Loading...
11 November 14, 2012 Commission• • • RECORDS Riverside County Transportation Conrssion MEETING AGENDA TIME/DATE: 9:30 a.m. / Wednesday, November 14, 2012 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside t& COMMISSIONERS efi Chair - John J. Benoit First Vice Chair - Karen Spiegel Second Vice Chair - Marion Ashley Bob Buster, County of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside Jeff Stone, County of Riverside John J. Benoit, County of Riverside Marion Ashley, County of Riverside Bob Botts / Don Robinson, City of Banning Roger Berg / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Joseph DeConinck / To Be Appointed, City of Blythe Ella Zanowic / Jeff Hewitt, City of Calimesa Mary Craton / Barry Talbot, City of Canyon Lake Greg Pettis / Kathleen DeRosa, City of Cathedral City Steven Hernandez / Eduardo Garcia, City of Coachella Karen Spiegel / Eugene Montanez, City of Corona Scott Matas / Yvonne Parks, City of Desert Hot Springs Adam Rush / Ike Bootsma, City of Eastvale Larry Smith / Robert Youssef, City of Hemet Douglas Hanson / Patrick Mullany, City of Indian Wells Glenn Miller / Michael Wilson, City of Indio Frank Johnston / Micheal Goodland, City of Jurupa Valley Terry Henderson / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta Bob Magee / Melissa Melendez, City of Lake Elsinore Darcy Kuenzi / Wallace Edgerton, City of Menifee Marcelo Co / Richard Stewart, City of Moreno Valley Rick Gibbs / Kelly Bennett, City of Murrieta Berwin Hanna / Kathy Azevedo, City of Norco Jan Harnik / William Kroonen, City of Palm Desert Ginny Foat / Steve Pougnet, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Al Landers, City of Perris To Be Appointed / Scott Hines, City of Rancho Mirage Steve Adams /Andy Melendrez, City of Riverside Andrew Kotyuk / Scott Miller, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Ben Benoit / Timothy Walker, City of Wildomar Basem Muallem, Governor's Appointee Comments are welcomed by the Commission. if you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board. Tara Byerly From: Tara Byerly Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 6:47 AM To: Tara Byerly Cc: Jennifer Harmon Subject: RCTC November Commission Agenda - 11.14.2012 Attachments: Conflict of Interest Form.pdf; Conflict of Interest Memo.pdf Importance: High Good Morning Commissioners, The November Commission Agenda for the meeting scheduled for Wednesday, November 14 @ 9:30 a.m. for the iPad Users is available. Please copy this link: http://www.rctc.org/uploads/media items/november-14-2012.original.pdf In addition, attached is the conflict of interest memo and the form for your review. Also, in order to access the SR-91 CIP Final EIR/EIS on the Commission's Website there are instructions, which is located on the last page of Agenda Item 7. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Respectfully, Tara S. Byerly Senior Administrative Assistant 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 (951) 787-7141 1 Tara Byerly From: Tara Byerly Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 7:09 AM To: Tara Byerly Subject: RCTC November Commission Agenda Importance: High Good Morning Commission Alternates: Attached below is the link to the November 14 Commission Meeting. Please copy the link below and paste it into a web page. http://www.rctc.org/uploads/media items/november-14-2012.original.pdf Respectfully, Tara S. Byerly Senior Administrative Assistant 4080 Lennon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 (951) 787-7141 Riverside County Transportation Ccanmmssion TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jennifer Harmon, Office and Board Services Manager DATE: November 7, 2012 SUBJECT: Possible Conflicts of Interest - Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda of November 14, 2012 The November 14, 2012 agenda of the Riverside County Transportation Commission includes items that may raise possible conflicts of interest. A Commissioner may not participate in any discussion or action concerning a contract or amendment if a campaign contribution of more than $250 is received in the past 12 months or 3 months following the conclusion from any entity or individual listed. Agenda Item No. 9F - Agreements for Federal Legislative Advocacy Services Consultant(s): Cliff Madison Government Relations, Inc. Cliff Madison, President 254-A Maryland A venue, NE Washington, DC 20002 Ruffalo and Associates, LLC Kathy Ruffalo, President 601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW South Building, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20004 RCTC Conflict of Interest Form Purpose: This form is provided to assist members of the RCTC Commissioners in meeting requirements of 87100 in documenting conflict of interests as related to RCTC RCTC Commission may be required to disclose and disqualify or voting on an agenda item due to personal income, real positions, or receipt of campaign contributions. If applicable, the following information, for entry into the public record, prior to item(s) and turn in the completed form to the Clerk of the Board RCTC member may not participate in any discussion or action a campaign contribution of more than $250 is received in the past conclusion from any entity or individual. Government Code Section 84308 and Commission/Committee agenda items. Instructions: Under certain circumstances, themselves from participating in, influencing, property interests, investments, business Commissioners must personally state consideration of the involved agenda prior to leaving the meeting. An concerning a contract or amendment if 12 months or 3 months following the I. Board Member Information Board Member Name City/County Name Meeting Date / — /,-/L C a 4 lit/ / L\-� AA t,-z -J t/r(. -- c- r,a rt j /- 1 —/ ----- II. Campaign Contributions V /d T 1. I have a disqualifying campaign contribution and therefore I am abstaining from participation 2. I have a disqualifying campaign contribution and therefore I am abstaining from participation 3. I have a disqualifying campaign contribution and therefore I am abstaining from participation 4. I have a disqualifying campaign contribution and therefore I am abstaining from participation of over $250 from , (Identify the name of the company and/or Individual) on Agenda item , Subject: of over $250 from , (Identify the name of the company and/or Individual) on Agenda item , Subject: of over $250 from , (Identify the name of the company and/or Individual) on Agenda item , Subject: of over $250 from , (Identify the name of the company and/or Individual) on Agenda item , Subject: III. Financial Interest 50-T'0� .- ev".�e-� ��cSl 1. 1 have a financial interest of L / p s—/t c P f"Z .�L t .s m/in c- yt cvrJ (late income, and therefore I am abstaining from participation 2. I have a financial interest of real property interest, investment or business its� e ify nod o n ftertyCq bn) on Agenda Item 7 t✓ Atri c., -r- jt c ,.7 7` 0 1- -,)-k v `�Uc/ c-,�% f4-p6,_9 ,tff9 (State income, and therefore I am abstaining from participation real property interest, investment or usin s (Identify nam of company or property location) C on Agenda Item , Subject: IV. Signature Board Member Signature: / Date: /j -i Li- / 1— Please remember you must state the information into the public record prior to consideration of the involved agenda item(s) and turn in the completed form to the Clerk of the Board prior to leaving the meeting. • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, November 14, 2012 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, CA In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed 72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at the Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the Commission's website, www.rctc.org. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS - Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous minutes or less. The Commission may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Commission, waive this three minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous minutes. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30) minutes. Also, the Commission may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Commission shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items. Under the Brown Act, the Commission should not take action on or discuss matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda that are not listed on the agenda. Commission members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda November 14, 2012 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — OCTOBER 10, 2012 6. INTERSTATE 10 EMERGENCY ACTION PLAN UPDATE Overview This item is for the Commission to receive an update on the Interstate 10 Emergency Action Plan from Juan Perez, Agency Director, Transportation and Land Management Agency. 7. RESOLUTION CONSIDERING STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND APPROVING THE STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Page 1 Overview This item is for the Commission to adopt Resolution No. 12-028, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Considering the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2008071075), Adopting Responsible Agency Findings Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Approving the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project". 8. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS - The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Commission. if there are less than 2/3 of the Commission members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 9. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 9A. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Overview Page 174 This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Single Signature Authority report for the first quarter ended September 30, 2012. • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda November 14, 2012 Page 3 9B. AGREEMENT WITH BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY FOR THE RELOCATION OF THE EXISTING PORPHYRY YARD TRACKS REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Page 176 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 13-31-038-00 to Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) for the relocation of the existing BNSF Porphyry Yard tracks required for the construction of the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP) in the amount of $4,921,300, plus a contingency amount of $492,200 (10 percent), for a total amount not to exceed $5,413,500; 2) Authorize the Chair or the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to approve contingency work up to the total amount not to exceed as may be required for the work associated with the relocation of the existing Porphyry Yard tracks. 9C. AGREEMENTS WITH AT&T, QUESTAR, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON, AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO., FOR FINAL ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION FOR UTILITY RELOCATIONS FOR THE STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Page 188 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the following agreements for final engineering and construction for utility relocations for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP): a) Agreement No. 13-31-045-00 with AT&T; b) Agreement No. 13-31-047-00 with Questar; c) Agreement No. 13-31-044-00 with Southern California Edison (SCE); and d) Agreement No. 13-31-046-00 with Southern California Gas Co. (SoCalGas); for a combined amount of $17,465,750, plus a contingency amount of $1,746,250 (10 percent), for a total amount not to exceed $19,212,000; 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; and Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda November 14, 2012 Page 4 3) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to approve contingency work up to the total authorized amount as may be required for these utility relocation agreements for final engineering and construction. 9D. ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS REQUIREMENTS FOR INTERSTATE 215 CENTRAL WIDENING PROJECT BETWEEN SCOTT ROAD AND NUEVO ROAD Page 191 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 13-31-048-00 with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and the Treasurer -Tax Collector of the County of Riverside (County Treasurer) for an escrow account in the amount of $350,000 as financial security for mitigation obligations to be completed by the Commission in connection with environmental permit requirements for the Interstate 215 Central widening project between Scott Road and Nuevo Road; and 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the escrow agreement. 9E. AGREEMENTS RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE INTERSTATE 215 CENTRAL WIDENING PROJECT FROM SCOTT ROAD TO NUEVO ROAD IN THE CITIES OF MENIFEE AND PERRIS Page 206 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 10-31-001-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 10-31-001-00, with URS Corporation (URS) to perform additional design support during the construction of the Interstate 215 Central widening project for $550,354 using remaining contract authorization; 2) Approve Agreement No. 13-31-035-00 with the California Highway Patrol (CHP) for Construction Zone Enhanced Enforcement Program (COZEEP) services during the construction of the 1-215 Central widening project in an amount not to exceed $380,000; 3) Approve Agreement No. 11-31-109-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 11-31-109-00, with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians to increase the contract amount by $100,000 for Native American monitoring services during the construction of the 1-215 Central widening project for a total amount not to exceed $125,000; and • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda November 14, 2012 Page 5 4) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. 9F. AGREEMENTS FOR FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES Page 226 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award the following agreements to provide federal legislative advocacy services for a four-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreements, for up to a six -year period of performance, in an amount not to exceed an aggregate value of $ 1,032,000; a) Agreement No. 13-14-008-00 with Ruffalo and Associates, LLC; b) Agreement No. 13-14-034-00 with Cliff Madison Government Relations, Inc; and 3) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements, including option years, on behalf of the Commission. 9G. RESOLUTION HONORING JOSEPH TAVAGLIONE AND DEDICATION OF THE RIVERSIDE -DOWNTOWN STATION IN HIS HONOR Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 247 1) Adopt Resolution No. 12-030, "Resolution Honoring the Important Contributions of Joseph Tavaglione"; 2) Rename and dedicate the Riverside -Downtown Station in Mr. Tavaglione's honor; and 3) Present the approved resolution to Mr. Tavaglione at a formal event on Wednesday, December 5. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda November 14, 2012 Page 6 10. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 11. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended meetings/conferences and any other items related to Commission activities. 12. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting and is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, December 12, 2012, Board Chambers, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL NOVEMBER 14, 2012 County of -Riverside, District County of Riverside, District II County of River , District III County of Riverside, District IV County of Riverside, District V City of Banning City of Beaune City of Blythe City of Calimesa City of Canyon Lake City of Cathedral City City of Coachella City of Corona City of Desert Hot Springs City of Eastvale City of Hemet City of Indian Wells City of Indio City of Jurupa Valley City of La Quinta City of Lake Enore City of Menifee City of Moreno Valley City of Murrieta City of Norco City of Palm Desert City of Palm Springs City of Perris City of Rancho Mirage City of Riverside City of San Jacinto City of Temecula City of Wildomar Governor's Appointee, Ca!trans Present O .7re .ree igr !oer O O District 8 0 Absent O O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O O O O ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑ pit �v fal q 3g A. erN . (- tUCkVIZA. °I :y I Q.rn. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET NOVEMBER 14, 2012 EMAIL ADDRESS r6m_E(AGENCY '� J i b�� P/319-411 rj( ` rc r i�1 �..3�bih, 6cyt� � y 6„4",,," e- ."J.,e, Cf--- )7I' :4-t-V-- 2 �.-� ., i �,//- . ,U 0 2 c fic4-)-de-- ,01-» ;/- r ciL 6-7,6i rt 21/2�r � lX 6..�%Ld --i M t &GolA I_ A (kfk nrk l 1'11 ?-1 C 7 G _.:I 75-._ 1..,�1G1_ei2 s r � J / ,14-4 7 1;.,�1C. �o-i,� J. 75� Dig gt.,/L.r) °-- �� ,9i�64,,,wy\a / 4.4-(-64_,-___--,--( 7ix....5( 4t-(1- ,,,4/z‘om 7- z o- A a/41,--1..r _yz,v.Q.„..‹,.,1,1.._ C —. y op .,/6x..r/ 4„ a') - J G O_A-1---1.4 .4) L C( 1 / S 1-e'-e.---, - vG._ (�v ,,?:j 1 L. ' 1 Z J 4 .� f pi-Ai10.Ai � ay,Pi4/ 04 $ocia o 1, 10t-T— P:ItS :41-r 1. 3141 cj:-.> ,-,72 /f-7C., I) --yr,,z.-- `.7 . - 1 ,4/(,),-7--- iS 'kr 1 l'i AR'? AGENDA ITEM 5 MINUTES • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, October 10, 2012 1. CALL TO ORDER The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Vice Chair Karen Spiegel at 9:36 a.m. in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At this time, Commissioner Bob Botts led the Commission in a flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Commissioners Absent Steve Adams Marion Ashley Roger Berg Ben Benoit Bob Botts Daryl Busch Bob Buster Marcelo Co Mary Craton Hector Davila Joseph DeConinck Rick Gibbs Berwin Hanna Terry Henderson • Douglas Hanson Jan Harnik Steven Hernandez Frank Johnston Darcy Kuenzi Andrew Kotyuk Bob Magee Scott Matas Greg Pettis Ron Roberts Karen Spiegel Jeff Stone Ella Zanowic John J. Benoit Ginny Foat Glenn Miller Gordon Moller Adam Rush Larry Smith John F. Tavaglione Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 10, 2012 Page 2 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests to speak from the public. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 M/S/C (Adams/Hanna) to approve the minutes as submitted. Abstain: Henderson and Stone 6. PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF A FEE INTEREST IN PORTIONS OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN, FOR FREEWAY PURPOSES, INCLUDING THE WIDENING AND MAINTENANCE ON STATE ROUTE 74 BETWEEN CALVERTAVENUE AND CALIFORNIA AVENUE, IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS At this time, Vice Chair Spiegel opened the public hearing and requested legal counsel explain the nature and scope of the hearing. Steve DeBaun, legal counsel, explained the purpose of this hearing is for the Board to consider the adoption of Resolution of Necessity No. 12-003, for the acquisition by eminent domain of certain real property interests related to the widening and maintenance on State Route 74 between Calvert Avenue and California Avenue. He stated at the conclusion of this hearing, the Board will be asked to adopt the resolution of necessity and he listed the findings. He explained the purpose of this hearing is to consider the need for acquisition of the property and it is not to consider the value of the property. Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board, verified the proofs of mailing, which certify notices were sent to the property owners of said parcel numbers, are on file at the Commission. William Von Klug, Right of Way Manager, discussed the findings and stated the property is necessary due to safety reasons for the SR-74 curve widening project, highlighting the following areas: • The four findings; • A map depicting the project location; • SR-74 curve widening project limits; • A map depicting the combined area of three parcels located along the SR-74 curve; • SR-74 cross section and additional roadway width; • History of efforts to resolve differences with the property owner; • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 10, 2012 Page 3 • Changes to design and unresolved issues; and • Resolution of necessity and the four findings were provided and met. In response to Commissioner Terry Henderson's question about the culvert, Mr. Von Klug replied after meeting with the property owners, it was determined the culvert was not necessary for the project and was removed from the design. Jennifer Harmon stated the Commission received a letter from Sullivan, Workman & Dee, LLP, requesting to continue this hearing for 30 days. At this time, Chair Spiegel called upon any persons with an interest in the property who wish to be heard on this matter. Gary Kovacic, Sullivan, Workman & Dee, LLP, eminent domain counsel representing Daniel and Alan Koby, the property owners of the subject property, explained the initial request was to continue this matter for 30 days to deal with some issues. He expressed the property owners only received 24 hours notice of the second Condemnation Panel Review hearing and staff was informed the property owners could not attend but the meeting still occurred. He supports the findings, but expressed concern about the legal description as the highway is taking all access rights onto SR-74 from the subject property. He expressed concern that in October 2012, staff used offers made in May 2011 based on an appraisal dated January 2011. Chair Spiegel then called on any persons who wish to be heard on this matter. There were no other requests to speak from the public. Chair Spiegel closed the public hearing. At Commissioner Henderson's request, Anne Mayer explained that an action today will not preclude the opportunity for staff to continue working with the property owner and their representatives to address any issues. She stated with respect to access rights, staff will explore that with Ca!trans, however it is very common for state highway frontage to have access rights granted to the state of California in order to control driveway locations. She explained negotiations are always continued after actions are taken with the intent of trying to settle. Commissioner Henderson asked if the negotiations would change depending on the Commission is action. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 10, 2012 Page 4 Anne Mayer stated the Commission's action to adopt the resolution of necessity demonstrates that a settlement is extremely important to the Commission as it is critical to maintain the project schedule. She explained when it is at a point that negotiations have failed to reach a conclusion, staff proceeds with a request for a resolution of necessity to keep the project on schedule. In response to Commissioner Roger Berg's question if the property owners have access rights from the SR-74 to the property, Will Von Klug replied no. Anne Mayer explained any access onto this corridor requires Caltrans' approval. Anne Mayer reiterated staff will follow up with the property owner and Caltrans to clarify the rights. Commissioner Jeff Stone expressed support for acquiring this property as it is necessary for the project. He explained staff had earnest negotiations with the property owners and ongoing negotiations will continue with the property owners. M/S/C (Stone/Henderson) to: 1) Conduct a hearing to consider the adoption of a resolution of necessity, including providing all parties interested in the affected property and their attorneys, or their representatives, an opportunity to be heard on the issues relevant to the Resolution of Necessity; 2) Makethe following findings as hereinafter described in this report: a) The public interest and necessity require the proposed project; b) The project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; c) The real property to be acquired is necessary for the project; and d) The offer of just compensation has been made to the property owners; and Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 10, 2012 Page 5 Adopt Resolution of Necessity No. 12-003, 'Resolution of Necessity for the Acquisition of a Fee Interest in Portions of Certain Real Properties, by Eminent Domain, for Freeway Purposes, Including the Widening and Maintenance of State Route 74, Between Calvert Avenue and California Avenue, in Riverside County, California, and Related Improvements, More Particularly Described as Assessor Parcel Nos. 465-040-018, 465-040-019, and 465-040-020 (Caltrans Parcel No. 22058-11. - 7. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS There were no additions/revisions to the agenda. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Mary Craton requested to have Agenda Item 8E, "Agreement for Station Janitorial Services", pulled for further discussion. M/S/C (Adams/Henderson) to approve the Consent Calendar items. 8A. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT — BEST PRACTICES FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS 1) Appoint the Commission's Deputy Executive Director to serve as the Commission's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator; and 2) Adopt and make available to the general public the Non - Discrimination Notice, the Grievance Procedure, and the Discrimination Complaint form. 8B. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR ON -CALL INTERNAL AUDIT SERVICES 1) Approve Agreement No. 08-19-029-12, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 08-19-029-00, with Bazilio Cobb Associates (BCA) to increase the contract amount $100,000 for additional on -call internal audit services for a total amount not to exceed $330,000 and to extend the term through December 31, 2013; and 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 10, 2012 Page 6 8C. FISCAL YEAR 2011 /12 MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS BUDGET ADJUSTMENT Approve a budget adjustment for an increase in FY 201 1 /12 expenditures related to Measure A local streets and roads allocations. 8D. PROPOSITION 1 B STATE -LOCAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM FORMULA FUNDS — WESTERN COUNTY PROJECT PROGRAMMING STATUS AND NOMINATION REQUEST FOR THE INTERSTATE 15/LOS ALAMOS INTERCHANGE Approve programming up to $3.5 million of Proposition 1 B State -Local Partnership Program (SLPP) formula funds for the Interstate 15/Los Alamos interchange project in the city of Murrieta. 8F. REQUEST FROM VALLEY RESOURCE CENTER, INC. DBA EXCEED FOR MEASURE A SPECIALIZED TRANSIT FUNDS AS CAPITAL MATCH FOR SECTION 5310 PROGRAM Allocate $5,055 to EXCEED in Measure A Western County Specialized Transit funds to provide the required capital match for an additional Federal Fiscal Year 2008/09 Section 5310 program funded vehicle. 8G. IOWA AVENUE AND RIVERSIDE AVENUE GRADE SEPARATION PROJECTS 1) Allocate $2,126,968 in federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funds to the city of Riverside (Riverside) in support of the Iowa Avenue grade separation project; and 2) Allocate $3,208,622 in Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds to Riverside in support of the Riverside Avenue grade separation project. 9. HIGH-SPEED RAIL UPDATE Anne Mayer introduced and welcomed Jeff Morales, Executive Director, California High -Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA), to update the Commission on the high-speed rail (HSR) project. Jeff Morales provided an update on the statewide HSR project, and highlighted the following areas: • A vision for a stronger California; • New 2012 business plan = Better, faster, and cheaper; Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 10, 2012 Page 7 • Better: Three step statewide connectivity plan improves mobility; • Step 1 - Connect San Francisco to Los Angeles; • Step 2 - Modernize and connect local rail systems; • Step 3 - Connections to San Diego and Sacramento; • Faster: System modernization provides tangible results; • Cheaper: System maximizes all funding sources; • Putting Californians to work; • Oversight and accountability; • Partnering with local agencies to create an enduring legacy; and • Southern California Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and action plan. Mr. Morales explained the CHSRA is very conscious of the Commission's operating rights on the Metrolink system and assured Commissioners that this information is brought into all discussions as this project moves forward. He expressed appreciation to the Commission for its commitment to working with the CHSRA. In response to Commissioner Stone's question regarding the technology to be used, Mr. Morales replied the presumption is that it will be electrified overhead on the HSR system with steel wheel technology, however the particular type of technology has not been selected. Commissioner Stone expressed concern about the uncertainty of approximately 90 percent of the funding for this project ever coming to fruition and asked what the $10 billion in Proposition 1 A funding will cover. Mr. Morales stated this funding cannot be spent unless there is a one to one match so the investment actually doubles. Those matching funds can come from any source, such as federal, state, and local agencies, or public -private partnerships, which leverages the Proposition 1 A funds. He explained the current estimate for the HSR system is approximately $68 billion. CHSRA is refining the estimate and evaluating ways to bring the cost down by integrating with existing systems more effectively and private investment is an absolute cornerstone of this program. Mr. Morales expressed construction of any segment will not begin until all of the funding is available to complete that segment and there will not be any unusable infrastructure built as part of this program. Additionally, Jeff Morales stated the CHSRA Board adopted a business plan and the next construction goal is a connection from the northern end of the central valley down to Palmdale. The priority is to close that gap through Tehachapi if the Proposition 1 A funds are matched. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 10, 2012 Page 8 At this time, Commissioner Bob Buster left the meeting. At Commissioner Steven Hernandez's request, Jeff Morales provided clarification on the projects that are eligible to receive $1 billion in Proposition 1 A connectivity funding. Commissioner Hernandez discussed Commissioner Greg Pettis' efforts on enhanced rail service into the Coachella Valley and asked if this project qualifies for the Proposition 1 A funding. Anne Mayer replied the Proposition 1 A funding is specifically for Phases 1 and 2 of the HSR system so a Coachella Valley rail system would not be part of the HSR system and would not be eligible for Proposition 1 A funds. Commissioner Rick Gibbs referred to the Acela Express service along the Northeast United States and its revenue and asked why HSR is a good investment. Mr. Morales discussed the Acela Express, stating it operates at a profit, and there are the differences with evaluating HSR and conventional intercity rail as fundamental differences. In response to Commissioner Gibbs question about difficult terrain, Mr. Morales stated he is uncertain, however CHSRA staff will follow up on the particulars. Mr. Morales introduced Michelle Boehm, the newly appointed Southern California Regional Director, CHSRA. He explained Ms. Boehm is the point of contact in dealing with the stakeholders in Southern California and requested Ms. Boehm follow up with Commissioner Gibbs. At Commissioner Kotyuk's request, Mr. Morales discussed CHSRA's business model is for operating this service. In response to Commissioner Kotyuk's question regarding involvement from other states, direction at the federal level, and workforce training programs, Mr. Morales replied there is growing interest in HSR around the country. He stated part of CHSRA's goal is to remain at the forefront of the program so as additional funding becomes available, CHSRA is strongly positioned to compete. Additionally, CHSRA is working with universities in California to develop workforce training programs and looking at existing federal programs to leverage workforce training and development. He explained the goal is that California becomes the focal point for development of those skills and the technology. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 10, 2012 Page 9 Commissioner Steve Adams expressed concern for the time and costs that may affect the creation of jobs. He asked about the timeframe for the first segment, land acquisition, tunneling, and anticipated ridership. Mr. Morales replied the plan for the central valley is to award the contract in spring 2013 and construction to begin shortly thereafter. The land will be available and the existing funding will be used to build it. There are no tunnels in the initial segment. The next phase is to close the gap across the Tehachapi south of Bakersfield. This segment will have tunneling. The first segment is about 130 miles and the next segment will connect Bakersfield down to Palmdale. He explained he does not have the actual ridership information but the figures are strong and show this service can be run profitably and generate revenues to help fund the expansion. At this time, Commissioner Andrew Kotyuk left the meeting. Commissioner Adams expressed concern about the amount of time and the costs for land acquisitions in California. He expressed the land costs are exceptionally high and environmental is very prohibitive and it will take several years to build. He asked if there are funds available for infrastructure and connectivity to put local people to work immediately. He recommended improving the transit services and acclimate people to ride on trains and other commuter services and bring jobs to this area, which will assist in moving forward with HSR. Mr. Morales replied there are statutory limitations in terms of using these funds. He stated the broad point being made by Commissioner Adams is exactly the direction the CHSRA has been moving this last year. He discussed options that benefit the state as the system is developed over the long term. At this time, Commissioner Greg Pettis left the meeting. Commissioner Roger Berg expressed concern regarding the CHSRA business plan for the Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) participation and the small business goals. He expressed he is not against small businesses and minority participation, however CHSRA needs to be realistic with the larger portions of the project and asked how the CHSRA will deal with it. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 10, 2012 Page 10 Mr. Morales stated CHSRA discussed the small business advocates role and function and that the small businesses are certified, eligible, and connected with the big prime contractors. He stated the advantage of the design -build process is the ability to speak with the bidding teams and receive feedback. He stated the CHSRA and the bidding teams are aware of the goals and obstacles and trying to remove those in order to achieve the goals including potentially breaking out contracts in different ways to facilitate it. Commissioner Botts asked about private investment, the business model, and the return on investment. He expressed concern about the lack of future government funding. Mr. Morales replied CHSRA has detailed economic work to demonstrate what the ridership can be including the costs and results. There has been extensive sounding of the private sector within the U.S. and around the world to determine their interests and to validate the CHSRA's findings. He stated there is a certain reality that the private sectors investors are not going to wait 10 years to determine if there is a return on investment. The CHSRA anticipates the HSR from Los Angeles to San Francisco in about 10 years assuming funding comes in. In response to Commissioner Henderson's request for clarification about connectivity and Proposition 1 A funds, Mr. Morales replied Proposition 1 A is the basis for state funding and it is prescriptive in terms of eligibility for the expenditure of these funds. Part of the approach is to increase and improve rail service throughout the state regardless of the funding source and improve mobility in other regions. In response to Commissioner Jan Harnik regarding travel time and cost, Mr. Morales replied the travel time from Los Angeles to San Francisco would be under three hours and cost about 80 percent of current air fares. Mr. Morales expressed appreciation to the Commission for supporting the MOU and to working with the local agencies as the program advances. 10. PROCUREMENT OUTREACH UPDATE Matthew Wallace, Procurement and Assets Manager, presented an updated on procurement outreach, highlighting the following areas: • The Commission procurement activities; • Measures to inform DBE/SBEs; • Major project DBE goals; • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 10, 2012 Page 11 Marla Modell, Procurement Administrator, presented additional outreach efforts, highlighting the following areas: • Other outreach efforts; • E-procurement implementation; and • The Commission's first Small Business Expo scheduled for November 29 at the Moreno Valley Conference Center. At Commissioner Berg's request, Matthew Wallace provided the details regarding the criteria to qualify as a DBE. Commissioner Berg expressed concern about rising costs of doing business due to DBE goals. Matthew Wallace stated the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP) and the Perris Valley Line commuter rail extension project are federally funded. For every federally funded project, the Commission has a DBE goal applied unless the overall program goal has been met. At Commissioner Berg's request, Matthew Wallace clarified the DBE goals and good faith efforts. Commissioner Berg expressed that for federally funded projects, it will be hard for these businesses to compete and will increase the overall costs of the project. He suggested combining the DBE goals on smaller projects. Anne Mayer stated for federally funded projects, it is required to implement these programs and demonstrate a good faith effort to meet the goals. She explained the major concern is Riverside County's high unemployment rate. She stated with the outreach at the small business fair there are also opportunities in janitorial, landscaping, and electrical services for small businesses, which can be a cost savings. At Commissioner Berg's request, Anne Mayer discussed the small business program, race conscious goal, and the requirements for the SR-91 CIP. Commissioner Hernandez expressed appreciation to staff and discussed his belief that small businesses are going to get Riverside County working again as small business are employing local residents. He then asked about the outreach in the Coachella Valley. Marla Modell replied staff is following other local agencies' events within the county looking for outreach and events that the Commission can be an exhibitor at. She stated she has not seen an event in the Coachella Valley, however staff welcomes the opportunity. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 10, 2012 Page 12 Commissioner Hernandez recommended staff work with Coachella Valley Chambers of Commerce, Coachella Valley Economic Partnership, as well as the Enterprise Zone to help small businesses in Coachella Valley. Marla Modell concurred. Commissioner Marion Ashley commended staff for the procurement outreach program and is interested in becoming a sponsor. Anne Mayer clarified there are no specific goals for veteran -owned businesses and there are no federal requirements for hiring of veterans for the Commission's contractors. She stated U.S. Veterans operate a program that helps returning veterans become integrated into the work environment. Staff has been coordinating with the U.S. Veterans to ensure its workforce development staff knows how to find contracts issued within the county. At this time, Commissioner Bob Magee left the meeting. Commissioner Harnik expressed appreciation for the diversity of businesses the Commission is engaging and requested the contact information as there are expos and conferences in the Coachella Valley. 11. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR 8E. AGREEMENT FOR STATION JANITORIAL SERVICES In response to Commissioner Craton's question regarding the cost factor, Anne Mayer replied there were differences in the proposal amounts for the bids, however the qualifications of the selected and recommended firm's qualifications more than outweighed the differential in the price. Additionally, the value of this contract is consistent with the amount of previous contracts. M/S/C (Henderson/Ashley) to: 1) Award Agreement No. 12-24-086-00 to Spotless Complete Services, Inc. (Spotless) for station janitorial services for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreement, in the amount of $458,283, plus a contingency amount of $45,828, for a total amount not to exceed $504,111; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement, including option years, on behalf of the Commission; and Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 10, 2012 Page 13 3) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to execute task orders awarded under the terms of the agreement. 12. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 12A. Anne Mayer announced the 1-215 South Ribbon Cutting and 1-215 Central Ground Breaking Ceremony is scheduled for October 29 at 2:00 p.m. At this time, Commissioners Daryl Busch and Mary Craton Left the meeting. 13. CLOSED SESSION 13A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) Case Number(s): RIC 462975 13B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Government code Section 54956.9(b) Potential Number of Case(s): One or more There were no announcements from the Closed Session items. 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:35 a.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, November 14, 2012, in the Board Room, at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board • AGENDA ITEM 6 PRESENTATION • AGENDA ITEM 7 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: November 14, 2012 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director THROUGH: . Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Resolution Considering State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project Environmental Impact Report and Approving the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to adopt Resolution No. 12-028, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Considering the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2008071075), Adopting Responsible Agency Findings Pursuant to the California : Environmental Quality Act, Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Approving the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project'. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission has been studying opportunities to improve mobility in the State Route 91 corridor for several years. In June 2004, the Commission, along with the Orange County Transportation Authority, commissioned a major investment study (MIS) to identify a range of feasible alternatives that would improve mobility between the two counties. Following the MIS, the Commission sponsored a project study report (PSR) to further develop and study the possible addition of one general purpose lane in each direction. Simultaneously, the Commission performed an independent feasibility study to determine the financial viability to construct tolled express lanes on SR-91 in addition to the general purpose lanes proposed in the PSR. The Commission approved moving forward with environmental studies for the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP) on December 13, 2006. Environmental Process At its July 11, 2007 meeting, the Commission awarded a contract to PB Americas, Inc. for the development of a project report and environmental document for the SR-91 CIP. The formal environmental impact report (EIR) process was initiated on July 15, 2008, when the notice of preparation was submitted to the State Clearinghouse and made publicly available as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A public scoping meeting was conducted on Agenda Item 7 July 29, 2008 to provide the public and affected agencies an opportunity to identify areas of concern associated with the SR-91 CIP. Additional public information meetings to provide project updates were held on March 3, 2009 and August 26, 2010. The draft EIR/environmental impact statement (EIS) was completed and circulated for public review and comment between May 20 and July 11, 2011. A public hearing to solicit comments was held on June 9, 2011. Written (comment cards, letters, and email) and verbal (public hearing testimony) comments on the draft environmental document were received and considered by Caltrans, Commission staff, and the consultant team. During the official public review period for the draft EIR/EIS, 110 written comment letters and comment cards were received. Detailed responses to comments were prepared and a final EIS/EIR was prepared, approved and certified by Caltrans in its role as lead agency on August 10, 2012. Project Scope and Funding The initial project, anticipated to be complete in 2017, will add one general purpose lane in each direction along SR-91 from SR-71 to Interstate 15. The existing tolled express lanes in Orange County will be extended east from the Orange/Riverside County line to I-15 in Corona. Direct tolled express lane connectors will be constructed from eastbound SR-91 to southbound 1-15 and northbound 1-15 to westbound SR-91 , near the Ontario Avenue interchange. Local interchange improvements will be completed and auxiliary lanes will also be added at various locations The ultimate phase of the project is expected around 2035 and will _include the addition of a general purpose lane in each direction along SR-91 between SR-241 and SR-71 and between 1-15 and Pierce Street in Riverside. Direct tolled express lane connectors will be constructed from southbound 1-1 5 to westbound SR-91 and eastbound SR-91 to northbound 1-15 ending at Hidden Valley Parkway. The tolled express lanes will also be extended between Ontario Avenue and Cajalco Road in Corona. The SR-91 CIP was one of five projects selected nationwide to apply for 2012 Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) funding. The Commission is working with the U.S. Department of Transportation to obtain $445 million in TIFIA loan funds, which is expected to make up about one-third of the project's $1 .3 billion cost. Measure A and toll revenue bonds will fund most of the balance of the project cost. Agenda Item 7 • 2 • • • The Commission's Role as a Responsible Agency In the environmental process, the SR-91 CIP is considered a joint project by Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration, and is subject to state and federal environmental review requirements. Project documentation has been prepared in compliance with both CEQA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Caltrans is the lead agency under NEPA and CEQA for the SR-91 CIP. The Commission is considered a responsible agency under CEQA. As a responsible agency, the Commission must comply with CEQA by considering the final EIR certified by Caltrans. In reviewing the final EIR, the Commission must independently reach its conclusion on whether and how to approve the project. Additionally, the Commission must make its own findings for each significant effect of the project. Finally, the Commission should file a Notice of Determination stating that it considered the final EIR prepared by the lead agency and approved the project in its role as a responsible agency. Staff and the Commission's consultant team led the preparation of the environmental document in close coordination with Caltrans. Likewise, staff and its consultant team reviewed all comments submitted on the EIS/EIR, the most recent of which were dated September 24, 2012, and assisted with the preparation of written responses to those comments. Ultimately, all issues identified in comment letters had been thoroughly analyzed in the EIR/EIS. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, staff proposed that the Commission balance the benefits of the SR-91 CIP against the unavoidable environmental impacts and conclude, based on the whole of the record, that the economic, social, and environmental benefits of improved mobility and reduced travel times of the SR-91 CIP outweigh the unavoidable environmental impacts associated with its construction and operation. A mitigation monitoring and reporting program has been developed and is attached to the resolution as Exhibit "A" and with its implementation, impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level, except for the impacts listed in Section IV of the resolution. Attachments: 1) Resolution No. 12-028 2) SR-91 CIP Final EIS/EIR Available at www.sr91project.info/environmental/environmental eir eis.php To access, please copy the above link into your browser. Agenda Item 7 • RESOLUTION NO. 12-028 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CONSIDERING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #2008071075), ADOPTING RESPONSIBLE AGENCY FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND APPROVING THE STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, in its limited role as responsible agency, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) desires to approve and implement the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP or the Project); and WHEREAS, RCTC participated in the Project Development Team (PDT) in the development and evaluation of alternatives for the SR-91 CIP; and WHEREAS, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is the lead agency for the SR-91 CIP under both the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 21002.1(d) of the Public Resources Code, and section 15381 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), the RCTC is a responsible agency for the funding and implementation of the SR-91 CIP; and WHEREAS; in compliance with the Public Resources Code, Caltrans prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIR/EIS) to analyze the potential environmental effects of the SR-91 CIP; and WHEREAS, Caltrans solicited comments, including details about the scope and content of the environmental information, as well as potential feasible mitigation measures, from responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and the public, in a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR for the Project, which was filed on July 15, 2008 and circulated for a period of 30 days pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines sections 15082(a) and 15375; and WHEREAS, approximately 20 written comment letters were received by Caltrans in response to the NOP, which assisted Caltrans in expanding the issues and alternatives for analysis in the Draft EIR/EIS; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.9 and ,State CEQA Guidelines 15082(c) and 15083, Caltrans held a public scoping meeting on July 29, 2008, to solicit public comments on the EIR/EIS for the SR-91 CIP; and WHEREAS, the Notice of Completion (NOC) of the Draft EIR/EIS under CEQA was filed by Caltrans with the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) on May 19, 2011 and was posted by OPR on May 20, 2011, which initiated a 45-day comment period extending to July 5, 2011; and WHEREAS, Caltrans filed the NOC with the County Clerks in Orange and Riverside Counties on May 19, 2011; and WHEREAS, Caltrans published a Notice of Availability (NOA) under NEPA in the Federal Register on May 26, 2011, for a public review period extending to July 11, 2011; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092, Caltrans also provided an NOC and NOA to all organizations and individuals who had previously requested such notice; and WHEREAS, Caltrans published a "Draft EIR/EIS Available for SR-91" notice on May 20, 2011, in the Orange County Register, the Press -Enterprise and the Inland Valley Bulletin, newspapers of general circulation in the Project area, and La Prensa, a Spanish language newspaper of general circulation in the Project area indicating, the public review period would extend to July 5, 2011; and WHEREAS, Caltrans published a second "Draft EIR/EIS Available for SR-91" notice on June 2, and 3, 2011, in the Orange County Register, the Press -Enterprise and the Inland Valley Bulletin, and La Prensa, indicating the public review period would be extended to July 11, 2011; and WHEREAS, during the 51-day comment period (from May 20, 2011 to July 11, 2011), Caltrans consulted with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and other interested parties pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15086; and WHEREAS, all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts of the SR- 91 CIP were sufficiently analyzed in the Draft EIR/EIS; and WHEREAS, during the official public review period for the Draft EIR/EIS, Caltrans received 110 written comment letters and comment cards; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines sections 15088 and 15089, Caltrans prepared, and, on August 17, 2012, completed, the Final EIR/EIS, which consists of written responses to all comment letters received by Caltrans during the official public review period and revisions to the Draft EIR/EIS; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, Caltrans provided copies of the written responses to all commenting public agencies; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR/EIS consists of the Final EIR/EIS and the Draft EIR/EIS (as modified by the Final EIR); and 2 5 • • • WHEREAS, in its role as lead agency, Caltrans approved the SR-91 CIP on August 8, 2012, and filed and had posted a Notice of Determination (NOD) on or about August 16, 2012; and WHEREAS, the scope of RCTC's approval authority, acting as responsible agency, is more limited than that of the lead agency and it is only acting pursuant to agreements with the lead agency, but RCTC has nevertheless endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision as responsible agency on the SR-91 CIP; and WHEREAS, all requirements of the Public Resources Code and the State CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied in the Final EIR/EIS, which is sufficiently detailed so that all the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project, as well as feasible mitigation measures and a range of potentially feasible alternatives capable of eliminating or reducing those effects, have been adequately evaluated; and WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR/EIS that RCTC finds will either have no impact or are less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section II below; and WHEREAS, the environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR/EIS as potentially significant but which RCTC finds can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the implementation of compensatory mitigation; avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures; and other conditions identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) are described in Section III below; and WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR/EIS as potentially significant but which RCTC finds cannot be mitigated to a level of less than significant, despite the imposition of all feasible measures identified in the Finat EIR/EIS, are described in Section IV below; and WHEREAS, the significant and less than significant cumulative environmental impacts of the Project identified in the Final EIR/EIS are described in Section V below; and WHEREAS, significant irreversible environmental changes identified in the Final EIR/EIS are described in Section VI below; and WHEREAS, growth -inducing impacts identified in the Final EIR/EIS are described in Section VII below; and WHEREAS, alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section VIII below; and WHEREAS, RCTC concurs with the EIR/EIS's conclusion that the Project will result in significant and unavoidable impacts, but RCTC has also determined that the benefits of the SR-91 CIP outweigh its potential significant effects, and the basis for that determination is set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations included in Section X below, which will be adopted as part of the approvals herein; and WHEREAS, the MMRP, which sets forth the compensatory mitigation; avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures; and other conditions to which RCTC shall bind itself in connection with the Project, is adopted in Section XII below, and is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action, RCTC has heard, been presented with, reviewed, and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including the Final EIR/EIS, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings, and RCTC has independently reviewed the record and all of RCTC's findings and conclusions are based this evidence, as well as the findings prepared by Ca!trans, which are incorporated herein by reference, and not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR/EIS reflects the independent judgment of RCTC and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the SR-91 CIP; and WHEREAS, RCTC has not received any comments or additional information that constituted significant new information requiring recirculation under Public Resources Code section 21092.1 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 and recirculation of the EIR/EIS is not needed because no new significant impacts and no substantial increases to existing significant impacts will occur from implementation of the Project, as described in Section IX below; and WHEREAS, on November 14, 2012, RCTC conducted a duly noticed public meeting on this Resolution, at which time all persons wishing to speak on the matter were heard, and the SR-91 CIP was fully considered; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. 4 7 • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION: SECTION I INTRODUCTION A. Project Description As set forth in the Final EIR/EIS (page 2-1), the SR-91 CIP includes capacity, operational, and safety improvements and would widen existing SR-91 from the SR- 91/State Route (SR) 241 interchange in the Cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County. The Project also includes improvements to Interstate 15 (1-15) in Riverside County between the I- 15/Cajalco Road interchange in the City of Corona and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. In addition to the No Build Alternative, the Final EIR/EIS considered two build alternatives (Alternatives 1 and 2) and several design variations for each build alternative. Alternative 2 with design variation f (Alternative 2f) has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the SR-91 CIP (page 2-141 in the Final EIR/EIS). Alternative 2f is also referred to as the "Project" and the "SR-91 CIP" in this Resolution. Under Alternative 2f, one general purpose (GP) lane would be constructed in each direction on SR-91, from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the Cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside. The existing express lanes in Orange County would be extended east from the Orange/Riverside County line to 1-15 in the City of Corona. The existing high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes would be converted to tolled express lanes, and one additional tolled express lane would be added in each direction on SR-91 from the Orange/Riverside County line to 1-15. The Project includes design variation f at the Auto Center Drive/Maple Street, Smith Avenue/Mid-City Access, and Lincoln Avenue interchanges. B. Legal Requirements Public Resources Code section 21002 states that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" Section 21002 further states that the procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects." Pursuant to section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the RCTC may only approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies any significant environmental effects if RCTC makes one or more of the following written finding(s) for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact. as identified in the EIR; or 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of a public agency other than RCTC, and such changes have been adopted by such other agency, or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or 3. Specific economic, social, legal or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. Notably, Public Resources Code section 21002 requires an agency to "substantially lessen or avoid" significant adverse environmental impacts. Thus, mitigation measures that "substantially lessen" significant environmental impacts, even if not completely avoided, satisfy section 21002's mandate. (Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal. App. 3d 515, 521 ("CEQA does not mandate the choice of the environmentally best feasible project if through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures alone the appropriate public agency has reduced environmental damage from a project to an acceptable level"); Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal. App. 3d 300, 309 c[t]here is no requirement that adverse impacts of a project be avoided completely or reduced to a level of insignificance ... if such would render the project unfeasible")) The Public Resources Code requires that lead agencies adopt feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts. An agency need not, however, adopt infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subds. (a), (b).) Public Resources Code section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." State CEQA Guidelines section 15091 adds "legal" considerations as another indicia of feasibility. (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 565.) Project objectives also inform the determination of "feasibility." (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal. App. 3d 401, 417.)-[F]easibility' under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." (Id.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal. App. 4th 704, 715.) Environmental impacts that are less than significant do not require the imposition of mitigation measures. (Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337, 1347.) The California Supreme Court has stated, "[t]he wisdom of approving ... any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. 9 • • Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 576.) In addition, perfection in a project or a project's environmental alternatives is not required; rather, the requirement is that sufficient information be produced "to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned." Outside agencies (including courts) are not to "impose unreasonable extremes or to interject [themselves] within the area of discretion as to the choice of the action to be taken." (Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Com. v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal. App. 3d 274, 287.) C. Summary of Environmental Findings As more fully explained below, RCTC has determined that based on all of the evidence presented, including, but not limited to the Final EIR/EIS; written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings; submission of comments from the public, organizations and regulatory agencies; and the responses prepared to the public comments, the following environmental impacts associated with the Project are: 1. No Impact or Less Than Significant Impacts that Do Not Require Mitigation Project -Specific Impacts Agriculture and Forest Resources: Williamson Act lands, timberlands, permanent impacts to designated farmlands, and temporary impacts to designated farmlands and agricultural operations. Air Quality: Plan consistency, odors, air quality conformity, carbon monoxide (CO) ambient air quality standards, mobile source air toxics (MSATs), serpentine and ultramafic rock, and climate change. Biological Resources: Policies and ordinances protecting biological resources and Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (Western Riverside County MSHCP) Designated Areas. Cultural Resources: Impacts on the Grand Boulevard Historic District, and related to the discovery of cultural resources and human remains during construction. Energy: Direct and indirect effects. Geology and Soils: Septic tanks and alternative wastewater disposal systems. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Airport operations and airport land use plans, and wildland fire hazards. Hydrology and Water Quality: Floodplains; storm drain systems; groundwater supplies and recharge; 100-year flood; and tsunami, seiche, and mudflow. Land Use and Planning: Plan consistency and temporary construction impacts. 7 Mineral Resources: Mineral resource recovery sites and resource zones, and mines. Noise: Construction noise, vibration, and aviation noise. Population and Housing: Growth. Public Services, and Utilities and Service Systems: Public services and utilities, emergency services provider response times, storm drains, and wastewater treatment requirements. Recreation: Parks. Transportation and Traffic: Plan consistency; traffic operations; air traffic patterns, demand, and risks; road deficiencies, and hazards. Cumulative Impacts Land Use and Planning Parks and Recreation and Section 4(f) and 6(f) Properties Growth Inducement Timberlands Environmental Justice Utilities Public Services Traffic — Long -Term Traffic — Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Cultural Resources — Historic Resources Cultural Resources — Archaeological Resources Hydrology and Floodplains Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Topography Hazardous Wastes and Hazardous Materials Air Quality — Long Term 11 • • Noise — Construction Energy and Global Climate Change 2. Potentially Significant Impacts That Can be Avoided or Reduced to a Less Than Significant Level Through Implementation of Mitigation Measures AestheticsNisual: Permanent impacts related to changes in views from adjacent areas and impacts on community character; on pedestrians and bicyclists; related to graffiti; on scenic highways and other scenic resources; and related to lighting, glare, shade, and shadows. Air Quality: Temporary impacts of construction -related equipment and dust emissions. Biological Resources: Permanent and temporary impacts on natural communities of special concern and the plants and wildlife in those communities, coastal California gnatcatcher (CAGN), Steven's kangaroo rat, western yellow -billed cuckoo, southwestern willow flycatcher (SWWF), bald eagle, and waters. Paleontological Resources: Impacts related to the alteration of existing landforms and exposure of fossil resources during construction. Geology and Soils: Permanent impacts related to seismicity and temporary impacts related to soil compaction, erosion, and blasting. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Impacts during construction related to potential soil and/or groundwater contamination at two hazardous waste/materials sites; potential presence of hazardous wastes routinely stored or generated at multiple industrial and automotive facilities within the disturbance limits; asbestos in rails, bearing pads, support piers, expansion joint material in bridges, asphalt, and concrete and road building materials, and other building materials; lead -based paint (LBP) on building and freeway structures and lead in yellow paint and tape used for pavement marking; polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in pole -mounted or pad -mounted transformers and/or light ballasts; potential soil and/or groundwater contamination in soils adjacent to the railroad right-of-way; and creosote and pentachlorophenol in wooden utility poles, railroad ties, and other wood treated objects. Hydrology and Water Quality: Permanent increase of impervious surfaces and a permanent increase in runoff and pollutant loading (including sediments, trash, and debris) and temporary effects to potential Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) jurisdictional areas. 9 Land Use: Impacts related to inconsistencies with General Plan land use designations, pedestrians and bicyclists, and short-term impacts to neighborhoods during construction. Population and Housing. Impacts related to property acquisition. Public Services: Impacts on parks and recreation resources, and temporary impacts on utility facilities during construction. Transportation: Traffic impacts during construction, and impacts on pedestrians and bicyclists. 3. Potentially Significant and Cannot be Avoided or Reduced to a Less Than Significant Level Proiect-Specific Impacts Noise: Long-term noise during` Project operations. Biological resources: Permanent impacts to 0.02 acre (ac) of oak woodlands. Cumulative Impacts Farmlands: Contribution to cumulative impacts related to the conversion of designated agricultural land to nonagricultural uses. Community Character and Cohesion: Contribution to cumulative impacts relating to continuing changes in community character and cohesion associated with removal of existing land uses, displacementof residences, and potentially more difficult travel paths or modified opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclists. Traffic - Construction: Contribution to cumulative short-term impacts on traffic circulation during construction. Visual and Aesthetic Resources: Contribution to cumulative visual impacts related to community character due to new/expanded hardscape, new development/urbanization. Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff: Contribution to cumulative impacts related to increase in impervious surfaces and amount of storm water and other runoff from the sites of all the projects in the Santa Ana River Watershed. Paleontology: Contribution to cumulative impacts related to net loss of paleontological resources. Air Quality — Construction: Contribution to cumulative impacts related to short-term air quality impacts during construction Noise: Contribution to cumulative impacts related to long-term operational noise. 10 13 • Natural Communities, Plant Species, and Animal Species: Contribution to cumulative impacts related to coastal sage scrub (CSS), riparian/riverine, and oak woodlands habitats and wildlife movement. Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States: Contribution to cumulative impacts related to impacts on wetlands and other jurisdictional waters. Threatened and Endangered Species: Contribution to cumulative impacts related to threatened, endangered, and other special status species. Invasive Species: Contribution to cumulative impacts related to invasive species. Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires RCTC to prepare and adopt an MMRP for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to assure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. RCTC adopts an MMRP (Exhibit A) for the SR-91 CIP in Section XI of this Resolution. 14 11 SECTION II FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines does not require specific findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as have "no impact" or a "less than significant" impact. Nevertheless, these findings fully account for all resource areas, including resource areas that were identified in the Final EIR/EIS to have either no impact or a less than significant impact on the environment. RCTC hereby finds that the SR-91 CIP would either have no impact or a less than significant impact in the following resource areas, based on the CEQA Environmental Checklist provided in Appendix A in the Final EIR/EIS and the detailed analyses in Chapter 4, California Environmental Quality Act (page 4-1 in the Final EIR/EIS). Because there are no Project related impacts to these environmental topics, no avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures are required. A. Environmental Factor: Agriculture and Forest Resources 1. Williamson Act and Timberlands: As described in Sections 3.3, Farmland/Timberlands and 4.2.1.1, Agriculture and Forest Resources (pages 3.3-1 and 4-3, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS), Alternative 2f would not affect any Williamson Act contract lands or cause other changes that would result in the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses There are no timberlands in the Project area. For these reasons, no impacts would result. 2. Permanent Impacts to Farmlands: As discussed in Sections 3.3 and 4.2.2.1, Agriculture and Forest Resources (page 4-11 in the Final EIR/EIS), Alternative 2f would result in a permanent loss of Farmlands of Local Importance. This loss of farmland would occur on the north side of SR-91 in the west part of Riverside County and on the south of SR-91 and east of 1-15, as shown on Figures 3.3-2 through 3.3-4 (pages 3.3-11 to 3.3-15 in the Final EIR/EIS). Alternative 2f would result in the permanent conversion of designated Farmlands of Local Importance to nonagricultural uses as follows: Alternative 2f Ultimate Project: 20.7 ac Initial Phase of Alternative 2f: 6.5 ac The permanent impacts of Alternative 2f related to the conversion of agricultural soils to nonagricultural uses are not considered significant because the results of the analysis documented on Form NRCS-CPA-106 (page 3.3-25 in the Final EIR/E1S), as described in Section 3.3, determined that the effects of the Build Alternatives are "...well below the 160-point threshold and should be given the minimum level of consideration for protection." There is no mitigation for land converted to nonagricultural uses by the Project. Therefore, no avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures related to farmlands have been identified for Alternative 2f. As a result, the permanent impacts of Alternative 12 15 2f related to the conversion of farmlands to nonagricultural uses are unavoidable but less than significant impacts. As discussed on page 3.3-17 in the Final EIR/EIS, land currently zoned for agricultural uses would be acquired and converted to transportation uses by Alternative 2f. As a result, the affected local jurisdictions are anticipated to revise their local zoning codes to reflect the change in land use on the affected parcels. This would result in less than significant impacts to agricultural uses. 3. Temporary Impacts to Agricultural Operations: As discussed in Sections 3.3 and 4.2.2.1 (pages 3.3-21 and 4-11, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS), Alternative 2f could result in temporary impacts to farmlands where farmland is used as temporary construction easements (TCEs) during construction. Because agricultural production in the Project study area is very limited, and the temporary Project impacts would occur within and adjacent to existing public rights -of -way, these temporary impacts are not anticipated to disrupt access to farms or farming equipment located off site. The TCEs would not -be available for farmland activities (e.g., cultivation or grazing) during construction of the Project but would be available for farmland uses once Project construction is complete. The temporary impacts to farmland are: Alternative 2 Ultimate Project: 0.1 ac of temporary impacts to Farmland of Local Importance, and 3.5 ac of temporary impacts to Grazing Land The Initial Phase of Alternative 2f would result in no temporary impacts to farmlands. These impacts are considered less than significant because little acreage is involved and because, once the Project construction is complete, the TCEs would no longer be necessary and the farmland would again be available for farming activities. Therefore, Alternative 2f would not result in significant adverse temporary impacts to farmland. B. Environmental Factor: Air Quality 1. Plan Consistency: As discussed in Sections 3.14, Air Quality, and 4.2.1.2, Air Quality (pages 3.14-1 and 4-3, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS), the SR-91 CIP is included in the 2012 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and 2011 Federal Transportation Improvement Project (FTIP). The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) determined that the 2012 RTP and the updates to 2011 FTIP conform to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and, therefore, the SR-91 CIP is consistent with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). As a result, Alternative 2f would not result in impacts related to consistency with the RTP, FTIP, and AQMP. 2. Odors: Road widening projects do not typically produce odors that would affect off -site sensitive receptors. Therefore, Alternative 2f would not result in impacts related to odors (page 4-3 in the Final EIR/EIS). 13 • 16 • • • 3. Air Quality Conformity: As described in Sections 3.14 and 4.2.1.2 (pages 3.14-11 and 4-3, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS), the Air Quality Conformity Analysis for the SR-91 CIP documents that the transportation conformity requirements for the Project have been met. The interagency consultation requirement was met when the PK() hot -spot analysis for the SR-91 CIP was presented to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Transportation Conformity Working Group (TCWG) on September 22, 2009, and April 24, 2012. Opportunities for public review were provided when the Draft EIR/EIS was circulated for public review in May 2011 and when the Final EIR/EIS was made available for public review in August 2012. On June 6, 2012, FHWA approved the Project -level Air Quality Conformity Analysis for the SR-91 CIP. Because there will be no conflicts, there will be no impact in this regard. 3. Carbon Monoxide Ambient Air Quality Standards: As discussed in Sections 3.14 and 4.2.2.2, Air Quality (pages 3.14-15 and 4-12, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS), historical air quality data show that existing CO levels for the Project area and the general vicinity do not exceed the State or federal ambient air quality standards (AAQSs). Alternative 2f would help to improve traffic flow and reduce congestion on road links in the Project vicinity. The Project is in an attainment area for federal CO standards. Using the Caltrans Transportation Project -Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (Protocol), a screening level CO hot -spot analysis was conducted to determine whether the Project would result in any exceedance of the CO federal AAQS. It was determined that Alternative 2f would not result in any exceedance of the 1-hour or 8-hour CO standards. For this reason, Alternative 2f will have a less -than -significant impact related to air quality standards. 4. Mobile Source Air Toxics: The MSATs analysis in Sections 3.14 and 4.2.2.2 (pages 31.4-28 and 4-12, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS) indicates there would be similar or lower MSAT emissions in the study area under Alternative 2f compared to the No Build Alternative in 2035 or Baseline/Existing (2007) conditions due to the improvement in the levels of services (LOS) and the reduction of delay at the Project intersections, as well as improvements resulting from stricter United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) engine and fuel regulations. Therefore, Alternative 2f would not result in impacts related to any criteria pollutant or substantial pollutant concentrations, including MSATs. 5. Serpentine and Ultramafic Rock: As discussed in Section 4.2.2.2 (page 4- 13 in the Final EIR/EIS), the Project is located in Orange and Riverside Counties, which are not among the counties listed as containing serpentine and ultramafic rock. Therefore, the impact from naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) during construction of Alternative 2f would be minimal to none. 6. Climate Change: As discussed in Sections 3.14.5 and 4.3.1.6 (pages 3.14- 40 to 3.14-41), and supplemental analysis, CO2eq emissions are projected to increase over existing levels under both the No Build and Build conditions, -but it is anticipated there will be a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the horizon year with the Project when compared to the horizon year without the Project, because the Project would reduce long-term vehicle emissions by a minimum of 60 tons of CO2eq per day 14 within the SR-91 CIP region and 100 tons of CO2eq per day within the SCAG region. While construction of the Project would generate approximately 25,000 tons of CO2eq during the 60-month construction schedule, these impacts are low over the lifetime of the Project, and will be fully offset within the first 240 to 400 days of completion of the Project due to the reduced impacts under Project operations. Therefore, the Project will not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases, and therefore will result in no impacts due to climate change. C. Environmental Factor: Biological Resources 1. Policies and Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources: As discussed in Section 4.2.1.3, Biological Resources (page 4-4 in the Final EIR/EIS), there are no known local policies or ordinances for the protection of biological resources applicable to the Project segments of SR-91 and 1-15. Therefore, no impacts related to local policies or ordinances for the protection of biological resources would result from Alternative 2f. 2. MSHCP Designated Areas: As discussed in Sections 3.17 and 4.2.1.3 (pages 3.17-1 and 4-4, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS), Alternative 2f is not expected to result in any direct permanent impacts to Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)-designated Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas (NEPSSAs), Criteria Area Species Survey Areas (CASSAs), Criteria Areas, or narrow endemic and other sensitive plant species in those areas because none of those species were observed in the biological survey area (BSA). As a permittee under the Western Riverside County MSHCP, RCTC received a consistency conclusion from the Western Riverside . County Regional Conservation Agency (RCA) on April 4, 2011, that the SR-91 CIP demonstrates consistency with the requirements for covered road projects and other requirements of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. D. Environmental Factor: Cultural Resources 1. Impacts on the Grand Boulevard Historic District: As discussed in Sections 3.8, Cultural Resources and 4.2.2.4, Cultural Resources (pages 3.8-1 and 4- 16, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS), the Grand Boulevard Historic District (Historic District) is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) and the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), is a Historic District designated by the City of Corona, and is a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA in accordance with section 15064.5(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. The Historic District is limited to the public right-of-way. Its primary character -defining feature is its circular design, which is 1 mile (mi) in diameter and was part of the original design of the Corona town site in 1886. The road retains its historic -period width. of 100 feet (ft), as well as many acorn -style street lights. 15 18 Alternative 2f will require the temporary removal of up to seven acorn -style streetlights, with replacement of those streetlights as close to their original locations as possible based on the Project design or elsewhere in the Historic District. They will also include curb replacement and restriping in places within the Historic District. Alternative 2f will also result in the removal of 18 trees from within the boundary of the Historic District, but those trees would be replaced elsewhere in the Historic District in consultation with the City of Corona. As described in detail in Sections 3.8 and 4.2.2.4, based on the Finding of Effect (FOE), the finding for the Project under Section 106 is No Adverse Effect without Standard Conditions. Ca!trans used the information in the FOE to make a determination of the potential effect of Alternative 2f on the Historic District under CEQA. Based on the FOE, Ca!trans determined that Alternative 2f would result in no substantial adverse change/less than significant impact under CEQA even without mitigation. However, as a precautionary measure, a Project Condition and Mitigation Measure CR-1 were added that would further reduce the impacts that are already less than significant as follows: Condition for the Acorn -Style Streetlights: Removal, temporary storage, and relocation of up to seven acorn -style streetlights. CR-1:- Replacement of trees in the Grand Boulevard Historic District. As discussed in Section 4.2.2.4 (page 4-17 in the Final EIR/EIS), the Condition and Mitigation Measure summarized above and provided in the MMRP in Exhibit A would substantially reduce the impacts of the temporary removal of the acorn -style streetlights and trees during Project construction by requiring that the streetlights be relocated and replacement trees be planted in the Historic District. These are not considered adverse impacts because the changes to the historical resource as a result of the Project would be very minor, would be limited to the street right-of-way, and would not be intrusive. In addition, the Project improvements are in an area that has previously been altered and does not retain its historic integrity. As a result, the effects of Alternative 2f on the Grand Boulevard Historic District would be less than significant, and the Acorn -Style Streetlights Condition and Mitigation Measure CR-1 will further reduce those less than significant impacts. 2. Discovery of Cultural Resources During Construction: As discussed in Sections 3.8 and 4.2.2.4, it is possible that previously unknown cultural materials could be discovered during construction of Alternative 2f. While, with implementation of the usual conditions, impacts due to discovery of cultural resources were expected to be less than significant, implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-2 has been added as a precautionary measure. Mitigation Measure CR-2 consists of: CR-2: Discovery of cultural materials during construction. As described in Section 4.2.2.3, this Mitigation Measure would further reduce potential impacts due to the discovery of cultural resources during construction by avoiding further effects on the find until the find can be assessed by a qualified archeologist and 16 19 the appropriate course of action to address the find is identified. The potential effect of the discovery of cultural resources during construction of Alternative 2f would be less than significant, and Mitigation Measure CR-2 will further reduce those less -than - significant impacts. 3. Discovery of Human Remains During Construction: As discussed in Sections 3.8 and 4.2.2.4 (page 4-17 in the Final EIR/EIS), it is possible that human remains could be discovered during construction of Alternative 2f. While related impacts were considered to be less than significant, Mitigation Measure CR-3 was added as a precautionary measure. CR-3: Discovery of human remains during construction. As discussed in Section 4.2.2.4 (page 4-17 in the Final EIR/EIS), Mitigation Measure CR-3 would further reduce the potential impact of the discovery of human remains during construction based on compliance with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and, if the remains are determined to be native American, with Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The potential Project effect related to the discovery of human remains during construction of Alternative 2f is less than significant, and Mitigation Measure CR-3 will further reduce those less -than -significant impacts. E. Environmental Factor: Energy 1: Direct Effects Related to Energy: Direct energy is defined as the energy needed to move a vehicle in the transportation system. As discussed in Sections 3.16, Energy, and 4.22.5, Energy (pages 3.16-1 and 4-17, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS), Alternative 2f would improve the traffic flow in the Project study area and the, greater SCAG region. The traffic analysis for the Project shows that the road improvements would enhance the traffic flow, resulting in an increase in average vehicle speeds and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). This is due to enhanced traffic flow, minimizing vehicle delay, and improving vehicle fuel efficiency. Based on the VMT and vehicle hours traveled (VHT), Alternative 2f would result in a slight decrease in direct energy consumption in the SR-91 study area (3.16 percent in 2015 and 4.15 percent in 2035 as shown in Table 3.16.2 on page 3.16-10 in the Final EIR/EIS). In the larger SCAG region, Alternative 2f would result in a decrease of 2.4 percent in direct energy consumption in 2035 compared to the No Build Alternative (Table 3.16.3 on page 3.16- 12 in the Final EIR/EIS); there would be no change from the No Build Alternative in direct energy consumption in 2015. Therefore, Alternative 2f would not result in impacts related to direct consumption of energy. 2. Indirect Effects Related to Energy: Indirect energy demand assessed for the Project focused on the energy required to manufacture and build the vehicles using the transportation facilities. In the Project study area, Alternative 2f would result in very minor increase (0.67 percent) in indirect consumption of energy associated with vehicle manufacturing and maintenance, compared to the No Build Alternative. However, in the larger SCAG region, there would be no increase in total indirect energy ]7 20 • consumption as a result of Alternative 2f. Therefore, the impacts of Alternative 2f related to indirect energy consumption would be considered less than significant. F. Environmental Factor: Geology and Soils 1. Septic Tanks and Alternative Wastewater Disposal Systems: As discussed in Section 4.2.1.4, Geology and Soils (page 4-4 in the Final EIR/EIS), Alternative 2f would not include any septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems and, therefore, would not result in any impacts related to soils incapable of supporting the use of those types of disposal systems. G. Environmental Factor: Hazards and Hazardous Materials 1. Airport Operations and Airport Land Use Plans: As discussed in Section 4.2.1.5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials (page 4-4 in the Final EIR/EIS), SR- 91 is approximately 0.75 mi from the Corona Municipal Airport which is the only airport or private air strip within 2 mi of the Project limits. However, the SR-91 CIP would not impact or be impacted by operations at this Airport because the runways are parallel to SR-91. Therefore, the Airport would not have any land use or operating restrictions that would affect SR-91 because these types of restrictions are located at the approach and departure areas at the ends of these parallel runways. As shown on Sheet 6 of Figure 3.15-1 (page 3.15-69 in the Final EIR/EIS), the land uses between SR-91 and the Corona Municipal Airport are commercial. In the noise analysis, commercial uses are identified as Activity Category C uses, which are not considered sensitive receptors. Because the runways are parallel to SR-91, the Airport is a general aviation airport with no commercial flight activity, and there are no sensitive land uses between the Airport and SR-91, Alternative 2f would not expose people to excessive aviation -related noise levels. Therefore, Alternative 2f would not result in impacts related to airport operations, airport land use plans, aviation safety policies or requirements, or safety hazards for people residing or working in the Project area. 2. Wildland Fire Hazards: As discussed in Section 4.2.1.5 (page 4-4 in the Final EIR/EIS), Alternative 2f would not elevate the risk associated with wildland fires because freeways generally provide a fuel break for containment of wildland fires. Although fires can cross freeways when humidity and wind conditions allow for it, Alternative 2f would widen the existing freeway by a minimum of one lane in each direction, which would widen the fuel break by a minimum of an additional 20 ft. Therefore, the Project would have no deleterious effect related to the spread of wildlife, and will in fact have a beneficial effect. Although Alternative 2f would not result in increased effects related to wildland fires, Mitigation Measure UES-3 was added to the Project to address concerns raised by California State Parks (State Parks) regarding the potential for fires on the freeway to extend into Chino Hills State Park (CHSP, page 3.1-110 in the Final EIR/EIS). This will further reduce the Project's already less -than -significant impacts. H. Environmental Factor: Hydrology and Water Quality 18 21 1. Floodplains: As discussed in Sections 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, and 4.2.2.6, Hydrology and Water Quality (pages 3.9-1 and 4-18, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS), the Santa Ana River is being improved and relocated north of SR-91 as part of a separate United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) project. Construction of that realignment and bank protection project began in 2009 and will be completed and operational before the construction of the SR-91 CIP starts. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) will be necessary as part of that Corps project to redefine the floodplains for the affected segment of the Santa Ana River. That LOMR will show the 100-year floodplain of the Santa Ana River shifted to the north. In addition, the floodplain that extends through the Wardlow Wash double 12 ft by 9 ft reinforced concrete box that is used as a wildlife crossing would be extended as part of the separate Corps project to meet the new bank protection area. Prado Dam is currently being raised as part of another Corps project, the Santa Ana River Mainstem Project. That project would result in revisions to the existing floodplain near Prado Dam. The analysis of possible floodplain encroachments under Alternative 2f was based on the Santa Ana River having already been shifted to the north and the Prado Dam height having been raised as part of the separate Corps projects described above. That analysis indicates Alternative 2f would not encroach on the Santa Ana 'River floodplain near Wardlow Wash or the encroachment would be less than indicated when compared to the existing Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). Because it is unclear at this time whether or not an encroachment would occur at this location after the Corps projects have been constructed, the analysis assumed an encroachment would occur under Alternative 2f. As a result, the analysis of floodplain encroachment for the SR-91 CIP was based on the existing floodplain, which represents a worst -case scenario. Without the relocation of the Santa Ana River, Alternative 2f would result in an encroachment downstream of Prado Darn at the Green River Golf Club. However, after completion of the Corps projects, which is anticipated to occur before construction of the SR-91 CIP is begun, Alternative 2f would not encroach on the floodplain at this location. Because this analysis of floodplain encroachment assumes the Santa Ana River would be relocated prior to construction of Alternative 2f, it is assumed no encroachment would occur at this location. As a result, no Project structures would impede or redirect flood flows, and impacts would be considered less than significant. Therefore, Alternative 2f would result in an overall finding of less than significant adverse impacts to floodplains related to placing structures that would impede or redirect flood flows, expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, or substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area in a way that will result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding. 2. Storm Drain Systems: As discussed in Section 4.2.2.6 (page 4-17 in the Final EIR/EIS), the storm drain systems for Alternative 2f have been accounted for in the Project design, and improvements were included in the design where necessary. Therefore, impacts to storm water facilities would be less than significant. 19 22 • • 3. Groundwater Supplies and Recharge: As discussed in Section 4.2.1.6 (page 4-5 in the Final EIR/EIS), Alternative 2f would not result in the use of groundwater supplies or the construction of any structures or Project features that would affect groundwater recharge and would have no impacts in this regard. 4. 100-Year Flood: As discussed in Sections 3.9 and 4.2.1.6, Alternative 2f would not include any improvements that would result in the placement of housing within a 100-year flood area and therefore would have no impacts in this regard. 5. Tsunami, Seiche, and Mudflow: As discussed in Section 4.2.1.6, the Project area is too far from the Pacific Ocean to be affected by a tsunami and is not near other bodies of water that could result in flooding hazards such as a seiche or mudflow. The Project will therefore have no impacts in this regard. I. Environmental Factor: Land Use and Planning 1. Plan Consistency: As discussed in Section 4.2.2.7, Land Use (page 4-19 in the Final EIR/EIS), the purpose of the SR-91 CIP is to reduce existing and forecast traffic congestion on SR-91 to accommodate existing demand and approved growth in the area and to facilitate movement of people, freight, and goods. The Project is consistent with the applicable County and City General Plan Circulation Elements and transportation plans. These plans anticipate continued growth in the study area and include specific goals and policies to reduce congestion. The General Plan Circulation Elements either reference improvements to SR-91 specifically or encourage HOV lanes as part of the regional transportation system. Therefore, Alternative 2f is supportive of, and consistent with, these local plans. The SR-91 CIP is consistent with the requirements of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Alternative 2f would not result in direct or indirect impacts to any designated Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) lands in Orange County. For these reasons, Project operations will have no impacts due to conflicts with any applicable plan. 2. Temporary Construction Impacts: As discussed in Sections 3.1, Land Use and 4.2.2.7 (pages 3.1-1 and 4-19, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS), temporary construction impacts to land use during construction of Alternative 2f include disruption of local traffic patterns and access to residences and businesses; and increased traffic congestion, noise, vibration, and dust. Although some businesses could close or relocate during a prolonged construction period, this impact would be localized and would not likely result in long-term changes in land uses. Temporary land use impacts also include lands used as. TCEs. At the completion of construction, those TCEs would be returned to their original conditions and original owners. As a result, the TCEs are not expected to be inconsistent with the existing General Plan designations for those parcels or to result in long-term changes in land uses on the parcels. Therefore, these temporary land use impacts under Alternative 2f are considered less than significant. J. Environmental Factor: Mineral Resources 20 1. Mineral Resource Recovery Sites and Resource Zones, and Mines: As discussed in Section 4.2.1.7, Mineral Resources (page 4-5 in the Final EIR/EIS), the Project limits for the SR-91 CIP are not within a designated mineral resource recovery site. Land for aggregate mining in California is classified by the State Mining and Geology Board. Mineral Resources Zones (MRZs) designate lands that contain mineral deposits. There is an MRZ at the interchange of SR-91 and 1-15 in Corona where available geologic information indicates a likelihood of substantial mineral deposits. The area southwest of the SR-91/I-15 interchange has several active or previously active mines. There is also a mining operation near the Project limits south of SR-91 just east of SR-241. However, no active mines would be directly or indirectly impacted by Alternative 2f. The areas where mineral resources do occur are currently not available for resource extraction due to their proximity to SR-91. No productive oil or gas wells would be impacted by Alternative 2f. Therefore, Alternative 2f would not impact extraction potential or any active mining operations of mineral resources. K. Environmental Factor: Noise 1. Construction Noise: As discussed in Sections 3.15, Noise, and 4.2.1.8, Noise (pages 3.15-1 and 4-5, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS), construction noise represents a short-term impact on noise -sensitive receivers. Receivers currently affected by freeway noise could also be affected by Project construction noise. Construction noise is not considered a significant impact because of its temporary nature and limited nighttime exposure. Sound control will conform to the provisions in Section 14-8.02 of the Caltrans Sound Control Requirements and adhere to the updated Standard Special Provisions (SSP) S5-310, which will be refined specifically for incorporation in the Project specifications during the plans, specifications, and estimate (PS&E) phase. The design/build contractor will be responsible for complying with the applicable Noise Ordinances for the Cities of Anaheim, Corona, Norco, and Riverside, which all prohibit excessive construction noise between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The noise level requirement will apply to the equipment on the job or related to the job, including but not limited to trucks, transit mixers, or transient equipment that may or may not be owned by the design/build contractor. The use of loud sound signals will be avoided in favor of light warnings except noise warnings required by safety laws for the protection of personnel Construction noise would be short term, intermittent, and in many cases largely overshadowed by existing traffic noise. Therefore, Alternative 2f would not result in adverse impacts related to construction noise. 2. Vibration: As discussed in Sections 3.15 and 4.2.2.8, Noise (pages 3.15- 14 and 4-21, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS), highways typically are not major sources of ground -borne noise or vibration. Ground -borne vibration is mostly associated with vehicles traveling on roads with poor conditions, such as potholes, bumps, expansion joints, or other discontinuities in the road surface. Vehicles traveling on those types of road surfaces would cause effects such as rattling of windows, and the source is almost always airborne noise. Because the Project would use new asphalt pavement, there would be no potholes, bumps, expansion joints, or other discontinuities in the road 21 24 • • surface that would generate ground -borne vibration or noise impacts from vehicles traveling on SR-91. Therefore, ground -borne vibration generated by vehicles on SR-91 under Alternative 2f would be considered less than significant. During construction, there would likely be construction activities that could result in vibration effects, including earth moving, pile driving, and explosive charges. The operation of construction equipment can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, specifically ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance from the piece of equipment. Buildings on soil near active construction areas may respond to these vibrations, with responses ranging from no perception to low rumbling sounds with perceptible vibrations and slight damage at the highest vibration levels. Typically, construction -related vibration does not reach levels that would damage nearby structures. These impacts would be temporary in nature and would be addressed with the standard construction noise abatement/reduction measures identified above. Therefore, short-term construction impacts related to vibration or ground -borne noise for Alternative 2f would be less than significant. 3. Aviation Noise: As described earlier, the only airport or air strip near the Project is the Corona Municipal Airport, and there are commercial uses between SR-91 and the Corona Municipal Airport. In the noise analysis, commercial uses are identified as Activity Category C, which are not considered sensitive receptors. Because the runways are parallel to SR-91, the Airport is a general aviation airport with no commercial flight activity, and there are no sensitive land uses between the Airport and SR-91, Alternative 2f would not expose people to excessive aviation related noise levels. L. Environmental Factor: Population and Housing 1. Growth: As discussed in Sections 3.2 and 4.2.1.9 (pages 3.2-1 and 4-6, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS), the Project is in an area that has experienced substantial population, housing, and employment growth over the last few decades. In addition, substantial future growth is projected for Orange and Riverside Counties. A number of regional and subregional transportation improvements, in addition to the SR- 91 CIP, are planned to accommodate the existing and forecasted transportation demand in the area. These other improvements are described in the Major Investment Study (MIS) (page 1-7 in the Final EIR/EIS). Tables 3.25.1 and 3.25.2 (pages 3.25-45 and 3.25-57, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS) provide detailed lists of existing, approved, and planned transportation and land use projects in the vicinity of SR-91 and 1-15. The type of facility and the location of Alternative 2f are not sufficient to result in pressure for additional growth in western Riverside County. Alternative 2f will accommodate existing, approved, and planned growth in the area but will not influence the amount, timing, or location of growth in the area as a result of the type or location of the project. As a result, Alternative 2f will not result in growth inducing impacts. M. Environmental Factor: Public Services, and Utilities and Service Systems 22 1. Public Services and Utilities: As discussed in Sections 4.2.1.6, Hydrology and Water Quality, and 4.2.1.10, Public Services, and Utilities and Service Systems (pages 4-5 and 4-6, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS), Alternative 2f would not result in temporary or permanent impacts to fire services, police protection, schools, wastewater treatment facilities or providers, groundwater resources, , or any public facilities other than parks and utilities (discussed below) because the Project would not provide new housing or increase the population in the area. The Project will require only limited amounts of water for dust control during construction and, similar to existing conditions, for landscaping irrigation. As a result, the construction and operation of the Project will not result in substantial temporary or permanent impacts related to water supplies. Waste materials will be generated during construction and will be disposed of in existing landfills or other waste disposal facilities, consistent with applicable regulations and landfill policies and requirements. During operations, Ca!trans will continue its existing landscaping maintenance and litter collection programs which will generate greenwaste and trash that will be deposited at existing greenwaste collection facilities and landfills, respectively. Because the types and volumes of these materials would be similar to existing conditions, they would not result in substantial temporary or permanent impacts related to landfill policies or capacity. 2. Emergency Services Provider Response Times: As discussed in Sections 3.5, Utilities/Emergency Services (page 3.5-1 in the Final, EIR/EIS) and 4.2.1.10, Alternative 2f would improve traffic throughput and travel times, and reduce delays on the Project segments of SR-91 and 1-15. These improvements would benefit law enforcement, fire protection, and other emergency service providers because Alternative 2f may improve response times for emergency services using segments of SR-91 and 1-15. California Highway Patrol (CHP) enforcement areas are included in Alternative 2f. Therefore, Alternative 2f would not result in impacts to public services. 3. Storm Drains: As described earlier, Alternative 2f includes modifications to existing storm water drainage facilities within the State and local street rights -of -way to accommodate the widened freeway facilities. Alternative 2f also includes other storm water management features in the State and local street rights -of -way which are described in detail in the subsection titled "Major Drainage and Culvert Facilities in Chapter 2 (page 2-15 in the Final EIR/EIS) to accommodate storm water flows off the widened freeway facilities. Those storm water management features would not result in any significant impacts because they would not result in the need for expanded or new storm water drainage or treatment facilities outside the State and local street rights -of - way. 4. Wastewater Treatment Requirements: As discussed in Section 4.2.1.10, the SR-91 CIP was initiated in response to existing and forecast traffic congestion as a result of past and forecasted growth. It does not include the construction of residential or nonresidential uses that would generate wastewater. As discussed in Section 3.2, Alternative 2f would not result in growth -inducing impacts. Therefore, Alternative 2f would not result in impacts related to wastewater treatment requirements. 23 26 • • • Environmental Factor: Recreation 1. Parks: As discussed in Sections 3.1.3, Parks and Recreational Facilities, and in 4.2.1.11, Recreation (pages 3.1-52 and 4-7, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS), Alternative 2f would not result in temporary or permanent impacts to, or increased demand for, local or regional parks that would physically deteriorate these facilities. Alternative 2f does not include construction of new, or expansion of existing, parks. Alternative 2f does not have operation or construction components that would lead to park deterioration. Alternative 2f will have no impacts on recreation. O. Environmental Factor: Transportation and Traffic 1. Plan Consistency: As described earlier, the SR-91 CIP is programmed in the 2012 RTP, which was found to conform by the FHWA/FTA on June 4, 2012. The Project is also programmed in the SCAG financially constrained 2011 FTIP (through Amendment 24), which was also found to be conforming by the FHWA/FTA on June 4, 2012. On June 6, 2012, FHWA approved the Project -level Air Quality Conformity Analysis for the SR-91 CIP. Because the Project is included in an approved RTP and FTIP and FHWA has approved the Air Quality Conformity Analysis, Alternative 2 f would be consistent with applicable transportation plans and have no resulting impacts in this regard. 2. Traffic Operations: Sections 3.6, Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, and 4.2.1.12, Transportation and Traffic (pages 3.6-1 and 4-9, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS) compare the performance of SR-91 and 1-15 with Alternative 2f to traffic conditions in the Baseline/Existing (2007), and the 2015 and 2035 No Build Alternative. Because Alternative 2f responds to and improves existing over -capacity conditions on SR-91, the permanent traffic impacts of Alternative 2f would be beneficial to regional and local traffic, with no resulting impacts. 3. Air Traffic Patterns, Demand, and Risks: As discussed in Section 4.2.1.12 (page 4-10 in the Final EIR/EIS), Alternative 2f will not include any structures that could interfere with designated air space or affect air traffic patterns over the SR-91 and 1-15 corridors and surrounding areas. Alternative 2f would not result in any changes in demand for air travel or any changes that would result in substantial safety risks associates with air travel. Therefore, Alternative 2f would not result in impacts related to air traffic patterns, demand, and risks. 4. Road Deficiencies: As discussed in Section 1.3.2 (page 1-43 in the Final EIR/EIS) and in Section 4.2.1.12, existing design deficiencies on SR-91 were identified. Those design deficiencies and connections to local road networks would be improved under Alternative 2f. Therefore, Alternative 2f would improve the design deficiencies, resulting in a beneficial effect with regard to design, and result in no impacts in this regard. 5. Hazards: As described in Section 4.2.1.12, because there is limited access to SR-91 and 1-15, and the Project segments of those freeways are in an area 24 27 that is mostly urban in nature, there are no uses in or adjacent to the Project limits such as farm equipment that would generate hazards on those freeways. Therefore, Alternative 2f would not result in hazards on SR-91 and 1-15. 25 28 • SECTION III FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT RCTC finds that the following environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR/EIS are potentially significant but can be mitigated to a less than significant level. The potentially significant impacts and the measures which would reduce them to a less than significant level are described in the Final EIR/E1R and are summarized as in the following sections. The complete language of the compensatory measures; avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures; and other conditions included in Alternative 2f to address the Project's environmental effects are provided in the MMRP in Exhibit A and are summarized briefly when cited in the following sections. A. Environmental Factor: AestheticsNisual 1. Permanent Changes in Views from Adjacent Areas, Effects on a Scenic Vista, and Impacts on Community Character: As discussed in Sections 3.7, Visual/Aesthetics and 4.2.3.1, Aesthetics (pages 3.7-1 and 4-22, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS), expanded right-of-way; modified and new ramps, overcrossings, bridges, and concrete barriers; and new retaining, tieback, and sound walls will occur under Alternative 2f. Those Project features and structures would modify the visual quality of the area. Aesthetic features would be considered during final design of the Build Alternatives for retaining walls, sound walls, and bridge structures to reduce potential adverse visual impacts. Landscaping consistent with the 215/91 Corridor Master Plan would be implemented where expanded right-of-way allows. Overall, long- term adverse impacts associated with changes in visual quality in the surrounding areas under Alternative 2f are anticipated to be low to moderate with mitigation. Alternative 2f includes channelizers along SR-91 and 1-15 associated with the extension of the express lanes. This Project feature in Alternative 2f would primarily be visible to drivers along those highways; therefore, the overall exposure would be moderate because of the high number of viewers but low rating of the activity (driving) and duration (seconds or minutes). In addition, the extension of the express lanes would be along highway segments where the adjacent uses are primarily commercial and industrial. Therefore, long-term adverse visual impacts as a result of Alternative 2f are also anticipated to be low to moderate. Community character would be affected by the improvements provided under Alternative 2f. Specifically, the Project would result in expanded right-of-way, which would add additional hardscape, graded slopes, modified and new ramps, bridges, overcrossings, and concrete barriers; and new retaining, tieback, and sound walls. The heights of the retaining walls under Alternative 2f would range from 3 to 40 ft, depending on the location along the alignment. These changes would modify the visual quality of the area by introducing more urbanized and hardscape elements and, as a result, would affect the existing community character. 26 Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would reduce the Project impacts related to visual quality, effect on a scenic vista, and community character to below a level of significance. These Mitigation Measures reflect changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as identified in the Final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures V-1 through. V-4 in the MMRP in Exhibit A would reduce the Project impacts related to visual quality and community character to a less than significant level as follows: V-1: Aesthetic treatments for structural elements. V`2: Landscaping. V=3: Features to reduce light and glare. V=4: Graffiti reduction, removal, and control. Rationale: As discussed in Section 4.2.3.1 (page 4-23 in the Final EIR/EIS), Alternative 2f will include treatments on many of the Project structures to improve the views of those structures as required in Measures V-1 through V-4. Depending on the structure, those may include wall texturing and aesthetic surface treatments, landscaping/plantings (ivy), and anti -graffiti coatings. With the incorporation of aesthetic features for retaining walls, sound walls, and bridge structures during final design, some of the Project impacts to community character would be minimized. Additional landscaping consistent with the 215/91 Corridor Master Plan will also be implemented where existing landscaping is removed and/or where the expanded right-of-way allows. The additional landscaping would further minimize the potential impacts of Alternative 2f to community character. With the implementation of Measures V-1 through V-4, provided above, the Project related impacts associated with the changes in visual character would be reduced to a less -than -significant level 2. Permanent Impacts on Pedestrians and Bicyclists: Alternative 2f would improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the Project limits on the arterials crossing SR-91. In addition, an approximately 200-ft long segment of the Santa Ana River Trail/Bike Lane would be relocated north, further away from SR-91 which would improve the pedestrian and bicycling experience in that area. On local streets that cross SR-91 and 1-15, the widened freeway cross sections would result in wider overcrossings and undercrossings, which would increase the lengths of the roads and sidewalks that are on the overcrossings or in the undercrossings. Therefore, the amount of time pedestrians and bicyclists spend on the overcrossings or in the undercrossings would increase compared to existing conditions. The new parts of the undercrossings would include lighting for vehicles and pedestrians consistent with local standards. However, the segments of those roads under the existing overcrossings would experience a reduction in the amount of natural light, 27 • 30 which could be perceived by pedestrians and bicyclists as adversely affecting their experiences crossing under SR-91. Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would reduce the effects of longer undercrossings on pedestrians and bicyclists under Alternative 2f to below a level of significance. These Mitigation Measures reflect changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as identified in the Final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures T-4, V-1, and V-4 in the MMRP would reduce this impact to a less than significant level as follows: T-4: Lighting in undercrossings. V-1: Aesthetic treatments for structural elements. V_3: Features to reduce light and glare. Rationale: As discussed in Section 4.2.3.1 (page 4-23 in the Final EIR/EIS), Measure T-4 addresses lighting in undercrossings during final design, including the provision of appropriate lighting in the new parts of the undercrossings and additional lighting in the existing parts of the undercrossings if it is determined necessary. Measure V-1 provides for aesthetic treatments on paved slopes at undercrossings. Measure V-3 addresses Project lighting to minimize glare. With the implementation of Measures T-4, V-1, and V-3, the impacts of the widened undercrossings in Alternative 2f on pedestrians and bicyclists would be minimized to below a level of significance. 