HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2003-10-13 #L AGENDA REPORT
DATE: October 13, 2003
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager
FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
SUBJECT: RECEIPT OF RECORD OF DECISION — SR- 22/WEST
ORANGE COUNTY CONNECTION AND APPROVAL
OF CITY COMMENT LETTER
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
Receive and File the "Record of Decision" for the EIR/EIS for the SR- 22/West Orange
County Connection project. Instruct the Mayor to sign the recommended letter regarding
the "Record of Decision ".
BACKGROUND:
The City has received a copy of the "Record of Decision" (ROD) for the EIR/EIS for the
SR- 22/West Orange County Connection project. This document indicates the decision of
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to select the "(Enhanced) Reduced Build
Alternative ". The selected project is divided into three major components:
❑ SR -22 Mainline — Construct one HOV lane in each direction from Valley View
Street to approximately SR -55, including The City Drive improvements, for a
distance of 12.5 miles;
❑ I -405/I -605 HOV Connector — Construct a new connector from Katella Avenue to
Seal Beach Boulevard, for a distance of 1.7 miles; and
❑ I- 405/SR -22 HOV Connector — Construct a new connector from Seal Beach
Boulevard to Valley View Street, a distance of 2.2 miles.
Due to the project being revised to eliminate the proposed taking of private residences in
Seal Beach, several "non- standard" design features will be incorporated into the final -
project design. Those are outlined on page 2 of the ROD.
It is estimated that the complete project will cost $499 million, and that due to funding
constraints the project will be constructed in phases. Funding for the portion of the
project within Seal Beach has not been obtained as of yet.
Agenda Item
Z:\My Documents \SR -22 DEIR - EIS\Record of Decision.CC Staff Report.doc \LW\09 -30-03
Receipt of Record of Decision and Authorization for Comment Letter re:
SR- 22/West Orange County Connection FEIR/EIS
City Council Staff Report
October 13, 2003
Pages 5 through 8 of the ROD outline the adverse environmental impacts of the proposed
projects and summarizes the mitigation measures that are to employed to reduce the
identified impacts. Among the identified mitigation measures that are of importance to
the City are:
❑ An aesthetic committee will be formed by the project proponent during the final
design phase to assist in enhancing landscaping and design features for
replacement and/or HOV direct connector structures.
❑ Before construction begins, the contractor must submit a Traffic Management
Plan (TMP) to prevent traffic gridlock as a result of construction activities.
Coordination with local agencies will be necessary to ensure minimization of
traffic impacts to areas of construction activities.
❑ In areas adjacent to the freeway, soundwalls will be placed where determined
feasible and reasonable, based on the Department's Traffic Noise Analysis
Protocol defining "feasibility" of soundwalls and other noise attenuators as an
engineering consideration. Additional factors such as topography, access
requirements for streets, ramps and driveways, other noise sources and safety also
affect what is considered "feasible ". These factors will be re- evaluated after final
engineering studies are complete.
The ROD also includes a section on "Comments on the Final EIR/EIS", and provides a
summary of the various comments received and the responses to those comments. The
discussion is at pages 9 through 17 of the ROD. Comments were responded to from the
following agencies:
❑ U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
❑ County of Orange Sheriff - Coroner Department
❑ City of Garden Grove
❑ City of Santa Ana
❑ City of Seal Beach
❑ Amerisource- Bergen Corporation
❑ LINC Bristol Associates I
❑ West Garden Grove Resident's Association.
Based on a review of the ROD, staff has prepared a letter for City Council approval re-
stating the concerns of the City in its ability to review and provide comments on final
engineering plans and requesting a copy of the "Mitigation Monitoring Program" for the
project.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Minimal at this time. The project will not require the acquisition of any properties within
the City of Seal Beach. Allocation of staff resources will be required at some future time
to participate in the review of final engineering plans regarding aesthetics and soundwall
design of the final project construction plans.
Record of Decision.CC Staff Report 2
Receipt of Record of Decision and Authorization for Comment Letter re:
SR- 22/West Orange County Connection FEIR/EIS
City Council Staff Report
October 13, 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and File the "Record of Decision" for the EIR/EIS for the SR- 22/West Orange
County Connection project. Instruct the Mayor to sign the recommended letter regarding
the "Record of Decision ".
NOTED A ■ P PPROVE P .
,0)/. LIYA Whittenberg Jo ' . Bahorski
Director of Development Service i fy Manager
Attachments: (2)
Attachment 1: Letter to Department of Transportation, District 12 re: SR-
22/WOCC Record of Decision
Attachment 2: "Record of Decision — FHWA- EIS- CA- 01- 04 -F ", prepared
by U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway
Administration, approved August 19, 2003
Record of Decision.CC Staff Report 3
J
Receipt of Record of Decision and Authorization for Comment Letter re:
SR- 22/West Orange County Connection FEIR/EIS
City Council Staff Report
October 13, 2003
ATTACHMENT 1
LETTER TO DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, DISTRICT 12 RE: SR-
22/WOCC RECORD OF DECISION
Record of Decision.CC Staff Report 4
% a
I 4 ... ... .1 ,. �. . .. .. 1•f .,r -, ... r(N. -. . ... Y ' r � ... .. ::, I }
� .:. . ,. ,. 111 � ,, -A .. .,.:. �.��. : .,� ,,.. ,, : r : . -.... ., , .. ',r � � f ;nt _�r.
�. ,., yy�r• ... r . __.. , w w - :, f, 1. 1, .- a . >• • . -. �., _ ` . t:., ,t ,�:. v ,,,,,, t ^t L t t . } ,. � � r /
":,L� .,, I.r .I_.1 ,. 'CS. .t t.: Y. _�� +I i t ( r.
.:_ .'F � 1. - . -.., 7 .. -.. r , r �. .: -. a fi - 'fit
-.. 1 �r .}. ♦ . .. -. <v J ;. ... _... 1. r 1 ., :, F, .. `7,,, .. " �
n
:.."";:'.42- . 1F ., r... : 1 G'..,:. 1- . + ��- ti i ., -:; S r .. .. t \\ •
. i' . � ra • ., ._ .. s... r .. t , 1.,. . ._. �.., ,:%''-','' �..,. .,.. ,., • � 1 r ;F'. 1
...:it. 1t
... _.,. r. F ... ,5 s.., - ., '.:a,. ..,: , ,. . h. ... . . .: r
. .., . , ., , / .�+ I ; a. 1 � '
{ �,
r
, :, ..,... �._.. ✓., ,.. ,... ♦., .. , .,.. ..., :: , ..,. . ._r ,r -.., n„.. ,. >. ,i i i ..,. '..i . ..., . S _ 7 ��GJ
,.. .. . r ... .ten ... . „r `, x , ... , . : . : .. .. _ ... ,. t. \
'':;,','Z'''.;:''''' k,. � .,. f „v.•:. ::',,.."."-,,:':',:',;:,.1'
, - _ i rr I_;., .,,.5 . -. ., -. • i ... :+ � � r
. .:
�
r_ . - ... : c _ _ , ire' > . �. J • i K t ti �9. '
.: . .z 1 ._. , •�3 .. .-:. . , -s,,F . .:�., L � r .�'� ,� d ;Y fi • 1
. .. -,r .. �`. a, Rif ,_ , �..: . r ., - j :r \
.
�� 1 r
�
�s ... ... , _ . ... , ..:. �- , � Y . HALF 2.1 ls`•EIGHT,H S.�REET "��
�•rr .i _i, . ., s a.� , ,.E CLT _
�. .. w '. . � '''''''..',,'";',77.,'., � � , ....
,.,,. ti -1::,', . ...... .. .nom. .a � I _ ... ... .,� - ).;, n ..,. .. -._ ,.__ :i r .,.. .,,.,..
