Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBeach Blvd Super Street Resolution 6132 & Resolution 6133 ne 4 , �5os° REQUE:_�T FOR CITY COUNvaIL ACTION 2. A PPROVEDBY CITY COUNCIL Date 4 16-90 Submitted to: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Cr CL©tK Submitted by: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, CITY ADMINISTRATOR Prepared by: ROBERT FRANZ, CHIEF OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVI Subject: Edinger/Beach Widening Project Consistent with Council Policy? [k Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception 3 a- Statement of Issue, Piecommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: ) ISSUE: There is a need to widen the Beach Blvd. and Edinger intersection by two (2) turn lanes; one on the N.W. corner from Beach to Edinger and one on the S.W. corner from Edinger to Beach. The improvements will effect three (3) ownerships. The Orange County Transportation Commission (OCTD) has requested the City to acquire the three parcels necessary to the improvements of the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue. As part of the Beach Boulevard "Super Street" Project, the OCTC will fund the acquisition of right-of-way at the intersection.of Beach and Edinger. RECOMMENDATION: f Approve the Resolution of 1`?ecessity for these three properties required for this street ^n rn widening project. mores ANALYSIS: �_ "moo The Traffic Division of the City Public Works Department, having studied the vehicle� activity at the Beach Blvd./Edinger intersection, has determined that adding a turn later on the N.W. and S.W. corners should enhance the efficient movement of traffic and safety for this interesection. Appraisals were obtained, reviewed and accepted by the City and Orange Country Transportation District. Offers to purchase easements have been presented to all property owners, with agreements reached as to just compensation. To date only Mobil Oil has returend signed agreements. Mace-Rich agreement is expected shortly, the delay due to a necessary partners signature. The owner of the property leased to Arby's Fast Food, Mr. Alfred P. Chamie, has agreed to the just compensation and the delay is due to the failure of Arby's management to respond to both the City and Mr. Chamie's numerous attempts to communicate. The imminent construction of underground utilities by Southern California Edison on the Edinger section of this street widening project necessitates approval as soon as possible. FUNDING SOURCE: An advance of $150,000.00 from the Unappropriated Gas Tax Fund Balance has been fully reimbursed by the Orange County Transportation Commission Super Street Fund. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: C Do not add these turn lanes and allow the funds to be routed to another .ity's project. ATTACHMENT: P- ROPERYY APR 10 1990 MWGEMUff Mobil Oil Corporation 3225 GALLOWS ROAD FAIRFAX.VIRGINIA 22037-0001 April 9 , 1990 FEDERAL EXPRESS Mr. Dan M. Brennan, Director of Real Estate Services 'Real Property Division City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 EDINGER/BEACH PROJECT CC-728 OCUTT SHSS-HB-05 SS *11D9R _ SWC BEACH & EDINGER Dear Mr. Brennan: HUNTINGTON BEACH , CA Pursuant to your February 26 , 1990 letter to our Real Estate Representative , J .H . Huntsberry, this is to notify you that Mobil Oil Corporation has accepted the offer of $46 , 200 . 00 from the City of Huntington Beach for an easement interest in 1 , 083 square feet of property at the subject location. Attached please find the following documents which have been signed on Mobil ' s behalf : Statement of Just Compensation Purchase Agreement It is our understanding that you will draw tip additional documents for Mobil ' s approval and execution to finalize this matter . Please submit correspondence relative to this matter to the above letterhead address (.Attn: D.A. Hirt ) . It would be helpful if you would reference our SS n11D9R. Very truly yours , MOBI IL CORPORATION I "Heat Staff Services Manager Marketing Real Estate DAH Attachments i Jj CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTiNCTON BEACH To Bruce Crosby From Dan M. Brennan Civil Engineer Assistant Director of Real Estate Services Subject Beach/Edinger Widening Date February 26, 1990 CC-728 As per your request for a written update on the status of the above referred project, the following is a brief summary. AP?142-071-69 96 (both a portion) - The N.W. corner of Beach and Edinger Owner: The Mace Rich Company On February 14, 1990, Mr. Charley Hallums, local representative for the Mace Rich Company, requested a revised Offer to Purchase, due to incorrect square footage, be sent to him. This was mailed on February 14, 1990. I talked to Mr. Hallums on February 23, 1990 and he reported that he had sent our offer to his main office on the east coast for approval and requested they return the signed offer by Speedy return mail. AP#142-081-01 (a portion) - The S.WI. corner of Beach and Edinger Owner: The Mobil Oil Company On February 15, 1990, the Mobil Oil Company requested an increase of ten percent (10%) over our original offer of $42,000.00 to $46,200.00. The new Offer to Purchase was sent out the same day. Mr. Huntsbury also requested further assurances regarding the City's replacement for removal of improvements during the street widening, at City cost. He has also requested, in writing, that the work will go forward in a diligent manner with the least possible disruption to the service station operator and that the job is to be completed in an expeditious manner. He further needs assurance that Mobil Oil Company is to be "held harmless" as a result of this project. (see letter attached in answer to these requests). AP4142-081-02,03 (both a portion) Owner: The Alfred P. Chamie Trust (Arby's restaurant leases the property) An appointment was made to meet with Mr. Chamie in his home in Pacific Palisades on February 6, 1990. He referred us to his attorney, Mr. Suffin, to continue negotiations. I have attempted to contact Mr. Suffin, by phone, on several occasions and have been unable to reach him due to his phone registering busy. I am sending a letter to Mr. Suffin, requesting a meeting so that we can come to an agreement on this purchase. A Request for Legal Services for Resolution of Necessity, on all three above referenced properties, was sent on January 30, 1990. Information is being delivered to the City Attorney's office to complete this RLS. If you have any questions regarding any of these offers, call Paul Larkin at 5445. REQU. T FOR CITY COUN,, ACTI P R Off" 198C Date October 16, 1989 MANAGEMEW Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council s Submitted by: Paul E. Cook, City AdministratorCOUNCIL z CITY Prepared by: �' Louis F. Sandoval, Director of Public Works Subject: BEACH/EDINGER IMPROVEMENTS; CC-72 �--- x Consistent with Council Policy? [X] Yes [ ] New Polic xception Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The Grange County Transportation Commission(OCTC) has requested the City to acquire three parcels necessary to the improvements of the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue. RECOMMENDATION: Direct the Real Property Manager to acquire the parcels and advance $150,000 from the Gas Tax Fund Balance for the puroose. ANALYSIS: As part of the Beach ioulevard "Super Street" Project, the OCT*C will fund the acquisition of right-of-way at the intersection of Beach and Edinger Avenue. They have requested (letter of August 10, 1989) that the City purchase three parcels at a total cost of $150,000 and be reimbursed for same by them. In order to make the purchase it will be necessary to front the funds from the City Gas Tax Fund Balance. This can be done with the approval of the City Council. A breakdown of the purchase price is as follows: Land, $137,800.00; Title Report, $500.00; Appraisal Fee, $6,900.00; and Engineering Costs, $4,800.00 FUNDING SOURCE: An advance of $150,000.00 from the Unappropriated Gas Tax Fund Balance to be fully reimbursed by the OCTC. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Do not proceed with the project. ATTACHMENTS: OCTC Letter of August 10, 1989 Appraisal Report F.I.S. F PEC:L S:JS�dw 2206g/4 P10 5/85 HENNESSEY & HENNESSEY An Association of Real Estate Appraisers 17802 Irvine Blvd.,Suite 217 a Tustin,California 92680-3295 (714)730-0744 Joseph A. Hennessey Sharon A.Hennessey Senior Member.International Richt of Way Association Senior Menber.National Assccation of Review Appraisers June 16, 1989 Mr. Dan Brennan Real Property Manager City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Appraisal Report Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue.Project Huntington Beach, California Pursuant to your request`and authorization, I have completed the investigation and analysis necessary for me to arrive at the fair market value of the following listed parcels for the widening and improvement of the Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue intersection. The date of value is June 1, 1989. The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the fair market value of the three partial takings as part of a larger parcel and the net damages that accrue to the remainder by reason of the takings and the City's construction of the improvements in the manner proposed. In my opinion, the just compensation for the subject parcels is as follows: Part Net Just Owner Taken Damages Compensation MaceRich $ 75,000 $ 0 $ 75,000 Mobil Oil 42,400 0 42,400 Alfred P. Chamie, Trustee 20,400 0 20,400 Total $137,800 $ 0 $137,800 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION August 10, 1989 Mr. Jack Miller Principal Engineer City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 91648 Dear Jack: I have reviewed the Appraisal Report prepared by Hennessey and Hennessey for the widening of the Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue intersection and I concur with findings of the appraisal. Please proceed with the acquisition of the parcels subject to approval by Caltrans. With respect to financing the acquisition, I suggest the city of Huntington Beach submit a claim to the Orange County Transportation Commission (OCTC) for the cost of acquisition. OCTC will then direct the County Auditor/Controller to transfer the funds to the city. The claim should be in the form of a letter identifying the project and documenting the cost. Thank you for your continued cooperation in making the Super Street Project a reality. Sincerely, isa Mills, Manager Planning and Programming LM:EM:jjh Commissioners: Clarice A. Blamer •Richard B. Edgar •Iry Pickier •Dana W. Reed •Thomas F. Riley • Roger R. Stanlon Harriett M. Wieder •Keith E. McKean 1055 North Main. Suite 516. Santa Ana, California 92701 (714)541-7850 Telecopier(714)541-7843 . I CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH ' To PAUL E. COOK From ROBERT J. FRANZ City Administrator Deputy City Administrator Subject REQUEST FOR APPROPRIATION Date OCTOBER 4, 1989 RE: ACQUISITION OF THREE PARCELS FOR TRAFFIC PURPOSES FIS 89-26 As requested under the authority of Resolution 4832, a Fiscal Impact Statement has been prepared and submitted relative to the proposed acquisition of three parcels in the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue for purposes of improving the congestion at that heavily-traveled location. Anticipations are that an appropriation of $150,000 would be adequate for this project. An affirmative response by the City Council would reduce the balance of the City's . undesignated, unreserved Gas Tax Fund to $3,186,000 prior to the reimbursement of the City's advanced funding by the Orange County Transportation Commission. R.T J. FR N Deputy City Administrator RJF:sd 4796j nl W57 ORANGE 7 EXIST. OVERHEAD SIGN j I - w 2 I� w I I I > 6 ' I ' Q I II I C18 STD 3 s; l ,a i I BEACH BOULEVARD sro 7 I I6 I I 4 73-3 STD 7 / I' REMOVE R73-2 W57-1 LT / 6 ORANGE 7 W57-1 LT 6 R18-2.1 4 R ;^;:lir;;;., ,• �'ORANGE PLACE OVER C30 STD C30 STD 2 acR ' ` 2 EX R61( W57-1 7 n . ORANGE 7 i• '^ n .e�e,or . _ �. _- _ _ _- _- --- _ ____ __�_-_•__J____'_ _ 6 . , _ __ __ __ c_ ___ _____ ___- .__-- -� R=35' - - 2 -------------------------------- - - - f 1 10 -- - r 2 ,.------------------------------- - --------------- ---- S0' W 0 __ ___ - _________i R-35' - •- _ 6 ... Z JOo ' — .__ .._ ___ ___ ___ R 9 = F- _ RE>•,OVE EXIST. _W ' U --------------- - - W --------- ------------ - - ---------------------- Q ; R73-6 STD 4 ' - ---- ---------- --- �---------� � REMOVE EJUST '----------- . R73-5 ------------- W —_ ' W o N •-•• - . . R-35 - __- ------ - -. .. C 7 STD 7 __-__'_____ ____�_____ ^ —_____—.----�__ '�' '- /�T---'-----'--- - 6 ECR ea 8CR )� / t / NE OF IES of I FIC ANCE I C,3 STO 3 I L-Lj LLJ OFFICE OF �a111-667p'sf CITY ATTORNEY Y _ ?=a f e P.O.BOX 2740 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA 92647 GAIL HUTTON TELEPHONE City Attorney (714)536.6555 March 27 , 1990 T s x tV z C� n -i o c-• N on Mr . Jim Huntsberry (., MT; T Mobile Oil Company `' z 3800 W. Alameda, Suite 700 n j Burbank, California 91505 co 0 Dear Mr. Huntsberry: On April 16, 1990, at 7: 00 p.m. , in the City Council Chambers located at 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92648, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach intends to adopt a Resolution of Necessity as such is described in California Code of Civil Procedure § 1245 .230 . This resolution, should it be adopted, will authorize the City to acquire by eminent domain a portion of the real property in the City of Huntington Beach commonly known as Assessor ' s Parcel Number 142-081-01 . Your company' s name and address appear on the last equalized Orange County assessment roll as the owner of the real property listed above. As such, you have a right to appear and be heard on the following matters : 1. Whether the public interest and necessity require the proposed project . 2. Whether the proposed project is planned or- located in the manner that will be the most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. 3 . Whether the property described in the resolution is necessary for the proposed project . Failure to file a written notice to appear and be heard within fifteen (15) days after this notice was mailed will result in waiver of your right to appear and be heard. Mr . Jim Huntsberry March 27, 1990 Page 2 You may file your written notice to appear and be heard with: Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Very truly yours, GAIL HUTTON City Attorney cc: Connie Brockway, City Clerk Dan Brennan, Real Property Manager Paul Larkin, Real Estate Analyst Lou Sandoval, Director of Public Works Mobil Oil Corporation, Property Tax Dept . P.O. Box 290 Dallas . Texas 75221 OFFICE OF Its CITY ATTORNEY P.O.BOX 2740 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA 92647 GAIL HUTTON TELEPHONE City Attorney (714)536-MS = March 27, 1990 �O N c� C;0 �nr r- m A i^ � ;x Mr. Charley Hallums The Mace Rich Co . 200 Lakewood Center Mall d Lakewood, CA 90712 Dear Mr. Hallums: On April 16, 1990, at 7 : 00 p.m. , in the City Council Chambers located at 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92648, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach intends to adopt a Resolution of Necessity as such is described in California Code of Civil Procedure § 1245 .230 . This resolution, should it be adopted, will authorize the City to acquire by eminent domain a portion of the real property in the City of Huntington Beach commonly known as Assessor ' s Parcel Number 142-071-61, 86 . Your company' s name and address appear on the last equalized Orange County assessment roll as the owner of the real property listed above. As such, you have a right to appear and be heard on the following matters : 1. Whether the public interest and necessity require the proposed project . 2. Whether the -proposed project is planned or located in the manner that will be the most compatible with the greatest piiblic good and the least private injury. 3 . Whether the property described in the resolution is necessary for the proposed project . Failure to file a written notice to appear and be heard within fifteen (15) days after this notice was mailed will result in waiver of your right to appear and be heard. Mr. Charles Hallums March 27, 1990 Page 2 You may file your written notice to appear and be heard with: Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Very truly yours, GAIL HUTTON City Attorney cc: Connie Brockway, City Clerk Dan Brennan, Real Property Manager Paul Larkin, Real Estate Analyst Lou Sandoval, Director of Public Works Maceri,ch California Associates LP 233 Wilshire Blvd. , Suite 700 Santa Monica, CA 90401 OFFICE OF INS CITY ATTORNEY P.O.BOX 2740 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA 92647 GAIL HUTTON TELEPHONE City Attorney (714)536.6W5 March 27, 1990 N z CO n c� ?- m Mr. Alfred P. Chamie ornm c/o Mr.- Stephen H. Suffins of Loeb & Loeb 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard -v n Los Angeles, California 90067 0 Dear Mr . Chamie: On April 16, 1990, at 7 : 00 p.m. , in the City Council Chambers located at 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92648, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach intends to adopt a Resolution of Necessity as such is described in California Code of Civil Procedure § 1245 .230 . This resolution, should it be adopted, will authorize the City to acquire by eminent domain a portion of the real property in the City of Huntington Beach commonly known as Assessor ' s Parcel Number 142-081-02, 03 . Your name and address appear on the last equalized Orange County assessment roll as the owner of the real property listed above. As such, you have a right to appear and be heard on the following matters : 1. Whether the public interest and necessity require the proposed project. 2 . Whether the proposed project is planned or located in the manner that will be the most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. 3 . Whether the property described in the resolution is necessary for the proposed project . Failure to file a written notice to appear and be heard within fifteen (15) days after this notice was mailed will result in waiver of your right to appear and be heard. Mr. Alfred P. Chamie March 27, 1990 Page 2 You may file your written notice to appear and be heard with: Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Very truly yours, GAIL HUTTON City Attorney cc: Connie Brockway, City Clerk Dan Brennan, Real Property Manager Paul Larkin, Real Estate Analyst Lou Sandoval, Director of Public Works Mr. Alfred P. Chamie 1419 Amalfi Drive Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 Noj RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FINDING PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY/ TO ACQUIRE REAL PROPERTY ALONG EDINGER AVENUE AN � BEACH BOULEVARD IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FOR STREET WIDENING PURPOSES, -AND AUTHORIZING TPiE 'ACQUISITION OF SUCH PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN (A Portion of A.P. No . 142-081-01) WHEREAS, the City of Huntington Beach is proposing a project to widen the intersection of Edinger Avenue and Beach Boulevard; and 7 Acquisition of the real property referred to hereinbelow is necessary for implementing this public protect, and California Streets and Highways Cod Section 4090 et seq. authorizes the City to acquire by condemnation any and all property necessary or convenient fo•r the purpose of widening public streets, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach finds, determines .and /resolves as follows : 1 . The public interest and necessity require that the City Council of the City of H/ntington Beach acquire the real property described he e n for public use for street purposes . 2 . The real r"o erties or interests in real properties to P� P P P be acquired are described and graphically depicted in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 3 . All persons with an ownership interest in the property and whose name and address appear on the last equalized county assessment/roll were duly given notice and an opportunity to be heard pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1245 . 235 . -1- 4 . A hearing on the matters set forth in Code of Civil Procedure S 1240 . 030 was duly held by the City Council on March 6, 1989 and as a result thereof the Council finds as follows : a . The public interest and necessity require the proposed project . / b. The proposed project is planned and located cated in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. / C. The property described herein is necessary for the proposed project . d. It is necessary that the taking of said property or interest in said real property be a• easement, and acquisition of an easement in the pr•perty is the manner which will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. e. Pursuant to Section 7267.2 of the California Government Code, an offer to purchase has been made to the owner or owners of record. 5 . The City Attorney of the City of Huntington Beach is hereby authorized, di e-4ed and empowered to acquire in the name of the City of Huntington Beach an easement in and to the above described real prope/ty or interest in real property by condemnation under/the laws of the State of California relating i to eminent domaid and such other statutes of the State as may be applicable, to commence such proceedings as are necessary for the acquisition of said property, and to do all things reasonably necessary for the acquisition of the property, -2- including applying for an order fixing the amount of security by way of money deposits as the court may direct and for an order permitting the city to take possession and use of the property for the uses and purposes described herein. 6 . The real property or interest in real property which is authorized for condemnation by this resolution �s situated in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange;/ State of California . / PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council /of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 1 day of April 1990 . Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney P 3-ag-90 REVIEWED AND APPROVED: NITIATED AND APPROVED: c City Administrator / Directo of Public Works 4 - 10 -quo i i 1 r 1 .J -3- City of Huntington Beach Exhibit "A" Easement for Edinger Avenue and Beach Boulevard EXHIBIT A / Being those portions of Lots 1 and 2 of Tract No. 417, in jthe City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as shown by map recorded in Book 16, Page 47 of Miscellaneous Maps/ceS*outh ecords of said County, described as follows: Parcel 1 Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Lot 1 ; the 0° 35' 06" East, 20.00 feet along the Westerly line of said lot; thence North 89' 24' 54" East, parallel with the Northerly line of said lot, 126.12 feet to the beginning of a curve, concave Southwesterly, an'd having a radius of 24.00 feet; thence Easterly and Southeasterly 37,a63 feet along said curve, through a central angel of 89' 50' 30" to a point of tangency with. the Easterly line of said lot; thence North 00 44'/36" West, 43.94 feet along said Easterly line to the Northeast corner of //said Lot; thence South 89' 24' 54" West, 150.00 feet along the Northerly' line of said lot to the point of beginning. Parcel 2 Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Lot 1; thence South 0° 35' 06" East, 20.00 feet along the Westerly line of said lot to the True Point of Beginning; thence continuing Souih 00 35' 06" East, 7.00 feet along said line; thence North 89' 24' 54' East, parallel with the Northerly line of said lot, 123.15 feet to the begs ning of a curve, concave Southwest- erly and having a radius of 27.00 eet; thence Easterly and Southeasterly 42.34 feet along said curve, through a central angle of 89' 50' 30" to a point of tangency with the Easterly line of said Lot 2; thence North 0° 44' 36" 'West, 9.99 feet along said line and the Easterly line of said Lot 1 to the beginning of a curve,/concave Southwesterly and having a radius of 24.00 feet; thence Northwesterly and Westerly 37.63 feet along said curve, through a central angle of 89' 50' 30" to a point of tangency with a line parallel with and 20.0`0 feet Southerly of the Northerly line of said Lot 1 ; thence South 89' 24 54' West, along said line; 126. 12 feet to the True Point of Beginning. See Exhibit B attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. Subject to covenants, conditions, reservations, restrictions, rights, rights-of-way and easements, if any, of record. n k-A Nc John W Pfeifer S. 5329 04/27/89 Rev. 5/26/89 5329 J N 52387 ocP 12 31 Z9 I � ., EXHIBIT B ,q b"� W `/oNN 3 /3 23 NO/c'7-h'E.4 6T �o CoRNFR / \' `v O 30 _ -5Z I W J � LU 'W Q a W I� � ti3 Q � � � f I 30 io oos Q 700, d =89'5-0'30" Z = 42.34' R = z700' 7 Z4.0030' T 23.93' SCALE: DATE: WILLD N ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS•PLANNERS F l-' - 40' 4-26-89 SKETCH OF 290S.ANANEIMBLVD..SUITE 100. DRAWN BY- FIELD BK.: ANANEI{a,CA 02805 'WJrM RIGHT - OF-WAY (MA)rn..5740 (213)924-1631 CHECKED BY: JOB N4. EASEMENT GDE 52367 ANA NQ, 110 DATE 3-82 SUPER SME= 1* DEMONSTRATION ARC.D.JECr Beach Blvd. Corridor Ma Habra I La Mirada IBuena Par I' 91 /Fullerton /Stanton 5 ' I Garden Grove lAnaheim I Westminster 22 I Huntington Beach Draft Program Environmental Impact Report Orange County Transportation Commission California Department of Transportation December 1985 f SCH No . : 85070303 r 7-ORA- 39 - 0 . 0/ 19 . 2 Proposed improvements of State Route 39 at various locations between Routes 1 and 90 in the Cities of Huntington Beach , Westminster , Garden Grove , Buena Park , Stanton , Anaheim , La Habra , La Mirada , and Fullerton in Orange County. DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Submitted Pursuant to (State ) Division 13 , Public Resources Code by the STATE OF CALIFORNIA Department of Transportation i l Date E . W . BLJ KMER Chief Office of Environmental Analysis California Department of Transportation Abstract It is proposed to make improvements to Route 39 between Routes 1 and 90. There are four levels of improvement alternatives : No Project , TSM , Moderate , and High. Program improvements include traffic signal coordination , restriction/ elimination of on- street parking , intersection/ spot widening , access limitation , bus turn- outs , intersection grade separations , pedestrian grade separa- tions , and restriping . Impacts include improvements to air quality and traffic flow , adverse construction impacts including noise , traffic disruption , reduced access , aesthetic , business disruption and adverse impacts of property acquisition . Mitigation measures would reduce some of these impacts . t� The following people may be contacted for additional information concerning this document . Stan Oftelie Wayne Ballantine , Chief �— Executive Director Caltrans District 7 Orange County Transportation Environmental Planning Branch Commission 120 South Spring Street 1055 No , Main Street , Suite 516 Los Angeles , California 90012 Santa Ana , California 92701 ( 213 ) 620- 5335 (714 ) 834- 7581 I SUPER STREETS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT BEACH BOULEVARD CORRIDOR DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION u DECEMBER 1985 r TABLE OF CONTENTS Page �j SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-1 I. NEED FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS A. Introduction to the Environmental Documentation . . . I-1 B. Project Introduction and Description. 1-1 C. Operational Deficiencies and Existing Traffic Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4 D. Transportation Demand and Future Traffic Conditions I-4 E. Related Projects. . . . . . . . 1-7 F. Summary of the Transportation Problem I-8 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION - PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1 B. Identification of Program Improvements . . . . . . . II-1 C. Program of Improvement Alternatives 11-3 III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1 B. Regional Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1 C. Natural Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1 i 1. Topography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1 2. Soils and Agricultural Lands . . . . . . . . . . III-1 3. Geology and Seismicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-2 4. Floodplains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-4 5. Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 I 1-4 6. Air Quality 11I-7 7. Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 11-7 8. Biology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-13 �- 9. Coastal Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-13 D. Social and Economic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . III-15 1. Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11I-15 2. Economic Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I11-17 3. Historic and Cultural Resources 111-19 E. Traffic and Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-21 1. Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1I1-21 2. Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-23 3. Rail Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-23 4. Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 1 I-23 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1 B. Natural Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7 1. Topography . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7 2. Conversion of Agricultural Land . . . . . . . . . IV-7 3. Floodplains- : IV-8 4. Air Quality IV-9 / Page 5. Noise . . . . . . . . IV-11 6. Visual Aesthetics, Light, Glare IV-14 7. Biology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-15 8. Coastal Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-16 C. Social and Economic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . IV-16 1. Economic and Fiscal Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . IV-16 2. Community Services . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-22 3. Historic and Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . IV-25 D. Transportation Facilities IV-26 1. Traffic and Circulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-26 2. Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-27 3. Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-27 E. Construction Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-28 F. Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-38 1. Construction Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-38 2. Operation Energy IV-39 V. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND ADVERSE EFFECTS �- A. Introduction . V-1 B. Construction Impacts V-1 VI. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1 VII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM A. Objectives VII-1 B. Activities VII-1 APPENDICES A. Level of Service Descriptions B. Notice of Preparation and Responses C. Persons and Organizations Contacted D. Bibliography and References E. List of Preparers t i List of Tables Table Page Chapter I I-C 1 Intersection Level of Service 1-5 I-C 2 Average Daily Traffic I-6 1 Chapter II II-C 1 Intersection Improvement Alternatives II-5 II-C 2 Mid-Block Improvement Alternatives II-10 Chapter III III-C 1 Major Faults in Relation to Project III-3 III-C 2 Floodplains III-5 III-C 3 1983 Violations - Air Quality Standards III-8 III-C 4 Noise Levels Measured III-11 III-D 1 Demographic Data - Beach Boulevard Cities III-16 III-D 2 Economic Data - Beach Boulevard Cities III-18 III-D 3 Study Area Business Types by Cities III-20 III-D 4 Businesses by Type on Beach Boulevard III-20 III-D 5 Potentially Significant Historic Sites III-22 Chapter IV IV-A 1 Environmental Significance Checklist IV-2 IV-B 1 Daily Emission Levels for Program Alternatives IV-10 IV-B 2 Noise Exposure Estimates for Beach Boulevard IV-12 IV-C 1 Summary of Key Findings - TSM IV-17 IV-C 2 Summary of Key Findings - Moderate IV-18 IV-C 3 Summary of Key Findings - High IV-19 IV-C 4 Summary of Key Findings - Mid Block IV-20 IV-C 5 Hospital Locations and Proposed Improvement Alternatives IV-24 IV-C 6 Park Locations and Proposed Improvement Alternatives IV-24 IV-D 1 Segments Operating at Los "E" IV-28 IV-E 1 TSM Construction Impacts IV-33 IV-E 2 Moderate Construction IV-34 IV-E 3 High Construction IV-35 IV-E 4 Mid Block Construction IV-36 IV-F 1 Operation Energy Consumption Estimates IV-40 Table Page Chapter VII VII-B 1 Public Meetings VII-4 List of Figures Figure Page Chapter I I-B 1 Regional Location Map I-2 I-B 2 Study Area Map I-3 Chapter III III-C 1 Floodplain Map III-6 III-C 2 Noise Measurement Locations III-9 III-C 3 Land Use Compatibility III-12 III-C 4 Wetlands Area III-14 Chapter VII VII-B 1 Organizational Chart VII-2 oc a m s N SUMMARY 1 Introduction This document is a Program EIR evaluating a program of projected improvements to Beach Boulevard (State Route 39) . Proposed improvements include restriping, signal coordination, street widening, construction of bus turnouts, and intersection grade separations. Many of these improvements would be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines because the improvements are minor. However, the combination of minor and major improvements over a 20 mile stretch of Beach Boulevard may create cumulative impacts and the need to identify mitigation measures early in the planning process. For these reasons, this Program EIR was prepared to identify the potential impacts for the entire program of improvements. Additional environmental documentation (i .e. , categorical exemptions, negative declarations, or full EIR's) will be prepared as necessary for specific improvements in the project implementation phase. Summary Environmental Setting The Super Streets Demonstration Project for Beach Boulevard (State Route 39) extends from Pacific Coast Highway (State Route 1) in the City of Huntington Beach to Imperial Highway (State Route 90) in La Habra, a distance of 19.5 miles. With few exceptions, most of the land within the study area is developed. The predominant land use is commercial . There are also industrial , residential and recreational uses located along Beach Boulevard. The northwest section of Orange County is experiencing intense continued rapid growth in both population and employment. This growth has led to the congestion and delay experienced now by users of Beach Boulevard and will add to future traffic congestion. Beach Boulevard generally consists of six through travel lanes plus a median between Pacific Coast Highway and Manchester Avenue, and four through travel lanes north to Imperial Highway. Need for Highway Improvements The need for improvements to Beach Boulevard has been identified in previous studies, including the Beach Boulevard Corridor Study in 1984. Currently during the PM peak, 7 of 40 major intersections on Beach Boulevard operate at Level -of- Service (LOS) F, characterized by low speed, delay, and congestion with traffic volumes at or near capacity. Traffic counts taken in April of 1985 by the Orange County Transportation Commission (OCTC) show that present traffic demands are exceeding roadway capacity at these seven locations during the afternoon S-1 peak period. OCTC traffic projections show significant growth by the year 2005. It is estimated that there will be substantial capacity problems (LOS F) at 19 of the 40 major intersections along Beach Boulevard. Without any improvements, such as those proposed by the Super Streets Program, there will be additional significant vehicular delays with increased fuel consumption and degraded air quality. Alternatives Being Considered There are four levels of improvement alternatives under consideration. They are: No-Project Alternative -- No physical improvements are made as part of the Super Streets Program; however, improvements listed in the 1984 State ' Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) and those included in OCTC's Federal Aid Urban (FAU) program are implemented. TSM -- Transportation System Management is a series of low capital intensive improvements such as signal coordination, signal modifications, bus turnouts, and roadway restriping. With the exception of spot widening for bus turnouts, the TSM alternatives do not require additional right-of- way (ROW) . Moderate -- This level of program alternative includes those measures with greater capital costs. Included are improvements in the TSM Program and physical widening of the intersections where such widening can be done within the existing ROW. If the High Program Alternative (see below) has a roadway grade separation as an element then the Moderate Program for that i� intersection could include an intersection widening with new ROW. High -- This alternative is the most capital intensive. It includes all of the options in the previous alternatives and the acquisition of new right-of-way for intersection and roadway widening or the construction of an arterial grade separation. Environmental Consequences Some aspects of the proposed improvement programs would result in some adverse environmental impacts which can not be completely avoided or mitigated. The two elements which have the greatest potential for adverse effects are roadway and intersection widening with new ROW and arterial grade separations. Prior to the construction of any grade separation, additional environmental analysis will need to be performed. Generally, the most significant unavoidable impacts would be as a consequence of r S-2 construction. These impacts would be noise, traffic disruption, reduced access, visual disruption, negative economic effects on businesses, and property acquisition. After construction is completed, no long-term unavoidable adverse impacts are projected as a result of the TSM or Moderate program alternatives. Only the High level of the program alternatives has a potential for adverse effects. Prior to such implementation, additional analysis to identify any adverse impacts will be performed. With the implementation of the Beach Boulevard Super Streets Demonstration Project there will be improved traffic flow and increased capacity of the street. ' Consultation and Coordination An extensive public participation program has been developed and implemented for the Beach Boulevard Super Streets Demonstration Project. From January through October, 1985, over 35 meetings have been held with community representatives. The purpose of this program has been to ensure complete community information dissemination and to develop a consensus-building process. This public participation effort has insured the early identification of critical community concerns and technical issues, such as: the effects of the improvements on businesses, removal and/or restriction of on-street parking, left turn restrictions hindering emergency vehicle access, and the visual effects of the intersection grade separation. These concerns have been incorporated into the engineering, environmental , and economic analyses for the project. This draft Program EIR will be circulated for a 45 day public review and comment period. Several public presentations on the project and the Draft Program EIR will be made during this time. S-3 cc W F-- d H Q 2 V 1 r I. NEED FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS A. Introduction to the Environmental Documentation A Program EIR is an environmental evaluation of a series of actions related either geographically or functionally (i .e. , as logical parts in a chain of contemplated actions) . The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines allow for the development of such a environmental document with the decision to carry out a new governmental program (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15168) . The advantage of a Program EIR for this demonstration project is that it gives the Orange County Transportation Commission (OCTC) and Caltrans time to consider broad policy alternatives and programwide mitigation measures at an early point in the project. The Program EIR allows the agencies greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts during the planning process. The purpose of this document is to: 1) identify (and quantify) potential impacts at an early planning stage, 2) allow consideration of cumulative impacts as part of the planning process, 3) identify mitigation measures for incorporation into the overall project, and 4) minimize the need for additional EIR's on subsequent actions. The need for subsequent environmental documents will be determined at the time individual project elements are implemented. Many of the program elements are very minor street improvements that would normally be categorically exempt from CEQA. Other improvements may require Negative Declarations or full EIRs. Suitable environmental documents will be prepared as necessary. rB. Project Introduction and Description Beach Boulevard, a major north-south arterial in Orange County, connects communities from Huntington Beach to La Habra (see Figures I-B 1 and I-B 2) . It provides local access to adjacent residential , commercial , retail , industrial centers, and major regional recreation areas (e.g. , Pacific Ocean beaches, Knotts' Berry Farm) ; it also serves as a connecting link in the regional arterial network by providing direct access to the following freeways: Santa Ana Freeway (Interstate 5) , Artesia Freeway (State Route 91) , Garden Grove Freeway (State Route 22) , and the San Diego Freeway (Interstate 405) . The study area for the Beach Boulevard Super Streets Demonstration Project extends from Pacific Coast Highway to Imperial Highway - a distance of approximately 19.5 miles. Beach Boulevard is identified as a major arterial on the County of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways and was adopted as a State Route (SR-39) in piecemeal fashion between 1935 and 1941. It is presently a part of the State Freeway and Expressway Plan. Beach Boulevard generally consists of six through travel lanes plus a median between Pacific Coast Highway and Manchester Avenue, and four through travel lanes north to Imperial Highway. Existing right-of-way ranges from 108 feet south of Orangethorpe Avenue to 192 feet between 21st and 23rd Streets in Westminster. r I-1 r LOS ANGELES COUNTY 1�"—"""" —�. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY �Mv t L ywr � �' • �vEis�DE Rw ' cc_ ''� ` RIVERSIDE S `'-'.ANAHEIM GAaoe+r a v� RANGE % COUNTY w SANTA ANA* TUSTIN 405 Q°a _ i Qb COSTA ' 7 HUNTINGTO MESA BEACH 1 RVINE* NEWPORT BEACH �- Aj LAGUNA BEACH L SAN CAPISTRANO I J SAN Cf.EMENTE SAN DIEGOCOUNTY O � 9 .eci4?ii Y,�� rocq,rroy FIGURE I—B 1 I-2 4 COI.RY �•hr e«r..r• E 11 M.M. e.r..M• as ikHabra LA Mkuda -w.rW r•eti.. . ♦14 FuMartan r e NNvaN• _ . u...•.. .n.a.e.w.w s 91 Pr••w•Y 5R—e� _ _ _ `i Anahein� Buena Park • _ r. a. ....�. r 5 3 u Down n..•.w r Stanton a / ow.w.r � .w.• _ Queen tw+aiden Giors 405 a0• � Yr••wev /J WGSt11Ln8tQl • /r// w..m.nw..w.,. �" • rrs aY..r _ _ rN, - 0 �m 0 • [_ SUPER STREETS 9 ••' DEMONSTRATION _u •a nrwa 1-405 PROJECT Huntington Beech :m / Beach Bhrd. Corridor STUDY AREA FIGURE I-B 2 °°•"" l I-3 The Orange Count Transit District operates three north-south bus routes (29, 9 Y p 37, 44) along segments of Beach Boulevard. The land use along Beach Boulevard is primarily commercial and as a result generates significant vehicular and pedestrian activity. The Super Street concept involves the implementation of a program of various physical transportation and transit improvements to create a high flow arterial street. The objective is to enhance the level of traffic carrying capacity with the implementation of one or a combination of the program measures. The most ' intensive of the proposed measures is the intersection grade separation. The proposed measures are described in Chapter II, the Project Description. C. Operational Deficiencies and Existing Traffic Conditions Currently, a number of intersections along Beach Boulevard exhibit levels of congestion during peak hours approaching or exceeding available roadway capacity, causing substantial delays to commuters. There are significant sections of Beach Boulevard that operate at a level-of-service (LOS) E, characterized by low speeds and congestion with traffic volumes at or near capacity. Table I-C 1 shows the existing and projected LOS (without the project) for the intersections along Beach Boulevard. (Please refer to Appendix A for further definition of level of service as a traffic indicator.) Traffic counts at intersections taken in April 1985 reveal that during peak periods, 7 of the 40 major intersections in the study area operate at a LOS F, characterized by unstable or forced traffic flow and long vehicular queues and delays with routine stop-and-go traffic. By 'the year 2005, approximately half of the intersections will operate at LOS F during either the AM or PM peak ' period. Existing (1985) average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on Beach Boulevard range from 13,200 vehicles, between Atlanta Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway in ' Huntington Beach, to 80,900 ADT for the section of Beach Boulevard between the I-405 interchange and Edinger Avenue. Table I-C 2 presents existing and future (year 2005) ADT between key intersections along Beach Boulevard. The figures reveal the extent to which future traffic volumes and congestion will increase over the next 20 years. The section of Beach Boulevard between Warner and Trask Avenues would continue to experience the highest traffic volumes. The accident rate (fatal + injury) at signalized intersections along Beach Boulevard varies from .00 to .85 accidents per million vehicle miles (MVM) during the years 1982-1984. The total accident rate for all intersections varies from .10 to 2.35 accidents per MVM. These rates are significantly below the respective statewide averages of 1.6 and 4.1 accidents per million vehicle miles for a six-lane- arterial street in an urban area. D. Transportation Demand and Future Traffic Conditions Due to the projected growth in employment and population in Orange County, traffic volumes on most segments of Beach Boulevard are expected to exceed I-4 TABLE I-C 1 BEACH BOULEVARD SUPER STREETS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ' INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ' Existing (1985) Projected (2005) Intersection Of AM AM PM PM AM AM PM PM Beach Boulevard With: V/C L.O.S. V/C L.O.S. V/C L.O.S. V/C L.O.S. Pacific Coast Highway .60 A .61 B .64 B .58 A Atlanta Avenue .26 A .50 A .32 A .61 B Adams Avenue .54 A .72 C .70 B .94 E ' Utica Avenue .32 A .55 A .39 A .68 B Yorktown Avenue .47 A .57 A .61 B .72 C Garfield Avenue .42 A .59 A .56 A .78 C ' Ellis/Main Street .69 B .91 E .91 E 1.18 F Talbert Avenue .61 B .72 C .73 C 1.12 F Slater Avenue .67 B .81 D .81 D .95 E Warner Avenue 1.01 F 1.24 F 1.25 F 1.49 F Heil Avenue .62 B .84 D .74 C .97 E Edinger Avenue ..85 D 1.02 F .97 E 1.13 F Center Avenue .33 A .51 A .39 A .60 A ' Mc Fadden Avenue .79 C .91 E 1.08 F 1.47 F Bolsa Avenue .89 D .99 E 1.04 F 1.18 F Hazard Avenue .64 B .73 C .76 C .87 D ' Westminster Avenue .85 D 1.08 F 1.02 F 1.26 F Trask Avenue .67 B .74 C .71 C .82 D Garden Grove Boulevard .90 D .98 E .93 E 1.01 F Lampson Avenue .69 B .82 D .77 C .87 D ' Chapman Avenue .86 D .98 E .98 E 1.12 F Orangewood Avenue .42 A .54 A .47 A .59 A Katella Avenue .82 D .92 E 1.06 F 1.17 F Cerritos Avenue .65 B .76 C .74 C 1.11 F Ball Road .77 C 1.06 F .89 D 1.23 F Orange Avenue .75 C .74 C .88 D .85 D Lincoln Avenue .79 C 1.02 F 1.01 F 1.31 F Crescent Avenue .64 B .84 D .80 C 1.05 F La Palma Avenue .96 E 1.13 F 1.06 F 1.35 F Route 91 - Eastbound .72 C .82 D .79 C .99 E Route 91 - Westbound .57 A .77 C .62 B .87 D Orangethorpe Avenue .65 B .91 E .78 C 1.13 F Ninth Street .36 A .40 A .47 A .53 A Manchester Avenue .74 C .73 C .89 D .89 D ' Commonwealth Avenue .66 B .69 B .74 C .89 D Artesia Boulevard .85 D .91 E 1.14 F 1.32 F Stage Road .73 C .64 B .77 C .69 B Malvern Avenue .81 D .80 C .92 E .90 D Rosecrans Avenue .80 C .75 C .94 E 1.46 F Imperial Highway .90 D 1.02 F 1.28 F 1.36 F No project condition ' I 5 BEACH BOULEVARD SUPER STREETS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT TABLE I-C 2 1 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC ' Existing (1985) Projected* (2005) North- South- North- South- Beach-Boulevard-Between ------bound ----bound ---Total ------bound ---bound --Total --- Atlanta/Pacific Coast Hwy 6,300 6,900 13,200 9,100 9,900 19,000 Yorktown/Adams 17,300 18,500 35,800 21,700 23,300 45,000 Talbert/Ellis 27,800 28,800 56,600 32,400 33,600 66,000 Heil/Warner 30,900 31,900 62,800 35,400 36,600 72,000 I-405/Edinger 33,700 47,200 80,900 35,400 49,600 85,000 Bolsa/McFadden 30,900 29,700 60,600 37,200 35,800 73,000 Hazard/Bolsa 30,100 30,100 60,200 37,000 37,000 74,000 Trask/Westminster 31,500 30,800 62,300 36,400 35,600 72,000 Lampson/Garden Grove 30,300 28,700 59,000 33,400 31,600 65,000 Orangewood/Chapman 27,500 25,900 53,400 30,900 29,100 60,000 Cerritos/Ball 25,600 27,100 52,700 29,600 31,400 61,000 Orange/Ball 26,900 25,500 52,400 31,800 30,200 62,000 Crescent/Lincoln 26,800 25,000 51,800 33,600 31,400 65,000 Artesia Freeway/La Palma 25,400 25,700 51,100 26,800 27,200 54,000 I-5/Orangethorpe 20,400 20,700 41,100 26,800 27,200 54,000 Artesia/Commonwealth 22,400 23,500 45,900 25,400 26,600 52,000 Rosecrans/Malvern 18,600 18,300 36,900 20,700 20,300 41,000 Rosecrans/Imperial Hwy 18,600 18,200 36,800 22,200 21,800 44,000 *Without project improvements. Source: PBQ&D, 1985. ' I-6 roadwaycapacity b the year 2005. Alternative physical improvements are P Y Y Y p Y P needed to meet this transportation demand. By the year 2005, it is projected that approximately 14 miles of the 19.5 mile length of Beach Boulevard study area will operate at volumes approaching or exceeding capacity, with adjacent parallel major arterials also exhibiting significant levels of congestion. ' Projected population, employment trends, and existing and future land development indicate the need for highway improvements. Using the 1980 census data as a base, the population and employment projections for the year 2005 show that employment is expected to increase 30 percent (from 269,000 to 350,000 jobs) and population by 22 percent (from 750,000 to 914,000 residents) within the Beach Boulevard study area (Orange County Demographic Projections for Transportation Studies, 1980-2005, September, 1982) . There are a number of major employment centers (e.g. , McDonnell Douglas, Fashion Square, the Humana Hospitals) adjacent to or near Beach Boulevard, that attract trips during the morning and evening peak hours and contribute to recurrent congestion. Combined with the existing density of commercial development all along Beach Boulevard, proposed new development and redevelopment will exacerbate existing conditions. In addition, there is the seasonal phenomenom of summertime congestion created by recreational traffic to Pacific Ocean beaches and tourist facilities (e.g. , Knotts' Berry Farm and the Movieland Wax Museum) . Regional projections show an increase of traffic volumes on all segments of Beach Boulevard within the study area over the next 20, years. The highest traffic volumes will continue to occur along that section of Beach Boulevard between Edinger Avenue and the I-405 interchange, with 83,000 ADT in 2005. The significant current and future demand as evidenced in studies (see traffic sections Chapters III and IV for more detailed information) indicates a need for capacity improvements on Beach Boulevard. Congestion and delay will continue to increase over the next 20 years with a deteriorating LOS at most intersections. Several intersections which currently operate during the peak hours at an acceptable LOS of C or D such as Mc Fadden Avenue, Westminster Avenue, Katella Avenue and Imperial Highway are projected to experience severe and unacceptable levels of congestion (LOS F) by the year 2005. Intersections which currently operate at LOS E and F such as La Palma Avenue and Warner Avenue, will experience deteriorating conditions over the next 20 years, ' with extended peak periods and increasing intersection delays. Traffic flow will be impaired and average vehicle speed during peak hour will decrease as projected traffic volumes increase. ' E. Related Projects ' There are three improvements to Beach Boulevard which are included in the State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) . The first is the I-5 interchange at Beach Boulevard (STIP number 979T) . This project will create direct freeway access to Beach Boulevard. A second of these projects is partially included within the study area and is therefore considered a related project to the Beach Boulevard Super Streets project. This project (STIP number 1016A) would improve I-7 and interconnect traffic signals on Beach Boulevard between the Artesia Freeway (State Route 91) and Whittier Boulevard (State Route 72) . The third project is a signal coordination project (STIP number 1021M) on Route 39 north of the study area. ' F. Summary of the Transportation Problem Beach Boulevard is currently experiencing traffic flow and congestion problems and will continue to experience increasing traffic flow and congestion coincident with the rapid and intensive development of the Orange County area. Previous studies by the Orange County Transportation Commission (OCTC) such as ' the Multi-Modal Transportation Study and the Beach Boulevard Corridor Study have documented the current and future need for improvements. The latter study concluded that the "Super Street" concept would be effective in improving the ' capacity of Beach Boulevard. The super street concept involves the coordinated application of improvements such as signal coordination, restriping, bus turnouts, access limitation, and selected intersection widenings and grade separations. The long range travel forecasts predict continued and consistent increases in traffic volumes on Beach Boulevard. If the program improvements are not made on ' Beach Boulevard, travel conditions will continue to deteriorate and unacceptable levels of service for several hours each day during the AM and PM commuter periods will be experienced throughout most of the study area. ' The statistical evidence indicates a need to: a. provide additional capacity on Beach Boulevard to meet current and ' future traffic demand; b. improve peak period travel speed and traffic flow so as to provide acceptable levels of service, efficiency, and safety to highway users. ' A critical need exists to satisfy the existing and forecasted (year 2005) traffic demands on Beach Boulevard between Pacific Coast Highway and Imperial Highway by improving its traffic carrying capacity. Measures to be implemented should be cost effective, efficient solutions to the existing and future problems and minimize community impacts to the maximum extent feasible. To fill this need the Orange County Transportation Commission and Caltrans have designated Beach Boulevard as a demonstration project to develop a program of improvements which will be used to improve the flow of traffic on Beach ' Boulevard and may be used as a prototype for other roadways. I-8 cc LLI 0.H V II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION - PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES A. Introduction The primary objective of the Super Streets Demonstration Project is to identify a specific program of improvements needed to provide reasonable capacity for the existing and projected (year 2005) traffic volumes on Beach Boulevard between Pacific Coast Highway and Imperial Highway. A wide range of improvement options were identified for the program. These improvements would be implemented at intersections and midblock sections along Beach Boulevard. The range of options which will be used to implement the Super Street concept (high-flow arterial ) ' include the following measures: o Traffic Signal Coordination o Restriction/Elimination of On-Street Parking ' o Intersection/Spot Widening o Access Limitations o Bus Turnouts o Intersection Grade Separations o Pedestrian Grade Separations o Restriping o Other Measures Which Would Improve Traffic Flow These options range from relatively low-cost improvements, such as signal coordination and restriping, to capital-intensive improvements such as ' intersection grade separations. B. Identification of Program Improvements Each of the above improvement options were evaluated for possible inclusion at each intersection. The options are reviewed in the following paragraphs, with ' a brief discussion of how each was evaluated for selection and inclusion at any particular location. o Signal Coordination: Improved traffic signal coordination for traffic along Beach Boulevard was assumed as a possible alternative at each major intersection in the study area. ' o Signal Modification: Where the existing or projected intersection level of service analysis indicated that additional signal phasing might be required to accommodate high turning volumes, the necessary signal modification was assumed as an improvement alternative. o Bus Turnouts: Where OCTD bus routes presently stop, and at arterial street intersections with existing or projected heavy traffic volumes, ' bus turnouts on Beach Boulevard were included as an alternative if no such turnouts already existed. Some right of way acquisition may be required to build the bus turnouts. o Access Control : A field survey, review of the aerial photographs, and discussions with local agency staff revealed several locations II-1 where turning movement restrictions or median closures might improve intersection operations. At these locations, access controls were included as an alternative. o Intersection Restriping: Review of aerial photographs and a field survey provided information about locations where a new intersection approach lane could be added through restriping of the existing curb- to-curb section. Where this appeared to be a feasible option and where the existing or projected intersection level of service warranted such an improvement, restriping was included as an