3. Permanent Impacts Related to Graffiti: As discussed in Section 4.2.3.1 (page 4-27 in the Final EIR/EIS), public structures are often targets of graffiti. The permanent structures under Alternative 2f, including bridges, overcrossings, structural supports, retaining and sound walls, and traffic control devices, may be attractive targets for graffiti. Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would reduce the Project impacts related to graffiti to below a level of significance. These Mitigation Measures reflect changes or. alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as identified in the Final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures V-1, V-2, and V-4 in the MMRP would reduce this impact to a less than significant level, as follows: V-1: Aesthetic treatments for structural elements. VV2: Landscaping. V-4: Graffiti reduction, removal, and control. 28 31 Rationale: As discussed in Section 4.2.3.1 (page 4-27 in the Final EIR/EIS), Alternative 2f will include treatments on many of the Project structures that may deter graffiti as summarized in Measures V-1, V-2, and V-4, above. Depending on the structure, those may include anti -graffiti coatings, wall texturing and aesthetic surface treatments, and landscaping/plantings (ivy). In addition to the measures described above, Caltrans, area cities, and Riverside County have existing ongoing maintenance programs for the control and removal of graffiti_ Those ongoing programs would apply to all new andmodified structures in Alternative 2f, on public and private property, as appropriate. As a result, the potential impacts of the Project related to graffiti would be below a level of significance after mitigation. 4: Permanent Impacts on Scenic Highways and Other Scenic Resources: As discussed in Section 4.2.3.1 (page 4-24 in the Final EIR/EIS), there are no scenic trees, outcrops, or historic buildings adjacent to the Project segments of SR-91 or I-15. Segments of both SR-91 and 1-15 within the SR-91 CIP limits are eligible for designation as State Scenic Highways. Alternative 2f would result in an adverse impact to the segment of SR-91 that is eligible for designation as a State Scenic Highway as described in the Key View 1 impact discussion on page 3.7-19 in the Final EIR/EIS and would result in a decrease in visual quality on the segment of 1-15 that is eligible as a State Scenic Highway as described in the impact discussion under Key View 8 on page 3.7-26 in the Final EIR/EIS. Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would reduce the Project impacts related to scenic highways to below a level of significance. These Mitigation Measures reflect changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as identified in the Final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures V-1, V-2, and V-3 in the MMRP would reduce this impact to a less than significant level as follows: V-1: Aesthetic treatments for structural elements. V=2: Landscaping. V,-4: Graffiti reduction, removal, and control. Rationale: As discussed in Section 4.2.3.1 (page 4-24 in the Final EIR/EIS), Alternative 2f will include treatments on many of the Project structures to improve the views of those structures as summarized in Measures V-1, V-2, and V-R, above. Depending on the structure, those may include wall texturing and aesthetic surface treatments, landscaping/plantings (ivy), and anti -graffiti coatings. With the incorporation of aesthetic features for retaining walls, sound walls, and bridge structures during final design, some of the Project impacts to the freeway segments eligible for designation as State Scenic Highways would be minimized. Additional landscaping consistent with the 215/91 Corridor Master Plan will also be implemented where existing landscaping is removed and/or where the expanded right-of-way allows. The additional landscaping 29 32 • would further minimize the potential impacts of Alternative 2f along the segments of SR 91 and 1-15 eligible for designation as State Scenic Highways. With the implementation of Measures V-1 through V-3, these impacts would be less than significant. 5. Permanent Impacts Related to Light, Glare, Shade, and Shadow: As discussed in Section 3.7 and 4.2.3.1 (page 4-24 in the Final EIR/EIS), existing urban and suburban uses in the study area receive light at night from traffic, street lighting, lighted parking lots, security lighting, signalization at the intersections and freeway on - and off -ramps, and other light sources from commercial and residential uses. Existing lighting on existing streets and freeways would be modified or relocated under Alternative 2f. Except for safety lighting at the interchanges (including additional lighting to minimize the tunnel effect in undercrossings where bridge decks will be widened), no new lighting is anticipated along the Project segments of SR-91 and I-15. Alternative 2f would create new sources of shadow, and shade associated with fill slopes, bridges, and other structures. These shade and shadow effects are considered minimal because very few, if any, sensitive viewers would be in the shade or shadow footprints of the individual Project features. Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would reduce the Project impacts related to light, glare, shade, and shadow to below a level of significance. These Mitigation Measures reflect changes or alterations that Ca!trans has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as identified in the Final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines; § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures V-1 to V-3 in the MMRP would reduce this impact to a less than significant level as follows: V-1: Aesthetic treatments for structural elements. V=2: Landscaping. V=3: Features to reduce light and glare. Rationale: As discussed in Section 4.2.3.1 (page 4-24 in the Final EIR/EIS), Measure V-3 specifically address the design of light fixtures in Alternative 2f to minimize light outside the freeway or local road right-of-way limits. Measures V-1 and V-2 include features that will reduce glare from walls and structures using wall and aesthetic treatments, and landscaping, as summarized earlier. Therefore, with the mitigation described above, Alternative 2f would result in less than significant impacts related to light, glare, shade, and shadow. B. Environmental Factor: Air Quality 1. Temporary Construction Related Equipment and Dust Emissions: As discussed in Sections 3.14 and 4.2.2.2 (pages 3.14-1 and 4-13, respectively, in the 30 Final EIR/EIS), dust and equipment emissions would be generated during the construction of Alternative 2f. Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would reduce the short- term air quality impacts during Project construction to below a level of significance. These Mitigation Measures reflect changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as identified in the Final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures SC-1 through SC-5 in the_MMRP would reduce this impact to a less than significant level as follows: SC-1: Preparation of the Construction Emissions Mitigation Plan. SC-2: Implementation of the Construction Emissions Mitigation Plan. SC-3: Length of construction shown on grading plans. SC-4: Testing of asbestos -containing materials (ACMs). SC-5: Proper removal and disposal ACMs. Rationale: As discussed in Section 4.2.2.2, implementation of Measures SC-1 through SC-5, which include compliance with SCAQMD rules and regulations and Caltrans requirements for dust and emissions Control during construction, would reduce the construction -related air quality impacts from fugitive dust emissions and construction equipment emissions during construction of Alternative 2f to below a level of significance. C. Environmental Factor: Biological Resources The SR-91 CIP is a covered project in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The Western Riverside County MSHCP is a comprehensive, multi -jurisdictional MSHCP which focuses on the conservation of plant and animal species and their associated habitats in western Riverside County and which adheres to the requirements of the Federal and California Endangered Species Acts. The Western Riverside County MSHCP is used to allow participating jurisdictions and agencies the "take" of plant and animal species identified in the Western Riverside County MSHCP and found within the boundaries of the Western Riverside County MSHCP Plan Area through an abbreviated 'authorization process with the wildlife resource agencies. As a permittee under the Western Riverside County MSHCP, RCTC received a consistency conclusion from the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Agency (RCA) on April 4, 2011, that the SR-91 CIP demonstrates consistency with the requirements for covered road projects and other requirements of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. 31 34 As a permittee under the Western Riverside County MSHCP, RCTC is obligated to implement specific conditions, as described in Sections 13.7 and 13.8 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP Implementation Agreement, and to abide by the Section 10(a)(1) permit conditions. Those requirements include: (1) compliance with the policies for the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools as set forth in Section 6.1.2 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP; (2) compliance with the policies for the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species as set forth in Section 6.1.3 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP; (3) compliance with surveys to be conducted as set forth in Section 6.3.2 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP; (4) compliance with the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.1.4 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP; and (5) compliance with the BMPs and the siting and design criteria as set forth in Section 7.0 and Appendix C of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. As noted in the following discussions, many of the temporary and permanent impacts of the SR-91 CIP on biological resources in Riverside County are fully or partially addressed based on consistency with the requirements of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Additional mitigation, as Compensatory Mitigation and/or Mitigation Measures, as needed, is also described in this section for project related effects on biological resources, including impacts on biological resources in Orange County. Compliance with the MSHCP and the additional project Mitigation Measures discussed below for impacts to biological resources would reduce the impacts of the SR-91 CIP to a level of less than significant. 1. Temporary impacts on Natural Communities of Special Concern (Coastal Sage Scrub and Riparian/Riverine): As discussed in Sections 3.17, Natural Communities, and 4.2.3.2, Biological Resources (pages 3.17-1 and 4-24, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS), Alternative 2f would result in temporary impacts on two natural communities of special concern: CSS and riparian/riverine. The direct temporary effects to CSS and riparian/riverine are the disturbance and removal of existing vegetation in areas that would be used temporarily for construction and equipment staging, totaling 8.04 ac of CSS and 1.29 ac of riparian/riverine. The construction of Alternative 2f would also result in indirect temporary effects on the CSS and riparian/riverine natural communities as a result of noise, lighting, and litter. Finding: The Project consistency with the Western Riverside County MSHCP, the Compensatory Mitigation, and Mitigation Measures described briefly below would reduce the effects of Alternative 2f related to the temporary direct removal of, and the indirect temporary effects on, CSS and riparian/riverine. The Compensatory Mitigation and the Mitigation Measures reflect changes or alterations that Ca!trans has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen these potentially significant Project impacts as identified in the Final EIR/E1S. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Compensatory Mitigation: Compensatory Mitigation for the temporary Project effects to CSS vegetation in Riverside County will be achieved through demonstrating Project consistency with the Western Riverside County MSHCP and restoration of CSS 32 35 communities temporarily impacted during project construction with in -kind or better vegetation during and after construction as the construction in each disturbed area is completed. Compensatory mitigation for riparian communities in Orange and Riverside Counties will be required for the Corps Section 404 and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Section 1600 (Streambed Alteration Agreement) permitting. Temporary effects to riparian communities will be mitigated at a minimum mitigation ratio of 1:1 to be replaced on site in kind after the temporary impact has occurred. The final details for the Compensatory Mitigation will be coordinated among RCTC, Caltrans, the agencies, and third -party landowners (where needed for off -site mitigation) as part resource of the permitting process for the Project (Section 3.17A.1, Compensatory Mitigation, page 3.17-28 in the Final EIR/EIS). Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures NC-1 through NC-5, NC-7, NC-9, NC- 17 to NC-19, TE-1, TE-9, TE-11, TE-12, TE-13, TE-14, IS-1, WET-1 through WET-3, and WQ-1 through WQ-4 included in the MMRP in Exhibit A would reduce the temporary effects of Alternative 2f on the natural communities of special concern to a less than significant level as follows: NC-1 Delineation of ESAs outside the project disturbance limits. NC-2: Designation of and monitoring by the Designated Qualified Biologist. NC-3: Vegetation removal outside the bird nesting season. NC-4: Work during the fire season and on -site fire prevention and control. NC-5: Use of developed or non -upland areas for construction staging, equipment, materials, storage, etc. NC-7: Identification of habitat at wildlife crossings and restoration of affected habitat after the completion of construction. NC-9: Lighting directed away from wildlife corridors and other biologically sensitive areas. NC-17: Compliance with the requirements of and guidelines in the Western Riverside County MSHCP regarding proposed conservation areas. NC-18: Compliance with the requirements of and guidelines in the Western Riverside County MSHCP regarding Criteria Areas. NC-19: Compliance with the Western Riverside County MSHCP Construction Guidelines and Standard Best Management Practices (BMPs). TE-1: Designation of and monitoring by the Designated Qualified Biologist. 33 36 • • TE-9: Monitoring for the coastal California gnatcatcher (CAGN) prior to and during construction. TE-11: Restoration of 3.01 ac of CAGN habitat disturbed during construction. TE-12: CAGN Restoration Plan. TE-13: Use of shielded lighting during construction. TE-14: Monitoring riparian and riverine areas during the bird nesting season. IS-1: Development and implementation of a Weed Abatement Program. WET-1: Compliance with the requirements of the Section 404 Nationwide Permit from the Corps. WET-2: Compliance with the requirements of the Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFG. WET-3: Compliance with the requirements of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB. WQ-1: Compliance with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges During Construction. WQ-2: Compliance with the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Surface Waters that Pose an Insignificant Threat to Water Quality. WQ-3: Compliance with the discharge authorization letter from the RWQCB. WQ-4: Compliance with the procedures in the Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks. Rationale: Implementation of the Compensatory Mitigation and the Mitigation Measures summarized above and provided in Exhibit A include protection of undisturbed areas of natural communities in ESAs, restoration of areas of CSS and riparian habitat disturbed during construction with inkind or better vegetation, and compliance with conditions in the Project permits. Measures NC-1, TE-1, and NC-2 will ensure that a Designated Qualified Biologist will be employed for the project and that the biologist will designate ESAs outside the project disturbance limits. Measures NC-3 and TE-14 will ensure that natural communities of special concern will be identified and that construction activities will not disturb nesting birds during nesting season. Measure NC-4 will ensure that construction activities will be limited during the fire season and that on -site fire prevention and control equipment will be available. Measure NC-5 will ensure that construction staging areas will be placed in developed or non -upland areas to protect vegetation. Measure NC-7 will ensure that habitat will be identified at wildlife crossings and the restoration of that habitat after the completion of construction 34 37 activities. Measure NC-9 will ensure that that lighting will be directed away from wildlife corridors and sensitive areas and Measure TE-13 will ensure that lighting during construction activities will be shielded. Measures NC-17 through NC-19 will ensure compliance with the requirements of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Measures TE-9, TE-11 and TE-12 will ensure that CAGN and CAGN habitat will be identified and a Restoration Plan will be developed and implemented for the restoration of CAGN habitat after construction activities. Measure IS-1 will ensure weed abatement during construction activities, Measures WET-1 through WET-3 will ensure compliance with Resource Agencies for permit, agreement and regulations required for wetlands and jurisdictional areas, and Measures WQ-1 through WQ-4 will ensure water quality and protect natural communities of special concern habitat. These measures and consistency with the Western Riverside County MSHCP would reduce the temporary impacts of the Project construction on these natural communities of special concern to below a level of significance. 2. Permanent Impacts on Natural Communities of Special Concern (Coastal Sage Scrub and Riparian/Riverine): As discussed in Sections 3.17 and 4.2.3.2 in the Final EIR/EIS, Alternative 2f would result in permanent impacts on CSS and riparian/riverine communities. Alternative 2f would result in the permanent removal of 25.58 ac of CSS and 0.47 ac or riparian/riverine and permanent indirect effects related to noise, lighting, and litter. Finding: The Project consistency with the Western Riverside County MSHCP, the Compensatory Mitigation, and the Mitigation Measures described briefly below would reduce the permanent Project impacts on these natural communities of special concern to below a level of significance. The Compensatory Mitigation and the Mitigation Measures reflect changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen these potentially significant Project impacts as identified in the final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Compensatory Mitigation: Compensatory Mitigation for the permanent effects to CSS vegetation in Riverside County will be achieved through demonstrating project consistency with the Western Riverside County MSHCP and restoration of habitat suitable for the CAGN. Permanent effects to CSS in Orange County will be mitigated based on the implementation of Measure TE-10 as follows: TE-10: Restoration of 16.03 ac of CAGN habitat Compensatory Mitigation for the permanent effects on riparian communities provides for restoration of affected areas at a 2:1 ratio for those permanent effects, consistent with the Corps Section 404 Permit and the CDFG Streambed Alteration Agreement as required in Mitigation Measures WET-1 and WET-2, respectively, as shown below. Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures NC-7, TE-10, TE- 11, TE-12, TE-15, WET-1, WET-2, WET-3, V-3, and the existing Caltrans litter collection 35 38 • • and disposal program summarized below and included in the MMRP in Exhibit A would reduce the permanent impacts of Alternative 2f on CSS and riparian habitat to a less than significant level as follows: NC-7: Identification of habitat at wildlife crossings and restoration of affected habitat after the completion of construction. NC-9: Lighting directed away from wildlife corridors and other biologically sensitive areas. TE-10: Restoration of 16.03 ac of CAGN habitat. TE-12: CAGN Restoration Plan. TE-15: Potential features to minimize light and fire risk at Coal Canyon. WET-1: Compliance with the requirements of the Section 404 Nationwide Permit from the Corps. WET-2: Compliance with the requirements of the. Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFG. WET-3: Compliance with the requirements of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB. V=3: Shielded lighting with non -glare hoods. Existing Caltrans litter collection and disposal program. Rationale: The permanent effects of Alternative 2f on the CSS and riparianlriverine natural communities would be reduced to below a level of significance based on consistency with the Western Riverside County MSHCP, implementation of Compensatory Mitigation focusing on restoration of habitat to replace habitat permanently removed by the Project, and project features to minimize indirect impacts as required in the Mitigation Measures described above and listed in Exhibit A. Measure NC-7 ensures that the Designated Biologist will identify habitat at the wildlife crossings and that habitat in those areas affected by the project construction activities will be restored with native vegetation at a 1:1 ratio. Measure NC-9 will ensure that lighting is directed away from wildlife corridors and biologically sensitive areas. Measures TE-10 and TE-12 will ensure that 16.03 ac of CAGN habitat is restored and a CAGN Restoration Plan is developed and implemented. Measure TE-15 will minimize light intrusion and fire risk at Coal Canyon. Measures WET-1 through WET-3 will ensure compliance with resource agencies permit and agreement conditions for wetlands and other waters. Measure V-3 will ensure that light fixtures have non -glare hoods and only illuminate the right-of-way. Caltrans will continue its on -going litter collection and disposal program. As a result of these measures, the impacts of the construction and operation of the Project on wildlife crossings would be reduced to less than significant. 36 3. Temporary Impacts on Wildlife Movement: As discussed in Sections 3.17 and 4.2.3.2 in the Final EIR/EIS, Alternative 2f would result in indirect temporary impacts on wildlife corridors during project construction related to construction noise and other disturbances near wildlife corridors. Finding: The Mitigation Measures described briefly below would reduce the temporary indirect impacts of the project construction on wildlife movement to below a level of significance. The Mitigation Measures reflect changes or alterations that Ca!trans has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen these potentially significant Project impacts as identified in the Final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures NC-1, NC-2, NC-6, NC-8, NC-9, NC-10, NC-11, NC-12, NC-13, NC-14, NC-15, NC-16, NC-19, TE-7, and IS-1 summarized below and included in the MMRP in Exhibit A, would reduce the temporary impacts of Alternative 2f on wildlife movement as follows: NC-1: Delineation of ESAs including in the vicinity of wildlife crossings. NC-2: Designation of and monitoring by the Designated Qualified Biologist. NC-6: Wildlife fencing. NC-8: Construction activities away from wildlife corridor entrances. NC-9: Lighting directed away from wildlife corridors and other biologically sensitive areas. NC-10: Keep wildlife crossings clear of all equipment and structures. NC-11: Design and construction of culverts and overcrossings with appropriate openness ratios. NC-12: Limits on construction hours at wildlife crossings. NC-13: Avoid blocking undercrossings and culverts during construction. NC-14: Limits on construction staging at/near the Coal Canyon wildlife crossing. NC-15: Use of on- and off -ramps at Coal Canyon for emergency vehicles only and limits on night hauling. NC-16: closure of gates at Coal Canyon at the end of each construction day. NC-19: Compliance with the Western Riverside County MSHCP Construction Guidelines and Standard BMPs. 37 40 • • TE-7: Limits on construction hours at at Coal Canyon, Wardlow Wash, and Fresno Canyon. IS-1: Development and implementation of a Weed Abatement Program. Rationale: Implementation of the Mitigation Measures described above and listed in the MMRP in Exhibit A would reduce the temporary impacts of the Project construction on wildlife corridors by restricting activities in and around wildlife corridors and other actions to protect wildlife and wildlife movement in those areas during project construction to a level of less than significant. 4. Permanent Impacts on Wildlife Movement: As discussed in Sections 3.17 and 4.2.3.2 in the Final EIR/EIS, Alternative 2f would result in permanent widening of some wildlife crossings which would not be adverse impacts. Alternative 2f would result in some permanent indirect impacts on wildlife crossings as a result of noise (minor), lighting, and litter. Finding: The Mitigation Measures described briefly below would reduce the permanent indirect project impacts on wildlife movement to below a level of significance. The Mitigation Measures reflect changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen these potentially significant Project impacts as identified in the Final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures NC-6, NC-7, NC-9, NC-11, TE-15, IS-1, and the existing Caltrans litter collection and disposal program, included in the MMRP in Exhibit A, would reduce the permanent indirect impacts of Alternative 2f on wildlife movement to below a level of significance as follows: NC-6: Existing and new wildlife fencing. NC-7: Identification of habitat at wildlife crossings and restoration of affected habitat after the completion of construction. NC-9: Lighting directed away from wildlife corridors and other biologically sensitive areas. NC-11: Design and construction of culverts and overcrossings with appropriate openness ratios. TE-15: Potential features to minimize light and fire risk at Coal Canyon. IS-1: Development and implementation of a Weed Abatement Program. Caltrans existing litter collection and disposal program. 38 In addition to these Mitigation Measures, the Compensatory Mitigation and the Mitigation Measures described earlier for CSS and riparian/riverine natural communities would also benefit wildlife and wildlife crossings where those natural communtiies occur at the wildlife crossings and are restored as part of the Project. Rationale: The operation of the Project would not result in permanent direct adverse impacts on wildlife crossings based on the design and construction of modified overcrossings and culverts with appropriate openness ratios. The Mitigation Measures summarized above and listed in the MMRP in Exhibit A and the Compensatory Mitigation and the Mitigation Measures described earlier for the permanent Project effects on CSS and riparian/riverine natural communities would reduce the indirect project effects on wildlife near and around the wildlife crossings related to wildlife mortality, noise, light, openness ratios, and invasive species in restoration areas to less than significant levels of based on the project features required in those measures to reduce -those effects and restoration of habitat at wildlife crossings. Specifically, Measure NC-6 requires the protection of existing wildlife fencing and the provision of and new wildlife fencing in the vicinty of wildlife crossings to direct wildlife to the crossings and away from the roads. Measure NC-7 ensures that the Designated Biologist will identify habitat at the wildlife crossings and that habitat in those areas affected by the project construction activities will be restored with native vegetation at a 1:1 ratio. Measure NC-9 will ensure that lighting is directed away from wildlife corridors and biologically sensitive areas. Measure NC-11 requries that the culverts and overcrossings be designed and constructed with appropriate openness ratios for wildlife. Measure TE-15 will minimize light intrusion and fire risk at Coal Canyon. Measure IS-1 requires the development and implementation of a Weed Abatement Program to reduce the introduction and spread of invasive species outside the proejct right-of-way and into adjacent native plant communities. Caltrans will continue its on- going litter collection and disposal program. As a result of these measures, the permanent indirect impacts of the operation of the Project on wildlife crossings would be reduced to less than significant. 5. Permanent Impacts on Special -Status Plant Species — Southern California Black Walnut and Coulter's Matilija Poppy: As discussed in Sections 3.19, Plant Species and 4.2.2.3, Biological Resources (pages 3.19-1 and 4-13, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS), permanent impacts to two special -status plant species (Southern California black walnut and Coulter's matilija poppy) would occur as a result of Alternative 2f. The Project would result in the permanent removal of the Southern California black walnut trees on 0.735 ac in Orange and Riverside Counties, and the Coulter's matilija poppy in two areas totalling 0.331 ac in Riverside County. Finding: The Project consistency with the Western Riverside County MSHCP and the Mitigation Measures described briefly below would reduce the permanent project impacts on these two special -status plant species to below a level of significance. The Mitigation Measures reflect changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen these potentially significant Project impacts as identified in the Final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) 39 42 • Mitigation Measures: The Project consistency with the Western Riverside County MSHCP regarding special -interest plant species, including Southern California black walnut and Coulter's matilija poppy, and implementation of Mitigation Measure PS-1, for the impacts to Southern California black walnut and Coulter's matilija poppy in Orange and Riverside Counties, included in the MMRP in Exhibit A, would substantially reduce the permanent impacts of Alternative 2f on these two special -status plant species, to below a level of significance as follows: PS-1: Planting of replacement trees and shrubs at appropriate locations Rationale: The Western Riverside County MSHCP specifically addresses project effects on special -status plant species. Alternative 2f is consistent with the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Consistency with the Western Riverside County MSHCP addresses the Project effects on the two areas of poppies impacted by the project because those areas are both in Riverside County. Consistency with the Western Riverside County MSHCP addresses the Project effects on only part of the area occupied by black walnut trees because only part of that area is in Riverside County. Measure PS-1 requires planting of replacement trees and shrubs at appropriate locations, including replacement of Southern California black walnut trees and Coulter's matilija poppies removed by the Project in both Riverside and Orange Counties. As a result, the permanent Project effects on the Southern California black walnut and Coulter's matilija poppy are mitigated to below a level of significance. 6. Temporary Impacts on Burrowing Owl and Other Special Status -Animal Species: As discussed in Sections 3.20, Animal Species, and 4.2.2.3 (pages 3.21-1 and 4-13, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS), temporary impacts due to the unavailablity of potential habitat during construction on the burrowing owl and other special -status animal species could occur during construction of Alternative 2f. Finding: The Project consistency with the Western Riverside County MSHCP and the Mitigation Measures described briefly below would reduce the temporary project impacts on the burrowing owl and other special -status animal species to below a level of significance. The Mitigation Measures reflect changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into., the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen these potentially significant Project impacts as identified in the Final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation Measures: The temporary impacts to the burrowing owl and other special -status animal species would be substantially mitigated, to below a level of significance, as a result of the Project consistency with the Western Riverside County MSHCP and implementation of Mitigation Measures AS-1 through AS-8 as follows: AS-1: Identification of burrowing owl habitat on the project plans and preconstruction surveys. 40 AS-2: Identification of bat habitat on the project plans and preconstruction surveys. AS-3: Temporary bat exclusion devices. AS-4: Construction on bridges during the day. AS-5: Protection of riparian vegetation near bat roosting areas. AS-6: Removal of bird nests prior to February 1. AS-7: Alternative roosting habitat. AS-8: Silt fencing at Coal Canyon and CHSP. Rationale: The Western Riverside County MSHCP specifically addresses project effects on special -status animal species. Alternative 2f is consistent with the Western Riverside County MSHCP. In addition, Measures AS-1 through AS-8 require pre -construction and contruction activities to identify and minimize direct effects on special -status animal species, as shown in Exhibit A. Specifically, Measures AS-1 and AS-2 require the identification of burrowing owl and bat habitat, respectively, on the project plans and preconstruction surveys: Measure AS-3 requires the use of temporary bat exclusion devices during construction. Measure AS-4 requires that construction on bridges be conducted during the day to aovid impacts to bats. Measure AS-5 requires the protection of riparian vegetation near bat roosting areas. Measure AS-6 requires the removal of bird nests prior to February 1 to avoid impacts to nesting birds. Measure AS-7 requires the provision of permanent alternative bat roosting habitat if othe roosting habitat is not provided on bridges and structures. Measure AS-8 requires the use of silt fencing at Coal Canyon and CHSP. As a result, the Project's temporary and permanent impacts on the burrowing owl and other special status species will be reduced to below a level of significance. 7. Permanent Impacts on Burrowing Owl and Other Special -Status Animal Species: As discussed in Sections 3.20 and 4.2.2.3 in the Final EIR/EIS, Alternative 2f would result in permanent indirect impacts to the burrowing owl and other special -status animal species due to the permanent loss and/or fragmentation of habitat. Finding: The Project consistency with the Western Riverside County MSHCP and the Mitigation Measures described briefly below would reduce the permanent project impacts on the burrowing owl and other special -status animal species to below a level of significance. The Mitigation Measures reflect changes or alterations that Ca!trans has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen these potentially significant Project impacts as identified in the final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) 41 44 • Mitigation Measures: The permanent impacts to the burrowing owl and other special -status animal species would be substantially mitigated, to below a level of significance, as a result of the Project consistency with the Western Riverside County MSHCP and implementation of Mitigation Measure AS-7, as follows: AS-7: Alternative roosting habitat. Rationale: The Western Riverside County MSHCP specifically addresses project effects on special -status animal species. Alternative 2f is fully consistent with the Western Riverside County MSHCP. In addition, Measure AS-7 requires the provision of alternative bat roosting areas if existing roost areas are permanently removed by the Project. Consistency with the Western Riverside County MSHCP and implementation of Mitigation Measure AS-7 will reduce the permanent project impacts on burrowing owl and other special status species to a level of less than significant. 8. Temporary Impacts on Threatened and Endangered Species - Braunton's Milk -Vetch: As discussed in Sections 3.21, Threatened and Endangered Species and 4.2.2.3, Biological Resources (pages 3.21-1 and 4-13, respectively, in the Final EIR/E1S), temporary indirect impacts to one endangered plant species, Braunton's milk -vetch, would occur during construction of Alternative 2f. Finding: The Project consistency with the Western Riverside County MSHCP and the Mitigation Measures described briefly below would reduce the temporary indirect project impacts on Braunton's milk -vetch to below a level of significance. The Mitigation Measures reflect changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen these potentially significant Project impacts as identified in the Final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation Measures: The temporary indirect impacts to Braunton's milk -vetch would be substantially mitigated, to below a level of significance, based on consistency with the Western Riverside County MSHCP and the implementation of Mitigation Measures TE-1, TE-1, TE-3, and TE-8 as follows: TE-1: Designation of and monitoring by the Designated Qualified Biologist. TE-2: Watering disturbed areas during construction. TE-3: Use of biodegradable materials for erosion and sediment control devices. TE-8: Pre -construction survey for Braunton's milk -vetch. Rationale: The temporary indirect effects of Alternative 2f on Braunton's milk - vetch would be reduced to below a level of significance based on implementation of the Mitigation Measures described above and shown in Exhibit A which require pre - construction and contruction activities to identify and minimize indirect effects on this plant species. Specifically, Measure TE-1 requires monitoring by the Designated Qualified Biologist, including monitoring of potenytial for indirect impacts on sensitive 42 biological resources including Braunton's milk -vetch. Measure TE-2 requires watering of areas disturbed during construction to minimize dust on adjacent sensitive biological resources including Braunton's milk -vetch. Measure TE-3 requires the use of biodegradable materials for erosion and sediment control devices to minimize effects of other types of materials on adjacent biological resources inlciuding Braunton's milk- vetch. Measure TE-8 requires a pre -construction survey for Braunton's milk -vetch in areas in Coal Canyon where that plant historically occurred and coordination with the USFWS regarding measures to avoid and minimize impacts to this species in the event it is found in the construction disturbance limits during the pre -construction survey . 9. Temporary Impacts on Threatened and Endangered Species — California Gnatcatcher: As discussed in Sections 3.21 and 4.2.2.3 in the Final EIR/EIS; temporary direct and indirect impacts to the CAGN would occur during construction of Alternative 2f. The project construction would result in temporary impacts to 2.09 ac of designated critical habitat for the CAGN and temporary indirect impacts related to noise (minor), vibration, dust, and the presence of humans. Finding: The Project consistency with the Western Riverside County MSHCP, restoration of disturbed habitat, and the Mitigation Measures described briefly below would reduce the temporary project impacts on the CAGN to below a level of significance. The Mitigation Measures reflect changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen these potentially significant Project impacts as identified in the Final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation Measures: The temporary direct and indirect impacts to the -CAGN would be substantially mitigated, to below a level of significance, based on consistency with the Western Riverside County MSHCP, the restoration of disturbed habitat, and the implementation of Mitigation Measures TE-1 through TE-7, TE-9, and TE-11 through TE-13 as follows: TE-1: Designation of and monitoring by the Designated Qualified Biologist. TE-2: Watering site during construction. TE-3: Use of biodegradable materials for erosion and sediment control devices. TE-4: Noise control during construction. TE-5: Noise control during construction. TE-6: Noise control during construction. TE-7: Limits on construction hours at Coal Canyon, Wardlow Wash, and Fresno Canyon. TE-9: Monitoring for CAGN during construction. 43 46 • • TE-11: Restoration of 3.01 ac of CAGN habitat. TE-12: CAGN Restoration Plan. TE-13: Use of shielded lighting during construction. In addition to these Mitigation Measures, the Compensatory Mitigation and the Mitigation Measures described earlier for CSS would also benefit the CAGN where restored CSS is provided as part of the Project. Rationale: The temporary direct and indirect effects of Alternative 2f on CAGN would be reduced to below a level of significance based on consistency with the Western Riverside County MSHCP and implementation of the Mitigation Measures described above and listed in the MMRP in Exhibit A which require restoration of habitat areas impacted by the project construction and pre -construction and contruction activities to identify and minimize the direct and indirect temporary effects on the CAGN. 10. Permanent Impacts on Threatened and Endangered Species — California Gnatcatcher: As discussed in Sections 3.21 and 4.2.2.3 in the Final EIR/EIS, permanent direct impacts to the CAGN would occur as a result of of Alternative 2f. The Project would permanently remove 6.32 ac of designated CAGN critical habitat. Finding: The Project consistency with the Western Riverside County MSHCP, restoration of disturbed habitat, and the Mitigation Measures described briefly below would reduce the permanent project impacts on CAGN to below a level of significance. The Mitigation Measures reflect changes or alterations that Ca!trans has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen these potentially significant Project impacts as identified in the Final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation Measures: The permanent impacts to CAGN would be substantially mitigated, to below a level of significance, as a result of the Project consistency with the Western Riverside County MSHCP and implementation of Mitigation Measures TE-10 and TE-15 as follows: TE-10: Restoration of 16.03 ac of habitat suitable for CAGN. TE-15: Potential features to minimize light and fire risk at Coal Canyon. Rationale: The Western Riverside County MSHCP specifically addresses project effects on animal species including CAGN. Alternative 2f is consistent with the Western Riverside County MSHCP. In addition, Mitigation Measure TE-10 requires restoration of of CAGN habitat to replace habitat used by the project and Mitigation Measure TE-15 requires consideration of potential features to minimize light and fire risk at Coal Canyon which would protect CAGN in that area. Implementation of these measures would reduce permanent impacts on CAGN to a level of less than significant. 44 47 11. Temporary Impacts on Threatened and Endangered Species — Least Bell's Vireo: As discussed in Sections 3.21 and 4.2.2.3 in the Final EIR/EIS, temporary direct and indirect impacts to the least Bell's vireo (LBV) would occur during construction of Alternative 2f. The project construction would result in temporary impacts to 1.29 ac of riparian/riverine habitat and temporary indirect impacts related to noise (minor), vibration, dust, and the presence of humans. Finding: The Project consistency with the Western Riverside County MSHCP, restoration of disturbed habitat, and the Mitigation Measures described briefly below would reduce the temporary project impacts on LBV to below a level of significance. The Mitigation Measures reflect changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen these potentially significant Project impacts as identified in the Final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation Measures: The temporary direct and indirect impacts to LBV would be substantially mitigated, to below a level of significance, based on the implementation of Mitigation Measures TE-1 through TE-7, and TE-13 through TE-15 as follows TE-1: Designation of and monitoring by the Designated Qualified Biologist. TE-2: Watering site during construction. TE-3: Use of biodegradable materials for erosion and sediment control devices: TE-4: Noise control during construction. TE-5: Noise control during construction. TE-6: Noise control during construction. TE-7: Limits on construction hours at Coal Canyon, Wardlow Wash, and Fresno Canyon. TE-13: Use of shielded light during construction. TE-14: Monitoring riparian and riverine areas during the bird nesting season. TE-15: Potential features to minimize light and fire risk at Coal Canyon. In addition to these Mitigation Measures, the Compensatory Mitigation and Mitigation Measures described earlier for riparian/riverine natural communties would also benefit the LBV where restored riparian/riverine is provided as part of the Project. Rationale: The temporary direct and indirect effects of Alternative 2f on LBV would be reduced to below a lever of significance based on consistency with the Western Riverside County MSHCP and implementation of the Compensatory Mitigation and the Mitigation Measures described above which require pre -construction and 45 48 • contruction activities to identify and minimize direct and indirect effects on LBV and the riparian/riverine natural communities. The monitoring required by a Designated Qualified Biologist in Measures TE-1 and TE-14 would ensure that LBV and habitat used by LBV will be identified and that construction activities will not disturb nesting LBV during nesting season. Measure TE-2 ensures that construction sites adjacent to identified LBV habitat areas will be watered for dust control to protect vegetation. Measure TE-3 will ensure that no LBV or LBV habitat is affected by erosion and sediment control devices. Measures TE-4 through TE-6 will ensure that construction noise will be controlled adjacent to identified LBV habitat. Measure TE-7 will limit construction hours at Coal Canyon, Wardlow Wash, and Fresno Canyon so not to disturb LBV or LBV habitat. Measures TE-13 and TE-15 will minimize light intrusion to LBV habitat, including habitat in Coal Canyon and fire risk in Coal Canyon. As a result, the temporary project impacts to LBV and LBV habitat would be reduced to less than significant. 12. Permanent Impacts on Threatened and Endangered Species - Least Bell's Vireo: As discussed in Sections 3.21 and 4.2.2.3 in the Final EIR/EIS), permanent direct impacts to 0.94 ac of occupied LBV habitat would occur as a result of Alternative 2f. Finding: The Project consistency with the Western Riverside County MSHCP, restoration of disturbed habitat and the Compensatory Mitigation and Mitigation Measures described briefly below would reduce the permanent project impacts on LBV to below a level of significance. The Compensatory Mitigation and the Mitigation Measures reflect changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen these potentially significant Project impacts as identified in the Final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines'§ 15091(a)(1).) Compensatory Mitigation and Mitigation Measures: The Compensatory Mitigation and the Mitigation Measures described earlier for the riparian/riverine natural community would also reduce the permanent project effects on LBV. Rationale: The Western Riverside County MSHCP specifically addresses project effects on animal species, including the LBV. Alternative 2f is consistent with the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The Compensatory Mitigation and Mitigation Measures for riparian/riverine described earlier would also reduce the project effects on LBV. As a result, the permanent project effects on LBV are mitigated to below a level of significance. 13. Temporary Impacts on Threatened and Endangered Species - Western Yellow -Billed Cuckoo, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, and Bald Eagle: As discussed in Sections 3.21 and 4.2.2.3 in the Final EIR/EIS, temporary direct and indirect impacts to these threatened and endangered bird species would occur during construction of Alternative 2f. The project construction would result in temporary impacts to 1.29 ac of riparian/riverine habitat and temporary indirect impacts related to noise (minor), vibration, dust, and the presence of humans. 46 Finding: The Project consistency with the Western Riverside County MSHCP, restoration of disturbed habitat and the Mitigation Measures described briefly below would reduce the permanent project impacts on these bird species to below a level of significance. The Mitigation Measures reflect changes or alterations that Ca!trans has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen these potentially significant Project impacts as identified in the Final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation Measures: The temporary project impacts to these bird species would be substantially mitigated, to below a level of significance, based on implementation of Mitigation Measures TE-1 through TE-7, TE-13, TE-14, and TE-15 as follows: TE-1: Designation of and monitoring by the Designated Qualified Biologist. TE-2: Watering site during construction. TE-3: Use of biodegradable materials for erosion and sediment control devices. TE-4: Noise control during construction. TE-5: Noise control during construction. TE-6: Noise control during construction. TE-7: Limits on construction hours at Coal Canyon, Wardlow Wash, and Fresno Canyon. TE-13: Use of shielded light during construction. TE-14: Monitoring riparian and riverine areas during the bird nesting season. TE-15: Potential features to minimize light and fire risk at Coal Canyon. In addition to these Mitigation Measures, the Compensatory Mitigation and Mitigation Measures described earlier for riparian/riverine natural communties would also benefit these bird species where restored riparian/riverine is provided as part of the Project. Rationale: The temporary direct and indirect effects of Alternative 2f on these bird species would be reduced to below a level of significance based on consistency with the Western Riverside County MSHCP and implementation of the Compensatory Mitigation and the Mitigation Measures described above which require pre -construction and construction activities to identify and minimize direct and indirect effects on these bird species and the riparian/riverine natural communities. The monitoring by a Designated Qualified Biologist in Measures 'TE-1 and TE-14 would ensure that threaten and endangered bird species and riparian/riverine habitat will be identified and that construction activities will not disturb nesting birds during nesting season. Measure TE- 2 ensures that the construction sites adjacent to identified riparian/riverine habitat areas 47 50 • • will be watered for dust control to protect vegetation. Measure TE-3 will ensure that no bird species or riparian/riverine habitat is affected by erosion and sediment control devices. Measures TE-4 through TE-6 will ensure that construction noise will be controlled adjacent to identified riparian/riverine habitat. Measure TE-7 will limit construction hours at Coal Canyon, Wardlow Wash and Fresno Canyon so not to disturb bird species or riparian/riverine habitat. Measures TE-13 and TE-15 will minimize light intrusion to riparian/riverine habitat. As a result, the temporary project impacts to threaten and endangered bird species and riparian/riverine habitat would be reduced to less than significant. 14. Permanent Impacts on Threatened and Endangered Species - Western Yellow -Billed Cuckoo, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, and Bald Eagle: As discussed in Sections 3.21 and 4.2.2.3 in the Final EIR/EIS, Alternative 2f would result in the permanent loss of 0.4 ac of riparian habitat suitable for these threatened and endangered bird species. Finding: The Project consistency with the Western Riverside County MSHCP and the Compensatory Mitigation and Mitigation Measures described earlier for riparian/riverine would reduce the permanent project impacts on these bird species to below a level of significance. That Compensatory Mitigation and the Mitigation Measures reflect changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen these potentially significant Project impacts as identified in the Final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) The Compensatory Mitigation and the Mitigation Measures described earlier for the riparian/riverine natural community would also reduce the permanent project effects on these bird species. No other mitigation is required. Rationale: The Western Riverside County MSHCP specifically addresses project effects on bird species, including the western yellow -billed cuckoo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and the bald eagle. Alternative 2f is fully consistent with the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The Compensatory Mitigation and Mitigation Measures for riparian/riverine described above would also reduce the permanent project effects on these bird species by restoring habitat and other features to reduce the permanent project effects on these species. As a result, the permanent project effects on these bird species are mitigated to below a level of significance. 15. Temporary Impacts on Threatened and Endangered Species - Stephen's Kangaroo Rat: As discussed in Sections 3.21 and 4.2.2.3 in the Final EIR/EIS, the Project would result in temporary direct impacts to 18.88 ac in the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (SKR HCP) Area during construction of Alternative 2f. Finding: The Project consistency with the Western Riverside County MSHCP and the Mitigation Measures described briefly below would reduce the temporary project impacts on the SKR HCP Area to below a level of significance. The Mitigation Measures reflect changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the 48 Project which would avoid or substantially lessen these potentially significant Project impacts as identified in the Final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation Measures: The temporary project impacts to the SKR HCP Area would be substantially mitigated, to below a level of significance, based on implementation of Mitigation Measures TE-1 through TE-7, and TE-13, as follows: TE-1: Designation of and monitoring by the Designated Qualified Biologist. TE-2: Watering site during construction. TE-3: Use of biodegradable materials for erosion and sediment control devices. TE-4: Noise control during construction. TE-5: Noise control during construction. TE-6: Noise control during construction. TE-7: Limits on construction hours at Coal Canyon, Wardlow Wash, and Fresno Canyon. TE-13: Use of shielded light during construction. Rationale: The Western Riverside County MSHCP specifically addresses project effects on animal species, including SKR. Alternative 2f is fully consistent with the Western Riverside County MSHCP.The temporary effects of Alternative 2f on the SKR HCP Area would be reduced to below a level of significance based on implementation of the Mitigation Measures described above which require pre -construction and construction activities to identify and minimize indirect effects on SKR. The monitoring by a Designated Qualified Biologist in Measure TE-1 would ensure that SKR and the SKR HCP area will be identified. Measure TE-2 ensures that construction sites adjacent to the SKR HCP area will be watered for dust control to .protect vegetation. Measure TE- 3 will ensure that the SKR HCP area will not be affected by erosion and sediment control devices. Measures TE-4 through TE-6 will ensure that construction noise will be controlled adjacent to the SKR HCP area. Measure TE-7 will limit the hours that construction activities so not to disturb SKR or SKR HCP area. Measures TE-13 and TE-15 will minimize light intrusion to the SKR HCP area. As a result, the temporary project impacts to SKR and the SKR HCP area would be reduced to less than significant. 16. Permanent Impacts on Threatened and Endangered Species - Stephen's Kangaroo Rat: As discussed in Sections 3.21 and 4.2.2.3 in the Final EIR/EIS, Alternative 2f would result in the permanent loss of 5.72 ac in the SKR HCP area. Finding: The Project consistency with the Western Riverside County MSHCP would reduce the potentially significant permament Project impacts on SKR as identified 49 52 • in the Final EIR/EIS to below a level of significance. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Western Riverside County MSHCP: The permanent Project impact to the SKR HCP Area would be substantially mitigated, to below a level of significance, as a result of the project consistency with the Western Riverside County MSHCP. No further mitigation is required. Rationale: The Western Riverside County MSHCP specifically addresses project effects on animal species, including SKR. Alternative 2f is fully consistent with the Western Riverside County MSHCP. As a result, the permanent project effects on the SKR HCP Area are mitigated to below a level of significance. 17. Temporary Impacts on Threatened and Endangered Species — Santa Ana Sucker: As discussed in Sections 3.21 and 4.2.2.3 in the Final EIR/EIS, temporary indirect water quality impacts to the Santa Ana sucker could occur during construction of Alternative 2f. Finding: The Project consistency with the Western Riverside County MSHCP and the Mitigation Measures described briefly below would reduce the temporary project impacts on the Santa Ana sucker to below a level of significance. The Mitigation Measures reflect changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen these potentially significant Project impacts as identified in the Final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation Measures: The potential temporary Project impacts to water quality and the Santa Ana sucker would be substantially mitigated, to below a level of significance, based on implementation of Mitigation Measures TE-1 through TE-3, and WQ-1 through WQ-4. TE-1: Designation of and monitoring by the Designated Qualified Biologist. TE-2: Watering site during construction. TE-3: Use of biodegradable materials for erosion and sediment control devices. WQ-1: Compliance with the requirements of the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges During Construction. WQ-2: Compliance with the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Surface Waters that Pose an Insignificant Threat to Water Quality. WQ-3: Compliance with the discharge authorization letter from the RWQCB. WQ-4: Compliance with the procedures in the Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks. 50 53 Rationale: The potential temporary effects of Alternative 2f on water quality and the Santa Ana sucker would be reduced to below a level of significance based on implementation of the Mitigation Measures described above which require pre - construction and construction activities to avoid and reduce temporary project effects to water quality in receiving waters which drain to the Santa Ana River, including construction monitoring, site water, and compliance with the applicable water quality permits as shown in the MMRP in Exhibit A. The monitoring by a Designated Qualified Biologist in Measure TE-1 will ensure that the Santa Ana sucker habitat and construction activities adjacent to the Santa Ana River will be monitored. Measure TE-2 ensures that construction areas will be watered for dust control. Measure TE-3 will ensure that no Santa Ana sucker or the Santa Ana River is affected by erosion and sediment control devices. Measures WQ-1 through WQ-4 will ensure that water quality procedures, permit requirements, and only authorized discharges will occur during project construction. As a result, the potential for temporary impacts to the Santa Ana sucker and the Santa Ana River during project construction would be reduced to less than significant. 1$.Temporary Impacts to Jurisdictional and other Waters: As discussed in Sections 3.18, Wetlands and Other Waters, and 4.2.3.2, Biological Resources (pages 3.18-1 and 4-27, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS), Alternative 2f would result in temporary impacts on jurisdictional and other protected waters during construction. Those effects on protected waters would occur during the widening; modifying, or otherwise improving drainages and culverts to accommodate the widening of and improvements to SR-91 and 1-15. The temporary effects of Alternative 2f on protected waters during construction are: 1.98 ac of Corps jurisdictional waters 2.01 ac of CDFG jurisdictional waters 1.98 ac of RWQCB waters Finding: The Compensatory Mitigation and Mitigation Measures described earlier for riparian/riverine natural communities and the Mitigation Measures described below would reduce the temporary Project impacts on protected waters related to the widening, modifying, or otherwise improving drainages and culverts to accommodate the widening of and improvements to SR-91 and 1-15, to below a level of significance. The Compensatory Mitigation and those Mitigation Measures reflect changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as identified in the Final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Compensatory Mitigation: As described earlier, Compensatory Mitigation for riparian communities in Orange and Riverside Counties will be required for the Corps Section 404 and CDFG Section 1600 (Streambed Alteration Agreement) permitting. Temporary effects to riparian communities will be mitigated at a minimum mitigation ratio of 1:1 to be replaced on site in kind after the temporary impact has occurred. Final 51 54 • • • details for compensatory mitigation will be coordinated among RCTC, Caltrans, the resource agencies, and third -party landowners (where needed for off -site mitigation) as part of the permitting process for the project (Section 3.17.4.1, Compensatory Mitigation, page 3.17-28 in the Final EIR/EIS). Mitigation Measures: Implementation of the following Mitigation Measures included in the MMRP in Exhibit A would reduce the temporary impacts of Alternative 2f on protected waters to a less than significant level: WET-1: Compliance with the requirements of the Section 404 Nationwide Permit from the Corps. WET-2: Compliance with the requirements of the Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFG. WET-3: Compliance with the requirements of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB. WQ-1: Compliance with the requirements of the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges During Construction. WQ-2: Compliance with the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Surface Waters that Pose an Insignificant Threat to Water Quality. WQ-3: Compliance with the discharge authorization letter from the RWQCB. WQ-4: Compliance with the procedures in the Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks. NC-1: Delineation of ESAs. NC-2: Designation of and monitoring by the Designated Qualified Biologist. NC-5: Use of developed or non -upland areas for construction staging, equipment, materials, storage, etc. NC-19: Compliance with the Western Riverside County MSHCP Construction Guidelines and Standard BMPs. Rationale: The Compensatory Mitigation and the Mitigation Measures described earlier for riparian/riverine will result in the revegetation of temporarily disturbed areas in and adjacent to native habitat will be revegetated with native vegetation, even if they were nonnative prior to the disturbance. Measures WET-1 through WET-3 will require permits from the Corps, CDFG, and the RWQCB which will include conditions and requirements to minimize direct and indirect effects on protected waters during the construction of Alternative 2f. Compliance with Measure WQ-1 will protect receiving waters in the vicinity of Project construction activities. Compliance with Measure NC-1 will ensure that areas outside the project disturbance limits are not affected during 52 Project construction. Measure NC-2 ensures that a Designated Qualified Biologist is on site during construction in and around protected waters. Measure NC-5 will ensure that construction staging, materials storage, and other related construction activities are conducted in nonsensitive upland habitat. Measure NC-19 ensures compliance with the Western Riverside County. MSHCP including requirements for protected waters. The Compensatory Mitigation and the Mitigation Measures described above will reduce the temporary impacts during construction of Alternative 2f to a less than significant level. 19. Permanent Impacts to Jurisdictional and Other Waters: As discussed in Sections 3.18, Wetlands and Other Waters, and 4.2.3.2, Biological Resources (pages 3.18-1 and 4-27, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS), Alternative 2f would result in permanent impacts to jurisdictional and other protected waters. Those permanent effects of Alternative 2f on protected waters would be a result of widening, modifying, or otherwise improving drainages and culverts to accommodate the widening of and improvements to SR-91 and 1-15. The permanent effects of Alternative 2f on protected waters during construction are: 0.42 ac of Corps jurisdictional waters 1.31 ac of CDFG jurisdictional waters 0.42 ac of RWQCB waters Finding: The Compensatory Mitigation and Mitigation Measures described earlier for riparian/riverine natural communities and the Mitigation Measures described below would reduce the permanent Project impacts on protected waters related to the widening, modifying, or otherwise improving drainages and culverts to accommodate the widening of and improvements to SR-91 and 1-15, to below a level of significance. The Compensatory Mitigation and those Mitigation Measures reflect changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as identified in the Final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Compensatory Mitigation: Compensatory mitigation for riparian/riverine communities in Orange and Riverside Counties will be required for the Corps Section 404 and CDFG Section 1600 permitting. Typically, permanent impacts to riparian habitat subject to Corps and CDFG jurisdiction is mitigated at a minimum mitigation -to - effect ratio of 2:1, which is consistent with Corps and CDFG policies for no net loss of riparian/riverine habitat (e.g., wetlands). The final details for the Compensatory Mitigation will be coordinated among RCTC, Caltrans, the resource agencies, and third - party landowners (where needed for off -site mitigation) as part of the permitting process for the project (Section 3.17.4.1, Compensatory Mitigation, page 3.17-28 in the Final EIR/EIS). Mitigation Measures: In addition to the Mitigation Measures described earlier for riparian/riverine natural communities, implementation of Mitigation Measures WET-1, 53 56 • • WET-2, and WET-3 would reduce the permanent impacts of Alternative 2f on protected waters to a less than significant level as follows: WET-1: compliance with the requirements of the Section 404 Nationwide Permit from the Corps WET-2: compliance with the requirements of the Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFG WET-3: compliance with the requirements of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB Rationale: The Compensatory Mitigation described earlier for riparian/riverine natural communities will result in the replacement of protected waters removed by the Project. Measures WET-1 through WET-3 will require permits from the Corps, CDFG, and the RWQCB which will include conditions and requirements to minimize long-term direct and indirect effects on protected waters, reducing the permanent impacts of Alternative 2f on jurisdictional and other waters to a level of less than significant. C. Environmental Factor: Cultural Resources/Paleontological Resources 1. Alteration of Existing Landforms and Exposure of Fossil Resources during Construction. As discussed in Sections 3.12, Paleontology, and 4.2.3.3, Paleontological Resources (pages 3.12-1 and 4-28, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS), Alternative 2f would alter existing landforms and potentially expose fossil resources during grading and excavation to various depths to reach competent soil, for wall footings, and for relocated or new utilities. Specifically, construction and excavation for Alternative 2f could impact paleontological resources in the following sediments: all types of Pleistocene alluvium, sedimentary rocks and sandstone of the Norco area, the Fernando Formation, Chino Hills Pliocene sediments, the Puente Formation, the Topanga Formation, the Sespe and Vaqueros Formations (interfingering), the Santiago Formation, the Silverado Formation, the Williams Formation, and the Ladd Formation. Finding: The Mitigation Measure summarized below would reduce the Project impacts related to paleontological resources to below a level of significance. The Mitigation Measure reflects changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as identified in the Final EIR/ES. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation Measure: Implementation of Mitigation Measure PAL-1 in the MMRP in Exhibit A would reduce this impact to a less than significant level as follows: PAL-1: Development and implementation of the Paleontological Mitigation Plan (PMP). 54 57 Rationale: As discussed in Section 4.2.3.3 (page 4-29 in the Final EIR/EIS), Measure PAL-1 requires a PMP to address paleontological resources that may be encountered during construction. Measure PAL-1 would minimize potential impacts of Alternative 2f to paleontological resources by requiring appropriate identification, removal, protection, curation, and documentation of paleontological resources encountered during construction. Therefore, the impacts to paleontological resources during construction of Alternative 2f would be less than significant after mitigation. D. Environmental Factor: Geology and Soils 1. Permanent Impacts Due to Seismic Events: As discussed in Sections 3.11 and 4.2.3.4, Geology and Soils, (pages 3.11-1 and 4-29, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS), the road, structures, slopes, and other features of Alternative 2f could be impacted by ground motion, liquefaction, and possibly ground surface rupture during seismic events. The primary geologic and geotechnical constraints potentially affecting the design and operation of Alternative 2f are: • Moderate to high ground acceleration due to nearby active faults, including the Elsinore (Whittier segments), China -Central Avenue, Elsinore (Glen Ivy segments), Puente Hills Blind Thrust, and San Jacinto faults • Fault rupture associated with the Whittier and Chino -Central Avenue faults • Liquefaction and seismic compaction in areas of shallow groundwater and loose granular soils. Areas of high liquefaction potential or liquefaction hazard include the SR-91/I-15 interchange; 1-15 north of the interchange in the vicinity of Corona Avenue and Hidden Valley Parkway; SR-91 east of the interchanges in the vicinity of McKinley, Buchanan, and Pierce Streets and the segment of SR-91 in Orange County between SR-241 and the Orange/Riverside County line • Slope stability in areas of ancient landslides, steep natural terrain, and cut slopes • Erosion and surficial instability in hillside areas and areas adjacent to the Santa Ana River floodplain • Non-rippable (i. e. , difficult to excavate) granitic bedrock along SR-91 from 1-15 to approximately Pierce Street • Possibly corrosive soils in areas along westbound SR-91 in the vicinity of the Orange/Riverside County line and along 1-15 A permanent subsurface easement in a designated Natural National Landmark (NNL) for underground tiebacks for the tieback wall along SR-91. Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would reduce the potential permanent geologic and soils effects on the Project facilities to below a level of significance. These Mitigation Measures reflect changes or alterations that Ca[trans has 55 58 • required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as identified in the Final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GE0-2 in the MMRP in Exhibit A would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level as follows: GEO-1: Development and implementation of the Final Geotechnical Design Report. GE0-2: Development and implementation of the Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan. Rationale: As discussed in Section 4.2.3.4 (page 4-30 in the Final EIR/EIS), the design and construction of Alternative 2f to current highway and structure design standards, including applicable seismic standards, as required in Measures GEO-1 and GE0-2 would minimize the potential geologic and soils impacts on the Project facilities related to exposing people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic- related failure including liquefaction; landslides; subsidence; collapse; or location on improper soil types such as corrosive or expansive soil. Therefore, the geologic and soils impacts on the operation of Alternative 2f would be less than significant after mitigation. 2. Temporary Impacts Related to Soil Compaction, Erosion, and Blasting: As discussed in Section 3.11, Alternative 2f would alter existing landforms as a result of grading and cut -and -fill. Construction may also temporarily disturb soil outside the Project footprint but within the freeway rights -of -way, primarily in the trample zone around work areas, heavy equipment traffic areas, and material laydown areas. Temporary impacts would include soil compaction and an increased possibility of soil erosion. During construction of the Project, excavated soil would be exposed, and there would be increased potential for soil erosion compared to existing conditions. Additionally, during a storm event, soil erosion could occur at an accelerated rate. The construction activities associated with Alternative 2f could be impacted by ground motion from seismic activities, possible ground rupture, and liquefaction if an earthquake were to occur during construction. Alternative 2f may require blasting in areas underlain by non-rippable granitic bedrock, particularly along SR-91 east of the 115 interchange. Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would reduce the potential temporary effects related to geology and soils during Project construction to below a level of significance. These Mitigation Measures reflect changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or 56 substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as identified in the Final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1, GE0-2, and GE0-3 in the MMRP in Exhibit A would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level as follows: GEO-1: Development and implementation of the Final Geotechnical Design Report. GE0-2: Development and implementation of the Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan. GEO-3: Development and implementation of a Blasting Plan. Rationale: As discussed in Section 4.2.3.4 (page 4-31 in the Final EIR/EIS), the potential geology and soils impacts on the Project are addressed in Measures GEO-1 and GE0-2 which require specific surveys and treatment of these conditions as part of the final design. Measure GE0-3 requires that the design/build contractor prepare a Blasting Plan to address all applicable standards during final design. In addition, the construction of the Alternative 2f would be required to adhere to the requirements of the General Construction Permit and implement erosion and sediment control BMPs specifically identified in a Project Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to keep sediment from moving off site into receiving waters. Implementation of -safe construction practices and compliance with Caltrans and the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal -OSHA) requirements would minimize the potential impacts of these conditions on construction worker and public safety during construction. Therefore, the geologic and soils impacts associated with the construction of Alternative 2f and relating to erosion, loss of topsoil, and instability would be less than significant after mitigation. E. Environmental Factor: Hazards and Hazardous Materials 1. Impacts Related to Recognized Environmental Conditions: As discussed in Sections 3.13 and 4.2.3.5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials (pages 3.13-1 and 4-31, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS), based on the Project Initial Site Assessment (ISA), there is no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Project except for: • The potential soil and/or groundwater contamination at two hazardous waste/materials sites (one would be a full acquisition and one would be a partial acquisitions) • The potential presence of hazardous wastes routinely stored or generated at multiple industrial and automotive facilities within the disturbance limits of Alternative 2f 57 60 • Asbestos in rails, bearing pads, support piers, expansion joint material in bridges, asphalt, and concrete and road building materials, and other building materials • Lead based paint (LBP) on building and freeway structures and lead in yellow paint and tape used for pavement marking • Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in pole -mounted or pad -mounted transformers and/or light ballasts • Potential soil and/or groundwater contamination in soils adjacent to the railroad right-of-way • Creosote and pentachlorophenol in wooden utility poles, railroad ties, and other wood treated objects. These concerns would occur during construction of Alternative 2f. Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would reduce the Project impacts related to hazardous materials and wastes to below a level of significance. These Mitigation Measures reflect changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as identified in the Final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures HW-1 through HW- 14 in the MMRP in Exhibit A would reduce this impact to a less than significant level as follows: HW-1: Additional testing at two sites during final design. HW-2: Site investigations for any new release sites in the Project right-of-way. HW-3: Aerially deposited lead surveys. HW-4: Asbestos and LBP surveys HW-5: Inspections for PCBs in pole -mounted transformers HW-6: Yellow traffic striping and pavement marking materials HW-7: Groundwater dewatering in the vicinity of contaminated soils or contaminated groundwater sites Plan HW-8: Soil sampling along the BNSF railroad tracks HW-9: Preparation and implementation of a Project -Specific Health and Safety 58 61 HW-10: Preparation and implementation of a Project -Specific Contaminant Management Plan HW-11: Preparation and implementation of a Project -Specific Construction Contingency Plan HW-12: Notification of Underground Service Alert prior to excavation HW-13: Payment of fees to the SCAQMD HW-14: Testing of treated waste wood materials for wood treatments and preservatives Rationale: As discussed in Section 4. 2. 3. 5 (page 4-32 in the Final EIR/EIS), Measures HW-1 through HW-14 address the potential impacts from hazards that could occur during construction of Alternative 2f. Most of these measures are standard procedures and/or code regulations controlling these types of hazardous materials. All impacts under Alternative 2f related to hazardous materials, including creating significant hazards through transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or foreseeable upset or accident conditions; emitting hazardous emissions or handling hazardous materials within one -quarter mile of a school; location on a hazardous materials site; and impairing implementation of an emergency response plan would be reduced to below a level of significance based on implementation of Measures HUV-1 through HW-14. F. Environmental Factor: Hydrology and Water Quality 1 Permanent Increase in Impervious Surfaces: As discussed in Sections 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, and 4.2.3.6 (pages 3.10-1 and 4-32, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS), Alternative 2f would result in a permanent increase of impervious surfaces and a permanent increase in runoff and pollutant loading (including sediments, trash, and debris) from the Project segments of SR-91 and 1-15. Compared with existing conditions, there would be a slight increase in runoff volumes due to the addition of new impervious areas from the freeway improvements under Alternative 2f. Those increases would generally shorten the time of concentrations and runoff travel time to the Santa Ana River. However, because the flow increase to the Santa Ana River is expected to be minimal, the hydrologic impact is considered negligible. The operation of Alternative 2f will be subject to the requirements of the Caltrans National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. Specifically, during Project operation, Caltrans must comply with the requirements of the 1999 Caltrans Statewide NPDES Permit and any subsequent permit, and implement approved BMPs to treat runoff from the Project site. As part of the Project, BMPs would be implemented to target constituents of concern in runoff from the newly added freeway facilities. Drainage from the newly added freeway facilities would be treated by biofiltration swales, infiltration basins, detention basins, and/or media filters. All the runoff from the new net impervious surface areas would be treated by the Project 59 • 62 BMPs. The BMPs would treat runoff from an area equivalent to the impervious surface area added by the Project as well as runoff from part of the existing freeway facilities. Therefore, Alternative 2f would not result in substantial adverse water quality impacts related to sediments, turbidity, and floating materials (Section 4.2.3.6, page 4-33 in the Final EIR/EIS). Other pollutants of concern during Project operations include petroleum products, metals, nutrients, solvents, waste paint, herbicides, and pesticides. There would be a net increase in impervious areas under Alternative 2f that would result in an increase in the volume of runoff during a storm or a subsequent increase of pollutant loading (including petroleum products, metals, and chemicals) to receiving waters. Caltrans maintenance activities under Alternative 2f would be similar to existing conditions. The new BMPs would require maintenance and would target pollutants of concern from maintenance activities (such as oil and grease). In summary, Alternative 2f would not substantially increase the potential for pollutants associated with maintenance activities to impact water quality or result in substantial adverse water quality impacts related to oil, grease, and chemical contamination (Section 4.2.3.6, page 4-33 in the Final EIR/EIS). The construction of Alternative 2f would result in temporary effects to potential RWQCB jurisdictional areas; the RWQCB often asserts jurisdiction of these areas under the Porter -Cologne Act. Prior to initiation of construction, a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB will be obtained (Section 4.2.3.6, page 4-34 in the Final EIR/EIS). Under the General Construction Activity NPDES Permit, a SWPPP would be prepared and implemented, including implementing specific erosion and sediment control BMPs during construction as detailed in the SWPPP. Appropriate construction BMPs for work in high risk areas would be identified in the SWPPP and implemented during construction. Alternative 2f may include, but not be limited to, the construction site BMPs listed in Table 3.10.5 (page 3.10-22 in the Final EIR/EIS). Construction BMPs would be properly designed, implemented, and maintained, as described in Mitigation Measure WQ-1. Therefore, no substantial adverse water quality impacts related to sediment, turbidity, and floating materials would occur during the construction of Alternative 2f (page 4-34 in the Final EIR/EIS). Under the General Construction Activity NPDES Permit, a SWPPP would be prepared and implemented, including specific construction site BMPs. Measures to control spills, leakage, and dumping during construction would be addressed by structural and nonstructural BMPs. Construction BMPs would be properly designed, implemented, and maintained, and the requirements of the De Minimus Permit (Order No. R8 2009-0003) will be complied with as required by Mitigation Measures WQ-1 and WQ-2. Therefore, no substantial adverse water quality impacts related to oil, grease, and chemical contamination would occur during construction of Alternatives 2f (page 4- 34 in the Final EIR/EIS). 60 63 Dewatering may be necessary to construct structure footings for Alternative 2f. Dewatered groundwater may contain high levels of total dissolved solids (TDS), salinity, high nitrates, or other contaminants. Groundwater and any other non -storm -water dewatering activities are subject to the requirements of the De Minimus Permit, which covers discharge of groundwater and non -storm -water construction waste in the Santa Ana Region. This permit requires monitoring of dewatering discharges and adherence to effluent and receiving water limitations in the permit so that the water quality of surface waters is ensured protection. Compliance with this permit, as described in Mitigation Measure WQ-2, would minimize the potential for substantial adverse water quality impacts of Alternative 2f during dewatering (page 4-34 in the Final EIR/EIS). Finding: With the implementation of Mitigation Measures WQ-1 through WQ-4 summarized below, Alternative 2f would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and impacts would be considered less than significant. The Mitigation Measures reflect changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as identified in the Final EIR/EIS: (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures WQ-1 through WQ- 4 in the MMRP in Exhibit A would reduce this impact to a less than significant level as follows: WQ-1: Compliance with the requirements of the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities WQ-2: Compliance with the requirements of the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Surface Waters that Pose an Insignificant (De Minimus) Threat to Water Quality WQ-3: Requirement for a Discharge Authorization Letter from the RWQCB WQ-4: Compliance with the procedures in the Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Other Measures. In addition to Measures WQ-1 through WQ-4 summarized above, other measures, as discussed in Sections 3.17, Natural Communities, and 3.18, Wetlands and Other Waters (pages 3.17-26 and 3.18-14, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS), to minimize impacts and preserve natural and beneficial floodplain values would also benefit floodplains in the study area. Rationale: Compliance with the requirements and conditions in Measures WQ-1 through WQ-4 including the installation of BMPs that will capture and treat 100 percent of the runoff from the new impervious surfaces provided in Alternative 2f and some of the existing runoff will reduce the Project effects related to water quality to below a level of significance (page 4-35 in the Final EIR/EIS). With such mitigation, Alternative 2f will result in a less than significant impact due to compliance with water quality standards 61 • 64 • • and waste discharge requirements, and compliance with the applicable wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB. G. Environmental Factor: Land Use and Planning 1. Inconsistencies with General Plan Land Use Designations: As discussed in Sections 3.1, Land Use, and 4.2.3.7, Land Use and Planning, and Population and Housing (pages 3.1-1 and 4-35, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS), Alternative 2f would result in permanent use of 78 ac of land currently designated in the General Plans for uses other than transportation. As a result, Alternative 2f will result in land uses on those properties that are not consistent with the designations for those properties in the applicable General Plans. Finding: The Mitigation Measure summarized below would reduce the Project impacts related to inconsistencies with General Plan designated land uses to below a level of significance. This Mitigation Measure reflects changes or alterations that Ca!trans has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as identified in the Final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).). Mitigation Measure: Implementation of Mitigation Measure LU-1 in the MMRP in Exhibit A would reduce this Project impact to a less than significant level as follows: LU-1: Request affected local jurisdictions to amend their General Plans Rationale: As discussed in Section 4.2.3.7 (page 4-35 in the Final EIR/EIS) and as described in Measure LU-1, RCTC will request the Counties of Orange and Riverside, and the Cities along the Project alignment to amend their respective General Plans to designate any land acquired for the SR-91 CIP as transportation. This would result in designations in those General Plans for land used for the Project being consistent with the transportation use. As a result, Measure LU-1 would mitigate the effects of Alternative 2f related to inconsistencies with General Plan land use designations to below a level of significance. 2. Permanent Impacts on Pedestrians and Bicyclists: As discussed earlier, on local streets that cross SR-91 and 1-15, the widened freeway cross sections would result in wider overcrossings and undercrossings, which would increase the lengths of the roads and sidewalks that are on the overcrossings or in the undercrossings. Therefore, the amount of time pedestrians and bicyclists spend on the overcrossings or in the undercrossings would increase compared to existing conditions. The new parts of the undercrossings would include lighting for vehicles and pedestrians consistent with local standards. However, the segments of those roads under the existing overcrossings would experience a reduction in the amount of natural light, which could be perceived by pedestrians and bicyclists as adversely affecting their experiences crossing under SR-91. Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would reduce the effects of longer undercrossings on pedestrians and bicyclists to below a level of significance. 62 These Mitigation Measures reflect changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as identified in the Final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures T-4, V-1, and V-3 in the MMRP in Exhibit A would reduce this impact to a less than significant level as follows: T=4: Lighting in undercrossings. V-1: Aesthetic treatments for structural elements. V=3: Features to reduce light and glare. Rationale: As discussed in Section 4.2.3.7 (page 4-37 in the Final EIR/EIS), Measure T-4 addresses lighting in the undercrossings during final design, including the provision of appropriate lighting in the new parts of the undercrossings and additional lighting in the existing parts of the undercrossings if it is determined necessary. Measure V-1 provides for aesthetic treatments on paved slopes at undercrossings. Measures V-3 addresses Project lighting to minimize glare. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures T-4, V-1, and V-3, the impacts of undercrossings on pedestrians and bicyclists under Alternative 2f would be minimized to below a level of significance. 3. Short -Term Impacts on Neighborhoods: As discussed in Sections 3.4, Community Impacts and 4.2.3.7 (pages 3.4-1 and 4-27, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS), Alternative 2f has the potential to result in short-term traffic effects to neighborhoods during construction including grading, excavation, road detours, and temporary road closures. Temporary construction impacts could disrupt local traffic patterns and affect access to residences, businesses, and community facilities. These construction impacts would only be temporary, and would not change or alter community character and cohesion, or divide an existing community adjacent to the Project segments of SR-91 and I-15. Finding: The Mitigation Measure summarized below would reduce the short-term Project effects on neighborhoods to below a level of significance. That Mitigation Measure reflects changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as identified in the Final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines§ 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation Measure: Implementation of Mitigation Measure T-1 in the MMRP in Exhibit A would reduce this impact to a less than significant level as follows: T_1: Development and implementation of a Transportation. Management Plan (TM P) Rationale: As discussed in Section 4.2.3.7 (page 4-37 in the Final EIR/EIS) implementation of a TMP as is required in Measure T-1 would reduce the Project- 63 66 • • related adverse temporary impacts of Alternative 2f to community character and cohesion and dividing an established community to below a level of significance by minimizing impacts related to temporary road closures and detours and other short-term traffic impacts during Project construction. H. Environmental Factor: Population and Housing 1. Property Acquisition: As discussed in Sections 3.4 and 4.2.3.7 (page 4-35 in the Final EIR/EIS), Alternative 2f will result in the acquisition and removal of 18 single-family homes and 127 multifamily homes (Table 3.4.8, page 3.4-28 in the Final EIR/EIS). Alternative 2f would acquire and displace 88 businesses (Table 3.4.10, page 3.4-30. All these acquisitions would occur in the City of Corona. Adequate resources appear to exist at the present time to relocate the displaced residents and businesses. Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would reduce the Project impacts related to the acquisition of property and the displacement of existing land uses to below a level of significance. Those Mitigation Measures reflect changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as identified in the Final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures CI-1 through CI-3 in the MMRP in Exhibit A would reduce this impact to a less than significant level as follows: C1-1: Design refinements to further reduce property acquisition CI-2: Compliance with the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policy Act of 1970 (Uniform Act) as amended CI-3: Reconfigure uses on parcels that will be partial acquisitions Rationale: As discussed in Section 4.2.3.7 (page 4-35 in the Final EIR/EIR) and the Mitigation Measures summarized above, all property acquisition and relocations required for Alternative 2f would be handled by RCTC in accordance with the Uniform Act. The majority of the homes acquired under Alternative 2f are along SR-91 between Green River Road and 1-15. Because of Corona's demographics and the commercial and residential resources available in the immediate areas surrounding the Project limits, it is anticipated there will be ample resources for all residential and commercial owners and tenant displacees. Attachments 3.4.A to 3.4.1 in Section 3.4 list available replacement housing and business opportunities. Measures CI-1 through CI-3 would partially mitigate the effects of Alternative 2f related to community character and cohesion. The remaining impacts would be adverse but not significant after mitigation. Therefore, the property acquisition, displacements, and relocation impacts of Alternative 2f would be mitigated to below a level of significance. I. Environmental Factor: Public Services 64 67 1. Parks and Recreation Resources: As shown in Table 3.1.7 (page 3.1-91 in the Final EIR/EIS) and as discussed in Section 4.2.3.9, Public Service (page 4-38 in the Final EIR/EIS), Alternative 2f would result in the permanent use and/or temporary use of small areas in CHSP, Featherly Regional Park, Griffin Park, the Santa Ana River Trail/Bike Lane, Griffin Park, and El Cerrito Sports Park as follows: Chino Hills State Park: Alternative 2f would result in the permanent use of 0.48 ac of land from CHSP for two columns for the elevated westbound SR-91 off - ramp at Green River Road, an aerial easement for that off -ramp, and a small area south of the off -ramp. Alternative 2f would also result in permanent subsurface easements at CHSP. The construction of Alternative 2f would result in the temporary use of 2 ac in CHSP for TCEs. Alternative 2f could result in indirect impacts to wildlife in Coal Canyon during Project construction. Featherly Regional Park: Alternative 2f would not result in the permanent use of land from Featherly Regional Park. The construction of Alternative 2f would result in the temporary use of 0.2 ac Featherly Regional Park for TCEs. Griffin Park: Alternative 2f would not result in permanent impacts to this park but would result in the temporary use of 0.5 ac in Griffin Park for a TCE Santa Ana River Trail/Bike Lane: The Initial Phase of Alternative 2f would relocate an approximately 200-ft long segment of the Santa Ana River Trail/Bike Lane into the Green River Road right-of-way, which would result in the temporary use and possible closure of this trail/bike lane. Any trail closures would be temporary and alternate access would be provided during any closures. The Alternative 2 Ultimate Project would not result in any temporary use of the Santa Ana River Trail/Bike Lane. In addition, the Initial Phase of Alternative 2f would include the construction of an approximately 30-space parking lot for Santa Ana River Trail/Bike Lane users. Alternative 2f would not permanently use property from the Santa Ana River Trail/Bike Lane. As a result, the impacts of Alternative 2f on the Santa Ana River Trail/Bike Lane will be below a level of significance and would not be substantial. El Cerrito Sports Park. Alternative 2f would not result in the permanent use of land from this park but would result in the temporary use of 0.17 ac of land from this park for TCEs. New Orange County Park (National Natural Landmark). Alternative 2f would result in a permanent use of two small areas for permanent subsurface easements totaling 0.4 and 2.2 ac, respectively. Alternative 2f would not result in the temporary use of land from the New OC Park (NNL). In summary, Alternative 2f would temporarily use land from public parks and recreation properties for TCEs, would result in the permanent use of land from one park 65 68 • • (CHSP), and would result in permanent subsurface easements at two parks (CHSP and New OC Park [NNLD. Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would reduce the Project impacts on parks and recreation resources to below a level of significance. These Mitigation Measures reflect changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as identified in the Final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures CI-2, PR-1 through PR-3, UES-4, NC-4, and AS-8, and Other Commitments by RCTC Relevant to Chino Hills State Park (page 3. 1-107) included in the MMRP in Exhibit A would reduce this impact to a less than significant level as follows: CI-2: Compliance with the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policy Act of 1970 as amended PR-1: Contribution of $100,000 in support of regional trail connectivity PR-2: Aesthetic features for the retaining wall on the north side of SR-91 facing CHSP PR-3: Limits on construction hours in CHSP UES-4: Fire prevention adjacent to CHSP AS-8: Silt fence barriers at Coal Canyon during construction Other Commitments by RCTC Relevant to Chino Hills State Park: Barriers on the north and south sides of SR-91 adjacent to CHSP to shield headlight glare and freeway noise Rationale: Measure CI-2 will address the Project effects related to the permanent acquisition of land and temporary use of land from parks and recreation resources and will reduce those effects to below a level of significance (page 4-36 in the Final EIR/EIS). Measures PR-1, PR-2, PR-3, UES-4, and AS-8 and the Other Commitments by RCTC Relevant to Chino Hills State Park would reduce the other Project effects on CHSP related to aesthetics, trails, short-term construction impacts, and potential for wildland fires to below a level of significance (page 4-40 in the Final EIR/EIS). 2. Impacts on Utility Facilities during Construction: As described in Sections 3.5 and 4.2.3.9 (pages 3.5-1 and 4-39, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS), Alternative 2f would impact existing utility facilities as a result of Project -related utility relocations, removals, and protection in -place during project construction. Finding: The Mitigation Measure summarized below would reduce the Project impacts related to impacts on utility facilities during construction to below a level of 66 69 significance. This Mitigation Measure reflects changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as identified in the Final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation Measure: Implementation of Mitigation Measures UES-1 included in the MMRP in Exhibit A would reduce this impact to a less than significant level as follows: UES-1: Preparation of utility relocation plans in consultation with the affected utility providers/owners Rationale: As described in Section 4.2.3.9 (page 4-39 in the Final EIR/EIS), Measure UES-1 requires coordination with utilities prior to and during construction to ensure appropriate Project -related utility relocations, removals, and protection in -place. This will reduce the Project effects on utility facilities to below a level of significance. J. Environmental Factor: Transportation 1. Traffic Impacts During Construction: As discussed in Sections 3.6 and 4.2.3.10, Transportation (pages 3.6-1 and ; 4-40, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS), construction of Alternative 2f would result in short-term adverse traffic impacts including temporary lane closures, detours, and ramp closures that may impair the ability of law enforcement, fire, and other emergency service providers to meet response time goals. Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would reduce the short- term traffic impacts during Project construction to below a level of significance. These Mitigation Measures reflect changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as identified in the Final EIR/E'IS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1). ) Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures T-1, T-2, and UES-2 included in the MMRP in Exhibit 'A would reduce this impact to a less than significant level as follows: T-1: Preparation and implementation of a TMP T=2: Preparation and implementation of Ramp Closure Studies UES-2: Coordination of temporary ramp and lane closures with law enforcement, fire protection, and emergency medical services providers Rationale: As discussed in Section 4.2.3.10 (page 4-40 in the Final EIR), Measures T-1 and T-2 require development and implementation of a TMP and Ramp Closure Plans, respectively, to address short-term traffic impacts during construction. The components of the TMP and Ramp Closure Plans will address traffic circulation and 67 • 70 access issues on the freeway mainline and ramps, and on affected streets in the vicinity of the freeway. Measure UES-1 requires coordination of ramp and lane closures with emergency services providers. Implementation of the TMP and Ramp Closure Plans and coordination with emergency services providers will reduce the potential short-term traffic impacts, including those related to emergency access, during construction of Alternative 2f to below a level of significance. 2. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities: As discussed earlier and in Sections 3.6 and 4.2.3.10 (pages 3.6-1 and 4-40, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS), the final design of Alternative 2f will include returning the local streets that cross the Project segments of SR-91 and 1-15 to their existing or, in some cases, widened cross sections. The Project construction on local streets would include replacing the sidewalks and bicycle facilities that were closed temporarily during construction and that were not improved in the Initial Phase of Alternative 2f. In addition, most of the sidewalks replaced under Alternative 2f would be designed consistent with the applicable Americans with Disabilities (ADA) requirements for handicap access. As a result of Alternative 2f, the existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities on local streets affected by the Project construction would either experience no permanent changes from the existing conditions or would result in improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities compared to existing conditions. Table 3.6.31 (page 3.6-80 in the Final EIR/EIS) provides details of the improvements to existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities under Alternative 2f. As discussed earlier, some pedestrians and bicyclists may perceive the longer overcrossings and undercrossings as negatively affecting their experiences as they cross the freeways and therefore may inhibit their desire to cross the freeways, which would be an adverse effect on community cohesion. Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would reduce the short- term traffic impacts during Project construction related to pedestrian and bicycle facilities to below a level of significance. The Mitigation Measures reflect changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as identified in the Final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures T-4, V-1, and V-4 in the MMRP in Exhibit A would reduce this impact to a less than significant level as follows: T-4: Lighting in undercrossings. V-1: Aesthetic treatments for structural elements. V,=3: Features to reduce light and glare. Rationale: As discussed in Section 4.2.3.1 (page 4-23 in the Final EIR/EIS), Measure T-4 addresses lighting in the undercrossings during final design, including the provision of appropriate lighting in the new parts of the undercrossings and additional 68 71 lighting in the existing parts of the undercrossings if it is determined necessary. Measure V-1 provides for aesthetic treatments on paved slopes at undercrossings. Measures V-3 addresses Project lighting to minimize glare. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures T-4, V-1, and V-3, the impacts of undercrossings on pedestrians and bicyclists would be minimized to below a level of significance. 69 72 • SECTION IV FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT FULLY MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT Notwithstanding the existing regulations, the specific Project design features discussed in the Final EIR/EIS for the Project, the Compensatory Mitigation, the Mitigation Measures, and the other conditions set forth in the MMRP in Exhibit A for the Project, the impacts discussed in this Section IV cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level. For each impact that is determined to be significant and unavoidable, a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for that impact and is set forth later in Section X of this Resolution. A. Environmental Factor: Noise 1. Long -Term Noise Impacts During Project Operations: Table 3.15.13 (page 3.15-31 in the Final EIR/EIS) shows that receivers in the Project area would experience a traffic noise level increase from future no project noise levels of up to 16 dBA under Alternative 2f. A noise level increase of 3 dBA or more is perceptible by the average human ear in an outdoor environment and a noise level increase of 12 dBA or more would be substantial. The increase in noise levels from future no project noise levels under Alternative 2f for all receivers in the Project area would be perceptible but not substantial, except for Receivers 23M, 127M, 20, 28M, 29M, 22, and 23 under Alternative 2. Those receivers would experience a substantial noise increase under Alternative 2f. Tables 3.15.27 and 3.15.28 (page 3.15-60 in the Final EIR/EIS) show the recommended barriers for Alternative 2f (Ultimate Project and Initial Phase, respectively). The following noise barriers were determined not to be reasonable and feasible for Alternative 2f and, therefore, were not recommended for inclusion in Alternative 2f (Tables 3.15.16 and 3.15.17, starting on page 3.15-41 in the Final EIR/EIS): M1, M2, and M3; 0-2 and 0-3; D1-B; F1-A; J1-A and J1-B; N1-B, N1-C, and N1-D; P1-A; Q1-A; R-1Aand R-1B; S-1Aand S-1B. Finding: The noise barriers listed above for Alternative 2f that were not determined to be feasible and reasonable are not proposed to be implemented as part of the SR-91 CIP. As a result, even with the implementation of Mitigation Measures N-1 and N-4, the noise barriers listed above would not reduce traffic noise levels at the receptors at those barrier locations to future no project levels or below. Therefore, the Project would result in significant traffic noise impacts after mitigation under CEQA. Mitigation Measures. Implementation of Mitigation Measures N-1 and N-4 included in the MMRP in Exhibit A would not reduce all the long-term Project noise impact to a less than significant level: N-1: Construct feasible and reasonable sound walls listed in Tables 3.15.27 and 3.15.28 as part of Alternative 2f 70 N-4: Potential separate project to construct sound walls on 1-15 Rationale: The noise barriers listed in Tables 3.15.16 and 3.15.17 (page 3.15-41 in the Final EIR/EIS) were not determined to be reasonable and feasible based on the criteria in the Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, and they are not recommended for inclusion in the SR-91 CIP. As a result, although some of the long-term Project noise impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels, some long-term noise impacts of Alternative 2f will be significant and unavoidable. B. Environmental Factor: Biological Resources 1. Permanent Impacts to Oak Woodlands: As shown in Table 3.17.2 (page 3.17-18 in the Final EIR/EIS), Alternative 2f would result in permanent impacts to 0.02 ac of oak woodlands. Those permanent effects to oak woodlands include complete removal of trees and heavy encroachment/extensive branch removal that may have substantial detrimental effects to the long-term viability of the affected trees. Because the maturation of oak trees requires 40-80 years, the direct removal of oak trees and oak habitat would result in an unavoidable short-term loss of habitat that cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance. Finding: The Compensatory Mitigation and the Mitigation Measures summarized below would not fully mitigate the Project impacts on oak woodlands to below a level of significance. The Compensatory Mitigation and the Mitigation Measures reflect changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would lessen this project impact as identified in the Final EIR/EIS but not to below a level of significance. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Compensatory Mitigation: The Compensatory Mitigation for effects to oak trees (excluding California scrub oaks) with trunk sizes greater than 8 inches in diameter at breast" height (dbh) will involve replacement at a mitigation -to -effect ratio of 3:1. Heritage oaks (oaks with a greater than 36-inch dbh) will be replaced at a mitigation -to - effect ratio of 10:1. If the replacement trees cannot be planted in the immediate vicinity of where the previous trees were located, they may be planted elsewhere in the Project area, subject to approval by the Caltrans Landscape Architect and the affected local jurisdiction, if any. Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures NC-1 and NC-2, and included in the MMRP in Exhibit A, would only partially mitigate this project effect by protecting oaks outside the project disturbance limits during construction, as follows: NC-1: Delineation of ESAs, including oak woodlands, outside the project disturbance limits NC-2: Designation of and monitoring during construction by the Designated Qualified Biologist Rationale: Alternative 2f includes the Compensatory Mitigation and the Mitigation Measures summarized above which will only partially reduce the permanent project 71 74 impacts to oak woodlands. Because the maturation of oak trees requires 40-80 years, the direct removal of oak trees and oak habitat would result in an unavoidable short- term loss of habitat that cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance. However, substantial suitable habitat will be available for wildlife within 20 years after planting the replacement trees at a 3:1 ratio as required in the Compensatory Mitigation. In addition, because the replacement trees will likely be planted in protected open space areas such as CHSP and will add to existing oak woodland, the benefits will be long term once the replacement trees are established. Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires RCTC to prepare and adopt an MMRP for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to assure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. RCTC adopts an MMRP (Exhibit A) for the SR-91 CIP in Section XI of this Resolution. 72 75 • SECTION V FINDINGS REGARDING CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to section 15130(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts of a project shall be discussed when they are "cumulatively considerable," as defined in section 15065(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Cumulatively considerable ".means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects." (State CEQA Guidelines § 15065(a)(3).) Section 3.25, Cumulative Impacts (pages 3.25-1 in the Final EIR/EIS) assesses cumulative impacts for each applicable environmental issue, and does so to a degree that reflects each impact's severity and likelihood of occurrence. The following impact areas were found to have no impact or be less than significant without mitigation: • Land Use and Planning • Parks and Recreation and Section 4(f) and 6(f) Properties • Growth Inducement • Timberlands • Environmental Justice • Utilities • Public Services • Traffic — Long -Term • Traffic -Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities • Cultural Resources — Historic Resources • Cultural Resources — Archaeological Resources • Hydrology and Floodplains • Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Topography • Hazardous Wastes and Hazardous Materials • Air Quality — Long Term • Noise — Construction • Energy and Global Climate Change However, notwithstanding the specific Project design features discussed in the Final EIR/EIS for the Project; and the Compensatory Mitigation, the Mitigation Measures, and the other Conditions set forth in the MMRP in Exhibit A for the Project, some of the Project's cumulative impacts discussed in this Section V cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level. For each impact that is determined to be significant and unavoidable, a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for that impact and is set forth later in Section X. The potential for the SR-91 CIP to contribute to cumulative impacts is evaluated in Section 3.25 and is summarized in this section for the following environmental parameters: • Farmlands (Section 3.25.4.1, page 3.25-6) 73 76 • Community character and cohesion, and property acquisition (Section 3.25.4.2, page 3.25-9) • Short-term traffic impacts during construction (Section 3.25.4.3, page 3.25-15) • Visual and aesthetics (Section 3.25.4.4, page 3.25-18) • Water quality and storm water runoff (Section 3.25.4.5, page 3.25-20) • Paleontology (Section 3.25.4.6, page 3.25-23) • Air quality during construction (Section 3.25.4.7, page 3.25-27) • Noise during operations (Section 3.25.4.8, page 3.25-29) • Natural communities, plant species, and animal species (Section 3.25.4.9, page 3.25-32) • Wetlands and other Waters of the United States (Section 3.25.4.10, page 3. 25- 39) • Threatened and endangered species (Section 3.25.4.12, page 3.25-41) • Invasive species (Section 3.25.4.13, page 3.25-43) A. Farmlands: Conversion of Designated Agricultural Land to Nonagricultural Uses The analysis in the Final Cumulative Impacts Analysis Report and Section 3.3, Farmlands/Timberlands (page 3.3-1 in the Final EIR/EIS) indicates Alternatives 2f would result in the permanent conversion of designated farmlands to nonagricultural transportation uses. As shown in Table 3.3.2 (page 3.3-9 in the Final EIR/EIS), Alternative 2f will convert approximately 20.7 ac of designated farmland within the Project limits to transportation uses. No mitigation has been proposed to replace land converted to nonagricultural uses by Alternative 2f (page 3.3-23 in the Final EIR/EIS). As discussed in Section 3.25.4.1, past and present development has resulted in the conversion of a substantial amount of land in northern Orange County and western Riverside County used for agricultural uses to nonagricultural uses. Of the cumulative projects listed in Tables 3.25.1 and 3.25.2 (starting on pages 3.25-45 and 3.25-57, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS) for which environmental impact information was available, specific impacts to existing farmlands were identified for six projects: Five of those projects are over 20 miles away from the SR-91 CIP study area and the resource study area (RSA) for farmlands. In addition, large areas of mapped farmlands in CHSP and the New OC Park (NNL) are now designated for recreational use and are no longer used or available for agriculture. Because there are areas designated for agricultural uses throughout western Riverside County in incorporated cities and unincorporated areas, some of the other cumulative projects would also result in the permanent 74 77 • • conversion of designated agricultural lands to nonagricultural uses. For example, the Riverside County General Plan defines designated agricultural lands in unincorporated Riverside County. The General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2002051143) identifies General Plan policies supporting the protection of agricultural uses but acknowledges that the establishment of any program to accomplish that is uncertain. No additional mitigation was proposed beyond the General Plan policies to protect agricultural uses. That Final EIR further concluded that even with implementation of the policies for protection of agricultural uses, the Riverside County General Plan would result in significant unavoidable impacts under CEQA related to the loss of designated agricultural lands, including areas in western Riverside County. In summary, past projects, the SR-91 CIP, and some of the other cumulative projects have already resulted, or in the future would result, in the permanent conversion of designated agricultural lands to nonagricultural uses. Therefore, Alternative 2f and the other cumulative projects are considered to contribute to a cumulative adverse impact related to the conversion of designated agricultural lands to nonagricultural uses. Ca!trans and the RCTC do not have the land use authority that would allow them to implement farmland conservation measures or encourage the creation of new agricultural land that would avoid or mitigate its contribution to this cumulative impact. The Final EIR for the Riverside County General Plan discussed the difficulty of establishing a farmland protection and stewardship program and concluded that such a program was unlikely to be developed. Even if implemented by a local jurisdiction, such a program would only protect existing agricultural land but would not create new agricultural land, and there would still be a net loss of designated agricultural lands in the long term. As a result, Alternative 2f is considered to contribute to a cumulative adverse impact related to the conversion of designated agricultural lands to nonagricultural uses that cannot be avoided or mitigated to a level below significance (page 3.25-9 in the Final EIR/EIS). B. Community Character and Cohesion, and Property Acquisition The findings of the analysis of potential impacts of Alternative 2f related to community character and cohesion provided in Section 3.4, Community Impacts (page 3.4-1 in the Final EIR/EIS), indicate that Alternative 2f would result in impacts on community character and cohesion as a result of the acquisition of property, changes in views, and changes to pedestrian and bicycle facilities at their crossings of SR-91 and I- 15. Based on indicators of community cohesion, including the long tenure of many of the residents in the study area, ethnic homogeneity, a high percentage of persons aged 65 and over, and a large number of residents who are pedestrians (based on the high percentages of transit -dependent persons), there is a high degree of community cohesion in different parts of the Project study area. The City of Corona, where all the property acquisition under Alternative 2f would occur, has a high degree of ethnic homogeneity, almost 40 percent of the population is transit -dependent, and nearly 60 percent of the residents have lived in their homes since before 1999. 