. Operation of projects AIM 4.7 -A. Water Quality During Operation. Prior to the approval of individual projects Significant residual impacts could identified in the Proposed Plan could within the Proposed Plan, the Lead Agency shall evaluate potential long-term water quality remain after mitigation for some adversely impact water quality impacts of the project and identify specific postconstruction water quality BMPa as part of imptovements included in the the environmental review for the project These measures shall include preparation of a proposed plan. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) or Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan ( SUSMP) (if the project is within the San Diego Region of the S WRCB) The WQMP or SUSMP shall be prepared in accordance with the OCDAMP, and other water quality regulations in effect at the time of authorization P \OCP531 WPERUisecuave Summary doe a0lMS106P JANUART 1499 1994 OCTA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN ■a1R ORANGR OOUNTT, CALIFORNIA Potential Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measure Level of Significance The WQMP of SUSMP shall contain, at a minimum, the following elements: • Determination of the pollutants of concern • Incorporation of Site Design, Source Control, and Treatment Control BMPs into the development plans for the project. • Operation and maintenance requirements for the p%tect drainage system and structural BMPs Impact 4.7 -2. Discharge of pollutants MM 4.7 -B. Water Quality During Construction. Prior to the approval of individual Less than significant impact after such as sediment, oil, and grease to the projects within the Proposed Plan, the Lead Agency shall evaluate potential ahort4orm mitigation. municipal atom dram system and water quality impacts of the project and incorporate appropnate mitigation that Includes downstream waters may occur during applicable construction activity BMPs and erosion and sediment control BMPs in construction activities compliance with the State General Construction Activity Storm Watm Peanut The mitigation shall be specified in a SWPPP prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer. A copy of the SWPPP shall be kept at the project site during all construction activmeL Prior to the beginning of construction, the lead agency shall file allotice of Intent (NOI) with the appropriate RWQCB for the project to be covered under the NPDES General Permit The lead agency shall ensure that the construction site is inspected prior to an anticipated storm, during extended storm events, and after actual storm events to ensure that BMPS are functioning properly. Impact 4.7-3. Loss of groundwater MM 4.7-C. Groundwater Supply and Recharge. Dining design and environmental Less than significant impact after recharge and supply by reducing review of projects within the Proposed Plan, the Lead Agency shall evaluate potential mitigation. Infiltration rates impacts to groundwater supply and recharge and mcorporate appropriate mitigation Mitigation may include infiltration basins, vegetated swales, and other methods to central surface runoff and facilitate groundwater rechai e. Impact 4.74. Alter the existing MM 4.7 -D. Erosion and Siltation. During design and environmental review of projects Significant residual impacts could drainage patterns leading to erosion within the Proposed Plan, the Lead Agency shall evaluate potential emsion and siltation remain after mitigation fm same and siltation in downstream waters. impacts and mcorporate appropriate mitigation Mitigation may include sediment control pioiects included in the Proposed measures, including an erosion control and revegetation program in aocoidance with the Plan County NPDES Permit and other water quality regulations in effect at the time of construction These measures may be specified in a W MP or SUSMP and SWPPP. Impact 4.7 -5. Flooding due to MM 4 7 -E. 100 -Year Flood Hazard Ares. Dining project planning and environmental Less than significant impact after Increased surface runoff evaluation of the protect, the Lead Agency for projects identified in the Proposed Plan shall mitigation prepare a hydrology study in conformance with local, State, and federal guidelines and flood control requirements. no design shall be submitted to the local flood control agency for review and approval. The hydrology study shall include all on -site structures and diamage facilities necessary to accommodate increased runoff resulting fi in the proposed pioJect, and it shall indicate project contribution to the regional storm water drainage system P t017I7531111PP RMSeeuWe Summary doe 401105106P JANUARY ISSS III$ OOTA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Fait ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA Potential Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measure Level of Significance MM 4.7 -F. 100 -year Flood Hazard Area. Envnonmental documentation for projects requiring federal approval or funding must demonstrate that the project complies with Executive Order 11988 on F000dplam Management, which requires avoidance of mcompatible floodplam development, restoration and preservation of the natural and beneficial floodplain values, and maintenance of consistency with the standards and criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program All roadbeds for new highway and rad facilities should be elevated at least one foot above the 100 -year base flood elevation, as delineated on the FIRM for the area. No project shall increase the base flood elevation within regul a[ed Iloodwa s as delineated by the FIRM for the area MM 4.7 -6.100 -Year Flood Hazard Area. If a project in the Proposed Plan a determined to alter a mapped floodplam or established base flood elevation, the Lead Agency shall submit the appropriate hydrologic and hydraulic data to FEMA for a FIRM revision as soon as practicable, but not later than six months after such data become available No map revision shall cause houses not previously in the 100 -year floodplam to be placed within the revised 100- ear flood lain Impact 4.7 -6. Flooding Caused by MM 4.7 -11. Flooding Caused by Failure of Levee or Dam. Prior to individual project Less than siiiifrcani impact after Failure of Levee or Dam approval, the Lead Agency Shall evaluate the potential fox dam inundation as part of its mitigation. environmental review and shall identify mitigation measures as appropriate. Impact 4.7 -7. Inundation by seiche, MM 4.7 -1. Inundation by salehe, tsunami, or mudflow. Prior to individual project Less than significant impact alter tsmanaL or mudflow approval, the Lead Agency shall evaluate the potential for mudflows as part of its mitigation. environmental review and shall identify mitigation measures as appropriate Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative Each proposed project in the cumulative impact axes must comply with applicable Residual water quality impacts hydrology and water quality impacts municipal NPDES permitting requirements and the respective municipal code and include could occur, resulting in are caused by projects throughout the BMPs to prevent degradation of water quality A comprehensive WQMP or SUSMP will cumulatively Significant water Orange County watersheds that be prepared for each project that incorporates treatment BMPs to reduce impacts to quality impacts. increase impervious area, add downstream water quality. Each proposed project must also evaluate potential impacts to additional sources of pollutants, alter watercourses, hydiology, and floodplains, must Comply with local, State, and federal existing hydrology, and affect guidelines to provide adequate flood protection, and must consider the pioject's floodplams These watersheds are contribution to ieduced groundwater infiltration subject to intense urban development, and many projects are being Projects in the Proposed Plan will mitigate their individual contribution to cumulative water implemented and planned within the quality and hydrology impacts by incorporating site design elements that