,. , � , � ..,. A..� ... F € � } _ SEAL_ BEACH ' CAL; IFORNTA<90740
.. ,, • _ . ,"_.!''-'`,,'--4'1',, � _ ,.1. � ...._ . , z , � ' ✓ www .cs:seal- beac:ca. us.
} _ , ,,�,� #v � , � � � � � < r
1, , t � ., \.. - �Y. .. ,, � "it. ., H �={'� ..:,k ', . , i.�V
, ,� ..< ,,,i.ez .F-.� . x n 4, .•F L L.� t ..� y ... � 5 „S, '�� „a w "�f. i.; r : �.., 3� ; �,' `` r5 =. �;.h -
n. Y, :vi,.' r4+ Jz,- ',.s:�•. ., w'3, 9.. - ka;� , ., -;{� -W „X., � _yrv., .F` .-',�` '�C i. , ` b. , . }.�- �R r +1� .,'E -.� .1- .k
_f,. :�: �gra.- �.i> ±:�:=. :si- a �' ��:? ,e - , r.: �l. .�} - If - '-'� c �y•� ,; ;�.;�r
k��'.'. � --�, -4: ' :s = s fir' °�. �'� e•� � c - r .-r �' „�.-'y�t•�'^�s.. �- .�w' } •. '�1R -
�• r.� .:xz. s^ " 4`'p.^ ' :cs- v. �- . 5 .G. • � - R'. �. r �' a_, , t .'�" `,"%�'y., � , n. .,�'�,'a.:i .•� � ` ,Y"'�-. �'",c R. we
r. ,fit
�><+r- �, -� T .�"r^3`, -{ , � °.1. - - ��` . ,at,�1' � ' �; ..a.: a r 1, a Y;. ?� . ;'`1 _ •�+i, 4 : 3,� S,fxr. is- .s r - , �F� •�e .:,r3 In.
x � ' A '� a: ,e� � c, t.. 'G=Y' . �i t�l-- al' � +� 4� ,�•x'' , r:,� -�. v ,.%�a� -� +t • � F�r oz
�> U . - L, �r _ , � , .�, . t :..,. , . - �: � 4 ,� r ��Iw`}..��?^�, n ' ,�.'� r rhl �..r:�;rr�•Y �'k ��, � wry,. _t
�" � ��" � �. kr : ,t . /�. ;� , , >�w. rx ^ <,ar 's s t , : � ��. -. s,g �!k-S ?a;��. s.v�- 5 :, . � ,rt,, �f � :�4, t� `��� � x, �,?� .�J.R" �
� , .�'>�� 1 -, + . ^, ., -,,,. �b ��. .... - - t'f�;f'ra�; er.�� .,. `it.- �- ��':ch ,., .. = , _ ,., -:. _,...,..., .. __ . h _ a ... az... i.,..:�4, . ry �:s,.,a�E!� r.._., a . ,. �; . . �i
October 13, 2003
-
California Department of Transportation, District 12
Attn: Ms. Leslie Manderscheid
Chief, Environmental Planning, Branch B ,
3337 Michelson Drive, Suite 380
Irvine, CA 92612 -1669
Dear Ms. Manderscheid:
SUBJECT: CITY OF SEAL BEACH COMMENTS RE: "RECORD OF
DECISION, STATE ROUTE 22/WEST ORANGE COUNTY
CONNECTION"
The City of Seal Beach has reviewed the above referenced document and is most pleased to
see that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) and Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) have taken
the comments of the City of Seal Beach and the Rossmoor community seriously and have
responded in a very positive manner to our legitimate and substantial concerns within the
Record of Decision.
During the preparation of the Final EIR/EIS, representatives of the City Council and City
departments met with representatives of Caltrans, OCTA, and Supervisor Silva to review
in greater detail the issues and concerns of the City and refine alternative design features
to the proposed alignments of the project to eliminate acquisition impacts to Seal Beach
and Rossmoor
The Record of Decision now reflects the positive results of those meetings and indicates, in
accordance with the "(Enhanced) Reduced Build Alternative" preferred project, there will
be no property acquisition impacts in Seal Beach and that several of the design alternatives
suggested within our comment letter of October 22, 2001 on the Draft EIR/EIS relative to
the City- identified alternative of the "Realignment of Proposed Project — Revised
Design Criteria" Alternative as the City's "preferred alternative ", have been
incorporated into the "(Enhanced) Reduced Build Alternative" project. The City Council
and our citizens are sincerely appreciative of the cooperation evidenced by Caltrans and
OCTA in meeting with the .City and responding in such a positive manner to our concerns.
Z. \My Documents \SR -22 DEIR -E1S \Record ofDecision.CC Comment. Letter.doc \LW\10 -13 -03
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Record of Decision — State Route 22 /West Orange County Connection
October 13, 2003
City Understanding and Support of the "(Enhanced) Reduced Build
Alternative" Project Changes based on the Final EIR/EIS and the Record
of Decision:
In reviewing the FEIR/EIS, the City is of the understanding that the following changes have
been made to the project and are reflected within the intent of the Record of Decision and
as reflected in the "(Enhanced) Reduced Build Alternative" of the FEIR/EIS:
❑ The full acquisitions of six homes along Almond Avenue (Rose Circle, Oleander
Street, Pansy Circle, and Primrose Circle addresses) in the City of Seal Beach
College Park East development, as well as the relocation of overhead power lines
and reconstruction of existing soundwalls, were avoided by:
❑ Shifting the I -405 Freeway centerline toward the south;
❑ Tightening the curvature; and
❑ Shifting the southbound I- 405 /eastbound SR -22 connector gore (divergence
point) further to the east. This was achieved without changing the impacts to
the United States Naval Weapons Station facility on the south side of I -405
❑ The right -of -way impact at the City of Seal Beach's reservoir was avoided by
tightening the curvature of the Seal Beach Boulevard off -ramp while shifting the
exit nose further to the south.
❑ Noise Barrier Cl (NB-C1) has been added to the project to reduce identified noise
impacts to the College Park West area of Seal Beach, as indicated in Table 4.9 -11.
NB-C1 will be up to 4.9 meters (16 feet) high and is projected to reduce the
predicted noise levels within College Park West between 6 and 9 decibels,
depending on the measurement location.
❑ The I- 405/605 HOV connector has been realigned and lowered from the
DEIR/EIS proposal to reduce impacts to the community of Rossmoor and the City
of Seal Beach.
❑ The realignment reduces the height of the HOV connector by shifting the
previous alignment southerly such that the revised alignment runs parallel
between the eastbound SR -22 and the southbound I -605 to southbound I -405
connectors at the same elevation.
❑ The peak elevation of this connector has been reduced from approximately 95
feet to 72 feet where the minimum vertical clearance is required over the
eastbound SR -22 connector. -
❑ The partial acquisitions of six homes along Martha Ann Drive in Rossmoor, as
well as utility relocation were avoided by tightening the curvature of the
southbound I- 405 /northbound I -605 connector while shortening the gore area
further to the south.
❑ These project changes are reflected on the following "Layout ", "Profile" and
"Typical Cross Sections" pages, all indicating a date plotted of February 21, 2003,
prepared by Caltrans Design Branch B, Loanna Huynh, Project Engineer:
❑ "Layout" pages L -1 through L -7;
❑ "Profile" pages P -1 through P -3; and
❑ "Typical Cross Sections" pages X -1 and X -2.
Record of Decision.CC Comment Letter 2
I -
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Record of Decision — State Route 22/West Orange County Connection
October 13, 2003
The City Council strongly supported the above indicated design changes that were
incorporated into the FEIR/EIS and encouraged the adoption of the "(Enhanced) Reduced
Build Alternative" as described within the Record of Decision. The City also recognizes
and supports the use of "non- standard" design standards to be utilized in the project and
as discussed on page 2 of the Record of Decision. These non - standard design features
include:
❑ a non - standard inside shoulder on 1 -605 and I -405 at transition areas to join an
existing non - standard shoulder. Also on I -405 and SR -22 at spot locations where
California Highway Patrol enforcement areas are recommended.
