HomeMy WebLinkAbout55C - RESO - FIXED GUIDEWAY PROJECTREQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
AUGUST 5, 2014
TITLE:
RESOLUTION IDENTIFYING A LOCALLY
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FOR THE
SANTA ANA - GARDEN GROVE FIXED
GUIDEWAY PROJECT
CITY MA GER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
APPROVED
As Recommended
As Amended
Ordinance on 1" Reading
Ordinance on 2nd Reading
Implementing Resolution
Set Public Hearing For
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
Approve a resolution identifying Streetcar Alternative 1 as the Locally Preferred Alternative for the
Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project.
BACKGROUND
Since 2008, the Cities of Santa Ana and Garden Grove have worked collaboratively with the
Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) on the Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed
Guideway Project. Santa Ana and OCTA have entered into two cooperative agreements for
development of the Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project to define the respective
roles and responsibilities. The first cooperative agreement involves development of an
environmental document, an Alternatives Analysis (AA), and the nomination of a Locally Preferred
Alternative (LPA). An LPA Decision Report has been prepared and is enclosed herein. The
second cooperative agreement includes additional analysis of the LPA to meet eligibility
requirements for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding.
The AA has been prepared concurrently with the Environmental Assessment /Draft Environmental
Impact Report (EA /DEIR). The AA established three build alternatives to be analyzed in the
EA/DEIR: Streetcar Alternative 1, Streetcar Alternative 2, and a Transportation System
Modification (TSM) Alternative. Throughout the process, staff worked closely with OCTA and FTA
to ensure that the EA /DEIR met all federal eligibility requirements for grant funding through the
FTA New Starts /Small Starts Program. FTA certification of the EA /DEIR is anticipated by this fall.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
The EA /DEIR Notice of Availability was released on May 22, 2014, and the 45 -day public
comment period began May 23, 2014. Subsequently, staff implemented an extensive outreach
campaign that exceeded statutory requirements:
55C -1
Identification of a Locally Preferred Alternative for the
Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
August 5, 2014
Page 2
3,796 postcards were prepared and sent to all properties within 500 feet of the area of
potential effect (multi - residential and single -unit properties, including the owner and tenant
of each property), as well as to key stakeholders who had previously participated in the
environmental process. The postcards provided details of the three scheduled meetings in
English, Spanish, and Vietnamese.
A press release was sent out via Nixle and an announcement was made by the City
Manager at a publicly televised City Council meeting at the start of the 45 -day review period.
Seven news outlets, including the OC Reporter and the Orange County Register, provided
print and web coverage on the Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project and the
scheduled public meetings.
Information was placed prominently on the homepage of the City's website, eliciting 100,000
views in the first 30 days of the 45 -day review period.
To encourage attendance, staff contacted key stakeholders, groups, and neighborhood
leaders (including those outside of the 500 -foot envelope, such as the Logan and French
Park neighborhoods), and sent out an a -news release to over 2,000 neighborhood leaders
in advance of the meetings.
A copy of the Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project AA /DEIR was placed at
seven locations, including five in Santa Ana, one in the OCTA office in Orange, one location
in Garden Grove, and a digital copy online, for public review.
Three public meetings were held along the potential Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed
Guideway Project route at various times to accommodate as many people as possible.
Information, interpretation and translation services were provided in English, Spanish, and
Vietnamese.
Flyers in all three languages were placed at every community and senior center in the city,
providing information on where to find the AA /DEIR, the website address, the 45 -day review
period, and how to submit comments.
Notice of the public meetings and calls for public comment were also promoted on the City's
social media channels several times throughout the 45 -day review period.
To encourage input, flyers on the 45 -day review period and calls for comments were also
distributed as handouts at neighborhood meetings throughout the 45 -day review period.
Information was provided to the Santa Ana Unified School District ( SAUSD) Public
Information Office and various SAUSD staff, to extend notification to those interested.
55C -2
Identification of a Locally Preferred Alternative for the
Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
August 5, 2014
Page 3
The public comment period ended on July 7, 2014. As of the close of public review, comments
were received from the following agencies:
Santa Ana Historical Preservation Society (letter and e-mail) - support for Streetcar
Alternative 1.
US General Services Agency (GSA) (e -mail) - support for Streetcar Alternative 1;
opposition to Streetcar Alternative 2.
California Native American Heritage Commission (letter) - reiterating measures needed to
protect sensitive archaeological resources.
Caltrans (letter) - no comment; will continue to follow project.
Public comments were also received from the following groups /residents:
Downtown, Inc. (e -mail) - support for Streetcar Alternative 1
Santa Ana Community & Business Alliance (letter):
Opposition to the "Preferred Option" signed by 85 residents and businesses
Opposition to the 'Preferred Option" and request for equity analysis signed by 98
residents
Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce (e -mail) support for Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed
Guideway Project
Santa Ana Restaurant Association (e -mail) support for Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed
Guideway Project
Santiago Lofts resident (e -mail) support for Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway
Project
Public comment totals from the public meetings are as follows:
4 postcards from residents
Public Meeting #1: Verbal comments from 6 individuals
Public Meeting #2: Verbal comments from 4 individuals
Public Meeting #3: Verbal comments from 24 individuals
Comments generally fell into the following categories:
General community support for a streetcar system
Concern about the duration and potential impacts of construction on Downtown businesses
Concern about loss of on- street parking
Opportunities to stimulate economic development along Fifth Street
55C -3
Identification of a Locally Preferred Alternative for the
Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
August 5, 2014
Page 4
Fourth Street versus Fifth Street
LPA RECOMMENDATION
Since the close of the public review period, the City's consultant team has prepared an LPA
Decision Report (Exhibit 1). This report evaluates the AA and comments relevant to the LPA that
were received during the release of the ENDEIR and the public review. Based on the findings in
the report, the recommended alternative is Streetcar Alternative 1 as referenced in the resolution
Exhibit 2). This recommendation is based on several factors:
Strong community support for a streetcar system
Highest ridership
Serves greatest number of transit dependent households
Least right -of -way acquisition compared to Streetcar Alternative 2
Lower cost compared to Streetcar Alternative 2
Most transit - supportive land uses
Larger economic development potential
Ease of constructability compared to Streetcar Alternative 2
Additionally, three options for parking along Fourth Street were considered: parking on both
sides, parking along the north side only without south -side parking, and elimination of on- street
parking. The LPA Decision Report recommends that parking remain along both sides on Fourth
Street per parking Scenario A, which will require that the diagonal parking along the south side be
changed to parallel parking.
The report also recommends selection of Site B for the operations and maintenance facility along
Fifth Street west of Raitt Street. Staff concurs with the findings of the LPA Decision Report and
recommends Streetcar Alternative 1 as the LPA with Site B selected as the operations and
maintenance facility location.
CONSTRUCTABILITY
Construction of streetcar systems differs significantly from that of light rail systems or other
dedicated rail transportation systems. Construction of streetcar systems has minimal impact on
vehicle and pedestrian access and requires fewer pavement cuts, allowing businesses to continue
without major disruption. Downtown segments of two to three blocks can be completed in two to
three months per segment and noncontiguous segments can be constructed at the same time.
Construction will be completed in conjunction with Downtown stakeholders and the business
community in order to minimize potential impacts from construction, such as coordinating work at
night and on weekends.
55C -4
Identification of a Locally Preferred Alternative for the
Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
August 5, 2014
Page 5
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Approval of this item supports the City's efforts to meet Goal #6 Community Facilities &
Infrastructure, Objective #1 (establish and maintain a Community Investment Plan for all City
assets), Strategy G (develop and implement the City's Capital Improvement Program in
coordination with the Community Investment and Deferred Maintenance Plans).
Approval of this item also supports Goal #3 Economic Development, Objective #2 (create new
opportunities for business /job growth and encourage private development through new General
Plan and Zoning Ordinance policies), Strategy C (support business development and job growth
along transit corridors through the completion of critical transit plans /projects including: The Fixed
Guideway Project, Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center Master Plan, Complete Streets and
General Plan Circulation Element update).
Approval of this item also supports Goal #3 Economic Development, Objective #4 (continue to
pursue objectives that shape downtown Santa Ana into a thriving, culturally diverse, shopping,
dining, and entertainment destination), Strategy B (create a comprehensive program to manage
parking that includes innovative strategies to provide parking, create revenue and enhance
accessibility in the downtown).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
There is no environmental impact associated with this specific action. The nomination of the
Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) will support progress of the Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed
Guideway project which is the subject of an Environmental Assessment /Draft Environmental
Impact Report (EA /DEIR). Nomination of the LPA is not a project as such nomination will not
result in a potentially significant physical impact to the environment and because such nomination
has no potential for immediate direct physical impacts to the environment. Additionally, the
nomination is statutorily exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines section 15262
because it qualifies as a decision for possible future actions that have not yet been approved and
future final actions will not be taken without final approval and certification of all necessary state
and federal environmental documents.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this specific action. Development on this project to date
and future work is being funded by the 2006 Measure M -Local sales tax and will not require City
funding. Design and construction funding for this project will be provided by OCTA and /or federal
funds.
55C -5
Identification of a Locally Preferred Alternative for the
Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
August 5, 2014
Page 6
Edwin "William" Galve P.E.
Interim Executive Dire for
Public Works Agency
WG /JG
Exhibits: 1. LPA Decision Report
2. Resolution
55C -6
I Y
i ,
en v
S ` x!
1 ^e.
f .P R1
55C -8
Locally Preferred Alternative Decision Report
in support of the
SANTA ANA AND GARDEN GROVE
FIXED GUIDEWAY CORRIDOR STUDY
Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center (SARTC) to Harbor Boulevard
Prepared for
City of Santa Ana
in cooperation with
City of Garden Grove
Orange County Transportation Authority
tl
G
4 C
I 1
OCTA 4
Prepared by
Cordoba Corporation
2677 North Main Street, Suite 240
Santa Ana, CA 92705
July 2014
55C -9
I
ACRONYMS......................................................................... ............................... IV
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................... ............................... ES -1
Background................................................................... ............................... ES-1
Summary of Alternatives Analysis ................................... ............................... ES -1
Summary of Environmental Review .................................. ............................... ES -2
Summary of Public Outreach ........................................... ............................... ES -2
Recommended Locally Preferred Alternative ....................... ............................... ES -3
1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................... ............................1 -1
1.1 Project Background and History .................................. ............................... 1 -1
1.2 Purpose and Need for the Project ................................ ............................... 1 -2
1.3 Purpose of the LPA Decision Report ............................ ............................... 1 -4
1.4 Organization of the Report ......................................... ............................... 1 -5
2.0 OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ................. ............................... 2 -1
C
2.1 Alternatives Development ............................................. ............................2 -1
2.2 Public Scoping ......................................................... ............................... 2 -4
2.3 Initial Screening ........................................................... ............................2 -5
2.4 Detailed Evaluation of a Reduced Set of Alternatives ...... ............................... 2 -8
2.4.1 Operations and Maintenance Facility Site Options ............................. 2 -11
2.4.2 4`h Street Parking Scenarios ............................ ............................... 2 -14
2.5 Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives' Screening Criteria .. ............................... 2 -16
2.6 Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives' Results ................ ............................... 2 -17
2.7 Conclusions and Tradeoffs among Alternatives ........... ............................... 2 -18
LPA Derision Report
July 2 D 1 4
55C -10
i I Page.
3.0 OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW .................... ............................3 -1
3.1 Summary of Impacts .................................................... ............................3 -1
4.0 OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC OUTREACH .............................. ............................4 -1
4.1 Summary of Outreach Efforts ........................................ ............................4 -1
4.1 .1 Stakeholder Working Group ................................. ............................4 -1
4.2 Pre-Scoping Activities .............................................. ............................... 4 -2
4.3 Public Scoping Period Activities ..................................... ............................4 -3
4.4 AA Public Outreach Activities ........................................ ............................4 -4
4.5 Public Review Period Activities ........................ .. ...................................... ..4 -4
4.6 Public Review Meetings ................................................ ............................4 -5
4.7 Summary of Public Comments ....................................... ............................4 -7
4.8 Incorporation of Public Comments into the EA /Final EIR .... ...........................4 -12
5.0 RECOMMENDED LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES (LPA) .....................5 -1
5.1 Results of Detailed Technical Evaluation .......................... ............................5 -1
5.2 Results of Environmental Review ................................ ............................... 5 -5
5.3 Results of Community Outreach ................................. ............................... 5 -5
5.4 Summary of Findings and Conclusions ............................ ............................5 -6
5.5 Locally Preferred Alternative ....................................... ............................... 5 -8
5.5.1 Technology (Mode) ...................................... ............................... 5-8
5.5.2 Alignment (Route) ........................................ ............................... 5 -9
5.5.3 Operations and Maintenance Facility ..................... ....................... 5 -10
5.5.4 Roadway Improvements/ Modifications ........... ............................... 5 -10
5.5.5 Station Locations and Characteristics ............ ............................... 5 -10
5.5.6 Operating Characteristics of the Streetcar ...... ............................... 5 -11
LPA Decision Report
July 201}
55C -11
ii I Page
r I .
Table 2 -1: Initial Screening Criteria and Measures of Effectiveness . ............................2 6
Table 2 -2: Detailed Evaluation Criteria and Measures of Effectiveness ...................... 2 -16
Table 2 -3: Ranking of Alternatives Based on Detailed Evaluation Results ................... 2 -17
Table 3-1: Summary of Effects, Mitigation Measures, and Effects after Mitigation ........ 3 -3
Table 5-1: Cost Comparison of Alternatives ............................. ............................... 5 -2
Table 5 -2: Final Alternatives Ranking ......................................... ............................5 3
LPA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -12
iii I Page
List of Figures
Figure ES -1: Recommended Locally Preferred Alternative ........... ............................... 1 -1
Figure 1-1: Location Map ......................................................... ............................1 1
Figure1 -2: Study Area ............................................................ ............................1 3
Figure 2 -1: Alternatives Development and Analysis Process .......... ............................2 2
Figure 2 -2: Study Goals and Objectives .................................. ............................... 2 -3
Figure 2 -3: Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative (Select Elements).. 2-9
Figure 2 -4: Streetcar Alternative 1 ....................................... ............................... 2 -10
Figure 2 -5: Streetcar Alternative 2 ....................................... ............................... 2 -12
Figure 2 -6: Potential O &M Facility Site Locations ................... ............................... 2 -13
Figure 2 -7: 4th Street Parking Scenarios ........................... .. ................................. 2 -15
Figure 5 -1: Siemens S70 Vehicle ......................................................... ................. 5 -8
Figure 5 -2: Locally Preferred Alternative Route .................... ........ ............................ 5 -9
Figure 5 -3: Typical Station Shelter ....................................... ............................... 5-11
LPA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -13
iv I page
ACRONYMS
Acronyms Definition
AA Alternative Analysis
ATV automated ticket vending
BRT bus rapid transit
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report
DMU light diesel multiple unit
EA Environmental Assessment
EA /DEIR Environmental Assessment /Draft Environmental Impact Report
EA /FEIR Environmental Assessment /Final Environmental Impact Report
FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GSA General Services Administration
1 -5 Interstate 5
IOSs Initial Operable Segments
LOSSAN Los Angeles -San Diego -San Luis Obispo
LPA Locally Preferred Alternative
LRT light rail transit
mph miles per hour
MOEs Measures of Effectiveness
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NOA Notice of Availability
NOP Notice of Preparation
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority
OCTAM Orange County Transportation Analysis Model
PE Pacific Electric
PE ROW Pacific Electric Right -of -Way
PRT personal rapid transit
ROW right -of -way
SAC -BA Santa Ana Community- Business Alliance
SAHPS Santa Ana Historic Preservation Society
SA -GG Santa Ana - Garden Grove
SARTC Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center
LPA Decision Report
July 201}
55C -14
V I Page
Acronyms Definition
SCH State Clearinghouse
SWG Stakeholder Working Group
TDM Transportation Demand Management
TPSSs traction power substations
TSM Transportation System Management
LPA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -15
vi Page
In 2009 the cities of Santa Ana and Garden Grove initiated the Alternatives Analysis (AA)
and Environmental Review (Go Local Program Step 2) for the Santa Ana - Garden Grove
SA -GG) Fixed Guideway Corridor. In the study process followed by the cities of Santa
Ana and Garden Grove in completing the requirements of the Go Local Step 2 work
program, the AA and the environmental review were conducted concurrently. The AA was
performed in compliance with the requirements of the Federal Transit Administration and
the environmental review process satisfied the requirements of both the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The purpose of the SA -GG Fixed Guideway Project is to:
Improve Transit Connectivity within the Study Area;
Relieve Congestion by Providing Alternative Mobility Options;
Be Sensitive to the Character of the Community;
Increase Transit Options;
Improve Transit Accessibility to and within the Study Area; and
Provide Benefits to the Environment through Improved Air Quality.
