HomeMy WebLinkAboutS11 - Santa Ana River Crossing SARXCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. sii
October 28, 2003
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Stephen G. Badum, Public Works Director
949 - 644 -3311, sbadum @city.newport - beach.ca.us
Homer L. Bludau, City Manager
949 - 644 -3000, hbludau @city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: DRAFT POSITION FOR FUTURE CITY COUNCIL POLICY REGARDING
SANTA ANA RIVER CROSSINGS (SARX)
RECOMMENDATION:
Discuss and, if desired, base the proposed Council policy on the following
recommendations, with respect to recent efforts to delete the Garfield Avenue /Gisler
. Avenue and Banning Avenue /19th Street Santa Ana River crossings (SARX) from the
Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH):
1. Reiterate and convey the City's opposition to removing the Santa Ana River
crossings from the MPAH unless a reasonable and practical alternative can
be established that is fair and balanced for all jurisdictions.
2. Request that the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Board of
Directors not certify the SARX EIR, as it does not adequately address impacts
to the City of Newport Beach, recent regional land use and development
actions, and a fair distribution of regional transportation responsibilities.
3. Support the City of Fountain Valley in its request to proceed with the
preliminary design and environmental study for the Garfield Avenue /Gisler
Avenue Bridge over the Santa Ana River. Should this environmental study
show the Bridge is feasible and no fatal flaws are identified, the City of
Newport Beach may well want to have the same process followed for the 19th
Street Bridge.
4. Request OCTA revisit the SARX Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to
consider impacts if Banning Ranch and its subsequent arterial roadways are
not constructed.
5. Request OCTA staff investigate additional alternative alignments or
mitigations such as "smart street' improvements to existing SARX corridors.
DRAFT POSITION FOR FUTURE CITY COUNCIL POLICY
REGARDING SANTA ANA RIVER CROSSINGS
October 28, 2003
Page 2
6. Encourage participating jurisdictions not to assume the bridge crossings as a •
part of the MPAH when considering long term planning, land use, and
development decisions.
DISCUSSION:
At the October 14, 2003 City Council Study Session, staff and officials from OCTA
presented a brief update on the Santa Ana River crossings (see attachment A). At the
conclusion of the presentation, City Council members indicated their desire to establish
a draft position policy regarding this issue. In order to establish a position on this issue,
it is important to identify our overall guiding principles which we feel should provide the
context for the City's position. The broader view of this issue must deal with regional
fairness and our overall responsibility to provide for future generations. As we have all
benefited from the tremendous economic growth and investment in Orange County, we
must also share the burdens that may arise from its growth. In developing a policy, it is
important that our position be based on fairness, balance and responsibility to the
overall good of current and future roadway users. The following report reviews several
potential actions that City Council may adopt to help form the basis for its policy
position regarding the master planned Santa Ana River crossings at Garfield
Avenue /Gisler Avenue and Banning Avenue /19`h Street. Staff has listed six potential
actions for discussion. .
1. Reiterate and convey the City's opposition to removing the Santa Ana River
crossings from the MPAH unless a reasonable and practical alternative can be
established that is fair and balanced for all jurisdictions.
As presented at the October 14, 2003 Study Session, the Master Plan of Arterial
Highways (MPAH) is the long -range blueprint for highway construction throughout
Orange County. The size and location of roadways on the MPAH is intended to provide
adequate transportation facilities for anticipated development and provide regional
mobility for the movement of people and goods throughout the County. Each local
jurisdiction's General Plan Circulation Element is required to be reasonably consistent
with the MPAH in order for the jurisdiction to be eligible for certain highway funding
programs. This is necessary to ensure that each local jurisdiction builds its share of
regionally necessary roadways. The current and future growth projections within the
County support the need to keep all available options open to accommodate future
traffic needs. With the proposed deletion of these bridges from the MPAH, one needs
to ask the fundamental question, "Even if we can formulate a reasonable and fair
alternative to the bridge crossings, is it appropriate for current local governments to
prevent future generations from utilizing a potential transportation option that may be
needed at some point in time ?"
2. Request that the Orange County Transportation Authority Board of Directors not
certify the SARX EIR, as it does not adequately address impacts to the City of •
DRAFT POSITION FOR FUTURE CITY COUNCIL POLICY
REGARDING SANTA ANA RIVER CROSSINGS
October 28, 2003
Page 3
• Newport Beach, recent regional land use and development actions, and fair
distribution of regional transportation responsibilities.
The SARX EIR was completed by OCTA's consultant in April 2002. The EIR has not
been certified by the OCTA Board of Directors due to unresolved differences of opinion
among the four various cities involved (Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley,
and Huntington Beach). At the October 14, 2003 Study Session, Dave Elbaum (OCTA)
confirmed that the OCTA Board would not certify the EIR unless there was consensus
among the four cities.
In July 2001, the City sent a letter to OCTA (Attachment B) providing staff and
Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC) comments on the SARX EIR. In
general, the comments questioned the validity of the stated impacts in light of the
combined increase of over 24% in traffic on Coast Highway in West Newport. The
comments stated the impacts to the residents and businesses along this stretch were
not fully addressed. Additionally, that letter cited the difficulty in implementing the
proposed mitigation projects due to the physical constraints and the lack of balance in
dealing with this regional issue.
During the October 14th Study Session, the question of additional development and
land use impacts, such as Home Ranch /IKEA in Costa Mesa and the current
redevelopment of Huntington Beach's downtown coastal areas, may not have been
addressed by this EIR document.
3. Support the City of Fountain Valley in its request to proceed with the preliminary
design and environmental study for the Garfield Avenue /Gisler Avenue Bridge
over the Santa Ana River. Should this environmental study show the Bridge is
feasible and no fatal flaws are identified, the CU of Newport Beach may well
want to have the same process followed for the 1911 Street Bridge.
The City of Fountain Valley has requested funding to complete a more thorough
investigation of the impacts and costs to construct the Garfield /Gisler Bridge over the
Santa Ana River. This action has merit, as the current discussion among the cities
lacks any details regarding how the bridges might be constructed, what are the costs
and constraints, and whether there are any key issues or "fatal flaws" that would prevent
the project from being built. The cities of Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach have
formally opposed Fountain Valley's efforts to proceed with preliminary design,
environmental study, and final design of the Garfield /Gisler bridge (See attachments C
& D). While we may not support the preparation of final construction plans prior to the
certification of the EIR for the project, staff believes there is merit in further research and
investigation by the City of Fountain Valley.
4. Request OCTA revisit the SARX Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to consider
impacts if Banning Ranch and its subsequent arterial roadways are not
constructed.
DRAFT POSITION FOR FUTURE CITY COUNCIL POLICY
REGARDING SANTA ANA RIVER CROSSINGS
October 28, 2003
Page 4
The SARX EIR assumes that the Banning Ranch will be developed and new roadways •
will connect 17th Street with Coast Highway. Under the most positive of circumstances,
the development of Banning Ranch will be controversial. It may well be that this
development will realize opposition and controversy similar to the proposed
development in Bolsa Chica. Recent efforts to advance the concept of a river park
along the Santa Ana River may also alter the final land use of this parcel. The SARX
EIR relies heavily on the construction of these roadways to mitigate the loss of the
bridge crossings. If these master planned roadways are not constructed or their
construction is delayed for many years, there could be unmitigated impacts to Coast
Highway which would severely affect regional transportation, the West Newport
residents and businesses. Therefore, it would be appropriate to revise the EIR and
address impacts within the current framework of the existing roadways.
5. Request OCTA staff investigate additional alternative alignments or mitigations
such as "smart street' improvements to existing SARX corridors.
The SARX EIR addressed only one alternative (Alt. #3) that involved revising the bridge
connections to connect Garfield Avenue to southbound 1-405 and Banning Avenue to
17`h Street. Other potential alignments that may mitigate some of the various concerns
of the affected cities were not explored. Additionally, the idea of creating attractive
alternatives to the proposed river crossings such as "smart street' improvements to
existing crossing corridors with signal coordination, limited access, and directional .
signing, were not explored. Staff believes that every alternative should be explored to
ensure that the best solution is chosen based on guiding principles that hopefully, each
of the four cities can agree to.
6. Encourage participating jurisdictions not to assume the bridge crossings as a part
of the MPAH when considering long term planning, land use, and development
decisions.
Each of the jurisdictions involved are processing proposed developments, performing
long range planning, and making land use decisions based upon the assumption that
the County MPAH will ultimately be built. With the status of the river crossings in
question, it may be appropriate to establish interim rules or some type of moratorium
until the master plan issues can be resolved.
Prepared by: Submitted by:
.� , Z , I X-� ,
Homer L. Blud
City Manager
DRAFT POSITION FOR FUTURE CITY COUNCIL POLICY
REGARDING SANTA ANA RIVER CROSSINGS
October 28, 2003
Page 5
11
Attachments: A. Status Report on Santa Ana River Crossings (SARX) and
presentation by Orange County Transportation Authority, Study
Session October 14, 2003
B. Comments on Santa Ana River Crossings Cooperative Study Draft
Program Environmental Impact Report, dated July 25, 2001
C. City of Huntington Beach City Council Report, Adopt Resolutions
Regarding Future Santa Ana River Crossings, dated February 3,
2003
D. City of Costa Mesa City Council Report, Santa Ana River Crossings
Study, dated July 8, 2003
0
• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
STUDY SESSION Item No. SS4
October 14, 2003
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Public Works Department
Richard Edmonston, P.E.
949 - 644 -3311
redmonston @city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON SANTA ANA RIVER CROSSINGS (SARX)
STUDY AND PRESENTATION BY ORANGE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
DISCUSSION:
The Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) is the long -range blue print for highway
construction throughout Orange County. The size and location of roadways on the
. MPAH is intended to provide adequate transportation facilities for anticipated
development. Each local jurisdiction's General Plan Circulation Element is required to
be reasonably consistent with the MPAH in order for the jurisdiction to be eligible for
certain highway funding programs. This is necessary to ensure that each local
jurisdiction builds its share of regionally necessary roadways.
The current MPAH includes two future crossings of the Santa Ana River between Coast
Highway and Interstate 405. The northerly crossing would connect Garfield Avenue in
Fountain Valley with Gisler Avenue in Costa Mesa. The southerly proposed bridge
would connect Banning Street in Huntington Beach with the end of 19th Street in
Newport Beach, immediately adjacent to the City of Costa Mesa.
In 1991, Costa Mesa requested that the MPAH be modified to delete these two
proposed bridges. A cooperative study involving the County of Orange, Newport
Beach, Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, and Fountain Valley was begun in 1993 to
examine the impacts of deleting the bridges. This study was known as SARX and
resulted in all the participants requesting that an EIR be prepared that could be used to
formally amend the MPAH.
The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) assumed responsibility from
Orange County for the MPAH in 1994. In 1998 OCTA selected a consultant to perform
traffic analysis of three alternatives. The EIR was completed in April 2002 but has yet
. to be certified by the OCTA Board of Directors due to unresolved differences of opinion
among the four affected cities.
SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON SANTA ANA RIVER CROSSINGS (SARX) STUDY AND PRESENTATION BY ORANGE
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
October 14, 2003
Page 2
TRAFFIC STUDY RESULTS •
Alternative 1 would maintain the existing MPAH retaining both bridges on the Plan
Alternative 2 would delete both bridges from the MPAH.
Alternative 3 would substitute two new bridges for those shown on the MPAH. The
northerly bridge would connect Garfield Avenue in Fountain Valley to the
southbound 1-405 Freeway. The southerly bridge would connect 171h Street in Costa
Mesa to Brookhurst Street in Huntington Beach at a point north of Banning Avenue.
The 2001 SARX traffic study developed traffic forecasts for the year 2020 to identify
significant impacts to roadway links and to intersections for the three Alternatives.
Approximately 300 roadway links and 90 intersections were evaluated. The existing
MPAH was used as the basis for comparison with the Alternatives 2 and 3 with the
following results:
• Alternative 2 (no bridges) would result in significant impacts to 8 roadway
links and 10 intersections.
• Alternative 3 (alternate crossings) would impact 4 roadway links and 5 •
intersections. (The Study Area is shown on Attachment 1.)
Mitigation measures were identified for both alternatives that would result in a
circulation system that would work at least as well as the conditions expected from the
MPAH. The mitigations for the impacted links consist of improvements to the
intersections at the ends of the links since they are normally the limiting factor for
roadway capacity. The impacted links and intersections along with the identified
mitigation measures for Alternate 2 are shown on Attachment 2 and Attachment 3. The
corresponding information for Alternate 3 is shown on Attachment 4 and Attachment 5.