❑ Non - standard lane widths 10.8 to 11.8 ft. (3.3 to 3.6 meters) on I -605 northbound
and southbound north of the HOV connector.
❑ Non - standard median widths on I -605 north of the HOV connector, on I -405 at I-
605, and on I -405 at SR -22.
Adequacy of Responses to City Comments regarding the "(Enhanced)
Reduced Build Alternative" of the FEIR/EIS:
The Record of Decision provides responses to the comments of the City of Seal Beach
regarding the FEIR/FEIS on pages 12 -14. The responses adequately address the
comments of the City.
Based on the responses provided within the Record of Decision, the City requests the
following considerations of Caltrans and OCTA:
❑ The City requests the ability to review and provide continents on aspects of any
future construction activities within the project area between Valley View and
Katella Avenue to ensure that there is sufficient coordination with the City's Public
Works Department in developing and implementing traffic control plans, and other
physical impacts due to construction related activities such as equipment and supply
yards, etc.
❑ The City requests that a copy of the Final Mitigation Monitoring Plan be provided to
the City for its files. If the document can be provided in a PDF digital format, that
would be preferable. The document should be provided to Mr. Lee Whittenberg,
Director of Development Services.
❑ The City requests a written response indicating the cooperation of Caltrans and
OCTA by allowing the City to review and comment on final implementation plans
or programs relating to the following Mitigation Measures identified in the
FEIR/EIS:
❑ GEO- (E)RB -8 — relative to haul routes on City streets of waste construction
material and soils.
❑ WET- (E)RB -1 — relative to the ability of the City to review and comment on
the necessary NPDES and SWPPP for potential wetland impacts due to the
construction of the I -405/I -605 Connector segment. •
Record of Decision.CC Comment Letter 3
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Record of Decision — State Route 22/West Orange County Connection
October 13, 2003
❑ NOI- (E)RB -9 — the City would request that a community meeting be held in
Seal Beach relative to the planned project noise impacts at the Valley View
western limit of the currently contemplated project prior to the initiation of
any construction activities from Valley View easterly, including construction
of Noise Barrier 3. The City would require a community meetings to be held
in Seal Beach prior to any construction activities related to the contemplated
improvements from the I- 405 /SR- 22/Valley View interchange westerly to
the end of the project at I -605 and Katella Avenue, including the
construction of NB -R1 adjacent to the Rossmoor community.
❑ VIS- (E)RB -12 — relative to the ability of the City to review and comment on
the highway planting plan relative to impacts due to the construction of the I-
405/I -605 Connector segment.
❑ CON- (E)RB -4 - relative to the ability of the City to review and comment on,
prior to final approval, of the traffic control plans, construction schedules
and detour route plans relative to impacts due to the construction from the I-
405/SR-22/Valley View interchange westerly to the end of the project at I-
605 and Katella Avenue.
❑ CON- (E)RB -5 - relative to the ability of the City to review and comment on
prior to final approval, of the construction schedule and detour information
relative to impacts due to the construction from the I- 405 /SR- 22/Valley
View interchange westerly to the end of the project at I -605 and Katella
Avenue.
Please contact Mr. John Bahorski, City Manager, Mr. Doug Dancs, Director of Public
Works /City Engineer, or Mr. Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services, City
Hall, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, 90740 if you have questions concerning these matters.
Mr. Bahorski can be reached at (562) 431 -2527, extension 300, Mr. Dancs can be reached at
(562) 431 -2527, extension 322, and Mr. Whittenberg can be reached at (562) 431 -2527, .
extension 313.
Sincerely,
Qt'cc.sc� acatidail
Patricia E. Campbell
Mayor, City of Seal Beach
Distribution: City Council
City Manager
Director of Public Works /City Engineer
Director of Development Services
Record of Decision.CC Comment Letter 4
Receipt of Record of Decision and Authorization for Comment Letter re:
SR- 22/West Orange County Connection FEIR/EIS
City Council Staff Report
October 13, 2003
ATTACHMENT 2
"RECORD OF DECISION - FHWA- EIS -CA-
01-04-F", PREPARED BY U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION,
APPROVED AUGUST 19, 2003
Record of Decision.CC Staff Report 10
STATE OF CALIFORNIA— BUSINFSS. TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
District 12
3337 Michelson Drive Suite 380 CITY OF SEAL BEACH 4;,
Irvine, CA 92612 -1669
PHONE (949) 724 — 2122
FAX (949) 724 - 2256 S E P l 4 1 U lij
LL:P„RTMENT OF
September 18, 2003
DEVELCFMENT SERVICES
Lee Whittenberg 12- ORA -22
City of Seal Beach KP(PM): R1.1/21.2(0.66/13.17)
211 8 Street EA: 071600
Seal Beach, CA 90740
SUBJECT: SR- 22/WOCC Record of Decision
Dear Mr. Whittenberg:
As per your September 17, 2003 telephone request to me, enclosed is the SR- 22/West Orange
County Connection (WOCC) Record of Decision (ROD). You can find additional information on
the SR- 22/WOCC project on our website at: http: /lwww.dot.ca.gov /distl2
If you have any questions regarding the ROD, please do not hesitate to call me at the above
telephone number, or Dan Phu at 949 - 724 -2224.
Sincerely,
d eZ- 1 X-L C7----1 4 1/kt _ .,
LESLIE MANDERSCHEID
Chief, Environmental Planning, Branch B
Caltrans District 12
Enclosures -
c : Dan Phu, Caltrans Environmental Planning Branch B
P46360
FHWA - EIS- CA- 01 -04 -F
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
RECORD OF DECISION
Construct one High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction on State Route 22
(SR -22) from Valley View Street east to near SR-55, in Orange County. Construct a new
HOV lane on Interstate 405 (I -405) in each direction from I -605 to SR-22. Construct new
HOV connectors from southbound I -605 to southbound 1-405, from southbound I-405 to
eastbound SR-22, from westbound SR-22 to northbound 1 -405, and northbound I -405 to
northbound 1 -605. Construct features to improve operations on SR -22.
12 -ORA 5 KP 53.6/54.5 (PM 33.32/33.85)
12- ORA -22 KP 1.1/21.2 (PM 0.66/13.17)
12- ORA -55 KP 20.5/22.0 (PM 12.71/13.70)
12 -ORA -405 KP 33.1/38.6 (PM 20.56/23.98)
12 -ORA -605 KP 0.0/1.6 (PM 0.0/1.0)
DECISION
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has selected the (Enhanced) Reduced Build
Alternative for the SR -22 West Orange County Connection (SR- 22/WOCC) project. The
Reduced Build Alternative, as presented in the August 2001 Draft Environmental Impact
Report/Environmental Impact Statement (DEIR/EIS), was modified and renamed the (Enhanced)
Reduced Build Alternative. The (Enhanced) Reduced Build Alternative includes all of the
Reduced Build Alternative's project features, as presented in the DEIR/EIS, plus two project
components from the Full Build Alternative. The Selected Alternative will construct High
Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes on SR -22 and direct HOV connectors between SR -22 and I-
405 and between I -605 and 1-405 in central Orange County, California. The project is located in
I the cities of Seal Beach, Los Alamitos, Westminster, Garden Grove, Orange, Santa Ana, and
Tustin.
Section 2.2 of the March 2003 Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact
Report (FEIS/EIR) describes the features included in the (Enhanced) Reduced Build Alternative.
The (Enhanced) Reduced Build Alternative is divided into three major components:
1. SR -22 Mainline — Construct one HOV lane in each direction from Valley View Street to
approximately SR -55, including The City Drive improvements, for a distance of 17.3
kilometers (12.5 miles);
2. 1 -405/1 -605 HOV Connector — Construct a new connector from Katella Avenue to Seal
Beach Boulevard, for a distance of 2.7 kilometers (1.7 miles); and
3. I- 405/SR -22 HOV Connector — Construct a new connector from Seal Beach Boulevard to
Valley View Street, a distance of 3.5 kilometers (2.2 miles).