This LPA Decision Report provides a summary of the efforts undertaken as part of the
planning process to define, screen and evaluate options and alternatives for the Santa Ana -
Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Corridor, and documents the recommendation for a Locally
Preferred Alternative.
M
The alternatives analysis process consisted of four major steps: (1) Preliminary Definition
of Alternatives, (2A) Initial Screening (Route Options), (213) Initial Screening (Technology
Options), and (3) Detailed Evaluation and Environmental Impact Analysis of the reduced set
of alternatives and selection of the LPA.
A wide range of potentially suitable technology options for the SA -GG Fixed Guideway
Corridor were investigated. A variety of alignment options were narrowed down to six that
based on the need to establish an east -west transit corridor in the Study Area, and to
improve the Study Area's regional transit connectivity by providing direct connections to
existing and planned transit services (Metrolink and OCTA fixed route and BRT services) at
SARTC and at the northeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and Westminster Avenue in the
City of Garden Grove.
Initial screening was performed to identify which of the conceptual alternatives best
satisfied the Purpose and Need and project goals and objectives and appeared to be most
LPA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -16
1 I Page
feasible. The initial screening process consisted of two stages — an early qualitative
analysis of the conceptual alternatives resulting in the screening of route options; and, a
subsequent quantitative analysis of the conceptual alternatives resulting in the screening of
technology options.
A detailed technical evaluation was performed on the reduced set of alternatives resulting
from the initial screening. The reduced set of alternatives included:
TSM Alternative
Streetcar Alternative 1 — Santa Ana Boulevard /41h Street
Streetcar Alternative 2 — Santa Ana Boulevard /Civic Center Drive /5th Street
Upon completion of the detailed technical evaluation Streetcar Alternative 1 was found to
have the highest daily ridership and serve the greatest number of transit dependent
household. Land uses along the alignment provided the densities and development
patterns to support a high- capacity transit system, and the city's adopted land use plans
reinforced these patterns and encouraged the types of development /redevelopment needed
to support the system. Streetcar Alternative 1 also most effectively served key
destinations within the study area.
The TSM Alternative ranked first among the alternatives in terms of Environmental
Responsibility because it was not estimated to affect any conditions in the environment.
The TSM Alternative also ranked first in terms of ease of constructability and lowest
capital cost.
Overall, Streetcar Alternative 1 was ranked first among the alternatives.
Summary of Environmental Review
The reduced set of alternatives was also subjected to an environmental evaluation. An
Environmental Assessment /Draft Environmental Impact Report (EA /DEIR) was prepared to
meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), concurrent with the preparation of the AA.
Adverse effects associated with hazardous materials, operational noise (moderate), safety,
and construction air quality were identified to occur with Streetcar Alternatives 1 and 2
prior to incorporation of mitigation measures (CEQA only). Mitigation measures would
eliminate the adverse effects associated with hazardous materials and safety. Moderate
effects associated with operational noise and identified in the EA /DEIR would remain after
the implementation of mitigation, however these effects would not be considered adverse.
In addition, significant construction air quality impacts under CEQA would remain after the
implementation of mitigation; however, construction - related air quality impacts would be
temporary and not adverse under NEPA after the implementation of mitigation. No adverse
effects were identified for the TSM Alternative.
LPA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -17
2 1 Page
Summary ®f Public Outreach
Meaningful public engagement is an important component of the Santa Ana - Garden Grove
Fixed Guideway Project. From the outset of the project and throughout the process, the
cities shared information with and sought input from the community, elected officials, and
key stakeholders through meetings, dissemination of informational materials, a project
website.
In support of the environment review process and the 45 -day public review period for the
EA/DEIR, the cities of Santa Ana and Garden Grove, in coordination with OCTA, conducted
three Public Review Meetings for the Santa Ana- Garden Grove Fixed Guideway EA /DEIR in
accordance with the requirements of CEQA.
The Public Review Meetings, held between June 14 and June 19, 2014, combined an
open house with a formal presentation and comment period, and provided members of the
community forums through which to comment on the EA /DEIR. Trilingual
English /Spanish /Vietnamese) materials, interpretations and transcriptionists were available
at public meetings. Approximately 120 to 150 people attended the public meetings. The
following summarizes the comments received during the Public Review Period, (oral and
written) that are germane to the selection of the Locally Preferred Alternative.
General community support for a streetcar system
Concern about the duration and potential impacts of construction on local
Downtown businesses
Concern about loss of on- street parking
Interest in economic development stimulus in conjunction with the streetcar,
particularly on 5`h Street
Expressed preferences for either 4`h Street or 5` Street.
Based on the results of the detailed technical evaluation of the alternatives, the findings of
the environmental review, and the comments received during the public review period, the
recommended Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) is Streetcar Alternative 1. The following
summarizes the key features of the LPA.
Technology (Mode): It is recommended that transit service be provided by modern
streetcars operating within existing streets in mixed -flow traffic (the streetcar will share
the travel lane with other vehicles), consistent with the Streetcar Alternatives analyzed in
the EA /DEIR. For planning purposes, the Siemens S70 short vehicle was assumed since it
is currently the only vehicle approved by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
for streetcar operations in California.
LPA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -18
3 Page
Power would be supplied via an overhead electric line. Other emerging streetcar
technologies, including "wireless" and other vehicle options that may be acceptable to the
CPUC will also be considered as they become available during the project development
process.
Alignment (Route): The recommended alignment (see Figure ES -1) is consistent with
Streetcar Alternative 1, with the streetcar traveling westbound from eastern terminus
station at SARTC in Santa Ana, along Santa Ana Boulevard, entering the Pacific Electric
Right -of -way (PE ROW) west of Raitt Street and continuing to the western terminus station
in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Westminster Avenue
in Garden Grove. Eastbound, the streetcar will travel along the PE ROW and Santa Ana
Boulevard to approximately Parton Street, where the route will exit Santa Ana Boulevard
and continue along a public easement on the south edge of Sasscer Park. The streetcar
will exit Sasscer Park onto 4" Street and continue along 4" Street to Mortimer Street,
where it will turn north and reconnect with Santa Ana Boulevard, continuing east to the
eastern terminus station at SARTC. The route is approximately 4.1 miles in length. Six
traction power substations have been identified along the route to distribute electrical
power to the vehicles.
Station Locations: In addition to the two terminus stations at SARTC on the east and
Harbor Boulevard /Westminster Avenue on the west, there will be station stops at 10 other
locations /cross streets along the route:
1 . Harbor Boulevard and Westminster Avenue
2. Willowick
3. Fairview Street and PE ROW
4. Raitt St. and Santa Ana Boulevard
5. Bristol St. and Santa Ana Boulevard
6. Flower St. and Santa Ana Boulevard
Couplet Section (Eastbound) Couplet Section (Westbound)
7. Sasscer Park 7. Ross Street and Santa Ana Boulevard
8. Broadway and 4" Street 8. Broadway and Santa Ana Boulevard
9. Main St. and 4" Street 9. Main Street and Santa Ana Boulevard
10. French St. and 4" Street 10. French Street and Santa Ana Boulevard
11. Santa Ana Boulevard and Lacy Street
12. SARTC
IPA Decision Report 4 1 Page
July 2014
55C -19
N
R
C
N
Y
Q
d
dWd
CL`
m
UOJ
d
CN
E
OUN
NW
N
7
LL
N d
G 1 N m
p q C N. Grbld Ave. d
Q J cr O OY
V C Y N
u }
O, oc O
C CALCcCQV
9° se "Oa Vd
Mummer
c a o Frenm
3 u >
Man N TcEO
V a GBroadwayOOU f m
floss
Y O
H 1 O
Flavor S<. O U
Li
Bnscl St
a
u mmmaO
W
u
Q
N Q V t%
U
ReB[ SL
U
Ay Mewpi
2
0 Y
3 u _ o E
oNo aoU
0
q N O 0 0
m o
Yo
S as Q
Y W A 6 LRcNHarborBlvd0p $ o cUe1Z
u w
d N
a
55C -20
This page left blank intentionally.
55C -21
Operations & Maintenance (O &M) Facility Location: The preferred location for the
maintenance facility for the streetcar is between the PE ROW and 51h Street, west of Raitt
Street (between Daisy Avenue and English Street. This is Site B as examined in the
EA /D E I R.
4th Street Parking: Diagonal parking is currently provided along 4th Street between Ross
Street and French Street. It is recommended that, with implementation of the streetcar,
the diagonal parking along the south side of 4th Street be replaced by parallel parking (4th
Street Parking Scenario A), resulting in the loss of approximately 26 to 30 parking spaces
along the roadway segment. The sidewalks along the south side of 4th Street will be
widened from 12 feet to 20 feet.
Section 5.5 provides a more detailed discussion of the physical and operating
characteristics of the recommended LPA.
LPA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -22
61 Page
This page left blank intentionally.
55C -23
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Background and History
In early 2006, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) initiated the Go Local
program to encourage local agencies to consider transit system connection to Metrolink.
In 2008, as part of the Go Local program, the cities of Santa Ana and Garden Grove
completed a study that identified the benefits of developing a fixed guideway corridor to
link key activity and employment centers in their communities to the Santa Ana Regional
Transportation Center (SARTC). Their project was selected by OCTA for further study and
in 2009, the cities initiated the Alternatives Analysis (AA) and Environmental Review (Go
Local Program Step 2) for the Santa Ana - Garden Grove (SA -GG) Fixed Guideway Corridor
in coordination with OCTA. As illustrated in Figure 1 -1, the project location is in central
Orange County, California and directly accesses both the Los Angeles -San Diego (LOSSAN)
rail corridor and the old Pacific Electric Railway corridor.
Figure 1 -1: Location Map
N. i
Project Location
LEGEND
i Stull Area
mm MatrolinkJArtrtrakRailLine
PE ROW
LPA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -24
1 -11 Page
Figure 1 -2 illustrates the Study Area for the Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway
Project. The Study Area was defined to support the development and evaluation of a broad
range of modal alternatives that satisfy the goals and objectives of the study. It
encompasses SARTC and existing and planned development surrounding the rail station;
employment, government, commercial and cultural activity centers in the Civic Center and
downtown Santa Ana; and, existing neighborhoods, businesses, and activity centers in
central Santa Ana and east Garden Grove. Planned development and areas that offer
future development and redevelopment opportunities were also considered, as were
planned regional transportation system improvements such as OCTA's Bus Rapid Transit
BRT) program, and Metrolink service expansions.
rrr ^t r. r
Santa Ana and Garden Grove are mature, densely populated, and ethnically diverse cities
located in the heart of Orange County, California. Transit service equity is an important
issue for the Study Area, where the median household income is slightly above the U.S.
Census Bureau poverty level threshold and approximately 17.8 percent of households are
without an automobile and therefore must rely on ridesharing, public transportation or non -
motorized transportation for all of their travel needs. Approximately 91 percent of the
Study Area population is non - white; approximately 31.9 percent are under the age of 15
and therefore not eligible to drive an automobile.' More than half of Study Area residents
use modes of transportation other than the single- occupant automobile for their travel
to /from work including approximately 13.8 percent of Study Area residents who use public
transportation .2
Santa Ana and Garden Grove's overall vision for the Study Area includes a transit system
that integrates seamlessly with the community, provides connections to regional Metrolink
and Amtrak commuter rail services at the SARTC, and is compatible with the established
urban character.
The purpose of the SA -GG Fixed Guideway Project is to:
Improve Transit Connectivity within the Study Area;
Relieve Congestion by Providing Alternative Mobility Options;
Be Sensitive to the Character of the Community;
Increase Transit Options;
Improve Transit Accessibility to and within the Study Area; and
Provide Benefits to the Environment through Improved Air Quality.
US Census 2000.
Y Census: Journey to Work 2000.
LPA Decision Report
July '2014
55C -25
1.2 1 Page
d
Q
7
W
N
r
LL
n a1 i
1 >
9
I
I o > j
1
yU
i
1 * K 1
1
1 o V O y 11uOI
j oN .O
1 = rn I
1 y m I
j = Z
U
1 c I1
1 v u m E j
j U U n j
I
n I
I „I
n 1 Bdsmi S, 1° j
Q
1
1
1
F d o O 1
o tocm.nTOUOIn
d imp
di
U
m
m m mCCm
W Q U
r+ NCmmLE 'cn 0u o` nmn00
1 II
I
06, MBIp iPj
55C -26
Ti
A
m JL Nu
E
o Uo
LL m o
N c sQO`J
Harbor Blvd
55C -26
6
C
ON
a J 'J
A
E
N c sQO`J QQmW
r.1
w IJ1LL! t
6
C
ON
a J 'J
This page left blank intentionally.
55C -27
The following summarizes the needs for the project:
Missing Transit Links
Congested Freeways and Arterials
Limited Transportation Improvement Options
Limited Travel Choices
Significant Level of Transit Dependence
Automobile Emissions Contribute to Unhealthy Air Quality
The Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Corridor project included preparation of an
Alternatives Analysis (AA) which would satisfy the requirements of the Federal Transit
Administration and an environmental review process that would satisfy the requirements of
both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). In the study process followed by the cities of Santa Ana and Garden Grove in
completing the requirements of the Go Local Step 2 work program, the AA and the
environmental review were conducted concurrently. The Alternatives Analysis Report
documented the process followed to define, screen and evaluate the technical merits of
alternatives. Through the Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Corridor AA:
The purpose and need for the project were defined,
A broad range of technology and route options were defined and screened based on
the Purpose and Need and other identified criteria, with some concepts eliminated
from further consideration,
The remaining technology and route concepts were combined to form alternatives,
and an additional screening was conducted in two stages; the first stage included
the further analysis of route options while the second stage included the further
analysis of technology options (with additional detail) to determine which options
best meet the project's Purpose and Need and goals and objectives and which
options should be eliminated from further consideration.
The reduced set of alternatives underwent detailed evaluation using screening
criteria that were tied to the Purpose and Need and goals and objectives, and
The alternatives which performed best against the criteria and best addressed the
Purpose and Need and goals and objectives for the project were identified for
potential selection as the LPA.
