1

State Route 710 North Draft EIR/EISPublic Hearing Presentation

April 11 and 14, 2015; May 6 and 7, 2015

11 1

WELCOME!

2

State Route 710 North Draft EIR/EIS

� Introductions� Campus Rules� Housekeeping� Safety � Decorum Rules

Preliminary - Not for Distribution

3

� COMMENT CARD - Submit a written comment at today’s meeting.

� SPEAKER CARD - Submit a speaker card and speak at the microphone during the public comment session.

� COURT REPORTER - Speak directly to a court reporter who will transcribe your statement at today’s meeting.

WAYS TO COMMENT – All Comments due no later than July 6, 2015

4

� WRITTEN COMMENTS – Type up comments on computer in comment room

� WEBSITE COMMENTS - Submit your comment online via the Caltrans District 7 website at this shortened link http://goo.gl/84KSgF

� MAIL COMMENT –Garrett Damrath, Caltrans District 7, Division of Environmental Planning, 100 S. Main Street, MS-16, Los Angeles, CA 90012

WAYS TO COMMENT – All Comments due no later than July 6, 2015

5

Presentation Outline

� Community Outreach Activities � Background � Purpose and Need� Overview of Alternatives� Draft EIR/EIS – Summary of Key Findings� Next Steps

6

Community Outreach/ Public Participation (1 of 2)

Over 300 Meetings/Briefings Conducted �180 in Northeast/East Los Angeles:

�154 in the San Gabriel Valley:

� Study Area Agency Coordination Meetings: o 18 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) o 14 Stakeholder Outreach Advisory Committee (SOAC)

o Boyle Heights o Eagle Rock o East Los Angeles o El Serenoo Glassell Park o Highland Park o Lincoln Heights o Los Angeleso Mount Washington

o Arcadia o Alhambra o Azusa o Bradburyo Burbank o Duarte o El Monte o Glendaleo Irwindale o La Canada Flintridge o La Crescenta o Monroviao Monterey Park o Pasadena o Rosemead o San Gabrielo Sierra Madre o South Pasadena o Temple City

7

Community Outreach/ Public Participation (2 of 2)

Briefings Held with Elected Officials� Congress Members:

Adam Schiff, Xavier Becerra, Judy Chu, Janice Hahn, Lucille Roybal-Allard� State Senators:

Kevin De Leon, Ed Hernandez, Carol Liu � State Assembly Members:

Mike Eng, Chris Holden, Jimmy Gomez, John Perez� Los Angeles Country Board of Supervisors:

Michael Antonovich, Gloria Molina, Hilda Solis� Los Angeles City Council:

Jose Huizar, Gil Cedillo, Eric Garcetti, Antonio Villaraigosa � Local Elected Officials:

Luis Ayala (Alhambra), John Fasana (Duarte), John Kennedy (Pasadena), Dennis Kneier (San Marino), David Lau (Monterey Park), Steve Madison (Pasadena), Barbara Messina (Alhambra), Ara Najarian (Glendale), Jacque Robinson (Pasadena), Stephen Sham (Alhambra)

8

Public Noticing

� Issued Joint Metro/Caltrans News Release on March 6, 2015 and;

�Published notices in legal sections of several newspapers throughout Study Area:• Notice of Availability of Draft EIR/EIS

o Caltrans website, public libraries (refer to handout)

• Public Comment Period: March 6, 2015 - July 6, 2015 (120 days)

• Caltrans website for electronic submission of public comments• Caltrans Contact Information

9

Supplemental Public Noticing

� Announcement on SR 710 North Webpage: www.metro.net/sr710study

� E-blast Joint News Release to SR 710 North Database� Joint News Release Posted on Study Area City

Websites� Sent Mailer to Businesses and Households � Ad Placements Online and in Mainstream/Community

Newspapers

10

Public Hearings

**Live webcast: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/sr-710-study

Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.10 a.m. - 11 a.m. – Map Viewing11 a.m. - 4 p.m. – Public Hearing

East Los Angeles College Rosco C. Ingalls Auditorium1301 Avenida Cesar Chavez, Monterey Park, 91754

Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 5 p.m. to 9 p.m.5 p.m. - 6 p.m. – Map Viewing6 p.m. - 9 p.m. – Public Hearing

Pasadena Convention Center Ballroom**300 East Green Street, Pasadena, 91101

Wednesday, May 6, 2015 at 5 p.m. to 9 p.m.5 p.m. - 6 p.m. – Map Viewing6 p.m. - 9 p.m. – Public Hearing