The Selected Alternative will reconstruct and realign the Pearce Street pedestrian overcrossing
on SR -22. The Selected Alternative includes ramp metering, closed circuit television monitoring
and changeable message signs. Expanded bus service along arterial streets will be added to
•
reduce congestion on SR -22. The Selected Alternative includes the following design features to
improve the operation of SR -22:
• Continuous, general - purpose lane in each direction from Beach Boulevard to Interstate 5
(1 -5);
• Auxiliary lanes between interchanges at 16 locations, as shown in the approved project
plans included in the FEIS/EIR;
• Interchange improvements at Beach Boulevard and Brookhurst Street; and
• A collector /distributor road along the eastbound SR -22 at the SR- 22/I- 5/SR -57
interchange.
The Selected Alternative cross sections (i.e. lane, median, shoulder, and buffer widths) are
illustrated on Figure 2.2 -5 (A, B, & C) of the FEIS/EIR. Under the (Enhanced) Reduced Build
Alternative, the freeways within the SR- 22/WOCC project would be improved to full geometric
design standards with the following exceptions:
• Non - standard inside shoulder (1.2 meters) on 1 -605 and I -405 at transition areas to join to
an existing non - standard shoulder, and on I -405 and SR -22 at spot locations where
California Highway Patrol (CHP) enforcement areas are recommended;
• Non - standard lane widths (3.3 meters and transitions to 3.6 meters) on northbound and
southbound I -605 north of the HOV connector and on Brookhurst Street dual left turn and
lanes Nos. 1 and 2 at eastbound SR -22 ramp; and
• Non - standard median widths (3.0 meters) on I -605 north of the HOV connector, on I -405
at I -605 (4.5 to 6.6 meters), and on I -405 at SR-22 (2.2 to 6.6 meters).
The following existing non - standard features would remain under the Selected Alternative:
I • Non - standard weaving sections on I -605/1 -405 and I- 405/SR -22 interchanges, and on SR-
22 between Haster Street and Glassell Street;
• 4.6 -meter vertical clearance at Main Street; and
• Spacing deficiencies at various existing interchanges along SR -22 at Valley View,
Golden West/Beach Boulevard, The City DriveBristol Streef, I -5/The City Drive, I-
5Bristol Street, I- 5/Main Street, and Glassell Street/Tustin Avenue.
Improving all of the non - standard features to full design standards would create adverse
environmental or operational impacts, including increased right -of -way acquisition and potential
elimination of interchanges (access points). The project cost would also increase substantially.
For these reasons, the non-standard features listed above are retained.
The estimated project cost for right -of -way acquisition and construction of the Selected
Alternative is $499 million. Due to funding constraints, the project will be constructed in phases.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND SELECTED
The following alternatives were studied during project development and environmental analysis.
Refer to the FEIS/EIR pages 2 -5 to 2 -35 for more information.
•
Record of Decision (ROD) Page 2 of 17 August 2003
No Build
The No Build Alternative would have no design and/or construction cost, however, it was not
selected because it:
• Would not meet the purpose and need of the project, as presented in Section 1.0 of the
FEIS/EIR;
• Would result in worsening of existing and future traffic conditions on the route and adjacent
arterials;
• Would possibly lead to deterioration in traffic safety due to congestion; and
• Would potentially lead to worsening of air quality in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB).
Transportation System Management (TSM)/Expanded Bus Service
The TSM/Expanded Bus Service Alternative would result in a minimal improvement in capacity,
as compared to the No Build Alternative, and would have low initial cost. This alternative was
also incorporated as an element in the Selected Alternative. However, it was not selected
because it:
• Would not meet the purpose and need of the project;
• Is only slightly better than the No Build Alternative; and
• Would not facilitate expanded bus service on SR -22 because bus lanes or HOV lanes would
not be provided.
Full Build Alternative
The Full Build Alternative is similar to the (Enhanced) Reduced Build Alternative, plus
construction of direct HOV connectors to I -5 and SR -55 and the construction of an arterial along
the Pacific Electric right of way into downtown Santa Ana (approximately 5.1 kilometers (3.2
miles). This alternative meets the purpose and need of the project, reduces congestion, provides
for future HOV facilities and improves safety. However, it was not selected because: -
• It was the most environmental damaging alternative with respect to right of way impacts, and
the elimination of a historic structure (Santa Ana River Bridge) for the Pacific Electric ,
Arterial;
• The SR- 22/SR -55 direct HOV connector would lead to deterioration in the level of service on
the SR -55 HOV facility; and
• It is the least cost - effective alternative with respect to right of way impacts, and the
elimination of the Santa Ana River Bridge for the Pacific Electric Arterial.
(Enhanced) Reduced Build Alternative
The Reduced Build Alternative, as presented in the August 2001 Draft Environmental Impact
Report/Environmental Impact Statement (DEIR/EIS), was modified and renamed the (Enhanced)
Reduced Build Alternative. The (Enhanced) Reduced Build Alternative includes all of the
Reduced Build Alternative's project features, as presented in the DEIR/EIS, plus two project
components from the Full Build Alternative: 1) Extension of the freeway mainline section
(HOV lanes in each direction from Glassell to approximately SR -55, not including the HOV
Record of Decision (ROD) Page 3 of 17 August 2003
freeway -to- freeway connecting structure); and 2) Addition of an auxiliary lane from Glassell
Street to Tustin Avenue in the eastbound direction (approximately 1.77 km [1.1 miles]).
The modifications to the project limits to create the (Enhanced) Reduced Build Alternative are
within the existing right -of -way and would not contribute to any new environmental impacts.
Potential environmental impacts from this added portion have been previously analyzed as part
of the Full Build Alternative (SR- 22/SR -55 HOV connector) in the August 2001 DEIR/EIS.
Therefore, the impacts and proposed mitigation measures for this added portion would be similar
to those of the Full Build Alternative. See Figure 2.2 -3 of the FEIS/EIR for the features of the
(Enhanced) Reduced Build Alternative, including the proposed right -of -way impacts.
As a result of the comments received on the DEIR/EIS, and the process of refining the
engineering plans, the impacts discussed in the DEIR/EIS were reduced.
The (Enhanced) Reduced Build Alternative, discussed above, was identified as the Preferred
Alternative in the FEIS/EIR for the following reasons:
' • Meets the purpose and need of the project;
• Reduces congestion, considers both existing and future traffic demands, and improves
safety;
• Provides HOV connectivity to other major freeways in central Orange County (I- 405/1-
605);
• Is the most cost - effective build alternative;
• Provides multi -modal choices (e.g. HOV, TSM, expanded bus service, etc.); and
• Is the least environmentally damaging practicable build alternative.
Implementation of the (Enhanced) Reduced Build Alternative would provide improved
operational efficiency on SR -22. Currently, this freeway does not meet either existing or
projected (Year 2020) traffic demand. The proposed project will help to alleviate peak period
traffic congestion, limited lane availability, inadequate weaving distances near on- and off -
ramps, traffic congestion at the interchange of I- 5/SR- 22/SR -57 (the "Orange Crush "), and
correct the outdated cloverleaf interchange at Beach Boulevard and specific non - standard lane
and shoulder widths throughout the corridor.
Alternatives Considered and Withdrawn
Three other alternatives were evaluated during the early development of the project but were
withdrawn from further study due to one or more of the following reasons: unacceptably high
capital costs, air quality concerns, and lack of HOV system connectivity. See pages 2 -35 to 2 -37
of the FEIS/EIR.