The estimated costs for the three Alternatives are shown on Attachment 6.
NEWPORT BEACH IMPACTS
Hospital Road — Placentia Avenue to Newport Boulevard
With the current MPAH, this segment of Hospital Road is forecast to carry 31,000
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) which is Level of Service E (LOS F) by County criteria.
Under Alternative 2 (no bridges) this volume is anticipated to be 32,000 ADT which
would be also be LOS F. The volume on this roadway segment under Alternative 3
(substitute bridges) would also be 32,000 ADT. The relatively small increase of 1000
ADT exceeds the significant impact threshold used for the study of a 3 percent increase
in traffic on a link. This is a very short roadway segment and no separate mitigation •
measure was proposed.
SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON SANTA ANA RIVER CROSSINGS (SARX) STUDY AND PRESENTATION BY ORANGE
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
October 14, 2003
Page 3
0 Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road Intersection
This intersection was forecast to have Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) values
under the existing MPAH for AM /PM of 0.8011.06. Under Alternative 2 (no bridges) the
values were forecast to be 0.80/1.08 and under Alternative 3 (substitute bridges) the
values were predicted to be 0.79/1.07. The suggested mitigation measure for
increased PM impact at this intersection is to add a second left turn lane for northbound
Newport Boulevard. This would require additional right of way in an area with several
physical constraints.
West Coast Highway — Superior Avenue to Brookhurst Street
It is important to note that, per the existing City and County General Plans, the MPAH
assumes development of the Banning Ranch area, including the construction of several
arterial roadways that do not exist today. While there are some differences between
the MPAH and the City's Circulation Element, both assume two new signalized
intersections on Coast Highway between Prospect Street and Superior Avenue. The
SARX study uses the MPAH which calls for 171h Street to be extended westerly and
then turn south and intersect Coast Highway just east of Newport Shores. The second
new intersection would be located approximately 1000 feet westerly of Superior Avenue
where a new road tentatively named Bluff Road would run north for Coast Highway.
• The study indicates that with the existing MPAH, this segment of Coast Highway would
have 45,000 ADT and the LOS E capacity would be 56,300. Under Alternative 2 (no
bridges) the volume is forecast to be 56,000 ADT - essentially at full capacity. Under
Alternative 3 (substitute bridges) the projected volume would be 54,000 ADT. T
Staff has concerns over the identified mitigation measures for the Coast Highway
segment and these were transmitted to OCTA in February 2001. We do not believe
that simply enhancing capacity at the study intersections addresses the City's
circulation concerns. Among various issues, we pointed out to OCTA there are two
other signalized intersections between the Santa Ana River and the proposed 171h
Street intersection and these are the primary access points for hundreds of residents.
The additional 11,000 ADT forecast in the "No Bridges" alternative would have an
impact on the daily lives of all these residents.
A related concern is the assumption that the MPAH will be built out upon development
of the Banning Ranch area. Taylor Woodrow Homes' proposal several years ago did
not include the construction of 17th Street to Coast Highway, but did include Bluff Road
with a signalized intersection at Coast Highway. Without the circulation system
improvements anticipated in the MPAH, there would be additional traffic at the Coast
Highway- Superior /Balboa Blvd. intersection. Based upon the final traffic study
projections for this intersection, no mitigations are required.
. Other agency actions
SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON SANTA ANA RIVER CROSSINGS (SARX) STUDY AND PRESENTATION BY ORANGE
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
October 14, 2003
Page 4
The Cities of Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach have recently taken Council actions
that are nearly identical. The six key items supported by the two cities are:
• Convey the City's opposition to the design and construction of the proposed
bridges
• Request the OCTA Board to certify the EIR
• Adopt the mitigation measures identified in the SARX "No Bridges" alternative.
• In cooperation with OCTA and participating jurisdictions, develop a program to
implement the mitigation measures
• Retain the bridges on the MPAH, but request that the surrounding jurisdictions
not assume the two bridges will be built when considering long -term studies
• Request OCTA to perform a follow -up study once all feasible mitigations have
been completed. Should the study confirm that the mitigation measures
addressed the impacts of the deletion of the bridges, OCTA is requested to
take action to delete the bridges from the MPAH
Fountain Valley expressed opposition to the deletion of the Garfield - Gisler bridge from
the MPAH since the very beginning of the SARX studies. They believe this added
regional facility is needed and that many of the proposed mitigation measures would
adversely impact neighborhoods in Fountain Valley. Earlier this year they submitted an
application to OCTA for funding a preliminary engineering study of alternative 3
(substitute bridge) for Garfield - Gisler accompanied by a project level environmental
analysis. This project was supported by the Growth Management area that
encompasses the City. More recently they have contacted OCTA expressing the
opinion that the SARX EIR cannot be certified without additional studies to reflect new
developments (Home Ranch and Town Center) in the City of Costa Mesa that were not
considered in the SARX Traffic Study and that they believe add to the need for the
additional bridge.
Environmental Review: OCTA has prepared a program level Environmental Impact
Report. This report can be used by the City Council at such time as they take a formal
action on the Study.
Prepared Eby:
,4
Richard M. Edmonston
Transportation and Development
Services Manager
Attachments
Submitted by:
KG. Badum
Works Director
•
•
ATTACHMENT 1
HEIL
0 SLAT SE ERSTRO DYER
ALTON
SUNFLOWER
E LIS
SOUTH COAST
4f
GARFLD 0 "4,rGISLEP
18AKFR
Y-RKTOW
A
,ON
WILSON
0
�Opo
Legend
Figure 2 - Study Area 0 Usting Crossings
Santa Ana River Crossings Study E3 Future Crossings per MPAH
I/] Study Area Boundary
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
K:1fig2.cdr 2-1-01
ATTACHMENT 2 .
Alternative 2 Traffic Impacts
The following are the intersection and roadway segrnent locations for the No Bridges
Alternative:
Intersections:
• Brookhurst Street @ Hamilton Avenue;
• Pacific Coast Highway @ Brookhurst Street;
Ward Avenue @ Ellis Avenue;
• MacArthur Boulevard @ Hyland Avenue;
• Harbor Boulevard @ Warner Avenue;
• Harbor Boulevard @ South Coast Drive;
• Superior @ 17a' Street;
• Newport Boulevard @ 17'' Street;
• Newport Boulevard @ Hospital Road; and
• West Coast Highway @ 17"' Street Extension (Future).
Searnents:
• Slater Avenue between Magnolia Avenue and Bushard Street;
• Ellis Avenue between Ward Street and 1-405 SE ramp terminal;
• Harbor Boulevard between Sunflower Avenue and South Coast Drive;
• Pacific Coast Highway between Brookhurst Street and Santa Ana River Crossing;
• Hamilton Avenue between Brookhurst Street and Bluff Road;
• West Coast Highway between Santa Ana River Crossing and 17a' Street Extension
(future);
• Hospital Road between Placentia Avenue and Newport Boulevard; and
• Talbert Avenue Bridge @ Santa Ana River Crossing.
0
55 - Brookhurst/
Hamilton Ave
o-
.81 Harbor Boulevard/
Warner Avenue
�bbb�
b
58 - Pacific Coast Highway
/Brookhurst Street
85 - Harbor Boulevard/
South Coast Drive
�
o--
III
o--
�
�p
a
- I
85 - Harbor Boulevard/
South Coast Drive
�
o--
A
�IIN
ATTACHMENT 3
62 - Ward Street]
Ellis Avenue
�j
96- Su erior Avenue/
17th Street
bb�b r
a
137 - Newport Boulevard/ 163 -17th Street Extension/
Hospital Road Coast Highway
e
b
LEGEND
77 - Hyland Avenue/
MacArthur Boulevard
b
o-
o-
�
96- Su erior Avenue/
17th Street
bb�b r
a
137 - Newport Boulevard/ 163 -17th Street Extension/
Hospital Road Coast Highway
e
b
LEGEND
77 - Hyland Avenue/
MacArthur Boulevard
b
o-
o-
�
136 - Newport Boulevard/
17th Street
I
�
ADDED LANES (MITIGATION)
OR RESTRIPING
'u re 16 - Added Lanes Needed for No Bridge Alternative MPAH LANES
(Revised June 2002)
®� Kimley -Horn
K:ra;_wnowcur Mir.owca; -u v, and Associates, Inc.
ATTACHMENT 4 0.
Alternative 3 Traffic Impacts
The following are the intersection and roadway segment locations for the Alternative 3:
Intersection Improvements
• MacArthur Boulevard @ Hyland Avenue;
• Superior @ 17'h Street;
• Newport Boulevard @ 17`h Street;
• Newport Boulevard @ Hospital Road; and
• West Coast Highway @ 17th Street Extension (Future).
Sements:
• 176 Street between Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard;
• Pacific Coast Highway between Brookhurst Street and Santa Ana River;
• West Coast Highway between Santa Ana River Crossing and 17'" Street Extension
(future); and
• Hospital Road between Placentia Avenue and Newport Boulevard.
0
N
N
O
y U
CL
N �
> a+
O '
� U
� O
I3 O
� C
u
ATTACHMENT 6
a o
m
N
N
O
O
u.
N
U
0
0
O �
N �
zm
0
0
Z >
m
U
d N
60
a
O
O
a
O
m
N
0
U
C �
l0 �
a
� a
cn ci
�
m
O
j
R
C
N
Q
N
y
C
N
d
N
�
�
�
>
O
�
a
m
Z
c
-
N
o
O
l0
_
U
y
y
O
N
C15_
C
A
j
C
U
y Q
�
O
N O
�
C
E
C y
d
d
y
E
O
y
E
N
v
R
o
y
ON
H
0
0 0
0
0
O
O O
O
(A In
Q
O1
Q]
(D N
tC
m o �
(o
rl co
d Z m
Q
N
d
l0 O
�
tC
N
Z �
N N
to ei
Q
ut
QC Ol
m y 1� R
(n
3 d
O y N
N Y N
in '2
m
t
Rgcp Q'
0
CL
R
Em =R
m
o > u
e Q
a
E > r o
E Q
z
m
m
N w °
m m
m`
LLI
E
a
m
'o
E a
°
m
E
m
E
0
c
E
u+ m
o
�
m
m y
o
m
E
V
U
d Q C
Q
U
o
>
m
a
c
v
E
m
E
�0
ATTACHMENT 6
a o
m
N
N
O
O
u.
N
U
0
0
O �
N �
zm
0
0
Z >
m
U
d N
60
a
O
O
a
O
m
N
0
U
C �
l0 �
a
� a
cn ci
•
•
SEP -11 -2003 16 49
nil
OCTA
OCTA P & D
September 15, 2003
To: Regional Planning and Highways Committee
From: Arthur T. Leahy, Chief Executive Officer
Subject: Santa Ana River Crossings Study Status
Overview
714 560 5794 P.02i09
On May 12, 2003, the Board of Directors deferred action on funding
applications by the City of Fountain Valley for environmental study and design
for the Garfield Avenue /Gisler Avenue bridge across the Santa Ana River until
further discussions were conducted with cities involved in the Santa Ana River
Crossings Study. Staff proposes to continue to study alternatives pending
consensus among the impacted cities.
Recommendations
A. Take no action on the Santa Ana River Crossings program -level
Environmental impact Report until the cities reach a consensus.
B. Direct staff to continue study with Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Huntington
Beach, and Newport Beach, as a part of the San Diego Freeway /Interstate
405 Major Investment Study and through separate studies, alternatives for
deletion of the bridges that are acceptable to all cities.
C. Approve the City of Fountain Valley's application for $250,000 in Growth
Management Area funding for preliminary design and project level
environmental analysis of the Garfield Avenue /Gisler Avenue bridge
across the Santa Ana River, without cornmitment by the Orange County
Transportation Authority to support or implement the results.
D. Do not approve the City of Fountain Valley's application for $500,000 in
Growth Management Area funding and $500,000 in Measure M Master
Plan of Arterial Highways funding for final design of the Garfield
Avenue /Gisler Avenue bridge.
Orange County Transportetion Authority
550 South Vain Street /P.O. Box 14184 /Orange/ Callfornla 92863 - 15841(714) 560 -OCTA (6282)
SEP -11 -2003 1S:50 DUR P & D 714 5G0 5794 P.03ie9
Santa Ana River Crossings Study Status Page 2 •
Background
Master Plan of Arterial Highways Policies
The Master Plan of Arterial Highways is a network of planned streets, to be
built by local agencies. Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) is
responsible for maintaining the Plan and holding cities (and the County of
Orange) accountable to plan its eventual implementation. Measure M provides
OCTA with several tools to accelerate implementation of the Plan:
City General Plans must be consistent with the MPAH, or else the city
cannot apply for competitive Measure M funding. One of OCTA's policies in
evaluating a request to amend the MPAH is that there must be a consensus
among the cities affected by proposed changes. This policy was adopted
by the OCTA Board of Directors on April 13, 1998, to insure that the actions
requested by one city would not result in unacceptable impacts to another
city.