75 Property acquisition would result in the removal of existing residential and nonresidential uses along SR-91 between SR-241 and SR-71, between Auto Center Drive and Maple Street in Corona. Table 3.4.6 (page 3.4-25 in the Final EIR/EIS) summarizes the potential acquisition and removal of homes and nonresidential parcels for Alternative 2f. As shown in Table 3.4.6, Alternative 2f would result in the acquisition and removal of 18 single-family homes and 127 multifamily homes. As shown in Table 3.4.9 (page 3.4-30 in the Final EIR/EIS), Alternative 2f would displace 88 businesses. Because of Corona's demographics and the commercial and residential resources available in the immediate areas surrounding the Project limits, it is anticipated that there would be ample relocation sites, homes, and business resources for all residential and commercial owners and tenant displacees. However, the removal of homes and business would change the community character of the affected areas. Measures CI-1 through CI-3 in Section 3.4.2.5 (page 3.4-51 in the Final EIR/EIS) would only partially minimize the effects of Alternative 2f related to community character and cohesion as a result of property acquisition and the removal of the existing land uses on those properties. Community character would also be affected by the improvements provided under Alternative 2f. The SR-91 CIP would result in expanded right-of-way which would add additional hardscape; graded slopes; modified and new, ramps, overcrossings and bridges; concrete barriers; and new retaining, tieback, and sound walls. The retaining walls in Alternative 2f would be 3 to 40 ft high. These changes would modify the visual quality of the area by introducing more urbanized and hardscape elements and, as a result, would affect the existing community character. The incorporation of aesthetic features for retaining walls, sound walls, and bridge structures in the final Project design as required in Measures V-1 and V-2 (in Section 3.7.5 on page 3.7-30 in the Final EIR/EIS), some of the visual impacts to community character would be minimized. Additional landscaping consistent with the 215/91 Corridor Master Plan would be implemented where the expanded right-of-way allows which would further minimize potential visual impacts of Alternative 2f to community character. Although Measures V- 1 and V-2 would minimize some of the impacts to community character in the City of Corona, the widened freeway facilities would contribute to continued urbanization of the area. As a result, not all the impacts of Alternative 2f related to community character can be mitigated. On local streets that cross SR-91 and 1-15, the widened freeway cross sections would result in wider overcrossings and undercrossings. As a result, the amount of time pedestrians and bicyclists spend on the overcrossings or in the undercrossings would increase compared to existing conditions. The new parts of the undercrossings would include lighting for vehicles and pedestrians consistent with local standards. However, the segments of the roads and sidewalks under the existing overcrossings would experience a reduction in the amount of natural light, which could be perceived by pedestrians and bicyclists as adversely affecting their experiences crossing under SR- 91. Measure T-4 (Section 3.6.4, page 3.6-36 in the Final EIR/EIS) requires the provision of appropriate lighting in the new parts of undercrossings and additional lighting in the existing parts of undercrossings, if it is determined to be necessary. Measure V-1 76 79 • • • provides for aesthetic treatments on paved slopes at undercrossings. Nonetheless, some pedestrians and bicyclists may perceive the modified overcrossings and undercrossings as negatively affecting their experiences as they cross the freeways and may inhibit their desire to cross the freeways, which would be an adverse effect on community cohesion. Measures CI-1 through CI-3, T-1, T-4, and V-1 to V-2 would partially minimize the effects of Alternative 2f related to community character and cohesion. Tables 3.25.1 and 3.25.2 list a substantial number of approved and planned projects in the cities and unincorporated areas in northeast Orange County and western Riverside County. As discussed in Section 3.4, the impact of the SR-91 CIP on community character and cohesion is due to the removal of homes and businesses in the City of Corona. Based on the review of available information for the transportation projects shown on Figure 3.25-1 (starting on page 3.25-73 in the Final EIR/EIS) and listed in Table 3.25-1, none of the projects in the Corona area (ID Numbers [Nos] 3, 5, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 21, 25, 26, 57, 58, and 59 on Figure 3.25-1) would result in the removal of homes and businesses or would otherwise impact community cohesion through loss of access. The 1-15 corridor improvement project (ID No 17 on Figure 3.25- 1) could result in the removal of some homes and/or businesses along 1-15, but specific impacts will not be known until the range of alternatives is finalized. The Elevated 4- Lane Facility (Major Investment Study [MIS] Corridor A) would be elevated to minimize right-of-way impacts, but project development has not been initiated so no specific information on possible right-of-way impacts for that project is available. Based on review of available information for the land development and non -transportation infrastructure projects shown on Figure 3.25-2 and listed in Table 3.25-2, none of the land development or other public infrastructure projects in the Corona area (ID Nos 23, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 39, 47, and 48 on Figure 3.25-2) would result in removal of homes and businesses or otherwise impact community cohesion through loss of access in the affected community. As a result, the cumulative projects in Tables 3.25.1 and 3.25.2 would result in limited impacts related to the acquisition of homes and the displacement of residents and, therefore, would not contribute to changes in community character. The majority of the cumulative transportation projects in the RSA would be expected to enhance mobility and community, cohesion, but some of those projects could result in degradation of community cohesion if they result in more difficult travel paths or modified opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclists, similar to the effects under Alternative 2f. In summary, Alternative 2f would result in the acquisition and removal of homes and the displacement of residents. Some of the other cumulative projects are also expected to result in the acquisition and removal of homes and the displacement of residents. As a result, Alternative 2f would contribute incrementally to cumulative impacts to community character related to the removal of homes and the displacement of residents. This potential cumulative effect would be substantially offset by the implementation of the approved and planned residential land development projects in Table 3.25.2. 77 Alternative 2f would also result in changes in the visual character of the area and changes in community cohesion associated with the wider overcrossings and undercrossings at SR-91 and 1-15. Some of the cumulative transportation projects could result in degradation of community cohesion if they result in more difficult travel paths or modified opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclists, similar to the effects under Alternative 2f. The acquisition of property, including homes and the removal of the existing land uses on those properties, for the Build Alternatives would comply with the requirements of the Uniform Act (Public Law 91 646, 84 Statute 1894). The Uniform Act mandates that certain relocation services and payments be made available by a project proponent to eligible residents, businesses, and nonprofit organizations displaced by its project (page 3.4-51). Other projects with federal assistance, including many of the transportation projects listed in Table 3.25.1, would also be required to comply with the requirements of the Uniform Act for any property acquisition. The private projects listed in Table 3.25.2 would likely result in far fewer displacements of residential uses. The acquisition of land, the removal of existing land uses, and the displacement of any residents on those properties for private projects would be subject to individual negotiations with each property owner and may also be subject to local regulations regarding displacement of tenants in rented units. Additional measures for Alternative 2f, beyond compliance with the Uniform Act, are not warranted because compliance with the Uniform Act would substantially reduce the effects of Alternative 2f related to the acquisition and removal of homes and the displacement of residents. Measures T-4 and V-1 provide mitigation to reduce adverse community cohesion impacts of Alternative 2f on pedestrians and bicyclists using undercrossings to cross SR-91 and 1-15. Other transportation projects that increase the lengths of undercrossings may also include similar mitigation. Land use projects would not affect the undercrossings and, therefore, would not require mitigation related to effects at undercrossings. Measures V-1 through V-3 would address many of the visual impacts of Alternative 2f and would mitigate some of the changes in community character related to visual impacts. The other cumulative projects would be expected to include similar mitigation to address visual impacts of new/expanded hardscape, new development, and other changes to the visual environment. However, even with mitigation, Alternative 2f and the other cumulative projects would contribute to continuing changes in community character and cohesion. C. Short -Term Traffic Impacts During. Construction The RSA for evaluating the potential for cumulative short-term traffic impacts during construction of Alternative 2f and other cumulative project focused on the length of time a specific area would be under construction. These areas would include the roads and intersections in the vicinity of the construction zone, and other projects under 78 • 81 • construction in the same area. Cumulative short-term traffic impacts could occur if improvements for the SR-91 CIP were under construction at the same time as other projects in the same area. The construction of Alternative 2f and the potential short-term effects of that construction on traffic circulation are discussed in the Preliminary TMP provided in Measure T-1 (page 3.6-31 in the Final EIR/EIS). The Preliminary TMP acknowledges that construction of Alternative 2f may result in temporary delays; temporary detours; and/or temporary lane, street, ramp and/or freeway closures. The Final TMP, which will be developed during final design, will address the project specific short-term traffic impacts during construction on travelers, emergency service providers, local businesses, local jurisdictions, pedestrians, and others affected by those traffic impacts. Although the TMP includes substantial measures to address short-term traffic impacts, there still may be a considerable public perception that those short-term traffic impacts during construction are substantial and not fully mitigated by the TMP. Construction of the other cumulative transportation projects, including rail and rail -associated projects, may also result in some or all of the same kinds of short-term traffic impacts as would occur under the Build Alternatives. The transportation projects shown on Figure 3.25-1 and listed in Table 3.25-1 were reviewed to determine which of those projects may be under construction at the same time as the SR-91 CIP. Eight of the projects are complete and would not be under construction at the same time as the SR-91 CIP (ID Nos 1, 2, 3, 13, 14, 15, 19, and 21 on Figure 3.25-1) and nine either have unknown schedules or are programmed to be constructed after 2017 (ID Nos 11, 12, 18, 25, 26, 52, 57, 58, and 59 on Figure 3.25-1). The following projects would be under construction at the same time as the SR- 91 CIP: SR-91 Widening between the SR-91/State Route 55 (SR-55) Separation and the SR-91/SR-241 Separation (ID No 4 on sheets 1 and 2 of Figure 3.25-1): This project is under construction and is scheduled to be. completed in 2015. A TMP is being implemented during the construction of this project. Because the eastern limit of this project is at SR-241, it would not directly conflict with the construction area of the SR-91 CIP (western limit at SR-241), but traffic management activities such as lane closures will need to be coordinated between the two projects if the SR-91 CIP construction overlaps the construction period for this project. • SR-71/SR-91 Interchange improvements (ID No 5 on sheet 3 of Figure 3.25-1): Construction of this project is scheduled to start in 2015. As a result, traffic management activities such as lane closures will need to be closely coordinated with the SR-91 CIP construction. • SR-241/SR-91 HOV/High-Occupancy Toll Connector (ID No 9 on sheet 2 of Figure 3.25-1): Construction of this project is scheduled to be complete by 2018. 79 As a result, traffic management activities such as lane closures will need to be closely coordinated with the SR-91 CIP construction. • I-15/Cajalco Road Interchange Improvement Project (ID No 16 on sheet 6 of Figure 3.25-1): Construction of this project is scheduled to be complete by 2015. It is south of the southern terminus of the SR-91 CIP on 1-15 at El Cerrito Road and, therefore, construction of this project should not conflict with construction of the SR-91 CIP. • 1-15 Corridor Improvement Project (ID No 17 on sheets 4, 5, and 6 of Figure 3. 25-1): Construction of this project is scheduled to start in 2015. As a result, traffic management activities such as lane closures will need to be closely coordinated with the SR-91 CIP construction. As noted, the first project has a TMP. The other four projects would have TMPs specific to each project and the local conditions in the area of each project. Similar to the SR-91 CIP, the TMPs for those other projects either do or will address the short- term traffic impacts during construction on travelers, emergency service providers, local businesses, local jurisdictions, pedestrians, and others affected by traffic impacts during construction. Measures to address the short-term traffic impacts of the SR-91 CIP that would be included in the TMP are detailed in Measure T-1 in, Section 3.6.4 (page 3.6-31 in the Final EIR/EIS). The TMPs for the cumulative projects listed above would include similar measures that would be modified to be specific to the impacts for each project. The majority of land development projects do not typically result in substantial short-term traffic impacts during construction. Larger projects or projects with substantial materials or waste transport needs may require traffic controls on and near the project sites to minimize impacts to local traffic. Projects that result in the construction of new driveways or the modification of existing driveways may also need site -specific traffic control in those areas during the construction of those project components. However, the short-term traffic impacts associated with land use projects are typically very site -specific and are not likely to result in impacts very far from the individual project sites. As shown on Figure 3.25-1, none of the proposed land development projects are in the immediate vicinity of improvements proposed at ramps or local street crossings along the project segments of SR-91 and 1-15. As a result, it is unlikely that short-term traffic impacts during construction of the land development projects would overlap with areas affected by the short-term traffic impacts during construction of the SR-91 CIP. In summary, five transportation projects may be under construction at the same time as the SR-91 CIP, which could result in cumulative short-term impacts related to traffic circulation which would be largely mitigated based on implementation of project specific TMPs. D. Visual and Aesthetic Resources 80 • 83 • • Section 3.7, Visual/Aesthetics (page 3.7-1 in the Final EIR/EIS), describes the visual environment along the project segments of SR-91 and 1-15. That environment includes views of open space, recreational, residential, industrial, and commercial uses. The visual environment in the Project study area also includes a substantial amount of infrastructure, including local roads and freeways. The freeways include interchanges, overhead structures, embankments, and highway ramps within those highway segments. The RSA for visual/aesthetics is defined as the areas along the Project segments of SR-91 and 1-15, areas that can be seen from those freeways, and areas from which those freeways or components of those freeways can be seen. The RSA includes two major landscape units centered along SR-91 and 1-15: an Open Space/Recreational Landscape Unit and an Urban Use Landscape Unit. Alternative 2f would result in expanded right-of-way, which would add additional hardscape; graded slopes; modified and new ramps, overcrossings and bridges; concrete barriers; and new retaining, tieback, and sound walls. These changes would modify the visual quality of the RSA by introducing more urbanized and hardscape elements and, as a result, would affect the existing community character. With incorporation of aesthetic features for retaining walls, sound walls, and bridge structures during final design, some of the Project impacts to community character would be minimized. Landscaping consistent with the 215/91 Corridor Master Plan would be implemented where existing landscaping is removed during construction and/or where the expanded` right-of-way allows. That landscaping would further minimize potential impacts of Alternative 2f to community character. Although Measures V-1 and V-2 would minimize some of the impacts to community character in the City of Corona, the widened freeway facilities would contribute to continued urbanization of the RSA. As a result, not all the visual impacts of Alternative 2f can be mitigated. As shown on Figure 3.25-1, many of the cumulative transportation and development projects listed in Tables 3.25.1 and 3.25.2 are located along the Project segments of SR-91 and 1-15 and would contribute to changes in the visual environment as a result of property acquisition, development of new land uses, and overall increasing urbanization in the area. Where the CEQA (and NEPA, if applicable) documents for the cumulative projects identify significant visual and aesthetic impacts, the cumulative projects would include mitigation to address visual impacts of new/expanded hardscape, new development, and other changes to the visual environment similar to the measures included in Alternative 2f. In summary, the SR-91 CIP and the other cumulative transportation and development projects would contribute incrementally to increasing urbanization and changes in the visual environment along SR-91 and 1-15 in the RSA. Measures V-1 through V-3 would partially mitigate the contribution of Alternative 2f to cumulative visual impacts. The other cumulative projects would be expected to include mitigation to address visual impacts of new/expanded hardscape, new development, and other changes to the visual environment similar to the measures included in Alternatives 2f. However, even with mitigation, Alternative 2f would contribute to the continuing changes in the visual environment in the RSA. 81 E. Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff As shown in Table 3.10.6 (page 3.10-23 in the Final EIR/EIS), Alternative 2f would increase the impervious surface area by 173 ac, a 39.6 percent increase, compared to the existing freeway facilities. Alternative 2f includes BMPs to target constituents of concern in runoff from the additional freeway facilities under Alternative 2f. All the runoff from the 173 new net ac of impervious surface areas and some of the runoff from the existing freeway facilities would be treated by BMPs such as biofiltration swales, infiltration basins, detention basins, and/or media filters. The BMPs would be implemented in accordance with NPDES Permit requirements and would reduce the impact to existing water quality (page 3.10-24 in the Final EIR/EIS). During construction of Alternative 2f, excavated soil would be exposed and there would be increased potential for soil erosion compared to existing conditions. Additionally, during a storm event, soil erosion could occur at an accelerated rate. There is also potential for construction -related pollutants to be discharged into storm drains and surface waters in the Santa Ana River Watershed during construction. The total area estimated to be disturbed during construction under Alternative 2f is approximately 503 ac. Under the Construction General Permit, a SWPPP would be prepared and implemented, including implementing specific erosion and sediment control BMPs detailed in the SWPPP during construction activities. Construction BMPs would be properly designed, implemented, and maintained during all construction activities under Alternative 2f. The other cumulative projects in Tables 3.25.1 and 3.25.2 would increase the total amount of impervious areas in the Santa Ana River Watershed and, as a result, would increase storm water and other runoff from those project sites during construction and operations. That runoff could include pollutants of concern. The cumulative projects would be required to provide for control and treatment of storm water and other runoff prior to discharge of the water off those project sites. Those controls could include a range of BMPs during both construction and operations. In summary, during construction and operations, Alternative 2f and the other cumulative projects would result in a cumulative increase in impervious surfaces and in the amount of storm water and other runoff from the project sites. That water could include a wide range of pollutants of concern. Even with construction and operations BMPs, there is no certainty that 100 percent of all new storm water and other runoff from those sites would be captured and treated prior to release off site. As a result, in the long-term, Alternative 2f and the other cumulative projects would contribute to a cumulative adverse impact on water quality in the Santa Ana River Watershed. This potential cumulative adverse impact on water quality would be minimized based on implementation of BMPs, and compliance with applicable NPDES Permit conditions and other water quality regulations by Alternative 2f and the other cumulative projects. F. Paleontology 82 • 85 • The analysis of the potential impacts of Alternative 2f on paleontological resources is provided in Section 3.12, Paleontology (page 3.12-1 in the Final EIR/EIS). That analysis indicated construction of the SR-91 CIP would result in permanent impacts to paleontological resources in the following sediments: all types of Pleistocene alluvium, sedimentary rocks of the Norco area, the Fernando Formation, sandstone of the Norco area, Chino Hills Pliocene sediments, the Puente Formation, the Topanga Formation, the Sespe and Vaqueros Formations, the Santiago Formation, the Silverado Formation, the Williams Formation, and the Ladd Formation. Measure PAL-1 (page 3.12-21 in the Final EIR/EIS) requires the preparation and implementation of a PMP that would partially address the effects of Alternative 2f on paleontological resources. The PMP would require appropriate fieldwork, monitoring during construction, and specimen collection, identification, and curation. The cumulative projects would also be expected to result in permanent impacts to paleontological resources when excavation for those projects extends into fossiliferous formations. The same sediments impacted by the SR-91 CIP construction would be expected to be impacted during construction of most of the cumulative projects, to varying degrees. The quantity and severity of those impacts would be related to the amount (acres) of soil disturbed, the depth of excavation, and the resources, if any, encountered during construction. Where significant impacts to paleontological resources are identified in the CEQA (and NEPA, where applicable) documents for the cumulative projects, the cumulative projects would be required to include mitigation measures to address potential impacts to paleontological resources encountered during construction. In summary, the construction of Alternative 2f and many of the cumulative projects would occur in sediments sensitive for paleontological resources, which would result in permanent adverse impacts to those resources. Alternative 2f and the other cumulative projects would result in a net loss of paleontological resources because the mitigation for the affected resources would not create new paleontological resources to replace those impacted during construction. As a result, Alternative 2f would contribute to a permanent cumulative impact related to paleontological resources in the RSA. There is no mitigation that would replace paleontological resources impacted during construction. Alternative 2f and most other construction projects would require appropriate preconstruction fieldwork to identify potential areas of resources; measures during construction in areas identified as sensitive for paleontological resources; and the collection, identification, and curation of specimens from the affected sediments and formations. This work would partially reduce impacts to paleontological resources. However, because the impacts are permanent even with these measures, Alternative 2f would incrementally contribute to cumulative impacts to paleontological resources. G. Short -Term Air Quality During Construction The analysis of the potential air quality impacts of Alternative 2f is provided in Section 3.14, Air Quality (page 3.14-1 in the Final EIR/EIS). That analysis indicated that construction of Alternative 2f would result in substantial short-term air quality impacts 83 86 associated with fugitive dust and construction equipment emissions. Section 3.14.4 (page 3.14-39) identified several measures that would substantially reduce these short- term impacts during Project construction including compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, maintaining equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune per the manufacturer specifications, control of truck loads to avoid material spilling on public roads by compliance with California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114, and compliance with Caltrans Standard Construction Specifications, Sections 10 and 18 (dust control) and 39-3.06 (asphalt concrete plant emissions). Construction of the other cumulative projects would also result in short-term air quality impacts associated with fugitive dust and construction equipment emissions. As described in Section 3.25.4.3 (page 3.25-15 in the Final EIR/EIS), five transportation projects (SR-91 widening between the SR-91/SR-55 separation and the SR-91/SR-241 separation, SR-71/SR-91 interchange improvements, SR-241/SR-91 HOV/HOT connector, I-15/Cajalco Road interchange improvement project, and 1-15 corridor improvement project) would be under construction at the same time as the SR-91 CIP. The quantity and severity of the short-term air quality impacts of those projects would be related to the amount of soil disturbed, the types and numbers of pieces of construction equipment, weather conditions, and other factors specific to each project. The five concurrent construction projects are required to comply with some or all of the applicable SCAQMD rules as well as local jurisdictions' requirements for dust and emission controls during construction. In addition, all projects on State highways are required to comply with Caltrans' Standard Construction Specifications, Sections 10, 18, and 39-3.06. All materials hauling is required to comply with CVC Section 23114 to avoid material spilling on public roads. With the construction of Alternative 2f and the five other cumulative transportation projects listed in Section 3.25.4.3 occurring concurrently and in proximity to each other, there is potential for cumulative impacts related to short-term fugitive dust and construction equipment emissions. Those cumulative short-term air quality impacts could be substantial, depending on the specific construction activities on any specific day, weather and climatic conditions, and other factors. Therefore, Alternative 2f has potential to contribute to cumulative short-term air quality impacts during construction, even with minimization measures. As noted above, the SR-91 CIP includes substantial measures to address short- term dust and equipment emissions. These types of measures are typically required of most major construction projects in the South Coast Air Basin by the SCAQMD and/or the local jurisdictions. As a result, the potential short-term cumulative air quality impacts of the SR-91 CIP and the five other cumulative projects that would be constructed concurrently would be substantially reduced based on compliance with SCAQMD regulations. H. Long -Term Noise During Operations 84 • 87 The analysis of the potential for operations -related noise impacts of Alternative 2f is provided in Section 3.15 (page 3.15-1 in the Final EIR/EIS). The study area for the noise impacts analysis considered the effects of the SR-91 CIP on sensitive land uses adjacent to or very close to the Project segments on SR-91, 1-15, and the intersecting local streets. That analysis indicated the operation of the Project improvements would result in increased noise levels at sensitive receptors compared to the No Build Alternative. Existing noise levels in the area range from 53 to 79 dBA at residential uses. As expected, the majority of that noise is generated by traffic on SR-91, 1-15, and local streets. Alternative 2f is predicted to result in noise levels ranging from 56 to 84 dBA at residential uses. As shown in Table 3.25.1, a large number of transportation projects are proposed in northeast Orange County and western Riverside County. The following projects shown on Figure 3.25-1 could result in increases in ambient noise levels in the long term that cannot be avoided or substantially mitigated: ID Nos 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 25, 26, 52, 57, 58, and 59. Because all these projects (except No 11, MIS Corridor A) were included in the traffic modeling for the SR-91 CIP which was used as the traffic data input for the SR-91 CIP noise study, the cumulative _noise impacts of these projects have been accounted for in the SR-91 noise analysis. Table 3.15.13 jpage 3.15-31 in the Final EIR/EIS) indicates the noise levels at monitored and modeled locations along the alignments of the Project segments of SR- 91 and 1-15 will not increase between the Existing (2007) and 2035 No Build Alternative conditions. This is not unexpected because those monitored and modeled locations are focused on the freeways and not in areas away from the freeways that might experience increased noise generated by land development or other projects farther away from the freeways. However, as Table 3.15.12 (page 3.15-27 in the Final EIR/EIS) shows, Alternative 2 would result in the following: • Noise levels in 2035 greater than 67 dBA at up to 41 locations, depending on the design variation. • Noise level increases from existing levels to 2035 by 12 or more dBA at 6 or 7 receivers, depending on the design variation. • Noise levels in 2035 at 75 dBA or greater at 37 to 41 receivers depending on the. design variation. These Project -related increases in noise levels by 2035 are a result of the increased traffic volumes on the Project segments of SR-91 and 1-15 which include traffic generated by the cumulative land development projects listed in Table 3.25.1 and shown on Figure 3.25-1. As a result, these noise effects reflect the effects of long-term noise generated by Alternative 2f and the other cumulative projects. Some of the cumulative land use projects shown in Table 3.25.2 would result in development in areas that are currently largely rural or very low -density development and, as a result, have lower ambient noise levels than more developed areas. New land 85 88 uses in those areas are anticipated to result in increases in ambient noise levels that likely would not be fully mitigated. As discussed above, Alternative 2f would result in increased noise levels in the project area compared to the No Build Alternative, and some of those increases cannot feasibly be mitigated as described in Section 3.15 in the Final EIR/EIS. It is also expected that many of the other cumulative transportation and land use projects in the area would result in increases in long-term noise levels, some of which may also not be substantially or feasibly mitigated. As a result, it is possible that Alternative 2f, when considered with other cumulative projects, would contribute to long-term cumulative noise impacts in the RSA. Although there are areas in northeast Orange County and western Riverside County that would not be developed in urban/suburban uses (such as CHSP and other protected open spaces), the general trend in this area is toward urban/suburban uses based on adopted transportation and land use plans. It is expected that ambient noise levels in much of this area would increase over time as additional land uses are developed and transportation facilities and improvements are implemented. As a result, the incremental contribution of Alternative 2f to cumulative increases in ambient noise levels would likely be small when considered against a background of substantial existing, adopted, and planned land development and other transportation improvements in northeast Orange County and western Riverside -County. Alternative 2f includes some new sound walls as well as increases in heights in some existing sound walls along the Project segments of SR-91 and 1-15 and would result in only a minor increase in ambient noise levels. Where the other cumulative transportation and land use projects result in substantial, direct noise impacts, those cumulative projects would also include appropriate noise mitigation for long-term impacts on sensitive receptors, which could include new sound walls, increases in heights of existing sound walls, other buffers, and/or structural features (sound proofing, double pane windows, etc.), as appropriate for each project. However, it is not expected that all the increases in noise levels associated with those projects can be mitigated to levels equivalent to those under no project conditions. As a result, the SR-91 CIP and the other cumulative projects will contribute to a long-term increase in ambient noise levels with the likelihood that some of those effects cannot be substantially mitigated or mitigated to a less than significant level. I. Natural Communities, Plant Species, and Animal Species The analysis of the potential for Alternative 2f to result in cumulative impacts on biological resources is provided in the Cumulative Impacts Analysis Report. The impacts analysis for those resources are provided in Sections 3.17, 3.19, and 3.20 (pages 3.17-1, 3.19-1, and 3.20-1, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS). Section 3.25.4.9 (page 3.25-32 in the Final EIR/EIS) concluded that Alternative 2f would potentially contribute to cumulative impacts on a number of natural communities of special concern and the plant and animal species associated with those natural 86 89 • communities. As discussed in Sections 3.17.3, 3.19.3, and 3.20.3 (pages 3.17-16, 3.19- 11, and 3.20-10, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS), Alternative 2f would result in the permanent and/or temporary removal of CSS, riparian/riverine, and oak woodland habitats within the Project disturbance limits and would result in impacts to plant and animal species which inhabit these natural communities. As discussed in Section 3.17.3, Alternative 2f would not result in substantive temporary impacts on the Coal Canyon wildlife crossing and would retain effective openness ratios at the crossing because the undercrossing would be permanently widened. The openness of the Coal Canyon undercrossing with the widening would be sufficient to allow large mammals to move between the Santa Ana Mountains and the Puente -Chino Hills. Alternative 2f would result in temporary adverse impacts on wildlife movement during construction but would not result in adverse impacts related to wildlife movement after construction is complete. The Project -related improvements to the Coal Canyon undercrossing would provide more cover for that wildlife crossing. As discussed in Section 3.17 (page 3.17-17 in the Final EIR/EIS), Alternative 2f included design features to improve wildlife crossings at a number of locations along SR-91 which would beneficially affect wildlife movement. The only cause of indirect effects such as noise and lighting at Coal Canyon would be traffic. As described in Table 3.6.22 (page 3.6-71 in the Final EIR/EIS), the total daily traffic volumes will be the same in 2035 with or without the project. Because traffic levels will remain relatively the same, indirect effects caused by traffic (e.g., noise and lighting) will remain relatively the same with or without the SR-91 CIP. The noise level at the Coal Canyon undercrossing is not expected to increase as a result of Alternative 2f. Although noise, in general, will not increase as a result of the SR-91 CIP, noise impacts are expected to extend into the surrounding natural habitat by approximately the same distance that SR-91 is being widened. Because many wildlife corridor improvements have already been implemented at Coal Canyon, construction and operation of Alternative 2f are not expected to result in substantial temporary, permanent or indirect effects on wildlife movement, and would not contribute to an adverse cumulative impact on wildlife corridors. Although detailed environmental analyses were not available for many of the cumulative projects, it is very likely that some of those projects would result in the permanent and/or temporary removal of natural communities, specifically the three natural communities in the BSA for the SR-91 CIP. Because many of the cumulative projects are in the same approximate geographic area as the SR-91 CIP, it is reasonable to assume they would impact the same types of natural communities as the SR-91 CIP and it is reasonable to conclude that some of the cumulative projects in Tables 3.25.1 and 3.25.2 would result in impacts related to the permanent and/or temporary removal of CSS, riparian/riverine, and oak woodland habitats and the various plant and animal species associated with those habitats. In addition, depending on the location and design of the other cumulative projects, some of those cumulative projects could include design features that beneficially affect wildlife movement and some could adversely affect wildlife movement. 87 Past transportation and land use projects, including historical agricultural and grazing activities, have resulted in a substantial reduction in the total amounts of these natural plant communities in northeast Orange County and western Riverside County. As a result, the cumulative past, present, and future projects have contributed to a cumulative adverse impact on these natural communities in the RSA. In summary, Alternative 2f would result in the permanent and temporary removal of small amounts of CSS, riparian/riverine habitat, and oak woodland habitat, and would result in impacts to the plant and animal species that inhabit those natural communities, and would also result in some effects on wildlife movement in the area. Some of the other cumulative projects, because they are in the same geographic areas, would also result in the permanent and/or temporary removal of CSS, riparian/riverine, and oak woodland habitats and would also result in impacts on the plant and animal species associated with those natural communities and wildlife movement in the area. Therefore, Alternative 2f would contribute incrementally to cumulative impacts on these natural communities and wildlife movement in the area. As discussed in Sections 3.17.2, 3.19.2, and 3.20.2 (pages 3.17-1, 3.19-1, and 3.20-2, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS), Alternative 2f is a covered project in the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The Western Riverside County MSHCP provides mitigation for cumulative impacts to covered species and their habitats.. Compliance consistency with the conditions in the Western Riverside County MSHCP ensures that cumulative and indirect impacts to those species are effectively mitigated. In addition to compliance with the Western Riverside County MSHCP, substantial avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and compensation measures provided in Sections 3.17.4, 3.19.4, and 3.20.4 (pages 3.17-26, 3.19-15, and 3.20-1.3, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS) are included in Alternative 2f to address the permanent and temporary project impacts on natural communities and wildlife movement. Similarly, it is expected that other cumulative projects in the area that impact natural communities would also include appropriate •measures to address the permanent and temporary impacts of those projects on natural communities and wildlife movement. Some of the other cumulative projects may also be covered projects under the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Additional measures for Alternative 2f, beyond those described in Sections 3.17.4, 3.19.4 and 3.20.4, are not warranted because those measures already substantially reduce or mitigate the effects of Alternative 2f on natural communities and the plant and animal species associated with those communities, and wildlife movement in the area. J. Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States The analysis of the potential for Alternative 2f to result in cumulative impacts on wetlands and other Waters of the United States is provided in the Cumulative Impacts Analysis Report. The analysis of the potential Project effects related to wetlands and other waters is provided in Section 3.18, Wetlands and Other Waters (page 3.18-1 in 88 91 the Final EIR/EIS). As shown in Tables 3.18.2 and 3.18.3 (pages 3.18-8 and 3.18-9, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS), Alternative 2f would result in permanent and temporary impacts to waters under the jurisdiction of the Corps, other nonjurisdictional waters, and areas under the jurisdiction of CDFG and the RWQCB. As noted in Measures WET-1, WET-2, and WET-3 (page 3.18-15 in the Final EIR/EIS), Alternative 2f would require permits from the following agencies: • Corps — pursuant to Section 404 of the federal CWA • CDFG — pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code • RWQCB — pursuant to Section 401 of the federal CWA In addition, Compensatory Mitigation for the impacts of Alternative 2f on natural communities would result in a net increase in wetlands and other waters in the area (page 3.17-27 in the Final EIR/EIS). Although detailed environmental analyses were not available for many of the cumulative projects in Tables 3.25.1 and 3.25.2, it is very likely that some of those projects would result in permanent and/or temporary effects on wetlands and other jurisdictional waters because of the presence of substantial water resources (Santa Ana River, creeks, drainages, etc.) in northeast Orange County and western Riverside County. As a result, it is reasonable to assume some of the cumulative projects Tables 3.25.1 and 3.25.2 would impact waters under the jurisdiction of the Corps, CDFG, and/or RWQCB similar to the waters affected by Alternative 2f. In summary, Alternative 2f would result in permanent and/or temporary impacts to jurisdictional and other waters. In addition, based on the types and locations of the other cumulative projects, it is reasonable to assume those projects would result in the removal of limited amounts of wetlands and other waters because the water resources themselves are limited in this area. Past transportation and land use projects, including historical agricultural and grazing activities, have resulted in a substantial reduction in the total amounts of wetlands and other waters in northeast Orange County and western Riverside County. Depending on the location and design of the other cumulative projects, some of those projects could include design features and/or compensatory mitigation that beneficially affect wetlands and other waters as well as some that could adversely affect wetlands and other waters. Nonetheless, the cumulative past, present, and future projects in the RSA have contributed and would continue to contribute to a cumulative adverse impact on wetlands and other waters. As a result, Alternative 2f would contribute incrementally to cumulative impacts on jurisdictional and other waters. Alternatives 2f includes Compensatory Mitigation to address the permanent and temporary Project effects on jurisdictional and other waters in the discussion for riparian/riverine communities in Section 3.18.4. In addition, Alternative 2f would require permits from the Corps, CDFG, and RWQCB, and the conditions from those permits will be included in the final design, construction, and operation of the Project. Similarly, it is 89 92 expected that other cumulative projects in the RSA that impact waters would also include appropriate measures to address the permanent and temporary impacts of those projects on protected waters. Additional measures for Alternative 2f, beyond those described above, are not warranted because those measures already substantially reduce or mitigate the Project effects on jurisdictional and other waters. K. Threatened and Endangered Species The analysis of the potential for the Project to result in cumulative impacts on threatened and endangered species is provided in the Cumulative Impacts Analysis Report. The potential for the SR-91 CIP to result in impacts to threatened and endangered species is analyzed in Section 3.21, Threatened and Endangered Species (page 3.21-1 in the Final EIR/EIS). Species observed or potentially occurring in the BSA for Alternative 2f that are protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act and/or the California Endangered Species Act are: • Braunton's milk -vetch: This federally endangered plant was not observed in the Project disturbance limits but critical habitat outside the Project disturbance limits could experience indirect impacts. • Least Bell's vireo: This federally and California endangered species was observed in the BSA during the 2008 surveys. • Coastal California gnatcatcher: This federally threatened species was observed in the BSA during the 2008 surveys. • Stephens' kangaroo rat: This is a federally endangered and State threatened species which is fully covered under the Western Riverside County MSHCP_ There is no suitable habitat in the BSA in Orange County for this species. Sections 3.17.2, 3.19.2, and 3.20.2 (pages 3.17-1, 3.19-1, and 3.20-2, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS) describe other special -interest plant and animal species potentially occurring in the BSA and in the three natural communities in the BSA. The impacts of Alternative 2f on the four threatened and endangered species and the other special -interest species would include permanent and temporary impacts related to removal of individual plants, critical habitat, individual animals/birds, and/or indirect effects resulting in degradation of habitat as described in Sections 3.17.3, 3.19.3, 3.20.3, and 3.21.3 (pages 3.17-16, 3.19-11, 3.20-10 and 3.21-9, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS). As shown in Tables 3.25.1 and 3.25.2, quantified information on the impacts of many of the other cumulative projects to threatened and endangered species and other special -status species is not available. However, based on the types and locations of these cumulative projects, it is reasonable to assume they would result in the loss of limited amounts of threatened and endangered species and other special -status species because those species are themselves limited in this area. Past transportation and land 90 93 • • use projects, including historical agriculture and grazing, have resulted in a substantial reduction in the total amounts of habitat available for threatened and endangered and other special -status species in northeast Orange County and western Riverside County. As a result, the cumulative past, present, and future projects in the RSA have contributed and would continue to contribute to a cumulative adverse impact on threatened and endangered species and other special -status species and their potential habitats. In summary, Alternative 2f would potentially result in permanent and/or temporary impacts on threatened and endangered species and other special -interest species. Some of the other cumulative projects, because they are in the same geographic area, may also result in the permanent and/or temporary impacts to threatened and endangered species and other special -interest species. As a result, Alternative 2f is anticipated to contribute incrementally to cumulative impacts on threatened and endangered species and other special -interest species in the RSA. The SR-91 CIP is a covered project in the Western Riverside County MSHCP. In addition, as discussed in Section 3.21.4 (page 3.21-20 in the Final EIR/EIS), substantial Compensatory Mitigation and Mitigation Measures are included in Alternative 2f to address the permanent and temporary Project impacts on threatened and endangered species and other special -interest species. Similarly, it is expected other cumulative projects that impact threatened and endangered species and other special -interest species would also include measures to address the permanent and temporary impacts of those projects. Some cumulative projects may also be covered projects under the Western Riverside County MSHCP. L. Invasive Species The analysis of the potential for the Project to result in cumulative impacts related to invasive species is provided in the Cumulative Impacts Analysis Report. The analysis of the Project effects related to invasive species is provided in Section 3.22, Invasive Species (page 3.22-1 in the Final EIR/EIS). That analysis indicated that 34 exotic plants in the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal IPC) California Invasive Plant Inventory were identified in the BSA. Of those, there are 5 with an overall high rating, 16 with a moderate rating, and 13 with a limited rating. Invasive species that have severe ecological effects are given a high rating. The potential for Alternative 2f to result in impacts related to invasive species would be partially mitigated based on the development and implementation of a detailed Weed Abatement Program that would be developed in compliance with Executive Order 13112 during final design, would be implemented at the initiation of construction, and would end approximately 3 years after Project operations are initiated, as required in Measure IS-1 (page 3.22-4 in the Final EIR/EIS). Because some of the other cumulative projects listed in Tables 3.25-1 and 3.25-2 are near areas of natural plant communities or resources that provide protection to natural plant communities, such as CHSP and the Cleveland National Forest (CNF), those projects would potentially result in impacts related to invasive species. The number of potential invasive species of concern could be substantial, with the 34 exotic 91 plants identified in the BSA and potentially more species in other parts of the RSA near the cumulative projects. In summary, Alternative 2f would potentially result in impacts related to invasive species. Some of the other cumulative projects may also result in impacts related to invasive species in the RSA. As a result, Alternative 2f would contribute incrementally to cumulative impacts related to invasive species in the RSA in northeast Orange County and western Riverside County. The potential for Alternative 2f to result in impacts related to invasive species will be partially mitigated based on the development and implementation of Measure IS-1. In addition, after construction, impacted areas adjacent to native vegetation will be revegetated with plant species native to the vicinity and approved by the Ca(trans Biologist_ It is expected that the other cumulative projects that may result in impacts related to invasive species would also include measures in those individual projects to address the potential impacts of those projects related to invasive species. Additional measures for Alternative 2f, beyond those described above, are not warranted because those measures already substantively reduce or mitigate the effects of the Project related to invasive species. 92 95 SECTION VI FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES Section 3.24, Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources That Would Be Involved in the Proposed Project (page 3.24-1 in the Final EIR/EIS), describes the potential long-term commitments of resources if the SR-91 CIP is implemented. The construction of Alternative 2f would result in long-term and permanent commitments of natural, physical, human, and fiscal resources to the Project. Land acquired for the Project would be permanently committed to a transportation use and would no longer be available for residential, nonresidential, historical resource, or other uses. Other permanent environmental changes associated with Alternative 2f include the loss of agricultural lands, altered viewsheds, consumption of construction materials and energy, permanent impacts to wetlands and other natural communities, removal of residential and nonresidential uses, and the potential cumulative loss of paleontological resources. 93 • SECTION VII FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS Pursuant to Sections 15126(d) and 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, this section is provided to examine ways in which the SR-91 CIP could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional development, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Growth -inducing effects are not necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. This issue is presented to provide additional information on ways in which this Project could contribute to significant changes in the environment beyond the direct consequences of implementing the improvements in the SR-91 CIP. As discussed in detail in Section 3.2, Growth (page 3.2-1 in the Final EIR/EIS), the growth inducing impacts analysis for the SR-91 CIP considered four direct questions regarding the potential for the Project to affect growth as summarized in the following sections. How, if at all, does the project potentially change accessibility? (page 3.2-10 in the Final EIR/EIS) The SR-91 CIP would improve the vehicle, person, and goods movement travel times on SR-91 and 1-15 to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Orange and Riverside Counties. The SR-91 CIP would also provide improvements to intersecting local roads (interchange improvements and ramp modifications) along SR-91 and 1-15 to more effectively serve existing and forecast intra-regional travel demand and to reduce the diversion of regional traffic from the freeways into the surrounding communities. The SR-91 CIP would result in improvements to the operational performance of SR-91 and 1-15 but would not add new interchanges with local roads or other freeways on either SR-91 or 1-15. As a result, although the operations on SR-91 and 1-15 would be improved, this would not result in a substantial change in accessibility to/from these corridors because: • No new interchanges between local roads and SR-91 and 1-15 will be provided by the SR-91 CIP. • The SR-91 CIP will modify local street access to/from interchanges with SR-91 and 1-15 in the immediate vicinity of the interchanges but will not provide capacity or other accessibility -enhancing improvements farther away from those interchanges. • Although the SR-91 CIP includes freeway -to -freeway ramps for the HOV and express tolled lanes that would improve operations and travel times on those facilities, those ramps would not provide new access between those freeways because traffic can currently travel from freeway to freeway in the GP travel lanes. 94 • The SR-91 CIP does not provide interchanges at or access to other freeway facilities not already accessible to/from SR-91 and 1-15. In summary, although the SR-91 CIP would improve the operations on SR-91 and 1-15 and would improve accessibility to and/or from existing interchanges in the area, the Project improvements would not add new access to and/or from SR-91 and 1-15 that would result in growth pressures in areas where such access does not presently exist. How, if at all, do the project type, project location, and growth pressure potentially influence growth? (page 3.2-11 in the Final EIR/EIS) The SR-91 CIP responds to existing and forecast traffic congestion resulting from prior restrictions to any improvements on SR-91 east of SR-241 and traffic congestion due to local and regional growth that has already occurred in western Riverside County. This area is projected to continue to experience growth in population and jobs even in jurisdictions relatively constrained by limited land available for development. The Project area includes highly urbanized areas (City of Corona and the part of unincorporated Riverside County within the Project limits) with little remaining development capacity. Improvements to SR-91 and opportunities for new residential and nonresidential development are also constrained on the south by the CNF and the . New OC Park (NNL), and on the north by CHSP, the Santa Ana River, and Featherly Regional Park. The SR-91 CIP will provide improvements on existing transportation facilities and will not provide new freeways or other new roads around SR-91 and 1-15. In addition, although it will improve operations on SR-91 and 1-15, it will not substantially modify overall local, intra-regional, or inter -regional accessibility to and/or from SR-91 and 1-15. As a result, the type of project and the facility improvements included in the SR-91 CIP would not in themselves provide improved accessibility that could result in pressure for additional growth in the area. SR-91 is the only major freeway corridor connecting Riverside and Orange Counties. As discussed in Section 3.1.2.2, Environmental Consequences (page 3.1-47 in the Final EIR/EIS), Alternative 2f would require counties and cities to amend their General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements and potentially individual Specific Plans to reflect the final Project alignment, interchange locations, and redesignation of land acquired for the Project from nontransportation to transportation designations. Although the SR-91 CIP would result in land designated for other uses being converted to transportation uses that in itself would not be sufficient to result in pressure for growth in nontransportation uses in other areas in the vicinity of SR-91 and 1-15. As a result, the location of the Project segments of SR-91 and 1-15 in areas designated in the local General Plans for transportation and nontransportation uses would not in itself be sufficient to result in pressure for additional growth in the area, With the exception of the redesignation of land uses for areas incorporated into the transportation facilities, the SR-91 CIP is not expected to result in other changes to land uses in the study area based on the type of project or the location of the improvements provided by Alternative 2f. This is because the improvements in Alternative 2f are on 95 • 98 • existing segments of SR-91 and 1-15 in areas that have experienced rapid population, housing, and employment growth over the last couple of decades largely as a result of affordable and available housing in those areas. The past and forecasted growth in western Riverside County is consistent with the adopted local jurisdictions' General Plans and with overall adopted regional and local demographic forecasts and has not been and is not expected in the future to be dependent on transportation improvements in this part of western Riverside County. In addition, western Riverside County is projected to continue to experience growth in population and jobs even in jurisdictions that are relatively constrained by limited land available for development and without being dependent on transportation improvements. Growth in the counties and cities in the SR-91 CIP area is expected to occur with or without the Project, and is not dependent on transportation improvements in the SR-91 and 1-15 corridors. The improved travel times expected to be achieved as a result of the SR-91 CIP could have a slight increase on demand for residential and nonresidential uses in the Project area or nearby cities. However, that influence is expected to be very minor when considered with other pressures for growth and development, specifically economic and market conditions in the area and developers available and interested in developing residential and/or nonresidential projects in western Riverside County. Demand for new development is largely driven by economic and market conditions. Improved travel times on SR-91 and 1-15, while expected to benefit residents and businesses in this part of western Riverside County, are not expected by themselves to result in growth pressure for new residential or nonresidential uses in the area. The SR-91 CIP has the potential to contribute to, and possibly accelerate, the growth rate for western Riverside County. However, it would be considered negligible, as the jurisdictions in the Project vicinity (Corona and Norco) are relatively ,constrained by limited land available for development compared to other parts of western Riverside County. The Project area includes highly urbanized areas (Corona and the part of the Riverside County Temescal Canyon Area Land Use) and suburban areas (City of Norco) with little remaining development capacity. Improvements to SR-91 and opportunities for new residential and nonresidential development are also constrained by existing publicly owned lands that are not subject to future development. These lands include: • CHSP on the north and south sides of SR-91: CHSP is identified as: (1) natural open space (no residential or commercial development permitted) on the City of Anaheim General Plan Land Use Map (November 30, 2010); (2) open space/recreation (no residential or commercial development permitted) in the City of Yorba Linda General Plan Land Use Element (1993); and (3) open space/recreation (no residential or commercial development permitted) in the City of Corona General Plan Map Book (January 25, 2012). • New OC Park (NNL) on the south side of SR-91: The New OC Park (NNL) is shown as Open Space Reserve (land that is to remain open space as stated on page III-19 of the Orange County General Plan Land Use Element) on the Orange County General Plan Land Use Map (September 13, 2005). 96 • Cleveland National Forest south of SR-91 and west of 1-15: The CNF is identified as Cleveland National Forest (land under federal ownership that constitutes a constraint to development as stated on page III-8 of the Orange County General Plan Land Use Element) on the Orange County General Plan Land Use Map (September 13, 2005). • Featherly Regional Park on the north side of SR-91: Featherly Regional Park is identified as Parks (land for active and passive recreational uses only) on the City of Anaheim General Plan Land Use Map (November 30, 2010). In summary, the types of improvements and the location of the SR-91 CIP are not sufficient to result in pressure for additional growth in western Riverside County. The Build Alternatives are expected to accommodate existing, approved, and planned growth in the area but are not expected to influence the amount, timing, or location of growth in the area as a result of the type or location of the project. Is project -related growth reasonably foreseeable? (page 3.2-14 in the Final EIR/EIS) As discussed above, the SR-91 CIP is not expected to influence the amount, timing, or location of growth in the Project area as a result of the type or location of the project. Therefore, the SR-91 CIP will not result in reasonably foreseeable project -related growth in the study area. If there is project -related growth, how, if at all, will that impact resources of concern? (page 3.2-14 in the Final EIR/EIS) As discussed above, there are no reasonably foreseeable project -related growth impacts expected to result from the Project. Conclusion In summary, based on this analysis, it was concluded that the SR-91 CIP would not result in growth -inducing impacts. 97 100 SECTION VIII FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES A. Background Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires EIRs to consider and discuss alternatives to the proposed actions. Subsection (a) states: (a) An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision -making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason. Subsection 15126.6(b) states the purpose of the alternatives analysis: (b) Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly. In Subsection 15126.6(c), the State CEQA Guidelines describe the selection process for a range of reasonable alternatives: (c) The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed. The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency's determination. Additional information explaining the choice of alternatives may be included in the administrative record. Among the 98 101 factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are:(i) failure to meet most of the basic Project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. The range of alternatives required is governed by a "rule of reason" that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. Alternatives are limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project. However, when significant impacts can be mitigated by the adoption of mitigation measures, the lead agency has no obligation to consider the feasibility of alternatives with respect to that impact in its findings, even if the alternative would mitigate the impact to a greater degree .than the proposed project. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal. App. 3d 692, 730-731; Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 400-403; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal. App. 3d 515, 521.) Ca!trans and RCTC have identified and included in Alternative 2f mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental impacts of the SR-91 CIP identified in the Final EIR/EIS. However, long-term noise impacts, permanent impacts on oak woodlands, some cumulative impacts, and adverse impacts on human beings would remain significant after mitigation. The objectives of the SR-91 CIP are (page 1-11 in the Final EIR/EIS): 1. Improve the vehicle, person, and goods movement within the SR-91 corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. 2. Provide improvements along the SR-91 and 1-15 transportation corridors as well as to related local roads and to reduce diversion of regional traffic from the freeways into the surrounding communities. There are two types of alternatives evaluated in the Final EIR/EIS for the SR-91 CIP. First are the alternatives that were considered but were rejected from further consideration. Reasons for elimination included failure to meet basic project objectives, infeasibility, or inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126. 6(c).) Those alternatives were: • HOV/tolled express lanes in parallel alternative (page 2-140 in the Final EIR/EIS) • Additional HOV lanes alternative (page 2-141 in the Final EIR/EIS) 99 102 • • • • Alternatives considered in the Value Analysis Study Report (page 2-141 in the Final EIR/EIS) • Mid -City at -grade access to tolled express lanes (page 2-142 in the Final EIR/EIS) • Multi -modal components (page 2-142 in the Final EIR/EIS) Second are the alternatives that were considered in detail in the Final EIR/EIS. Those alternatives are: • Alternative 1: Add General -Purpose Lanes and Maintain HOV Lanes (page 2-9 in the Final EIR/EIS) with design variations a, b, c, and d. • Alternative 2: Add General -Purpose Lanes and Extend Tolled Express Lanes (page 2-10 in the Final, EIR/EIS), with design variations a, b, c, d, e, f, g, and h. • No Build Alternative (page 2-123 in the Final EIR/EIS) A complete discussion of alternatives that were considered in detail is provided below. B. Alternatives Considered but Rejected from Further Consideration In determining an appropriate range of alternatives to be evaluated in the Final EIR/EIS, a number of possible alternatives were initially considered and rejected. Alternatives were rejected because either they could not accomplish most of the basic objectives of the Project, would not have resulted in a reduction of potentially significant impacts, or were considered infeasible. The specific reasons for not selecting each of the rejected alternatives are described below. 1. HOV/Tolled Express Lanes in Parallel Alternative (page 2-140 in the Final EIR/EIS) Finding. For the reasons set forth below in the Supporting Explanation, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) rejects the HOV/Tolled Express Lanes in Parallel Alternative because (1) it would not provide the same operational efficiency as Alternatives 1 and 2 including Alternative 2f, (2) one of these cross sections would require. more right-of-way than Alternatives 1 and 2 including Alternative 2f, and (3) comparable functionality is provided in Alternative 2 including Alternative 2f. Supporting Explanation. As discussed in Section 2.3.8.1 (page 2-140 in the Final EIR/EIS), implementation of both HOV and tolled express lanes, in parallel, was considered for two cross -sections. The first would construct one HOV lane and one tolled express lane in each direction. A single tolled express lane and HOV lane would not provide passing opportunities which would reduce the operational efficiency of both lanes and make both facilities less attractive. Without passing opportunities, free flow of the tolled express and HOV lanes could not be assured. Free flow is considered critical to maintaining the time -saving incentive for users paying the express lane toll. The other configuration would provide one HOV lane and two tolled express lanes in each 100 direction. That option would maintain the HOV lane and provide for passing opportunities on the tolled express lanes. However, the third additional lane would result in a total cross-section exceeding that which is considered the maximum feasible, based on costs and impacts to businesses and residences in the City of Corona. Because of the loss of efficiency with separate HOV and tolled express lanes and because comparable functionality can be achieved through the tolled express lanes and the tolled express lanes pricing structure in Alternative 2 including Alternative 2f, the HOV/Tolled Express Lanes in Parallel Alternative was not carried forward for detailed evaluation and was rejected by RCTC for further consideration. 2. Additional HOV Lanes Alternative (page 2-141 in the Final EIR/EIS) Finding. For the reasons set forth below in the Supporting Explanation, RCTC rejects the Additional HOV Lanes Alternative because (1) it would cost more than Alternative 1 and approach the cost of Alternative 2 including Alternative 2f, (2) there is less available funding for this type of alternative, and (3) comparable functionality is provided in Alternative 2 including Alternative 2f. Supporting Explanation. As discussed in Section 2.3.8.2 (page 2-141 in the Final EIR/EIS), consideration was given to implementing two HOV lanes in each direction rather than two tolled express lanes. This option could be constructed within the maximum feasible cross section, but the cost would exceed the cost of Alternative 1 and would approach the cost of Alternative 2 including Alternative 2f. Because the known available funding for the Project is not sufficient to cover the additional cost that would be incurred for a two HOV lanes alternative, this alternative is at a severe fiscal disadvantage compared to a tolled express lanes alternative. Alternative 2 including Alternative 2f can provide functionality comparable to multiple HOV lanes but with a change in vehicle occupancy requirements from two or more to three or more persons. Finally, the availability of tolls to assist in financing the tolled express lanes alternative is a major advantage for funding the improvements in Alternative 2 including Alternative 2f, which does not occur with a multiple HOV lanes alternative. Because of higher costs and less available funding, and because comparable functionality can be achieved by the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 including Alternative 2f, the Additional HOV Lanes Alternative was not carried forward for detailed evaluation in this EIR/EIS and was rejected by RCTC for further consideration. 3. Alternatives Considered in the Value Analysis Study Report (page 2-141 in the Final EIR/EIS) Finding. For the reasons set forth below in the Supporting Explanation, RCTC rejects the alternatives evaluated in the Value Analysis Study Report because they would (1) result in substantially increased construction and/or operations/maintenance costs; environmental impacts; and/or schedule effects, (2) were outside the scope of the project, (3) did not meet the project purpose, and/or (4) would result in right-of-way impacts disproportionate to the benefit to the traveling public. 101 104 • • Supporting Explanation. As discussed in Section 2.3.8.3 and Table 2.39 (pages 2-141 and 2-143, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS), in compliance with federal requirements for projects costing more than $25 million, a value analysis (VA) study was conducted from June 16 to June 27, 2008 (Value Analysis Study Report, October 2008). The 23 alternatives investigated in the VA study included reversible managed lanes, HOV widening with other new corridors, additional tolled express lanes, different configurations for freeway to freeway connectors and for freeway/local street interchanges, and construction of a park -and -ride facilities. Those alternatives were rejected for a variety of reasons including substantially increased construction and/or operations/maintenance costs; inconsistency with recommendations from previous planning studies, substantially increased environmental and schedule impacts, outside the scope of the project, did not meet the project purpose, and right-of-way impacts disproportionate to the benefit to the traveling public. More detailed descriptions of those alternatives and the reasons they were not carried forward for detailed evaluation in the EIR/EIS and were rejected by RCTC for further consideration are summarized in Table 2.39 (page 2-143 in the Final EIR/EIS). 4. Mid -City At -Grade Access to Tolled Express Lanes (page 1-142 in the Final EIR/EIS) Finding. For the reasons set forth below in the Supporting Explanation, RCTC rejects the design option for a Mid -City at -grade access to the tolled express lanes because this design option would (1) negatively impact traffic operations in both the GP and tolled express lanes, and (2) result in a negative impact to traffic operations that would conflict with the fundamental objective of the Project to increase capacity and throughput on SR-91 within the Project limits: Supporting Explanation. As discussed in Section 2.3.8.4 (page 2-142 in the Final EIR/EIS), a design option to provide at -grade Mid -City Access for westbound ingress and eastbound egress accessible from the Lincoln Avenue ramps was considered. Based on the traffic analyses, the weaving movements associated with this alternative would introduce additional friction as a result of an added access point to the tolled express lanes that would negatively impact traffic operations in both the GP and tolled express lanes. That negative impact to traffic operations conflicts with the fundamental objective of the Project to increase capacity and throughput on SR-91 within the Project limits. Therefore, this Alternative was eliminated from further consideration in the EIR/EIS and was rejected by RCTC for further consideration. 5. Multi -Modal Components (page 2-142 in the Final EIR/EIS) Finding. for the reasons set forth below in the Supporting Explanation, RCTC did not advance a separate multi -modal alternative for consideration because (1) Alternatives 1 and 2 are compatible with existing express bus services operating in the SR-91 corridor and with planned multi -modal projects that will be implemented in the corridor as funding becomes available and/or project planning efforts to implement multi -modal projects are completed and those projects are implemented, (2) those multi - modal projects are separate and independent projects from Alternatives 1 and 2 102 including Alternative 2f, and (3) they are compatible with and are not precluded by Alternatives 1 and 2 including Alternative 2f. Supporting Explanation. As discussed in Section 2.3.8.5 (page 2-143 in the Final EIR/EIS), the existing public transit services between Riverside and Orange Counties are bus and commuter rail. MetroLink commuter rail services between Riverside and Orange Counties in the SR-91 corridor are nearing capacity on existing equipment, and the corridor lacks sufficient express bus service. Depending on demand, RCTC plans to increase commuter rail services to Riverside County by five additional trips total. With this enhanced service, there will be at least one train every 30 minutes in the peak direction (westbound during the a.m. peak hour and eastbound during the p.m. peak hour). It is anticipated there will be at least 40 daily trips each on the Inland Empire Orange County Line and the 91 Line by 2030. The extension of the tolled express lanes under Alternative 2 would reduce the travel time for the existing express bus services using those lanes between the two counties and facilitate the planned expansion of the existing Express Bus service in this corridor. In addition, four separate transit projects are either planned or under study along the SR-91 corridor, as shown in Table 2.40 (page 2-147 in the Final EIR/EIS). As discussed earlier, a multi -modal improvement to construct reversible managed lanes on SR-91 was considered during the Value Analysis Study Report. It was considered to provide lower performance and greater cost when compared to the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 including Alternative 2f. As noted earlier, that alternative was rejected. Alternatives 1 and 2 including Alternative 2f are compatible with multi -modal projects that will be implemented as funding becomes available and/or project planning efforts to implement multi -modal projects are completed and those projects are implemented. Those multi -modal projects are separate and independent projects from Alternatives 1 and 2 including Alternative 2f, and are compatible with and not precluded by Alternatives 1 and 2 including Alternative 2f. C. Alternatives Considered in Detail in the Final EIR/EIS The following alternatives were considered in detail in the Final EIR/EIS. These alternatives are rejected for various reasons as set forth below. The No Build Alternative and the two Build Alternatives were evaluated on their ability to meet the following criteria (page 2-129 in the Final EIR/EIS): • Best Meets the Project Purpose: Table 2.37 (page 2-130 in the Final EIR/EIS) lists the defined purpose for the SR-91 CIP and describes the ability of the alternatives to satisfy this criterion. As shown in that table, the No Build Alternative does not meet the defined project purpose while Alternatives 1 and 2 do meet the defined project purpose. • Provides the Best Travel Time Savings: Table 1.10 (page 1-29 in the Final EIR/EIS) summarizes the travel times that would occur under the No Build and 103 • 106 • • Build Alternatives in 2015 and 2035. As shown in that table, travel times under the No Build Alternative would increase substantially by 2015 and 2035. Under Alternative 1, travel times would increase at much lower rates than under the No Build Alternative, but at higher rates than under Alternative 2 including Alternative 2f, when comparing the HOV lanes to the tolled express lanes. As a result, Alternative 2 including Alternative 2f best meets this criterion, Alternative 1 partially meets this criterion, and the No Build Alternative does not meet this criterion. • Considers Substantially Differentiating Environmental Impacts: Table 2.38 (page 2-131 in the Final EIR/EIS) summarizes the impacts of the No Build Alternative and Alternatives 1 and 2 including Alternative 2f, for those environmental topics where there is a difference in impacts among the alternatives. As shown in that table, the No Build Alternative does not result in impacts for all the parameters listed in the table. Alternatives 1 and 2 including Alternative 2f both result in effects in each category, but there is generally not a substantial difference between them in the impacts in most of those categories although Alternative 2 including Alternative 2f does have a greater footprint and disturbed area. • Considers Public and Agency Comments: For the agencies and members of the general public who provided an opinion or preference regarding the SR-91 Build Alternatives or other alternatives during the public review period for the Draft EIR/EIS, there was no strong preference for or against a specific alternative (page 2-135 in the Final EIR/EIS). • Consistent with System Planning: The MIS (page 1-7 in the Final EIR/EIS) proposed improvements in the SR-91 corridor within a maximum feasible cross section. 1. No Build Alternative No Build Alternative (page 2-123 in the Final EIR/EIS). Several existing approved and in -process projects in the SR-91 and 1-15 corridors are included in the background condition in the No Build Alternative and Alternatives 1 and 2 including Alternative 2f. Those projects (page 2-148 in the Final EIR/EIS) are the SR-91 eastbound lane addition project between SR-241 and SR-71, the Santa Ana Mainstem Project — Santa Ana River Reach 9 Phases 2A and 2B, the Santa Ana River Interceptor Pipeline Reaches III and IV, the SR-71/SR-91 interchange improvement project, the 1-15 corridor improvement project, and the SR-241/SR-91 direct connectors. The No Build Alternative would generally maintain the current configurations of SR-91 and 1-15 in the study area, including the approved/planned projects described above. Under this Alternative, there would be no additional GP lanes and no change in the existing configuration of tolled express or HOV lanes on SR-91. None of the improvements included in Alternatives 1 and 2 including Alternative 2f would be provided under the No Build Alternative. Although smaller localized projects could be 104 considered, approved, and implemented on their own merits under the No Build Alternative, this Alternative does not include any major corridor improvements on the project segments of SR-91 and 1-15 beyond those described above as background improvements under the No Build Alternative and Alternatives 1 and 2 including Alternative 2f. Finding: Based on the Supporting Explanation below, RCTC rejects the No Build Alternative because it would not (1) meet the Project purpose, (2) provide travel time savings, or (3) provide consistency with system planning. Supporting Explanation: Based on the evaluation of the criteria described above, although the No Build Alternative does not result in the environmental impacts of Alternatives 1 and 2 including Alternative 2f and it was identified as a preference in a few public comments on the Draft EIR/EIS, it does not meet the project purpose, provide travel time savings, or provide consistency with system planning. The No Build Alternative would not improve the vehicle, person, and goods movement travel times on SR-91 and 1-15 and would not more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties consistent with the RCTC Measure A 10-Year Delivery Plan. Under the No Build Alternative, no improvements would be provided on SR-91, 1-15, and intersecting local roads to more effectively serve existing and forecast intraregional travel demand and reduce diversion of regional traffic from the freeways into the surrounding communities. As a result, the No Build Alternative would not benefit travelers in these corridors and would not contribute to improved air quality in the long term. (page 2-123 in the Final EIR/EIS) The No Build Alternative would not meet either of the Project objectives (Table 2.37 on page 2-130 in the Final EIR/EIS): • Improve the vehicle, person, and goods movement within the SR-91 corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. • Provide improvements along the SR-91 and 1-15 transportation corridors as well as to related local roads and to reduce diversion of regional traffic from the freeways into the surrounding communities. Therefore, this Alternative was rejected by RCTC from further consideration and was not recommended for implementation. 2. Alternative 1: Add General -Purpose Lanes and Maintain HOV Lanes with design variations a, b, c, and d Alternative 1. Under Alternative 1, one GP lane would be constructed in each direction on SR-91 from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the City of Anaheim to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside. The existing HOV lanes on SR-91 between the Orange/Riverside County line and Pierce Street would be maintained under Alternative 1. In addition, one HOV lane would be constructed on 1-15 in each direction from 105 108 • Ontario Avenue in the City of Corona to an I-15/SR-91 HOV lane direct connector. The direct connector would provide HOV lane direct access from northbound 1-15 to westbound SR-91 and from eastbound SR-91 to southbound 1-15. The direct connector would allow vehicles in the HOV lanes to directly move from freeway to freeway, eliminating the need for HOVs to transition through traffic in the GP lanes. The existing 3 mi long Orange County segment of the SR-91 tolled express lanes, which currently operate as a tolled express lane facility, would continue to serve this function under Alternative 1. (page 2-41 in the Final EIR/EIS) Finding: Based on the Supporting Explanation below, RCTC rejects Alternative 1 with design variations a, b, c, and d because (1) it does not provide the same level of travel times savings as Alternative 2 including Alternative 2f, (2) it is not as consistent with system planning as Alternative 2 including Alternative 2f, (3) it does not provide improvements in the maximum feasible cross section. Supporting Explanation: Although Alternative 1 and its design variations meet the defined project purpose, Alternative 1 was not selected for implementation for the following reasons (page 2-129 in the Final EIR/EIS): • Although Alternative 1 provides improved travel times compared to the No Build Alternative, Alternative 2 including Alternative 2f provides greater improvements in travel times compared to the No Build Alternative than Alternative 1. • In general, the cross section in Alternative 2 including Alternative 2f is wider than in Alternative 1 and, as a result, meets the criterion of providing improvements in the SR-91 corridor within a maximum feasible cross section better than Alternative 1. • Alternatives 1 and 2 including Alternative 2f are considered equivalent in meeting the project purpose and public comment. • Alternative 1 is superior to Alternative 2 including Alternative 2f for the environmental impacts criteria. • Alternative 2 including Alternative 2f is superior to Alternative 1 in consistency with system planning. In summary, Alternative 2 including Alternative 2f meets the criteria used to evaluate the Alternatives better than Alternative 1. Therefore, Alternative 1 and its design variations was rejected by RCTC from further consideration and was not recommended for implementation. 3. Alternative 2: Add General -Purpose Lanes and Extend Tolled Express Lanes with design variations a, b, c, d, e, g, and h Alternative 2. (page 2-67 in the Final EIR/EIS) Under Alternative 2 including Alternative 2f, one GP lane would be constructed in each direction on SR-91 from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the City of Anaheim to Pierce Street in the City of 106 109 Riverside. The existing tolled express lanes in Orange County would be extended east from the Orange/Riverside County line to 1-15 in the City of Corona. The existing HOV lanes would be converted to tolled express lanes, and one additional tolled express lane would be added in each direction on SR-91 from the Orange/Riverside County Line to 1- 15, resulting in two tolled express lanes in each direction. Under Alternative 2, a single eastbound SR-91 tolled express lane would extend past 1-15 to McKinley Street and convert to an HOV lane at Pierce Street. Westbound at Pierce Street, the existing HOV lane would be converted into a tolled express lane east of McKinley Street and join, a second tolled express lane at the 1-15 interchange. The new eastbound GP lane would join a newly constructed collector -distributor road providing access to the eastbound Pierce Street and Magnolia Avenue exit ramps. In the westbound direction, the existing HOV lane would be converted to a GP lane west of Pierce Street, and a new tolled express lane would be added in the median near McKinley Street, joining a second tolled express lane just west of 1-15. Figure 2-10 shows a typical cross section on SR-91 under Alternative 2. Under Alternative 2 including Alternative 2f, a tolled express lane in each direction would be constructed on 1-15. Single -lane tolled express lane direct connectors between 1-15 and SR-91 would provide access from northbound 1-15 to westbound SR- 91 and from eastbound SR-91 to southbound 1-15 extending as a single tolled express lane in each direction on 1-15 to Cajalco Road. Additionally, single -lane tolled express lane direct connectors will be constructed from eastbound SR-91 to northbound I-15 and from southbound 1-15 to westbound SR-91, extending as a single -lane tolled express lane in each direction north on I-15 to the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. Finding: Based on the Supporting Explanation below, RCTC rejects Alternative 2 with design variations a, b, c, d, e, g, and h because (1) Alternative 2 with those design options would generally result in greater project costs and/or right-of-way acquisition without substantially greater benefits than Alternative 2 with design variation f. Supporting Explanation: Based on evaluation of the No Build and Build Alternatives against the criteria described earlier, Alternative 2 was recommended as the Preferred Alternative for the SR-91 CIP. Although Alternative 2 with design variations a, b, c, d, e, g, and h meets the defined project purpose, Alternative 2 with those design variations was not selected for implementation for the following reasons (pages 2-129 to 2-139 in the Final EIR/EIS). The design variations at three interchanges in Alternative 2 were evaluated based on the following criteria to assess which design variation would be included in Alternative 2, the Preferred Alternative: • Minimizes community/right-of-way impacts • Provides for best traffic, operations • Considers substantially differentiating environmental impacts • Considers public and agency comments 107 110 • • As discussed earlier, the Build Alternatives and their design variations result in effects in all the impact categories listed in Table 2.38 although there is generally not a substantial difference between the Build Alternatives and their design variations in the impacts in most of those categories. As noted earlier, Alternative 2 with its design variations does have a larger footprint and disturbs a larger area so its impacts related to the footprint and disturbed area would be greater than under Alternative 1 with its design variations. As a result, Alternative 1 with its design variations was superior to Alternative 2 with its design variations for the environmental impact criteria for the design variations at the three interchanges described below. The findings of the evaluation of the design variations considered for inclusion in Alternative 2, based on community/right-of-way impacts, traffic operations, and public and agency comments, are summarized in the following sections Auto Center Drive/Maple Street (Design Variations f-direct connectors to each interchange and b-split diamond ramps/collector road): Comparison of these design variations indicated design variation f would cost $2.2 million more, would result in 7 fewer full parcel acquisitions, 12 more partial parcel acquisitions, $17 million less in right-of-way costs, and in only slight differences in traffic volumes (some increases and some decreases) at the intersections in this interchange complex when compared to design variation b. Based on these factors, the City of Corona indicated a strong preference for design variation f at this interchange. The PDT, including Caltrans, RCTC, City of Corona, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA), concurred with the identification of design variation ffor inclusion in Alternative 2. Smith Avenue/Mid-City Access (Design Variations f-no Smith Avenue access and h-Smith Avenue access): Comparison of these design variations indicated design variation f would cost $77 million less, would result in 10 fewer full parcel acquisitions, 10 fewer partial parcel acquisitions, and reduced right-of-way costs compared to design variation h. There is no appreciable difference in overall traffic operations of SR-91 for these two design variations although design variation h would provide additional direct local access to the tolled express lanes not provided in design variation f. However, design variation h would have the potential to deteriorate operating conditions in the tolled express lanes. The PDT concurred with the identification of design variation f for inclusion in Alternative 2. Lincoln Avenue Interchange (Design Variation f-Lincoln Avenue hook ramps and a -tight diamond): Comparison of these design variations indicated design variation f would cost $7.5 million less than design variation a (tight diamond), would result in 4 fewer full parcel acquisitions, 3 more partial parcel acquisitions, reduced right-of-way costs, and better traffic operations compared to design variation a because it provides greater intersection spacing. The PDT concurred with the identification of design variation ffor inclusion in Alternative 2. The PDT unanimously agreed with the recommendation of Alternative 2f as the 108 Preferred Alternative for the SR-91 CIP (page 2-137 in the Final EIR/EIS). 4. Environmentally Superior Alternative Environmentally Superior Alternative. An EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternative. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(e)(2)) Tables 2.36 and 2.38 (pages 2-125 and 2-131, respectively, in the Final EIR/EIS) summarize the impacts of the No Build Alternative and Alternatives 1 and 2 for those environmental topics where there is a difference in impacts among the alternatives. The No Build Alternative does not result in impacts for any of the parameters shown in Tables 2.36 and 2.38. As a result, the No Build Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative. Finding: Based on the Supporting Explanation below, RCTC rejects the No Build Alternative because (1) it would not meet any of the Project objectives. Supporting Explanation: As explained above, the No Build Alternative would not meet any of the defined project objectives. Therefore, RCTC rejects the No Build Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative. Because the No Build Alternative does not meet the defined project purpose, Alternatives 1 and 2 were assessed to determine if one of them_ was environmentally superior to the other. As shown in Tables 2.36 and 2.38, Alternatives 1 and 2 both result in effects in each category, but there is generally not a substantial difference between them in the impacts in most of those categories. However, because Alternative 2 has a larger footprint and disturbed area, it typically results in greater impacts than Alternative 1 for impacts assessed based on the right-of-way needed for the alternative and the total disturbance limits for the alternative. Because those differences are relatively small, neither Alternative 1 nor 2 is clearly environmentally superior to the other. In addition, as discussed earlier, Alternative 2 results in improvements in travel times greater than Alternative 1 and is more consistent with system planning than Alternative 1 and, therefore, meets the project objectives better than Alternative 1. Therefore, RCTC rejects Alternative 1 as the environmentally superior alternative. 109 • 112 SECTION IX RECIRCULATION OF THE EIR The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) finds that no evidence of new significant impacts and no substantial increases to existing significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 was received by Caltrans or RCTC after the circulation of the Draft EIR/EIS for the SR-91 CIP. Under Section 15088.5, a lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR only in very limited circumstances. Specifically, Section 15088.5 requires recirculation only if (1) a new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented; (2) a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance; (3) a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it; or (4) the Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. Although a technical memorandum and some additional technical analysis were prepared by project consultants to provide additional details on the project effects, that material confirmed that no new significant impacts and no substantial increases to existing significant impacts will occur from the implementation of the Project as compared to the impacts already disclosed in the Draft EIR/EIS and the Final EIR/EIS. Accordingly, that additional information merely clarifies and amplifies the conclusions already reached by Caltrans and RCTC as to the Project. Therefore, none of the criteria set forth in Section 15088.5 have been met, and RCTC's decision that no recirculation of the EIR is required is fully supported by substantial evidence in the record. 110 113 • • SECTION X STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS A. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) declares that, pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, RCTC has balanced the benefits of the SR-91 CIP against any unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to approve the Project. If the benefits of the SR-91 CIP outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, those impacts may be considered "acceptable." B. RCTC declares that the Final EIR/EIS prepared by Caltrans for the SR-91 CIP has identified and discussed significant effects which may occur as a result of the Project. With the implementation of existing regulations, and Compensatory Mitigation, Mitigation Measures, and other Conditions discussed in the Final EIR/EIS and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP, provided in Exhibit A), the environmental effects of SR-91 CIP can be can be mitigated to less than significant levels, except for unavoidable significant impacts related to: • Long-term traffic related noise • Permanent impacts to 0.02 ac of oak woodland habitat • Cumulative impacts related to the human environment (conversion of farmlands to nonagricultural uses; community character and cohesion and property acquisition; traffic during construction; and visual and aesthetic resources), the physical environment (water quality and storm water runoff, paleontological resources, air quality during construction, and noise during operations), and the biological environment (natural communities, plant species, animal species, wetlands and other waters of the United States, threatened and endangered species, and invasive species) • Resulting adverse effects on human beings as a result of the cumulative impacts on the human, physical, and biological environment. Although extensive measures addressing these effects of the Project on the environment are provided in the Final EIR/EIS, those measures are not sufficient to avoid or reduce the Project effects described above to below a level of significance under CEQA (Caltrans Statement of Overriding Considerations, page 1, and Section 4.2.5, page 4-41, in the Final EIR/EIS). C. RCTC declares that Caltrans has made a, and RCTC concurs with that, reasonable and good faith effort to eliminate or substantially mitigate potential impacts related to on long-term operations noise, permanent impacts to oak woodland habitat, cumulative impacts related to farmlands and long term -noise, and adverse effects on human beings related to those cumulative effects. To the extent any mitigation measures could not be incorporated, such mitigation measures are infeasible because Ill of specific economic, legal, social, technological and other considerations and the benefits of the SR-91 CIP outweigh the unmitigated impacts. D. RCTC further finds that Alternative 2f best meets the purpose and objectives of the Project, and that, except for the Alternative 2f, all other alternatives set forth in the EIR are infeasible because they would prohibit the realization of the Project's objectives and/or because of specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits that RCTC finds outweigh any environmental benefits of the alternatives. E. RCTC declares that, having reduced the significant adverse environmental effects of the SR-91 CIP to the extent feasible by adopting the Compensatory Mitigation, the Mitigation Measures, and other conditions on the Project as listed in the MMRP in Exhibit A, having considered the entire administrative record on the Project, and having weighed the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable adverse impacts after mitigation, RCTC has determined that the following social, economic, and environmental benefits of the SR-91 CIP outweigh the potential unavoidable significant adverse impacts and render those potential adverse environmental impacts acceptable, based on the overriding considerations described here (Ca!trans Statement of Overriding Considerations, pages 2 to 8, and Section 4.2.5, page 4-41, in the Final EIR/EIS). SR-91 is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day (vpd) at the Orange/Riverside County line, and this volume continues to grow. Travel speeds on SR- 91 are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during the lengthy morning (westbound) and evening (eastbound) peak travel periods. Existing congestion and delays on SR-91 and 1-15 during peak travel periods result in freeway traffic diverting to adjacent local roads to avoid congestion and delays. This diversion of freeway traffic is particularly prevalent in the City of Corona as motorists on westbound SR-91 and motorists transitioning from northbound 1-15 to westbound SR-91 seek less congested routes in the morning peak travel period. Similarly, diversion of freeway traffic into the City occurs as motorists on eastbound SR-91 and motorists transitioning from eastbound SR-91 to southbound 1-15 seek less congested routes in the evening peak travel period. SR-91 is continuing to experience increased congestion as a result of population growth in Riverside County and growth in jobs in Orange County. Based on adopted demographic projections for the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region (Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and Riverside Counties), the number of vehicles on SR-91 is expected to increase by approximately 50 percent by 2035, which would result in continuing and increasing congestion and delays on SR-91. Those projections show that population and employment in Riverside and Orange Counties are also forecast to increase substantially by 2035. The existing travel demand on SR-91 has led to a heavy directional commute pattern between Riverside and Orange/Los Angeles Counties that is projected to continue into the future. As a result, improvements are necessary to address existing and projected deficiencies regarding mobility, access, goods movement, and freeway capacity on the project 112 • 115 segment of SR-91, which is the only major highway that links Riverside and Orange Counties. The SR-91 CIP is intended to achieve the following specific objectives: 1. Improve the vehicle, person, and goods movement within the SR-91 corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. 2. Provide improvements along the SR-91 and 1-15 transportation corridors as well as to related local roads, and to reduce diversion of regional traffic from the freeways into the surrounding communities. Caltrans and RCTC have identified the following benefits of the Project compared to the No Build Alternative which meet the project objectives, and which override the unavoidable significant adverse environmental impacts of the Project: • Improved travel times and speeds compared to the No Build Alternative Improved safety compared to the No Build Alternative • Correction of existing roadway operational deficiencies compared to the No Build Alternative • Support of existing, approved, and planned land uses compared to the No Build Alternative • Improved system linkages and regional goods movement compared to the No Build Alternative • Air quality improvements compared to the No Build Alternative These benefits of the SR-91 CIP are discussed in more detail in the following sections. 3. Travel Times and Speeds The a.m. peak hour direction of travel is on westbound SR-91. The p.m. peak hour direction of travel is eastbound on SR-91. Table 1.13 (page 1-34 in the Final EIR/EIS) summarizes travel times and speeds on SR-91 between SR-241 and 1-15 for the Baseline/Existing (2007) condition, and for 2015 and 2035 with the No Build and Build Alternatives based on the peak directions and hours of travel (i. e., westbound in the a.m. peak hour and eastbound in the p.m. peak hour). That analysis shows that under the No Build Alternative in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, travel times on SR- 91 will increase substantially and travel speeds will decrease substantially by 2015 and 2035 compared to the Baseline/Existing (2007) condition. Under the Project in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, travel times on SR-91 will also increase by 2015 and 2035 compared to the Baseline/Existing (2007) condition, but those increases will be substantially less than the increases that would occur under the No Build Alternative. In addition, under the Project in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, travel speeds on SR-91 will also decrease by 2015 and 2035 compared to the Baseline/Existing (2007) condition, 113 116 but those decreases will be much less than the decreases that would occur under the No Build Alternative. In addition, as a result of the additional lane provided in each direction by the Project, increases in travel times and the decreases in travel speeds by 2015 and 2035 are generally less under the Project than under the No Build Alternative. In summary, the SR-91 CIP would result in benefits to the traveling public as a result of better travel times and speeds compared to the No Build Alternative in both 2015 and 2035. 4. Safety Accident data for the Project segments on SR-91 and 1-15 were reviewed. Those data are summarized in Table 1.14 (page 1-40 in the Final EIR/EIS) for accident rates on the mainline freeways, on freeway -to -freeway connector ramps, and on SR-91 and I- 15 local road interchange ramps. The actual accident rate on the eastbound - SR-91 mainline is higher than the statewide average. The Caltrans District 8 2004-2007 Traffic Accident and Surveillance and Analysis System (TASAS) data provided in the Traffic Study Report (July 2010) indicate that the predominant types of these accidents are rear -end and sideswipe crashes, which account for approximately 50 and 25 percent, respectively of all accident types. Components and features included in the SR-91 CIP that will improve overall corridor safety and potentially reduce accidents are: • The accident rate on the southbound SR-71 to westbound SR-91 connector is more than twice the statewide average for highway connectors. This connector would be improved because the SR-71/SR-91 system interchange would be modified to accommodate the Project improvements on SR-91. • The accident rate on the northbound 1-15 to SR-91 westbound and eastbound connectors is more than four times the statewide average. These connectors would be improved under the SR-91 CIP. The collector -distributor facility in the westbound 'direction on SR-91 between 1-15 and Main Street in the Project is expected to reduce congestion and related accidents on these connectors. • The fatality rate on the westbound SR-91 to northbound I-15 connector is above the statewide average, likely due to weaving constraints from the Main Street ramps. Braiding the ramps at Main Street as part of the SR-91 CIP is expected to improve safety on this freeway segment because those existing weaves would be eliminated (a weave is where traffic entering the freeway conflicts with traffic exiting the freeway) and a longer separation of connector and mainline traffic would be provided. • Of the 60 ramps in the Project study area, 20 currently experience accident rates higher than the statewide average. In addition, some interchange ramps have fatality rates above the statewide average. The SR-91 CIP includes local interchange improvements at nearly all the interchange ramps on the Project segment of SR-91. These improvements are forecast to improve operations, efficiency, and safety on the Project segment of SR-91. The enhanced ramp 114 117 capacity (extended ramps to ensure sufficient stopping distance for off -ramps and adequate storage at ramp meters for on -ramps) and improved interchange geometrics provided by the SR-91 CIP are expected to improve safety and potentially reduce accidents associated with the local interchange ramps on SR- 91. Two ramp braids (a braid is where on- and off -ramps are grade separated so that there is not a merging conflict between vehicles entering and exiting the freeway) are included in the Project, at the SR-91 eastbound ramp braids between Auto Center Drive and Maple Street, and the eastbound Main Street on -ramp to SR-91 under the I-15 corridor connectors. These ramp braids will eliminate short weaves and reduce the potential for sideswipe accidents. In summary, the SR-91 CIP includes components and features that would improve the operational safety on the Project segments of SR-91 and 1-15 compared to the No Build Alternative. 5. Existing Roadway Operational Deficiencies The alignment of SR-91 passes through Santa Ana Canyon immediately south of the Santa Ana River. The topography in the canyon is a constraint to the two existing major transportation corridors that run through it: SR-91 and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) rail line. Nearly all surface and rail traffic between Riverside and Orange Counties is funneled into this single narrow corridor, which has limited physical opportunities for expansion as a result of the substantial slopes on the north and south sides of the narrow canyon and the Santa Ana River in the canyon bottom. The topography of the canyon also limits opportunities for arterial road connections to SR-91 between approximately SR-241 and SR-71. Specific structural and other limitations on the Project segment of SR-91 anticipated to be improved by the SR-91 CIP are discussed in detail in the following sections. 5. 1 Freeway Geometry The existing GP lanes on the project segment of SR-91 were constructed beginning in 1959 as a four -lane divided facility at a lower design speed than current standards. Two additional GP lanes (one in each direction) were completed in 1974. The HOV lanes completed in 1993 were designed to fit within the width of the existing road. Other improvements in the SR-91 corridor study area include construction of SR- 241 in the late 1990s, the addition of toll lanes on SR-91 in Orange County in the early 1990s, the SR-91 Eastbound Lane Addition which opened for operation in 2011, and the construction of 1-15 on the west end of the SR-91 study area. Two primary considerations have resulted in a facility that does not meet current freeway geometric standards: (1) The design and construction of the original SR-91 facility at a lower design speed than the current design speed standard, and 115 118 (2) Construction of the existing HOV lanes within the limited right-of-way available at the time those improvements were constructed. The existing nonstandard geometric features along the Project segment of SR-91 include sight distances, design speed, weaving distances, deceleration distances, grades of local roads at ramp connections, horizontal clearances, HOV preferred lane (on -ramp), interchange spacing, intersection spacing, lane widths, the lengths of single - lane branch connectors, outer separations, ramp gore geometry, shoulder widths, side slope steepness, standards for curvature, and superelevation rates, transitions, and runoff. Under the SR-91 CIP, the freeway will be designed to current standards which will improve many of existing geometric features which do not meet current standards. 5.2 Pavement The sections of SR-91 on embankment through the City of Corona have historically experienced substantial localized settlement resulting in areas of uneven pavement surfaces on SR-91. Based on the latest pavement condition survey, the predominant pavement distresses observed in the jointed plain concrete pavement were faulting at the pavement panel joints, which results in poor ride quality. This has resulted in above -average maintenance efforts to maintain the structural integrity of the pavement and the ride quality. Although there are indications that those maintenance efforts have proven adequate to stabilize the situation, evidence to date is inconclusive, and potential settlement remains a continuing concern that would be considered during the design of the SR-91 CIP. Evaluation of the existing pavement condition would be conducted along the entire project segment of SR-91 during the final design for the SR- 91 CIP, including localized problem areas. 5.3 Drainage The majority of the existing drainage system for SR-91 was constructed in the 1960s, and in certain locations that system is reaching the end of its expected 50-year service life. Although specific deficiencies in the existing drainage system have not been identified, the structural integrity of the system will be assessed during the final design of the SR-91 CIP. Needed .improvements would be identified and implemented by RCTC and/or Caltrans during the design/build phase of the Project. Many of the existing drainage structures would be extended by the SR-91 CIP to accommodate the widened freeway cross section. 5.4 Structures The McKinley Street undercrossing of SR-91 is designated Functionally Obsolete in a bridge inspection report because of the nonstandard 14.75-ft vertical clearance over McKinley Street at the north edge of the bridge. Under the SR-91 CIP, the westbound widening would be on a new, higher off -ramp structure that meets the minimal vertical clearance standard of 15 ft. Similarly, the Temescal Wash Bridge and Overhead are designated Structurally Deficient as a result of the deck condition on that structure. Because the deck was sealed with methacrylate in 2009, which corrected/improved the 116 119 deck condition, the Structurally Deficient designation would likely be removed from the new bridge inspection report for this structure. Several structures have also been identified for seismic retrofit as part of the SR- 91 CIP. The bridge structure work for the SR-91 CIP includes construction of new structures and replacement, widening, and retrofitting of existing structures. 6. Social Demands and Economic Development There is substantial existing development along the project segments of SR-91 and 1-15. Those existing land uses, which contribute to the traffic demand in this corridor, include residential, commercial, industrial, public, and institutional uses in the cities (Anaheim, Yorba Linda, Corona, Riverside, and Norco) and unincorporated areas in Orange and Riverside Counties along these corridors. While these areas are largely built out or are protected open space, such as Featherly Regional Park, CHSP, and the New OC Park (NNL), additional development is approved and planned in other areas along the alignments of SR-91 and 1-15. That approved and proposed development is based on these cities' and counties' adopted General Plans and a number of adopted Specific Plans. This future development would contribute to demand in the SR-91 corridor for work as well as other trips between Riverside and Orange Counties. The SR-91 CIP would provide additional capacity on the project segment of SR-91 that would support existing development as well as approved and planned future development in the Cities of Anaheim, Yorba Linda, Corona, Riverside, and Norco, and unincorporated Orange and Riverside Counties. 