Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 - State Route 57 ExtensionDecember 12, 2000 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2000- IN SUPPORT OF EXTENDING STATE ROUTE 57 (SR57) TO INTERSTATE 405 (1 -405) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 2000- _ in support of State. Route 57 Extension Project. DISCUSSION: The City received a letter from American Transportation Development, LLC (ATD), asking for a Resolution of Support for the SR57 Extension Project. Caltrans is considering giving ATD more time to exercise an expiring 10 -year franchise agreement to build an extension of SR57 from Interstate -5 and the Orange Crush interchange to Interstate -405 in Costa Mesa. Proposed is an eleven -mile long, four -lane toll facility that will be elevated above the river channel. Newport Beach residents would benefit from a project to extend SR57 in the following ways: • A more direct route to Central Orange County from the SR73 Freeway connection to 1-405 • Reduced traffic on the 1-405 on either side of the connections of the 57 extension and the SR73 freeway • Reduced traffic on the SR55 freeway • Reduced traffic on side streets used to avoid freeway congestion The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) gave Caltrans conditional support for the project at their September 25, 2000 Board Meeting (copy attached). The City's Resolution supports the OCTA conditions. SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2000- IN SUPPORT OF EXTENDING STATE ROUTE 57 (SR57) TO INTERSTATE 405 (1.405) December 12, 2000 Page 2 OCTA's conditions for support are: • An existing " no competition" clause be narrowed • Terms be specified for making a public or non - profit agency the owner - operator of the privately built facility • OCTA not to provide funding for the environmental impact report • ATD to provide OCTA evidence of project supporters, feasibility and sponsor commitment before moving to constriction The adjacent cities of Fountain Valley and Santa Ana oppose the project because of its neighborhood impacts and their concern about flood and water quality implications from intrusion in the river channel. Several OCTA Directors noted these issues would be fully developed in the environmental impact report and could be evaluated for possible mitigation at that time. The proposed extension of SR57 has been on the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) for over twenty-five years. The extension is also a part of the OCTA's highway planning component of FAST FORWARD and the twenty-year Long Range Transportation Plan. Adoption of this Resolution voices support for the extension of SR57 to 1-405 but not for the actual agreement between Caltrans and ATD. Ultimately, Caltrans is the State agency that will structure a new agreement with ATD or let it expire in January 2001. Respectfully sub ' e , �P BLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don Webb, Director By: 6 f", Lois Thompson Administrative Coordinator Attachment: Resolution of Support OCTA Resolution of Support, September 25, 2000 Letter from ATD Site Map SR 57 Frequently Asked Questions — Authored by ATD RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO SUPPORT THE EXTENSION OF STATE ROUTE 57 (SR57) WHEREAS, Orange County's population is expected to increase 25 percent over the next 20 years; and WHEREAS, Orange County's employment base is projected to increase by more than 70 percent during the same period; and WHEREAS, these increases are expected to add to traffic congestion; and WHEREAS, Southern California's future economic viability and quality of life depends on the mobility of its people; and WHEREAS, the proposed extension of SR57 has been on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways for over 25 years; and WHEREAS, Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) has recognized the necessity to extend SR57 to 1 -405 in the Regional Transportation Planning component of Fast Forward and their 20 year Long Range Plan; and WHEREAS, the extension of SR 57 to 1 -405 will relieve congestion on local streets and freeways serving Central Orange County; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach supports the extension of SR57 to 1 -405 and the conditions in the September 25, 2000, OCTA Resolution. ADOPTED this day of 2000 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk F:\ Users \PBW\ Shared \COUNCIL \Fy00 -01 \December -12 \SR 57 Resolution.doc RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY SUPPORT OF AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT, LLC'S REQUEST OF CALTRANS FOR AN EXTENSION OF FRANCHISE TERM FOR THE STATE ROUTE 57 EXTENSION TOLLROAD PROJECT WHEREAS, American Transportation Development, LLC (ATD) has recently acquired the franchise rights ( "Franchise ") to the AB 680 - authorized SR -57 Extension project, which would extend the SR -57 from its terminus at the SR- 2211 -5 southerly along the Santa Ana River Channel connecting with the 1-405 freeway; and WHEREAS, the Franchise is due to expire January 11, 2001; and WHEREAS, OCTA has included the SR -57 Extension Project on the Regional Highway Planning component of Fast Forward, OCTA's 20 -year Long Range Transportation Plan and, moreover, the SR -57 Extension has been on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) since 1982; and WHEREAS, ATD has requested that OCTA support its request of Caltrans for extension of the Franchise term, in order to provide ATD the necessary time to conduct comprehensive EIR/EIS studies, analyze development alternatives and evaluate and respond to community input on the project; and WHEREAS, OCTA believes that the continued efforts of ATD to implement the Franchise for the SR -57 Extension project is desirable for evaluating the environmental - and financial feasibility of the project in the immediate future. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the Orange County Transportation Authority does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows: Section 1. OCTA supports an extension of no more than six years of ATD's Franchise and recommends that Caltrans approve such an extension, subject to the conditions and requirements set forth in Section 2 below. Section 2. Conditions. A. Include in the Franchise amendment a provision for the elimination or restriction of the existing non - compete provisions. B. Include in the Franchise amendment a specific description of how ATD's interest in the Franchise may be transferred to a non - profit corporation or a public agency prior to or following the completion of the project construction, This franchise provision would address issues such as the process for determining the value of improvements, buyout of ATD's interests, ongoing operations, and other such issues. C. OCTA shall not provide any funds for environmental review for the proposed project. D. ATD shall provide OCTA with additional evidence of project supporters, project feasibility and project sponsor commitment before commencing construction of the project. ADOPTED, SIGNED, AND APPROVED this 25th day of September 2000. Mary Ellen Farris Clerk of the Board l.aurann Cook. Chair Orange County Transportation Authority I November 17, 2000 Honorable John Noyes Mayor City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR SR 57 EXTENSION PROJECT Dear Mayor Noyes: ATD American Transportation Development, LLC 17300 Red Hill Avenue Suite 150 Irvine, CA 92614 (949) 222 -3912 Tel. (949) 756.6116 Fox As you may have heard, the long - planned SR 57 Extension Project is moving into a new development phase, bringing traffic relief for central Orange County closer to reality. I have enclosed a packet of information about the SR 57 Extension Project to help familiarize you with the project, and to update you on recent developments. In October the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) adopted a resolution in support of the extension of the project's franchise by Caltrans. A copy of the resolution is enclosed in the packet. We also would like your City Council to consider adopting a resolution of support for the SR 57 Extension Project. A draft resolution is attached for your consideration. By adopting a resolution of support, your municipality will play an integral part in bringing traffic relief to Orange County. The draft resolution contains some suggested wording. However, modifications to suit your city's circumstances are certainly welcome. Please use the attached document and insert the date, any necessary words, and secure the appropriate signatures. We would appreciate it if you could mail the resolution at your earliest convenience to: Jeff Morales Director California Department of Transportation 1120 N Street Suite 1100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Also, please e-mail or fax a copy to our public outreach consultant: Julie Chay Frank Wilson & Associates Phone: 949 /588 -1124 Fax: 949/588 -1829 E -mail: jchay @frankwilson.com Thank you very much for your consideration of our request. Please call me at (602) 625 -8685 if you have any questions. Sincerrely, / v j Grant Holland President cc: Homer Bludau, City Manager SR 51 Extension Project ovop„mme ®® kappa ova Anaheim n° o --, State Route a Fx 57 Extension Santa Ana i Huntington Beach NI° PROPOSED INTERCHANGES (D First Street — Proposed (Q Warner Avenue — Proposed Proposed 57 Extension Project Toll Roads The 57 Extension Project would provide an important link along the Santa Ana River between I -5 1SR 57 on the north and I- 405 1SR 73 on the south. Other potential interchanges are being examined, including one at City Drive and one at Garfield Avenue, just south of I -405. SR 57 Extension Project Frequently Asked Questions 1. Why Is the SR 57 Extension Project necessary? Two reasons: access and congestion relief. When completed the SR 57 Extension will complete Orange County's surface transportation network. This vital link will provide direct access from John Wayne Airport to the Civic Center in Santa Ana and the Anaheim hotel/entertainment areas in the north. The project will improve access to the shopping centers of South Coast Plaza and Fashion Island, while providing for improved traffic flow in the Euclid commercial area of Fountain Valley. In addition, the project will greatly improve access from the office centers of Irvine and Newport Beach to downtown Santa Ana and the Civic Center. Eventually, the project is projected to divert approximately 70,000 cars per day from existing streets and freeways. This should significantly ease traffic on Bristol Avenue, Harbor Boulevard and