The reduced set of alternatives was also subjected to environmental analyses compliant
with NEPA and CEQA. Upon completion of the environmental analysis, an Environmental
Assessment /Draft Environmental Impact Report (EA /DEIR) was prepared. The Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) served as the lead agency for the preparation of the EA, and
the city of Santa Ana was the lead agency for the DEIR. Following review and approval of
LPA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -28
1 4 1 Page
the EA /DEIR by the City of Santa Ana, OCTA and the FTA, the EA /DEIR was released for a
45 -day public review period on
May 23, 2014. During the 45 -day public review, public meetings were conducted to
solicit comments from the community, interested agencies and key stakeholders.
Following the close of the public review period on July 7, 2014, the results of the
environmental analysis documented in the EA /DEIR, and the comments received during the
public review period were considered in combination with the technical evaluation of the
alternatives completed as part of the AA to formulate a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA)
recommendation for consideration and adoption by the cities of Santa Ana and Garden
Grove. Included in the process of formulating an LPA recommendation, responses to the
public comments were developed for use in finalizing the EA /EIR.
The purpose of this report is to review and summarize the analyses and evaluation results
from the AA and the EA /DEIR, and the comments received during the public review period
and recommend a LPA for adoption by the cities of Santa Ana and Garden Grove.
This LPA Decision Report provides a summary of the efforts undertaken as part of the
planning process to define, screen and evaluate options and alternatives for the Santa Ana -
Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Corridor, and documents the recommendation for a Locally
Preferred Alternative. The following summarizes the content and organization of this
report:
1. Chapter 1 introduces the project and the purpose and need for it.
2. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the AA process from the preliminary definition of
a wide range of potential alternatives through the detailed evaluation of the reduced
set of alternatives. A comparison is provided of the results of the detailed analysis
and a ranking of the alternatives based on analysis results.
3. Chapter 3 summarizes the results of the environmental review of the reduced set of
alternatives as documented in the EA/DEIS (May 2014).
4. Chapter 4 describes the public outreach and interagency coordination efforts
undertaken in support of the study process, including the public review of the
environmental document and the comments received.
5. Chapter 5 presents the recommended Locally Preferred Alternative.
LPA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -29
1.51 Page
In 2009, the cities initiated the Alternatives Analysis and Environmental Review for the SA-
GG Fixed Guideway System in coordination with OCTA. The alternatives analysis process,
is described in detail in the SA -GG Fixed Guideway Preliminary Definition of Alternatives
Report (June 12, 2011), Initial Alternatives Screening Report (August 5, 2011), and
Alternatives Analysis Report (April 2014). The following provides an overview of the
Alternatives Analysis process, and a brief summary of the findings and results.
The alternatives analysis process consisted of four major steps: (1) Preliminary Definition
of Alternatives, (2A) Initial Screening (Route Options), (213) Initial Screening (Technology
Options), and (3) Detailed Evaluation and Environmental Impact Analysis of the reduced set
of alternatives and selection of the LPA. Figure 2 -1 illustrates the alternatives development
and evaluation process undertaken for the SA -GG Fixed Guideway Project.
The alternatives development process began with a survey of potential technology and
alignment options, the definition of the project's goals and objectives, development of
initial screening criteria based on the Purpose and Need Statement, and engagement with
the community through public listening sessions and public scoping.
Potential Technology Options. A wide range of potentially suitable technology options for
the SA -GG Fixed Guideway Corridor were investigated, including:
Bus Transit • Light Diesel Multiple Unit
Bus Rapid Transit • Monorail
Streetcar • Low Speed Maglev
Light Rail Transit • Personal Rapid Transit
Commuter Rail
Potential Alignment Options. The initial alignment options were based on the need to
establish an east -west transit corridor in the Study Area, and to improve the Study Area's
regional transit connectivity by providing direct connections to existing and planned transit
services (Metrolink and OCTA fixed route and BRT services) at SARTC and at the northeast
corner of Harbor Boulevard and Westminster Avenue in the City of Garden Grove. Six
alignment options were initially investigated.
Goals and Objectives. The project's goals and objectives (see Figure 2 -2) were derived
from the purpose and need for transportation improvements in the corridor study area.
Along with Purpose and Need, they shaped the development of transportation alternatives
as well as establishing an evaluative framework for how alternatives should be assessed
and compared in subsequent study phases.
LPA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -30
2.11 Page
Preliminary Definition of Alternatives
1. (Route and Technology Options) 10 Technology Options
Preliminary 4 Route Options
Definition of Community Listening Sessions
Alternatives
1. Preliminary Screening
Conceptual Alternatives INoBuildAlternative
General Characteristics) 1 TSMAlternative
2BRT Alternatives
ScopingMeetings 3StreetcarAlternatives
2.
rCConceptual Initial Screening (Route Options)
Initial
Screening Alternatives 1 No Build Altern ative
ship Information) -1TSMAIternative
1 BRT Alternative
r Meetings 2 Streetcar Alternatives
3.
Detailed
Evaluation
nd Environ-
mental
Impacts
Analysis
Stage of
Evaluation
2B. Initial Screening (Technology Options)
Detailed Definition of Alternatives
Engineering) Environmental
1 No Build Alternative
1 TSM Alternative
2 Streetcar Alternatives
EAIDEIR Public Hearings
3. Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives I Selection of LPA
NEPAICEQA Comoliance)
Locally Preferred Alternative
Level of Public Typeof
Detail Outreach Screening
Alternatives
Considered
Figure 2 -2: Study Goals and Objectives
Support planned growth in regional rail and bus service
Enhance connections to regional, interstate, and international bus, rail and air
service
Provide convenient, efficient regional access between SARTC, and employment
and activity centers, and residential neighborhoods in central Santa Ana and
Garden Grove
Enhance connectivity between neighborhoods, businesses, and activity centers in
central Santa Ana
Provide employees with improved access to job sites
Provide additional travel options for students and transit - dependent individuals
Stimulate land development opportunities in undeveloped and underdeveloped
areas along the corridor
Provide a transportation system that supports pedestrian activity, and serves
higher density development
Integrate well with surrounding neighborhoods by providing frequent stops with
shorter travel distances between stops
Reinforce transit- oriented development near SARTC and in appropriate locations
along the corridor
Reduce automobile trips by providing high quality transit access and promoting
walkability
Improve air quality; reduce energy consumption, carbon footprint, and greenhouse
gas emissions
Support reduced parking requirements along the corridor where appropriate
Limit environmental impacts by implementing a system that operates primarily
Provide transit service that is user - friendly
Attract new transit riders
Provide service that is travel time competitive with personal automobiles
Use a service - proven technology
Provide for the safety of the system users and individuals who live in the corridor
Provide for a reasonable, integrated fare structure
Attract long -term, sustainable public and private investment
Explore opportunities to reduce or minimize capital costs
Provide for efficient and cost - effective system operations and maintenance
Maximize overall system cost- effectiveness
Maximize ridership
Minimize cost per rider for long term operations
LPA Decision Report
July 2011
55C -32
2.3 1 Page
2.2 Public Scoping
In January 2010, the cities engaged the community and resource agencies in Public
Listening Sessions to receive input on Purpose and Need the project development process,
project goals, and potential technology and alignment options. Four different alignment
alternatives were presented, all of which spanned the full breadth of the four -mile corridor
between SARTC and Harbor Boulevard. Through this process, three technologies were
identified as the technologies best suited for meeting the Purpose and Need because they
were viewed as reliable, affordable, least likely to result in adverse
community /environmental impacts, and capable of supporting local economic development
goals:
1 . Bus (or Trolley Bus)
2. BRT
3. Streetcar
In addition, general requirements for the Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway System
were defined to guide the preliminary screening process:
System must be surface - running
System must be capable of operating in mixed flow traffic within existing lane widths
Vehicles compatible with short downtown block face lengths
System must be compatible with pedestrian activity and pedestrian scale street frontage
Operating cost per potential passenger must be reasonable
System must be proven to be reliable in revenue service in the U.S.
System should operate in the curb lane (except in the PE ROW where it would operate
in a dedicated alignment down the center of the available ROW)
In June 2010, the cities conducted formal public scoping through which seven conceptual
project alternatives were presented:
No Build — The No Build Alternative includes existing conditions as well as conditions
that would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future without
implementation of the proposed project. Conditions in the foreseeable future (through
planning horizon year 2035) include other projects that (1) have environmental analysis
approved by an implementing agency and (2) have a funding source identified for
implementation. The No Build Alternative provides the basis for comparing future
conditions resulting from other alternatives proposed.
TSM — The TSM Alternative consists of a number of bus improvements and represents
the most that can be done for mobility without construction of major new
transportation facilities or physical capacity improvements in the context of the existing
transportation infrastructure. As such, the TSM Alternative provides the baseline
against which the Build Alternatives (Le., those that would entail a major investment)
LPA Decision Report
July 2.014
55C -33
2.41 Page
are compared. The TSM Alternative emphasizes low cost (i.e., small physical)
improvements and operational efficiencies such as focused traffic engineering actions,
expanded bus service, and improved access to transit services. Included within the
TSM Alternative are modifications and enhancements to selected bus routes in the
Study Area; intersection /signal improvements, and bus stop amenity upgrades. While
the Build Alternatives utilize the PE ROW the TSM improvements do not since the PE
ROW is unpaved and would require construction of a roadway to accommodate bus
service.
BRT 1 (Civic Center Drive) — BRT transit line between SARTC and Harbor Boulevard
traversing Civic Center Drive and the PE ROW with buses would operating in mixed
flow traffic lanes on existing city streets and in new lanes dedicated exclusively to bus
use in the PE ROW.
BRT 2 (Santa Ana Boulevard /5th Street) - BRT transit line between SARTC and Harbor
Boulevard traversing Santa Ana Boulevard and the PE ROW with a Santa Ana Boulevard
and 5th Street couplet through the Downtown area. Buses would operate within mixed
flow traffic lanes on existing city streets and in new lanes dedicated exclusively to bus
use in the PE ROW.
Streetcar A (Santa Ana Boulevard /5th Street) - Modern streetcar line between SARTC
and Harbor Boulevard traversing Brown Street /Santa Ana Boulevard and the PE ROW
with a Santa Ana Boulevard and 5th Street couplet through the downtown area.
Streetcars would operate in mixed flow traffic on tracks embedded within existing city
Streetcar B (Santa Ana Boulevard /4th Street) - Modern streetcar line between SARTC
and Harbor Boulevard traversing Santa Ana Boulevard and the PE ROW with a Santa
Ana Boulevard and 4th Street couplet through the downtown area. Streetcars would
operate in mixed flow traffic on tracks embedded within existing city streets and on
tracks dedicated exclusively for streetcar use within the PE ROW.
Streetcar C (4th Street /3rd Street) - Modern streetcar line between SARTC and Harbor
Boulevard traversing Fourth Street /Santa Ana Boulevard and the PE ROW with a 4th Street
and 3rd Street couplet through the downtown area. Streetcars would operate in mixed
flow traffic on tracks embedded within existing city streets and on tracks dedicated
exclusively for streetcar use within the PE ROW.
f a
Initial screening was performed to identify which of the conceptual alternatives best
satisfied the Purpose and Need and project goals and objectives and appeared to be most
feasible.
LPA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -34
2.51 Page
Initial Screening Criteria. Five screening criteria that relate directly to the Purpose and
Need and the study goals and objectives were identified for use in stage 2A of the initial
screening process:
1 . Accessibility and livability
2. Economic development, transit supportive land uses and community goals
3. Environmental responsibility and sustainability
4. Travel benefits, choice and reliability
5. Cost effectiveness and financial feasibility
Measures of effectiveness were developed for each of the screening criteria to differentiate
among alternatives (see Table 2 -1) and to measure and compare their performance. The
performance measures also include evaluation criteria adopted by the OCTA Board of
Directors for the Go Local program and criteria from FTA's New Starts /Small Starts
program.
Table 2 -1: Initial Screening Criteria and Measures of Effectiveness
SCREENING CRITERIA MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS
1. Accessibility /Livability Number of direct connections to (within one block of)
designated transfer points /transit nodes
Number of new transit connections /a/
Number of residents within 1/2 mile walking distance of
proposed alignment
Number of employees within 1/2 mile walking distance of
proposed alignment
Percentage of designated activity centers or medium -to -high
density residential areas within 3 blocks of proposed station
Degree to which alternative promotes the U.S. Livable
Communities Committee's Principals of Livability
2. Economic Development,
Transit Supportive Land Use
and Community Goals
Number of "high opportunity areas" for development/
redevelopment within 1/2 mile of alignment
Qualitative assessment of the transit supportiveness of land
uses served by the proposed project /a/
Potential impacts to physical character of community including
physical scale, visual fit
3. Environmental Responsibility
and Sustainability
Number of environmental issue areas with potentially
significant impacts
Amount of additional ROW required
4. Travel Benefits, Choice and
Reliability
Service- proven technology /a/
Station /stop spacing
Transit vehicle capacity
Qualitative assessment of ease of use and "understandability"
LPA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -35
2.61 Page
5. Cost Effectiveness and Will be perceived by potential investors /developers as
Financial Feasibility significant long -term public investment
LCapital cost estimate
ital cost estimate per mile
a/ Measure included in the OCTA Board - approved Go Local Program Evaluation Criteria & FTA's New
Starts /Small Starts program.
The initial screening process consisted of two stages — an early qualitative analysis of the
conceptual alternatives resulting in the screening of route options; and, a subsequent
quantitative analysis of the conceptual alternatives resulting in the screening of technology
options.
Stage 2A Initial Screening Results. The streetcar alternatives along Santa Ana
Boulevard /4th Street and Brown Street /Santa Ana Boulevard /5th Street performed best
overall due in large part to how well they addressed accessibility and livability and
supported economic development, transit supportive land use and community goals. Of
the BRT options, the alternative along Santa Ana Boulevard /5th Street also performed well
in terms of accessibility and livability and economic development, transit supportive land
use and community goals.
After careful review and consideration of the stage 2A initial screening results, it was
determined that the following alternatives would be carried forward for further study:
Streetcar Alternative — Santa Ana Boulevard /4t" Street;
Streetcar Alternative — Brown Street /Santa Ana Boulevard /Civic Center Drive /5`"
Street; and
BRT Alternative — Santa Ana Boulevard /51h Street.
Stage 2B Initial Screening Results. The stage 2B initial screening used the five original
project goals and objectives to directly compare the remaining three conceptual
alternatives. Community supportiveness was also considered. Valuable quantitative data
that was not available at the time of the stage 2A initial screening was incorporated into
the analysis and used to screen technology options.
The streetcar alternatives along Santa Ana Boulevard /4" Street and Brown Street /Santa
Ana Boulevard /Civic Center /51" Street performed best overall because they satisfied all five
project goals used as criteria to compare alternatives. Alternatively, the BRT alternative
along Santa Ana Boulevard /51h Street only met four of five project goals and objectives. In
addition, project stakeholders and the general public were not as supportive of the BRT
mode as they were of the modern streetcar.
LPA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -36
2 -7I Page
After careful review and consideration of the Stage 2B initial screening results, it was
determined that the BRT Alternative would be eliminated from further consideration
because it was projected to carry significantly fewer riders than the streetcar alternatives,
which coupled with a substantial capital and annual 0 &M costs, would make the
alternative less cost effective in terms of both capital and O &M costs per rider.
