CITY OF ORANGE BRIDGE MAINTENANCE PROJECT
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 13816 FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. ENV-1849-16
Lead Agency: City of Orange 300 East Chapman Avenue Orange, CA 92866-1591 www.cityoforange.org
Prepared by: Jennifer Le, Principal Planner Duane Morita, Contract Planner City of Orange Community Development Department • Planning Division
Date: November 9, 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sections Page #
Existing Setting...... 4 Project Description...... 56 Checklist of Environmental Impact Issues...... 1213
Figures (Source: Figures from “Technical Memorandum - City of Orange Bridge Maintenance Project Water Quality Memorandum Federal Project No. BPMPL-5073 (077)”, Psomas, September 2014)
1 Project Location Map 2 Bridge # 55C0057, Chapman Avenue at Santiago Creek 3 Bridge # 55C0043, Tustin Street at Santiago Creek 4 Bridge # 55C0016, Glassell Street at Santiago Creek 5 Bridge # 55C0046, Memory Lane at Santa Ana River 6 Bridge # 55C0054, Chapman Avenue at Santa Ana River 7 Bridge # 55C0050, Orangewood Avenue at Santa Ana River 8 Bridge # 55C0563L, Katella Avenue at Santa Ana River 9 Bridge # 55C0159, Taft Avenue/Ball Road at Santa Ana River
Appendices
A “Natural Environment Study, Bridge Maintenance Project Eight Bridges Across the Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek, City of Orange, Orange County, California”, Bon Terra Psomas, September 2014.
B “Technical Memorandum - City of Orange Bridge Maintenance Project Water Quality Memorandum Federal Project No. BPMPL-5073 (077)”, Psomas, September 2014.
C AB52 Consultation Letter to the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Attached
2 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. ENV-1849-16
Project Title: Reference Application Numbers: City of Orange Bridge Maintenance Project Capital Improvement Project No. 13816 Lead Agency: Contact Person and Telephone No.: City of Orange Jennifer Le, Principal Planner 300 East Chapman Avenue (714) 744-7238 Orange, CA 92866 [email protected]
Project Proponent and Address: Contact Person and Telephone No.: City of Orange Majid Farhat, Principal Civil Engineer 300 East Chapman Avenue (714) 744-5562 Orange, CA 92866 [email protected]
Project Location:
The proposed project consists of maintenance and repair improvements at eight (8) bridges located in the City of Orange, Orange County, CA. The eight (8) bridges are listed below. Refer to Figure 1, Project Location Map for bridge locations. The project limits include the approaches to the bridges, bridge decks, bridge girders, sidewalks, side rails, and concrete v-ditches behind the side rails. Refer to Figures 2 through 9 for project limits at each bridge.
Bridge Bridge Name Location Bridge Number Reference Ownership 55C0057 Chapman Avenue at 0.1-mile east City of Orange Santiago Creek of SR-55 55C0043 Tustin Street at 0.3-mile north City of Orange Santiago Creek of SR-22 55C0016 Glassell Street at 0.1-mile north City of Orange Santiago Creek of SR-22 55C0046 Memory Lane at 0.1-mile east City of Orange/ Santa Ana River of The City City of Santa Ana Drive 55C0054 Chapman Avenue at 0.1-mile west City of Orange Santa Ana River of SR-57 55C0050 Orangewood 0.1-mile west City of Orange Avenue at Santa of SR-57 Ana River 55C0563L Katella Avenue at 0.3-mile east City of Orange/ Santa Ana River of SR-57 City of Anaheim 55C0159 Taft Avenue/Ball 0.1-mile east City of Orange/ Road at Santa Ana of SR-57 City of Anaheim River Existing General Plan Designation: None Existing Zoning Classification: None
3 EXISTING SETTING
Revisions to the following discussions are shown in strikeout for deleted text and underline for new text.
Regional Setting:
The eight (8) bridges are located in the City of Orange, County of Orange California. The City has a total area of about 25 square miles and has regional access from the 5, 22, and 55 Freeways.
Existing Site Conditions:
The bridge locations cross either Santiago Creek or the Santa Ana River within urbanized portions of the City. Since the proposed improvements involve maintenance and repair work on existing bridges, there are no buildings or land uses within the work area. Each of the bridge locations is paved and covered with impervious surfaces.
Surrounding Land Uses:
The project provides maintenance and repair of eight (8) bridges that cross over either the Santa Ana River or Santiago Creek. Chapman Avenue, Tustin Street, Glassell Street, Memory Lane, Orangewood Avenue, Katella Avenue, and Taft Avenue are the roadways that connect with the bridges. The following describes those land uses that are found along the aforementioned roadways that surround each of the eight bridges:
Bridge # 55C0057, Chapman Avenue at Santiago Creek To the north of Chapman Avenue, single-family residences and a commercial parking lot are located west and east of Santiago Creek, respectively. South of Chapman Avenue is vacant and undeveloped.
Bridge # 55C0043, Tustin Street at Santiago Creek To the west of Tustin Avenue, single-family residences and commercial uses are located north and south of Santiago Creek, respectively. To the east of Tustin Avenue, commercial uses are located north and south of Santiago Creek.
Bridge # 55C0016, Glassell Street at Santiago Creek To the west of Glassell Street, commercial uses, and vacant and undeveloped area are located north and south of Santiago Creek, respectively. To the east, Hart Park, and vacant and undeveloped area are located north and south of Santiago Creek.
Bridge # 55C0046, Memory Lane at Santa Ana River The City of Santa Ana is located to the south and east of the bridge. Single-family residences are located within Santa Ana to the southeast. Commercial uses are located to the north and west of the Santa Ana River.
Bridge # 55C0054, Chapman Avenue at Santa Ana River Office and commercial uses are located to the north and south of the bridge, east and west of the Santa Ana River. Vacant and undeveloped areas are also located along the west side of the Santa Ana River.
4 Bridge # 55C0050, Orangewood Avenue at Santa Ana River Vacant and undeveloped areas are located to the north and south of Orangewood Avenue and along the Santa Ana River to the west. Vacant and undeveloped area within the City of Anaheim is located further to the west. Other vacant and undeveloped area is located to the east of the Santa Ana River and north and south of Orangewood Avenue.
Within the City of Anaheim, to the north and west of the bridge is the parking lot for Angel Stadium of Anaheim; to the south and west of the bridge is the North Net Fire Training Facility. The Santa Ana River Trail (SART) runs parallel to and west of the Santa Ana River. To the east of the Santa Ana River is the 57 Freeway, including on and off ramps; further east are commercial and residential uses within the City of Orange.
Bridge # 55C0563L, Katella Avenue at Santa Ana River To the north of Katella Avenue, the Honda Center and vacant and undeveloped area, and other vacant and undeveloped area within the City of Anaheim are located east and west of the Santa Ana River, respectively. To the south are commercial and office uses, east of the Santa Ana River.
Within the City of Anaheim, to the north and west of the bridge is the Honda Center and its parking lots. To the south and west are the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) and its parking lot. The SART transitions from the east side of the Santa Ana River to west side at Katella Avenue, utilizing Bridge #55C0563L to make this connection. The SART is located east of the bridge, north of Katella and west of the bridge, south of Katella Avenue. Within the City of Orange, east of the Santa Ana River, are commercial and office uses.
Bridge # 55C0159, Taft Avenue/Ball Road at Santa Ana River (hereafter all references to this particular bridge refer to Taft Avenue/Ball Road) To the north of Taft Avenue, commercial and office land uses, and vacant and undeveloped area within the City of Anaheim are located east and west of the Santa Ana River, respectively. To the south are commercial and office land uses, east of the Santa Ana River.
Within the City of Anaheim, to the north and west of Taft Avenue/Ball Road are Orange County Water District (OCWD) recharge basins, a golf driving range and parking lot, and the entrance to the Anaheim Coves trail and park. To the south and west are automobile dealerships, a secondary entrance to Honda Center parking (Phoenix Club Drive) and an OCWD recharge basin. To the east of the Santa Ana River are commercial and office land uses, within the City of Orange.
The roadways that connect with the affected bridges are given classifications by the City’s General Plan Circulation and Mobility Element. The following provides these classifications and summarizes the design parameters for each of these roadways:
Chapman Avenue, Tustin Street, and Taft Avenue Designated as Major Arterials, which are six-lane divided roadways with medians or contiguous two- way left-turn lanes, which accommodate up to 50,700 vehicles on an average day at LOS D conditions.
Glassell Street, Memory Lane, and Orangewood Avenue Designated as Primary Arterials, which are four-lane divided roadways with medians or contiguous two-way left turn lanes, which accommodate up to 33,750 vehicles on an average day at LOS D conditions.
5 Katella Avenue Designated as a Smart Street, which are four- to eight-lane roadways with enhanced capacity and smoother traffic flow than standard arterial streets. These streets accommodate from 60,000 to 79,000 vehicles on an average day.
The City’s General Plan Circulation and Mobility Element also shows that Bridge #55C0043 at Tustin Street at the Santiago Creek (near La Veta Avenue) and Bridge #55C0057 at Chapman Avenue at the Santiago Creek (near the 55 Freeway eastbound off ramp) are located near Critical Intersections. These Critical Intersections serve as traffic control points for the circulation system, by regulating the flow of vehicles and limiting the capacity of the system along City streets. The City’s General Plan establishes LOS D as the threshold for acceptable traffic operations along City roadways.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Purpose and Need
The project consists of preventative maintenance and repair activities for eight (8) bridges located in the City of Orange. The bridges have concrete spalls, depressions, and cracks and are in need of preventative maintenance. The maintenance activities proposed are based on recommendations contained in Bridge Inspection Reports (dated November, 2011) prepared by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Structure Maintenance and Investigations Division. The purpose of the project is to ensure the safety and longevity of the City’s bridges through preventative maintenance.
Proposed Improvements
In general, the proposed improvements consist of repair of concrete spalls on the bridge decks, side rails, sidewalks, and bridge girders, and cleaning and sealing the bridge decks with methacrylate. The specific improvements proposed for each bridge are described below.
Bridge # 55C0057, Chapman Avenue at Santiago Creek Repair and replace damaged sidewalks at the southwest end of the bridge deck.
Bridge # 55C0043, Tustin Street at Santiago Creek Repair and patch the spalls on the concrete bridge deck. Clean and seal the concrete deck cracks by coating the bridge deck with methacrylate.
Bridge # 55C0016, Glassell Street at Santiago Creek Repair the concrete spalls along the bridge’s longitudinal and transverse deck joints. Level the sidewalk depressions. Clean and seal the concrete deck cracks by coating the bridge deck with methacrylate.
Bridge # 55C0046, Memory Lane at Santa Ana River Trim tree branches hanging over the northerly sidewalk. Repair and patch the concrete spalls on the southerly T-girder. Clean and seal the concrete deck cracks by coating the bridge deck with methacrylate. All work would be done from the bridge deck or from the Santa Ana River Trail (SART), which is an existing County of Orange bike lane/Orange County Flood Control District maintenance road which runs along and adjacent to the Santa Ana River and underneath the bridge. The bridge is jointly owned by the Cities of Orange and Santa Ana. The City of Orange will
6 coordinate with the City of Santa Ana during design and construction. The City/contractor will obtain appropriate encroachment permits from the County of Orange/Orange County Flood Control District and the City of Santa Ana, prior to construction.
Bridge # 55C0054, Chapman Avenue at Santa Ana River Level asphalt and concrete at the bridge approaches. Level the sidewalks. Investigate potential delaminations below the deck surface and repair as needed. Clean and seal the concrete deck cracks by coating the bridge deck with methacrylate. Close openings at the bottom slab of the box girder. Closing the openings at the bottom of the bridge will be done from the existing SART which runs along and adjacent to the river and underneath the bridge. The City/contractor will obtain appropriate encroachment permits from the County of Orange/Orange County Flood Control District to use the SART for work area access during construction.
Bridge # 55C0050, Orangewood Avenue at Santa Ana River Investigate potential delaminations below the deck surface and repair as needed. Clean and seal the concrete deck cracks by coating the bridge deck with methacrylate. Repair the northerly metal bridge railing.
Bridge # 55C0563L, Katella Avenue at Santa Ana River Repair and patch the concrete spalls on the northeast bridge abutment. Work on the abutments will be done from the existing SART which runs along and adjacent to the river and underneath the bridge. Repair the minor erosion that is around an existing concrete V-ditch, located at the northeast corner of the bridge behind the bridge side rail. The V-ditch is located on Orange County Flood Control District property and drains to the Santa Ana River. The bridge is jointly owned by the Cities of Orange and Anaheim. The City of Orange will coordinate with the City of Anaheim during design and construction. The City/contractor will obtain appropriate encroachment permits from the County of Orange/Orange County Flood Control District and the City of Anaheim, prior to construction.
Bridge # 55C0159, Taft Avenue at Santa Ana River Cover exposed rebar and repair and patch spalls on the bridge deck. Repair and patch spalls and level depressions on the sidewalks. Investigate potential delaminations below the bridge deck surface and repair as needed. Clean and seal the concrete deck cracks by coating the bridge deck with methacrylate.