Fairview Avenue. Not only will the project help alleviate traffic on the north /south arterials, it will also significantly reduce east/west traffic south of the San Diego Freeway by decreasing traffic on Adams Street and Hamilton Boulevard. This reduction in congestion on surface streets leads to safer streets and lower maintenance costs for the neighboring municipalities. The completion of the project will also provide a bypass around the crowded "Orange Crush" interchange by extending existing SR 57 southward. This bypass will improve travel times for those vehicles traveling on 1 -5, SR 55 and SR 22 through Orange County. An added benefit of the enhanced access and reduced congestion is the improved response time for public safety services. All emergency response services, police, firefighters and ambulances will have free access to the project. ATD is prepared to move forward and make these benefits available to the public at least two decades before the public sector will be able to develop this project with tax dollars. 2. Why is the SR 57 Extension Project planned as a toll road? The simple answer is money ... or the lack of it. The sobering reality is that Caltrans has identified more than $100 billion of new highway and roadway improvements that are necessary if the state hopes to adequately manage current traffic demand and the explosive population growth projected over the next two decades. The problem is that the state's highway fund is enormously under funded and incapable of financing all of these projects. The state recognizes the need for the extension of SR 57. However, due to the fact that it was identified as an AB 680 project in 1990, it has placed the project near the bottom of the priority list. In fact, the SR 57 extension is at least 20 years away if carried out as a public project financed by tax revenues. The other alternative is to finance the construction of the SR 57 Extension Project through the issuance of bonds. To repay the bonds, the SR 57 Extension Project must generate revenue, and charging tolls to motorists who choose to use the SR 57 Extension is necessary. 3. Is the SR 57 Extension Project a result of Assembly Bill 680? Yes. Assembly Bill 680, passed in 1989, authorized the development of four demonstration projects that would serve as test cases for the development of public surface transportation projects within a public - private partnership. Under AB 680, private- sector entities would be given the right to finance and develop badly needed highways, then turn ownership of the road back to Caltrans. 4. Who Is the franchise holder of the SR 57 Extension Project? The current franchise to build and operate the SR 57 Extension Project belongs to American Transportation Development, LLC, an Irvine, California -based company formed by Phoenix -based Interwest Company, Inc., and Washington Group, International Inc. based in Boise, Idaho. Both companies have extensive experience in the planning, financing, construction and operation of state -of- the -art toll highways in the United States. 5. Who will operate the SR 57 Extension Project? ATD intends to transfer its franchise rights to a non - profit corporation structured to issue tax - exempt bonds. In order to do this, the non - profit corporation must be approved by a "Sponsoring Entity" which itself must be a tax- exempt entity and the direct beneficiary of the SR 57 Extension Project. The "Sponsoring Entity" must approve the creation, structure and board of directors of the non - profit corporation. Furthermore, it must approve the financing mechanism by which the non - profit will generate the capital to build the project. ATD believes this is the most appropriate ownership structure in order to ensure public credibility for the project. In exchange for transferring its franchise rights to the non - profit corporation, ATD will construct the SR 57 Extension Project at a guaranteed price within a guaranteed time frame. 6. Does the franchise agreement with Caltrans have a non - compete clause? Yes. However, ATD is proposing a relatively liberal non - compete clause favoring Caltrans' public trust requirements to maintain safe and adequate highways. The proposed non - compete clause gives Caltrans the right to expand for any reason the capacity of any State Highway with one exception: Caltrans is prohibited from constructing a new continuous, limited access freeway connecting Interstate 405 or State Highway 73, and Interstate 5 or State Route 22 All public - private toll road partnerships have non - compete agreements. Without them it would be impossible to sell a bond issue to generate the necessary capital to finance new highway construction. However, we do want to reiterate that ATD understands and is sympathetic to the concerns of the citizens of California and has therefore proposed an extremely liberal Amendment to our non - compete agreement with Caltrans. 7, What will the SR 57 Extension look like? The final plans for the SR 57 Extension Project have not been finalized. We can say generally that the SR 57 Extension will be a four -lane highway approximately 11 miles in length. It will commence at the southern terminus of SR 57 at the "Orange Crush," extending south along the Santa Ana River Channel to the San Diego (405) Freeway in Costa Mesa. We know, too, that the SR 57 Extension will function as a toll road employing both transponder -based electronic toll and automated cash collection systems. 