La Canada High School Auditorium4463 Oak Grove Drive, La Canada, 91011

Thursday, May 7, 2015 at 5 p.m. to 9 p.m.5 p.m. - 6 p.m. – Map Viewing6 p.m. - 9 p.m. – Public Hearing

Los Angeles Christian Presbyterian ChurchMulti-Purpose Room 2241 N. Eastern Avenue, Los Angeles,90032

1111

� Measure R funded study initiated 4 years ago to alleviate mobility constraints in study area (east/northeast Los Angeles and western San Gabriel Valley)

� 5 Alternatives advanced to the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement (Draft EIR/EIS) for further study in 2012

� Draft EIR/EIS is being circulated for public review and comment through July 6, 2015

� Draft EIR/EIS does not recommend or select a Preferred Alternative

Background

12

Project Study Area

13

Purpose Statement

�The purpose of the proposed action is to effectively and efficiently accommodate regional and local north-south travel demands in the study area of the western San Gabriel Valley and east/northeast Los Angeles, including the following considerations: • Improve the efficiency of the existing regional freeway and

transit networks; • Reduce congestion on local arterials adversely affected due to

accommodating regional traffic volumes; • Minimize environmental impacts related to mobile sources

14

Project Need

�Capacity, Transportation Demand, and Safety• Lack of north-south transportation facilities and overall congestion

within the region

�Modal Interrelationships and System Linkages• State Route 110 and Interstate 710 terminate within the study area

without connecting to other freeways

�Social Demands or Economic Development• State Route 710 is included in the SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS, FTIP and

Metro’s LRTP

�Environmental Factors• Effects related to mobile sources associated with congestion

15

Alternatives Studied

1) No Build2) Transportation System Management/Transportation

Demand Management (TSM/TDM)3) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) with TSM/TDM4) Light Rail Transit (LRT) with TSM/TDM5) Freeway Tunnel with TSM/TDM:

� Dual Bore Operational Variation• No Tolls• No Tolls and No trucks• With Tolls

� Single Bore Operational Variation• With Tolls• With Tolls and No Trucks• With tolls and Express Bus

16

No Build Alternative

�Provides the baseline against which all of the build alternatives are compared

�Includes planned improvements contained in the 2012 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) through 2035

�Does not include any improvements associated with Build Alternatives identified within the SR 710 North study area

17

TSM/TDM Alternative Overview

� ITS Improvements� Signal optimization� Signal synchronization� Transit signal prioritization� Arterial changeable message signs� Speed data collection� Construction cost: $5 M

� Transit Refinement� To existing bus routes� Construction cost: $20 M

� Local Street Improvements:� 17 intersections� 7 street segments� 3 other improvements:

� T-1: Valley Blvd to Mission Rd Connector Rd

� T-2: Arroyo Seco Parkway Hook Ramps

� T-3: St John Ave Extension from Del Mar Ave to California Blvd

� Construction cost: $80 M

� Active Transportation� Class III Bike Routes� Construction cost: $0

Preliminary Cost Estimate: $105 M (2014 dollars)

18

TSM/TDM Alternative

19

BRT Alternative

� High-speed, high-frequency service between East Los Angeles and Pasadena

� 12-mile corridor; 17 stops� Mixed-flow and exclusive lanes

(single and both directions)� 10 minutes during peak hours and 20

min during off-peak� Replaces existing Route 762� Amenities included to attract riders� Two Bus feeder services

• Connects to El Monte Bus station• Connects to Commerce and Montebello

Metrolink Stations

� Includes elements of TSM/TDM� Preliminary Cost Estimate:

$241 M* (2014 dollars)*Includes $102M for TSM/TDM improvements

20

LRT Alternative

� Between East Los Angeles and Pasadena

� 7.5 mile passenger rail line• Includes 3 miles of aerial segment and 4.5 miles

of tunnels• 3 aerial and 4 underground stations

� Tunnels are expected to be constructed using pressurized face Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM)

• Two approximately 20-ft diameter tunnels• Tunnels would be advanced from south end

� Design including safety elements follows Metro guidelines

� Two feeder services• Connects to El Monte Bus Station• Connects to Commerce and Montebello Metrolink

stations

� Includes elements of TSM/TDM� Preliminary Cost Estimate:

$2,420 M* (2014 dollars)*Includes $52M for TSM/TDM improvements

21

Freeway Tunnel Alternative

� 6.3 mile route connecting Interstates 10 and 210

• 4.2 miles of bored tunnel• 0.7 miles of cut-and-cover tunnel• 1.4 miles of at-grade segments• Approx. 60-foot tunnel diameter(s)