manage surface watersheds that could incrementally runoff and allow for filtration or removal of pollutants poor to entering downstream waters degrade water quality and affect hydrology and flood protection 4.5 Land Use Impact 4.8 -1. Direct and indirect MM 4.8-A Envrionmeidal review of each proposed project under the Proposed Plan will community impacts be required to assess community effects and identify appropriate mitigation Mitigation maz include the follows P 10CI3I I1DPERUISecutive Suvunary doe a01105ND JANUARY 361E HIS OCTA LONG RANGE TIANEPORTATION PLAN PRIR ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA Potential Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measure Level of Significance • Project implementation agencies shall considet corridor realignment, buffer zones and setbacks, and berms and fencing where feasible to avoid sensitive land uses and to reduce conflicts between transportation land uses and other types of land uses • Project Implementation agencies shall implement design guidelines, local policies, and programs aimed at protecting views of scwuc corridors and avoiding visual intrusions • The environmental documents for all major individual freeway projects shall evaluate short-term TAGhealth risks. The evaluation shall assess the exposure of sensitive receptors near each project to TACs and determine the resulting health risks Measures shall be considered, such as equipping construction equipment with diesel particulate traps and the use of low -sulfur or other alternative fuels in construction equipment to mitigate potential impacts MM 4.8 -B. Potential long -tern noise impacts and mitigation measures shall be evaluated and identified during the environmental review for each of the improvements identified in the Proposed Plan by the lead agency MM 4.8-C. Individual projects must be consistent with federal, State, and local policies that preserve lands, as well as policies that provide compensation for property owners if reservation is not feasible. Cumulative Impacts. Implementation The Proposed Plan is intended to mitigate the transportation impacts of futue growth Significant residual cumulative of these strategies under the Proposed identified in General Plans and current forecasts Land use changes beyond current General impacts could remain after Plan could result in changes in land Plan levels will be addressed through separate General Plan environmental reviews. mitigation for some projects uses by changing concentrations of included in the Proposed Plan development throughout the County 4.9 Noise and Vibration Impact 4.9-1. Long -term noise levels MM 4.9-A Potential long -term noise impacts and mitigation measures shall be evaluated Significant residual impacts could could exceed the local noise standards and identified by the lead agency during the environmental review for each of the remmm after mitigation for some or result in a significant noise level improvements identified in the Proposed Plan The following would be included in these projects included in the Proposed increase at adjacent sensitive receptor analyses. Plan locations • Identifying sensitive receptor locations within the vicinity of the proposed improvement • Establishing the existing ambient noise levels at the sensitive receptor locations • Determining future noise levels with the proposed transportation improvement • Identifying sensitive receptors exposed to noise levels in excess of the noise standard or exposed to a significant increase in noise level increase • Evaluating potential mitigation measures at the impacted receptor locations • Identifying impacted receptor locations were feasible mitigation cannot be implemented. nie followin g would be included as al roiect -level mitigation measures, P 1OCP53 ITPP1RWxavtive Summary doe E01105/06x JANUARY 3806 rraa OUTA LONG RANGE TRANIPORTATION PLAN PKIR ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA Potential Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measure Level of Significance • Sound barriers for outdoor active use areas, such as backyards, patios, or balconies Sound berms should be provided instead of walls whenever possible • Building fagade upgrades should be considered for noise-sensitive uses, such as bedrooms, classrooms, or churches, that are located within the vicinity of the proposed transportation improvements where sound barriers are not feasible • Mechanical ventilation, such as air-conditioning systems, should be considered as part of noise abatement measures for structures within the noise impact areas that require windows to be closed for noise attenuation purposes Impact 4.9 -2. Implementation of the MM 4.9 -B. Potential long -term vibration impacts and mitigation measures shall be Significant residual impacts could proposed transit improvements would evaluated and identified during the environmental review conducted by OCTA or SCRRA remain after mitigation for some potentially result in long -term vibration for each of the rail transit improvements identified in the Proposed Plan A vibration Improvements included in the levels that would exceed the local analysis would be conducted that identifies sensitive receptor locations within the potential Proposed Plan standards. impact area and evaluates potential mitigation measures to reduce the impacts. The following would be included in potential mitigation measures • Locating transit improvemenfa outside of the potential vibration impact area for sensitive land uses • All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, will be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers • As part of the proposed project, all operations would comply with the noise ordinance standards, and stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas would be located as far as practicable from dwellings • Construction activities shall be restricted to between 7 00 a in and 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or federal holidays, or other noise reshictions set forth by the Lead Agency Impact 4.9-3. Construction activities MM 4.9-C. Potential short-team noise impacts and potential mitigation measures shall be Significant residual impacts could could result in short-term noise levels evaluated and identified during environmental review fm each of the miprovements remain after mitigation for some that would potentially exceed the local identified in the Proposed Plan The construction noise impact will be evaluated in terms of improvements included in the significance criteria. maximum levels (Lmax) and/or hourly equivalent continuous noise levels (Leq) and their Proposed Plan frequency of occurrence. Analysis requirements will be based on the sensitivity of the area and local noise regulations. The following would be included in potential mitigation measures • All construction velucles or equipment, fixed of mobile, will be egurpped with properly opeiaturg and maintained mufflers - As part of the proposed project all operations would comply with the noise ordinance standards, and stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas would be located as far as practicable from dwellings • Construction activities shall be restricted to between 7 00 a in and 8.00 p m. Monday P 10CP53 hDPORMselvave Summary doe 01/05/06n JANUARY sass Iaaa OOTA LONG RANGE TRANIPORTATION PLAN Pala ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Potential Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measure Level of Significance through Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or federal holidays, or other noise restrictions act forth by the Lead Agency Impact 4.94. Construction activities Potential short-term vibration impacts shall be evaluated timing the review for each of the Significant residual impacts could could result in short-term vibiauon improvements in the Proposed Plan. however, due to the short-term nature of the remain after mitigation for some levels that would potentially exceed the construction impacts and the difficulties associated with reducing groundbome vibration, projects