Cities may not "preclude" implementation of the Plan by allowing
development within MPAH right -of -way. If a city precludes implementation, .
they are not eligible for Measure M tumback funds or competitive funding,
In 1996, OCTA determined that "preclusion" would also include a case
where one agency refused to allow an MPAH project to be funded and
constructed by another agency within the first agencies jurisdiction.
• Funds are provided to cities and Measure M Growth Management Area
(GMA) teams to implement the MPAH.
Note that OCTA is not provided any powers to compel implementation of the
MPAH if a city is willing to forego Measure M funding.
Santa Ana River Crossings Study
Attachment A provides a detailed background of the Santa Ana River
Crossings (SARX) study and the program -level Draft Environmental Impact
Report (DEIR) conducted by four cities and the Orange County Transportation
Authority. Also described is the request from Fountain Valley to begin a
project -level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the bridge at Garfield
Avenue /Gisler Avenue.
The general conclusion of the DEIR was that deletion of the bridges from the
MPAH would cause traffic impacts at a number of locations, but these impacts
could be mitigated by street and intersection improvements (Attachment B.) .
However, many of the impacted locations are in Fountain Valley and Newport
u
•
•
SEP -11 -2003 16:50 OCTA P & D
714 560 5794 P.04i09
Santa Ana River Crossings Study Status Page 3
Beach, the two cities supporting the eventual construction of the bridges.
These cities believe that they already carry more than their share of traffic
across the Santa Ana River, and they are not supportive at this time of
constructing the mitigations necessary to allow removal of the bridges.
In addition, some of the mitigations (such as the Ellis Avenue /Euclid Avenue
connection to San Diego Freeway /Interstate 405 in the north, and
improvements to Pacific Coast Highway in the south) face serious engineering,
community, and environmental issues themselves.
Perhaps even more important, in mid - August 2003, Fountain Valley advised
OCTA that they feel the EIR has technical flaws relative to how new
development was handled (Attachment C.) The City does not support
certification of the EIR without further analysis.
Discussion
Unfortunately, OGTA staff was unable to conclude an agreement with the four
involved cities. Attachments D and E provide additional comments from
Fountain Valley and Costa Mesa. Options for the Board's consideration are
discussed below:
1. Require a consensus of the cities before any further action is taken. This
option is consistent with previous OCTA actions. It would leave the bridges
on the MPAH and leave the program -level EIR uncertified (incomplete.)
This would leave the situation in its current freeze, and it would not make
any progress to solve the congestion problems in this area.
F1
During this time, however, OCTA will be conducting Major Investment
Studies on the San Diego Freeway /Inter;;tate 405 (1 -405) and the Orange
Freeway /State Route 57 (SR -57) Extension. During these studies,
solutions to the Ellis Street/Euclid Avenue /1-405 interchange will be
considered. New ideas might surface that impact the need for the bridges
and the options for mitigations.
A new EIR will be required if new alternatives are identified.
alternative. If OCTA and the cities want to take a step towards possibly
eliminating the bridges from the MPAH, the program -level EIR could be
certified with the No Project (i.e., status quo) alternative. This would leave
the bridges on the MPAH for the time being, but would formally
acknowledge the mitigations as replacement projects (albeit with their own
implementation issues.)
SEP -11 -2003 1G:50 OCTA P & D 714 560 5794 P.05i09
Santa Ana River Crossings Study Status Page 4
Staff has not reviewed the August 21, 2003, letter from Fountain Valley to
determine the accuracy of their concerns. However, if they are valid,
additional work may be needed prior to certifying the EIR.
3. Certify the EIR with the No Bridges alternative (Costa Mesa request.) The
City of Costa Mesa has requested OCTA to certify the "No Bridges"
alternative of the EIR, and begin planning the mitigation measures. Costa
Mesa proposes that the bridges would not officially be removed from the
MPAH until a future study once the mitigations are implemented. They also
propose that the local agencies agree to analyze development projects as
though the bridges were not being planned.
The proposal suffers in that it forces Fountain Valley and Newport Beach to
commit to the mitigations before they are convinced the bridges are not
feasible. Fountain Valley and Newport Beach are aware of the difficulties of
implementing the bridges, and they are anxious to resolve the future of the
MPAH so that mitigations can be built that relieve existing congestion
problems. However, at this time they are not agreeable to Costa Mesa's
proposal and will not accept an MPAH amendment.
0
The option of simply removing one or both bridges from the MPAH is not M
recommended until environmentally acceptable alternatives are found.
Fountain Valley EIR/design funding request
The City of Fountain Valley and GMA 46 have requested the use of $250,000
of GMA funds to conduct a project -level EIR of the Garfield Avenue /Gisler
Avenue bridge, and $500,000 for final design. The City's request for additional
design funds was ranked high enough to receive $500,000 of Measure M funds
if the Board gives final approval.
The project -level EIR for the Garfield Avenue /Gisler Avenue bridge would test
its environmental and financial viability, and provide more detailed traffic
analysis. If the bridge is not feasible, Fountain Valley has indicated they would
then evaluate the non - bridge mitigations. If the bridge is shown to be feasible,
the agencies would be back where they staited, with one city supporting the
bridge, and two opposed. More discussions would be needed at that point.
If OCTA is to support a project -level EIR, it should be with No Prejudice on the
part of the Authority. That is, conducting the study would not imply support for
constructing the bridge, and no Measure M funding would be programmed at
•
SEP -11 -2003 1S:51 OCTR P & D
714 560 5794 P.06i09
0 Santa Ana River Crossings Study Status Page 5
11
Conclusion /Recommendation
OCTA staff believes that it will be extremely difficult to ever construct these two
bridges. Neighborhood opposition, environmental issues, and significant cost
estimates paint a bleak picture. All parties are concerned, however, that
serious regional congestion will continue unless alternatives are found.
Unfortunately, because the mitigations studied in the EIR are not all within
Costa Mesa or Huntington Beach, negative impacts on Fountain Valley and
Newport Beach must be considered.
The recent notice that Fountain Valley does not support the EIR creates further
disagreement over how to proceed.
OCTA staff has concluded that continuing the search for acceptable mitigations
is the appropriate course for OCTA and the cities to follow. This is best done
by: 1) Allowing Fountain Valley to conduct the project -level EIR, with no
prejudice on OCTA's part as to future actions. That is, OCTA should not
program the design funds for the Garfield Avenue /Gisler Avenue bridge, and 2)
Focusing the 1 405 and SR -57 Extension MIS's on projects that might address
the SARX congestion problems.
At this point, there does not seem to be any approach that would reconcile
Huntington Beach's adamant position to remove the 19'" Street/Banning
Avenue bridge with Newport Beach's concerns about the mitigation projects.
Newport Beach has indicated an interest to monitor the environmental issues
raised during an EIR on the Garfield Avenue /Gisler Avenue bridge, and may
reconsider their position at that point.
Finally, there does not seem to be any particular benefit of certifying the
program -level EIR, since no change to the MPAH is being recommended, and
because there is not a consensus over its validity.
Summary
On May 12, 2003, the Board of Directors deferred action on funding
applications by the City of Fountain Valley for environmental study and design
for the Garfield Avenue /Gisler Avenue bridge across the Santa Ana River until
further discussions were conducted with cities involved in the Santa Ana River
Crossings Study. Staff proposes that funding for the environmental study only
be approved, and that OCTA and the cities continue to. work toward
development of mitigation alternatives that will be acceptable to all impacted
cities.
SEP -11 -2003 16:51 OCTA P & D
Santa Ana River Crossings Study Status
714 560 5794 P.O?/09
Page 6
Attachments
A. Background of the Santa Ana River Crossings Project
B. Map of Locations of Proposed Mitigations for the Deletion of
Garfield /Gisler Bridge
C. Letter from the City of Fountain Valley dated August 21, 2003
D. Letter from the City of Fountain Valley dated July 10, 2003
E. Letter from the City of Costa Mesa dated August 12, 2003
Prepared by:
Approved by:
•
Glen Campbell Dave Elbaum
Senior Transportation Analyst Director, Strategic Planning •
(714) 560 -5712 (714)560 -5745
SEP -11 -2003 16:51 OCTR P & D 714 560 5794
0 ATTACHMENT A
Background of Santa Ana River Crossings Project
At the request of the cities of Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach, and
Newport Beach, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) is the lead
agency for a program level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the deletion of
two proposed bridges across the Santa Ana River from the Master Plan of Arterial
Highways (MPAH). The proposed bridges would connect Garfield Avenue in
Huntington Beach with Gisler Avenue in Costa Mesa and Banning Avenue in
Huntington Beach with 19th Street in Costa Mesa. The request to delete these
bridges from the MPAH was submitted by the City of Costa Mesa and was based on
anticipated impacts to residential communities on or in the vicinity of 190' Street and
Gisler Avenue.
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) at the program level was completed
in late May 2001, and it was released to the public for review in June 2001. Over
500 comments were received by the end of the review period in August 2001. The
response to comments and resultant revisions to the EIR were completed in April
2002.
In November 2002, Fountain Valley requested Measure M Growth Management
Area (GMA) funding for preliminary design and project level environmental analysis
for the construction of Garfield Avenue /Gisler Avenue bridge. This project was
approved as part of the overall GMA program by the GMA 6 elected officials on
December 10, 2002. In addition, Fountain Valley also has submitted a funding
application for final design of the Garfield Avenue /Gisler Avenue bridge under the
Measure M MPAH category of the Combined Transportation Funding Program
(CTFP). In response, the Costa Mesa City Council adopted a resolution opposing
the Fountain Valley action, which was presented to the Fountain Valley City Council
on December 17, 2002. The Huntington Beach City Council also passed a
resolution opposing the Fountain Valley action on February 3, 2003.
In November 2002, Fountain Valley requested Measure M Growth Management
Area funding for preliminary design and project level environmental analysis for the
construction of Garfield Avenue /Gisler Avenue bridge. This project was approved as
part of the overall GMA program by the GMA 6 elected officials on December 10,
2002. In addition, Fountain Valley also has submitted a funding application for final
design of the Garfield Avenue /Gisler Avenue bridge under the Measure M MPAH
category of the Combined Transportation Funding Program. In response, the Costa
Mesa City Council adopted a resolution opposing the Fountain Valley action, which
was presented to the Fountain Valley City Council on December 17, 2002. The
Huntington Beach City Council also passed a resolution opposing the Fountain
Valley action on February 3, 2003.
SEP -11 -2003 16:52 OCTA P & D 714 560 5794 1
On May 12, 2003, Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) staff submitted
the recommended CTFP program of projects, including the Garfield Avenue /Gisler
Avenue bridge EIR and design, to the Board of Directors for approval. However, the
Board deferred consideration of this project until a meeting between OCTA and the
four cities could be held to further explore ways for reaching agreement on the issue.
40
0
2
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
July 25, 2001
Orange County Transportation Authority
600 South Main Street
Orange, CA 92686
Attn: Kia Mortazavi
Comments on Santa Ana River Crossings Cooperative Study
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
Dear Mr. Mortazavi:
• The City of Newport Beach appreciates the opportunity to comment on the subject Draft EIR.
The comments contained in this letter reflect review of the document by the City's
Environmental Quality Affairs Committee and staff, and have been reviewed and approved by
the City Council.
Sections 2.6 and 2.7 address the relation between OCTA's Master Plan of Arterial Highways
(MPAH) and local municipal general plans. Section 2.6 discusses the ability of the various
cities to use the Program DEIR as the environmental support for the proposed change to their
general plans. Further, both alternatives 2 (the Proposed Project) and 3 (the Alternative
Bridge Project) would require the various cities to amend their general plans before OCTA
could amend its MPAH. The Program EIR must clearly state the priorities of approvals:
should any city fail to approve the Proposed Project, OCTA could not amend the MPAH. We
question the ability of a Program EIR to support such a long range planning change,
especially in light of recent case law.
Further, the Program DEIR must acknowledge that, as to the 19th Street Bridge, this property
is within the City of Newport Beach, not the City of Costa Mesa. The City of Newport Beach
has a special interest in the 19`h Street crossing.