Construction Activities
Construction of the aforementioned improvements to the eight (8) bridges will require temporary closure of travel lanes along each of the bridges. However, per standard City practice, at least one travel lane in each direction would remain open at all times to ensure there is traffic flow over the bridges at all times during construction activities. Construction at the bridge locations will not require any temporary road, detour, or ramp closure. General access to the bridge locations will be via existing roadways. Access to all private properties will continue to be maintained at all times during construction. Emergency vehicles will be permitted to pass through the various work areas without delay at all times. Freeway ramp closures are not proposed. Construction hours would be between 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM, during weekdays. Construction-related water quality Best Management Practices will also be provided within the work areas of each bridge location. Construction activities and equipment will vary between the bridges, depending on the type of repairs that is required for the particular bridge. Construction equipment may include hand tools, pickup trucks, a backhoe, a power saw, air compressors, diesel-powered electric generators, a sandblaster, a small paving machine, a
7 roller, a “cherry picker”, a concrete mixer, and a small compactor. Required materials will include concrete, asphalt, sealants, methacrylate, and metal bridge railing materials. Contractors will be required to relocate all construction equipment and materials from the construction areas that are located within the public ROW during non-construction hours. Construction equipment and materials will not be allowed to be stored within the public ROW during non-construction days and times. Construction activities at each bridge location are anticipated to last approximately two weeks.
Santa Ana River Trail (SART)
The Santa Ana River Trail or SART (also known as the Santa Ana River Bicycle Path) is a multi-use (pedestrian, bicyclist) transportation and recreational trail facility that consists of a paved 12-foot wide Class 1 off-road bike path, which is part of the 29-mile Santa Ana River Trail from Corona to Huntington Beach. The SART runs along the south side of the Santa Ana River and is adjacent to and underneath five of the bridge locations, including Bridge #55C0046 at Memory Lane and the Santa Ana River, Bridge #55C0054 at Chapman Avenue and the Santa Ana River, Bridge #55C0050 at Orangewood Avenue and the Santa Ana River, Bridge #55C0563L at Katella Avenue and the Santa Ana River, and Bridge #55C0159 at Taft Avenue and the Santa Ana River. Of these five bridges, project improvements at the following three bridges would require temporary use of the SART for work area access during construction: Bridge #55C0046 at Memory Lane and the Santa Ana River, Bridge #55C0054 at Chapman Avenue and the Santa Ana River, and Bridge #55C0563L at Katella Avenue and the Santa Ana River.
Improvements at these three bridge locations will involve repairs under each of the bridges. To gain access to the work area, the segment of the SART that runs under the particular bridge will be temporarily closed for approximately one day, while construction is conducted. During this closure of the SART, bike lane users would be detoured to the street and to the nearest signalized street crossing, and then back on to the bike lane on the other side of the bridge. Detour noticing and signage would be specified in the projects’ Traffic Control Plans, as approved by the City Engineer or designee. Full use of the SART would be restored following completion of construction. Construction activities will involve bringing construction equipment (such as a “cherry picker”, concrete mixer, etc.) and personnel onto the bike path while repairs to the underside of the bridges and bridge abutments are completed. Construction water quality BMP’s (such as fiber rolls etc.) would also be placed in the bike path area temporarily (if needed), and as specified in the projects’ Water Quality Technical Memorandum and Erosion Control Plans.
Encroachment Permits
Encroachment permits will be required for the following bridges: Bridge #55C0046 at Memory Lane and the Santa Ana River is jointly owned by the Cities of Orange and Santa Ana. The City/contractor would obtain appropriate encroachment permits from the City of Santa Ana to allow for construction within Santa Ana’s street rights-of-way and from the County of Orange/Orange County Flood Control District to use and temporarily close the SART and maintenance road for work area access during construction. For Bridge #55C0054 at Chapman Avenue and the Santa Ana River, the City/contractor would obtain appropriate encroachment permits from the County of Orange/Orange County Flood Control District to use and temporarily close the SART and maintenance road for work area access during construction. Bridge #55C0563L at Katella Avenue and the Santa Ana River is jointly owned by the Cities of Orange and Anaheim. The City/contractor would obtain appropriate encroachment permits from the City of Anaheim to allow for construction within Anaheim’s street rights-of-way and from the County of Orange/Orange County Flood Control District and the City of Anaheim, prior to
8 construction, to use and temporarily close the SART and maintenance road for work area access during construction.
Operations
The project consists of bridge maintenance and repair improvements. No operational changes will occur. After construction is completed at the bridge locations, each of the bridges will function the same as under existing conditions.
Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (Responsible or Trustee Agencies)
The City of Orange is the lead agency for the project and is primarily responsible for planning, design and construction of the eight (8) bridge locations. City approvals necessary to implement the project include but are not limited to approval of design services contracts, approval of final plans and specifications, authorization to bid the project for construction, and award of construction contracts.
Other public agencies with approval authority over the project are listed below:
City of Santa Ana
Portions of Bridge #55C0046, Memory Lane at Santa Ana River, is owned by the City of Santa Ana. The City of Orange would coordinate with the City of Santa Ana for approval of design plans and construction of improvements within their jurisdiction. The City of Santa Ana would need to issue encroachment permits to allow for project construction.
City of Anaheim
Portions of Bridge #55C0563L, Katella Avenue at Santa Ana River, and Bridge #55C0159, Taft Avenue at Santa Ana River, are owned by and located within the City of Anaheim. The City of Orange would coordinate with Anaheim for approval of design plans and construction of improvements within their jurisdiction. The City of Anaheim would need to issue encroachment permits to allow for project construction.
County of Orange/Orange County Flood Control District
Proposed work on Bridge #55C0046, Memory Lane at the Santa Ana River, Bridge #55C0054, Chapman Avenue at the Santa Ana River, and Bridge #55C0563L, Katella Avenue at the Santa Ana River, would involve access and/or work on the SART, which is County of Orange and/or Orange County Flood Control District-owned property. The City of Orange would coordinate with these agencies for approval of design plans and construction of improvements within their jurisdiction. These agencies would need to issue encroachment agreements/permits to allow for use and temporary closure of the SART and maintenance road for work area access during construction.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)- The project is funded using Highway Bridge and Maintenance Program funds, which are federal funds administered by Caltrans. Caltrans has approval authority over the project related to funding and approval of National Environmental
9 Policy Act (NEPA) compliance documents. NEPA compliance for this project is being completed separately but concurrently with the CEQA process.
Scheduled Public Meetings or Hearings: This item has not yet been scheduled for the City Council, but is anticipated to be agendized for the regular City Council meeting on November 8, 2016 at 6:00 PM.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” or “Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture & Forest Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION. On the basis of this initial evaluation: 1. I find that the project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
2. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
3. I find the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
4. I find that the proposed project may have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated impact” on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
5. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
10 ______Jennifer Le Date Principal Planner/ Environmental Review Coordinator
11 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact”. The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from earlier analyses may be cross-referenced, as discussed below).
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identity the following: a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated”, describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9. The explanation of each issue should identify: a. the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
12 CHECKLIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ISSUES:
Less than Significant 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
(a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Impact Analysis a) A scenic vista is a viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public. The City of Orange General Plan (2010) identifies undeveloped hillsides, ridgelines and open space areas as valued landscapes. These resources exist primarily in the eastern portion of the City where the urban and suburban environment transition to a semi-rural area and then into an open space area with rolling hills and native landscaping. The General Plan also identifies Jamboree Road, Santiago Canyon Road and Newport Boulevard in east Orange as viewscape corridors.
The project consists of maintenance and work at eight (8) existing bridges in Orange. Five (5) of the bridges are located in the westernmost urbanized portion of the City, crossing over the Santa Ana River; the other three (3) bridges are located near the 55 and 22 Freeways, crossing over Santiago Creek. Topography is relatively flat in these urbanized areas, and therefore, do not provide for expansive views. The Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek are natural waterways within the City and could be considered scenic by some, however, these resources are not considered viewscape corridors by the City General Plan. The proposed improvements to the bridges will be limited to repairs on the bridge approaches, bridge decks, bridge girders, sidewalks, side rails, and concrete V-ditches behind the side rails of the bridges. After repairs are completed, the bridges will appear similar to existing conditions. Based on the low level impact and low viewer sensitivity, the proposed improvements will not result in a significant impact to scenic vistas.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact b) The affected bridges are paved roadways, with related infrastructure, which contain no scenic resources. The closest State scenic highway is SR-91 located northeast of the City. The bridges are not located within a State scenic highway or its viewshed. Furthermore, after repairs are completed, the bridges will appear similar to existing conditions. The proposed improvements will not result in any significant impact to scenic resources.
13 Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact c) The bridges are paved roadways with related infrastructure. The existing visual character of the areas that surround the bridges are urbanized and developed with existing residential and commercial land uses, and other vacant and undeveloped areas. A project is generally considered to have a significant visual impact if the project substantially changes the character of the project site such that it becomes visually incompatible or visually unexpected when viewed in the context of its surroundings. After bridge repairs are completed, the bridges will appear similar to existing conditions. The Natural Resources Element of the City’s General Plan recognizes the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek as resources that support riparian habitat areas and improve water quality and therefore, should be preserved through the uses of the Open Space land use designation. The proposed improvements will not result in a significant change to the visual character of the site or its surroundings since the improved bridges will continue to be similar in scale, and materials as the existing bridges. Furthermore, no changes to Santiago Creek or the Santa Ana River are proposed. The proposed improvements will not significantly impact the visual character of the vicinity, bridge sites or surrounding areas.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact d) The areas that surround the bridges are urbanized and therefore, presently generate light and glare from existing lights from vehicles that travel along the connecting roadways, street lights, and various existing land uses. As discussed, the proposed improvements to the bridges will be limited to repairs on the bridge approaches, bridge decks, bridge girders, sidewalks, side rails, and concrete V-ditches behind the side rails of the bridges. The proposed improvements will not install any light source or generate any new light and/or glare. The proposed improvements will not result in any significant impact related to additional light and/or glare.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact
14 2. AGRICULTURE & FOREST RESOURCES. (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Less than Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon Significant measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No the California Air Resources Board.) Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
(a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? (d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- forest use? (e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Impact Analysis: a) The project proposes repairs and maintenance improvements to existing street bridges. The bridges are paved and not located on any areas that are designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The proposed improvements will not convert any farmland to a non-agricultural use.
Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact b) The Williamson Act, passed by the California legislature in 1965, provides a tax incentive for retaining land in open space and agricultural uses. To benefit from the Williamson Act, a landowner must enter into a contract with local government that restricts the use of the land to those compatible with agriculture, wildlife habitat, scenic corridors, recreational use, or open space. No land within the City is currently under a Williamson Act contract, including the locations of the bridges. Further, the bridges are unzoned and therefore, not zoned for agricultural use. The proposed improvements will not conflict with any agricultural use zoning, or a Williamson Act contract.
15 Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact c) The City of Orange, including the locations of the bridges are not located within any forest land or timberland areas. The proposed bridge improvements are located within urbanized areas and do not have the opportunity to impact any of these resources.
Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact d) As discussed, the bridges are located within the urbanized portion of the City and are not located within any forest land area. The proposed bridge improvements do not have the opportunity to convert any forest land to a non-forest use.
Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact e) As discussed, the bridges are located within the urbanized portion of the City and are not located within any farm land areas. The proposed bridge improvements do not have the opportunity to convert any farm land to a non-agricultural use.
Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact
3. AIR QUALITY. (Where available, the significance criteria Less than established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution Significant control district may be relied upon to make the following Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No determinations.) Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Impact Analysis: a) The City of Orange, including the bridge locations, are part of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The SCAB includes all of Orange County, and portions of Los Angeles, Riverside and San
16 Bernardino counties. Air quality within the SCAB is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Consistency with the Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Basin means that a project must be consistent with the goals, objectives, and assumptions of the AQMP to achieve the Federal and State air quality standards. Per the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, there are two main indicators of a project’s consistency with the applicable Air Quality Management Plan: 1) Whether the a project would increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP; and 2) Whether the project would exceed the AQMP’s assumptions for 2030 or yearly increments based on the year of project buildout and phasing.
As discussed, the proposed improvements to the bridges will be limited to repairs on the bridge approaches, bridge decks, bridge girders, sidewalks, side rails, and concrete V-ditches behind the side rails of the bridges. These improvements are low impact in nature and do not generate substantial emissions during construction. After the improvements are completed, the bridges will operate the same as existing conditions in relation to vehicle capacity. The proposed improvements will not increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP; or exceed the AQMP’s assumptions for 2030 or yearly increments. The proposed improvements will not induce substantial population growth either directly or indirectly (e.g., though construction of housing or infrastructure extensions into previously undeveloped areas). The proposed improvements will be consistent with the AQMP growth forecasts and will not result in a significant impact.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact b) The Federal Clean Air Act established Federal air quality standards known as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. These standards identify levels of air quality for “criteria” pollutants, including Ozone (O3), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitrogen Oxides (NOX), Particulate Matter (PM10), and Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5). The following describes these pollutants:
Ozone: Ozone occurs in two layers of the atmosphere: the troposphere and the stratosphere (the “good” ozone layer). “Bad” ozone is a photochemical pollutant, and needs volatile organic compounds (VOCs), NOx , and sunlight to form; therefore, VOCs and NOx are ozone precursors. Ozone is a strong irritant that can constrict the airways, forcing the respiratory system to work hard to deliver oxygen. Short-term exposure (lasting for a few hours) to ozone at levels typically observed in southern California can result in aggravated respiratory diseases such as emphysema, bronchitis and asthma, shortness of breath, increased susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, increased fatigue as well as chest pain, dry throat, headache, and nausea.
Carbon Monoxide (CO): CO is an odorless, colorless toxic gas that is emitted by mobile and stationary sources, as a result of incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon-based fuels. In cities, automobile exhaust can cause as much as 95 percent of all CO emissions. Exposure to high levels of carbon monoxide can slow reflexes and cause drowsiness, and result in death in confined spaces at very high concentrations.
17 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx): NOx are a family of highly reactive gases that are a primary precursor to the formation of ground-level ozone, and react in the atmosphere to form acid rain. NO2 (often used interchangeably with NOx) is a reddish-brown gas that can cause breathing difficulties at high levels. Peak readings of NO2 occur in areas that have a high concentration of combustion sources (e.g., motor vehicle engines, power plants, refineries, and other industrial operations).
Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10): PM10 refers to suspended particulate matter which is smaller than 10 microns or ten one-millionths of a meter. PM10 arises from sources such as road dust, diesel soot, combustion products, construction operations, and dust storms. PM10 scatters light and significantly reduces visibility. In addition, these particulates penetrate into lungs and can potentially damage the respiratory tract.
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5): Due to recent increased concerns over health impacts related to fine particulate matter (particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less), both State and Federal PM2.5 standards have been created. Particulate matter impacts primarily affect infants, children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing cardiopulmonary disease.
The SCAQMD operates several air quality monitoring stations throughout the SCAB. The Anaheim-Pampas Lane Monitoring Station is the closest monitoring station to the bridge locations. A project is considered to have a significant impact on air quality if the project violates any ambient air quality standard, contributes substantially to an existing air quality violation, exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or conflicts with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located. The following discusses potential impacts resulting with short-term construction and long-term operations of the proposed bridge improvements.
Short-Term Air Emission Impacts
Construction of the proposed bridge improvements will generate short-term air quality impacts during site preparation for each of the bridge locations, repair work to the bridges and V-ditches, and construction operations. Fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) and diesel exhaust emissions will be generated by construction equipment and trucks. In addition, the vehicles of the commuting construction workers will also generate and emit exhaust emissions.
The level of construction impacts, however, will be insignificant given that the various bridges themselves will be improved and repaired and only minimal ground disturbing activities will be required. Accordingly, emissions from construction activities will likewise, be minimal. Fugitive dust from site preparation and construction is expected to be short-term and minimal, and will cease following completion of the bridge improvements. This material is composed of inert silicates, which are less harmful to health than the complex organic particulates released from combustion sources. These particles are either directly emitted or are formed in the atmosphere from the combustion of gases such as nitrogen oxides combining with ammonia.
To alleviate construction-related impacts, the contractors will be required to comply with regional rules, which would reduce short-term construction-related air pollutant emissions. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with the best available control measures, in order to reduce dust such that it does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the
18 proposed project. Mitigation Measure 3-2 further reduces any potential short-term impact to a less than significant level.
In addition, the City’s construction contracts specify, as a standard condition that contractors comply with the City’s Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (The “GREENBOOK”), current edition, which includes procedures for minimizing air quality impacts to the greatest extent feasible. The Greenbook, Section 7-1, states “the contractor shall furnish and maintain in good condition all equipment and facilities required for the proper execution and inspection of the work”. City of Orange representatives may inspect equipment and ask the contractor to replace equipment that does not appear to be in good condition. Dust control measures such as watering (pre-grading and post-grading), wind fencing, covering haul vehicles, high wind measures, limitations on truck idling, etc, are also identified in the Greenbook. The City’s Construction Manager would be responsible for ensuring compliance with these contract provisions. Compliance with those mitigation measures provided in the next section will reduce construction air quality impacts to less than significant levels. The proposed improvements will not result in any short-term impact that violates an ambient air quality standard, contributes substantially to an existing air quality violation, exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or conflicts with any adopted environmental plans and goals of the City.
Long-Term Air Emission Impacts
The proposed bridge improvements will not create vehicle trips or redistribute traffic along roadways and therefore, will not generate additional levels of air pollutants over existing conditions. The proposed improvements will not result in any long-term impact that violates an ambient air quality standard, contributes substantially to an existing air quality violation, exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or conflicts with any adopted environmental plans and goals of the City.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Mitigation Measures:
MM 3-1 During construction, the contractor shall implement all applicable fugitive dust emission reduction measures described in SCAQMD Rule 403.
MM 3-2 During construction, the contractor shall implement the following fugitive dust emissions reduction measures. These measures shall be included on project plans and specifications, and enforced by the City’s construction manager.
Replace groundcover in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
Apply water to disturbed areas every three hours (three times per day) including prior to and during any earth movement.
All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be tarped with a fabric cover and maintain 2 feet of freeboard.
Prohibit pavement demolition and grading, and cover storage piles during high wind conditions (i.e. when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour).
19 MM 3-3 During construction, the contractor shall comply with the City’s Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (The “GREENBOOK”), current edition, which includes dust control measures such as watering (pre-grading and post-grading), wind fencing, covering haul vehicles, high wind measures, limitations on truck idling, ensuring that all equipment is in good working condition, etc. The City’s Construction Manager may inspect equipment periodically and will be responsible for ensuring compliance with all contract provisions.
Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated c) As discussed, the proposed bridge improvements will not result in any significant short- or long- term impacts. The following discusses potential cumulative impacts.
Cumulative Short-Term Air Emission Impacts
With respect to construction-period air quality emissions and cumulative SCAB-wide conditions, the SCAQMD has developed strategies to reduce criteria pollutant emissions outlined in the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan pursuant to Federal Clean Air Act mandates. As required, construction of the proposed improvements will comply with all applicable SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements. Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with the best available control measures in order to reduce dust so that it does not remain visible in the atmosphere. Per SCAQMD rules and mandates, compliance with Rule 403 and the latest Air Quality Management Plan emissions control measures will also be imposed on all construction projects throughout the SCAB, which will include cumulative projects anticipated for construction during the same time as the project. As discussed, the proposed bridge improvements will not exceed SCAQMD project thresholds, which also functions as the cumulative analysis impact threshold. Therefore, based on SCAQMD guidance, it is concluded that the project-related construction emissions, in combination with those from other projects in the area, will not substantially contribute to the deterioration of the local air quality. Therefore, a less than significant short-term cumulative impact will occur.
Cumulative Long-Term Air Emission Impacts
As discussed, the proposed bridge improvements will not generate additional traffic trips or directly emit air pollutants. Operations of the proposed improvements will not contribute to the long-term air pollutant environment. Therefore, the proposed improvements will not contribute to the cumulative increase of any air pollutant. Long-term cumulative impacts will not occur.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Mitigation Measures: Comply with Mitigation Measures 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated d) Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. CARB has identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis. Given that the eight (8) bridges are located within urbanized and developed areas, it is likely that there are sensitive receptors located nearby each of the bridges. Significant impacts, however, are not
20 expected at any bridge location. As discussed, to alleviate construction-related impacts, the contractors will be required to comply with regional rules, which would reduce short-term construction-related air pollutant emissions, including Rule 403, which requires that fugitive dust be controlled with the best available control measures, in order to reduce dust such that it does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the proposed project. In addition, contractors are also required to comply with the City’s construction contracts which specify as a standard condition that contractor’s comply with the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (The “GREENBOOK”), current edition, which includes procedures for minimizing air quality impacts to the greatest extent feasible. Compliance with mitigation measures, including Rule 403 and the City’s standard condition for contracts will minimize construction air quality impacts. Therefore, any sensitive receptor which neighbors any of the bridge locations will not be significantly impacted. Sensitive receptors will likewise, not be significantly impacted during long- term operations of the improved bridges, since long-term air quality impacts will not result with the improved and repaired bridges.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Mitigation Measures: Comply with Mitigation Measures 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated e) According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed bridge improvements do not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors. Furthermore, long-term bridge operations will continue as similar to existing conditions. Therefore, no long-term impact will occur. Construction activities, however, may generate detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust. Construction-related odors will be short-term in nature, disperse over distance, and cease upon completion of construction. Therefore, any impact resulting with construction-related odor will not be significant. Further analysis is not required.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact
Less than Significant 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
21 (d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Impact Analysis: a) The document entitled, “Natural Environment Study, Bridge Maintenance Project Eight Bridges Across the Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek, City of Orange, Orange County, California” was prepared by Bon Terra Psomas, in September 2014 to provide an overview of the general biological resources that can be found near the eight (8) bridge locations; evaluate the potential of the habitats support of special status plant and wildlife species; and describe any possible impacts or constraints that could occur. This technical study is included in this document as Appendix A.
Special Status Habitats
Bon Terra Psomas observed one State-listed special status habitat, black willow thicket (Salix gooddingii, Woodland Alliance), at the following two locations: Chapman Avenue at Santiago Creek (Bridge #55C0057) and within 100 feet of the Memory Lane crossing at the Santa Ana River (Bridge #55C0046). Bon Terra Psomas concluded that the proposed bridge improvements will not result in any significant impact to the black willow thicket due to the following reasons. Improvements to Bridge Bridge #55C0057 at Chapman Avenue at Santiago Creek will only occur on the bridge itself. Therefore, the black willow thicket will not be affected. Improvements at Bridge #55C0046 at Memory Lane at the Santa Ana River will require access beneath the bridge which potentially could affect the black willow thicket. However, Bon Terra Psomas determined that because any access movements would occur from existing, paved access roads that do not enter the bed of the drainage features, there will not be any impact to the black willow thicket. Significant impacts to any Special Status Habitat will not result.
Special Status Plant Species
Bon Terra Psomas noted that 16 Federally and/or State-listed Threatened or Endangered plant species were reported as potentially present in the project vicinity in their literature review: Munz’s onion (Allium munzii), San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila), Braunton’s milk-vetch (Astragalus brauntonii), Ventura Marsh milk-vetch (Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus), coastal dunes milk-vetch (Astragalus tener var. titi), Encinitas baccharis (Baccharis vanessae), thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia), San Fernando Valley spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina), salt marsh bird’s-beak (Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus), slender-horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras), Santa Monica Mountains dudleya (Dudleya cymosa ssp. ovatifolia), Laguna Beach dudleya (Dudleya stolonifera), Santa Ana River woollystar (Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum), San Diego button-celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii), spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis), and big-leaved crownbeard (Verbesina dissita). Bon Terra Psomas, based on observations, determined that none of these or any other special status plant species were observed or expected to occur at any of the bridge locations since there was no
22 suitable habitat present and/or because of ongoing maintenance activities by others within both the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek. Significant impacts to any Special Status Plant Species will not result.
Special Status Wildlife Species
Bon Terra Psomas noted that 18 Federally and/or State-listed Threatened or Endangered wildlife species were reported as potentially present in the project vicinity in their literature review: Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminates abdominalis), Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino), vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis), Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni), steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus santaanae), tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi), arroyo toad (Anaxyrus californicus), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), light-footed clapper rail (Rallus longirostris levipes), western snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus ssp. nivosus), California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), Stephens’ kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi), and Pacific pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris pacificus). In assessing the likelihood of these species occurring at the various bridge locations, Bon Terra Psomas concluded that least Bell’s vireo would have limited potential to occur in the black willow thickets that are located adjacent to Memory Lane over the Santa Ana River (Bridge #55C0046) and adjacent to Chapman Avenue over Santiago Creek (Bridge #55C0057). Bon Terra Psomas also concluded that none of the other aforementioned State or Federally-listed species could occur within the various bridge locations since there was no suitable habitat and/or because of ongoing maintenance activities by others within both the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek. Since the project would not remove the black willow thickets, no direct significant impacts to the vireo or any other Special Status Wildlife Species will result. However, to further ensure that potential indirect impacts on the nests of least Bell’s vireo or other special status riparian bird species are avoided, compliance with Mitigation Measure 4-1 is required.
Vegetation
Vegetation was observed to be very sparse at the Santiago Creek crossing at Tustin Street (Bridge #55C0043) and at the Santa Ana River crossings at Chapman Avenue (Bridge #55C0054), Orangewood Avenue (Bridge #55C0050), Katella Avenue (Bridge #55C0563L), and Taft Avenue (Bridge #55C0159). In these areas, the channels consisted of open washes that were largely cleared of vegetation. Some sparse herbaceous vegetation was observed at Chapman Avenue, which included lamb’s quarters (Chenopodium album), sweetclover (Melilotus sp.), western sunflower (Helianthus annuus), and puncture vine (Tribulus terrestris). Standing water was also present beneath most of the bridges, but the observed water was a result of outflow pipes that drain the adjacent developed areas. The standing water did not typically extend beyond the drip-line of the bridges and did not support any perennial vegetation. The Taft Avenue crossing (Bridge #55C0159) was approximately 200 feet north of a pool of water within the channel, which supported an isolated stand of wetland vegetation. Bon Terra Psomas, however, determined that this vegetation was not within the bridge’s impact area and therefore, was not a significant impact.
The Memory Lane crossing at the Santa Ana River (Bridge #55C0046) bisected a golf course located between the banks of the river. Two large black willow thickets containing Goodding’s black willow (Salix gooddingii) were located on both sides of the open wash within the golf
23 course, north of the bridge crossing. Both thickets were located about 60 feet from the bridge. An additional isolated stand of three Goodding’s black willow trees, with an understory comprised predominantly of giant reed (Arundo donax), abutted the Memory Lane Bridge crossing. The canopy of one tree in this stand overhangs the bridge. South of the bridge, a concrete riprap feature in the channel resulted in standing water that currently supports sapling Goodding’s black willows and cattails (Typha sp.). Bon Terra Psomas concluded that none of this vegetation was within the construction impact area of the bridges and therefore, significant impacts would not occur.
Vegetation at the Santiago Creek crossing at Glassell Street (Bridge #55C0016) was present in the channel on the western side of the bridge; a paved parking lot for Hart Park within the channel extended under the bridge, to the east. The vegetation west of the bridge was located among the riprap and consisted of non-native species, including crimson fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum), castor bean (Ricinus communis), Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta), sycamore (Plananus sp.), and date palm (Phoenix sp.). Gum trees (Eucalyptus spp.) overhung the bridge and ornamental pine trees (Pinus sp.) occurred within the road medians on the bridge. Bon Terra Psomas concluded that none of this vegetation was within the construction impact area of the bridges and therefore, significant impacts would not occur.