� Single and dual bore design variations� Design and safety elements based on

Caltrans and National Fire Protection Association guidelines

� Ventilation structures provided near north and south portals

• No intermediate ventilation structures

� Operations and Maintenance Building provided at both portals

• Will house first responders 24/7

� Includes elements of TSM/TDM� Preliminary Cost Estimates:Single Bore - $3,150 M* (2014 dollars)Dual Bore - $5,650 M* (2014 dollars)

*Includes $50 M for TSM/TDM elements

22

Draft Environmental Documentation

23

Draft EIR/EIS Contents

Chapter 1- Background, Purpose & NeedChapter 2- Alternatives Chapter 3- Affected Environment/ Environmental Consequences

Chapter 4- California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) EvaluationChapter 5- Comments and CoordinationChapter 6– List of PreparersChapter 7- Distribution List

VOLUME II: APPENDICES

VOLUME I:

(Supporting list of technical studies, charts, figures, tables, etc)

24

EIR/EIS Environmental Topics

� Land use� Growth� Community Impacts

• Community Character/Cohesion• Relocations• Environmental Justice

� Utilities/Emergency Services� Traffic/Transportation� Visual/Aesthetics� Cultural/Historical Resources� Hydrology/Floodplains� Water Quality� Geology/Soils� Paleontological Resources� Hazardous Waste

� Air Quality� Noise and Vibration� Energy� Biological Resources

• Natural Communities• Wetlands and Waters• Plant Species• Animal Species• Threatened & Endangered Species• Invasive Species

� Construction Impacts� Cumulative Impacts� Health Risk Assessment� Climate Change

25

Land Use, Growth & Community Impacts

General-� None of the Build Alternatives are consistent with all

policies, objectives or programs of various General Plans � None of the Build Alternatives are expected to result in

unplanned growth � Except for LRT, there are no adverse impacts to

community character and cohesion� There are no disproportionate impacts on Environmental

Justice populations� Except for BRT, there are no Section 4(f) Impacts (parks,

recreation areas, resources listed on or eligible for the National Register)

26

Community Impacts

Relocations, Acquisitions & Economic Impacts-� LRT results in the greatest number of full property

acquisitions, business relocations and employee displacements – Approximately 58, 74 and 675, respectively

� LRT results in the greatest number of temporary parking losses during construction- Approximately 240

� LRT results in the greatest number of future operations and maintenance (O&M) jobs – Approximately 1,300 over 20 year life of facility

� Freeway Tunnels results in the greatest number underground easements - Approximately 324 and 563 parcels respectively for single and dual bore, respectively

27

Property Acquisitions/Relocations

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

TSM/TDM BRT LRT FWY (single) FWY (dual)

Busin

ess A

cqui

sitio

ns

Buisness Acquisitions

PartialAcquistions

FullAcquistions

28

Community Impacts

Economic Impacts -�LRT results in the highest future O&M employment

earnings – Approximately $45 Million over life of facility�LRT results in the highest annual property tax and sales

tax revenue losses - Approximately $51,000 and $75,000, respectively

�Freeway Tunnel (Dual Bore) results in the greatest number of future construction jobs - Approximately 72,000 (over construction period)

�Freeway Tunnel (Dual Bore) results in the highest future construction employment earnings - Approximately $3.5 Billion (over construction period)

29

Employment/Fiscal Impacts

30

Employment/Fiscal Impacts

3131

Traffic Analysis Findings –Freeways and Intersections

� Regional (6 counties)� EIR/EIS Study Area� Northeast LA County

Freeway Network� Over 600 segments� Beyond EIR/EIS study area

� Intersection� 156 high-volume locations� Focused on alternative

footprints and affected areas

32

Traffic Analysis Findings

When compared to No Build in 2035, all Build Alternatives:�Reduce traffic within study area and region, and on

local streets by varying degrees depending on the alternative

� Increase vehicle miles travelled within study area �Decrease vehicles hours travelled within study area �Reduce local street traffic volumes in N/S directions

within the study area �Reduce cut-through traffic within the study area� Increase transit ridership within the study area

33

Traffic Summary Table

New Transit Ridership (change in daily linked trips) in 2035

TSM/ TDM BRT LRTFreeway Tunnel

Single-bore Dual-bore11,250 13,500* 15,350* 10,100* 9,700*

*Includes ridership from enhanced bus service as part of TSM/TDM Improvements

Average Daily Traffic Volumes Freeway Tunnel in 2035(Vehicles/day)