The fourth OBJECTIVE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT (Page 4 -1, Summary), "To
continue to provide a level of mobility commensurate to that of the current MPAH" is not met
due to the unmitigated impacts, especially in the vicinity of West Coast Highway. The failure
to meet this objective is not discussed.
Cite Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Office Boa 1768
Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 • www.city.newport- beach.ca.us
Land Use
The conclusion that there would be no significant land use impact in Newport Beach due to
the project is questionable (Page 4 -4, Summary, and Section 5.1). The document recognizes
that the Proposed Project would create substantial land use impacts in the City of Fountain
Valley due to "a disproportionate shift of traffic onto segments of arterial streets..." That
very same impact, a disproportionate shift of traffic onto segments of arterial streets which are
not sized for such increase, will occur in Newport Beach.
The discussion on the City of Newport Beach Land Use Element on page 5 -4 should include
the Element's narrative on the Newport Banning Ranch, and not just the short summary
included. On the same page, the discussion on the City's Circulation Element should state that
the Master Plan of Bikeways designates a "Backbone Bikeway" on the 19`' Street Bridge. On
page 5 -5, the discussion of Newport Banning Ranch should be updated (i.e., the deletion of
the 10 -acre elementary school site).
Alternative 3 may affect the current plans for the Banning Ranch project. Under this
alternative, the 17`h Street Bridge may bisect that project. Such an impact would be
significant and require mitigation.
The Proposed Project requires significant traffic improvements in the region, including in •
Newport Beach. The locations of these improvements include the Banning Ranch, the
residential developments and assisted living facilities along Superior Avenue, and residential
neighborhoods in West Newport in and around the impacted West Coast Highway. These
improvements will cause both land use and housing impacts.
Finally, the additional traffic shifted to West Coast Highway by the proposed project has
significant implications on land use decisions within Newport Beach. The increase will
certainly make it more difficult for development, including that already included in the
General Plan, to be implemented due to the poor level of service that will be identified by the
City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance at intersections on West Coast Highway, long before 2020.
In addition, it will limit the City's ability to consider land use changes in the future.
Traffic /Circulation
The impacts to West Coast Highway of the proposed project are not fully discussed and the
proposed mitigation does not reduce those impacts to a level of insignificance. For the link
between the Santa Ana River and the future extension of 17`h Street, mitigating the project
impact at 17`h Street does nothing to address the impact of an additional 6000 vehicles per day
upon the businesses and residences who have no alternative arterial access. This increase of
nearly 11% will increase the difficulty of access for hundreds of residential properties,
restaurants, motels and other retail businesses.
2
To understand the full impact of this, one also needs to consider that, of the three most
southerly river crossings in place today, only West Coast Highway is projected to see a traffic
increase between now and the year 2020. Both Adams and Hamilton are expected to keep
their existing volumes while West Coast Highway is expected to increase from 45,000 to
50,000 daily trips and with no bridge at 19`h Street, it would increase an additional 6,000 trips.
This segment of roadway experiences considerable congestion during the PM peak period
today. A combined increase of over 24% in traffic, if no bridge is built, will have a major
impact on residents, businesses and motorists.
The Proposed Project will have substantial impacts on West Coast Highway at the 17`h Street
Extension in the City of Newport Beach. This intersection raises several issues. First, the
17`h Street Extension is only proposed; it may not occur. More importantly, the Proposed
Project will cause an increase of 11% of the capacity of the Coast Highway segment from the
17`' Street Extension to the Santa Ana River crossing. Such an increase will worsen the LOS
for this segment from D to E. Likewise, the intersection of the proposed 17`h Street Extension
and West Coast Highway will suffer substantial adverse impacts: the LOS for the AM peak
period would worsen to an E, whereas the No Project Alternative would result in no change in
LOS. Worse, the LOS for the PM peak period would substantially suffer; it would exceed an
ICU value of 1.28 and result in LOS F.
The proposed mitigation for the 17th Street intersection is shortsighted. It would mitigate only
the intersection congestion and would leave the main problem, diversion to arterials,
• unmitigated. It calls for four through lanes in both directions on West Coast Highway, which
is not consistent with the current Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan.
This segment would need to be reclassified from a Major Road to a Major Augmented Road.
The mitigation also would require an unusual double right turn lane.
The Proposed Project also would create substantial impacts on Hospital Road, in an area
where circulation is already compromised. Under the No Project Alternative, the road
segment between Placentia Street and Newport Boulevard would suffer LOS F. Although the
Proposed Project would not worsen this LOS, it would result in a traffic volume increase of
4% of capacity, which exceeds the City of Newport Beach "3% of capacity" threshold of
significance. Notwithstanding this significant impact, the Program DEIR offers no additional
mitigation (Page 5 -136). The Program DEIR recognizes that, under current plans and funded
by development in the area, several improvements may occur:
1. In the small canyon of Hospital Road, the addition of a second northbound left turn lane
onto Newport Boulevard; and
2. A second westbound left turn lane from Newport Boulevard onto Hospital Road.
These improvements would be extremely expensive and physically challenging. Further, only
the second of these measures is a project related mitigation measure.
There would also be significant impacts to the Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road and West
Coast Highway /Bluff Road intersections in the PM peak period. The suggested mitigation is
• already included in the City's Circulation Element and should have been considered in the
3
calculations for the ICU of the three Alternatives. There would also be significant impacts to •
the Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road and West Coast Highway /Bluff Road intersections in
the PM peak period. These impacts remain significant or worsen with Alternative 3. The
proposed mitigation measures appear to reduce these impacts to below a level of significance.
However, the City of Newport Beach needs to be assured that these improvements are
consistent with the City's Circulation Element and planned improvements.
The Proposed Project also would create substantial adverse impacts with difficult mitigation
at the very complex intersection of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue. The AM peak
period ICU value would increase and represent a significant impact. The proposed mitigation
is adding a second left turn lane on West Coast Highway. The severe skew angle of this
intersection and its operational characteristics make this a highly questionable improvement.
In the morning peak hour when the mitigation is required, the westbound left-turn volume is
projected to be less than 90 vehicles. A second turn lane typically is not considered as
operationally appropriate until turning volumes are close to 300 per hour. Thus it is more
realistic to consider this as an immitigable impact resulting from the proposed project.
As the Program DEIR recognizes, traffic is a regional problem. The Proposed Project would
affect traffic in the City of Costa Mesa, which would in turn create impacts in the City of
Newport Beach. The DEIR predicts that the increase of East 17`h Street traffic would exceed
the capacity of the proposed six -lane expansion that is currently called for in the MPAH.
However, this ignores the City of Costa Mesa's recent action on a proposed expansion of East
17`h Street, which approved improvements that would be incompatible with the six -lane .
expansion. Without this improvement, the DEIR's predictions will fall far short, and the
impacts to the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa will be significant.
With the Proposed Project, the level of service for the intersection of East 17`h Street and
Newport Boulevard would significantly worsen from LOS D to F. The Program DEIR
proposes the mitigation of adding a fourth northbound lane on Newport Boulevard, but fails to
explain how this expansion could occur. We believe the practical problems are huge. If this
mitigation does not occur, traffic in the afternoon would back up into the City of Newport
Beach and exacerbate the already impacted Hospital Road/Newport Boulevard intersection.
Under "Other Impacts" in the Summary, the additional miles of travel and the additional delay
from not building a bridge at 19`h Street have been trivialized by dividing a significant number
by all the miles of travel and hours of travel in a very large study area. These increases would
occur not just one day, but daily, for decades. It should be noted that for Alternative 3 (page
4 -24) these numbers are actually reduced below the MPAH alternative.
Finally, the DEIR predicts at page 5- 113 -114 that the Proposed Project would result in an
additional 6,141 miles of travel and almost 2,700 additional vehicle hours of travel each day.
Without analysis or discussion the document concludes that these increases are not significant
impacts. The City believes that such increases would significantly impact air quality, noise
and other areas.
•
Biological Resources
The Alternative 3 alignment would impact some coastal bluff scrub that the Newport Banning
Ranch project is trying to avoid (Page 5 -164). This impact would not be significant.
Public Services and Utilities
The Program DEIR's statement (Page 5 -176) that there will no impacts on the services
provided by the City of Newport Beach Fire and Police Departments is not credible with the
traffic impacts identified, and in light of the fact that these departments were not contacted
during preparation of the DEIR.
Noise
The DEIR acknowledges that, in the City of Newport Beach, "the proposed project would
result in three roadway segments having a substantial, permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project." Having recognized
these noise impacts, the DEIR offers no mitigation. So, the City of Newport Beach would
have to live with these significant impacts. However, the Summary fails to recognize the
significant and unmitigated noise impacts identified in Section 5.7.
Conclusion
• The Program DEIR identifies significant unmitigated impacts of the proposed deletion of the
bridge on 19`h Street. West Coast Highway carves the highest volume of the three southerly
bridges in existence today, and an additional bridge is necessary to provide a balanced
transportation network to carry traffic between Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa. The DEIR
concludes that the No Project Alternative, which maintains the two bridges, is the
environmentally superior alternative. The City of Newport Beach agrees with this
assessment.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the Program DEIR. The City of Newport
Beach looks forward to working with the other parties in this study to resolve the issues we
have raised. To ensure that we remain up to date on the study, the City is requesting a copy of
OCTA's Notice of Determination when it is filed with the County Clerk. Please fax it to me
at 949 -644 -3020.
Since ly,
H
Homer L. BlucT`au
City Manager
Cl
5
0
Council /Agency Meeting Held:
Deferred/Continued to:
❑ Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied
City Clerk's Signature
Council Meeting Date: February 3, 2003
Department ID Number: PW -03 -008
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REQUEST FOR ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator
PREPARED BY: �T4 0BERT F. BEARDSLEY, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTIONS REGARDING FUTURE SANTA ANA RIVER
CROSSINGS
Statement of Issue, Funding Source, Recommended Action, Alternative Action(s), Analysis, Environmental Status, Attachment(s)
Statement of Issue: The City has participated in a process to .pursue the amendment of
the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways to delete bridge crossings of the Santa Ana
River at Garfield Avenue and Banning Avenue. Recent activity on the issue, including that of
the city of Fountain Valley, prompted the City Council to request consideration of a formal
position on the crossings.
Funding Source: The recommended actions do not result in the expenditure of funds by
the city of Huntington Beach.
Recommended Action: Motion to
1. Adopt Resolution No. 03- reaffirming the City's commitment to pursuing the
deletion of the Garfield Avenue and Banning Avenue bridges over the Santa Ana
River from the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH).
2. Adopt Resolution No. 03- opposing the City of Fountain Valley's actions to
advance preliminary engineering, environmental studies and final design of the
Garfield Avenue bridge.
Alternative Action(s):
1. Do not adopt Resolution and retain the City's 1993 position on the deletion
of the Garfield Avenue and Banning Avenue bridges from the MPAH.
2. Do not adopt Resolution , and do not take a formal position on the actions of
Fountain Valley regarding the funding of preliminary engineering, environmental
studies and final design of the Garfield Avenue bridge.
3. Modify either resolution to reflect the City Council's position on the matter and adopt
as appropriate.
REQUEST FOR ACTION
MEETING DATE: February 3, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER :PW -03 -008
Analysis:
Background:
The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Master Plan of Arterial Highways
(MPAH) currently designates two future crossings over the Santa Ana River between the
cities of Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley and Newport Beach. These
crossings are located at Garfield Avenue /Gisler Avenue and at Banning Avenue /19th Street
(Attachment 5). In consideration of potential impacts to adjacent communities, the city of
Costa Mesa, in November 1991, requested the County of Orange to remove these bridges
from the MPAH.
In 1993, the city of Costa Mesa, in cooperation with the County of Orange, and the cities of
Huntington Beach, Newport Beach and Fountain Valley initiated a Santa Ana River
Crossings "SARX" study. Following the completion of this initial study, all involved cities
adopted resolutions requesting the County to analyze the possibility of removing the bridges
from the MPAH. The Orange County Board of Supervisors approved the initiation of an
amendment process for consideration of deletion of the Garfield Avenue /Gisler Avenue and
Banning Avenue /19th Street bridges at its December 7, 1993, meeting.
A Technical Advisory Group (TAG) was formed to follow up on the Board of Supervisor's
directive. The TAG was comprised of technical staff from the participating cities, the County
of Orange and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Additional participants
included citizen representatives from the four cities.
The TAG developed a list of alternatives to be studied along with a draft scope of work for the
required EIR. During this process, OCTA assumed responsibility of the MPAH from the
County.