included in the Proposed local significance criteria. no mitigation measures are recommended Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.9C Plan would reduce the potential annoyance associated with groundbome vibration to the extent feasible. Cumulative Impacts. In conjunction Implementation of MM 4.9-A through MM 4.9C would reduce the noise unpacts of each Significant residual cumulative with future development within Orange transportation project and program in the Proposed Plan impacts could remain after County, future cumulative noise levels mitigation for some projects are expected to increase and potentially included in the Proposed Plan. exceed local noise standards, even with ' implementation of feasible mitigation measures 4.10 Public Services and Utilities Impact 4.10 -1. Potential effects to MM 4.10-A. Prior to any individual project approval; the Lead Agency shall evaluate the Less than significant impact after police and ftrclemergency personnel or improvement potential effects on police and fire protection and emergency medical services mitigation. other public facilities in Orange as part of its review As part of this review, the local fire and police departments shall be County. contacted to ensure that the existing public services and utilities would be able to handle the increase in demand for their services If the current levels of services at the project site are found to be inadequate, infrastructure improvements and/or personnel requirements for the appropnote public service shall be identified in each project's CE QA documentation. Impact 4.10 -2. Relocation of MM 4.10 -11. Prim to my individual project approval, the Lead Agency shall evaluate the Less than significant impact alter aboveground and underground utility potential effects of the improvements on domestic water, wastewater, electricity, natural mitigation lines. gas, cable television, and other utility lines as part of the envhonmental review process As part of this review, service providers shall be contacted to ensure that existing utility lutes can be relocated and that any service interruptions if will be minimal Impact 4.10-3. Activities could affect MM 4.10C. Prior to any individual project approval, the Lead Agency shall assess Less than significant impact after the demand for solid waste seances in potential solid waste generation during construction and determine if available hodfill mitigation Orange County capacity exists to accept this solid waste As part of this evaluation, potential mitigation to reduce construction debris entering the landfills include compliance with applicable local regulations related to solid waste disposal and recycling or reusing debris where feasible Cumulative Impacts. Implementation Implementation of MM 4.10 -A trough 4.10C would address potential cumulative Less thin significant hoped after of certain projects of the Proposed Plan impacts o£the Proposed Plan. mitigation in combination with increases in population, households, and employment and other transportation io'ects in the County and there ion PWLT53E1UPH1E xewuwSGmatary doeaolrosro n ES -17 JANUARY III$ 1000 COTA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Pill ORANGE OOUNTY, OALIPORNIA Potential Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measure Level of Significance would result in the increased need for various public services, including police and fire protection, emergency services, solid waste disposal, and public utilities. Projected urban development and redevelopment within Orange County will also generate additional demand from public services and utilities. However, transportation projects under the Proposed Plan would improve access for police, fire, and emergency services and would result in improved res onse times. 4.11 Population and Housing Impact 4.11 -1. Implementation of the MM 4.114. OCTA shall continue to work with other jurisdictions in the County as part of Less than significant impact after Proposed Plan would facilitate the Growth Management Plan (GMP) process to implement growth Strategies in order to mitigation substantial population growth to create an urban form designed to utilize the existing transportation networks and the certain vacant areas of the region. transportation improvements contained in the Proposed Plan, thus enhancing mobility and reducing land consurnirtion Impact 4.11 -2. Acquisition of rights - MM 4.11 -B. For projects with the potential to displace homes and/or businesses, project; Less than significant impact after of-way would displace =sting homes implementation agencies shall evaluate alternate route ahgunrents and transportation mitigation and businesses. facilities that minimize the displacement of homes and businesses An iterative design and impact analysis would help in taus where impacts to homes or businesses are involved. Potential impacts shall be minimized to the extent feasible Existing rights-of-way should be used to the furthest extent possible. MM 4.11 -C. Project implementation agencies shall identify businesses and residences to be displaced As required by law, relocatmn assistance shall be provided to displaced residents and businesses in accordance with the federal Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and the State of California Relocation Assistance Ad, as well as any applicable City, County, and port policies MM 4.11 -D. Project mrplememation agencies shall develop a construction schedule that minimizes potential neighborhood deterioration from protracted waiting penods between n t -of -wa acquisition and construction Impact 4.11. Disrupt or divide a Mh14.11 E. Project implementation agencies shell design, as feasible, new transportation Significant residual impacts could community by separating community facilities that maintam or enhance access to existing community facilities Access to remain after mitigation for some facilities, restricting community access, community amenities and facilities shall be identified and considered dining the design improvements included in the and eliminating com 2hasc of the Ri2ject Prop2scd Plan P WC17531NDPEMOKecou" Summary doc E01105I0ea JANUARY 2606 2666 OaTA LONG RANYa TRANSPORTATION PLAN rail ORANGE OOUNTY, OALI2ORNIA Potential Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measure Level of Significance MM 4.11 -F. Project implementation agencies shall design, as feasible, roadway improvements that minimize barriers to pedestrians and bicyclists During the design phase, pedestrian and bicycle routes shall be considered that permit connections to nearby community facilities. Cumulative Impacts. The Proposed Implementation of MM 4.11 -A through 4.11 -F would address potential cumulative impacts Significant residual impacts could Plan's influence on growth contributes of the Proposed Plan, remain alter mitigation for some to regional cumulative growth impacts improvements included in the to currently undeveloped land proposed plan. 4.12 Transportation and Circulation Impact 4.12 -1 Short -term MM 4.12-A. Prior to approval of individual projects, the Lead Agency shall evaluate short- Less than significant impact after construction impacts term traffic impacts as part of the project's environmental review This review shall mitigation identify the emsting traffic conditions, evaluate potential short-term construction impacts, and identify appioprlate measures to be implemented during construction, including a Traffic Management Plan (TMP), if needed The TMP shall be prepared by a registered Traffic Engineer and shall address traffic control for any street closine, detour, or other disruption to traffic circulation and public transit mutes The TMP shall identify the routes that construction vehicles use to acoess the site, the hours of consti notion traffic, traffic controls and detours off -site vehicle staging mees and pealong areas fn the projecL 4.13 Visual Resources Impact 4.13-1. Obstruct views of MM 4.13 -A. Prior to any individual project approval, the Lead Agency shall evaluate the Significant residual impacts could scenic