Vegetation at the Santiago Creek crossing at Chapman Avenue (Bridge #55C0057) included non- native species at the top of the banks along the roadside and a black willow thicket within the bed of the creek. The black willow thicket was dominated by a dense overstory of Goodding’s black willow with an understory of mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia ssp. salicifolia), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), and cattails. Bon Terra Psomas concluded that construction activity will not occur within the black willow thicket and therefore, significant impacts would not occur.
Animals
Bon Terra Psomas observed several wildlife species at the various bridge locations, including mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), American avocet (Recurvirostra americana), rock pigeon (Columba livia), parrot (Amazona sp.), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), northern rough-winged swallow (Stelgidopteryx serripennis), western bluebird (Sialia mexicana), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), California towhee (Melozone [Pipilo] crissalis), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), house finch (Haemorhous [Carpodacus] mexicana), lesser goldfinch (Spinus [Carduelis] psaltria), orange bishop (Euplectes franciscanus), and California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi). Mud nests and evidence of nesting within bridge cavities by northern rough-winged swallows and cliff swallows (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) were also observed at the Santa Ana River at Memory Lane (Bridge #55C0046), at Chapman Avenue (Bridge #55C0054), and at Taft Avenue (Bridge #55C0159) locations. Bon Terra Psomas concluded that all of the bridges have the potential to support various common bird species, including swallows. Bird nests, however, are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), which prohibits activities that result in the direct take (defined as the killing or possession) of an active bird nest. It should also be noted that though vegetation clearing within the drainage features will not occur at any of the bridge locations and therefore, special status vegetation types would not be impacted by the proposed improvements, trees within the bridge locations could potentially support nesting raptors (i.e., birds of prey). Regulations already exist that prohibit activities that “take, possess or destroy” any raptor nest or egg (California Fish and Game Code, Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513). However, this protection generally ceases once nesting activity is completed. To ensure that indirect impacts on nesting birds and raptors are avoided, compliance
24 with Mitigation Measure 4-1 is required. Finally, Bon Terra Psomas concluded that given the extent of existing disturbance at the various bridge locations (i.e., high level of vehicle-related traffic, noise, light, vibration, and maintenance efforts associated with the management of the channels), any wildlife currently using these areas have likely become acclimated to a high level of disturbance. This further reduces any potential disturbance to wildlife at the various bridge locations. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 4-1, impacts to nesting birds are less than significant.
Roosting bats were observed at the Glassell Street at Santiago Creek location (Bridge #55C0016) and bat guano was observed at the Chapman Avenue at Santa Ana River location (Bridge #55C0054). In addition, it was determined that suitable bat roosting habitat could also occur on the underside of the bridge structures at Memory Lane at Santa Ana River (Bridge #55C0046), Chapman Avenue at Santa Ana River (Bridge #55C0054), Orangewood Avenue at Santa Ana River (Bridge #55C0050), Taft Avenue at Santa Ana River (Bridge #55C0159), Chapman Avenue at Santiago Creek (Bridge #55C0057), and Tustin Street at Santiago Creek (Bridge #55C0043). Utility access holes will be closed at the Memory Lane Bridge and the Chapman Avenue Bridge over the Santa Ana River which will prevent access by bats. If delamination investigations at the Orangewood Avenue and Taft Avenue Bridges require below deck-surface activities, then indirect impacts (e.g., noise and vibration) could occur to roosting bats. If concrete crushing or grinding are required for sidewalk repairs on the Chapman Avenue Bridge over Santiago Creek, similar indirect impacts could occur to roosting bats. The closure of fissures on the underside of the Glassell Street Bridge structure could also impact bat roosts. Direct and indirect impacts to an active maternity roost of bats could negatively impact the local population, depending on the size of the roost. To ensure that significant impacts to the bat population will not occur, compliance with Mitigation Measures 4.4-2 and 4.4-3 is required.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
Mitigation Measures:
MM4-1: During construction, the contractor shall schedule construction outside the avian breeding season to the greatest extent feasible. The breeding season is generally between February 15 and August 31 for nesting birds and between February 1 and June 30 for nesting raptors. If project timing requires that construction activities be conducted during the breeding season, a pre-construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist for nesting birds and/or raptors within one week prior to vegetation removal/construction to confirm the absence of active nests. If no active nests are found, no further measures would be required and work may commence.
If the qualified biologist finds an active nest within or adjacent to the construction area and determines that the nest may be impacted by project activities, s/he will delineate an appropriate buffer zone around the nest depending on the sensitivity of the species and the nature of the construction activity. Construction activities will be restricted within the buffer until nesting activity has ended (i.e., nest has failed or young have fledged), as determined by the qualified biologist, to ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code.
MM 4-2: During construction at the following locations, Glassell Street at Santiago Creek (Bridge #55C0016); Chapman Avenue at Santiago Creek (Bridge #55C0057); Tustin
25 Street at Santiago Creek (Bridge #55C0043), Orangewood Avenue at Santa Ana River (Bridge #55C0050), Taft Avenue at Santa Ana River (Bridge #55C0159), Chapman Avenue at Santa Ana River (Bridge #55C0054), and Memory Lane at Santa Ana River (Bridge #55C0046), the contractor shall conduct construction between September 1 to February 28 (outside the bat maternity season) to avoid indirect impacts to maternity roosting bats. If construction cannot be conducted during this time period, a preconstruction passive acoustical survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 14 days prior to disturbance to confirm the absence of active maternal roosts in the work area. If no active maternal roosts are found, no further measures would be required. If a potentially active maternity roost is observed, then construction activities shall be postponed until September 1.
MM 4-3: Prior to construction, the contractor for the Glassell Street at Santiago Creek location (Bridge #55C0016) shall confirm or achieve bat roost vacancy by implementing the following:
A qualified biologist shall conduct a passive acoustical survey of the bridge during the evening emergence within two weeks prior to spall repair. If bats are confirmed absent, no additional measures are necessary. If bats are determined to be roosting in the features scheduled for repair, then the following measure shall occur:
Under the supervision of a qualified biologist, exclusionary devices equipped with exit only materials shall be installed on all the features with potential for roosting bats that would be impacted by the construction activities. The installation of these devices shall occur outside the bat maternity season and can be installed anytime during the day. Spall repair activities can commence during the day anytime after the third day following the installation of the exclusionary devices.
Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated b) As discussed in Response 4.a, the proposed bridge improvements at various locations will not result in any potentially significant impacts to Special Status Habitats, Special Status Plant Species, Special Status Wildlife Species, Vegetation, or Animals if those mitigation measures described above are implemented. The proposed bridge improvements will not substantially affect any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community as regulated by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Mitigation Measures: Comply with Mitigation Measures 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3 Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated c) Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code regulate activities affecting resources under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the CDFW, respectively. “Waters of the U.S.” under the jurisdiction of the USACE include navigable coastal and inland waters, lakes, rivers, and streams and their tributaries; interstate waters and their tributaries; wetlands adjacent to such waters; intermittent streams; and other waters that could affect instate commerce. The CDFW has jurisdictional authority over resources associated with rivers, streams, and lakes. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act provides
26 the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) with the authority to regulate, through a Water Quality Certification, any proposed federally permitted activity that may affect water quality. Both the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek are drainages that would fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB.
Indirect impacts on jurisdictional resources could occur as a result of changes in water quality. During construction, fuel, petroleum residues from construction equipment, and construction material could potentially impact water quality and, in turn, affect plant and wildlife species using habitat adjacent to the particular bridge location. These indirect impacts are considered potentially significant since the construction activity could incrementally contribute to a reduction in water quality in the project region. Bon Terra Psomas, however, concluded that impacts to the jurisdictional areas will be reduced to less than significant levels if Best Management Practices are provided at the bridge locations. These BMPs are discussed in Section 9 Hydrology and Water Quality of this document.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Mitigation Measures: Comply with Mitigation Measure 9-1 Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated d) The proposed project will provide repair and maintenance improvements at existing bridge locations. The areas surrounding these bridge locations are currently developed and experience noise and disturbances from vehicle traffic and other urbanized activities, which limit the likelihood that wildlife corridors exist. The bridges however, do cross over either the Santa Ana River or Santiago Creek, which potentially could function as wildlife corridors. However, since construction will not be conducted within the bed of either the Santa Ana River or Santiago Creek, and because construction will only be allowed at specified times, it is again unlikely that the Santa Ana River or Santiago Creek at the bridge locations are used as wildlife corridors. The proposed bridge improvements will not substantially interfere with the movement of any wildlife species, migratory wildlife corridor, or impede the use of any native wildlife nursery site.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measures: None Required Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact e) The City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance is addressed in OMC Chapter 12.32, Tree Preservation, and regulates the removal and destruction of trees from undeveloped and public interest property. The proposed bridge improvements will not remove, destroy, or affect any neighboring trees around the bridge locations. The proposed bridge improvements will not conflict with the intended purpose of the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance.
Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None Required Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact f) The City of Orange is a participating agency in the Orange County Central Coastal NCCP. Designated areas are located in the eastern portion of the City and within the City’s sphere of influence, along hill slopes and other undeveloped natural areas. None of the bridge locations are located within an NCCP designated reserve or other special use area.
27 Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measures: None Required Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact
Less than Significant 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? (b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? (c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (e) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource pursuant to PRC §21073 et seq?
Impact Analysis: a) The proposed project will maintain and repair eight (8) bridges which cross the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek. The work area for the proposed bridge improvements are the bridges themselves. Surrounding areas will not be disturbed. The bridges are identified as Category 5, “Not Eligible” for listing on the National Register. None of the bridges are defined as a historical resource per Section 15064.5 of the Public Resources Code. The proposed bridge improvements will not impact any potentially historic resource.
Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact b) The proposed project will maintain and repair bridges which cross the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek. The work area for the proposed bridge improvements are the bridges themselves. Extensive grading activities will not be required for any of the bridge improvements; areas surrounding the bridge locations will not be significantly disturbed. There are no known archaeological resources pursuant to Section15064.5 of the Public Resources Code that exist near the bridge locations. Further, depth of disturbance in these areas is shallow and in locations already disturbed by previous excavation. The proposed bridge improvements will not impact any archaeological resource.
Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact c) The proposed project will maintain and repair bridges which cross the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek. The work area for the proposed bridge improvements are the bridges themselves. Extensive grading activities will not be required for any of the bridge improvements; areas surrounding the bridge locations will not be significantly disturbed. There is no known
28 paleontological resource or unique geologic feature that exist near the bridge locations. Further, depth of disturbance in these areas is shallow and in locations already disturbed by previous excavation. The proposed bridge improvements will not impact any paleontological resource or unique geologic feature.
Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact d) The proposed project will maintain and repair bridges which cross the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek. The work area for the proposed bridge improvements are the bridges themselves. Extensive grading activities will not be required for any of the bridge improvements; areas surrounding the bridge locations will not be significantly disturbed. There are no known human remains or cemeteries that exist near the bridge locations. Further, depth of disturbance in these areas is shallow and in locations already disturbed by previous excavation. The proposed bridge improvements will not impact any human remains.
Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact e) The proposed project will maintain and repair bridges which cross the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek. The work area for the proposed bridge improvements are the bridges themselves, located within urbanized portions of the City. Surrounding areas will not be disturbed. Given that only the bridges themselves will be maintained and repaired, there are no tribal cultural resources that can be substantially disturbed.
In accordance with AB52, which ensures protection of California’s tribal cultural resources, the City emailed a letter dated November 23, 2015 to the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation to notify the tribal government of the proposed project and to provide a consultation opportunity. After the close of the 30-day response period, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation requested a site visit of the bridge locations. City staff and members of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation visited each of the bridge locations. After the site visit, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation concluded that they had no further comments. The City’s letter to the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation is included in this document as Appendix C.
Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None Required Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact
29 Less than Significant 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? (b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
Impact Analysis: a.i) Fault rupture is caused by the breakage of the ground surface overlaying a fault, as a result of seismic activity. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. The Act's main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface of active faults. The law requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones (known as Earthquake Fault Zones) around the surfaces of active faults and issue appropriate maps. ["Earthquake Fault Zones" were called "Special Studies Zones" prior to January 1, 1994.] Cities and counties affected by the zones must regulate certain development within the zones. Development permits for sites within the zones must be withheld until geologic investigations demonstrate that the sites are not threatened by surface displacement from future faulting. Typically, structures for human occupancy are not allowed within 50 feet of the trace of an active fault.
No known Alquist-Priolo fault zone is located within the City. However, Figure PS-1, Environmental and Natural Hazard Policy Map, from the City’s General Plan shows that the Peralta Hills Fault and the El Modena Fault traverse the City. The Peralta Hills Fault runs from the crossing of Lincoln Avenue over the Santa Ana River on the northwest, easterly along the base of the Peralta Hills and into the City of Villa Park, then southerly into the hills west of Peters Canyon Reservoir. The El Modena Fault runs from its intersection with the Peralta Hills Fault at the base of Peralta Hills, southerly to Chapman Avenue.