City Manager /Administrators and representatives from the four cities met in June 1998 and
unanimously recommended that the city of Costa Mesa develop and execute the agreement
with the consultant for the EIR process and administer the contract. OCTA's role was to be
the lead agency to manage the consultant's technical work for the EIR. On August 17, 1998,
the Costa Mesa City Council approved individual cooperative agreements with the
participating agencies including OCTA, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach and Fountain
Valley and recognized cost shares of $50,000 from OCTA, $35,000 from Newport Beach,
$15,000 from Huntington Beach and $100,000 from Costa Mesa for the study. A contract
was then awarded to prepare the program level EIR for the study.
The draft EIR was circulated for review by each agency and for public comment in June
2001. Community workshops were held with each of the cities during the review period.
Comments from the public and the affected agencies, along with responses were included in
the final EIR dated April 2002. 0
GAR C A\2003\03 -008 Feb 3 Stachelski (Resolutions for SARCS).doc -2-
112412003 5:15 PM
REQUEST FOR ACTION
MEETING DATE: February 3, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER :PW -03 -008
The EIR evaluated three basic alternatives for addressing the bridges:
1. Retain existing crossing designations
2. Delete bridges
3. Alternative bridge alignments /connections
Alternative 3 is generally considered an impractical alternative based on the significant cost
increases associated with pursing it. Therefore, the primary focus of discussion has been
Alternative 2.
The EIR identified several significant traffic impacts that would result from deleting the future
bridges from the MPAH. Improvements that would be needed to mitigate these significant
impacts were also identified and which would make the deletion of the bridges from the
MPAH feasible.
As a matter of policy, OCTA will only consider the removal of each bridge from the MPAH if
all of the agencies affected are unanimously in support of the action. This would require the
cities of Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa to agree on the treatment of the
Garfield Avenue /Gisler Avenue bridge, and the cities of Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa and
Newport Beach to agree'to the treatment of the Banning Avenue /19th Street bridge. OCTA
• will consider actions on each bridge individually.
The cities of Fountain Valley and Newport Beach have expressed some reluctance to
support the outright removal of the two bridges from the MPAH, even with the implementation
of the identified mitigation measures. To address its concerns, the city of Costa Mesa
presented an alternative action that would place each bridge in a "reserve" status that would
allow the planned bridges to be deleted from the MPAH in the future. The reserve status
would leave each bridge on the MPAH in a special designation that would require all future
transportation planning to assume that the bridges will not be constructed. During that time,
the affected cities would commit to completing the identified mitigation measures totaling an
estimated $19 million. Following completion of the mitigation measures, the area would be
reevaluated to determine the actual effectiveness of the measures and make a final
determination of the need for the future bridges. If the criteria established by OCTA were
satisfied, then steps would be taken to remove the planned bridges from the MPAH. If the
criteria were not satisfied, the bridges would remain on the MPAH.
Action:
The reserve alternative is not consistent with the position adopted by the City Council in 1993
through Resolution No. 6544 and as stated in the Circulation Element of the General Plan to
support "the no bridge scenario ", and has not been supported by the city of Huntington
Beach staff. Attached is a new resolution for City Council consideration, to provide staff with
. any change in direction or affirmation of the existing position on this matter.
In action directly related to this issue, the city of Fountain Valley recently requested project -
level funding for several elements of the Garfield Avenue /Gisler Avenue bridge through
GAR C A \2003 \03 -008 Feb 3 Stachelski (Resolutions for SARCS).doc -3-
112412003 5:18 PM
REQUEST FOR ACTION
MEETING DATE: February 3, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PW -03 -008
In action directly related to this issue, the city of Fountain Valley recently requested project -
level funding for several elements of the Garfield Avenue /Gisler Avenue bridge through
programs administered by OCTA. Requests were made for preliminary engineering and
environmental studies through the Growth Management Area funding program with funds of
$250,000 targeted for FY 2005/06. The Growth Management Area 6 (GMA6) Elected
Officials, at their December 10, 2002, meeting, supported these requests. It must be
emphasized that the city of Huntington Beach has opposed the City of Fountain Valley's
requests for funding at every stage in the process. Fountain Valley also applied for funding
of final design of the bridge through the competitive Master Plan of Arterial Highways
program administered by OCTA; that request is still outstanding.
In response to the actions by the city of Fountain Valley, the city of Costa Mesa has sent a
letter to OCTA, dated January 9, 2003, expressing opposition to the funding applications and
actions by Fountain Valley, along with its rationale for opposition. The Costa Mesa City
Council also adopted a resolution in December 2002, formally stating its commitment to
opposing any steps taken by the City of Fountain Valley to seek funds for the Garfield /Gisler
bridge project. Attached is a resolution for City Council consideration that would provide a
similar opposition to the actions being taken by the City of Fountain Valley.
Environmental Status: Not applicable.
Attachment(s):
1 I Draft Resolution 03-
2 1 Draft Resolution 03-
3 Resolution No. 6544 of the Huntington Beach City Council — 1993
4 January 9, 2003 Letter from Costa Mesa to OCTA
Circulation
RCA Author: R. Stachelski
GAR C A\2003 \03 -008 Feb 3 Stachelski (Resolutions for SARCS).doc -4-
1/2412003 5:15 PM
•
•
•
0
1]
*I ATTACHMENT #1
RESOLUTION NO. •
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
ASKING THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (OCTA) TO
REMOVE THE BANNING AVENUE /19' STREET AND GARFIELD AVENUE /GISLER
AVENUE BRIDGES FROM THE ORANGE COUNTY MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL
HIGHWAYS (MPAH)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach has received significant
input from the public regarding the viability, financial feasibility and construction of the
westerly extension of 19`s Street/easterly extension of Banning Avenue over the Santa Ana
River and the westerly extension of Gisler Avenue /easterly extension of Garfield Avenue over
the Santa Ana River; and
Such concern affects the Circulation Element of the General Plan of the City of
Huntington Beach as well as the Master Plan of Arterial Highways of the County of Orange;
and
The City of Huntington Beach believes that construction of the Banning Avenue/19`s
Street and Garfield Avenue /Gisler Avenue bridges over the Santa Ana River will severely and
adversely impact the adjacent residential neighborhoods; and
The City of Huntington Beach has entered into a cooperative study with the Orange .
County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the cities of Fountain Valley, Newport Beach,
and Costa Mesa to study the need for, or the deletion of, the Banning Avenue /19`s Street and
Garfield Avenue/Gisler Avenue bridges over the Santa Ana River; and
An adequate transportation circulation network can be provided through construction
of certain intersection and roadway improvements without construction of the Banning
Avenue /19`s Street and Garfield Avenue /Gisler Avenue bridges over the Santa Ana River; and
In November, 1993, the City Council passed Resolution No. 6544 requesting the
County of Orange to initiate the process to remove the Banning Avenue /19 h Street and
Garfield Avenue /Gisler Avenue bridges from the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby
resolve as follows:
The City of Huntington Beach supports the "no bridge" scenario.
2. The City of Huntington Beach requests the Orange County Transportation
Authority continue to pursue the deletion of the Banning Avenue /19`s Street and Garfield
Avenue Gisler Avenue bridges over the Santa Ana River from the Orange County Master
Plan of Arterial Highways. •
03reso /mpah /l24/03
0
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof held on the day of
ATTEST:
City Clerk
City Administrator
03res0 /mpWJt24 /03
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
FFF City Attom y
2003.
l�RIMA—I�DD AND APPROVED:
Director of Public Works
ATTACHMENT #2
•
RESOLUTION N0.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
OPPOSING THE CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY'S REQUEST TO THE ORANGE
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL
ANALSYIS OF THE GISLER/GARFIELD BRIDGE
WHEREAS, the City of Fountain Valley has applied for grant funds to the Orange
County Transportation Authority (OCTA) for preliminary engineering, environmental study
and final design on the Garfield Avenue /Gisler Avenue bridge over the Santa Ana River; and
The Santa Ana River Crossing (SARX) Study will be completed within the next few
months and reviewed by the elected officials and the public from the cities of Fountain
Valley, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa; and
The SARX Study has identified a series of alternative mitigation measures, instead of
construction of the bridge, that are more cost effective and less intrusive to the surrounding
communities; and
It would be an imprudent expenditure of public funds for the City of Fountain Valley
to apply for grant funds at this time, nor should the OCTA fund additional design and
environmental work for this bridge project until the SARX Study is final; and
Several years of work and over $200,000.00 in consultant costs have been expended in
studying the Gisler /Garfield Bridge Proposal; and
Since the magnitude of the adverse impact of the Gisler /Garfield Bridge on both
Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley is enormous, the matter of Fountain Valley's
application for OCTA funding for this bridge should be considered at a public hearing with
input from all affected residents and not be scheduled as a consent calendar matter,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby
resolve as follows:
That it will take action to oppose the project at each and every step of the approval
process, if the City of Fountain Valley approves an application to OCTA seeking funds for the
Garfield/Gisler Bridge project.
03reso /fv Funds /1124103
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof held on the day of 12003.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
REVIEWED AND APPROVED:
City Administrator
03mo /fv fnnds/124/03
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ity AttorAey
AT AND AP�VED:
Director of Public Works
9
0
L�
ATTACHMENT #3
RESOLUTION NO. 6544
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUESTING THE COUNTY
OF ORANGE TO INITIATE THE PROCESS TO REMOVE
THE 19TH /BANNING AVENUE AND GISLER AVENUE/
GARFIELD AVENUE BRIDGES ON THE COUNTY
MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS (MPAH)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach has received significant
input from the public regarding certain existing elements of the County's Master Plan of Arterial
Highways; and
Concern has been raised over the question of the viability, financial feasibility and
constructibility of two elements of the County's Master Plan of Highways, namely, the westerly
extension of 19th Street, easterly extension of Banning Avenue over the Santa Ana River, and
westerly extension of Gisler Avenue, easterly extension of Garfield Avenue over the Santa Ana
River; and
Such concern also affects the City's Master Plan of Arterial Highways; and
The City of Huntington Beach entered into a cooperative study with the County of
Orange and the cities of Fountain Valley, Newport Beach, and Costa Mesa to study, the need
for, or the deletion of the 19th Street/ Banning Avenue and Gisler Avenue /Garfield Avenue
bridges over the Santa Ana River; and
The City of Huntington Beach believes that an adequate transportation circulation
network can be provided through construction of certain intersection and roadway
improvements without construction of 19th Street/Banning Avenue and Gisler Avenue /Garfield
Avenue bridges over the Santa Ana River; and
The City of Huntington Beach believes that construction of the 19th Street/Banning
Avenue and Gisler Avenue /Garfield Avenue bridges over the Santa Ana River will severely and
adversely impact the adjacent residential neighborhoods; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach as follows:
The City of Huntington Beach supports the "no bridge" scenario.
2. The City of Huntington Beach requests the County of Orange to initiate a
process to delete the 19th Street/Banning Avenue and Gisler Avenue /Garfield Avenue bridges
over the Santa Ana River from the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH).
'Mna Awl" 1107ml
4� J
•
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof held on the i cr day of Novemt,Pr , 1993.
VQ
Mayor
ATT T:
.L APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY:
City Clerk
/ /a. ya City Attorney
2
LAITTACHMENT #4
L�
0
January 9, 2003
CITY OF COSTA MESA
CALIFORNIA 92626.1200
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Mr. Arthur Leahy
Orange County Transportation Authority
550 S. Main Street
Orange, CA 92863
Dear Mr. Leahy:
P.O. Box 1200
RECEIVED
JAN 21 2003
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
SUBJECT: City of Fountain Valley CTFP Application for Gisler Avenue /Garfield Avenue Bridge
Funding
The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) currently
designates two future crossings over Santa Ana River south of I -405 Freeway. These crossings are located at
Gisler Avenue/Garfield Avenue and at 191h Street/Banning Avenue. The construction of bridges at these
Locations would significantly impact several residential areas, schools, and parks that are in close proximity.
he bridges will, in addition, create significant adverse impacts on the existing wetlands and biological
resources along the Santa Ana River bed. In consideration of these impacts, the City of Costa Mesa in
November 1991 requested the County -of Orange, who had the jurisdiction on MPAH, to remove these
bridges from the MPAH.