resources. potential effects of the improvements on scenic resources as part of the envuonmeMal remain after mitigation for some review process As part of this review, lend agencies shall require environmental review projects included in the Proposed that requires assessment of visual impacts pursuant to appropriate federal, State, and local Plan. standards and identifies appropriate mitigation such m. design guidelines, local policies, and program aimed at protecting views of scenic condors and avoiding visual intrusions. MM 4.13 -B. Pimr to any individual project approval, the Lead Agency shall evaluate the potential to construct visually neutral wise barriers and retaining walls of materials with color and texune that complement the surrounding landscape and development Noise barriers and metammg walls shall be graffiti- resistant and landscaped with plants that screen the barrier, preferably with either native vegetation m landscaping that complements the dominant landscaping of surrounding areas. Impact 4.13 -2. Affect scenic resources MM 4.13 -C. Prior to any individual project approval, the Lead Agency shall evaluate the Significant residual impacts could along or near designated State Scenic potential effects of the improvements on scenic highways and vista points as part of the remain after mitigation for some Highways and vista points environmental review process As part of this review, the lead agency Project projects included in the Proposed implementation agencies shall require evaluation of impacts on scenic resources as part of Plan, the environmental review prior to project implementation Lead agencies shall complete desum studies for projects in designated or eligible Scenic H hwe conidors and devel P WCr331WPE1Rftceuave SuauNUy disc edtrasma. ES -19 JANUART NIPS 1000 OCTA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Pala ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Potential Environmental Impacts Mjti ation Measure Level of Significance site - specific mitigation measures to mmmize impacts on the quality of the views or visual experience that originally qualified the highway fm Scenic designation Design, construction, and operation of the transportation facility shall be consistent with applicable guidelines and regulations for the preservation of scenic resources along the designated Scenic Highway Impact 4.13 -3. Substantially degrade MM 4.13 -D. Prior to any individual project approval, the Lead Agency shall evaluate the Significant residual impacts could the existing visual character or quality potential effects of the improvements on scenic highways and vista points as part of the remain after mitigation for some of the site and its surroundings. environmental review process. As part of this review, the Lead Agency shall evaluate the improvements included in the project for visual effects and identify appropriate mitigation Projects along Scenic Proposed Plan Highways m eligible Scenic Highways will iegmre special provisions to minimize any visual quality of character degradation The Lead Agency shall design projects to minimize contrasts in scale and massing between the project and surrounding natural forts and development Project implementation agencies shall design projects to minimize their intrusion into important viewsheds and use contour grading to better match surrounding terram The Lead Agency shall use natural landscaping to minimize contrasts between the project and surrounding areas. Project implementation agencies shall, whenever possible, develop interchanges and transit lines at the grade of the surrounding land to limit view blockage and contour the edges of major cot and fill slopes to provide a more natural- looking, finished profile. Cumulative Impacts. The urban Implementation of MM 4.13 -A through MM 4.13 -D would address potential cumulative Significant residual cumulative development and growth that would be Impacts of the Proposed Plan. impacts could remain after supported by the transportation mitigation for some projects investments in the Proposed Plan included in the Proposed Plan combined with other development and redevelopment projects would have permanent impacts on the existing visual resources of the Cozen P 10Cl57 MWERMxecunve Summary doe •01105106, SS-20 2991 OCTA LONO RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN fill JANUARY P••i ORANOR COUNTY. CALIFORNIA 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 BACKGROUND AND LOCATION Orange County consists of approximately 798 square miles encompassing 34 cities and unincorporated areas with a total population of 3,094,461 (Figure 2.1). It is the second - largest county within California and is the fifth - largest county within the United States! Population growth within Orange County is expected to rise by a? proximately 15 percent between 2005 and 2030, from 3,094,461 to 3,552.742 million people. This increase in population will result in new vehicular and transit trips and will place additional demands on existing roadways, transit, and rail facilities within Orange County. The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) plans, funds, delivers, and operates a wide range of transportation projects and services within Orange County. OCTA is comprised of six affiliated agencies: • Local Transportation Authority administers the Measure M (local half -cent transportation sales tax) Traffic Improvement and Growth Management program • Orange County Transit District delivers Countywide bus services • Consolidated Transportation Service Agency provides specialized transit for seniors and persons with disabilities • Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies implements the County's freeway call box program • Service Authority for Abandoned Vehicles provides for the removal of abandoned vehicles from Orange County streets and freeways • Congestion Management Agency ensures compliance with mobility goals established in State and federal law OCTA is part of a network of local, regional, State, and federal agencies, each playing a role in transportation planning. OCTA is responsible for preparing the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). The LRTP, which is updated every four years, provides a visionary blueprint for transportation improvements in Orange County and includes recommendations from local jurisdictions, business and community leaders, County residents, and transportation planning professionals. The LRTP is a multimodal strategy that includes freeway, arterial, transit, and nonmotorized improvements to Orange County's transportation network to accommodate project transportation demands within Orange County for the next 25 years. ' Orange County Community Indicators Project, Orange County 2005 Community Indicators, Orange County, California. 2 Ibid. P iOM31MPE R\2 0 ProjeaPaalpuoddoc a01ftft* JANUARY 2091 P �DCf5MPERVA&nk page dx (01/06/06) 2900 OOTA LONG RANGE'PRANIPOETA2ION PLAN PRIX ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA This page intentionally left blank AN San Bernardino County a Los Angeles County _ --� I/ 77 I , 97 ea •`�5 l Riverside Coun ty a 405 Orange 7 22 T 0. 5 Pi's ^i7:•my'e�i 1�. ° 40 �t a 55 County r °h6 .y �' F,rl" 1t° •�: \•?:w 241 � 133 7 „b c 73 'v % 1 74 VL 1;1•�It _ '`��'"}� _[C °4. '4..'.a';'p, °: cal y`: '�j \ �•i:�'�'it �\ •��,�" •a°..t_yi r $ y` •� stif an•t ha �:� I ~ -_ r ` 1 :s �.4_.,_gyi et San Diego County �� s `` 4��,5"t ` � -k�t ""•I �•��xnd; �'�S�i o��^�ri.��.• r� �`?"!; �"' S F s. e yy' rz s 3i`L-yd k d a"E =•r1TTT.� ?^ Stlw Y w Cr ��'�,Rtt:. ,�eri. /• v � �„ke ��.