The California Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) evaluates faults on an individual basis to determine if a fault will be classified as an Earthquake Fault Zone. In general, faults must
30 satisfy certain DMG criteria to be classified as an Earthquake Fault Zone. Though the two faults are not classified as an Earthquake Fault Zone, these two faults are classified as possibly active by the Southern California Earthquake Data Center. Fault rupture could occur in the future. However, any fault rupture impact would be the same for the proposed bridge improvements as would be under the existing conditions. The affected bridges will not be impacted any more than presently experienced. Secondly, the proposed bridge improvements will not involve construction of buildings used for human occupancy. Finally, the proposed improvements will be designed and constructed in conformance with applicable codes and engineering standards which increase safety by repairing and improving the bridges to withstand any geological and seismic event, including fault rupture.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact a.ii) Orange, like all of Southern California, is vulnerable to ground shaking caused by seismic events along large regional faults, including the aforementioned Peralta Hills and El Modena Faults; the Newport-Inglewood Fault, which is located approximately 15 miles southwest of Orange; and the San Andreas Fault, which is located approximately 40 miles northeast of Orange. Figures PS-2, Potential Groundshaking Zones – 8.3 San Andreas Earthquake, and PS- 3, Potential Groundshaking Zones – 7.5 Newport-Inglewood Earthquake, from the City’s General Plan show that the locations of the bridges are within the Class VIII (severe) category of the Mercalli Index Intensity Table. Therefore, the bridge locations could experience ground shaking in the future. However, any ground shaking impact would be the same for the proposed bridge improvements as would be under the existing conditions. The affected bridges will not be impacted any more than presently experienced. Secondly, the proposed bridge improvements will not involve construction of buildings used for human occupancy. Finally, the proposed improvements will be designed and constructed in conformance with applicable codes and engineering standards which increase safety by repairing and improving the bridges to withstand any geological and seismic event, including ground shaking.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact a.iii-iv) Liquefaction is one of the major causes of geotechnical failure during earthquakes. It is generally a concern in areas characterized by sandy soils or loose sands, and/or shallow groundwater. Liquefaction occurs when ground shaking causes small displacements of soil particles, densifying the soil. When sand contains water in its voids, friction between the soil particles is reduced, reducing its strength, and the soil behaves as a liquid. As a result, structures resting on the soil will sink or tilt. Seismically-induced landslides occur in areas where steep slopes, unstable geologic features, and/or or seismic activity combine to upset the force of gravity and cause earth to move down a hillside.
Figure PS-1, Environmental and Natural Hazard Policy Map, from the City’s General Plan shows that the bridge locations are not within any Landslide Hazard Area, however, the bridge locations are located within Liquefaction Hazard Areas. Any potential impacts, however, are considered insignificant. Any liquefaction impact
31 would be the same for the proposed bridge improvements as would be under the existing conditions. The affected bridges will not be impacted any more than presently experienced. Secondly, the proposed bridge improvements will not involve construction of buildings used for human occupancy. Finally, the proposed improvements will be designed and constructed in conformance with applicable codes and engineering standards which increase safety.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact b) The proposed bridge improvements will not require extensive excavation or grading. However, repair of minor erosion around the existing V-ditch for Bridge #55C0563L will be conducted to correct existing erosion presently experienced at the bridge location. Significant erosion-related impacts are not expected. To further ensure erosion-related impacts do not occur, the proposed improvements will be required to conform to standard erosion control measures that are outlined in the Greenbook- Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, which are part of the City’s standard construction contract requirements. Refer also to Section 9 Hydrology and Water Quality, for discussions of erosion control and water quality impacts.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Mitigation Measures:
MM 6-1 During construction, the contractor shall comply with the City’s Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (The “GREENBOOK”), current edition, which includes standard erosion control measures. The City’s Construction Manager may inspect equipment periodically and will be responsible for ensuring compliance with all contract provisions.
Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated c) Landslides, mudslides, rockfalls, and soil creep are phenomena earth scientists refer to as “mass wasting.” The movement may be rapid (landsliding, rockfall), or gradual (soil creep). These geologic hazards occur in areas where steep slopes, unstable geologic features, and/or heavy rainfall combine to upset the force of gravity and cause earth to move down a hillside. As discussed in Response a.iii-a.iv, the bridge sites are not located within the City’s Landslide Hazard Areas, which indicates that none of the bridge sites are located within or adjacent to any area susceptible to landslide hazards.
Lateral spreading is a form of horizontal displacement of soil toward an open channel or other "free" face, such as an excavation boundary. Lateral spreading can result from either the slump of low cohesion unconsolidated material or more commonly by liquefaction of either the soil layer or a subsurface layer underlying soil material on a slope. The bridge locations have been previously graded, filled, and compacted to accommodate the existing bridges, sidewalks, roadways, etc. The proposed improvements will involve only minor erosion control and site preparation. Therefore, lateral spreading is unlikely due to the low-level site disturbance and will not create any potentially significant impact.
32 Land subsidence is the lowering of the land surface elevation from changes that take place underground such as the pumping of water, oil, and gas from underground reservoirs. The proposed improvements will not require any lowering of land surface or extensive excavation or grading. Therefore, land subsidence is unlikely and will not create any potentially significant impact. The bridge locations do not involve a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the proposed improvements. The bridge locations will not be impacted by any landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact d) Expansiveness, or the potential to swell and shrink with repeated cycles of wetting and drying is a common feature of fine-grained clayey soils. The change in volume exerts stress on buildings and other loads placed on these soils. The occurrence of these soils is often associated with geologic units having marginal stability. The distribution of expansive soils can be widely dispersed, and they can occur in hillside areas as well as low-lying alluvial basins. The proposed improvements will maintain and repair existing bridges and sidewalks. In addition, minor erosion along an existing V-ditch at one of the bridges will be corrected. The proposed improvements do not include new construction on soils and therefore, the expansiveness of the underlying soils is a non-issue. Significant impacts will not result.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact e) The proposed improvements will maintain and repair existing bridges and sidewalks and will not require new sewer improvements. The use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems will not be necessary.
Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact
Less than Significant 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Impact Analysis: a) Response 3 (Air Quality), assessed whether the proposed bridge improvements would result in any significant short-term and/or long-term air quality impacts. As part of the discussions, the following pollutants were considered: Ozone, Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxides, Particulate
33 Matter, and Fine Particulate Matter. It was concluded that construction of the proposed bridge improvements will generate short-term air quality impacts during site preparation for each of the bridge locations, repair work to the bridges and V-ditches, and construction activities. Fugitive dust and diesel exhaust emissions will be generated by construction equipment and trucks. In addition, the vehicles of commuting construction workers will also generate and emit exhaust emissions. Of these pollutants, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides are the primary pollutants that could relate to greenhouse gas emissions. Since construction of the bridge improvements and operations of the construction equipment will generate levels of carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides, it is likely that construction activities will contribute to the overall levels of greenhouse emissions at the various bridge locations. Significant impacts, however, are not expected for the following reasons. The SCAQMD has established a threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year for determining whether a particular project would result in a significant impact. This amount of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions equate to emissions from about 70 single-family residences. Construction and operations of the proposed bridge improvements are small-scale and minor in nature and will generate less carbon dioxide emissions than would be generated by a 70-unit single-family development, and therefore, will not exceed the SCAQMD threshold for determining significance of impact. Excessive levels of construction-related greenhouse gas emissions will not generated. Regarding long-term impacts, after construction is completed at the bridge locations, each of the bridges would function the same as under existing conditions. Excessive levels of operations- related greenhouse gas emissions will not generated.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact b) The proposed bridge improvements will not conflict with the City’s General Plan or the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The proposed improvements complies with Policy 5.4 of the Economic Development Element, which was stated in Table NR-1 (Climate Change Related Policies) of the Natural Resources Element. Policy 5.4 states: “…Rehabilitate…public rights-of-way”. The proposed improvements will comply with the policy since the bridges within the public rights-of-way will be repaired and rehabilitated. The proposed improvements will comply with the SCAQMD threshold for determining significance of impacts and will not generate significant levels of greenhouse gas emissions. On April 4, 2012, SCAG adopted the 2012-2035 RTP/SCS, which aimed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by establishing regional and local goals and milestones. The proposed bridge improvements are not of a scope or activity that would conflict with any of the goals and milestones of the RTP/SCS. Excessive levels of construction-related greenhouse gas emissions will not generated. The proposed improvements will not conflict with any plan, policy, or regulation that reduces the generation of greenhouse gas emissions.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact
34 Less than Significant 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? (b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Impact Analysis: a) A hazardous material is defined as any material that due to its quantity, concentration, physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health or to the environment if released. Hazardous materials include, but are not limited to, inorganic and organic chemicals, solvents, mercury, oils, gasoline, lead, asbestos, paints, cleansers, or pesticides. Vehicles traveling along the bridge locations likely use and/or transport potentially hazardous materials such as oil and other similar materials. Construction activities and equipment required for the proposed bridge improvements could also transport and use potentially hazardous materials, such as oil, gas, etc. Since, the existing bridges drain to the curb and gutter, and into the storm drain system, which ultimately outlets to either the Santa Ana River or Santiago Creek, there is the potential for hazardous materials to enter the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek. Significant impacts, however, are not expected. There are existing hazardous materials regulations already enacted that protect people and locations from exposure to hazardous materials and substances, including Titles 8, 22, and 26 of the California Code of Regulations and their enabling legislation set forth in Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code. These regulations were established to reduce the risk to human health and the environment from the routine use of hazardous substances by requiring onsite containment. In addition, compliance with standard water quality BMP’s during construction would ensure onsite containment of any material used during construction. Significant impacts would not occur.
35 Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact b) Given that the construction activities involve maintenance and repair of existing bridges and will require the handling of materials that are typical of any construction site, such as oils, gas, and solvents, it is not anticipated that the release of hazardous materials during an upset or accidental occurrence will cause a significant hazard. All construction materials will be contained onsite at each bridge location through the use of standard water quality BMP’s which require onsite containment. Significant impacts would not occur.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact c) There are no schools located within a quarter-mile of the bridge locations. There is no opportunity to impact any school.
Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None Required Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact d) The project locations are limited to existing bridges that cross either Santiago Creek or the Santa Ana River within urbanized portions of the City. Since the project involves maintenance and repair work on existing bridges, there are no buildings or land uses within the work area. The bridge locations are not on any list of hazardous materials that was compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None Required Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact e) The “Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport”, prepared by the Airport Land Use Commission, amended April 2008, indicates that the City of Orange, including the bridge locations, are not within the plan’s “Airport Environs Land Use Plan, Airport Planning Areas”. The proposed bridge improvements and locations will not conflict with the land use plan.
Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None Required Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact f) The bridge locations are not located within the vicinity of any private airstrip. There are no people residing or working within the bridge locations. The proposed improvements will not result in any aircraft-related hazards to people.
Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None Required Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact
36 g) The proposed bridge improvements will require temporary closure of travel lanes along each of the subject bridges. However, per standard City practice, at least one travel lane in each direction would remain open at all times to ensure there is traffic flow over the bridges at all times during construction activities. Construction at the bridge locations will not require any temporary road, detour, or ramp closure. General access to the bridge locations will be via existing roadways. Emergency vehicles will be permitted to pass through the various work areas without delay at all times. Impacts are less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact h) The project locations are limited to existing bridges that cross either Santiago Creek or the Santa Ana River within urbanized portions of the City. The bridge locations are not subject to any wildfires. People or structures will not be subject to wildfires.
Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None Required Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact
Less than Significant 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. (d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
37 (j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? (l) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post-construction activities? (m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? (n) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? (o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? (p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas?
Impact Analysis: a) A Technical Memorandum entitled, “City of Orange Bridge Maintenance Project Water Quality Memorandum Federal Project No. BPMPL-5073 (077), was prepared by Psomas on September 2014 to evaluate water quality impacts that could result with the proposed bridge improvements and recommend Best Manage Practices (BMPs) to alleviate any potential water quality impact. This technical memorandum is included in this document as Appendix B.
In 1972, Congress amended the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, making the addition of pollutants into the waters of the United States from any point source unlawful unless the discharge is in compliance with a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program permit. The Clean Water Act (CWA), as it is known today, is “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” In a 1987 amendment, Congress directed dischargers of storm water from municipal and industrial/construction point sources to comply with the NPDES permit scheme. Refer to pages 2-1 and 2-2 of the Technical Memorandum, which further summarizes the Clean Water Act. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), in accordance with the CWA, establishes the Statewide water quality standards. The SWRCB administers water rights, water pollution control, and water quality functions throughout the State, while the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) conduct regional planning, permitting, and enforcement activities. The bridge locations are within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB.
Section 402(p) of the CWA requires the issuance of NPDES permits for storm water dischargers, including “municipal separate storm sewer systems”. The EPA defines municipal separate storm sewer systems as “any conveyance or system of conveyances (roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, human-made channels, and storm drains) owned or operated by a state, city, town, county, or other public body having jurisdiction over storm water, that are designed or used for collecting or conveying storm water.” The SWRCB has identified Caltrans as an owner/operator of a municipal separate storm sewer system. The Caltrans’ permit covers all Caltrans rights-of-way, properties, facilities, and activities in the State. The SWRCB or the RWQCB issues NPDES permits for five years, and permit requirements remain active until a new permit has been adopted. The bridge locations include various areas adjacent to the Lower Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek in the City of Orange and is covered by the Caltrans NPDES permit (Order Number 2012-0011-DWQ, NPDES Number CAS000003).
38 The eight (8) existing bridges cross either the Santa Ana River or Santiago Creek. The section of the Santa Ana River that is crossed by the project bridges are part of the Santa Ana River Watershed. The project bridges cross Reach 2 of the Santa Ana River, which carries all the flows down through Santa Ana Canyon to Orange County, where as much of the water as possible is recharged into the Orange County groundwater basin. The downstream end of Reach 2 is at 17th Street in Santa Ana, California. Near the project bridges, the Santa Ana River channel is deep in many places, with some rocky substrate and rapid sections. Santiago Creek, which is also crossed by the project bridges, is a wide, unimproved natural stream which flows to the impoundment behind the Villa Park Flood Control Dam. It flows only in response to rainfall events except during very wet years when there are releases from Santiago Dam. Santiago Creek is the Santa Ana River’s main tributary within Orange County. Irvine Lake (also known as the Santiago Reservoir) captures flows from Santiago Creek and provides water supplies to the Serrano Water District and the Irvine Ranch Water District. Reach 1 of Santiago Creek runs from the base of Santiago Dam to the confluence with the Santa Ana River. The existing bridges drain to the curb and gutter, and into the storm drain system, which ultimately outlets to either the Santa Ana River or Santiago Creek. Water quality of the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek are affected by these drainages. The following describes existing water quality of these waters.