Single-Bore Freeway Tunnel Dual-Bore Freeway Tunnel

With Toll Variation With Toll, No Trucks Variation

With Toll, Express

Bus Variation

No Toll Variation

No Toll, No Trucks

Variation

With Toll Variation

89,900 93,300 92,400 180,000 180,000 169,400

34

Visual, Cultural and Noise

General�All Build Alternatives report varying degrees of

visual impacts�There are no adverse effects on historic properties

� All Build Alternatives report noise levels approaching or exceeding noise abatement criteria at varying degrees during and post construction activities

35

Air Quality

Regarding Air Quality Conformity-�Freeway Tunnel (toll variation) is consistent with

2012 Regional Transportation Plan and 2015 Federal Transportation Improvement Plan

�TSM/TDM, BRT and LRT Alternatives are not considered projects of air quality concern

�Additional analysis for conformity would be required if Freeway Tunnel is identified as the Preferred Alternative

36

Air QualityCriteria Pollutants – 2035

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

2012Existing

No Build(2035)

TSM/TDM BRT LRT FWY(single)

with Tolls

FWY(single)

with Tollsand NoTrucks

FWY(single)

with Tollsand

ExpressBus

FWY(dual) No

Tolls

FWY(dual) No

Trucks

FWY(dual) With

Tolls

Proj

ect S

tudy

Are

a (lb

s/da

y)

2035 Horizon Year

CO

ROG

Nox

PM10

PM2.5

37

Construction Impacts

� Temporary lane restrictions, road and ramp closures, and detours

� Emergency service travel delays� Groundwater dewatering during construction (LRT

and Freeway Tunnel)� Temporary air quality, noise and ground-borne

vibration impacts associated with construction� Encountering hazardous materials� Hauling excavated materials from tunnel boring using

freeways and/or rail• LRT station excavation would use local streets

38

Health Risk Assessment

� Existing conditions: • Cancer risk estimated about 100 in a million near most highways/principal arterials• Cancer risk estimated over 250 in a million near I-210 (east of SR 710) and I-5

� Decrease of cancer risk in the study area for all alternatives compared to existing conditions

• Reduction in cancer risks within the study area on local arterials• Higher reduction adjacent to freeways compared to existing conditions• Decrease attributed to stringent emission standards, cleaner fleets, improved fuel

efficiency, shifting of traffic for each of the build alternatives, etc.

� Locations with greater existing VMT will have greater cancer risk reduction in the future

� The overall regional reduction of cancer risks considers emissions from the ventilation structure

• Particulate matter emissions are substantially reduced by scrubbing and dispersion

39

CEQA Conclusions

Unavoidable Significant Environmental Effects:� Paleontological resources� Inconsistency with local plans� Impacts to Study Area intersections/freeway

segments� Views of LRT from two locations� Cumulative impacts

� Visual (LRT Alternative Only)

40

CEQA/NEPA Process

�Comments on Draft EIR/EIS will be accepted during public review period� Written comments � Verbal comments from public hearing � Comments should address substantive concerns

on the technical analysis provided in the EIR/EIS

41

Next Steps

�Conduct Public Hearings�Review and Respond to Public Comments �Develop/Prepare Supporting Data to Identify the

Preferred Alternative (PA) �Request Metro Board Concurrence on

Recommended PA�Finalize Environmental Document and Secure

Record of Decision

42

Learn the Facts, Get Involved, Be a Part of the Solution

Visit the Caltrans website to review the Draft EIR/EIS:http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/resources/envdocs/docs/710study/draft_eir-eis

and

Visit Metro’s website for library listings to access the Draft EIR/EIS, and to get updates:

http://www.metro.net/sr710study

43

� COMMENT CARD - Submit a written comment at today’s meeting.� SPEAKER CARD - Submit a speaker card and speak at the microphone

during the public comment session.� COURT REPORTER - Speak directly to a court reporter who will transcribe

your statement at today’s meeting.� WRITTEN COMMENTS – Type comments on computer in comment room� WEBSITE COMMENTS - Submit your comment online via the Caltrans

District 7 website at this shortened link http://goo.gl/84KSgF� MAIL COMMENT –

Garrett Damrath, Caltrans District 7, Division of Environmental Planning, 100 S. Main Street, MS-16, Los Angeles, CA 90012

WAYS TO COMMENT – All Comments due no later than July 6, 2015