Therefore, the remaining conceptual alternatives included:
Streetcar Alternative Brown Street /Santa Ana Boulevard /Civic Center /5`" Street; and
Streetcar Alternative Santa Ana Boulevard /41" Street.
A detailed technical evaluation was performed on the reduced set of alternatives resulting
from the initial screening. The reduced set of alternatives included the following:
TSM Alternative. Consistent with FTA guidelines, the TSM Alternative enhances the mobility
of existing transportation facilities and the transit network without construction of major new
transportation facilities or significant, costly physical capacity improvements. It, therefore,
emphasizes low cost (i.e., small physical) improvements and operational efficiencies such as
focused traffic engineering actions, expanded bus service, and improved access to transit
services. Figure 2 -3 is a map of the proposed routes for the TSM bus network
enhancements. Included within the TSM Alternative are modifications and enhancements to
selected bus routes in the Study Area; intersection /signal improvements; and bus stop
amenity upgrades. The TSM Alternative would provide increased transit operations and
service levels along roadways within the Study Area which currently support fixed route bus
transit.
Streetcar Alternative 1. To connect the City of Garden Grove with SARTC in Santa Ana,
Streetcar Alternative 1 would utilize the PE ROW, an abandoned and vacant rail right -of-
way owned by OCTA, through the western half of its alignment and generally operate
along Santa Ana Boulevard, and 4t' Street on the way to SARTC. The 4.2 -mile alignment
for Streetcar Alternative 1 would include 12 stations. Figure 2 -4 shows the alignment and
the station locations for Streetcar Alternative 1 . It is anticipated that the streetcar system
would operate seven days a week with 10- minute headways during peak periods and 15-
minute headways during off -peak periods. The streetcars would be electrically powered
using an overhead contact system and a series of Traction Power Substations (TPSSs)
located intermittently along the alignment.
In Streetcar Alternative 1, the Downtown segment features couplet operations with the
westbound streetcar alignment on Santa Ana Boulevard, and the eastbound streetcar
alignment on 4t" Street. For the eastbound transition from Santa Ana Boulevard to 4"
Street, a direct route would be provided from Santa Ana Boulevard along a public
easement on the southern edge of Sasscer Park to 4" Street.
LPA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -37
2.8 1 Page
N
C O dY
v E N
LaJ
in
N
d
7O1I1
S'
a'
E
EcO N
FH
Y O O
8q l
Spurgeon
Q
Q O
Main =
Q V
C O
Broetlway 0
Pons
in
9
N
Flower _ St.
S'
a'
E
EcON
FH
OSU
c
Boyd
N
q
Bbstd St. h
9 C
N
FWn St.
o .o U
0 •r
m3 0
Harbor BM
Y O O
p
C Y v
o Q
m b_ CE C
N Q V
OSU
c
Boyd
N
q
Bbstd St. h
9 C
N
FWn St.
o .o U
0 •r
m3 0
Harbor BM p
EO
rn 9 O
o E
m
CQ 01 L Np
aO} m
55C -38
O
QT89
O a` yr
E
m
md
I
0
O
N GY
U Om0N
S }
rl J 7
w o E
CQ 01 L Np
aO} myy W 010NQQVp
N K O m fa
I I I1
m
md
I
0
O
N GY
U Om0N
S } rl
J 7
d
Y
C
N
Q
oU
dG1
N
N
V
LL
N
Y 0 wCd
2 N N. Grand Ave
U E ¢ FQJcc
ao
C Y d
N
mo vE
a
S ° mad
c m3`u
a «m
Main = c EEUpoBroadwayODU
Ross
ti
Q
E
o c
H - 01 « c0c CmU
N
Flower $t
0
3
Bristol St. `^
y `m
U tj
4 m
N a OU
U
flaitt St.
U
E Yu
O o U
LL 0 rm3o
o
Morarrer
pb Marnuej
Hal= Bmtl.
55C -39
0a
ao y
N r
a
QZw
w cu
J Q
0
Streetcar Alternative 2. Streetcar Alternative 2 would also utilize the PE ROW through the
western half of its alignment and substantially operate along Santa Ana Boulevard, Civic
Center Drive, and 51h Street along the eastern half of the alignment to SARTC. The
operational characteristic of this alternative are identical to Streetcar Alternative 1. The
differences between the two streetcar alternatives are the alignment and the fact that
Streetcar Alternative 2 would have one additional station for a total of 13. Figure 2 -5
shows the alignment and the station locations for Streetcar Alternative 2.
The Streetcar Alternative 2 alignment travels westbound through the Civic Center along
Civic Center Drive between Spurgeon and Flower Streets. As part of the City of Santa
Ana's Complete Streets Program, bicycle lanes are proposed for Civic Center Drive.
Streetcar Alternative 2 would acquire additional right -of -way to accommodate the bicycle
lane.
These three alternatives were also subjected to a full environmental benefits and impacts
analysis which is documented in the EA/DEIR. An overview of the environmental process
and a summary of the findings will be presented in the next section; additional detail is
available in the EA/DEIR document.
Each of the Streetcar Alternatives had Design Options to address specific features of their
specific routes. An initial screening identified clear advantages or disadvantages for some
of the options under consideration, resulting in a recommendation of the options to be
carried forward for further study. Two of the elements for which design options were
identified are sufficiently complex that, while the technical analysis and evaluation of these
options provided useful information in considering the advantages and disadvantages of
each, the analysis conducted as part of the environmental review process and the
accompanying public comment is needed to support the selection of the preferred option.
The two elements requiring additional analysis of their design options are the Operations
and Maintenance Facility Site options and the scenarios to address the diagonal on- street
parking along 4th Street.
2.4.1 Operations and Maintenance Facility Site Options
Two sites have been proposed as possible candidate locations for the streetcar operations
and maintenance facility (see Figure 2 -6). Site A is located south of SARTC at the corner
of Santiago Street and 6th Street. The 2.2 acre site is currently being used as a material
recovery /disposal transfer station. Site B is located between 5th Street and the PE ROW,
west of Raitt Street. This 2.4 -acre rectangular site is comprised of three parcels. A
materials reclamation /recycling facility is on the two eastern parcels. The western -most
parcel has several residences. All three parcels are zoned "Industrial ".
LPA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -40
2.11 1 Page
This page left blank intentionally.
55C -41
N7
1_
d
Q.
t6U
Qi
N
d
7
U.
NdGO
vEe
0
V
3
N Grand Ave.
c
2 m Y
a
t = a" FGadrev0
o o U
m =i
0 NNO
ooa90
N 3CCO N W
eC
CO
m R
o c N
Mme,
C w_
Z
French
Q Spurgeon
Main = c EE n
pU GBroadyayOOU
Ross
Van Ness u `mCURowerSt.
05
m
3
e
N
Bristol St.
QaQpNU
U
N
Rapt St,
V
DS Mar rej
NQ
2 m Y
m o o U
m =i
E
QP
LLQmS0
N 3CCO N WF •_ CO
m R
o c N Harbor Blvd
Z
3 0 0
C Y N
O i Q
w E q2¢n
55C -42
d
a
N
N
Ba
0n
N W Q CO
W O
Zw o
Ba
NCOYmUOJ
NL+
UU. LL
cC
m
c
m
O
a
N
d
LL
N
2 O dYOL
Q OJ
rAM
m
C Y dMQVcvCN
N. Grand Ave i Q-!O
Q
E
3
mu " m m mc N0mU
Q
N
Minter +' Mammei
in
Ub MBiniiej
q Y NU
o p U
3 coO
Harbor BWtl
co
Y
V1
55C -43
OZ
w
m
O
ma
0a
O
inO dNQ
a a
O Nd
E
V U
v v
N N
I
U
isn
r
cv
0
d
0
H v
v o
aQ N
Q > 1 J
my
aC
Spurgeon c mu
Q m
Main = cc E
o0U
Broadway O O U n
Ross
05 Van Ness o qPanonCN
Flower St. U U
3
Brist St.
s
Raitt St.
Q
E
3
mu " m m mc N0mU
Q
N
Minter +' Mammei
in
Ub MBiniiej
q Y NU
o p U
3 coO
Harbor BWtl
co
Y
V1
55C -43
OZ
w
m
O
ma
0a
O
inO dNQ
a a
O Nd
E
V U
v v
N N
I
U
isn
r
cv
0
d
0
H v
v o
aQ N
Q > 1 J
Both sites were evaluated based on Community Support for their conversion to use as an
O &M Facility, Right -of -Way Required, Environmental Tradeoffs, Noise and Vibration, Ease
of Transit Operations and Capital Cost.
Site A is slightly smaller than Site B and irregularly shaped, making the ease of operations
somewhat less than with Site B. Site A is also more expensive than Site B. Site A offers
some advantages in terms of environmental tradeoffs. It would not result in the
displacement of any residents. It also would not create additional noise compared to
existing conditions and may in fact reduce noise somewhat. It was anticipated that the
environmental review process and accompanying public comment would further discern
the relative advantages and disadvantages of each of these options and support the
selection of the preferred option. Through this process, Site B was identified as offering
better options for future system expansion into Garden Grove because of its location in the
western portion of the alignment and its size compared to Site A.
2.4.2 4t' Street Parking Scenarios
The Streetcar 1 alignment would utilize 4`h Street between Ross Street and Mortimer
Street in the westbound direction. From east of Ross Street to French Street, 4'" Street has
one travel lane in each direction with head -in diagonal parking along each side of the
roadway. The diagonal parking, with vehicles exiting parking spaces by backing into the
travel lane, is incompatible with reliable streetcar operations. Three design options were
identified to address the diagonal parking on 4'h Street, shown previously on Figure 2 -7 and
described below:
Scenario A: Convert the diagonal parking along the south side of 4`h Street to
parallel parking and widen the sidewalk along the south side from 12 feet to 20
feet.
Scenario B: Remove the diagonal parking along the south side of 4`h Street and
widen the sidewalk along the south side from 12 feet to 28 feet.
Scenario C: Remove the diagonal parking along both sides of 4 " Street and widen
the sidewalks along both sides from 12 feet to 28 feet. In this option, only the
parking removal and sidewalk widening along the south side would be included in
the cost of the project since the streetcar will only operate on the south side
eastbound direction) of the street. The City of Santa Ana would pursue alternative
funding to construct the improvements to the north side.
The three scenarios to address the diagonal parking along 4"' Street were evaluated based
on Community Support for the scenario, Environmental Tradeoffs, impacts to
Traffic /Circulation, Parking, and Bicycle /Pedestrian Facilities, Construction Impacts
temporary), Ease of Transit Operations and Capital Cost.
LPA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -44
2.14 1 Page
The Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives found that, overall, the technical and operational
benefits of removing all of the on- street parking along 4`" Street between Ross Street and
French Street and widening the sidewalks (Scenario C) are greater than under the two
Figure 2 -7; 4th Street Parking Scenarios
A45,
W
ad
z
9
EXIST EXIST IXIST TRAVEL PARKING SIDEWALK
SIDEWALK PARKING TRAVEL LANE LANE LANE
flR'
NORTH SIDE OF 4TH STREET SOUTH SIDE OF 4TH STREET
4th Street Parking Scenario A: Convert Parking along South Side to
Parallel and Widen Southern Sidewalk to 20 Feet
9tNCbi
OJ
G I m
W I W
SIDEWALK PARKING TRAVEL IANE 88 LANE SIDEWALK
NORTH SIDE OF 4TH STREET SOUTH SIDE OF 4TH STREET
4th Street Parking Scenario B: Remove Parking along South Side and
Widen Southern Sidewalk to 28 Feet
en sr
d
I
28' R'
AVELPIiOPOSEDSIDEWALKEXI51' tRAYEL J PROPOSED SIDEWALK
m_ _.... ....
NTRAVELLANE80_ LANE
NORTH SIDEOF4THSTREET . SOUTH SIDE OF 4TH STREET
4th Street Parking Scenario C: Remove Parking along South Side and
North Side and Widen Sidewalks to 28 Feet
LPA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -45
2.15 1 Page
scenarios that only reduce or remove some of the parking. Scenario C would enhance the
pedestrian character of 4th Street to the benefit of restaurants, cafes, shops and other
adjacent businesses. Traffic flow along 4`h Street would be improved, allowing for more
reliable streetcar operations and reduced potential for conflicts between automobiles and
streetcars. Although approximately 132 on- street parking spaces would be eliminated
under Scenario C, there is adequate parking available in nearby parking structures located
just off and accessible from 4th Street. However, during environmental review process and
accompanying public comment there was opposition expressed by adjacent businesses to
the removal of parking along 4`h Street and the potential impact to their businesses.
r u , t " r,
The screening criteria used to evaluate the Project Alternatives relate directly to the
Purpose and Need and the goals and objectives for the Project, and they are similar with
those used in the first stage of the initial screening. The measures of effectiveness
identified for each criterion, presented in Table 2 -2, were refined for the Detailed
Evaluation to better highlight the distinguishing characteristics of each of the Project
Alternatives.
Table 2 -2: Detailed Evaluation Criteria and Measures of Effectiveness
SCREENING CRITERIA MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS
Number of transit- dependent households within A mile
Accessibility /Livability of the alignment
Ridership
Assessment of the transit supportiveness of land uses
Economic Development, Transit served by the project
Supportive Land Use and Community Assessment of economic development opportunities of
Goals parcels served by the project
Community Support
Environmental Responsibility and Amount of right-of-way required
Sustainability Environmental tradeoffs
Travel Benefits, Choice and
Reliability Customer service (route travel times between 0 D pairs)
Capital cost estimate
Capital cost per route mile
I - - --- Cost and Financial Feasibility
Estimated annualized operating cost
Estimated operating cost per hour
LPA Decision Raport
July 2014
55C -46
2.16 1 Page
The following summarizes the results of applying the criteria and measures of effectiveness
to the reduced set of alternatives for the Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway
Corridor. A more detailed description of the detailed evaluation in provided in the
Alternatives Analysis Report (April 2014). Table 2 -3 summarizes the results of the results
of comparing each of the alternatives to the technical criteria and then ranking the
alternatives based on the results of the comparison.
Table 2 -3: Ranking of Alternatives Based on Detailed Evaluation Results
For purposes of comparison to the Streetcar Alternatives, the Annualized Operating Cost for TSM includes
only the SARTC -to- Harbor route.
LPA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -47
2.171 Page
STREETCAR STREETCAR
CRITERIA ( MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS TSM ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2
1. ACCESSIBILITY AND LIVABILITY
No. of transit - dependent households within
1A 1/4 mile walking distance of proposed 3 1 2
alignment
1 B No. of daily riders (average weekday 2 1 3
boardin s)
2 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE LAND USE AND COMMUNITY
GOALS
Assessment of the transit supportiveness
2A of land uses served by the proposed 2 1 3
alignment
Assessment of the economic development
213 potential of land uses served by the 3 1 2
ro osed alignment._
2C Community support TBD
3. ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
3A Amount of additional right -of -way require 2 3
3B Environmental Tradeoffs 1 2 3
4. TRAVEL BENEFITS, CHOICE AND RELIABILITY
4A Customer service (travel times between 0- 2 1 3Dpairs) _ _
4B Number of daily riders (average weekday 2 1 3boardins)
6 EFFECTIVENESS AND FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
5A
COST
Con_ s_ tructability /eas_e_of_construction 1 2
513 Capital cost 1 2
3 _
3
cost per route mile 1 2 35C
5D
Capital
Annualized operating cost* 1 2 3
5E Operating hour 2 2cost _per
OVERALL RANKING 2 1 3
For purposes of comparison to the Streetcar Alternatives, the Annualized Operating Cost for TSM includes
only the SARTC -to- Harbor route.
