55A - RESO - ADDENDUM BRISTOL STREET WIDENING

Home Browse Search

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Phase IIIB— Washington Avenue to 17'h Street b.) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Refer to response 3.15 (a.), above. The proposed Project does not include, nor would it require, construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore, no adverse physical impact on the environment would occur from such facilities as a result of the proposed Project. No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 FEIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. 3.16 Transportation /Traffic This section corresponds with Section IV - Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures, Subsections U - Impacts to Transportation Facilities, and V - Construction Impacts of the 1990 FEIS /EIR. As stated in Section 1.0, the proposed Project eliminates the dedicated eastbound right -turn lane and proposes a shared right -turn lane in its place at the intersection of Bristol Street and 17t1i Street. a.) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. The proposed Project is consistent with the applicable plans, ordinances and policies establishing measures of effectiveness for the per£onnance of the circulation system as described in the 1990 FEIS /EIR. The widening of Bristol Street was designated in the Orange County Master Plan, and was recommended in the Bristol Street Corridor Study — Final Report prepared by Motile, Grover & Associates (1983). It was also recommended in the Arterial Highway Element — Santa Ana Element — Santa Ana Transportation Corridor State II Alternative Analysis prepared by Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas, Inc. (1983). The proposed widening is also consistent with the recommendation found in the Intercity Liaison Committee — Five -Year Transportation Study Update to 1990 prepared by Basmaciyan- Darnell, Inc. (1985). Furthermore, the proposed Project would improve traffic operations through the Project corridor. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 FEIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. b.) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? ANA 111 -334 (PER- 02 -01) CITY OF SANTA ANA (01/30/2014 REVS) 132997 CM PAGE 49 55A -58