Recognizing the preceding, the City of Costa Mesa, in cooperation with the County of Orange, and Cities of
Fountain Valley, Newport Beach and Huntington Beach, initiated a Santa Ana River Crossings (SARX)
study in 1993. Following the completion of this initial study, through a cooperative process, all involved
cities adopted resolutions requesting the County to further analyze the possibility of removing Gisler
Avenue /Garfield Avenue and 19`h Street/Banning Avenue bridges from the MPAH. The City of Fountain
Valley passed a resolution supporting initiation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for potential
deletion of the bridges (Attachment A). The City of Newport Beach requested an EIR to study the impact of
the bridge removals and to prepare a plan of alternative circulation system improvements, which will provide
equivalent transportation capacity (Attachment B). The Orange County Board of Supervisors approved the
initiation of an amendment process for consideration of deletion of the Garfield Avenue /Gisler Avenue and
19`h Street/Banning Avenue bridges in their December 7, 1993 meeting (Attachment C).
A Technical Advisory Group (TAG) was formed to follow up on Board of Supervisors' directive. The TAG
was comprised of technical staff representatives from the participating cities, the County of Orange and
Califomia Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Additional participants included citizen representatives
om the four cities to ensure that community interests are adequately represented in the process.
The TAG developed a list of alternatives to be studied along with a draft scope of work for the required EIR.
During this process, OCTA assumed responsibility of the MPAI-i from the County. Funding for the •
preparation of EIR was sought from OCTA as well as from involved cities.
City Managers and/or representatives from the four cities met in June 1998, and unanimously
recommended that the City of Costa Mesa develop and execute the agreement with the consultant for the
EIR process and administer the contract. OCTA's role was to be the lead agency to manage the
consultant's technical work for the EIR. On August 17, 1998, Costa Mesa City Council approved
individual cooperative agreements with the participating agencies including OCTA, Newport Beach,
Huntington Beach, and Fountain Valley and recognized cost shares of $50,000 from OCTA, $35,000 from
Newport Beach, $15,000 from Huntington Beach, and $100,000 from Costa Mesa for the SARX Study.
During the same meeting, the City Council also awarded a professional services contract to Kimley -Horn
and Associates to perform the required studies to prepare a program level EIR for the Santa Ana River
Crossings Study.
The draft EIR was circulated for cities' review and public comment on June 22, 2001. There was a 45 -day
public review period, which ended on August 6, 2001. Four community workshops were held in the Cities
of Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach and Newport Beach during the public review period.
Comments from 1 1 agencies and 545 citizens and/or associations and the respective responses to comments
were included in the final EIR dated April 2002. Several meetings were held with traffic staff as well as
City Managers from all involved cities to discuss the results of this study.
In light of pending elections in each of the four cities and the need to further refine the mitigation •
measures identified in the SARX Study, no further official action was scheduled. Following the
November municipal elections, the City of Costa Mesa sent correspondence to each of the participating
cities (Attachment D) requesting feedback in terms of their readiness in moving forward with official
consideration. While awaiting this response, the City learned of the subject action by the City of Fountain
Valley to move forward with the environmental and design effort to construct the Gisler Avenue /Garfield
Avenue Bridge.
The City of Costa Mesa believes that while further input/comments are being processed on the SARX Study,
no action should be taken by any of the involved agencies to study /design these bridges. Beyond issues such
as the legal authority of the participating agencies to initiate environmental studies and the design of bridge
crossings outside of their municipal City limits in areas under the jurisdiction of other governmental agencies
(in this case, the County of Orange, the Army Corp of Engineers and the Santa Ana Regional Flood Control
Agency), the CTFP application by the City of Fountain Valley undercuts the entire SARX effort. Approval
of this CTFP application guarantees that the funding already approved for the SARX Study will have been a
complete waste of precious transportation dollars. Beyond that, however, will be the lost opportunity to
prove that regional cooperation in resolving conflicts in the MPAH can be accomplished. Such a setback
affects not only OCTA and the four cities participating in the SARX Study but municipalities throughout
Orange County.
•
Based on the proposed action by the City of Fountain Valley, the Costa Mesa City Council on December 16,
2002, unanimously adopted an urgency Kesolution expressing their opposition to the CTFP application for
. funding for the preliminary engineering, and the final design of the Gisler Avenue /Garfield Avenue Bridge.
The City Council further reiterated the City's position opposing the Gisler Avenue /Garfield Avenue Bridge
(Attachment E). While our opposition to funding this application is resolute, we are equally committed to
moving forward with completion of the SARX Study so that needed transportation improvements are
constructed. Along with the City of Fountain Valley, we support construction of those transportation
improvements that both improve traffic circulation while maintaining if not improving the quality of life for
our respective communities. Please understand that our position on this matter is not one of maintaining the
transportation "status quo" but of moving forward aggressively with practical, cost - effective improvements
in the foreseeable future.
Finally, the City of Costa Mesa requests that the cooperative effort on the Santa Ana River Crossings
study be accelerated with OCTA's leadership to a final acceptable solution. The City of Costa Mesa looks
forward to working your staff on this important project.
Sincerely, %
Allan L. Roeder `
City Manager
*Attachments
A. Fountain Valley City Council Resolution 8580, November 16, 199'
Newport Beach City Council Resolution 93 -76, November 8, 1993
C. Orange County Board of Supervisors Resolution, December 7, 1993
D. Communication to City Managers, December 6, 2002
E. Costa Mesa City Council Resolution 02 -88, December 16, 2002
c Costa Mesa City Council
Mayor and City Manager, City of Newport Beach
Mayor and City Administrator, City of Huntington Beach
Mayor and City Manager, City of Fountain Valley
Supervisor, 2 "d District
Director of Strategic Planning, OCTA
Public Services Director
Transportation Services Manager
Associate Engineer
C 1
`c
+:3
,,7
ATTACHMENT A
RrS01=ON NO. g5pn
A RFSOT.=ON OF T73GC QTY COUNC= OF T r= CM OF FOUNTAIN
VALLEY. CAL.IFOPLN1A. REQUESTING THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO _
INITIATE THE PROCESS TO P -140VE THE 19TH STRUT /BANNING
j.PENUZ BIND GISLER AVENIIE /GARF=LD AV—E-WE BRIDGE a ON ME
COUNTY I AS= PLAN OF ARrM= HIGEWIYS (MPAE)
=0 CITY COUNCIL OF TEE CITY OF YOIIHTAIN VA ZM DOES E17=
RESOLVE AS FOL=WS
TXc• the City has received input from the public regarding
eer -taim existing elements of tl:Le County's Master Plan of Arterial
Eighways: and
i. =:R AS• ttis input raises concern for the viability.
financial feasibility and censt.-uc- ihility of ,.o elements of the
County's Master Plan of Fichways. namely, the westerly extension of
the 19t'b Street /easterly extension of Banning avenue over the Santa
•
Ana Rave: and westerly extension of Gisler Avenue /easterly
extension of Garfield Avenue over the Santa Ana River: and
i7iiRFAS, this concern also affects the Citv's Master Plan of
A- serial Highways: and
F1L'�'S, the City of Fountain Valley entered into a
cooperative study with the County of Orange and the Cities of Costa
Mesa. Huntington Beach and Newport Beach to study the need for or
the deletion of the 19th Street /Banning Avenue and Gisler
Avenue /Garfield Avenue bridges of the Santa Arm Rive:: and
HHIE-tLaAS. the City of Fountain Valley desires to enter into a
cooperative agreerent with the cities of Costa Mesa, Huntington
Beach. Newpo—. Beach. County of Orange and Caltranz to assess the
needed intersection and roadway improvements and determine
•
mitigation costs if the two bridge crossings are removed iron the
Master Plan of Arterial Hichways: and
Resolution No. aSan
Page 2
7EERFAS, any' Change or deletion to the Coa*.ty IGAH requites a
comprebensive $rvirc=ental Impact Report (EII2) to be cc:pleted
prior to proposed changes or deletions and that no action to remove
the bridges ran occur Without said F.rrvironmental Impact Report; and
W=ZAS, the environmental iapacts and potential mitigation
measures to those impacts have not been fully identified for the
bridge deletions and the recrui_^ed added capacity at intersections
and an roadway links. The City of Fountain Valley believes- that
there will be significant impacts involved with the construction or
deletion of the bridges and that there will be significant- public
input and concern related to these impacts; and
W.^T...i'LSAS, the City of Fountain Valley is willing to consider a
cooperative agreement with Orange County, Caltrans and the cities
of Costa Mesa, Newpoz` Beach and Huntington Beach to prepare an
acceptable alternate plan of providing a satisfactcry level of
arterial highway imprcvements which would provide for a balanced
land- use /circulation system among the four cities by providing a
satisfactory level of alternate highway improvements in lieu of the
19th Street /Banning Avenue and Gisler Avenue /Garfield Avenue
bridges over the Santa Ana River.
NOW, TiIEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEo that the City of Fountain
valley finds that an Environmental Impact Report must be ccmpleted
before it can make a recommendation for any amendaents to the
County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. The report should include
a funding program for arterial highways and intersection
improvements which, would provide far a balanced land-
.. .. �,4�..
Resolution 8580
Page 3
BE IT FORMER RESOI :�T-rZ that the City of Fountain Valley will
participate in a program to prepare and evaluate an alternative
plan of providing a satisfactory level of arterial highway and
intersection improvements which would provide for a balanced land -
use circulation system among the four cities by providing a
satisfactory level of alternate highway improvements in lieu of the
29th Street /Banning Avenue and Gisler Avenue /Garfield Avenue
bridges of the Santa Ana River.
BE IT FURTPiER P.ESCLVED that the City of Fountain Valley
requests the County of Orange to initiate an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) for -.he potential deletion of the 19th Street /Banning
Avenue and Gisler Avenue / Garfield Avenue bridges over the Santa Ana .
River from the Ccunty's Master Plan cf A_ -terial Highways (I1PAH).
PASSED AND ADOPTED -his 16th day of November , 1993.
ATTEST:
11.Q_
City Clerk —
c:
Mavor
0
*STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE } sa
CITY Cri-'FOUNTAIN VALLEY }
I, Jane Irvin, do hereby certify that 1 am the Deputy City Clerk of fhe City of
Fountain Valley; that the foregoing ResciLdon was reguiarfy introduced to said Council
at Its regular adjoumed meeting geld on the 16th day of November, 1993, and was at
said meeting'regulariy Passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: CARROTIO, COLLINS, PETRIKIN, SCOTT, COOK
NAYS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ASSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
u
Deputy City Clerk
RESOI.unoN No. 97.74 ATTACHMENT B
A RESOLUTION OF TT-. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
.REQUESTING THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO INITIATE THE PROCESS TO
DETER.VTNE THE IMPACTS TO THE CIRCULATION SYSTEM OF REMOVING
TiaE 197H STREEMANNING AVENUE AND GISLER AVENUFJGARFIELO
A' /17NUE BRIDGES ACROSS THE SANTA ANA RIVER FROM TVF, MASTER
PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS (MPAW AND TO PREPARE A PLAN OP
ALTERNATE CIRCULATION SYSTEas INIPROVF.MENTS WMCH WILL
'ROV10E EQUIVALENT TLAMC SERVICE.
\VU EREAS, the City of Newport Beach lams participated in a eooperative study will, the
County of Orange. Costa.Mesa, fountain Valley and Huntington Beach to evaluate the Santa Ana
River (:: ossings (SARX) southerly of State Route 405 (the San Diego Freeway); And
WIMAC.AS• the SARX Study shows that the river crossings al 19th StreetNamning
Avenue and Gisler Avenue/Garfield Avenue, if constructed• would tarry significant trallie and it'
n0i cc%ISMK:ed, cause increased tral it on various links in the NIPAH; and
WHERE,\S• the County and the Cities have received significant input from citizens near
tin ,ic%imisly mentioned crossings objecting to :he construclion of ante new bridge crossings of
the Santa Ana River southerly of the San Diego Freeway; and
WIIGRE, \5, this public input raises concern for the viability financial feasibility and
,cns:r. :c:sbilhy of a number of elements of the County's SiPAH and the circulation elements of
the four cities; and
`VHLER.EAS, the City of Newport Beach is uncertain that an adequate imspomaiinn
circu!a0cn %c ,.yo, k that is politically and en•,irontnentally acceptable can be provided :hrough the
ccns;runon of:he additicnal intersectio:l, existing bridge, and roadway improvements required if
Me :9:y1 StreecDannln.g Avenue and Gisler Avenue'Garfield Avenue bridges over the Santa Ana
River are rte: cor,struc;ed• and
1\'!117 :1112,\5, :he environutentAl impacts And potemial mitigation measures to those
.u• -:acts 'move no: been PJly identified for either tile bridge deletions at tile required added
capaaty at :raersections, existing bridges and on :oad«ay links. The City of Newport Beach
!)6c.c3 :pat :here may be sigllilic.tnt impacts involved wiih- pruvidiitll ;be added intersection.