7. Modal Interrelationship and System Linkages The existing public transit linkages between Riverside and Orange Counties are bus and commuter rail. MetroLink commuter rail services between Riverside and Orange Counties operate on railroad tracks owned by BNSF. Currently, express bus service operating on SR-91 provides connections from Riverside County to employment centers in Anaheim, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, and Irvine in Orange County. Additional express bus routes planned for 2016 would originate in the Riverside and Temecula areas with destinations to employment centers in Anaheim and Orange in Orange County. Although the SR-91 CIP does not include specific transit improvements, buses and carpools will be able to use the HOV/tolled express lanes. In addition, improvements in the SR-91 corridor under the Project will support corridor system linkages and regional goods movement as described in the following sections. 7. 1 Corridor System Linkages SR-91 is an integral component of the regional transportation system because it provides a key link between the Inland Empire and Orange County and a gateway into southern Los Angeles County. The corridor connects an area with a large residential population to substantial employment opportunities in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. As a result of topography, there are few viable alignments for transportation facilities between Riverside and Orange Counties. The SR-91 CIP will provide 117 120 enhanced mobility between Riverside and Orange Counties as well as additional connectivity between 1-15 and SR-91 with the direct connectors for the HOV/tolled express lanes. 7. 2 Regional Goods Movement Regional goods movement is concerned with the movement of all types of goods and materials across and through southern California. Specifically, SCAG has identified goods movement as a critical component of transportation system planning in southern California. The Southern California Strategy for Goods Movement: A Plan for Action (SCAG, March 2005) identified the existing and projected volumes of goods being transported through the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. That plan also identified strategies to address the movement of goods from these ports to their eventual destinations in the United States via rail and surface transportation facilities. According to that plan, over one-third of waterborne freight container traffic at ports in the United States is handled by the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, with 50 to 60 percent of that freight transported to destinations outside southern California via rail or truck. The key component to addressing regional goods movement in southern California is providing appropriate infrastructure and facilities to support the ship, rail, and surface transportation movement of goods. SR-91, as a major east -west freeway, provides critical connections between trucks coming from/going to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and destinations across southern California and points to the east, with truck trips at approximately 6.7 percent of the total daily traffic volumes in 2007. As a result, it is important for regional goods movement that freeways in southern California, including SR-91, provide adequate capacity to accommodate goods movement truck traffic in the region in the future. In addition to high volumes of goods being shipped to/from the two ports, goods movement truck traffic is also generated at rail/truck transfer yards at several locations in southern California including the general area around March Air Reserve Base. Specifically, land planning and economic projections indicate that the Perris/Moreno Valley/March Air Reserve Base area will serve as a major distribution hub for goods in the Inland Empire. This distribution/employment center will result in increased travel demand by trucks carrying goods through the project area, including on SR-91. In summary, SR-91 is an existing key freeway corridor supporting major volumes of goods movement by truck in southern California. As goods movement needs continue to increase, the volumes of trucks to/from the ports, the March Air Reserve Base area, and rail/truck transfer yards are expected to increase. Much of that traffic will use SR-91 for at least parts of each trip in the region. 8. Air Quality Improvements The SR-91 CIP includes HOV/tolled express lanes. Most of the ramps on the project segments of SR-91 and 1-15 are already metered, and those ramp meters would 118 121 • • be retained in the Project. These Project features would contribute to air quality emissions reductions in the long term. Although the SR-91 CIP does not include specific transit -related improvements, the HOV/tolled express lanes and the ramp metering would directly benefit transit vehicles and carpools and their passengers traveling on the project segments of SR-91 and 1-15. Specifically, RCTC, the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), and the OCTA currently offer rideshare and transit services and programs, including commuter and local bus services; commuter rail services; and assistance in forming, joining, and managing carpools and vanpools. Commuter assistance or programs to reduce the number of drive -alone travelers in Riverside County is a mandated part of RCTC's Measure A program. The carpool, vanpool, and bus services in the SR-91 corridor would benefit from the time savings as a result of using the preferential lanes (HOV/tolled express lanes) provided by the SR-91 CIP. RCTC has been coordinating with the RTA on enhanced express bus service for the SR-91 corridor. The addition of tolled express lanes on SR-91 under the SR-91 CIP provides the opportunity to nearly double the amount of express bus service that is currently offered in this corridor, to a total of 41 trips per day. While this service is not a specific component of the SR-91 CIP, it is an important element of RCTC's plan for improved mobility in the corridor. The express bus service would benefit from the SR-91 CIP because, without the project, future congestion in the corridor would be severe and express bus service would not be viable. In summary, although the Project does not include specific transit, transportation systems management, or transportation demand management components, the SR-91 CIP is supportive of the various shared -ride modes currently offered by RCTC, the RTA, and the OCTA. CONCLUSION Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15093, RCTC has balanced the benefits of the Project against the unavoidable environmental impacts and concludes, based on the whole of the record, that the economic, social, and environmental benefits of improved mobility and reduced travel times of the SR-91 CIP described above outweigh the unavoidable environmental impacts associated with its construction and operation, and determines that said benefits override the significance of its associated adverse impacts. 119 SECTION XI CONSIDERATION OF EIR As required in State CEQA Guidelines section 15096(a), the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) finds that it has reviewed and considered the Final EIR/EIS in evaluating the SR-91 CIP, that the Final EIR/EIS is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with the Public Resources Code and the State CEQA Guidelines and that the Final EIR/EIS reflects RCTC's independent judgment. RCTC declares that no new significant information as defined by State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 was received by either Caltrans or RCTC after circulation of the Draft EIR/EIS nor added by either Caltrans or RCTC to the EIR/EIS that would require recirculation. RCTC has considered the Final EIR/EIS based on, without limitation, the following finding and conclusions: A. Finding: The significant environmental impacts set forth in Section IV of this Resolution have been identified in the Final EIR/EIS and will require mitigation, but cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. B. Conclusions: 1. All significant environmental impacts from the implementation of the SR- 91 CIP have been identified in the Final EIR/EIS and, with implementation of the Compensatory Mitigation, the Mitigation Measures, and; other conditions in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP, in Exhibit A), impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level, except for the impacts listed in Section IV of this Resolution_ 2. Environmental, economic, social, and other considerations and benefits derived from the SR-91 CIP override and make infeasible mitigation measures and/or conditions beyond those incorporated into the Project as provided in the MMRP. Other reasonable alternatives to the SR-91 CIP that could feasibly achieve the basic goals and objectives of the Project have been considered and rejected in favor of the SR-91 CIP. 120 123 • SECTION XII ADOPTION OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures and conditions as set forth herein and the MMRP, the MMRP shall control. 124 121 SECTION XIII PROJECT APPROVAL Based on the entire record before the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), including the above findings and all written evidence presented to Ca!trans and RCTC, RCTC hereby approves the SR-91 CIP. 122 125 • • SECTION XIV CUSTODIAN OF RECORD The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these Findings have been based are located at the offices of the Riverside County Transportation Commission at 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor, Riverside, California 92501. The custodian for these records is Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board of the Riverside County Transportation Commission. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6. 123 126 • SECTION XV STAFF DIRECTION The Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby directs staff to prepare, execute, and file a Notice of Determination with the Orange County Clerk's office, the Riverside County Clerk's office, and the Office of Planning and Research within five (5) working days of adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Riverside Transportation Commission held on the 14th day of November, 2012. John J. Benoit, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION I, Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution Number 12-028 was duly and regularly adopted by the Riverside County Transportation Commission at a regularly scheduled meeting thereof held on the 14th day of November, 2012 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission EXHIBIT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 17336.02100\7625256 2 Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date LAND USE LU-1 If a Build Alternative is selected for implementation, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) will request the County of Riverside, the County of Orange, and the cities along the alignments of State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (1-15) to amend their respective General Plans to reflect the selected SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) alternative and the modification of land use designations for properties that would be acquired for the project which are not currently designated for transportation uses. RCTC Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- -- PR-1 During final design/construction of the Initial Phase, RCTC will contribute $100,000 to the planning and implementation of improvements in that area that would support and expand regional trail connectivity. RCTC Required during the Initial Phase During the design/ build phase -- — PR-2 During final design/construction of the Initial Phase, RCTC will coordinate with State Parks on the aesthetic features that will be included in the project specifications for the proposed retaining wall facing CHSP between SR-71 and the westbound Green River Road off -ramp, consistent with the aesthetic and features required in Measure V-1. The aesthetic treatment will include a texture to simulate a natural type appearance such as a soil or rock surface, or equivalent. RCTC's Project Engineer Required during the Initial Phase During the design/ build phase -- -- PR-3 RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to limit the hours of construction in CHSP to daylight hours (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.), with the exception of limited periods when evening or night construction is necessary for operational reasons. Operational reasons may include the desire to conduct certain construction activities; such as closing multiple ramps or travel lanes, during night hours to minimize delays to the traveling public. Any night construction must be approved in writing by the RCTC Resident Engineer and coordinated with the District 8 and 12 biologists, the USFWS, and CDFG. RCTC's Resident Engineer Required during the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During construction -- -- The entry gates at Coal Canyon must remain closed at all times except to provide access to and from the construction site for construction workers, materials delivery, and construction equipment, to prevent wildlife from inadvertently entering the freeway area. RCTC's Resident Engineer Required during the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During construction -- -- Other Commitments by RCTC Relevant to Chino Hills State Park. RCTC has committed to an additional action in the Coal Canyon area, as follows. A stand- alone project will be developed to construct barriers on the south and north sides of SR-91 to shield headlight glare and freeway noise. The required barriers are estimated to be approximately 1,500 feet and 1,300 feet long on the south and north sides of SR-91 respectively. The project will follow environmental process requirements and engage subject area experts to establish the specific requirements and effectiveness of the proposed barriers to meet the project purpose as well as ensure safety and structural standards are met. In consideration of and reliance on the needs of State Parks and other open space plans that depend on Chino Hills State Park, and subject to environmental review, RCTC commits to build this barrier in tandem with the completion of the SR-91 RCTC's Project Engineer Required for the Ultimate Project During construction -- -- 130 Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date widening in this area currently planned for completion in 2035. RCTC intends to work with the Department and other agencies to fund and implement this project. GROWTH No avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required. FARMLANDS/TIMBERLANDS Measure CI-3, provided below under Community Impacts, addresses potential impacts related to remainder parcels and access to agricultural parcels. COMMUNITY IMPACTS CI-1 The Riverside County Transportation Commission's (RCTC) Project Engineer will ensure that design refinements are incorporated in the design/build process to minimize impacts to existing land uses related to the temporary use and/or permanent acquisition of property. RCTC's Project Engineer Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- -- Prior to and during construction, RCTC's Resident Engineer will ensure that the design refinements to minimize impacts to existing land uses related to temporary use and/or permanent acquisition of property are properly implemented by the design/build contractor. RCTC's Resident Engineer Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to and during construction -- -- CI-2 Where property acquisition and relocation are unavoidable, RCTC's Right -of -Way Agents will follow the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Uniform Act) and the 1987 Amendments as implemented by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Regulations for Federal and Federally Assisted Programs. Appendix D in the Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) provides a summary of the RCTC Relocation Assistance Program for implementing the Uniform Act. For properties where a partial acquisition results in the removal of some or all of the parking for the property, RCTC's Right -of -Way Agents will conduct parking studies to investigate the use of adjacent acquisitions for replacement parking, reconfiguring the remaining parking spaces and lots on the property, restriping parking spaces, enlarging parking lots, and reconfiguring driveways and/or delivery locations to reduce the project effects on the parking on the affected property. RCTC is committed to reducing the project effects on parking by implementing either one or more of the actions listed above and/or providing financial compensation for lost parking based on compliance with the Uniform Act. RCTC's Right -of- Way Agents Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During property acquisition -- -- CI-3 During final design, RCTC's Right -of -Way Agents and the Project Engineer will work with owners of commercial, agricultural, and industrial uses subject to partial property acquisitions to reconfigure those uses on site consistent with applicable local codes and ordinances in such a manner as to enable them to remain in operation. If a commercial or industrial partial acquisition cannot be reconfigured to allow for continued operation, RCTC's Right -of -Way Agents will work with the property owners to either relocate that use to land designated for that given land use, preferably within the boundaries of the study area or to provide compensation for the land pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Act. If an agricultural use RCTC's Right -of- Way Agents and the RCTC Project Engineer Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- -- • Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date cannot be reconfigured to allow for its continued operation, the property owner will be compensated pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Act as required in Measure CI-2 and the agricultural use will be discontinued. CI-4 During final design and property acquisition, the RCTC Project Engineer and Right- of-Way Agents will work with billboard/property owners, the City of Corona, and the California Department of Transportation's (Department) Outdoor Advertising Unit to find locations for relocating the affected billboards, within the existing sites where the billboards are currently located or other sites in the City where billboards are allowed. The Right -of -Way Agents will work with the City and the Department's Outdoor Advertising Unit to ensure that the sites for the relocated billboards comply with the requirements in the City of Corona Municipal Code and the Outdoor Advertising Act and Regulations. The Right -of -Way Agents will also work with the billboard/property owners to develop Billboard Relocation Agreements with the City of Corona. RCTC's Project Engineer and Right -of -Way Agents Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During final design and property acquisition -- -- UTILITIES/EMERGENCY SERVICES UES-1 Utilities. During final design, the Riverside County Transportation Commission's (RCTC) Project Engineer will prepare utility relocation plans in consultation with the affected utility providers/owners for those utility facilities that will need to be relocated, removed, or protected in -place. If relocation is necessary, the final design will focus on relocating utilities within the State right-of-way or other existing public rights -of -way and/or easements, If relocation outside of existing or the additional public rights -of -way and/or easements required for the project is necessary, the final design will focus on relocating those facilities to minimize environmental impacts as a result of project construction and ongoing maintenance and repair activities. The _ utility relocation plans will be included in the project specifications. RCTC's Project Engineer Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- -- Utilities. Prior to and during construction, the RCTC Resident Engineer will ensure that the co.mponents of the utility relocation plans provided in the project specifications are properly implemented by the design/build contractor. RCTC Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to and during construction -- -- UES-2 Law Enforcement, Fire Protection, and Emergency Medical Service Providers. Prior to and during construction, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to coordinate all temporary ramp and lane closures and detour plans with law enforcement, fire protection, and emergency medical service providers to minimize temporary delays in emergency response times as part of the Final Transportation Management Plan (TMP) and Final Ramp Closure Study required in Measures T-1 and T-2, including the identification of alternative routes and routes across the construction areas for emergency vehicles developed in coordination with the affected agencies. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to and during construction -- -- 132 Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date UES-3 Fire Prevention During Construction. Prior to and during any construction activities, the RCTC Project Engineer will require the design/build contractor to implement the following to minimize the risk of fires during construction: Coordinate with the applicable local fire department to identify and maintain defensible spaces around active construction areas Coordinate with the applicable local fire department to identify and maintain firefighting equipment (extinguishers, shovels, water tankers) in active construction areas Prohibit the use of mechanized equipment or equipment that could throw off sparks in areas adjacent to open space or undeveloped land, including areas adjacent to CHSP Post emergency services phone numbers (fire, emergency medical, police) in visible locations in all active construction areas. RCTC's Project Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to and during any construction activities -- -- UES-4 Fire Prevention Adjacent to CHSP. The final design of the SR-91 CIP Build Alternatives will include closing gaps so there is the equivalent of a continuous barrier 30 to 36 inches high on the edge of the shoulder on both westbound and eastbound SR-91 from SR-71 to SR-241, as follows: Initial Phase: The 36-inch high concrete barrier on westbound SR-91 between SR- 71 and Green River Road already included in the design alternatives will meet the requirements for this barrier; RCTC's Project Engineer Required for the Initial Phase During the design/ build phase -- -- Ultimate Project: Close gaps to provide an equivalent continuous barrier 30 to 36 inches high on the edge of shoulder on SR-91 in both directions between Green River Road and SR-241 meeting Department standards applicable at the time. RCTC's Project Engineer Required for the Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- -- TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION/PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES T-1 Transportation Management Plan. A preliminary TMP (May 2010) was prepared during the development of the preliminary engineering for the project. The purpose of the TMP is to address the short-term traffic impacts during construction of the project. The objectives of the TMP are to: Maintain traffic safety during construction Effectively maintain an acceptable level of traffic flow throughout the transportation system during construction Minimize traffic delays and facilitate reduction of overall duration of construction activities Minimize detours and impacts to pedestrians and bicyclists Foster public awareness of the project and related impacts Achieve public acceptance of construction of the project and the Final TMP measures. During final design, the RCTC Project Engineer will direct a qualified traffic engineer to prepare the Final TMP, based on the Preliminary TMP prepared during the RCTC's Project Engineer and a qualified traffic engineer Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- -- Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date preliminary engineering. RCTC will submit the Final TMP to the Department for review and approval during final design and prior to any construction activities. The existing Preliminary TMP contains the following elements intended to reduce traveler delay and enhance traveler safety. These elements will be refined during final design and incorporated in the Final TMP for implementation during project construction. Public Information/Public Awareness Campaign (PAC). The primary goal of the PAC is to educate motorists, business owners/operators, residents, elected officials, and government agencies about construction activities and associated impacts. The PAC is an important tool for reaching target audiences with important construction project information and will include, but not be limited to: Rideshare information Brochures and mailers Media releases Paid advertising Public meetings Broadcast fax and email services Telephone hotline Notification to targeted groups Commercial traffic reporters/feeds Project website Visual information Local cable television and news Internet postings Traveler Information Strategies. The effective implementation of a traveler information system during construction is crucial for enabling motorists to make informed decisions about their travel plans and options with real-time traffic information. That real-time traffic information will include information on lane closures, detours, delays, access to adjacent land uses, "businesses are open" signing, and other signing and information to assist travelers in navigating through and in construction areas. Key components of this system will include, but not be limited to: Fixed changeable message signs Portable changeable message signs Ground -mounted signs Automated work zone information systems Highway advisory radio Lane closure website Department highway information network 134 Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date Bicycle and pedestrian information Commute Smart website Incident Management. Effective incident management will ensure that incidents in construction areas are cleared quickly and do not lead to substantial delays for the traveling public through work zones. Incident management includes, but is not limited to: Construction Zone Enhanced Enforcement Program (COZEEP) Freeway service patrol for construction Traffic surveillance stations Transportation Management Center Unit 370 Traffic management team Towing services Construction Strategies. The Final TMP will include procedures to lessen the effect of typical construction activities and will include, but not be limited to, consideration of the following: Conflicts with other projects and special events Construction staging alternatives Mainline lane closures Local road closures Ramp/connector closures Pedestrian and bicycle detours and facility closures (detours provided for all closures longer than one day) Traffic control improvements Coordination with other projects Project phasing Traffic screens Truck traffic restrictions Demand Management. Temporarily reducing the overall traffic volumes on the project segments of State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (1-15) could reduce the short-term adverse effects of construction on traffic operations. The Final TMP will include, but not be limited to, the following strategies that could reduce vehicular demand in the study area during project construction: Rideshare incentives Transit services Shuttle services Variable work hours/telecommuting High -occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes/ramps Park -and -ride lots • Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date Alternate Route Strategies. The Final TMP will provide strategies for notifying motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists, especially interregional commuters, of planned construction activities. This notification will allow travelers to make informed decisions about their travel plans, including the consideration of possible alternate routes. The Final TMP will consider the development of alternate routes for motorists to address the following: Mainline lane closures Ramp/connector closures Local road closures Temporary highway or shoulder use Local street improvements Temporary detours and closures of bicycle and pedestrian facilities Traffic signal coordination RCTC's Resident Engineer will ensure that the measures in the Final TMP are properly implemented by the design/build contractor prior to and during construction. RCTC's Resident Engineer Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to and during construction -- -- T-2 Management of Ramp Closures. A Draft Ramp Closure Study (January 2010) was prepared during the development of the preliminary engineering for the project. During final design, RCTC's Project Engineer will direct a qualified traffic engineer to develop the Final Ramp Closure Plan for implementation during construction based on the Draft Ramp Closure Study, to address specific short-term impacts associated with ramp closures longer than 10 days during construction. The objectives of the Final Ramp Closure Plan will be to: Minimize inconvenience to the traveling public Minimize closures Avoid or minimize concurrently multiple closures Coordinate closures with other projects and activities RCTC's Project Engineer and a qualified traffic engineer Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- -- Prior to and during construction, RCTC's Resident Engineer will ensure that the measures included in the Final Ramp Closure Plan are properly implemented by the design/build contractor. RCTC's Resident Engineer Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to and during construction -- -- T-3 Fair Share Contributions. RCTC's Project Manager will ensure that RCTC pays the fair share contribution for the project -related impacts at area intersections. Those fair shares are shown by intersection in Table T-3.1. The recommended improvements include additional turn and through lanes. Summaries of the improved intersection delays and levels of service (LOS) are provided in Tables T-3.2, T-3.3, and T-3.4 for 2015 with the Initial Phase of Alternative 2, Design Year 2035 with Alternative 1, and Design Year 2035 with Alternative 2 conditions, respectively. Note: The tables cited in this measure are provided following the last page of Table E-1. RCTC's Project Manager Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- — 136 Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date T-4 During final design, the RCTC Project Engineer will ensure that the final design and project specifications for the widened areas in the undercrossings on SR-91 and 1-15 include appropriate lighting for vehicles and pedestrians. The RCTC Project Engineer will also assess the need for additional lighting in the original parts of the undercrossings in the event the longer undercrossings result in the need for additional lighting in those areas. That additional lighting, if any, will also be shown in the project specifications. RCTC's Project Engineer Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- -- The RCTC Project Engineer will have any lighting considered at Coal Canyon reviewed and approved by the Project Biologist prior to incorporation in the project specifications to ensure the lighting does not affect the use of Coal Canyon as a wildlife crossing. RCTC's Project Engineer and the Project Biologist Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- -- During construction, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to implement the lighting in undercrossings as shown in the project specifications. RCTC's Resident Engineer Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During construction -- -- VISUAL/AESTHETICS V-1 Structure Elements. To address adverse impacts of the project structures, the RCTC Project Engineer will direct a qualified landscape architect to ensure that the final project design incorporates the mitigation and minimization elements A—D, below, and that these enhancements to structures are incorporated in the design and construction of sound walls, retaining walls, and bridge elements and will not be "follow-up" enhancements. RCTC's Project Engineer and a qualified landscape architect Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- -- During construction, RCTC's Resident Engineer will ensure that the design/build contractor constructs the retaining and sound walls, medians, bridges, and other structures consistent with aesthetic and design features included in the project specifications. RCTC's Resident Engineer will ensure that those aesthetic and design features are constructed during the construction phase when the impact occurs. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During construction -- -- A. Sound walls in low -density, developed areas or those fronting private property will be heavily textured (i.e. split -face or fractured rib) and integrally colored to minimize reflected glare and visual mass. Sound walls facing public -use areas (parks, streets, etc.) will incorporate textures and color as above plus site- specific aesthetic features (local or historical references) to minimize/mitigate impacts to community character and to restore a "sense of place." Specific color selection for sound walls will be determined by the 215/91 Corridor Master Plan. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During construction -- -- B. Retaining walls (including walls associated with bridge structures) will be heavily textured (i.e., split -face or fractured rib) to minimize glare and visual mass. Retaining walls facing public use areas (parks, streets, etc.) over 9 feet (ft) high will be heavily textured (i.e., split -face or fractured rib) and include site -specific aesthetic features (local or historical references). Color (integral or applied) is not required for retaining walls. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During construction -- -- • Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date C. In addition to texture and color as described in A and B, above, sound walls and retaining walls with low -density development or recreational viewer groups will include planting of trees or trees and shrubs, and vines at the base of the walls (non -motorist side) to minimize loss of visual unity. Plantings will be local native species or ornamental species that require no irrigation after establishment. These plantings will not require permanent irrigation. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During construction -- -- D. Slope paving in all areas with bicyclist and pedestrian viewers will include texture (i.e. stamped slate). In urban areas, slope paving will incorporate site -specific aesthetic features in addition to texture. Texture and pattern will be used to minimize the visual impacts of increased hard surface, and reinforce community identify, offsetting reduced community connectivity associated with increased bridge widths. RCTC's Resident Engineer and a qualified landscape architect Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During construction -- -- V-2 Highway Planting: RCTC's Project Engineer will direct a qualified landscape architect to ensure that replacement planting to mitigate the loss of existing landscaping is included in the final design. Replacement planting will be funded with the project's construction and will include no less than 3 years of plant establishment. All planting must be reviewed and approved by the District Landscape Architect. RCTC's Project Engineer with the approval of a Department District 8 Landscape Architect Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- -- RCTC's Project Engineer will ensure that the replacement planting is under construction within 2 years of acceptance of the highway contract that damaged or removed the existing planting. RCTC's Project Engineer Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Within 2 years of acceptance of the highway contract that damaged or removed the existing planting -- -- RCTC's Project Engineer will direct a qualified landscape architect to ensure the project plans show that where plantable right-of-way is reduced (as at Main Street), replacement planting will be trees, shrubs, vines, ground cover, permanent irrigation, and enhanced structural elements. Enhanced structural elements will minimize the impact of reduced planting areas. Enhanced structural elements will include enhanced pedestrian facilities (such as pavement treatments, graphics, or above -standard decorative pedestrian lighting) and may incorporate community entry features into the structures. RCTC's Project Engineer and a qualified landscape architect Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- 138 Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date RCTC's Project Engineer will direct a qualified landscape architect to ensure that the project plans show that where plantable right-of-way is eliminated (as at residential areas on both sides of State Route 91 [SR-91] between just east of Lincoln Boulevard to approximately 400 ft west of East Grand Boulevard), the loss will be mitigated by off -site planting. Planting of street trees or other approved planting such as vines with permanent irrigation in City right-of-way such as at the base of retaining walls at Bollero Place and the 600 to 700 block of West Second Street will minimize the loss of existing landscape. The off -site tree planting will minimize the visual presence of the widened adjacent mainline. Replacement of existing trees by new street trees will be at a 1:1 (new tree to existing tree) ratio. To minimize the visual loss of the mature existing trees, these mitigating/replacement street trees will be planted at no less than 36 in box size. RCTC's Project Engineer and a qualified landscape architect Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- -- RCTC's Project Engineer will direct a qualified landscape architect to ensure that where plantable right-of-way is eliminated without the prospect of site -adjacent mitigation (as at the industrial areas just east of East Grand Boulevard or the above residential areas if street planting is not accepted by the City) the loss will be mitigated by planting within the project limits. This planting will be at a 4:1 (new tree to existing tree) ratio. If vehicle recovery distances prohibit tree planting in any selected area, mitigation planting may be achieved at a ratio of 10 new shrubs to 1 existing tree. For this mitigation planting, all trees will be no less than 15-gallon size and all shrubs will be no less than 5-gallon size. RCTC's Project Engineer and a qualified landscape architect Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- -- RCTC's Project Engineer will direct a qualified landscape architect to ensure that the project plans show that all mitigation planting within the State right-of-way, where appropriate, will include native tree, shrub, and vine species, and include temporary irrigation for establishment. Replacement planting will include permanent irrigation, RCTC's Project Engineer and a qualified landscape architect Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- -- RCTC's Resident Engineer will ensure that the design/build contractor properly implements the landscaping and structural treatment components described in Measures V-1 and V-2. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During construction -- -- • Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date V-3 Light and Glare. To reduce glare, RCTC's Project Engineer will ensure that the project plans specify lighting fixtures with non -glare hoods and that lighting is designed to illuminate only the right-of-way. The lighting plans will require the review and approval of the Department and applicable cities and counties before construction to assure compliance with their applicable policies regarding public street lighting. RCTC's Project Engineer will coordinate with the City of Corona and other applicable cities and counties to ensure that sufficient lighting is provided as part of the improvements to local streets within the project limits, consistent with applicable local policies and street lighting codes. Increased glare from walls, structures and pavement will be minimized by measures identified in V-1 and V-2. RCTC's Project Engineer with the review and approval of Caltrans and the applicable Cities Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- -- RCTC's Resident Engineer will ensure that the project lighting plan included in the project specifications is implemented by the design/build contractor during construction, RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During construction -- -- V-4 Graffiti Reduction, Removal and Control. During final design, the RCTC Project Engineer will direct a qualified landscape architect to prepare planting plans that incorporate vine planting on all sound barriers in the project specifications to reduce the potential for graffiti and to soften the appearance of those walls, consistent with the Highway Design Manual, Index 902.3(5j. RCTC Project Engineer Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- . -- After the construction of each sound barrier, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to install vine planting consistent with the project specifications and the planting requirements in Measure V-2. RCTC Resident and the design/ build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- -- The Department and the City of Corona have existing ongoing maintenance programs for the control and removal of graffiti. Those programs would apply to all new and modified structures in Alternatives 1 and 2, on public and private property, as appropriate. Key components of those programs are: Department Program. Chapter D1, Litter, Debris, and Graffiti (July 2006), in the Caltrans Maintenance Manual (Volume I, January 2011) describes the Department's maintenance program for the control and removal of graffiti. Key program components applicable to the project features in Alternatives 1 and 2 are: Use of recycled paint for various structures and matching paint used to cover graffiti with the original paint color on the structure. Use of physical devices such as rat guards, sign hoods, razor wire, and glare screen patches to limit access to facilities targeted by taggers. Replacement of ground -mounted signs with signs that have protective coatings The Department and the City of Corona Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During • construction and during operations -- -- 140 Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date or application of protective coatings to signs. City of Corona Program. Chapter 9.30, Graffiti Abatement Procedure, in the Corona Municipal Code, describes the City's procedures related to the prohibition of graffiti in the City and the graffiti removal process. Methods for the removal of graffiti include power washing, gel removers, and painting. CULTURAL RESOURCES Condition for the Acorn -Style Streetlights in the Grand Boulevard Historic District. The following condition will be implemented during the project design/build phase regarding the removal; temporary storage, and relocation of up to seven existing acorn -style streetlights within the project disturbance limits in the Grand Boulevard Historic District: The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Project Engineer will require the design/build contractor to clearly indicate on the final plans the locations of up to seven acorn -style streetlights in the project disturbance limits that are to be removed at the beginning of construction in those areas and to identify the locations where the removed streetlights would be reinstalled. The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to remove and, as necessary, dismantle the affected acorn -style streetlights and to place them in containers appropriate for storing those fixtures during the project construction period. The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to store the containers holding the acorn -style streetlights in a secure location protected from public access and weather. The RCTC Project Engineer will require the design/build contractor to verify that the locations identified for the reinstallation of the affected streetlights are acceptable to the City of Corona and consistent with the City's requirements for the siting of streetlights. The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to reinstall the acorn -style streetlights at the locations designated in the final plans when no further construction/disruption will occur at those locations, as follows: The streetlights will be reinstalled as close to their original locations as possible, based on the project design and available space, in a manner consistent with the other acorn -style streetlights in the Grand Boulevard Historic District and with the City of Corona requirements for the siting of streetlights. If any of the acorn -style streetlights cannot be reinstalled at or near their original locations, they will be reinstalled elsewhere within the boundaries of the Grand Boulevard Historic District, focusing on locations where acorn -style lights have previously been removed as long as those locations are consistent with the historic spatial relationships of the Historic District and with the City of Corona requirements for the siting of streetlights; and If the lights cannot be reinstalled as described above, the RCTC Project RCTC's Project Engineer in consultation with the City of Corona, and the ld contractor contractor Required for the Initial Phase During the design/ build phase Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date Engineer will consult with the City of Corona to identify alternative locations. The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the construction contractor to have an architectural historian on site during the removal, dismantling, and reinstallation of the acorn -style streetlights. CR-1 Replacement of Trees in the Grand Boulevard Historic District. The requirements of Measure V-2 in Section 3.7.4, Environmental Consequences, related to highway planting would apply to the replacement of the 18 trees in the Grand. Boulevard Historic District. In addition, the following will be implemented during the design/build phase regarding the removal and replacement of the 18 trees in the Grand Boulevard Historic District: The RCTC Project Engineer will require the design/build contractor to replace all trees removed from the Historic District at a ratio of 1:1. The RCTC Project Engineer will require the design/build contractor to install replacement trees that are compatible with the existing plantings in the Grand Boulevard Historic District and with the overall character of the Historic District, and that the replacement trees be identified in consultation with the City of Corona, the California Department of Transportation's (Department's) District Landscape Architect, and a Professional Qualified Staff Architectural Historian from the District. The RCTC Project Engineer will require the construction contractor to install all replacement trees no later than the completion of construction activities in the Grand Boulevard Historic District. RCTC's Project Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase Prior to the completion of construction in the Grand Boulevard Historic District -- — CR-2 Discovery of Cultural Materials. If cultural materials are discovered during construction, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to divert all earthmoving activity within and around the immediate discovery area until a qualified archaeologist can assess the nature and significance of the find. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project If cultural materials are discovered during earthmoving and construction activities -- -- CR-3 Discovery of Human Remains. If human remains are discovered during construction, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that further disturbances and activities shall cease in any area or nearby area suspected to overlie remains and the County Coroner shall be contacted. Pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097,98, if the remains are thought to be Native American, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will then notify the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). At that time, the Department's District 8 Environmental Branch Chief or the District 8 Native American Coordinator (Gary Jones, [909] 383-7505) will be contacted so they may work with the MLD on the respectful treatment and disposition of the remains. Further provisions of PRC 5097.98 are to be followed as applicable. RCTC's Project Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project If human remains are discovered during earthmoving and construction activities -- -- 142 Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date CR-4 During final design, the RCTC Project Manager and Department Cultural Resources Professionally Qualified Staff will coordinate with representatives from the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians to identify areas in the project disturbance limits considered sensitive to the Tribe. RCTC Project Manager and Department Cultural Resources Professionally Qualified Staff Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During final design -- -- During final design, the RCTC Project Engineer will identify on the project plans all areas that require monitoring by a Native American Monitor during site preparation, disturbance, and grading. RCTC Project Engineer Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During final design -- -- During all site preparation, disturbance, and grading, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to have a Native American monitor present and conducting monitoring activities in all areas identified by the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians as sensitive, as shown in the project specifications. RCTC Resident Engineer Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During all site preparation, disturbance, and grading -- — HYDROLOGY AND FLOODPLAINS As discussed in Section 3.10, Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff, Construction Site, Design Pollution Prevention, and Treatment best management practices (BMPs) will be implemented to minimize water quality -related impacts to the 100- year floodplain and the associated beneficial uses. As discussed in Section 3.17, Natural Communities, and Section 3.18, Wetlands and Other Waters, measures to minimize impacts and preserve natural and beneficial floodplain values include installation of construction fencing around riparian/riverine vegetation to be preserved and compensatory mitigation for temporary and permanent impacts to riparian and aquatic habitats. With implementation of these measures, no other specific measures for impacts to floodplains are required. RCTC Project Engineer, RCTC Resident Engineer, and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- -- WATER QUALITY AND STORM WATER RUNOFF WQ-1 Prior to and during construction, Riverside County Transportation Commission's (RCTC) Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to comply with the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002), and any subsequent permit, as they relate to the project construction activities. This will include submission of the Permit Registration Documents, including a Notice of Intent (NOI), risk assessment, site map, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), annual fee, and signed certification statement to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) at least 14 days prior to the start of construction activity. The SWPPP will meet the requirements of the Construction General Permit and will identify potential pollutant sources associated with construction activities; identify non -storm water discharges; develop a water quality monitoring and sampling plan; and identify, implement, and maintain best management practices (BMPs) to reduce or eliminate pollutants associated with the construction site. The BMPs identified in the SWPPP will be implemented during project construction. A RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to and during construction -- -- Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date Notice of Termination (NOT) will be submitted to the SWRCB on the completion of construction and the stabilization of the site. RCTC's Resident Engineer will also require the design/build contractor to implement SWRCB Resolution No. 2001-046 requiring sampling and analysis during project construction. WQ-2 Prior to and during construction, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to comply with the provisions of the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Surface Waters that Pose an Insignificant (De Minimus) Threat to Water Quality, Order No. R8-2009-0003, NPDES No. CAG998001, as they relate to discharge of non -storm -water dewatering wastes for the project. This will include submitting to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) an NOI at least 60 days prior to the start of construction, notification of discharge at least 5 days prior to any planned discharges, and monitoring reports by the 30th day of each month following the monitoring period. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to and during construction -- . -- WQ-3 Prior to dewatering activities, RCTC's Resident Engineer will provide the design/ build contractor with a copy of the discharge authorization letter issued by the RWQCB Executive Director. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to and during construction -- -- WQ-4 Prior to and during construction, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to follow the procedures outlined in the California Department of Transportation (Ca!trans) Storm Water Quality Handbooks, Project Planning and Design Guide (July 2010 or subsequent issuance) for implementing Design Pollution Prevention and Treatment BMPs for the project. This will include coordination with the Santa Ana RWQCB with respect to the feasibility, maintenance, and monitoring of Treatment BMPs as set forth in the Department's Statewide Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP, May 2003 or subsequent issuance). RCTC's Resident Engineer will also require the design/build contractor to comply with other provisions identified in the NPDES Permit, Statewide Storm Water Permit, and Waste Discharge Requirements for the State of California, Department of Transportation (Order No. 99-06-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000003). RCTC's Resident Engineer will also require the design/build contractor to comply with other provisions identified in the NPDES Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the County of Riverside, and the incorporated cities of Riverside County within the Santa Ana Region (Order No. R8-2010-0033, NPDES No. CAS618033); and for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District, and the incorporated cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region (Order No. R8- 2009-0030), as applicable. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to and during construction -- -- 144 Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures • Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date GEOLOGY/SEISMIC/TOPOGRAPHY GEO.1 During final design, the Riverside County Transportation Commission's (ROTC) Project Engineer or a Project Geotechnical Engineer or Project Geologist under contract to RCTC will prepare a Final Geotechnical Design Report as required by Topic 113 of the Department's Highway Design Manual (May 2012). This report will document soil -related constraints and hazards such as slope instability, settlement, liquefaction, or related secondary seismic impacts that may be present along the project segments of SR-91 and 1-15. The performance standard for this report will be the Department's Geotechnical Manual (2012 or most recent version)) standards as they apply to the project features and structures. RCTC will submit the Final Geotechnical Design Report to the Department for review and approval during final design. The report will include but not be limited to: Evaluation of expansive soils and recommendations regarding construction procedures and/or design criteria to minimize the effect of these soils on the construction of the project and to minimize effects related to expansive soils on project facilities in the long term. Identification of potential liquefiable areas within the project limits and recommendations for mitigation. Evaluation of the corrosion potential of soils along those segments of the project alignment not previously tested (i.e., areas along 1-15 and the westbound side of SR-91). Demonstration that no retaining walls or excavations will occur in the existing landslide areas, or that landslide stabilization measures independent of the retaining wall design are included in the final project design. Demonstration that the design of all retaining walls is geotechnically suitable for project area soils, and verification that project design has considered and addressed the possibility of scour associated with the Santa Ana River. Demonstration that side slopes can be designed and graded so that surface erosion of the engineered fill is not increased compared to existing, natural conditions. RCTC's Project Engineer will incorporate the measures recommended in the design -level geotechnical report in the final design andproject specifications. RCTC's Project Engineer and RCTC's Project Geotechnical Engineer and/or Project Geologist Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- — RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to implement the measures recommended in the Final Geotechnical Design Report as included in the project specifications. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to and during construction -- -- • Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date GEO-2 RCTC's Resident Engineer will maintain a quality assurance/quality control plan during construction. The plan will include observing, monitoring, and testing by the Project Geotechnical Engineer and/or the Project Geologist under contract to RCTC prior to and during construction to confirm that the geotechnical/geologic recommendations from the Final Geotechnical Design Report and standard design and construction practices are fulfilled by the design/build contractor, or if different site conditions are encountered, appropriate changes are made to accommodate such issues. The geotechnical engineer will submit weekly reports to RCTC and the Department during all project -related grading, excavation, and construction activities. RCTC's Resident Engineer and RCTC's Project Geotechnical Engineer and/or Project Geologist; and the design/ build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to and during construction -- -- GEO-3 During final design, if blasting is required, RCTC's Project Engineer will require the design/build contractor to prepare a blasting plan to minimize potential hazards related to blasting activities. The blasting plan will address all applicable standards in accordance with the United States Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining. The issues to be addressed in the blasting plan will include, but are not limited to, the following: hours of blasting activity, notification to adjacent property owners, noise and vibration, and dust control. RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to implement the blasting plan prior to and during any blasting during construction. RCTC's Project Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- -- PALEONTOLOGY PAL-1 Following preparation of suitable construction drawings and elevations and during final design, the Riverside County Transportation Commission's (RCTC) Project Engineer will require the Designated Principal Paleontologist under contract to RCTC to prepare a Paleontological Mitigation. Plan (PMP). The PMP will provide guidance for developing and implementing paleontological mitigation efforts, including field work, laboratory methods, and curation. This PMP will be consistent with guidelines provided in the Department's Standard Environmental Reference (SER), Environmental Handbook, Volume I, Chapter 8, Paleontology, the Counties of Riverside and Orange, and the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP), and will be specifically tailored to the resources and sedimentary formations in the disturbance limits. RCTC's Project Engineer and RCTC's Designated Qualified Paleontologist Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- -- The part of the PMP that covers excavation will include but not be limited to: Prior to any ground disturbance, RCTC's Designated Principal Paleontologist or his/her representative will attend a meeting with the design/build contractor to explain the likelihood for encountering paleontological resources during construction, what resources may be discovered, and the methods that will be employed if anything is discovered. RCTC's Principal Paleontologist Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to any ground. disturbance -- -- 146 Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date RCTC's Principal Paleontologist will conduct a preconstruction field surrey in areas identified as having high paleontological sensitivity after vegetation and any pavement are removed, followed by salvage of any observed surface paleontological resources prior to the beginning of additional ground -disturbing activities. The survey will be conducted by the Principal Paleontologist or his/her representative who is qualified to identify vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant fossils. RCTC's Principal Paleontologist Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to any ground disturbance -- -- During ground disturbance, grading, and excavation, RCTC's Project Engineer will require the design/build contractor to retain a Principal Paleontologist. The Principal Paleontologist will provide a Paleontological Monitor who is qualified to recognize and professionally collect vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant fossils. The qualified Paleontological Monitor will initially be present on site on a full-time basis whenever these types of construction activities occur in sediments that have a high paleontological sensitivity rating and also on a spot-check basis in sediments that have a low sensitivity rating. Monitoring may be reduced to a part-time basis if no resources are being discovered in sediments with a high sensitivity rating. Any reduction or modification in scheduling of monitoring will be determined by the Principal Paleontologist and RCTC's Resident Engineer. The qualified Paleontological Monitor will inspect fresh cuts and/or spoils piles to recover paleontological resources. That monitor will be empowered to temporarily divert construction equipment away from the immediate area of the discovery. The monitor will be equipped to rapidly stabilize and remove fossils to avoid prolonged delays to construction schedules. if large mammal fossils or large concentrations of fossils are encountered, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to make heavy equipment available to assist in the removal and collection of large materials. RCTC's Project Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During ground disturbance, grading, and excavation -- -- Localized concentrations of small (or micro-) vertebrates may be found in all native sediments. As described in the PMP, the qualified Paleontological Monitor will spot -screen native sediments through one -eighth- to one -twentieth -inch mesh screens to determine whether microfossils are present. If microfossils are encountered, a standard sediment sample (up to 3 cubic yards or 6,000 pounds) will be collected and processed through one -twentieth -inch mesh screens to recover additional fossils. As described in the PMP, the processing of large bulk samples will be conducted at a designated location within the project limits that will be accessible throughout the duration of construction and also away from any cut or fill areas or active construction areas. Processing will be completed concurrently with construction and with the intent to have all processing completed before, or just after, project completion. Paleontological Monitor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During construction -- -- Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date RCTC's Project Engineer will require the Principal Paleontologist or his/her representative to prepare any recovered specimens to the point of identification and permanent preservation. This includes sorting any washed mass samples to recover small invertebrate and vertebrate fossils, the removal of surplus sediment from around larger specimens to reduce the volume of storage for the repository and storage cost, and the addition of approved chemical hardeners/ stabilizers to fragile specimens. This preparation will be conducted at a designated laboratory with access to fossil preparation tools, magnifying equipment, storage boxes and vials, and chemical hardeners. The processing of fossils through the lab will be conducted concurrently with construction, especially if numerous fossils are being collected. RCTC's Project Engineer and Principal Paleontologist Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Concurrently with construction -- -- Specimens will be identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible and curated into an institutional repository with retrievable storage. Repository institutions usually charge a one-time fee based on volume, so removing surplus sediment is important. The repository institution may be a local museum or university that has a curator who can retrieve the specimens on request. RCTC's Project Manager and the California Department of Transportation (Department) will require that a draft curation agreement be in place between the Principal Paleontologist and an approved curation facility prior to the initiation of paleontological monitoring and mitigation activities for the project. RCTC's Project Manager and the Department Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During and after paleontological monitoring -- -- RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to comply with the provisions of the PMP during all ground disturbance, grading, and excavation activities. This will include appropriate coordination with RCTC's Designated Principal Paleontologist and the provision of qualified paleontological monitors consistent with the provisions of the PMP. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During all ground disturbance, grading, and excavation activities -- -- After the completion of all ground disturbance and grading, RCTC's Project Manager will require the design/build contractor to have the design/build contractor's Designated Principal Paleontologist prepare a Final Paleontological Mitigation Report (PMR) that summarizes the project area investigated, the field and laboratory methods used, the stratigraphic units inspected, the types of fossils recovered, and the scientific significance of the curated collection. RCTC's Project Manager will retain a copy of the report for the RCTC project files and will provide a copy of the report to the Department. RCTC's Project Manager and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project After the completion of all ground disturbance, grading, and excavation activities -- -- HAZARDOUS WASTE/MATERIALS HW-1 A Phase I ESA was conducted for the Mobil No. 18-FLM site (616 Paseo Grande Street, Corona, California), and a Phase I ESA and Phase II Site Investigation were conducted for the Honda Cars of Corona site (231 South Lincoln Avenue, Corona, California) as part of the DSI, in accordance with ASTM Standard E 1527-05. The DSI identified Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) associated with on -site releases. Based on the results of the DSI, the following measures will be RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase During final design and prior to any ground disturbance activities -- -- 148 Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date implemented for these two sites of potential environmental concern: Honda Cars of Corona Site: During final design and prior to any ground disturbance, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to consult with regulators, confirm that the final confirmation sampling has been completed at the site, and that contaminant investigation for the site has received regulatory site closure. In addition, prior to the completion of final design, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the design build/build contractor to properly abandon all monitoring wells and vapor extraction wells on the site in accordance with regulatory requirements. Mobil No. 18-FLM Site: During final design and prior to any ground disturbance, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to conduct further investigation on contaminants in soils on site after a work plan is prepared and additional information is available. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase During final design and prior to any ground disturbance activities HW-2 During final design and prior to any ground disturbance activities, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to conduct site investigations for any new release sites that are within the project right-of-way. RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to conduct these site investigations in compliance with applicable federal, State, and local regulations and in accordance with ASTM Standard E 1527-05. If contaminants are determined to be present during the site investigations, RCTC's Resident Engineer may require the design/build contractor to prepare and implement recommendations in one or more of the following specialized reports: Remedial Actions Options Report, Sensitive Receptor Survey, Human Health/Ecological Risk Assessment, and/or Quarterly Monitoring Report. RCTC's Project Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During final design and prior to any ground - disturbing activities -- -- HW-3 During final design and prior to any ground disturbance activities, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to conduct an aerially deposited lead (ADL) study for soil if excavation will exceed 3 feet (ft) below ground surface (bgs) in unpaved locations adjacent to the State right-of-way between Gypsum Canyon Road and Magnolia Avenue, or 5 ft bgs in unpaved locations in areas where there would be fiber-optic signage along eastbound State Route 91 (SR-91) from east of the Weir Canyon Road undercrossing to east of the Gypsum Canyon Road undercrossing. RCTC's Project Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During final design and prior to any ground- disturbing activities -- -- During construction, if soils within the project disturbance limits along SR-91 are removed off site, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to treat the soils as State hazardous waste and to properly dispose of those soils at an appropriate State -certified landfill facility. In addition, during construction, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to test all soils imported on site as fill. RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to use only clean soils as imported fill on site. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During construction -- -- • • Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date HW-4 Predemolition asbestos and/or LBP surveys were conducted for 21 road structures that will be renovated or demolished during project construction. Based on the results of the ACM surveys of the 21 freeway structures, the SR- 91/State Route 71 (SR-71) Separation (Bridge No. 56-0587), East SR-91/North SR-71 Connector Separation (Bridge No. 56-0635), Prado Overhead (Bridge No. 56-0637), West Grand Boulevard Undercrossing (UC) (Bridge No. 56-0445 UR), El Cerrito Road UC (Bridge No. 56-0558 L/R), and Serfas. Club Drive UC (Bridge No. 56-0368 L/R) contain AGMs. Therefore, prior to any disturbance associated with renovation or demolition of these bridges, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to have a licensed asbestos contractor properly.remove and dispose of asbestos -containing railing brace pads from these structures. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to and during renovation or demolition of the structures. -- -- Based on the results of the LBP surveys of the 21 freeway structures, the Main Street UC (Bridge No. 56-0448 UR), McKinley Street UC (Bridge No. 56-0365), and Buchanan Street Overcrossing (Bridge No. 56-0368) contain LBPs. Therefore, prior to any disturbance associated with renovation or demolition of these bridges, RCTC's Resident Engineer will inform the design/build contractor of the presence of LBPs in those structures. RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to protect construction workers from exposure to lead dust when disturbing LBP during bridge renovation or demolition activities. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to and during renovation or demolition of the structures. -- -- In addition, a hazardous materials survey identified two areas with potential hazardous materials. Based on the results of the visual hazardous materials survey of the bridges, light fixture components and possible lead metal railing braces may pose an additional concern. These components include: Light fixtures (some flush -mounted) on the undersides of many of the bridges. At a few of the bridges that cross over the freeway, there are light posts. The light bulbs in these fixtures may contain mercury. The Temescal Wash Bridge overhead has some metal braces and wire tension cable at joint locations on the underside of the bridge. While no suspected AGMs were observed or sampled at these locations, the presence of metal washers and spacers, which may contain lead, was noted. Soft metal railing brace pads that may be composed of lead metal were observed at the following bridges: Pierce Street UC (Bridge No. 56-0369 UR) and Buchanan Street Overcrossing (Bridge No. 56-0368) Therefore, during final design and prior to any disturbance of these facilities and materials, RCTC's Resident Engineer will inform the design/build contractor of the presence and location of the hazardous materials in the freeway structures described above. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During final design and prior to any disturbance of the cited facilities -- -- 150 Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date Prior to the disturbance of freeway structures, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to have asbestos -containing railing brace pads removed and disposed of by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor. If abated, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to remove non- friable ACMs in accordance with Category II asbestos abatementprocedures as defined in Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Fed -OSHA) 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1926.1101. However, if mechanical means are utilized for abatement of ACMs, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to convert these non -friable materials into a friable state during removal activities and manage these materials under Class I asbestos abatement procedures. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to disturbance of the freeway structures -- -- Prior to disturbance of freeway structures, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to properly test any areas that have not been previously tested, and remove and dispose of any materials from these structures that exceed California Health and Safety Code criteria for hazardous waste at an appropriate State -certified landfill facility. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to disturbance or renovation of freeway structures -- -- During final design and prior to any ground disturbance, demolition, or renovation activities, RCTC's Project Engineer will require the design/build contractor to conduct predemolition asbestos, LBP, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), and/or mercury surveys of any buildings that will be renovated or demolished. RCTC's Project Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase During final design and prior to any ground- disturbing activities -- -- During construction, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to properly remove and dispose of any materials from these structures that exceed California Health and Safety Code criteria for hazardous waste at an appropriate State -certified landfill facility. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase During construction -- -- HW-5 During final design and prior to any ground disturbance activities, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to conduct inspections for potential PCBs in utility pole -mounted transformers that will be relocated or removed as part of the project. RCTC's Project Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During final design and prior to any ground - disturbing activities -- — RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to consider leaking transformers a PCB hazard unless tested and confirmed otherwise, and to handle them accordingly. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During construction -- -- HW-6 During construction, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to test, remove, and dispose of any yellow traffic striping and pavement marking materials in accordance with the California Department of Transportation (Department) Construction Manual, Chapter 7, Section 106. RCTC's Resident Engineer Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During construction -- -- • Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date HW-7 During final design and prior to any dewatering activities, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to conduct additional coordination with the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health when groundwater dewatering will occur in the vicinity of contaminated soils or contaminated groundwater sites. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During final design and prior to any dewatering activities -- -- HW-8 During final design and prior to any ground disturbance activities, RCTC's Project Engineer will require the design/build contractor to sample soil adjacent to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad tracks that will be disturbed during construction for the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons, metals, solvents, and other potential contaminants (e.g., polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons [PNAsj, kerosene, ACMs, chlorinated hydrocarbons, pesticides, and herbicides). That testing will determine whether the soils require special handling and disposal during construction. RCTC's Project Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During final design and prior to any ground - disturbing activities -- -- During construction, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to properly dispose of all soils exceeding the criteria for State or federal hazardous waste at an appropriate State -certified landfill facility. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During construction -- -- HW-9 Prior to the start of construction, RCTC's Project Engineer will require the design/build contractor to prepare a site -specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) by a certified industrial hygienist. The HASP will be based on evaluation of proposed construction activities, the potential hazards identified in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Phase II testing, and any future assessments prepared for the project. The HASP will outline specific procedures for encountering expected and unexpected contaminants. It will include safe work practices, contaminant monitoring, the need for personal protective equipment, emergency response procedures, and safety training requirements to protect construction workers and third parties working on site. The HASP will be in compliance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910 and 1926 and all other applicable federal, State, and local regulations and requirements. RCTC's Project Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to construction -- -- During construction, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to implement the. requirements in the HASP. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During construction -- -- HW-10 Prior to the start of construction, RCTC's Project Engineer will require the design/build contractor to prepare a soils and groundwater Contaminant Management Plan (CMP). The CMP will include procedures for contaminant monitoring and identification as well as temporary storage, handling, treatment, and disposal of hazardous waste and materials in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local regulations and requirements. RCTC's Project Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to construction -- 152 Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date Prior to and during construction, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to implement the soils and groundwater CMP. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to and during construction -- -- HW-11 Prior to the start of construction, RCTC's Project Engineer will require the design/build contractor to prepare a Construction Contingency Plan (CCP) in accordance with the Department's Unknown Hazards Procedures for Construction. The CCP will include provisions for emergency response in the event that unidentified underground storage tanks (USTs), hazardous materials, petroleum hydrocarbons, or hazardous or solid wastes are discovered during construction activities. The CCP will address UST decommissioning, field screening, contaminant materials testing methods, mitigation and contaminant management requirements, and health and safety requirements for construction workers. RCTC's Project Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to construction -- -- RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to implement the CCP during all construction activities. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During construction -- -- During construction, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to cease work immediately if an unexpected release of hazardous substances is found in reportable quantities. If an unexpected release of hazardous substances is found in reportable quantities, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to notify the National Response Center by calling 1-800- 424-8802. RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to perform cleanup of unexpected releases under the appropriate federal, State, or local agency oversight. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During construction -- -- HW-12 RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to notify Underground Service Alert (USA) at least 2 days prior to excavation by calling 811 to require that all utility owners within the project disturbance limits identify the locations of underground transmission lines and facilities. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project At least 2 days prior to any excavation -- -- HW-13 RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to submit the fees to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) at least 10 days prior to proceeding with any demolition or renovation of a structure (refer to SCAQMD Rule 1403). RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to adhere to the requirements of SCAQMD Rule 1403 during renovation and demolition activities. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project At least 10 days prior to any demolition or renovation of structures -- -- HW-14 During final design and prior to any ground disturbance, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to test all wooden utility poles, railroad ties, and other treated wood waste material that will be removed and disposed of as part of the project are tested for wood treatments/preservatives. RCTC's Resident Engineer will also require the design/build contractor to test soils surrounding railroad ties for wood treatments/preservatives. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During final design and prior to any ground - disturbing activities -- -- • ® • Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date Prior to and during construction, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to properly dispose of all treated wood waste as required by the Alternative Management Standards for Wood Treated Waste in Section 67386.6(a)(2)(B)(3) of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). In addition, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to require any personnel who come in contact with treated wood waste or contaminated soils to follow all applicable requirements under Section 67386.6(a)(2)(B)(3) of the CCR and be trained in the proper identification, disposal, and safe handling of treated wood waste and contaminated soils. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to and during construction -- -- AIR QUALITY SC-1 Construction Emissions Mitigation Plan. Prior to any site preparation, grading and/or construction activities, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Project Engineer will require the design/build contractor to finalize the project -specific Construction Emissions Mitigation Plan. That plan will specifically incorporate measures for controlling particulate and other emissions during construction from the following sources: California Department of Transportation (Department) Standard Specifications Sections 10 and 18 (Dust Control) Department's Standard Specifications Section 39-3.06 (Asphalt Concrete Plant Emissions) South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403, including control measures from Tables 1, 2, and 3 in that rule The plan will also include the following measures: Control of ozone precursor emissions from construction equipment vehicles by, maintaining equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune per the manufacturers' specifications. Control of material on all trucks hauling excavated or graded material from the site by compliance with State Vehicle Code Section 23114, with special attention to Sections 23114(b)(F), (e)(2), and (e)(4) as amended, regarding the prevention of such material spilling onto public streets and roads. RCTC's Project Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to any site preparation, grading, and/or construction activities -- -- SC-2 Implementation of the Construction Emissions Mitigation Plan. During all site preparation, grading, construction, clean-up, and other activities during construction, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to comply with the measures in the Construction Emissions Mitigation Plan. RCTC's Resident Engineer will conduct site inspections at least once a month to ensure that the design/build contractor is complying with the provisions of the Construction Emissions Mitigation Plan, RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During all site preparation, grading, construction, clean-up, and other activities during construction -- -- 154 Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date SC-3 Prior to any construction activities, RCTC's Project Engineer will ensure that the grading plans and project specifications show the anticipated duration of construction in individual construction areas along the project alignment. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to construction -- -- SC-4 During final design and prior to any ground disturbance, RCTC's Project Geologist will conduct appropriate testing to determine whether there are asbestos -containing materials (ACMs) present in the project disturbance limits. RCTC's Project Geologist and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During final design and prior to any ground disturbance -- -- SC-5 If RCTC's Project Geologist determines that ACMs are present in the project disturbance limits during that final preconstruction inspection, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to properly remove and dispose of those ACMs RCTC's Project Geologist and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the final preconstruction inspection -- -- NOISE N-1 Based on studies completed to date, Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) intends to incorporate noise abatement in the form of reasonable and feasible barriers at 15 to 16 locations, depending on the selected alternative, ranging in height from 8 feet (ft) to 14 ft, depending on the alternative and the design variations. Calculations based on preliminary design data indicate that the barriers will reduce noise levels by 5 to 15 A -weighted decibels (dBA) for 333 to 419 homes and the Green River Golf Club, depending on the design variation. If during final design conditions have substantially changed, noise abatement at some of these locations may not be necessary. The final decision on noise abatement will be made on completion of the project design and the public involvement processes for the environmental document. RCTC's Project Engineer Required for the Initial Phase During final design -- -- RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to construct the noise abatement measures included in the final design and project specifications. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase During construction -- -- N-2 RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to control noise from construction activity consistent with the California Department of Transportation's (Department's) Standard Specifications, Section 14-8.02, "Noise Control," and Standard Special Provisions (SSP) S5-310. RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to ensure that noise levels from construction operations within the State right-of-way between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. not exceed 86 dBA at a distance of 50 ft. The noise level requirement will apply to the equipment on the job site or related to the job, including, but not limited to trucks, transit mixers, or transient equipment that may or may not be owned by the contractor, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to use an alternative warning method instead of a sound signal unless required by safety laws. In addition, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During construction -- -- • Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date to equip all internal combustion engines with the manufacturer -recommended mufflers and not operate any internal combustion engine on the job site without the appropriate mufflers. As directed by RCTC's Resident Engineer, the design/build contractor will implement appropriate additional noise mitigation measures, including changing the location of stationary construction equipment, turning off idling equipment, rescheduling construction activity, notifying adjacent residents in advance of construction work, and installing acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources. N-3 In accordance with the Municipal Codes of the Cities of Anaheim, Corona, Riverside, and Norco, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to limit construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding weekends and holidays. If construction is needed outside those hours or days, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to coordinate with the affected local jurisdiction. If the local jurisdiction approves construction hours that are different from those imposed by this measure, then the design/build contractor will immediately request that RCTC's Resident Engineer consider a modification to this measure in accordance with CEQA to allow construction during the new hours that the local jurisdiction approved. In addition to Measure N-3, Measure GE0-3 specifically addresses potential noise control in the event blasting is necessary during construction along State Route 91 (SR-91) east of Interstate 15 (1-15). RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During construction -- -- N-4 If noise barriers proposed for 1-15 (with the exception of Noise Barrier [NB] K1-A), as part of a separate project, are not constructed within 5 years of the completion of the construction of the SR-91 CIP, the RCTC will initiate a separate project to construct those walls. RCTC's Project Manager Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Five years after the completion of construction of the SR-91 CIP -- -- N-5 Residences that would experience a severe traffic noise impact of 75 dBA equivalent continuous sound level (Lee) or higher would qualify for consideration of unusual and extraordinary abatement under Alternative 2f. NBs M-3 and D1-B are considered unusual and extraordinary noise abatement. During the design/build phase, RCTC will contract with a qualified acoustical specialist to conduct interior noise analyses at residences projected to experience severe traffic noise impacts. Interior noise abatement for each of these homes will be evaluated on a case -by - case basis per the guidance on "Unusual and Extraordinary Abatement" in the Department's Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (August 2006), RCTC and a qualified acoustical specialist Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- -- ENERGY No avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required. NATURAL COMMUNITIES Compensatory Mitigation. Compensatory mitigation for the effects to coastal sage scrub (CSS) vegetation within Riverside County will be achieved through project consistency with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Permanent effects to CSS vegetation in Orange County occupied by coastal California gnatcatcher (CAGN) or within CAGN- RCTC's Project Manager, RCTC's Resident Engineer, and the Department Required for the Initial Phase During the design/ build phase -- - 156 Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date designated critical habitat will be mitigated as described in the Biological Opinion received from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on November 30, 2011, Specifically, 16.03 acres (ac) of habitat (e.g., CSS) suitable for CAGN breeding, dispersal, and foraging will be restored in Chino Hills State Park (CHSP) (or another off -site area approved by the USFWS) during construction of the Initial Phases under Alternatives 1 and 2. This will increase the amount of conserved habitat available for CAGN in the area.. Temporarily impacted CSS and other vegetation communities used by CAGN for dispersal and foraging will be restored with in -kind or better vegetation during and after construction as the construction in each disturbed area is completed (e.g., after each phase of construction), Measures TE-1 through TE-17, provided later in the Environmental Commitments Record (ECR), were developed from the Biological Opinion. The plant palette used for restored areas in the project limits and CHSP (or other areas approved by the USFWS) will be approved by the District Biologist at each location. The District Biologist may consult with local responsible agencies (e.g., local fire agencies) regarding the plant palettes if the District Biologist determines that such consultation would be appropriate. Compensatory mitigation for riparian communities in both counties will be required for United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Section 404 and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Section 1600 permitting. Typically, riparian habitat subject to Corps and CDFG jurisdiction is mitigated at a minimum mitigation - to -effect ratio of 2:1 for permanent effects and 1:1 for temporary effects, which is consistent with Corps and CDFG policies for no net loss of riparian/riverine habitat (e.g., wetlands) standards. Mitigation for permanent effects will be conducted in advance during the Initial Phases in the form of habitat restoration and/or enhancement in on- or off -site areas where similar riparian habitat exists. Temporary effects to riparian communities will be mitigated at a minimum mitigation ratio of 1:1 to be replaced on site in kind after the temporary impact has occurred. Final details for compensatory mitigation will be coordinated and environmental clearance will be obtained (if necessary) through coordination among the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), the California Department of Transportation (Department), the resource agencies, and third -party landowners. Prior to beginning construction; a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) will be developed in coordination with the Corps, CDFG, and USFWS that ensures no net loss of riparian habitat value or acreage. Final details for compensatory mitigation will be evaluated through coordination among the Department, RCTC, • Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date and the resource agencies. That compensatory mitigation plan will be based on the performance criterion of no net loss of habitat value or acreage, thus ensuring that adequate mitigation will be provided for the project impacts. The HMMP will comply with all terms and conditions set forth in the permits and opinions issued by the resource agencies for the project and will include, at a minimum, the following provisions: Permanent impacts to riparian/riverine areas will be replaced on or off site at a minimum ratio of 3:1 with in -kind habitat. Permanent effects to native habitat will be replaced on or off site at a minimum 2:1 ratio with in -kind habitat. Temporary effects to native vegetation will be replaced at a minimum 1:1 ratio with in -kind habitat restored in place within the project area. If off -site restoration is conducted, it will be done within the same watershed as the project. The HMMP will identify a success criterion of at least 80 percent cover of native riparian vegetation or composition structure similar to existing adjacent high - quality riparian vegetation. Further criteria specified in the HMMP will include an establishment period for the replacement habitat, regular trash removal, and regular maintenance and monitoring activities to ensure the success of the mitigation plan. After construction, annual summary reports of biological monitoring will be provided to the Corps, CDFG, and USFWS documenting the monitoring effort. The duration of the monitoring and reporting will be established by resource agency permit conditions. Compensatory mitigation for effects to oak trees (excluding California scrub oaks) with trunk sizes above 8 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) will involve replacement at a mitigation -to -effect ratio of 3:1. Heritage oaks (oaks with a greater than 36-inch dbh) will be replaced at a mitigation -to -effect ratio of 10:1, if feasible. If the replacement trees cannot be planted in the immediate vicinity of where the previous trees were located, they may be planted elsewhere in the project area, subject to approval by the Department Landscape Architect and the affected local jurisdiction, if any. All compensatory mitigation for the entire project, both the Initial Phases and Ultimate Projects, will be provided in the Initial Phases of the SR-91 CIP Build Alternatives. RCTC will provide appropriate funds, to be maintained in a non -wasting endowment, to Chino Hills State Park to provide for the long-term maintenance and management of the restored areas within the park to support gnatcatcher habitat in perpetuity. 158 Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date NC-1 During final design, RCTC's Project Engineer will coordinate with the Designated Qualified Biologist to delineate all environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs) within the project footprint and the immediately surrounding areas in the project specifications. ESAs include CSS, chaparral, and riparian/riverine vegetation; the protected zone of any oak tree (5 feet [ft]) outside the dripline or 15 ft from the trunk of the tree, whichever is greater) or oak habitat; and designated critical habitat (with constituent elements). In addition, all restoration and mitigation areas at Coal Canyon adjacent to the project footprint will be designated ESAs on the project plans. RCTC's Project Engineer and the Designated Qualified Biologist Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- -- Prior to clearing or construction, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to install highly visible barriers (such as orange construction fencing) around all designated ESAs. No grading or fill activity of any type will be permitted within the ESAs. In addition, no construction activities, materials, or equipment will be allowed within the ESAs. All construction equipment will be operated in a manner so as to prevent accidental damage to nearby preserved areas. No structure of any kind, or incidental storage of equipment or supplies, will be allowed within the ESAs. Silt fence barriers will be installed at the ESA boundaries to prevent accidental deposition of fill material in areas where vegetation is adjacent to planned grading activities. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to clearing or construction -- -- NC-2 RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to have a Designated Qualified Biologist under contract. The Designated Qualified Biologist will monitor construction in the vicinity of the ESAs for the duration of construction to flush any -wildlife species present prior to construction and to ensure that all vegetation removal, best management practices (BMPs), ESAs, and all avoidance and minimization measures are properly implemented. RCTC's Project Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to and during construction -- -- NC-3 To avoid effects to nesting birds, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to conduct any native or exotic vegetation removal or tree trimming activities outside of the nesting bird season 0.e., February 15—September 15). In the event that vegetation clearing is necessary during the nesting season, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to have the Designated Qualified Biologist conduct a preconstruction survey within 300 ft of construction areas no more than 7 days prior to construction to identify the locations of nests. Should nesting birds be found, an exclusionary buffer of 300 ft will be established by the Designated Biologist around each nest site. This buffer will be clearly marked in the field by construction personnel under guidance of the design/ build contractor's Designated Qualified Biologist, and construction or clearing will not be conducted within this zone until the Designated Qualified Biologist determines that the young have fledged or the nest is no longer active. In the event that construction must occur within the 300 ft buffer, the Designated Biologist will take steps to ensure that construction activities do not disturb or -disrupt nesting activities. If the Designated Biologist determines that construction activities are disturbing or disrupting nesting activities, the Designated Biologist will notify the RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor's Designated Qualified Biologist Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to and during construction -- -- • • • Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date Resident Engineer, who has the authority to halt construction to reduce the noise and/or disturbance to the nests. Responses may include, but are not limited to, turning off vehicle engines and other equipment whenever possible to reduce noise, installing a protective noise barrier between the nest and the construction activities, and/or working in other areas until the young have fledged: NC-4 When work is conducted during the fire season (as identified by the Orange County Fire Authority [OCFA], Riverside County Fire Department [RCFD], City of Norco Fire Department, and/or the City of Corona Fire Department) adjacent to any vegetated open space, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to ensure that appropriate firefighting equipment (e.g., extinguishers, shovels, water tankers) is available on site during all phases of project construction to help minimize the potential for human -caused wildfires. Shields, protective mats, and/or other fire -preventive methods will be used during grinding, welding, and other spark - inducing activities. Personnel trained in fire hazards, preventive actions, and responses to fires will advise contractors regarding fire risk from all construction - related activities. If a responsible fire agency (OCFA, RCFD, City of Norco Fire Department, or City of Corona Fire Department) requires the RCTC to clear defensible spaces during construction, the RCTC's Resident Engineer, the design/build contractor, and the design/build contractor's Designated Qualified Biologist will coordinate with the USFWS prior to this clearing effort. In the event there are resources in the areas identified for defensible clearing, RCTC's Resident Engineer and the Designated Qualified Biologist will coordinate with any applicable permitting agencies regarding possible effects to those resources prior to approving the defensible clearing of any areas by the contractor. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor's Designated Qualified Biologist Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During construction -- -- During all Red Flag Warning periods as issued by the National Weather Service, the design/build contractor will not be allowed to operate mechanized equipment or equipment that could throw off sparks or potentially start fires in any areas of natural open space in CHSP or other areas. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During all Red Flag Warning periods issued by the National Weather Service -- -- NC-5 During final design, the Project Engineer will coordinate with the Designated Qualified Biologist to identify developed or nonsensitive upland habitat areas appropriate for use during construction for equipment maintenance, staging, dispensing of fuel and oil, or any other such activities and will delineate and identify those areas on the project specifications. The Designated Qualified Biologist will specifically identify developed or nonsensitive upland habitat areas to prevent any spill runoff on those sites from entering waters of the United States. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the Designated Qualified Biologist Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- -- 160 Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date During construction, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to ensure that all equipment maintenance, staging, dispensing of fuel and oil, or any other such activities occur in developed or designated nonsensitive upland habitat areas designated in the project specifications for those uses. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During construction -- -- NC-6 During final design, RCTC's Project Engineer will coordinate with the Designated Qualified Biologist to identify the locations of all existing wildlife fencing and will delineate and identify those areas on the project specifications. RCTC's Project Engineer and the Designated Qualified Biologist Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- -- Prior to and during construction, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to install new fencing prior to the removal of any existing wildlife fencing to protect against wildlife -vehicle incidents. The new fencing must be the same or greater height than the previous wildlife fence. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to and during construction -- -- The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to ensure that the fencing is maintained and functional throughout the project construction. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to and during construction -- -- The Department will ensure that the fencing is maintained and functional throughout the life of the project to prevent wildlife -vehicle incidents. The Department Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During operations -- -- NC-7 During final design, RCTC's Project Engineer will coordinate with the Designated Qualified Biologist to identify the habitat adjacent to Coal Canyon, B Canyon, Fresno Canyon/Wardlow Wash, and Bedford Wash that is anticipated to be disturbed by construction activities and will delineate those areas on the project specifications. RCTC's Project Engineer and the Designated Qualified Biologist Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- -- As detailed in the project specifications, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to restore habitat adjacent to Coal Canyon, B Canyon, Fresno Canyon/Wardlow Wash, and Bedford Wash that was disturbed during construction as construction in the affected areas is completed. That restoration will be provided on a 1:1 ratio, using native vegetation as determined by RCTC and the Department in coordination with the resource agencies. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During and after construction - -- NC-8 During final design, RCTC's Project Engineer will coordinate with the Designated Qualified Biologist to delineate all wildlife corridors within the project footprint and the immediately surrounding areas as Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) in the project specifications. RCTC's Project Engineer and the Designated Qualified Biologist Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- -- Prior to and during construction, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to ensure that equipment maintenance, lighting, and staging are limited to designated areas away from wildlife corridor entrances. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Prior to and during construction -- -- Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date NC-9 During final design, RCTC's Project Engineer will develop design and construction management measures to direct temporary construction noise and nighttime construction lighting and permanent facility lighting away from the wildlife corridors, bridges (structures potentially occupied by bats), biologically sensitive areas, Western Riverside County MSHCP Conservation Areas, vegetated drainages, CSS in CAGN-designated critical habitat with long-term conservation value for covered species. Those design measures will be approved by the Department's District 8 and District 12 Biology/Environmental for areas within Riverside and Orange Counties, respectively, prior to the completion of final design. RCTC's Project Engineer with the approval of Department's Biology/ Environmental Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to the completion of PSBE -- -- If construction work must be done at night, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to properly implement the measures developed during final design to direct noise and direct lighting away from the wildlife corridors, bridges, and biologically sensitive areas during those nighttime construction activities, RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During any nighttime construction near wildlife corridors, bridges (potentially occupied by bats), and biologically sensitive areas -- -- NC-10 Prior to and during construction, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to keep the wildlife corridors clear of all equipment or structures that could potentially serve as barriers to wildlife passage. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to and during construction -- -- NC-11 During final design, RCTC's Project Engineer will ensure that the existing overcrossings and culvert structures that will be extended or modified by the project are designed so they provide openness ratios suitable for large mammals (1.96) and medium-sized mammals (0.81), as appropriate, at each crossing. The design and openness ratio for each crossing will be reviewed with the Department District Biologist during final design. The specific required openness ratios and designs will be provided in the project specifications for each such crossing. RCTC's Project Engineer Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During final design -- -- The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to construct the overcrossings and culvert structures consistent with the project specifications to ensure the appropriate openness ratios are provided at each crossing. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During construction -- -- 162 Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date NC-12 Within Coal Canyon, B Canyon, Fresno Canyon/Wardlow Wash, and Bedford Wash, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to limit the hours of construction within 1,000 ft of the centerline of each of these crossings to daylight hours (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) to ensure continued use of these wildlife corridors during construction, with the exception of limited periods when evening or night work is required for operational reasons. Operational reasons may include the desire to conduct certain construction activities, such as closing multiple ramps or travel lanes, during evening and night hours to minimize delays to the traveling public. Any night construction must be approved in writing by the RCTC Resident Engineer, and coordinated with the District 8 and 12 biologists, the USFWS, and CDFG. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During construction -- -- NC-13 During final design, RCTC's Project Engineer will ensure that the design and construction process for all structures required for bridge and/or culvert work within Coal Canyon, B Canyon, Fresno Canyon/Wardlow Wash, and Bedford Wash, will not block the main underpass at these locations during construction. RCTC's Project Engineer will ensure that the design of the scaffolding and false work is restricted to the sides of the underpass and limits of the existing exclusionary chain - link fence to maintain the existing width of the wildlife corridor during construction activities. RCTC's Project Engineer Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- -- During construction within Coal Canyon, B Canyon, Fresno Canyon/Wardlow Wash, and Bedford Wash, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to ensure that all structures required for bridgework are installed and constructed consistent with the final design specifically to avoid blocking the main underpass during construction and to restrict all scaffolding and false work to the sides of the underpass and limits of the existing exclusionary chain -link fence to maintain the existing width of the wildlife corridor during construction activities. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During construction -- -- NC-14 Minimal equipment staging area is available at the eastbound Coal Canyon off -ramp along the sides of the paved road and will be used for the staging of equipment for Coal Canyon work only. During final design, RCTC's Project Engineer will ensure that the available area for construction staging at the eastbound Coal Canyon off - ramp is delineated on the project specifications. RCTC's Project Engineer Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- -- RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to minimize the . use of this area during construction and, where possible, to avoid the area from February 15 to September 1. RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/ build contractor to ensure that vehicles staged in this area are equipped with security lights. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During construction -- -- Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date NC-15 During construction within Coal Canyon, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to keep the Coal Canyon on- and off -ramps open at all times for emergency and police personnel. RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to ensure that use of the emergency access road as a turnaround or shortcut for any construction or non -emergency traffic is prohibited. That road will only be used during bridge construction and general road construction at Coal Canyon. RCTC's Resident Engineer will also require the design/build contractor to ensure that, in general, no hauling is allowed at night through underpasses and freeway off -ramps. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During construction -- -- NC-16 During construction in Coal Canyon, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to close the gates at Coal Canyon at the end of each construction day. The locations of those gates will be shown on the project specifications. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- -- NC-17 During final design, RCTC's Project Engineer will coordinate with the Designated Qualified Biologist to identify existing and proposed conservation areas within the project footprint or in the immediately surrounding areas and will designate those areas on the project specifications. To reduce impacts where the project interfaces with existing or proposed conservation areas prior to and during construction, RCTC's Project Manager will ensure that the project complies with the Urban/ Wildlands Interface Guidelines in Section 6.1,4 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The project specifications will include applicable guidelines from the Western Riverside County MSHCP. RCTC's Project Engineer and the Designated Qualified Biologist Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- -- Prior to and during construction, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to comply with guidelines from the Western Riverside County MSHCP included in the project specifications. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to and during construction -- -- NC-18 During final design, RCTC's Project Engineer will coordinate with the Designated Qualified Biologist to identify existing Criteria Areas within the project footprint or in the immediately surrounding areas and will designate those areas on the project specifications. RCTC's Project Engineer and the Designated Qualified Biologist Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- -- To reduce impacts where the project is located within the Criteria Area, RCTC's Project Manager will ensure that the project complies with the applicable siting and design criteria and the Construction Guidelines in Section 7.5.2 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The project specifications will include applicable guidelines from the Western Riverside County MSHCP. RCTC's Project Manager Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project . During the design/ build phase -- -- During construction, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to comply with guidelines from the Western Riverside County MSHCP included in the project specifications. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During construction -- -- 164 Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date NC-19 The SR-91 CIP is a covered activity under the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Therefore, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to comply with all Western Riverside County MSHCP Construction Guidelines and Standard BMPs prior to and during construction. RCTC's Resident Engineer Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to and during construction -- -- WETLANDS AND OTHER WATERS WET-1 Riverside County Transportation Commission's (RCTC) Project Manager will ensure that prior to any clearing or construction, a Section 404 Nationwide Permit is obtained through the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA). RCTC's Project Manager Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to clearing or construction -- -- RCTC's Resident Engineer will retain a copy of the Corps permit at the construction site and will ensure that the conditions in that permit are properly implemented prior to and during construction. RCTC's Resident Engineer Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to and during construction -- -- WET-2 RCTC's Project Manager will ensure that prior to any clearing or construction, a Stream bed Alteration Agreement with California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) is obtained. RCTC's Project Manager' Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- -- RCTC's Resident Engineer will retain a copy of the CDFG agreement at the construction site and will ensure that the conditions in that agreement are properly implemented prior to and during construction. RCTC's Resident Engineer Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to and during construction -- -- WET-3 RCTC's Project Manager will ensure that prior to any clearing or construction, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is obtained. RCTC's Project Manager Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- -- RCTC's Resident Engineer will retain a copy of the Section 401 certification at the construction site and will ensure that the conditions in that certification are properly implemented prior to and during construction. RCTC's Resident Engineer Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to and during construction _ -- -- PLANT SPECIES The measures provided in Sections 3.17, Natural Communities, and 3.21, Threatened and Endangered Species, will adequately avoid and minimize impacts to special -status plant species during construction of the Build Alternatives. Although no additional avoidance, minimization, or mitigation is required, Measure PS-1 will be implemented as part of the project to minimize the loss of Southern California black walnut and Coulter's matilija po_ppy. PS-1 As part of the SR-91 CIP Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, trees and shrubs will be planted at appropriate locations, and the species list to be used for those plantings will include Southern California black walnut and Coulter's matilija poppy. At a minimum, 30 Southern California black walnut trees will be planted. RCTC's Project Manager Required for the Initial Phase During the design/ build phase -- -- ANIMAL SPECIES AS-1 During final design, the Riverside County Transportation Commission's (RCTC) Project Engineer will coordinate with the Designated Qualified Biologist to identify all areas of potential burrowing owl (BUOW) habitat within the project footprint or in the immediately surrounding areas and will designate those areas on the project specifications. RCTC's Project . Engineer and the . Designated Qualified Biologist Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- - Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date To ensure that any BUOW that may occupy the site in the future are not affected by construction activities, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to have preconstruction BUOW surveys conducted by a Designated Qualified Biologist within 30 days prior to any phase of construction in the areas identified as potential BUOW habitat. These preconstruction surveys are also required to comply with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (META), and the California Fish and Game Code. If any of the preconstruction surveys determine that BUOW are present, one or more of the following mitigation measures will be required: (1) avoidance of active nests/burrows and surrounding buffer area during construction activities; (2) passive relocation of individual owls; (3) active relocation of individual owls; and (4) preservation of on -site habitat with long-term conservation value for the owl. Because any documented presence of BUOW will have unique site characteristics, the RCTC Project Manager will coordinate with the Department District Biologist, RCTC's Resident Engineer, the design/build contractor, the design/build contractor's Designated Qualified Biologist, CDFG, and USFWS to determine which specific measure(s) will be implemented. RCTC's Project Manager and Resident Engineer, the Designated Qualified Biologist, the Department District Biologist, and resource agencies Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to any construction in areas identified as potential BUOW habitat -- -- RCTC's Resident Engineer will ensure that any BUOW measures determined to be required based on the results of the preconstruction surveys and the required coordination described above are properly implemented by the design/build contractor prior to and during construction in the BUOW areas identified in the surveys. RCTC's Resident Engineer Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to and during construction in BUOW areas identified in the preconstruction surveys -- -- AS-2 During final design, RCTC's Project Engineer will coordinate with the Designated Qualified Biologist to identify all areas of potential bat habitat within and immediately adjacent to the project footprint and will designate those areas on the project specifications. RCTC's Project Engineer and the Designated Qualified Biologist Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- -- RCTC's Project Manager will require the design/build contractor to have a Designated Qualified Bat Biologist survey all potential bat habitat in June, prior to construction, to assess the potential for the presence of maternity roosts because maternity roosts are generally formed in late spring. The Designated Qualified Bat Biologist will also perform preconstruction surveys because bat roosts can change seasonally. The surveys will include structure inspection, sampling, exit counts, and acoustic surveys. RCTC's Project Manager, the design/build contractor, and the Designated Qualified Bat Biologist Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project In June and prior to construction -- -- AS-3 To avoid direct mortality to bats roosting in areas subject to effects from construction activities, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to ensure that any structure with potential bat habitat will have temporary bat exclusion devices installed under the supervision of the Designated Qualified Bat Biologist prior to construction. The installation of the exclusion devices will be conducted during the fall (September or October) to avoid trapping flightless young inside during the summer months or hibernating individuals during the winter. Such exclusion efforts must be continued to keep the structures free of bats until the RCTC's Resident Engineer in coordination with the RCTC Project Manager, the Designated Qualified Bat Biologist, the Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to construction at structures with potential bat habitat -- -- 166 Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date completion of construction. Replacement roosting habitat may also be needed to minimize effects to excluded bats. All bat exclusion techniques and replacement roosting habitat will be coordinated among the California Department of Transportation (Department) District 8 Biologist, the Department District 12 Biologist, RCTC's Project Manager, RCTC's Resident Engineer, the design/build contractor, the design/build contractor's Designated Qualified Bat Biologist, CDFG, and USFWS. Department District 8 Biologist, the resource agencies, and the design/build contractor AS-4 As required in Measure NC-10, RCTC's Resident Engineer will ensure that all construction work on bridges will take place during the day to the best extent feasible. Limited evening and/or night construction may be required for safety and/or operations reasons. The RCTC Project Engineer will require the design/build contractor to include construction management measures to direct lighting and noise away from bat night roosting areas in the project specifications. RCTC's Resident Engineer, and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- -- The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to implement those measures during evening and night construction as much as possible while providing for safe facility operations and construction worker safety. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to and during construction on bridges -- -- AS-5 RCTC's Project Engineer will ensure that the final design specifically addresses keeping riparian vegetation delineated on the project specifications that is adjacent to bat roosting sites (which include crevices in bridges, culverts, and overhead structures) intact during construction per measures included in the project specifications. RCTC's Project Engineer Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- -- Prior to and during construction, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to properly implement the measures in the project specifications to keep riparian vegetation adjacent to bat roosting sites intact. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to and during construction -- -- AS-6 To prevent project effects to bridge- and crevice -nesting birds (i.e., swifts and swallows), RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to ensure that all work on existing bridges with potential habitat that is conducted between February 15 and October 31 includes removal of all bird nests prior to construction under the guidance and observation of the Designated Qualified Biologist prior to February 1 of that year, before the swallow colony returns to the nesting site. Removal of swallow nests that are under construction must be repeated as frequently as necessary to prevent nest completion or until a nest exclusion device is installed (such as netting or a similar mechanism that keeps birds from building nests). Nest removal and exclusion device installation will be monitored by the Designated Qualified Biologist. Such exclusion efforts must be continued to keep the structures free of swallows until September or completion of construction. All nest exclusion techniques will be coordinated among the Department District 8 Biologist, the Department District 12 Biologist, RCTC's Project Manager, RCTC's Resident Engineer, the design/build contractor, the design/build contractor's Designated Qualified Biologist, CDFG, and USFWS. RCTC's Resident Engineer and Project Manager, the Designated Qualified Biologist in coordination with the Department District 8 Biologist and the resource agencies, and the design/build contractor _ Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project _ Prior to construction at structures with potential habitat for bridge- and crevice -nesting birds -- -- • Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date AS-7 During final design, RCTC's Project Manager, the Department District 8 Biologist, the Department District 12 Biologist, and the Designated Qualified Biologist will determine whether structural features providing existing bat roosting habitat cannot be permanently retained following construction. If that is the case, RCTC's Project Manager, RCTC's Project Engineer, the Department District 8 Biologist, the Department District 12 Biologist, and the Designated Qualified Biologist will identify alternative roosting habitat to be installed during project construction. The project specifications will include suitable designs and specifications for bat exclusion and habitat replacement structures. RCTC's Project Manager, the Department District 8 Biologist, and the Designated Qualified Biologist Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- -- Prior to and during construction, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to properly implement the designs and specifications for bat exclusion and habitat replacement structures included in the project specifications. The installation and maintenance of those structures will be monitored by the Designated Qualified Biologist. RCTC's Resident Engineer, the Designated Qualified Biologist, and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to and during construction -- -- AS-8 RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to install and maintain silt fence barriers at all staging or construction areas at Coal Canyon and areas within Chino Hills State Park (CHSP) to prevent small animals from entering those areas. RCTC's Resident Engineer, and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to and during construction -- -- THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES TE-1 Prior to any ground disturbing activities, an individual will be identified as the Designated Biologist by the RCTC Project Manager. A qualified Designated Biologist must have a Bachelor's degree with an emphasis in ecology, natural resource management, or related science; 3 years of experience in field biology or current certification of a nationally recognized biological society, such as The Ecological Society of America or The Wildlife Society; previous experience with applying the terms and conditions of a Biological Opinion; and the appropriate permit and/or training if conducting focused or protocol surveys for listed species. RCTC's Project Manager and the Designated Qualified Biologist Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to any ground disturbing activities -- -- The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) will ensure the Designated Biologist position is filled throughout the construction period. Each successive Designated Biologist (if applicable) will be approved by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) (hereafter referred to as the Wildlife Agencies. RCTC's Project Manager Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Throughout construction -- — The Designated Biologist will have the authority to ensure compliance with conservation measures and will be the primary agency contact for the implementation of these measures. The Designated Biologist will have the authority and responsibility to halt activities that are in violation of the conservation measures. Designated Qualified Biologist Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Throughout construction -- -- 168 Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date TE-2 To minimize adverse effects from dust during all site disturbance, grading, and construction activities, the design/build contractor will water all active parts of the construction site a minimum of twice daily or more often when needed due to dry or windy conditions to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Additionally, the design/build contractor will sufficiently water all stockpiled material to prevent excessive amounts of dust. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During all site disturbance, grading, and construction activities -- -- TE-3 All erosion and sediment control devices during project construction and operation, including fiber rolls and bonded fiber matrix, will be made from biodegradable materials such as jute, with no plastic mesh, to avoid creating a wildlife entanglement hazard. RCTC's Resident Engineer Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During construction and operation -- -- TE-4 During all site disturbance, grading, and construction activities, the design/build contractor will control noise from construction activity consistent with California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Standard Specifications, Section 14-8.02, "Noise Control," and the Caltrans Standard Special Provisions S5-310. Noise levels from construction operations within the State right-of-way between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m, will not exceed 86 A -weighted decibels (dBA) at a distance of 50 feet (ft) from the noise source. The noise level requirement will apply to the equipment on the job site or related to the job, including, but not limited to, trucks, transit mixers, or transient equipment that may or may not be owned by the contractor. . RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During all site disturbance, grading, and construction activities -- -- TE-5 During all site disturbance, grading, and construction activities in and immediately adjacent to biologically sensitive areas, Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Conservation Areas, vegetated drainages, and coastal sage scrub (CSS) in coastal California gnatcatcher (CAGN) designated critical habitat, the design/build contractor will control noise from construction activity by using an alternative warning method instead of a sound signal unless required by safety laws. In addition, the contractor will equip all internal combustion engines with the manufacturer -recommended mufflers and will not operate any internal combustion engine on the job site without the appropriate mufflers. As directed by the RCTC Resident Engineer, the contractor will implement appropriate additional noise mitigation measures, including changing the location of stationary construction equipment, turning off idling equipment, rescheduling construction activity, notifying adjacent residents in advance of construction work, and installing acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During all site disturbance, grading, and construction activities -- -- • Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date TE-6 In accordance with the Municipal Codes of the Cities of Anaheim, Corona, Riverside, and Norco, the design/build contractor will limit construction activities to between the hours of T00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding weekends and holidays. If construction is needed outside those hours or days, the design/build contractor will be required to coordinate with the affected local jurisdiction. If the local jurisdiction approves construction hours that are different from those imposed by this measure, then the design/build contractor will immediately request that RCTC consider a modification to this measure to allow construction during the new hours that the local jurisdiction approved. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During construction -- — TE-7 In the major wildlife movement corridors at, Coal Canyon, Wardlow Wash, and Fresno Canyon, and areas adjacent to least Bell's vireo and CAGN occupied areas (approximately Post Mile [PM] ORA-91-R17.16 to PM ORA-91-R18.74), construction activities will be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Should an exception to this measure be necessary, RCTC and the Department will consult with the Wildlife Agencies to determine effective measures to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to these species and movement corridors. RCTC's Resident Engineer, RCTC and the Department Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During construction -- — TE-8 Braunton's Milk -vetch Conservation Measures. A pre -construction survey will be conducted prior to ground disturbing activities in the vicinity of the historical occurrence in Coal Canyon in Orange County. This survey will be conducted by a biologist familiar with the species and during the appropriate time of year to optimize detection. Should Braunton's milk -vetch be found during surveys, the Designated Biologist will consult with the USFWS to determine effective measures to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to this species. RCTC's Project Manager Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to ground disturbing activities -- -- TE-9 Coastal California Gnatcatcher Conservation and Compensatory Measure. The Designated Biologist (or his/her designee) will monitor construction in Orange County within the vicinity of CAGN-designated critical habitat areas prior to and during site preparation, grading, and construction activities, to flush any wildlife species present prior to construction and to ensure that vegetation removal, best management practices (BMPs), Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs), and all avoidance and minimization measures are properly implemented and followed. RCTC's Project Manager and the Designated Qualified Biologist Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to and during site preparation, grading, and construction activities -- -- TE-10 RCTC will offset the permanent loss of 8.42 acres (ac) of occupied CAGN habitat in Orange County, including 6.32 ac of designated critical habitat, by restoring 16.03 ac of habitat suitable for CAGN breeding, dispersal, and foraging in Chino Hills State Park (CHSP) to be conducted during the Initial Phase of the project. If restoration is unable to be conducted. in CHSP, another location will be selected on approval of the Wildlife Agencies. RCTC's Project Manager Required for the Initial Phase Prior to construction -- 170 Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date TE-11 RCTC will offset the temporary loss of 3.01 ac of occupied CAGN habitat in Orange County, including 2.09 ac of CAGN-designated critical habitat, with in -kind, or better, on -site restoration after the completion of project construction. RCTC's Project Manager Required for the Initial Phase Prior to construction and after the completion of project construction -- -- TE-12 Prior to site preparation, grading or construction activities, a restoration plan will be developed by a qualified biologist for the permanent and temporary impacts to occupied CAGN habitat in Orange County, including designated critical habitat in Orange County. The plan will be submitted to the USFWS for review and approval. This plan will include, at a minimum, a detailed description of restoration methods, slope stabilization/erosion control, criteria for restoration to be considered successful, and monitoring and reporting protocol(s). RCTC's Project Manager and a • qualified biologist Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to site preparation, grading or construction activities -- -- The restoration plan will be implemented for a minimum of 5 years, unless success criteria are met earlier and all artificial watering has been off for at least 2 years. RCTC's Resident Engineer Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During construction and operation -- -- TE-13 During all site preparation, grading, and construction activities in Orange County, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to use shielded lighting for any nighttime construction adjacent to coastal sage scrub in CAGN- designated critical habitat. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During all site preparation, grading, and construction activities -- -- TE-14 Riparian Birds Conservation Measures. During the bird breeding season (i.e., February 15—September 15), the Designated Biologist (or his/her designee) will monitor riparian and riverine areas within 500 ft of active construction areas for the duration of the construction in those areas to survey for active nests and/or nesting activity to ensure breeding activities are not disrupted and to ensure vegetation removal, BMPs, ESAs, and all avoidance and minimization measures are properly implemented. RCTC's Project Manager and the Designated Qualified Biologist Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Construction activities during the bird breeding season (i.e., February 15— September 15) -- -- TE-15 Measure for Light Intrusion and Wildfires. To minimize adverse effects from light intrusion from vehicle headlights and the potential threat of increased fires from the operation of State Route 91 (SR-91), during final design, the Department and RCTC will work with the USFWS to investigate the possibility of adding features along SR-91 in the vicinity of the Coal Canyon wildlife crossing in Orange County. For example, consideration can be given to the placement of K-rail, concrete walls, and/or hardscaping barriers along the shoulder of SR-91. In investigating these features, consideration must be given to motorist safety, freeway operations, vehicle headlight mitigation, and the potential fire threat. The Department and RCTC Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During final design -- • Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date TE-16 Santa Ana Sucker Conservation Measures. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is in the process of constructing the Santa Ana River (SAR) Reach 9 Phase 2 Green River Golf Club Embankment Protection Project within the action area. Following completion of the embankment construction, perennial stream habitat for the Santa Ana sucker will be reestablished within the construction footprint. The Department and RCTC will coordinate with the Corps during construction of the SR-91 CIP to ensure these restoration areas will not be temporarily or permanently impacted during construction of the SR-91 CIP. The Department and RCTC Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During construction -- -- TE-17 The Department and RCTC will coordinate with the Corps during construction to ensure that the SR-91 CIP will not affect releases from Prado Dam or result in a permanent reduction of acreage within the Santa Ana River Canyon Habitat Management Area. The Department and RCTC Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During construction -- -- INVASIVE SPECIES IS-1 During final design, the Riverside County Transportation Commission's (RCTC's) Project Engineer will direct a qualified landscape architect to develop a Weed Abatement Program/Non-Standard Special Provisions (Program/NSSP) for inclusion in the project specifications. That Program/NSSP will be developed in compliance with Executive Order (EO) 13112 to minimize the potential for intrusion or export of invasive plant species to and from the biological study area (BSA) during project construction. At a minimum, the following will be included in the Weed Abatement Program/NSSP and implemented prior to and during construction to address potential effects associated with invasive species. The Weed Abatement Program/NSSP will define the specific details, frequency, and, if applicable, performance standards for the following individual activities and requirements: RCTC's Project Engineer and a qualified landscape architect Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During the design/ build phase -- -- RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to inspect and clean construction equipment at the beginning and end of each day and prior to transporting equipment from one project location to another. RCTC's Resident Engineer Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to and during construction -- -- RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to limit soil and vegetation disturbance to those areas specifically required for the project construction. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to and during construction -- -- RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to obtain soil, gravel; and rock from weed -free sources. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During construction -- -- RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to use only certified weed -free straw, mulch, and/or fiber rolls for erosion control during construction. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During construction -- 172 Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Phase Timing Action Taken to Comply with Measures Date Prior to the completion of construction, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to revegetate affected areas adjacent to native vegetation with plant species that are native to the vicinity and approved by the California Department of Transportation's (Department's) District 8 and District 12 Biologists. RCTC's Resident Engineer with the approval of the Department District 8 Biologist, and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior to the completion of construction -- -- RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to not use any species listed in the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) California Invasive Plant Inventory with a high or moderate rating in revegetation. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project Prior and during construction -- -- After construction, RCTC's Resident Engineer will ensure that erosion control and revegetation sites are monitored until achievement of the project -specific performance standards defined in the Program/NSSP or a period of 3 years, whichever is greater, after installation to detect nonnative species prior to the establishment of the native vegetation. RCTC's Resident Engineer Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project After the completion of project construction -- -- RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor and the post- construction monitors to implement eradication procedures (e.g., spraying and/or hand weeding) should an infestation occur. The use of herbicides will be prohibited within and adjacent to native vegetation, except as specifically authorized and monitored by the Department District 8 and District 12 Biologists during and after project construction. RCTC's Resident Engineer under supervision by Caltrans District Biologist, and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During and after project construction -- -- During construction, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to reduce indirect impacts of exotic plant infestations and litter by regular roadside maintenance at least once daily during construction to remove litter and weeds from the right-of-way. RCTC's Resident Engineer and the design/build contractor Required for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project During construction -- -- RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY No avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION No avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS No avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required beyond those listed above for Alternatives 1 and 2. The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) provides this measurement in metric units. STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 8 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES B (MS 1162) 464 WEST 4TH STREET, 6TH FLOOR SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401-1400 PHONE (909) 383-2841 September 6, 2012 Flex your power! Be energy efficient! File: 08-ORA-91-R14.43/R18.91 08-RIV-91-R0.00/R 13.04 08-RIV-15-35.64/45.14 State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project EA: 08-0F540 To: Responsible Agencies, Review Agencies, Trustee Agencies, and Individuals Interested in the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project Errata for the Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impzett Statement On August 17, 2012, the Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP) was posted at the State Clearinghouse and was distributed to agencies and the public. A Notice of Availability of the Final EIS was published in the Federal Register on August 24, 2012. The electronic copies of the Final EIR/EIS provided on compact discs (cds) inadvertently did not include seven pages in Appendix L2, Alternative 2 Project Features. The attached cd includes the entire Final EIR/EIS with a complete copy of Appendix L, including those seven pages, as well as a copy of this errata notice. The information on those seven pages does not change any of the information, findings, conclusions, or recommendations in the Final EIR/EIS. Hard copies of the Final EIR/EIS distributed to agencies and provided at the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the City of Corona Public Library, the City of Corona Public Works Department, and the California Department of Transportation included all of Appendix L2 and, therefore, no changes were needed to any hard copies of the Final EIWEIS. Appendix L in the Final EIR/EIS at http://www.sr91proiectinfolindex.php was also changed to include the missing seven pages. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Aaron Burton at (909) 383-2841. Thank you for your continued interest in this important transportation project. Sincerely, DAVID BRICKER Deputy District Director Environmental Planning Enclosure: Compact disc of the SR-91 CIP Final EIR/EIS (September 2012 Errata) "Caltrans improves mobility across California" State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project Riverside and Orange Counties, California ORA-91-R14.43/R18.91 RIV-91-R0.O0/R13.04 RIV-15-35.64/45.14 EA 08-0F5400 PN 080000000136 Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement Volume Prepared by the State of California Department of Transportation and the Riverside County Transportation Commission The environmental review, consultation, and any other action required in accordance with applicable federal laws for this project is being, or has been, carried out by the Department under its assumption of responsibility pursuant to 23 USC 327. OF August 2012 This page intentionally left blank General Information about This Document For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document can be made available in alternate formats. To obtain a copy in an alternate format, please call or write to the Riverside County Transportation Commission, Attn: Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director, P.O. Box 12008, Riverside, CA 92502-2208, (951) 787-7141; or use the California Relay Service TTY number, 1 (800) 735-2929, or voice number 1 (800) 735-2922, or 711. This page intentionally left blank FHWA Highway ID No. RIV071250 SCH# 2008071075 0ra-91-R14.43/R18.91 RIV-91-R0.00/R13.04 RIV-15-35.64/45.14 EA 08-0F5400 PN 0800000136 The State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project proposes widening, including the construction of one mixed -flow lane in each direction, one auxiliary lane in each direction, high -occupancy or tolled express lanes, and direct high -occupancy or tolled express lane connections between State Route 91 and Interstate 15. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Submitted Pursuant to: (State) Division 13, California Public Resources Code (Federal) 42 USC 4332(2XC) and 49 USC 303 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION COOPERATING AGENCY: UNITED STATES ARMY CO ; • S OF EN J EERS Date of Approval Basem Muallem District Director District 8 California Department of Transportation NEPA and CEQA Lead Agency The following person may be contacted for additional information concerning this document: Mr. Aaron Burton California Department of Transportation, District 8 464 West 4th Street 6th Floor, MS 1162 San Bernardino, CA 92401-1400 Email: aaron_burton@dot.ca.gov Telephone: (909) 383-2841 Abstract: The project is in Orange and Riverside Counties, within the jurisdiction of California Department of Transportation (Department) Districts 8 and 12. The Build Alternatives would provide facility improvements along State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15), spanning the Cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County, and the Cities of Corona, Norco, and Riverside in Riverside County. There are two Build Alternatives extending on SR-91 from State Route 241 (SR-241) (in the Cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda) to Pierce Street (in the City of Riverside), a distance of approximately 14 miles (mi), and on 1-15 from the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the Cities of Corona and Norco to the Cajalco Road interchange in the City of Corona, a distance of approximately 6 mi. SR-9I is continuing to experience increased congcstion as a result of population growth in Riverside County and the increase in jobs in Orange County. Improvements are necessary to address existing and projected deficiencies regarding mobility, access, goods movement, and freeway capacity on SR-91. The Build Alternatives would improve the vehicle, person, and goods movement travel times on SR-91 and I-15 to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. Key issues include impacts to community character and cohesion, utilities and emergency services, biological resources, cultural resources, paleontological resources, aesthetics, residential and business relocations, water quality, air quality, and noise effects. This page intentionally left blank Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S-1 CHAPTER I PROJECT 1-1 1.1 Introduction 1-1 1.1.1 Environmental Lead Agency I-1 1.1.2 Overview of the Project 1-2 1.1.3 Planning History of the Project 1-6 1.2 Purpose of the Project 1-1 I 1.3 Need for the Project 1-11 1.3.1 Capacity, Transportation Demand, and Safety 1-12 1.3.2 Existing Roadway Operational Deficiencies 1-43 1.3.3 Social Demands and Economic Development 1-46 1.3.4 Legislation 1-47 1.3.5 Modal Interrelationships and System Linkages 1-47 1.3.6 Air Quality Improvements 1-50 1.3.7 Independent Utility and Logical Termini 1-51 CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 2-1 2.1 Project Description 2-1 2.2 Project Background 2-5 2.2.1 State Route 91 2-5 2.2.2 Interstate 15 2-6 2.2.3 Other Major Projects In the Project Area 2-7 2.3 Range of Alternatives 2-7 2.3.1 Project Build Alternatives 2-9 2.3.2 Common Features of the Build Alternatives 2-10 2.3.3 Unique Features of the Build Alternatives 2-41 2.3.4 Phasing Plans for the Build Alternatives 2-85 2.3.5 Transportation Systems Management and Traffic Demand Management 2-120 2.3.6 No Build Alternative 2-123 2.3.7 Comparison of the No Build and Build Alternatives 2-124 2.3.8 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion Prior to the Draft Environmental Document 2-140 2.3.9 Related Projects and Other Projects in the Vicinity of the SR-91 CIP 2-148 2.3.10 Permits and Approvals Needed 2-153 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, AND AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES 3-1 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 3.1-1 3.1 Land Use 3.1-1 3.1.1 Existing and Future Land Uses 3.1-1 3.1.2 Consistency with Federal, State, Regional, and Local Plans 3.1-28 3.1.3 Parks and Recreational Facilities 3.1-52 3.1.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 3.1-107 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS TOC-i Table of Contents 3.2 Growth 3.2-1 3.2.1 Regulatory Setting 3.2-1 3.2.2 Affected Environment 3.2-1 3.2.3 Environmental Consequences 3.2-9 3.2.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 3.2-14 3.3 Farmlands/TimberIands 3.3-1 3.3.1 Regulatory Setting 3.3-1 3.3.2 Affected Environment 3.3-1 3.3.3 Environmental Consequences 3.3-7 3.3.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 3.3-23 3.4 Community Impacts 3.4-1 3.4.1 Community Character and Cohesion 3.4-1 3.4.2 Relocations and Real Property Acquisitions 3.4-36 3.4.3 Environmental Justice 3.4-52 3.5 Utilities/Emergency Services 3.5-1 3.5.1 Affected Environment 3.5-1 3.5.2 Environmental Consequences 3.5-5 3.5.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 3.5-20 3.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities 3.6-1 3.6.1 Regulatory Setting 3.6-1 3.6.2 Affected Environment 3.6-1 3.6.3 Environmental Consequences 3.644 3.6.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 3.6-31 3.7 Visual/Aesthetics 3.7-1 3.7.1 Regulatory Setting 3.74 3.7.2 Methodology 3.7-1 3.7.3 Affected Environment 3.7-2 3.7.4 Environmental Consequences 3.7-12 3.7.5 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 3.7-30 3.8 Cultural Resources 3.8-1 3.8.1 Regulatory Setting 3.8-1 3.8.2 Affected Environment 3.8-2 3.8.3 Environmental Consequences 3.8-17 3.8.4 Condition Placed on the Project and Other Measures 3.8-21 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 3.9-1 3.9 Hydrology and Floodplains 3.9-1 3.9.1 Regulatory Setting 3.9-1 3.9.2 Affected Environment 39-1 3.9.3 Environmental Consequences 3.9-6 3.9.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 3.9-25 3.10 Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff 3.10-1 3.10.1 Regulatory Setting 3.10-1 3.10.2 Affected Environment 3.10-5 3.10.3 Environmental Consequences 3.10-20 3.10.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 3.10-34 3.11 Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography 3.114 3.11.1 Regulatory Setting 3.11-1 3.11.2 Affected Environment 3.11-1 3.11.3 Environmental Consequences 3.11-23 3.11.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 3.11-29 TOC-u SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Table of Contents 3.12 Paleontology 3.12-1 3.12.1 Regulatory Setting 3.12-1 3.12.2 Affected Environment 3.12-1 3.12.3 Environmental Consequences 3.12-18 3.12.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 3.12-21 3.13 Hazardous Waste/Materials 3.13-1 3.13.1 Regulatory Setting 3.13-1 3.13.2 Affected Environment 3.13-2 3.13.3 Environmental Consequences 3.13-13 3.13.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/Mitigation Measures 3.13-26 3.14 Air Quality 3.14-1 3.14.1 Regulatory Setting 3.14-1 3.14.2 Affected Environment 3.14-3 3.14.3 Environmental Consequences 3.14-13 3.14.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 3.14-39 3.14.5 Climate Change 3.14-40 3.15 Noise 3.15-1 3.15.1 Regulatory Setting 3.15-1 3.15.2 Affected Environment 3.15-2 3.15.3 Environmental Consequences 3.15-4 3.15.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 3.15-17 3.16 Energy 3.16-1 3.16.1 Regulatory Setting 3.16-1 3.16.2 Affected Environment 3.16-1 3.16.3 Environmental Consequences 3.16-7 3.16.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 3.16-17 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 3.17-1 3.17 Natural Communities 3.17-1 3.17.1 Regulatory Setting 3.17-1 3.17.2 Affected Environment 3.17-1 3.17.3 Environmental Consequences 3.17-16 3.17.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 3.17-26 3.18 Wetlands and Other Waters 3.18-1 3.18.1 Regulatory Setting 3.18-1 3.18.2 Affected Environment 3.18-2 3.18.3 Environmental Consequences 3.18-6 3.18.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures 3.18-14 3.19 Plant Species 3.19-1 3.19.1 Regulatory Setting 3.19-1 3.19.2 Affected Environment 3.19-1 3.19.3 Environmental Consequences 3.19-11 3.19.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 3.19-15 3.20 Animal Species 3.20-1 3.20.1 Regulatory Setting 3.20-1 3.20.2 Affected Environment 3.20-2 3.20.3 Environmental Consequences 3.20-10 3.20.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 3.20-13 3.21 Threatened and Endangered Species 3.21-1 3.21.1 Regulatory Setting 3.21-1 3.21.2 Affected Environment 3.21-2 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS TOC-iii Table of Contents 3.21.3 Environmental Consequences 3.21 -9 3.21.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 3.21-20 3.22 Invasive Species 3.22-1 3.22.1 Regulatory Setting 3.22-1 3.22.2 Affected Environment 3.22-1 3.22.3 Environmental Consequences 3.22-2 3.22.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 3.22-4 3.23 Relationship Between Local Short -Term Uses of the Human Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long -Term Productivity 3.23-1 3.23.1 Alternatives 1 and 2 3.23-1 3.23.2 Short-term Losses and Impacts 3.23-1 3.23.3 Short-term Benefits 3.23-2 3.23.4 Long-term Losses and Impacts 3.23-2 3.23.5 Long-term Gains and Benefits 3.23-3 3.23.6 No Build Alternative 3.23-4 3.24 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources That Would Be Involved in the Proposed Project 3.24-1 3.24.1 Alternatives 1 and 2 3.24-1 3.24.2 No Build Alternative 3.24-2 3.25 Cumulative Impacts 3.25-1 3.25.1 Regulatory Setting 3.25-1 3.25.2 Methodology 3.25-1 3.25.3 Identification of the Resources to be Considered in the Cumulative Impact Analysis 3.25-3 3.25.4 Cumulative Impacts Analysis 3.25-5 CHAPTER 4 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT EVALUATION 4-1 4.1 Determining Significance Under the California Environmental Quality Act 4-1 4.2 Discussion of Significance of Impacts 4-2 4.2.1 No Impacts of the Project 4-2 4.2.2 Less Than Significant Effects of the Project 4-10 4.2.3 Significant Environmental Effects of the Project 4-21 4.2.4 Unavoidable Significant Environmental Effects of the Proj ea 4-41 4.2.5 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes 4-41 4.2.6 Mandatory Findings 4-41 4.3 Climate Change 4-43 4.3.1 Checklist Question: VII 4-43 4.4 Mitigation Measures for Significant Impacts Under CEQA 4-61 CHAPTER 5 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION 5-1 5.1 Introduction 5-1 5.2 Consultation and Coordination with Agencies 5-1 5.2.1 Consultation and Coordination with Cooperating and Participating Agencies 5-1 5.2.2 Consultation. and Coordination with Public Agencies 5-3 5.2.3 Notice of Preparation 5-17 5.2.4 Notice of Intent 5-19 5.2.5 Scoping Meetings 5-20 TOC-iv SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final E1R/EIS Table of Contents 5.2.6 Public Information Meetings 5-21 5.2.7 Noise Barrier Survey Public Outreach Efforts 5-25 5.3 Interagency Coordination Regarding Air Quality 5-25 5.3.1 Transportation Conformity Working Group 5-25 5.3.2 Federal Highway Administration Air Quality Conformity Determination 5-26 5.4 Project Management Plan 5-27 5.5 Native American Consultation and Coordination 5-27 5.6 Comments on the Draft EIR/EIS 5-29 5.7 Attachments to Chapter 5 5-33 CHAPTER 6 LIST OF PREPARERS 6-1 CHAPTER 7 DISTRIBUTION LIST 7-1 VOLUME 11 APPENDIX A CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A-1 APPENDIX B RESOURCES EVALUATED RELATIVE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 4(F) B-1 APPENDIX C TITLE VI POLICY STATEMENT C-1 APPENDIX D SUMMARY OF RELOCATION BENEFITS D-1 APPENDIX E ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD E-1 APPENDIX F LIST OF ACRONYMS F-1 APPENDIX G LIST OF TECHNICAL STUDIES G-1 APPENDIX H REFERENCES H-I APPENDIX 1 USFWS SPECIES LIST I -I APPENDIX J UTILITY RELOCATIONS J-1 APPENDIX K 2012 RTP AND 2011 FT1P (AMENDMENT 24) PROJECT LISTINGS K-1 APPENDIX L PROJECT FEATURES L-1 APPENDIX M SECTION 106 CORRESPONDENCE M-1 APPENDIX N BIOLOGICAL OPINION N-1 APPENDIX O RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 0-1 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS TOC-v Table of Contents This page intentionally left blank TOC-vi SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS List of Figures LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 Project Vicinity 1-3 Figure 1-2 Major Investment Study— Recommended Locally Preferred Strategy 1-9 Figure 1-3 LOS Thresholds for a Basic Freeway Segment 1-15 Figure 2-1 Project Location on SR-91 and I-15 2-3 Figure 2-2 Typical Cross Section for Alternative 1 on SR-91 2-43 Figure 2-3 Typical Cross Section for Alternative 1 on I-15 2-45 Figure 2-4 Project Features in the State Route 241 Interchange Area 2-47 Figure 2-5 Project Features at Green River Road 2-51 Figure 2-6 Project Features at Auto Center Drive/Maple Street 2-55 Figure 2-7 Project Features at Lincoln Avenue/Grand Boulevard 2-59 Figure 2-8 Project Features at Main Street 2-63 Figure 2-9 Project Features at McKinley/Pierce Street 2-65 Figure 2-10 Typical Cross Section for Alternative 2 on SR-91 2-71 Figure 2-11 Typical Cross Section for Alternative 2 on I-15 2-73 Figure 2-12 Toll Transponder Operation Under Alternative 2 2-79 Figure 2-13 Existing SR-91 Express Lanes TOC and CSC 2-83 Figure 2-14 Initial Phase of Alternative 1 2-89 Figure 2-15 Alternative 1 Ultimate Project 2-91 Figure 2-16 Initial Phase of Alternative 2 2-97 Figure 2-17 Alternative 2 Ultimate Project 2-99 Figure 2-18 Approved and In -Process Projects in the SR-9I CIP Area 2-149 Figure 3-1 Construction for the Initial Phase of Alternative 1 3-3 Figure 3-2 Construction of the Alternative 1 Ultimate Project 3-4 Figure 3-3 Construction for the Initial Phase of Alternative 2 3-5 Figure 3-4 Construction for the Alternative 2 Ultimate Project 3-6 Figure 3.1-1 Existing Land Uses 3.1-3 Figure 3.1-2 General Plan Land Use Designations 3.1-7 Figure 3.1-3 Alternative 1 Project General Plan Land Use Impacts 3.1-15 Figure 3.1-4 Alternative 2 Project General Plan Land Use Impacts 3.1-21 Figure 3.1-5 Permanent Easements and Use at Chino Hills State Park 3.1-59 Figure 3.1-6 Alternative 1 at the New Orange County Park (National Natural Landmark) 3.1-67 Figure 3.1-7 Alternative 2 at the New Orange County Park (National Natural Landmark) 3.1-69 Figure 3.2-1 County Population Growth Patterns —1970 to 2030 Figure 3.2-2 City Population Growth Patterns —1970 to 2030 Figure 3.3-1 Existing Farmlands in the Study Area Figure 3.3-2 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-4 Figure 3.4-1 Figure 3.4-2 Figure 3.4-3 Figure 3.4-4 Figure 3.4-5 Figure 3.4-6 Figure 3.4-7 Figure 3.7-1 3.2-3 3.2-3 3.3-3 Farmlands Impacted by the Alternative 1 Ultimate Project 3.3-11 Farmlands Impacted by the Initial Phase of Alternative 2 3.3-13 Farmlands Impacted by the Alternative 2 Ultimate Project 3.3-15 Community Impact Study Area and Census Tracts 3.4-3 Public and Community Facilities 3.4-I5 Environmental Justice: Non -White Population 3.4-55 Environmental Justice: Hispanic Population. 3.4-57 Environmental Justice: Poverty Population 3.4-59 Environmental Justice: Median Household Income 3.4-61 Environmental Justice: Transit Dependent Population 3.4-63 Elevations and Landscape Units 3.7-35 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final ElR/EIS TOC-vii List of Figures Figure 3.7-2 Biological Conditions 3.7-36 Figure 3.7-3 View Location Map 3.7-40 Figure 3.7-4 Existing View A 3.7-41 Figure 3.7-5 Existing View B 3.7-42 Figure 3.7-6 Existing Views C and D 3.7-43 Figure 3.7-7 Existing View E 3.7-44 Figure 3.7-8 Existing View F 3.7-45 Figure 3.7-9 Existing View G 3.7-46 Figure 3.7-10 Key View 1 3.7-47 Figure 3.7-11 Key View 2 3.7-48 Figure 3.7-12 Key View 3 3.7-49 Figure 3.7-13 Key View 4 3.7-50 Figure 3.7-14 Key View 5 3.7-51 Figure 3.7-15 Key View 6 3.7-52 Figure 3.7-16 Key View 7 3.7-53 Figure 3.7-17 Key View 8 3.7-54 Figure 3.7-18 Aesthetic Features for Retaining Walls 3.7-55 Figure 3.7-19 Aesthetic Features for Sound Walls 3.7-56 Figure 3.7-20 Aesthetic Features for Bridge Structures 3.7-57 Figure 3.8-1 Location of Grand Boulevard and the Grand Boulevard Historic District3.8-13 Figure 3.9-1 FEMA-Mapped 100-Year Floodplains 39-3 Figure 3.9-2 Floodplain Encroachments at the Santa Ana River Near Wardlow Wash 3.9-9 Figure 3.9-3 Floodplain Encroachment at Country Club Creek 3.9-17 Figure 3.9-4 Floodplain Encroachment at West Grand Boulevard 3.9-23 Figure 3.10-1 Subwatersheds and Surface Waters 3.10-7 Figure 3.10-2 Groundwater Management Zones 3.10-15 Figure 3.10-3 Proposed BMP Locations for Alternatives 1 and 2 3.10-37 Figure 3.10-4 Proposed BMP Locations for the Initial Phase of Alternative 2 3.10-47 Figure 3.11-1 Regional Geologic Map 3.11-7 Figure 3.11-2 Earthquake Fault Zone Map 3.11-9 Figure 3.11-3 Mindeman Landslide 3.11-19 Figure 3.12-1 Paleontological Sensitivities 3.12-3 Figure 3.13-2 Hazardous Waste/Materials Sites of Potential Concern for Alternative 2 3.13-45 Figure 3.14-1 SCAQMD Air Monitoring Network within the South Coast Air Basin....3.14-9 Figure 3.14-2 National MSAT Emission Trends 3.14-29 Figure 3.15-1 Noise Measurement/Model Locations and Modeled Noise Barrier Locations 3.15-63 Figure 3.16-1 SR-91 CIP Study Area and SCAG Region Roadways 3.16-3 Figure 3.17-1 Biological Study Area 3.17-3 Figure 3.17-2 Locations of Natural Plant Communities of Special Concern 3.17-7 Figure 3.18-1 Jurisdictional Map 3.18-17 Figure 3.18-2 Alternative 1 Impacts to Jurisdictional Features 3.18-33 Figure 3.18-3 Alternative 2 Impacts to Jurisdictional Features 3.18-49 Figure 3.18-4 Alternative 2f Design Refinements 3.18-65 Figure 3.19-1 Sensitive Plant Locations 3.19-5 Figure 3.19-2 Alternative 1 and 2 Impacts to Sensitive Plant Locations 3.19-13 Figure 3.25-1 Locations of Cumulative Projects 3.25-75 Figure 4-1 California Greenhouse Gas Forecast 4-49 TOC-viii SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS List of Figures Figure 4-2 Possible Effect of Traffic Operation Strategies in Reducing On -Road CO2 Emission 4-50 Figure 4-3 Mobility Pyramid 4-56 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS TOC-ix List of Figures This page intentionally left blank SR-91 Corridor improvement Project Final E1R/E1S List of Tables LIST OF TABLES Table S.1 SR-91 Travel Time and Travel Speed Summary S-10 Table S.2 Anticipated Funding Sources S-16 Table S.3 Summary of Impacts for the No Build Alternative and Impacts with Differences Between Alternatives 1 and 2 S-27 Table S.4 Summary of Impacts for the No Build Alternative and Impacts With No Substantial Difference Between Alternatives 1 and 2 S-41 Table S.5 Permits and Approvals Needed S-57 Table S.6 Summary of Issues Raised During Scoping S-60 Table 1.1 Federal Highway Administration Approvals 1-1 Table 1.2 Regional Demographics 1-12 Table 1.3 Baseline/Existing (2007) Mainline Traffic Volumes 1-19 Table 1.4 Baseline/Existing (2007) Mainline Peak -Hour Performance 1-20 Table 1.5 Regional Vehicle Trip Generation Projections 1-21 Table 1.6 2015 No Build Alternative SR-91 Peak -Hour LOS 1-23 Table 1.7 2015 No Build Alternative I-15 Peak -Hour LOS 1-25 Table 1.8 2035 No Build Alternative Daily Traffic Growth 1-26 Table 1.9 2035 No Build Alternative SR-91 and 1-15 Traffic Volumes 1-27 Table 1.10 2035 No Build Alternative SR-91 Peak -Hour LOS 1-29 Table 1.11 2035 No Build Alternative 1-15 Peak -Hour LOS 1-31 Table 1.12 Local Street Traffic Diversion Percentages 1-33 Table 1.13 SR-91 Travel Time and Travel Speed Summary 1-34 Table 1.14 Summary of Accident Rates 1-40 Table 1.15 Baseline/Existing (2007) Truck Volumes 1-50 Table 2.1 Other Related Major Projects 2-8 Table 2.2 Typical Mainline One -Directional Cross Sections for the No Build Alternative and Alternatives 1 and 2 2-11 Table 2.3 Structures Work under Alternative 1 2-13 Table 2.4 Structures Work under Alternative 2 2-14 Table 2.5 Drainage Structures Work Under Alternatives 1 and 2 2-16 Table 2.6 Storm Water Effect Areas for Alternatives 1 and 2 2-20 Table 2.7 Estimated Quantities of Treatment Best Management Practices for Alternatives 1 and 2 2-20 Table 2.8 Cost Estimates for Temporary and Permanent Best Management Practices for Alternatives 1 and 2 2-21 Table 2.9 Alternative 1 Average Retaining Wall Heights on SR-91 and 1-15 2-23 Table 2.10 Alternative 2 Average Retaining Wall Heights on SR-91 and I-15 2-25 Table 2.11 Summary of the SR-91 CIP System Interchange Ramp Metering 2-30 Table 2.12 California Highway Patrol Median Refuge Locations for Alternatives 1 and 2 2-30 Table 2.13 Ramp and Connector Closures along SR-91 2-38 Table 2.14 Alternative 1 Design Variation Combinations 2-57 Table 2.15 Alternative 1 Summary of Costs 2-67 Table 2.16 Alternative 2 Design Variation Combinations 2-76 Table 2.17 Alternative 2 Summary of Costs 2-85 Table 2.18 Anticipated Funding Sources 2-86 Table 2.19 Project Improvements in the Initial Phase under Alternative 1 2-93 Table 2.20 Project Improvements in the Ultimate Project under Alternative I 2-94 Table 2.21 Project Improvements in the Initial Phase under Alternative 2f 2-101 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS TOC xi List of Tables Table 2.22 Project Improvements in the Ultimate Project under Alternative 2f 2-102 Table 2.24 Nonstandard Mandatory and Advisory Design Features 2-105 Table 2.25 Structures Work Under the Initial Phase of Alternative 2f 2-105 Table 2.26 Drainage Structures Work Under the Initial Phase of Alternative 2f 2-106 Table 2.27 Storm Water Effect Areas for the Initial Phase of Alternative 2f 2-108 Table 2.28 Estimated Quantities of Treatment Best Management Practices for the Initial Phase of Alternative 2f 2-108 Table 2.29 Storm Water Best Management Practices Cost Estimates for the Initial Phase of Alternative 2f 2-109 Table 2.30 Alternative 2f Initial Phase Average Retaining Wall Heights 2-111 Table 2.31 Initial Phase for Alternative 2f Recommended Noise Barrier Locations on SR-91 and I-15 2-112 Table 2.32 California Highway Patrol Median Refuge Locations for the Initial Phase of Alternative 2f 2-114 Table 2.33 Right -of -Way Requirements for the Initial Phase of Alternative 2 - Segments 1, 2, and 3 2-115 Table 2.34 Preliminary Proposed Ramp and Connector Closures along SR-91 for the Initial Phase of Alternative 2f 2-117 Table 2.35 Initial Phase of Alternative 2 Summary of Costs 2-118 Table 2.36 Comparison of the Alternatives 2-125 Table 2.37 Ability of the Alternatives to Meet the Project Purpose 2-130 Table 2.38 Summary of Impacts by SR-91 CIP Build Alternative and Design Variation 2-131 Table 2.39 Summary of Rejected Value Analysis Study Alternatives 2-143 Table 2.40 Transit Projects 2-147 Table 2.41 Permits and Approvals Needed 2-154 Table 3.1 Construction Activities in the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project for Alternative 1 3-2 Table 3.2 Construction Activities in the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project for Alternative 2 3-7 Table 3.1.1 Existing Land Uses 3.1-5 Table 3.1.2 General Plan Impacts by Build Alternative and Land Use Designations (acres) 3.1-27 Table 3.1.3 Adopted Demographic Forecasts 3.1-29 Table 3.1.4 Summary of Specific Plans in the SR-91 CIP Study Area 3.1-34 Table 3.1.5 Parks and Recreation Resources' 3.1-53 Table 3.1.6 Potential Project Effects on Other Parks and Recreation Resources 3.1-82 Table 3.1.7 Summary of Temporary Occupancies and Permanent Easements at Park and Recreational Facilities and Section 4(f) Properties by Alternative 3.1-91 Table 3.2.1 Jobs Growth from 2000 to 2035 3.2-7 Table 3.2.2 Household Growth from 2000 to 2035 3.2-8 Table 3.2.3 Travel Patterns 3.2-8 Table 3.3.1 SR-91 CIP Study Area Farmland Acres by Land Category and Location 3.3-6 Table 3.3.2 Permanent Impacts to Designated Farmlands (acres) 3.3-9 Table 3.3.3 Form NRCS-CPA-106 Final Scoring 3.3-20 Table 3.3.4 Temporary Impacts to Designated Farmlands (acres) 3.3-22 Table 3.4.1 Age Distribution 3.4-10 Table 3.4.2 Ethnic Composition 3.4-12 Table 3.4.3 Demographic Characteristics from the 2000 Census for the Study Area Cities and Counties, and the State 3.4-14 Table 3.4.4 Employment in the Study Area Jurisdictions 3.4-19 TOC-xii SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/E1S List of Tables Table 3.4.5 Travel Patterns in the Study Area Jurisdictions 3.4-19 Table 3.4.6 Summary of Property Acquisitions for the Build Alternatives 3.4-25 Table 3.4.7 Acquisition and Removal of Homes Under Alternative 1 and Its Design Variations 3.4-26 Table 3.4.8 Acquisition and Removal of Homes Under Alternative 2 and Its Design Variations 3.4-28 Table 3.4.9 Business Displacements Under Alternative 1 and Its Design Variations 3.4-30 Table 3.4.10 Business Displacements Under Alternative 2 and Its Design Variations 3.4-30 Table 3.4.11 Removal of Homes and Displacements of Residents by Alternative 1 3.4-41 Table 3.4.12 Removal of Homes and Displacements of Residents by Alternative 2 3.4-42 Table 3.4.13 Business and Employee Displacements by Alternatives 1 and 2 and Their Design Variations 3.4-43 Table 3.4.14 Storage Facility Removals by Alternatives 1 and 2 and Their Design Variations 3.4-44 Table 3.4.15 Property Tax Losses Under Alternatives 1 and 2 and Their Design Variations 3.4-46 Table 3.4.16 Potential Annual Sales Tax Revenue Loss Under Alternative 1 and Its Design Variations 3.4-48 Table 3.4.17 Potential Annual Sales Tax Revenue Loss Under Alternative 2 and Its Design Variations 3.4-48 Table 3.4.1 S Estimated Construction Employment 3.4-50 Table 3.4.19 Comparison of Low -Income and Minority Populations for the Study Area Census Tracts 3.4-65 Table 3.5.1 Police and Sheriffs Stations in the Study Area 3.5-2 Table 3.5.2 Local Fire Stations in the Study Area 3.5-4 Table 3.5.3 Hospitals and Medical Facilities in the Study Area 3.5-4 Table 3.5.4 Utility Relocations, Removals, and Protection In. -place under Both Alternatives 1 and 2 3.5-12 Table 3.5.5 Additional Utility Relocations Under Alternative 2 3.5-17 Table 3.6.1 Freeway Levels of Service 3.6-43 Table 3.6.2 Stop -Controlled Intersection Levels of Service 3.6-43 Table 3.6.3 Summary of Baseline/Existing (2007) and 2015 and 2035 No Build Daily VMT, VHT, and VHD 3.6-44 Table 3.6.4 Baseline/Existing (2007) and 2015 and 2035 No Build Peak -Hour Corridor Travel Time Summary 3.6-45 Table 3.6.5 Baseline/Existing (2007) and 2015 and 2035 No Build Freeway Mainline Peak -Hour Levels of Service 3.6-47 Table 3.6.6 Baseline/Existing (2007) and 2015 and 2035 No Build Freeway Ramp Peak -Hour Levels of Service 3.6-49 Table 3.6.7 Baseline/Existing (2007) and 2015 and 2035 No Build Intersection Peak - Hour Levels of Service 3.6-51 Table 3.6.8 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities 3.6-53 Table 3.6.9 Baselineadsting (2007), 2015 No Build and 2015 Initial Phase of Alternative 2 Daily VMT, VHT, and VHD 3.6-56 Table 3.6.10 Baseline/Existing (2007), 2015 No Build, and 2015 Initial Phase of Alternative 2 Peak -Hour Corridor Travel Time Summary 3.6-57 Table 3.6.11 Freeway Mainline Peak -Hour Levels of Service for Baseline/Existing (2007), 2015 No Build, and the 2015 Initial Phase of Alternative 2 3.6-59 Table 3.6.12 Freeway Ramp Peak -Hour Levels of Service for Baseline/Existing (2007), 2015 No Build, and the 2015 Initial Phase of Alternative 2 3.6-61 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/E1S TOC-xiii List of Tables Table 3.6.13 Intersection Peak -Hour Levels of Service for Baseline/Existing (2007), 2015 No Build, and the 2015 Initial Phase of Alternative 2 3.6-63 Table 3.6.14 Auto Center Drive/Maple Street Design Variation 2015 Intersection Analysis 3.6-65 Table 3.6.15 Lincoln Avenue Design Variation 2015 Intersection Analysis 3.6-65 Table 3.6.16 2015 Alternative 2 Mid -City Access Design Variation with Base Assumptions at Maple Street and Lincoln Avenue Intersection Analysis 3.6-66 Table 3.6.17 2015 Alternative 2 Mid -City Access Design Variation with Maple Street Design Variation and Base Assumptions at Lincoln Avenue Intersection Analysis 3.6-66 Table 3.6.18 2015 Alternative 2 Mid -City Access Design Variation with Base Assumption at Maple Street and Lincoln, Avenue Design Variation Intersection Analysis 3.6-67 Table 3.6.19 2015 Alternative 2 Mid -City Access Design Variation with Maple Street and Lincoln Avenue Design Variation Intersection Analysis 3.6-67 Table 3.6.20 Baseline/Ddsting (2007), 2035 No Build, and 2035 Alternative 1 and 2 Daily VMT, VHT, and VHD 3.6-68 Table 3.6.21 Baseline/Existing (2007), 2035 No Build, and 2035 Alternative 1 and 2 Peak -Hour Corridor Travel Time Summary 3.6-70 Table 3.6.22 Freeway Mainline Peak -Hour Levels of Service for Baseline/Existing (2007), 2035 No Build, and Design Year 2035 with Alternatives 1 and 2 3.6-71 Table 3.6.23 Freeway Ramp Peak -Hour Levels of Service for Design Year 2035 No Build and Design Year 2035 with Alternatives I and 2 3.6-73 Table 3.6.24 Intersection Peak -Hour Levels of Service for Design Year 2035 No Build and Design Year 2035 with Alternatives 1 and 2 3.6-75 Table 3.6.25 Auto Center Drive/Maple Street Design Variation 2035 Intersection Analysis 3.6-77 Table 3.6.26 Lincoln Avenue Design Variation 2035 Intersection Analysis 3.6-77 Table 3.6.27 2035 Alternative 2 Mid -City Access Design Variation with Base Assumptions at Maple Street and Lincoln Avenue Intersection Analysis 3.6-78 Table 3.6.28 2035 Alternative 2 Mid -City Access Design Variation with Maple Street Design Variation and Base Assumptions at Lincoln Avenue Intersection Analysis 3.6-78 Table 3.6.29 2035 Alternative 2 Mid -City Access Design Variation with Base Assumption at Maple Street and Lincoln Avenue Design Variation Intersection Analysis 3.6-79 Table 3.6.30 2035 Alternative 2 Mid -City Access Design Variation with Maple Street and Lincoln Avenue Design Variation Intersection Analysis 3.6-79 Table 3.6.31 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities under Alternatives 1 and 2 3.6-80 Table 3.6.32 Summary of Effects to Undercrossing Structures 3.6-89 Table 3.6.33 Summary of Effects to Overcrossing Structures 3.6-89 Table 3.6.34 Summary of SR-91 Delays for Connector Closures 3.6-90 Table 3.6.35 Temporary Ramp Closures and Resulting Travel Time Increases on SR-91 3.6-90 Table 3.6.36 Intersection Peak -Hour Levels of Service with Ramp Closures 3.6-91 Table 3.7.1 Existing Biological Conditions 3.7-5 Table 3.7.2 Existing and With Project Visual Quality 3.7-17 Table 3.8.1 Sources Consulted During the Records Search 3.8-3 Table 3.8.2 Cultural Resources Identified by the Records Searches, Standard Research, and the Surveys as in the APE for the SR-91 CIP 3.8-9 Table 3.10.1 Surface Water Quality Objectives for inland Surface Waters 3.10-10 TOC xiv SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final E1R/E1S List of Tables Table 3.10.2 Average Santa Ana River Water Quality by Water Year (October through September) 3.10-13 Table 3.10.3 Groundwater Quality Objectives for Groundwater Management Zones 3.10-19 Table 3.10.4 Treatment BMP Estimated Quantities for the Initial Phase of Alternative 2f 3.10-22 Table 3.10.5 Treatment BMP Estimated Quantities for the Alternative 2f Ultimate Project 3.10-22 Table 3.10.6 Existing and New Impervious Areas for Alternatives 1 and 2 3.10-23 Table 3.10.7 Construction Site BMPs for Alternatives 1 and 2 3.10-31 Table 3.11.1 Bedrock Formations and Surface Geologic Units Along the Project Segments of SR-91 and I-15 3.11-4 Table 3.11.2 Summary of Cut and Fill Amounts 3.11-26 Table 3.13.1 Hazardous Waste/Materials Sites of Potential Concern 3.13-4 Table 3.13.2 Potential Impacts to Alternatives 1 and 2 and Their Design Variations... 3.13-16 Table 3.13.3 Agricultural Land Use Parcels with Potential Soil Contamination 3.13-23 Table 3.14.1 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards 3.14-6 Table 3.14.2 Air Quality Levels Monitored at the Riverside-Rubidoux Station 3.14-8 Table 3.14.3 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin..... 3.14-11 Table 3.14.4 Alternative 1 Regional Vehicle Emissions (lbs/day) 3.14-15 Table 3.14.5 Alternative 2 Regional Vehicle Emissions (lbs/day) 3.14-15 Table 3.14.6 Ambient PM2,5 Monitoring Data (u.g/m3) 3.14-18 Table 3.14.7 Ambient PM10 Monitoring Data (µg/m3) 3.14-19 Table 3.14.8 Baseline/Existing (2007) and No Build Average Daily Traffic and Truck Volumes 3.14-20 Table 3.14.9 Existing Intersection Levels of Service 3.14-21 Table 3.14.10 2015 Highway Traffic Volumes 3.14-21 Table 3.14.11 2035 Highway Traffic Volumes 3.14-21 Table 3.14.12 2015 A.M. Intersection Levels of Service 3.14-22 Table 3.14.13 2015 P.M. Intersection Levels of Service 3.14-22 Table 3.14.14 2035 A.M. Intersection Levels of Service 3.14-23 Table 3.14.15 2035 P.M. Intersection Levels of Service 3.14-23 Table 3.14.16 Daily PM2,5 Emissions Along the SR-91 Corridor (lbs/day) 3.14-24 Table 3.14.17 Daily PM30 Emissions Along the SR-91 Corridor (lbs/day) 3.14-24 Table 3.14.18 Daily PM2,5 Emissions in the South Coast Air Basin (lbs/day) 3.14-25 Table 3.14.19 Daily PM10 Emissions in the South Coast Air Basin (lbs/day) 3.14-25 Table 3.14.20 2015 Initial Phase of Alternative 1 Changes in MSAT Emissions 3.14-35 Table 3.14.21 2015 Initial Phase of Alternative 2 Changes in MSAT Emissions 3.14-36 Table 3.14.22 2015 Alternative 2 Changes in MSAT Emissions 3.14-36 Table 3.14.23 2035 Alternative 1 Changes in MSAT Emissions 3.14-36 Table 3.14.24 2035 Alternative 2 Changes in MSAT Emissions 3.14-37 Table 3.15.1 Noise Abatement Criteria 3.15-20 Table 3.15.2 Noise Levels of Common Activities 3.15-20 Table 3.15.3 Summary of Short -Term Measurements 3.15-21 Table 3.15.4 Summary of Long -Term Monitoring at Location 2 3.15-23 Table 3.15.5 Summary of Long -Term Monitoring at Location 7 3.15-23 Table 3.15.6 Summary of Long -Term Monitoring at Location 16 3.15-24 Table 3.15.7 Summary of Long -Term Monitoring at Location 26 3.15-24 Table 3.15.8 Summary of Long -Term Monitoring at Location 31 3.15-25 Table 3.159 Summary of Lang -Term Monitoring at Location 34 3.15-25 Table 3.15.10 Summary of Long -Term Monitoring at Location 41 3.15-26 Table 3.15.11 Summary of Long -Term Monitoring at Location 47 3.15-26 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS TOC-xv List of Tables Table 3.15.12 Existing Noise Levels, dBA Leg 3.15-27 Table 3.15.13 Projected Traffic Noise Levels, dBA Leg 3.15-31 Table 3.15.14 Noise Barrier Feasibility and Reasonableness for Alternative 1 3.15-41 Table 3.15.15 Noise Barriers Feasibility and Reasonableness for the Initial Phase of Alternative 1 3.15-44 Table 3.15.16 Noise Barriers Feasibility and Reasonableness for Alternative 2 3.15-47 Table 3.15.17 Noise Barrier Feasibility and Reasonableness for the Initial Phase of Alternative 2 3.15-50 Table 3.15.18 Severely Impacted Receivers 3.15-53 Table 3.15.19 Recommended Barriers for Alternative 1 3.15-54 Table 3.15.20 Recommended Barriers for the Initial Phase of Alternative 1 3.15-55 Table 3.15.21 Recommended Barriers for Alternative 2 3.15-56 Table 3.15.22 Recommended Barriers for the Initial Phase of Alternative 2 3.15-57 Table 3.15.23 Noise Barrier Survey Results 3.15-58 Table 3.15.24 Noise Barrier Survey Package Distribution 3.15-58 Table 3.15.25 Alternative 1 Ultimate Project Final Recommended Barriers 3.15-59 Table 3.15.26 Alternative 1 Initial Phase Final Recommended Barriers 3.15-59 Table 3.15.27 Alternative 2 Ultimate Project Final Recommended Barriers 3.15-60 Table 3.15.28 Alternative 2 Initial Phase Final Recommended Barriers 3.15-60 Table 3.15.29 Construction Equipment Noise 3.15-61 Table 3.15.30 Guideline Vibration Potential Threshold Criteria 3.15-61 Table 3.15.31 Guideline Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria 3.15-61 Table 3.15.32 Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment 3.15-62 Table 3.16.1 Annual Transportation Energy Consumption in the SCAG Region 3.16-2 Table 3.16.2 SR-91 CIP Study .Area Daily Fuel Consumption Comparison 3.16-10 Table 3.16.3 SCAG Region Daily Fuel Consumption Comparison 3.16-12 Table 3.16.4 SR-91 CIP Study Area Indirect Energy Comparison 3.16-14 Table 3.16.5 SCAG Region Indirect Energy Comparison 3.16-15 Table 3.17.1 Vegetation Communities in the BSA 3.17-5 Table 3.17.2 Permanent Effects on Natural Communities of Special Concern (acres)..3.17-18 Table 3.17.3 Temporary Effects on Natural Communities of Special Concern (acres) .3.17-25 Table 3.18.1 Corps Jurisdictional and Nonjurisdictional Areas (acres) 3.18-4 Table 3.18.2 Permanent Impacts of Alternatives 1 and 2 to Jurisdictional Areas (acres) 3.18-8 Table 3.18.3 Temporary Impacts of Alternative 1 and 2 Projects to Jurisdictional Areas (acres) 3.18-9 Table 3.20.1 Special -Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring or Known to Occur within and in the Vicinity of the BSA 3.20-3 Table 3.21.1 Summary of Threatened and Endangered Plant and Animal Species 3.21-3 Table 3.21.2 Permanent Impacts to Coastal California Gnatcatcher-Designated Critical Habitat (acres) 3.21-13 Table 3.21.3 Temporary Impacts to Coastal California Gnatcatcher-Designated Critical Habitat (acres) 3.21-16 Table 3.25.1 Summary of Transportation Projects in the SR-91 OP Study Area 3.25-45 Table 3.25.2 Summary of Land Development and Nontransportation Infrastructure Projects in the SR-91 CIP Study Area 3.25-57 Table 3.25.3 Resources for Which the Build Alternatives Would not Contribute to Cumulative Impacts 3.25-65 Table 3.25.4 National Register of Historic Places -Listed Historic Properties 3.25-71 Table 4.1 Short -Term Construction Emissions 4-48 Table 4.2 SR-91 C1P Study Area and SCAG Region CO2 Emissions 4-51 TOC-xvi SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS List of Tables Table 4.3 SR-91 Corridor Travel Time Summary 4-53 Table 4.4 Climate Change/CO2 Reduction Strategies 4-58 Table 5.1 Summary of Input from Cooperating and Participating Agencies 5-4 Table 5.2 SR-91 CII' Meeting Summaries 5-6 Table 5.3 Summary of Section 4(f) Consultation 5-15 Table 5.4 Summary of Comments Received On the Draft EIR/EIS During and Shortly After the End of the Public Circulation Period 5-30 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final E1R/E1S TOC-xvii List of Tables This page intentionally left blank TOO xviii SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/E1S Executive Summary Effective July 1, 2007, the California Department of Transportation (Depai iient) has been assigned environmental review and consultation responsibilities under NEPA pursuant to Section 6005 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (23 United States Code [USC] 327). On projects for which the Department has assumed NEPA responsibilities, the Department has also assumed responsibility for envirommental review and consultation under other federal environmental laws. ROTC, in cooperation with the Department, has proposed capacity, operational, and safety improvements on part of SR-91 and part of 1-15, designated as the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CT). The project would widen the existing SR-91 from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County. The project also includes improvements to I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15 and Cajalco Road interchange in the City of Corona and the I-15 and Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. The project is subject to State and federal environmental review requirements. Project documentation has been prepared in compliance with both CEQA and NEPA. The Department is the lead agency under NEPA and CEQA for this project. Lines were added to the margins of the pages in this document to assist the reader in noting places where substantive changes were made after the circulation of the Draft EIR/EIS during the preparation of this Final EIR/EIS. S.1 Overview of the Project Study Area The project study area extends along the project segments of SR-91 and I-15 in northeastern Orange County and western Riverside County. The Post Miles for the project on SR-91 in Orange County are between ORA-91-R14.43 and ORA-91- R18.91, in Riverside County between RIV-91-R0.00 and RIV-91-R13.04, and on I-15 in Riverside County between RIV-15-35.64 and RIV-15-45.14. The project limits on I-15 begin at Cajalco Road, approximately 5 mi south of SR-91 in the City of Corona. The project limits extend north on I-15 to Hidden Valley Parkway, approximately 1 mi north of SR-91 in the cities of Corona and Norco. In the project study area, SR-91 currently has four 11- to 12-feet- {ft) wide, general- purpose (GP) travel lanes in each direction from the SR-241/SR-91 interchange to the SR-91 Corridor improvement Project Final EIR/EIS S-1 Executive Summary SR-91/I-15 interchange. It has three 12 ft wide GP lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high -occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction within the project limits. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 or 12 ft wide depending on the location, begin west of the SR-91/State Route 55 (SR-55) interchange and terminate at the Orange/Riverside County line. The HOV lanes, which are 11 or 12 ft wide depending on the location, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/ Riverside County line and extend east to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. One project, which was recently completed, and several approved or planned projects in the project study area may affect or require design coordination with the project. These projects are: • SR-91 Eastbound Lane Addition Project between SR-241 and State Route 71 (SR-71) (operational) • Santa Ana Mainstem Project — Santa Ana River Reach 9 Phase 2B Realignment/ Santa Ana River Interceptor Pipeline Reaches III and IV • SR-91/SR-71 Interchange Improvement Project • 1-15 Corridor Improvement Project • SR-241/SR-91 Direct Connector Project • SR-91 between SR-55 and SR-241 • SR-91 Lane Addition from SR-55 to Weir Canyon Road north of SR-91 • State Route 57 (SR-57) Northbound Truck Climbing Lane a SR-241/SR-91 HOV/High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) Connector • Express bus service operating on SR-91 that provides connections from Riverside County to employment centers in Anaheim, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, and Irvine in Orange County. • Four additional express bus routes are planned for implementation in 2016. • The parking capacity of the North Main Street Corona MetroLink parking structure adjacent to SR-91 was increased in June 2009, which allowed commuter rail ridership to increase, thereby diverting trips from SR-91. • Future MetroLink service improvements are anticipated to include at least 40 daily trips each on the TEOC Line and 91 -Line by 2020. • Mid County Parkway • Coal Canyon Landscape Project • Corridor A-1: Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP), Riverside County to Orange County, construct an intercounty 5-2 SR-91 Corridor improvement Project Final E1R/E1S Executive Summary transportation corridor with two toll lanes in each direction on a new facility parallel to SR-91 from SR-241 to I-15 ® SR-241/SR-91 Toll Connectors: Provide HOV/HOT connectors from northbound SR-241 to eastbound SR-91 and from westbound SR-91 to southbound SR-241 ® I-15 HOV/Express Lanes: Provide 2 HOV and 2 HOT lanes in each direction on I-15 from SR-74 to the San Bernardino County line • SR-71 Widening: Widen SR-71 to 3 mixed -flow lanes in each direction from SR-91 to the San Bernardino County line In addition to these projects, a number of other transportation and land use projects are identified within the cumulative impact study area, including projects identified in the most current SR-91 Implementation Plan (Orange County Transportation Authority [OCTAD. S.2 Purpose and Need S.2.1 Project Purpose The purpose of the project is to: 1. Improve the vehicle, person, and goods movement within the SR-91 corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. 2. Provide improvements along the SR-91 and I-15 transportation corridors as well as to related local roads and to reduce diversion of regional traffic from the freeways into the surrounding communities. S.2.2 Project Need SR-91 is the only major highway corridor that provides the home -to -work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. SR-91 is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day (vpd) at the Orange/Riverside County line, and this volume continues to grow. At the same time, travel speeds on SR-91 are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during the lengthy morning (westbound) and evening (eastbound) peak travel periods. Existing congestion and delays on SR-91 and I-15 during peak travel periods result in freeway traffic diverting to adjacent local roads to avoid congestion and delays. This diversion of freeway traffic is particularly prevalent in the City of Corona as motorists on westbound SR-91 and motorists transitioning from northbound 1-15 to westbound SR-91 seek less congested routes in the morning (westbound) peak travel period. Similarly, diversion of freeway traffic into the City occurs as motorists on eastbound SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS S-3 Executive Summary SR-91 and motorists transitioning from eastbound SR-91 to southbound I-15 seek less congested routes in the evening (eastbound) peak travel period. SR-91 is continuing to experience increased congestion as a result of population growth in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties and the increase in jobs in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. Demographic projections for the SCAG region (Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and Riverside Counties), show that population and employment in Riverside and Orange Counties are forecast to increase substantially by 2035. As a result, traffic volumes on SR-91 are expected to increase by approximately 50 percent by 2035, which would result in even greater congestion and delays on SR-91. The existing travel demand on SR-91 has led to a heavy directional commute pattern between Riverside and Orange/Los Angeles Counties that is projected to continue into the future. Improvements are necessary to address existing and projected deficiencies regarding mobility, access, goods movement, and freeway capacity on the project segment of SR-91, which is the only major highway that links Riverside and Orange Counties. S.3 Proposed Action Both Build Alternatives would add one GP lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. Both Build Alternatives would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. The two Build Alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector -distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometries within the project limits to improve traffic operations. The Build Alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes on SR-91 Iwould be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2 would result in two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be converted into these two tolled express lanes. East of 1-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in lAlternative 2 would be converted to join to the existing HOV and GP lanes at approximately Mary Street. S-4 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on 1-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on 1-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Under Alternatives 1 and 2, existing local access to/from the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half - diamond interchange ramps would be removed and replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. The Build and No Build Alternatives are described briefly in the following section. S.3.1 Alternatives S.3.1.1 No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative would maintain existing SR-9I and 1-15 in the project area. Under this alternative, there would be no additional GP lanes and no change in the existing express or HOV lanes on SR-91. No improvements on SR-91, 1-15, or intersecting local roads would be provided. The SR-91 Implementation Plan would not be implemented under the No Build Alternative. Under the future No Build Alternative, it is assumed the following independent projects have been constructed and are operational: ® SR-71/SR-91 Interchange Improvement Project ® SR-91 Eastbound Lane Addition Project between SR-241 and SR-71 (this project is now operational) ® SR-91 Lane Addition from SR-55 to Weir Canyon Road north of SR-91 ® State Route 57 (SR-57) Northbound Truck Climbing Lane ® SR-241/SR-91 HOV/High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) Connector It is not anticipated that other major corridor improvements would be implemented on the project segments of SR-91 and 1-15 under the No Build Alternative. However, it is anticipated that smaller localized projects could be considered, approved, and implemented in the future on their own merits. S.3.1.2 Alternative 1: Add General -Purpose Lanes and Maintain HOV Lanes (GP + HOV Lanes) One GP lane would be constructed in each direction on SR-91 from the SR-91/ SR-241 interchange in the Cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside under Alternative I. The existing HOV lanes on SR-91 between the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final E1R/E1S S-5 Executive Summary Orange/Riverside County line and Pierce Street would be maintained. Alternative 1 would provide HOV lane connectors from eastbound SR-91 to southbound I-15 and from northbound 1-15 to westbound SR-91. Those direct connectors would provide direct HOV lane access between 1-15 and SR-91 which would allow vehicles in the HOV lanes to move from freeway to freeway, without the need to move through traffic in the GP lanes. One HOV lane would be constructed on 1-15 in each direction from Ontario Avenue in the City of Corona to a proposed I-15/SR-91 HOV lane direct connector. Alternative 1 would provide auxiliary lanes or collector -distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchanges within the project limits. Existing local access to/froze the existing interchanges would be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing nonstandard half -diamond interchange ramps would be removed and replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Alternative 1 also includes upgrades to existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Alternative 1 includes four design variations (la through id) that provide different designs at Auto Center Drive/Maple Street (design variations la and 1b) and Lincoln Avenue/Grand Boulevard (design variations lc and id). The construction of Alternative 1 will cost approximately $990 million to $1.0 billion, based on the design variation. S.3.1.3 Alternative 2: Add General -Purpose Lanes and Extend Tolled Express Lanes (GP + Tolled Express Lanes) RCTC identified Alternative 2 as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA), as discussed in Chapter 2, Project Alternatives. Under Alternative 2, one GP lane would be constructed in each direction on SR-91, from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the Cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside. The existing express lanes in Orange County would be extended east from the Orange/Riverside County line to 1-15 in the City of Corona. The existing HOV lanes would be converted to tolled express lanes, and one additional tolled express lane would be added in each direction on SR-91 from the Orange/Riverside County line to 1-15. On June 7, 2012, the ROTC faunally adopted the "RCTC 91 Express Lanes Toll Policy." The RCTC policy includes the same policies and toll pricing that exists today S-6 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary for the OCTA 91 Express Lanes. Toll prices currently range from $1.35 in the non - peak hours to $10.05 in the eastbound SR-91 "super peak" hour from 3 :00 to 4:00 p.m. on Fridays.] In addition to the posted tolls, the RCTC 91 Express Lane toll policy allows carpoolers with three or more persons (HOV3+), zero emission vehicles (ZEVs), motorcycles, disabled plates and disabled veterans to ride free during most hours. The exception is Monday through Friday 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. in the eastbound direction when they pay 50 percent of the posted toll. A single eastbound SR-91 tolled express lane would extend past I-15 to McKinley Street and then convert back to an HOV lane at Pierce Street in each direction. In the westbound direction, the existing HOV lanes would be converted to a single tolled express lane east of McKinley Street and joill a second tolled express lane at the I-15 interchange. Alternative 2 would add one tolled express lane in each direction on 1-15 extending from the project express lane connectors north to Hidden Valley Parkway and south to Cajalco Road. Single tolled express lane direct connectors between I-15 and SR-91 would provide access from northbound I-15 to westbound SR-91, extending on I-15 from SR-91 to the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange, and from eastbound SR-91 to southbound I-15, extending on I-15 from SR-91 to Cajalco Road. The direct connectors would allow express lane drivers to travel from the express lanes on one freeway into the express lanes on the other freeway without having to transition through the GP lanes. Alternative 2 would also provide auxiliary lanes or collector -distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchanges within the project limits. Existing local access to/from the existing interchanges would be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing nonstandard half -diamond interchange ramps would be removed and replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Alternative 2 also includes upgrades to existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Alternative 2 includes eight design variations (2a through 2h) that provide different design options at Auto Center Drive/Maple Street (two design options), Smith Avenue (two design options), and Lincoln Avenue (two design options). The construction of Alternative 2 will cost approxirnately $1.345 to $1.426 billion, 1 http://www.9lexpresslanes.com/schedules.asp. SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final E1R/EIS S-7 Executive Summary depending on the design variation. Alternative 2f is estimated to cost $1,380,500,000, including roadway, structures and right-of-way costs. S.3.1.4 Preferred Alternative On September 20, 2011, the Project Development. Team (PDT) evaluated the two Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative to develop a recommendation to the Department and RCTC for the Preferred Alternative. The PDT is made up of representatives from Districts 8 and 12 of the Depa ment; the Riverside County Transportation Commission; the Transportation Corridor Agencies, the Orange County Transportation Authority, the Cities of Corona, Riverside, Norco, and Anaheim; and consultants providing technical support to the Department and ROTC. The approach of the PDT for developing that recommendation was conducted in two steps. Step 1 considered the ability of the two Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative to meet the following five specific criteria: (1) the best alternative that meets the purpose of the project; (2) the alternative that provides the best travel time savings; (3) consideration of substantially differentiating environmental impacts for each of the Build Alternatives; (4) consideration of the comments provided by agencies and members of the general public during the public review period; and (5) consistency with transportation system planning for SR-91. As described in detail in Section 2.3.7.3, Development of the PDT Recommendation, Alternatives 1 and 2 both meet the project purpose. Alternative 2 results in the best travel time savings compared to Alternative 1 and the No Build Alternative. Alternatives 1 and 2 result in similar environmental impacts, but the larger footprint for Alternative 2 results in that Alternative having slightly greater impacts in some categories compared to Alternative 1. There was no strong preference for or against a specific alternative by the commenting agencies and members of the general public; however, the wider cross section in Alternative 2 better meets the system planning criterion compared to Alternative 1. Based on the evaluation of the ability of the No Build and Build Alternatives to meet these criteria, the PDT recommended Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative for the SR-91 CIP. RCTC, the Department, the City of Corona, the OCTA, and the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA), all members of the PDT, concurred with this recommendation. As a result, Alternative 2 is the Preferred Alternative for the SR-91 CIP. Once the Preferred Alternative was identified, Step 2 considered the design variations for that Build Alternative and evaluated them on the following four criteria to determine which design variations should be included in the Preferred Alternative: S-8 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary (1) the design variation that would minimize community and right-of-way impacts; (2) the design variation that would provide the best traffic operations; (3) consideration of substantially differentiating environmental impacts for each of the design variations; and (4) consideration of the comments provided by agencies and members of the general public during the public review period. The evaluation of the design variations provided in Section 2.3.7.4, PDT Recommendation for SR-91 CIP, based on a comparison of these four criteria, determined that design variation f better met these criteria than the other design variations applicable to Alternative 2. The City of Corona indicated a strong preference for design variation f at the Auto Center Drive/Maple Street, Smith Avenue/Mid-City Access, and Lincoln Avenue interchanges. The PDT, including the Department and RCTC, concurred with the identification of design variation f for inclusion in the Preferred Alternative, and unanimously agreed with the recommendation of the identification of Alternative 2f as the Preferred Alternative for the SR-91 CM. S.3.2 Travel Time and Travel Speed Table S.1 summarizes travel times and speeds on SR-91 between SR-241 and 1-15 for the Baseline/Existing (2007) condition, and for 2015 and 2035 with the No Build and Build Alternatives based on the peak directions and hours of travel (i.e., westbound on SR-91 in the a.m. peak hour and eastbound in the p.m. peak hour). Key travel time and speed comparisons of Baseline/Existing (2007) conditions with the 2015 and 2035 No Build and with project conditions are described in the following sections. The project conditions are the Alternative 1 and 2 Ultimate Projects for both 2015 and 2035 and the Initial Phases of Alternatives 1 and 2 for 2015 only, which include only the initial improvements in Alternatives 1 and 2. As shown in the following discussion regarding travel times and travel speeds, the additional lane provided in each direction in Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1 generally results in reduced travel times and increased travel speeds under Alternative 2 compared to both Alternative 1 and the No Build Alternative. No Build Conditions in the AM Peak Hour (Westbound SR-9V In the GP lanes, travel time is forecast to increase by approximately 8 minutes from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2015 No Build conditions and by approximately 15 minutes from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2035 No Build conditions. SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/E1 S S-9 Executive Summary Table S.1 SR-91 Travel Time and Travel Speed Summaryl Lanes Baseline! Existing (2007) 2015 2035 No guild Alt 1 Ultimate Project Alt 2 Ultimate Project Alt 2 Initial Project No guild Alt 1 Ultimate Project Alt 2 Ultimate Project SR-91 Westbound (AM Peak Hour) Travel Time (minutes) General Purpose 28.5 36.1 30.7 28.9 32.6 43.2 36.6 37.3 Percent change compared to Baseline/ Existing (2007) - 26.7% 7.7% 1.4% 14.4% 51.6% 28.4% 30.9% HOV/Tolled Express 12.1 18.4 15.5 13.1 12.0 25.9 23.5 12.6 Percent change compared to Baseline/ Existing (2007) - 52.1% 28.1% 8.3% -0.8% 114.0% 94.2% 4.1% Travel Speed (mph) General Purpose 24.2 19.1 22.5 23.8 21.2 16.0 18.9 18.5 Percent change compared to Baseline/ Existing (2007) -- -21.1% -7.0% -1.7% -12.4% -33.9% -21.9% -23.6% HOWTolled Express 56.8 37.5 44.4 52.8 57.3 26.6 29.4 55.0 Percent change compared to Baseline/ Existing (2007) -- -34.0% -21.8% -7.0% 0.9%% -53.2% -48.2% -3.2% SR-91 Eastbound (PM Peak Hour) Travel Time (minutes) General Purpose 44.0 79.1 66.3 63.7 70.6 86.4 73.3 73.7 Percent change compared to Baseline/ Existing (2007) - 79.8% 50.7% 44.8% 60.5% 96A% 66.6% 67.5% HOWTolled Express 30.0 39.7 31.2 13.0 12.5 47.0 48.1 13.8 Percent change compared to Baseline/ Existing (2007) -- 32.3% 4.0% -56.7% -58.3% 56.7% 60.3% -54.0% Travel Speed (mph) General Purpose 15.7 8.7 10.4 10.8 9.8 8.0 9.4 9.4 Percent change compared to Baseline/ Existing (2007) - -44.6% -33.8% -31.2% -37.6% -49.0% -40.1% -40.1% HOV/Talled Express 23.0 17.4 22.1 53.0 55.0 14.7 14.4 50.0 Percent change compared to Baseline/ Existing (2007) -- -24.3% -3.9% 130.4% 139.1% -36.1% -37.4°/0 117.4% Source: Speed surveys and the RCTC Model Results for the SR-91 CIP, as disclosed in Table 4-64 in the Final Traffic Study Report (January 2010). ' Travel times and speed are for SR-91 between SR-241 and 1-15. 2 The 2015 conditions under the Initial Phase of Alternative 1 are considered to be the same as for the Initial Phase of Alternative 2. Alt = Alternative CIP = Corridor Improvement Project HOV = high -occupancy vehicle 1-15 = Interstate 15 mph = miles per hour RCTC = Riverside County Transportation Commission SR-91 = State Route 91 SR-241 = State Route 241 In the GP lanes, travel speed is forecast to decrease by approximately 5 mph from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2015 No Build conditions and by approximately S mph from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2035 No Build conditions. S-10 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary In the HOV/tolled express lanes, travel time is forecast to increase by approximately 6 minutes from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2015 No Build conditions and by approximately 14 minutes from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2035 No Build conditions. In the HOV/tolled express lanes, travel speed is forecast to decrease by approximately 19 mph from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2015 No Build conditions and by approximately 30 mph from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2035 No Build conditions. Alternative 1 in the AM Peak Hour (Westbound SR-91) In the GP lanes, travel time is forecast to increase by approximately 2 minutes from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2015 with Alternative 1 conditions and by approximately 8 minutes from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2035 with Alternative 1 conditions. In the GP lanes, travel speed is forecast to decrease by approximately 2 mph from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2015 with Alternative 1 conditions and by approximately 5 mph from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2035 with Alternative 1 conditions_ In HOV/tolled lanes, travel time is forecast to increase by approximately 3 minutes from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2015 with Alternative 1 conditions and by approximately 11 minutes from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2035 with Alternative 1 conditions. In HOV/tolled lanes, travel speed is forecast to decrease by approximately 12 mph from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2015 with Alternative 1 conditions and by approximately 27 mph from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2035 with Alternative 1 conditions. Alternative 2 in the AM Peak Hour (Westbound SR-91) In the GP lanes, travel time is forecast to increase by approximately 0.5 minute from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2015 with Alternative 2 conditions and by approximately 9 minutes from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2035 with Alternative 2 conditions. In the GP lanes, travel speed is forecast to decrease by approximately 0.5 mph from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2015 with Alternative 2 conditions and by approximately 6 mph from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2035 with Alternative 2 conditions. In the tolled express Ianes, travel time is forecast to increase by approximately 1 minute from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2015 with Alternative 2 conditions and by SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS S-11 Executive Summary approximately 0.5 minute from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2035 with Alternative 2 conditions. In the tolled express lanes, travel speed is forecast to decrease by approximately 4 mph from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2015 with Alternative 2 conditions and by approximately 2 mph from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2035 with Alternative 2 conditions. No Build Conditions in the PM Peak Hour (Eastbound SR-91) In the GP lanes, travel time is forecast to increase by approximately 35 minutes from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2015 No Build conditions and by approximately 42 minutes from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2035 No Build conditions. In the GP lanes, travel speed is forecast to decrease by approximately 7 mph from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2015 No Build conditions and by approximately 8 mph from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2035 No Build conditions. In the HOV/tolled express lanes, travel time is forecast to increase by approximately 10 minutes from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2015 No Build conditions and by approximately 17 minutes from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2035 No Build conditions. In the HOV/tolled express lanes, travel speed is forecast to decrease by approximately 6 mph from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2015 No Build conditions and by approximately 8 mph from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2035 No Build conditions. Alternative 1 in the PM Peak Hour (Eastbound SR-91) In the GP lanes, travel time is forecast to increase by approximately 22 minutes from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2015 with Alternative 1 conditions and by approximately 29 minutes from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2035 with Alternative 1 conditions. In the GP lanes, travel speed is forecast to decrease by approximately 5 mph from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2015 with Alternative 1 conditions and by approximately 6 mph from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2035 with Alternative 1 conditions. In the HOV/tolled express lanes, travel time is forecast to increase by approximately 1 minute from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2015 with Alternative 1 conditions and by approximately 18 minutes from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2035 with Alternative 1 conditions. S-12 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary In the HOV/tolled express lanes, travel speed is forecast to decrease by approximately 1 mph from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2015 with Alternative 1 conditions and by approximately 9 mph from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2035 with Alternative 1 conditions. Alternative 2 in the PM Peak Hour (Eastbound SR-91) In the GP lanes, travel time is forecast to increase by approximately 20 minutes from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2015 with Alternative 2 conditions and by approximately 30 minutes from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2035 with Alternative 2 conditions. In the GP lanes, travel speed is forecast to decrease by approximately 5 mph from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2015 with Alternative 2 conditions and by approximately 6 mph from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2035 with Alternative 2 conditions. In the tolled express lanes, travel time is forecast to decrease by approximately 17 minutes from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2015 with Alternative 2 conditions and by approximately 16 minutes from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2035 with Alternative 2 conditions. In the tolled express lanes, travel speed is forecast to increase by approximately 30 mph from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2015 with Alternative 2 conditions and by approximately 27 mph from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2035 with Alternative 2 conditions_ S.3.3 Modal Interrelationships Include System Linkages SR-91 is an integral component of the regional transportation system. It provides a key linkage between the Inland Empire (Riverside and San Bernardino Counties) and Orange County as well as a gateway into southern Los Angeles County. It connects a large residential population to substantial employment opportunities. The project would provide enhanced mobility and system linkages between the counties as well as additional connectivity as a result of the provision of the direct HOV connectors to the tolled express lanes within the region. Existing public transit linkages between Riverside and Orange Counties include bus and commuter rail. MetroLink cornrnuter rail services between the two counties are nearing capacity on existing equipment. As identified in the Major Investment Study (MIS) Locally Preferred Strategy (LPS), all transit components in the Riverside County/Orange County study area were to be maximized as part of all future transportation improvements. Alternatives 1 and 2 do not specifically identify these SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS S-13 Executive Summary transit improvements, but they are part of the overall background of transit and transportation improvements required through the extensive elected officials, interested stakeholders, and public outreach process implemented as part of the MIS process by RCTC, OCTA, and the Department. Some of the existing and planned multimodal components of the overall transportation system include: • Express bus service operating on SR-91 that provides connections from Riverside County to employment centers in Anaheim, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, and Irvine in Orange County. • Four additional express bus routes are planned for implementation in 2016. These routes would originate in the Riverside and Temecula areas with destinations to employment centers in Anaheim and Orange in Orange County. • The parking capacity of the North Main Street Corona MetroLink parking structure adjacent to SR-91 was increased in June 2009, which allowed commuter rail ridership to increase, thereby diverting trips from SR-91. • MetroLink currently operates 23 trips daily on the Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Line between downtown Riverside, Laguna Niguel/Mission Viejo, and Oceanside. • Future MetroLink service improvements are anticipated to include at least 40 daily trips each on the IEOC Line and 91-Line by 2020. S.3.3.1 Logical Termini and Independent Utility Logical Termini The project limits for the SR-91 CIP were defined based on providing a logical and independent set of improvements. Logical termini arc defined as rational end points for a transportation improvement and rational end points for a review of the environmental impacts of a proposed project. Refer to Figures 2.14 and 2.17, provided later in Chapter 2, Project Alternatives, which show the improvements in the Alternative 1 and 2 Initial Phases and Alternative 1 and 2 Ultimate Projects, respectively. Logical Termini for the Alternative 1 and 2 Ultimate Projects The Alternative 1 and 2 Ultimate Projects provide logical termini because they connect to major transportation facilities (SR-241, SR-71, and I-15), which are destinations of the major traffic volumes along SR-91, and terminate at major arterial interchanges (SR-241 on the west and Pierce Street on the east on SR-91, and Hidden S-14 SR-91 Corridor improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary Valley Parkway on the north, and Cajaleo Road on the south on 1-15). The SR-91 CIP Build Alternatives can be implemented without being dependent on any other improvements, and they would provide substantial benefits to the traveling public between the project termini described without other improvements. Alternatives 1 and 2 for the SR-91 CIP have logical termini that allow for evaluation of potential environmental effects for a project large enough to address the defined traffic need in the affected part of the corridor. Logical Termini for the Alternative 1 and 2 Initial Phases Similar to the Ultimate Projects for Alternatives 1 and 2, the limits for the Initial Phases of those Build Alternatives were also defined based on providing a logical and independent set of improvements. The Initial Phase of Alternative 1 provides logical termini because it connects to major transportation facilities (SR-71 and I-15) and terminates at major arterial or freeway interchanges (Green River Road on the west on SR-91, at 1-15 on the east on SR-91, and at Ontario Avenue on I-15). The Initial Phase of Alternative 2 also provides logical termini because it connects to major transportation facilities (SR-241, SR-71, and 1-15) and terminates at major arterial or freeway interchanges (SR-241, Pierce Street on SR-91, and Hidden Valley Parkway and Ontario Avenue on I-15). Independent Utility A project has independent utility if it meets a project purpose in the absence of other improvements in the project segment or in other parts of the corridor. The SR-91 CIP has independent utility because the Alternative 1 and 2 Initial Phases and Ultimate Projects are usable improvements and represent reasonable expenditures even if no additional transportation improvements are made in the area. Alternatives 1 and 2 can be implemented in the absence of any other improvements and do not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements in the SR-91 and I-15 corridors. S.3.4 Phasing and Funding of .Alternatives 1 and 2 Implementation of the project will be in phases over a 20-year period, beginning with an Initial Phase and culminating with completion of the Ultimate Project by 2035. Phasing plans for the Build Alternatives were developed based on the funding anticipated to be available for the project after completion of the environmental process, including identification and approval of the Preferred Alternative. Separate phases would be identified and programmed to incorporate the components of the improvements on SR-91 and I-15 between the Initial Phase which would be SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS S-15 Executive Summary completed in 2017 and completion of the Ultimate Project by 2035, as funding becomes available. A summary of anticipated funding sources for Alternatives 1 and 2 is shown in Table S.2. Additional funds will be needed to construct all phases of the project. Potential funding sources for future phases include federal grants, State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds, and Measure A. Table S.2 Anticipated Funding Sources Potential Funding Source Alternative 1 Alternative 2 RCTC Contribution (Measure A) $830,586,000 $734,944,000 Federal TIFIA Loan 0 $444,117,000 STIP Funds $2,000,000 $2,000,000 Toll Revenue Bonds (CIBsICABs) 0 $163,768,000 Total $832,586,000 $1,344,829,000 Source: Riverside County Transportation Commission (2011). CABs = Capital Appreciation Bonds CIBs = Current Interest Bonds RCTC = Riverside County Transportation Commission STIP = State Transportation Improvement Program TIFIA = Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act S.4 Joint CEQA/NEPA Document The project is a joint project by the Department and FHWA, and is subject to State and federal environmental review requirements. Project documentation, therefore, has been prepared in compliance with both CEQA and NEPA. The Department is the lead agency under NEPA and CEQA. In addition, FHWA's responsibility for environmental review, consultation, and any other action required in accordance with applicable federal laws for this project is being, or has been, carried out by the Department under its assumption of responsibility pursuant to 23 USC 327. Some impacts determined to be significant under CEQA may not lead to a determination of significance under NEPA. Because NEPA is concerned with the significance of the project as a whole, it is quite often the case that a "lower level" document is prepared for NEPA. One of the most commonly seen joint document types is an EIR/EIS. In accordance with CEQA, the Department determined that the project could have a significant effect on the environment and prepared an EIR. In addition, the Department has determined that the action may substantially impact the environment. Therefore, the Department, as assigned by FHWA, prepared an EIS. Following a review of public comments received on the Draft EIR/EIS and circulation of the Final EIS, the Department will take actions regarding the S-16 SR-91 Corridor improvement Project Final E1R/EIS Executive Summary environmental document. The Department will certify the Final EIR, issue Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations under CEQA; and approve the Final EIS and issue a Record of Decision (ROD) under NEPA. Based on the project phasing discussed in Section S.3.4, the Department anticipates issuing separate RODs for the Initial Phase and the Ultimate Project. At the time the Ultimate Project is programmed, RCTC will assess whether the project scope has changed, existing conditions in the study area have changed, and/or there is potential for substantial new adverse impacts not evaluated in the original Final EIR/EIS. That assessment may result a determination that additional environmental documentation (such as an Environmental Reevaluation under NEPA and an Addendum to the Final EIR under CEQA if there are no substantial changes in the project, the existing environment and the project impacts) and/or updated technical studies are needed prior to implementation of the Ultimate Project. S.4.1 Determining Significance Under the California Environmental Quality Act One of the primary differences between NEPA and CEQA is the way significance is determined. Under NEPA, significance is used to deteiniine whether an EIS, or some lower level of documentation, will be required. NEPA requires that an EIS be prepared when the proposed federal action (project) as a whole has the potential to "significantly affect the quality of the human environment." The determination of significance under NEPA is based on context and intensity. Some impacts determined to be significant under CEQA may not be of sufficient magnitude to be determined significant under NEPA. Under NEPA, once a decision is made regarding the need for an EIS, it is the magnitude of the impact that is evaluated and no judgment of its individual significance is deemed important for the text. NEPA does not require that a determination of significant impacts be stated in the environmental document. CEQA, on the other hand, does require the Department to identify each "significant effect on the environment" resulting from the project and ways to mitigate each significant effect. If the project may have a significant effect on any environmental resource, then an EIR must be prepared. Each and every significant effect on the environment must be disclosed in the EIR and mitigated if feasible. In addition, the CEQA Guidelines list a number of mandatory findings of significance, which also require the preparation of an EIR. There are no types of actions under NEPA that parallel the findings of mandatory significance of CEQA. SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS S-17 Executive Summary S.4.2 Discussion of Significance of Impacts Under CEQA The significance of the potential impacts of the Build Alternatives under CEQA was assessed based on the CEQA Environmental Checklist provided in Appendix A, CEQA Environmental Checklist, as required per the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Standard Environmental Reference, and the analyses of project impacts discussed in detail in Chapter 3, Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures. The impacts of the Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative are discussed and summarized throughout Chapter 3. Chapter 4, California Environmental Quality Act Evaluation, provides the applicable discussion regarding the determination of significance under CEQA based on the responses to the CEQA Checklist questions. S.5 Project Impacts S.5.1 Summary of Impacts and Measures Table S.3, which follows the last page of text in this Executive Summary, summarizes the impacts of the Build Alternatives where there is a difference in the impacts between Alternatives 1 and 2. The environmental commitments (measures to avoid, minimize and/or mitigate impacts) to address those impacts are also summarized in Table S.3. All the measures in Table S.3 apply to both Alternatives 1 and 2, unless otherwise noted. Table S.4, which follows Table S.3 at the end of this Executive Summary, lists those impacts that are the same or very similar for Alternatives 1 and 2. Measures to address those impacts are also summarized in Table S.4. Tables S.3 and S.4 also indicate whether the individual avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures apply to the Initial Phase (IP in Tables S.3 and S.4), the Ultimate Project (UP in Tables S.3 and S.4), or the Initial Phase and the Ultimate Project (IP and UP in Tables S.3 and S.4). The impacts in Tables S.3 and S.4 are organized in the order in which the impact analyses occur in Chapter 3. For more detailed information regarding the impacts summarized in Tables S.3 and S.4, refer to the following sections in Chapter 3: ® 3.1 Land Use ® 3.2 Growth ® 3.3 Farmlands/Timberlands S-18 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary • 3.4 Community Impacts • 3.5 Utilities/Emergency Services • 3.