LPA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -47
2.171 Page
2.7 Conclusions and Tradeoffs among Alternatives
Streetcar Alternative 1 was ranked first in all MOEs included in Accessibility and Livability
because it served the greatest number of transit dependent households and was estimated
to have the highest daily ridership of the three alternatives. It ranked the highest among
the alternatives on Economic Development, Transit Supportive Land Use and Community
Goals. The existing land uses along the eastern portion of the Streetcar Alternative 1
alignment provide the densities and development patterns to support a high capacity transit
system. Adopted land use plans that cover the Streetcar Alternative 1 alignment support
and encourage the types of development /redevelopment likely to occur in conjunction with
high capacity and transit, and existing development patterns provide opportunity for such
development /redevelopment to occur. Streetcar Alternative 1 effectively serves key
destinations within the corridor area, ranking it first in Travel Benefit, Choice and
Reliability.
The TSM alternative ranked first among the alternatives in Environmental Responsibility.
Because it does not include substantial new construction, it does not require acquisition of
right -of -way, nor does it adversely affect any conditions in the environment compared to
the No Build Alternative.
In terms of Cost Effectiveness and Financial Feasibility, the TSM Alternative ranked first for
constructability /ease of construction because of the very limited amount of construction
likely to occur under this alternative. It has the lowest capital cost of the alternatives, and
therefore the lowest cost per route mile.
Streetcar Alternative 1 ranked second in terms of constructability /ease of construction, and
capital cost. It was estimated to be less expensive than Streetcar Alternative 2 primarily
because of its shorter route length. Streetcar Alternative 1 ranked first in terms of annual
operating cost and second on operating costs per hour. The TSM Alternative includes
considerably greater number of revenue hours than Streetcar Alternative 1 or 2, although
the cost per revenue hour for the TSM Alternative was less than for the Streetcar
Alternatives.
Overall, Streetcar Alternative 1 ranked first among the alternatives based on the technical
evaluation.
LPA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -48
2.181 Page
This page left blank intentionally.
55C -49
This EA /DEIR was prepared to meet the requirements of NEPA and CEQA. As required by
these laws, the environmental review process must be completed before the proposed project
can be approved by the City of Santa Ana (acting as the lead agency for Santa Ana and
Garden Grove) and the FTA. Meaningful public engagement was an important component of
the SA -GG Fixed Guideway Project from the start. Well before any key decisions were made,
the City of Santa Ana initiated a public scoping process to help define the appropriate range
of issues to be addressed in the EA /DEIR. Four scoping meetings were conducted for the
general public between June 8 and June 12, 2010. Two of these meetings were scheduled
in the evening, one meeting was scheduled in the morning and one meeting was scheduled
on a Saturday afternoon, providing those community members who could not attend any of
the weekday evening meetings with an opportunity to participate. Public comment
opportunities were made available at each meeting. It should also be noted that articles and
advertisements were published in a number of local newspapers, including several non - English
publications. All information materials were presented in English as well as Spanish.
The alternatives identified for evaluation in this EA /DEIR were based on public comments
as well as technical analyses, as detailed in the AA Report (under separate cover and
available by request or on the City's website at http://www.ci.santa -
ana.ca.us/transitvision). Following receipt of public comments on the EA /DEIR, the Santa
Ana and Garden Grove City Councils will select an LPA for the Fixed Guideway Project.
Their decision will be based on a combination of environmental impacts, community input,
cost, ridership and economic development considerations brought to light through the
EA /DEIR, AA, and public review process. Subsequent to the City actions, the LPA will be
presented to the OCTA Board of Directors. If necessary to address comments received
during the environmental public review, additional engineering may be performed to refine
the conceptual design of the LPA prior to presentation to the City Councils. If a hybrid
alternative which results in changes outside the envelope of environmental effect is
selected, then an environmental re- evaluation may be needed.
2AILTEMMEML 1
Table 3 -1 summarizes the potential adverse effects associated with the implementation of
Streetcar Alternatives 1 and 2. No impacts would occur from the implementation of the
TSM Alternative. The information presented in Table 4 -1 is a summary of the analysis
contained in the EA /DEIR.
Adverse effects associated with hazardous materials, operational noise (moderate), safety,
and construction air quality are anticipated to occur prior to incorporation of mitigation
measures (CEQA only). Each of these adverse effects would result from implementation of
Streetcar Alternatives 1 and 2. Mitigation measures would eliminate the adverse effects
associated with hazardous materials and safety. Moderate effects associated with
LPA Decision Report
July 2D 14
55C -50
3.1 Page
operational noise and identified in the EA /DEIR would remain after the implementation of
mitigation, however these effects would not be considered adverse. In addition, significant
construction air quality impacts under CEQA would remain after the implementation of
Mitigation; however, it should be noted that construction - related air quality impacts would
be temporary and not adverse under NEPA after the implementation of mitigation. No
adverse effects were identified for the TSM Alternative.
In addition to mitigation measures, design features and best management practices have
been incorporated into the proposed project. These include a Traffic Management Plan, a
Noise and Vibration Control Plan, and a number of features to manage water quality. Refer
to Chapter 3.0 of the EA /DEIR for detailed discussions of these features and best
management practices.
LPA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -51
3 2 1 Page
O
ro
k.
ro
it
LLI
a
ro
ui
rofU
O
LLI
0
E
E
ra
ro
55C-52
m
IN
cn
01 0 z 0z 0z 0z 0z 0Z. 0z o o
z
0zlz0 0z 0z 0 0Z 0Z0 0 0
zZ
00 c ayi a 005 2 2-
F Oc 0
0, m
cc
0 M
zm
0 0
00zm
zo oma
00 wo 0 A mo m o 0
40 -
M
cc
m
M, cm Q Q
0 m 0 E n y 0 0
om 0
o
0 m M 0 0c2200
c 00a
I" 0 c E c m 0 E c
o
Z 0a M
U 0 o
c c c c c c C E 2000000ol0Mo > 0 c
Z z z z z 2 Z Z Z t w
m m E O0 a 0cE00x
0 0 0 Oh C C0EE0
0
0 0 0 t5
a
0 E m 7) 00
0 0 0 c 000R
6 0 E 0 0 0a
aSEcESm3m:
O o o o 0 0 OI 0 ol 0ZZZZIZiZiZizZZ
0
LU
0
0
N
rtc D: CC
D 7a
0
w V) C) U
55C-52
m
IN
cn
d
c mO] m OZ
Eli i
vd
WNt!
N6
NCdEc0
cW
55C -53
U
N
aCN
ui
O
I
m
0cvWOr
cO
o N
Q
Q
d O
m -- m° `o m YOvL
d «
E
yam.
z Z
d
c mO] m OZ
Elii
vd
WNt!
N6
NCdEc0
cW
55C -53
U
N
aCN
ui
O
I
m
0cvWOr
cO
o N
Q
Q
m N a -0-
1
d W m -- m° `o m YOvL5
yam.
V j 2 N N C o N }+
t Q O@ N O C N N@ a N@ d@ N OVaC@
N NaYN@d@OJ@LaOOOd@O (n dv=
I- d N@ Y Ol Y p. U 6 Y@ NdE= E m C O
o o
@@ O@ ac s C J
L o m o 5@
a ll L o
N .ZEmsd° 2 r o f Y m D E02@E3: N Y N« G@ dCO« O y N@ C O E@ h d+
rp
E o a@oncdo « E@ U a"i m ." a om @ m nMic@mom. o d w . p
5> 0 o
w 0 m d 0, o " E o O v= =' n E'm 55 u m m Eodd@
o
o 0 @ m t0 0 10mhaaov
FL-
a t0 3 d d o c y 2m C
o m }, o «
Z
d E c pa o m@ d c_
n@
@- o$ w o c os py U$ @ E n- 00
@ L O @ L O w oo o. P+ O@ O)
Op
U C IA
d Q ; mo3yomd' E¢ c d o a w
U addY1Ed
E o d d o d° z Ci
o a N 0 m H O COdo .>
o O N G@ O N O C L d U
o Y Oo U n Z c a E Q d
c =o o@ N `o `m < 0
d
c mO] m OZ
Elii
vd
WNt!
N6
NCdEc0
cW
55C -53
U
N
aCN
ui
O
I
m
0cvWOr
cO
o N
Q
Q
m
a
maE
a °
W Zw
zZ
e
m
0
q
m
a
mo emcm ,N
v ? N +
E
wm
WNv
c
R
d
Ecc
L5W
ZIZ
ZIZ
p Y U m c @ m
N E v > o-m m° `° a 0 °' o° 0 O.N. ° m E a
so0mmmmcT MO oEm m3Nax
00 T N c N Y 0 _ @ @_ O m N O
W N ` C @« d) C "O @ a t' m •- N N@ N m N C C
w N C m N N N y m m C ? N a m @ I Q 2° E a N Nv- M m O@ v a m -O C m 1 m +' E U) °@ m m @ E
N "@Ommamc J o J o +% °' as 0 'K i d @ m
O U N m 0 Q m 0 o m« ° "- 0) aci m 0 y ° . m 3 0 N 6 a@@sQmv .+@_' -0 N @ L N J N 2 N E o Q Q 0. •E ,m E v-
U +. + N (n Y ++ m D f'• @ N U O m m y m m 0 m O 0 0 m-
N
C L@ N m C@ N N N N M Q Q C ,@, E Z UO m- CT N d
co E *' m °o N ° w `-° m 3 m m m c= ° 0 c v aci
Loz m a@m
S .S Q o N o- o E m o° O
y- o m w Jm
0 m$ `m 0 o 0 mn c '>
m E o m J E w m W° 4.N a E °.o
a ti E Q3L« Q
O L O 4- Oam o a F@ a s@ 3
NQ 2 Z
N O N
z }
Nf0
c C
JOa
@N
2
55C -54
WC
0
L
cCm
U
w@
i
CO
9
C@
0NOZ
q,
mn.
acvycc
cO
ON
U Y N r 0 0 0" y w h ` N U t« C I 1 ` s I W N N N a TO ° L L' O a ° C
O - !°
U
c a m
Q ,
m 3 or c L N 0 .0 E
O m
t 3 m o V N
via - c : +•
EomNm
o
Um
y a =
y ` "- Y
lo —_
E o
y v- U N ° *' N N O C N O W m> yC + C C y U L m m W Q X O s a m O U y p y
Lm
a$ m -omEcwacmovi 'm .c m L mr- y m m -O C (n U y + Hm ! ol WONOUNCmO O O (A mLF' d .O ! a a U V C '' "..' O
gatc
0i .
a3
UC
N
E
C
y
am
J Y d . '° m
yOa ° Uc
J
NUU2YO 'O OO
L Ycy0 aC LU +y+
a
Z Z -
OO .N
d =
3
Q +
U+ !° O ` O O
O0 O N Q ° ULO
U Y m co E 3 s .- >• y o> Uc0mmmQmo w U L c d L
m m y moo Y `m LL m u> s m LL r H m Q •.°' u> > ,% a
coOCZoTd'
Il
a m c a m
m N
i y
U E E U LLNMLwyaaaao M
d f
m e
O OI O
m zlzlz y
E II !
d
W
V
0
C
w
E
W
55C -55
a
U
J
I
SO
C]
a
Ii
i a
0
i
E
O
12) Z ZiZ Z
U Y N r 0 0 0" y w h ` N U t« C I 1 ` s I W N N N a TO ° L L' O a ° C
O - !°
U
c a m
Q ,
m 3 or c L N 0 .0 E
O m
t 3 m o V N
via - c : +•
EomNm
o
Um
y a =
y ` "- Y
lo —_
E o
y v- U N ° *' N N O C N O W m> yC + C C y U L m m W Q X O s a m O U y p y
Lm
a$ m -omEcwacmovi 'm .c m L mr- y m m -O C (n U y + Hm ! ol WONOUNCmO O O (A mLF' d .O ! a a U V C '' "..' O
gatc
0i .
a3
UC
N
E
C
y
am
J Y d . '° m
yOa ° Uc
J
NUU2YO 'O OO
L Ycy0 aC LU +y+
a
Z Z -
OO .N
d =
3
Q +
U+ !° O ` O O
O0 O N Q ° ULO
U Y m co E 3 s .- >• y o> Uc0mmmQmo w U L c d L
m m y moo Y `m LL m u> s m LL r H m Q •.°' u> > ,% a
coOCZoTd'
Il
a m c a m
m N
i y
U E E U LLNMLwyaaaao M
d f
m e
O OI O
m zlzlz y
E II !
d
W
V
0
C
w
E
W
55C -55
a
U
J
I
SO
C]
a
Ii
i a
C
OO cO
a Y vt V'
T2 JIU v
I N ay
m o i
mo
CaaJ
i
N O
N N JJ
O
C V
I N
a
U
U OI
tt C
Y
1 y
E
d
z Z Z
0
mo i Tt
m •oO] N N JJ
OIN
UttC
1 y
d
001DNmi! U O . 9 U 3
O
m d
N
d Y
m m y
m Q
W
m>
J
N 0 O
E m
r
N O V
m
O 4 a CO
0 G N m m J m 0 a W L
E CL a Y> m c
m
N OL C
Ul'
m N
oil
d w m w N> d C CG X C a C N
YO
o o N o s w m w Q N m m m o f
U
a m m o
om
cc wma N N m ° E aMooLmmecYaa
0 a N N L _ C 01 ' Y O J C N
w
U
m
m o m c E s ue,, U m
m Y v p. o O o Y Co Ol p0 LSoiyScam
U. g s a m N °_ acm .E 0, m, o N N
E m N N O N C C C C
a m LY 01 E O U y N pc, z
L L U C m 01 mp O. t p
O-+
N
w
C C L E =0 a J a
a N Y N— N Y O m Nm O Y p 0 d +O+ N Y J m m y O i0 E= 0? N O 3 0 y O m p i a
90
w L L Y O o .r N Y TOJaU
m e c c m c c N L m 'o o m o
00 O 2 O 0N
c N EmmwoEma0ao
F E F a o m o a
N M CF In w
mo i Tt
m •oO] N N JJ
OIN
U
55C -56
I
I
C4
r"
4J
N
OIN
UttC
1 y
dN
UmON
d Ym Q
W J N
E m
r J m
0 U
m U mJ
oil vy0
JOmO
m U y N
55C -56
I
I
C4
r"
4J
This page left blank intentionally.
55C -57
A Transportation Management Plan.
Best management practices to ensure safety and security, access for emergency
vehicles, reduce surface runoff and water pollution, noise, erosion, and minimize
construction effects.
Stakeholder, agency, and community coordination will be required during advanced
design, including but not limited to the following:
Coordination with the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Santa Ana Regional
Water Quality Control Board, Orange County Department of Public Works, and Orange
County Parks to minimize impacts at the Santa Ana River crossing.
Coordination with the Santa Ana Unified School District and Santa Ana Police
Department regarding safety at schools adjacent to the alignment.
Coordination with security personnel at the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and United
States Courthouse.
L P A Decision Report
July 2014
55C -58
3.81 Page
This page left blank intentionally.
55C -59
t1 '1C
4.1 Summary of Outreach Efforts
Meaningful public engagement was an important component of the Santa Ana - Garden
Grove Fixed Guideway Project from the start. Well before any key decisions were made,
the cities initiated a dialogue with the community (residents, businesses and interested
public agencies), and a public scoping process to help define the appropriate range of
issues to be addressed in the Alternatives Analysis (AA), Draft Environment Impact Report
DEIR) and Environmental Assessment (EA).