Environmentally Preferred Alternative
In compliance with implementing regulations for the National Environmental Policy Act, 40
CFR 1505.2, consideration must be given to the alternative determined to be environmentally
preferable. The following environmental impacts were carefully considered:
• Differences between build alternatives in impacts to wetlands and natural vegetation are
minor. The Selected Alternative would affect 0.016 hectares (0.04 acres) of wetlands. The
Record of Decision (ROD) Page 4 of 17 August 2003
I
•
Full Build would affect 0.073 hectares (0.18 acres). The wetlands are of little ecological
value due to complete urban isolation and are below any threshold of concern by resource
agencies. Wetland impacts were therefore considered comparable among the build
alternatives.
• The Full Build alternative would remove the Santa Ana River Bridge to construct the Pacific
Electric Arterial. The bridge is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
• Impacts to air quality are similar between the two build alternatives; however, it is expected
to worsen under the No -Build Alternative.
• Impacts to businesses and residences (relocation impacts) and to the number of acres
required for land acquisition would vary between the two build alternatives and the No Build
Alternative. The Selected Alternative would displace two residential properties and the Full
Build Alternative would displace 144 residential properties. Up to 10 businesses would be
displaced by the Selected Alternative, and up to 35 businesses would be displaced by the Full
Build Alternative. The Selected Alternative would require approximately 18 hectares (44.4
acres) additional land; the Full Build Alternative would require 30 hectares (74.1 acres)
additional land.
• Visual impacts would be less for the Selected Alternative than the Full Build Alternative.
• Between the build alternatives, construction impacts would be lower for the Selected
Alternative than the Full Build Alternative.
Under 40 CFR 1508.14, the human environment is interpreted to include the natural and physical
environment and the relationship of people with that environment. As stated above, there are no
substantive differences in natural environmental impacts between the build alternatives. Project
impacts on the physical environment vary. The Full Build Alternative would affect a cultural
resource that is eligible forthe National Register of Historic Properties. Both build alternatives
• would displace businesses and residences. Construction would affect remaining residents and
businesses, and the project would affect the quality of the visual environment. The effects on the
human environment are discussed below and in the FEIS/EIR, along with discussion of
beneficial impacts, which include reduced congestion, enhanced safety,Znore equitable east -west
access and other factors.
SUMMARY OF BENEFICIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE SELECTED
ALTERNATIVE
The summary of the FEIS/EIR describes beneficial impacts, identified below:
• Improve mobility and reduce congestion in the SR- 22/WOCC study area;
• Maximize cost - effectiveness of the SR- 22/WOCC improvements;
• Minimize adverse and maximize beneficial environmental impacts to SR- 22/WOCC
communities; and
• Minimize negative and maximize positive economic impacts to SR- 22/WOCC communities
SUMMARY OF ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
The measures described have been or will be incorporated into the project to reduce the impact
of building the Selected Alternative of the SR -22 WOCC. Other measures to mitigate project
impacts, including standard specifications and practices, are included in the FEIS/EIR, Chapter
4, "Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures." These additional measures are
incorporated into the record by reference.
Record of Decision (ROD) Page 5 of 17 August 2003
Biological Resources
The Selected Alternative will adversely affect streambeds and associated habitats, including
Santiago Creek. It may promote the spread of invasive species in the Santa Ana River and
Santiago Creek. It will remove existing native trees and may affect bats, nesting swifts,
swallows and other migratory birds. The following mitigation measures will be implemented:
• Comply with Section 1601 requirements of the California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG) and Clean Water Act regulations of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).
• Remove invasive plants prior to seed set whenever practicable.
• If it is not possible to remove invasive plants before seed set, use methods that avoid
spread of seeds.
• Whenever feasible, avoid removing vegetation during the bird nesting season; otherwise,
conduct pre - construction surveys for nesting birds.
• Conduct pre - construction surveys on bridge structures for bats and birds.
• Exclude bats and nesting birds from bridges at appropriate times.
• For bat habitat, structural modifications or minor superficial attachments may be needed.
If so, appropriate resource agencies will be contacted.
Visual Impacts
The Selected Alternative may reduce the visual quality in residential neighborhoods, primarily
from loss of landscaping and from views of the new direct HOV connectors. The following
mitigation measures will be implemented:
• An aesthetic committee will be formed by the project proponent during the final design
phase to assist in enhancing landscaping and design features for replacement and/or HOV
direct connector structures.
• The visual study conducted during the DEIR/EIS and FEIS/EIR phases identified various
mitigation measures that include but are not limited to: replacement of new vegetation
where practicable, softening effects on elevated structure(s) by incorporating special
design features to blend with the existing environment, and/or enhancement of
soundwalls by planting vines.
• The plant palette will not be finalized until the design phase. However, a combination of
trees, shrubs and ground covers will be selected to improve, screen and filter the views of
the highway. Removal of vegetation will be softened wherever possible through other
visual enhancements, such as design of noise and retaining walls.
Construction Impacts
The Selected Alternative may cause traffic delays due to detours or lane closures. The project
will also result in air pollutant emissions and storm water runoff. Construction may also uncover
unknown cultural resources. The following mitigation measures will be implemented:
• Before construction begins, the contractor must submit a Traffic Management Plan
(TMP) to prevent traffic gridlock as a result of construction activities. The plan may
include requiring a minimum number of lanes to remain open during morning and
afternoon peak operating hours, shifting major construction activities to off -peak traffic
Record of Decision (ROD) Page 6 of 17 August 2003
hours, and/or shifting traffic patterns to avoid impacts to local arterials. Coordination
with local agencies will be necessary to ensure minimization of traffic impacts to areas of
construction activities.
• For short-term construction impacts, the project proponent will adhere to regional and
State regulating agencies' criteria, including the South Coast Air Quality Management
District's (SCAQMD) construction emission standards and the Regional Water Quality
Control Board's (RWQCB) construction discharge prohibitions.
• The Department is subject to the requirements of the Statewide Storm Water Permit
(National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [ NPDES] No. CAS000003, Order No.
99- 06 -DWQ), in addition to the General NPDES Permit for Construction Activities
(NPDES No. CAS0000002, Order No. 99- 06 -DWQ), as well as any subsequent -
requirements to the General Permit. The Department is also subject to the requirements
of the SWRCB Resolution No. 2001 -046, and the Sampling and Analytical Procedures
(SAP) Plan. The Permit requires the Department to remove pollutants to the maximum
extent practicable.
• The Department policy requires a qualified archaeologist to be present during •
earthmoving activities in the vicinity of previously recorded archaeological resources to
ensure compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Native
American personnel will be included in construction monitoring. Documentation of
known archaeological sites is also standard procedure under the Department's internal
policies. Any new discoveries located at or beyond the State right -of -way during
construction and/or earth - moving activities would be communicated to the appropriate
agency.
. Traffic Noise
The Selected Alternative will result in increases in traffic noise to some receptors. The following
mitigation measure will be implemented:
• In areas adjacent to the freeway, soundwalls will be placed where determined feasible
and reasonable, based on the Department's Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol defining
"feasibility" of soundwalls and other noise attenuators as an engineering consideration.
Additional factors such as topography, access requirements for streets, ramps and
driveways, other noise sources and safety also affect what is considered "feasible."
These factors will be re evaluated after final engineering studies are complete.
Community Impacts
The Selected Alternative will require the partial acquisitions of 54 residential properties and 14
non - residential properties. It will require the full acquisition of 2 residences,. resulting in their
displacement. It will also displace 10 non - residential businesses located on three separate
properties. The Selected Alternative would also result in the loss of approximately 472 parking
spaces at four locations, and loss of 50 planned parking spaces at the Theo Lacy Jail Facility
currently occupied by the County of Orange Animal Shelter. The Theo Lacy Jail Facility has
acquired the animal shelter for future jail expansion. The following mitigation measures will be
implemented:
• Right of way acquisitions will be avoided and/or minimized where practicable during
final design. Owners and renters of residential and commercial properties displaced by
Record of Decision (ROD) Page 7 of 17 August 2003
•
the project will receive relocation assistance in accordance with the Federal Uniform
Relocation and Assistance Act and the Department's Relocation Assistance Program.