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities • 3.7 Visual/Aesthetics • 3.8 Cultural Resources • 3.9 Hydrology and Floodplains • 3.10 Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff • 3.11 Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography • 3.12 Paleontology • 3.13 Hazardous Waste/Materials • 3.14 Air Quality • 3.15 Noise • 3.16 Energy • 3.17 Natural Communities • 3.18 Wetlands and Other Waters • 3.19 Plant Species • 3.20 Animal Species • 3.21 Threatened and Endangered Species • 3.22 Invasive Species • 3.23 Relationship Between Local Short -Term Uses of the Human Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Lang -Term Productivity • 3.24 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources That Would Be Involved in the Proposed Action • 3.25 Cumulative Impacts S.5.2 Summary of Significant Adverse Impacts Under CEQA after Mitigation As discussed in detail in Chapter 4, the following impacts of Alternatives 1 and 2 were determined to be significant, adverse, and unavoidable under CEQA, after implementation of the identified avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, as well as project design features: • Permanent impacts to oak woodland • Cumulative impacts • Long-term noise • Adverse effects on human beings SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/E1S S-19 Executive Summary The remaining impacts of the Build Alternatives were determined to be either not significant or to be avoided or reduced to below a level of significance under CEQA, based on implementation of the project avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures and project design features, as described in detail in Chapter 4. S.6 Coordination with Public and Other Agencies Public participation and agency consultation for this project have been accomplished through a variety of formal and informal methods, including monthly PDT meetings, interagency coordination meetings, resource agency meetings, public meetings, and consultation with interested parties. S.6.1 Notice of Intent The Notice of Intent (NOI) under NEPA was prepared by the Department and was published on July 3, 2008 in the Federal Register, Volume 73, No. 129. No written comments were received in response to the NOI. S.6.2 Notice of Preparation The Notice of Preparation (NOP) under CEQA was distributed to federal, tribal, State, regional, county, and local agencies; elected officials; special districts; groups; businesses, major property owners, and organizations; and property owners within 700 ft of the project segments of SR-91 and I-15. The State Clearinghouse (SCH) distributed the NOP to a number of State agencies on July 15, 2008. The Notice of Scoping/Initiation of Studies letters were sent on August 7, 2008, to elected and City officials, agencies, and other interested parties. These letters included a project location map. In response to the NOP, letters were received from one federal agency, four State agencies, eight regional agencies, and three organizations/interested parties. The responses to the NOP are provided in Attachment 5.D, Responses to the Notice of Preparation, in Chapter 5, Comments and Coordination. S.6.3 Public Outreach S.6.3.1 Scoping Meetings The ROTC and the Department hosted a public Scoping meeting for the proposed project at the City of Corona Multi -Purpose Room at 400 South Vicentia Avenue in Corona, California, on July 29, 2008. Project aerial maps and display boards that S-20 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary showed the project alternatives and display boards of the environmental process were provided. The aerial maps and display boards were described to meeting attendees by the RCTC, the Department, and consultant staff. Tables for scoping meeting participants to write and submit comment cards were provided. A court reporter was available to document verbal comments provided at the meeting. The scoping meeting sign -in sheets showed 14 agencies and elected officials in attendance, as well as 11 property owners. A total of 64 people attended the meeting. Refer to Section 5.2.5, Scoping Meetings, for additional discussion regarding the project scoping meetings. S.6.3.2 Public Information Meetings Two public information meetings were held to update interested parties on the progress of the project. The first meeting was on March 3, 2009, with 60 people attending_ The second public information meeting was on August 26, 2010, with 280 people attending. Both public information meetings were held at the Corona Public Library, 650 South Main Street, Corona, California, 92882. S.6.3.3 June 9, 2011 Public Hearing On June 9, 2011, RCTC and the Department held an open -house format public hearing to provide information to the public regarding the project alternatives and the Draft EIR/EIS and to solicit input from the attendees regarding the project alternatives and the analyses provided in the Draft EIR/EIS. The public hearing was announced in newspaper advertisements and several mailings of project and hearing related materials. The open -house format included 17 stations, 53 exhibit boards, 5 large maps, and 6 viewing display monitors. Agency and consultant staff were available at each station to greet the attendees, describe the material at the station, answer attendees' questions, and direct attendees to other stations for other information relevant to their questions and/or comments. Approximately 260 agency representatives and members of the general public attended the public hearing. The meeting fonnat allowed attendees to move from station to station at their own pace, and to review the available materials and discuss their questions/comments with the staff at each station. A total of 49 comment cards and 19 verbal comments transcribed by court reporters were received from attendees at the public hearing. In addition, many attendees discussed their concerns with staff present at the individual topic stations. Based on those interactions, the majority of the comments raised were related to right-of-way acquisition. Other topics of concern included the location of SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS S-21 Executive Summary noise walls, the phasing of the project, the proposed construction date of the project, and a preference for a certain alternative or design variation. Refer to Section 5.2.6.3, June 9, 2011, Public Hearing, for additional description of the public hearing and comments provided by the hearing attendees regarding the project and the EIRJEIS. S.6.3.4 Noise Barrier Survey Public Outreach Efforts Permanent noise impacts were identified at 416 properties. In accordance with Department procedures, a noise barrier survey package was sent by certified mail to each property owner on May 20, 2011. Of the 416 packages sent, 320 went unclaimed and were returned. Only 24 completed surveys were received. Based on the low number of completed surveys returned as part of the first noise barrier survey mail -out and the fact that several residents had requested additional clarification on the purpose of the noise barrier survey and the voting process, RCTC initiated an additional noise barrier public outreach effort that included a focused meeting for property owners affected by Noise Barriers (NBs) D1-B,1-1, and I-2, and a second mail -out of noise barrier survey information to all confirmed property owner addresses on the noise barrier mailing list. The second noise barrier survey mail -out occurred on August 5, 2011. During the second round mail -out, 319 property owners received a noise barrier survey package. Of the 319 packages sent by both certified mail and regular first class mail, 45 went unclaimed and were returned, and 74 completed surveys were received. Invitations to two noise barrier focus meetings were also sent on August 5, 2011, to residents affected by NBs D1-B,1-1, and I-2. A second mailing for that noise barrier focus meeting was sent August 17, 2011, to the same residents as a reminder of the upcoming focus meetings. The first noise barrier focus meeting for property owners affected by NBs I-1 and I-2, was held at The Veranda at the Green River Golf Club, 5215 Green River Road, Corona, on August 23, 2011, from 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. A similar meeting with the same format and handouts was held for property owners affected by NB D1-B from 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on August 25, 2011, in the Multipurpose Room in Corona City Hall, at 400 South Vicentia Avenue, Corona. All property owners were requested to provide their votes by September 9, 2011. S-22 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary Due to a large number of no responses received from affected property owners, RCTC and the Department conducted a third round of public outreach efforts. RCTC and the Department prepared a cover letter and noise barrier survey that were distributed during door-to-door home visits conducted between the hours of 3:30 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. on September 30, 2011, and October 4, 2011. All teams that made personal visits to property owners were bilingual and provided noise barrier surveys with self-addressed stamped envelopes that requested the completed surveys be returned and postmarked no later than October 5, 2011. A total of 140 homes were visited during the third round public outreach process. A total of 39 noise barrier surveys were returned. In addition, a focused effort was made to inform the Villaggio Condo Homeowners Association (HOA) about the proposed location of NB D1-B. RCTC and the Department held a meeting with the Villaggio HOA and interested residents at the Villaggio community pool on Saturday, November 12, 2011, from 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Six agency and consultant staff and 15 homeowners attended the meeting. After the meeting, the HOA was asked to vote in support or against the construction of NB D1-B. Based on comments received during the public review period of the Draft EIR/EIS and prior commitments made by previous Department projects to build NB K1-A, along I-15, a noise barrier survey was conducted for property owners affected by the construction of NB K1-A. Based on the surveys submitted by affected property owners, NB K1-A received a majority approval and will be carried through construction. Refer to Sections 5.2.7, Noise Barrier Survey Public Outreach Efforts, and 3.15.3.2, Permanent Impacts (in the subsection titled Noise Barrier Survey Public Outreach Efforts) for additional discussion regarding the public outreach efforts regarding noise barriers. S.6.4 Coordination with Agencies and Utilities The Department has coordinated with the following agencies as Participating Agencies: • United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region IX • United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) • Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG) • South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS 5-23 Executive Summary • Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) • Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) • Riverside County Transportation Department • City of Corona • City of Riverside The Department has coordinated with the following agency as a Cooperating Agency: • United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) In addition to those agencies, coordination has been conducted with the following agencies and utility providers: • Department of the Interior, National Park Service • California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), District 12 • California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) • State Historic Preservation Officer • Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) • Orange County Parks (OC Parks) • California State Parks (State Parks) • SCAG Transportation Conformity Working Group (TCWG) • Regional Water Quality Control Board • Orange County Flood Control District • Orange County Public Works • Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District • Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad • Southern California Regional Rail Authority • AT&T/Pac Bell • Southern California Edison Company • Southern California Gas Company • Comcast Cable • Sprint • Time Warner Cable • Level 3 Communications • Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority • Western Riverside Regional Wastewater • Questar (Four Corners Pipeline Company) S-24 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary Native American consultation and coordination was conducted with the following: • Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) • Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians: Mary Ann Green • Juaneno Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians: Anita Espinoza • Juaneno Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians: Joe Ocampo • Juaneno Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians, Aejachemen Nation: David Belardes • Juaneno Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians: Sonia Johnston • Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians: Anthony Morales • Pechanga Band of Mission Indians: Paul Macarro • Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians: Erica Helms • Ti'At Society: Cindi Alvitre S.7 Permits and Approvals Table S.5 identifies the pellnits and/or approvals that are or may be required prior to or during construction and/or operation of Alternatives 1 and 2. Table S.5 is provided following Table S.4 at the end of this Executive Summary. The SR-91 CIP is designated as an FHWA Major Project due to the project cost exceeding $500 million. For federal funding to be authorized for the financing of Major Projects such as the SR-91 CIP, the project owner (i.e., RCTC for the SR 91 CIP) must demonstrate to FHWA that the project has been carefully planned (i.e., costs have been estimated as accurately and meticulously as possible; risks have been carefully considered and mitigated; financing requirements and strategies have been clearly defined; and the implementation of the project delivery has been carefully planned)_ Through the different phases of project delivery and as required under SAFETEA-LU, the FHWA Major Project designation triggers a number of deliverables for submittal to FHWA for approval on the SR-91 CIP, including: (1) a Cost Estimate Review (CER), which must be approved prior to approval of a Final EIS; (2) an Operational Independence and Non -Concurrent Construction (OINCC) Determination; (3) an Initial Financial Plan (IFP); and (4) a Draft and Final Project Management Plan (PMP). The Draft PMP should be submitted to FHWA 60 days prior to approval of an ROD, and the Final PMP must be submitted no later than 90 days after approval of the ROD. The Plan of Finance (POF) required with RCTC's application for Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) funds will be submitted in lieu of the IFP per FHWA financial plan guidance. The FHWA Major Project deliverables schedule of approvals is included in Table S.5. SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/E1S S-25 Executive Summary S.8 Unresolved Issues The project involves consideration of a complex set of interrelated issues. Local and federal decision. -makers (RCTC and the Department, respectively) must balance the need to provide transportation infrastructure to serve an increasing traffic demand with the need to protect natural resources and improve environmental quality. As part of the SAFETEA-LU 6002 process, the EPA sent a letter dated June 18, 2010, that identified that agency's concerns with regard to the proposed project. These concerns include independent utility, premature comparisons of the No Build and Build Alternatives, consistency with the RCTC's 10-Year Measure A Delivery Plan and the SR-91 Implementation Plan, transit and transportation system management/ transportation dernand management alternatives and options, methodologies that include Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT), waters of the United States and waters assessment, on -site alternatives and minimization, compensatory mitigation, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and sustainable communities strategies, Section 6002 coordination for fixture projects, purpose and need and range of alternatives, Section 6002 process, and participating agency coordination meetings. In addition, through the public review of this Draft EIR/EIS, issues that were identified have been resolved prior to approval of this Final EIR/EIS, the issuance of the Notice of Determination (NOD) under CEQA, and the issuance of the ROD under NEPA. S.9 Areas of Controversy During the scoping process, agencies and members of the general public identified a number of concerns and environmental issues regarding the proposed project. Those issues are summarized in Table S.6, which is provided following Table S.5 at the end of this Executive Summary. S-26 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary Table S.3 Summary of Impacts for the No Build Alternative and impacts with Differences Between Alternatives 1 and 2 Potential Impact No Build Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures2 Total Costs (Final Design, Right -of- Way, and Construction) Not applicable $990 million to $1.0 billion, depending on the design variation. $1.345 to $1.426 billion, depending on the design variation. Alternative 2f is anticipated to cost $1.38 billion. Not applicable Acquisition and removal of Homes No impact Purchase and removal of 93 to 117 homes, depending on the design variation. Purchase and removal of 114 to 161 homes, depending on the design variation. Alternative 2f would purchase and remove 145 homes. Measure CI-1: Design refinements to minimize property acquisition. (IP and UP) Measure CI-2: Compliance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Parking studies will be conducted to investigate the use of adjacent acquisitions for replacement parking and options for reconfiguring parking lots, driveways, and/or delivery locations to reduce the project effects on partial acquisition properties. (IP and UP) Number of Residents Displaced No impact 252 to 410 residents displaced, depending on the design variation. 399 to 564 residents displaced, depending on the design variation. Alternative 2f would displace 507 residents. Measure CI-1: Design refinements to minimize property acquisition. (IP and UP) Measure CI-2: Compliance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Parking studies will be conducted to investigate the use of adjacent acquisitions for replacement parking and options for reconfiguring parking lots, driveways, and/or delivery locations to reduce the project effects on partial acquisition properties. (IP and UP) Acquisition and removal of Businesses No impact Purchase and removal of 110 to 189 businesses, depending on the design variation; removal of 9 billboards. Purchase and removal of 221 to 275 businesses, depending on the design variations; removal of 10 billboards. Alternative 2f would purchase and removal 88 businesses, displace 242 nonresidential units, and remove 10 billboards. Measure CI-1: Design refinements to minimize property acquisition; assistance in relocating billboards. (IP and UP) Measure CI-2: Compliance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Parking studies will be conducted to investigate the use of adjacent acquisitions for replacement parking and options for reconfiguring parking lots, driveways, and/or delivery locations to reduce the project effects on partial acquisition properties. (IP and UP) SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS S-27 Executive Summary Table S.3 Summary of impacts for the No Build Alternative and Impacts with Differences Between Alternatives 9 and 2 Potential Impact No Build Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures2 Measure CI-4: Assist with relocation of billboards within the City of Corona. (IP and UP) Number of mployees isplaced No impact A range of between 114 and 527 employees, depending on the design variation and the employee displacement factors. A range of between 133 and 554 employees, depending on the design variation and the employee displacement factors. Alternative 2f would displace 169 to 576 employees. Measure CI-1: Design refinements to minimize property acquisition. (IP and UP) Measure C1-2: Compliance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Parking studies will be conducted to investigate the use of adjacent acquisitions for replacement parking and options for reconfiguring parking lots, driveways, and/or delivery locations to reduce the project effects on partial acquisition properties. (IP and UP) Measure CI-3: Reconfigure nonresidential uses on property only partially acquired for the project. (1P and UP) Land Use: Existing and Future Land Uses No impact The Ultimate Project under Alternative 1 would result in the permanent use of between 61.8 and 65.7 ac of land designated in local General Plans for uses other than transportation. The Initial Phase of Alternative 2 would result in the permanent use of 64.0 ac of land designated in local General Plans for uses other than transportation. The Ultimate Project under Alternative 2 would result in the permanent use of between 78.0 and 94.6 ac of land designated in local General Plans for uses other than transportation. The Initial Phase of Alternative 2f would also result in the permanent use of 64.0 ac and the Ultimate Project under Alternative 2f would result in the permanent use of 78.0 ac of land designated in local General Plans for uses other than transportation. Measure LU-1: General Plan Amendments to modify the land use designations to transportation. (IP and UP) S-28 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary Table 5.3 Summary of Impacts for the No Build Alternative and Impacts with Differences Between Alternatives 1 and 2 Potential Impact No Build Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures2 Land Use: Parks and Recreation Facilities No impact Alternative 1 would result in a 1.65 ac permanent subsurface easement at CHSP. Alternative 1 would result in a 0.4 ac permanent subsurface easement at the New OC Park (NNL). Alternative 2 would result in a 1.88 ac permanent subsurface easement at CHSP. Alternative 2 would result in a 2.2 ac permanent subsurface easement at the New OC Park (NNL), Measure CI-1: Design refinements to minimize property acquisition. (IP and UP) Measure CI-2: Compliance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Parking studies will be conducted to investigate the use of adjacent acquisitions for replacement parking and options for reconfiguring parking lots, driveways, and/or delivery locations to reduce the project effects on partial acquisition properties. (IP and UP) Farmlands and Timberlands No impact The Initial Phase of Alternative 1 and its design variations would result in a permanent conversion of 3.8 ac of designated Farmland of Local Importance and 2.7 ac of Grazing Land to nonagricultural uses. Alternative 1 and its design variations would result in a permanent conversion of 1.8 ac of designated Farmland of Local Importance and 15.2 ac of Grazing Land to nonagricultural uses. Alternative 1 and its design variations would result in the temporary use of 3.4 ac of Grazing Land. The Initial Phase of Alternative 2 and its design variations, including Alternative 2f, would result in a permanent conversion of 3.8 ac of designated Farmland of Local Importance and 2.7 ac of Grazing Land to nonagricultural uses. Alternative 2 and its design variations, including Alternative 2f, would result in the permanent conversion of 4.1 ac of Farmland of Local importance and 16.6 ac of Grazing Land. Alternative 2 and its design variations, including Alternative 2f, would result in the temporary use of 0.1 ac of Farmland of Local Importance and 3.5 ac of Grazing Land. Measure CI-2: Compliance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Parking studies will be conducted to investigate the use of adjacent acquisitions for replacement parking and options for reconfiguring parking lots, driveways, and/or delivery locations to reduce the project effects on partial acquisition properties. (IP and UP) Community Impacts: Community Character and Cohesion No impact Alternative 1 would result in expanded right-of-way, which would add additional hardscape, graded slopes, modified and new ramps, overcrossings and bridges, concrete barriers, and new retaining tieback and sound walls, thereby modifying existing visual quality and impacting community character. Although Alternatives 1 and 2 including Alternative 2f would impact community character through the decrease of visual quality and cohesion, the visual quality under Alternative 2 and Alternative 2f would be altered more than under Alternative 1 due to a larger amount of hardscape, including retaining walls and sound walls. Measure Cl-1: Design refinements to minimize property acquisition. (IP and UP) Measure CI-2: Compliance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Parking studies will be conducted to investigate the use of adjacent acquisitions for replacement parking and options for reconfiguring parking lots, driveways, and/or delivery SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS S-29 Executive Summary Table S.3 Summary of Impacts for the No Build Alternative and Impacts with Differences Between Alternatives 1 and 2 Potential Impact No Build Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures2 1 Widened freeway cross sections would result in wider overcrossings and undercrossings, and increased lengths of pedestrian paths on/under those structures. The new parts of undercrossings would include lighting for vehicles and pedestrians consistent with local standards. However, segments of those roads under the existing overcrossings would experience a reduction in amount of natural light, which could be perceived by pedestrians and bicyclists as adversely affecting their experiences as they cross the freeways. Alternative 2 including Alternative 2f would result in expanded right-of-way, which would add additional hardscape, graded slopes, modified and new ramps, overcrossings and bridges, concrete barriers, and new retaining tieback and sound walls, thereby modifying existing visual quality and impacting community character. Widened freeway cross sections would result in wider overcrossings and undercrossings, and increased lengths of pedestrian paths on/under those structures. The new parts of undercrossings would include lighting for vehicles and pedestrians consistent with local standards. However, segments of those roads under the existing overcrossings would experience a reduction in amount of natural light, which could be perceived by pedestrians and bicyclists as adversely affecting their experiences as they cross the freeways. locations to reduce the project effects on partial acquisition properties. (IP and UP) Measure CI-3: Reconfigure nonresidential uses on property only partially acquired for the project. (IP and UP) Measure T-4: Provision of lighting in undercrossings. (IP and UP) Community 'Impacts: Relocations and Real Property cquisition No impact Alternative 1 would result in the acquisition and removal of 21 single- family homes under all design variations, and 72 to 96 multifamily homes, depending on the design variation. Alternative 1 would result in the acquisition of between 110 and 189 business parcels, depending the p p g on design variation. The total employees displaced under Alternative 1 range from 114 to 527 employees, depending on the design variation. Alternative 2 would result in the acquisition and removal of 23 to 24 single-family homes and 81 to 129 multifamily homes, depending on the design variation. Alternative 2 would result in the acquisition of 221 and 275 business parcels, depending on the design variation. The total employees displaced under Alternative 2 range from 133 to 554 employees, depending on the design variation. Alternative 2 would result in between $274,216 and $399,372 in property tax Measure CI-1: Design refinements to minimize property acquisition. (IP and UP) Measure CI-2: Compliance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Parking studies will be conducted to investigate the use of adjacent acquisitions for replacement parking and options for reconfiguring parking lots, driveways, and/or delivery locations to reduce the project effects on partial acquisition properties. (1P and UP) Measure CI-3: Reconfigure nonresidential uses on property only partially acquired far the project. I Y P Y q P j (P and UP) S-30 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary Table S.3 Summary of Impacts for the No Build Alternative and Impacts with Differences Between Alternatives 1 and 2 Potential Impact No Build Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures2 Alternative 1 would result in between revenue losses in the City of Corona, Measure Ct-4: Assist with relocation of billboards within the $188,691 and $279,889 in property tax revenue losses in the City of depending on the design variation. City of Corona. (IP and UP) Corona, depending on the design Under Alternative 2, the potential sales tax variation. losses from the business displacements in the City of Corona would range between Under Alternative 1, the potential $277,402 and $299,894 (depending on the sales tax loss from the business design variation), representing a loss of 0.8 to displacements in the City of Corona 1 percent of overall sales tax revenues in the would range between $314,888 and City. $359,872 (depending on the design variation), representing a loss of 1.1 Alternative 2 would remove 157 to 199 to 1.2 percent of the overall sales tax storage units, depending on the design revenues in the City. variation. Alternative 1 would remove 50 to 122 Alternative 2 would generate between 30,563 storage units, depending on the design variation. and 32,154 total direct and indirect jobs, depending on the design variation. The initial Phase under Alternative 2f would Alternative 1 would generate between result in the acquisition and removal of 18 21,762 and 22,736 total direct and single-family homes and 127 multifamily indirect jobs, depending on the design variation. homes. The Ultimate Project under Alternative 2f would result in the additional acquisition and removal of 9 multifamily homes. Alternative 2f would result in the acquisition and removal of 88 businesses and a total of 242 nonresidential unit displacements. The total employees dispiaced under Alternative 2f range from 169 to 576 employees. Alternative 2f would result in $298,825 in property tax revenue fosses in the City of Corona. SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final E1R/EIS S-31 Executive Summary Table S.3 Summary of Impacts for the No Build Alternative and Impacts with Differences Between Alternatives 1 and 2 Potential Impact No Build Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures2 Under Alternative 2f, the potential sales tax losses from the business displacements in the City of Corona would be $659,766, representing a loss of 2.2 percent of overall sales tax revenues in the City. Alternative 2f would remove 154 storage units. Alternative 2f would displace 10 billboards. The Initial Phase of Alternative 2f would generate 7,681 direct jobs and 14,796 indirect jobs. The Ultimate Project under Alternative 2f would generate an additional 2,931 direct jobs and an additional 5,645 indirect jobs. Alternative 2f would generate a total of 31,053 direct and indirect jobs. Utilities and mergency ervices No impact No relocation of the SCE substation. Design Variations 2c, 2d, 2g, and 2h would require relocation of the SCE substation. Design Variations 2a, 2b, 2e, and 2f would not require relocation of the SCE substation. Measure UES-1: Coordination with SCE on the substation relocation (applies to Alternatives 2c, 2d, 2g, and 2h only). (IP and UP) Other: Coordinate with SCE on SCE preparation and processing of environmental documents for the substation relocation (applies to Alternatives 2c, 2d, 2g, and 2h only). Refer also to Measure HW-15 under Hazardous Waste and Materials. Utilities No impact During construction, Alternative 1 and its design variations would result in the relocation, removal, or protection in -place of approximately 150 utility lines or facilities. During construction, Alternative 2 and its design variations, including Alternative 2f, would result in the relocation, removal, or protection in -place of approximately the same 150 utility lines or facilities as Alternative 1 and would result in the relocation, removal, or protection in -place of the following additional utility facilities not affected by Alternative 1 and its design variations: Measure UES-1: Coordination with utility providers/owners for relocation of utility facilities. (IP and UP) Measure HW-12: Notify Underground Service Alert (USA) at least 2 days prior to excavation. (IP and UP) S-32 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary Table S.3 Summary of Impacts for the No Build Alternative and Impacts with Differences Between Alternatives 'I and 2 Potential impact No Build Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures2 • 4 SCG natural gas lines (includes 2 high - risk lines) • 4 SCE overhead and underground electric lines (includes 1 high -risk line) • 1 potable water line in Corona • 1 sanitary sewer line in Corona • 2 AT&T underground and overhead telephone lines • 1 Comcast cable television cable Traffic and Transportation/ Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities No impacts to pedestrian and bicycle facilities Would increase the lengths of seven undercrossings on SR-91 and four undercrossings on 1-15 to new total lengths of between 145 and 487 ft, depending on the individual undercrossing. Would increase the lengths of two overcrossings on SR-91 to new total lengths of between 250 and 375 ft, depending on the design variation and individual overcrossing. Alternative 2 and Alternative 2f would increase the lengths of seven undercrossings on SR-91 and five undercrossings on 1-15 to new total lengths of between 158 and 519 ft, depending on the individual undercrossing. Alternative 2 and Alternative 2f would increase the lengths of three overcrossings on SR-91 to new total lengths of between 250 and 690 ft, depending on the design variation and the individual overcrossing. Measure T-4: Provision of lighting in undercrossings. (IP and UP) Measure V-1: Textured/site-specific aesthetic features on paved slopes along pedestrian and bicyclist travel paths. (1P and UP) Visual and Aesthetics No impact Alternative 1 would resuit in expanded right-of-way; added hardscape; graded slopes; modified and new ramps, overcrossings, and bridges; concrete barriers; and new retaining, tieback, and sound walls. The lengths of the retaining walls in Alternative 1 range between 50 and 5,550 ft, and the heights of those retaining walls range between 2 and 28 ft. The lengths of the recommended noise barriers for Alternative 1 range from 424 to 9,284 ft, and the heights of those noise barriers range from 10 to 14 ft. The fill slopes, bridges, and other structures in Alternative 1 could Alternative 2 including Alternative 2f would result in expanded right-of-way; added hardscape; graded slopes; modified and new ramps, overcrossings, and bridges; concrete barriers; and new retaining, tieback, and sound walls. The lengths of the retaining walls in Alternative 2 including Alternative 2f range from 50 to 5,755 ft, and the heights of those retaining walls range from 2 to 40 ft. The lengths of the recommended noise barriers for Alternative 2 range from 424 to 9,284 ft, and the heights of the recommended noise barriers range from 8 to 14 ft. Although Alternatives 1 and 2 and Alternative 2f have similar retaining wall and noise Measure V-1: Structural enhancements and design measures identified in the 215/91 Corridor Master Plan will be incorporated in the design and construction of sound walls, retaining walls, and bridge elements. (IP and UP) Measure V-2: Mitigation for the loss of landscaping through replacement planting approved by the District Landscape Architect. (IP and UP) Measure V-3: Lighting fixtures with non -glare hoods will be designed to illuminate only the right-of-way. (IP and UP) Measure V-4: Graffiti Reduction, Removal, and Control. The Department and the City of Corona have existing ongoing maintenance programs for Graffiti Removal and SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS S-33 Executive Summary Table S.3 Summary of Impacts for the No Build Alternative and Impacts with Differences Between Alternatives 1 and 2 Potential Impact No Build Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measuresz I Alternative 1 would result in aresult in light and glare impacts. graded/disturbed area of 351 ac. The largest wall (i.e., largest wall area in one location) in Alternative 1 would barrier lengths and heights, the visual quality of the study area under Alternative 2 would be altered more than under Alternative 1 due to a larger total amount of hardscape features, including retaining walls and noise barriers. The fill slopes, bridges, and other Control. Those programs would apply to all new and modified structures for Alternatives 1 and 2. (IP and UP) I be 28 ft high and 1,894 ft long. In Alternative 1, the maximum cut slopes would be approximately 190 ft high and 700 ft long, and the maximum fill slopes would be approximately 45 ft high and 1,200 ft long. Alternative 1 would add 120 ac of new impervious area/paving, which is a structures in Alternative 2 including Alternative 2f could result in light and glare impacts. Alternative 2 including Alternative 2f would result in a graded/disturbed area of 503 ac. The largest wall (i.e., largest wall area in one location) in Alternative 2 would be 40 ft high and 2,376 ft long. 27.5 percent increase over the existing facility, resulting in a smaller- scale facility under Alternative 1 than under Alternative 2. Under Alternative 2 including Alternative 2f, the maximum cut slopes would be approximately 190 ft high and 700 ft long, and the maximum fill slopes would be approximately 45 ft high and 1,650 ft long. Alternative 2 including Alternative 2f would add 173 ac of new impervious area/paving, which is a 39.6 percent increase over the existing facility, resulting in a larger -scale facility under Alternative 2 and Alternative 2f than under Alternative 1. Water Quality and No impact Potential water quality benefits based Potential water quality benefits based on the Measure WQ-1: Compliance with the NPDES General Storm Water on the Treatment BMPs. Treatment BMPs. Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Runoff Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. Would increase the impervious Would increase the impervious surface area 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002), and any surface area by 117 ac (i.e., 27.0 by 173 ac (1.e., 39.6 percent increase) subsequent permit, as they relate to construction activities percent) compared to the existing freeway facilities. compared to the existing freeway facilities. for the project. (IP and UP) Would increase the potential for erosion and Measure WQ-2: Compliance with the provisions of the Would increase the potential for sedimentation during construction. The total General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to erosion and sedimentation during soil area to be disturbed during construction Surface Waters that Pose an Insignificant (De Minimus) S-34 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary Table S.3 Summary of Impacts for the No Build Alternative and Impacts with Differences Between Alternatives 1 and 2 Potential Impact No Build Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures2 construction. The total soil area to be is estimated to be approximately 503 ac. Threat to Water Quality, Order No. R8-2009-0003, NPDES disturbed during construction is Alternative 2f would increase the impervious No. CAG998001, as they relate to discharge of non -storm - estimated to be approximately 351 ac. surface the same as discussed for Alternative water dewatering wastes for the project. (IP and UP) 2. Alternative 2f would increase the potential for erosion, and the total soil area to be disturbed during construction would be the same as discussed for Alternative 2. Measure WQ-3: Prior to dewatering activities, issuance of the discharge authorization letter from RWQCB Executive Director will be required for the project.(IP and UP) Measure WQ-4: Compliance with the Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks, Project Planning and Design Guide (July 2010 or subsequent issuance) for implementing Design Pollution Prevention and Treatment BMPs for the project. Compliance with the provisions of the NPDES Permit, Statewide Storm Water Permit, and Waste Discharge Requirements for the State of California, Department of Transportation, Order No. 99-06-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000003 and NPDES Pen -nit and Waste Discharge Requirements for the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the County of Riverside, and the incorporated cities of Riverside County within the Santa Ana Region, Order No. R8-2010-0033, NPDES No. CAS618033. (IP and UP) Geology, Soil, Seismic, Topography No impact Alternative 1 would excavate (cut) 708,420 to 761,723 cy of material (depending on the design variation), which would be used elsewhere on the project site during construction. Alternative 2 would excavate 725,719 to 793,107 cy of material (depending on the design variation), which would be used elsewhere on the project site during construction. Measure GEO-1: A final geotechnical design report. (IP and UP) Alternative 1 would require 275,467 to Alternative 2 would require 644,110 to 343,004 cy of additional imported fill material, depending on the design variation. 738,946 cy of additional imported fill material, depending on the design variation, 5R-91 Corridor improvement Project Final BR/E1S 5-35 Executive Summary Table S.3 Summary of Impacts for the No Build Alternative and Impacts with Differences Between Alternatives 1 and 2 Potential Impact No Build Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measuresx Hazardous Waste land Materials No impact Would not require relocation of the SCE substation. Design Variations 2c, 2d, 2g, and 2h would require the relocation of the SCE substation. Design Variations 2a, 2b, 2e, and 2f would not require the relocation of the SCE substation. Measure HW-15: Coordination with SCE regarding relocation of the SCE substation. (IP) Noise Increased noise levels as a result of increased traffic Would result in noise levels in 2035 greater than 67 dBA at up to 38 locations, depending on the design variation. Would result in noise level increases from existing levels to 2035 by 12 or more dBA at 6 or 7 receivers, depending on the design variation. Would result in noise levels in 2035 at 75 dBA or greater at 34 to 37 receivers depending on the design variation. Would result in noise levels in 2035 greater than 67 dBA at up to 41 locations, depending on the design variation. Would result in noise level increases from existing levels to 2035 by 12 or more dBA at 6 or 7 receivers, depending on the design variation. Would result in noise levels in 2035 at 75 dBA or greater at 37 to 41 receivers depending on the design variation. Initial Phase under Alternative 2f in 2015 and the Ultimate Project in 2035 would result in noise levels greater than 67 dBA at up to 87 locations; 46 are predicted to have noise levels 75 dBA or greater. Measure N-1: Provision of noise barriers as follows: Alternative 1 Heights: 8 to 14 ft Number of Benefited Residences and Other Uses: 4 to 119 homes and the Green River Golf Club Lengths of Barriers: 424 to 9,284 ft Number of Barriers: 13 approved barriers Alternative 2 Heights: 8 to 14 ft Number of Benefited Residences and Other Uses: 4 to 119 homes and the Green River Golf Club Lengths of Barriers: 424 to 9,284 ft Number of Barriers: 13 approved barriers (IP) Measure N-4: Separate project for the 1-15 sound barriers (with the exception of NB K1-A) if the 1-15 improvements are not constructed within 5 years of the completion of construction of the SR-91 CIP. (IP and UP) Natural Communities No impact The Alternative 1 Ultimate Project would result in permanent impacts to 17.37 ac of CSS, 0.48 ac of riparianlriverine habitat, and 0.01 ac of oak woodlands. The Alternative 1 Ultimate Project would result in temporary impacts to 7.59 ac of CSS, 1.60 ac of riparianlriverine and 0.51 ac of oak woodlands. The Alternative 2 Ultimate Project would result in permanent impacts to 25.58 ac of CSS, 0.47 ac of riparianlriverine habitat, and 0.02 ac of oak woodlands. The Alternative 1 Ultimate Project would result in temporary impacts to 8.02 ac of CSS, 2,04 ac of riparianlriverine and 0.50 ac of oak woodlands. The Alternative 2f Ultimate Project would result in permanent impacts to 25.58 ac of CSS, 0.47 ac of riparianlriverine habitat, and 0.02 ac of oak woodlands, Compensatory Mitigation: Restoration of CSS and other vegetation communities used by CAGN and implementation of a project -specific HMMP for compensatory mitigation for impacts to CSS and riparian habitat. (IP) Measure NC-1: ESAs for CSS, chaparral, riparianlriverine vegetation, oak habitat, and restoration and mitigation areas in Coal Canyon. (IP and UP) Measure NC-2: Wildlife monitoring in the vicinity of ESAs. (1P and UP) Measure NC-3: Preconstruction nesting bird surveys and timing of vegetation removal. (IP and UP) 5-36 SR-97 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary Table S.3 Summary of Impacts for the No Build Alternative and Impacts with Differences Between Alternatives 1 and 2 Potential Impact No Build Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measuresz The Alternative 2f Ultimate Project would result in temporary impacts to 8.04 ac of Measure NC-4: Vegetation clearing during the fire season. Operation of mechanized equipment not allowed during CSS, 1.29 ac of riparianlriverine and 0.50 ac of oak woodlands. Red Flag Warning Periods as issued by the National Weather Service. (IP and UP) Measure NC-5: Use of nonsensitive upland areas during construction for equipment storage, fueling, and related activities. (IP and UP) J Measure NC-7: The habitat areas adjacent to Coal Canyon, B Canyon, Fresno Canyon/Wardlow Wash, and Bedford Wash that were disturbed during construction will be restored on a 1:1 ratio as construction in the affected areas is completed. Restoration will include the use of native vegetation, as determined by RCTC and the Department in coordination with the resource agencies. (IP and UP) Measure NC-17: Compliance with the Western Riverside County MSHCP UrbaniWildlands Interface Guidelines. (IP and UP) Measure NC-18: Compliance with the Western Riverside County MSHCP Construction Guidelines for Criteria Areas. (IP and UP) Measure NC-19: Compliance with the Western Riverside County MSHCP Construction Guidelines and Standard BMPs. (IP and UP) Wetlands and Other Waters of the No impact Depending on the design variation, permanent impacts as follows: Depending on the design variation, permanent impacts as follows: Measure WET-1: Section 404 Nationwide Permit. (IP and UP) United States • Corps jurisdictional waters: 2.18 to • Corps jurisdictional waters: 0.42 to 2.49 ac Measure WET-2: CDFG Streambed Alteration Agreement. 2.69 ac • CDFG jurisdictional areas: (IP and UP) • CDFG jurisdictional areas: 1.31 to 4.41 ac 2.84 to 3.54 ac • RWQCB jurisdictional areas: 0.42 to Measure WET-3: Section 401 Water Quality Certification • RWQCB jurisdictional areas: 1.68 ac 2.69 ac from the RWQCB. (IP and UP) SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/E1S S-37 Executive Summary Table S.3 Summary of Impacts for the No Build Alternative and Impacts with Differences Between Alternatives 1 and 2 Potential Impact No Build Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures2 Alternative 2f permanent impacts: • Corps Jurisdictional Waters: 0.42 ac • CDFG Jurisdictional Areas: 1.31 ac • RWQCB Jurisdictional Areas: 0.42 ac Depending on the design variation, temporary impacts as follows: • Corps jurisdictional waters: 1.90 to 1.91ac CDFG jurisdictional areas: 2.43 to 3.45 ac • RWQCB jurisdictional areas: 1.90 ac Depending on the design variation, temporary impacts as follows: • Corps jurisdictional waters: 1.72 to 1.98 ac • CDFG jurisdictional areas: 2.01 to 3.85 ac • RWQCB jurisdictional areas: 1.94 to 2.07 ac Alternative 2f temporary impacts: • Corps Jurisdictional Waters: 1.98 ac • CDFG Jurisdictional Areas: 2.01 ac • RWQCB Jurisdictional Areas: 1.98 ac Measure WET-1: Section 404 Nationwide Permit. (IP and UP) Measure WET-2: CDFG Streambed Alteration Agreement. (1P and UP) Measure WET-3: Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB. (IP and UP) Threatened and Endangered Species No impact 6.56 ac of permanent direct impacts to CAGN habitat. The Ultimate Project under Alternative 1 would result in direct permanent impacts to 1.23 ac and temporary impacts to 2.6 ac of SKR HCP fee area. Permanent indirect impacts to 0.94 ac of LBV habitat. 1.08 ac of temporary direct impacts to CAGN habitat. 6.32 ac of permanent direct impacts to CAGN habitat. The Ultimate Project under Alternative 2 would result in direct permanent impact of 5.72 ac and temporary impacts to 18.88 ac of SKR HCP fee area. Permanent indirect impacts to 0.94 ac of LBV habitat. 2.09 ac of temporary direct impacts to CAGN habitat. The impacts under Alternative 2f would be the same as Alternative 2. Measure TE-1: Designated biologist to be identified throughout the construction period. (IP and UP) Measure TE-2: Construction site to be watered to reduce dust during construction. (IP and UP) Measure TE-3: Erosion and sediment control devices will be biodegradable. (1P and UP) Measure TE-4: Noise during construction activity will be consistent with Caltrans Standard Specifications and will be limited at night. (IP and UP) Measure TE-5: Noise will be controlled near biologically sensitive areas. (IP and UP) Measure TE-6: Construction work conducted after 7:00 p.m. and before 7:00 a.m. will be coordinated with the affected local jurisdiction. (IP and UP) Measure TE-7: Construction work conducted after 7:00 p.m. and before 7:00 a.m. near major wildlife movement S-38 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final FIR/EIS Executive Summary Table S.3 Summary of Impacts for the No Build Alternative and Impacts with Differences Between Alternatives 1 and 2 Potential Impact No Build Alternative Alternative I Alternative 2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measuresz corridors will be coordinated with the Wildlife Agencies. (IP and UP) Measure TE-8: Pre -construction survey for Braunton's milk - vetch will be conducted at Coal Canyon. (IP and UP) Measure TE-9: Biologist will monitor construction in vicinity of CAGN designated critical habitat. (IP and UP) Measure TE-10: 16.03 ac of habitat suitable for CAGN breeding, dispersal, and foraging will be restored to offset permanent impacts. (IP) Measure TE-11: Loss of 3.01 ac of occupied CAGN habitat in Orange County, including 2.09 ac of CAGN-designated critical habitat, with in -kind on -site restoration. (IP) Measure TE-12: A restoration plan will be developed and approved by the USFWS for impacts to CAGN-designated critical habitat. (IP and UP) Measure TE-13: During nighttime construction, lighting will be shielded away from coastal sage scrub in CAGN- designated critical habitat. (IP and UP) Measure TE-14: Pre -construction survey will be conducted near riparian and riverine areas during the bird breeding season. (IP and UP) Measure TE-15: Additional project features will be investigated along with the USFWS to minimize effects from light intrusion and potential fire threat at Coal Canyon from operation of SR-91. (IP and UP) Measure TE-16: Coordination with Corps during SR-91 CIP construction for areas restored as part of the Santa Ana Reach 9 Phase 2B Realignment Project. (IP and UP) SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS S-39 Executive Summary Table S.3 Summary of Impacts for the No Build Alternative and Impacts with Differences Between Alternatives 1 and 2 Potential Impact No Build Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures2 Measure TE-17: Coordination with Corps during construction of SR-91 CIP to not affect releases from Prado Dam or result in a permanent reduction of acreage within Santa Ana River Canyon Habitat Management Area. (IP and UP) Measures for natural communities, wetlands and other waters, plant species, and animal species would also mitigate project effects to threatened and endangered species. i ne western Kiversfae County MSHCP provides this measurement in metric units. 2 IP = Applies to the Initial Phases of Alternatives 1 and 2 UP = Applies to the Alternative 1 and 2 Ultimate Projects IP and UP = Applies to the Initial Phases and Ultimate Projects for Alternatives 1 and 2 ac = acre, acres BMPs = best management practices CAGN = California gnatcatcher Caltrans = California Department of Transportation CDFG = California Department of Fish and Game CHSP = Chino Hills State Park CIP = Corridor Improvement Project Corps = United States Army Corps of Engineers CSS = coastal sage scrub cy = cubic yards dBA = A -weighted decibels ESA = Environmentally Sensitive Areas ft = feet, foot HCP = Habitat Conservation Plan HMMP = Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan 1-15 = Interstate 15 LBV = least Bell's vireo MSHCP = Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan NB = Noise Barrier New OC Park (NNL) = New Orange County Park (National Natural Landmark) NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System RWQCB = Regional Water Quality Control Board SCE = Southern California Edison SCG = Southern California Gas Company SKR = Stephens' kangaroo rat SR-91 = State Route 91 S-40 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary Table S.4 Summary of Impacts for the No Build Alternative and Impacts With No Substantial Difference Between Alternatives 1 and 2 Potential Impact p No Build Alternative Potential Impacts Under Alternatives 1 and 2 and Their Design Variations Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures , Land Use: Existing and Future Land Uses No impact Alternatives 1, 2, and Alternative 2f would result in temporary impacts to existing land uses during construction that are related to disruption of local traffic patterns and access, noise, vibration, dust, and temporary uses of land for temporary construction easements. Measure Cl-1: Design refinements to minimize property acquisition. (IP and UP) Measure CI-2: Compliance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Parking studies will be conducted to investigate the use of adjacent acquisitions for replacement parking and options for reconfiguring parking lots, driveways and/or delivery locations to reduce the project effects on partial acquisition properties. (IP and UP) Measure T-1: Development and implementation of the Final TMP. (IP and UP) Measure T-2: Development and implementation of the Final Ramp Closure Study. (IP and UP) Measure N-2: Compliance with Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 14-08.02, "Noise Control," and SSP S5-310. (IP and UP) Measure N-3: Compliance with local noise ordinances (Cities of Anaheim, Corona, Norco, and Riverside). (IP and UP) Land Use: Consistency with Federal, State, Regional, and Local Plans Inconsistent with most plans Alternatives 1 and 2 are consistent with the RCP, CGV, and the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The SR-91 CIP Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2f) is programmed in the 2012 RTP and 2011 FTIP (Amendment 24). The 2012 RTP and 2011 FTIP/Amendment 24 were approved on June 4, 2012; therefore, the SR-91 CIP is consistent with the RTP and FTIP. No mitigation is required. Land Use: Parks and Recreation Facilities No impact Alternatives 1 and 2 would not result in the permanent use of any land from the Santa Ana River Trail/Bike Lane, Featherly Regional Park, New OC Park (NNL), Griffith Park, and El Cerrito Sports Park. No mitigation is required. No impact Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in the permanent use of 0.48 ac in CHSP for two column footings, and an aerial easement for the Green River Road westbound off -ramp. Alternatives 1 and 2 would potentially result in temporary detours of part of the Santa Ana River Trail/Bike Lane during construction to protect Trail/Bike Lane users and construction workers, and TCEs at Featherly Regional Park (0.2 ac), CHSP (2.0 ac), Griffin Park (0.5 ac), and El Cerrito Sports Park (0.19 ac). Measure CI-1: Design refinements to minimize property acquisition. (IP and UP) Measure CI-2: Compliance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Parking studies will be conducted to investigate the use of adjacent acquisitions for replacement parking and options for reconfiguring parking lots, driveways and/or delivery locations to reduce the project effects on partial acquisition properties. (IP and UP) SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/E1S S-41 Executive Summary Table S.4 Summary of Impacts for the No Build Alternative and Impacts With No Substantial Difference Between Alternatives 1 and 2 Potential Impact p No Build Alternative Potential Impacts Linder Alternatives 1 and 2 and Their Design Variations Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Alternatives 1 and 2 would permanently relocate an approximately 200 ft long segment of the Santa Ana River Trail/Bike Lane further north. Measure PR-1: During final design/construction of the Initial Phase, RCTC will contribute $100,000 to the planning and implementation of improvements in that area that would support and expand regional trail connectivity. (IP) Measure PR-2: During final design/construction of the Initial Phase, RCTC will coordinate with State Parks on the aesthetic features that will be included in the project specifications for the proposed retaining wall facing CHSP between SR-71 and the westbound Green River Road exit ramp, consistent with the aesthetic and features required in Measure V-1. The aesthetic treatment will include a texture to simulate a natural type appearance such as a soil or rock surface or equivalent. (IP) Measure PR-3: RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the design/ build contractor to limit the hours of construction in CHSP to daylight hours (7:00 a.m, to 7:00 p.m.), with the exception of limited periods when evening or night construction is necessary for operational reasons. The entry gates at Coal Canyon must remain closed at all times except to provide access to and from the construction site for construction workers, materials delivery, and construction equipment, to prevent wildlife from inadvertently entering the freeway area. (IP and UP) Other Commitments by RCTC Relevant to CHSP. RCTC has committed to an a stand-alone project to construct barriers on the south and north sides of SR-91 to shield headlight glare and freeway noise, in tandem with the completion of the SR-91 widening in this area currently planned for completion in 2035. The following other measures would also benefit CHSP. Measure V-1: Structural enhancements and design measures identified in the 215/91 Corridor Master Plan will be incorporated in the design and construction of sound walls, retaining walls, and bridge elements to address adverse impacts and bridge elements. (IP and UP) S-42 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary Table S.4 Summary of Impacts for the No Build Alternative and impacts With No Substantial Difference Between Alternatives 1 and 2 Potential Impact p No Build Alternative Potential Impacts Under Alternatives 1 and 2 and Their Design Variations Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures 1 Measure V-2: Mitigation for the loss of landscaping through replacement planting approved by the District Landscape Architect. (IP and UP) Measure V-3: Lighting fixtures with non -glare hoods will be designed to illuminate only the right-of-way. (1P and UP) Measure V-4: The Department and the City of Corona have existing ongoing maintenance programs for Graffiti Removal and Control. Those programs would apply to all new and modified structures for Alternatives 1 and 2, (IP and UP) Measure SC-1: Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, control of ozone precursor emissions from construction equipment, compliance with State Vehicle Code Section 23114, with special attention to Section 23114(b)(F), (e)(2), and (e)(4) as amended, regarding hauling of loads of materials, and compliance with Caltrans Standard Specifications for Construction (Sections 10 and 18 for dust control, Section 39-3.06 for asphalt concrete plant emissions). (IP and UP) Measure SC-4: Testing for ACMs. (IP and UP) Measure SC-5: Appropriate removal and disposal of AGMs. (IP and UP) Measure N-2: Compliance with Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 14-08.02, "Noise Control," and SSP S5-310. (IP and UP) Measure N-3: Compliance with local noise ordinances (Cities of Anaheim, Corona, Norco, and Riverside). (IP and UP) Areas used for TCEs will be restored prior to return of those lands to their original owners, Growth No impact Alternatives 1 and 2 would not result in project related growth impacts. No mitigation is required. Farmlands and Timberlands No impact No permanent impacts related to remainder parcels, access to agricultural parcels, policies related to agricultural uses, and agricultural preserve and Williamson Act Contract lands. Measure CI-3: Modifications to partial acquisitions. (IP and UP) SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS S-43 Executive Summary Table S.4 Summary of Impacts for the No Build Alternative and Impacts With No Substantial Difference Between Alternatives 1 and 2 Potential impact P No Build Alternative Potential impacts Under Alternatives 1 and 2 and Their Design Variations Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Community Impacts: Community Character, Cohesion and Environmental Justice No impact Alternatives 1 and 2, including Alternative 2f, would introduce additional hardscape, graded slopes, modified and new ramps, overcrossings and bridges, concrete barriers, and new retaining, tieback, and sound walls along the project segments of SR-91 and I-15. These changes would modify the visual quality of the area by introducing more urbanized and hardscape elements, and as a result, would affect the existing community character. Measure V-1: Structural enhancements and design measures identified in the 215/91 Corridor Master Plan will be incorporated in the design and construction of sound walls, retaining walls, and bridge elements to address adverse impacts and bridge elements. (IP and UP) Measure V-2: Mitigation for the loss of landscaping through replacement planting approved by the District Landscape Architect. (IP and UP) Measure V-3: Lighting fixtures with non -glare hoods will be designed to illuminate only the right-of-way. (IP and UP) Measure V-4: The Department and the City of Corona have existing ongoing maintenance programs for Graffiti Removal and Control. Those programs would apply to all new and modified structures for Alternatives 1 and 2. (IP and UP) Alternatives 1 and 2, including Alternative 2f, would improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the project limits with improved sidewalks on the arterials crossing SR-91. Under Alternatives 1 and 2, and Alternative 2f, freeway cross sections would be widened, resulting in wider overcrossings and undercrossings that would increase the lengths of the roads and sidewalks on the overcrossings or in the undercrossings. Therefore, the amount of time pedestrians and bicyclists spend on the overcrossings or in the undercrossings would increase compared to existing conditions. As a result, some pedestrians and bicyclists may perceive the longer overcrossings and undercrossings as negatively affecting their experiences as they cross the freeways, which may inhibit their desire to cross the freeways and would therefore be an adverse effect on community cohesion. Measure T-4: Provision of lighting in undercrossings. (IP and UP) Measure V-1: Structural enhancements and design measures identified in the 215/91 Corridor Master Plan will be incorporated in the design and construction of sound wails, retaining walls, and bridge elements to address adverse impacts and bridge elements. (IP and UP) Measure V-4: The Department and the City of Corona have existing ongoing maintenance programs for Graffiti Removal and Control. Those programs would apply to all new and modified structures for Alternatives 1 and 2. (IP and UP) Construction activities would temporarily disrupt focal traffic patterns and access to residences and businesses, increase traffic congestion, and increase noise, vibration, and dust. Measure T-1: Development and implementation of the Final TMP. (IP and UP) Measure T-2: Development and implementation of the Final Ramp Closure Study. (IP and UP) S-44 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final E1R/EIS Executive Summary Table S.4 Summary of Impacts for the No Build Alternative and Impacts With No Substantial Difference Between Alternatives 9 and 2 Potential Impact p No Build Alternative Potential Impacts Under Aiternatives 1 and 2 and Their Design Variations Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures � Measure SC-1: Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, control of ozone precursor emissions from construction equipment, compliance with State Vehicle Code Section 23114, with special attention to Section 23114(b)(F), (e)(2), and (e)(4) as amended, regarding hauling of loads of materials, and compliance with Caltrans Standard Specifications for Construction (Sections 10 and 18 for dust control, Section 39-3.06 for asphalt concrete plant emissions). (IP and UP) Measure SC-4: Testing for ACMs. (1P and UP) Measure SC-5: Appropriate removal and disposal of ACMs. (IP and UP) Measure N-2: Compliance with Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 14-08.02, "Noise Control," and SSP S5-310. (IP and UP) Measure N-3: Compliance with local noise ordinances (Cities of Anaheim, Corona, Norco, and Riverside). (IP and UP) Alternatives 1 and 2 and Alternative 2f would not cause disproportionately high and adverse effects on any minority or low- income populations per Executive Order 12898 regarding environmental justice. No mitigation is required. Utilities and Emergency Services No impact Alternatives 1 and 2 and their design variations 2a, 2b, 2e, and 2f would not result in permanent adverse impacts related to utilities and emergency servicesproviders. No mitigation is required. Alternatives 1 and 2 and their design variations, including Alternative 2f, would include additional CHP enforcement areas on SR-91. No mitigation is required. During construction of Alternatives 1 and 2 and their design variations including Alternative 2f, the ability of emergency services providers to meet response times could be impaired as a result of temporary traffic delays; road, lane, and/or ramp closures; or detours. Measure T-1: Development and implementation of the Final TMP. (IP and UP) Measure T-2: Development and implementation of the Final Ramp Closure Study. (IP and UP) Measure UES-2: Coordination of the Final TMP and the Final Ramp Closure Study with affected utility and emergency service providers. (IP and UP) SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS S-46 Executive Summary Table S.4 Summary of Impacts for the No Build Alternative and Impacts With No Substantial Difference Between Alternatives 1 and 2 Potential Impact p No Build Alternative Potential Impacts Under Alternatives 1 and 2 and Their Design Variations Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Potential for fires in construction areas, associated with operating construction equipment, vehicles, and the presence of construction personnel. Measure UES-3: Fire prevention and coordination with local fire departments during construction. (IP and UP) Measure UES-4: Fire prevention adjacent to CHSP with the equivalent of a continuous barrier 30 to 36 inches high on the edge of the shoulder on both westbound and eastbound SR-91 from SR-71 to SR-241. (UP) Alternative 1 and ail its design variations and Alternative 2 with Design Variations 2a, 2b, 2e, and 2f would require the use of 0.018 ac of land from the SCE property for use as a TCE during construction. Measure CI-1: Design refinements to minimize property acquisition. (IP and UP) Measure CI-2: Compliance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Parking studies will be conducted to investigate the use of adjacent acquisitions for replacement parking and options for reconfiguring parking lots, driveways, and/or delivery locations to reduce the project effects on partial acquisition properties. (IP and UP) Traffic and Transportation/ Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Impacts to traffic and transportation would worsen through continued increase of traffic congestion Deterioration of LOS Alternatives 1 and 2 including Alternative 2f in design year 2035 would maintain or slightly improve VHT, VHD, and LOS along the SR-91 freeway mainline compared to 2035 No Build conditions. Under Alternative 1 in design year 2035, there would be a 2 percent reduction in VHT, a decrease of 13,000 hours in VHD, and four freeway segments on SR-91 would be improved from LOS F to LOS D or E when compared to 2035 No Build conditions. On 1-15, one segment would worsen from LOS E to LOS F, one segment would improve from LOS F to LOS E, and one segment would improve from LOS D to LOS C when compared to 2035 No Build conditions, No mitigation is required. Under Alternative 2 including Altemative 2f in design year 2035, there would be a 4 percent reduction in VHT, a decrease of 23,000 hours in VHD, and eight segments on SR-91 would improve from LOS F to LOS D or E when compared to 2035 No Build conditions. On 1-15, one segment would improve from LOS F and two segments would respectively worsen from LOS B and C to LOS C and D when compared to 2035 No Build conditions. Permanent impacts may occur to local intersections. Measure T-3: Fair Share Contributions. (IP and UP) 5-46 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/E1S Executive Summary Table S.4 Summary of impacts for the No Build Alternative and Impacts With No Substantial Difference Between Alternatives 1 and 2 Potential Impact p No Build Alternative Potential Impacts Under Alternatives 1 and 2 and Their Design Variations Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures No permanent impacts to pedestrian or bicycle facilities No added benefit related to pedestrian and bicycle access Alternatives 1 and 2 and Alternative 2f in design year 2035 would provide an overall positive improvement to pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the project limits. All local streets that cross the project segments of SR-91 and I-15 would be returned to their existing conditions or, in some cases, widened across sections. Most sidewalks replaced under Alternatives 1 and 2 and Alternative 2f will be designed consistent with applicable ADA requirements for handicap access. The Santa Ana River Trail/Bike Lane within the State right-of-way for SR-91 will be relocated farther north as part of the project. No mitigation required. No temporary impacts to traffic and transportation Construction of Alternatives 1 and 2 and Alternative 2f would require complete closure of ramps or connectors for certain periods of time or on weekends. Staging plans were developed to ensure that closure durations are minimized, and every effort is made to prevent concurrent multiple closures. Because longer closures may occur as a result of Alternatives 1 and 2 and Alternative 2f, detour routes will be provided. Measure T-1: Final TMP. (IP and UP) Measure T-2: Development and implementation of the Final Ramp Closure Study. (€P and UP) No temporary impacts to pedestrian or bicycle facilities Temporary sidewalk closures at certain crossings would occur during construction. These closures may temporarily impact accessibility in the project limits. On street bicycle facilities along Green River Road and the Magnolia Avenue crossing at SR-91 may also experience temporary closures. It is possible that short segments of the Santa Ana River Trail/Bike Lane west of Green River Golf Club and east of Featherly Regional Park may be detoured temporarily during construction, However, these detours are anticipated to be very limited in duration, and alternate routes would be provided. Measure T-1: Final TMP. (IP and UP) Visual and Aesthetics No impact Alternatives 1 and 2, including Alternative 2f, would include no new lighting except for safety lighting at the interchanges and in undercrossings. Existing lighting on local streets, SR-91, and 1-15 would be modified or relocated. Alternatives 1 and 2, including Alternative 2f, would result in an adverse impact to the segment of SR-91 eligible for designation as a State Scenic Highway. Measure V-1: Structural enhancements and design measures identified in the 215/91 Corridor Master Plan will be incorporated in the design and construction of sound walls, retaining walls, and bridge elements to address adverse impacts and bridge elements. (IP and UP) Measure V-2: Mitigation for the loss of landscaping through replacement planting approved by the District Landscape Architect. (IP and UP) Measure V-3: Lighting fixtures with non -glare hoods will be designed to illuminate only the right-of-way. The ROTC Project Engineer will coordinate with the City of Corona and other applicable cities and counties to ensure that sufficient lighting is provided as part of the improvements to local streets consistent with applicable local policies and street lighting codes. (IP and UP) SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS S-47 Executive Summary Table S.4 Summary of Impacts for the No Build Alternative and Impacts With No Substantial Difference Between Alternatives 1 and 2 Potential impact p No Build Alternative Potential Impacts Under Alternatives 1 and 2 and Their Design Variations Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Measure V-4: Sound barriers will include vine planting. The Department and the City of Corona have existing ongoing maintenance programs for Graffiti Removal and Control. Those programs would apply to all new and modified structures for Alternatives 1 and 2. (IP and UP) Cultural Resources No impact Alternatives 1 and 2 and their design variations including Alternative 2f would result in permanent impacts to the National Register -listed Grand Boulevard Historic District; this would result in a finding of No Adverse Effect with Standard Conditions on this property. Condition for Acorn -Style Streetlights: Up to seven acorn -style streetlights in the project limits will be relocated as close to their existing locations as possible based on the project design or elsewhere within the boundaries of the Grand Boulevard Historic District. An architectural historian will be on site during the removal, dismantling, and reinstallation of the acorn -style streetlights. (IP) Alternatives 1 and 2 and their design variations including Alternative 2f would result in the removal of 18 trees in the Grand Boulevard Historic District. Measure CR-1: The 18 trees removed from the Grand Boulevard Historic District will be replaced at a ratio of 1:1 and will be compatible with the existing plantings in the Grand Boulevard Historic District. The replacement trees will be identified in consultation with the City of Corona, the Department's District Landscape Architect, and a Professional Qualified Staff Architectural Historian from the District. All replacement trees will be installed no later than the completion of construction activities in the Grand Boulevard Historic District. (IP) Discovery of cultural materials during construction. Measure CR-2: Discovery of Cultural Materials. If cultural materials are discovered during construction, ail earthmoving activity will be diverted within and around the immediate discovery area until a qualified archaeologist can assess the nature and significance of the find. (IP and UP) Discovery of human remains during construction. Measure CR-3: Discovery of Human Remains. If human remains are discovered during construction, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 will be complied with, activities shall cease in the area, and the County Coroner shall be contacted. Pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98, if the remains are thought to be Native American, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which will then notify the MLD. The Department will be contacted so they may work with the MLD on the respectful treatment and disposition of the remains. (IP and UP) Potential to impact archaeological resources. Measure CR-4: A Native American monitor will be present and conducting monitoring during construction in areas identified and considered sensitive by the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians as shown on the project plans. (IP and UP) S-48 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Table S,4 Summary of impacts for the No Build Alternative and Impacts With No Substantial Difference Between Alternatives 9 and 2 Executive Summary Potential Impact p No Build Alternative Potential Impacts Under Alternatives 1 and 2 and Their Design Variations Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Floodplain No impact Assuming a worst case using the existing FIRMs and the total improvements under Alternative 2, including Alternative 2f, the Build Alternatives would result in encroachments into the 100-year floodplain at the Santa Ana River at Wardlow Wash, at Country Club Creek, and at West Grand Boulevard. There would be no appreciable increase in the 100-year surface water elevations under Alternatives 1 and 2 and Alternative 2f. There would not be significant encroachments, and the encroachments would not result in significant adverse impacts to natural and beneficial floodplain values, Construction Site, Design Pollution Prevention, and Treatment BMPs would be implemented to minimize water quality -related impacts to the 100-year floodplain and the associated beneficial uses. As discussed below for natural communities and wetlands and other waters, measures to minimize impacts and preserve natural and beneficial floodplain values include installation of construction fencing around riparianlriverine vegetation to be preserved and compensatory mitigation for temporary and permanent impacts to riparian and aquatic habitats. No further mitigation measures for impacts to floodplains are required. (IP and UP) Alternatives 1 and 2 and Alternative 2f could result in the erosion of exposed soil surfaces during construction, which would be controlled using BMPs as described in the SWPPP. Temporary detention basins would be used, as needed, during construction to prevent localized flooding. Therefore, the construction of Alternatives 1 and 2 and Alternative 2f will not result in adverse impacts related to floodplains. The measures for water duality and storm water runoff, natural communities, and wetlands and other waters would minimize construction -related water quality impacts and preserve natural and beneficial floodplain values. No further mitigation measures for impacts to floodplains are needed. (1P and UP) Geology, Soil, Seismic, Topography No impact Alternatives 1 and 2 and Alternative 2f would similarly permanently result in or be affected by the following geotechnical conditions: ground motion, liquefaction, fault rupture, and other effects related to seismic activity; retaining walls for slope stability; erosion of slopes and other unpaved areas; and permanent subsurface easements in CHSP and the New OC Park (NNL) adjacent to SR-91 for engineered tiebacks for the wall along SR-91 in those areas. Measure GEO-1: A final geotechnical design report. (IP and UP) BMPs for water quality/erosion. (IP and UP) The construction of Alternatives 1 and 2 and their design variations, including Alternative 2f, would temporarily result in or be affected by the following geotechnical conditions: increased potential for soil erosion in areas of disturbed soil; ground motion, liquefaction, fault rupture, and other effects related to seismic activity; and the potential need for blasting in areas with non-rippable granitic bedrock. Standard construction good housekeeping and worker safety practices. Measure GEO-1: A final geotechnical design report. OP and UP) Measure GEO-2: Quality assurance/quality control plan. (IP and UP) Measure GEO-3: Blasting Plan. (IP and UP) BMPs for water quality/erosion. (IP and UP) Paleontology No impact The construction of Alternatives 1 and 2 and their design variations could result in permanent impacts on paleontological resources in the following sediments: all types of Pleistocene alluvium, sedimentary rocks of the Norco area, the Fernando Formation, sandstone of the Norco area, Chino Hills Pliocene sediments, the Puente Formation, the Topanga Formation, the Sespe and Vaqueros Formations, the Santiago Formation, the Silvered° Formation, the Williams Formation, and the Measure PAL-1: Preparation and Implementation of a Paleontological Mitigation Plan to provide guidance for developing and implementing paleontological mitigation efforts including field work, laboratory methods, and curation for significant paleontological resources that may exist within the project disturbance limits, including measures specific to sediments with high and low sensitivity. SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final E1R/EIS S-49 Executive Summary Table S.4 Summary of Impacts for the No Build Alternative and Impacts With No Substantial Difference Between Alternatives 1 and 2 Potential Impact p No Build Alternative Potential Impacts Under Alternatives 1 and 2 and Their Design Variations Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures/ Ladd Formation. While there will be minor differences in areas disturbed during construction, the impacts of Alternatives 1 and 2 and their design variations including Alternative 2f on these sediments would be very similar because the construction of these alternatives would use similar techniques and would disturb approximately the same areas along the alignments. As a result, there is not a substantive difference in permanent impacts on paleontological resources under Alternatives 1 and 2 and their design variations including Alternative 2f. Hazardous Waste and Materials No impact Routine operation and maintenance of the facilities under Alternatives 1 and 2 including Alternative 2f would not introduce new sources of hazardous materials and wastes. Continued exposure to existing hazardous wastes through vehicle transport would continue. However, the transport of hazardous waste and/or materials is heavily regulated. Therefore, no new permanent adverse impacts related to hazardous wastes/materials (direct or indirect) beyond existing conditions would occur during operation of Alternatives 1 and 2 and their design variations and Alternative 2f. There is no difference in permanent impacts between Alternatives 1 and 2. No mitigation is required. Properties zoned for industrial and automotive uses within the project disturbance limits may routinely store hazardous wastes and materials on site. Therefore, prior to acquisition of these properties, any potentially hazardous waste material present will be relocated and/or removed off site. Measure HW-1: Phase I Environmental Site Assessments for 2 properties were conducted to characterize the extent of the contamination. These sites were identified to be a potential environmental concern during construction. Additional testing and/or remediation are required for these sites during the design/build phase. (IP) Impacted soils and/or groundwater have been identified at two properties within the disturbance limits for Alternatives 1 and 2 and their design variations. Measure HW-2: Site investigations for any new potential release sites. (IP and UP) Contact with hazardous materials during construction would be further minimized through the sampling (Phase II Environmental Site Assessments) of suspected hazardous materials prior to construction. Other areas of environmental concern include potentially contaminated soils related to the BNSF railroad tracks, agricultural land uses, and ADL in areas not previously sampled; ACMs, LBPs, and PCBs in building structures that will be disturbed or demolished under Alternatives 1 and 2 and Alternative 2f; and ACMs and LBPs in road structures that will be disturbed or renovated as part of Alternatives 1 and 2 and Alternative 2f. Measure HW-3: ADL testing in previously untested areas. (IP and UP) Measure HW-4: ACM, LBP, and PCB surveys for building structures during the design phase. ACM and LBP surveys were conducted for 21 freeway structures. Six bridges contained ACMs and three bridges contained LBPs. ACMs and LBPs must be removed by a certified contractor prior to disturbance or demolition. (IP and UP) Measure HW-5: Inspections for PCBs in utility pole -mounted transformers. (IP and UP) S-50 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/E1S Table S.4 Summary of Impacts for the No Build Alternative and Impacts With No Substantial Difference Between Alternatives 1 and 2 Executive Summary Potential Impact p No Budd Alternative Potential Impacts Under Alternatives 1 and 2 and Their Design Variations Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Measure HW-6: Testing and removal of traffic striping. (1P and UP) Measure HW-7: Compliance with NPDES permit requirements during construction dewatering. (IP and UP) Measure HW-8: Sampling of soil adjacent to the BNSF railroad tracks. (IP and UP) Measure HW-9: Preparation of a HASP prior to construction and implementation of the HASP. (IP and UP) Measure HW-10: Preparation and implementation of a Contaminant Management Plan. (IP and UP) Measure HW-11: Preparation and implementation of a Construction Contingency Plan for unknown hazards. (IP and UP) Measure HW-12: Notify Underground Service Alert at least 2 days prior to excavation. (IP and UP) Measure HW-13: Fee submittal to the SCAQMD at least 10 days prior to demolition or renovation of structure. (IP and UP) Measure HW-14: Testing and disposal for wood -treated materials. (IP and UP) Air Quality Potential permanent increase in pollutants associated with increased congestion In the long term, Alternatives 1 and 2 including Alternative 2f would improve traffic flow by reducing congestion. This improvement in traffic Sow would reduce regional vehicle emissions. In addition, the Build Alternatives would not delay the attainment of the federal CO, PM2s, and PM10 standards. Therefore, Alternatives 1 and 2 and their design variations including Alternative 2f would not result in long-term adverse impacts related to air quality. No mitigation is needed. No construction along the project segments of SR-91 and 1-15 and, therefore, would not result in temporary air quality impacts The construction of Alternatives 1 and 2, including Alternative 2f, has the potential to temporarily increase air quality emissions in the project area. Measure SC-1: Finalization of the project -specific Construction Emissions Mitigation Plan, compliance with the Department's Standard Specification Section 10 and 18 (Dust Control), Section 39.3.06 for asphalt concrete plant emissions, and SCAQMD Rule 403. (IP and UP) Measure SC-2: Implementation of the Construction Emissions Mitigation Plan. (IP and UP) SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final BR/EIS S-51 Executive Summary Table S.4 Summary of Impacts for the No Build Alternative and Impacts With No Substantial Difference Between Alternatives 1 and 2 Potential Impact p No Build Alternative Potential Impacts Under Alternatives 1 and 2 and Their Design Variations Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures' Measure SC-3: Project Engineer will ensure that grading plans and project specifications show anticipated duration of construction in individual areas along the project alignment. (IP and UP) Measure SC-4: During final design and prior to any ground disturbance, appropriate testing to determine if AGMs are present in the project disturbance limits. (IP and UP) Measure SG-5: Appropriate removal and disposal of AGMs. (IP and UP) Noise No impact During construction of Alternatives 1 and 2 including Alternative 2f, noise from construction equipment and activities could reach 89 dBA at 50 ft from the noise source. Measure N-2: Compliance with Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 14-08.02, "Noise Control," and SSP S5-310. (IP and UP) Measure N-3: Compliance with local noise ordinances (Cities of Anaheim, Corona, Norco, and Riverside). (IP and UP) Measure N-4: RCTC will initiate a separate project to construct noise barriers for I-15 (with the exception of NB K1-A) it they are not constructed as part of a separate I-15 project within 5 years of completion of the construction of the SR-91 CIP. (UP) Measure N-5: Unusual and extraordinary abatement measures will be implemented if certain residences will experience a severe traffic noise impact of 75 dBA L., or higher. (IP and UP) Energy No impact Alternatives 1 and 2 including Alternative 2f would result in permanent direct reductions of up to 3.0 percent in fuel consumption in 2015 and up to 4.15 percent by 2035. No mitigation is needed. Alternatives 1 and 2 including Alternative 2f would result in very minor increases in indirect energy consumption, up to 0.7 percent, for energy used for the manufacturing and maintenance of vehicles operating on roads in the project study area; however, there would be no increase in indirect energy consumption for vehicles in the SCAG region. Alternatives 1 and 2 including Alternative 2f would not result in a substantial change in the demand for electricity for road and sign lighting, toll facilities, and ramp metering. No mitigation is needed, Temporary energy consumption during the construction of Alternatives 1 and 2 including Alternative 2f would represent a very small percent of total regional consumption and would not result in a noticeable impact related to short-term energy demand. No mitigation is needed. S-52 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final E1R/EIS Executive Summary Table S.4 Summary of Impacts for the No Build Alternative and Impacts With No Substantial Difference Between Alternatives 1 and 2 Potential Impact p No Build Alternative Potential Impacts Under Alternatives 1 and 2 and Their Design Variations Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures , Natural Communities No impact The Initial Phases of Alternatives 1 and 2, and Alternative 2f would result in permanent impacts of 9.87 ac of CSS, and temporary impacts to 3.38 ac of CSS, 1.72 ac of riparianlriverine, and 0.04 ac of oak woodlands. Refer to compensatory mitigation and measures listed in Table S.3 for natural communities. The Initial Phases and Ultimate Projects under Alternatives 1 and 2 and Alternative 2f will not impact NCCP lands in Orange County. No mitigation is needed. Alternatives 1 and 2 and Alternative 2f will result in temporary impacts to wildlife corridors during construction. Measure NC-6: Identification of locations with existing wildlife fencing, installation of new fencing prior to removal of existing fencing, and protection of fencing. (1P and UP) Measure NC-8: Limiting construction equipment maintenance, lighting, and staging away from wildlife corridor entrances. (IP and UP) Measure NC-9: Directing construction noise and light away from wildlife corridors, bridges, and biologically sensitive areas. (IP and UP) Measure NC-10: Locating construction equipment and structures to avoid barriers to wildlife passage. (IP and UP) Measure NC-11: Existing overcrossing and culvert designs compatible with wildlife usage. Openness ratios of 1.96 for large mammals and 0.81 for medium-sized mammals will be provided in modified overcrossings and culverts as appropriate at each crossing, (IP and UP) Measure NC-12: Limiting construction to daylight hours in Coal Canyon, B Canyon, Fresno CanyoNWardlow Wash, and Bedford Canyon with the exception of limited periods when evening or night work is required for operational reasons. (IP and UP) Measure NC-13: Structures for bridge work structures will not block the main underpasses in Coal Canyon, B Canyon, Fresno Canyon/ Wardlow Wash, and Bedford Canyon. (IP and UP) Measure NC-14: Location restrictions for construction staging areas in Coal Canyon. (IP and UP) SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/E1S S-53 Executive Summary Table S.4 Summary of Impacts for the No Build Alternative and impacts With No Substantial Difference Between Alternatives 1 and 2 Potential Impact p No Build Alternative Potential Impacts Under Alternatives 1 and 2 and Their Design Variations Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures , Measure NC-16: Maintenance of Coal Canyon for emergency access during construction. (IP and UP) Measure NC-16: Closing of the gates at Coal Canyon at the end of each construction day. (IP and UP) Plant Species No impact Alternatives 1 and 2 including Alternative 2f would result in the permanent removal of 4.74 ac on which Southern California black walnut trees were observed, and the permanent removal of 0.33 ac on which Coulter's matilija poppy was observed, The measures provided elsewhere in this table for natural communities and threatened and endangered species will adequately avoid and minimize permanent impacts to special -status plant species during construction of the Build Alternatives. However, Measure PS-1 was added as an additional minimization measure for: Measure PS-1: Replacement planting of Southern California black walnut and Coulter's matilija poppy. Alternatives 1 and 2 would not result in pen anent or temporary impacts to any other special -status species in the BSA. No mitigation is needed. Animal Species No impact Alternatives 1 and 2 including Alternative 2f would not result in permanent direct impacts on BUOW but could result in indirect impacts to BUOW as a result of the loss of potential habitat. Measure AS-1: Preconstruction BUOW surveys. (IP and UP) Alternatives 1 and 2 including Alternative 2f would not result in permanent direct impacts to other special -status animal species. Alternatives 1 and 2 and Alternative 2f could result in permanent indirect impacts to other special -status species as a result of habitat loss and fragmentation and edge effects such as noise, litter, lighting, and human encroachment. Measures for natural communities, wetlands and other waters, and plant species would also mitigate project effects to animal species. Alternatives 1 and 2 including Alternative 2f would result in temporary effects to the BUOW and other special -interest animal species as a result of unavailability of potential habitat, noise, vibration, lighting, and other edge effects. Measure AS-1: Preconstruction BUOW surveys. (IP and UP) Measure AS-2: Preconstruction bat surveys. (IP and UP) Measure AS-3: Bat exclusion devices installed for any structure with potential bat habitat. (IP and UP) Measure AS-4: Limited night construction at bridges. Limited evening and/or night construction may be required for safety and/or operations reasons. (IP and UP) Measure AS-5: Retention of riparian vegetation near bat roosting sites. (IP and UP) Measure AS-6: Bridge construction outside bird nesting season and installation of bird nesting exclusion devices. (IP and UP) S-54 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Table SA Summary of Impacts for the No Build Alternative and Impacts With No Substantial Difference Between Alternatives 1 and 2 Executive Summary Potential Impact p No Build Alternative Potential Impacts Under Alternatives 1 and 2 and Their design Variations Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Measure AS-7: Permanent bat exclusion and the provision of habitat replacement structures. (IP and UP) Measure AS-8: Installation and maintenance of sift fence barriers at all staging or construction areas at Coal Canyon and areas within CHSP to prevent small animals from entering those areas. (IP and UP) Threatened and Endangered Species No impact Alternatives 1 and 2 and Alternative 2f would not result in permanent impacts to Braunton's milk vetch, the Santa Ana sucker, western yellow -billed cuckoo, SWWF, and bald eagle. No mitigation is needed. Alternatives 1 and 2 and Alternative 2f would result in temporary indirect impacts to Braunton's milk vetch, CAGN, LBV, Santa Ana sucker, western yellow -billed cuckoo, SWWF, and bald eagle. Compensatory Mitigation: Based on compliance with the Western Riverside County MSHCP for SKR and Measures TE-1 to TE-15, provided earlier in Table S.3. Measures for natural communities, wetlands and other waters, plant species, and animal species would also mitigate project effects to threatened and endangered species. Invasive Species No impact Revegetation and landscaping under Alternatives 1 and 2 and Alternative 2f would be similar, would not include any plants with high or moderate ratings in the California Invasive Plant Inventory, and therefore would help to inhibit the spread of invasive species. No mitigation is needed. Construction activities for Alternatives 1 and 2 and Alternative 2f have similar potential to spread invasive species. Measure IS-1: Development and implementation of a Weed Abatement Program. (IP and UP) Cumulative Impacts No impact Alternatives 1 and 2 and Alternative 2f would contribute incrementally, when considered with the other cumulative projects, to cumulative impacts related to: • Conversion of designated farmlands to nonagricultural use • Community character and cohesion • Acquisition and removal of existing residential and nonresidential uses • Short-term traffic impacts during construction • Impacts to the visual/aesthetic environment • Short- and long-term impacts to water quality • Permanent impacts to paleontological resources • Short-term air quality impacts associated with fugitive dust and construction equipment emissions • Long-term noise levels in the project area Refer to the measures in Tables S.3 and S.4 for project -specific measures by environmental resource that address project -specific impacts. SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS S-55 Executive Summary Table S.4 Summary of Impacts for the No Build Alternative and Impacts With No Substantial Difference Between Alternatives 1 and 2 Potential Impact p No Build Alternative Potential Impacts Under Alternatives 1 and 2 and Their Design Variations 1 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures • Incremental impacts on natural communities and the plant and animal species associated with them • Incremental impacts on jurisdictional and other waters • Incremental impacts on threatened and endangered species and other special -interest species • Incremental impacts related to invasive species in northeast Orange County and western Riverside County IP = Applies to he Initial Phases of Al ernatives 1 and 2 UP = Applies to the Alternative 1 and 2 Ultimate Projects IP and UP = Applies to the Initial Phases and Ultimate Pr Pro ac = acres, acre AGMs = asbestos containing materials ADA = Americans with Disabilities Act ADL = aerially deposited lead BMPs = best management practices BNSF = Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad BSA = biological study area BUOW = burrowing owl CAGN = California gnatcatcher Caltrans = California Department of Transportation CGV = Compass Growth Vision CHP = California Highway Patrol CHSP = Chino Hills State Park CO = carbon monoxide dBA = A -weighted decibels Department = California Department of Transportation EIR = Environmental Impact Report EIS = Environmental Impact Statement for Alternatives 1 and 2 FIRMs = Flood Insurance Rate Maps FSTIP = Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program ft = footlfeet HASP = Health and Safety Plan 1-15 = Interstate 15 LBP = lead -based paint LBV = least Bell's vireo LOS = level of service MLD = Most Likely Descendant MSHCP = Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan NAHC = Native American Heritage Commission National Register = National Register of Historic Places NCCP = Natural Communities Conservation Plan New OC Park (NNL) = New Orange County Park (National Natural Landmark) NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System PCBs = polychlorinated biphenyls PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PMia = particulate matter less than 14 microns in size PRC = Public Resources Code RCP = Regional Comprehensive Plan RTP = Regional Transportation Plan SCAG = Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District SCE = Southern California Edison SKR = Stephens' kangaroo rat SR-91 = State Route 91 SSPs = Standard Special Provisions State Parks = California State Parks SWPPP = Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWWF = southwestern willow flycatcher TCEs = temporary construction easements TMP = Transportation Management Plan VHD = vehicle hours daily VHT = vehicle hours traveled S-56 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary Table S.5 Permits and Approvals Needed Agency Permit/Approval Status/When Required Federal Agencies FHWA Approval for Modified Access Report to the Interstate System A "Letter of Acceptability" approving the modified access was received from FHWA in a letter to the Department dated May 11, 2011. Final approval will occur in August 2012 after approval of the ROD Section 6005 of SAFETEA-LU for satisfying Air Quality Conformity Requirements Approval was received from FHWA on June 6, 2012 Major Project Operational Independence and Non- Concurrent Construction Determination Concept submitted January 20, 2012 and final approval is expected by June 2012 Cost Estimate Review Approval received on March 23, 2012 Draft Project Management Plan Approved in May 2012 Plan of Finance (in lieu of initial Financial Plan) Submittal is expected by July 2012 Final Project Management Plan Approval is expected by October 2012 Close of Finance/Financial Plan Annual Update The first annual update would be submitted in May 2013. USFWS Section 7 Consultation for Threatened and Endangered Species Review and Comment on 404 Permit The BO was approved on November 30, 2011, by USFWS (refer to Appendix Q). Corps Section 404 Nationwide Permit for filling or dredging waters of the United States. The application for this permit was submitted in July 2011. Section 408 Permit for modifications to Corps' facilities in three locations and a modified easement at a fourth location. An initial application for this permit was submitted in December 2011. National Park Service Approval of the use of land from CHSP if that land is protected under Section 6(f) Because the 0,48 ac of land in CHSP that will be used by the project is not currently protected by Section 6(f), no NPS approval is required at this time. If that land becomes protected under Section 6(f) prior to the use of 0.48 ac in CHSP for the SR-91 CIF, the requirements for protection under Section 6(f) will be analyzed and addressed with State Parks and the California Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Grants and Local Services. State Agencies CDFG 1602 Agreement for Streambed Alteration The application for this agreement was submitted in February 2011. SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS S-57 Executive Summary Table S.5 Permits and Approvals Needed Agency Permit/Approval StatusWien Required California State Parks Concurrence regarding the determination of the project effects on CHSP State Parks provided written concurrence with the de minimis determination for project effects on CHSP in a letter dated March 26, 2012; a copy of that letter is provided in Appendix B. Right-of-Entry/Encroachment Permit An approved Right-of-Entry/Encroachment Permit will be required prior to any construction encroaching onto land within the boundary of CHSP. Approval of a permanent aerial easement in CHSP Prior to construction of the Green River Road westbound off -ramp. California Transportation Commission Approval of STIP funding After the Department approves the Final EIR and files the Notice of Determination. SWRCB Section 402 NPDES (Construction Activity) The notification for coverage under Order No. 2009- 0009-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002 will be submitted prior to construction. Section 402 NPDES Permit (Department NPDES Permit) Coverage under Order No. 99-06-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000003 will be addressed with submittal of the NOI under NPDES No. CAS000002, which will be submitted prior to construction. Santa Ana RWQCB Section 402 NPDES (Groundwater Dewatering) The notification for coverage under Order No. R8-2009- 0003, NPDES No. CAG998001, will be submitted prior to construction. Section 401 Water Quality Certification The application for this agreement was submitted in February 2011. Regional and Local Agencies Western Riverside County RCA and the RCTC JPARP A Preliminary Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation is provided in Appendix O of the Natural Environment Study (2010). Cities of Anaheim, Corona, Riverside, and Norco, and Counties of Riverside and Orange Freeway Agreements Freeway agreements reflecting the project will be finalized after completion of the Final EIRIEIS. Cities of Anaheim, Corona, and Riverside, and Counties of Orange and Riverside Encroachment permits for any encroachments into public right-of-way owned by these jurisdictions. Prior to any encroachment Cities of Anaheim, Corona, and Riverside, and Counties of Orange and Riverside Approval of the TMP and any detour plans using local streets Prior to construction Orange County Flood Control District and Riverside County Flood Control District Coordination for, and approval of, any project -related changes to the existing flood control facilities During final design County of Orange Approval of a permanent subsurface easement in the New OC Park (NNL) Prior to construction of the Ultimate Project S-58 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary Table S.5 Permits and Approvals Needed Agency Permit/Approval Status/When Required Railroads BNSF Railroad Company Memorandum of Understanding and a Construction and Maintenance Agreement with the railroad Prior to any construction within or above railroad right -of - way California Public Utilities Commission Approval of the project, based on review of the Construction and Maintenance Agreement Prior to any construction within or above railroad right -of - way Utilities SCG SCE City of Corona AT&T/Pacific Bell Comcast Cable Sprint Time Warner Cable Questar/Four Corner Pipeline Company Level 3 Communications Temescal Valley Regional Interceptor City of Riverside Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority Western Riverside Regional Wastewater Approvals to relocate, protect in place, or remove utility facilities Prior to any construction activities that would affect utility facilities BNSF =Burlington Northern Santa Fe BO = Biological Opinion CDFG = California Department of Fish and Game Corps = United States Army Corps of Engineers Department = California Department of Transportation EIR = Environmental Impact Report EIS = Environmental Impact Statement FHWA = Federal Highway Administration JPARP = Joint Project Acquisition/Review Process NOD = Notice of Determination NOI = Notice of Intent NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System RCA = Regional Conservation Authority ROTC = Riverside County Transportation Commission ROD = Record of Decision RWQCB = Regional Water Quality Control Board SCE = Southern California Edison SCG = Southern California Gas Company SWRCB = State Water Resources Control Board TMP = Transportation Management Plan USFWS = United States Fish and Wildlife Service SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS S-59 Executive Summary Table S.6 Summary of Issues Raised During Scoping General Topic Issues EIRIEIS Section Where Topic is Discussed Project Alternatives Comments related to the individual alternatives, funding, the use of Measure A funds for Alternative 2, operations, public transit instead of project. Chapter 2, Project Alternatives Right -of -Way Acquisition and Relocation Comments related to the effect of project acquisition on residences and businesses adjacent to the project segment of SR-91. Comments from the City of Corona regarding the importance of attempting to avoid and minimize right-of-way impacts within the City limits and requesting the identification of potential right-of-way impacts for each Build Alternative. Chapter 2, Project Alternatives and Section 3.4.2, Relocations and Real Property Acquisitions Traffic Comments regarding the expected traffic volumes for the proposed MCP project, how the project will address traffic congestion in the area Once MCP begins to distribute numerous vehicles onto 1-15 and how that might distribute the congestion onto SR-91, and the importance of optimizing SR-91 corridor traffic to accommodate future traffic demand. Section 3.6, Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Biological Resources Comments regarding the importance of maximizing Chino Hills and Santa Ana Mountains habitat protection for future generations, effects of additional incremental lighting at entrances and exits to the constrained wildlife corridors, and the need to protect existing wildlife habitat and listed species on or near the project site. Sections 3.17, Natural Communities; 3.18, Wetlands and Other Waters; 3.19, Plant Species; 3.20, Animal Species; 3.21, Threatened and Endangered Species; and 3.22, Invasive Species. Land Use Comments regarding consistency of the project with General Plans and regional plans. Section 3.1, Land Use Air Quality Comments regarding air quality impacts during construction and operations, and compliance with AB 32. Section 3.14, Air Quality Cumulative Impacts Suggestion to include other transportation projects in the analysis, including the MCP; cumulative analysis within the context of other CETAP projects. Section 3.25, Cumulative Impacts Growth Growth inducement Section 3.2, Growth Floodplains and Drainage Consider additional flood control improvements in the Lower Santa Ana River, including bank protection on the south bank of the River at several locations between Prado Dam and the western part of the Green River Goff Club as part of the County of Orange and Corps projects. Comments regarding the importance of fully evaluating the potential impacts of the project to master planned drainage facilities such as the La Sierra MDP facilities, which would provide flood protection and adequate drainage outlets to relieve substantial flooding problems. Concerns regarding the alteration of existing drainage patterns, the potential diversion or concentration of storm water flows, and the potential for increased runoff and potential impacts that could result from that runoff. Section 3.9, Hydrology and Floodplains S-60 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final E1R/EIS Executive Summary Table S.6 Summary of Issues Raised During Scoping General Topic ]slues EIR/EIS Section Where Topic is Discussed Noise Comments regarding potential noise and vibration impacts at entrances to and exits from the constrained wildlife corridors and potential noise barriers constructed in front of homes and businesses. Section 3.15, Noise Historical Resources Comments to protect historical resources. Section 3.8, Cultural Resources Hazards The potential for exposure to hazardous wastes during construction activities. Section 3.13, Hazardous Waste/Materials Construction Impacts Comments regarding potential impacts during construction, including air quality, visibility, biological resources, noise, traffic, and hazardous wastes; and requests for advanced notice of construction activities. In the impacts analyses by topic throughout Chapter 3, Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Mitigation Mitigation for direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. In the avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measure sections by topic throughout Chapter 3, Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures = Assemn y Dui az CETAP = Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process Corps = United States Army Corps of Engineers 1-15 = Interstate 15 MCP = Mid County Parkway MDP = Master Drainage Plan SR-91 = State Route 91 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIWEIS S-61 Executive Summary This page intentionally left blank S-62 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Chapter 1 Project 1.1 Introduction 1.1.1 Environmental Lead Agency Effective July 1, 2007, the Department has been assigned environmental review and consultation responsibilities under NEPA pursuant to Section 6005 of SAFETEA-LU (23 USC 327). On projects for which the Department has assumed NEPA responsibilities, the Department has also assumed responsibility for environmental review and consultation under other federal environmental laws. The Department is the lead agency under NEPA and CEQA for this project. FHWA, the Department, and the RCTC are planned signatory parties to a High Profile Project Agreement that will outline the roles and responsibilities of these three major participants to the project. These roles and responsibilities are in relation to FHWA's charge with stewardship and oversight responsibilities for all federally funded programs under the Federal -Aid Highway Program. FHWA's roles and responsibilities and the status of these approvals are provided in Table 1.1. RCTC has initiated work with FHWA to move the project forward and entered into a Section 129 Toil Agreement for the project on August 18, 2009. Table 1.1 Federal Highway Administration Approvals Approval Required Actual or Anticipated Approval Date Cost Estimate Review —Approved by FHWA Approved March 23, 2012 Draft Project Management Plan — Submifted to FHWA May 16, 2012 Air Quality Conformity Determination (Program and Project Level) June 4, 2012 (Program Level) and June 6, 2012 (Project Level) OINCC — Formal Approval June 2012 Plan of Finance (in lieu of Initial Financial Plan) July 2012 Modified Access to the Interstate System Conceptual Approval 2011, Final Approval 60 days after ROD Final Project Management Plan — Approved by FHWA October 2012 Close of Finance/Financial Plan Annual Update May 2013 Source: Riverside County Transportation Commission (2012). FHWA = Federal Highway Administration MCC = Operational Independence and Non -Concurrent Construction SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/E1S 1-1 Chapter 1 Project 1.1.2 Overview of the Project 1.1.2.1 Project Limits The project limits extend on SR-91 from approximately SR-241 to just east of I-15 and on I-15 frorn approximately Hidden Valley Parkway to the north and Cajalco Road to the south. SR-91, within the project limits, currently has four GP lanes accommodating travel in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 ft from the SR-241/SR-91 interchange to the SR-91/I-15 interchange, and three 12 ft wide GP lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes (within Orange County) and one HOV lane (within Riverside County) in each direction within the project limits. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 ft wide depending on the location, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 ft wide depending on the location, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. Figure 1-1 shows the project vicinity and the project limits on SR-9I and I-15. The RCTC, in cooperation with the Department, is proposing capacity, operational, and safety improvements on segments of SR-91 and I-15 designated as the SR-91 C1P. The project is intended to widen the existing SR-91 from the junction of the SR-91 and SR-241 interchange in the Cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County. The project also includes improvements to I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15 and Cajalco Road interchange in the City of Corona and the 1-15 and Hidden Valley Parkway interchange, also in the City of Corona. The project is subject to State and federal environmental review requirements. 1.1.2.2 FHWA Major Project Deliverables The SR-91 CIP is designated as an FHWA Major Project due to the project cost exceeding $500 million. Based on SAFETEA-LU, a major project is defined as a project with a total estimated cost of $500 million or more that is receiving federal financial assistance. In order for federal funding to be authorized for the financing of Major Projects such as the SR-91 CIP, the project owner (i.e., RCTC for the SR-91 CIP) must demonstrate to the FHWA that the project has been carefully planned out (i.e., costs have been estimated as accurately and meticulously as possible; risks have been carefully considered and mitigated; financing requirements and strategies have been clearly defined; and the implementation of the project delivery has been carefully planned). Through the different phases of project delivery and as required 1-2 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final E1R/E1S Yo.rba Linda Anaheim b Pacific Ocean LEGEND - SR-91 Project Limits L 7 City Boundary County Boundary 0 5 I MILES SOURCE: ESRI (2006); TBM (2007),141 (2008) NOCGO 15 ; Riverside Corona Orange County ;c . a d : a t------- Riverside County San Diego ---- County FIGURE 1-1 SR-9I Corridor Improvement .Project Project Vicinity 12-0ra-91-R14.43/R1.8.91 08-121v-91-R0.00/R 13.04 08-Riv-15-35.64/45.14 EA OF540 1:1PAZ0701\GIS1BascmapTroject_Vicinity_E1R.mxd (4/11/2011) Chapter 1 Project This page intentionally left blank 1-4 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/ElS Chapter 1 Project under SAFETEA-LU, the FHWA Major Project designation triggers a number of deliverables for submittal to FHWA for approval on the SR-91 CIP, including: (1) a Cost Estimate Review (CER), which must be approved prior to approval of a Final EIS; (2) an Operational Independence and Non -Concurrent Construction (OINCC) Determination; (3) an Initial Financial Plan (IFP); and (4) a Draft and Final Project Management Plan (PMP). The Draft PMP should be submitted to FHWA 60 days prior to approval of an ROD, and the Final PMP must be submitted no later than 90 days after approval of the ROD. The Plan of Finance (POF) required with RCTC's application for Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) funds will be submitted in lieu of the IFP per FHWA financial plan guidance. The FHWA Major Project deliverables schedule of approvals is provided in Table 1.1. 1.1.2.3 Programming Status The project is currently programmed in the 2012 RTP, which was found to conform by the FHWA/FTA on June 4, 2012. The project is also programmed in the SCAG financially constrained 2011 FTIP (through Amendment 24), which was also found to be conforming by the FHWA/FTA on June 4, 2012. The description of the project in the 2012 RTP is as follows: Project ID No. RIV071250; Description: Phase 1: On SR-91/I-15: SR91 — Construct 1 mixed flow lane (SR-71 through I-15)/1 aux lane at various locations (SR-241 through Pierce)(OC PM 14.43-18.91), CD system (2/3/4 lanes from Main Street to I-15), 1 toll express lane (TEL) and convert HOV to TEL in each direction (OC to I-15); I-15 — construct TEL median direct connector NB I-15 to WB SR-91 and EB SR-91 to SB I-15, 1 TEL in each direction (SR-91 direct connector — Ontario Interchange)(I-15 PM 37.56-42.94). Phase 2: on SR-91/I-15: SR91 — Add 1 mixed flow lane in each direction (SR241 — SR71)(I15 — Pierce); 115 — add toll express lane (TEL) median direct connector (SB15 to WB91 & EB91 to NB15), 1 TEL each direction from Hidden Valley —SR-91 direct connector and from Ontario Interchange to Cajalco Interchange. The description of the Initial Phase (Phase 1 as described in the RTP) in the 2011 FTIP (Amendment 24) is as follows: Project ID No. RIV071250; Description: On SR-91/I-15: SR91— Construct 1 mixed flow lane (SR-71 through I-15)/1 aux lane at various locations (SR-241 through Pierce)(OC PM 14.43-18.91), CD system (2/3/4 lanes from Main Street to I-15), 1 TEL and convert HOV to TEL in each direction (OC to I-15); I-15 — construct TEL median direct connector NB I-15 to WB SR-91 and EB SR-91 to SB I-15, 1 TEL in each direction (SR-91 direct connector — Ontario Interchange)(I-15 PM 37.56-42.94). SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final ElREE1S 1-5 Chapter 1 Project The approved 2012 RTP and 2011 1~TIP (Amendment 24) project listings are provided in Appendix K. 1.1.2.4 Funding Status Alternative 1 would be funded by Measure A, which is a one -half -cent sales tax that was originally approved by Riverside County voters in 1998 and was extended in 2002. Alternative 2 would be funded by Measure A and toll revenue bonds. Toll revenues generated under Alternative 2 would be used as the funding source for the tolled express lanes. Refer to Section 2.3.4, Phasing Plans for the Build Alternatives, for a description of how the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project of the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2f) would be funded. 1.1.3 Planning History of the Project 1.1.3.1 Route Concept Report The approved Route Concept Report (Department, October 25, 1989) designated the ultimate concept facility for this segment of SR-91 as a 10-lane freeway with 8 GP lanes and 2 HOV lanes. The existing SR-91 meets or exceeds the ultimate concept facility defined in that report. However, the existing facility does not accommodate the existing demand in this corridor and generally operates under breakdown conditions during the morning and evening peak periods_ 1.1.3.2 State Route 91 Congestion Relief Alternatives Analysis The State Route 91 Congestion Relief Alternatives Analysis (Dept January 2003) outlined short-, mid-, and long-term alternatives to relieve congestion on SR-91 between SR-55 in Orange County and I-15 in Riverside County. This study was sponsored and conducted by Department Districts 8 and 12. 1.1.3.3 State Route 91 Implementation Plan The State Route 91 Implementation Plan was completed by OCTA in June 2003, as required by Assembly Bill (AB) 1010, which was signed into law in September 2002. AB 1010 required OCTA, in consultation with the Depai talent and ROTC, to issue a plan and a proposed completion schedule for improvements to SR-91 from I-15 to SR-55 to the State Legislature prior to July 1, 2003. The scope of the 2003 State Route 91 Implementation Plan reiterated the alternatives in the State Route 91 Congestion Relief Alternatives Analysis and provided additional approaches, including the development of an MIS to evaluate potential new corridors and multimodal alternatives. Since 2003, this Plan has been updated annually to the current State Route 91 Implementation Plan (OCTA 2010). 