alternative. Restriping was also included at some intersections where the projected level of service would not normally justify restriping, in order to maintain a consistent number of travel lanes along Beach Boulevard. o Intersection Widening within the Right-of-Way: The intersection level-of-service analyses were utilized to identify congested intersections at which roadway widening might improve the level of service. At such locations, where the aerial photographs and field ' survey indicated that the widening could be accommodated within the existing right-of-way, such a widening was included as an alternative. However, at some intersections where the projected level of service would not justify widening, street widening was assumed in order to maintain a consistent number of travel lanes along Beach Boulevard. o Intersection widening with New Right-of-Way: Where the intersection level of service analysis indicated that intersection widening would improve an unacceptable volume/capacity ratio, and the existing right-of-way did not appear to be sufficient to accommodate such widening, intersection widening was included as part of the program of improvements. o Intersection Grade Separation: Where existing or projected intersection level of service appeared to be so high that even intersection spot-widening might not reduce the future level of service to an acceptable level , an intersection grade separation was included as an improvement alternative. Nine potential grade separation locations have been identified and included as improvement alternatives. These are: Pacific Coast Highway, Warner Avenue, Edinger Avenue, Bolsa Avenue, Westminster Avenue, Katella Avenue, Lincoln Avenue, La Palma Avenue, and Imperial Highway. Comparing these to the potential locations identified in the Beach Boulevard Corridor Study, Malvern Avenue was dropped from consideration while Edinger Avenue and La Palma Avenue were added to the list of potential grade separations. o Other improvements to be considered: The identified improvement alternatives also include a pedestrian grade separation across Pacific Coast Highway. A similar evaluation was performed for each of the midblock improvement options. The following paragraphs discusses the options and how each option was selected for inclusion in a particular midblock section. II-2 1 a o Signal Coordination: Midblock crossings and intersections controlled by traffic signals, which were not among the forty major arterial intersections previously considered, were included in this category. o Restriping with Parking Restrictions: In areas of heavy existing or projected peak period traffic volumes, where additional travel lanes could be provided by imposing peak period parking restrictions, this measure was included as an alternative. o Parking Turnouts: In areas where parking restriction or removal are being considered, and where adjacent land uses (such as automobile dealerships) might benefit substantially from the continuance of on- street parking, the construction of turnout areas for curbside parking was included as an alternative. Some right-of-way may be required to build the parking turnouts. o Driveway Consolidation: A field survey revealed several areas where multiple driveways are spaced very closely together, often with more than one driveway serving a small business. In selected areas, driveway consolidation was included as an alternative to minimize the friction of side traffic with traffic on Beach Boulevard. o Median Closures: A field survey and review of the aerial photographs revealed several areas where turns can be made across the Beach Boulevard median at an unsignalized location. In cases where the field survey or the aerial photograph indicated that these median openings do not serve a significant side street or significant traffic generator, median closure was included as an alternative to improve traffic flow on Beach Boulevard. Selected median closures were identified based on the potential for improving traffic flow. Traffic accident data at median openings was also reviewed but no high accident locations were identified. o Roadway Improvements: Where the field survey indicated substandard drainage facilities, lack of curb and gutter, or the need for roadway resurfacing, these physical improvements were noted but not included as Super Street project features. _ o Other: The identified improvement alternatives also include a few r projects which do not readily fit in any of the other categories, such as improving railroad crossings and constructing raised medians. ` C. Program of Improvement Alternatives By evaluating each intersection and midblock area in the context of the options listed above, it was possible to perform a comparative analysis and to identify four alternative programs for each key intersection and midblock area. The goal is to achieve a level of service D (volume/capacity ratio of 0.90) or better in the peak-hour. II-3 These four levels of improvement alternatives are: No-Project Alternative - no physical improvements are made as a part of the Super Streets Program; however, improvements listed in the 1984 State Transportation Improvement Program and those included in the Orange County Transportation Commission's FAU program are implemented. This alternative is used as a measure against which other improvement programs are compared. TSM - Transportation System Management; a series of low capital improvements such as signal coordination, signal modification, bus turnouts and roadway restriping. With the exception of spot widening for bus turnouts, the TSM alternatives do not require additional right-of-way. Moderate - This level of program alternative includes measures which would include greater capital improvement costs. This level includes those improvements listed in the TSM alternative plus physical widening of intersections where such widening can be accomplished within the existing right-of-way. If the High Program for an intersection included a roadway grade separation then the Moderate Program for that intersection could include roadway widening with new right-of-way to be acquired. High - The High alternative is the most capital intensive. It includes all of the options in the previous alternatives and the physical widening of the intersection where new right-of-way is required, or the construction of a roadway grade separation. The total estimated order-of-magnitude costs for each of the program levels are set out in Tables II-C 1 and II-C 2. These costs are: TSM - $ 904,000; Moderate - $ 3,994,000; and High - $ 41,493,000. A limited amount of local funding may be available to begin improvements when the mix of program elements to be implemented is selected. Additional funds will be sought for continuing the program. Table II-C 1 summarizes the evaluation of the intersection improvement alternatives. For each level of improvement, the table shows the associated volume/capacity ratio, right-of-way requirements, order-of-magnitude capital costs, and the suggested improvements. Table II-C 2 summarizes the evaluation of the midblock improvement alternatives. It includes the volume/capacity ratios associated with each alternative, the additional right-of-way required to implement each alternative, the order-of- magnitude capital costs, and the range of improvements. r- II-4 TA.81-F II-'C 1 REAMI BOULEVARD SUPER STREETS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ALTERHATTVIS H(TERSECT70M IMPROVEMENTS hap-ements VoWme/Copociry Ratios C plW Cmu Interavetion Inte[aectim It-".y. L..-lion of Haab Keel of New R.O.R', (Orde-f-MWlwde) Sgnul S[psal Bus A-- In.-t.on Midenirg N"wmliR G.& iloulevard Nam Improeemen0 E.." Yev 5005 Requirements' I985 3 If 1,000 Co d-tion Yodifieatians T-. coetrol 6tnp-c Mithin R.O.N. No.So. Separation Omer No-Proleet .60 .64 75 Y. .90 .66 I6 • Padfee Cons Bge�q Moderate ligh .34 .66 3,950 • • No-Projecl .56 .61 TSM .50 .61 I0 • AtYaY!afore Moderate Hier No-pmject •T3 •94 Ad-Aseoa: Moderate .65 .83 EN-1' 56 Is • • Hier No-Projeel •SS .66 TSM .35 .68 10 • DU-A- ISM Hier No-Prujeet .57 •72 TSM .57 .72 10 • lf.lk n Aeerse Modenle Hier No-project .39 .78 ISM .59 .78 10 • Gorfow A- Moderate High N-Projeet .91 1.18 75M .91 1.l: 18 • • • OIs/Wla f/U�et Moderate .92 1.06 162 • • • • • • High .69 .91 ME-3-Nit-3' 180 • • • • • • • N-Projce[ 1.12 TS►i .10 .97 ]] • • • Taleart Aeause 3loderate •7_ - -- _- _ .86 11] • • • • • Ilion - - -- •Tire OeiGnetimi cYy mdica[as mat n width of four feel Is required on me norm side of the into se_uonY evt Ira. The of fiPubrof-.ray-Wood votes et eoeh f•-i intenca[iao,out typieally rm8es from 20n Io 300 feet. 1-1 l!7 ON m TABLE II-C 1 (Cont.) BEACH BOULEVARD ROPER STREETS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Impror -U y'olome7Cpeeity Ratios Capital C-ts tatarcetion loleneetian Ito.o.sy Interaeetian of brace L-i of Near R.O.N. (Order-of-Yqn tu0e1 Swes] SW-1 - Aeerss Inlerselim NiAenirg Nid-i-9 G-ft a-b-ard Witt, Impro.emenU EiUUog Yeer SDOS Ye0usrcmenta' IUS 6 3I 1.000 CoordmaUm Yodifteatians Itm - Control SVipirg NiN6t ILO.K. Iier Ror Sepanlion OlNer No-Projeet •61 .9- 7SI' 9: 95 I8 • • slaw Aaamre Yoaentr .75 •8' 88 • • • • Htr1: No-Project l..0 1.19 TS Y. 1.11 1.39 72 • • • • • Weaver Aaamre _ _ • Moderate .9: 1.02 _ _ 337 • • • • Hirt .63 .83 EN-10' 3.813 • • • • • • • No-Projeel .84 .97 TSM .84 .9- 18 • • BA A- Moderate .6: 82 • • • • • Hirt No-Prejeet 1.0- 1.13 TSR 1.01 1.13 18 • • R�r Aar • Moderate .71: .96 _ 256 • • • Hq0 .77 .87 7,304 • • • • • WUo6ente 1 .60 1 .60 10 • C-W A.so O 3S91 02 1.25 31He Paddwe Aasaaw p6 1.17 9B • •71 ,pl NW-17.NSS' 316 • • • • • • EN-?'ES FS-2'W N-T No-Projeet .99 1.19 TSM .91 1.08 23 • • • • - Bow A- Ilodente .T. .91 EN-9' 89 • • • • • • High .62 .75 3,773 • • • • • No Projeel .a% TSs' .T. .6i iB • • HasamdAaaa< Ilodereto .6. 20 • • • _ Hirt. H •TTe ocstcnat-V;Al meieates t0e:o"I"of tour feet is required on Ire...L'1 side H of'he interse^_t-1 a.;1e2. 7Te len2m o'rtgm-of-ray required varies at eau mtersecdot,Oct rq'calli ranges from.cos to 300 feet. TABLE II-C 1 (Pont.) BEACH BOOLYVARD SUPER STREM DEMONSTRATION PROJECT COMPARATIVE EVALUATION Of ALTERNATIVES INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Daproseaents VOWme capacity Ratios Capital Cmas Intersection Intersection ltwawsy W.-an of Bueh Issel of New ILD.h. (Or0ercf-Ma6niWdel SrTrtel Signet bu• Access Intersection Widening: Widotitt6 Grade Ibuleeand Wiu� tmprwements Esatrrr6 fear SODS Requtrcmenu 1935 3 X 1,000 Cooru-tion Modifieatiors 7lrnout< Control Striprry; I WiNin H.O.h'. Xew Xow Separation DtMr N o-Proirc: 1.U. 1.26 w.namne+A- �•• 1-nt 1.2e 20 • • • -- Moderate - .9: - _- 134 • • • • • • Hjgh .,t •B- 3,734 • • • • • • • N-Project .7, Tsrk A- TSS. .14 .91 33 • • • Moderate A: .6: RN-3' 59 • • • • • High No-ProjeCt .98 1.01 O•d-O-•oida-d TSM .9: .94 20 • • • Mo0enle .96 .97 139 • • • • Hi6n .6: •B+ EN-10' 184 • • • • wN-7'WS-I1' No-Project .8: .87 TSA1 .71 20 • • • Loop-bra Moderate Hi6h No-Prole., Carp•aa Ass TSS' .9e 1.11 19 • • • Moderate .9U 1.02 72 • • • • High ... .6: EN-4-WS-17 310 p WN-YNo-Project .Se .SS ont.<atlood Able TSM Ac .51 20 • • Moderate High _ No-Project .91 1.17 'mm .96 1.1.1 21 • • • iatid"Aaeara - MtWenlr .73 .90 EN-6' MS-:' 169 • • • • • High -11 .76 3,862 • • • Na-Prolcrl .76 1.11 TS11 .6; 1.0- 33 • • • C-H As••e Moderate .7S ---94 37 • • • • H 'The des nation ENS'indicates that a width of four feel is required on the norN side of the tmenec-s e-I.:. The lend%of rigs-r-way required varies at each 1 intersertiot.,hue typically ranges Con_30 to 303 feet. V TABLE II-C 1 (Cont.) BEACH BOULEVARD SUPER STREETS DEYONSTHATION PROJECT COMPARATIVE BVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Impro.emenu V-Me/Capacity Ratios Capital Casa Inteneelion Inter.eelion Rwdway, Nlersation of Nrxh I.e.el of New R.O.N'. IOederof-tlagrtitutkl Signal $,Foal Flus Access Inlersee Uon W'idenity^, Widening Gr.- Bou e.ard With imprwemenu E..Uhg I Year 3005 Requvemenu' 1995 9 X 1,000 Coa -t,an Yodi(teat,ons 7vrnouu Conlro: Stripim Within R.O.N. New No. Selrrouan I Other N,P-"et 1.Oo 1.2. WI Road 756: 1.01 1.t- 19 • • • -.-_ Moderolc .94 1.09 70 • • • • Hip .6e NW-9'SE-6 S69 • • • • ENS' w5-e No-Project .75 .16 TSm .6-, .T9 35 • • • • Moderate High H-Project 1.0: 1.31 T5M 1.00 1.27 is • • Wem Aeaae Moderate .69 .16 2N • • • • High .62 •62 NE-5- NW-5' 3,716 • • • • • No-project .9a 1.05 75M .61 1.0: IH • • Carat A- Moderate High .6a .15 W-5'SE-5'SW-51 gas • • • • HE-5'EN-6-WN6' FH.,h 1.13 1.35 V P.I..A- 1.13 1.35 ,W _7• 19 • • .73 .N FS-6'WS-79'!AV-I 606 • • • • .75 .9: - NE-5- NW-5- 3,630. • • • • SE-5• SW-5• .12 .2931 .16 17• .62 Rate 91-weaenmod moderate High No-project .91 1.13 • T551 .91 1.11 g - • _- omagatharpa Arroa 9iodera to •62 1.01 HT1.. .66 .3. NE-6'NN-6' 212 EN=•SE-7'SM'-IC' • • • -Ore d-g-,.EN'-i'indicates that s widtS of Iour feet is required on the north fide H imm�eetion9 e :ie:. The le.-qLl of right-of-way requred....e at each m tersectiou.our:ypically range fror..200 to 300 feet. 00 TABLE II-C 1 (Conte:3 BRACII BOULEVARD SUPER STREETS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OP ALTERNATIVES INTERSEcnoN IMPROVRI9ENTS Improvements VommeJCapeeity Ralios Capital Cents Inlerstl)on bteraeetion MOaOeey In—we,of Beach level of We. IL ou O.W. fOederof-Yngnilude) Sgnal Signal bus Ae— leteraeelian en Widing wing Gndc blevard With Improvements Eus V year 1965 s x 1.000 Coordualion Mad 2005 Heptrvemena� if—b— 7Untmhts C--1 Striping Within R.O.N'. widening New How Sg tim OOter N-Project .a0 .5; • TSM .60 .5J 6 • r1etA Stroel Moderate .1J .69 1a • • Nhgn N-Peojeet -73 .as - rebate Aaas 75M .TR •65 6 • Madente .60 •iJ IR • • • High No-P-j-1 •65 .95 • Mkl .69 .Be 6 • C—aerae=A— Moderate .5. .:d 10 High No-Pmjeel •9 1.7- • 7SM 1.00 1.2. 22 • • Ada BorYaved meO el. .9: 1.06 ST • • • High .79 .92 EN-17• WN-7' 111. • • • • H-Psojeel •73 •T' • . TSM Step ROW Moderate High No-Peojeet .91 .92 • TSM .77 .87 24 • • • U.N.—A— Naderate High .69 .77 EN-0' WS-0' 135 • • • • No-Projecl .75 1.46 • TSM .74 .9. _25 • • • RaaaTs Averare pModemfltei .64 .77 i6 1.0: 1.76.90 1.22 14 • • baparw�e,n .7i .95 AWNI�VSS-q 17R.6: •6 J.715 • • ' 1--1 •'Te desiAnsuon EN-1-mdicole,that n aidth of:cur feel a reeuircu on the north side I--1 ot Utc inter ec:onY ass:le;. The ienrth of mpn—of- y rcGvircC aeries rat meh ' nt e sectio,Outt:yp—:1.ranges from:00 tc 30F1 feet. �D � � w �w ■w w � � w■r �w �w riw i�i � w r r w rw TABLE II- C 2 BEACH BOULEVARD SUPER STREETS DEMONSTLA710H PR02ECr COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES eOUBLOCS IMPROYEMIN75 VoWme/Gp I4tim C.pt41 Cents Imro men pvets 11udi boulrvarE I Level of ei?y New 0.0.1i._ (Orsie—f-Magnitude) Sigaal P.ek.% Parki c Puking ylri—y Died— Ro.d�.y Turn haad�q' Be,.-. Miiepaat Improvements FsitYng Yor 2005 Nepuuements 1935 S x 11000 Crdrd—tim lleurietwm Remw.l T—. C—LidaYon Closures Mi—sq, Restrielialts Daprowments Oure P-ifie Cant Big—*, 0.000 No-Project •2. -35 • TSAI .24 .15 • Moderate Hiy'n AIL04 Aware 0.671 No-Project .25 .59 - TSAI .29 .SY 1: • Moderate Ad—.a A- 1.620 High - No-Project •6: .e] ism MoOer.le Nigh Btiaewaae 1.ee1 , No-Project .67 .63 TsM Modente High Toetstorrn A— S.w No-Projxl .70 .09 • VH,gh Oaeli.N Awme 2o$51 .10 -09 •51 •71 2•Se .71 62PLb/Mam Street 2.120 -S] .65 W-2'E-2' 112 • • No-Project 1.06 1.22 • T561 .e6 1.00_ 10 IS • • Moderate .e6 1.00 4e • • • • 7lteren Aware High .79 192 W-21 E-2' 96 • • 0.611 No-Project 1.06 1.22 • TS 51 .eL 1.00 10 • • • }lodentc •96 1.00 Se • • • • High .7Y .92 ty-V E-]. 90 • • 6M4r Averxre cI31 H 'The desiv-�.auon'W-]'iodicatea Met a width of two feet u reyaired on the Hest side of the street. 0 TABLE II-C 2 (Cont.) BEACH BOULEVARD SUPER STHEEM DEMONSTRATION PRO.7ECT COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES mmal.00E IMPROVEMENTS VOW me/C�lYliY C.plYl Cents lmpro.ements ' beach Boot it l.erel of Ne.ILO.W. (Orver-of-N.pnitu0el 5ipu1 Yutilg Putiq P.+1Wq Driear.ay M d,- R-".y Tura kmtlrel bet- Milepost Imp-meob uni iq Year 2005 RaWiremenu, 1985 B X 1.000 C-,I..tlon ll slrietimu RemoeM 7%o-u Con hdeti- Cl- Widening Restrieuom Ira'ements Dlber But-A- 8.12i No-Prop:t 1.0i l..- • TSB' .86 1.00 • • Mooenlr .8L 1.00 22 • • • • ft-A.szme 4.63I Hqh •7Y .9- W .f_2, 66 • • No-Proleet 1.1: 1.33 • TSB: .95 1.0V 10 • _ • • Mod,- .9S 1.05 47 • • • • • A- 5.11] High .95 1.00 W-2-E-2- 105 • • • 61D N-Projeet 1.2: 1.39 • TSY 1.00 1.14 20 • • • Mooemle 1.00 1.1e 30 • • • • RtirtBes•A- 5.64: His, .9. 1.04 W-2-E-2' 130 • • I14o -Proleet l.11B' dcmte 1.00 1.05 15 • Ceara Amite 5.721 Htsn No-Project 1.13 1.35 • TSN .92 1.11 1 2 • • Modente .92 1.11 BO • • High .95 1.01 70 • Ile Prdesn A- 8.181 ' No-Projttl 1.13 1.35 • 75N .92 1.11 8 • • Moderate .92 1.11 17 • • • • • Bobs A- 8.681 High .25 1.01 W-2-E-2' 135 • • • No-Proleet 1.11 1,27 • 7SM •91 1.11. 2 • • Model- .91 1.12 5 • • A- 7-131 Nigh .83 1.03 W-2•E-Y 115 • BWN No-Project 1.11 1.3. • TsV. .91 1.1: 10 • • • Blodemte I • • • • fliso .83 1.13 B5 • • • •slmtnster A- 7.8]a H -The ncsi;nhtteo_a-2'mdtestes tam a width of two feet is mgotred on the west side of the street. r rr +r rr rr r� r r �■r r� r� r� ar y r r r rr r� r TABLE II-C 2 (Cont.) BEA CII BOULEVARD SUPER STREETS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT CUYPARAT7VE EVALUATION OF ALTERNA77VES MIDBLOCR IMPROVEMENT' V.Wesoc.- -y Hnsim C.pi"I C¢L• lml�.ements Hoer,Ilene.Id Lreel of Few R.U.K. (ordery f-tlagniludel SW.-1 Parkme Perkily Pwkiry Dri ay Median Hmd.sy lbn Hoad.sy he,.-. Yilepact Ra{rrrrem 1- Ease tiny Year 2D05 Rewmemenu 1985 f%1,000 Ceardtrutia� I RtstrieUan Removal Tttroouv C IiNlim I Clovoet Widening Rrsvteliae Impro+emenls OU,e• ft U Her A- 7.53I Ho-Projeet 1.15 1.3. • Tsm .94 1.09 • • Moderate .94 1.09 lU • • • • Hie Be. 1.00 65 • • Tr.a ABM B.ISI W-Pro)eet 1.15 1.20 • T551 .94 1.03 2 • • tlalewe RID' .6E .94 50 • OvdMI Otwe Bmtaeeed 6.665 K-P-W-, 1.05 1.20 • TTII' .89 .96 I: • • • Moderate Lmpm Amore 9.1 .90 µ-2'E-2' 75 • • :i No-Proleet .9r I.Ii • TS:' .6. .91 • • M-11 Hi;t. .6. µ-2-c_ 75 • Clrpmao AVate 9.6:1 ..• �- No-Project .9a 1.1. • TSM .80 .9: • • 6ldoerate .80 .91 11 • • • Drawµ^^d A- 10.171 High .76 .83 11-2.E_2- 60 • • No-Project .96 1.1. • TSM .60 •91 • • Mcx$erale .SD .91 10 • • • • L.WU.A- 10.660 High .74 .93 W-2'E-2' 75 • • • Ho-Projeel .96 1.11 • 755' .80 .91 • • 6lWerale - - C-d-AtesaM 11.181 Higr. .74 .83 W-2'E-2' 60 • - No-Projeel .9: 1.1. • TSy: .6L .9: 3 ___ • • 5lod re .6L 6 • • • Ball Rud 11.681 11,gh .7t 6. W 2 `2' 63 .-_ -_. • • 1H'1 •'.lie designation ti-2'i�Gitotea tout a.idtD of t..fee:s requved on Me west tide of the street. FJ N I TABLE II-C 2 (Cont.) µEACII BOULEVARD SUPER STREETS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES MIDBLOCN IMPROVEMENTS Volume/Cancity Rehm Cetptlel Cmu Improvement Ueaen Noulevera Level o: New k.U.N', v (ONerof-tlal7titude) $.,.—I Parttry; Parrot Pertin Driveway Med, T Rmowel ton Roadway ,,elects Midcpus, Irr:provcmenu Fsisurt0 Year 200:• kepuiremenu 1885 8 X 1,000 Reavictmm Be.—.] TCnouu Cwuo4delion Clmures I WidenirtJ kctrw 1— Impro—en. Outer USSR Ro.d 11.691 No-Projee: •9C 1.1> • Modere l[ .79 .St t • • • .8c ,. Crane A— 12.101 Ir_,-E_.. • • Na-Projee: .96 1.1Y ' 7SY: .:6 .8: • • . Model le Ilia ,•_ -8s W-2'E-1' 6: • IAoeoht A— 12.685 No-Project 1.0: 1.75 • T55; 1.07 1.25 14 IS Mo0eratc .91 1.14 W-5'E-5' 80 • • Creeetnt Aeemte 17.211 Hqr. .87 1:01 W-12'E-12' 800 • • • No-Projee, .96 1.20 TS.1 Moderate •9T W-5'E-5- 30: • .1.Petits.Aeae.te 17.:5: Hirt. No-Project 1.06 1,17 TS51 Moderate -- •82 W-5'E-5' 151 • Route 75 fl-BetaOio�e 18.721 µ�Fh .71 II-Lv'E-1_• ell • No-Project .94 1.00 ISM Moderate H t(h Route 81-MeetWwtd 14.861 No-Project .91 .96 TSM 6lodera1e --- .611 .72 FIV-3- 80 • _— High 0-.CeU—W Aesiatr 14.570 No-Proice, .76 1.00 TSt; — 5todcrale Ninth 5-1 I5.011 1~"1 -The the,a width of two:eel 6 required On the vest aide of the street. W r r■� rr �r r �r rr rr rr rr r rr r� rr �r rr r rr r�r TABLE II-C 2 (Cont.) 6LACH BOULEVARD SUPER STRELM DEMONSTRATION PROJECT CONPARA7TVE EVALUATION OF ALTERNAMVES I1IDBLOCR IMPROVEMENIS - Yo1Vme/CeeCity ketim (-eVltel(:otL lmpro.ements I.eecn boute.eru I Le.el of New If_U.N. lOrtle-o(-Meyn.1. S�rul YertirrC Pehiq P.H-T Drieewey M.,1,_ RueweY turr: Roenwey bet weer. tlilepott ltn Prowrments Fiislitrg Yur 5005 Repunemenla• 1955 f%1,000 C anOnu, Restnel.am Remoeel Ttlr u C-licked- Cl- WioeninC Ratriclio- Improvements UI MCN Street 15.011 No-Project .I6 1.00 I • 7$S: Mwerete xtg:. 9s�nntwater A- 1s.150 No-Pmject 1.18 1.44 • 7SM .96 1.0E • • MoCleLte High .85 .96 W_],E-], fy • C®nmwelm A- 15.]]1 N-Pro)eet 1.78 1.41 • Ism .96 1.08 • • Mocerete .96 1.0b 1( • • • _ Nigt. .95 .96 W-]'E-7' •• • Arsine BouleneE 15.5:7 No-Prgec. 1.:: 1.f1 755: .7: 1.0E • • • Mooerele High -81 .05 W-7'E-7' B: • • Siege BoeO 16.120 No-Projeel .76 -85 • 75M Moller High 9fesswrn AwwtQ 16.780 No-Pmleet .61 .7f • Tsm .69 .16 10 • slo0ente .69 .76 1: • • N ign Ro•vene Atrmtte I:.7fD Ito-Projeet 1.0] 1.22 • High Imlwalel NiBnwey 19.168 •ire Oesy azion lap maieatee met a wiEm of Iwo feet is req ,e0 en the wets sloe of me street. Fi H CHAPTER III ir A III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING A. Introduction This chapter provides an overview of existing and projected environmental conditions in the Beach Boulevard study area. The significant physical , biological , and socioeconomic characteristics are described generally for the existing conditions and year 2005 to provide a baseline for determining and evaluating the probable environmental impacts of the project alternatives. B. Regional Setting The Super Streets Demonstration Projection on Beach Boulevard (State Route 39) is located in a highly urbanized portion of Orange County. Beach Boulevard extends from Pacific Coast Highway (State Route 1) in the City of Huntington Beach on the south, through the cities of Westminster, Garden Grove, Stanton, `- Anaheim, Buena Park, Fullerton and La Mirada, to Whittier Boulevard (State Route 72) in the City of La Habra on the north. The actual project limits extend from Pacific Coast Highway in Huntington Beach to the Imperial Highway (State Route - 90) in La Habra for a distance of 19.5 miles. The project limits extend only to Imperial Highway because traffic volumes decrease sigificantly north of Imperial Highway. The dominant features of the route include Huntington Beach State Park, San Diego Freeway (I-405) , Garden Grove Freeway (State Route 22) , Knott's Berry Farm, Movieland Wax Museum, Artesia Freeway (State Route 91) , Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) and the Los Coyotes Hills. C. Natural Environment 1. Topography — Beach Boulevard is generally located on the coastal plain of Orange County which is a portion of the Los Angeles Basin. The plain was formed by alluvial deposits from the Santa Ana and San Gabriel Rivers. The topography is characterized by flat terrain (0-2% slope) in Huntington Beach to gently rolling hills (Los Coyotes Hills 2-9% slope) in La Habra. The elevation along Beach Boulevard ranges from approximately 10 feet above mean sea level near Pacific Coast Highway to 300 feet above mean sea level near Imperial Highway. 2. Soils and Agricultural Lands As stated above, the soil in the Beach Boulevard study area is alluvium -- principally deposited by overflows from the Santa Ana and San Gabriel Rivers, as well as several tributary creeks. These soils are generally deep and rich sandy loams that would be mostly classified as prime agricultural if they were being cultivated and not urbanized. Some parcels of land still remain in the study area that are being used for III-1 r i k ' truck farming and speciality crops such as strawberries. Presently, only one agricultural area along Beach Boulevard remains. It is located south of Lampson Avenue in the City of Stanton. There are approximately 19 acres of land east of Beach Boulevard and 20 acres west that are still in agricultural use. ' The location of these lands in an urbanized area surrounded by residential , commercial , and industrial development makes them prime sites for future development. For example, the agricultural land located on Beach Boulevard referenced above is zoned for commercial and residential planned unit 1 development. As was the case for many of the other agricultural lands in the study area, these remaining parcels may soon be developed and converted to other uses. Just recently, developers have begun construction of the Target Center which is located on land north of Heil Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard that was used for agricultural purposes as of 1984. ' 3. Geology and Seismicity The Beach Boulevard study area lies on the Central Block geologic structural portion of the Los Angeles Basin. The Los Angeles Basin is a northwest trending syncline. A syncline is defined as a geologic fold formed by stratified rocks dipping downward from opposite sides to a common line. The bedrock in this part of the basin is composed of Mesozoic metamorphic rock. Above bedrock are layers of Pleistocene marine deposits and Holocene alluvium. The upper alluvial layer consists of loosely consolidated gravel , sand and silt from floodplain deposits. ' A review of existing geological reports and discussions by Parsons Brinckerhoff with State Geologists indicate that Beach Boulevard is located in a seismically active area. Beach Boulevard crosses the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone in the City of Huntington Beach. Specifically, the South and High School (North) ' branches of the Newport-Inglewood Fault would be crossed 0.4 mile and 1.5 miles, respectively, north of Pacific Coast Highway. Also, at its northern terminus Beach Boulevard is about one mile south of a trace of the Norwalk Fault. Other active faults near to Beach Boulevard are included in Table III-C 1. The Newport-Inglewood Fault is on-site. State geology reports attribute a maximum credible magnitude for this fault system as 7.1 on the Richter Scale. The characteristics of this earthquake would be high (0.5gG+) local ground acceleration with a time duration of 24 seconds or more. The maximum magnitude earthquake considered to affect the study area would be produced by movement on the San Andreas Fault Zone. This zone, at its closest point, is 42 miles from the study area. The maximum credible magnitude is 8.3 on the Richter Scale. Characteristically, this earthquake would produce moderate ground accelerations ' at the project site with a relatively long duration of 40 seconds or more. Tsunamis are extreme long period waves most often generated by earthquakes. The risk of tsunami damage in the study area is very low. Earthquakes occurring off the Southern California Coast are either of too little magnitude, or the epicenters are too deep within the earth to generate major tsunamis. ' III-2 BEACH BOULEVARD SUPER STREETS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT Table III-C 1 MAJOR FAULTS IN RELATION TO PROJECT Distance(1) and Direction Maximum Name of Fault from Beach Boulevard Credible Magnitude Newport Inglewood on-site 7.1 Norwalk 1 mile north 6.3 Whittier-Elsinore 8 miles north 7.5 Pelican Hill (2) 7 miles east 6.4 ' Raymond Hill/Santa Monica 20 miles north 7.5 San Andreas 42 miles northeast 8.3 (1) Distance is measured from the Fault to the nearest point on Beach Boulevard. (2) Potentially active i Source: California Division of Mines and Geology, R.W. Greensfelder, 1976 ' (except Pelican Hill Fault) . ' III-3 4. Floodplains According to Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency .(FEMA) , portions of the Beach Boulevard study area would be subject to flooding hazards. FEMA has adopted the 100-year flood (Zone A) ' frequency as the base flood for purposes of floodplain management. The 500-year flood (Zone B) level is utilized to indicate additional flood prone areas although they are at lesser risk. Most of Beach Boulevard is located in areas that are designated Zone B or Zone C (see Table III-C 2 for an explanation of ' Zone Designations) . Eight locations within the study area have been identified as a Zone A or AO designation. These areas are shown on Figure III-C 1. ' Areas designated as Zone A or AO are of most concern since they would potentially become inundated during the base flood (100 year) . Of the eight identified areas only two would be problematic. They would be the area between Pacific Coast Highway and Adams Avenue, and the area between Warner Avenue and the San Diego Freeway. The remaining six areas are generally creeks that have been channelized or topographic depressions associated with the creek channels. The topographic depressions are not actually part of an extensive floodplain but rather represent localized sumps which collect run-off that eventually would seep into the associated creek channels when a 100-year flood occurs. 