I,tktgc..a:d :eadwny !ink capacity : equired if the new bridges arc not co- tstntcted and :hat there
�nn•!td Slg:6(11C,1ilt t :ub!ie inpUt and eoticcrn,clmed to these imlm.ctsi and
'.l i {lCRE, \S, the City of Newport Hach is willing to eoosidur a cooperative agreement
wiOl O:nnge Comity CAlrrans (7 np;iopnn,c) and :he cities of Costa bses.t, hnmrsam Valley :old
1!ur.,hlgloil Dcaeh, to prepare .1n iceeprable alternate plan of irieital highway improvenlerns
•.vl•.iclt weutd provide for a balanced land use'circulatien sys::.m :dung the four cities by
providing a satisfactory level of alternate highway improvements in lieu of the 19th
Strecu'DAnning Avenue and Gisler Avenue/Gur -eld Avenue bridges over the Santa Ana River
Soeh a plan for highway improvements would need to identify: 1) aceessnry, right•or•wey
acquisitions, 2) scope of roadway, existing bridge• and intersection widening improvements. ))
cnvlronmcmel assessment of proposed roadway improvements and an ensironmental assessment
:i( constructing the bridges• so that A true comparison can be made, a) :methods of construction
;inancinC, and 5) time frame for construction.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL`•'LD :hat the City of Newport Beach finds Oral it is
;:lerasture to su7pon the 'no bridge scenario' until it can be demonstrated that an aeceptable
al,c'•atc "In of Arterial high-.11y improvements, including a funding ;regra:n• which would
Inc• :tde far a ba'nneed land ase'cireulation system among the four s:ties can be provided.
ensucr.;res :ath• c!eared, and aeeepted by the four cities
UF. `. I'CRTllER RESOLVED That the City of Newport neach also rinds 111.11 it is
:rci•.u.uc :n enter Into a cooperative agreement with Onngt County. Costa %less. Fountain
Vatic% wd Iti:ntinct,n Deach sod Caltrans (if appropriate) to fund and construct an .alternative •
!lichv,1y is r:c:n 01,11 i :as rte; yet been established or proven to be a better alternative to the 191h
Scccal.t• :a: r.c : \.ccce art Gisler %-- cm,eGar11cld Averae' :•ridges ovc, -be Santa Ana !liver
I -r •
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Ncwpurl llu;lc•ir will Iarli:ipa;•: in
• program to prepare and evaluate in ahernate plan of arterial highway imirr:.crncn:; ..hick
provide for a balanced land we./circulation system among the four cities and !ht: CoI; ;,ly
providing a satisfactory level of altemate highway improvements in lieu oi' the !( ?l
S(rceUBanning Avenue and Gisler Avenue/Garlield A•+unue bridges over the Sawa Ana Ri cl
Such a plan for highway improvements will need to identify' 1) ncccssuN rigiu•a(' -«,;
acquisitions, 2) scope of roadway, existing bridge and intersection widening unlue:cntcnts,
environmental impacts of both roadway, existing bridge and intersection improvcmcnrs ar:d
new bridge crossings, so that a true comparison can be made, 4) methods (ll' cnncr.uc;i•.,:
financing, and 5) tune !lame for construction.
BE 11' FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Newport 13cnch is' willing IL, uooperatr
with all concerned agencies in an effort to achieve a mutually satisfactory solution to the issur:
and problems which exist, and will participate in a cooperntive agmemunt if acceptable terms anr.
li!nding for the necessary work can be agreed upon.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of Not. a:.:ber, 1993
u
City Clerk
'I w4um•
0
Mayor Pro Tcm City
(tt)FIED A5 A 1 RUE AnU CC-R:CT CC ?Y
i
it QtF1C a r11L Q1Y G rvM7'Ui It/•41•
r,
4
f,
A
n
In
14
I S j
e • I I'
� la
10
:n
:I
�4
2a
- 2c
28
ATTACHMENT C
•
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
December 7, 1993
On motion of Supervisor Rieder, duly seconded and carried, the
following Resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, by Agenda Item Transmittal for Board meeting this date,
the Director, ERA, submitted a report and recommendations resulting
from the Santa Ana River Crossings (SARX) Cooperative Study;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board hereby:
I. Receives and directs the Clerk to file the SARX Cooperative
Study and Environmental Baseline Study. is
2. Initiates an amendment to the master Plan of arterial
Highways (mPAH) for considering deletion of Garfield Avenue /Gisler
Street and Banning Avenue /19th Street bridges and adopts a plan of
alternative highway improvements through a cooperative city, county,
and state process;
J. Initiates a transportation element amendment to delete
Atlanta Avenue /Nilson Street bridge crossing from the mPAH and
downgrade East 19th Street /Dover Drive in accordance with the
cooperative study.
d. Directs E!'.A to report back to this Board within ninety days
with a status report on the cooperative process.
S. Directs EHA to provide monthly written status reports to
Board offices, cities and community groups. •
Resolution No. 93 -1361
Public IVarirr] -- Sang Ana River
Crossings Cmperative Study
JRGep 1
I
,
1
5
RIQ
I�
1 !�
Is
19
'n
2t
Chairman of Che aaard of Supervisors
SIGNED AZID CERTIFIED THAT A COPY
OF THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DELIVERED
TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
PHYLLIS A. IIE14DER50H
Clerks bf the Board of Supervisors
Orange County, California
;I
AYES: SUPERVISORS HARRIETT H. WIED£R,THOMAS F. RILEY AND ROGER
R. STANTON
NOES: SUPERVISORS NONE
ABSENT: SUPERVISORS GAODI H. VASQUEZ AND WILLIAM G. STEINER
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ss.
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
I, PHYLLIS A. HENDERSON, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of
Orange County, California, hereby certify that the aFove and
foregoing Resolution vas duly and regularly adopted by the said Board i
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of December, 1993,
and passed by a unanimous vote of said Board members present.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this
7th day of December, 1993.
PHYLLIS A. HENDERSON
Clerk of' the Board of Supervisors of
Orange County, California
101 2.
t
i
1
Dece:nbe: 6, 3002
ATTACHMENT G
CITY OF COSTA MESA
CA FCF.Nra 92(126.1200 P.O. BOX 1200
Fe'CM ,rE CEPAR-.1E4T CF PUSUC SERVICES .
\L. Homer Bludaa, C :t- N(anage:
\Ln Rich Edmouston, Traffic Engmecr
Cir•• of \eaTor: Beach
3300 Ne--s�orz Boulevard
\ea•Doa Beach, CA 92638
De_ %L-. Bludau and NE Edmacnston:
SLBJECT: Santa Ina Rive; Crossings (S..� Study
T-He F_ai = r_n^.eo[!1 Ir=eac- Renorr !1=R) for the S_i -X sn d -, trh:c'a :re4tded resoocsa ,o a2cc7
arc ou'CLC eommenn, was coenie:ec - Apr1 2002. A aeeeng of Ciro \tana5^e:s was held in Nlay 2002
to =CcLSSS ;ra::: CCo - crendaeors to :erecyve City Couneh. Follow -ing th_-s rnc- raring, Ciro of Com Mesa
a L-aft repo= for pttscacatioa to Ctrs Councl T':s dm-c-1 tnorr included,-
:-- c0 .1..e_cacons this wc:e Couisrert rth --'-c discs :ons in the Nlav Cl-r-. N[anagtn' We -_cng. A CcD- .
of �L `az Tenor. as fora a clod ro :ou in June 2002 for cornmeaa. HoWeve:, star did .or :eccye a�
irnut frce the involved Ices.
i7:e Coss Mesa Ge Count Has :ccucted a :enorz on ---'c stanas of the subjec projec in near rury —T.
^e C:t- of Costa Mesa a•ot::C ?rear s anor_=te :t if :•ou could :e:- cw the arne-.ed drat snc :ecorr and
pronce dour com=e=ts to Petc \a2 ^a7-, T=soortanon \(aaa¢e :. by the end of Decczbe 3003.
I: __e:e re am ssues, please CoC=c- Pear_ Nogha : at 711 -34-=193 or Raja Sethuta=un, associate
at 7 1 =- :- :031 :r..rrecael -,
Lark •: ou.
Sircrr.�.,
\�'LILLL�I J. MORRIS. P.E.
Pubbe Services Dtrec:or
A ::ach%mcnt
C. ALan Roeder. City Manage: .
Peter \aghavt. Manage: of Tansporadon Senices
/Raba Sethuraman, Associate Engineer
77 FAiA CPrvE
P-CNE. (7141 ry-aa.a FAX: (711) :SI-3026 rot r14) 76+02&+
•
•
•
December 6, 2002
CITY OF COSTA MESA
CALIFCANU MM 1200
FACM'Y.£ CEPAM'MEY7 CF PUSUC SERVICES
.Ir. Rap sure:, Ciec Manager
.%L-. Robe:: Snches4 Traaspor-3rioa Manage:
.%L-. Tnocas Bcohard
Citr of 'Huntingcoa Beach
2000 Maia Seer
Ftmangtoa Beach, CA 93648
Dear %L-. Save -, %Ir. Smches4 and Mr. Brobard:
SUBJECT: Santa Ana Rives Crossings (SAR.q Study
P.O. Box 1200
T'-re Fi: al Eri7ireaxental Imeac Reeor. (FIR), for the SARY sr,:dc, .hick :2cjLded :=pores es .o age-
pubLc c=xen:s, was completed in Apra 3003. .i meering of Ciec %faaagt was heldia %fav 2002
cc discs staf* reco".eadzriors to respecrce Cicc Col_.c.IS. Follocrag this xec:iz , Cir of Cosa Mesa_._. _
staff pr ^arcd a ci=- rcpor. rot presearioa cc Cc-, Counci Tais daft tepor, iac:uded
:ecor^.medadoas ran: were coasisceac with the discssieas a the %fay Cit^ N. L _zgen''Mee ag. A cops
of this d �. -c=or-. was :oraa,ded to Fou :a juae'_003 for commeaa. ido0.c c, snfi did aoc rcc icc aav -'
nut =m ....e acolcm cces.
The Cosa Mesa CiCF Courci bas recuesced a:eporc on •he scans of the subject projec is the near future
The C :r- of Cosa Mesa : could greadc aeorec3ce it if cou could :e-.'c the araced craft star; report and
pror"de Four cem.:.e=S to Pe:e: Nagpa,, T= mor=doc .%faaaQc, be the cad of Dec Abe 2004-
If &c:e _e a^. sszes, please cceuc: Pet. �a3 =_ = :. ?1 or R:;a Sec secate
Engineer. at 714-7:4-:032, unmet iacelc.
Z'.aanlc -.-cu.
Since :ei ^,
%%1ULL%I J. MORRIS, P.E.
Public Services Dtrecror
Ac- aclune .t
Allan Roeder, Cir: Manager
Peter Naghari Manager of Trarsspornrion Services
i Raja Sethurarnan, Associate Engineer
T? FAIR OPrvE
Decembe_ G, 3002
CITY OF COSTA MESA
CAL'FCFNIA 92925-1200 P.O. BOX 1200
FRCM :E CEPAR'VEY CF PUBC:C EF -WC'c5
\L-. Ra =oad H. Krcme :. Gry Manage:
\L -. \[ar4 Lewis, Cir. Engineer
Ciro of Fountain Val ec
10'_'00 512:e: Avenue
Fountain Valley, CA 92108
Dear \L•. {Comer and \[r. Lens:
cLBJEC i : Santa :Lna River Crossings (SARA Srudv
ne Final =nci:oz: =ral Trnrac- Repor: 4-F Z) for the S_iRY snuck, which inclined responses to 3gent:7
and pubic comments, was ,-om=itted in Ao: i 2002 A meedag of Cm \Lanag= was held in \Iav 2002
to dsc.Lss scaff re_CI — Cn=z:o= :o rest:e•_- e Gry Co=ds. Following this mectiag, Cry of Costa %fcsa
staf; pre-pared a tafr repor for pres=tnooa to Cr- Cot`cL Tail daft revorr. included
:ecommc_dadons roc ^.:e:e coCist=t = Ch .e d15c=sions in the \Inc Cir- \[a:agrs' me-_ a¢. A cope
of this c::, reoor, was forwardr' to -,ou in Tuae 2002 for comments. Hoteve:, stall did nor receive ant
inou: from
ne Costs Mesa C:r- Council 3 = ccuez:ed a :epos on tae sratcs of a sublet orojea in tte new four,-
TTne Cir of Coss \[es1 would rend- acvre ice is if 7ou could :- c 'ue arrac:ed dmir smE reaor. and
pro .dc -cu cor=_s to P:re: T =svor acor- \[z^aze:, b- --4t end of Dececbe: 200'_'.
ant issues, pfesse consc: ?e:= Nagha-i at 714-734531- or Raja Serhurarzzz' associate
E ^g ec. a: -1175— :03'_, i rrec-, ec.