1-6 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Chapter 1 Project 1.1.3.4 Riverside County -Orange County Major investment Study The development of the MIS for Riverside and Orange Counties was initiated in June 2004 and was completed in December 2005. OCTA, in cooperation with the RCTC and Foothill -Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency, prepared the MIS. The purpose of the MIS was to address planning, environmental, and transportation issues that would result from the anticipated doubling of population in Riverside County (from 1.5 million residents in the early 2000s to approximately 3.1 million residents by 20351) by developing an LPS that meets five key goals, to the extent feasible: 1. Provide improvements to SR-91 to improve mobility between counties. 2. Improve travel time and safety on existing facilities. 3. Improve goods movement capability through the corridor. 4. Reduce and manage the diversion of intercounty traffic from SR-91 to local streets. 5. Expand modal options throughout the corridor. The scope of the MIS relied heavily on recommendations for improvements to SR-9I based on the earlier studies described above. The MIS examined a comprehensive range of capital and operational improvement alternatives to SR-91 and identified other intercounty multimodal transportation corridor opportunities. The MIS analyzed the potential benefits, costs, and consequences (economic, social, and environmental) of alternative transportation investment strategies in Orange and Riverside Counties. The MIS planning process was a cooperative and collaborative process whereby public agencies and the community assisted in the development of a definition and general scope of potential solutions and the development of evaluation criteria culminating in a recommendation for a preferred transportation strategy. The project was identified as a key east -west transportation corridor improvement based on the environmental and transportation analyses conducted for the MIS. The MIS led to the development of the alternatives for the current project. On October 28, 2005, the MIS Policy Committee provided guidance as to which components of the alternatives might best move forward towards an LPS for subsequent approval by the OCTA Board of Directors and the RCTC Board of Commissioners. Pertinent findings from the detailed evaluation of alternatives were presented at an Elected Officials Briefing on November 3, 2005, to the MIS Policy 1 Regional Transportation Plan (SCAG 2008). SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS 1-7 Chapter 1 Project Committee on November 18, 2005, and to the MIS PDT on December 7, 2005. The preliminary LPS was refined on the basis of input received at these meetings and then presented to the OCTA Board of Directors and RCTC Board of Commissioners for approval. At their respective December 12, 2005, and December 14, 2005, meetings, the OCTA Board of Directors and RCTC Board of Commissioners unanimously approved the recommendations for the refined LPS. Figure 1-2 shows the Riverside County - Orange County MIS LPS. The LPS includes the following projects: • Immediate Capacity Enhancements to SR-91 Add one new lane in each direction between I-15 and SR-241 and make additional improvements. • Lower Toll on Foothill Transportation Corridor (SR-241) — Encourage more drivers on SR-241 by lowering the existing toll and adding new lanes. • Build 4-Lane or 6-Lane Elevated Highway (Corridor A) — Build an entirely new elevated highway (viaduct) parallel to and within the existing right-of-way of SR-91 between 1-15 and SR-241. • Build 4-Lane or 6-Lane Tunnel (Corridor B) — Build an entirely new tunnel highway between 1-15 at Cajalco Road in Riverside County and the vicinity of the SR-241 and State Route 133 (SR-133) interchange in Orange County. • Maximize Transit System — Expand transit service by increasing Metrolink service through the corridor and evaluate the addition of express buses and high-speed trains such as Maglev. The goal of the LPS transit enhancements is to capture an equivalent 10,000 daily vehicle trips. The expanded transit network would incorporate a new Intermodal Transportation Center in Corona near Serfas Club Road with a park -and -ride facility (estimated at 3,000 parking spaces), shuttle/ circulator feeder buses, local and express buses including bus rapid transit, preferential treatment for HOVs, and linkages to the proposed Maglev train if a station is ultimately developed in Corona along the Ontario -Anaheim segment. Additional Metrolink services are also proposed. These transit enhancements are proposed in the LPS as separate projects. • Operational Improvements to SR-74 — Identify specific operational improvements to State Route 74 (SR-74) between Interstate 5 (I-5) and 1-15. The project satisfies the initial component of the MIS LPS of immediate capacity enhancements to SR-91. 1-8 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final E1R/E1S ..rgIMPROVor Tes".. Peoleerteaorxmlnion Major Investment Study Recommended Locally Preferred Strategy I I*Touh tl I Tub • Maximize transit stystem • Maximum and feasible widening to SR 91* • Possible managed lane changes for SR 91 or Corridor A (Including reversible lanes) • Continued study of Corridor A • Continued study of Corridor B • SR 74 operational improvements [l4 Talub 114 Total) ar IYv:-rr.xnak M ,all Cajalty Rd CORRIDOR -D" LW m adenvag OCTA LEGEND Existing Highway Proposed SR-91 improvements Proposed Extension of SR-241 Proposed Corridor A Alignment Proposed Corridor B Rmmle Proposed SR-74 Improvements Proposed Maglev Alignment (By others).* I+)heull Number of Total SR-91 Lams (Include baseline*) lu .?Added) Number al -Added SR-91 Project Lanes (Exclude baseline*. Does not include auxiliary lanes) NOTES *Baseline SR-91 improvements include Iwo lanes from SR-241 to 1-15, and an EB lane addition from SR-24i to SR-71 (not shown on diagram). **Maglev representative seed alignment shown (illustrative only)- i FIGURE 1-2 SR-9I Corridor Improvement Project Major Investment Study Recommended Locally Preferred Strategy Ora-91-R 14.431R 18.91 Riv-91-R0.00/R13.04 Riv-15-35.64/45.14 EA OF540 1:1PAz07011a1411S.cdr (9/25/10) Chapter 1 Project This page intentionally left blank 1-10 SR-91 Corridor improvement Project Final E1R/E!S Chapter 1 Project The improvements identified in the SR-91 Project Study Report/Project Development Support (PSR/PDS; Department, December 4, 2006) are consistent with the recommendations in the three studies discussed above. 1.2 Purpose of the Project The project is intended to achieve the following purposes: 1. Improve the vehicle, person, and goods movement within the SR-91 corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. 2. Provide improvements along the SR-91 and I-15 transportation corridors as well as to related local roads, and to reduce diversion of regional traffic from the freeways into the surrounding communities. 1.3 Need for the Project SR-91 is currently used by more than 280,000 vpd at the Orange/Riverside County line, and this volume continues to grow. At the same time, travel speeds on SR-91 are well below 30 mph during the lengthy morning (westbound) and evening (eastbound) peak travel periods in this corridor. Existing congestion and delays on SR-91 and I-15 during peak travel periods result in freeway traffic diverting to adjacent local roads to avoid congestion and delays. This diversion of freeway traffic is particularly prevalent in the City of Corona as motorists on westbound SR-91 and motorists transitioning from northbound 1-15 to westbound SR-91 seek less congested routes in the morning (westbound) peak travel period. Similarly, diversion of freeway traffic into the City occurs as motorists on eastbound SR-91 and motorists transitioning from eastbound SR-91 to southbound 1-15 seek less congested routes in the evening (eastbound) peak travel period. SR-91 is continuing to experience increased congestion as a result of population growth in Riverside County and the increase in jobs in Orange County. Based on demographic projections for the SCAG region (Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and Riverside Counties) shown in Table 1.2, the numbers of vehicles on SR-91 are expected to increase by approximately 50 percent by 2035, which would result in continuing congestion and delays on SR-91. Those projections show that population and employment in Riverside and Orange Counties are forecast to increase substantially by 2035, as shown in Table 1.2. The existing travel demand on SR-91 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Chapter 1 Project Table 1.2 Regional Demographics County Resident Population Households Residents Employed Employment Retail Service I Other 2007 Orange 3,088,805 995,930 1,505,733 262,032 477,904 925,564 Los Angeles 10,150,878 3,353,688 4,350,670 745,294 1,949,761 2,110,727 Ventura 812,061 266,104 386,654 62,084 128,067 178,518 San Bernardino 1,896,234 593,927 785,714 150,508 225,648 334,636 Riverside 1,891,540 637,532 794,215 135,454 233,947 284,111 Total 17,839,517 5,847,181 7,822,986 1,355,370 3,015,327 3,833,555 2015 Orange 3,355,771 1,052,763 1,667,209 284,872 520,114 1,011,401 Los Angeles 10,901,484 3,571,573 4,622,575 787,575 2,181,953 2,194,690 Ventura 879,328 287,731 414,104 67,113 144,948 188,016 San Bernardino 2,140,551 665,213 895,098 176,196 266,544 389,473 Riverside 2,282,363 771,633 973,711 167,649 297,903 326,008 Total 19,559,497 6,348,913, 8,572,697 1,483,405 3,411,462 4,109,588 Percent Growth from 2007 to 2015 Orange 9% 6% 11 % 9% 9% 9% Los Angeles 7% 6% 6°/u 6% 12% 4% Ventura 8% 8% 7% 8% 13% 5% San Bernardino 13% 12% 14% 17% 18% 16% Riverside 21% 21% 23% 24% 27% 15% Total 10% 97. 10% 9% 13% 7% 2035 Orange 3,503,759 1,097,869 1,726,017 301,217 549,765 1,070,818 Los Angeles 12,218,726 4,075,232 5,010,587 854,881 2,365,214 2,321,531 Ventura 984,349 324,772 448,240 77,940 169,147 206,694 San Bernardino 2,678,172 831,100 1,073,448 235,974 340,935 478,223 Riverside 3,068,667 1,035,610 1,253,044 226,329 390,592 414,226 Total 22,503,353 7,364,583 9,511,336 1,696,341 3,815,653 4,491,492 Percent Growth from 2007 to 2035 Orange 4% 4% 4% 6% 6% 6% Los Angeles 12% 14% 8% 9% 8% 6% Ventura 12% 13% 8% 16% 17% 10% San Bernardino 25% 25% 20% 34% 28% 2 3 % Riverside 34% 34% 29% 35% 31% 27% Total 15% 16% 11% 14% 12% 9% ource: Riverside County Transportation Commission Model inputs for the SR-91 CIP, as disclosed in the Traffic Study Report (July 2010). SR-91 CIP = State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project has led to a heavy directional commute pattern between Riverside and Orange/Los Angeles Counties that is projected to continue into the future. Improvements are necessary to address existing and projected deficiencies regarding mobility, access, goods movement, and freeway capacity on the project segment of SR-91, which is the only major highway that links Riverside and Orange Counties. 1.3.1 Capacity, Transportation Demand, and Safety 1.3.1.1 Traffic Impact Study Areas and Traffic Analysis Years Traffic impact Study Areas The project is a capacity -enhancing State Highway System project and, therefore, the project limits determined the traffic analysis study area. The project limits define the 1-12 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Chapter 1 Project adjacent interchanges that may be impacted by the capacity enhancements. As such, those interchanges at the project Iimits defined the extent of the traffic study area. Because the project focuses on mainline capacity enhancements, all interchanges within the project limits were included in the traffic study area. The mainline refers to the through travel lanes on the freeway. In addition, all ramp intersections and adjacent intersections were included in the study area because they may be impacted by the project alternatives. Adjacent local roadway intersections were included in the study area to measure the effect of reducing traffic diversion from SR-91 to local roads. For the ramp closure study, the study area was expanded to evaluate all intersections potentially impacted by closures of ramps during project construction. The detour study area was defined through application of the regional model to evaluate where traffic diversion may occur as a result of ramp closures and through close coordination with the City of Corona. Traffic Analysis Years The traffic analysis for the SR-91 CIP described in this EIR/EIS considered traffic conditions for 3 years: Baseline/Existing (2007), 2015, and 2035. Typically, the traffic analysis year for existing conditions would be the year the NOP of an EIR/EIS was published. The NOP for the SR-91 CIP EIR/EIS was published in July 2008. Existing traffic counts were conducted in October 2007, less than 9 months before the publication of the SR-91 CIP EIR/EIS NOP in July 2008. However, as explained in detail later in this section, 2007 was selected as the Baseline/Existing (2007) analysis year because the 2007 traffic volumes were considered to more accurately reflect demand in the SR-91 corridor. The Initial Phases under Alternatives 1 and 2 were originally programmed to be open for operation in 2015. However, the opening dates for the Initial Phases have been changed to 2017 as a result of RCTC's proposed amendment to the 2011 FTIP (Amendment 24) and the 2012 RTP. The traffic analysis described in this EIR/EIS is based on 2015 and 2035 forecasts developed from the adopted regional traffic forecasting model. Per the Supplemental Request for 20-year Period Design Exception approved by the Department on January 26, 2012, forecast volumes for 2017 were estimated based on existing traffic counts for 2010. Because 2010 traffic counts are approximately 4 percent lower than 2007 traffic counts, 2017 forecast volumes will be generally lower than the 2015 forecast volumes used for the analysis SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS 1-13 Chapter 1 Project of the SR-91 CIP. Because the opening year traffic volumes analyzed for 2015 are more conservative when compared to those for 2017, updating the traffic analysis for an opening year of 2017 was not necessary. Therefore, the opening year traffic analysis discussed in Sections 1.3.1.5, 2015 Traffic Projections — No Build, and in Section 3.6, Traffic and Transportation/Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities, uses the original analysis of the 2015 opening year conditions. In addition, there have not been any regional or local transportation improvement projects implemented that would have an effect on the opening year traffic analysis. The SR-241/SR-91 Direct Connector Project being sponsored by the TCA is currently planned for an opening year of 2018. In addition, the County of Riverside's Cajalco Road Widening Project from TemescaI Canyon Road to Interstate 215 (I-215) is currently planned for an opening year of 2019. 1.3.1.2 Existing Facilities and Capacity The existing major east -west facilities in western Riverside County are State Route 60 (SR-60), SR-74, and SR-91. These facilities provide links with the following major north -south facilities in Riverside County: State Route 79 (SR-79), I-15, and I-215. SR-91 is the major east -west corridor connecting Orange and Riverside Counties. In Orange County, SR-91 provides connections to SR-55, SR-241, SR-57, and I-5. These existing facilities serve all vehicles in western Riverside County and Orange County. 1.3.1.3 Level of Service The quality of traffic flow can be defined in terms of levels of service (LOS). The measure used to provide an estimate of LOS on a transportation facility is the density of vehicles traveling on the facility at a specific time. There are six grades of LOS, ranging from LOS A (representing free -flow traffic conditions with low volumes and high speeds, resulting in low densities) to LOS F (representing conditions where the traffic volumes exceed capacity and result in forced flow operations at low speeds, resulting in high densities and delays). The defined LOS for a basic freeway segment are shown graphically and are described in text on Figure 1-3. 1.3.1.4 Baseline/Existing (2007) Traffic Volumes To evaluate existing corridor conditions for SR-91 and 1-15 in the traffic study area, Baseline/Existing (2007) daily and peak -hour traffic count data (numbers of vehicles) were collected. Fall 2007 traffic counts represent existing conditions. The traffic study area is SR-91 from SR-241 at the west to Pierce Street at the east, and I-15 from 1-14 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Chapter 1 Project Figure 1-3 LOS Thresholds for a Basic Freeway Segment SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS 1-15 Level of Service Flow Conditions a e ag cmph) Technical descriptions 70 Highest quality of service. Traffic flows freely with littie or no restrictions on speed or maneuverability. Ne delays e, \ @ _ r �} r, e� ( 70 Traffic Is stable and flows freely. The ability to maneuver In traffic is only slightly restricted. No delays c ,.� '' " � . i•a�i — _ ) ,.• 67 Few restrictions Ors speed. Freedorn to maneuver is restricted. Drivers must be more careful making lanes' changes. Minimal delays --� emi Ee rffiall - Q . +, Cl* + . y� t- s ` 62 Speeds decline slightly and density increases, Freedom to maneuver is noticeably limited. Minimal delays /(21 *-ii ill will 5'? J Vehicles aro closely spaced, with iittiv room to maneuver. Driver comfort is poor. Significant delays _i $4 F� �' ! r_� � a y ® t___ i pit` - 8 ._, 11R < 53 Very congested traffic was trains jams, especially in areas where: VONCIOS have a. Considerable delays i C-01 ) — Irk Y�rj SOURCE. Caltran$ Standard Environmental Reference. 200E FIGURE 1-3 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project LOS Thresholds for a Basic Freeway Segment 0ra-91—R I4.43/R 18.91 Rice-91—R0.00I123 3,04 Ri v-15-3 5.64/45. l 4 EA 01'540 1: PAL0701%tJ1LOS-Freeway.cdr{9!Sli'I0i Chapter 1 Project This page intentionally left blank 1-16 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIRIEIS Chapter 1 Project Hidden Valley Parkway at the north to Cajalco Road at the south. The traffic study area includes the area of improvements plus the adjacent interchanges on SR-91 and I-15 so that impacts from the transition to and from the freeways within the project limits can be evaluated. The Baseline/Existing (2007) traffic conditions were used to represent the existing conditions because they more closely represent normal conditions. Based on traffic counts from the Department's Traffic Data branch from the Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) Reports, traffic volumes on SR-91 at the Orange County/Riverside County line increased between 2000 and 2007 from 224,000 to 280,000 vehicles. The 2007 traffic conditions are approximately 5 percent higher than the 2008 conditions and are a more accurate estimate of the existing setting for comparative analysis than the 2008. The 2007 was selected as the Baseline/Existing analysis year because those traffic volumes were considered to more accurately reflect demand in the SR-91 corridor because historically (2000-2007) traffic numbers/volumes have steadily increased and the approximate 5 percent less difference from 2008 is negligible. The variation between 2007 and 2008 is considered negligible because the difference in the peak hour volumes has a minimal effect on the operating conditions (LOS) between those years. Also according to the Interim Guidance on the Application of Travel and Land Use Forecasting in NEPA (FHWA, March 2010), the 'Base model year" (the calibration year for the travel model) and the 'Base project year" (an updated base year that is validated and is as close as possible to the current year) do not necessarily need to be the same. The year 2015 was selected as an interim analysis year to reflect traffic conditions with and without the Initial Phases under Alternatives 1 and 2. The year 2035 was selected as the planning horizon year to reflect traffic conditions with and without the Ultimate Projects under Alternatives 1 and 2. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Traffic Study Report (January 2010) was based on the SCAG RTP 2004 model and the Orange County Traffic Analysis Model (OCTAM) 3.2. The trends of the model show increases in travel demand, and Section 2.4, Horizon Year Traffic Forecasts, and Table 2-2 in the SR-91 CIP Traffic Study Report show positive growth rates. Traffic data for 2007 were collected from various sources, including the Performance Monitoring System (PeMS) website, Department annual traffic volumes, City of Corona traffic count database, and actual ground counts performed at ramp intersections during the a.m. and p.rn. peak periods. SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIWEIS 1-17 Chapter 1 Project The 2007 daily traffic volume (number of vehicles) at the Orange/Riverside County line was approximately 280,000 vpd. Table 1.3 presents the existing mainline and HOV/tolled express lane volumes, and Table 1.4 presents the Baseline/Existing (2007) freeway mainline peak -hour LOS. As shown in Table 1.4, at least six segments of SR-91 performed deficiently under Baseline/Existing (2007) conditions with four segments operating at LOS F in the peak direction of travel (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours). As noted in Table 1.3, several segments of the HOV lanes currently operate with volumes exceeding 1,700 vehicles per hour (vph). As volumes increase beyond 1,700 vph, increased travel times are experienced. Segments on I-15 operate at acceptable LOS during both peak hours with the exception of one southbound segment that performs deficiently in the p.m. peak hour. Freeway mainline LOS is determined through the application of Highway Capacity Manuall (HCM) methodology for basic freeway segments. The LOS is determined through the density of vehicles within each roadway segment, or how many passenger cars per mile per lane (pc/mi/ln) are within the segment. The higher the density of vehicles, the higher the degree of congestion within the segment. For segments that operate at LOS F, density measurements are not provided. In this case, Table 1.4 presents volume -to -capacity (v/c) ratios to identify the level of congestion. The v/c ratios provide an assessment of how much of the capacity is utilized by the actual volume. The v/c ratios over 1.0 illustrate extreme congestion. The higher the v/c value, the more congestion occurs within a specific segment. 1.3.1.5 2015 Traffic Projections — No Build Riverside County is forecast to continue to experience substantial growth in population and housing, based on the adopted General Plans for the study area cities and Riverside County. Refer to Sections 3.1, Land Use, and 3.2, Growth, later in this E1R/EIS for discussion of existing and General Plan -designated land uses in the project study area and the adopted demographic projections for the study area and the region. The growth is forecasted to increase both thick and general automobile traffic on SR-91 and I-15. The traffic forecasting process was initiated with the development of a regional model specifically for application in Riverside County and considering tolling activity. i The Highway Capacity Manual (2000) is a publication of the Transportation Research Board that is used for a variety of transportation facility and traffic engineering applications, including LOS concepts (pages 23-2 and 23-3). 1-18 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Chapter 1 Project Table 1.3 Baseline/Existing (2007) Mainline Traffic Volumes' 5li-97 Segment Eastbound GP Lanes Eastbound ToIIIHOV Lanes Westbound GP Lanes Westbound To111HOV Lanes AM PM ADT AM PM ADT AM PM ADT AM PM ADT SR-241 to Gypsum Canyon Rd 4,800 6,000 92,170 720 3,380 18,400 9,130 6,130 99,230 2,420 1,070 18,500 Gypsum Canyon Rd to Green River Rd 5,820 8,280 121,600 720 3,380 18,400 10,830 6,990 121,500 2,420 1,070 18,500 Green River Rd to SR-71 5,810 8,780 116,800 800 1,750 14,800 10,400 7,040 119,400 1,780 1,130 12,500 SR-71 to Auto Center Dr 5,980 8,630 117,100 390 1,940 15,900 10,180 6,880 116,600 1,850 1,030 16,700 Auto Center Dr to Maple St/Sixth St 5,390 8,970 118,400 880 1,650 16,000 9,300 6,680 120,600 1,860 1,030 12,500 Maple St/Sixth St to Lincoln Ave 4,810 8,090 113,800 900 1,620 15,800 8,640 6,690 116,500 1,590 810 12,000 Lincoln Ave to Grand Blvd 5,070 8,000 121,600 900 1,580 12,800 8,290 6,780 116,600 1,450 940 15,100 Grand Blvd to Main St 4,820 7,570 119,200 900 1,580 11,200 7,905 6,420 116,600 1,325 900 11,600 Main St to 1-15 5,370 8,715 125,700 800 1,125 11,100 8,400 6,530 122,200 970 870 12,500 1-15 to McKinley St 4,270 7,440 100,900 780 940 11,100 8,245 5,360 99,900 665 630 11,600 McKinley St to Pierce St 4,160 7,380 93,500 790 1,090 11,100 8,350 4,990 92,700 920 780 11,900 Pierce St to Magnolia Ave 3,600 6,430 79,600 640 900 11,100 7,590 4,260 79,600 790 670 11,000 I-15 Segment Northbound GP Lanes Not Applicable Southbound GP Lanes Not Applicable AM PM ADT AM PM ADT North of Hidden Valley Pkwy 4,780 5,310 84,000 5,680 5,990 86,700 Hidden Valley Pkwy to SR-91 4,680 5,210 85,500 5,290 5,830 85,300 SR-91 to Magnolia Ave 5,020 6,030 99,700 _ 6,220 6,890 101,100 Magnolia Ave to Ontario Ave 5,690 5,360 89,600 5,090 6,430 89,600 Ontario Ave to El Cerrito Rd 5,890 5,020 83,600 4,500 6,360 84,000 El Cerrito Rd to Cajalco Rd 5,630 4,940 80,800 4,500 6,490 81,600 South of Cajalco Rd 5,050 4,640 75,700 4,160 6,670 77,300 Source: California Department of Transportation, Performance Monitoring System as disclosed in the Traffic Study Report (July 2010). ' Numbers of vehicles in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours and total daffy numbers of vehicles. ADT = average daily traffic GP = general purpose HOV = high -occupancy vehicle 1-15 = Interstate 15 SR-71 = State Route 71 SR-91 = State Route 91 SR-241 = State Route 241 SR-91 Corridor improvement Project Final EIR/EIS 1-19 Chapter 1 Project Table 1.4 Baseline/Existing (2007) Mainline Peak -Hour Performance SR-91 Segment Lane Type AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Eastbound Westbound Eastbound Westbound Density, _pclmilln L05 V!C Density, pclmilln LOS VIC Density, pclmilln L05 V!C Density, pclmilln LOS VIC SR-241 to Gypsum Canyon Rd o pr d 2 c 67 20.7 C F 1.10 25.4 C 27.1 D Gypsum Canyon Rd to Green River Rd 25.4 C F 1.31 43.5 E 23.8 C Green River Rd to SR-71 19.6 C F 1.25 30.9 D 33.1 D SR-71 to Auto Center Dr 25.9 C F 1.23 F 1.04 30.2 D Auto Center Dr to Maple St/Sixth St 23.9 C F 1.12 F 1.08 31.0 D Maple St/Sixth St to Lincoln Ave 21.3 C F 1.04 41.7 E 31.1 D Lincoln Ave to Grand Blvd 22.4 C 44.3 E 40.6 E 31.7 D Grand Blvd to Main St 21.3 C 39.6 E 31.6 E 29.3 D Main St to 1-15 23.8 C F 1.01 F 1.05 30.0 D 1-15 to McKinley St 18.4 C 43.0 E 34.2 D 23.2 C McKinley St to Pierce St 24.6 C F 1.34 F 1.19 30.7 D Pierce St to Magnolia Ave 23.6 C F 1.22 F 1.03 27.9 D SR-241 to Green River Road p = ( 6.0 A 19.6 C 27.5 D 8.9 A Green River Road to Auto Center Drive 13.9 B 31.6 D 33.7 D 19.6 C Auto Center Drive to Lincoln Avenue 15.6 B 31.8 D 27.7 D 17.8 B Lincoln Avenue to Main Street 16.2 B 31.8 D 27.7 D 17.8 B Main Street to I-15 13.9 B 16.3 B 18.9 B 15.1 B 1-15 to Pierce Street 13.7 B 15.4 B 18.3 B 13.5 B East of Pierce Street 11.1 A 13.3 B 15.1 B 11.6 B 1-15 Segment Lane Type AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound Density, pclmilln L05 V1C Density, pclmilln LOS VIC Density, pclmilin LOS VIC Density, pclmilln LOS VIC North of Hidden Valley Pkwy f,L.,' 2 Q- C7 a 22.3 C 26.9 D 24.9 C 28.7 D Hidden Valley Pkwy to SR-91 21.3 C 24.2 C 23.8 C 27.2 D SR-91 to Magnolia Ave 21.9 C 27.7 D 26.7 D 31.8 D Magnolia Ave to Ontario Ave 24.4 C 21.7 C 22.9 C 28.3 D Ontario Ave to El Cerrito Rd 38.6 E 19.7 C 29.8 D 28.6 D El Cerrito Rd to Cajalco Rd 35.4 E 26.1 D 29.1 D F 1.03 South of Cajalco Rd 30.0 D 24.0 C 35.5 E F 1.06 Source: Highway Capacity software results, as disclosed in the Traffic Study Report (July 2010 . Note 1: The Highway Capacity Software does not report a performance density greater than 45 pc/mi/In. For mainline segments that experience densities greater than 45 pc/mi/In, the VIC ratio is provided instead of density. The segments where VIC ratios are shown in this table were calculated to operate at LOS F. For mainline segments with densities less than 45 pc/mi/In, the densities and LOS are shown, but no V/C ratios are provided. Note 2: A black box (II represents a deficient segment. 1-15 = Interstate 15 pclmilln = passenger cars per mile per lane SR-91 = State Route 91 VIC = volume -to -capacity ratio LOS = level of service SR-71 = State Route 71 SR-241 = State Route 241 1-20 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final E1R/EIS Chapter 1 Project This regional model, the RCTC traffic model, was developed based on a combination of the SCAG RTP 2004 model and the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM) Version 3.2. The RCTC model takes the mode choice component from OCTAM, which accounts for tolling activity. Traffic counts (numbers of vehicles) collected in fall 2007 were used to calibrate and validate the RCTC model for existing conditions. The SCAG RTP 2008 demographic data were applied to forecast future traffic activity throughout the SCAG region. Future interim year and horizon year no build and build conditions were analyzed through application of the model consistent with other future highway and transit system improvements identified in the RTP. Table 1.5 summarizes vehicle trip generation projections for 2007 and build -out (2035) conditions for these southern California counties. As shown in Table 1.5, ADT generation in Riverside and Orange Counties is forecast to increase by an average of 14 percent between 2007 and 2015 and by an average of 29 percent between 2007 and 2035. As a result of the forecast increases in population, employment, and traffic generation by 2035, the daily number of vehicles traveling the project segment of SR-91 is also forecast to increase, which would increase traffic congestion in the study area under the existing lane configuration. As discussed in detail in the following section, without any improvements to existing SR-91, traffic volumes in the study area are forecast to increase by 2035, resulting in further decreases in the LOS. Table 1.5 Regional Vehicle Trip Generation Projections County AM Peak Period I PM Peak Period Daily 2007 Orange County 2,266,565 3,444,428 10,893,861 Los Angeles 5,844,423 8,937,368 28,358,667 Ventura 577,148 905,054 2,865,211 San Bernardino 1,251,078 1,933,159 6,138,482 Riverside 1,134,826 1,774,288 5,631,613 Total 11,074,040 16,994,297 53,887,834 2015 Orange County 2,458,009 3,730,682 11,834,622 Los Angeles 6,305,107 9,662,893 30,756,939 Ventura 620,137 977,761 3,107,388 San Bernardino 1,405,828 2,206,896 7,013,599 Riverside 1,421,219 2,195,474 6,983,611 Total 12,210,300 18,773,706 59,696,159 2035 Orange County 2,544,506 3,860,647 12,205,429 Los Angeles 6,920,673 10,616,879 33,806,837 Ventura 700,621 1,105,922 3,500,385 San Bernardino 1,768,435 2,733,155 8,673,549 Riverside 1,829,235 2,888,410 9,170,997 Total 13,763,470 21,205,013 67,357,197 Source: Speed Surveys and the Riverside County Transportation Commission Model Results for the SR-91 CIP (2007 . CIP = Corridor Improvement Project SR-91 = State Route 91 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final FIR/EIS 1-21 Chapter 1 Project Tables 1.6 and 1.7 present the forecasted 2015 freeway mainline peak -hour LOS for SR-91 and 1-15, respectively, without any improvements to SR-91 or I-15. As shown for SR-91, a total of 21 segments are forecast to operate at LOS F, with 8 of the segments operating at LOS F in the peak hours in both directions of travel (i.e., westbound in the a.m. peak hour and eastbound in the p.m. peak hour). As shown in Table 1.7, one segment on I-15 (El Cerrito to Cajalco Road) is forecast to operate at LOS F in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. In addition, the Ontario Avenue to El Cerrito Road segment is forecast to operate at LOS F in the a.m. peak hour, and the segment south of Cajalco Road is forecast to operate at LOS F in the p.m. peak hour. The HOV lane performance is forecast to deteriorate from current levels of service as HOV lane volumes increase. One HOV lane segment is forecast to operate at LOS F in the p.m. peak hour (eastbound HOV lane at the current SR-91 tolled express lanes terminus between Green River Road and Auto Center Drive), and two additional segments are forecast to operate at LOS E in the p.m. peak hour (the segments between SR-241 and Green River Road, and between Auto Center Drive and Lincoln Avenue) as volumes approach and exceed 2,000 vehicles per lane per hour (vplph). 1.3.1.6 2035 Future Traffic Volumes — No Build Key projects identified in the 2008 RTP and included in the No Build Alternative have the potential to impact traffic activity throughout the study area. These projects include: • Corridor A —1 RTP 1D 3COIMA03: Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) — Riverside County to Orange County — Construct a new intercounty transportation corridor — 2 toll lanes in each direction on a new facility parallel to SR-91 from SR-241 to I-15 • SR-241/SR-91 Toll -to -Toll Direct Connectors — RTP ID 2T01135 — HOV/HOT Connector northbound SR-24I to eastbound SR-91 and westbound SR-91 to southbound SR-241 • I-15 HOV/Express Lanes —RTP ID 3HL0402 — Build HOV/HOT lanes: 2 HOV + Build 2 HOT lanes in each direction from SR-74 to the San Bernardino County line • SR-71 Widening — RTP ID 3M01 MA09 — Widen to 3 mixed -flow lanes in each direction from SR-91 to the San Bernardino County line • Mid County Parkway (MCP) — RTP ID RIV031218: CETAP — Mid County Parkway Corridor: Construct a 4-8 lane limited access parkway from Corona (slightly west of I-15) to San Jacinto (to SR-79) and construct local interchanges at 15 locations. 1-22 SR-91 Corridor improvement Project Final E!R/E!S Chapter 1 Project Table 1.6 2015 No Build Alternative SR-91 Peak -Hour LOS Segment Lane Type No. of Lanes AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume' Density, pclmilln LOS VIC Volume' density, pclmilln LOS VIC SR-91 Eastbound SR-241 to Gypsum Canyon Road General Purpose 4 4,880 21.4 C 7,920 39.1 E Gypsum Canyon Road to Green River Road 5 6,600 22.4 G 10,900 > 45.0 F 1.05 Green River Road to SR-71 5 5,040 17 B 8,320 28.5 D SR-71 to Auto Center Drive 4 6,320 27.9 D 10,650 > 45.0 F 1.28 Auto Center Drive to Maple Street 4 6,020 27 D 11,390 > 45.0 F 1.37 1.37 1.23 Maple Street to Lincoln Avenue 4 5,440 24.1 C 10,340 > 45.0 F Lincoln Avenue to Grand Boulevard 4 6,010 27 D 10,160 > 45.0 F Grand Boulevard to Main Street 4 5,530 24.6 C 9,450 > 45.0 F 1.14 Main Street to 1-15 4 5,840 26.1 D 10,190 > 45.0 F 1.23 1-15 to McKinley Street 4 4,130 17.8 B 8,770 > 45.0 F 1.06 McKinley Street to Pierce Street 3 3,790 22.3 C 8,290 > 45.0 F 1.33 Pierce Street to Magnolia Avenue 3 3,140 20.6 C 7,170 > 45.0 F 1.15 SR-241 to Green River Road To11/HOV 2 1,000 8.3 A 4,200 37.4 E Green River Road to Auto Center Drive 1 900 15.6 B 2,900 > 45.0 F 1.26 Auto Center Drive to Lincoln Avenue 1 1,000 17.3 B 2,000 35.3 ME Lincoln Avenue to Main Street 1 900 16.2 B 1,900 33.8 D Main Street to 1-15 1 800 13.9 B 1,900 32.7 D 1-15 to Pierce Street 1 1,000 17.3 B 1,800 30.5 D Pierce Street to Ma.nolia Avenue 1 900 15.6 B 1,700 28.6 D SR-91 Westbound SR-241 to Gypsum Canyon Road General Purpose 4 10,620 > 45.0 F 1.28 6,200 27.5 D Gypsum Canyon Road to Green River Road 5 12,900 > 45.0 F 1.24 7,500 25.9 C Green River Road to SR-71 4 11,250 > 45.0 F 1.36 7,530 37.5 E SR-71 to Auto Center Drive 4 11,340 > 45.0 F 1.37 7,490 36.8 E Auto Center Drive to Maple Street 4 10,360 > 45.0 F 1.25 7,630 39.2 E Maple Street to Lincoln Avenue 4 9,030 > 45.0 F 1.09 7,420 37 E Lincoln Avenue to Grand Boulevard 4 8,760 > 45.0 F 1.06 7,510 37.9 MEM Grand Boulevard to Main Street 4 8,250 43.8 E 6,850 32.2 D Main Street to 1-15 4 8,630 > 45.0 F 1.04 7,110 34.2 D 1-15 to McKinley Street 4 8,300 43.7 E 5,600 24.4 C McKinley Street to Pierce Street 3 8,530 > 45.0 F 1.37 5,360 34.5 D Pierce Street to Ma*nolia Avenue 3 7,660 > 45.0 F 1.23 4,440 29.1 D SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final E1R/EIS 1-23 Chapter 1 Project Table 1.6 2015 No Build Alternative SR-91 Peak -Hour LOS Segment Lane Type No. of Lanes AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume' Density, pclmilin LQS VIC Volume' Density, pctmilin LOS WC SR-241 to Green River Road To1I1HOV 2 2,900 23.4 C 1,500 12.5 B Green River Road to Auto Center Drive 1 2,000 35.3 E 1,300 22.5 C Auto Center Drive to Grand Boulevard 1 1,900 32.7 D 1,200 20.8 C Grand Boulevard to I-15 1 1,200 20.1 C 1,000 17.3 B 1-15 to Pierce Street 1 1,100 18.5 B 900 15.6 B Pierce Street to Magnolia Avenue 1 1,000 16.8 B 900 15.6 B ource: Highway Capacity software results, as disclosed in the Traffic Study Report (July 2010). Note 1: The Highway Capacity Software does not report a performance density greater than 45 pclmilln. For mainline segments that experience densities greater than 45 pclmilln, the VIC ratio is provided instead of density. The segments where VIC ratios are shown in this table were calculated to operate at LOS F. For mainline se ments with densities less than 45 pclmilln, the densities and LOS are shown, but no VIC ratios are provided. Note 2: A black box (U) represents a deficient segment. ' Number of vehicles per peak hour. HOV = high -occupancy vehicle 1-15 = Interstate 15 LOS = levels of service pclmilln = passenger cars per mile per lane SR-71 = State Route 71 SR-91 = State Route 91 SR-241 = State Route 241 VIC = volume -to -capacity ratio 1-24 SR-91 Corridor improvement Project Final E1R/E1S Chapter 1 Project Table 1.7 2015 No Build Alternative I-15 Peak -Hour LOS Segment Lane Type No. of Lanes AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume' Density, pclmilln LOS VIC Volume' Density, pclmilln LOS V1C 1-15 Northbound North of Hidden Valley Parkway General Purpose 4 5,630 26.6 D 6,230 30.3 D Hidden Valley Parkway to SR-91 4 5,790 26.9 D 6,300 30.2 D SR-91 to Magnolia Avenue 4 6,330 28.3 D 7,340 35.4 E Magnolia Avenue to Ontario Avenue 4 6,900 31.3 _ D 6,500 28.7 D Ontario Avenue to El Cerrito Road 3 7,290 > 45.0 F 1.16 6,000 40.1 E El Cerrito Road to Cajalco Road 3 7,040 > 45.0 F 1.12 5,650 35.6 E South of Cajaico Road 3 5,960 39.5 E 5,490 33.9 D I-15 Southbound North of Hidden Valley Parkway General Purpose 4 6,190 30 D 6,780 34.6 D Hidden Valley Parkway to SR-91 4 5,900 27.6 D 6,810 34.2 D SR-91 to Magnolia Avenue 4 7,420 36.1 E 8,010 42.5 E Magnolia Avenue to Ontario Avenue 4 6,000 26 C 7,400 35.3 E Ontario Avenue to El Cerrito Road 4 5,380 23.5 C 7,550 37.3 E El Cerrito Road to Cajalco Road 3 5,440 33.4 D 7,820 n 45.0 F 1.24 South of Cajalco Road 3 4,510 26.2 D 7,340 > 45.0 F 1.17 Source: Highway Capacity software results, as disclosed in the Traffic Study Report (July 2010). Note 1: The Highway Capacity Software does not report a performance density greater than 45 pclmilln. For mainline segments that experience densities greater than 45 pclmilln, the VIC ratio is provided instead of density. The segments where VIC ratios are shown in this table were calculated to operate at LOS F. For mainline se ments with densities less than 45 pclmilln, the densities and LOS are shown, but no VIC ratios are provided. Note 2: A black box (g) represents a deficient segment. ' Number of vehicles per peak hour. 1-15 = Interstate 15 LOS = levels of service pclmilln = passenger cars per mile per lane SR-91 = State Route 91 VIC = volume -to -capacity ratio SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/E1S 1-25 Chapter 1 Project These transportation improvements are included in all future scenarios, including the No Build Alternative. In general, it is anticipated that the Corridor A project could relieve some congestion on SR-91 by providing an alternate route connecting Riverside and Orange Counties. The SR-241/SR-91 direct connectors could help to relieve the chokepoint at the SR-241 northbound to SR-91 eastbound connector. The I-15 HOV/express lanes would not directly affect traffic on SR-91. The SR-71 additional Ianes could help to relieve the chokepoint at the SR-71/SR-91 interchange. Although the MCP would be east and south of SR-91, it would substantially affect the traffic conditions on SR-91 in the project area. Because Corridor A is assumed in the 2035 No Build and Build Alternatives, some 2035 forecast volumes along SR-91 decrease from the corresponding volumes in 2015. This occurs as a result of the shift of SR-91 traffic onto Corridor A, which is assumed to be a four -lane divided toll facility parallel to SR-91 between 1-15 and SR-241. Table 1.8 presents total traffic growth from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2035 No Build conditions and includes traffic demand for Corridor A. That growth throughout the study area ranges from approximately 22 to 90 percent. Table 1.8 2035 No Build Alternative Daily Traffic Growthl Segment Baseline/ Existing (2007) ADT 2035 No Build Alternative ADT Growth % Growth SR-91 at Orange/Riverside County line 280,000 409,100 129,100 46.1 % SR-91 west of 1-15 271,500 390,700 119,200 43.9% SR-91 east of 1-15 223,500 273,200 49,700 22.2% 1-15 north of SR-91 170,800 323,800 153,000 89.6% 1-15 south of SR-91 200,800 336,900 136,100 67.8% Source: Speed surveys and the Riverside County Transportation Commission Model Results for the SR-91 CIP, as disclosed in the Traffic Study Report (July 2010). In total vehicles per day. ADT = average daily traffic CIP = Corridor Improvement Project 1-15 = Interstate 15 SR-91 = State Route 91 Table 1.9 summarizes the No Build Alternative peak -hour and daily traffic volumes on SR-91 and I-15 under build out (2035) conditions. The segment of SR-91 between Gypsum Canyon Road and Green River Road is at the eastern terminus of the existing tolled express lanes. The volume of 1,400 vph in the eastbound direction between SR-241 and Gypsum Canyon Road represents traffic conditions prior to the merge of the SR-241/SR-91 direct toll connector (a future project in the No Build condition). With the addition of the direct toll connector, the volume increases to 3,600 vph just east of this connection point. The segments of the tolled express lanes between 7-26 SR-91 Corridor improvement Project Final E1R/EIS Table 1.9 2035 No Build Alternative SR-91 and 1-15 Traffic Volumes1 Chapter 1 Project SR 91 Segment Eastbound GP Eastbound TOII/HOV Westbound GP Westbound ToIIIHOV AM PM ADT AM PM ADT AM PM ADT AM PM ADT SR-241 to Gypsum Canyon Rd 4,880 10,020 118,100 900 1,400 12,400 11,670 5,760 120,800 1,300 900 11,300 Gypsum Canyon Rd to Green River Rd 6,100 13,500 136,200 1,700 3,600 30,400 14,100 6,900 130,000 3,600 2,000 28,600 Green River Rd to SR-71 5,030 9,720 94,000 1,300 3,600 33,600 12,730 7,060 118,200 2,500 1,700 _ 30,500 SR-71 to Auto Center Dr 6,020 12,720 127,700 1,400 2,300 24,800 13,050 6,970 118,700 2,100 1,600 28,900 Auto Center Dr to Maple St/Sixth St 5,850 12,780 127,200 1,400 2,100 26,100 11,920 7,110 117,300 2,100 1,500 29,300 Maple St/Sixth St to Lincoln Ave 5,340 12,270 120,800 1,400 1,800 25,600 10,650 6,820 111,700 2,100 1,400 27,800 Lincoln Ave to Grand Blvd 6,300 12,200 125,400 1,300 1,700 26,300 10,270 6,870 114,400 1,900 1,500 26,300 Grand Blvd to Main St 6,020 11,460 120,100 1,300 1,700 26,800 9,750 6,380 109,300 1,700 1,300 28,900 Main St to 1-15 6,390 12,400 134,600 1,000 _ 1,700 21,200 9,880 6,470 128,000 1,700 1,300 22,100 1-15 to McKinley St 5,410 11,160 120,100 1,000 1,600 17,100 9,840 5,300 115,400 950 950 20,600 McKinley St to Pierce St 5,070 10,670 113,300 1,300 2,000 19,800 9,710 4,800 111,500 1,400 1,200 19,800 Pierce St to Magnolia Ave 4,390 9,620 96,500 1,200 1,800 19,300 8,440 3,880 94,300 1,600 1,100 20,100 I-15 Segment Northbound GP Northbound Toll Southbound GP Southbound Tall AM PM ADT AM PM ADT AM PM ADT AM PM ADT North of Hidden Valley Pkwy 10,220 7,890 148,100 1,900 600 13,700 8,930 11,050 146,600 600 1,800 12,600 Hidden Valley Pkwy to SR-91 9,210 7,650 143,600 3,200 1,000 21,100 8,230 10,150 138,500 900 2,700 20,600 SR-91 to Magnolia Ave 9,350 8,660 147,900 3,200 1,000 21,100 8,560 10,980 147,300 900 2,700 20,600 Magnolia Ave to Ontario Ave 10,100 7,700 137,000 3,200 1,000 21,100 7,000 10,200 139,500 900 2,700 20,600 Ontario Ave to El Cerrito Rd 10,160 7,380 131,900 3,200 1,000 21,100 6,200 10,420 136,300 900 2,700 20,600 El Cerrito Rd to Cajalco Rd 11,260 7,420 134,200 1,300 300 10,900 6,540 11,320 139,500 300 1,200 11,000 South of Mid County Pkwy 6,760 6,290 106,300 1,300 300 10,900 4,780 7,610 112,500 300 1,200 11,000 Source: Speed surveys and the Riverside County Transportation Commission Model Results for the SR-91 CEP, as disclosed in the Tragic Study Report(July 2010). In numbers of vehicles in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours and total daily number of vehicles. ADT = average daily traffic CIP = Corridor Improvement Project GP = general-purpose lanes HOV = high -occupancy vehicle lanes 1-15 = Interstate 15 SR-71 = State Route 71 SR-91 = State Route 91 SR-241 = State Route 241 SR-91 Corridor improvement Project Final EIR/EIS 1-27 Chapter 1 Project SR-241 and Gypsum Canyon Road and between Gypsum Canyon Road and Green River Road are two-lane toll segments. The direct toll connectors from SR-241 join between these segments, resulting in an increase in toll activity east of that connection. East of Green River Road, the existing tolled express lanes terminate into the innermost GP lane and HOV lane. Table 1.10 summarizes the SR-91 GP and HOV/tolled express lane peak -hour LOS under 2035 No Build conditions. As shown in Table 1.10, during the a.m. peak hour, all the westbound general-purpose SR-91 segments and one HOV/toll lane segment are forecast to operate at LOS F with densities greater than 45 pc/mi/ln. LOS F is used to identify segments operating deficiently (i.e., segments on which the traffic volumes exceed the road capacity) because LOS E is identified as the minimum traffic LOS standard for regional highways (except for highways that operated at LOS F in 1991) in the approved Riverside County Congestion Management Program (December 14, 2011). Because the densities are not reported for segments operating at LOS F, the v/c ratios provide a planning level quantitative analysis of the relative deficiency for the segments. A review of the v/c ratios suggests that substantial capacity deficiencies occur, with the segment from SR-71 to Auto Center Drive experiencing the highest v/c ratio (i.e., 1.57). No segments are forecast to operate deficiently in the eastbound direction during the a.m. peak hour. Table 1.11 summarizes the I-15 GP and HOV/tolled express lane peak -hour LOS under 2035 No Build conditions. Along I-15 in 2035, all northbound mainline segments are forecast to operate at LOS F during the a.m. peak hour, while four of the seven segments are anticipated to operate at LOS F during the p.m. peak hour. A review of the v/c ratios reveals that the most substantial congestion is forecast to occur on the two segments between Cajalco Road and Ontario Avenue in the a.m. peak hour, where v/c ratios are forecast to be 1.79 and 1.61, respectively. Four southbound mainline segments are forecast to operate at LOS F in the a.m. peak hour. All the mainline southbound segments on I-15 are forecast to operate at LOS F during the p.m. peak hour, with the segment between El Cerrito Road and Cajalco Road experiencing the highest v/c ratio (i.e., 1.80). 1-28 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final E1R/E1S Chapter 1 Project Table 1.10 2035 No Build Alternative SR-91 Peak -Hour LOS1 Segment Lane Type No. of Lanes AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume Density, pclmilln LOS V!C Volume Density, pclmilln LOS V!C SR-91 Eastbound SR-241 to Gypsum Canyon Road General Purpose 4 4,880 21.1 C 10,020 > 45.0 F 1.21 Gypsum Canyon Road to Green River Road 5 6,100 20.1 C 13,500 > 45.0 F 1.30 Green River Road to SR-71 5 5,030 17.0 B 9,720 37.0 E SR-71 to Auto Center Drive 4 6,020 26.2 D 12,720 > 45.0 F 1.53 Auto Center Drive to Maple Street 4 5,850 26.1 D 12,780 > 45.0 F 1.54 Maple Street to Lincoln Avenue 4 5,340 23.7 C 12,270 > 45.0 F 1.48 Lincoln Avenue to Grand Boulevard 4 6,300 28.6 D 12,200 > 45.0 F 1.47 Grand Boulevard to Main Street 4 6,020 27.0 D 11,460 > 45.0 F 1.38 Main Street to 1-15 4 6,390 29.2 D 12,400 > 45.0 F 1.50 1.35 1-15 to McKinley Street 4 5,410 23.5 C 11,160 > 45.0 F McKinley Street to Pierce Street 3 5,070 31.5 D 10,670 > 45.0 F 1.72 Pierce Street to Magnolia Avenue 3 4,390 28.8 D 9,620 > 45.0 F 1.55 SR-241 to Green River Road To11IHOV 2 1,700 14.2 B 3,600 29.6 D Green River Road to Auto Center Drive 1 1,400 24.2 C 3,600 > 45.0 F 1.57 Auto Center Drive to Lincoln Avenue 1 1,400 24.2 C 2,100 38.3 E Lincoln Avenue to Main Street 1 1,300 23.5 C 1,700 29.8 D Main Street to 1-15 1 1,000 17.3 B 1,700 28.6 D 1-15 to Pierce Street 1 1,300 22.5 C 2,000 35.3 E Pierce Street to Magnolia Avenue 1 1,200 20.8 C 1,800 30.5 D SR-91 Westbound SR-241 to Gypsum Canyon Road General Purpose 4 11,670 > 45.0 F 1.41 5,760 25.2 C Gypsum Canyon Road to Green River Road 5 14,100 > 45.0 F 1.36 6,900 23.5 C Green River Road to SR-71 4 12,730 > 45.0 F 1.54 7,060 33.2 D SR-71 to Auto Center Drive 4 13,050 > 45.0 F 1.57 6,970 32.2 D Auto Center Drive to Maple Street 4 11,920 > 45.0 F 1.44 7,110 34.2 D Maple Street to Lincoln Avenue 4 10,650 > 45.0 F 1.28 6,820 32.0 D Lincoln Avenue to Grand Boulevard 4 10,270 > 45.0 F 1.24 6,870 32.4 D Grand Boulevard to Main Street 4 9,750 > 45.0 F 1.18 6,380 29.1 D Main Street to 1-15 4 9,880 > 45.0 F 1.19 6,470 29.6 D 1-15 to McKinley Street 4 9,840 > 45,0 F 1.19 5,300 22.9 C McKinley Street to Pierce Street 3 9,710 > 45.0 F 1.56 4,800 29.2 D Pierce Street to Magnolia Avenue 3 8,440 > 45.0 F 1.36 3,880 25.4 C SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/E!S 1-29 Chapter 1 Project Table 1.10 2035 No Build Alternative SR-91 Peak -Hour LOS1 Segment Lane Type No. of Lanes AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume Density, pclmilln L05 VIC Volume density, pclmilln LOS VIC SR-241 to Green River Road ToII1HOV 2 3,600 29.6 D 2,000 16.7 B Green River Road to Auto Center Drive 1 2,500 > 45.0 F 1.09 1,700 29.6 D Auto Center Drive to Grand Boulevard 1 2,100 38.3 E 1,500 26.0 C Grand Boulevard to I-15 1 1,700 28.6 D 1,300 22.5 C 1-15 to Pierce Street 1 1,400 23.5 C 1,200 20.8 C Pierce Street to Magnolia Avenue 1 1,600 26.9 D 1,100 19.0 B �gnway capacity software results, as disclosed in the Traffic Study Report (July 2010). Note 1: The Highway Capacity Software does not report a performance density greater than 45 pclmilln. For mainline segments that experience densities greater than 45 pclmilln, the V/C ratio is provided instead of density. The segments where VIC ratios are shown in this table were calculated to operate at LOS F. For mainline se ments with densities less than 45 pclmilln, the densities and LOS are shown, but no VIC ratios are provided. Note 2: A black box (U) represents a deficient segment. In numbers of vehicles in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. HOV = high -occupancy vehicle 1-15 = Interstate 15 LOS = levels of service pclmilln = passenger cars per mile per lane SR-71 = State Route 71 SR-91 = State Route 91 SR-241 = State Route 241 VIC = volume -to -capacity ratio 1-30 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Chapter 1 Project Table 1.11 2035 No Build Alternative 1-15 Peak -Hour LOS1 Segment Lane Type Na. of Lanes AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume Density, pc/rill/1n LOS WC Volume Density, pclmilln LOS WC 1-15 Northbound North of Hidden Valley Parkway General Purpose 4 10,220 > 45.0 F 1.30 7,890 > 45.0 F 1.00 Hidden Valley Parkway to SR-91 4 9,210 > 45.0 F 1.17 7,650 43.9 E SR-91 to Magnolia Avenue 4 9,350 > 45.0 F 1.11 8,660 > 45.0 F 1.03 Magnolia Avenue to Ontario Avenue 4 10,100 > 45.0 F 1.20 7,700 38.2 E Ontario Avenue to El Cerrito Road 3 10,160 > 45.0 F 1.61 7,380 > 45.0 F 1.17 El Cerrito Road to Cajalco Road 3 11,260 > 45.0 F 1.79 7,420 > 45.0 F 1.18 South of Cajalco Road 3 6,760 > 45.0 F 1.07 6,290 44,9 E North of Hidden Valley Parkway ToIIIHOV 2 1,900 15.3 B 600 4.8 A El Cerrito Road to Hidden Valley Parkway 2 3,200 25.9 C 1,000 8.0 A South of El Cerrito Road 2 1,300 10.1 A 300 2.3 A 1-15 Southbound North of Hidden Valley Parkway General Purpose 4 8,930 > 45.0 F 1.14 11,050 > 45.0 F 1.40 Hidden Valley Parkway to SR-91 4 8,230 > 45.0 F 1.05 1.02 10,150 10,980 > 45.0 > 45.0 > 45.0 F 1.29 1.31 1.21 SR-91 to Magnolia Avenue 4 8,560 > 45.0 F F Magnolia Avenue to Ontario Avenue 4 7,000 32.1 D 10,200 F Ontario Avenue to El Cerrito Road 4 6,200 27.6 D 10,420 > 45.0 F 1.24 1.80 1.21 El Cerrito Road to Cajalco Road 3 6,540 > 45.0 F 1.04 11,320 > 45.0 F South of Cajalco Road 3 4,780 28.0 D 7,610 > 45.0 F North of Hidden Valley Parkway To11/H0V 2 600 4.8 A 1,800 14.5 B El Cerrito Road to Hidden Valley Parkway 2 900 7.2 A 2,700 21.7 C South of El Cerrito Road 2 300 2.3 A 1,200 9.3 A ❑urce: Highway Capacity software results, as disclosed in the Traffic Study Report (July 2010). Note 1: The Highway Capacity Software does not report a performance density greater than 45 pclmilln. For mainline segments that experience densities greater than 45 pclmilln, the VIC ratio is provided instead of density. The segments where VIC ratios are shown in this table were calculated to operate at LOS F. For mainline so ments with densities less than 45 pclmilln, the densities and LOS are shown, but no VIC ratios are provided. Note 2: A black box (U) represents a deficient segment. In numbers of vehicles in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. HOV = high -occupancy vehicle 1-15 = Interstate 15 LOS = levels of service pclmilln = passenger cars per mile per lane SR-71 = State Route 71 SR-91 = State Route 91 SR-241 = State Route 241 VIC = volume -to -capacity ratio SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/E1S 1-31 Chapter 1 Project HOV lane performance is forecast to continue to deteriorate under 2035 conditions, with two segments operating at LOS E and one segment (Green River Road to Auto Center Drive) continuing to operate at LOS F during the p.m. peak hour in the eastbound direction. One segment operates at LOS F during the a.m. Peak Hour In The Westbound Direction (Green River Road To Auto Center Drive). 1.3.1.7 Traffic Diversion When the segment of SR-91 between Green River Road and Main Street in the City of Corona operates at LOS F, local and regional traffic avoids using the freeway and travels on local roads in the City of Corona paralleling SR-91, adding additional trips on those roads. This existing traffic behavior has been substantiated by the City of Corona Traffic Management Center, which monitors traffic through video cameras mounted at 50 intersections in the City. In the future No Build condition, traffic shifting from SR-91 to the parallel arterials to avoid freeway congestion is verified based on the 2015 model results. Sixth Street from Main Street to 1-15 will operate at LOS E under No Build conditions and will be improved to LOS D under the Initial Phases of the SR-91 C1P. Based on the 2035 model results, Sixth Street from Maple Street to Smith Avenue and from Main Street to 1-15 will operate at LOS E and F under No Build conditions and will be improved to LOS D and E under SR-91 CIP Ultimate Project conditions, respectively. These results indicate that the SR-91 CIP Build AIternatives will divert local traffic back to the freeway and improve the arterial levels of service. -Using data from the RCTC traffic model (used in the approved Traffic Study Report [2010]), Table 1.12 shows that the reduced congestion on SR-91 with the Build Alternatives reduces traffic volumes along key local roads that parallel SR-91. For example, as shown in Table 1.12, Alternatives 1 and 2 would reduce the diversion of traffic onto Sixth Street Road which is one-half mile south of SR-91 by 7 percent and 13 percent, respectively, in 2015, and by 8 percent and 9 percent, respectively, in 2035. 1-32 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/E1S Chapter 1 Project Table 1.12 Local Street Traffic Diversion Percentages Location 2015 Difference' 2035 Difference' Change with Alternative 1 Change with Alternative 2 Change with Alternative 1 Change with Alternative 2 Segments between SR-241 and SR-71 Green River Road -9% -25% 0% -4% Segments between SR-71 and 1-15 6th Street (elo Main St.) -7% -13% -8% -9% Ontario Blvd. (w/o Magnolia) -28% -40% -5% -7% Railroad Street (w/o Main St.) -29% -27% -20% -22% Segments between 1-15 and Pierce Street Magnolia Ave. (w/o McKinley) -35% -36% -10% -10% Hidden Valley (e/o 1-15) -19% -21 % -3% -3% Source: RCTC Traffic Model (Traffic Study Report, 2010). ' Change in traffic volumes on local roads when comparing the SR-91 Build Alternatives to the No Build Alternative. Blvd. = Boulevard SR-91 = State Route 91 e/o = east of St. = Street EB = eastbound w/o = west of GP = general-purpose lane WB = westbound 1-15 = Interstate 15 1.3.1.8 Travel Time and Travel Speeds Table 1.13 summarizes travel times and speeds on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 for the Baseline/Existing (2007) condition, and for 2015 and 2035 with the No Build and Build Alternatives based on the peak directions and hours of travel (i.e., westbound in the a.m. peak hour and eastbound in the p.m. peak hour). The a.m. peak hour direction of travel is on westbound SR-91. The p.m. peak hour direction of travel is eastbound on SR-91. A travel time and speed comparison of the 2015 and 2035 conditions (No Build and project alternatives) with Baseline/Existing (2007) conditions is provided in the following sections. As shown in the following discussion regarding travel times and travel speeds, the additional lane provided in each direction in Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1 generally results in reduced travel times and increased travel speeds under Alternative 2 compared to both Alternative 1 and the No Build Alternative. SR-241 and Gypsum Canyon Road and between Gypsum Canyon Road and Green River Road are two-lane toll segments. The direct toll connectors from SR-241 join between these segments, resulting in an increase in toll activity east of that connection. East of Green River Road, the existing tolled express lanes terminate into the innermost GP lane and HOV lane. SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final DR/EIS 1-33 Chapter 1 Project Table 1.13 SR-91 Travel Time and Travel Speed Summaryl Lanes Baseline/ Existing (2007) 2015 2035 No Build Alt 1 Ultimate Project Alt 2 Ultimate Project Alt 2 Initial Phase2 No Build Alt 1 Ultimate Project Alt 2 Ultimate Project SR-91 Westbound (AM Peak Hour) Travel Time (minutes) General Purpose 28.5 36.1 30.7 28.9 32.6 43.2 36.6 37.3 Percent change compared to Baseline/Existing (2007) -- 26 7% 7.7% 1.4% 14.4% 51.6% 28.4% 30.9% HOVITalled Express 12.1 18.4 15.5 13.1 12.0 25.9 23.5 12.6 Percent change Compared to Baseline/Existing (2007) _ 52.1 % 28.1 % 8.3% -0.8% 114.0% 94.2% 4.1 Travel Speed (mph) General Purpose 24.2 19.1 22.5 23.8 21.2 16.0 18.9 18.5 Percent change compared to Baseline/Existing (2007) _ -21.1% -7.0% -1.7% -12.4% -33.9% -21.9% -23.6% HOV/Tolled Express 56.8 37.5 44.4 52.8 57.3 26.6 29.4 55.0 Percent change compared to Baseline/Existing (2007) _ -34.0% -21.8% -7.0% 0.9% -53.2% -48.2% -3.2% SR-91 Eastbound (PM Peak Hour) Travel Time (minutes) General Purpose 44.0 79.1 66.3 63.7 70.6 86.4 73.3 73.7 Percent change compared to Baseline/Existing (2007) -- 79.8% 50.7% 44.8% 60.5% 96.4% 66.6% 67.5% HOV/Tolled Express 30.0 39.7 31.2 13.0 12.5 47.0 48.1 13.8 Percent change compared to Baseline/Existing (2007) -- 32.3% 4.0% -56.7% -58.3% 56.7% 60.3% -54.0% Travel Speed (mph) General Purpose 15.7 8.7 10.4 10.8 9.8 8.0 i 9.4 9.4 Percent change compared to Baseline/Existing (2007) _ -44.6% -33.8% -31.2% -37.6% -49.0% -40.1% -40.1% HOV! Polled Express 23.0 17.4 22.1 53.0 55.0 14.7 14.4 50.0 Percent change compared to Baseline/Existing (2007) _- -24.3% -3.9% 130.4% 139.1 % -36.1 % -37.4% 117.4% Source: Speed surveys and the RCTC Model Results for the SR-91 CIP, as disclosed in Table 4-64 in the Traffic Study Report (July 2010). Travel times and speeds are for SR-91 between SR-241 and 1-15. 2 The 2015 conditions under the Initial Phase of Alternative 1 are considered to be the same as for the Initial Phase of Alternative 2. Alt = Alternative mph = miles per hour CIF = Corridor Improvement Project RCTC = Riverside County Transportation Commission HOV = high -occupancy vehicle SR-241 = State Route 241 1-15 = Interstate 15 SR-91 = State Route 91 1-34 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/E1S Chapter 1 Project No Build Conditions In the AM Peak Hour (Westbound SR-91) In the a.m. peak hour, the westbound travel time in the GP lanes on SR-91 is forecast to increase by approximately 8 minutes (or an increase of 26.7 percent) from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2015 No Build conditions, and by approximately 15 minutes (or an increase of 51.6 percent) to 2035 No Build conditions. In the a.m. peak hour, the westbound travel speed in the GP lanes on SR-91 is forecast to decrease by approximately 5 mph (or a decrease of 21.1 percent) from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2015 No Build conditions, and by approximately 8 mph (or a decrease of 33.9 percent) to 2035 No Build conditions. In the a.m. peak hour, the westbound travel time in the HOV/tolled express lanes on SR-91 is forecast to increase by approximately 6 minutes (or an increase of 52.1 percent) from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2015 No Build conditions, and by approximately 14 minutes (or an increase of 114.0 percent) to 2035 No Build conditions. In the a.m. peak hour, the westbound travel speed in the HOV/tolled express lanes on SR-91 is forecast to decrease by approximately 19 mph (or a decrease of 34.0 percent) from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2015 No Build conditions, and by approximately 30 mph (or a decrease of 53.2 percent) to 2035 No Build conditions. No Build Conditions in the PM Peak Hour (Eastbound SR-91) In the p.m. peak hour, the eastbound travel time in the GP lanes on SR-91 is forecast to increase by approximately 35 minutes (or an increase of 79.8 percent) from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2015 No Build conditions, and by approximately 42 minutes (or an increase of 96.4 percent) to 2035 No Build conditions. In the p.m. peak hour, the eastbound travel speed in the GP lanes on SR-91 is forecast to decrease by approximately 7 mph (or a decrease of 44.6 percent) from Baseline/ Existing (2007) to 2015 No Build conditions, and by approximately 8 mph (or a decrease of 49.0 percent) to 2035 No Build conditions. In the p.m. peak hour, the eastbound travel time in the HOV/tolled express lanes on SR-91 is forecast to increase by approximately 10 minutes (or an increase of 32.3 percent) from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2015 No Build conditions, and by approximately 17 minutes (or an increase of 56.7 percent) to 2035 No Build conditions. SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final E1R/EIS 1-35 Chapter 1 Project In the p.m. peak hour, the eastbound travel speed in the HOV/tolled express lanes on SR-91 is forecast to decrease by approximately 6 mph (or a decrease of 24.3 percent) from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2015 No Build conditions, and by approximately 8 mph (or a decrease of 36.1 percent) to 2035 No Build conditions. Alternative 1 in the AM Peak Hour (Westbound SR-91) In the a.m. peak hour, the westbound travel time in the GP lanes on SR-91 is forecast to increase by approximately 2 minutes (or an increase of 7.7 percent) from Baseline/ Existing (2007) conditions to 2015 with Alternative 1, and by approximately 8 minutes (or an increase of28.4 percent) to 2035 with Alternative 1. In the a.m. peak hour, the westbound travel speed in the GP lanes on SR-91 is forecast to decrease by approximately 2 mph (or a decrease of 7.0 percent) from Baseline/Existing (2007) conditions to 2015 with Alternative 1 conditions, and by approximately 5 mph (or a decrease of 21.9 percent) to 2035 with Alternative 1 conditions. In the a.m. peak hour, the westbound travel time in the HOV/tolled express lanes on SR-91 is forecast to increase by approximately 3 minutes (or an increase of 28.1 percent) from Baseline/Existing (2007) conditions to 2015 with Alternative 1, and by approximately 11 minutes (or an increase of 94.2 percent) to 2035 with Alternative 1. In the a.m. peak hour, the westbound travel speed in the HOV/tolled express lanes on SR-91 is forecast to decrease by approximately 12 mph (or a decrease of 21.8 percent) from Baseline/Existing (2007) conditions to 2015 with Alternative 1, and by approximately 27 mph (or a decrease of 48.2 percent) to 2035 with Alternative 1. Alternative 1 in the PM Peak Hour (Eastbound SR-91) In the p.m. peak hour, the eastbound travel time in the GP lanes on SR-91 is forecast to increase by approximately 22 minutes (or an increase of 50.7 percent) from Baseline/Existing (2007) conditions to 2015 with Alternative 1 and by approximately 29 minutes (or an increase of 66.6 percent) to 2035 with Alternative 1. In the p.m. peak hour, the eastbound travel speed in the GP lanes on SR-91 is forecast to decrease by approximately 5 mph (or a decrease of 33.8 percent) from Baseline/Existing (2007) conditions to 2015 with Alternative 1, and by approximately 6 mph (or a decrease of 40.1 percent) to 2035 with Alternative 1. 1-36 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/E1S Chapter 1 Project In the p.m. peak hour, the eastbound travel time in the HOV/tolled express lanes on SR-91 is forecast to increase by approximately 1 minute (or an increase of 4.0 percent) from Baseline/Existing (2007) conditions to 2015 with Alternative 1, and by approximately 18 minutes (or an increase of 60.3 percent) to 2035 with Alternative 1. In the p.m. peak hour, the eastbound travel speed in the HOV/tolled express lanes on SR-91 is forecast to decrease by approximately 1 mph (or a decrease of 3.9 percent) from Baseline/Existing (2007) conditions to 2015 with Alternative 1, and by approximately 9 mph (or a decrease of 37.4 percent) to 2035 with Alternative 1. Alternative 2 in the AM Peak Hour (Westbound SR-91) In the a.m. peak hour, the westbound travel time in the GP lanes on SR-91 is forecast to increase by approximately 0.5 minute (or an increase of 1.4 percent) from Baseline/Existing (2007) conditions to 2015 with Alternative 2, and by approximately 9 minutes (or an increase of 30.9 percent) to 2035 with Alternative 2. In the a.m. peak hour, the westbound travel speed in the GP lanes on SR-91 is forecast to decrease by approximately 0.5 mph (or a decrease of 1.7 percent) from Baseline/Existing (2007) conditions to 2015 with Alternative 2, and by approximately 6 mph (or a decrease of 23.6 percent) to 2035 with Alternative 2. In the a.m. peak hour, the westbound travel time in the HOVltolled express lanes on SR-91 is forecast to increase by approximately 1 minute (or an increase of 8.3 percent) from Baseline/Existing (2007) conditions to 2015 with Alternative 2, and by approximately 0.5 minute (or an increase of 4.1 percent) to 2035 with Alternative 2. In the a.m. peak hour, the westbound travel speed in the HOVltolled express lanes on SR-91 is forecast to decrease by approximately 4 mph (or a decrease of 7.0 percent) from Baseline/Existing (2007) conditions to 2015 with Alternative 2, and by approximately 2 mph (or a decrease of 3.2 percent) to 2035 with Alternative 2. Alternative 2 in the PM Peak Hour (Eastbound SR-9V In the p.m. peak hour, the eastbound travel time in the GP lanes on SR-91 is forecast to increase by approximately 20 minutes (or an increase of 44.8 percent) from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2015 with Alternative 2, and by approximately 30 minutes (or an increase of 67.5 percent) to 2035 with Alternative 2. SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final E1R1EIS 1-37 Chapter 1 Project In the p.m. peak hour, the eastbound travel speed in the GP lanes is forecast to decrease by approximately 5 mph (or a decrease of 31.2 percent) from Baseline/ Existing (2007) conditions to 2015 with Alternative 2, and by approximately 6 mph (or a decrease of 40.1 percent) to 2035 with Alternative 2. In the p.m. peak hour, the eastbound travel time in the HOV/tolled express lanes on SR-91 is forecast to decrease by approximately 17 minutes (or a decrease of 56.7 percent) from Baseline/Existing (2007) conditions to 2015 with Alternative 2, and by approximately 16 minutes (or a decrease of 54.0 percent) to 2035 with Alternative 2. In the p.m. peak hour, the eastbound travel speed in the HOV/tolled express lanes on SR-91 is forecast to increase by approximately 30 mph (or an increase of 130.4 percent) from Baseline/Existing (2007) conditions to 2015 with Alternative 2, and by approximately 27 mph (or an increase of 117.4 percent) to 2035 with Alternative 2. initial Phase of Alternative 2 in the AM Peak Hour (Westbound SR-91) In the a.m. peak hour, the westbound travel time in the GP lanes on SR-91 is forecast to increase by approximately 4 minutes (or an increase of 14.4 percent) from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2015 with the Initial Phase of Alternative 2. In the a.m. peak hour, the westbound travel speed in the GP lanes on SR-91 is forecast to decrease by approximately 3 mph (or a decrease of 12.4 percent) from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2015 with the Initial Phase of Alternative 2. In the a.m. peak hour, the westbound travel time in the HOV/toiled express lanes on SR-91 is forecast to be relatively unchanged (or a decrease of 0.8 percent) from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2015 with the Initial Phase of Alternative 2. In the a.m. peak hour, the westbound travel speed in the HOV/tolled express lanes on SR-91 is forecast to increase by approximately 1 mph (or an increase of 0.9 percent) 1 from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2015 with the Initial Phase of Alternative 2. Initial Phase of Alternative 2 in the PM Peak Hour (Eastbound SR-99) In the p.m. peak hour, the eastbound travel time in the GP lanes on SR-91 is forecast to increase by approximately 27 minutes (or an increase of 60.5 percent) from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2015 with the Initial Phase of Alternative 2. 1-38 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/E1S Chapter 1 Project In the p.m. peak hour, the eastbound travel speed in the GP lanes is forecast to decrease by approximately 6 mph (or a decrease of 37.6 percent) from Baseline/ Existing (2007) to 2015 with the Initial Phase of Alternative 2. In the p.m. peak hour, the eastbound travel time in the HOV/tolled express lanes on SR-91 is forecast to decrease by approximately 18 minutes (or a decrease of 58.3 percent) from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2015 with the Initial Phase of Alternative 2. In the p.m. peak hour, the eastbound travel speed in the HOV/tolled express lanes on SR-91 is forecast to increase by approximately 32 mph (or an increase of 139.1 percent) from Baseline/Existing (2007) to 2015 with the Initial Phase of Alternative 2. 1.3.1.9 Safety Accident data for individual segments on SR-91 and I-15 were reviewed for the 3-year period from November 1, 2004, to October 31, 20071. Those data are summarized in Table 1.14 for accident rates on the mainline freeways, on freeway -to - freeway connector ramps, and on SR-91 and I-151oca1 road interchange ramps. The actual accident rates were compared with the Statewide average accident rates for similar facilities. The actual accident rate on the eastbound SR-91 mainline is higher than the Statewide average. Actual accident rates on the westbound direction of the SR-91 mainline and on both directions of the I-15 mainline are below the Statewide average. The Caltrans District 8 2004-2007 Traffic Accident and Surveillance and Analysis System (TASAS) data provided in The Traffic Study Report (July 2010) indicate that the predominant types of these accidents are rear -end and sideswipe crashes, which account for approximately 50 percent and 25 percent of all accident types, respectively. As shown on Table 1.14, the "Total" columns show the total accident rates. The other columns are the fatal accidents ("F") and fatal + injury accidents ("F+I"). The totals include property -damage -only accidents (which are not shown in Table 1.14) so they are not just a sum of the "F" and "F+I" columns. The Depaitment TASAS data are compiled in 3-year increments. At the time the Traffic Study Report (July 2010) was approved, the 2004-2007 TASAS data were the most current data available. SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final E1R/EIS 1-39 Chapter 1 Project Table 1.14 Summary of Accident Rates Segment Actual Accident Rate' Statewide Average Accident Rate F F+I Total F t F+I Total Freeway Mainline Segments SR-91 EB: SR-241 to Riverside County Line 0.003 0.39 1.60 0.006 0.39 1.23 SR-91 WB: SR-241 to Riverside County Line 0.010 0.27 4.98 0.006 0.39 1.23 SR-91 EB: Orange County Line to Pierce St 0.004 0.35 1.18 0.006 0.36 1.13 SR-91 WB: Orange County Line to Pierce St 0.005 0.26 0.89 0.006 0.36 1.13 1-15 NB: Cajalco Rd to Hidden Valley Pkwy 0.004 0.25 0.95 0.011 0.37 1.07 1-15 SB: Cajalco Rd to Hidden Valley Pkwy 0.006 0.17 0.61 0.011 0.37 1.07 Freeway -to -Freeway Direct Connectors SR-91 EB to SB SR-241 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.004 0.15 0.45 SR-91 WB to NB SR-241 0.000 0.26 0.26 0.006 0.19 0.55 SR-91 EB to NB SR-241 0.000 0.14 0.92 0.006 0.33 0.90 SR-91 WB to SB SR-241 0.000 0.04 0.24 0.006 0.21 0.60 SR-91 WB to SR-71 SB 0.076 0.38 0.91 0.004 0.13 0.40 SR-91 EB to SR-71 NB 0.000 0.00 0.37 0.004 0.26 0.90 SR-91 WB to SR-71 NB 0.065 D.20 0.39 0.004 0.15 0.45 SR-91 EB to SR-71 SB 0.000 0.00 0.63 0.006 0.19 0.55 SR-91 WB to SB 1-15 0.000 0.05 0.20 0.006 0.19 0.55 1-15 NB to SR-91 (both EB & WB) 0.000 0.22 1.10 0.002 0.08 0.25 SR-91 EB to 1-15 SB 0.000 0.00 0.06 0.004 0.13 0.04 1-15 SB to SR-91 EB 0.000 0.07 0.33 0.004 0.26 0.90 SR-91 WB to 1-15 NB 0.064 0.13 0.32 0.004 0.13 0.40 1-15 SB to SR-91 WB 0.000 0.18 0.42 0.004 0.15 0.45 SR-91 EB to 1-15 NB 0.000 0.03 0.13 0.006 0.19 0.55 SR-91 Freeway -to -Arterial Ramps Gypsum Canyon Rd EB off -ramp 0.000 0.38 0.38 0.005 0.61 1.50 Gypsum Canyon Rd WB on -ramp 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.003 0.22 0.60 Gypsum Canyon Rd EB on -ramp 0.000 0.20 0.20 0.001 0.24 0.70 Gypsum Canyon Rd WB on -ramp 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.24 0.70 Gypsum Canyon Rd EB on -ramp 0.000 0.00 1.53 0.003 0.22 0.60 Gypsum Canyon Rd WB off -ramp 0.000 0.24 0.24 0.005 0.61 1.50 Green River Rd EB off -ramp 0.000 0.15 0.46 0.005 0.61 1.50 Green River Rd WB on -ramp 0.000 0.00 0.10 0.002 0.32 0.80 Green River Rd WB off -ramp 0.000 0.23 1.87 0.005 0.61 1.50 Green River Rd EB on -ramp 0.000 0.51 0.51 0.002 0.32 0.80 SR-91 Freeway -to -Arterial Ramps Auto Center Dr WB on -ramp 0.000 0.00 0.69 0.002 0.32 0.80 Auto Center Dr EB off -ramp 0.000 0.42 0.69 0.005 0.61 1.50 Auto Center Dr EB on -ramp 0.000 0.11 0.34 0.002 0.32 0.80 Auto Center Dr WB off -ramp 0.000 0.43 1.14 0.005 0.61 1.50 Maple St EB off -ramp 0.083 0,83 1.49 0.005 0.61 1.50 Maple St WB on -ramp 0.000 0.09 0.60 0.003 0.32 0.85 Maple St EB on -ramp 0.000 0.29 0.44 0.003 0.17 0.45 Maple St WB off -ramp 0.000 0.46 1.22 0.005 0.61 1.50 Lincoln Ave WB on -ramp 0.000 0.00 0.42 0.002 0.32 0.80 Lincoln Ave EB off -ramp 0.000 1.27 3.68 0.004 0.50 1.35 Lincoln Ave WB off -ramp 0.000 0.08 0.38 0.005 0.61 1.50 Lincoln Ave EB on -ramp 0.000 0.61 1.98 0.002 0.32 0.80 Vicentia Ave EB off -ramp 0.000 0.00 0.23 0.003 0.31 0.90 School St (Grand) WB on -ramp 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.002 0.19 0.55 Main St WB on -ramp 0.000 0.32 0.86 0.003 0.17 0.45 Main St EB off -ramp 0.000 0.27 2.15 0.006 0.33 0.90 Main St WB off -ramp 0.000 0.30 1.04 0.006 0.35 0.90 Main St EB on -ramp 0.000 0.55 1.34 0.002 0.32 0.80 McKinley St WB on -ramp 0.000 0.21 0.66 0.002 0.32 0.80 McKinley St EB off -ramp 0.000 0.13 0.87 0.005 0.61 1.50 McKinley St WB off -ramp (loop) 0.000 0.44 1.31 0.003 0.42 1.25 McKinley St EB on -ramp (loop) 0.000 0.00 0.31 0.001 0.24 0.70 McKinley St EB on -ramp 0.000 0.19 1.33 0.003 0.22 0.60 McKinley St WB off -ramp 0.000 0.00 0.34 0.006 0.33 0.90 1-40 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Chapter 1 Project Table 1.14 Summary of Accident Rates Segment Actual Accident Rate' Statewide Averafge Accident Rate F F+I Total F F+1 Total Pierce St WB on -ramp 0.000 0.39 0.52 0.002 0.32 0.80 Pierce St EB off -ramp 0.000 0.20 0.92 0.005 0.61 1.50 Magnolia Ave WB on -ramp 0.000 0.83 1.04 0.003 0.22 0.60 Magnolia Ave EB off -ramp 0.000 0.00 1.22 0.003 0.42 1.25 Magnolia Ave WB off -ramp 0.000 0.57 0.71 0.003 0.42 1.25 Magnolia Ave EB on -ramp 0.000 0.00 0.45 0.003 0.22 y 0.60 I-15 Freeway -to -Arterial Ramps Cajalco Rd NB off -ramp 0.000 0.55 1.46 0.006 0.19 0.60 Cajalco Rd NB on -ramp 0.000 0.36 0.54 0.005 0.16 0.45 Cajalco Rd SB on -ramp 0.000 0.00 0.30 0.009 0.35 0.85 Cajalco Rd SB off -ramp 0.000 0.18 0.71 0.007 0.24 0.70 El Cerrito Rd NB off -ramp 0.000 1.28 2_88 0.005 0.61 1.50 El Cerrito Rd SB on -ramp 0.000 0.27 0.54 0.002 0.32 0.80 1-15 Freeway -to -Arterial Ramps El Cerrito Rd NB on -ramp 0.000 0.00 0.32 0.002 0.32 0.80 El Cerrito Rd SB off -ramp 0.000 0.63 2.99 0.005 0.61 1.50 Ontario Ave NB off -ramp 0.000 0.24 0.96 0.005 0.61 1.50 Ontario Ave SB on -ramp 0.000 0.56 0.89 0.002 0.32 0.80 Ontario Ave NB on -ramp 0.000 0.13 0.67 0.002 0.32 0.80 Ontario Ave SB off -ramp 0.000 0.13 0.79 0.005 0.61 1.50 Magnolia Ave SB on -ramp 0.000 0.46 1.70 0.002 0.32 0.80 Magnolia Ave NB off -ramp 0.000 1.72 3.65 0.005 0.61 1.50 Magnolia Ave NB on -ramp 0.000 0.05 1.57 0.002 0.32 0.80 Magnolia Ave SB off -ramp 0.000 0.23 1.01 0.005 0.61 1.50 Hidden Valley Pkwy NB off-ramE 0.000 0.37 0.73 0.005 0.61 1.50 Hidden Valley Pkwy SB on -ramp 0.000 0.21 1.27 0.002 0.32 0.80 Hidden Valley Pkwy NB on -ramp 0.000 0.11 0.75 0.002 0.32 0.80 Hidden Valley Pkwy SB off -ramp 0.000 0.18 2.01 0.005 0.61 1.50 Source: Ca!trans District 8 2004-2007 Traffic Accident and Surveillance and Analysis System (TASAS). Note 1: The Department TASAS data are compiled in 3-year increments. At the time the Traffic Study Report (July 2010) was approved, the 2004-2007 TASAS data were the most current data available. Note 2: Bold italics indicate segments that have higher accident rates than the Statewide average for similar facilities. ' Accidents are reported as: (1) number of accidents per million vehicle miles (MVM) on the freeway mainline, and (2) number of accidents per million vehicles (MV) on freeway ramps. The totals are totals of Property Damage Only (PDO) accidents. Ave = Avenue Dr = Drive EB = eastbound F = Number of fatal accidents per million vehicle miles traveled F+l = Number of accidents with both fatalities and injuries per million vehicle miles traveled 1-15 = Interstate 15 NB = northbound Pkwy = Parkway PM = Post Mile Rd = Road SB = southbound SR-71 = State Route 71 SR-91 = State Route 91 SR-241 = State Route 241 St = Street Total = total number of accidents (including non -fatal and non -injury) per million vehicle miles traveled WB = westbound SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Chapter 1 Project lTable 1.14 shows that the accident rates for 4 of 6 mainline segments and 10 of 15 connectors are similar to or below the statewide average for similar facilities. Several project elements that are described below would be expected to improve overall corridor safety and potentially reduce accidents. • The accident rate on the southbound SR-71 to westbound SR-91 connector is more than twice the State average for highway connectors. This connector would be improved under Alternatives 1 and 2 because the SR-71/SR-91 system interchange would be modified to accommodate the project improvements on SR-91. • The accident rate on the northbound I-15 to SR-91 westbound and eastbound connectors is more than four times the statewide average. These connectors would be improved under Alternatives 1 and 2. The collector -distributor facility in the westbound direction on SR-91 between I-15 and Main Street that would be constructed as part of the project is expected to reduce congestion and related accidents on the connectors. The fatality rate on the westbound SR-91 to northbound 1-15 connector is above the statewide average, likely due to weaving constraints from the Main Street ramps. Braiding the ramps at Main Street under the Build Alternatives is expected to improve safety on this segment of the freeway as the weaves would be eliminated (a "weave" is where traffic entering the freeway conflicts with traffic exiting the freeway) and a longer separation of connector and mainline traffic would be provided. Table 1.14 shows that 40 of 60 ramps experience accident rates that are similar to or below the statewide average for similar facilities. As a result, 20 (approximately 33 percent) of the local interchange ramps in the study area have reported accident rates higher than the statewide average. In addition, some interchange ramps have reported fatality rates above the statewide average. However, for the time period covered in the accident analysis, several interchanges, including Green River Road on SR-91 and Magnolia Avenue and El Cerrito Road on I-15, were under construction. Alternatives 1 and 2 incorporate local interchange improvements at virtually all interchange ramps on the project segment of SR-91. These improvements are forecast to improve operations, efficiency, and safety on the project segment of SR-91 as follows: 1-42 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Chapter 1 Project • Enhanced ramp capacity (extended ramps to ensure sufficient stopping distance for off -ramps and adequate storage at ramp meters for on -ramps) and improved interchange geometrics are expected to improve safety and potentially reduce accidents associated with the SR-91 corridor ramps. • Two ramp braids (a braid is where on- and off -ramps are grade separated so that there is not a merging conflict between vehicles entering and exiting the freeway) are incorporated into the project, specifically the SR-91 eastbound ramp braids between Auto Center Drive and Maple Street and the eastbound Main Street on -ramp to SR-91 under the 1-15 corridor connectors. The ramp braids eliminate short weaves and reduce the potential for sideswipe accidents. 1.3.2 Existing Roadway Operational Deficiencies SR-91 passes through Santa Ana Canyon immediately south of the Santa Ana River. The topography of the canyon is a constraint to the two major transportation corridors that run through it: SR-91 and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) rail line. The result is that nearly all surface and rail traffic between Riverside and Orange Counties is funneled into this single corridor, which has limited physical opportunity for expansion as a result of the substantial slopes on the north and south sides of the Santa Ana Canyon and the Santa Ana River in the canyon bottom. In addition, the topography of the canyon limits the opportunities for arterial road connections to SR-91. Specific structural and other limitations on the project segment of SR-91 are discussed in detail in the following sections. 1.3.2.1 Freeway Geometry The existing SR-91 GP lanes within the project limits were constructed beginning in 1959 as a four -lane divided facility at a lower design speed than current standards. Two additional GP lanes (one in each direction) were completed in 1974. The HOV lanes within the project limits completed in 1993 were designed to fit within the existing roadway width. Other freeway improvements in the SR-91 corridor study area include the construction of SR-241 in the late 1990s, the addition of toll lanes on SR-91 within Orange County in the early 1990s, the Eastbound Lane Addition (which opened for operation in 2011), and the construction of 1-15 on the western end of the SR-91 corridor study area. Two primary considerations have resulted in a facility that does not meet current freeway geometric standards: (1) design and construction of the original SR-91 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIWEIS 1-43 Chapter 1 Project facility as a lower design speed than the current design speed standard (Chapter 2 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual [May 2012] requires the design speed of freeways to be 10--15 mph greater than the posted speeds); when the existing facility was constructed, the posted speed was 10 mph less than the current posted speed limits; and (2) construction of the existing HOV lanes within the limited right-of-way available at that time. The existing nonstandard geometric features include: • Sight distance • Design speed • Weaving distance • Deceleration distance • Grade of local road at ramp connection • Horizontal clearance • HOV preferred lane (on -ramp) • Interchange spacing • Intersection spacing • Lane width • Length of single -lane branch connectors • Outer separation • Ramp gore geometry • Shoulder width • Side slope steepness • Standards for curvature • Superelevation rate/transition/runoff 1.3.2.2 Pavement Sections of the SR-91 that are on embankments through the City of Corona between Lincoln Avenue and Main Street have experienced localized settlement, resulting in areas of uneven pavement surfaces. This situation has required maintenance efforts over the past 10 years, specifically the use of pavement overlays, to maintain the structural integrity of the pavement and the ride quality. Potential settlement remains a matter of continuing concern that would be considered during the design/build phase for the project. Re-evaluation of the existing pavement condition would be appropriate during the design/build phase regardless of any localized problem areas. Based on the latest pavement condition survey conducted by the Department in 2006 along 1-15 and in 2007 along SR-91 (refer to Tables B-1 and B-2 in the Preliminary Geotechnical Design Report [July 2010j), the predominant pavement distress 1-44 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Chapter 1 Project observed in the jointed plain concrete pavement was faulting at the pavement panel joints, which results in poor ride quality. 1.3.2.3 Drainage The majority of the existing drainage system for SR-91 was constructed in the 1960s, and in certain Iocations the system is reaching the end of its expected 50-year service life. Although specific deficiencies in the existing drainage system have not been identified, RCTC and the Department have agreed to work together in an effort to assess the structural integrity of the system. RCTC would investigate the necessary locations and propose a fix prior to or during the design -build phase for the project. A sample investigation process to address these drainage concerns could include: • All culvert inlets and outlets within the project limits and the outlets of any laterals coming from the median would be photographed. The condition of the pipe material at these locations would be described. • If needed for visibility, a strong flashlight may be used to examine each culvert. Any noticeable deformations would be noted_ The presence of standing water would be noted. • Based on what is seen at each inlet and outlet, a more detailed investigation may be warranted. Those culverts may be remotely videoed, which may in turn require clearing/cleaning of the culvert. • Special consideration would be given to larger culverts because they present the greatest threat to safety. • Based on the investigation, a determination would be made regarding culvert rehabilitation (following Department Design Information Bulletin No. 83) or replacement. • Improvements to failing culverts would be made where necessary. Funding issues would be discussed with the Department depending on the nature of repairs, and the Department and RCTC would develop a mutually acceptable plan to fix the problem areas during the construction phase of the project. The drainage structures under Alternatives 1 and 2 are listed in detail later in Table 2.5. 1.3.2.4 Structures Bridge inspection reports provided by the Department in 2006 were reviewed in conjunction with advance planning studies for structures. The reports determined that SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS 1-45 Chapter 9 Project the McKinley Street undercrossing of SR-91 is designated "Functionally Obsolete" because of the nonstandard 14.75 ft vertical clearance at the north edge of the bridge over the local street below. The proposed SR-91 CIP westbound widening would be on a new higher off -ramp structure that meets the minimal vertical clearance standard of15ft. The Temescal Wash bridge and overhead on SR-91 are designated "Structurally Deficient"2 as a result of the deck condition on that structure. Because the deck was sealed with methacrylate in 2009 which corrected/improved the deck condition, the "Structurally Deficient" designation would likely be removed from the new bridge inspection report for this structure. Several structures have been identified for seismic retrofit in conjunction with the widening. The bridge structure work, including construction of new structures and replacement, widening, and retrofitting of existing structures, is detailed later in Tables 2.3 and 2.4, respectively, for Alternatives 1 and 2. 1.3.3 Social Demands and Economic Development There is substantial existing development along the project segments of SR-91 and 1-15. Those existing land uses, which contribute to the traffic demand in this corridor, include residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional uses in the cities along the corridor (Anaheim, Yorba Linda, Corona, Riverside, and Norco) and in unincorporated areas in Orange and Riverside Counties. While these areas are largely built out or are protected open space, such as Featherly Regional Park, CHSP, and the New Orange County Park (National Natural Landmark) (New OC Park [NNL]), additional development is planned in other areas along the alignments of SR-91 and I-15. That proposed development is based on these cities' and counties' adopted General Plans as well as a number of Specific Plans. This future development would i The National Bridge Inventory, General Condition Ratings is a coding system developed by FHWA to evaluate the condition of existing, in -place bridges or culverts. A bridge designated as "Structurally Deficient (SD)" is considered to have load carrying elements that are found to be in poor condition due to deterioration and/or damage. A bridge designated as "Functionally Obsolete (FO)" is considered to have deck geometry, load carrying capacity, clearance, or approach roadway alignment that no longer meets the current building standards for bridges. Ibid. 9-46 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final BR/EIS Chapter 1 Project contribute to demand in the SR-91 corridor for work as well as other trips between Riverside and Orange Counties. The existing and planned land uses, the adopted General Plans, and a number of Specific PIans in the Cities of Anaheim, Yorba Linda, Corona, Riverside, and Norco, and Orange and Riverside Counties in the vicinity of the project segment of SR-91 are discussed in more detail later in Sections 3.1, Land Use, and 3.25, Cumulative Impacts. 1.3.4 Legislation California Senate Bill 1316 (SB 1316) (2008) authorizes OCTA to eliminate its rights, interests, and obligations in the Riverside County part of the existing SR-91 toll lanes by partial assignment to the RCTC. It further deletes the 2030 limitation on the issuance of bonds and the collection of tolls by OCTA. It authorizes the use of toll revenues for the toll lane and other related transportation purposes in the Orange County part of the SR-91 corridor. SB 1316 also authorizes the RCTC to impose tolls for 50 years on the transportation facilities in its part of the SR-91 corridor. SB 1316 authorizes the use of toll revenues for capital and operating costs, including debt service, of those facilities and related transportation purposes in the SR-91 corridor. 1.3.5 Modal Interrelationships and System Linkages The existing public transit linkages between Riverside and Orange Counties are bus and commuter rail. Metrolink commuter rail services between Riverside and Orange Counties operate on railroad tracks owned by BNSF. Metrolink commuter rail service between the two counties is nearing capacity on existing equipment. As identified in the MIS LPS, all transit components within the Riverside to Orange County study area were to be maximized as part of all future transportation improvements. The project improvements do not specifically identify these transit improvements, but they are part of the overall background of transit improvements required through the extensive elected officials, interested stakeholders, and public outreach process implemented as part of the MIS process by RCTC, OCTA, and the Department. Currently, express bus service operating on SR-91 provides connections from Riverside County to employment centers in Anaheim, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, and Irvine in Orange County. This service is provided on the Galleria at Tyler in Riverside to South Coast Metro in Costa Mesa line, which was implemented in fall 2006. Four additional express bus routes are planned for implementation in 2016. SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS 1-47 Chapter 1 Project These routes would originate in the Riverside and Temecula areas with destinations to employment centers in Anaheim and Orange in Orange County. The North Main Street Corona MetroLink parking structure improvements were completed in June 2009. These improvements increased the parking capacity at this station adjacent to SR-91 and allowed commuter rail ridership to increase, thereby diverting trips from SR-91. Metrolink currently operates 23 trips daily on the IEOC Line between downtown Riverside, Laguna Niguel/Mission Viejo, and Oceanside. The 91-Line operates between Riverside and Los Angeles via Corona, Fullerton, and Norwalk. Future service improvements to Metrolink are envisioned in the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) Strategic Assessment (Metrolink, January 19, 2007). It is anticipated there will be at least 40 daily trips each on the IEOC Line and 91-Line by 2020. Additional information on planned bus and rail transit improvements between Riverside and Orange Counties is provided later in Table 2.21. The project would not preclude implementation of any existing or future transit projects between the two counties. No commercial or cargo airports are adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the project segments of SR-91 and 1-15. The nearest airport is Corona Municipal Airport, a general aviation airport approximately 0.8 mi north of SR-91. The nearest commercial airports are Ontario International Airport (located in Ontario in western San Bernardino County), John Wayne Airport (located in Santa Ana in central Orange County), and March Air Reserve Base (located in Riverside County, south of SR-91 and east of and adjacent to I-215). The Build Alternatives would not provide for any direct interface with any airport. 1.3.5.1 Corridor System Linkages The SR-91 corridor is an integral component of the regional transportation system. It provides a key linkage between. the Inland Empire and Orange County and a gateway into southern Los Angeles County. The corridor connects a burgeoning residential population to substantial employment opportunities. As a result of topography, there are few viable transportation alternatives between Riverside and Orange Counties. The project provides enhanced mobility between the two counties as well as additional connectivity between 1-15 and SR-91 through direct connections to the tolled express lanes or HOV lanes within the region. 1-48 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Chapter 1 Project Information concerning related projects provides contextual information for the project and identifies how the transportation agencies have coordinated transportation planning efforts. The SR-91 CIP will be implemented in a manner that is consistent with the programmed and planned improvements as identified later in Table 3.25.1 and shown on Figure 3.25-1, which represents system linkages within the overall two - county regional transportation system. These related system improvements are on facilities that represent future connections or are complementary to the project. 1.3.5.2 Regional Goods Movement Regional goods movement is concerned with the movement of all types of goods and materials across and through the southern California region. Specifically, SCAG has identified goods movement as a critical component of transportation system planning in southern California. The Southern California Strategy for Goods Movement: A Plan for Action (SLAG, March 2005) identified the existing and projected volumes of goods transported through the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The Plan also identified strategies to address the movement of these goods from the ports to their eventual destinations in the United States via both rail and surface transportation facilities. According to that Plan, over one-third of waterborne freight container traffic at United States' ports is handled by the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, with 50 to 60 percent of this freight then transported to destinations outside the southern California region via rail or truck. In summary, the key component to addressing regional goods movement in southern California is providing appropriate infrastructure and facilities to support the ship, rail, and surface transportation movement of goods. SR-91, as a major east -west freeway, provides critical connections between trucks coming from/going to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and destinations across southern California and points to the east. In addition to high volumes of goods being shipped to/from the two ports, goods movement truck traffic is also generated at rail/truck transfer yards at several locations in southern California and in the general area around the March Air Reserve Base. As a result, it is important for regional goods movement that the freeways in southern California, including SR-91, provide adequate capacity to accommodate goods movement track traffic in the region in the future. For example, on SR-91, truck trips are approximately 6.7 percent of the Existing 2007 total daily traffic volumes on the study area segments of SR-91 and 1-15, as shown on Table 1.15. The context for comparing the percentage of trucks in total traffic is for informational purposes and is related to the analysis of the corridor and potential impacts of trucks on mainline performance (i.e., the greater the number of trucks, SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS 1-49 Chapter 1 Project Table 1.15 Baseline/Existing (2007) Truck Volumes Segment Daily Trucks Truck Percentage of Total Traffic SR-91 at Orange/Riverside County line 15,500 5.5 SR-91 west of 1-15 14,500 5.3 SR-91 east of 1-15 16,300 7.3 1-15 north of SR-91 17,900 10.5 1-15 south of SR-91 10,300 5.1 ounce: Speed surveys and the Riverside County Transportation Commission Model Results for the SR-91 CIP, as disclosed in the Traffic Study Report (July 2010). CIP = Corridor Improvement Project 1-15 = Interstate 15 SR-91 = State Route 91 the worse the LOS and operations of the facility become). The average truck volume percentage of 6.7 percent of total traffic on the SR-91 and I-15 study area segment is consistent with the average percentage of freeway truck volumes of 6.9 percent for the SCAG region (SCAG, Regional Screenline Traffic Count Program, June 24, 2004). As shown on Table 1.15, the volumes that have been reported on I-15 would be considered high at 10.5 percent compared to the regional average of 6.9 percent, but because this is a key truck trade corridor (based on the SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS Goods Movement Appendix, Exhibit 1), they are not atypical. Truck activity on I-15 is not forecast to increase with implementation of the project. As shown in Table 1.15, the 10.5 percent of trucks on I-15 might indicate the need for a truck climbing lane. However, because the project does not interfere with truck operations on I-15 north of SR-91, a truck climbing lane is not proposed with this project. 1.3.6 Air Quality Improvements The Build Alternatives include HOV lanes or tolled express lanes. Most of the ramps on the project segments of SR-91 and I-15 are already metered, and those ramp meters would be retained in the Build Alternatives. These project features would contribute to air quality emissions reductions in the long term. While the Build Alternatives do not include any specific transit -related improvements, the preferential lanes (HOV and tolled express lanes) and the ramp metering would directly benefit transit vehicles (and their passengers) traveling on the project segments of SR-91 and I-15. Specifically, RCTC and OCTA offer rideshare services and programs, including commuter and local bus services; commuter rail services; and assistance in forming, joining, and managing carpools and vanpools. Commuter assistance or programs to reduce the number of drive -alone travelers in Riverside County is a mandated part of 1-50 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Chapter 1 Project RCTC's Measure A program.l The carpool, vanpool, and bus services in the SR-91 corridor would benefit from the time savings as a result of using the preferential lanes (HOV and tolled express lanes) provided by the Build Alternatives. RCTC has been coordinating with the Riverside Transit Agency on enhanced express bus service for the SR-91 corridor. The addition of tolled express lanes on SR-91 under Alternative 2 provides the opportunity to nearly double the amount of express bus service that is currently offered in this corridor (to a total of 41 trips per day). While this service is not a specific component of the SR-91 CIP, it is an important element of RCTC`s plan for improved mobility in the corridor. The express bus service would benefit from the SR-91 CIF' because, without the project, future congestion in the corridor would be severe and express bus service would not be viable. Although the Build Alternatives do not include specific transit, Transportation Systems Management (TSM), or Transportation Demand Management (TDM) components, they are supportive of the various shared -ride modes currently offered by RCTC and OCTA. Refer to Chapter 2, Project Alternatives, for additional discussion of TSM and mass transit services in the project area. 1.3.7 Independent Utility and Logical Termini 1.3.7.1 Logical Termini The project limits for the SR-91 C1P were defined based on providing a logical and independent set of improvements_ Logical termini are defined as rational end points for a transportation improvement and rational end points for a review of the environmental impacts of a proposed project. Refer to Figures 2.14 and 2.17, provided later in Chapter 2, Project Alternatives, which show the improvements in the Alternative 1 and 2 Initial Phases and Alternative 1 and 2 Ultimate Projects, respectively. Logical Termini for the Alternative 7 and 2 Ultimate Projects The Alternative 1 and 2 Ultimate Projects provide logical termini because they connect to major transportation facilities (SR-241, SR-71, and I-15) that are destinations of major traffic volumes along SR-91 and terminate at major arterial interchanges (SR-241 on the west and Pierce Street on the east on SR-91, and Hidden Valley Parkway on the north and Cajalco Road on the south on 1-15). Under Alternatives 1 and 2, the western project terminus is at the SR-241 interchange because that interchange represents the western point of substantial change in traffic 1 http://www.rctc.org/commuterassistance.asp (accessed August 13, 2010). SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS 1-51 Chapter 1 Project demand on SR-91. Specifically, as shown in detail on Figure 3-2 in the Traffic Study Report (page 46), approximately 18 percent of the westbound SR-91 traffic exits to southbound SR-241, and approximately 18 percent of the eastbound SR-91 traffic, east of SR-241, is traffic that exits from. northbound SR-241 to eastbound SR-91. Although I-15 represents the eastern point of substantial change, where approximately 30 percent of the traffic leaves or enters on SR-91, the eastern project terminus is farther east on SR-91, at the Pierce Street interchange. That endpoint was based on being able to facilitate traffic operations by providing a sufficient distance from I-15 to transition the SR-91 CIP lane configuration back to the existing lane configuration on SR-91. Under Alternatives 1 and 2, the southern project terminus on I-15 at the Cajalco Road interchange was based on being able to facilitate traffic operations by providing a distance from SR-91 to convert the SR-91 CIP lane configuration back to the existing lane configuration on 1-15 and to provide access to the I-15 northbound to SR-91 westbound direct Express Lane connector. The northern terminus on I-15 at the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange was based on being able to facilitate traffic operations by providing a sufficient distance from SR-91 to transition the SR-91 CIP lane configuration back to the existing lane configuration on I-15. The SR-91 CIP Build Alternatives can be implemented without being dependent on any other improvements, and they would provide substantial benefits to the traveling public between the project termini described without other improvements. Alternatives 1 and 2 for the SR-91 CIP have logical termini that allow for evaluation of potential environmental effects for a project large enough to address the defined traffic need in the affected part of the corridor. The SR-91 CIP Build Alternatives can be implemented without being dependent on any other improvements, and they would provide substantial benefits to the traveling public between the project termini described without other improvements. Alternatives 1 and 2 for the SR-91 CIP have logical termini that allow for evaluation of potential environmental effects for a project large enough to address the defined traffic need in the affected part of the corridor. Logical Termini for the Alternative 1 and 2 Initial Phases Similar to the Ultimate Projects for Alternatives 1 and 2, the limits for the Initial Phases of those Build Alternatives were also defined based on providing a logical and independent set of improvements. 1-52 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Chapter 1 Project The Initial Phase of Alternative 1 provides logical termini because it connects to major transportation facilities (SR-71 and I-15) and terminates at major arterial or freeway interchanges (Green River Road on the west on SR-91, at I-15 on the east on SR-91, and at Ontario Avenue on I-15). The western terminus for the Initial Phase of Alternative 1 is west of SR-71 at Green River Road to provide a sufficient distance from the SR-71 interchange to convert the SR-91 CIP lane configuration back to the existing lane configuration on SR-91. SR-71 is the western point where a fifth general-purpose lane will be added to eliminate the existing capacity reduction from five to four general-purpose lanes in each direction. The eastern terminus is at 1-15, with the direct HOV lane connectors from eastbound SR-91 to southbound I-15 and from northbound I-15 to westbound SR-91. I-15 represents the eastern point of substantial change in traffic demand on SR-91. The southern terminus on I-15 is at Ontario Avenue to facilitate traffic operations by providing a sufficient distance from SR-91 to convert the SR-91 CIP lane configuration back to the existing lane configuration on I-15. As shown on Figure 2-16, the Initial Phase of Alternative 2 also provides logical termini because it connects to major transportation facilities (SR-241, SR-71, and I-15) and terminates at major arterial or freeway interchanges (SR-241, Pierce Street on SR-91, and Hidden Valley Parkway and Ontario Avenue on I-15). The western terminus for the Initial Phase of Alternative 2 is at the SR-241 interchange because that interchange represents the western point that encompasses the extension of tolled express lanes from the Orange/Riverside County line, including the transition lane required for access to and from the tolled express lanes. Although I-15 represents the eastern point of substantial change in traffic demand on SR-91, the eastern terminus for the Initial Phase of Alternative 2 is farther east on SR-91, at the Pierce Street interchange. That endpoint was based on being able to facilitate traffic operations by providing a sufficient distance from I-15 to convert the SR-91 CIP lane configuration back to the existing lane configuration on SR-91. The southern terminus on I-15 at the Ontario Avenue interchange was based on being able to facilitate traffic operations by providing a sufficient distance from SR-91 to convert the SR-91 CIP lane configuration back to the existing lane configuration on 1-15. 1.3.7.2 Independent Utility A project has independent utility if it meets a project purpose in the absence of other improvements in the project segment or in other parts of the corridor. The Initial Phases of Alternatives 1 and 2 include improvements on SR-91 from approximately the Orange/Riverside County line to the 1-15 interchange (a distance of about S mi) SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS 1-53 Chapter 1 Project and single -lane direct connectors to and from the I-15 south of SR-91, extending from SR-91 to the Ontario Avenue interchange (a distance of about 3 mi). The Initial Phases of Alternatives 1 and 2 would generally implement shorter segments of the Alternative 1 and 2 Ultimate Projects on SR-91 and I-15. A key component of the Initial Phases is the extension of the HOV or tolled express lanes from the Orange/Riverside County line to 1-15. I-15 is a logical terminus for the HOV or tolled express lanes extending through a major bottleneck location along this corridor to the next major system interchange. The HOV or tolled express lane direct connectors to and from 1-15 south of SR-91 are also a logical connection for the Initial Phases of Alternatives 1 and 2 due to current congestion experienced for these movements. A GP lane in each direction would also be constructed through the City of Corona along with substantial improvements to four local interchanges and the SR-91/I-15 system interchange. The GP lane addition extends an existing GP lane that currently starts/ends at SR-71 east to I-15, which is a logical terminus for these lane extensions. The improvements proposed with the Initial Phases of Alternatives 1 and 2 represent approximately 70 percent of the improvements in the Alternative 1 and 2 Ultimate Projects. The traffic analyses for the Initial Phases of Alternatives 1 and 2 that were prepared for a 2015 opening year demonstrate substantial benefits in travel time savings and increases in travel speed through the SR-91 corridor compared to the 2015 No Build condition. A comparative summary of these performance measures was shown previously in Table 1.13. Based on the above discussion, the SR-91 CT has independent utility because the Alternative 1 and 2 Initial Phases and Ultimate Projects meet the project purpose by improving the vehicle, person, and goods movement in the SR-91 corridor and providing usable improvements along the SR-91 and 1-15 transportation corridors. In addition, the Alternative 1 and 2 Initial Phases and Ultimate Projects represent a reasonable expenditure even if no additional transportation improvements are made in the area, they can be implemented in the absence of any other improvements, and they do not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements in the SR-91 and 1-15 corridors. As a result, because the Alternative 1 and 2 Initial Phases and Ultimate Projects meet the project purpose in the absence of other improvements in the SR-91 and I-15 corridors, the SR-91 CIP would have independent utility. 1-54 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Chapter 2 Project Alternatives 2.1 Project Description This chapter describes the proposed action and the alternatives that were developed to meet the identified purpose and need for the project, while avoiding or minimizing the potential for adverse environmental impacts. The alternatives described in detail in this chapter and evaluated in this EIR/EIS are shown on Figure 2-1 and all described briefly below: • No Build Alternative • Would maintain existing SR-91 and I-15 in the project area. • No additional GP lanes and no change in the existing tolled express or HOV lanes on SR-91. • Provides a benchmark by which the public and decision -makers can compare the magnitude of the effects of the Build Alternatives. • Alternative 1: Add General -Purpose Lanes and Maintain HOV Lanes (GP + HOV Lanes) • Would add one GP lane in each direction on SR-91 from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to Pierce Street. • Would maintain the existing tolled express lanes in Orange County and the existing HOV lanes on SR-91 between the Orange/Riverside County line and Pierce Street. • Would add one HOV lane on I-15 in each direction from Ontario Avenue in Corona to HOV lane direct connectors from eastbound SR-91 to southbound I-15 and from northbound I-15 to westbound SR-91. • Alternative 2: Add General -Purpose Lanes and Extend Tolled Express Lanes (GP + Tolled Express Lanes) • Would add one GP lane in each direction on SR-91, from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside. • Would extend the existing tolled express lanes and would add one tolled express lane in each direction from Orange County east to I-15 in Corona (express lanes are separate lanes with limited access/egress points that provide long-lasting, reliable, free flow travel for eligible users in an otherwise per vehicle congested corridor; users pay tolls but buses, HOVs with three or more persons, motorcycles, zero -emission vehicles, and vehicles driven by SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS 2-1 Chapter 2 Project Alternatives This page intentionally left blank 2-2 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final E/R/EIS N San Bernardino County LEGEND Project Limits (the construction limits for the Alternative 1 and 2 improvements, excluding the Advanced Signage Areas) Advanced Signage Area (part of project; signing installation in the freeway right-of-way only, and no other project construction) SR-91 Study Area for the Build Alternatives 0 0.625 1.25 Miles J City Boundaries County Boundaries SOURCE: USGS 7.5' QUAD - BLACK STAR CANYON ('88), CORONA NORTH C81), CORONA SOUTH ('88), PRADO DAM C81), RIVERSIDE WEST ('81); CALIF. FIGURE 2-1 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Project Location on SR-91 and I-15 Ora-91-R 14.43/R 18.91 Riv-91-R0.00/R13.04 Riv-15-35.64/45.14 EA 0F540 I:APAZ0701\GIS\Basemap\SR91_I15_ProjectAlignments.mxd (4/11/2011) Chapter 2 Project Alternatives This page intentionally left blank 2-4 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final E/R/EIS Chapter 2 Project Alternatives handicapped persons, including disabled veterans, would pay a reduced or no toll). • Would convert the existing SR-91 HOV lanes to tolled express lanes. • Would provide express lane direct connectors between the express lanes on SR-91 and I-15. • Would extend one tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 from the express lane connectors north to Hidden Valley Parkway and south to Cajalco Road. This chapter also provides a brief history of the project; describes the proposed action and the alternatives developed to meet the identified purpose and need, while avoiding or minimizing the potential for adverse environmental impacts; discusses phasing for the two Build Alternatives; and discusses other alternatives that were considered but were eliminated from further evaluation in this EIR/EIS. The project is in Orange and Riverside Counties along the existing SR-91 corridor and includes connections to I-15 in Riverside County. Figure 1-1, provided in Chapter 1, shows the project vicinity. Figure 2-1 shows the project location on SR-91 and I-15. The western project limit on SR-91 is at the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the east part of the City of Anaheim in northeast Orange County. The eastern project limit on SR-91 is Pierce Street in the City of Riverside, just east of the City of Corona. The project limits extend approximately 14 mi along SR-91. The project limits on I-15 begin at Cajalco Road and extend approximately north 5 mi on I-15 to Hidden Valley Parkway in the City of Corona. The project study area extends approximately 2 mi beyond the project limits on SR-91 and I-15 to allow for the placement of advance signage for construction areas and tolled express lane access. The advanced signage areas, as the ends of the project limits on SR-91 and I-15, are shown on Figure 2-1. The improvements in Alternatives 1 and 2 will be implemented in phases: the Initial Phase and the Ultimate Project. 2.2 Project Background 2.2.1 State Route 91 SR-91 is one of the major surface transportation facilities connecting Orange and Riverside Counties. SR-91 begins in Los Angeles County at the junction with SR-1 in SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS 2-5 Chapter 2 Project Alternatives Hermosa Beach and continues east through Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside Counties, terminating at the SR-91/SR-60/I-215 interchange in the City of Riverside. Traveling west on SR-91, the freeway ends at I-110, but SR-91 continues on Artesia Boulevard as a highway until it terminates at SR-1. The existing SR-91 GP lanes within the project limits were constructed beginning in 1959 as a four -lane divided facility. Two additional GP lanes (one each direction) were completed in 1974. The construction of the HOV lanes within the project limits was completed in 1993. The construction of the tolled express lanes within the project limits was completed in 1995. Within the project limits, SR-91 currently has three to four GP lanes in each direction, which vary in width from 11 to 12 feet (ft) from the SR-241/SR-91 interchange to the SR-91/I-15 interchange, and three 12 ft wide GP lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. There are two tolled express lanes in each direction within the project limits. Those tolled express lanes begin west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Riverside/ Orange County line. Two HOV lanes, one in each direction, extend from the terminus of the existing tolled express lanes to beyond the project limits at approximately Marshall Street on the eastbound side and McKinley Street on the westbound side. An Initial Study with Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration/Environmental Assessment was prepared and approved in December 2007 by Department Districts 8 and 12, in conjunction with OCTA and RCTC, for the SR-91 Eastbound Lane Addition Project. This project along SR-91 is between SR-241 in eastern Orange County and SR-71 in western Riverside County and construction of this project began in 2010. The project added an additional GP lane and widened all lanes and shoulders to standard widths on eastbound SR-91 by widening SR-91 to the south. This project is now operational. 