Although not required by state or federal regulations, the cities have continued to share
information with and seek input from the community, elected officials, and key
stakeholders throughout the study process through meetings, dissemination of
informational materials, a project website, and a project information line in support of the
following public outreach goals:
Use an inclusive outreach strategy that maximizes input from a broad range of
project stakeholders;
Provide forums for meaningful participation; and
Create multiple opportunities for generation of ideas and comments.
In addition to the cities of Santa Ana and Garden Grove, the FTA and OCTA have
participated in the Project.
4.1.1 Stakeholder Working Group
As part of the public outreach strategy, a Stakeholders Working Group (SWG) was created
at the outset of the project to provide an opportunity for dialogue between the project
team and individual stakeholders that represent key constituencies and /or organizations
throughout the Study Area, including: local, County, State, and federal elected and
appointed officials; public agencies /officials; neighborhood councils, homeowners
associations, and community councils; business and labor associations and groups;
representatives of retail and employment centers; representatives of educational, cultural,
religious, and health care institutions; transit advocacy and environmental groups; and
individuals who live, work, and travel in the Study Area.
SWG members were charged with taking information back to their organizations, collecting
feedback, and working with other members of the SWG in the spirit of cooperation to build
consensus. As a sign of their strong interest in the Project, SWG members agreed to
remain involved for the duration of the environmental phase of the Project.
L P A D a c i s i a n Report
July 7.014
55C -60
4 'I 1 Page
Five Stakeholder Working Group Meetings were held at key decision points in the planning
process from project kick -off through the identification of the reduced set of alternatives
and the initiation of the preparation of the EA/DEIR.
42 Pre - Scoping Activities
Between August 2009 and June 2010, the cities of Santa Ana and Garden Grove, in
cooperation with OCTA, conducted three pre - Scoping meetings for the Santa Ana - Garden
Grove Fixed Guideway Project in support of the Alternatives Analysis and in preparation for
the public Scoping process. The public meetings included a City Council Workshop, and
two Community Listening Sessions. The meeting locations were selected based on
geographic location and recommendations from the Stakeholders Working Group. To
facilitate community participation, meetings were scheduled at different times throughout
the day.
The first Stakeholder Working Group meeting was held on January 26, 2010. Members
were provided an introduction to the project and the environmental process. In addition,
the proposed format and content for the Community Listening Sessions were discussed
and members were asked to help publicize the Community Listening Sessions and to
encourage attendance at them.
The two Community Listening Sessions were conducted several months in advance of
formal public scoping to gain community input on the project purpose and need,
alternatives, and evaluation criteria, to introduce the environmental review process, and to
identify special environmental /community concerns that may need to be addressed as part
of the alternative analysis process. They were conducted utilizing an open house format
that allowed participants to drop by at their convenience. Project team members were on
hand to walk attendees through a series of information boards, answer questions, and
receive feedback. Information was provided in English and Spanish. Comment sheets were
also available for attendees to complete or mail back.
The following provides a brief summary of the comments received during the community
listening sessions:
General Comments
Excitement towards a new transit system being developed
Concern related to neighborhood impacts in residential areas and near schools
Support for an environmentally friendly and safe system
Comments Regarding Technology Options
Lack of interest in traditional bus or trolleybus service
One comment in support of Bus Rapid Transit
One comment in support of Personal Rapid Transit (PRT)
Strong support for a streetcar or light rail system
LPA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -61
4.2 1 Page
No support for monorail, low speed mag -lev, commuter rail or subway
Comments Regarding Alignment Options
No comments received
Along with Purpose and Need, the public comments received during the Pre - Scoping period
helped to guide the preliminary definition of alternatives and preliminary screening process.
mmst
The Public Scoping Period for the Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project began
on May 24, 2010 with publication of the Notice of Preparation by the State Clearinghouse,
as noted below, and concluded on June 21, 2010.
On June 3, 2010, the Stakeholders Working Group reconvened. The project team
previewed and accepted comments on the information that had been prepared for the
public scoping meetings, announced the public scoping meeting dates, times and locations,
and encouraged member assistance in sharing scoping meeting information with
community members.
Four Public Scoping Meetings were held between June 8 and June 14, 2010 in accordance
with the requirements of CEQA. Several methods were used to notify the public about the
scoping meetings. The scoping meetings were publicized via publication of the NOP by the
State Clearinghouse, mailings, door -to -door business walks, meeting notices posted and
handed out at SARTC, electronic notices to the SWG and Com -Link, project factsheets, a
press release, the project website, and display advertisements in local English and Spanish
language newspapers.
The Public Scoping Meetings enabled stakeholders and the general public to officially
comment on the scope of the environmental documents, potential environmental impacts
and issues that should be evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and to
provide feedback on the technology and alignment alternatives being proposed for the
Fixed Guideway Project.
The cities of Santa Ana and Garden Grove accepted written and oral comments throughout
the scoping period, from May 24, 2010 until June 21, 2010. All comments were recorded
and kept on file at the City of Santa Ana Public Works Department and are included in the
Santa Ana and Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Draft Environmental Impact Report.
Although community participation in the Public Scoping Meetings was fairly low, the
comments received generally indicated support for the proposed Project. Residents who
participated had questions about how the proposed Project would impact their immediate
neighborhoods. Likewise, business owners along the proposed alignments expressed
concern about how their businesses would be impacted, especially during the construction
phase.
LPA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -62
4.31 Page
In addition to the public scoping meetings, an interagency scoping meeting was held on
June 9, 2010 with representatives from participating agencies, coordinating agencies, and
interested agencies. Seven agencies attended the Interagency Scoping Meeting on June 9,
2010. The comments received that day were:
Consider using First Street for the east -west transit alignment in lieu of 4`h
Street
Address bicycle and pedestrian issues in the vicinity of the Pacific Electric Santa
Ana River Bridge
Follow the guidelines that need to be considered when siting new transportation
infrastructure in close proximity to major federal buildings located within the
Civic Center complex
Six agencies submitted comment letters during the public scoping period including County
of Orange public Works, County of Orange Sheriff - Coroner, Caltrans District 12,
Department of Toxic Substances Control, California Energy Commission, and the California
public Utilities Commission.
During the preparation of the Alternatives Analysis and in support of the selection of an
LPA, the City of Santa Ana conducted a door -to -door survey of approximately 234
businesses in the Downtown area. They spoke to available representatives to gauge
awareness of the project and to solicit input. Approximately 50 businesses expressed an
opinion about the project. Sixty -two percent (62 %) said they support the project, twenty -
eight percent (28 %) said they were neutral, and ten percent (10 %) said they opposed the
project. Many of the 4`h Street business owners, while acknowledging support for the
project, expressed concern about potential impacts of construction and parking removal on
their businesses, with some expressing opposition to the 4`" Street alignment.
The survey concluded that despite the concerns raised, businesses in Downtown see the
potential the project holds for the downtown and hope that it brings back customers and
improves mobility.
The Public Review Period for the Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway EA /DEIR began
on May 23, 2014 with filing of the Notice of Availability with the State Clearinghouse, and
the Orange County Clerk's Office, and concluded on July 7, 2104. Activities during this
period included:
Update of the City of Santa Ana website to incorporate the most current
information regarding the project.
LPA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -63
4-4 1 Page
Posting copies of the environmental documents at locations throughout the
study area and on the City's website,
Notifying residents, property owners and businesses within 500 feet of the
project alignments of the availability of the environmental document, the
scheduled public reviews meetings and ways to submit comment. Notifications
were provided in English, Spanish and Vietnamese.
Notifying the broader community through flyers at key activity centers (in
English, Spanish and Vietnamese) and press releases in community newspapers
about the availability of the document, the meetings and methods for submitting
comments,
Advising the city councils of Garden Grove and Santa Ana, and the OCTA Board
of the environmental document release and planned public meetings
Hosting three public meetings that provided information about the project, and
opportunities for attendees to have their comments recorded by court reporters
or accepted in writing.
4.5.1 Public Review Meeting Notification
Several methods were used to notify the public about the availability of the EA /DEIR and
the scheduled Public Review Meetings,
Notification Database
A database of approximately 3,800 resident and business addresses near the proposed
Project corridor was assembled by the cities of Santa Ana and Garden Grove; it
encompassed all properties within a 500 -foot radius of the proposed corridor.
Noticing
The NOA for the Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project was published by the
State Clearinghouse on May 23, 2014 (SCH # 2010051060). In addition, copies of the
meeting notice were posted at the Santa Ana and Garden Grove City Hall information
desks and Public Works Department information counters, and at other gathering places
throughout the corridor.
Mailings
To notify the public of the availability of the EA /DEIR, where a copy might be viewed and
that three Public Review Meetings had been scheduled, notices were mailed to every
address in the notification database. The mailings were in English, Spanish and
Vietnamese.
Interagency Notification
LPA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -64
4.51 Page
In addition to the Notice of Availability published by the State Clearinghouse, emails were sent to known
contacts of agencies with a potential interest in the project or with resources in the project Study Area,
notifying them of the availability of the environment document, inviting them to attend the public
review meetings, and to submit any comments they may have on the document. The following agencies
were contacted directly via e-mail:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Southern California Field Office, Region
IX
Caltrans, District 12
California Department of Fish and Game, Region 5
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8
California Public Utilities Commission, Los Angeles Office
Southern California Regional Rail Authority
Southern California Association of Governments
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Office of Historic Preservation /California Department of Parks, Sacramento
Orange County Transportation Authority
County of Orange
City of Santa Ana
City of Garden Grove
City of Costa Mesa
City of Fountain Valley
City of Orange
City of Irvine
City of Tustin
City of Westminster
Amtrak, Oakland Office
Pacific Bell
Southern California Edison, Santa Ana Office
Southern California Gas Company, Orange County Division
Electronic Notices
Electronic notices were sent to all members of the Stakeholders Working Group as well as
the City of Santa Ana's Com -Link database, which includes more than 60 Santa Ana
neighborhood associations. Electronic notices were also sent to public agencies with an
interest in the project, notifying them of the availability of the EA/DEIR for review, and the
scheduled meetings.
LPA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -65
4.61 Page
Praec RP.IP.ACP.
A press releases for the public review meetings was distributed to The Orange County
Register reporters Alejandra Molina and Theresa Cisneros, and Unidos (Spanish language
weekly of the Orange County Register) report Laura Bucio. The press release was also
provided to Sandra Cervantes of Miniondas.
Project Website
The project website, www.santaanatransitvision.com , which had been established at the
outset of the project, was updated to include the most recent information regarding the
Project. The EA /DEIR and the Alternatives Analysis Report were posted to the website in
addition to the various physical locations throughout the Study Area. In addition, the City
of Garden Grove, and OCTA posted information about the proposed Project and the public
review meetings on their websites.
Newspaper Legal Notices
A legal notice was published in the OC Reporter on Friday, May 23, 2014. At least two
weeks prior to the first meeting date, meeting notices were also placed in the City Halls of
both Santa Ana and Garden Grove, on the cities' websites, www.santa - ana.org and
www.ci.garden- grove.ca.us, in all of the City of Santa Ana community centers, and in the
public libraries.
EA /DEIR Document Posting
The copies of the EA /DEIR were available at the following locations:
Santa Ana City Hall City Clerk's Office
Santa Ana City Hall Public Works Counter
Santa Ana Public Library
Salgado Center, Rosita Park
Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center (SARTC)
Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)
Garden Grove City Hall Engineering Counter.
Between June 14 and June 19, 2014, the cities of Santa Ana and Garden Grove, in
coordination with OCTA, conducted three Public Review Meetings for the Santa Ana -
Garden Grove Fixed Guideway EA /DEIR in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. Per
CEQA guidelines, public notice was provided to the community about the release of the
EA /DEIR for public review and comment via issuance of a Notice of Availability (NOA) on
May 23, 2014, initiating the 45 -day Public Review Period.
The Public Review Meetings were conducted at different times of the day to accommodate
the busy schedules of the area residents and to provide different times and opportunities
for them to attend (including a weekend meeting). The dates and locations of the meetings
are listed below:
LPA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -66
4.71 Page
Saturday, June 14, 2014, 9:00 a.m. — 12:00 p.m. — Garfield Community
Center, 501 N. Lacy
Tuesday, June 17, 2014, 9:00 a.m. — 12:00 p.m. — Santa Ana Police
Department Community Room, 60 Civic Center Plaza
Thursday, June 19, 2014, 6:00 p.m. — 9:00 p.m. — Goodwill Industries, 412 N.
Fairview Street.
4.6.1 Public review Meeting Format
The Public Review Meetings provided members of the community forums through which to
comment on the EA /DEIR. The Public Review Meetings combined an open house with a
formal presentation and comment period. Upon arrival of meeting attendees, project team
members were on hand to walk attendees through a series of information boards and
answer questions. Approximately 30 minutes into the meeting schedule, there was a brief
presentation about the project and the planning, environmental review and implementation
processes. Following the presentation, attendees were invited to provide oral comments,
which were recorded by court reporters. Attendees were also advised of additional
opportunities to submit their comments in writing (by mail, fax, or email) and postcards
were provided to them for that purpose.
Display Boards
A total of 10 display boards were used to provide information to the public. Boards
illustrating the various alternatives being considered were placed around the room
providing comprehensive project information. They were divided among five information
stations:
Meeting Purpose /Agenda
Locations to Review the EA /DEIR
Project Alternatives (3 alternatives on separate boards)
Characteristics of the Streetcar System
Stations & Vehicles
Study Process
Environmental Process
How to Submit Comments
The display boards were printed in English, with Spanish Vietnamese translations provided
for each board. Native speakers of each language were on hand to answer questions and
translate comments. Following the Public Review Meetings, electronic copies of the
boards were posted on the City of Santa Ana website.
Power Point Presentation
The PowerPoint presentation included 23 slides. Some of the slides included the same
information as provided on the boards, with the speaker providing additional, more detailed
information. Information on Project Background, the OCTA Go Local Program of which the
PA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -67
4 81 PaIt o
project is a part, and OCTA's vision was provided. Slides also address the alternatives
that had been considered, why streetcar was being studied, how much the project was
estimated to cost and how it might be funded. Slides also described the environmental
review requirements, how the locally preferred alternative would be selected, and what the
next steps and future actions on the project would be. Final slides invited comments and
identified the varied of ways comments could be submitted, and thanked participants for
their interest. The slide presentation was provided simultaneously (three projectors, three
screens) in English, Spanish and Vietnamese. Following the Public Review Meetings, the
PowerPoint presentation was posted on the City of Santa Ana website.
Comment Cards
Comment cards were available at each meeting for attendees who wished to provide
written comments.
Meeting Interpretation /Transcription
Trilingual (English /Spanish /Vietnamese) interpretation services were available at each public
meeting for attendees who preferred to provide oral comments. Transcriptionists were
also at meeting to record the oral comments.
The cities of Santa Ana and Garden Grove accepted written and oral comments throughout
the 45 -day Public Review Period, from May 23, 2014 until July 7, 2014. All comments
were recorded and kept on file at the City of Santa Ana Public Works Department and will
be included in the Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Environmental
Assessment /Final Environmental Impact Report.