• Transportation System Management (TSM)/Expanded Bus Service would be utilized in
the final design phase to the extent practicable and feasible.
• The project proponent will apply for parking variances from the City of Orange for the
four affected sites because the City has indicated the benefits of improved access
outweigh the loss of parking.
OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Air Quality Conformity
The SR -22 project is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The SCAB is in non-
attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS) for carbon monoxide (CO),
ozone and particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less (PM10). The project design concept
and scope is consistent with the project listed in the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) 2001 Regional Transportation Plan, for which FHWA and the Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) issued a conformity finding on June 8, 2001. The project is listed
in the final 2002 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) (FY 2002/2003-
2007/2008) as Project #ORA000195 (mainline elements) and as Projects #ORA55282 and
ORA990443 (operating improvements and ramp improvements on SR -22 near City Drive).
SCAG had analyzed the (Enhanced) Reduced Build Alternative's eastern terminus as part of the
1 SR -22/55 direct HOV connector feature of the Full Build Alternative. The RTIP was
incorporated in the Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (FSTIP) for which
FHWA and FTA made a conformity finding on October 4, 2002.
Based on the quantitative CO and qualitative PM10 hot -spot analyses presented in Section 4.8.3
of the FEIS/EIR, the Selected Altemative will not cause or contribute to localized violations of
NAAQS standards. The future PMi0, CO and ozone levels within the SCAG region, which
includes the SR -22 project, are projected to be less than the State Implementation Plan emissions
budget.
MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
The Department's District 12 Orange County Office and the OCTA will be responsible for
monitoring and enforcing mitigation measures. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has been
prepared for implementation during all applicable phases of the project. Specific monitoring
requirements include the list provided below:
• Geology and Soils;
•
• Hydrology, Floodplains, and Water Quality;
• Biology;
• Wetlands, and Waters of the United States;
• Cultural Resources;
• Community Impact Assessment;
i • Transportation and Circulation;
• Noise; .
• Parks and Recreation;
Record of Decision (ROD) Page 8 of 17 August 2003
i
• Utilities;
• Hazardous Waste;
• Visual Resources; and
• Construction - Related Impacts.
Required permits, licenses, and reviews include:
• NPDES Statewide Permit: SWRCB;
• Construction Permit: SCAQMD;
• Nationwide Permit: USACE);
• Section 401: RWQCB;
• Streambed Alteration Permit: CDFG; and
• Review of railroad crossings and/or power transmission lines: California Public Utilities
Commission (PUC).
COMMENTS ON FINAL EIS/R
The following are summaries of the comments received on the FEIS/EIR, followed by responses.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency asks that the Record of Decision specifically address
if the project involves disturbing or removing PCBs at facilities or structures proposed for
displacement.
Response:
An Initial Site Assessment (ISA) was conducted to identify hazardous and potentially
contaminated sites /properties within and next to the project boundary. As part of this study,
P Y,
research was conducted on past land uses for each potentially hazardous property. Federal and
state records were also researched to identify the source of contamination for each site, if any.
According to the ISA, PCB has not been identified as. a contaminant at any of the potential sites.
The SR-22/West Orange County Connection project will not involve disturbance and/or removal
of PCBs at facilities or structures that are proposed to be modified or replaced as part of this
project.
County of Orange Sheriff - Coroner Department
1. The Sheriffs Department has had numerous meetings with the Orange County Transportation
Authority (OCTA) dating back to 1999 regarding impacts to the Theo Lacy Jail Facility
Expansion plan that will result by the proposed Metropolitan Drive off -ramp off the SR -22
freeway. A copy of the report was not sent directly to the Sheriff s Department Research and
Development/Facilities Planning Division with whom OCTA had been working with on this
issue for the past few years.
2. Plans for a future surface parking lot and parking structure will be severely impacted by the
location and alignment of the proposed off -ramp, potentially affecting the feasibility of
constructing the parking structure at all.
Record of Decision (ROD) Page 9 of 17 August 2003
I ,
3. Potential problems with distances between our proposed driveway entrance and the new
Metropolitan Drive /off -ramp and traffic signal could pose problems.
4. Extension of Metropolitan Drive will cut directly across the Theo Lacy recreation fields and
down the newly constructed 800+ car parking lot, on land along the Santa Ana riverbed,
purchased in the year 2000 by the Sheriffs Department. Compensation would need to be
made to the Sheriff's Department for the loss of the 800+ car parking lot and would definitely
necessitate the construction of multi -level parking structure on the parcel of land that will now
also be affected by the proposed alignment.
5. The alignment needs to be checked to ensure that there is adequate distance should the
• Sheriff's Department need to demolish housing Barracks A -E, due to loss of the outdoor
recreation fields, and construct a new housing unit along The City Drive on the north side of
the proposed Metropolitan Drive extension/off -ramp, as originally planned and approved by
Theo Lacy EIR 558.
6. No discussion is found regarding impacts to jail security due to the close proximity of the
roadway to the jail. Roadway elevations and views into the jail from the road are not discussed
or addressed. Vehicles stopping on the off -ramp could,throw weapons, drugs or other
contraband into the jails facility if adequate barriers are not in place.
Responses:
1. Comment noted. OCTA will be provided a copy'of the comments and responses, to
facilitate future coordination with the Sheriffs Department. The Sheriff s Department
Research and Development/Facilities Planning Division will be added to the contact list.
2. Impacts were evaluated based on known information. The lead agency for final design and
construction will coordinate with the Sheriff's Department. Please note that the impacts to
the jail facility are largely due to the proposed southbound SR -57 to The City Drive ramp
that would connect to the City of Orange proposed extension of Metropolitan Drive east of
The City Drive. This feature is not currently funded. The design and construction of the
ramp would depend on the city's proposed extension project. When funding becomes
available, this project will be subject to a separate environmental review. At that time, fmal
right -of -way needs and impacts to the County jail facility would be coordinated and
resolved, including addressing safety and security concerns.
3. See No. 2 above.
4. See No. 2 above.
5. See No. 2 above.
6. See No. 2 above.
City of Garden Grove (represented by Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth )
1. The project is inconsistent with the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH)
proposing build out inconsistent with the ultimate configuration of (unspecified) arterials
within the City.
2. With respect to fund repairs & improvements, the project is inconsistent with the 1969
Freeway Agreement.
3. It fails to inform decision makers on significant impacts to various interchanges and local
arterials within the City.
4. The project fails to address serious existing design and operational deficiencies in city streets
and mitigate the impacts produced by the project.
Record of Decision (ROD) Page 10 of 17 August 2003
i t
5. The proposed width of overcrossings is insufficient to accommodate future street widenings
in the MPAH.
6. Disagree with the Measure M Policy requiring local funding of improvements to local streets.
Responses:
1. An evaluation of the MPAH has determined the SR- 22/WOCC project to be consistent with
the MPAH.
2. The SR -22 Freeway Agreement between the City of Garden Grove and the Department is
dated 1965. The project has been found to be consistent with the 1965 Freeway Agreement
with respect to any requirement for Caltrans or OCTA to make or pay for any improvements
to local streets and interchanges to meet current traffic demands.
3. Impacts to interchanges and local arterials were analyzed using the Interchange Capacity
Utilization (ICU) method and thresholds adopted for the Orange County Congestion
Management Program (CMP). Mitigation for intersections exceeding this threshold have
been included as part of this project.
4. See above. The project includes various improvements to freeway ramp /street intersections,
including Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) modifications, signal and pole upgrades,
and sidewalk and median modifications.
'5. All overcrossings proposed for replacement are being designed to accommodate all future
street widenings programmed in the MPAH. It will be the responsibility of the city to widen
: other overcrossings to accommodate local traffic demand.