5. Water Quality Beach Boulevard is located in the lower Santa Ana watershed (lower basin) which is part of the overall Santa Ana River Basin. The Santa Ana River and its tributaries drain the southern portions of the eastern San Gabriel Mountains and the San Bernardino Mountains. These streams recharge the largest underground water basin in the region, the upper Santa Ana River Basin. Surface and ground waters in the upper basin eventually flow through Prado Dam, at the head of the Santa Ana River Canyon, and down into the Orange County Coastal Basin, or lower basin. Flow in the river is influenced by ground water withdrawals, sewage ' effluent, diversions for irrigation, and return-flow from irrigated areas. Much of the watershed's normal runoff percolates into the soil , filling underground zones that serve as natural reservoirs and help sustain dry season flow in the ' Santa Ana River. Groundwater, which is the principal source of supply for most users in the study area, is the source of about 70% of the present water requirements. The average depth to ground water is relatively shallow (less than 100 feet) . Groundwater is of poor quality nearer the surface, according to existing state and federal standards, with a high total dissolved solids (TDS) content and hardness. Water ' for potable use is extracted from lower aquifers due to their higher yields and better quality water. A limited amount of surface water, imported water from the Colorado River, and the State Water Project provide the remainder of the water requirements. Surface waters in the Beach Boulevard study area are primarily limited to run- off from storms and commercial/domestic use. The runoff is carried to existing streets and then into a storm collector system which drains into the Santa Ana River and ultimately into the Pacific Ocean. III-4 1 ' BEACH BOULEVARD SUPER STREETS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT TABLE III-C 2 FLOODPLAINS Zone - -------------Section-------------------------Designation-----------City - ------ 1. Pacific Coast Highway to Adams A Huntington Beach ' Avenue 2. Warner Avenue to 405 Freeway AO Huntington Beach, (Wintersburg and East Garden Westminster ' Grove Channels) 3. Westminster Channel to loth Street A Westminster (localized depression) 4. Anaheim Barber City Channel A Stanton 5. Carbon Creek Channel A Anaheim 6. Melrose to a point north of loth Street A Buena Park (Fullerton Creek and localized depression) 7. Brea Creek to south of Pacific, AO Buena Park ' east of Beach Boulevard (Brea Creek Channel and localized depression) 8. Coyote Creek Channel A La Habra Zone Designation Discription A Areas of 100-year flood; base flood elevations and flood hazard factors not determined. ' AO Areas of 100-year shallow flooding where depths are between one and three feet; average depths of inundation are shown, but no flood hazard factors are determined. B Areas between limits of the 100-year flood and 500-year flood; or certain areas subject to 100-year flooding with average depths less ' than one foot or where the contributing drainage area is less than one square mile; or areas protected by levees from the base flood. ' C Areas of minimal flooding. III-5 1INNi - �� 8 ca rleba La Mirada = M w Flrperton r i 91 r I _ l�p-A. � Buena Park Anaheim �.. . � lM.r.•..w � i r u sz [ u wrrr r cal." Stanton s � � r / Qua— 22 405 c•..�. / ,p WiBSfT/n5ter r `J qw; � r m ' 7 SUPER STREETS � `w DEMONSTRATION \ r V PROJECT Huntington Beach rm r ' Beach Blvd. Corridor i FLOODPLAINS Firm Zone Deaignatioa A. AO rFIGURE III-C 1 \ ' III-6 6. Air Quality Air quality is an issue which is pertinent to the South Coast Air Basin, within which the proposed program of improvements is located. Because of this, the air quality setting is provided in the regional context with additional localized information where available. The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) consists of Los Angeles County south of the crest of the San Gabriel Mountains, all of Orange County, and Riverside and San Bernardino counties west of Banning Pass. Although significant progress has been made in reducing high concentrations of pollutants in the SCAB, air pollution still remains a serious problem. Federal and state air quality standards are frequently exceeded in many areas of the basin. Federal and state standards most frequently violated are those controlling oxidants (ozone) and carbon monoxide. While the annual average nitrogen dioxide standard continues to be violated, the number of violations of the*one hour standard decreased in ' the 1970s. Sulfur dioxide standards have been violated only infrequently in recent years. Table III-C 3 summarizes the most recent violation of-standards at the La Habra air quality monitoring site which is 1/2 mile east of Beach ' Boulevard, and the Los Alamitos monitoring site, which is 2 miles west of Beach Boulevard. The entire basin is a designated Air Quality Maintenance Area (AQMA) for the five federally regulated pollutants: oxidants (reactive organic gases or ROG, measured as ozone 03) , nitrogen dioxide (NO2) , carbon monoxide (CO) , sulfur dioxide (SO2) , and particulates (TSP) . The air basin-is currently a nonattainment area for all pollutants except sulfur dioxide. Photochemical oxidants are the most serious air pollution problem, with maximum ozone readings regularly exceeding the federal air quality standard of 12 parts per million ' (ppm) by a significant factor. Because the South Coast Air Basin is designated an Air Quality Maintenance Area, federal law requires the preparation of an Air Quality Management Plan, the ' purpose of which is to present strategies and tactics for reducing pollution in the basin. The most recent version of this plan is dated 1982 and was produced by the Southern California Association of Governments. The strategies and tactics contained in this plan include a subregional plan pertaining to Orange County, within which high flow arterial improvements, such as those proposed by the Super Streets program, are embodied. 7. Noise In order to document existing noise conditions along Beach Boulevard, a limited series of noise measurements were obtained in September, 1985. Six locations, as shown in Figure III-C 2, were selected for short- term monitoring. These locations were chosen based upon several criteria. First, it was desired to select locations which spanned the entire stretch of Beach Boulevard. Second, it was desired to select locations with somewhat different traffic flow conditions in order to provide a range of data points to validate the prediction ' models which would later be used to estimate future noise levels. Finally, it was desired to select locations in residential areas, which represent the noise sensitive land use most frequently found along the study area. Further, in the III-7 BEACH BOULEVARD SUPER STREETS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT TABLE III-C 3 ,1 1983 VIOLATIONS - AIR QUALITY STANDARDS Pollutant by Times Exceeding Annual State Federal Monitoring Site Standards Max. Con. Standards Standards State Federal Ozone La Habra 100 64 0.27 ppm 0.10 ppm 0.12 ppm Los Alamitos 42 16 0.20 ppm 1 hr. 1 hr. Nitrogen Dioxide La Habra 3 0 0.33 ppm 0.25 ppm 0.05 ppm Los Alamitos 1 0 0.27 ppm 1 hr. annual average Carbon Monoxide La Habra 1 6 0.22 ppm 20 ppm 35.0 ppm Los Alamitos 0 0 1 hr. 1 hr. Sulphur Dioxide La Habra 0 0 .017 ppm 0.25 ppm 0.14 ppm Los Alamitos 0 0 .017 ppm 24 hr. 24 hr. Particulate Matter La Habra 16 6 204 ug/m3 100 ug/m3 260 ug/m3 Los Alamitos 16 1 175 ug/m3 24 hr. 24 hr. Lead La Habra 0 0 0.95 ug/m3 1.5 ug/m3 1.5 ug/m3 Los Alamitos 0 0 0.93 ug/m3 30 day calendar avg. quarter Note: ppm - parts per million u� - micrograms m cubic meters Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, 1983 Summary of Air Quality in California's South Coast Air Basin, August 1984. III-8 aown A 1.rNN. .rY.N1 4 4/lahra La Minsdo F'tdhxton r NIYw•id. _ . m . L.r.r.•N•...Nr 4 . - . !y BYene Pert 2 Anaheim NL u Cawn •..w. - / b NMM• . l ' ce,aen c,or. � /f �5 OYEM . � oww.a... laMN1 v.••�•r / •••Mw.�.�� 111.!YM .NI - ..NY• - i 1 W«...Y.. a q�M �5 �? SUPER STREETS m DEMONSTRATION f PROJECT H,,,:r' gt-n Beech m oN... Beach Blvd. Corridor STUDY AREA ��•• '"'"""` FIGURE III-C 2 / NOISE MEASUREMENT • LOCATIONS III-9 .i residential areas it was desired to obtain measurements with varying density of residences, since peak-hour traffic flow and the resulting noise exposure in a residential area has been shown to be related to population density. Accordingly, locations were selected ranging from low-density single family to high-density single family to multifamily residences. At each location, noise levels were monitored during peak or near peak traffic hours under freeflow traffic conditions for a period of 20 minutes each in order to obtain the peak noise readings. Table III-C 4 lists the average sound level measured at each location in decibels (dB) . o Noise Measures and Criteria The measure of noise exposure preferred by local agencies for assessing the potential impact of a transportation system is the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) .* Caltrans uses the federal guidelines descriptor (Leq) . Federal guidelines may be used for assessing impacts during final design. The CNEL represents an average of the A-weighted noise levels** occurring during a 24-hour period, except that noises occurring during evening (7pm to 10 pm) and nightime (10pm to lam) hours are weighted to account for the greater sensitivity of people to noises during these periods. The CNEL is within ldB (plus or minus) of the peak hour average sound level (Le?) . In the vicinity of major roadways, the CNEL is usually within 1 to 2dB o$ the average sound level occurring during the peak traffic hour. The level of acceptability of a noise environment is dependent upon the activity i that is conducted and the type of building construction (for indoor activity) . Figure III-C 3 provides noise exposure compatibility guidelines for a variety of land uses. The figure shows that for many "noise sensitive" land uses such as residences, schools, hospitals, etc. , the maximum noise level found generally acceptable is CNEL 65 dB. For other p land uses that may be found along Beach Boulevard, such as commercial establishments, office buildings, etc. , the maximum acceptable CNEL is 75 dB. - ------------------------ * The CNEL is a slight variation of the day-night average sound level , another measure of noise exposure which has been endorsed by a number of federal agencies and is used extensively in other parts of the country. ** The A-weighted noise level is a measure of the noise level at any point in time, while the CNEL is a measure of the noise exposure over a full day. The term "A-weighting" refers to a filtering of the noise signal to emphasize frequencies in the middle of the audible spectrum and to de-emphasize low and high frequencies in a manner corresponding to the way the human ear perceives sounds. The A-weighted noise level has been found to correlate well with people's judgement of the noisiness of different sounds and has been used for many years as a measure of community noise level . III-10 BEACH BOULEVARD SUPER STREETS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT TABLE III-C 4 MEASURED NOISE LEVELS OF BEACH BOULEVARD Distance 1985 Percent Average Sound No. Location TYP of Receptor e Date/Time in Feet ADT Trucks in DB / P --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Multifamily Residential 9/24/85 50 36,800 8 69.5 5000 Block Beach Boulevard 3:50 pm Buena Park 2 Low density-Single Family 9/24/85 20 51,800 5 70.5 8000 Block Beach Boulevard 4:35 pm Buena Park _ 3 High density-Single Family 9/24/85 20 52,400 5 74.0 200 S. Block Beach Boulevard 5:05 pm Anaheim 4 Mobile Home Park NA 25 59,000 5 77.5 (plus 12800 Beach Boulevard NA minus ldB) Stanton 5 Multifamily Residential 9/24/85 25 59,000 5 77.5 13000 Block Beach Boulevard 5:40 pm Garden Grove 6 Low density-Single Family 9/25/85 42 56,000 5 71.5 18000 Block Beach Boulevard 7:05 am Huntington Beach 7 Multifamily Residential 9/25/85 20 13,200 5 71.0 21000 Block Beach Boulevard 7:40 am Huntington Beach NOTES: Average sound level is for 20 minute period. Distance is from measurement location (i .e. , sensitive receptor) to Beach Boulevard curb. 1985 ADT from Technical Memo No.3, PBQ&D, June 1985. Percentage truck traffic - personal communication; Darius Irani , PBQ&D, September, 1985. Noise level for location no. 4 extrapolated from measurements at other locations. Source: BBN Laboratories, 1985 III-11 COMMUNITY NOISE EQUIVALENT LAND USE LEVEL IN DECIBELS 510 60 70 80 90 ....... ....... ....... ....... RESIDENTIAL ...... ....... EXTENSIVE OUTDOOR USE ..... ....... RESIDENTIAL MODERATE OUTDOOR USE ....... .............. ..... RESIDENTIAL LIMITED OUTDOOR USE TRANSIENT LODGING SCHOOL CLASSROOMS, LIBRARIES, RELIGIOUS FACILITIES HOSPITALS, CLINICS. NURSING HOMES, HEALTH RELATED FACILITIES AUDITORIUMS, CONCERT HAI LS ... ..... .... MUSIC SHELLS SPORTS ARENAS, .......... .............. OUTDOOR SPECTATOR SPORTS . ........... ............... NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS .................. PLAYGROUNDS, GOLF COURSES, RIDING STABLES, WATER REC., CEMETERIES OFFICE BUILDINGS,PERSONAL SERVICES, BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL ........ ........ COMMERCIAL - RETAIL, MOVIE THEATERS, RESTAURANTS COMMERCIAL - WHOLESALE. SOME RETAIL, IND., MFG.. UTILITIES ................ LIVESTOCK FARMING, ANIMAL BREEDING AGRICULTURE (EXCEPT LIVESTOCK) EXTENSIVE NATURAL WILDLIFE AND ... ... .. RECREATION AREAS . COMPATIBLE MARGINALLY ------ COMPATIBLE WITH EXTRA INSULATION INCOMPATIBLE LAND USE COMPATIBILITY WITH COMMUNITY NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVEL AT A SITE FOR BUILDINGS AS COMMONLY CONSTRUCTED FIGURE 111-C 3 111-12 8. Biology The program corridor is located in the coastal plain of Orange County. Originally, the coastal plain was predominantly a coastal sage scrub habitat and native Southern Californial grassland and/or savannah. Several decades of agricultural and urban activities have long removed most of the native vegetation. The majority of flora existing in the developed areas of the project corridor consists of introduced species used for landscaping and ornamentation. The existing vegetation in the remaining undeveloped areas consists of native and naturalized species adapted to constant disturbance (i .e. , ruderal species) such as: mustard (Brassica sp.), vinegar weed (Trichostema lanceolatum) , matchweed (Guterrizia brachteata) , coyote bush (Bacharis ailularis var. consaguinea) and buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) . No rare or endangered species of plants are known to exist within the overall project corridor. Urban-adapted wildlife such as round squirrels, gophers, rabbits and skunks are P 9 q 9P known to exist within the less developed sections of the project corridor. Many urban-adapted birds and occasional migratory birds have also been observed. Belding's Savannah Sparrow nests and forages in a wetland within the southernmost portion of the study area in the City of Huntington Beach. This species was state-listed as an endangered species in 1974 and is a candidate for federal listing. The state listing means that significant populations of this species must be considered as biological resources of statewide significance. The results of a May 1983 survey (Carl Wilcox, Pers. Com. : Hunt) indicate that there were 56 birds or 28 breeding pairs in the area just east of Beach Boulevard (See Figure III-C 4) . Statewide, a 1977 survey (Massey) estimated there were 1600 pairs at 28 sites along the California coast. Outside of California, there are approximately 1080 pairs inhabiting the marshes of Baja California, Mexico, according to a 1973 survey (Richard Bradley: Hunt) . Belding's Savannah Sparrow is non-migratory and seldom ventures far afield when foraging. It is an obligate salt marsh bird; that is, it requires the coastal salt marsh habitat to survive. The wetland area within the study area is thus biologically significant and important to the maintenance of this species. 9. Coastal Zone Within in the City of Huntington Beach approximately three-quarters of a mile of Beach Boulevard serves as the boundary for the Coastal Zone. Begining 750 feet north of Pacific Coast Highway and extending north for 3,400 feet to the north, the coastal boundary includes the right-of-way of Beach Boulevard. The coastal salt marsh wetland previously mentioned is also within the Coastal Zone. III-13 m m ml m m m wm w � •�. LEGEND COASTAL SALT MARSH i 01 COASTAL SALT FLAT y G�rjP FRESH/BRACKISH WATER �1 • 01.00 MARSH RIPARIAN AREA i �� �j „• • ® STANDING WATER AND f \ FLOOD CONTROL C►A"a" tV n N .✓• NF tET�OE �.•• a\'t'*N RESTORABLE AREA/ f'c • tPpP •/': N O WHICH HAVE BEEN FILLEDolkilu 'r • I r` p\ �.R�i • AND/OR CLEARED OD +m+ COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY � � �dO`I�\t\S ` OU \/ � • 11 •\.• � � :S• = \�\ La+'r' �/ • CALIF.LEAST TERN S•ACRE 4 • II NESTING SANCTUARY V • • 11` : .. '� •� 'r , ' D Apt • O NZ`' , II O � rr 'Gar ��4� .;. •-...,. �' .� s _ A ...' • '• ' .:Slob . ''�r✓i ['�r� ,. �' ���' t` t � ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE ttF �°roN / •�� •�� •r-$ • �•'��t�` 1 AREA SgrtOAS e J'Atk/ kv kJAZI 1ftwg pbzlQiG Ocean Lcr3T llsw,.l ' �C t4�-nr+6 %trpusc FIGURE 111—C 4 WETLANDS AREA D. Social and Economic Environment Beach Boulevard is located. in northwesterly Orange County which is experiencing intense continued rapid growth. It is estimated that the population in the Beach Boulevard study area will increase by 22 percent from 750,000 to 914,000 residents by the year 2005. Orange County as a whole will increase from 2 million residents to 2.7 million, a 35 percent increase over the next 20 years. Table III-D 1 shows some of the demographic indicators for the cities in the study area. The following sections discuss the land use and economic factors of the project within the context of this rapid growth. 1. Land Use With few exceptions, most of the land adjacent to Beach Boulevard is developed. The predominant,land use in the study area is commercial . There are also industrial , residential , as well as other uses located along Beach Boulevard. The land uses in each of the study area municipalities are summarized in the paragraphs below. Huntington Beach - There are residential uses west of Beach Boulevard from Pacific Coast Highway to Adams Avenue. East of Beach Boulevard and north of Pacific Coast Highway is open space which contains an environmentally sensitive wetlands area. In the area east of Beach Boulevard, from the wetlands area north to Adams Avenue, there is a mix of commercial uses, open space areas, and residential uses. The predominant land use along the section of Beach Boulevard from Adams Avenue to the San Diego Freeway (I-405) is commercial . Westminster - Commercial uses predominate along Beach Boulevard in this locality. There is a residential area bordering Beach Boulevard on the east which is located north of Hazard Avenue and south of 13th Street. Garden Grove - Commercial uses border Beach Boulevard immediately north of ■ the Garden Grove Freeway. A residential area is located south of the Garden Grove Freeway and east of Beach Boulevard. There is another residential area located approximately 700 feet south of Chapman Avenue and west of Beach Boulevard. Stanton - South of Lampson Avenue, there are agricultural uses which border Beach Boulevard on the east and west. Residential areas are located on the east side of Beach Boulevard, approximately 500 to a 1000 feet north of Garden Grove Boulevard and west of Beach Boulevard from a point south of Orangewood Avenue to north of Katella Avenue. Other areas along Beach Boulevard contain predominantly commercial uses. Anaheim - Residential areas border Beach Boulevard in the following areas: east of Beach Boulevard from a point north of Stony Brook Drive to approximately Orange Avenue, west of Beach Boulevard from the flood control channel to a point approximately 1000 feet north, and east of Beach Boulevard from the channel to a point 500 feet north. A mobile home park borders Beach Boulevard on the west and is located approximately 500 feet III-15 BEACH BOULEVARD SUPER STREETS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT Table III-D 1 1980 DEMOGRAPHIC DATA BEACH BOULEVARD CITIES Land Area Population Population No. of City (Sq. Miles) (1970) (1980) Households Anaheim 41.7 166,118 219,311 79,749 Buena Park 10.3 64,124 64,165 21,320 Fullerton 22.1 85,919 102,034 37,869 Garden Grove 17.5 122,560 123,307 41,590 Huntington Beach 27.2 133,796 170,505 61,126 La Habra 6.5 41,298 45,232 16,538 La Mirada 7.8 30,972 40,986 12,077 Stanton 2.7 NA 23,723 8,536 Westminster 10.9 59,798 71,133 23,837 ---------------------------------------------------------- Total 146.7 704,585 860,396 302,642 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. r III-16 to 800 feet north of Lincoln Avenue. The predominant land use in other areas along Beach Boulevard is commercial . Buena Park - Commercial uses predominate though there are several residential and industrial areas bordering on Beach Boulevard. The following areas have mainly residential uses: west of Beach Boulevard and south of Crescent Avenue to Stanton Avenue, east of Beach Boulevard from Azalea Drive to the Artesia Freeway, west of Beach Boulevard from Brea Creek Channel to the AT&SF railroad tracks, and the areas east and west of Beach Boulevard from Malvern Avenue to Rosecrans Avenue. There are two areas along Beach Boulevard that have significant industrial uses. The first is located east of Beach Boulevard, from Brea Creek Channel to the AT&SF railroad tracks. The second area is located immediately west of Beach Boulevard between the AT&SF tracks and Stage Road. La Mirada and Fullerton - The area north of Rosecrans Avenue is mostly open space with a few commercial uses. The West Coyote Hills which extend generally from Rosecrans Avenue north to the city of La Habra is the largest undeveloped land area in the study area. La Habra - There are commercial and light industrial uses to the east and west of Beach Boulevard which extend south of Imperial Highway for approximately one quarter mile. 2. Economic Profile Orange County is an urbanized area contiguous to greater metropolitan Los ,Angeles. It has a total area of 786 square miles. The development of Orange County has accelerated in the past twenty years and all nine cities traversed by Beach Boulevard have experienced tremendous growth in population and employment. The location, climate, geography, and community facilities available within the study area make it a desirable place to work, visit or live. Table III-D 2 lists economic data for the nine cities which are adjacent to Beach Boulevard corridor. The income levels of residents in the study area are generally middle to upper middle (as defined by the federal government) . Areas in La Mirada and Buena Park north of the Santa Ana Freeway are representative of upper middle income levels while mid corridor areas, e.g. , Westminster are characterized by middle and in some instances, low income levels. The particular desirability of these nine cities to shoppers, tourists and other Southern California residents living further inland helps to explain the use of Beach Boulevard as a major thoroughfare leading to the beaches and other recreational and cultural amenities located in the corridor. Beach Boulevard has extensive strip commercial along its entire length. Land uses located along Beach Boulevard include regional shopping centers, hotels, amusement parks (Knott's Berry Farm) and recently, increasing commercial/office growth. Beach Boulevard is important to the commercial vitality of most of the cities in the Beach Boulevard study area. For example, 45 percent of all the III-17 BEACH BOULEVARD SUPER STREETS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT Table III-D 2 ' ECONOMIC DATA BEACH BOULEVARD CORRIDOR CITIES (1983) Civilan Unemployment Annual Median Per Capita City Labor Force Rate (%) Family Income Income ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Anaheim 142;665 8.2 $ 23,112 $ 8,523 Buena Park 41,067 9.2 24,114 8,261 Fullerton 102,034 7.4 26,624 10,156 Garden Grove 77,206 8.3 23,635 8,027 Huntington Beach 111,644 7.1 26,985 9,782 La Habra 27,989 7.3 24,374 8,824 La Mirada 25,025 7.2 27,319 8,199 Stanton 11,889 4.8 19,273 7,236 Westminster 42,492 7.6 25,050 8,454-------------- -- Average $ 24,495 $ 8,610 Source: 1983 County and City Data Book, U.S. Bureau of Census. III-18 r r retail/service related businesses located in Stanton are located on Beach Boulevard; 31 percent in Huntington Beach; 18 percent in Buena Park; and 15 I, percent in Westminster. Tables III-D 3 and II1-D 4 list the businesses by type in each of the nine cities in the study area. The businesses that would be affected the most by the proposed program of improvements would be impulse goods businesses. ' 3. Historic and Cultural. Resources The Beach Boulevard study area contains a wide variety of architectural styles and uses. The age of the buildings varies from before the turn of the century to the present. The area immediately adjacent to Beach Boulevard has undergone continual growth and development. There are no major contiguous historic districts or neighborhood areas adjacent to the project area. For the purposes of this document, the area of potential environmental impact (APEI) is generally defined as 300 feet on either side of the centerline of Beach Boulevard. This area was expanded to 600 feet at the crossing of major arterials. The National Register criteria (36 CFR 60.6 a-d) was used throughout the review of the study area. Specifically, historical and architectural resources are deemed eligible under these guidelines if they possess integrity of design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association, and are: a) "associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history", b) "associated with the lives of persons significant in our past", c) "embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or . . . represent the work of a master, or . . . possess high artistic value, or represent a significant and distinctive entity whose components may lack individual distinction", or d) "have yielded, or are likely to yield important information in prehistory or history" . In addition, a general cutoff date of 40 years or older was utilized during the field review and research. Two field surveys were conducted for this project. The first was made to determine the presence of meaningful features and the second was to determine the degree of integrity of the previously identified resources. Local sources were contacted and archival research was performed. There were no listed National Register and/or California State Historic Landmarks within the defined APEI along Beach Boulevard. There are several properties which are listed on the California Inventory of Historic Places and/or are recognized as local landmarks. In addition, several of the properties which were surveyed are potentially eligible for listing as either r 111-19 1 BEACH BOULEVARD SUPER STREETS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT Table III-D 3 ' STUDY AREA BUSINESS TYPES* BY CITIES City Manufacturers Wholesale Retail/Service ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anaheim 762 502 3,869 Buena Park 156 106 987 Fullerton 286 166 1,953 Garden Grove 494 155 2,104 Huntington Beach 196 125 2,443 La Habra 89 46 822 La Mirada 315 85 549 Stanton 113 79 432 Westminster ----118-----------------80---------------1,149------ Total 2,223 1,344 14,308 1 Source: 1983 County Y and City Data Book U.S. Bureau of Census. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table III-D 4 BUSINESSES BY TYPE* ON BEACH BOULEVARD City Manufacturers Wholesale Retail/Service Anaheim--------------------5----------------- 5---------------123--------- Buena Park 4 4 177 Fullerton 0 0 0 Garden Grove 0 0 0 Huntington Beach 12 12 761 La Habra 11 11 39 ' La Mirada 1 1 29 Stanton 3 3 194 Westminster 3 3 174 ------- ---------------- ------------- --------- Total 39 40 1,497 ' Source: City business license records, 1985. * Does not include medical , health, transportation, communication, government services or educational related business. III-20 r r National Register or State Historic Landmarks. These buildings of potential ' significance are listed in Table III-D 5. Archaeological Resources Along with the investigations for historic structures, a records search was conducted at the Archaeological Survey Clearinghouse located at the University of California - Los Angeles. The records were searched for all known recorded archaeological sites within the APEI. There were three sites found. They are all located within the City of Huntington Beach. The first site (ORA 358) was found in the area of Beach Boulevard and Indianapolis Avenue. Some prehistoric artifacts have been recorded. No excavation has been performed and the site has been disturbed. The second site (CA ORA 183)is associated with the Newland House which is located on Beach ' Boulevard near Adams Avenue. A 1983 report for the Huntington Beach Historical Society has recommended that two areas be set aside for future investigations as the site has yielded important aboriginal information. The third site (ORA 296) is also adjacent to Beach Boulevard between Newman and Slater Avenues. No ' excavation has been done. As a rule archaeological sites are only generally identified in order to preserve them from unauthorized excavation and vandalism. E. Traffic and Transportation 1. Traffic rThe traffic circulation system within the study area consists of major and secondary highways as well as local and collector streets forming a grid pattern ' providing good access to the major freeways and activity centers. Within the Beach Boulevard study area, major state highways include Pacific Coast Highway (State Route 1), San Diego Freeway (I-405) , Garden Grove Freeway (State Route 22) , Artesia Freeway (State Route 91), Santa Ana Freeway (I-5), and Imperial Highway (State Route 90) . Streets and highways in the study area are used for commuting, recreation, trucking, mass transit and commercial purposes. The county and cities' General Plans include objectives and principles for the future development of streets and highways located in the study area. Local circulation elements include freeways, expressways, arterial and collector streets, airports, railroads and other facilities which provide for the movement of people and goods throughout the study area. All of the adjacent communities have incorporated Beach Boulevard (State Route 39) as a major highway in their circulation elements. Beach Boulevard (State Route 39) is classified as a major arterial on the County of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways, and is currently on the State Freeway and Expressway Plan. The roadway generally consists of six through travel lanes plus a median between Pacific Coast Highway and Manchester Avenue, and four through travel lanes north to Imperial Highway. Existing right-of-way ranges from 108 feet south of Orangethorpe Avenue to 192 feet between 21st and 23rd Street in Westminster. r III-21 r ' BEACH BOULEVARD SUPER STREETS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ' Table III-D 5 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC LANDMARKS Potential for Landmark Local Inventory National Register 1. Newland House----------------------Yes------------------------Yes ---------- 19820 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach 2. Knott's Berry Farm Yes No 8039 Beach Boulevard Buena Park 3. Old Stage Hotel Yes Yes ' 6603 Beach Boulevard California Listing Buena Park 4. Cannery Office Yes No 6561 Beach Boulevard Buena Park ' 5. Whittaker-Jaynes House Yes Yes Mission St. and Manchester Ave. Buena Park ' 6. First Congregational Church No Yes Tenth St. and Beach Blvd. Buena Park ' 7. Buena Park Women's Club No Yes 6711 Beach Boulevard Buena Park S. Sullivan Community Center No Yes Beach Blvd. and Melrose Ave. Buena Park 9. Private Residence No Yes 6591 Beach Boulevard Buena Park ' Source: Roger G. Hatheway & Associates, Inc. , 1985. III-22 Existing (1985) and projected (2005) average daily traffic (ADT) and levels of ' service (LOS) for Beach Boulevard are shown on Tables I-B 1 and I-B 2 in Chapter I of this document. 2. Transit , The Southern California Rapid Transit District (SCRTD) Routes Nos. 149 and 460 serve Beach Boulevard (Knott's Berry Farm) regularly, with express bus connections to Los Angeles and local bus service to Long Beach. Local bus service in the study area is provided by the Orange County Transit District (OCTD) . OCTD's services include local fixed routes, and Dial-A-Ride. The regular fare for the local fixed routes is 75 cents. OCTD operates three north-south bus routes (29,37,44) along segments of Beach Boulevard. Greyhound Bus and Continental Trailways provide transcontinental service to the surrounding communities with stops on Beach Boulevard in Anaheim and Buena Park. 3. Rail Facilities There are two main line railroads in the Orange County area, the Southern Pacific Transportation Company (SPTC) and the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway (ATSF) . The ATSF tracks cross Beach Boulevard at a grade separation ' just south of Stage Road in Buena Park. The SPTC has tracks crossing Beach Boulevard at grade in two locations; just south of the Santa Ana Freeway in Buena Park and along Pacific Avenue in Stanton. The SPTC operates four trains ' per week on the West Santa Ana Branch in Stanton - one train per day Sunday and Monday mornings, and one train per day on Wednesday and Friday evenings. On the Santa Ana Branch in Buena Park, the SPTC operates three trains per day - two line hauls in the morning and one local during the day. 1 Currently, Amtrak's San Diegan intercity trains operate on the ATSF with seven roundtrips daily. The nearest Amtrak station to the Beach Boulevard study area is located in Fullerton. 4. Parking Most of the businesses and residences along Beach Boulevard have adequate off- street parking space available to them. However, a few businesses still depend ' on on-street parking for their customers. On-street parking is generally available along Beach Boulevard. III-23 oc W H;:I- d r--� a x c.� ' IV. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. Introduction This Program EIR impacts evaluation section for the Beach Boulevard Super Streets Demonstration Project consists of a discussion of those impacts ' associated with implementation of a general or "generic" category of improvements (e.g. , signal coordination, intersection widening and restriping, etc.) associated with one or more of the alternate programs of improvements. The discussion does not encompass. a level of analysis that is site specific ' unless the impacts at a particular location are atypical , unique to the site or sites, and/or significant. If such was the case, an analysis appropriate to the location and level of improvement was conducted. In addition, several technical studies were developed to assist in evaluating the environmental consequences of the proposed project. The following studies have been utilized in the preparation of this environmental document. 1. Beach Boulevard Corridor Study, July 1984. ' 2. Preliminary Environmental Impacts Analysis, Technical Memorandum No. 2, May, 1985. 3. Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives, Technical Memorandum No. 4, July 1985. 4. Economic Study, Technical Memorandum No.5, November 1985 5. Noise Evaluation Study Report, September 1985. 6. Historic Properties Survey Report, September 1985. These background studies, which can be reviewed at the offices of Orange County Transportation Commission in Santa Ana and at the Caltrans District 7 - Los ' Angeles, Environmental Section, were conducted prior to the writing of the Program EIR. The information contained in these documents assisted in the analysis which indicated that the project alternatives should not have a significant environmental effect in any specfic area. It should be noted, ' however, that the Preliminary Environmental Impacts Analysis (Technical Memo No. 2) identified the wetland area immediately east of Beach Boulevard and north of Pacific Coast Highway as a potential area of concern to the planning ' and alternatives evaluation process. The "Environmental Significance Checklist" prepared by Caltrans for the Notice ' of Preparation (pp. IV-2 to IV-6) was used to focus on the environmental impacts most likely to occur with project implementation. A "no" answer on the environmental significance checklist documents a "no affect" determination. Therefore, those environmental areas will not be discussed in this chapter ' unless specifically requested in a response letter to the Notice of Preparation. A "yes" or "maybe" answer on the checklist documents an effect, though not necessarily a significant effect. These latter environmental areas are the IV-1 ' E .RONMENTAL CHECKLIST _Es, No OR MAYBE See EIR: PROJECT: Beach Blvd. Super Street Demo. Project Chapter IV; Section PHYSICAL. Will the proposal either directly or indirectly:- 1. Appreciably change the topography or ground ' surface relief features? Maybe B. 1 . 2. Destroy, cover, or modify any uninue geologic No or physical features? 3. Result in unstable earth surfaces or increase ' the exposure of people or property to geologic No or seismic hazards? 4. Result in or be affected by soil erosion or. NO siltation (whether by water or wind)? 5. Result in the increased use of fuel or energy No ' in large amounts or in a wasteful manner? 6. Result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource? NO ' 7. Result in the substantial depletion of any NO nonrenewable resource? ' 8. Violate any published Federal, State, or local standards pertaining to hazardous waste, solid NO waste or litter control? ' 9. Modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? NO 10. Encroach uron a floodplain or result in or be affected by floodwaters or tidal wives? Maybe B.3. 11. Adversely affect the quantity or quality of surface water, groundwater, or public water No supply? 12. Result in the use of water in large amounts or NO in a wasteful manner? ' 13. Affect wetlands or riparian vegetation? NO 14. Violate or be inconsistent with Federal, State, No ' or local water quality standards? 15. Result in changes in air movement, moisture, or NO ' temperature, or any climatic conditions? 16. Result in an increase in air pollutant NO emissions, adverse effects on or deterioration ' of ambient air quality? ' IV -2 ' ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (contJ YES, NOOR MAYBE See EIR: ' PROJECT: Beach Blvd. Super Street Demo. Project Chapter IV; Section ' 17. Result in the creation of objectionable odors? NO ' 18. Violate or be inconsistent with federal, state. No or local air standards or control plans? 19. Result in an increase in noise levels or Maybe ' vibration for adjoining areas? B_5e 20. Result in any federal, state, or local noise Maybe B.5. criteria being equalled or exceeded? 21. Produce new light, glare, or shadows? Maybe B.6. BIOLOGICAL. Will the proposal result in (either directly or indirectly): ' 22. Change in the diversity of species or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, microflora, and aquatic plants)? Maybe B.7. 23. Reduction of the numbers of or encroachment upon the critical habitat of any unique. No ' threatened or endangered species of plants? 24. Introduction of new species of plants into an ' area, or result in a barrier to the normal No replenishment of existing species? 25. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop or commercial timber stand, or affect prime, unique, or other farmland of State or local NO importance? ' 26. Removal or deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat? No ' 27. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals No including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic ' organisms, insects or microfauna)? 28. Reduction of the numbers of or encroachment No upon the critical habitat of any unique, ' threatened or endangered species of animals? 29. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration No or movement of animals? 1V-3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (cont) YES, NO ' OR MAYBE See EIR: PROJECT: Beach Blvd. Super Street Demo. Project Chapter IV; Section ' SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC. Will the proposal directly or Indirectly: ' 30. Cause disruption of orderly planned development? No ' 31. Be inconsistent with any elements of adopted community plans, policies or goals, or the California Urban Strategy? No 32. Be inconsistent with a Coastal Zone Management Maybe B•8. Plan? ' 33. Affect the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? No ' 34. Affect life styles, or neighborhood character or stability? No ' 35. Affect minority, elderly, handicapped, transit— dependent, or other specific interest groups? No 36, Divide or disrupt an established community? No ' 37. Affect existing housing, require the acquisition of residential improvements or the ' displacement of people or create a demand for No additional housing? 38. Affect employment, industry or commerce, or ' require the displacement of businesses or Maybe C. 1 . farms? ' 39. Affect property values or the local tax base? Maybe C.1 . 40. Affect any community facilities (including ' medical, educational, scientific, recreational, or religious institutions, ceremonial sites or sacred shrines)? No ' 41. Affect public utilities, or police, fire, emergency or other public services? Maybe C.2. 42. Have substantial impact on existing transportation systems or alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? Yes D. 1 . ' 43. Generate additional traffic? Yes D. 1 . ' 44. Affect or be affected by existing parking facilities or result in demand for new parking? Yes D.3. 1V-4 ENVIRONMENTAL -CHECKLIST (cont.) YES. NO OR MAYBE See EIR: PROJECT:Beach Blvd. Super Street Demo. Project Chapter IV; Section 45. Involve a substantial risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident or otherwise adversely affect overall public safety? No 46. Result in alterations to waterborne, rail or Maybe D.3. air traffic? 47. Support large commercial or residential No development? 48. Affect a significant archaeological or historic site, structure, object, or building? Maybe C.3. 49. Affect wild or scenic rivers or natural landmarks? No 50. Affect any scenic resources or result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to ' the public, or creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Maybe B.6. 51. Result in substantial impacts associated with construction activities (e.g., noise, dust. temporary drainage, traffic detours and temporary access. etc.)? Maybe E 52. Result in the use of any publicly owned land from a park, recreation area, or wildlife and No waterfowl refuge? MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 53. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered Plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or No prehistory? ' 54. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief. definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into No the future.) IV-5 EN DNMENTAL CHECKLIST (cont.) YES, NO See EIR: PROJECT: Beach Blvd. Super-Street Demo. Project OR MAYBE Chapter IV, Section J� 55. Does the project have environmental effects which are individually limited. but �- cumulatively considerable? Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. It includes the effects of other projects which interact with this project and, together, are considerable. Maybe G 56. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No IV-6 subject of this chapter. Please refer to the Environmental Checklist for specific sections of this chapter where particular environmental effects are discussed. The following sections contain a discussion of potential impacts and proposed mitigation measures. The discussion in each environmental area is broken down into an impacts assessment and mitigation measures which should be adopted as a part of the Program. B. Natural Environment 1. Topography Impacts Analysis The proposed improvements would result in very minor topographical or ground surface relief changes and certain disruptions, displacements and compaction of the soil . Intersection and roadway widening improvements that require the new right-of-way could result in alterations to local topography, though the changes are not expected to be significant. Soil removal would be minimal . There are nine intersections considered as potential intersection grade separation sites. These intersections are: Pacific Coast Highway, Warner Avenue, Edinger Avenue, Bolsa Avenue, Westminster Avenue, Katella Avenue, Lincoln Avenue, La Palma Avenue, and Imperial Highway. It is anticipated that arterial grade separation construction would require the disposal of excavated material . Quantities of excess material are not expected to be significant; but would contain urban debris (e.g. , asphalt and concrete) requiring proper disposal . The arterial interchange locations are topographically undistinguished, located in urban areas that have been largely disturbed by prior development. There are no significant or unusual natural features that would be disturbed. The construction of an elevated structure, requiring new right-of-way, would not alter local land forms to a significant extent. Mitigation Measures There would be no significant impact to existing topography or soils due to the proposed improvements; therefore no mitigation measures are necessary. 2. Conversion of Agricultural Land Impacts Analysis Agriculture is found in a single location along Beach Boulevard in the City of Stanton, surrounded by residential , commercial , and industrial development. This area is both east and west of Beach Boulevard, 625 feet south of Lampson Avenue. Potential program improvement alternatives at this area are: signal coordination, bus turnouts, intersection restriping, parking restrictions, parking removal , and roadway widening. Of the proposed improvement alternatives for this section of Beach Boulevard only the last, roadway widening, has any potential for a major impact. IV-7 The roadway widening improvements may require the acquisition of some property for new right-of-way at the identified agricultural location. South of Lampson Avenue and north of Garden Grove Boulevard, Beach Boulevard would be widened by four feet on the east and two feet on the west under the High Improvement Alternative. If the worst case scenario is assumed, i .e. , four feet of agricultural land on the east is taken and two feet on the west, the total loss in agricultural land is less than a tenth of an acre or 0.2 percent of the existing agricultural land area. ' Mitigation Measures Even though this potential property acquisition does not represent a significant portion of the existing farm property, efforts should be made to minimize construction and operational impacts of the roadway widening alternative on the adjacent agricultural land. The Soil Conservation Service would be contacted to document compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act. 3. Floodplains Impacts Analysis The project will not materially change existing drainage patterns. Run-off volumes are not expected to increase since this proposal is a roadway within a highly urbanized area and there will be no significant change in impermeable surface area within the highway corridor. 1' Theproposed im ov '1 improvements will not affect the creeks and channels listed in Chapter III, Section C-4 since construction activities will remain primarily within existing right-of-way. The flood control channels, as well as other areas crossed by Beach Boulevard, are classified on Federal Insurance Rate maps as floodplains. The existing transportation facilities have been provided adequate flood control protection through drains and channels or bridge structures that span the designated floodplains. Proposed grade separations will be raised above the flood zone elevation and will not be significantly affected during periods of flooding. Other proposed improvements will also have design features to mitigate potential impacts to floodplain areas. All existing beneficial floodplain values would be maintained or enhanced. The proposed project would not contribute to uneconomic, hazardous or incompatible development of floodplains. Mitigation Measures Prior to the construction of any of the program alternatives, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Orange County Flood Control District will be consulted. While impacts upon floodplains, streambeds and water quality will be insignificant, the appropriate permits and requisite mitigation measures of the above-named agencies will be incorporated into the recommended project. IV-8 4. Air Quality Impacts Assesment The analysis of emissions due to the Super Streets Program discussed in this section is confined to a general burden analysis of the study area. Regional air quality analysis has not been done, due to the small amounts of emissions to be expected in the project area. Impacts to air quality during the construction of the project alternatives is addressed in Section E of this chapter. The analysis methodology consisted of the following steps. First, both existing (1985) and future (2005) Average Daily Traffic was determined for the various roadway segments in the entire length of Beach Boulevard. From a separate traffic analysis, overall daily operating speeds, were calculated for these segments, under the following conditions: o Existing (1985) o No Project (2005) o TSM level improvements (2005) o Moderate level improvements (2005) o High Level improvements 2005 9 P ( ) Using this information, emission factors were associated with each of the roadway segments, under each improvement case, and the resulting segment emissions were summarized over all the segments analyzed. Emission factors were taken for light duty vehicles from EMFAC-6C, produced by the California Air Resources Board. The results of the analysis are displayed in Table IV-B 1. As shown in the table, the quantity of emissions produced in the project area is extremely small , when compared with the South Coast Air Basin. Small increases in emissions under the no project condition are expected between 1985 and 2005, due to projected increases in traffic. Also, as would be expected, incremental decreases in emissions are to be expected in the study area, progressing from TSM level improvements to moderate- and high-level improvements. All levels of roadway improvements proposed in the Super Streets Program decrease the overall production of pollutants in the project area over the No Project alternative. There is one exception to this. As speed increases, production of nitrogen oxides also increases, whereas the opposite is true of the remaining pollutants. Consequently, nitrogen oxide levels increase with the level of road improvements. However, the pollutants of most concern in the South Coast Air Basin are carbon monoxide, total hydrocarbons, and sulfur oxides, all of which show decreases when comparing the No Project alternative to the improvement alternatives in the above analysis. IV-9 i BEACH BOULEVARD SUPER STREETS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT Table IV-B 1 DAILY EMISSION LEVELS FOR PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES (Tons/Day) Carbon Total Nitrogen Sulfur Analysis CaseMonoxideHydrocarbonsOxidesOxidesParticulates - ------------ -- --- --- -- Existing-1985 3.76 0.28 0.65 0.07 0.13 Year 2005-No Project 4.33 0.38 0.43 0.08 0.15 Year 2005 3.56 0.30 0.48 0.08 0.15 TSM Improvements Year 2005-Moderate 3.12 0.26 0.51 0.08 0.15 Level Improvements Year 2005-High 2.98 0.25 0.52 0.08 0.15 Level Improvements 1980 Base Year 6781 1423 1362 273 619 Emissions-South Coast Air Basin Source: Myra L. Frank & Associates, 1985. i IV-10 Mitigation Measures As there are no significant project impacts for air quality, no mitigation measures are necessary. ' 5. Noise Impacts Analysis When a new noise source is introduced into an area, or when an existing source is expected to change, the noise impact associated with these changes may be assessed in two ways. First, the absolute noise exposure is compared with noise criteria to evaluate acceptability of the future noise levels both with or without the project. Second, the relative change in noise exposure is examined, that is, the change in noise exposure for future conditions with and without the project in place. Small changes in noise exposure, regardless of absolute level , are insignificant. Thus, changes in noise exposure of 1 to 2 dB are usually imperceptible to the average person, while changes of 3 to 4 dB are noticeable but may not be significant depending upon the absolute level . Increases of 5 dB and above are usually considered significant according to U.S. Department of Transportation assessment standards (UMTA C 5620.1) . Along the extent of Beach Boulevard, the major source of noise is the flow of traffic on Beach Boulevard and the major cross streets. Table IV-B 2 estimates the existing and future CNEL'S along Beach Boulevard, based upon existing and projected traffic flows. These estimates refer to sensitive receptor locations which are approximately 20 feet back from the Beach Boulevard right-of-way. For locations further back, noise levels would be expected to diminish. At approximately 50 feet back from the right-of-way, the listed CNELs would be reduced by 2 to 3 dB. Review of the estimates in Table IV-B 2 shows that for typical locations along Beach Boulevard, existing noise levels are in excess of the noise criteria discussed in Section III-C 7. The criteria are exceeded by perhaps a few dB for the commercial/office land use, and by as much as 10 dB or more for residential land use. The table also shows that future noise levels without the proposed roadway improvements would increase by less than 2dB over existing conditions. This is not considered a significant increase, even though noise standards are already exceeded in some portions of the study area. As the following discussion points out, the future projected noise exposure for the various levels of project improvements are not expected to be significantly different from the levels shown in Table IV-B 2. The noise exposure in the vicinity of the roadway depends upon many factors, including vehicle volumes, mix of vehicles (automobiles vs. heavy trucks) , vehicle speeds, distance from the receptor to the roadway, roadway gradients, and stop and go conditions. In order to assess the effects of the various intersection and mid-block improvements on future noise exposure, each improvement was examined to determine how it may or may not affect these various parameters. Based on this review, it was concluded that most of the IV-11 BEACH BOULEVARD SUPER STREETS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT TABLE IV-B 2 NOISE EXPOSURE ESTIMATES FOR BEACH BOULEVARD Beach Blvd. Between Existing CNEL, dB Projected CNEL Increase. db Atlanta/Pacific Coast Hwy 73.0 1.5 Yorktown/Adams 77.5 1.0 Talbert/Ellis 79.5 0.5 Heil/Warner 80.0 0.5 I-405/Edinger 81.0 0.0 Bolsa/McFadden 80.0 1.0 Hazard/Bolsa 80.0 1.0 Trask/Westminster 80.0 1.5 Lampson/Garden Grove 79.5 0.0 Orangewood/Chapman 79.5 0.5 Cerritos/Katella Ave. 79.0 0.5 Orange/Ball 79.0 0.5 Crescent/Lincoln 79.0 1.0 Artesia/Commonwealth 80.5 0.5 Rosecrans/Malvern 79.5 0.5 Imperial Hwy/Rosecrans 80.0 1.0 Notes: ' 1. CNEL estimates apply to locations 20 feet from R.O.W. 2. Existing CNEL is for year 1985. 3. Projected increase is for the year 2005, no project. 4. CNEL is listed to the nearest 0.5 dB. Source: BBN Laboratories, 1985 IV-12 improvements would have no effect on noise exposure. The improvements which may P P P affect noise exposure fall into two categories: those that place roadway 1 vehicles closer to the observer (thereby decreasing distance from the source to the receptor) , and changes in gradients (roadway grade separation) . The improvements which may place vehicles closer to the receptor include bus turnouts, roadway widening (both within and outside the existing right-of-way) , parking removal and parking restrictions. These improvements are not expected to increase noise levels significantly. For example, widening the roadway from 3 lanes to 4 would increase noise exposure at a location 20 feet from the right-of-way by 1 dB. The increase would be even lower for distances further back from the roadway. To the extent that the noisier vehicles in the traffic flow (i .e. , heavy trucks) travel in the near lanes closer to the receptor, maximum noise levels due to truck pass-bys may increase by 3 to 4 dB at a location 20 feet from the right-of-way. These improvements, then, are not expected to create a significant impact in noise exposure. The noise exposure in the vicinity of the intersection of two major streets is influenced by many factors. Grade separation of one or more lanes is not likely to change noise exposure significantly. One factor to consider is the additional noise generated by heavy trucks on the up-grade portion of the elevated section. Depending upon gradient, heavy truck noise may increase by 2 to 4 dB on these sections; this would not be considered a significant amount, especially since the total noise (cars and trucks) would increase by only 1 to 2 dB. Another factor is the possible loss of some shielding of the noise of some vehicles by other vehicles in the traffic stream as lanes are elevated. The magnitude of this effect must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the number of lanes involved, the proximity of the lanes to sensitive receptors, etc. This factor is not expected to create a significant increase in noise exposure, however, since the noise exposure of the elevated lanes is only a portion of the traffic-generated noise exposure in the vicinity of the intersection. In summary, the individual intersection and mid-block improvements are not expected to increase noise exposure in a significant manner, and most of the proposed improvements are not expected to adversely affect noise exposure over and above that which is currently being experienced throughout the study area. In some areas along Beach Boulevard the noise levels are currently above state guidelines. It should be noted that some of the project improvements will decrease noise levels. iIt is also useful to examine the cumulative effect of several measures. To the extent that roadway volumes remain the same but volume/capacity ratios decrease with the implementation of selected improvements, noise exposure may well be expected to decrease. Noise exposure estimates are generally developed under the assumption of freely flowing traffic. Thus, the estimates in Table IV-B 2 presume free flow conditions. However, as volume/capacity ratios increase to the point where there is stop and go traffic, noise exposure increases with the accelerating and decelerating operations of many vehicles. To the extent that the proposed improvements ' reduce volume/capacity ratios to relieve congestion, noise exposure levels will likely decrease. For example, on Beach Boulevard between Orangewood Avenue and IV-13 h existing volume/capacityratio is .98. It is expected to Katella Avenue the s g p increase to 1.11 by the year 2005 for the no project conditions. With a high level of improvements, the volume/capacity ratio will decrease to .83 which will greatly diminish congestion and reduce stop and go traffic. Thus, individual candidate improvements are not expected to i significantly increase noise exposure. Combinations of improvements which decrease congestion and increase freely flowing traffic conditions are expected to decrease noise exposure for surrounding land uses. Mitigation Measures Because of the physical nature of Beach Boulevard with many retail access points, standard mitigation measures such as noise barrier walls cannot be used. There are no feasible noise mitigation measures available to reduce existing ambient noise to acceptable levels. Appropriate noise mitigation measures for intersection grade separations will be considered where necessary and feasible. 