�I�1.tY�"�,4e .. •• -` 3#15'.. -r' "•�•� LEGEND FIGURE 2.1 OOTA °1 Protect Location s.. Proposed Erteaatoa N 2006 OCTALongRange Transportation Plan Project Location imu I 0cM1%MLme0M.eA (unsos) 3ANDAaT am P WDM31XDPffiRVAN k paged,, ro110&W 2909 OOTA LONG RANGE TeLNSPCNTATION PLA.N Pale DIANOa COONTT. CALIPONNIA This page intentionally left blank 3904 OOTA Loan 1" 01 TR"NPOYTAr[oa PLAN Pan. J"VII T lest OLAaaa OOaarr. CALIIOLKIA The LRTP, last updated in 2003, is included within the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the California Transportation Plan (CT?), and the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). The RTP for the Southern California region, which includes Orange County, is prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) as the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The RTP consists of policies, programs, and a list of specific projects needed to meet long -range transportation needs for the five -county SCAG region. The RTP is updated every four years and must be financially constrained as well as analyzed to ensure conformity with air quality regulations. The most recent RTP was adopted in April 2004. SCAG also prepares the region's capital programming document, the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), in coordination and cooperation with transit operators, transportation planning agencies, local agencies, and the public. To qualify for State funding, projects and programs must be consistent with and included in SCAG's 20 -year RTP and in SCAG's adopted RTIP. At the State level, the State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) prepares the long -range CTP and the shorter range programming document, the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Projects seeking State funding must be included in the STIP in order to be funded. Current federal legislation and funding programs require every region to produce a 20 -year plan to guide transportation investments. The FTIP incorporates local and State Capital Improvement Programs (CIPs) into a single, comprehensive, nationwide funding blueprint. The FTIP identifies specific projects that will be funded in each of the seven years under consideration and the source of those funds. In order to be included in the FTIP, projects must be included in a regional transportation plan as well as the region's CIP such as Orange County's LRTP. 2.2 PURPOSE OF THE LRTP The LRTP provides the planning foundation for transportation improvements throughout the County over the next 25 years to maintain and improve service levels on the transportation network as the population continues to grow within the County. As described in Section 2. 1, the LRTP is updated every four years and forms the basis of the transportation network considered by federal, State, and local transportation planning and funding agencies and local land use planning agencies such as the County of Orange and local cities. The proposed LRTP includes improvements to the transportation networks such as new and widened freeways, tollways, and roadways; new and enhanced transit facilities; new regional bikeway improvements; and new environmental programs The LRTP is a dynamic document that reflects OCTA and the local agencies version of what transportation improvements are needed to address existing and forecast traffic demand. The list of projects described later in the chapter outline the anticipated improvements; however, these projects are revisited every four years when the plan is reviewed, the need for projects is reassessed, and the availability of funding sources is evaluated. 2.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The goals of the LRTP include improving mobility, protecting transportation resources, and enhancing the quality of life in the County. Each goal and corresponding objectives are described below: P =03IMPER\2 0 Pmiea Dasen;Mmdoc «01 /%W* 2 -3 1669 OOTA LONG lANO1 TRANSPORTATION PLAN ■SI& JANIIA1T 6669 01ANOR COIINTT. CALIFORNIA • Improve mobility by • Offering safe and reliable transportation choices; • Providing an accessible transportation network; • Minimizing increases in congestion; and • Developing an integrated transportation network. • Protect transportation resources by • Using the existing transportation network efficiently; • Maintaining infrastructure; • Promoting cost - effective and multimodal solutions; and o Exploring creative solutions. • Enhance the quality of life by • Promoting coordinated planning; • Minimizing community impacts; • Supporting economic growth; and • Protecting the environment 2.4 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The LRTP is made up of four components: freeways, roadways, transit, and environmental programs. Each of these components is described below. The LRTP includes significant transportation improvements that would partially address future congestion and mobility needs but would require supplemental local funding such as continuation of Orange County's transportation sales tax beyond its current expiration in 2011 in addition to the traditional annual revenues from State and federal transportation funding. The Proposed Plan, referred to as the `Balanced Plan' in the LRTP, includes improvements to the existing freeways, tollways, roadways, and transit (bus and rail) systems beyond the projects that are currently funded as well as an environmental program aimed at offsetting the water quality impacts of existing and proposed transportation facilities. Freeways Approximately one -half of all miles traveled by vehicles in Orange County occur on the freeways. Orange County's freeway system provides a major transportation link internal to the County and carries the majority of the area's regional trips including travel between Orange County and other areas of Southern California. The existing freeways have developed into a mature network that has significantly expanded over the past 20 years. This expansion, from a total of 944 lane miles in 1986 to 1,354 lane miles in 2005 (a 43 percent increase), was critically needed to catch the system up with population and employment growth that occurred over the previous 30 years. Of these improvements, 246 lane miles of carpool P \0Cr531DPEan2 0 PIG1ca Dcunpumdoc 901/06/06» JANUAIT 2968 2901 OCTA LONG RANOe T�NIPOITATION PLAN rare Ol NOi COUNTY. CALIFORNIA facilities were constructed. Beyond current needs, the projections for 2030 indicate that vehicle miles will increase faster than population and employment, mostly due to longer trips or commutes. In short, freeway capacity must grow to meet future freeway travel demand. Orange County's freeway network is largely built out, making it a challenge to increase freeway capacity. Most of the major projects to update existing freeways such as widenings and interchange reconstruction have been completed. Consequently, the future program of freeway projects must focus on balancing improvements throughout the County, optimizing the existing system and minimizing right -of -way impacts. The following strategies were considered in developing the freeway component of the LRTP: • Expand freeway capacity within existing right -of -way to the extent possible to accommodate the projected approximately 30 percent growth in travel • Fix chokepoints or operational constraints that prevent the existing freeway system from attaining its designed capacity • Complete the carpoolAransitway system to maximize the person - carrying capacity of the freeways • Balance improvements throughout the freeway network so that traffic is smoothed Countywide for a consistently acceptable level of freeway travel The freeway components are described below in Table 2.A. Roadways The Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) is Orange County's plan for a network of roadways that meets regional traffic needs. It was initially created in 1956 and has been updated regularly since. Similar to the freeway system, the planned network of roadways is mostly built (about 85 percent), which is not surprising since the County is considered generally "built -out" from a land development perspective with limited exceptions such as the eastern portions of the Cities of Anaheim and Orange, northern Irvine, and the remainder of Rancho Mission Viejo. As with freeway travel, demand on the street network is expected to increase significantly over the next 25 years. Even with the completion of the MPAH, greater capacity on the street system will be needed In order to develop the street improvements to be implemented over the next 25 