Santa Ana River
The quality of surface water and groundwater varies considerably throughout the Santa Ana River basin. Generally, the surface waters flowing out of the rugged and undeveloped mountains to the valley floors are of excellent water quality. These waters recharge the groundwater in these areas. Consequently, groundwater in these areas is also excellent. The water quality downstream, however, deteriorates due to heavy water use and waste disposal practices, and due to the relatively poor quality of some of the imported water. The Technical Memorandum reviewed general water characteristics from samples collected by the U.S. Geological Survey for the period 1998 through 2001. The Technical Memorandum found that the water quality data values suggested that the Santa Ana River, Reach 2 was generally within the water quality standards during this time period. Some elevated levels for Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) and phosphates (pH) were observed, but were within the water quality standards of the Orange County Stormwater Program’s Model Water Quality Management Plan (Model WQMP) for this segment of the Santa Ana River. The Model WQMP addressed post- construction urban runoff and stormwater pollution from new development. The RWQCB (Santa Ana Region), which also set criteria for local water quality, has recently identified increasing amounts of TDS as the major pollutant in the Santa Ana River. Please refer to the Technical Memorandum, Table 2, Water Quality Data in Middle Santa Ana River, Reach 2, for 2014 pollutant sample readings.
Santiago Creek
Water quality data for Santiago Creek Reach 1 were obtained from the USEPA STORET Database. Please refer to the Technical Memorandum, Table 3, Water Quality Data in Santiago Creek, Reach 2, for 2014 pollutant sample readings. Similar to the Santa Ana River, Santiago Creek had water quality values generally within the water quality standards during the monitoring period. However, elevated levels for TDS and pH were also observed.
In assessing water quality impacts to the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek, the Technical Memorandum focused on the following pollutants and measured whether these pollutants were within the objectives of the CWA. The standards for Total Dissolved Solids for the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek are 650 and 600 mg/L, respectively.
39 Sediments Litter Petroleum products Concrete waste (dry and wet) Sanitary waste Chemicals
The Technical Memorandum concluded that construction of the proposed bridge improvements could result in increased levels of suspended particulates, oil, grease, and chemical pollutants, should construction materials or runoff drain into the water bodies. Best Management Practices have been recommended to reduce water quality impacts to less than significant at each of the bridges. The following summarizes conclusions from the Technical Memorandum for each of the eight bridges:
Bridge # 55C0057, Chapman Avenue at Santiago Creek
The proposed improvements at this bridge location will be limited to the repair of concrete sidewalks. Soils will not be exposed. Some concrete cutting, sand blasting, and/or cleaning of concrete areas will occur that can generate suspended particulates that can be introduced into the local storm drain system and Santiago Creek. The proposed improvements can also require the use of concrete, methacrylate, and various tools and equipment that have the potential to introduce oil, grease, and chemical pollutants into the local storm drain system and Santiago Creek.
Bridge # 55C0043, Tustin Street at Santiago Creek
The proposed improvements at this bridge location will be limited to the repair of bridge decks. Soils will not be exposed. Some concrete cutting, sand blasting, and/or cleaning of concrete spall areas will occur that can generate suspended particulates that can be introduced into the local storm drain system and Santiago Creek. The proposed improvements can also require the use of concrete, methacrylate, and various tools and equipment that have the potential to introduce oil, grease, and chemical pollutants into the local storm drain system and Santiago Creek.
Bridge # 55C0016, Glassell Street at Santiago Creek
The proposed improvements at this bridge location will be limited to the repair of concrete sidewalks and bridge decks. Soils will not be exposed. Some concrete cutting, sand blasting, and/or cleaning of concrete spall areas will occur that can generate suspended particulates that can be introduced into the local storm drain system and Santiago Creek. The proposed improvements can also require the use of concrete, methacrylate, and various tools and equipment that have the potential to introduce oil, grease, and chemical pollutants into the local storm drain system and Santiago Creek.
Bridge # 55C0046, Memory Lane at Santa Ana River
The proposed improvements at this bridge location will be limited to the repair of bridge decks and bridge girder/abutments. Soils will not be exposed. Some concrete cutting, sand blasting, and/or cleaning of concrete spall areas will occur that can generate suspended particulates that can be introduced into the local storm drain system and the Santa Ana River. The proposed improvements can also require the use of concrete, methacrylate, and various tools and equipment that have the potential
40 to introduce oil, grease, and chemical pollutants into the local storm drain system and the Santa Ana River.
Bridge # 55C0054, Chapman Avenue at Santa Ana River
The proposed improvements at this bridge location will be limited to the repair of concrete sidewalks, bridge decks, box girder, and bridge girder/abutments. Soils will not be exposed. Some concrete cutting, sand blasting, and/or cleaning of concrete spall areas is proposed that can generate suspended particulates that can be introduced into the local storm drain system and the Santa Ana River. The proposed improvements can also require the use of concrete, methacrylate, and various tools and equipment that have the potential to introduce oil, grease, and chemical pollutants into the local storm drain system and the Santa Ana River.
Bridge # 55C0050, Orangewood Avenue at Santa Ana River
The proposed improvements at this bridge location will be limited to the repair of side rails and bridge decks. Soils will not be exposed. Some concrete cutting, sand blasting, and/or cleaning of concrete spall areas is proposed that would generate suspended particulates that could be introduced into the local storm drain system and the Santa Ana River. The proposed improvements could also require the use of concrete, methacrylate, and various tools and equipment that have the potential to introduce oil, grease, and chemical pollutants into the local storm drain system and the Santa Ana River.
Bridge # 55C0563L, Katella Avenue at Santa Ana River
The proposed improvements at this bridge location will be limited to the repair of V-ditch and bridge girder/abutments. The repair of the V-ditch can entail exposure of soils. In addition, some concrete cutting, sand blasting, and/or cleaning of concrete spall areas is proposed that can generate suspended particulates that can be introduced into the local storm drain system and the Santa Ana River. The proposed improvements can also require the use of concrete, methacrylate, and various tools and equipment that have the potential to introduce oil, grease, and chemical pollutants into the local storm drain system and the Santa Ana River.
Bridge # 55C0159, Taft Avenue at Santa Ana River
The proposed improvements at this bridge location will be limited to the repair of concrete sidewalks and bridge decks. Soils will not be exposed. Some concrete cutting, sand blasting, and/or cleaning of concrete spall areas is proposed that would generate suspended particulates that can be introduced into the local storm drain system and the Santa Ana River. The proposed improvements can also require the use of concrete, methacrylate, and various tools and equipment that have the potential to introduce oil, grease, and chemical pollutants into the local storm drain system and the Santa Ana River.
Best Management Practices
In order to comply with the City’s standard specifications and reduce potential water quality impacts to the adjacent Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek to less than significant levels, best management practices (BMPs) will be employed at each of the bridge locations. These BMPs address:
Temporary Sediment Control
41 Preservation of Existing Vegetation Wind Erosion Control Paving Operations Street Sweeping and Vacuuming Stabilized Construction Roadway Waste Management Materials Handling Vehicle and Equipment Operations Stockpile Management Storm Drain Inlet Protection
It should be noted that since repair and maintenance activities may be different for the various bridges, the BMP requirements may likewise, be different for each bridge. Specific BMPs that are required for each individual bridge location are listed in the Technical Memorandum.
In the long-term, the Technical Memorandum concluded that the bridge improvements that will be completed following the construction phase will minimize the potential for continued erosion of the currently damaged bridge components and surfaces. Periodic inspections will be conducted to assure that the completed repairs of the bridges and surfaces continue to be stable. No long-term impacts to water quality are anticipated with continued operation of the bridges and the existing stormwater collection system.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Mitigation Measures:
MM 9-1 During construction, the City shall implement those applicable BMPs described in the document entitled, “Technical Memorandum City of Orange Bridge Maintenance Project Water Quality Memorandum Federal Project No. BPMPL-5073 (077)”, prepared by Psomas in September 2014 at the appropriate bridge location to reduce water quality impacts at the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek. Periodic inspections shall be conducted by the City to assure that the BMPs are provided throughout construction.
Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated b) The City of Orange is a member of the Orange County Water District, which has the responsibility for managing the groundwater basin under north and central Orange County. The Orange County groundwater basin in the main source of water supply for the City. Other water sources include: Northern California waters via the State Water Project, the Colorado River, local watersheds, reclamation, and water reuse projects. The City obtains about 64 to 75 percent of its water from City-owned wells and purchases about 25 to 36 percent from the Metropolitan Water District of Orange County and another three to five percent from the Serrano Water District. The proposed bridge improvements do not include any land uses or activities that will require additional water supply. In addition, additional impervious surfaces will not be created with the proposed bridge improvements. Therefore, the existing groundwater supply will not be depleted. In addition, the groundwater recharge ability of the groundwater basin will not be impacted, since additional impervious surfaces will not be created. Significant impacts will not result.
42 Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact c) The proposed bridge locations cross either the Santa Ana River or Santiago Creek. The proposed improvements will occur on the bridges themselves. The construction work and staging areas for the bridges will not occur within the bed of these waters. The existing drainage patterns and flow courses for the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek will not be altered by the proposed improvements.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact d) As discussed in Response 9.c) above, the existing drainage patterns and flow courses for the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek will not be altered by the proposed bridge improvements. The proposed improvements will repair existing bridges and will not create additional impervious surfaces. The proposed improvements will not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff that could result in flooding.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact e) The proposed improvements will repair existing bridges and will not create additional impervious surfaces. The proposed improvements will not create additional runoff water that could exceed the capacity of the storm drain system.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact f) As discussed in Response 9.a), the Technical Memorandum concluded that construction of the proposed bridge improvements could result in increased levels of suspended particulates, oil, grease, and chemical pollutants. Therefore, BMPs have been recommended to reduce the level of water quality impacts to less than significant at each of the bridges. In the long-term, the Technical Memorandum concluded that the bridge improvements that will be completed following the construction phase will minimize the potential for continued erosion of the currently damaged bridge components and surfaces. Periodic inspections will be conducted to assure that the completed repairs of the bridges and surfaces continue to be stable. No long-term impacts to water quality are anticipated with continued operation of the bridges and the existing storm water collection system.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Mitigation Measures: Comply with Mitigation Measure 9-1 Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated g) The existing bridges cross over Santiago Creek and the Santa Ana River. For the Santa Ana River, FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (Map Panel Numbers 06059C0142H, 144H, 153H, and 161H,
43 revised 2009) have indicated that the 100-year flood zone is contained within the flood channel. Since the construction work and staging areas for the Santa Ana River bridges will be outside the flood channel and therefore, outside of the 100-year flood zone, it can be concluded that the Santa Ana River bridges will not be impacted by the 100-year flood. For Santiago Creek, FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (Map Panel Numbers 06059C0162H, 163H, and 164H, revised 2009) and Flood Insurance Study #06059CV003A (dated February 18, 2004) have indicated that the 100-year flood was contained within the channel of Bridge # 55C0043, Tustin Street at Santiago Creek. The Flood Insurance Study cross sections also indicated that the bottom of Bridge #55C0057, Chapman Avenue at Santiago Creek and Bridge #55C0016, Glassell Street at Santiago Creek were above the 100-year flood water surface elevation. Similar with the Santa Ana bridges, since the construction work and staging areas for the Santiago Creek bridges will be outside the flood channel and therefore, outside of the 100-year flood zone, it can be concluded that the Santiago Creek bridges will not be impacted by the 100-year flood. The proposed bridge improvements will not include any new housing. Therefore, no housing will be placed within the 100-year flood zone.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact h) As discussed in Response 9.g) above, none of the bridges are within the 100-year flood zone. In addition, new structures will not be constructed with the proposed bridge improvements. Therefore, new structures are not being proposed that could impede or redirect flood flows.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact i) The proposed bridge improvements do not include any new development that would result in additional structures. Therefore, new people or structures will not be exposed to hazards associated with flooding or failure of a levee or dam.
Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact j) The bridge locations are topographically flat and therefore, are not subject to mudflows. In addition, the bridge locations are not subject to any seiche or tsunami.
Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact k) As discussed in Response 9.a), the Technical Memorandum concluded that construction of the proposed bridge improvements could result in increased levels of suspended particulates, oil, grease, and chemical pollutants. BMPs have been recommended to reduce the level of water quality impacts to levels of insignificance at each of the bridges. In the long-term, the Technical Memorandum concluded that the bridge improvements that will be completed following the construction phase will minimize the potential for continued erosion of the currently damaged bridge components and surfaces. Periodic inspections will be conducted to assure that the
44 completed repairs of the bridges and surfaces continue to be stable. No long-term impacts to storm water runoff or water quality are anticipated with continued operation of the bridges and the existing storm water collection system.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Mitigation Measures: Comply with Mitigation Measure 9-1 Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated l) In the long-term, the Technical Memorandum concluded that the bridge improvements that will be completed following the construction phase will minimize the potential for continued erosion of the currently damaged bridge components and surfaces. Periodic inspections will be conducted to assure that the completed repairs of the bridges and surfaces continue to be stable. No long-term impacts to storm water runoff or water quality are anticipated with continued operation of the bridges and the existing storm water collection system.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Mitigation Measures: Comply with Mitigation Measure 9-1 Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated m) Vehicles traveling along the bridge locations likely use and/or transport potentially hazardous materials such as oil and other similar materials. Construction activities and equipment required for the proposed bridge improvements could also transport and use potentially hazardous materials, such as oil, gas, etc. Since, the existing bridges drain to the curb and gutter, and into the storm drain system, which ultimately outlets to either the Santa Ana River or Santiago Creek, there is the potential for hazardous materials to enter the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek with the storm runoff. Significant impacts, however, are not expected. There are existing hazardous materials regulations already enacted that protect people and locations from exposure to hazardous materials and substances, including Titles 8, 22, and 26 of the California Code of Regulations, and their enabling legislation set forth in Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code. These regulations were established to reduce the risk to human health and the environment from the routine use of hazardous substances by requiring onsite containment of hazardous materials. Significant impacts are not expected.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact n) The proposed improvements will repair existing bridges and will not create additional impervious surfaces. The proposed improvements will not create additional runoff water that could adversely affect the beneficial uses of a receiving water.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact o) The proposed improvements will repair existing bridges and will not create additional impervious surfaces. The proposed improvements will not create additional runoff water that could affect the flow velocity and volume of storm water runoff.