6. Comment noted.
City of Santa Ana
1. Volume I, page 4.15 -2 under "Traffic Disruption." It is stated that the widening of freeways
will result in traffic disruptions and detours. Temporary lane, interchange improvements,
and street closures will be required. The City is requesting that Caltrans consult with Vinh
Nguyen in the City's Traffic Engineering Department in generating the comprehensive
Transportation Management Plan referenced in Volume II, page 15 under "Response 46,"
and that the final draft of the TMP be forwarded to Mr. Nguyen for review and approval prior
to the commencement of construction activities:
2. Volume I, page 4.15 -2 under "Land Use." The text states that during construction, properties
would be occupied to accommodate construction equipment. Such areas, called Temporary
•
Construction Easements (TCEs), may occur on occupied, private property or vacant sites, as
they are available. Therefore, the City would request that Caltrans submit a list of all
proposed staging areas within Santa Ana for their review and approval.
3. Volume I, page 4.6 -13 in Table 4.6 -8 titled "Partial Non - Residential Acquisitions by
Address." The partial acquisition of Mesa Garage Doors located at 3020 -3022 N. Hesperian
Street must maintain the City's required 15' minimum landscape setback requirement for
commercial properties and meet the code required parking requirements. If these two
conditions can't be achieved, a full acquisition of the property would be required.
Additionally, does this mean that Caltrans would need to encroach into N. Hesperian Street
adjacent to this property? If so, clarifications are needed.
4. The City would request that the contractor comply with the City of Santa Ana construction
practices and working hour restrictions. Pile driving, equipment moving, equipment set -up,
Record of Decision (ROD) Page 11 of 17 August 2003
and working hours, etc. must not commence prior to 9:00 a.m. and must terminate no later
than 3:30 p.m.
5. Volume I, page 4.12 -6, Table 4.12 -1, titled "Non- Acquisition Sites Associated with the
Reduced Build Alternative." The text is confusing in regard to the Arco gas station located
2940 N. Bristol Street. The station is listed under non - acquisition sites; however, the text
states under "Site Status" that it is "an acquisition property." Clarification is needed.
6. Volume I, page 4.6 -49, Table 4.6 -24 titled "2000 Race/Ethnic Distribution for
Displacements, Partial Acquisition and Temporary Construction Easements." The
(Enhanced) Reduced Build Alternative does not require the acquisition of any residential
properties in the City of Santa Ana; however, Table 4.6 -24 tabulates the number of displaced
persons within the City of Santa Ana by ethnicity, clarification is needed.
Responses:
1. Contacts were initiated with the City Traffic Engineer. Coordination and review of the TMP
will continue through construction. OCTA will be forwarded the City's comments and
contact information.
2. Preliminary locations of TCEs are indicated in the Final Relocation Impact Report. The
project proponent will determine final TCE requirements during final design. The project
proponent will be contacting the impacted property owners and their respective City.
3. At this stage, based on available information to the Department, the project will require
partial acquisition of Mesa Garage Doors (now George Brazil Plumbing). Please note that
these properties are impacted by a proposed SB SR -57 to The City Drive ramp that would
connect to a proposed City of Orange extension of Metropolitan Drive east of The City
Drive, which is not currently funded. The design and construction of the ramp would depend
on the city's proposed Metropolitan Drive extension project. When funding becomes
available, this project will be subject to a separate environmental review. At that time, final
right -of -way needs and city requirements would be verified. During this analysis, the lead
agency will determine if the partial acquisition of these properties would cause the parcel(s)
to become non - conforming.
4. The project proponent will coordinate with the cities to adhere to city ordinances. To the
maximum extent practicable, the project proponent will incorporate the limits set by city
ordinances into contract specifications, recognizing that it may not be possible to meet all
city ordinances on a project that extends through multiple jurisdictions. The construction
contract documents will address noise and work hour conditions.
5. The text in Table 4.12 -1 is in error. This is not an acquisition site. Correction will be noted
in the appropriate documentation.
6. Table 4.6 -24 tabulates the ethnicity of persons impacted not only by displacement, but also
by TCEs and partial acquisitions.
City of Seal Beach
1. The City of Seal Beach understands and supports the (Enhanced) Reduced Build Alternative
project changes based on comments received during the DEIR/EIS circulation.
2. What process is available to interested parties to address the decision- making bodies or
persons prior to the issuance of the necessary "Record of Decision" (ROD) and Notice of
Determination (NOD)?
Record of Decision (ROD) Page 12 of 17 August 2003
3. Project funding/phasing (I- 405/605 & SR -22/I -405 HOV connectors): The City of Seal Beach
is requesting clarification as to the "triggers" that would require conducting subsequent
environmental analysis of these "remaining features," specifically if these "remaining
features" include property acquisitions that are no longer identified as being necessary under
the (Enhanced) Reduced Build Alternative identified in the FEIR/EIS as the preferred project
at this time.
4. The last sentence of Response 98 states "Note right -of -way impacts could still changes
between approval of the FEIR/EIS and approval of final design." This language indicates that
the ultimate determinations regarding property acquisitions are still in flux. The City of Seal
Beach requests for clarifications from Caltrans and OCTA that if future property acquisitions
are again contemplated within Seal Beach, even though those potential acquisitions were
previously disclosed, discussed and evaluated in the DEIR/EIS on this project, that a new
environmental evaluation will be conducted on those contemplated property acquisitions.
5. Visual Resource Impacts of the Proposed I- 405/605 HOV connector: The City of Seal Beach
is disappointed that the proposed reconfiguration of the I- 405/605 HOV connector does not
full reflect the comments made by the City of Seal Beach and Rossmoor Community Service
District regarding the design modifications for this facility. It is requested that the proposed
alignment and height of this structure again be reviewed and reconsidered by Caltrans and
OCTA to incorporate more fully the suggestions provided by the City of Seal Beach and
Rossmoor Community Services District. Specifically, (a) consideration should be given to
realigning the I- 405/605 HOV connector to the south to minimize the height of the connector
over the E22 connector. Realigning the ramp to the south would take advantage of the flatter
section of the E22 connector, before it begins to rise over the.405 freeway; (b) the design of
vertical profile should consider a plan to be under the S405/N605 connector. This would
eliminate the need for a 19 -meter high structure and allow the new structures to be no higher
than existing.
Responses:
1 1. Comment noted.
2. The review period indicated in the Notice of Availability of the FEIS/EIR allowed interested
parties to submit comments by June 2, 2003. There will not be a public review and comment
on the Record of Decision and Notice of Determination. A copy of the Record of Decision
will be sent to the City for its information.
3. The FEIS/EIR properly analyzed the impacts of these components. The project proponent
may prepare an Addendum and/or Reevaluation, as necessary, to evaluate future changes
from the current environmental documentation.
4. During final design, the extent of any project changes will be analyzed to determine if an
environmental reevaluation would be necessary. The property owner and the City would be
notified of any changes with respect to property impacts. During the final design phase, local
agencies are invited to participate, through review and comment, on the development of the
project design noting changes to impacts, if any.
Record of Decision (ROD) Page 13 of 17 August 2003
5. The realignment of the proposed I- 405/605 HOV connector was designed with full
consideration given to the proposals and comments made by representatives of the City of
Seal Beach and the Rossmoor Community Services District. During the study, several
design options were developed and the selected alignment shown in the FEIS/EIR reflects the
most optimum option since it satisfied all geometric requirements and constraints while
providing the most desirable speed. During the final design phase, further refinements are
possible, if at that time they are deemed viable.
a. The City's request to realign the I -405/1 -605 HOV direct connector further to the south to
take advantage of the flatter section of the east SR -22 connector and to minimize the
height was carefully studied. However, reducing the height would result in other impacts
and constraints. Realigning this HOV connector further to the south would bring the
connector closer to the College Park community and subject the motorists to taking a
longer detour. Furthermore, in order to join the mainline 1 -405 freeway and meet the
vertical clearance at the N405/W22 connector, the realignment would introduce a tight
radius, which would consequently require a reduction in the speed at that particular
location and create an unsafe condition.
b. The City's request to have the 1-405 /605 HOV connector profile under the S405/N605
connector has been accomplished and is reflected in the FEIS/EIR profile plans. During
the final design phase, further refinements are possible, if at that time they are deemed
viable.