years, the following strategies were considered by OCTA: • Continue to invest in maintenance to ensure that streets remain in good condition, last longer, and are less expensive to maintain over time • Expand street capacity within existing right -of -way to the extent possible, including completing the MPAH P =1753nDPFIln20 Pxg ct Desmpumdoc *01M UP JANUARY 3496 Table 2.A: LRTP Freeway Projects I216 GGTA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Pill OlAIIOR GOUNTY. GALIYORNIA Freeway Pro' ect Interstate 5 (I -5) • Multiple Interchange improvements at existing interchanges • Add one general purpose lane in each direction from SR -57 to Los Angeles County line • Add one HOV lane in each direction from Pico to SR -1 • Add one HOV lane in each direction between SR -55 and SR -57 • Add one general purpose lane in each direction from SR -73 to El Toro Road • Add one general purpose lane in each direction from SR -133 to SR -55 • Improve I- 5/SR -74 interchange • Improve I- 5 /SR -55 Interchange • Construct Stonehill Drive southbound ramps • ' Construct Marguerite Parkway interchange Interstate 405 (I -405) Add one HOV lane in each direction between SR -22 to I -605 • Add auxiliary lanes in each direction from Magnolia to Beach • Add auxiliary lanes from Euclid to Magnolia and replace bridges • Add southbound auxiliary lane from SR -133 to Irvine Center Drive • Add northbound auxiliary lane from Jeffrey Road to Culver Drive • Add northbound auxiliary lane from SR -133 to Jeffrey • Add one general purpose lane in each direction from I -5 to SR -55 • Add one general purpose lane In each direction from SR-73 to I -605 • Add second northbound truck lane from Lake Forest Drive to Irvine Center Drive • Construct Bear Street HOV drop ramp P 10Cr531WPER%2 0 PmrentDomption doe SWUM* JANUARY 2Y48 Table 2.A: LRTP Freeway Projects (continued) 1000 OCTA LONG RANDS TRANSPORTATION PLAN PRIR ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA Freeway Project • Construct Von Karmen HOV drop ramp • Construct I-405/SR-73 HOV connector • Construct I -40511 -605 HOV connector Interstate 605 (I -605) • Improve Katella Avenue interchange State Route 22 (SR -22) A Construct I- 405/SR -22 HOV connector • Upgrade Fairview Avenue, Euclid Avenue, Brookhurst Avenue, and Magnolia Avenue bridge structures and local street crossings State Route 55 (SR -55) • Add one general purpose lane in each direction from I -5 to SR -22 • Add one general purpose lane in each direction and implement operational improvements to minimize chokepoints from I -405 to I -5 • Construct Alton Parkway overcrossrng and HOV drop ramps • Improve access to SR -55 between SR -91 and SR -22 State Route 57 (SR -57) • Add one new general purpose northbound lane from Katella Avenue to Lincoln Avenue • Construct northbound general purpose lane from Orangethorpe to Lambert • Construct Cerritos Avenue HOV drop ramps • Construct northbound truck lane from Lambert to Tonner Canyon • Improve Lambert Interchange State Route 91 (SR-91) • Add one westbound general purpose lane from I -5 to SR -57 • Add one eastbound general purpose lane from SR -57 to SR -55 • Add one westbound general purpose lane from SR -55 to Tustin Avenue P 10MMU)PE RU 0 PmJect Description doe a01106106• 2-7 JANUARY 3006 Table 2.A: LRTP Freeway Projects (continued) 1001 OOTA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN PNII ORANGE COUNTY. OALIPORNIA Freeway Project • Add one general purpose lane in each direction from SR-55 to SR -241 • Add one eastbound general purpose lane from SR -241 to SR -71 • Construct eastbound SR -91 collector- distributor road from SR -241 to SR -71 • Improve SR- 91/SR -55 interchange • Improve Lakeview interchange • Construct new Fairmont interchange north of SR -91 • Construct reversible HOT lane between SR -241 and SR -71 • Construct reversible HOT lane connectors between SR -91 and SR -241 • Add a new hot lane in each direction and convert existing HOV lanes between Orange County/Riverside County border and I -15 to HOT lanes (new four -lane HOT facility) State Route 73 (SR -73) • Complete Glenwood interchange Other Freeway and Toll Roads • Maintain and operate freeways using State and federal funds • Fix future major chokepoints • Continue freeway service patrol • Toll Roads: accelerated capacity for carpools/transit on SR -133, SR- 241/261; HOV lanes free on all toll roads except 91 express lanes, SR -73, and SR -241 south of SR -133 PW O nOPEW20 PMJatDwwphUSdw c01106106, ]ANIIIAT f0�� I905 OOTA LONG IANOI TIANIPOITATION PLAN Pall Oa XGa COON". CALIFORNIA • Maximize use of the existing street system, employing technology wherever possible to improve operations such as Countywide signal coordination The roadway components are described in Table 2.B. The arterial street improvements shown for this alternative are those needed to fully complete the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) as currently defined (January 2006). However, the MPAH is a dynamic process and is continually reviewed, in cooperation with local land use agencies, to insure that it reflects both the transportation and land use needs of the time. Some of the improvements to the MPAH shown for this alternative will be the subject of future study and could be revised or eliminated over the timeframe of the Long Range Transportation Plan. This alternative assumes that the MPAH will be completed consistent with the current definition of the MPAH by 2030. Transit The current transit system includes an extensive network of local bus routes that provide service to most residential and employment areas of the County and several express bus routes and a well - developed commuter rail ( Metrolink and Amtrak) service that together provide for longer distance travel within the County and to neighboring counties. Demand for local bus service has increased steadily over the past 30 years, reaching the current level of 67.5 million riders (2004). And in just over 10 years since service began, the number of Orange County riders on the Metrolink commuter rail has increased from less than 145,000 passengers in 1993/1994 to over 3,000,000 passengers in 2003/2004. Local bus service is greater in the northern and central County, which is more densely developed, have lower median incomes, and have more households without an automobile, as well as a more consistent grid pattern of roadways that lend to an efficient bus -routing pattern. In addition to traditional local bus service, OCTA provides a shared -ride service (ACCESS) for people unable to use the regular bus service due to a disability. Orange County's Express Buses combine use of the freeway system and limited stops to provide commuters with faster service over longer distances. There are currently nine Express Bus routes in place using I -5, I -405, SR -91, and SR -57 to connect major employment centers and park -and -ride lots. Commuter rail includes both Metrolink and Amtrak. Metrolink has three routes through Orange County. There are 10 stations in Orange County that feed these lines, with one more to be added in 2006. Amtrak service through Orange County from San Diego to Los Angeles, complements Metrolink, although Amtrak trains do not stop at every Orange County station Also, OCTA provides shuttle service timed with commuter rail schedules to carry passengers from the train stations to their places of work in the morning and back to the stations in the evening. There are currently 13 shuttles in operation, known as Stationlink. • There are several trends that will affect the demand for transit in the future. Most significant are the anticipated increases in population and employment (24 percent and 27 percent, respectively). This growth will drive demand for increased transit services. It is noteworthy that the number of Orange Pwcr53twrancu0PMe cDasonpuoadoo.orro6ros. 2 -9 JANUARY 1006 Table 2.11: LRTP Roadway Projects IIel OOTA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN P6I{ ORANOR UOUNTT. OALIIORNIA P WGT5I1%DPEaa2 0 Project Dampoon doe 01106106s 2-10 Project Flexible Local Funding Program • Fan -share program for local and residential street maintenance and transportation needs Expand Street Capacity • Construct grade separations at high - volume streets along BNSF rail corridor Arterial street capacity improvements /complete Master Plan of Arterial Highways Interjurisdictional Traffic Signal • Synchronize traffic signals across jurisdictions and Smart Streets Synchronization Continuation of Existing Funded a Gas tax street and road programs for maintenance and improvements Programs for Local Streets Complete existing Measure M programs through 2011 P WGT5I1%DPEaa2 0 Project Dampoon doe 01106106s 2-10 18*5 OCTA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN FRIR JANUARY !!!! ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA County residents 55 years and older is projected to increase by 59 percent between 2005 and 2030. While this segment of the population is not necessarily transit - dependent as a whole, it is likely that many in the elderly population will require greater, specialized transit. The proposed LRTP is built on the following strategies for meeting future transit needs: • Accommodate Orange County's growing, aging population • Increase local bus service on corridor; and in zones with the highest transit demand • Expand local bus service into areas outside of the urbanized core • Attract a greater number of bus and commuter rail riders that are not transit - dependent (have an automobile, but choose transit) • Increase speed, reliability, and frequency of commuter rail service through improved infrastructure (e g , adding rail track, building new strategically located stations, adding more daily trains and reverse service, and increasing connections between communities and Metrolink) • Increase parking supply at Metrolink stations The transit components are described in Table 2.C. Environmental Programs The LRTP establishes a program for evaluating and mitigating water quality impacts associated with existing and proposed transportation facilities. This program will augment existing urban runoff treatment and mitigation that would be a part of all individual projects. The goal is to enhance and possibly consolidate individual project mitigations and deliver a coordinated high - quality urban runoff program. 2.5 PROPOSED PLAN AND LRTP PEIR ALTERNATIVES The Proposed Plan (Balanced Alternative I), which includes all of the elements summarized above, contains transportation/urban -form strategies that encourage growth, increased jobs/housing balance, and centers -based development where feasible in all parts of the region. The Proposed Plan is evaluated in Section 4.0 of this PEIR. The following alternatives are evaluated separately in the Chapter 5.0, Alternatives, of this PEIR. The No Project (Baseline) Alternative includes only those programmed transportation projects that have funding programmed in the RTIP. These reasonably foreseeable projects fulfill the definition of the mandated CEQA No Project Alternative. The Constrained Alternative is a set of projects and services that can be carried out within Orange County's traditional revenue sources for transportation improvements. It assumes that the current Measure M one -half -cent sales tax will not be renewed in 2011. P WCr531WM\2 0 PMe A DcwnpGmd= •0]/1(/06* 2 -11 JANUARY 1666 Table 2.C: LRTP Transit Projects 1006 OCTA LONG RANGE TRAN1PORTATION PLAN PEII ORANGE COUNTY. GALIPORNIA Transit Project Local Bus 6 Expand Countywide bus services 6 Provide high- capacity transit extensions to Metrolink; establishes new competitive funding program for local jurisdictions to implement transit connections to Metrolink 6 Connect Metrolink to regional gateways establishes new competitive funding program for local jurisdictions to implement transit connections to Metrolink. 6 Deploy community -based shuttles 6 Expand choices for senior /disabled 6 Implement Safe Stops Program Rapid Bus 6 Rapid Bus Program on additional arterials (candidate lines include Beach Boulevard, La Palma Avenue, Katella Avenue, Chapman Avenue, and Edinger Avenue) Express Bus 6 Implement express bus service on freeways Metrolink 6 Implement all -day, high- frequency Metrolink service, station car program 6 Expand high - frequency Metrolmk service and extend service to Los Angeles and Riverside Counties Intermodal Centers 6 Develop intermodal centers linked to high -speed rail: Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) Railroad Grade Separations 6 Construct grade separations at select locations (candidate projects include State College Boulevard, Sand Canyon Avenue, Grand Avenue, Santa Ana Boulevard, Ball Road, 17th Street, Redhiil Avenue) P X=5311DPEIM 0 Pmied Deecnphon doe 6011061061 Ono YCTA Lolls RANOX TlLN2►ORTATION 2L" fill J"Uf T 2000 O�XGZ COUNTY. CALIFORNIA The Balanced Alternative II includes all of the elements from the Proposed Plan with the exception of the High Occupancy Toll (HOT) projects proposed along SR -91 and SR -241. The Unconstrained Alternative is the highest level of investment in the transportation system and includes projects and services that could be implemented to meet Orange County's travel demand if funding was not an issue. 2.6 INTENDED USES OF THE PEIR OCTA will use this PEIR as part of its review and approval of the LRTP. In addition, this PEIR will serve as the CEQA document for the Expenditure Plan for the proposed reauthorization of Measure M Measure M is a 20 -year program of transportation improvements approved by the voters of Orange County in 1990 that is funded by a half -cent sales tax. Measure M allocates the sales tax revenues to specific Orange County transportation improvement projects in three major areas: freeways, roadways, and transit. The current program ends in 2011. The proposed reauthorization of Measure M forms the basis for the Proposed Plan (LRTP Balanced Plan). The projects contained in the proposed Measure M reauthorization are consistent with the projects added by the Proposed Plan over the Constrained Alterative (which assumes that Measure M is not reauthorized). Approval of the Final Investment Plan for the Measure M reauthorization would occur following certification of the Final PEIR and approval of the LRTP by the OCTA Board of Directors. The Final Investment Plan would be forwarded to the Orange County Board of Supervisors for their approval to place the Investment Plan on a future ballot for consideration by Orange County voters. The lead agencies for individual projects analyzed in this PEIR 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 OCTA that member agencies and others may consider using the information contained within this PEIR in order to "tier" subsequent environmental documentation of individual projects in the region. Information from this document may also be incorporated into future County Congestion Management Programs and associated environmental documents, as applicable. The LRTP is intended to meet the changing socioeconomic, transportation infrastructure, financial, technological, and environmental conditions of the region. Individual projects are preliminarily identified in the LRTP; however, this PEIR is programmatic in nature and does not specifically analyze these projects. Project -level analyses will be prepared by implementing agencies on a project - by- project basis. 