6. Visual Aesthetics, Light and Glare j Impacts Analysis P Y Introduction of a new structure such as an intersection grade separation would have the most significant visual impacts of any of the proposed project improvements. Before any such grade separation is constructed it would be subjected to further environmental analysis including an individualized aesthetic evaluation. Street and intersection widenings, and parking/bus turnouts would alter the visual setting to a lesser degree. Nine intersections were identified as potential grade separations locations (see Technical Memorandum No. 3 - Beach Boulevard Improvement Alternatives) . Beach Boulevard would either cross over the intersecting street or as an alternative the cross street could be placed over Beach Boulevard. With the exception of Knott's Berry Farm at La Palma Avenue, the areas adjacent to the proposed flyover sites are mainly commercial and are not visually sensitive, that is, they do not have residential neighborhoods in close proximity. At the La Palma Avenue location the intersection grade separation would visually intrude into the viewshed of Knott's Berry Farm diminishing the feeling of self containment within the Park. rThe local business establishments along Beach Boulevard are predominantly one- and-two story structures with the exception of the 14-story office building under construction at Warner Avenue. Though the grade separations would change the appearance of the street space, in general , they would not be incompatible with the prevailing scale of buildings. The at-grade improvements (e.g. , street/intersection widening, parking and bus turnouts) , would have relatively insignificant impacts on the overall character, scale, and form of the visual setting along Beach Boulevard. In some instances trees and other vegetation may be removed and/or relocated to accommodate the street improvements. Wherever possible, trees would be relocated as near as possible to their original locations. Improvements would also be appropriately ' IV-14 landscaped. The light standards or lampposts as incorporated into the design of the arterial interchange structures could produce undesirable light or glare on adjacent residences and/or business establishments. It should be noted, however, that the potential grade separation sites are located in areas that are commercially developed and there are few if any nearby residences that would be adversely affected. The impacts on the establishments that are located in the vicinity would be minimal . Street and intersection widening improvements could necessitate removal and relocation of light standards with resulting changes in light patterns. Every effort will be made to insure that the design and placement of new/relocated light standards does not produce objectionable light or glare on adjacent residences or businesses. Screens, planting, or other means would be employed to mitigate objectionable conditions. Mitigation Measures In areas where landscaping is removed to accommodate program improvements, new replacement landscaping will be planted. If trees have to be relocated they will be placed as near to their original locations as possible. Light standards will be shielded from residences and businesses as necessary. If feasible for screening purposes, special landscaping around sensitive visual areas such as Knott's Berry Farm will be installed. 7. Biology Impacts Analysis The only significant wetland area is located immediately east of Beach Boulevard and north of Pacific Coast Highway (see Figure III-C 4) . It is bordered on the east by a mobile home park which is situated approximately 1000 feet east of Beach Boulevard. Residential developments just east of Beach Boulevard and a fuel tank farm border the wetland area on the north. An industrial area abuts the eastern most extension of the wetlands. The wetland area is located in the coastal zone, protected under the auspices of the Californial Coastal Commission and the California Fish and Game Department. Implementation of the proposed TSM or Moderate program of improvements for this area would not have a significant effect on this wetland resource or any of the identified floodplains. The High level of improvements which contains a proposed arterial interchange for Pacific Coast Highway could have a significant effect. The impact on the wetland area and the habitat of the Belding's Savannah Sparrow as a result of the planned TSM or moderate improvements would be insignificant. The High alternative level of improvments which includes the intersection grade separation has the potential to affect this endangered species. IV-15 r r Mitigation Measures Prior to the construction of any of the program alternatives, the California Department of Fish and Game pursuant to California Endangered Species Act of 1984, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Orange County Flood Control District will be consulted. While impacts upon the wetlands and biology from the TSM and Moderate alternatives should not be significant, the appropriate permits and requisite mitigation measures of the above-named agencies will be incorporated into the recommended project. If the arterial interchange is recommended to be implemented at this site, additional environmental studies will have to be prepared to address the wetland and biology issues. 8. Coastal Zone Impacts Analysis As shown in Table II-1 of Chapter II, the only intersection improvements for Pacific Coast Highway and Atlanta Avenue (the two intersections of Beach Boulevard within the Coastal Zone) are signal coordination and an intersection grade separation. Signal coordination would have no effect on the Coastal Zone. The intersection grade separation could have an effect on the coastal resources. Mitigation Measures There would be no impacts upon the Coastal Zone with the implementation of the proposed program of projects except for the grade separation. If the intersection grade separation is recommended at this site, additional environmental studies will have to be prepared and a coastal permit will have to be applied for. rC. Social and Economic Environment 1. Economic and Fiscal Impacts Impacts Analysis To facilitate identification of the key findings of the economic analysis of proposed intersection and midblock improvements on Beach Boulevard, information has been summarized in Tables IV-C 1, IV-C 2, IV-C 3 and IV-C 4, Summary of Key Findings. These tables are organized to show the effects of each of the three intersection improvement programs (TSM, Moderate, High) and the combined midblock improvement programs. Construction and post-construction effects are arrayed adjacent to each other to permit easy comparison and evaluation. Quantitative information is provided where possible; qualitative evaluations are provided where there is no quantitative data available. ' In general , the tables indicate that the proposed improvements will have numerous economic effects on a wide range of groups, including travelers, IV-16 1 TABLE IV-C 1 BEACH BOULEVARD SUPER STREETS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT SUMMARY OF BEY FINDINGS INTERSECTION/TSM Period Effect Construction Post-Construction Travel Time Minimal Increase 597,000 Hours/Year Decrease Travel Cost Minimal Increase $4,100,000/Year Decrease Fuel Consumption Minimal Increase 298,000 Gallons/Year Decrease Property Access Minimal Decrease N.E. Parking N.E. N.E. Visibility N.E. N.E. Noise Minimal Increase N.E. Acquisition N.E. N.E. Sales Minimal Decrease Minor Increase Property Values N.E. Minor Increase Character N.E. Urban (Minimal) Density N.E. Minimal Increase Employment N.E.1 Minor Increase Tax Base N.E.1 Minor Increase 1. Does not reflect construction employment, wages, and tax revenue. N.E. - No Effect. Source: PBQ&D, 1985 IV-17 TABLE Iv-c 2 BEACH BOULEVARD SUPER STREETS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS INTERSECTION/MODERATE Period Effect Construction Poet-Construction ' Travel Time Moderate Increase 1,922,000 Hours Year Decrease ' Travel Cost Moderate Increase $13,458,000/Year Decrease Fuel Consumption Moderate Increase 961,000 Gallons/Year Decrease Property Access Minor Decrease N.E. Parking Minimal Decrease N.E. Visibility N.E. N.E. Noise Moderate Increase N.E. Acquisition Moderate N.E. Sales Moderate Decrease Moderate Increase Property Values Moderate Decreases Moderate Increase Character N.E. Urban (Minor) Density N.E. Minor Increase Employment Minimal Decrease2 Moderate Increase Tax Base Minimal Decrease Moderate Increase 1. Transactions could be inhibited during construction. ' 2. Does not reflect construction employment, wages, and tax revenue. N.E. - No Effect. Source: PBQ&D, 1985 IV-18 TABLE I V-C 3 ' BEACH BOULEVARD SUPER STREETS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT SUMMARY OF BEY FINDINGS INTERSECTION/HIGH Period Effect Construction Post-Construction Travel Time 5-6 Million Hours Increase 3,300,000 Hours/Year Decrease ' Travel Cost $35-$42 Million Increase $23,300,000/Year Decrease Fuel Consumption 1-2 Million Gallons Increase 1,600,000 Gallons/Year Decrease Property Access Significant Decrease Minimal Decrease Parking Moderate Decrease Minimal Decrease Visibility Minimal Decrease Mixed (Minor) Noise Moderate Increase Minimal Increase Acquisition N.E. N.E. Sales Significant Decrease Moderate/Significant Increase Property Values Moderate Decrease Significant Increase Character N.E. Urban (Moderate) Density N.E. Significant Increase Employment Minimal Decrease Moderate Increase ' Tax Base Minimal Decrease Moderate Increase 1. Transactions could be inhibited during construction. 2. Does not reflect construction employment, wages, and tax revenue. N.E. - No Effect. ' 3. At affected locations. Source: PBQ&D, 1985 IV-19 ' TABLE TV-C 4 BEACH BOULEVARD SUPER STREETS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS ' MIDBLOCK/ALL PROGRAMS Period Effect Construction Post-Construction ' Travel Time Minimal Increase 2,300,000 Hours/Year Decrease Travel Cost Minimal Increase $16,000,000/Year Decrease Fuel Consumption Minimal Increase 500,000 Gallons/Yr. Decrease Property Access Minimal Decrease Minimal Decrease Parking Minor Decrease Minimal Decrease ' Visibility N.E. N.E. Noise Minor Increase N.E. Acquisition N.E. N.E. Sales Minimal Decrease Minor Increase Property Values N.E. Minor Increase ' Character N.E. Urban (Minor Increase) Density N.E. Minor Increase ' Employment N.E.1 Minor Increase Tax Base . N.E. Minor Increase 1. Does not reflect construction employment, wages, and tax revenue. ' N.E. - No Effect. Source: PBQ&D, 1985 ' IV-20 1 business owners, property owners, developers, residents, and city governments. The most significant effects, both positive and negative, are associated with the highest level of investment - the High Program. Conversely, the Intersection/TSM and Midblock programs involve minimal or minor effects. ' The following findings are important in evaluating the economic effects of the proposed improvement programs: o In all cases, travel -related benefits are significant. Annual savings in dollar terms range from $4.1 million for the Intersection/TSM program to $23.3 million for the Intersection/High program. Total recapture of the value of travel time lost due to construction delay is within two years. o Increases in business sales and property values are directly related to increased accessibility and traffic flow. Using conservative assumptions, estimates of sales volume increases under the Intersection/High program exceed $13 million annually. Increases associated with the other program levels are proportionately less. ' o Increases in traffic flow and accessibility will inevitably lead to greater development densities and a more urban character. Employment opportunities for local residents will increase, as will personal income and municipal tax receipts. o Potential acquisition of private property is limited to three types of ' improvements - intersection widening with new right-of-way, bus turnouts, and intersection grade separations. o No significant adverse effects are associated with construction of the improvements contained in the Intersection/TSM, Intersection/Moderate, and midblock programs. Significant temporary effects are likely with construction of grade separation structures (Intersection/High program) , including increased travel delays and cost, reduced access to corner properties, reduced business sales, and temporary reductions of values of corner properties. o No permanent significant adverse effects are associated with the Intersection/TSM and Intersection/Moderate programs. Reduced left- turn access to select properties due to median closures or grade ' separation structures is possible under the Intersection/High and midblock programs. All indications suggest that any potential declines in sales will be generally temporary, and that redevelopment ' potential of most properties is enhanced. . The foregoing data indicate that the benefits of the proposed Beach Boulevard improvements exceed costs by a significant margin. No significant adverse impacts are associated with the proposed improvements except for localized effects on traffic flow, sales volumes, and property access during the construction of grade separations. IV-21 r r Mitigation Measures Where access to midblock properties would be restricted due to placement of arterial interchange structures, motorists wishing to make left turns to gain access to such properties would need to proceed to the next intersection or ' median opening and make a u-turn. Proposed structures could reduce the visibility of properties from the roadway. A possible mitigation measure would be for the cities to permit the erection of signs tall enough to attract the ' attention of motorists. Loss of on-street parking spaces due to restriction or elimination of on-street parking is minimal due to the presence of adequate off-street parking along most ' of Beach Boulevard. Signs could be erected to direct drivers to off-street parking lots. ' 2. Community Services Impacts Analysis rConstruction of the grade separations, street/intersection widening improvements, and parking/bus turnouts could require relocation or modification ' of utilities. During the construction period increased traffic congestion from full or partial street closures, temporary elimination of on-street parking, and construction activities in crosswalks and sidewalks would diminish vehicular and pedestrian access to some local community services. ' Increased response times for police, fire, and paramedic emergency vehicles operating in the vicinity of construction activities is expected to occur as a result of increased traffic congestion. The problem of emergency vehicle accessibility would be particularly significant in the vicinity of hospitals r with emergency rooms. Table IV-C 5 lists hospitals located on Beach Boulevard and the improvement alternative(s) proposed for the adjacent section of Beach Boulevard. ' Implementation of the project alternatives would reduce congestion and improve traffic flow. For the corridor as a whole, access to community services would be improved and emergency vehicle response times may decrease. However, there are several alternative improvements that if implemented could reduce vehicular access to a few local community services. Mitigation Measures Measures that could be taken to facilitate the operation of emergency vehicles include: implementing traffic control measures to lessen congestion such as barriers, proper identification of detours, and proper readable signing; keeping providers of emergency services abreast of construction activities, and; if necessary, developing alternate emergency access routes to Beach Community Hospital and the Humana Hospitals in Anaheim and Huntington Beach. Should construction activities necessitate the temporary shutoff of utilities, r IV-22 1 ' customers would be given advance notice of the location and duration of shutoffs. ' Access control , parking restrictions/removal , median closures, and turn restrictions may require some vehicles to take less direct routes to their destinations than are presently available, though the length of such diversions ' is not projected to be significant. Therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary. In addition, median closures and turn restrictions may actually improve traffic safety conditions with a resulting decrease in the number of accidents. o Parklands ' Three parks have been identified that are within the area of potential environmental impact (APEI) . The APEI was defined as 300 feet on either side of the centerline of Beach Boulevard for purposes of identification of impacts ' to parks. The parks affected are listed in Table IV-C 6 with the improvement alternatives proposed for the adjacent section of Beach Boulevard. The City of Stanton municipal park west of Beach Boulevard is an open green ' space area. Widening of the roadway under the High alternative between Katella and Orangewood Avenues would require a two foot right-of-way acquisition of this park property bordering Beach Boulevard on the west. Acquisition of two feet of ' park property would not have a significant adverse affect on the park or the public's enjoyment of this facility. The proposed improvements (i .e. , TSM and bus turnout) at the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Hazard Avenue near Garden Park will have no negative effect on the park as the right-of-way of Beach Boulevard in this area is 142 feet. This existing width allows for four through lanes of traffic, median, sidewalks and the bus turnout without the acqusition of new property. Signal coordination would create no significant adverse impacts on Huntington Beach State Park. ' Noise impacts on parklands may actually decrease with implementation of the project alternatives. This is due to the fact that the loudest sounds are generated at intersection areas by stopping and starting vehicles, with the acceleration phase generally producing the greatest sound level . Signal coordination improvements would smooth traffic flow through the corridor (fewer stops and starts) and sound levels would be reduced as a result. See the noise discussion in Section B-5 of this Chapter for greater detail . Mitigation Measures To mitigate any possible adverse impacts to the municipal park in Stanton, improvements agreed upon with the City of Stanton should be made to landscaping and access. If proposed improvements require the acquisition of parklands, a ' 4(f) Statement may be required and would be prepared if necessary. ' IV-23 ' BEACH BOULEVARD SUPER STREETS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT Table IV-C 5 HOSPITAL LOCATIONS AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES Medical Facility Location Improvement Alternative Beach Community 5742 Beach Blvd. Signal Coordination Hospital Buena Park Parking Restrictions ' Parking Removal Roadway Widening Humana Hospital 3033 W. Orange Ave. Signal Coordination ' Anaheim Signal Modification Bus Turnouts Intersection Striping ' Parking Restrictions Parking Removal Driveway Consolidation ' Roadway Widening Humana Hospital 17772 Beach Blvd. Signal Coordination Huntington Beach Parking Restrictions ' Parking Removal Parking Turnouts Roadway Widening ' Source: _--Myra-L_-Frank-&+Associates- 1985 ------------------------------------------ Table IV-C 6 ' PARK LOCATIONS AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES Park Location Improvement Alternative Municipal park South of Katella and Parking Restrictions ' west of Beach, Stanton Parking Removal Driveway Consolidation Median Closures Roadway Widening Garden Park Hazard and Beach, Signal Coordination Westminster Bus Turnouts ' Intersection Striping Huntington Beach Pacific Coast Highway, Signal Coordination ' State Park Huntington Beach Source: Myra L. Frank & Associates, 1985. ' IV-24 1 r r 3. Historic and Cultural Resources ' Impacts Analysis During the performance of the historic properties survey nine structures were found which either were architecturally or historically significant. In addition, as stated in Chapter III - Section D-3, three archaeologic sites are located within the study area. The locations of these buildings and sites were ' compared against the proposed improvement programs at each location as shown in Chapter II. It was found that none of the program improvements would affect identified historic or cultural resources. r o Newland House -- The Moderate level program has bus turnouts and intersection widening proposed for this area. As the historic structure is set substantially back from the street, there would be no reffect to either the building or the associated archaeologic site. o Knott's Berry Farm -- The Moderate program has bus turnouts and r intersection widening with new right-of-way at La Palma Avenue, while the High program has intersection widening with new right-of-way at Crescent Avenue and a grade separation proposed for La Palma Avenue. The additional right-of-way needed for these improvements in r relationship to Knott's Berry Farm would come from parking lots and landscaping areas resulting in a very minor impact to this resource. ' o Old Stage Hotel , the Cannery Office, Whittaker-Jaynes House, First. Congregational Church, Buena Park Women's Club, and the private residence in the 6500 block of Beach Boulevard are all grouped rather closely together within the same general area as the Buena Park Civic r Center. The High level of improvements calls for new right-of-way for street widening at Orangethorpe Avenue. The needed right-of-way is not located near to any of the historic structures, therefore there r will be no adverse effects. The other levels of improvements call for restriping, and signal coordination which will also have no adverse effects. If a bus turnout is proposed for this site and right-of-way accquired, additional studies of the effects of the proposed ' improvement on historic resources may have to be prepared. o Sullivan Community Center -- This building is located at Beach r Boulevard and Melrose Avenue. As the structure is located well back from the street, none of the proposed program of improvements would effect this structure. rMitigation Measures For the minor effect to Knott's Berry Farm landscaping, this landscaping should rbe replaced with appropriate trees and shrubbery. r r IV-25 1 D. Transportation Facilities 1. Traffic and Circulation Impacts Analysis In the Beach Boulevard study area 40 major intersections were analyzed to ' evaluate existing (1985) and year 2005 base traffic conditions. The intersection volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios were obtained from the Critical Movement Analysis procedure documented in Circular 212 of The Transportation Research Board. The existing and projected (2005) V/C ratios and level -of- service (LOS) without proposed improvements are summarized and listed in Chapter I, Table I B 1 of this document. Levels of service are defined in Appendix A. By the year 2005, a majority of the major intersections along Beach Boulevard will operate at or over capacity during the peak periods. A total of 15 intersections currently operate at LOS "E" or worse during AM or PM peak period. An additional 9 intersections will operate at LOS "E" or worse during year 2005. Typical travel speeds on most arterials are slow because of peak period congestion and will get worse by year 2005. Reduced speeds in the area are caused by heavy vehicular traffic demand, close traffic signal spacing, on- street parking, and numerous access points. The worst peak-hour traffic volumes for existing and Year 2005 were selected for analysis of improvement options. Each intersection was analyzed for the No- Project condition plus three levels of improvement alternatives. The No-Project alternative includes the proposed improvements identified in the 1984 State Transportaion Improvement Program and those included in the Orange County Transportation Commission's FAU Program. The TSM alternative, the Moderate alternative, and the High level alternative have been defined in the Alternatives Chapter of this document. Midblock improvement options were also categorized into a No-Project plus three levels of analysis. These options are also discussed in detail in Chapter II. The purpose of the proposed improvements is to achieve, if possible, Level of Service D (volume/capacity ratio of 0.90) or better in the peak-hour both at intersections and midblock. In cases where the critical movement analyses of the improvement alternatives showed that Level of Service D could not be achieved with those options, additional improvements were added to the extent practical . Table IV-D 1 shows the number of intersections and midblock segments that would operate at a Level of Service (LOS) of "E" or worse in the year 2005. Under the intersection High Level improvement alternative where a grade separation is identified, impacts related to elimination of left-turn movements at adjacent minor cross streets will occur. Left-turn movements from and onto these minor cross streets will be eliminated due to the overpass structure on Beach Boulevard, which will span approximately 750 feet in either direction from the centerline of the major cross street. IV-26 i Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures for the existing and projected traffic conditions are the TSM, Moderate,and High intersection and mid-block improvements as identified in Chapter II, Tables II-C 1 and II-C 2. Although left turns from and onto the minor cross streets in the vicinity of a grade separation structure will be eliminated, access to these streets will be maintained by means of a u-turn at the next intersection or median opening. 2. Transit Impacts Analysis The principal public transit operator in the Beach Boulevard corridor is the Orange County Transit District (OCTD) . The. transit system will experience no major difficulties as a result of the proposed improvements and all operating schedules would be maintained. In fact, the bus routes that use Beach Boulevard could experience some decreases in travel time due to the proposed improvements. Service to patrons will be improved in those areas where bus turnouts are implemented. Mitigation Measures As no adverse impacts were found, no mitigation is necessary. 