4.7.1 Summary of Public Comments Provided at Public Review Meetings
Approximately 120 to 150 people attended the three Public Review Meetings. Some of
those who attended expressed general support for the project, while others expressed a
preference for a particular alternative. Many participants, particularly the business owners
along 4`" Street in Santa Ana, expressed concern about impacts to their business during
construction.
Following is a summary of comments provided at each of the Public Review Meetings:
Public Review Meeting #1 at Garfield Community Center
Approximately 30 to 40 people attended the Public Review Meeting at Garfield Community
Center. Approximately 6 people provided verbal comments for the record. The comments
generally related to:
General statements of support for the project
How community noticing was accomplished
Whether an Equity Analysis had been performed for the project
LPA decision Report
July 2014
55C -68
4.9 1 Page
Concern about potential construction impacts to 4`h Street businesses
Support for Streetcar Alternative 2
The physical appearance /attractiveness of the streetcar vehicles
Safety particularly in proximity to schools along the streetcar route
Public Review Meeting #2 at Santa Ana Police Department Community Room
Public Review Meeting #2 was held on Tuesday, July 17, 2014 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00
p.m. at the Santa Ana Police Department Community Room. Approximately 40 to 50
people were in attendance. Three people offered public comment for the record at this
meeting. The comments were all in support of the project for various reasons including:
Potential economic development and jobs that would result
Landscaping and station area improvements improving overall street attractiveness
Public Review Meeting #3 at Goodwill Industries
The final public meeting was held on Thursday, July 19, 2014 from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00
p.m. at Goodwill Industries at the western end of the study area. There were
approximately 50 to 60 people in attendance at this meeting. Approximately 24 people
asked questions or provided comments that were recorded by the court reporter. The
comments generally consisted of the following:
Whether an equity analysis had been performed as part of the environmental review
process to address issues of environmental justice.
Concern about construction impacts and impacts to the historic buildings on 4`h
Street.
How the streetcar would alter the street for bicyclists
Concerns about impacts to on- street parking in the area
Who would use the transit system, whether it was local residents or more regionally
oriented
What measures would be taken to provide for community safety
How the project would be funded, and
How many residents would be displaced.
4.7.2 Summary of Public Comments Received Outside of the Public Review Meetings
A Board Member of Downtown, Inc., representing Downtown and Artists Village
merchants and property owners submitted comments on behalf of their membership.
Downtown, Inc. expressed their strong support for the project and indicated a preference
for Streetcar Alternative 1 so that the route would more closely serve the Downtown and
Artist Village business district.
The Santa Ana Community & Business Coalition (SAC -BA) submitted a letter stating their
opposition the streetcar project on the basis that construction along 4`h Street will severely
LPA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -69
4.10 1 Page
impact 4" Street businesses, and cause residential displacement in the Santa Anita
Neighborhood of Santa Ana. In addition, they indicate opposition to the project for the
following reasons: Lack of inclusion in the planning process; 2. Questionable objectives for
the specified project; 3. Project costs; 4. Disruptive construction, vacant properties,
displacement; and 5. Public safety issues. They further requested that an equity analysis
which is provided in Section 3.5 of the EA /DEIR) be performed. Along with their letter,
the SAC -BA also included over 180 form letters of opposition, most signed by residents
and representatives of business within the study area, some signed by individuals outside
the study area.
4.7.3 Summary of Public Agency Comments
Three agencies submitted comment letters during the public review period. A brief
summary of each is provided below:
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Caltrans, as a commenting agency on the project, had no comments at this time.
However, in the event of any activity in the Department's right -of -way, they noted that an
encroachment permit would be necessary. They asked to be kept informed of the project
and any future development that might impact State transportation facilities.
California Native American Heritage Commission
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) conveyed their concern for CEQA
compliance with regard to areas of identified archaeological sensitivity, and suggested that
archaeological activity be coordinated with the NAHC and that the final report including
mitigation measures be provided to the NAHC planning department.
United States General Services Administration
The United States General Services Administration (GSA) provided comments on behalf of
the GSA and their Tenant Agencies in the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and Courthouse,
located between 4`" and 5`" Streets, west of Ross Street. The GSA expressed a preference
for Streetcar Alternative 1 and strong objections to Streetcar Alternative 2. Their
objections to Streetcar Alternative 2 were based on security and operational concerns with
the 51" Street alignment.
Santa Ana Historical Preservation Society
The Santa Ana Historical Preservation Society (SAHPS) provided their comments on the
EA /DEIR in a letter dated July 7, 2014. Their primary concern was about potential right -
of -way acquisitions along Civic Center Drive to accommodate the streetcar in Streetcar
Alternative 2 and the planned bike lanes. They also expressed their support for Streetcar
Alternative 1 because they believe it will promote more visitors to Downtown Santa Ana
and reduce current vehicle and parking demands on the existing street system.
LPA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -70
4.11 1 Page
a r r ,,Im, cmnr r
The comments have been considered in recommending the Locally Preferred Alternative
LPA) for the project, and have been incorporated into the definition of the LPA's physical
and operating characteristics, where appropriate.
Responses will be prepared to all of the comments received through the Court Reporters at
the Public Review Meetings, or in writing (through mail, fax, email or personal delivery)
during the Public Review Period, and incorporated into the Environmental Assessment /Final
Environmental Impact Report (EA /FEIR).
LPA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -71
4.121 Page
FATCI I jj 104111 r7 TrTi l3iT I
OW11111FAIl9O
The following describes the criteria, factors and considerations that contributed to the
recommendation of the LPA.
5.1 Results of Detailed Technical Evaluation
As presented in Sections 3.6 and 3.7, the Detailed Evaluation of the Reduced Set of
Alternatives considered how each alternative compared against the criteria and measures
of effectiveness (MOEs) presented previously in Table 3 -2. The criteria included:
Accessibility and Livability
Economic Development, Transit Supportive Land Use and Community Goals
Environmental responsibility
Travel Benefits, Choice and Reliability, and
Cost Effectiveness and Financial Feasibility.
Streetcar Alternative 1 ranked number 1 overall in the Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives.
It was ranked first in Accessibility and Livability because it served the greatest number of
transit dependent households and was estimated to have the highest daily ridership of the
three alternatives.
Streetcar Alternative 1 also ranked the highest among the alternatives on Economic
Development, Transit Supportive Land Use and Community Goals. The existing land uses
along the eastern portion of the Streetcar Alternative 1 alignment provide the densities and
development patterns to support a high capacity transit system. Much of the land use
along the eastern portion of the Streetcar Alternative 2 alignment is governmental
institutional uses and public parking structures, which are unlikely to redevelop in the near
term. Adopted land use plans that cover the streetcar alignment areas support and
encourage the types of development /redevelopment likely to occur in conjunction with high
capacity and transit, and existing development patterns provide opportunity for such
development/ redevelopment to occur. Because of the nature of the types of land uses
along the Streetcar Alternative 2 route, particularly the government offices and
courthouses along the central portion through the Downtown and Civic Center, land use
plans do not anticipate similar levels and types of development /redevelopment along its
alignment.
Streetcar Alternative 1 effectively serves key destinations within the corridor area, ranking
it first in Travel Benefit, Choice and Reliability.
Streetcar Alternative 1 ranked second among the alternatives in Environmental
Responsibility, while TSM ranked first. Because the TSM Alternative does not include
LPA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -72
5.1 1 Page
substantial new construction, it does not require acquisition of right -of -way, nor does it
adversely affect any conditions in the environment compared to the No Build Alternative.
Both Streetcar Alternatives require acquisition of right -of -way (with Streetcar Alternative 2
requiring somewhat more than Streetcar Alternative 1). Because both Streetcar
Alternatives involve new construction, both alternatives will alter conditions in the
environment compared to the No Build Alternative.
The MOEs for Cost Effectiveness and Financial Feasibility in the Alternatives Analysis
included Constructability /Ease of Construction, Capital Cost, Capital Cost per Route Mile,
Annualized Operating Cost, and Operating Cost per Hour. During the environmental review
process, and as part of the public outreach efforts that were undertaken in support of the
environmental review, capital and operating costs for the alternatives were reviewed as
were the Cost Effectiveness MOEs.
The TSM Alternative ranked first for Constructability /Ease of Construction because of the
very limited amount of construction likely to occur under this alternative.
TSM Alternative ranked first in capital cost and capital cost per route mile. However,
although the TSM Alternative is initially less expensive to implement, the busses used in
the TSM Alternative only have a 12 -year life cycle, compared to a 25 to 30 year life cycle
for streetcar vehicles. Also, Streetcar 1 has the lowest annual operating cost. So while
Streetcar Alternative 1 costs considerably more than the TSM Alternative to initially
implement, after 25 years it has cost less than TSM or Streetcar 2 to construct, operate
and maintain. Over a 25 year period, the cost per passenger to construct, maintain and
operate Streetcar Alternative 1 is approximately half that of the TSM alternative.
Table 5 -1 provides a summary of estimated capital and operating costs for each of the
alternatives.
Table 5 -1: Cost Comparison of Alternatives
Operating Cost of TSM SARTC -to- Harbor route only is $5.1 million; daily ridership is 3,085.
Table 5 -2 shows the results of the detailed evaluation of alternatives. Again, Streetcar
Alternative 1 is ranked first overall with the TSM Alternative ranking second.
I.PA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -73
5.21 Page
STREETCAR STREETCAR
TSM ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2
i $197.4 million - 217.0 million -
Capital Cost 14.5 million 209.7 million 4 $228.1 million
Daily Ridership 31982 6,090 4,752
Operating Cost (Annual) _ 313 million 4.9 millionr 6.1 million
Cost /Passenger 10.20 6.59 t$9.59
Cost /Revenue Mile 13.23_ 14.86
t
tI $
16.81
Cost /Revenue Hour 125.70 187.12 1 $187.12
Operating Cost of TSM SARTC -to- Harbor route only is $5.1 million; daily ridership is 3,085.
Table 5 -2 shows the results of the detailed evaluation of alternatives. Again, Streetcar
Alternative 1 is ranked first overall with the TSM Alternative ranking second.
I.PA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -73
5.21 Page
Table 5 -2: Final Alternatives Ranking
CRITERIA I MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS TSM
STREETCAR
ALTERNATIVE 1
STREETCAR
ALTERNATIVE 2
1. ACCESSIBILITY AND LIVABILITY
1A
1113
No. of transit - dependent households within 1/4 3 1 2
mile walkinkdistance of proposed _alignment —
No. of daily riders (average weekday boardings)
3 1 2
2• ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE LAND USE AND COMMUNITY GOALS
2A Assessment of the transit supportiveness of
land uses served by the proposed alignment
3 1 2
26
Assessment of the economic development
potential of land uses served by the proposed
alignment
3 1 2
2C Community Support 2 1 1
3. ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
3A
3B
Amount of additional right -of -way required 1 2 3 _
Environmental Tradeoffs 2 3
4• TRAVEL BENEFITS, CHOICE AND RELIABILITY
4A Customer service (travel times between 0 -D
airs)
2 1 3
46 Number of daily riders (average weekdayboardins) 3 1 2
5. COST EFFECTIVENESS AND FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
5A Constructability /ease of construction 1 2 3
56 Capital cost 1 2 3
5C Capital cost per route mile 1 2 3
5D Annualized_ operating cost_ 3 1 2
5E Operating cost per passenger 3 1 2
30 19 33
OVERALL RANKING 2 1 3
For purposes of comparison to the Streetcar Alternatives, the Annualized Operating Cost for
TSM includes only the SARTC -to- Harbor route.
5.1.1 Design Options Evaluation Results
O &M Facility Site: As described in Section 2.4.1, two sites were considered for the 0 &M
facility. Based on the results of the detailed evaluation of the two sites it was concluded
that Site A was slightly smaller than Site B and irregularly shaped, making the ease of
operations somewhat less than with Site B. Site A was also more expensive than Site B.
However it offered advantages in terms of environmental tradeoffs. It would not result in
the displacement of any residents. Neither site were estimated to create additional noise
LPA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -74
6-3I Page
compared to existing conditions and may in fact reduce noise somewhat, and both sites
were consistent with adopted land use plans and policies of the City of Santa Ana. It was
anticipated that the environmental review process and accompanying public comment
would further discern the relative advantages and disadvantages of each of these options
and support the selection of the preferred option.
There was little public comment or discussion about the 0 &M facility sites during public
review of the EA /DEIR. However, size, location and opportunities for future system
expansion and connectivity were considerations in the limited discussion of the two sites.
Based on the evaluation results and public and agency comment, Site B is identified as the
preferred site for the O &M Facility. It is slightly larger and more regularly shaped than Site
A, providing operational benefits, the ability to house the full range of O &M maintenance
functions, and greater opportunity to accommodate system expansion into Garden Grove
or Anaheim in the future. It is estimated to be less expensive than Site A, and the use of
the site as an O &M facility would be consistent with its industrial zoning designation and
compatible with adjacent and surrounding land uses.
4`h Street Parking Scenario: With implementation of the streetcar on 4`h Street, it is
necessary to eliminate the diagonal parking along the south side of 4`h Street because
automobiles backing out of parking spaces would conflict with streetcar operations. As
described in Section 2.4.2, three Design Options were considered to eliminate the diagonal
parking: a) Replace the diagonal parking along the south side of 4m Street between Ross
and French Streets with parallel parking; widen the sidewalk along the south side from 12
feet to 20 feet; b) Eliminate the parking along the south side of 4`h Street between Ross
and French Streets and widen the sidewalks from 12 feet to 28 feet; and c) Eliminate the
parking along both sides of 4`h Street between Ross and French Streets and widen the
sidewalks on both sides of the street from 12 feet to 28 feet.
During the public review period for the EA /DEIR, there was considerable comment and
concern expressed about the impact of the fixed guideway on on- street parking. In
particular, business owners along 4th Street were concerned about the impact to their
businesses if adjacent on- street parking was eliminated.
4`h Street Parking Scenario A is the preferred option to address the diagonal parking along
4m Street. In Option A, the parking along the south side of 4th Street would be
reconfigured to parallel parking spaces along the south side of 4`h Street between Ross and
French Street. Option A results in the least loss of on- street parking, with a loss of
between 26 and 30 spaces. It provides some traffic operational improvement compared to
the diagonal parking, although less than parking removal. It is less expensive than either
Option B or Option C
LPA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -75
5.4 1 Page
The sidewalks along the south side of the street will be widened from their existing 1 2 -foot
width to approximately 20 feet wide. This will enhance the pedestrian experience and
provide greater flexibility for event - related activities and Downtown businesses to utilize
this space.
An EA /DEIR was prepared for the project to meet the requirements of NEPA and CEQA.
The alternatives identified for evaluation in the EA /DEIR were based on public comments as
well as technical analyses, as detailed in the AA Report.
Table 3 -1, presented previously, summarizes the potential adverse effects associated with
the implementation of Streetcar Alternatives 1 and 2. No impacts would occur from the
implementation of the TSM Alternative.
The EA /DEIR identified that Streetcar Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in adverse effects
associated with hazardous materials, operational noise (moderate), safety, and
construction air quality are anticipated to occur prior to incorporation of mitigation
measures (CEQA only). Mitigation measures would eliminate the adverse effects
associated with hazardous materials and safety. Moderate effects associated with
operational noise would remain after the implementation of mitigation, however these
effects would not be considered adverse. In addition, the EA /DEIR identified that
significant construction air quality impacts under CEQA would remain after the
implementation of mitigation; however, it construction - related air quality impacts would be
temporary and not adverse under NEPA after the implementation of mitigation.