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 2.7 RESPONSIBLE AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES Under Sections 15050 and 15367 of the CEQA Guidelines, OCTA is the designated Lead Agency and has principal authority and jurisdiction over approval of the LRTP. Responsible Agencies are those agencies that have jurisdiction or authority over one or more aspects associated with the development of a proposed project. Trustee Agencies are State Agencies that have jurisdiction by law over natural ProcrssnnrmruoPmoJmnaialpundw olio6a, 2 -13 JANUARY SSss 2896 OCTA LONG RANOR TRANSPORTATION FLAN ■ClR OXANOR COUNTY. CALIFORNIA resources affected by a proposed project that are held in trust for the people of the State of California. The potential Responsible and Trustee Agencies applicable to the proposed project that have been identified at this time and the required permits, approvals, or their associated responsibilities are identified in Table 2.D below. Table 2.D: Potential Responsible and Trustee Agencies Agency Potential PermittApprovkl/gesVonsibilityrfrust Federal Highway Administration Modifications to the interstate system Federal Transit Administration Modifications to commuter mil and railroad crossings California Department of Transportation Modifications to interstate and State highways and railroad crossings Transportation Corridor Agencies Modifications to tollway system Southern California Regional Rail Authority Modifications to the commuter rail system Local Cities Modifications to State highways and local arterials South Coast Air Quality Management District Conformance with local Air Quality Management Plan California Air Resources Board Conformance with State Implementation Plan P %OM531MPERV 0 PICROA DnvlpRmdoc *01!0606* City Comment Letter re Draft Program E1R for 1006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Prepared by Orange County Transportation Authority City Council Staff Report February 13, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6 DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - 2006 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN; LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN PROJECTS: ❑ TABLE 2A - LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN FREEWAY PROJECTS ❑ TABLE 2B - LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN ROADWAY PROJECTS ❑ TABLE 2C - LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN TRANSIT PROJECTS 2s 20061.ong -Range Transporladon Plan Draft EIR OCTA CC Staff Report JANUARY 1111 Table 2.A: LRTP Freeway Projects 1111 OGTA LONG RANGY TRANSPORTATION PLAN ■ERR ORANGE GOONTT. GALIPORNIA Freeway Project Interstate 5 (I -5) • Multiple interchange improvements at existing interchanges • Add one general purpose lane in each direction from SR -57 to Los Angeles County line • Add one HOV lane in each direction from Pico to SR -I • Add one HOV lane in each direction between SR -55 and SR -57 • Add one general purpose lane in each direction from SR -73 to El Toro Road • Add one general purpose lane in each direction from SR -133 to SR -55 • Improve I- 5/SR -74 interchange • Improve I- 5/SR -55 Interchange • Construct Stonehill Drive southbound ramps • ' Construct Marguerite Parkway interchange Interstate 405 (1405) Add one HOV lane in each direction between SR -22 to I-605 • Add auxiliary lanes in each direction from Magnolia to Beach Add auxiliary lanes from Euclid to Magnolia and replace bridges • Add southbound auxiliary lane from SR -133 to Irvine Center Drive • Add northbound auxiliary lane from Jeffrey Road to Culver Drive Add northbound auxiliary lane from SR -133 to Jeffrey • Add one general purpose lane in each direction from I -5 to SR -55 Add one general purpose lane in each direction from SR -73 to I-605 • Add second northbound truck lane from Lake Forest Drive to Irvine Center Drive • Construct Bear Street HOV drop ramp P %0M31WF1WV 0 PrGieot Damptim doe WIAM/M& JANUARY 2805 Table 2.A: LRTP Freeway Projects (continued) 288. OUTA LONG NANO! TRANSPORTATION PLAN FRIR ORANOR COUNTY. CALIFORNIA Freeway Project Construct Von Karmen HOV drop ramp Construct I- 405/SR -73 HOV connector Construct I -40511 -605 HOV connector Interstate 605 (1 -605) Improve Katella Avenue interchange State Route 22 (SR -22) Construct I -405/SR -22 HOV connector • Upgrade Fairview Avenue, Euclid Avenue, Brookhurst Avenue, and Magnolia Avenue bridge structures and local street crossmgs State Route 55 (SR -55) • Add one general purpose lane m each direction from I -5 to SR -22 • Add one general purpose lane in each direction and implement operational improvements to minimize chokepoints from I -405 to I -5 • Construct Alton Parkway overcrossing and HOV drop ramps • Improve access to SR -55 between SR -91 and SR -22 State Route 57 (SR -57) • Add one new general purpose northbound lane from Katella Avenue to Lincoln Avenue • Construct northbound general purpose lane from Orangethorpe to Lambert • Construct Cerritos Avenue HOV drop ramps • Construct northbound truck lane from Lambert to Tonner Canyon • Improve Lambert Interchange State Route 91 (SR-91) . Add one westbound general purpose lane from I -5 to SR -57 • Add one eastbound general purpose lane from SR -57 to SR -55 • Add one westbound general purpose lane from SR -55 to Tustin Avenue P WCr531W=%20 Pro)eotDocnpnon doc•01!061062 JANUARY 3869 Table 2•A: LRTP Freeway Projects (continued) I99e OOTA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN PRIR ORANGE OOUNTY. OALIPORNIA Freeway Project • Add one general purpose lane in each direction from SR -55 to SR -241 • Add one eastbound general purpose lane from SR -241 to SR -71 • Construct eastbound SR -91 collector- distributor road from SR -241 to SR -71 • Improve SR- 911SR -55 interchange • Improve Lakeview interchange • Construct new Fairmont interchange north of SR -91 • Construct reversible HOT lane between SR -241 and SR -71 • Construct reversible HOT lane connectors between SR -91 and SR -241 • Add a new hot lane in each direction and convert existing HOV lanes between Orange County/Riverside County border and I -15 to HOT lanes (new four -lane HOT facility) State Route 73 (SR -73) • Complete Glenwood interchange Other Freeway and Toll Roads • Maintain and operate freeways using State and federal funds • Fix future major chokepoints • Continue freeway service patrol • Toll Roads: accelerated capacity for carpools/transit on SR -133, SR- 241/261; HOV lanes free on all toll roads except 91 express lanes, SR -73, and SR -241 south of SR -133 P WCOMPLaW 0 Project Dowiption doe 41/06/06 JANUART 3466 Table 2.B: LRTP Roadway Projects 2194 OOTA LONG RANG& TRANSPORTATION PLAN ■&IR ORANO& OOVNTT. GALISORNIA P %0M311DPE1K%2 0 PM=t Dampbon dw 41/060* 2-10 Project Flexible Local Funding Program • Fair -share program for local and residential street maintenance and transportation needs Expand Street Capacity • Construct grade separations at high - volume streets along BNSF rail corridor • Arterial street capacity improvements/complete Master Plan of Arterial Highways Interjurisdictional Traffic Signal • Synchronize traffic signals across jurisdictions and Smart Streets Synchronization Continuation of Existing Funded • Gas tax street and road programs for maintenance and improvements Programs for Local Streets Complete existing Measure M programs through 2011 P %0M311DPE1K%2 0 PM=t Dampbon dw 41/060* 2-10 JANUARY 3616 Table 2.C: LRTP Transit Projects 1116 OCTA LONG RAMON TRANSPORTATION PLAN PRIX ORAMOR COUNTY. CALIFORNIA Transit Project Local Bus 6 Expand Countywide bus services 6 Provide high - capacity transit extensions to Metrolink; establishes new competitive funding program for local jurisdictions to implement transit connections to Metrolink 6 Connect Metrolink to regional gateways establishes new competitive funding program for local jurisdictions to implement transit connections to Metrolink. 6 Deploy community-based shuttles 6 Expand choices for senior /disabled 6 Implement Safe Stops Program Rapid Bus 6 Rapid Bus Program on additional arterials (candidate lines include Beach Boulevard, La Palma Avenue, Katella Avenue, Chapman Avenue, and Edinger Avenue) Express Bus a Implement express bus service on freeways Metrolink 6 Implement all -day, high - frequency Metrolink service, station car program a Expand high- frequency Metrolmk service and extend service to Los Angeles and Riverside Counties Intermodal Centers 6 Develop Intermodal centers linked to high -speed rail: Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) Railroad Grade Separations 6 Construct grade separations at select locations (candidate projects include State College Boulevard, Sand Canyon Avenue, Grand Avenue, Santa Ana Boulevard, Ball Road, 17th Street, Redhill Avenue) P WCOM1 MIRN2 0 Pn0ect Do cnptim doe 0I106lOfi6