3. Parking Impacts Analysis All of the existing on-street parking on Beach Boulevard between Main/Ellis Streets and the Artesia Freeway in the.cities of Huntington Beach, Westminster, Anaheim, Stanton, and Buena Park; and between Manchester Avenue and Stage Road in th of Buena Park is proposed to be restricted or removed. Restricted parking would eliminate on-street parking during peak AM and PM weekday hours only. On-street parking would be allowed at other times during weekdays and on weekends. Mitigation Measures The loss of spaces could be mitigated by the construction of exclusive parking turnouts or the provision of additional off-street parking where turnouts are not feasible. l IV-27 BEACH BOULEVARD SUPER STREETS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT Table IV-D 1 INTERSECTIONS AND MID-BLOCK SEGMENTS OPERATING AT LOS "E" Year 2005 Year 2005 Number of Intersections Number of Mid-block Operating at LOS "E" or Segments Operating Alternative* Worse at LOS "E" or Worse No Build 24 28 TSM 22 23 Moderate 14 19 High 3 13 * Assumes 40 key intersections and midblock segments Source: PBQ&D, 1985. IV-28 E. Construction Impacts Assessment This section discusses the adverse impacts associated with construction. For discussion of program operational effects please refer to the individual impact sections in this Chapter. Adverse impacts of construction activities are usually of a relatively short duration at any one activity site within the project limits. These impacts consist of increased noise, dust, and adverse aesthetics because of the movement of construction equipment, materials and workers to and from the construction site, including transportation of imported materials or excess earth. o Earthwork Mitigation for adverse construction activity impacts consists of requiring the contractor to conform to the provisions of the State of California Department of Transportation "Standard Specifications"; Section 7, "Legal Relations and Responsibility" deals with the contractor's responsibility on many items of concern, such as air pollution, protection of lakes, streams, and reservoirs, etc. , use of pesticides, safety, sanitation, convenience of the public, damage or injury to any person or property as a result of his operation. - Section 10 is directed at controlling dust. - Section 20 pertains to slope erosion control . o Seismicity The probability of a major earthquake occurring during the construction phase is considered to be low. All available construction techniques for the safety of workers and passing pedestrians would be implemented. Shoring and falsework would be used extensively in supporting above- and below-ground structures. In the event of a major earthquake, damage to structures under construction could be extensive; however, the clean-up and repair of the project could be accomplished more quickly and easily than if the project were completed and in operation. No unusual methods would be used above what is specified in standard construction procedures. io Water Quality/Floodplains There would be no significant impacts to any established floodplain during the construction of the improvement programs. Impacts on hydrology in the Beach Boulevard study area would be related to water run-off from the construction sites and erosion of barren rock and ' soil surfaces exposed during excavation. Placing straw or other temporary coverings over barren surfaces would reduce the severity of erosion. Temporary culverts, ditches, catch basins, and settling ponds would be installed on the construction site to maintain existing drainage flows and collect excess water and sediments coming from the ' project. Sediments collected from the settling ponds would be disposed of at a Class II or III disposal site. IV-29 1 o Air Quality - Construction Emissions Impacts Analysis There are two basic sources of emissions during the construction phase of the improvements contemplated in the Super Streets project. These are emissions produced by the operation of diesel-powered and gasoline-powered construction equipment, and the production of so called "fugitive dust" resulting from earth movement. Various portions of Beach Boulevard would be subject to both of the above sources of construction emissions. Depending upon which roadway segments and intersections are eventually selected for moderate- or high-level improvements, the degree of construction emissions to be expected could range from minor to significant, on a localized basis. The South Coast Air Quality Management District has defined thresholds of significant emissions, and it may be that these thresholds could be exceeded intermittently at some construction sites unless proper mitigation measures are applied. Without more specific information regarding the nature and duration of construction activities, a definitive statement regarding the extent of these impacts cannot be made. Either roadway widening or other roadway improvements would take place at 34 of the 39 roadway segments defined in Chapter II Project Description, along the entire Beach Boulevard route, which means that localized construction emissions may be anticipated at various times and in varying localized settings. It should be noted, however, that these emissions are transitory in nature. The area surrounding the selected construction sites could be affected by increases in emissions of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and particulates. Sources of emissions directly related to the construction would include the operation of construction machinery and the construction work force traveling to and from job sites. Indirectly, construction activities 'r could cause local traffic delays, detours, and congestion which would increase the rate as well as the duration at which motor vehicles emit pollutants. In addition, some of the construction energy demand may be met by using power generated within the South Coast Air Basin, which would have very minor associated air pollutant emissions. Dust from construction projects, termed "fugitive dust", is produced by wind and construction machinery moving over disturbed soil . Thus, dust emissions are generally proportional to the volume of earth moved. fugitive dust is generally less of a problem than other kinds of particulate matter generated during construction because the particle size tends to be larger, allowing much of the material to settle a short distance from the source. However, depending on the type of material excavated, considerable amounts of fine particles can be emitted and can contribute to the ambient suspended particulate concentrations over a larger area. ' IV-30 Mitigation Measures South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules and Regulations apply to the proposed project and would thus govern construction .operations. Rule 402 states that no person shall discharge air contaminants which endanger the health and welfare of the public or create an annoyance or nuisance. Rule 403 gives specific criteria for limitations on fugitive dust emissions. Site watering is most commonly used to suppress dust because it is effective if done frequently, and water is generally available at construction sites. Site watering can reduce construction site dust emissions up to 50 percent. Watering should be done particularly for materials handling associated with waste removal and disposal . The construction contractor, who must meet project construction specifications, is responsible for dust impacts. The South Coast Air Quality Management District has enforcement responsibility with respect to fugitive dust. Combustion emissions generated by the construction equipment could be mitigated in two ways: by using electricity from the utility system rather than diesel-powered generators, and by minimizing the distance trucks must drive to dispose of excavated materials. When the program of alternatives is identified and construction plans formulated, the shortest haul distances will be worked out in conjunction with the affected jurisdictions. o Traffic All of the proposed alternatives produce a short term increase in traffic congestion, require some traffic rerouting, and lane closures. Mitigation Measures Mitigation for these effects would be the following: 1. Construction would be staged so that only short segments of the roadway would be closed at any one time. Thus, the traffic ' changes would be spatially contained, causing reduced impacts. 2. Wherever practical , temporary lanes will be provided. Where they are used, the temporary lanes will be congested during the peak travel times throughout the construction period. 3. Where it is not practical to provide temporary detour lanes traffic will be rerouted to other surface arterials. If construction and rerouting occur during the day, the detour route will be severely congested particularly during peak periods. This congestion is not mitigable. If construction which must close Beach Boulevard is !. restricted to night time when the traffic on the roadway is low, the traffic on the detours would be less and the impacts would be minimal . IV-31 o. Economic Impacts During Construction P 9 Summaries of the likely effects on economic activity during construction of proposed Beach Boulevard improvements are presented in Tables IV-E 1 through IV-E 4. Tables IV-E 1, IV-E 2, and IV-E 3 address the effects of the TSM, Moderate, and High programs for intersection improvements respectively, while Table-IV-E 4 addresses the effects of midblock projects. Effects listed that are shown in all upper case letters are the principal measures of economic activity and well -being. All other effects are either secondary or are themselves, effects on economic activity. Intersection/TSM Improvements Program Economic effects during construction of TSM-type projects would be uniformly short-term in incidence and temporary in duration (see Table IV-E 1) . The majority of the projects, such as signal coordination or modifications, access control , bus turnout construction, and intersection striping, would cause almost negligible disruption of traffic flow and access to abutting properties. Scattered lane closures during off-peak hours might be necessary for brief periods of time, but these would have only minimal effect on auto travel and business sales. Intersection/Moderate Improvements Program The next level of construction effort (Table IV-E 2) would include the TSM improvements and intersection widenings, both within existing ROW and requiring new ROW. These have been identified for many, but not all , intersections. Construction of these improvements would require temporary closure of at least one lane of traffic, and would also retard the normal flow of customers in and out of businesses fronting on the affected blocks. Since it cannot be determined at this time which of these proposed projects will be undertaken and what the construction period will be for each, it is not possible to estimate the specific economic effects of these projects. It can be concluded, however, that travelers through those areas would experience some traffic delays, and their travel cost would increase moderately. The businesses fronting on the construction areas would also be likely to experience a drop in sales due to reduced visibility and impeded access. This would. be a minimal to moderate effect, however, since some paths to driveways would be kept clear throughout construction. The construction would have a greater effect on businesses which depend to a greater degree on impulse shopping (convenience goods) , such as fast food, gas stations, card shops, etc. Those businesses which rely more on non-impulse shoppers such as furniture stores, and department stores, would not experience significant declines in volume, since shoppers would be much more tolerant of construction problems if intent on patronizing particular businesses. The net effect of the roadway and intersection widening projects on local businesses would be that those which depend on impulse shopping would experience a temporary drop in sales during the construction period; IV-32 rr +r r RAN � !M- rr ■r r �r r r TABLE IV-E 1 BEACH BOULEVARD SUPER STREETS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC INFLUENCES AND EFFECTS CONSTRUCTION-INTERSECTIONMId Affected Groups Property Business Local Type of Effect Relationship Incidence Duration Nature Magnitude Travelers Owners Owners Developers Residents Governments TRAVEL TIME Direct Short-Term Temporary Increase Minimal X TRAVEL COST Direct Short-Term Temporary Increase Minimal X Fuel Consumption Direct Short-Term Temporary Increase Minimal X Property Access Direct Short-Term Temporary Decrease Minimal X X Parking Availability N.E. Visibility N.E. Noise Direct Short-Term Temporary Increase Minimal X X X X Acquisition/ Displacement N.E. SALES VOLUMES Indirect Short-Term Temporary Decrease Minimal X C PROPERTY VALUES N.E. i w Character N.E. w Development Density N.E. EMPLOYMENT/INCOME N.E. TAX BASE N.E. 1. Does not reflect construction employment, wages,and tax revenue. N.E.—No Effect. Source: PBQ&D, 1985 s am M M M M W TABLE IV-E 2 BEACH BOULEVARD SUPER STREETS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC INFLUENCES AND EFFECTS CONSTRUCTION-INTERSECTION/MODERATE(WIDENING) Affected Groups Property Business Local Type of Effect Relationship Incidence Duration Nature Magnitude Travelers Owners Owners Developers Residents Governments TRAVEL TIPME Direct Short-Term Temporary Increase Moderate X TRAVEL COST Direct Short-Term Temporary Increase Moderate X Fuel Consumption Direct Short-Term Temporary Increase Moderate X Property access Direct Short-Term Temporary Decrease Minor X X Parking availability Direct Short-Term Temporary Decrease ?Minimal X Visibility N.E. Noise Direct Short Term Temporary Increase Moderate X X X X Acquisition/ c Displacementl Direct Short-Term Temporary N.A. Moderate X X SALES VOLUMES Indirect Short-Terml Temporary Decrease Moderate X PROPERTY VALUES2 Indirect Short-Terml Temporary Decrease Moderate3 X X Character N.E. Development Density N.E. EMPLOYMENT/INCOhlEI Indirect Short-Terml Temporary Decrease Minimal X TAX BASEl Indirect Short-Terml Temporary Decrease Minimal X 1. Certain widening projects would require property acquisition and displacement of businesses. This would have small effects on employment, income, and tax base above those caused by reductions in sales. 2. ability to transfer ownership of adjacent property could be reduced during construction. 3. Does not reflect construction employment, wages,and tax revenue. N.E.—No Effect. N.A.— Not applicable. Source: PBQ&D, 1985 w s �w �w w� w� •� w MOM Ew ww TABLE IV-E 3 BEACH BOULEVARD SUPER STREETS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC INFLUENCES AND EFFECTS CONSTRUCTION-INTERSECTION/HIGH(GRADE SEPARATION) Affected Groups Property Business Local Type of Effect Relationship Incidence Duration Nature Magnitude Travelers Owners Owners Developers Residents Governments TRAVEL TIME Direct Short-Term Temporary Increase Significant X TRAVEL COST Direct Short-Term Temporary Increase Significant X Fuel Consumption Direct Short-Term Temporary Increase Significant X Property Access Direct Short-Term Temporary Decrease Significant X X Parking Availability Direct Short-Term Temporary Decrease Moderate X X Visibility Direct Short-Term Temporary Decrease Minimal X X Noise Direct Short-Term Temporary Increase Moderate X X Acquisition/ Displacement N.E. �. SALES VOLUMES Indirect Short-Term Temporary Decrease Significant X PROPERTY VALUES' Indirect Short-Term Temporary Decrease Moderate X X Ln Character N.E. Development Density N.E. EivI PLOY MENT/INCOME Indirect Short-Term Temporary Decrease2 ;Minimal X TAB{ BASE Indirect Short-Term Temporary Decrease Minimal X 1 Ability to transfer ownership of adjacent property could be reduced during construction. 2. Does not reflect construction employment, wages,and tax revenue. N.E.- No Effect. Source: PBQ&D, 1985 ,■� +�■� r m . " m m m tam m m m m m TABLE IV-E 4 BEACH BOULEVARD SUPER STREETS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC INFLUENCES AND EFFECTS CONSTRUCTION-MIDBLOCH(ALL PROGRAMS) Affected Groups Property Business Local Type of Effect Relationship Incidence Duration Nature Magnitude Travelers Owners Owners Developers Residents Governments TRAVEL TIME Direct Short-Term Temporary Increase Minimal X TRAVEL COST Direct Short-Term Temporary Increase Minimal X Fuel Consumption Direct Short-Term Temporary Increase Minimal X Property Access Direct Short-Term Temporary Decrease Minimal X X Parking Availability Direct Long-Term Permanent Decrease Minor X Visibility N.E. Noise Direct Short-Term Temporary Increase Minor X X X X Acquisition/ Displacement N.E. C SALES VOLUMES Indirect Short-Term Temporary Decrease Minimal X w PROPERTY VALUES N.E. Character N.E. Development Density N.E. EMPLOYMENT/INCOME N.E.1 TAX BASE N.E.1 1. Does:wt reflect construction empluament, wages, and tax revenue. N.L. - .10 Ef;act. Source: PBQ&D, 1985 w r construction is completed. however, sales would rebound once cons u p It should be noted that some of the roadway and intersection widening projects requiring new right-of-way would displace existing businesses but it is unlikely at this time that any displacements will actually take place. It is more probable that such projects will be modified or eliminated to avoid acquisition of existing structures. Intersection/High Improvements Program The major construction efforts proposed for the Beach Boulevard Super Streets program are the intersection grade separations included in the High program. Such grade separations would involve constructing structures to carry four center traffic lanes (two in each direction) over the cross arterial , while the four lanes closest to the curbs (two in each direction) would remain at ground level . There are eight intersections where intersection grade separations are currently proposed. Construction of these grade-separations would cause significant, though temporary, adverse effects on traffic flows, property access, and sales volumes for businesses located near the intersections in question (see Table IV-E 3) . The construction period would average 18 months per intersection, during which time only one lane in each direction along the affected roadway would be preserved. Drivers passing through either of the affected intersections would be faced with a choice of either continuing to use their normal routes, with large attendant delays. In either case, travel time, out-of- pocket cost, and fuel consumption would increase. In addition, traffic on the alternate routes would become increasingly congested and drivers normally using those routes also would experience delays. Using a value of time of $7.00 per hour (an average of various definitions involving prevailing wage rates in Orange County) , an estimated projected cost of time lost because of construction of the two structures at Warner and La Palma Avenues would between $35 million and $42 million in delays (five - six million vehicle hours) over the 18-month construction period (1985 dollars) . Additional delay costs would be incurred by drivers on adjacent streets affected by rerouted Beach Boulevard traffic. The other group which would incur losses due to this construction ' would be the businesses on the blocks near each intersection. Those businesses on Beach Boulevard within one block of the intersection would be most significantly affected since the construction would take place along those blocks with only one lane open in each direction. Businesses which depend heavily on impulse shopping would incur the largest sales decline, depending on such factors as access to parking, construction noise and dirt, and volume of traffic continuing to pass by. Those businesses which are located one or two blocks from the IV-37 r r structures would also be affected by the construction, due to traffic congestion, lane merges, etc. Their losses would be less, however, since access would not be as constrained, and vehicle volumes would be higher than on the blocks adjacent to the structure. Grade separation construction activity would cause only minimal reductions in local employment, personal income levels, and city tax collections, which would be more than offset by construction employment, income, and tax revenue. The ability to sell or otherwise transfer ownership of affected properties might be impaired during construction, but this would ease with the completion of the structures. All Programs Levels (Midblock) Construction-related effects on economic activity for midblock improvement projects (Table IV-E 4) would be very similar to those described under the Intersection/TSM program, on page IV-32. Direct construction effects woul limited to occasional lane closings related to widening projects, median and curb closures, and parking or bus turnouts. The availability of parking would decline moderately in affected areas only, with a minimal overall effect on Beach Boulevard as a whole. Aggregate travel time, out- of-pocket cost, and fuel consumption would register marginal increases, sales volumes at select establishments might decline slightly. All effects would last only for the construction period (typically less than two months) and would cease after completion of work. Mitigation Measures o To mitigate the potential disruption to local businesses due to reduced pedestrian and vehicular access during construction, the duration of time any one street block is closed would be minimized to the greatest extent possible. o Major construction efforts would be restricted to off-peak hours and weekends. o The maximum possible number of traffic lanes would be kept open during construction periods. to In coordination with the local merchants, the visibility of the businesses would be maintained through temporary signing and other special measures. r F. Energy t1. Construction Energy Energy will be consumed during the course of construction of various Super Streets program components. This consumption, which is expected to be very minor in the context of the region as a whole, would be in excess of net energy consumption under the No Project alternative. IV-38 r The amount of construction energy to be expended is not estimated here, for two reasons. First, this energy consumption is expected to be quite small , particularly within the regional context. Second, an accurate estimate cannot be made without specific project locations, to which are assigned types and quantities of construction equipment, together with the expected duration of construction activities at those locations. For this level of analysis, it is sufficient to state that the amount of energy consumption to be expected during the construction of the overall Super Streets program would be a function of several variables, none of which are expected to be significant. These variables include the duration of construction activities at various sites, the number and types of construction equipment to be used, the fuel consumption rates associated with those pieces of equipment, the number of vehicles expected to be traveling to and from construction sites (both hauling- type equipment and workers' autos), the length of those travel distances, and the fuel consumption characteristics associated with those vehicles. 2. Operation Energy Energy consumption estimates have been calculated for the project area (Beach Blvd.) for both the existing condition (1985) and the future (year 2005) . These estimates consist of expected consumption of vehicle fuel , based on estimates of vehicle miles of travel on Beach Boulevard. Table IV-F 1 presents the results of the analysis. A review of the information contained in the table yields the following findings. First, energy consumption associated with vehicles traveling along ' Beach Boulevard is small , compared with the entire Southern California region. (Nearly 13 million gallons of gasoline are expected to be consumed on an average summer weekday in year 2000, in the SCAG region.) ' The Beach Boulevard study area would account for approximately 1/2 of one percent of this total . Second, due to expected fuel economy improvements between now. and the future, overall fuel consumption is expected to decrease by 33 to 40% in the Beach Boulevard corridor, despite a corresponding increase in traffic of approximately 14 percent. The purpose of implementing various components of the Super Streets Program is to improve the flow of traffic and reduce delays along Beach Boulevard. To the extent that this objective is realized, vehicular energy consumption will improve (i .e. , be reduced) , as compared with the No Project alternative. This is a beneficial impact to the study area. IV-39 ' BEACH BOULEVARD SUPER STREETS DEMONSTRATION Table IV-F 1 OPERATION ENERGY CONSUMPTION ESTIMATES Existing Conditions Future Conditions (1985) (2005) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project Length 19.168 miles 19.168 miles Average Daily Traffic(1) 13,000-81,000 19,000-83,000 ' Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel (1) 940,000 1,126,000 AVG Fuel economy(2) 13 MPG 24 MPG Average Daily Fuel Consumption (gallons) 72,000 47,000 ------------------------------ (1) Source: Technical Memorandum No. 2, PBQ&D, 1985. (2) Average fleet fuel economy estimates for the SCAG region. (Source: Southern California Association of Governments, Energy Analysis for Long Beach-Los Angeles Rail Transit Project, February, 1984. Source: Myra L. Frank & Associates, 1985. . i i 1 1 IV-40 cc W I-- d � Q 2 C.� V. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND ADVERSE EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED A. Introduction The proposed program of improvement alternatives would result in some adverse environmental effects which could not be completely avoided or mitigated. This applies to both the construction and operation phases of the program. It is the purpose of this section to summarize the nature and extent of these effects. A more detailed description of the individual impacts and proposed mitigation measures can be found in Chapter IV of this document. In general , the cumulative impacts of the program are beneficial . As with most transportation projects the cumulative impacts result in an improved situation. The Beach Boulevard Project improves traffic flow and increases the capacity of the street. There are very few significant unavoidable adverse impacts found with the first phase of the program. The first phase of the program of improvements may include the TSM level and the moderate level of the proposed program. It is only the High improvement phase of the program (e.g. , the intersection widening where new right-of-way is required and the arterial grade separations) which may have significant adverse impacts. Prior to the construction of any such grade separation additional environmental documentation will be prepared. This is due, partially, to the uncertainty of the time of implementation of this phase of the project. Generally, the most significant unavoidable construction impacts for all aspects of the program would be noise, traffic disruption, reduced access, visual disruption, economic effects on businesses, and property acquisition. After construction is completed there would be no significant long-term unavoidable adverse impacts as a result of the implementation of the project. B. Construction Impacts 1. Noise -- There will be a temporary increase in noise during . construction. Such program elements as intersection widening and bus turnouts would create short-term noise increases. The use of low-noise-generating equipment, prefabricated components where feasible and the proper scheduling of construction activities would reduce the impacts. 2. Traffic Disruption/Reduced Access -- During the construction period, the travel time on Beach Boulevard would increase and there would be some minor delays. There would also be the possibility of lane closures which would result in reduced accessibility to some residences, businesses and public facilities along portions of Beach Boulevard. The temporary traffic disruption and reduced access impacts would be mitigated by adequate detours, appropriate signing, and special traffic control methods such as flaggers, if necessary. V-1 3. Economic Disruption -- Businesses fronting on construction would have a potential for a drop in sales due to reduced visibility and impeded access. This would be a minimal to moderate effect, however, since access will be maintained to all businesses during the construction period. These effects would be more likely to occur to stores relying heavily on walk-in trade. The economic disruption will be minimized by maintenance of access to businesses, proper detours and directional signing to businesses. ' 4. Visual Effects -- During construction of the project there would be the visual intrusion of incompatible construction activities and equipment which would contribute to a general sense of disruption. Visual impacts would be short-term and temporary in nature. There are no practical mitigation measures available. ' 5. Acquisition of Property -- If private property is required for project improvements the owners will be compensated according to state policy. Appraisals will determine fair market-.value. ' Mitigation would be full compensation. and, if necessary, relocation in accordance with the State of California Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act. r t oc W d � Q S t 1 1 ' VI. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS The analysis for the environmental document has shown that none of the aspects of the program would in and of themselves be growth inducing. The improvements to Beach Boulevard will serve the existing and projected growth which will be the natural result of implementation of local agency general plans. The intersection and midblock improvements will not foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing either directly or indirectly. 