2.2.2 Interstate 15 I-15 starts in San Diego, extends north-northwest through the States of California, Nevada, Utah, Idaho, and Montana, and continues north as Alberta Highway 4 in Canada. Regionally, I-15 is an important intercounty link between San Diego, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. In the project area, I-15 is an eight -lane divided highway with a center median. I-15 converts to a six -lane divided facility north and south of SR-91. As it proceeds across the Mojave Desert, it converts to a four -lane facility. 2-6 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Chapter 2 Project Alternatives 2.2.3 Other Major Projects In the Project Area One transportation project is operational, and several approved or planned transportation projects and one water pipeline project in the general area of the project may affect or require design coordination with the project. These projects, described in Table 2.1, are each independent of the project and the other projects listed in the table. Each of the transportation projects would function effectively as an individual project and would provide specific benefits to the traveling public regardless of whether or not the other projects are implemented. In addition to those projects listed in Table 2.1, many other transportation and land use projects are within the cumulative study area, including projects identified in the State Route 91 Implementation Plan (OCTA 2010). Refer to Section 3.25, Cumulative Impacts, for a description of the cumulative impact study area and a full listing and evaluation of cumulative projects relevant to the project. The Corps and local sponsors (Orange County Flood Control and Riverside County Flood Control Districts) are implementing a series of Santa Ana River Bank Protection projects north of SR-91 between Gypsum Canyon Road and SR-71. Those Corps projects will be completed as follows: • Reach 9 Phase 2B: From east of Coal Canyon to west of Green River Road; completion in 2012 • Reach 9 Phase 2A: From Prado Road to SR-71; completion in 2014 • Reach 9 Phase 3: From Gypsum Canyon Road to Coal Canyon Road; completion in 2015 2.3 Range of Alternatives The two Build Alternatives for the project were developed to implement one component of the MIS LPS. Section 2.3.5.3, Major Investment Study Build Alternatives, provides additional information regarding the MIS alternatives and the LPS. The two Build Alternatives are: • Alternative 1: Add General -Purpose Lanes and Maintain HOV Lanes (GP + HOV Lanes) Alternative; and • Alternative 2: Add General -Purpose Lanes and extend Tolled Express Lanes (GP + Tolled Express Lanes) Alternative. SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS 2-7 Chapter 2 Project Alternatives Table 2.1 Other Related Major Projects Project Title' Summary Completion Time Frame SR-91 Eastbound Lane Addition Project Between SR-241 and SR-71 The project will add one additional GP lane and widen the existing lanes and shoulders to standard widths on eastbound SR-91 between SR-241 in eastern Orange County and SR-71 in western Riverside County. This project is being accommodated in the SR-91 CIP design. This project is now operational. Operational Santa Ana Mainstem Project — Santa Ana River Reach 9, Phases 2A and 2B/Santa Ana River Interceptor Pipeline Reaches III and IV These projects will reinforce the banks of the Santa Ana River by providing grouted stone bank protection and sheet pile to protect river bank below the Prado Dam (Phase I IA) and near the Riverside/Orange County line (Phase IIB) from damage that would be caused by a full release of stored water from Prado Dam and also relocate the SARI pipeline currently located in the river channel. These projects will accommodate the SR-91 CIP design. Reach 9, 2B-2012 SARI Line-2013 Reach 9, 2A-2014 SR-91/SR-71 Interchange Improvement Project This project proposes replacing the existing single -lane connection between eastbound SR-91 and northbound SR-71 with a two-lane, direct flyover ramp. It also proposes a new, separate eastbound road just south of and parallel to SR-91 to provide improved access between the Green River Road interchange and the SR- 91/SR-71 interchange. This project will accommodate the SR-91 CIP design. Post-2018 1-15 Corridor Improvement Project As part of other congestion relief projects in Riverside County, RCTC is planning improvements to 1-15 from just north of the 1-15/1-215 separation in the City of Murrieta, north to the San Bernardino County line. The 1-15 CIP extends approximately 44 mi along 1-15. Two Build Alternatives are under consideration: an HOV lane and mixed -flow lane alternative, and a tolled express lane and mixed -flow lane alternative. The SR-91 CIP and the 1-15 CIP Build Alternatives each accommodate the design of the improvements on the other freeway. 2018 SR-241/SR-91 Direct Connectors This project would allow SR-241 toll road users to transition directly onto the SR-91 tolled express lanes and vice versa. This project will accommodate the SR-91 CIP design. This project will be constructed after the Initial Phase of the SR-91 CIP. Late 2018 SR-91 between SR-55 and SR-241 This project will add one GP lane in each direction on SR-91. This project is west of the limits for the SR-91 CIP and would not affect the SR-91 CIP. This project is under construction. Mid-2013 SR-91 Westbound Lane Addition at Tustin Avenue This project would add a westbound auxiliary lane on SR-91 from the northbound SR-55 to the westbound SR-91 connector through the Tustin Avenue interchange. The project would include the reconstruction of the Tustin Avenue overcrossing structure. The total project length is 1.6 mi. The primary features of this project are: widening of the SR-91 bridge over the Santa Ana River (by adding either one or two GP lanes over the Santa Ana River), the addition of GP lanes from northbound SR-55 to westbound SR-91 through Tustin Avenue (by adding either one or two GP lanes), and realignment of the westbound SR-91 Tustin Avenue off- and on -ramps. 2018 2-8 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final E/R/EIS Chapter 2 Project Alternatives Table 2.1 Other Related Major Projects SR-57 Northbound This project will add a lane on SR-57 from north of SR-91 2014 Lane Addition Project near Orangethorpe Avenue in Placentia to Lambert Road in Brea, and Katella Avenue and Lincoln Avenue in Anaheim. The environmental phase was completed in December 2007, and construction on the Orangethorpe Avenue to Lambert Road segment began construction in January 2011. The environmental phase for the Katella Avenue to Lincoln Avenue segment was completed in November 2009, design was completed in spring 2011, and construction is expected to begin in early 2012. Cajalco Road Widening This project would widen Cajalco Road from two to four 2019 and Safety lanes between Harvill Avenue on the east and Temescal Enhancement Project Canyon Road on the west, and from four to six lanes between Temescal between the 1-215 southbound ramps and Harvill Avenue. Canyon Road and 1-15 Additional proposed improvements include traffic signals, bus turnouts, additional turn lanes, and watercourse crossing and drainage improvements. Source: Riverside County Transportation Commission (2010 and 2011). The locations of these projects, except the SR-57 Northbound Lane Addition Project, which is several miles west of the project limits, are shown later on Figure 2-16. CIP = Corridor Improvement Project SARI = Santa Ana River Interceptor GP = general-purpose SR-55 = State Route 55 HOV = high -occupancy vehicle SR-57 = State Route 57 1-15 = Interstate 15 SR-71 = State Route 71 1-215 = Interstate 215 SR-91 = State Route 91 mi = mile/miles SR-241 = State Route 241 RCTC = Riverside County Transportation Commission Alternative 1 includes four design variations (la through 1 d) and Alternative 2 includes eight design variations (2a through 2h). These alternatives are described in detail in the following sections. 2.3.1 Project Build Alternatives Each Build Alternative would add one GP lane in each direction on SR-91. These lane additions would be continuous throughout the project limits. Both Build Alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector -distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics within the project limits to improve traffic operations. Existing local access to/from all the existing interchanges would be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half -diamond interchange ramps would be removed and replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. The Build Alternatives include upgrades to existing SR-91 standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Alternative 1 would maintain one median HOV lane in each direction on SR-91 within the project limits It would also construct two HOV lane connectors: from eastbound SR-91 to southbound I-15, and from northbound I-15 to westbound SR-91. SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS 2-9 Chapter 2 Project Alternatives Alternative 1 would add one HOV lane in each direction on I-15 extending from the new HOV lane connectors south to Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would convert the existing HOV lanes to two tolled express lanes in each direction on the SR-91 from the Orange/Riverside County line to I-15, including two tolled express lane connectors, one from eastbound SR-91 to southbound I-15 and one from northbound I-15 to westbound SR-91. Alternative 2 also proposes to add tolled express lane connectors from eastbound SR-91 to northbound I-15 and from southbound I-15 to westbound SR-91. Alternative 2 would also add one tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 extending north to Hidden Valley Parkway and south to Cajalco Road. In addition to the schematic figures of Alternatives 1 and 2 provided in this chapter, detailed preliminary design plans on an aerial photograph base for the two Build Alternatives and their design variations are provided in Appendix L, Project Features. The figures in Appendix L show the existing and proposed State and City rights -of - way; freeway lanes, centerlines, and ramps; permanent easements and temporary construction easements (TCEs); retaining walls, concrete barriers, and sound barriers; limits on existing and proposed bridges; storm water best management practices (BMPs); and the boundaries of individual land parcels. The project alignments on SR-91 and I-15 are shown on Figure 2-1. 2.3.2 Common Features of the Build Alternatives Alternatives 1 and 2 have a number of permanent features and components that are the same or very similar. In addition, these alternatives have the same or similar temporary project features that would occur during construction. These common features of the Build Alternatives are described in this section. Typical mainline one -directional cross sections on SR-91 and I-15 for the No Build Alternative and Alternatives 1 and 2 are shown in Table 2.2. 2.3.2.1 Nonstandard Mandatory and Advisory Design Features The following categories of nonstandard mandatory and advisory design features are common to Alternatives 1 and 2: • Clear width to bridge rails • Compound/reverse curves • Corner/decision sight distance 2-10 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Chapter 2 Project Alternatives Table 2.2 Typical Mainline One -Directional Cross Sections for the No Build Alternative and Alternatives 1 and 2 Freeway Segments No Build Alternative Alternative 1' Alternative 21 Typical Cross Sections on SR-91 SR-241 to the Orange/Riverside County line • 2 tolled express lanes • 2 tolled express lanes • 2 tolled express lanes • 5 general-purpose lanes • 6 general-purpose lanes • 6 general-purpose lanes • 1 express auxiliary lane3 Orange/Riverside County line to SR-71 • 2 HOV lanes • 2 HOV lanes • 2 tolled express lanes • 5 general-purpose lanes • 6 general-purpose lanes • 6 general-purpose lanes • 1 express auxiliary lane3 SR-71 to 1-15 • 1 HOV lane • 1 HOV lane • 2 tolled express lanes • 4 general-purpose lanes • 5 general-purpose lanes • 5 general-purpose lanes • 1 auxiliary lane • 1 auxiliary lane 1-15 to Pierce Street • 1 HOV lane • 1 HOV lane • 1 tolled express lane • 3 general-purpose lanes • 4 general-purpose lanes • 4 general-purpose lanes Typical Cross Sections on 1-15 Cajalco Road to Ontario Avenue • 3 general-purpose lanes • 3 general-purpose lanes • 1 tolled express lane • 3 general-purpose lanes Ontario Avenue to SR-91 • 4 general-purpose lanes • 1 HOV lane • 1 tolled express lane • 4 general-purpose lanes • 4 general-purpose lanes SR-91 Interchange to Hidden Valley Parkway • 4 general-purpose lanes • 4 general-purpose lanes • 1 tolled express lane • 4 general-purpose lanes Source: Project Report Attachment 8 (September 2011). Note: Bold indicates a change in the cross section when compared to the cross section under the No Build Alternative. Refer to Figures 2-2 and 2-3 for figures showing the typical sections on SR-91 and 1-15, respectfully, under Alternative 1. 2 Refer to Figures 2-10 and 2-11 for figures showing the typical sections on SR-91 and 1-15, respectfully, under Alternative 2. 3 An express auxiliary lane is provided as a weaving lane for traffic entering and exiting the express lane facility. HOV = high -occupancy vehicle 1-15 = Interstate 15 SR-71 = State Route 71 SR-91 = State Route 91 SR-241 = State Route 241 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final E/R/EIS 2-11 Chapter 2 Project Alternatives • Design speed standards • Grade of local road at ramp connection • Horizontal clearance to wall • Horizontal curve radius • HOV preferred lane (on -ramp) • Interchange spacing • Lane width • Length of single lane/branch connectors • Mainline reduction at interchange • Minimum clearances • Outer separation • Superelevation rates and transitions • Ramp gore geometry • Shoulder width • Side slope • Standards for curvature • Standard freeway entrance/exit • Stopping sight distance (horizontal and vertical) • Superelevation rate/transition/runoff • Through/ramp lane drop • Vertical curve length All nonstandard design exceptions identified during the preliminary engineering phase and the development of the Project Report have been or will be approved and signed by the appropriate Department staff, in accordance with the procedures and standards described in the Department's Design Manual, prior to approval of the final Project Report by the Department's District Director. The design exception fact sheets and geometric approval drawings for the Initial Phase and Ultimate Project designs for Alternative 2f, which has been identified as the Preferred Alternative, will be included in the final Project Report. 2.3.2.2 Permanent Project Features Bridges Alternative 1 would require bridge work involving up to 27 structures and Alternative 2 would require bridge work involving up to 34 structures. For both Build Alternatives, this work would be a combination of modifications to existing structures, replacement of existing structures, and construction of new bridges. Some 2-12 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Chapter 2 Project Alternatives existing bridges that would be widened would also be seismically retrofitted. The structures work under Alternatives 1 and 2 is summarized in Tables 2.3 and 2.4, respectively. Table 2.3 Structures Work under Alternative 1 PM Bridge Name Bridge No. Z u a c4 C -2a 11 Ora-91-R17.95 Coal Canyon Road UC 55-0507 L/R X Riv-91- R0.07 County Line Creek 56-0366 X Riv-91-TBA Green River WB Off -ramp OH TBA X Riv-91-R1.14 West Prado OH 56-0634 L X Riv-91-R2.08 Rte 91/71 Sep 56-0587 X Riv-91-R2.08 E91-N71 Conn Sep 56-0635 X X Riv-91-R2.84 Prado OH 56-0637 L/R X Riv-91-R3.71 Serfas Club Drive UC 56-0368 L/R X X Riv-91-TBA Westbound Maple On -ramp TBA X' Riv-91-TBA Eastbound Maple Off -ramp TBA X Riv-91-4.16 Maple Street OC 56-0344 X Riv-91-5.38 Lincoln Avenue OC 56-0362 X Riv-91-5.70 Buena Vista Avenue UC 56-0373 L/R X Riv-91-5.99 West Grand Boulevard UC 56-0445 L/R X X Riv-91-6.34 Main Street UC 56-0448 L/R X Riv-91-TBA Main Street EB On -Ramp BOH TBA X Riv-91-6.65 East Grand Boulevard UC 56-0364 L/R X X Riv-91-TBA EB On -ramp E Grand Blvd UC TBA X Riv-91-6.93 Temescal Wash BOH 56-0446 L/R X X Riv-91-TBA E91-N15/S15 Connector BOH TBA X Riv-91-TBA N15/515-W91 Connector BOH TBA X Riv-91-9.18 McKinley Street UC 56-0365 L/R X X Riv-91-10.29 Buchanan Street OC 56-0368 X Riv-91-TBA 91-15 Express Viaduct TBA X Riv-91-TBA S-W Express Viaduct (15/91) TBA X Riv-38.69 Ontario Avenue UC 56-0498 L R X X Riv-39.40 Old Temescal Rd UC 56-0644 L/R X X Source: Project Report (September 2011). Selected design variations only. BOH = bridge and overhead Conn Sep = Connector Separation EB = eastbound L/R = left/right OC = overcrossing OH = overhead Ora = Orange County R = realigned RCB = reinforced concrete box Riv = Riverside County Rte = Route SW = southwest TBA = to be assigned UC = undercrossing WB = westbound SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS 2-13 Chapter 2 Project Alternatives Table 2.4 Structures Work under Alternative 2 PM Bridge Name Bridge No. Z 0 0- ce C - -. Ora-91-R17.95 Coal Canyon Road UC 55-0507 L/R X Riv-91- R0.07 County Line Creek 56-0366 X Riv-91-TBA Green River WB Off -ramp OH TBA X Riv-91-R1.14 West Prado OH 56-0634 L X Riv-91-R2.08 Rte 91/71 Sep 56-0587 X Riv-91-R2.08 E91-N71 Conn Sep 56-0635 X X Riv-91-R2.84 Prado OH 56-0637 L/R X Riv-91-R3.71 Serfas Club Drive UC 56-0368 L/R X X Riv-91-TBA Westbound Maple On -ramp TBA X' Riv-91-TBA Eastbound Maple Off -ramp TBA X Riv-91-4.16 Maple Street OC 56-0344 X Riv-91-4.71 Smith Avenue OC 56-0357 X' Riv-91-TBA Smith Avenue Drop -ramp TBA X' Riv-91-5.38 Lincoln Avenue OC 56-0362 X Riv-91-5.70 Buena Vista Avenue UC 56-0373 L/R X Riv-91-5.99 West Grand Boulevard UC 56-0445 L/R X X Riv-91-6.34 Main Street UC 56-0448 L/R X Riv-91-TBA Main Street EB On -Ramp BOH TBA X Riv-91-6.65 East Grand Boulevard UC 56-0364 L/R X X Riv-91-TBA EB On -ramp E Grand Blvd UC TBA X Riv-91-6.93 Temescal Wash BOH 56-0446 L/R X X Riv-91-TBA E91-N15/S15 Connector BOH TBA X Riv-91-TBA N15/S15-W91 Connector BOH TBA X Riv-91-9.18 McKinley Street UC 56-0365 L/R X X Riv-91-10.29 Buchanan Street OC 56-0368 X Riv-91-10.81 Pierce Street UC 56-0369 L/R X X Riv-91-TBA 91-15 Express Viaduct TBAZ X Riv-91-TBA S-W Express Viaduct (15/91) TBA` X Riv-91-TBA E91-N15 Express Connector TBA` X Riv-15-TBA N-W Express Viaduct (15/91) TBAZ X Riv 37.82 El Cerrito Road UC 56-0558 L/R X X Riv-38.69 Ontario Avenue UC 56-0498 L R X X Riv-39.40 Old Temescal Rd UC 56-0644 L/R X X Riv-42.45 Corona Ave UC 56-0644 L/R X X Source: Project Report (September 2011). Note: Bold italics indicate structures work that is required under Alternative 2 but not under Alternative 1. Selected design variations only. 2 These are new structures that do not have assigned bridge numbers yet. BOH = bridge and overhead Conn Sep = Connector Separation EB = eastbound L/R = left/right OC = overcrossing OH = overhead Ora = Orange County R = realigned RCB = reinforced concrete box Riv = Riverside County Rte = Route SW = southwest TBA = to be assigned UC = undercrossing WB = westbound 2-14 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Chapter 2 Project Alternatives As shown in Table 2.4, Alternative 2 requires work on seven more structures than Alternative 1. It is important to note that the Smith Avenue overcrossing replacement and new Smith Avenue drop ramp structure would be required in only four of the eight design variations (2c, 2d, 2g, and 2h) under Alternative 2 where access to the tolled express lanes will be from Smith Avenue. For the other 27 structures, the bridge work in Alternatives 1 and 2 is similar. However, in Alternative 2, the undercrossing and bridge structures generally would be widened an additional 12 ft on either side of SR-91 compared to Alternative 1. Interchanges The existing local road interchanges on SR-91 at Gypsum Canyon Road, Green River Road, Auto Center Drive, Maple Street, Lincoln Avenue, West Grand Boulevard, Main Street, McKinley Street, and Pierce Street would be modified to accommodate the improvements on SR-91 under Alternatives 1 and 2. The existing system interchanges with SR-91 at SR-241, SR-71, and I-15 would also be modified to accommodate the improvements on SR-91 under Alternatives 1 and 2. The specific modifications at these local road interchanges and system interchanges are described in detail by alternative later in this section. Major Drainage and Culvert Facilities There are over 105 major cross -drainage structures and numerous inlets and contributory structures on the alignments of Alternatives 1 and 2. The potential project changes at each crossing under Alternatives 1 and 2 are summarized in Table 2.5. There are 32 locations where the anticipated project changes differ slightly between Alternatives 1 and 2, with approximately 12 ft (on average) of additional culvert lengthening on either side of SR-91 under Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1. Those locations are highlighted in Table 2.5. Water Quality/Erosion Control Erosion control will be required for Alternatives 1 and 2 to assure storm water quality compliance and minimize long-term facility maintenance requirements. For slopes steeper than 4.1, an erosion control plan will be developed under the supervision of the Department District Landscape Architect stating how the steeper slopes will be stabilized. For slopes steeper than 2:1, the erosion control plan will include a Geotechnical Report that addresses the stability of slopes steeper than 2:1 and will have concurrence by the District Maintenance Storm Water Coordinator. SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS 2-15 Chapter 2 Project Alternatives Table 2.5 Drainage Structures Work Under Alternatives 1 and 2 Post Mile Alternative 1 Drainage Structure Impacts Alternative 2 Drainage Structure Impacts Existing Drainage Structure Impact Modification Existing Drainage Structure Impact Modification SR-91 - Orange County R16.4 Trpl 12'x10' RCB Protect In Place None Trpl 12'x10' RCB Protect In Place None R16.61 60" RCP Protect In Place None 60" RCP Protect In Place None R17.00 60" RCP Extend Rt 2' Rt 60" RCP Extend Rt 2' Rt R17.09 60" CMP Protect In Place None 60" CMP Protect In Place None R17.38 5'x5' RCB Protect In Place None 5'x5' RCB Protect In Place None R17.43 5'x5' RCB Protect In Place None 5'x5' RCB Protect In Place None R17.70 3'X3' RCB Protect In Place None 3'x3' RCB Protect In Place None R17.94 Dbl. 10'x8' RCB Protect In Place None DbI 10'x8' RCB Protect In Place None R18.16 36" RCP None See Note 1 36" RCP None See Note 1 R18.25 36" RCP Extend Rt 27' Rt 36" RCP Extend Rt 27' Rt R18.37 36" RCP None See Note 1 36" RCP None See Note 1 R18.55 48" RCP None See Note 1 48" RCP None See Note 1 R18.66 48" RCP None See Note 1 48" RCP None See Note 1 R18.72 60" RCP None See Note 1 60" RCP None See Note 1 R18.82 30" RCP None See Note 1 30" RCP None See Note 1 R18.89 54" RCP None See Note 1 54" RCP None See Note 1 SR-91 - Riverside County R0.07 Tunnel None See Note 1 Tunnel None See Note 1 R0.12 54" RCP None See Note 1 54" RCP None See Note 1 R0.21 36" CMP None See Note 1 36" CMP None See Note 1 R0.35 12'x12' RCB None See Note 1 12'x12' RCB None See Note 1 R0.47 36" CMP Extend Rt 32' Rt 36" CMP Extend Rt 32' Rt R0.59 36" CMP Extend Rt 27' Rt 36" CMP Extend Rt 27' Rt R0.78 36" CMP Extend Rt 70' Rt 36" CMP Extend Rt 70' Rt R0.91 24" CMP Abandon Portion Remove 13' 24" CMP Abandon Portion Remove 13' R1.13 24" CMP Protect In Place None 24" CMP Protect In Place None R1.22 54" CMP Protect In Place None 54" CMP Protect In Place None R1.38 72" CMP Protect In Place None 72" CMP Protect In Place None R1.52 72" CMP Protect In Place None 72" CMP Protect In Place None R1.73 12'x9' RCB Protect In Place None 12'x9' RCB Protect In Place None R2.55 24" CMP Protect In Place None 24" CMP Protect In Place None R3.13 24" CMP Extend Rt 21' Rt 24" CMP Extend Rt 33' Rt R3.26 24" CMP Protect In Place None 24" CMP Protect In Place None R3.41 24" CMP Protect In Place None 24" CMP Protect In Place None 2-16 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Chapter 2 Project Alternatives Table 2.5 Drainage Structures Work Under Alternatives 1 and 2 Post Mile Alternative 1 Drainage Structure Impacts Alternative 2 Drainage Structure Impacts Existing Drainage Structure Impact Modification Existing Drainage Structure Impact Modification R3.47 8 x8' RCB Extend Rt 75' Rt 8 x8' RCB Extend Rt 87' Rt R3.98 42" RCP Protect In Place None 42" RCP Extend Rt & Lt 17' Rt & 4' Lt 4.24 42" RCP Extend Rt & Lt 16' Rt & 27' Lt 42" RCP Extend Rt & Lt 28' Rt & 39' Lt 4.39 30" RCP Extend Rt & Lt 31' Rt & 40' Lt 30" RCP Extend Rt & Lt 55' Rt & 64' Lt 4.44 24" RCP Extend Rt & Lt 50' Rt & 51' Lt 24" RCP Extend Rt & Lt 62' Rt & 63' Lt 4.51 4'x3' RCB Extend Rt 54' Rt 4'x3' RCB Extend Rt 66' Rt 4.65 Dbl 4'x3' RCB Extend Rt 48' Rt Dbl 4'x3' RCB Extend Rt 60' Rt 4.71 24" RCP Extend Rt & Lt 29' Rt & 34' Lt 24" RCP Extend Rt & Lt 41' Rt & 46' Lt 4.74 24" RCP Extend Rt & Lt 27' Rt & 13' Lt 24" RCP Extend Rt & Lt 39' Rt & 25' Lt 4.91 24" RCP Extend Rt 15' Rt 24" RCP Extend Rt 25' Rt 5.05 2-3" RCP Extend Rt 36' Rt 2-30" RCP Extend Rt 36' Rt 5.20 24" RCP Extend Rt & Lt 50' Rt & 45' Lt 24" RCP Extend Rt & Lt 50' Rt & 50' Lt 5.39 30" RCP Abandon Portion Rt Abandon 40' Rt 30" RCP Abandon Portion Rt Abandon 40' Rt 5.43 12'x7.5' RCB Extend Rt & Lt 110' Rt & 32' Lt 12'x7.5' RCB Extend Rt & Lt 110' Rt & 32' Lt 5.45 17'x14' RCB Protect In Place None 17'x14' RCB Protect In Place None 5.50 24" RCP Extend Lt 10' Lt 24" RCP Extend Lt 20' Lt 5.58 24" RCP Extend Rt & Lt 75' Rt & 50' Lt 24" RCP Extend Rt & Lt 65' Rt & 60' Lt 5.71 54" RCP Protect In Place None 54" RCP Protect In Place None 5.72 18" RCP Extend Rt & Lt 35' Rt & RCP New 24" 18" RCP Extend Rt & Lt 78' Rt & 75' Lt 5.84 30" RCP Abandon Portion Rt 50' New 30" RCP Rt 30" RCP Abandon Portion Rt 60' New 30" RCP Rt 5.85 30" RCP Abandon Portion Rt 50' New 30" RCP Rt 30" RCP Abandon Portion Rt 55' New 30" RCP Rt 6.00 36" RCP Protect In Place None 36" RCP Protect In Place None 6.02 18" RCP Abandon Entire Abandon 270' 18" RCP Abandon Entire Abandon 270' 6.06 84" RCP Protect In Place None 84" RCP Protect In Place None 6.08 36" RCP Protect In Place None 36" RCP Protect In Place None 6.14 36" RCP Extend Rt & Lt 5' Rt & 226' Lt 36" RCP Extend Rt & Lt 5' Rt & 226' Lt 6.22 48" RCP Extend Rt 25' Rt 48" RCP Extend Rt 30' Rt 6.29 48" RCP Extend Rt 12' Rt 48" RCP Extend Rt 25' Rt 6.32 18" RCP Extend Lt 40' New 24" RCP Lt 18" RCP Extend Lt 50' New 24" RCP Lt 6.35 48" RCP Protect In Place None 48" RCP Protect In Place None 6.37 48" RCP Protect In Place None 48" RCP Protect In Place None 6.38 18" RCP Extend Lt 70' New 24" RCP Lt 18" RCP Extend Lt 90' Lt 6.43 48" RCP Protect In Place None 48" RCP Protect In Place None SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS 2-17 Chapter 2 Project Alternatives Table 2.5 Drainage Structures Work Under Alternatives 1 and 2 Post Mile Alternative 1 Drainage Structure Impacts Alternative 2 Drainage Structure Impacts Existing Drainage Structure Impact Modification Existing Drainage Structure Impact Modification 6.50 30" RCP Extend Rt 112' Rt 30" RCP Extend Rt 125' Rt 6.58 48" RCP Extend Rt & Lt 90' Rt & 178' Lt 48" RCP Extend Rt & Lt 110' Rt & 190' Lt 6.63 30" RCP Extend Rt 70' Rt 30" RCP Extend Rt 70' Rt 6.68 18" RCP Protect In Place None 18" RCP Protect In Place None 6.82 18" RCP Abandon Entire Abandon 146' 18" RCP Abandon Entire Abandon 146' 6.92 18" RCP Extend Lt 36' New 24" RCP Lt 18" RCP Extend Lt 40' New 24" RCP Lt 7.29 24" RCP Protect In Place None 24" RCP Protect In Place None 7.33 18" RCP Extend Lt 30' New 24" RCP Lt 18" RCP Extend Lt 30' New 24" RCP Lt 7.38 24" RCP Extend Rt & Lt 20' Rt & 15' Lt 24" RCP Extend Rt & Lt 20' Rt & 15' Lt 7.49 24" RCP Extend Rt & Lt 40' Rt & 40' Lt 24" RCP Extend Rt & Lt 40' Rt & 40' Lt 7.56 18" RCP Protect In Place None 18" RCP Protect In Place None 7.78 18" CSP Extend Lt 30' New 24" CSP Lt 18" CSP Extend Lt 30' New 24" CSP Lt 7.88 54" RCP Extend Rt & Lt 40' Rt & 15' Lt 54" RCP Extend Rt & Lt 40' Rt & 15' Lt 8.26 8'x6' RCB Protect In Place None 8'x6' RCB Protect In Place None 8.64 18" RCP Abandon Entire Abandon 90' 18" RCP Abandon Entire Abandon 90' 8.74 Dbl 8'x5' RCB Protect In Place None DbI 8'x5' RCB Protect In Place None 8.79 18" RCP Protect In Place None 18" RCP Protect In Place None 8.91 30" RCP Extend Lt 10' Lt 30" RCP Extend Lt 10' Lt 9.05 18" RCP Extend Lt 20' New 24" RCP Lt 18" RCP Extend Lt 20' New 24" RCP Lt 9.12 24" RCP Protect In Place None 24" RCP Protect In Place None 9.19 48" RCP Protect In Place None 48" RCP Protect In Place None 9.19 48" RCP Protect In Place None 48" RCP Protect In Place None 9.21 18" RCP Extend Rt 70' New 24" RCP 18" RCP Extend Rt 70' New 24" RCP 9.38 18" RCP Extend Rt 35' New 24" RCP Rt 18" RCP Extend Rt 35' New 24" RCP Rt 9.55 24" RCP Protect In Place None 24" RCP Protect In Place None 9.60 30" RCP Protect In Place None 30" RCP Protect In Place None 9.73 36" RCP Extend Lt 10' Lt 36" RCP Extend Lt 10' Lt 10.00 Trpl 5'x3' RCB Protect In Place None Trpl 5'x3' RCB Protect In Place None 10.08 18" RCP Extend Lt 18' New 24" RCP Lt 18" RCP Extend Lt 18' New 24" RCP Lt 10.14 18" RCP Protect In Place None 18" RCP Protect In Place None 10.18 48" RCP Extend Rt & Lt 4' Rt & 12' Lt 48" RCP Extend Rt & Lt 15' Rt & 25' Lt 10.47 18" RCP Extend Rt 24' New 24" RCP Rt 18" RCP Extend Rt 40' New 24" RCP Rt 10.52 18" RCP Protect In Place None 18" RCP Extend Rt 10' New 24" RCP Rt 10.59 Trpl 4'x2' RCB Extend Rt 10' Rt 3-4 X2' RCB Extend Rt 40' Rt 10.70 Trpl 12'x9' RCB Extend Rt 12' Rt 3-12'X9' RCB Extend Rt 65' Rt 2-18 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Chapter 2 Project Alternatives Table 2.5 Drainage Structures Work Under Alternatives 1 and 2 Post Mile Alternative 1 Drainage Structure Impacts Alternative 2 Drainage Structure Impacts Existing Drainage Structure Impact Modification Existing Drainage Structure Impact Modification 10.72 18" RCP Extend Rt 30' Rt 18" RCP Extend Rt 40' Rt 10.82 18" RCP Protect In Place None 18" RCP Extend Rt 65' New 24" RCP Rt 10.86 18" RCP Protect In Place None 18" RCP Protect In Place None 10.94 18" RCP Protect In Place None 18" RCP Extend Rt 25' New 24" RCP Rt Source: Project Report (September 2011). Note: Bold italics indicate drainage structures where the work required under Alternative 2 would differ from the work required under Alternative 1. These cross culverts will be extended as part of the SR-91 Eastbound Lane Addition Project on the south side of SR-91 and the United States Army Corps of Engineers' Santa Ana River Reach 9 Phase 2B Project on the north side of SR-91. CMP = corrugated metal pipe CSP = corrugated steel pipe Dbl = double Lt = left N/A = not applicable R = realigned RCB = reinforced concrete box RCP = reinforced concrete pipe Rt = right SR-91 = State Route 91 Trpl = triple SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final E/R/EIS 2-19 Chapter 2 Project Alternatives In addition, temporary BMPs will be implemented during construction of Alternatives 1 and 2. Permanent BMPs for long-term operations of Alternatives 1 and 2 would include biofiltration swales, infiltration basins, detention basins, and/or media filters (also referred to as Austin Sand Filters). The increased impervious surface areas and disturbed soil areas under Alternatives 1 and 2 are summarized in Table 2.6. Alternative 2 results in a larger increase in new impervious surfaces than Alternative 1 because it has a larger footprint which results in a larger total disturbed soil area. The quantities of treatment BMPs estimated for Alternatives 1 and 2 are listed in Table 2.7. Alternative 2 requires more BMPs and greater costs for BMPs than Alternative 1 because it results in a larger area of disturbed soil and increased new impervious surfaces. Table 2.6 Storm Water Effect Areas for Alternatives 1 and 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2' Impervious w Surface Area (acres) Disturbed Soil Area (acres) New Impervious Surface Area (acres) Disturbed Soil Area (acres) Total 117 351 173 503 Source: Project Report (September 2011). ' Including Alternative 2f. Table 2.7 Estimated Quantities of Treatment Best Management Practices for Alternatives 1 and 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Biofiltration Swales/ Strips (Each) Infiltration Devices (Each) Detention Devices (Each) Austin Sand Filters (Each) Biofiltration Swales/ Strips (Each) Infiltration Devices (Each) Detention Devices (Each) Austin Sand Filters (Each) Total 18 13 16 16 25 19 22 22 Source: Project Report (September 2011). Note: The design variations would not impact the implementation or number of the best management practices listed in the table above. Refer to Table 3.11.2 in Section 3.11, Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography, for the estimated cut and fill amounts under Alternatives 1 and 2. Existing runoff from SR-91 and I-15 in the project study area is currently untreated. The BMPs under Alternatives 1 and 2 would be implemented to target pollutants of concern in runoff from the additional freeway facilities. As noted, drainage from the new freeway facilities would be treated by biofiltration swales, infiltration basins, 2-20 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Chapter 2 Project Alternatives detention basins, and/or media filters under Alternatives 1 and 2. All of the runoff from the new net impervious surface areas under Alternatives 1 and 2 would be treated; in addition, those BMPs would treat some part of the current untreated runoff from the existing SR-91 and I-15 facilities. The amount of runoff from the existing facilities that would be treated by the project BMPs would be determined during the final design of those BMPs. The preliminary estimated costs for the temporary (construction) and permanent BMPs for Alternatives 1 and 2 are listed in Table 2.8. The costs for temporary BMPs for Alternative 2 would be slightly higher than for Alternative 1 because the ground disturbance for construction of Alternative 2 would be slightly greater than for Alternative 1. Table 2.8 Cost Estimates for Temporary and Permanent Best Management Practices for Alternatives 1 and 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Temporary BMPs Permanent BMPs Temporary BMPs Permanent BMPs Total $4,390,000 $5,775,000 $5,716,000 $10,148,250 Source: Project Report (September 2011). BMPs = best management practices The costs for permanent BMPs are estimated based on the increased impervious area. The large difference in estimated costs for permanent BMPs between Alternatives 1 and 2 reflects the additional lane widening (impervious area) in each direction with Alternative 2 along most of the project limits. Prior to and during construction of the Initial Phases and Ultimate Projects for the SR-91 CIP Build Alternatives, the design/build contractor will be required to comply with the provisions of the following: • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002), and any subsequent permit, as they relate to project construction activities. • General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Surface Waters that Pose an Insignificant (De Minimus) Threat to Water Quality, Order No. R8-2009- 0003, NPDES No. CAG998001, as they relate to discharge of non -storm -water dewatering wastes for the project. SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS 2-21 Chapter 2 Project Alternatives • Procedures outlined in the Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks, Project Planning and Design Guide (July 2010 or subsequent issuance) for implementing Design Pollution Prevention and Treatment BMPs for the project. • NPDES Permit, Statewide Storm Water Permit, and Waste Discharge Requirements for the State of California, Department of Transportation (Order No. 99-06-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000003) • NPDES Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the County of Riverside, and the incorporated cities of Riverside County within the Santa Ana Region (Order No. R8-2010-0033, NPDES No. CAS618033); and for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District, and the incorporated cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region (Order No. R8-2009-0030), as applicable. Retaining Walls Retaining walls are required to retain fill or cut slopes along the alignment of Alternatives 1 and 2. The approximate wall locations and average heights of the retaining walls on SR-91 and I-15 are listed in Tables 2.9 and 2.10 for Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively. The Alternative 2 retaining walls are generally a little longer and higher than under Alternative 1 due to the additional 12 ft of outside widening in each direction with Alternative 2. Shorter retaining walls will be constructed in Alternative 2 where the additional widening intersects slopes that are not encountered in Alternative 1. In many locations, however, the retaining walls are similar for Alternatives 1 and 2 where the additional widening occurs over level ground and, therefore, has little impact on the height or length of the retaining wall. One particular wall where there is a noticeable difference is Wall No. 599, located west of the SR-91/Green River Road westbound on -ramp. As shown in bold italics in Tables 2.9 and 2.10, under Alternative 1, Wall No. 599 will measure 1,894 ft long and 28 ft high, but under Alternative 2 the wall will measure 2,376 ft long and 40 ft high. In this location, the centerline of SR-91 will be shifted so that all of the widening would occur on the north side of SR-91 to minimize impacts to the large slopes on the south side of SR-91 through the canyon. This equates to an additional 24 ft of widening on the north side of SR-91 to accommodate the additional lane in each direction under Alternative 2, which requires a higher and longer retaining wall. 2-22 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Chapter 2 Project Alternatives Table 2.9 Alternative 1 Average Retaining Wall Heights on SR-91 and 1-15 Wall Name Location Wall Type Begin PM End PM Average Length (ft) Average Height (ft) Eastbound SR-91 482 Mainline Tieback 017.12 017.26 750 5 502 Mainline 1 017.46 017.69 1250 3 536 Mainline 1 018.11 018.15 200 2 538 Mainline Tieback 018.15 018.19 200 6 24 Mainline Tieback 0.55 0.65 50 5 28 Mainline & Green River off -ramp Tieback 0.53 0.69 850 20 38 Green River off -ramp Tieback 0.74 0.97 1200 20 166 Mainline & Auto Center off -ramp 1 3.22 3.70 2550 4 192 Auto Center on -ramp 1 3.73 4.01 1500 10 198 Maple off -ramp LT between Mainline 1 3.84 3.98 700 14 200 Maple off ramp RT between Auto Center on -ramp 1 3.84 3.97 650 11 212 Auto Center on-ramp/Maple off -ramp & Mainline 1 4.09 4.12 138 6 216 (Var1) Maple St. off -ramp 1 4.07 4.16 500 12 222 (Var1) Maple on -ramp & Mainline 1 4.19 4.80 3200 2 216 (Var2) Maple off -ramp 1 4.07 4.15 450 12 228 (Var2) Maple on -ramp & Mainline 1 4.29 4.80 2700 2 228 Mainline 1 4.80 4.83 200 5 273 (Var 1) Lincoln off -ramp 1 5.14 5.22 450 4 279 (Var 1) Lincoln off -ramp 1 5.24 5.38 745 9 278 (Var 2) Mainline/Lincoln off -ramp 1 5.22 5.40 956 5 285 (Var 2) Mainline Tieback 5.37 5.40 125 11 287.1 (Var 1) Lincoln on -ramp 1 5.40 5.47 376 18 295 (Var 1) Lincoln on -ramp 1 5.56 5.69 690 13 299 (Var 2) Lincoln on -ramp 1 5.62 5.72 488 13 303 Mainline 1 5.73 6.01 1459 22 321 Mainline & Main St off -ramp 1 6.05 6.29 1263 20 334.1 Mainline 1 6.28 6.35 332 13 334.2 Main St off -ramp 1 6.29 6.34 252 5 338.1 Mainline 1 6.38 6.55 907 15 342 HOT Connectors MSE 6.44 6.58 705 343 Main St on -ramp & braid on -ramp 1 6.46 6.70 1234 16 351 Mainline 1 6.60 6.67 343 6 355 Mainline 1 6.69 6.72 127 6 356.1 SR-91 CD road to 1-15 1 6.71 6.90 1023 20 356.2 Main St braid on -ramp 1 6.72 6.77 247 19 357 Mainline 1 6.74 6.79 254 6 361 Main St braid on -ramp 1 6.80 6.92 612 8 381 EB SR-91 to SB 1-15 conn 1 7.20 7.28 425 6 383 Mainline 1 7.24 7.30 283 6 394 I-15/SR-91 Sep Tieback 7.43 7.48 266 6 424 Mainline 1 8.01 8.06 300 10 441 Mainline 1 8.32 8.38 300 6 448 Mainline 1 8.45 8.62 900 10 457 Mainline 1 8.62 9.13 2700 8 487 McKinley St loop on -ramp 1 9.19 9.37 929 5 494 McKinley St on -ramp 1 9.32 9.35 150 8 496 McKinley St on -ramp 1 9.36 9.39 150 7 498 McKinley St on -ramp 1 9.40 9.51 600 15 504 Mainline & McKinley St on -ramp 1 9.51 9.63 600 4 510 Mainline 1 9.63 9.68 261 4 513 Mainline 1 9.68 9.75 399 6 517 Mainline 1 9.75 9.93 925 6 527 Mainline 1 9.93 10.22 1550 5 553 Pierce St off -ramp 1 10.43 10.56 699 5 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS 2-23 Chapter 2 Project Alternatives Table 2.9 Alternative 1 Average Retaining Wall Heights on SR-91 and 1-15 Wall Name Location Wall Type Begin PM End PM Average Length (ft) Average Height (ft) Westbound SR-91 463 Mainline 1 016.71 017.76 5550 6 537 Mainline 1 018.16 018.90 3910 8 1 Mainline 1 0.00 0.50 2643 10 599 Mainline & Green River on -ramp MSE 0.44 0.79 1894 28 37 Green River on -ramp 1 0.79 0.96 850 8 33 Between Mainline & Green River on- ramp 1 0.72 0.94 1125 3 61 Mainline & Green River off -ramp 1 1.24 1.90 3500 15 101 Mainline 1 1.98 2.04 350 4 105 Mainline 1 2.08 2.18 500 3 115 Mainline and 71 W-N Connector Tieback 2.23 2.76 2800 4 141 Mainline 1 2.76 2.88 600 2 153 Mainline & Auto Center on -ramp 1 2.94 3.62 3550 2 193 (Var 1) aunpCenter off -ramp &Maple on- 1 3.74 4.27 2800 8 197 (Var 1) lop Between Mainline &Maple WB on 1 3.82 4.32 2600 2 223 (Var 1) Maple off -ramp & Mainline 1 4.30 4.78 2550 4 193 (Var 2) Auto Center off -ramp 1 3.74 4.26 2750 8 199 (Var 2) Maple on -ramp LT between Auto Center on -ramp 1 3.85 3.95 500 9 201 (Var 2) Maple on -ramp RT between Mainline 1 3.85 3.95 500 7 223 (Var 2) Maple off -ramp & Mainline 1 4.31 4.78 2500 4 223 Mainline 1 4.80 5.36 3000 10 284 Mainline 1 5.35 5.41 315 6 287.2 Lincoln Ave off -ramp 1 5.40 5.69 1500 17 304 Mainline & Main St on -ramp 1 5.72 6.02 1616 23 325 Main St on -ramp 1 6.12 6.31 992 22 333 Mainline 1 6.26 6.34 398 19 338.2 Mainline 1 6.38 6.52 783 21 339 Main St off -ramp 1 6.39 6.59 1058 22 342 HOT Connectors MSE 6.44 6.58 705 7 353 Mainline 1 6.66 6.90 1262 28 375 NB 1-15 to WB SR-91 conn 1 7.05 7.16 591 8 385 SB I-15 to WB SR-91 conn 1 7.24 7.26 95 4 393 I-15/SR-91 Sep Tieback 7.42 7.47 279 6 406 WB SR-91 to NB 1-15 conn 1 7.59 7.73 760 9 421 Mainline 1 7.94 7.98 200 6 425 Mainline 1 8.03 8.09 350 6 433 Mainline 1 8.16 8.22 350 6 444 Mainline 1 8.37 8.62 1326 9 458 Mainline 1 8.65 8.74 467 7 473 Mainline 1 8.92 9.07 789 5 488 McKinley St loop off -ramp 1 9.20 9.32 619 13 511 Mainline 1 9.66 9.78 649 7 520 Mainline 1 9.81 9.87 300 9 Northbound 1-15 2149 HOT Connectors MSE 40.71 40.82 586 8 Southbound 1-15 2149 I HOT Connectors MSE 40.71 I 40.82 I 586 I 8 Source: Project Report (September 2011). CD = collector -distributor conn = connector EB = eastbound ft = feet HOT = high -occupancy toll road 1-15 = Interstate 15 LT = left turn MSE = Mechanically Stabilized Earth NB = northbound PM = Post Mile 0 = Orange County RT = right turn SB = southbound Sep = Separation SR-91 = State Route 91 St = Street Var = design variation WB = westbound W-N = west to north 2-24 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Chapter 2 Project Alternatives Table 2.10 Alternative 2 Average Retaining Wall Heights on SR-91 and 1-15 Wall Name Location Type Begin End PM Average Length (ft) Average Height (ft) Eastbound SR-91 482 Mainline Tieback 017.08 017.30 1150 12 502 Mainline 1 017.47 017.75 1500 9` 2 536 Mainline 1 018.07 018.11 200 538 Mainline Tieback 018.11 018.15 200 2 22 Mainline 1 0.42 0.46 250 10 28 Mainline and Green River off -ramp Tieback 0.60 0.78 900 20 48 Green River off -ramp & Mainline Tieback 0.81 1.04 1200 20 66 Mainline & SR-71 NE Conn 1 1.32 1.45 650 18 148 Mainline 1 2.89 3.02 700 2 162 Mainline & Auto Center off -ramp 1 3.17 3.70 2800 7 192 (Var 1 /3) Auto Center on -ramp & Mainline 1 3.73 3.98 1300 6 TBA Serfas Club Dr. UC Tieback 3.68 3.75 400 11 TBA Maple St. OC Tieback 4.13 4.14 98 12.4 198 (Var 1-4) Maple off -ramp LT between Mainline 1 3.83 3.97 700 9 200 (Var 1-4) Maple off -ramp RT between Auto Center on -ramp 1 3.83 3.97 700 6 216 (Var 1/2) Maple off -ramp at intersection 1 4.18 4.28 550 14 224 (Var 1) Mainline & Maple St. on -ramp 1 4.20 4.80 3150 4 192 (Var 2) Auto Center on -ramp & Mainline 3.73 4.01 1500 6 224 (Var 2) Mainline & Maple St. on -ramp 1 4.20 4.80 3150 4 235 (Var 2) Smith Drop Ramp 1 4.43 4.56 700 22 251 (Var 2) West side of Smith OC 1 4.68 4.70 100 6 253 (Var 2) East side of Smith OC 1 4.70 4.72 100 6 216 (Var 3) Maple off -ramp at intersection 1 4.18 4.27 450 9 220 (Var 3) Mainline 1 4.26 4.34 438 7 228 (Var 3) Maple on -ramp & Mainline 1 4.29 4.80 2700 2 192 (Var 4) Auto Center on -ramp & Mainline 1 3.73 4.02 1550 9 216 (Var 4) Maple Off Ramp at intersection 1 4.18 4.13 -312 19 222 (Var 4) Mainline 1 4.27 4.35 438 9 228 (Var 4) Maple on -ramp & Mainline 1 4.29 4.80 2700 4 235 (Var 4) Smith Drop Ramp 1 4.43 4.56 700 22 251 (Var 4) West side of Smith OC 1 4.71 4.72 50 6 253 (Var 4) East side of Smith OC 1 4.73 4.74 50 6 228 Mainline 1 4.80 4.83 200 5 273 (Var 1/2) Lincoln off -ramp 1 5.14 5.22 450 4 279 (Var 1/2) Lincoln off -ramp 1 5.24 5.38 745 9 278 (Var 3/4) Mainline/Lincoln off -ramp 1 5.22 5.40 956 5 285 (Var 3/4) Mainline Tieback 5.37 5.40 125 11 287.1 (Var 1/2) Lincoln on -ramp 1 5.40 5.47 376 18 295 (Var 1/2) Lincoln on -ramp 1 5.56 5.69 690 13 299 (Var 3/4) Lincoln on -ramp 1 5.62 5.72 488 13 303 Mainline 1 5.73 6.01 1459 22 321 Mainline & Main St off -ramp 1 6.05 6.29 1263 20 334.1 Mainline 1 6.28 6.35 332 13 334.2 Main St off -ramp 1 6.29 6.34 252 5 338.1 Mainline 1 6.38 6.55 907 15 342 HOT Connectors MSE 6.44 6.58 705 7 343 Main St on -ramp & braid on -ramp 1 6.46 6.70 1234 16 351 Mainline 1 6.60 6.67 343 6 355 Mainline 1 6.69 6.72 127 6 356.1 SR-91 CD road to 1-15 1 6.71 6.90 1023 20 356.2 Main St braid on -ramp 1 6.72 6.77 247 19 357 Mainline 1 6.74 6.79 254 6 361 Main St braid on -ramp 1 6.80 6.92 612 8 381 EB SR-91 to SB 1-15 conn 1 7.20 7.28 425 6 383 Mainline 1 7.24 7.30 283 6 394 I-15/SR-91 Sep Tieback 7.43 7.48 266 6 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS 2-25 Chapter 2 Project Alternatives Table 2.10 Alternative 2 Average Retaining Wall Heights on SR-91 and 1-15 Wall Name Location Type Begin End PM Average Length (ft) Average Height (ft) 424 Mainline 1 8.01 8.06 300 10 441 Mainline 1 8.32 8.38 300 6 448 Mainline 1 8.45 8.62 900 10 457 Mainline 1 8.62 9.13 2700 8 487 McKinley St loop on -ramp 1 9.19 9.37 929 5 494 McKinley St on -ramp 1 9.32 9.35 150 8 496 McKinley St on -ramp 1 9.36 9.39 150 7 498 McKinley St on -ramp 1 9.40 9.51 600 15 504 Mainline & McKinley St on -ramp 1 9.51 9.63 600 4 510 Mainline 1 9.63 9.68 261 4 513 Mainline 1 9.68 9.75 399 6 517 Mainline 1 9.75 9.93 925 6 527 Mainline 1 9.93 10.22 1550 5 553 Pierce St off -ramp 1 10.43 10.56 699 5 562 Pierce St off -ramp 1 10.62 10.77 799 4 Westbound SR-91 471 Mainline 1 016.71 017.80 5755 9 537 Mainline 1 018.11 018.90 4171 19 1 Mainline 1 0.00 0.53 2798 12 599 Mainline & Green River on -ramp MSE 0.44 0.89 2376 40 37 Green River on -ramp 1 0.89 0.97 422 3 3 Green River and Corps Bankment 1 0.03 0.14 581 4 33 Between Mainline & Green River on- ramp 1 0.72 0.95 1214 8 59 Green River off -ramp & Mainline 1 1.24 1.90 3485 20 115 Mainline and 71 W-N Connector Tieback 2.23 2.75 2746 10 141 Mainline 1 2.75 2.88 686 4 153 Mainline & Auto Center on -ramp 1 2.94 3.59 3432 7 193 (Var 1) Auto Center off -ramp & Maple on -ramp 1 3.74 4.28 2850 9 TBA Serfas Club Dr. UC Tieback 3.68 3.75 400 11 TBA Maple St. OC Tieback 4.12 4.14 115 12.4 197 (Var 1) Maple Loop on -ramp between mainline 1 3.70 4.20 2650 2 223 (Var 1) Maple off -ramp & Mainline 1 4.19 4.80 3200 6 193 (Var 2) Auto Center off -ramp & Maple on -ramp 1 3.74 4.28 2850 9 197 (Var 2) Maple Loop on -ramp between Mainline 1 3.82 4.32 2650 2 223 (Var 2) Maple off -ramp & Mainline 1 4.19 4.80 3200 7 235 (Var 2) Smith Drop Ramp 1 4.43 4.56 700 22 TBA Smith Ave OC Tieback 4.70 4.73 124 9.7 251 (Var 2) West side of Smith OC 1 4.71 4.72 50 6 253 (Var 2) East side of Smith OC 1 4.73 4.74 50 6 193 (Var 3) Auto Center off -ramp 1 3.74 4.29 2900 10 199 (Var 3) Maple off -ramp RT between Mainline 1 3.85 4.01 850 14 201 (Var 3) Maple off -ramp LT between Auto Center off -ramp 1 3.87 3.95 400 19 223 (Var 3) Maple off -ramp Mainline 1 4.19 4.80 3200 3 193 (Var 4) Auto Center off -ramp 1 3.74 4.26 2750 10 199 (Var 4) Maple off -ramp RT between Mainline 1 3.86 3.95 450 18 201 (Var 4) Maple ramp LT between Auto Center off -ramp 1 3.86 3.95 450 18 223 (Var 4) Maple off -ramp & Mainline 1 4.31 4.91 3200 6 235 (Var 4) Smith Drop Ramp 1 4.43 4.56 700 22 251 (Var 4) West side of Smith OC 1 4.71 4.72 50 6 253 (Var 4) East side of Smith OC 1 4.73 4.74 50 6 223 Mainline 1 4.80 5.36 3000 10 284 Mainline 1 5.35 5.41 315 6 287.2 Lincoln Ave off -ramp 1 5.40 5.69 1500 17 304 Mainline & Main St on -ramp 1 5.72 6.02 1616 23 325 Main St on -ramp 1 6.12 6.31 992 22 2-26 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Chapter 2 Project Alternatives Table 2.10 Alternative 2 Average Retaining Wall Heights on SR-91 and 1-15 Wall Name Location Type Begin End PM Average Length (ft) Average Height (ft) 333 Mainline 1 6.26 6.34 398 19 338.2 Mainline 1 6.38 6.52 783 21 339 Main St off -ramp 1 6.39 6.59 1058 22 342 HOT Connectors MSE 6.44 6.58 705 7 353 Mainline 1 6.66 6.90 1262 28 375 NB 1-15 to WB SR-91 conn 1 7.05 7.16 591 8 385 SB 1-15 to WB SR-91 conn 1 7.24 7.26 95 4 393 I-15/SR-91 Sep Tieback 7.42 7.47 279 6 406 WB SR-91 to NB 1-15 conn 1 7.59 7.73 760 9 421 Mainline 1 7.94 7.98 200 6 425 Mainline 1 8.03 8.09 350 6 433 Mainline 1 8.16 8.22 350 6 444 Mainline 1 8.37 8.62 1326 9 458 Mainline 1 8.65 8.74 467 7 473 Mainline 1 8.92 9.07 789 5 488 McKinley St loop off -ramp 1 9.20 9.32 619 13 511 Mainline 1 9.66 9.78 649 7 520 Mainline 1 9.81 9.87 300 9 Northbound 1-15 2149 HOT Connectors MSE 40.71 40.82 586 8 2212 HOT Connectors MSE 41.91 42.00 475 8 Southbound 1-15 2149 HOT Connectors MSE 40.71 40.82 586 8 2212 HOT Connectors MSE 41.91 42.00 475 8 Source: Project Report (September CD = collector -distributor conn = connector Dr. = Drive EB = eastbound ft = feet HOT = high -occupancy toll road 1-15 = Interstate 15 LT = left turn 2011). MSE = Mechanically Stabilized Earth NB = northbound NE = northeast O = Orange County OC = overcrossing PM = Post Mile RT = right turn SB = southbound Sep = Separation SR-91 = State Route 91 St = Street TBA = to be added UC = undercrossing Var = design variation WB = westbound W-N = west to north Permanent Features: Noise Barriers There are existing noise barriers on the north side of the SR-91 mainline in the vicinity of the SR-91/SR-241/Gypsum Canyon Road interchange. Those walls would remain under Alternatives 1 and 2 although some would be reconstructed. Locations for new or replacement noise barriers on SR-91 and I-15 under the Alternatives 1 and 2 Initial Phases and Ultimate Projects are summarized later in Tables 3.13.27 through 3.13.30, and shown later on Figure 3.15-1 in Section 3.15, Noise, and on the detailed project features plans in Appendix L. Utilities There are several known utility facilities within the project limits. The following utility companies have facilities within the project limits on SR-91 that will be impacted by Alternatives 1 and 2: SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS 2-27 Chapter 2 Project Alternatives • Southern California Edison Company (SCE) • Southern California Gas Company (SCG) • AT&T/PacBell (AT&T) • City of Corona water, sewer, and communications • Comcast Cable • Sprint • Time Warner Cable • Questar Some existing utility facilities would require only encasement or protection in place during construction of Alternatives 1 and 2. However, the relocation of some existing utility facilities would be necessary to accommodate construction of Alternatives 1 and 2. Appendix J, Utility Relocations, summarizes the anticipated utility relocations for Alternatives 1 and 2. Several of these have been identified as "high/low risk" under the Department "Policy on High and Low Risk Underground Facilities Within Highway Rights of Way," as defined in Chapter 13 of the Caltrans Right -of -Way Manual. All the utility relocation work needed to construct the improvements under Alternatives 1 and 2 is considered to be part of the project. No utility relocations are anticipated on the project segment of I-15. Refer to the following tables provided later in Section 3.5, Utilities/Emergency Services, which describe the effects of the Initial Phases and Ultimate Projects for Alternatives 1 and 2 on utilities in detail, including those utilities considered high risk: • Table 3.5.4: Utility Relocations, Removals, and Protection In -place under Both Alternatives 1 and 2 • Table 3.5.5: Additional Utility Relocations Under Alternative 2 Landscaping and Irrigation Systems The Depar tment District 8 Landscape Architecture Branch developed the 215/91 Landscape Corridor Master Plan (Department Master Plan, September 5, 2006) that includes the Riverside County segment of SR-91 within the project limits That Department Master Plan provides guidance on plant material selection and hardscape elements that consider water use, ease and safety of maintenance, nonnative plant exclusion, corridor continuity, local cultural integration, and other context -sensitive factors. 2-28 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Chapter 2 Project Alternatives Most of the existing highway planting and landscaping along SR-91 in the project limits would be removed under Alternatives 1 and 2. Replacement planting, landscaping, and hardscape elements that are consistent with the Department Master Plan would be provided on SR-91 under Alternatives 1 and 2 and would be planted prior to the end of construction. The contract for planting/landscaping would be separate from the prime construction contract. Replacement planting will be funded with the project construction and will include no less than three years of plant establishment. For each phase of construction, the needed replacement planting will be under construction within two years of acceptance of the highway contract that damaged or removed the existing planting. Refer to Measures V-1 to V-3 in Section 3.7, Visual/Aesthetics, for the detailed language of measures incorporated in Alternatives 1 and 2 to address landscaping commitments. The improvements on I-15 under Alternatives 1 and 2 would be constructed in the median. There is currently no landscaping or irrigation in the existing median on I-15 within the project limits Ramp Metering The existing ramp metering at ramps on SR-91 and I-15 would be retained under Alternatives 1 and 2. In addition, ramp metering would be provided on all the local on -ramps on SR-91 in the project limits that do not currently have ramp metering. Where feasible, HOV bypass lanes would be constructed on ramps that are modified. Table 2.11 provides a summary of the ramp metering for the SR-91 CIP system interchanges. Connectors between SR-91 and I-15 (existing and planned) are not planned to be metered; however, the I-15 northbound on -ramp to the eastbound SR-91 connector and the new westbound collector -distributor road where I-15 traffic joins SR-91 would be metered. The existing meters on the southbound SR-71 to eastbound SR-91 connector and the southbound SR-71 to westbound SR-91 connector would be maintained, and storage length would be increased with this project. No new metering will be used for other connectors at the SR-71 and SR-91 interchange. SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS 2-29 Chapter 2 Project Alternatives Table 2.11 Summary of the SR-91 CIP System Interchange Ramp Metering Name of System Interchange Connector Name Existing Ramp Already Metered Proposed Ramp to be Metered SR-241 241 N-91 E No Yes SR-71 71 S-91 W Yes Yes SR-71 71 S-91 E Yes Yes SR-71 91 W-71 N No No SR-71 91 E-71 N No No 1-15 15S-91 E loop No Yes I-15 15S-91 W and 15N-91 W combined CD No Yes 1-15 91 W-15N No No 1-15 91 W-15S No No 1-15 15N-91 E No Yes I-15 91 E-15S and 91 E-15N combined CD No No 1-15 15N-91 W and 91 E-15S Tolled Express N/A new connector No 1-15 15S-91 W and 91 E-15N Tolled Express N/A new connector No Source: SR-91 System Interchange Ramp Metering Overview for Ultimate Project (2011). CD = collector -distributor S = southbound E = eastbound SR-71 = State Route 71 1-15 = Interstate 15 SR-241 = State Route 241 N = northbound W = westbound N/A = not applicable California Highway Patrol Enforcement Activities California Highway Patrol (CHP) enforcement areas will be provided at new ramp meter installations and along the mainline. The locations of the CHP enforcement areas on mainline SR-91 are shown in Table 2.12 for Alternatives 1 and 2. As shown, Alternatives 1 and 2 would each provide four CHP enforcement areas. Table 2.12 California Highway Patrol Median Refuge Locations for Alternatives 1 and 2 Co-Rte-PM SR-91 Eastbound SR-91 Westbound Existing or New Occurs in Alternative 1 Occurs in Alternative 2 Ora-91-17.0 X X Existing Yes Yes Ora-91-17.7 X X New No Yes Ora-91-18.0 X X Existing Yes No Riv-91-3.2 X X New Yes Yes Riv-91-9.7 X X Existing Yes Yes Source: Project Report (September 2011). Co = County Ora = Orange County PM = Post Mile Riv = Riverside County Rte = Route SR-91 = State Route 91 2-30 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final E/R/EIS Chapter 2 Project Alternatives Non -Motorized and Pedestrian Features Existing local road interchanges with SR-91 would be modified as a result of the Build Alternatives. Construction of improvements at the local road connections would implement current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards for curb ramp and sidewalks as feasible. These types of modifications are planned at the Auto Center Drive, Maple Street, Lincoln Avenue, and Main Street interchanges in the City of Corona. Under the Build Alternatives, on -street bike lanes would be provided at Maple Street, Lincoln Avenue, and Main Street. One segment of the Santa Ana River Trail/Bike Lane within the right-of-way for SR-91 (at Green River Road) would be relocated to the north as part of the Initial Phases of Alternatives 1 and 2. Specifically, a 200 ft long segment of the existing Trail/Bike Lane that is approximately 1,200 ft east of the Green River Golf Club access road at Green River Road would be relocated as part of the construction of the Initial Phases of Alternatives 1 and 2. The Trail/Bike Lane would be relocated parallel to the Corps maintenance road between Coal Canyon and Green River Road as a Class II bike lane. This has been approved by the City of Corona and the Corps. Graffiti Control Public structures are often the target of graffiti. The permanent structures under Alternatives 1 and 2, including bridges, overcrossings, structural supports, retaining and sound walls, and traffic control devices, may be attractive to taggers. Alternatives 1 and 2 will include treatments on many of those structures that help deter graffiti. Depending on the agency/local jurisdiction responsible for those structures, the treatments will include anti -graffiti coatings, wall texturing and aesthetic surface treatments, and/or landscaping/plantings (e.g., ivy, vines). Modifications to Corps Facilities Alternatives 1 and 2 may permanently or temporarily modify portions of the Corps - constructed flood control facilities or Corps -owned properties listed below. The modifications described here are for Alternative 2, including Alternative 2f; the modifications required under Alternative 1 would be similar to but less extensive than those described below. These modifications would require approval by the Corps through a Section 408 permit. The modifications to Corps facilities and properties described below have always been part of the preliminary design of Alternatives 1 and 2 and were included in the project footprints of Alternatives 1 and 2 that were evaluated in the Draft EIR/EIS for the SR-91 CIP. The additional descriptive SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS 2-31 Chapter 2 Project Alternatives information is provided below in the event the Corps would use all or part of this Final EIS for the approval of the Section 408 permits under NEPA. Area 1: SR-91 CIP and Corps Reach 9 Phase 28 Project In Corps Facility Area 1, located on the north side of SR-91 near the Green River Golf Course, the following features will be constructed for SR-91 CIP: • Additional GP lane in each direction • Additional express auxiliary lane in each direction • Retaining walls and associated maintenance road • Access roadway to Star Ranch • Realignment of existing Green River Road that will end in a cul-de-sac • Bicyclist parking lot The following features of the Corps -constructed Reach 9 Phase 2B project may be affected by the SR-91 CIP project: • Maintenance Road and Fill Slope: Between Post Miles 0.0 and 0.5, a retaining wall (with sound wall) and Star Ranch access road will be built adjacent to this feature. • Maintenance Road and Access to Green River Road: To build the Star Ranch access road, the channel maintenance access road entrance from Green River Road will need to be relocated. • Maintenance Road and Fill Slope on Eastern End of Reach 9 Phase 2B Project: A parking lot for bicyclists and other Trail/Bike Lane users will be built adjacent to this feature, including retaining walls and a bicycle access ramp. • Maintenance Road and Fill Slopes: A TCE will be needed on the eastern end of the Reach 9 Phase 2B project for SR-91 CIP construction equipment access and staging for the retaining walls, the realignment of Green River Road, and the bicyclist parking lot. Area 2: SR-91 CIP and Corps Reach 9 Phase 2A Project In Corps Facility Area 2, located near Prado Road and the SR-91/SR-71 interchange, the following features will be constructed for the SR-91 CIP: • Additional GP lane in each direction • Two tolled express lanes in each direction • One westbound express auxiliary lane 2-32 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Chapter 2 Project Alternatives • Retaining walls • Realignment of the Green River Road westbound off -ramp • Extension of culverts The features described above will be constructed in the Department and the Riverside County Flood Control District (RCFCD) joint use maintenance area. As part of the SR-91 CIP construction, the following features of the Corps Reach 9 Phase 2A project may be affected: • The Prado Road Entrance of the Channel Maintenance Access Road: This segment of the road will be removed during construction of the Green River Road off -ramp structure and then rebuilt. • Embankment Slopes and Maintenance Access Road: The SR-91 CIP will require construction of a retaining wall, which will result in some temporary effects to the channel access road and embankment slopes. Area 3: SR-91 CIP, Corps Properties, and Corps Auxiliary Berm/Floodwall In Corps Facility Area 3, located near the SR-91/SR-71 interchange and Prado Dam, the following features will be constructed for SR-91 CIP: • An additional GP lane in each direction • Two express lanes in each direction • One three -plus express lane in each direction • An auxiliary lane • Retaining walls • Drainage improvements • Realignment and widening of the SR-71 southbound to SR-91 westbound ramp • Widening of the SR-71 southbound to SR-91 eastbound ramp • A maintenance access road and staging area • Storm water treatment infiltration basins The features described above will be constructed in an existing easement that the Department has with the Corps. As part of its construction, the SR-91 CIP will change the highway footprint within the existing easement in the following areas: • Department Easement on Corps Property Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 101-140-006: In the northwest quadrant of the SR-91/SR-71 interchange, the realignment of the SR-71 southbound to SR-91 westbound ramp will be moved to SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS 2-33 Chapter 2 Project Alternatives the west and require some fill slopes. In addition, this area will require construction of a storm water treatment infiltration basin. • Department Easement on Corps Property APN 101-170-001: The maintenance access and staging area will be placed in the northeast quadrant of the SR-91/ SR-71 interchange and require some fill slopes. • Department Easement on Corps Property APN 101-170-009: In the southwest quadrant of the SR-91/SR-71 interchange, the widening of the SR-71 southbound to SR-91 eastbound ramp will need additional pavement and fill slopes to accommodate an additional lane. In addition, a storm water treatment infiltration basin will be built in this area. • Eastern End of the Department Easement on Corps Property APN 101-170- 001: The project will require a TCE for staging and access for widening the SR- 91 and building a retaining wall that will extend beyond the existing easement. The SR-91 CIP may have temporary effects on the slopes of the Corps auxiliary berm/floodwall project. Area 4: SR-91 CIP and Oak Street Channel (Corps -constructed and RCFCD- maintained Channel) In Corps Facility Area 4, located near the Oak Street Channel in the City of Corona, the following features will be constructed for SR-91 CIP: • An additional GP lane in each direction • Two express lanes in each direction • An auxiliary lane • Modifications to the SR-91/Lincoln Avenue interchange • Retaining walls • Drainage improvements • Relocation of an existing maintenance turnaround area • Two storm water infiltration basins As part of the construction, the SR-91 CIP may affect the following Corps - constructed facility: • Oak Street Channel: Currently, this channel is an open concrete channel that runs north and south within the SR-91/Lincoln Avenue interchange. The reconfiguration of the SR-91/Lincoln Avenue interchange will require placing the open concrete channel into a boxed concrete channel north and south of SR-91. In addition, the boxed culvert will be extended to the north of the proposed 2-34 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Chapter 2 Project Alternatives westbound SR-91/Lincoln Avenue off -ramp to accommodate the relocation of an existing maintenance turnaround area. 2.3.2.3 Design, Preconstruction, and Construction Activities and Features Design and Construction Activities As described later in Section 2.3.4.5, Design/Build Process, Alternatives 1 and 2 would be implemented in a best value design/build process. In this process, design and construction activities will occur concurrently. The design/build phases of Alternatives 1 and 2 will include the activities described in the following sections. Many of these activities will occur concurrently and may also occur intermittently throughout the design and construction period and throughout the construction areas. The activities described here were included in the analysis of the potential project impacts provided in this EIR/EIS. • Design and Pre -Construction Activities • Preparation of final design • Preparation of modifications to the final design over time, as appropriate, based on updated knowledge about conditions in the field and other factors to result in an improved design and the most efficient construction process • Development of a project management plan • Development of a project baseline schedule • Coordination with the BNSF Railroad • Coordination with the City of Corona • Aerial mapping of the project limits • Development of a project aesthetics plan • Development of project transportation plan • Development and implementation of a project outreach program • Coordination with utility providers and appropriate potholing and other activities to locate and clearly mark the types and locations of all utility facilities in the project disturbance limits • Coordination with utility providers on protection in -place, relocation, and/or removal of utility facilities in the disturbance limits • Ongoing coordination with emergency services providers (police, fire, medical, and CHP) and local jurisdictions regarding detours and other traffic conditions during construction • Execution of detailed soils and geotechnical testing SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS 2-35 Chapter 2 Project Alternatives • Execution of hazardous waste contamination testing, as needed • Execution of detailed property surveys • Conducting existing project site survey and photo documentation • Construction Activities • Installation of fencing around construction and staging areas • Delineation of disturbance limits and any Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) or other areas to be avoided • Clearing, grading, and preparation of the field office location(s) and staging areas • The setup of field office(s) and staging areas for equipment, materials, waste materials, etc. • Moving construction equipment to the staging areas and around the construction areas • Importing construction materials to the staging areas and moving materials to where they are needed during construction of specific project components • Remediation of known hazardous waste contamination within the State right- of-way • Implementation of BMPs on an ongoing basis, consistent with the needs of each construction activity • Protection in -place, relocation, and removal of utility facilities in the project disturbance limits • Ongoing coordination with emergency services providers and local jurisdictions regarding detours and other traffic conditions and installation of appropriate signing, lane marking, and other information to direct traffic around and through the construction areas • Implementation of ramp and lane closures, as needed, throughout the construction period • Clearing of vegetation from construction areas • Construction of noise walls • Excavating and filling in the construction areas • Construction of bridges and overpasses • Construction of ramps • Construction of local access roads • Construction of water pollution control facilities • Construction of project aesthetics and landscaping • Construction of drainage facilities 2-36 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Chapter 2 Project Alternatives • Construction of retaining walls • Construction of travel lanes and shoulders • Installation of directional lighting, traffic control systems, and signs • Construction of improvements on local roads • Construction of toll facilities Construction Staging Construction staging would be required for all ramp reconstruction, freeway widening, and profile adjustments under Alternatives 1 and 2. The existing number of mainline through lanes would be maintained during construction by restriping the existing lanes and shifting traffic within the corridor to maintain existing capacity. Complete closures of SR-91 and I-15 are not anticipated during construction of Alternatives 1 and 2. A Final Work Zone Mainline Analysis (February 2010) for the SR-91 corridor was conducted to minimize congestion along the corridor during the construction of Alternatives 1 and 2. That analysis was used to compare and select optimal construction staging strategies. The work zone analysis examined ramp and connector closures in addition to two SR-91 mainline construction scenarios. With either mainline scenario, Stage 1 would construct outside improvements without impacting the mainline traffic lanes. Lane restrictions during Stage 2 would vary between the two scenarios. The first mainline work zone scenario for SR-91 consisted of narrowing the existing mainline through lanes to 10.5 ft wide and maintaining a total of four GP lanes and one HOV lane in each direction. The second scenario consisted of converting the HOV lane to a GP lane and maintaining the three other GP lanes on weekends only. Both weekend and weekday peak periods were examined. Congestion would occur with both scenarios and neither scenario demonstrated a clear advantage from a traffic impact perspective. Under the second scenario, the tradeoffs involve avoidance of weekday impacts with greatly increased construction duration and costs. The first scenario is favored because it results in shorter construction duration, lower construction costs, and earlier project completion. Ramp and connector closures would be required on SR-91 during construction of Alternatives 1 and 2. Preliminary recommendations for the duration of, and detours for, ramp and connector closures on eastbound and westbound SR-91 are summarized in Table 2.13. SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS 2-37 Chapter 2 Project Alternatives Table 2.13 Ramp and Connector Closures along SR-91 Interchange Ramps (Off/On) Closure ID Time of Closure Duration of Closure SR-91 Eastbound SR-241 NB — SR-91 EB On X1 Weekends 3 weekends SR-71 SB — SR-91 EB On X2 Weekends 2 weekends Auto Center Drive On X3 Weekdays 6 months 2nd Street/Grand Boulevard Off X4 Permanent -- Main Street On X5 Weekdays & Weekends 12 months SR-91 EB —1-15 NB Off X6 Weekends 2 weekends SR-91 EB — 1-15 SB Off X7 Weekends 2 weekends 1-15 SB —SR-91 EB On X8 Weekends 2 weekends McKinley Street On (SB) X9 Weekdays & Weekends 2 months On (NB) X10 Weekdays & Weekends 2 months Magnolia Avenue Off X11 Weekdays & Weekends 2 months SR-91 EB — SR-71 NB Off X12 Weekends 2 weekends SR-91 Westbound Gypsum Canyon Road Off Y1 Weekdays & Weekends 2 weeks SR-91 WB — SR-241 SB Off Y2 Weekends 6 weekends SR-71 SB — SR-91 WB On Y3 Weekends 1 weekend SR-91 WB — SR-71 NB Off Y4 Weekends 4 weekends Auto Center Drive Off Y5 Weekdays & Weekends 6 months Maple Street Off Y6 Weekdays & Weekends 2 months Grand Boulevard On Y7 Permanent -- Main Street Off Y8 Weekdays & Weekends 12 months 1-15 SB — SR-91 WB On Y9 Weekends 1 weekend SR-91 WB — 1-15 SB Off Y10 Weekends 2 weekends SR-91 WB — 1-15 NB Off Y11 Evenings 5 nights McKinley Street Off (NB) Y12 Weekdays & Weekends 2 months Source: Final Ramp Closure Study (February 2010). EB = eastbound 1-15 = Interstate 15 ID = identification number NB = northbound SB = southbound SR-241 = State Route 241 SR-71 = State Route 71 SR-91 = State Route 91 WB = westbound Construction Vehicle Access and Material Staging Under Alternatives 1 and 2, construction vehicle access and staging of construction materials would occur within existing disturbed or developed areas inside the existing right-of-way or within the additional right-of-way for the project. Vehicle access and materials staging during construction of walls outside and adjacent to the State right- of-way would occur in approved designated areas. Both alternatives also require that material be imported to the project from outside the project limits. Identification of off -site material source sites would be the responsibility of the design/build contractor. Imported material would come from environmentally cleared sites and be transported to the project on environmentally cleared access/haul routes and public roads. Once within the project limits, all construction vehicle access, materials 2-38 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Chapter 2 Project Alternatives staging and storage, and other construction activities would occur within the defined limits for Alternatives 1 and 2. The TCEs and permanent right-of-way limits for the Build Alternatives and their design features, which include areas for construction vehicle access and material staging, are shown on the detailed figures provided in Appendix L. Transportation Management Plan During Construction A Preliminary Transportation Management Plan (TMP; May 2010) was prepared to address transportation management during construction of Alternatives 1 and 2. During final design, the Final Transportation Management Plan will be developed by the Project Engineer, based on the Preliminary TMP developed for the Project Report and the EIR/EIS. Key elements in the TMP include: • Public Information/Public Awareness Campaign (PAC) • Motorist information strategies • Incident management • Construction strategies • Demand management • Alternate route strategies • Other strategies Temporary Construction Easements TCEs would be necessary under Alternatives 1 and 2 for constructing walls along the right-of-way, for extending major drainage facilities and culverts, utility relocation/ modifications, and widening bridges. Land used as a TCE would be returned to its original or better condition prior to the return of that land to the original owner after completion of the construction activities requiring that TCE. No permanent project features will be constructed within the boundaries of the TCEs. Construction Lighting Alternatives 1 and 2 would require nighttime construction activities in some areas. If work is conducted at night, lighting would be directed away from land uses outside the freeway rights -of -way. Conditions for Construction in the Grand Boulevard Historic District The following conditions will be implemented prior to and during the project design/ build phase regarding the temporary removal and relocation of up to seven existing SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS 2-39 Chapter 2 Project Alternatives acorn -style streetlights within the project disturbance limits in the Grand Boulevard Historic District: • During final design, the RCTC Project Engineer will verify the locations and numbers of acorn -style streetlights within the project disturbance limits in the Grand Boulevard Historic District. The RCTC Project Engineer will require the design/build contractor to clearly indicate on the final plans any acorn -style streetlights in the project disturbance limits that are to be removed at the beginning of construction in those areas and to identify the locations where the removed streetlights would be reinstalled. • The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to remove and, as necessary, dismantle, the affected acorn -style streetlights and to place them in containers appropriate for storing those fixtures during the project construction period. • The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to store the containers holding the acorn -style streetlights in a secure location protected from public access and weather. • The RCTC Project Engineer will require the design/build contractor to verify that the locations identified for the reinstallation of the affected streetlights are acceptable to the City of Corona and consistent with the City's requirements for the siting of streetlights. • The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the design/build contractor to reinstall the acorn -style streetlights at the locations designated in the final plans when no further construction/disruption will occur at those locations, as follows: • The streetlights will be reinstalled as close to their original locations as possible based on the project design and available space, in a manner consistent with the other acorn -style streetlights in the Grand Boulevard Historic District and with the City of Corona requirements for the siting of streetlights. • If any of the acorn -style streetlights cannot be reinstalled at or near their original locations, they will be reinstalled elsewhere within the boundaries of the Grand Boulevard Historic District, focusing on locations where acorn -style lights have previously been removed as long as those locations are consistent with the historic spatial relationships of the Historic District and with the City of Corona requirements for the siting of streetlights. • If the lights cannot be reinstalled as described above, the RCTC Project Engineer will consult with the City of Corona to identify alternative locations. 2-40 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Chapter 2 Project Alternatives • The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the construction contractor to have an architectural historian monitoring on site during the removal, dismantling, and reinstallation of the acorn -style streetlights. 2.3.3 Unique Features of the Build Alternatives 2.3.3.1 Alternative 1: Add General -Purpose Lanes and Maintain HOV Lanes (GP + HOV Lanes) Under Alternative 1, one GP lane would be constructed in each direction on SR-91 from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the City of Anaheim to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside. The existing HOV lanes on SR-91 between the Orange/Riverside County line and Pierce Street would be maintained under this alternative. In addition, one HOV lane would be constructed on I-15 in each direction from Ontario Avenue in the City of Corona to an I-15/SR-91 HOV lane direct connector. The direct connector would provide HOV lane direct access from northbound I-15 to westbound SR-91 and from eastbound SR-91 to southbound I-15. The direct connector would allow vehicles in the HOV lanes to directly move from freeway to freeway, eliminating the need for HOVs to transition through traffic in the GP lanes. The existing 3 mi long Orange County segment of the SR-91 tolled express lanes, which currently operates as a tolled express lane facility, would continue to serve this function under Alternative 1. Alternative 1 is included as an alternative for the project because it is a transportation project that was planned as part of the 2002 Measure A, one -half -cent sales tax revenue to construct one GP lane in each direction on SR-91, as described in the RCTC Measure A 10-Year Delivery Plan. The following sections describe the project components and features of Alternative 1 in more detail. Typical cross sections for Alternative 1 for SR-91 and I-15 are shown on Figures 2-2 and 2-3, respectively. Maps detailing the project components and features of Alternative 1 are provided in Appendix L. Permanent Improvements at SR-241 Under Alternative 1 Under Alternative 1, in the eastbound direction, the outside lane of the northbound SR-241 to the eastbound SR-91 connector would continue as a new GP lane on SR-91 rather than terminating at SR-91 as it currently does, as shown on Figure 2-4. This new GP lane would extend east on eastbound SR-91 to Pierce Street. In the westbound direction, a new GP lane would terminate just west of the Gypsum Canyon Road westbound off -ramp by dropping the outside lane on the mainline. SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS 2-41 Chapter 2 Project Alternatives This page intentionally left blank 2-42 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final E/R/EIS Existing Typical Cross Section . , L 1 \ \ \ r 1 \ < 1 \ 1 1 \ 1 4 1 t ► 1 \ \ 1 1t■t�1\tom Typical Cross Section for Alternative 1 LEGEND NEW GENERAL PURPOSE LANE NEW AUXILIARY LANE NOT TO SCALE I:\PAZ0701\G\Fig 2-2 Typ Sect Alt SR-91 2a_v2.cdr (7/25/11) FIGURE 2-2 State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project Typical Cross Section for Alternative 1 on SR-91 12-Ora-91-R 14.43 /R 18.91 08-Riv-91-R0.00/R 13.04 08-Riv-15-35.64/45.14 EA 0E540 Chapter 2 Project Alternatives This page intentionally left blank 2-44 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final E/R/EIS LEGEND: _ NEW NOV LANE NOT TO SCALE Existing Typical Cross Section ■ Typical Cross Section for Alternative 1 FIGURE 2-3 State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project Typical Cross Section for Alternative 1 on I-15 12-0ra-91-R 14.43 /R 18.91 08-Riv-91-R0.00/R 13.04 08-Riv-15-35.64/45.14 EA 0E540 I:APAZ0701\G\Fig 2-3Typ Sect Alt 1-I-15.cdr (7/25/11) Chapter 2 Project Alternatives This page intentionally left blank 2-46 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final E/R/EIS .in. 4. smr. awn RIKn AWO 1p0i( 6x pmEA51 a DETAIL LOCATION MAP LEGEND I I NO SCALE EXISTING EXPRESS LANE GENERAL PURPOSE LANE AUXILIARY LANE RAMP/CONNECTOR IMPROVEMENTS OTHER PLANNED PROJECTS (EB LANE ADDITION) EXISTING NOTE : REFER ALSO TO APPENDIX L, PROJECT FEATURES, WHICH PROVIDES DETAILED PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLANS ON AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH BASE FOR THE TWO BUILD ALTERNATIVES AND THEIR DESIGN VARIATIONS. FIGURE 2-4 State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project Project Features in the State Route 241 Interchange Area 12-0ra-91-R14.43/R18.91 08-Riv-91-R0.00/R 13.04 08-Riv-15-35.64/45.14 EA 0E540 I:\PAZ0701\G\Project Features\Alt 1 Rt 241.cdr (7/25/11) Chapter 2 Project Alternatives This page intentionally left blank 2-48 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final E/R/EIS Chapter 2 Project Alternatives Permanent Improvements at the Orange/Riverside County Line Under Alternative 1 Existing SR-91 narrows in the vicinity of the Orange/Riverside County line in the area bounded by hills to the south and the Santa Ana River to the north. Under Alternative 1, the SR-91 centerline would be shifted north at this location with all the widening occurring on the north side of SR-91. The feasibility of this configuration depends on the Corps Reach 9 Phase 2B project to realign the Santa Ana River low flow channel to the north, which is currently under construction and would accommodate the widening of SR-91 under Alternative 1. This Corps project is described in more detail and shown on a figure in Section 2.3.9, Related Projects and Other Projects in the Vicinity of the SR-91 CIP. Widening SR-91 to the north in this area is preferred because widening into the hillside on the south side of SR-91 would require extensive excavation and/or retaining walls. In addition, widening to the north allows Alternative 1 to use improvements associated with the recently completed SR-91 Eastbound Lane Addition Project. That project is described in detail later in Section 2.3.9.1, Approved or In -process Projects. Permanent Improvements at Green River Road Under Alternative 1 Under Alternative 1, the existing ramps at the Green River Road interchange would be modified to accommodate the widening on SR-91. In addition, the westbound off - ramp would be realigned with a new railroad overhead structure, as shown on Figure 2-5. The longer ramp provided at this location under Alternative 1 would improve the geometry of the ramp and increase its storage capacity. Permanent Improvements at SR-71 Under Alternative 1 Under Alternative 1, the inner westbound auxiliary lane that exits at SR-241 would begin at the SR-71/SR-91 interchange, which is an extension of the south -to -west connector ramp. Alternative 1 would realign the southbound SR-71 to the westbound SR-91 connector and widen part of the southbound SR-71 to eastbound SR-91 connector. As discussed in detail later in Section 2.3.9, another project proposed in the SR-71/ SR-91 interchange would affect the design of the project at this location. Those planned improvements include reconfiguring the existing east -to -north loop ramp to a direct flyover connector. Alternative 1 is designed to be compatible with the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS 2-49 Chapter 2 Project Alternatives This page intentionally left blank 2-50 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final E/R/EIS I RE -ALIGNED GREEN RIVER RD a DETAIL LOCATION MAP LEGEND ,?4 NO SCALE EXISTING HOV LANE GENERAL PURPOSE LANE AUXILIARY LANE _ RAMP/CONNECTOR IMPROVEMENTS _ LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENTS _ OTHER PLANNED PROJECTS (EB LANE ADDITION) NOTE : REFER ALSO TO APPENDIX L, PROJECT FEATURES, WHICH PROVIDES DETAILED PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLANS ON AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH BASE FOR THE TWO BUILD ALTERNATIVES AND THEIR DESIGN VARIATIONS. FIGURE 2-5 State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project Project Features at Green River Road 12-0ra-91-R 14.43 /R 18.91 0 8-Riv-91-R0.00/R 13.04 08-Riv-15-35.64/45.14 EA 0E540 I:\PAZ0701\G\Project Features\Alt 1\Green River Rd.cdr (7/25/11) Chapter 2 Project Alternatives This page intentionally left blank 2-52 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final E/R/EIS Chapter 2 Project Alternatives improvements proposed as part of that SR-71/SR-91 interchange improvement project. Permanent Improvements at Auto Center Drive/Maple Street Under Alternative 1 Two design variations are under consideration between Auto Center Drive (which is Serfas Club Drive south of SR-91) and Maple Street (which is Sixth Street south of SR-91) under Alternative 1. Both design variations would maintain the existing diamond interchange configuration on the west side of Auto Center Drive (eastbound off -ramp and westbound on -ramp), adjusting the ramps as necessary to accommodate the SR-91 mainline widening in each direction. In the southeast quadrant of the interchange, the eastbound on -ramp from Auto Center Drive would be grade - separated (braided) under the eastbound off -ramp to Maple Street. The existing Frontage Road on the south side of SR-91 that connects Auto Center Drive to Maple Street would be realigned and shifted farther south to accommodate the additional freeway lanes and the braided ramps. These two design variations and the braided ramp configuration represent different approaches for addressing the closely spaced ramps at Auto Center Drive and Maple Street. These two streets are currently about 0.6 mi apart at their intersections with SR-91. The two design variations at this interchange, as shown on Figure 2-6, would affect the configuration of the westbound Auto Center Drive off -ramp and differ markedly at the Maple Street interchange as follows: • Split Diamond Design Variation: For the Split Diamond design variation, direct westbound access to Auto Center Drive would be replaced with access provided by a new westbound one-way frontage road that would connect from Maple Street opposite the westbound off -ramp intersection. Auto Center Drive traffic would be directed to exit SR-91 at the Maple Street westbound off -ramp, using the new frontage road to access Auto Center Drive. The existing westbound loop on -ramp from Maple Street would be mostly unchanged under this design variation except that it would join the new frontage road prior to merging with the mainline SR-91 travel lanes, as shown on Figure 2-6. • Direct Connector Design Variation: For the Direct Connector design variation, the westbound on -ramp from Maple Street would be a western extension of Sixth Street, south of SR-91, with a flyover separation structure that would lead to a merge with the SR-91 mainline travel lanes. Direct westbound access would be maintained to Auto Center Drive, but the realigned ramp would begin just after SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS 2-53 Chapter 2 Project Alternatives This page intentionally left blank 2-54 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final E/R/EIS LEGEND NO SCALE EXISTING HOV LANE GENERAL PURPOSE LANE AUXILIARY LANE RAMP/CONNECTOR IMPROVEMENTS LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENTS NOTE : REFER ALSO TO APPENDIX L, PROJECT FEATURES, WHICH PROVIDES DETAILED PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLANS ON AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH BASE FOR THE TWO BUILD ALTERNATIVES AND THEIR DESIGN VARIATIONS. FIGURE 2-6 State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project Project Features at Auto Center Drive/Maple Street 12-Ora-91-R14.43/R18.91 08-Riv-91-R0.00/R 13.04 08-Riv-15-35.64/45.14 EA 0E540 L•\PAZ0701\G\Project Features\Alt Mute Center Dr.cdr (7/25/11) Chapter 2 Project Alternatives This page intentionally left blank 2-56 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final E/R/EIS Chapter 2 Project Alternatives Table 2.14 Alternative 1 Design Variation Combinations Alternative Auto Center Drive/Maple Street Interchange Lincoln Avenue Interchange 1 a Split Diamond design variation Tight Diamond design variation lb Split Diamond design variation Hook Ramp design variation lc Direct Connector design variation Tight Diamond design variation 1d Direct Connector design variation Hook Ramp design variation Source: Project Report (September 2011). the Maple Street overcrossing to accommodate the new westbound on -ramp from Maple Street. The existing eastbound diamond on -ramp from Maple Street would be replaced in this design variation by a hook on -ramp that would meet Sixth Street opposite Paseo Grande Road, as shown on Figure 2-6. The two design variations at Auto Center Drive/Maple Street and the two design variations at Lincoln Avenue (described below) would result in four combinations of design variations in Alternative 1, as shown in Table 2.14. Permanent Improvements at Lincoln Avenue/Grand Boulevard Under Alternative 1 The two design variations at Lincoln Avenue under Alternative 1 would substantially modify the existing configuration of this interchange as shown on Figure 2-7. In both design variations, the westbound ramps would be changed to a tight diamond configuration, which would eliminate the design constraints of the existing hook ramps. The existing north side frontage road in the northwest quadrant would be moved outward to accommodate the GP lane addition on SR-91 and the ramp modifications. The westbound ramps would be the same in each design variation. The existing westbound on -ramp and eastbound off -ramp to and from Grand Boulevard would create an operational deficiency on mainline SR-91 due to their close spacing to the Lincoln Avenue ramps. This spacing does not meet the current Department interchange spacing, per the Department's Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 9, Number 77 — Interchange Spacing (January 31, 1995). To improve this operational deficiency, the Grand Boulevard ramps would be removed and replaced with improved local access to the Lincoln Avenue interchange ramps. On the north side of SR-91, a new frontage road will extend from West Grand Boulevard to join with the existing west frontage road west of Lincoln Avenue. SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS 2-57 Chapter 2 Project Alternatives This page intentionally left blank 2-58 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final E/R/EIS LEGEND _ GENERAL PURPOSE LANE AUXILIARY LANE RAMP/CONNECTOR IMPROVEMENTS LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING NO SCALE NOTE : REFER ALSO TO APPENDIX L, PROJECT FEATURES, WHICH PROVIDES DETAILED PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLANS ON AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH BASE FOR THE TWO BUILD ALTERNATIVES AND THEIR DESIGN VARIATIONS. FIGURE 2-7 State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project Project Features at Lincoln Avenue/Grand Boulevard 12-0ra-91-R14.43/R18.91 08-Riv-91-R0.00/R 13.04 08-Riv-15-35.64/45.14 EA 0E540 I:\PAZ0701\G\Project Features\Alt 1\Lincoln-Grand.cdr (7/25/11) Chapter 2 Project Alternatives This page intentionally left blank 2-60 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final E/R/EIS Chapter 2 Project Alternatives On the south side of SR-91, a new frontage road will extend from Lincoln Avenue opposite "D" Street and join with Second Street at Buena Vista Avenue, which would continue to West Grand Boulevard. The two design variations at Lincoln Avenue/Grand Boulevard under Alternative 1, shown on Figure 2-7, are: • Tight Diamond Design Variation: The Tight Diamond design variation would convert the eastbound Lincoln Avenue ramps to a tight diamond configuration, similar to the design of the westbound ramps as shown on Figure 2-7. • Hook Ramps Design Variation: For this design variation, the eastbound ramps would be similar to the existing configuration, but would be changed to a hook ramp pattern that would connect to the new frontage road rather than connecting directly to Lincoln Avenue, as shown on Figure 2-7. Permanent Improvements at Main Street/I-15 Under Alternative 1 As shown on Figure 2-8, the existing diamond interchange configuration on the west side of Main Street would be maintained (eastbound off -ramp and westbound on -ramp) under Alternative 1, adjusting the ramps as necessary to accommodate the SR-91 mainline widening in each direction. Diamond interchange ramps will also be constructed on the east side of Main Street. The Main Street eastbound on -ramp and westbound off -ramp to and from the I-15 connectors would be combined within a collector -distributor road that would be barrier -separated from SR-91 to eliminate the weaving conflicts that currently exist between this local interchange and the system interchange. The Main Street eastbound on -ramp traffic to SR-91 would split from I-15 traffic and braid under the 1-15 collector -distributor road before merging onto eastbound SR-91. The Main Street westbound off -ramp traffic from SR-91 would exit into the collector -distributor road and merge with traffic from the I-15 connectors before exiting to Main Street. Permanent Improvements on SR-91 McKinley Street/Pierce Street under Alternative 1 Under Alternative 1, the ramps at the McKinley Street interchange would be altered to accommodate the SR-91 mainline widening, which would require only minimal changes in the configuration of this interchange. As shown on Figure 2-9, the outer eastbound GP lane on SR-91 would continue through the McKinley Street interchange and terminate farther east at the succeeding Pierce Street eastbound off - ramp. The westbound GP lane on SR-91 would originate at the Pierce Street on -ramp. SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS 2-61 Chapter 2 Project Alternatives This page intentionally left blank 2-62 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final E/R/EIS LEGEND I I 1 NO SCALE GENERAL PURPOSE LANE AUXILIARY LANE RAMP/CONNECTOR IMPROVEMENTS SR-91/I-15 CONNECTOR EXISTING NOTE : REFER ALSO TO APPENDIX L, PROJECT FEATURES, WHICH PROVIDES DETAILED PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLANS ON AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH BASE FOR THE TWO BUILD ALTERNATIVES AND THEIR DESIGN VARIATIONS. FIGURE 2-8 State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project Project Features at Main Street 12-Ora-91-R14.43/R18.91 08-Riv-91-R0.00/R 13.04 08-Riv-15-35.64/45.14 EA OF540 I:\PAZ0701\G\Project Features\Alt 1\Main St.cdr (7/25/11) Chapter 2 Project Alternatives This page intentionally left blank 2-64 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final E/R/EIS a a 1L --d'-•------_..._�e=---..ter__ a DETAIL LOCATION MAP LEGEND I 1 I I I NO SCALE EXISTING HOV LANE GENERAL PURPOSE LANE AUXILIARY LANE RAMP/CONNECTOR IMPROVEMENTS FIGURE 2-9 State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project Project Features at McKinley/Pierce Street 12-Ora-91-R 14.43 /R 18.91 08-Riv-91-R0.00/R 13.04 08-Riv-15-35.64/45.14 EA 0E540 I:\PAZ0701\G\Project Features\Alt 1\McKinley St.cdr (7/25/11) Chapter 2 Project Alternatives This page intentionally left blank 2-66 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final E/R/EIS Chapter 2 Project Alternatives Permanent 1-15 Improvements Under Alternative 1 Under Alternative 1, one median HOV lane would be constructed in each direction on I-15 from the new SR-91 direct connector north to Ontario Avenue. The existing K-rail would be replaced, and the full median would be paved to accommodate the new HOV lanes. Figure 2-3, provided earlier, shows a typical cross section on I-15 under Alternative 1. Advance Signage Under Alternative 1 The purpose of advance signage is to inform drivers that they are approaching a new facility such as an HOV lane, tolled express lanes, or a construction zone. The advanced signage limits under Alternative 1 at the south end of I-15 within the project limits would be between El Cerrito Road and Cajalco Road. Based on proposed Section 2E-52 in the proposed 2009 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) by the FHWA, signs must be located 1 mi in advance of any exit or entry point and preferably 2 mi in advance of those points, as conditions might dictate, such as along major expressways. Project Costs Alternative 1 will cost between approximately $990 million and $1 billion, depending on the design variation. The road, structure, right-of-way, and total costs for Alternative 1 for each design variation are provided in Table 2.15. Alternative 1 will be funded primarily from Measure A funds. Table 2.15 Alternative 1 Summary of Costs Alternative Roadway Structure Right -of -Way Total 1a $413,400,000 $369,400,000 $215,700,000 $998,500,000 1b $412,800,000 $367,800,000 $209,700,000 $990,300,000 lc $405,400,000 $387,900,000 $208,500,000 $1,001,800,000 1d $404,800,000 $386,400,000 $202,400,000 $993,600,000 Source: Project Report (September 2011). 2.3.3.2 Alternative 2: Add General -Purpose Lanes and Extend Tolled Express Lanes Background on the Existing State Route 91 Tolled Express Lanes in Orange County The existing SR-91 tolled express lanes in Orange County were implemented for congestion relief on SR-91 when no public funds were available to address the critical transportation problem in the SR-91 corridor. This concept was unique because the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS 2-67 Chapter 2 Project Alternatives private sector would take the risk and the State would receive congestion relief at no cost to the taxpayers. The SR-91 toll facility project was authorized as tolled express lanes by the State of California legislature in 1989. Built for $135 million, the tolled express lanes opened in 1995. The California Private Transportation Company (CPTC) was the original owner of the SR-91 tolled express lanes. An agreement between CPTC and the Department included a noncompete provision that created a 1.5 mi protection zone along each side of SR-91. This zone prohibited improvements along the corridor and created mobility problems as the region and corresponding transportation demands grew. The passage of AB 1010 in 2002 permitted OCTA to purchase the Express Lane Franchise in Orange County from the CPTC in January 2003. AB 1010 also eliminated the noncompete provision of the franchise agreement, which allowed capacity improvements in this corridor to be planned, funded, and implemented. SB 1316 in 2008 allows the RCTC to toll express lanes on SR-91 under the OCTA franchise agreement. On July 14, 2003, OCTA adopted a toll policy for the 91 Express Lanes based on the concept of congestion management pricing. The policy is designed to optimize 91 Express Lanes traffic flow at free -flow speeds. To accomplish this OCTA monitors hourly traffic volumes. Tolls are adjusted when traffic volumes consistently reach a trigger point where traffic flow can become unstable. These are known as "super peak" hours. Given the capacity constraints during these hours, pricing is used to manage demand. Once an hourly toll is adjusted, it is frozen for six months. Other (non -super peak) toll prices are adjusted annually by inflation. Toll prices currently range from $1.35 in the non -peak hours to $10.05 in the eastbound SR-91 "super peak" hour from 3:00 to 4:00 p.m. on Fridays.l The OCTA 91 Express Lanes toll policy2 includes the following specific objectives: • Provide a safe, reliable, predictable commute for 91 Express Lanes customers • Optimize vehicle throughput at free flow speeds • Pay debt service and maintain debt service coverage • Increase average vehicle occupancy 1 http://www.91expresslanes.com/schedules.asp. 2 http://www.91expresslanes.com/policies.asp. 2-68 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Chapter 2 Project Alternatives • Balance capacity and demand to serve customers who pay tolls as well as carpoolers with three or more persons who are offered discounted tolls • Generate sufficient revenue to sustain the financial viability of the 91 Express Lanes • Ensure all bond covenants are met • Repay OCTA's internal borrowing and provide net revenues for SR-91 corridor improvements On May 19, 2003, OCTA adopted the "Three Ride Free" policy. This innovative policy encourages carpooling by allowing a group of three or more commuters per vehicle to travel the 91 Express Lanes for free during most hours, except when traveling Eastbound, Monday through Friday between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. At these times, carpools of three or more can still save money by earning a 50 percent discount on the posted toll. The OCTA purchase of the 91 Express Lanes allowed revenues in excess of those needed for operations, maintenance, and debt payments to be used for improvements along the SR-91 corridor, including $6.6 million in revenues contributed by OCTA for the SR-91 Eastbound Lane Addition Project. As noted in the 91 Express Lanes 2009 Annual Report, since OCTA took ownership of the 91 Express Lanes in 2003, they continue to be financially stable. Through the difficult economic conditions in fiscal year 2008-2009, OCTA maintained a stable financial situation for the toll facility. In fiscal year 2008-2009, as in every past year, the 91 Express Lanes continued to meet its financial obligations while providing its customers with travel time savings. RCTC 91 Express Lanes Toll Policy On June 7, 2012, the RCTC formally adopted the "RCTC 91 Express Lanes Toll Policy." The goals and specific policy statements listed above for the OCTA 91 Express Lanes toll policy were adopted by RCTC for the RCTC 91 Express Lanes. As stated in the RCTC staff report dated June 7, 2012, "OCTA and the Commission sharing the same toll policy goals supports coordinated regional operation of the lanes and a seamless customer experience." In addition to the posted tolls, the RCTC 91 Express Lane toll policy allows carpoolers with three or more persons (HOV3+), zero emission vehicles (ZEVs), motorcycles, disabled plates and disabled veterans to ride free during most hours. The exception is Monday through Friday 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. in the eastbound direction when they pay 50 percent of the posted toll. SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS 2-69 Chapter 2 Project Alternatives Description of Alternative 2 Under Alternative 2, one GP lane would be constructed in each direction on SR-91 from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the City of Anaheim to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside. The existing tolled express lanes in Orange County would be extended east from the Orange/Riverside County line to I-15 in the City of Corona. The existing HOV lanes would be converted to tolled express lanes, and one additional tolled express lane would be added in each direction on SR-91 from the Orange/Riverside County Line to I-15, resulting in two tolled express lanes in each direction. Under Alternative 2, a single eastbound SR-91 tolled express lane would extend past I-15 to McKinley Street and convert to an HOV lane at Pierce Street. Westbound at Pierce Street, the existing HOV lane would be converted into a tolled express lane east of McKinley Street and join a second tolled express lane at the I-15 interchange. The new eastbound GP lane would join a newly constructed collector - distributor road providing access to the eastbound Pierce Street and Magnolia Avenue exit ramps. In the westbound direction, the existing HOV lane would be converted to a GP lane west of Pierce Street, and a new tolled express lane would be added in the median near McKinley Street, joining a second tolled express lane just west of I-15. Figure 2-10 shows a typical cross section on SR-91 under Alternative 2. Under Alternative 2, a tolled express lane in each direction would be constructed on I-15. Single -lane tolled express lane direct connectors between I-15 and SR-91 would provide access from northbound I-15 to westbound SR-91 and from eastbound SR-91 to southbound I-15 extending as a single tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 to Cajalco Road. Additionally, single -lane tolled express lane direct connectors will be constructed from eastbound SR-91 to northbound I-15 and from southbound I-15 to westbound SR-91, extending as a single -lane tolled express lane in each direction north on I-15 to the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The direct connectors would allow express lane drivers to travel from the tolled express lanes on one corridor into the tolled express lanes on another corridor without having to transition through the GP lanes. Figure 2-11 shows a typical section on I-15 under Alternative 2. The goal of tolled express lanes is to provide for long-lasting, reliable, free -flow travel for eligible users in an otherwise congested corridor. Tolled express lanes can be used by single- and multiple -occupancy vehicles for a fee, and users would be required to carry an active FasTrak transponder/account. The tolled express lanes would be available to HOVs with three or more people, motorcycles, zero -emission vehicles, and vehicles driven by handicapped persons with registered license plates, including disabled veterans, at either no toll or a reduced toll provided those vehicles 2-70 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Existing Typical Cross Section LEGEND _ NEW GENERAL PURPOSE LANE _ CONVERTED TOLLED EXPRESS LANE _ NEW TOLLED EXPRESS LANE _ NEW AUXILIARY LANE NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 2-10 State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project Typical Cross Section for Alternative 2 (LPA) on SR-91 12-0ra-91-R 14.43 /R 18.91 08-Riv-91-R0.00/R 13.04 08-Riv-15-35.64/45.14 EA 0E540 I:\PAZ0701\G\Fig 2-10 Typ Sect Alt SR-91 2b_v2.cdr (4/8/11) Chapter 2 Project Alternatives This page intentionally left blank 2-72 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final E/R/EIS Existing Typical Cross Section J / f I ! f 1 r ! r • � r • •_ LEGEND _ NEW TOLLED EXPRESS LANE NOT TO SCALE I:APAZ0701\G\Fig 2-11 Typ Sect Alt 2b_v2.cdr (7/25/11) Typical Cross Section for the Project FIGURE 2-11 State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project Typical Cross Section for Alternative 2 on I-15 12-Ora-91-R 14.43 /R 18.91 08-Riv-91-R0.00/R 13.04 08-Riv-15-35.64/45.14 EA 0E540 Chapter 2 Project Alternatives This page intentionally left blank 2-74 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final E/R/EIS Chapter 2 Project Alternatives are equipped with active FasTrak toll transponders and accounts. As an example, the existing 91 Express Lanes in Orange County offer half -priced tolls to these vehicle classifications during certain peak hours with no toll during all other periods. In accordance with RCTC's adopted RCTC 91 Express Lane toll policy, existing and planned express bus services operating in the SR-91 corridor that provide connections between Orange and Riverside Counties will be able to use the tolled express lanes at either no toll or reduced tolls, depending on the day of the week. The advantage compared to two -or -more -person carpool lanes is the reliability of free -flow conditions and the ability to pass in a two-lane facility. Motorcycles, emergency, and other exempted vehicles meeting State requirements would be exempted from express lane tolls. Trucks, recreational, and other large vehicles as currently defined by the State with regards to HOV lanes would continue to be prohibited. Alternative 2 is included as an alternative for the project because it would be funded in part by the Measure A sales tax revenue and by toll revenue bonds. The toll revenues generated under Alternative 2 would be used as the funding source for the construction and operation of the tolled express lanes under Alternative 2. The following sections describe the project components and features of Alternative 2 in more detail. In addition, maps detailing the Alternative 2 project components and features are provided in Appendix L. Permanent Improvements under Alternative 2 The mainline improvements to SR-91 for Alternative 2, including improvements to the interchanges, are generally similar to the improvements described earlier for Alternative 1. Refer to that earlier discussion and the figures provided in that section for the detailed description of those improvements. In addition to the design variations at Auto Center Drive/Maple Street and Lincoln Avenue described earlier under Alternative 1 which would also apply to Alternative 2, Alternative 2 includes two design variations at Smith Avenue: • No Drop Ramp Design Variation: Under this design variation, no additional access to the tolled express lanes would be provided on SR-91 between the Orange/Riverside County line and I-15. • Drop Ramp Design Variation: Under this design variation, the existing Smith Avenue overcrossing would be reconstructed with drop ramps to provide an eastbound tolled express lane exit to Smith Avenue and a westbound entrance from Smith Avenue to the tolled express lanes. SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS 2-75 Chapter 2 Project Alternatives The three design variations under Alternative 2 would result in eight combinations of design variations, as summarized in Table 2.16. Table 2.16 Alternative 2 Design Variation Combinations Alt. Auto Center Drive/Maple Street Interchange Smith Avenue Lincoln Avenue Interchange 2a Split Diamond design variation No Drop Ramp design variation Tight Diamond design variation 2b Split Diamond design variation No Drop Ramp design variation Hook Ramp design variation 2c Split Diamond design variation Drop Ramp design variation Tight Diamond design variation 2d Split Diamond design variation Drop Ramp design variation Hook Ramp design variation 2e Direct Connector design variation No Drop Ramp design variation Tight Diamond design variation 2f Direct Connector design variation No Drop Ramp design variation Hook Ramp design variation 2g Direct Connector design variation Drop Ramp design variation Tight Diamond design variation 2h Direct Connector design variation Drop Ramp design variation Hook Ramp design variation Source: Project Report (September 2011). Alt. = Alternative The primary difference in the improvements on SR-91 between Alternatives 1 and 2 is that Alternative 2 adds one 12 ft wide additional travel lane in each direction as part of the tolled express lanes. That additional lane would be accommodated in all the interchange improvements on SR-91 and their design variations as discussed earlier under Alternative 1. The basic concept for the tolled express lanes under Alternative 2 is to provide an access point at the Orange/Riverside County line and then extend the two tolled express lanes in each direction to I-15. In addition, a Mid -City Access location would be constructed at Smith Avenue in the City of Corona. That access point would allow City of Corona residents to access the tolled express lanes, to and from the west, at a midpoint between access points to the east and west. The tolled express lanes would continue with one lane in each direction through the I-15 interchange on SR-91. As a result, a driver traveling east in the tolled express lanes would have three choices at the termination of the tolled express lanes: (1) continue on SR-91 in a single tolled express lane for approximately 1 mi through the interchange and then either enter an HOV lane or continue in the GP lanes; (2) travel south on I-15 to a single tolled express lane in the median, which would be converted to GP lanes approximately 4 mi south of that merge; or (3) travel north on I-15 to a single tolled express lane in the median, which would be converted to the GP lanes approximately 0.5 mi north of that merge. For westbound traffic on SR-91, entrances to the tolled express lanes would be provided in the median of SR-91 or from the northbound and southbound I-15 direct connectors. Access to the tolled express lanes would be provided at the Orange/ 2-76 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS Chapter 2 Project Alternatives Riverside County line by way of a median auxiliary lane that extends from an egress lane to an ingress lane in each direction. SR-91 Toll System Under Alternative 2 The tolled express lanes under Alternative 2 would be operated as an electronic toll collection (ETC) system. There would be no opportunity to pay tolls with cash on this facility. All tolled express lane users would be required to have an account with a tolling agency. The tolling agencies issue a California Standard (Title 21 compliant) transponder or toll tag to each customer. The transponders would be mounted on the windshields of the registered vehicles. It is anticipated that many Riverside County tolled express lane users would be existing account holders with the OCTA. The existing OCTA account holders, as well as other toll agency customers in California with transponders, would be able to use the extended tolled express lanes with their existing transponders with no further administrative action on their part. As shown on Figure 2-12, tolls would be collected electronically by equipment that would read the transponders at highway speeds. The transition from the OCTA tolled express lanes to the Riverside County tolled express lanes under Alternative 2 would be as seamless as possible for users. In accordance with the RCTC 91 Express Lane toll policy adopted by RCTC on June 7, 2012, the operating rules, toll structure, and violation enforcement process for the Riverside County tolled express lanes would be the same as those that are currently in effect in Orange County. The toll rate will be set by time of day based on traffic demand observed over the previous 3-month period. This variable pricing approach adjusts toll rates based on the number of vehicles on the road to maintain free -flow conditions and maximize total throughput. On the Orange County tolled express lanes, toll rates average $2.93 per trip and currently vary from a minimum of $1.35 to a maximum of $10.05 for 1 hour during the Friday afternoon peak period. The toll rate on the SR-91 CIP tolled express lanes will be set by the time of day and day of week based on hourly traffic demand observed over the previous 3-month period. This is the method that gets the toll rates on the existing SR-91 tolled express lanes operated by OCTA. This method involves comparing actual traffic demand against a preset maximum threshold and adjusting the pricing accordingly, thereby maintaining reasonable travel times throughout the day on the tolled express lanes. The SR-91 CIP tolling system would have the ability to operate under dynamic pricing in the future where the actual travel time in the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final EIR/EIS 2-77 Chapter 2 Project Alternatives This page intentionally left blank 2-78 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final E/R/EIS Reader Uses Radio Waves To Capture ID # Transponder Mounted in Vehicle ETC: Electronic Toll Collection L•\PAZ0701\G\Toll Op.cdr (7/25/11) FIGURE 2-12 State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project Toll Transponder Operation under Alternative 2 12-Ora-91-R 14.43 /R 18.91 08-Riv-91-R0.00/R13.04 08-Riv-15-35.64/45.14 EA OF540 Chapter 2 Project Alternatives This page intentionally left blank 2-80 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Final E/R/EIS Chapter 2 Project Alternatives SR-91 tolled express lanes or the travel time differential between the SR-91 GP lanes and the SR-91 tolled express lanes would be measured in real time between the entry and exit points. The price to travel in the tolled express lanes would be adjusted, usually in 15-minute intervals, as required to maintain traffic flow. The special vehicle classifications that are eligible would still receive reduced tolls. Tolls would be collected along the route at specific points or toll debiting stations. These debiting stations would consist of an overhead antenna that reads t