10 8. Given that the SR 57 Extension Project will extend the length of the Santa Ana River Channel, what alignments are under consideration? Four possible alternatives have been contemplated, and the economic and environmental feasibility of each will be carefully studied during the EIR/EIS process. Elevated Alternative - This alternative calls for the SR 57 Extension to be constructed on an elevated foundation directly above the Santa Ana River Channel. While this alternative will likely be the most costly to build, it is probably the most environmentally responsible alternative and virtually eliminates any residential and /or business dislocations. Moreover, it affords the least impact with respect to noise and aesthetics to communities immediately adjacent to the Santa Ana River Channel. River Bottom Alternative -This alternative calls for the SR 57 Extension to be constructed on the Santa Ana River Channel. While this alternative appears to be the least costly configuration, is it most likely the most costly from an operational standpoint, due to continued maintenance arising from periodic and seasonal flooding. There are public safety implications with this alternative due to the difficulty of evacuating motorists in the event of a flash flood. 2. Riverbank Alternative - This alternative calls for the SR 57 Extension to be constructed on the riverbanks of the Santa Ana River Channel. With this configuration, the two northbound lanes would be constructed on the east riverbank, while the southbound lanes would be constructed on the west riverbank. Also, all four lanes could be constructed on one riverbank. This alternative, however, appears to contain obvious environmental impacts with respect to unacceptable noise and aesthetics on surrounding neighborhoods. Moreover, this alternative will significantly impact recreational use of the riverbanks, including the bicycle trails. 3. Non -River Channel Alternative - This alignment is the least likely alternative. In fact, a specific non -river alignment has not been evaluated, since a cursory review of the area clearly indicates a non - river- channel alignment would result in extraordinarily significant commercial and residential relocation. Obtaining the necessary right - of -ways would be politically difficult, and would damage existing neighborhoods and commercial activity. 4 9. Does the construction of the SR 57 Extension Project contemplate any access Interchanges along the 11 -mile route? Yes. In addition to the major access interchanges at the northern and southern ends of the 57 expressway, plans call for the construction of interchanges at First Street in Santa Ana and Warner Avenue in Fountain Valley. 10. Will the EIR/EIS process also examine a no -build scenario? Yes. 11. How long will it take to build the SR 57 Extension Project? According to Washington Group, International Inc., the project's general contractor, the anticipated construction schedule will require 48 months. Depending upon how long it takes to complete the BROS process, construction could begin as soon as January 2003 with completion and road opening occurring as early as 2006. 12. How much will it cost to build the SR 57 Extension Project? The final construction cost has yet to be determined. Several important phases of the project that will have a direct impact on the cost to construct the project have yet to be completed. The most important of these is the EIR/EIS phase. However, based upon preliminary planning, design, construction and environmental analyses, ATD believes it will cost approximately $950 million to build the project. 13. How will the project be financed? Will tax revenues be involved? The Project will be financed using two funding sources: Tax- exempt toll revenue bonds (lower interest) will be issued by the non - profit corporation. The terms, conditions and interest rates of these bonds must be approved by the "Sponsoring Entity." These bonds will be sold in private capital markets, with the sole risk borne by the bondholders. No California tax revenues will be used to finance the project. • The non - profit corporation will issue tax - exempt toll revenue corporate bonds. Terms and conditions of the bond issue must be approved by the state or a political subdivision of the state. Prior to the bond issue, ,L the state, or a political subdivision of the state, must also appoint and/or approve up to 80% of the board of directors of the non - profit corporation. The precise amount of the bond issue will be based upon ATD's guaranteed price determined during the EIR/EIS process, the final traffic and revenue study, and prevailing market rates at the time of the issuance. No state tax revenues will be used to finance the project. No portion of the SR 57 Extension Project financing will involve California tax revenues, nor will it require any guarantee from, or the good faith and credit of, the State of California. 14. How much will motorists pay per trip to use the SR 57 Extension? Scheduled tolls have not been finalized. However, preliminary traffic and revenue studies conducted on the project anticipated per -trip tolls of $1.50 to $2.00.