1 1 r 1 r r r r r r r r VI-I r a W F-o-r G.o--� Q � 2 VII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM An extensive public participation program has been developed for the Beach Boulevard Super Streets Demonstration Project. The purpose of this program has been to ensure complete community information dissemination and to develop a consensus-building process. The public participation effort has ensured the ' early identification of critical community concerns and technical issues so that they can be addressed in the engineering, environmental , and economic analyses for the project. This program has provided an effective response to community needs. This chapter summarizes public participation activities conducted by Caltrans and the Orange County Transportation Commission. Additional documentation on the development of the public participation program may be found in Technical Memorandum #1 (Public Participation Program) . ' A. Public Participation Program Objectives u g The public participation program objectives are: o To present an overall introduction of the Super Streets ' Demonstration Project to all interested citizens and organizations. o To receive input from interested individuals, civic leaders, public agencies, homeowners groups, and landowners/developers, regarding study objectives, specific concerns and priorities, and questions as to future plans. ' o To discuss the various traffic improvement alternatives and their potential impacts (e.g. , environmental , economic, etc.) . ' o To provide an opportunity for periodic review and input as the study is conducted such that constructive recommendations may be incorporated in a timely manner. o To maximize public awareness by using all cost-effective means of communication (e.g. , newspapers, local public service TV, public notices, public meetings) . o To insure that businesses located along Beach Boulevard which may experience environmental and economic impacts are able to participate in the study. B. Public Participation Program Organization/Activities rThese objectives have been achieved through: 1) the establishment of three project advisory committees (Community, Policy, and Technical) ; and 2) the conduct of numerous public meetings. The composition of the three advisory committees and ' their relationship to the study process is shown in Figure VII-B 1. Prior to the study initiation in March, 1985, OCTC entered into a Memorandum of ' VII-1 ' BEACH BOULEVARD SUPER STEETS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ' FIGURE VII-B 1 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION F T OCTC OCTC Citizen's Advisory Technical Advisory Committee Committee ' OCTC Project Manager - - - - Consultant ' Beach Boulevard Community Beach Boulevard Policy Beach Boulevard Technical Advisory Committee Advisory Committee Advisory Committee ' Businesses and residents One city council member Engineering and planning along Beach Boulevard, and city manager from: staff from: utility companies, other interested parties Anaheim Anaheim Meetings at key decision Buena Park Buena Park Fullerton Fullerton ' points in process Garden Grove Garden Grove Huntington Beach Huntington Beach La Habra La Habra ' La Mirada La Mirada Stanton Stanton Westminster Westminster ' One member of the Board County of Orange of Supervisors and County Caltrans EMA Transportation/Flood OCTD ' Control Program Manager SCAG Auto Club Caltrans District Director ' Meetings at key decision Monthly meetings points in process VII-2 Understanding (MOU) with the nine cities traversed by Beach Boulevard, the County of Orange, and Caltrans. The MOU identified the responsibilities of each agency on a task-by-task basis. Each agency also designated a representative for the project's Policy and Technical Advisory Committees. ' Several public meetings have been held to inform the public about the Beach Boulevard Super Street Demonstration Project. Meetings conducted on May 1 and 2, 1985 in Buena Park and Westminster, respectively, provided the public an ' early overview on the types of improvements being considered for Beach Boulevard. These meetings provided the public an opportunity to comment on the study. Over 200 people attended these meetings. On July 24 and 25, 1985 (also in Buena Park and Westminster, respectively) , open houses were conducted to inform property owners, businesses, and the general public about the specific improvement alternatives identified for Beach Boulevard. Over 300 people attended these open houses. Written comments were received from 66'of the attendees at the May and July, 1985 public meetings. All comments received have been considered in the development of improvement alternatives for Beach Boulevard. Public notification about these meetings was achieved via local news media and direct mail . Press releases about these meetings were published in a number of local newspapers including the Los Angeles Times-Orange County Edition, the Register, the Daily Pilot, the Westminster Herald, the Buena Park News, and the Huntington Beach News. Using city business license records and Orange County Assessor's parcel maps as a base, an extensive mailing list of over 3,000 ' businesses and property owners was developed for the direct mail campaign. Mailings were done 2-3 weeks prior to each public meeting. In addition to these large public meetings, public comment has also been received at a number of city council meetings and town hall meetings conducted during the study period. These meetings are listed chronologically in Table VII-B 1. OCTC has also encouraged the public to provide comment by phone if people were unable to attend any meetings. To date, over 100 interested parties have provided comment on the project via telephone. 1 ' VII-3 BEACH BOULEVARD SUPER STREETS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT Table VII-B 1 PUBLIC MEETINGS Date Location -- --------- -------- - ----------------------------------------------------------- 01/22/85 Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce 02/04/85 Buena Park City Council 02/06/85 Stanton Kiwanis 02/13/85 La Habra Chamber of Commerce 02/14/85 Westminster Rotary 02/19/85 Anaheim Kiwanis 02/19/85 Garden Grove Lions 02/19/85 Anaheim City Council 02/19/85 Huntington Beach City Council 02/20/85 Anaheim Planning Commission 02/26/85 Westminster City Council 02/28/85 Stanton Rotary 03/06/85 Fountain Valley/Huntington Beach Board of Realtors 03/06/85 Garden Grove Kiwanis 03/12/85 Stanton City Council 03/12/85 Huntington Beach Transportation Commission 03/19/85 Huntington Beach Rotary 04/02/85 Anaheim Lions 04/04/85 Stanton Chamber of Commerce 04/30/85 La Habra Lions 05/01/85 Buena Park Public Meeting 05/02/85 Westminster Public Meeting 06/19/85 Westminster Kiwanis 07/11/85 Buena Park Chamber of Commerce 07/17/85 Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce 07/17/85 Westminster Town Hall Meeting 07/22/85 Huntington Beach City Council 07/24/85 Buena Park Open House 07/25/85 Westminster Open House 08/05/85 Buena Park City Council 08/14/85 Buena Park Chamber of Commerce i 08/20/85 Anaheim City Council 08/20/85 Westminster City Council 08/22/85 Orange County Traffic Engineering Council 08/27/85 Stanton City Council 09/03/85 Stanton Town Hall Meeting 10/15/85 Garden Grove Town Hall 10/15/85 Anaheim Chamber of Commerce Source: Orange County Transportation Commission, 1985. VII-4 The public participation program for the Beach Boulevard Super Streets Demonstration Project will continue through -the development of the final project recommendations and the completion of the Program Environmental Impact Report. No fewer than four public meetings in the various cities will be conducted in January, 1986 prior to city council actions on the project recommendations. O VII-5 x 0 z W Q o. m a 1 APPENDIX A LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS Level of Service Traffic Flow Quality -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A Low volumes; speed not restricted by other vehicles; all signal cycles clear with no vehicles waiting through more than one signal cycle. B Operating speeds beginning to be affected by other traffic; between one and ten percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods. C Operating speeds and maneuverability closely controlled by other traffic; between 11 and 30 percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods; recommended ideal design standard. D Tolerable operating speeds; 31 to 70 percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods; often used as design standard in urban areas. E Capacity; the maximum traffic volume an intersection can accomodate; restricted speeds; 71 to 100 percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one signal during peak traffic periods. F Long queues of traffic; unstable flow; stoppages of long duration; traffic volume and traffic speed can drop to zero; traffic will be less than the volume which occurs at Level of Service E. Source: Highway Capacity-Manual , Highway Research Board Special Report 87, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. , 1965, page 320. x c z W m a. a a STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Gowmor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7, P.O. BOX 2304, LOS ANGELES 90031 d (213) 620-5335 June 12 , 1985 File: 07-039-0 .00/19 .16 Beach Super Street Demonstration Project To: RESPONSIBLE OR POTENTIALLY AFFECTED AGENCIES Enclosed is the Notice of Preparation on the above-referenced project. You will note that the Notice of Preparation is "tenta- tive" and the type of document (EIR or ND) has not yet been determined. We are calling upon the expertise of your agency to assist us in making this determination. If, in your opinion an EIR is required, please identify the specific impacts your agency believes are potentially significant. We thought you would like to be aware of the public meetings which will be held on July 24 from 3:00 p.m. to 8 :00 p.m. at the Buena Park Senior Center, 8150 Knott Avenue, Buena Park, and July 25 from 3 :00 p.m. to 8 : 00 p.m. at the Westminster Community Center, 8200 Westminster Avenue, Westminster. Each meeting will be conducted in an open house format with maps, scale models, and exhibits on display and staff available to explain the proposed improvement features in detail . We would like your Agency response to the Notice of Preparation by July 31 , 1985. Please designate a contact person for your agency in any response. Very truly yours, � O�i7lily,� LANTINE, of Environmental Planning Branch Enclosure fN_ (ICE OF PREPARATION (Tents. . ie) TO: FROM:_ California Department of Transportation 1 District 7 — Environmental Planning Branch 120 South Spring Street ' Los Angeles, California 90012 SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation (Tentative), Beach Boulevard "Super Street" Demonstration Project The Orange, County Transportation Commission (OCTC) in conjunction with Caltrans as Lead Agency will prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative Declaration (Neg. Dec. ) for the project described below. Please note that the Notice of Preparation is termed "tentative" since the type of environmental documentation (EIR or Neg. Dec. ) has not yet been determined. We are calling upon your expertise to assist us in making this determination. If, after studying the enclosed materials, you feel an EIR is required, please identify the specific impacts your agency believes are potentially significant. Your participation as a Responsible or Cooperating Agency is requested in the preparation and review of whatever documentation is necessary. We need to know the applicable permit and environmental review requirements of your agency and the scope and content of the environmental information which will be needed by your agency to fulfill its statutory responsibilities in connection with the project. Proposed Project Description The proposed project for Beach Boulevard involves the coordinated application of various traffic flow improvements such as: o Traffic signal coordination o Bus turnouts o Parking Restrictions o Access consolidations and limitations o Pedestrian grade separations o Roadway grade separations The benefits of the application of these "Super Street" concepts are improved travel times and fuel economy, with subsequent reductions in the number of stops and vehicle emissions. These improvements should be cost—effective because they can typically be made within the existing highway right—of—way. 1 The locations for potential arterial interchanges (roadway grade separations) are shown on the attached map. If any of the eight locations are chosen for grade separations, they will be the subject of additional environmental documentation. Due to .the time limits mandated by state law, your response should be sent at the earliest possible date, but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice, to: Mr. Wayne Ballantine, Chief Environmental Planning Branch State of California Department of Transportation District 7 120 South Spring Street Los Angeles, CA. 90012 Attention: Mr. Ronald Kosinski Please include with your response the name and phone number of a contact person for your agency. If you have any comments or questions regarding this project or Notice of Preparation, they can be directed to Mr. Ronald Kosinski at the address shown above, or by phone at (213) 620-3755, or Ms. Lisa Mills at the OCTC offices, 1055 North Main Street, Suite 516, Santa Ana, CA, 92701 , or by phone at (714) 834-7581 . Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. i 2 u raanr b ' O.arae COLN" w w �•.•«. eew.w e p &a Habm r•.w41 wyn•.. jI La Mlnx/a Adlerton �". � mow..,•...r •n.a.ea«.a. � ....a••.w.0 91 i a.. . Fraerey � gp-pl u ra..•.w.r Buena Pa"h . - F e.. ....... 5 u count � on•.oa // courry SlBntOn � m � CIMa.0 .Garden Garden 6•roMe 22 / 405 aoe W../a�_ FrNre. s nrinefer w«arNlr•.a4. �•7 � Irel ab.a / Ata. O sa«...w. j S Waar•..ww - � a ® ` wrtw•..... o � ! e A— . SUPER STREETS = " DEMONSTRATION Ilk"�• PROJECT i -" •a^.a Huntngton Beach .m In each Blvd. Corridor • r.w..� •.wr y • Potential Arterial �.—. Interchange Location �•.,� i o� INITIAL STUDY Using the Preliminary Environmental Assessment prepared by Caltrans in December, 1984, and additional preliminary studies by OCTC and their consultants, the attached Initial Study has been prepared. It will be used to focus further environmental studies on specific physical, biological, and socioeconomic factors which may be affected by the project. Where preliminary studies have shown that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, a "no" answer appears. Where analysis shows a need for further study a "yes" or "maybe" appears on the Initial Study. OCTC and Caltrans propose not to discuss or study further the areas where a "no" answer appears. If you disagree, please let us know why with your response. Our environmental investigations and documents, when published, will focus on the areas where a "yes" or "maybe" appears on the Initial Study checklist. Attached to the Initial Study is a brief narrative discussion �. identifying each area where there is a potential for effect from the project or where more information is needed. A complete analysis of these issues; identifying significant impacts, if any, and mitigation measures, if required, will be provided in the environmental documentation. Primary emphasis will be on avoidance of significant impacts. 4 _ rIAL STUDY YI NO IF YES, IS IT OR MAYBE SIGNIFICANT BENEFICIA PROJECT: YES NO ? PHYSICAL. Will the proposal either directly or indirectly: 1. Appreciably change the topography or ground surface relief features? Maybe X 2. Destroy, cover, or modify any unique geologic No or physical features? 3. Result in unstable earth surfaces or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic No or seismic hazards? 4. Result in or be affected by soil erosion or siltation (whether by water or wind)? NO 5. Result in the increased use of fuel or energy in large amounts or in a wasteful manner? No X 6. Result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource? NO 7. Result in the substantial depletion of any nonrenewable resource? NO 8. Violate any published Federal, State, or local standards pertaining to hazardous waste, solid NO waste or litter control? 9. Modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? NO 10. Encroach upon a floodplain or result in or be affected by floodwaters or tidal waves? Maybe X ' 11. Adversely affect the quantity or quality of surface water, groundwater, or public water No supply? 12. Result in the use of water in large amounts or NO in a wasteful manner? 13. Affect wetlands or riparian vegetation? NO 14. Violate or be inconsistent with Federal, State, No or local water quality standards? 15. Result in changes in air movement, moisture, or NO temperature, or any climatic conditions? 16. Result in an increase in air pollutant NO X emissions, adverse effects on or deterioration I� of ambient air quality? 5 INITIAL STUDY (Con't.) YEa, NO IF YES, IS IT OR MAYBE SIGNIFICANT BENEFICIA PROJECT: YES NO J.L 17. Result in the creation of objectionable odors? NO 18. Violate or be .inconsistent with federal. state. No or local air standards or control plans? 19. Result in an increase in noise levels or Maybe X ' vibration for adjoining areas? y 20. Result in any federal, state, or local noise Maybe X criteria being equalled or exceeded? y 21. Produce new light, glare, or shadows? Maybe X BIOLOGICAL. Will the proposal result in (either directly or indirectly): 22. Change in the diversity of species or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, microflora, and aquatic plants)? Maybe X 23. Reduction of the numbers of or encroachment upon the critical habitat of any unique. No threatened or endangered species of plants? 24. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or result in a barrier to the normal No replenishment of existing species? 25. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop or commercial timber stand, or affect prime, unique, or other farmland of State or local NO importance? 26. Removal or deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat? No 27. Change in the diversity of species. or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals No including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? 28. Reduction of the numbers of or encroachment No upon the critical habitat of any unique, threatened or endangered species of animals? 29. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration No or movement of animals? 6 INITIAL STUDY (Con't.) YES, NO IF YES, IS IT OR MAYBE SIGNIFICANT BEI4EFICIA PROJECT: YES NO ? SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC. Will the proposal directly or indirectly: 30. Cause disruption of orderly planned development? No 31. Be inconsistent with any elements of adopted community plans, policies or goals, or the California Urban Strategy? No 32. Be inconsistent with a Coastal Zone Management be Plan? May 33. Affect the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? No 34. Affect life styles, or neighborhood character or stability? No 35. Affect minority, elderly, handicapped, transit— dependent, or other specific interest groups? No 36. Divide or disrupt an established community? No 37. Affect existing housing, require the acquisition of residential improvements or the displacement of people or create a demand for No additional housing? 38. Affect employment, industry or commerce, or require the displacement of businesses or Maybe X farms? 39. Affect property values or the local tax base? Maybe X X 400 Affect any community facilities (including medical, educational, scientific, recreational, or religious institutions, ceremonial sites or sacred shrines)? No 41. Affect public utilities, or police. fire. emergency or other public services? Maybe X 42. Have substantial impact on existing transportation systems or alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? Yes X X 43. Generate additional traffic? Yes X 44. Affect or be affected by existing parking facilities or result in demand for new parking? Yes X 7 INITIAL STUDY (Con't.) YES, NO IF YES, IS IT OR MAYBE SIGNIFICANT BENEFICIA: PROJECT: YES NO ? 45. Involve a substantial risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident or otherwise adversely affect overall public safety? No 46. Result in alterations to waterborne, rail or Maybe X air traffic? 47. Support large commercial or residential development? No 48. Affect a significant archaeological or historic site, structure, object, or building? Maybe X 49. Affect wild or scenic rivers or natural landmarks? No 50. Affect any scenic resources or result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Maybe X 51. Result in substantial impacts associated with construction activities (e.g., noise, dust, temporary drainage, traffic detours and temporary access, etc.)? Maybe X 52. Result in the use of any publicly owned land from a park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge? No MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 53. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self— sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or No prehistory? 54. Does the project have the potential to achieve short—term, to the disadvantage of long—term, environmental goals? (A short—term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long—term impacts will endure well into No the future.) 8 1 INITIAL STUDY (Con't.) YES, NO IF YES, IS IT OR MAYBE SIGNIFICANT BENEFICIA PROJECT: YEJ NO ? 55. Does the project have environmental effects which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects. the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. It includes the effects of other projects which interact with this project and, together, are considerable. Maybe X 56. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ►$o i i 1 t 1 i 1 ! 9 INITIAL STUDY EXPLANATORY REMARKS All questions from the Initial Study which were marked with a "yes" or ' "maybe" response are discussed further in the following paragraphs. The numbers refer to the numbered questions in the study. 1.) The proposed program of improvements may result in some topographical or ground surface relief changes. There could be certain disruptions, displacements and compaction of the soil . The location of any such effects will need to be identified. 10.) Some of the proposed improvements could be located within known floodplains. These floodplains and their effect on the program will have to be identified. 19. ab d 20.) Ambient noise levels could increase over existing levels during both construction and operation as a result of the program. Primary sources of noise generation would be from automobiles and trucks. There is a potential for noise impacts to residential areas adjacent to the highway. Noise studies will be conducted to characterize existing ambient noise levels, determine project—generated noise levels, identify noise—sensitive areas, compare levels against appropriate criteria, and recommend appropriate mitigations. 21. ) Some program improvements may produce additional light and/or glare. 22.) Existing landscaping may be removed by some of the program improvements. Any mature trees or shrubs would be replaced, where room is available. 32:) Program improvements w.ill be analyzed within the framework of the Coastal Zone Plan. ' 33.) The effect of the proposed program improvements on the human population will be analysed for possible inclusion in the environmental document. There is a potential for long—term effects. 38. and 39.) There is the potential for effects on the business community on Beach Boulevard. A separate economic analysis will be done apart from the environmental studies and. the results of that study will be included in the environmental document. 41.) The project will have minor adverse and beneficial effects on ' police. fire, emergency, and other public services. 42 and 43.) The objective of the program of improvements is to meet existing transportation needs due to the steady and significant growth in Orange County. There would be an impact on established travel patterns of people and goods. Traffic analyses will be conducted to identify the extent of circulation changes. The environmental documentation will evaluate the existing and projected traffic volumes 10 and the corresponding levels of service. Impacts upon nonmotorized circulation facilities will be assessed and mitigation measures identified. 44. ) On—street and off—street parking will be affected by the improvement program. Impacts will be quantified, the importance of the parking losses discussed, and mitigation measures proposed. 46.) Some of the railroad facilities crossing Beach Boulevard will have the potential for being affected, especially during construction. These effects will be dependent on the location of program improvements. 48. ) At this time, it is not known if any cultural resources will be affected. The area of potential enviromental impact (APEI) will be surveyed and other resources investigated to locate any cultural resources in areas where program improvements are planned. 50.) The visual qualities in terms of "view of the road" and "view from the road" may be altered by the proposed improvement program. The loss of landscaping and the addition of flyovers would have a high potential for impact. 51. ) The program could result in various impacts associated with construction. There would be short—term noise: dust, erosion, and access problems. Contractors will be required to comply with local 1 and state provisions to mitigate such impacts to the maximum extent feasible. 55.) The cumulative impacts of the various improvements will be discussed in the environmental documentation. 11 x 0 z ►a c� m a a �r rr rir r� ■r rr4 rr► rrie �r rr r� rr� rr r r r� r rri r� APPENDIX C PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' Ed Kissing California Division of Mines and Geology, Los Angeles Lisa Ceran City of Huntington Beach Ray Ware City of Westminster Jim Jameson City of Garden Grove Dennis McKay City of Stanton John Anderson City of Anaheim Don Jensen City of Buena Park ' Ron Wallin City of Fullerton Robert Buonodono City of La Habra Mark Smiley Orange County EMA ' California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region U. S. Soil Conservation Service, Riverside Deborah Harmon Caltrans - District 7 ' Lois Webb Caltrans - District 7 George Casen Caltrans - District 7 x p z W p d C. a APPENDIX D BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES ' Berryman & Stephenson, Inc. Beach Boulevard Corridor Study: Final Report. July 1984. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) . 1983. Draft Environmental ' Impact Statement (DEIS), Route 55 Transportation Study. . 1985. Environmental Assessment I-405. California Division of Mines and Geology. 1974. Special Report 114 - A Review of the Geology and Earthquake History of the Newport-Inglewood Structural Zone, Southern California. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 1984. Water Quality Control Plan - Santa Ana River Basin. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1983 & 1979. Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Hunt, Harold, et al . Biological Survey: Widening of Route 1. Caltrans, 1984. Massey, Barbara. Belding's Savannah Sparrow. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. January, 1979. Orange County Transportation Commission. Orange County Demographic Projections for Transportation Studies, 1980-2005. September, 1982. Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas. et al . Public Participation Program, Technical Memorandum No.l. April 1985. ' . Preliminary Environmental Impacts Analysis, Technical Memorandum No. 2. May, 1985. Beach Boulevard Improvement Alternatives, Technical Memorandum No. 3. June, 1985. . Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives, Technical Memorandum No. 4. July, 1985. Economic Analysis, Technical Memorandum No. 5. November, 1985. United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1983. County and City Data Book. United States Soil Conservation Service. 1974. Soil Survey of Orange County and Western Part of Riverside County, California. x c z W W d a Q ' APPENDIX E LIST OF PREPARERS Orange County Transportation Commission ' Lisa Mills, Project Manager; and Robert McCann, Assistant Project Manager. 1 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 7 Ronald Kosinski , Environmental Supervisor; and Deborah Harmon, Environmental Analyst. Parsons Brinckerhoff Ouade & Douglas, Inc. ' Darius Irani , Project Manager; Mike Davis, and Joe McTague. Myra L. Frank & Associates Myra L. Frank, Prinicipal ; Joan Kugler, Project Manager; Lee Lisecki ; Richard ' Starzak; Donna Needles and Susan Zehnder. ' BBN Laboratories, Inc. Myles Simpson, Supervising Consultant. Roger G. Hatheway & Associates Roger G. Hatheway, Principal .