45 Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact p) The proposed bridge improvements will not require extensive excavation or grading. However, repair of minor erosion around the existing V-ditch for Bridge #55C0563L will be conducted to correct existing erosion presently experienced at the bridge site. Significant erosion-related impacts are not expected. To further ensure erosion-related impacts do not occur, the proposed improvements will be required to conform to standard erosion control measures that are outlined in the Greenbook- Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, which are part of the City’s standard construction contract requirements.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Mitigation Measures: Comply with Mitigation Measure 6-1 Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
Less than Significant 10. LAND USE/PLANNING. Would the project: Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a) Physically divide an established community? (b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
Impact Analysis: a) The proposed bridge improvements do not have the potential to divide or disrupt neighborhoods and/or communities. The project involves repair and preventative maintenance of existing bridges and therefore, will not physically divide or disrupt an established neighborhood. The proposed bridge improvements will not impact the cohesion of the surrounding communities.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact b) The proposed bridge improvements will not conflict with any land use policy, plan, or regulation of the City. The proposed bridge improvements is consistent with the City’s General Plan goals and policies. Specifically, General Plan Circulation and Mobility Element Goal 1.0 and Policy 1.6 requires the City to “Maintain and repair roadways and sidewalks as necessary to improve circulation and safety”. The proposed bridge improvements will implement this particular goal and policy.
46 The City’s General Plan Natural Resources Element also states that the Santiago Creek corridor is a potential “spine for a City-wide network of multi-use trails that connect parks, open spaces, recreational facilities, and other City amenities”. Those proposed bridges that cross Santiago Creek will not impact the creek corridor itself. Therefore, the proposed bridge improvements will not conflict with the City General Plan Natural Resources Element.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact c) The City of Orange is a participating agency in the Orange County Central Coastal NCCP. Designated areas are located in the eastern portion of the City and within the City’s sphere of influence, along hill slopes and other undeveloped natural areas. None of the eight (8) bridge locations are located within an NCCP designated reserve or other special use area or a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) area.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact
Less than Significant 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Impact Analysis: a) The proposed bridge improvements involve maintenance work on bridges that cross either Santiago Creek or the Santa Ana River. All work is either on the bridge decks, on the approaches to the bridge decks, or on its girders, sidewalks, side rails or concrete V-ditches behind the side rails. Materials required for the maintenance work include concrete, asphalt, sealants, methacrylate, and metal bridge railing materials. Construction work would not involve substantial ground disturbance in a mineral resource area. Valuable mineral resources will not be lost. Significant impacts will not result.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact b) The proposed bridge improvements involve maintenance work on bridges that cross either Santiago Creek or the Santa Ana River. All work is either on the bridge decks, on the approaches to the bridge decks, or on its girders, sidewalks, side rails or concrete v-ditches behind the side rails. The bridge locations are not designated as important mineral resource recovery sites. Significant impacts will not result.
47 Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact
Less than Significant 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Impact Analysis: a) The proposed bridge improvements will generate temporary noise levels from construction activities and equipment. Significant impacts, however, are not expected for the following reasons. First, construction of the proposed improvements will involve maintenance and repair of bridges, which generally includes patching concrete spalls on the bridge deck and side rails, repairing sidewalks, and cleaning and sealing the bridge decks. These are low impact activities and will not generate excessive construction noise levels. Pile driving and other high-impact activities that can create high noise or vibration levels will not be required. Secondly, the bridge locations are within urbanized areas of the City and roadways, which already experience high levels of noise. Therefore, any incremental increase in construction-related noise will be mixed with existing noise levels and will not be substantial. Finally, all construction activities will occur during the least sensitive hours of the day, at times when construction noise will have low impact. Construction will only occur between 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM during weekdays. Significant construction-related noise impacts will not result with the proposed bridge improvements.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact b) As discussed, construction of the proposed improvements will involve maintenance and repair of bridges, which generally includes patching concrete spalls on the bridge deck and side rails, repairing sidewalks, and cleaning and sealing the bridge decks. These are low impact activities and will not generate excessive construction vibration levels. Pile driving and other high-impact activities that can create high groundborne noise or vibration levels will not be required.
48 Construction-related groundborne vibrations and noise levels will not be significantly generated by the proposed bridge improvements.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact c) The project consists of bridge maintenance and repair improvements. No operational changes will occur. After construction is completed at the bridge locations, each of the bridges would function the same as under existing conditions. There will not be any permanent increase in ambient noise levels.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact d) The proposed bridge improvements will generate temporary noise levels from construction activities and equipment. Significant impacts, however, are not expected for the following reasons. First, construction of the proposed improvements will involve maintenance and repair of bridges, which generally includes patching concrete spalls on the bridge deck and side rails, repairing sidewalks, and cleaning and sealing the bridge decks. These are low impact activities and will not generate excessive construction noise levels. Pile driving and other high-impact activities that can create high noise or vibration levels will not be required. Secondly, the bridge locations are within urbanized areas of the City, along roadways, which already experience high levels of noise. Therefore, any incremental increase in construction-related noise will be mixed with existing noise levels and will not be detected. Finally, all construction activities will occur at times when construction noise will have low impact. Construction will only occur between 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM during weekdays. Significant temporary construction-related noise impacts will not result with the proposed bridge improvements.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact e) The “Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport”, prepared by the Airport Land Use Commission, amended April 2008, indicates that the City of Orange, including the bridge locations, are not within the plan’s “Airport Environs Land Use Plan, Airport Planning Areas”. The proposed bridge improvements and locations will not conflict with the land use plan.
Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact f) The bridge locations are not located within the vicinity of any private airstrip. The proposed improvements will not result in any excessive aircraft-related noise exposure to people.
Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact
49 Less than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Impact Analysis: a) The proposed improvements will involve maintenance and repair of bridges, which generally includes patching concrete spalls on the bridge deck and side rails, repairing sidewalks, and cleaning and sealing the bridge decks. After construction is completed at the bridge locations, each of the bridges would function the same as under existing conditions. The proposed bridge improvements will not substantially induce any population growth or extend any connecting roadway.
Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact b) The proposed bridge improvements will involve maintenance and repair. There is no housing located within the work areas of the bridge locations. The proposed bridge locations will not displace any existing housing or require construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact c) The proposed bridge improvements will involve maintenance and repair. There is no housing located or people residing within the work areas of the bridge locations. The proposed bridge locations will not displace any existing housing or people or require construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact
50 Less than Significant 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire Protection? ii) Police Protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities?
Impact Analysis:
(a) i) The proposed improvements will involve maintenance and repair of bridges, which generally includes patching concrete spalls on the bridge deck and side rails, repairing sidewalks, and cleaning and sealing the bridge decks. After construction is completed at the bridge locations, each of the bridges will function the same as under existing conditions. The proposed bridge repairs will not require any fire protection services beyond existing conditions. Therefore, the City’s Fire Department’s levels of service will not be affected by the proposed bridge improvements.
Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact ii) The proposed improvements will involve maintenance and repair of bridges, which generally includes patching concrete spalls on the bridge deck and side rails, repairing sidewalks, and cleaning and sealing the bridge decks. After construction is completed at the bridge locations, each of the bridges will function the same as under existing conditions. The proposed bridge repairs will not require any fire protection services beyond existing conditions. Therefore, the City’s Police Department’s levels of service will not be affected by the proposed bridge improvements.
Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact iii) The proposed bridge improvements will involve maintenance and repair. After construction is completed at the bridge locations, each of the bridges will function the same as under existing conditions. The proposed bridge improvements will impact any school facilities. Further, the project does not involve housing which could increase the student population. Therefore, none of the school districts will be affected by the proposed bridge improvements.
51 Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact iv) The proposed bridge improvements will involve maintenance and repair. After construction is completed at the bridge locations, each of the bridges would function the same as under existing conditions. The proposed bridge improvements will not generate additional residents, require any park services, or impact any park facilities. Therefore, none of the park facilities that are located near the bridges will be affected by the proposed bridge improvements.
Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact v) The proposed bridge improvements will involve maintenance and repair. After construction is completed at the bridge locations, each of the bridges will function the same as under existing conditions. The proposed bridge improvements will not require any additional public services or impact any other public facilities. Additional public facilities will not be required.
Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact
Less than Significant 15. RECREATION. Would the project: Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Impact Analysis: a) The proposed bridge improvements will involve maintenance and repair. After construction is completed at the bridge locations, each of the bridges will function the same as under existing conditions. The Santa Ana River Trail (SART) is a recreational facility located near some of the bridge locations, which will be impacted during construction activities. The SART, which is also known as the Santa Ana River Bicycle Path, is a multi-use (pedestrian, bicyclist) transportation and recreational trail facility that consists of a paved 12-foot wide Class 1 off-road bike path, which is part of the 29-mile Santa Ana River Trail from Corona to Huntington Beach. The SART runs along the south side of the Santa Ana River and is adjacent to and underneath five of the bridge locations, including Bridge #55C0046 at Memory Lane and the Santa Ana River, Bridge #55C0054 at Chapman Avenue and the Santa Ana River, Bridge #55C0050 at Orangewood Avenue and the Santa Ana River, Bridge #55C0563L at Katella Avenue and the Santa Ana River, and Bridge #55C0159 at Taft Avenue and the Santa Ana River. Of these five bridges, project improvements at
52 the following three bridges would require temporary use of the SART for work area access during construction: Bridge #55C0046 at Memory Lane and the Santa Ana River, Bridge #55C0054 at Chapman Avenue and the Santa Ana River, and Bridge #55C0563L at Katella Avenue and the Santa Ana River. Improvements at these three bridge locations will involve repairs under each of the bridges. To gain access to the work area, the segment of the SART that runs under the particular bridge will be temporarily closed for approximately one day, while construction is conducted. During this closure of the SART, bike lane users would be detoured to the street and to the nearest signalized street crossing, and then back on to the bike lane on the other side of the bridge. Detour noticing and signage would be specified in the projects’ Traffic Control Plan, as approved by the City Engineer or designee. The Traffic Control Plan is further discussed in Section 16, Transportation/Traffic, of this document. Full use of the SART would be restored following completion of construction. Construction activities will involve bringing construction equipment (such as a “cherry picker”, concrete mixer, etc.) and personnel onto the bike path while repairs to the underside of the bridges and bridge abutments are completed. Construction water quality BMP’s (such as fiber rolls etc.) would also be placed in the bike path area temporarily (if needed), and as specified in the projects’ Water Quality Technical Memorandum and Erosion Control Plans. The proposed bridge improvements will not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities near the bridge locations. Therefore, none of the park and recreational facilities, including the SART, that are located near the bridges will be significantly affected by the proposed bridge improvements.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact b) The proposed bridge improvements will involve maintenance and repair. After construction is completed at the bridge locations, each of the bridges will function the same as under existing conditions. The proposed bridge improvements will not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities near the bridge locations. The proposed improvements do not propose any recreational facilities or require construction or expansion of existing recreational facilities.
Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact
Less than Significant 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
53 (b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e. g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Impact Analysis: a) The project proposes improvements to eight (8) bridge locations. The roadways that connect with the affected bridges are given classifications by the City’s General Plan Circulation and Mobility Element. The following provides these classifications and summarizes the design parameters for each of these roadways:
Chapman Avenue, Tustin Street, and Taft Avenue Designated as Major Arterials, which are six-lane divided roadways with medians or contiguous two-way left-turn lanes, which accommodate up to 50,700 vehicles on an average day at LOS D conditions.
Glassell Street, Memory Lane, and Orangewood Avenue Designated as Primary Arterials, which are four-lane divided roadways with medians or contiguous two-way left turn lanes, which accommodate up to 33,750 vehicles on an average day at LOS D conditions.
Katella Avenue Designated as a Smart Street, which are four- to eight-lane roadways with enhanced capacity and smoother traffic flow than standard arterial streets. These streets accommodate from 60,000 to 79,000 vehicles on an average day.
The City’s General Plan Circulation and Mobility Element also shows that Bridge #55C0043 at Tustin Street at the Santiago Creek (near La Veta Avenue) and Bridge #55C0057 at Chapman Avenue at the Santiago Creek (near the 55 Freeway eastbound off ramp) are located near Critical Intersections. These Critical Intersections serve as traffic control points for the circulation system, by regulating the flow of vehicles and limiting the capacity of the system along City streets. The City’s General Plan establishes LOS D as the threshold for acceptable traffic operations along City roadways.