No adverse effects were identified for the TSM Alternative.
Following the completion of the AA and EA /DEIR, there was a 45 -day public review period
for the EA /DEIR conducted between May 23, 2014 and July 7, 2014. During this time,
the public was notified and encouraged to review and provide comments on the EA /DEIR in
compliance with NEPA and CEQA requirements; the AA was also made available. The
following summarizes the comments received during the Public Review Period that are
germane to the selection of the Locally Preferred Alternative.
General community support for a streetcar system: While there were differences of
opinion regarding the route, there was general support for the concept of a streetcar
system connecting SARTC with the City of Garden Grove, through the Downtown and
Civic Center area.
Concern about the duration and potential impacts of construction on local Downtown
businesses: There were several comments from local business owners inquiring about the
LPA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -76
5.51 Page
methods and duration of construction and the potential disruption to businesses,
particularly along 4t' Street in Santa Ana.
Concern about loss of on- street parking: Although the streetcar alignments do not
generally require the removal of on- street parking, there are a few locations where some
on- street parking will be removed or reconfigured, most notably along the south side of
Santa Ana Boulevard between Raitt Street and Bristol Street, and along 4`h Street between
Ross Street and French Street. The ENDEIR noted that, particularly along 4`" Street,
alternative parking options are provided by parking structures accessible from 3 ", 4`h and
5" Street. However, residents and business owners accustomed to on- street parking
expressed concerns about the impact of its removal.
Opportunities to stimulate economic development along 51" Street in conjunction with the
streetcar: Some residents and business owners felt that 4th Street was currently an active
commercial corridor and that 5" Street might better benefit from the potential economic
development opportunities created by a streetcar system.
4`h Street versus 5" Street: Considerable and varied input was provided regarding the
preferred location for the streetcar. A group of approximately 180 residents and 4`" Street
business owners in coordination with the Santa Ana Community & Business Alliance
expressed their opposition to the 4'" Street alignment. Downtown, Inc. also representing
businesses and merchants along 4" Street and in the Downtown and Artist Village area
expressed strong support for the 4`" Street alignment and expressed concerns that
Streetcar Alternative 2 (along Santa Ana Boulevard, Civic Center Drive and 5 "' Street) took
the streetcar too far north of key commercial opportunities in Downtown. The U.S. General
Services Administration strongly opposed the 5t' Street alignment because of its proximity
to the Ronald Reagan Federal Build & Courthouse and the main entrance to that building's
parking garage. The Santa Ana Historic Preservation Society expressed it preference for
the 4" Street alignment.
r' r c r
There is strong support from the community for a streetcar system connecting SARTC
with the Downtown and Civic Center areas, continuing west to Garden Grove.
Streetcar Alternative 1 was ranked first in the technical evaluation of the alternatives.
Streetcar Alternative 1 and Streetcar Alternative 2 would have only one significant
environmental impact, a temporary air quality impact during construction.
Streetcar Alternative 2 requires slightly more right -of -way than Streetcar Alternative 1 and
impacts one additional business (Downtown Burger King).
LPA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -77
5.61 Page
Streetcar Alternative 1 is estimated to have the highest ridership and serve the greatest
number of transit depended households.
Streetcar Alternative 1 costs less than Streetcar Alternative 2 to construct and operate.
The Streetcar Alternative 1 alignment has the most transit supportive existing land use and
development patterns to support a high capacity transit system.
With the provisions of the Transit Zoning Code considerable additional development
opportunity and potential exists along the Streetcar 1 alignment compared to Streetcar
Alternative 2 which has heavily institutional /government uses and parking structures along
its Downtown /Civic Center alignment.
Streetcar Alternative 1 ranked second in Constructability /Ease of Construction. This is due
in part to improvements already completed by the City of Santa Ana along Santa Ana
Boulevard and 4th Street that have addressed some of the potential utility relocation
challenges that exist along 51h Street.
4th Street Parking Scenario A: Replace Parking along South Side with Parallel Parking and
Widen Southern Sidewalk to 20 Feet is recommended.
Eliminates the fewest on- street parking spaces along 4th Street
Adequate replacement parking is available at nearby parking structures on 3r 4th
and 5t° Street.
Replacing the diagonal parking with parallel parking provides traffic operations and
safety benefits to the streetcar and automobiles traveling eastbound on 4th Street
by eliminating vehicles backing into the traffic stream.
Parallel parking allows for widening of the southern sidewalks by 8 feet which will
enhance the pedestrian experience and provide for pedestrian- oriented uses and
activities along the south side of 4th Street.
Coordination and communication between the cities of Santa Ana and Garden Grove,
OCTA and affected business and property owners will need to be ongoing as the project
progresses through design, construction and operations.
Of the two operations and maintenance facility sites, Site B located along 5th Street west
of Raitt Street is the Preferred Site for the following reasons:
Its size, rectangular shape and proximity to the PE ROW make it more efficient for
both development and operations.
It is estimated to be less expensive than Site A (near SARTC).
Its location in the western half of the corridor provides greater flexibility to serve
future extensions or connections through Garden Grove to Anaheim.
LPA Derision Report
July 2014
55C -78
5.71 Page
The size of Site B provides advantages in locating a greater range of O &M
functions on the site which provides the opportunity to minimize duplication of
functions as the system expands and /or connects with other streetcar systems in
the future.
U Locally Preferred Alternative
The following describes the physical and operating characteristics of the recommended
LPA, Streetcar Alternative 1 .
5.5.1 Technology (Mode)
It is recommended that transit service be provided by
modern streetcars operating within existing streets in
mixed -flow traffic (the streetcar will share the travel
lane with other vehicles), consistent with the Streetcar
Alternatives analyzed in the EA/DEIR. For planning
purposes, the Siemens S7O short vehicle (see Figure
5 -1) was assumed since it is currently the only vehicle
approved by the California Public Utilities Commission
CPUC) for streetcar operations in California. The Figure 5 -1: Siemens S7O Vehicle
vehicle is approximately 80 feet long and 8.7 feet wide. It provides seating for 60
passengers and can accommodate a total of 150 passengers seated and standing. For
quick and convenient boarding, the vehicle is approximately 68 percent low -floor with a
low -floor height of 14 inches. Power would be supplied via an overhead electric line.
Other emerging streetcar technologies, including "wireless" and other vehicle options that
may be acceptable to the CPUC will also be considered as they become available during
the project development process.
5.5.2 Alignment (Route)
The recommended alignment (shown in Figure 5 -2) is consistent with Streetcar Alternative
1, with the streetcar traveling westbound from eastern terminus station at SARTC in Santa
Ana, along Santa Ana Boulevard, entering the Pacific Electric Right -of -way (PE ROW) west
of Raitt Street and continuing to the western terminus station in the northwest quadrant of
the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Westminster Avenue in Garden Grove.
Eastbound, the streetcar will travel along the PE ROW and Santa Ana Boulevard to
approximately Parton Street, where the route will exit Santa Ana Boulevard and continue
along a public easement on the south edge of Sasscer Park. The streetcar will exit Sasscer
Park onto 4`h Street and continue along 4 " Street to Mortimer Street, where it will turn
north and reconnect with Santa Ana Boulevard, continuing east to the eastern terminus
station at SARTC. The route is approximately 4.1 miles in length. Six traction power
substations have been identified along the route to distribute electrical power to the
vehicles.
LPA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -79
5.8I Page
dY7Qcc
d
C
CDY
a
tU
d
N
a
tO
VOJ
N
Ln
LL
v
C Y
o
Y
c E
U p p
O
0 U
N Gard Ave.
NQJ u
cc
F
Q G 01
Ya
o 2 i5
vNo Q Vn
Ross
Flor St U Uo
fn
Rnstot 51
Li
r O Ol ro
C C = Q
NU
Ram St .
It
u
ny .va.vai
Y Y m q
O O O U N0
c c 3
Y o
o Harbor Blvd 0 o ri C N
u U w
J
e
55C -80
C.n
QCs
0
C
ti a
ar °
a_
C Y
o
Man = c E
U p pOroadsy00U
Ross
Flor St U Uo
fn
Rnstot 51
Li
r O Ol ro
C C = Q
NU
Ram St .
It
u
ny .va.vai
Y Y m q
O O O U N0
c c 3
Y o
o Harbor Blvd 0 o ri C N
u U w
J
e
55C -80
C.n
QCs
0
C
ti a
ar °
a_
This page left blank intentionally.
55C -81
5.5.3 Operations and Maintenance Facility
The preferred location for the maintenance facility for the streetcar is between the PE ROW
and 51h Street, west of Raitt Street (between Daisy Avenue and English Street)(See Figure
5 -2). This is Site B as examined in the EA /DEIR. The site is rectangular, comprised of
three parcels and slightly larger than 2.4 acres. It is located in an area of industrial and
commercial uses. Vehicular access to the site would be from 5" Street, with the
possibility of future access via roadway improvements within the PE ROW. The site
provides adequate space to accommodate all the needed administrative, and operations
and maintenance functions, with practical car storage space for a fleet of approximately 14
vehicles, allowing for future expansion. There are existing industrial and residential uses
currently on the site.
5.5.4 Roadway Improvements /Modifications
New traffic signals will be installed at two locations along the streetcar route: the
intersection of Santa Ana Boulevard and Lacy Street, and the intersection of 4" Street at
Mortimer Street.
Improvements will be made along Fairview Street between 51h Street and Civic Center
Drive to accommodate the streetcar crossing at Fairview Street. These improvements
include: reconfiguring the northbound left turn lane into the Santa Ana Unified School
District facility, addition of gates at the PE ROW (traffic and pedestrian) and the addition of
a second southbound left turn lane on Fairview Street at Civic Center Drive.
Between SARTC and Raitt Street, the streetcar will operate in the curbside travel lane with
mixed -flow traffic. In most locations where on- street parking is currently provided along a
roadway included in the streetcar route, the parking will remain with implementation of the
streetcar. Exceptions include some intermediate station locations, and along the south side
of Santa Ana Boulevard between Raitt Street and Shelton Street.
Diagonal parking is currently provided along 4th Street between Ross Street and French
Street. It is recommended that, with implementation of the streetcar, the diagonal parking
along the south side of 4th Street be replaced by parallel parking (4th Street Parking
Scenario A), resulting in the loss of approximately 26 to 30 parking spaces along the
roadway segment. The sidewalks along the south side of 4th Street will be widened from
12 feet to 20 feet.
5.5.5 Station Locations and Characteristics
In addition to the two terminus stations at SARTC on the east and Harbor
Boulevard /Westminster Avenue on the west, there will be station stops at 10 other
locations /cross streets along the route:
LPA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -82
5.101 Page
1 . Harbor Boulevard and Westminster Avenue
2. Willowick
3. Fairview Street and PE ROW
4. Raitt St. and Santa Ana Boulevard
5. Bristol St. and Santa Ana Boulevard
6. Flower St. and Santa Ana Boulevard
Couplet Section (Eastbound)
7. Sasscer Park
8. Broadway and 4" Street
9. Main St. and 4`" Street
10. French St. and 4`" Street
11. Santa Ana Boulevard and Lacy Street
12. SARTC
Couplet Section (Westbound)
7. Ross Street and Santa Ana Boulevard
8. Broadway and Santa Ana Boulevard
9. Main Street and Santa Ana Boulevard
10. French Street and Santa Ana Boulevard
Each station would include amenities such as shelters, lighting, trash receptacles, and real -
time next train arrival information. Parking will not be provided at the intermediate
stations, however, parking is available for the eastern terminus station at SARTC, and
some limited parking (approximately 50 spaces) will be provided within the station area at
the western terminus station. Figure 5 -3 shows what a typical side - platform station
shelter might look like. The platforms would be constructed to be 14 inches about the
street surface to allow for nearly -level boarding. Automated ticket vending (ATV) machines
will be provided only at three stations along the route: the western terminus, the eastern
terminus and one Downtown Santa Ana location. ATV will be provided on all streetcar
vehicles.
PJl
Figure 5 -3: Typical Station Shelter
5.5.6 Operating Characteristics of the Streetcar
a
The Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway is proposed to operate seven days a week.
Based on initial operating concepts, the streetcar's hours of operations will be:
Monday through Thursday — 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. (17 hours)
Friday and Saturday — 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. (19 hours)
Sundays /Holidays — 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. (15 hours).
The streetcar will operate every 10 minutes during peak hours (6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.)
and every 15 minutes during off -peak hours (after 6:00 p.m.).
LPA Decision Report
July 2014
55C -83
5 111 Page
Travel speed of the streetcar will vary along the alignment. Within the PE ROW between
station stops, and along the west end of Santa Ana Boulevard travel speeds will approach
35 miles per hour (mph). Through the Civic center and Downtown areas, streetcar travel
speeds will be approximately 20 mph. However, when speed reductions for school zones,
entering and exiting station areas and complying with traffic control are taken into
account, the average speed of the streetcar along the entire length of the alignment will be
approximately 17 mph.
LPA Derision Report
July 2014
55C -84
5.1'2 1 Page
REVISED 8/1/2014
RESOLUTION NO.2014 -xxx
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA SELECTING A LOCALLY PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE FOR THE SANTA ANA - GARDEN GROVE
FIXED GUIDEWAY PROJECT
WHEREAS, since 2008, the Cities of Santa Ana and Garden Grove have worked
collaboratively with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) on the Santa
Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project; and
WHEREAS, Santa Ana and OCTA have entered into cooperative agreements for
development of the Fixed Guideway Project; and
WHEREAS, the City's consultant team completed an LPA Decision Report; and
WHEREAS, the staff desires that the identified alternative in the LPA Decision
Report be approved by the City Council as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA); and
WHEREAS, the LPA identified is the proposed project to be evaluated in a Final
Environmental Assessment (EA) /Environmental Impact Report (EIR) subject to the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
WHEREAS, the proposed project as defined by the LPA cannot be advanced
prior to the certification of the joint NEPA /CEQA document.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines
and declares as follows:
A. The LPA Decision Report has been prepared and is enclosed herein.
B. The City Council supports the LPA Decision Report findings in recommending
Streetcar Alternative 1 based on the following factors:
Strong Community Support for a Streetcar System
Highest Ridership
Serves Greatest Number of Transit Dependent Households
Least Right -of -Way Acquisition
Lower Cost
Most Transit Supportive Land Uses
Resolution No.
WG Page 1 of 3
Larger Economic Development Potential
Ease of Constructability
C. The City Council supports the LPA Decision Report recommendation of
Parking Scenario "A" where on- street parking remains on Fourth Street along
both sides, with diagonal parking along the south side becoming parallel
parking.
D. The City Council supports the LPA Decision Report recommendation to select
Site B for the operations and maintenance facility along Fifth Street west of
Raitt Street.
E. The City of Santa Ana desires that Streetcar Alternative 1, the Locally
Preferred Alternative, be identified so that the Fixed Guideway Project may be
designed, developed, constructed, delivered, and operated by OCTA.
SECTION 2. The City Council authorizes the City Manager or his designee to
submit all project related documents to OCTA.
ADOPTED this _day of 2014.
Miguel A. Pulido
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
0
Sonia R. Carvalho,
City Attorney
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers:
Resolution No.
55C -86 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATION OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, MARIA D. HUIZAR, Clerk of Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached
Resolution No. 2014 - to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the
City of Santa Ana on
Date:
Clerk of Council
City of Santa Ana
Resolution No.
55C -87 Page 3 of 3
55C -88