AmerisourceBergen Corporation at 4000 West Metropolitan Drive, in the City of Orange
(represented by Law Offices of Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott, LLP)
The comment acknowledged that this property appears on the list of Non - Residential •
Displacements and Partial Acquisitions in the Final Environmental Impact Statement and
Environmental Impact Report. They would like to be copied on all further notices, including
notices of public review and comment, regarding this project.
Response: The AmerisourceBergen Corporation at 4000 West Metropolitan Drive, in the City of
Orange has been included on the mass mailing list'for noticing for this project. The Law Offices
of Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott, LLP, have also been added to the list.
LINC Bristol Associates I (represented by Precopio Cory Hargreaves & Savitch, LLP
LINC Bristol Associates I, owners of the City Gardens Apartments located on North Bristol
Street in the City of Santa Ana, is represented by Precopio Cory Hargreaves & Savitch, LLP.
LINC is supportive of the (Final EIR/EIS) preferred alternative, i.e. the (Enhanced) Reduced
Build Alternative. LINC remains opposed to the non - preferred alternative, i.e., the Full Build
Alternative as set forth in their comment letter dated October 30, 2001.
In Section S -2.2, the City Gardens is not specifically included on the list of avoided residential
displacements. Additionally, Figure 4.6 -1 contains a legend that shows a displacement on the
southeast side of SR -22 near the intersection with N. Bristol Street. Both of the foregoing factors
create a condition of uncertainty concerning the Project's impact on City Gardens.
Record of Decision (ROD) Page 14 of 17 August 2003
I. Executive Summary
Under the Final EIR/EIS, there is no assurance that the (Enhanced) Reduced Build
Alternative will avoid: (i) displacement of dwelling units at City Gardens, or (ii)
acquisition of access, parking or common areas which may result in City Gardens losing
its status as a legal non - conforming use (City Gardens does not meet the parking
requirements imposed by the City of Santa Ana), which in turn would lead to
displacement of low- income families living at City Gardens in order to satisfy current
parking requirements. The Final EIR/EIS is not clear in this regard.
II. Comments Regarding Deficiencies in the Final EIR/EIS
The Final EIR/EIS specifically identifies displacements and partial acquisitions that
would be avoided by the (Enhanced) Reduced Build Alternative. However, the Final
EIR/EIS does not specifically mention the City Gardens as part of the avoided
displacements and partial acquisitions list.
Figure 4.6 -1 indicates that there would be no displacement of residential units in Santa Ana
under the (Enhanced) Reduced Build Alternative. One area of displacement (identified by a
pyramid symbol) appears to be directly over the City Gardens property located on the southeast
corner of SR - and N. Bristol Street in the City of Santa Ana. While it is possible that this area
of displacement is referring to non - residential partial acquisitions (i.e., Mesa Garage Doors
which is located northwest of SR -22 and N. Bristol. Street) as opposed to residential
displacements, the key to the legend in Figure 4.6 -1 does not make this distinction, and
specifically does not indicate that the pyramid symbol applies only to partial acquisitions of non-
residential property.
In order for the public and LINC to be able to evaluate the impact of the (Enhanced) Reduced
Build Alternative upon City Gardens and upon the southeast comer of SR -22 and N. Bristol
• Street in Santa Ana, the Final EIR/EIS should be modified to provide for, among other things: (i)
inclusion of City Gardens in the list of avoided displacements and partial acquisitions, (ii)
relocation of the pyramid symbol in Figure 4.6 -1 to the northwest corner of SR -22 and N. Bristol
Street, (iii) addition of new text which verified no partial acquisition (including access, parking
and common areas) of the City Garden property, (iv) analysis of the environmental impacts on
City Gardens as identified in their October 30, 2001 letter on the Draft EIS/EIR.
Responses: _
I. The avoided displacements listed are those that were previously listed on the Draft EIR/S,
particularly for the Reduced Build Alternative. Although some of these avoided properties
were also relevant to the Full Build Alternative, the City Gardens properties were not
previously listed as being impacted by the Reduced Build Alternative and were therefore not
included in the list.
II. See above comment. The text clearly does not identify the City Gardens units as impacted
properties. Properties not originally impacted are not to be listed in the environmental
documentation, as it would be an exhaustive list.
The figures in section 4.6 are meant to be an approximation of displacements and partial
acquisitions. Specifically, Figure 4.6 -1 provides relevant information to the (Enhanced)
Reduced Build Alternative. The triangular symbol depicted in Figure 4.6 -1 at the southeast
corner of SR -22 and N. Bristol Street is for the proposed non - residential displacements.
Record of Decision (ROD) Page 15 of 17 August 2003
(i) See Responses I & II regarding inclusion of City Gardens in the list of avoided
displacements and partial acquisitions.
(ii) See the paragraph two in Response II regarding Figure 4.6 -1.
(iii) In Section 4.6.2.2 Parking, A. For the Preferred Alternative, the (Enhanced) Reduced
Build Alternative, City Gardens is not discussed because it is not impacted by this
alternative. This sub section discusses those properties that are impacted by the
(Enhanced) Reduced Build Alternative with respect to parking impacts.
(iv) As discussed in the previous responses, the (Enhanced) Reduced Build Alternative
will not affect City Gardens. .
West Garden Grove Residents' Association (WGGRA)
The WGGRA has concerns regarding the elevated HOV direct connectors in both directions at
the SR -22/I -405 interchange that are proposed for eventual design and construction as funding
becomes available:
1. Effective sound mitigation is either entirely absent or is very limited regarding the proposed
elevated HOV direct connectors. Therefore, many homes in the direct "line of sight" of the
elevated HOV connector(s) will likely experience significant vehicle noise because such
noise will originate above recently completed SR -22 sound walls.
Because of funding, design, and construction of the elevated HOV direct connectors may occur
after a significant number of years, the following is hereby requested:
2. That the WGGRA and members of the public be notified, informed of, and involved in the
"design phase" of all of the elevated HOV direct connectors described above both before and
during the design phase.
3. That public meetings be held prior to the "design phase" in order to provide members of the
community an opportunity to ask questions and to provide their input regarding the above.
4. Please provide the WGGRA with a timely written response in the near future assuring us that
the above requests will be honored.
1 Responses: .
' 1. Current and future noise levels were analyzed to determine the feasibility and reasonableness
(cost effectiveness) of constructing soundwalls on the proposed SR -22/I -405 HOV direct
connectors. Based on the criteria identified in FHWA's and Caltrans' noise protocol, the
construction cost of these soundwalls is more than the total allowance cost for this area.
Therefore, construction of soundwalls on the HOV connector is not proposed. However,
concrete barriers will be constructed at the outside edge of the elevated connectors for safety
purposes. The height of these barriers will be determined at the final design phase once
funding is identified.
2. The WGGRA will be included in the mass mailers for all future public notices related to this
project. Further, at initiation of the final design phase, officials of corridor cities will be
notified and invited to participate in technical steering committees that would guide the
development of the project design and construction phases. Neighborhoods and community
members should then be notified by their respective city officials of impending
improvements.
Record of Decision (ROD) Page 16 of 17 , August 2003
I.
3. Public meetings were held during the environmental phase, but are not required for the
design phase. If deemed necessary or requested by cities or neighborhoods, informational
meetings with their representatives may be considered. •
4. Caltrans District 12 has responded to these comments in writing to the WGGRA.
Record of Decision Approval
e7/9 / 4..3
Date . ary N. Hamby
Division Administrator
California Division
Federal Highway Administration
•
i
•
•
Record of Decision (ROD) Page 17 of 17 August 2003
l . I .