Construction of the bridge improvements will require temporary closure of travel lanes along each of the affected bridges. However, per standard City practice, at least one travel lane in each direction will remain open at all times to ensure there is traffic flow over the bridges at all times during construction activities. Construction at the bridge locations will not require any temporary
54 road, detour, or ramp closure. After construction is completed at the bridge locations, each of the bridges will function the same as under existing conditions. The proposed improvements will not generate additional traffic trips beyond a few construction worker vehicle trips or permanently disturb the operations of the roadways or change the configuration of the roadways, and therefore, will not conflict with the aforementioned roadway classifications for the connecting roadways or the City’s operational LOS standards. Temporary lane closures will cause short-term traffic delays. However, adequate traffic control and the short-term nature of any disruption result in less than significant impact. The proposed bridge improvements will not conflict with any plans, ordinances, or policies that establish performance measures for the circulation system.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact b) The north- and south-bound ramps at the intersection of Katella Avenue and the 55 Freeway are the only County Congestion Management Program intersections in the City. The proposed bridges are not located near these intersections. The proposed improvements will not conflict with or impact any County Congestion Management Program intersection.
Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact c) The proposed bridge improvements will involve maintenance and repair. After construction is completed at the bridge locations, each of the bridges will function the same as under existing conditions. The proposed bridge improvements will not change any air traffic pattern.
Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact d) Construction of the bridge improvements will require temporary closure of travel lanes along each of the affected bridges. However, per standard City practice, at least one travel lane in each direction will remain open at all times to ensure there is traffic flow over the bridges at all times during construction activities. Construction at the bridge locations will not require any temporary road, detour, or ramp closure. After construction is completed at the bridge locations, each of the bridges will function the same as under existing conditions. The proposed improvements will not permanently disturb the operations of any roadway. Hazards will not be substantially increased due to the proposed improvements. To further ensure that hazards do not occur at any bridge location, prior to construction, a Traffic Control Plan shall be prepared by the Contractor, subject to approval by the City Engineer or his designee. Implementation of the Traffic Control Plan shall be included in the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) and shall be implemented by the contractor prior to and during construction of any improvements. The Traffic Control Plan shall consist of implementation timing, prior notices, adequate sign posting, and bike trail detours, where necessary. Proper bike trail detours and warning signs shall be established to ensure public safety. Adequate local emergency access shall be provided at all times to adjacent uses. The Traffic Control Plan shall be prepared to ensure that construction does not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans. Construction activities will proceed in a timely manner to minimize impacts.
55 Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact e) During construction, the City may close portions of the bridges to accommodate construction. Per standard City practice, at least one travel lane in each direction will be open at all times. Therefore, no detours are proposed. Access to all private properties will be maintained at all times during construction. Emergency vehicles will be permitted to pass through the work area without delay at all times. Adequate emergency access will continue to be provided.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact f) Construction of the bridge improvements will require temporary closure of travel lanes along each of the affected bridges. However, per standard City practice, at least one travel lane in each direction will remain open at all times to ensure there is traffic flow over the bridges at all times during construction activities. Construction at the bridge locations will not require any temporary road, detour or ramp closure. After construction is completed at the bridge locations, each of the bridges will function the same as under existing conditions. As discussed in Section 15, Recreation, of this document, improvements at the following three bridges would require temporary use of the SART for work area access during construction: Bridge #55C0046 at Memory Lane and the Santa Ana River, Bridge #55C0054 at Chapman Avenue and the Santa Ana River, and Bridge #55C0563L at Katella Avenue and the Santa Ana River. Improvements at these three bridge locations will involve repairs under each of the bridges. To gain access to the work area, the segment of the SART that runs under the particular bridge will be temporarily closed for approximately one day, while construction is conducted. During this closure of the SART, bike lane users would be detoured to the street and to the nearest signalized street crossing, and then back on to the bike lane on the other side of the bridge. Detour noticing and signage would be specified in the projects’ Traffic Control Plan. Full use of the SART would be restored following completion of construction. Construction water quality BMP’s (such as fiber rolls etc.) would also be placed in the bike path area temporarily (if needed), and as specified in the projects’ Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. The SART will not be impacted in the long-term. The proposed improvements will not significantly conflict with any policy, plan or program relating to public transit, bicycle, pedestrian facilities, the SART, or other modes of alternative transportation.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact
56 Less than Significant 17. UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment or collection facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? (f) Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? (g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid wastes? (h) Have significant effects on energy resources as described in Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines?
Impact Analysis: a) As discussed in Response 9.a), the Technical Memorandum concluded that construction of the proposed bridge improvements could result in increased levels of suspended particulates, oil, grease, and chemical pollutants. BMPs have been recommended to reduce the level of water quality impacts to levels of insignificance at each of the bridges. In the long-term, the Technical Memorandum concluded that the bridge improvements that will be completed following the construction phase will minimize the potential for continued erosion of the currently damaged bridge components and surfaces. Periodic inspections will be conducted to assure that the completed repairs of the bridges and surfaces continue to be stable. No long-term impacts to water quality are anticipated with continued operation of the bridges and the existing stormwater collection system.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Mitigation Measures: Comply with Mitigation Measure 9-1 Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated b) The City’s water supply comes from several sources: local groundwater basins, Northern California waters via the State Water Project, the Colorado River, local watersheds, reclamation, and water reuse projects. The City is a member of the Metropolitan Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) and the Orange County Water District (OCWD). The City obtains about 64 to 75 percent of its water from City-owned wells and purchases about 25 to 36 percent from MWDOC and another three to five percent from the Serrano Water District. The Orange County Sewer District is responsible for the collection and treatment of residential, commercial, and
57 industrial sewage in Orange. Collected effluent is treated at Reclamation Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley or Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach. The City of Orange Department of Public Works is responsible for the daily operation and maintenance of the sewer collection system in the City. The proposed improvements will involve maintenance and repair of bridges, which generally includes patching concrete spalls on the bridge deck and side rails, repairing sidewalks, and cleaning and sealing the bridge decks. After construction is completed at the bridge locations, each of the bridges will function the same as under existing conditions. No long-term increase in water or wastewater demand would result. The proposed bridge improvements will not require construction of new water or wastewater treatment or collection facilities or expansion of existing facilities.
Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact c) Both the City and County are responsible for managing the storm drain and flood control facilities in the City. The City provides drainage improvements for developments and ensures that storm drains properly feed into the regional County drainage system. The proposed improvements will involve maintenance and repair of bridges. In addition, minor erosion around an existing concrete V-ditch located at the northeast corner of Bridge #55C0563L (Katella Avenue at Santa Ana River) will be repaired. After construction is completed at the bridge locations, each of the bridges will function the same as under existing conditions. The project would not increase impervious surfaces or otherwise increase stormwater runoff. The proposed bridge improvements will not require construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities.
Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact d) The proposed improvements will involve maintenance and repair of bridges. After construction is completed at the bridge locations, each of the bridges will function the same as under existing conditions. No long-term increases in water demand or use would result. Small amounts of water would be used for dust control during construction, but can be accommodated by the existing water supply. The proposed bridge improvements will not require additional water supply or new or expanded water entitlements.
Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact e) The proposed improvements will involve maintenance and repair of bridges. After construction is completed at the bridge locations, each of the bridges will function the same as under existing conditions. The proposed bridge improvements will not generate wastewater or require additional wastewater capacity. No housing or other development is proposed that would increase wastewater generation.
Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact
58 f) Solid waste collection is contracted to a private service provider. The City’s contractor collects both solid and green waste, and items for recycling. Most waste is taken to one of the three landfills in Orange County: Olinda Alpha in Brea, the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill in Irvine, and the Prima Deshecha Landfill in San Juan Capistrano. The Olinda Alpha Landfill has a maximum capacity of 74,900,000 cubic yards (cy); 38,578,383 cy of remaining capacity; and an estimated closure date of December 31, 2021. The Frank R. Bowerman Landfill has a maximum capacity of 266,000,000 cy; 205,000,000 cy of remaining capacity; and an estimated closure date of December 31, 2053. The Prima Deshecha Landfill has a maximum capacity of 172,900,000 cy; 87,384,799 cy of remaining capacity; and an estimated closure date of December 31, 2067. The proposed improvements will involve maintenance and repair of bridges. After construction is completed at the bridge locations, each of the bridges would function the same as under existing conditions. Only small amounts of construction-related waste could be generated. The proposed bridge improvements will not generate significant amounts of solid waste. Existing landfills will be able accommodate solid waste generated by the proposed bridge improvements.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact g) The proposed improvements will involve maintenance and repair of bridges. After construction is completed at the bridge locations, each of the bridges will function the same as under existing conditions. The proposed bridge improvements will not generate significant amount of solid waste. As appropriate, Federal, State, and City requirements relating to solid waste will be satisfied.
Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None required Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact h) Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines pertain to energy conservation. According to Appendix F, the goal of conserving energy is to decrease overall per capita energy consumption; decrease reliance on fossil fuel; and increase reliance on renewable energy sources. The proposed improvements will involve maintenance and repair of bridges. After construction is completed at the bridge locations, each of the bridges will function the same as under existing conditions. The project does not involve new development which would result in a long-term increase in energy use or demand. As discussed, contractors will be required to comply with the City’s Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (The “GREENBOOK”), current edition, which includes procedures for minimizing air quality emissions to the greatest extent feasible. The Greenbook, Section 7-1, states “the contractor shall furnish and maintain in good condition all equipment and facilities required for the proper execution and inspection of the work”. Control measures such as limitations on truck idling, etc, are also identified in the Greenbook. Compliance with the City’s standard condition as described above ensures that all construction equipment and trucks will be operated efficiently, which in turn, helps to reduce the amount of fossil fuels used for construction. The proposed improvements will not conflict with Appendix F.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Mitigation Measures: Comply with Mitigation Measure 3-3 Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
59 Less than Significant 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) (c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Impact Analysis: a) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. As concluded in Response 4, Biological Resources, the proposed bridge improvements could potentially impact the nests of the least Bell’s vireo, nesting birds and raptors, and other special status riparian bird species. In addition, roosting bats at the Glassell Street at Santiago Creek location (Bridge #55C0016), bats at the Chapman Avenue at Santa Ana River location (Bridge #55C0054), bat roosting habitat on the underside of the bridge structures at Memory Lane (Bridge #55C0046), Chapman Avenue at both Santiago Creek and the Santa Ana River (Bridges #55C0057 and #55C0054), Orangewood Avenue (Bridge #55C0050), and Taft Avenue (Bridge #55C0159) could also be impacted. Mitigation measures are required to reduce potential impacts to these biological species to less than significant levels.
As concluded in Response 5, Cultural Resources, there are no listed or known historical, archeological, paleontological, human remain resources within the bridge locations. Significant impacts to cultural resources will not result. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Cumulative impacts occur as a result of the combined impacts of two or more projects within the same impact area, which individually do not cause significant environmental impacts, but could cause a significant impact when considered together. There are no known planned or entitled cumulative projects in the vicinity of the bridge locations that would cause the proposed project to result in a significant cumulative impact. The proposed project would not result in impacts that are either individually significant or cumulatively considerable. c) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project could result in the following short-term adverse environmental impacts that would affect humans both directly and indirectly.
Section 3, Air Quality: Impacts resulting from fugitive dust and construction equipment.
Section 4, Biological Resources: Impacts on the nests of the least Bell’s vireo, nesting birds and raptors, and other special status riparian bird species. In addition, roosting bats at the Glassell
60 Street at Santiago Creek location (Bridge #55C0016), bat guano at the Chapman Avenue at Santa Ana River location (Bridge #55C0054), bat roosting habitat on the underside of the bridge structures at Memory Lane (Bridge #55C0046), Chapman Avenue at both Santiago Creek and the Santa Ana River (Bridges #55C0057 and #55C0054), Orangewood Avenue (Bridge #55C0050), and Taft Avenue (Bridge #55C0159) could also be impacted.
Section 6, Geology and Soils: Impacts resulting from erosion.
Section 9, Hydrology and Water Quality: Impacts to the water quality of the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek.
Section 17, Utilities and Service Systems: Impacts to the water quality of the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek.
Mitigation measures are required and described in this document to reduce all potential impacts to less than significant levels.
19. PREPARERS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
Preparers of Document
Lead Agency (City of Orange) Jennifer Le, Principal Planner, Community Development Department Randy Nguyen, Senior Civil Engineer, Public Works Department
Environmental Consultant Duane Morita, Planning and Environmental
Hydrology and Water Quality Michael Donovan, P.G., C.Hg., QSD/QSP Psomas
Biological Resources Steve Norton, Biologist/Project Manager Bon Terra Psomas
Persons Consulted
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation Andrew Salas, Chairman
20. REFERENCES
1. “Bridge Inspection Reports”, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Structure Maintenance and Investigations Division, November 2011.
2. “City General Plan”, City of Orange, 2010.
61 3. “CEQA Air Quality Handbook”, SCAQMD.
4. “Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport”, Airport Land Use Commission, amended April 2008.
5. “Air Quality Master Plan”, SCAQMD, 2007.
21. TECHNICAL APPENDICES
1. “Natural Environment Study, Bridge Maintenance Project Eight Bridges Across the Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek, City of Orange, Orange County, California”, Bon Terra Psomas, September 2014.
2. “Technical Memorandum - City of Orange Bridge Maintenance Project Water Quality Memorandum Federal Project No. BPMPL-5073 (077)”, Psomas, September 2014.
3. AB52 Consultation Letter to and Response from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation
62 FIGURES
63 APPENDIX A
“Natural Environment Study, Bridge Maintenance Project Eight Bridges Across the Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek, City of Orange, Orange County, California”, Bon Terra Psomas, September 2014
64 APPENDIX B
“Technical Memorandum - City of Orange Bridge Maintenance Project Water Quality Memorandum Federal Project No. BPMPL-5073 (077)”, Psomas, September 2014
65 APPENDIX C
AB52 Consultation Letter to the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation
66 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
67