T:1=k vc L'.
\[ORRIS, P.E.
Public , mites Duecror
0
ArtacF= -env
c . \'gin Roeder. Cie Manage: •
Pece: `aghar.. Marager of Transporndon ser%ices
/ Ra a sctl.urvn. Associve Engtnee:
" FAIR aP1YE
Pr.CN9. (714(] - +.5343 FAX: (714(15+5029 TCO: (714('552"
RESOLUTION NO. 02-88
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
COSTA MESA OPPOSING THE CITY OF FOUNTAIN
VALLEY'S REQUEST TO THE ORANGE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR DESIGN AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE GISLER-
GARLFIELD BRIDGE
r%J i nvI nVICIN I C
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 93 -83, on October 25,
1993, requesting the County of Orange to initiate the process to remove the Gisler-
Garfield Bridge from the Master Plan of Highways and supporting the "no bridge"
scenario: and
WHEREAS, the Costa Mesa City Council does hereby emphatically reaffirm this
4's position as stated in Resolution No. 93 -89 along with the additional key elements
stated herein; and
WHEREAS, the Santa Ana River Crossing (SARX) Study will be completed and
reviewed by the elected officials and the public in the cities of Fountain Valley, Newport
Beach, Huntington Beach and Costa .Mesa, in the next few months : and
WHEREAS. it would be a waste of scarce public funds for the City of Fountain
Valley to apply for grant funds at this time, nor should the ORANGE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (OCTA) fund additional design and environmental
work for this bridge project until the SARX Study is final; and
E
WHEREAS, The SARX Study has identified a series of alternative mitigation
measures instead of construction of the bridge that are more cost effective and less
intrusive to the surrounding communities; and
WHEREAS, several years of work and over $200,000.00 in consultant costs
have been expended in studying the Gisler - Garfield Bridge Proposal; and
WHEREAS, the magnitude of the impact of the Gisler - Garfield Bridge on both
Costa Mesa and Fountain Valley is enormous, the matter of Fountain Valley's
application for OCTA funding for this bridge project should be considered at a Public
Hearing with input from all affected residents and not be scheduled as a Consent
Calendar matter ; and
WHEREAS,'the two cities have a long history of cooperation and collaboration in._
resolving problems of joint concern; and
WHEREAS. the City of Fountain Valley's action to apply for OCTA funding at this
time is wholly inconsistent with that historic level of cooperation.
NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED that the Costa Mesa City Council does
hereby proclaim that it will be forced to take action to oppose the project at each and
11
every step of the approval process, if the City of Fountain Valley approves an
application to OCTA seeking funds for the Gisler- Garfield Bridge project.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16" day of December, 2002,
ATTE T:
Deput ity Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa f ayor of the City of Costa Mesa
APPROVED AS TO FORM
City Attorney,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss
CITY OF COSTA MESA )
0 I, JULIE FOLCIK, Deputy City Clerk and ex- officic Clerk of the City Council of the
City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 02 -88
was duty and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular
meeting thereof he4d on the 16" day of December, 2002, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Rcbinson, Steei, Cowan, :Monahan, Mansccr
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
the City of Costa Mesa this 171" day of December, 2002.
�. j IOregn!ng irstrOrrvn7 is a COrteCT COOP Of the
Ong rcl On f i;ESi t h4 0 Ice.
ATTEST: n
f' CITY ClC9l641F THE CITY OF CO-.TA Mr ".A
CCU NTY OF OrpNCC. STATE OF CAUI FOR IA
STEC:.S `/� �/7 zn:;-1
Deputy ity Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of
the Ci y Council of the City of Costa Mesa
ATTACHMENT #5
L,
P
9
SEAL
BEACH
AKUW .'
1
1
1
U� 1
Cowry OF
ORANGE
(BOLSACHICA)
VA
�M
=' PACIFIC
. OCEAN o II 1
� 1
1
1
WESTMINSTER
Ak
r r Ecaw
Her.
•\ 1
WARM FOUNTAIN
VALLEY
MATER
TAIBERT
Ells
1
1
1
1
A
Legend
CITY BOUNDARY i
GwaD
7 W ADW
OWW OUS
ATLANTA
8 LANE PRINCIPAL (DIVIDED)
V=G
6 LANE MAJOR (DIVIDED)
In order to remain eligible to receive Measure M cis and:,
Congestion Management Plan f nds.(Prop:111) 'lie Clry: _:
COSTA
++� 4 LANE PRIMARY (DIVIDED)
of Huntington Beach has kept certain eleinerils'oftlie'Mas(er
MESA
....+ 4 LANE SECONDARY
Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) on the2010. ClreulatidirPlan
2 LANE COLLECTOR
of Arterial Highways. These items include the pfoposed Santa
Ana River Bridge crossings. In addition, the or�rnge:c
STUDY SITES
Transportation Authority and surrounding cities are aiien0y -
discussing the appropriateness of elements, such as the " `: I.
Santa Ana River Bridges, of the OCMPAH. Therefore, future larK
use planning and transportation planning were based upon the
possiblity that these road segments may never be constructed.
— -
DItSAvAdatea,1994
Please see dicsussion under Technical Synopsis Section F.
finndad.um 1990 (See TABLE CE-3)
(see CE 1.1.3)
POTENTIAL FOR
2010 CIRCULATION PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS UGH
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN
•
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: July 21, 2003 ITEM NUMBER:
SUBJECT: SANTA ANA RIVER CROSSINGS STUDY
DATE: JULY 8, 2003
FROM: PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT - TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DIVISION
PRESENTATION WILLIAM J. MORRIS, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SERVICES
BY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: PETER NAGHAVI, TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
MANAGER, 714- 754 -5182
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the following actions on the proposed Santa Ana River Crossings (SARX) at Gisler
Avenue and 19't' Street in the City of Costa Mesa:
1. Reiterate and convey the City's opposition to the design and construction of
the proposed bridges at Gisler Avenue and at 19th Street;
2. Adopt mitigation measures identified in the SARX EIR required for the "No
Bridges Alternative';
3. Request the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Board of
Directors to certify the SARX Environmental Impact Report (EIR);
4. In cooperation with OCTA and participating jurisdictions, develop a program
to implement the mitigation measures for the "no bridges alternative;
5. Retain the Gisler Avenue and 19th Street bridges on the OCTA's Master Plan
of Arterial Highways (MPAH) at this time. Request that the participating
jurisdictions not assume that the two bridges will be built when considering
long -term planning studies, developments, and land use assumptions;
6. Request OCTA that, upon completion of all feasible mitigations for the "No
Bridges" Alternative, a follow -up study be conducted to reconfirm the deletion
of the bridges from the circulation system, and to take action to delete the
bridges from the MPAH at that time; and
7. Authorize staff to transmit City Council's final recommendation to OCTA
and other affected jurisdictions.
BACKGROUND:
The OCTA's Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) currently designates two future
crossings over the Santa Ana River south of the 1 -405 Freeway. These crossings are
located at Gisler Avenue /Garfield Avenue within the Cities of Costa Mesa and Fountain
. Valley and at 19th Street/Banning Avenue within the Cities of Costa Mesa and Huntington
Beach (Attachment 1). The construction of bridges at these locations would impose a
significant impact to several residential areas, schools, and parks that are in close
proximity. The bridges will, in addition, create significant adverse impacts on the existing
wetlands and biological resources along the Santa Ana River bed. In consideration of
these impacts, the City of Costa Mesa in November 1991 requested the County of Orange,
who had the jurisdiction on MPAH, to remove these bridges from the MPAH.
Based on this request, the City of Costa Mesa, in cooperation with the County of Orange,
and the Cities of Fountain Valley, Newport Beach and Huntington Beach, initiated the
Santa Ana River Crossings (SARX) study in 1993. Following the completion of this initial
study, through a cooperative process, all involved cities adopted resolutions requesting the
County to further analyze the possibility of deleting the Gisler Avenue /Garfield Avenue and
19th Street/Banning Avenue bridges from the MPAH. The City of Fountain Valley passed a
resolution supporting the initiation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for potential
deletion of the bridges. At that same time, the City of Newport Beach requested an EIR to
study the impact of the bridge removals and to prepare a plan of alternative circulation
system improvements, which would provide equivalent transportation capacity. The
Orange County Board of Supervisors approved the initiation of an amendment process for
consideration of deletion of the Gisler Avenue /Garfield Avenue and 19`h Street/Banning
Avenue bridges in their December 7, 1993 meeting.
A Technical Advisory Group (TAG) was formed in 1994 to follow up on the County Board of
Supervisors' directive. The TAG was comprised of staff representatives from the
participating cities, the County of Orange and Caltrans. The TAG developed a list of
alternatives to be studied along with a draft scope of work for the required EIR as approved
by all involved cities including the City of Fountain Valley. In 1994, OCTA assumed
responsibility for administration of the MPAH.
Kimley -Horn and Associates was retained in 1998 to perform the required studies to .
prepare a program level EIR for the SARX Study. The Cities of Costa Mesa, Huntington
Beach, and Newport Beach, and OCTA contributed $100,000, $15,000, $35,000 and
$50,000, respectively, towards the study. OCTA also provided the administrative and technical
lead role.
The objectives of the EIR are as follows:
To protect the residents that reside along Gisler Avenue and 19th Street and
the students at Tewinkle Middle School in Costa Mesa from noise, safety, and
traffic impacts;
To protect the wetlands near the western terminus of 19th Street and Talbert
Park within Costa Mesa;
To protect the residents that reside north and south of Banning Avenue in
Huntington Beach from noise, safety, and traffic impacts; and
To continue to provide a level of mobility within the region commensurate to
that of the current Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH).
Three alternatives were analyzed as part of this project:
Alternative 1, No Project: The No Project alternative would maintain the MPAH
at its existing state, retaining both 19`h Street/Banning Street as well as Gisler
Avenue /Garfield Avenue bridges on the MPAH.
Alternative 2, Bridge Crossings Deletion: This alternative includes the
deletion of the Gisler Avenue /Garfield Avenue and Banning Avenue /19th Street
bridge crossings over the Santa Ana River from the MPAH.
2
• Alternative 3, Alternative Bridge Crossings: This alternative consists of
deletion of the existing master planned bridges and construction of two
alternative bridge crossings at the following two locations: (a) connect Garfield
Avenue at its eastern terminus (on the west side of Santa Ana River) to the
southbound 1 -405 Freeway and connect the northbound 1 -405 Freeway with
Garfield Avenue; Gisler Avenue would remain unchanged; and (b) connect 17th
Street in Costa Mesa to Brookhurst Street in Huntington Beach at a point north of
Banning Avenue from Bluff Road.
ANALYSIS:
The SARX study included the generation of horizon year (2020) traffic forecasts for the
above three alternatives considered in the Project. The analysis covered over 300
roadway segments and approximately 90 intersections within the Cities of Costa Mesa,
Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach and Newport Beach. The study included analysis for
existing conditions as well as future year projections for all three alternatives.
The criteria to identify significant impacts at roadway segments and intersections was
discussed and approved by all involved agencies. Alternative 1, No Project, was
considered as the base alternative to which the other alternatives were compared. Based
on the approved criteria, the following was determined:
• Alternative 2, Bridge Crossings Deletion — Impacts 8 roadway segments and 10
intersections.
• Alternative 3, Alternative Bridge Crossings — Impacts 4 roadway segments and 5
intersections.
Mitigation measures were proposed to reduce the level of impact at all significantly
impacted locations. These mitigation measures consist of intersection improvements and
roadway widenings. Implementation of these measures result in operation of all
intersections and roadway segments in the study area at a level similar to or better than the
MPAH conditions (No Project Alternative).
Attachments 2 and 3 present the impacted locations and intersection improvements
required, respectively, for Alternative 2. Attachments 4 and 5 present the impacted
locations and intersection improvements required, respectively, for Alternative 3.
The draft EIR was circulated for cities' review and public comment on June 22, 2001.
There was a 45 -day public review period, which ended on August 6, 2001. Four
community workshops were held in the Cities of Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Huntington
Beach, and Newport Beach during the public review period. Comments from 11 agencies
and 545 citizens and /or associations and the respective responses to comments were
included in the final EIR dated April 2002.
During the entire program EIR process, OCTA staff has maintained that, in order for
OCTA's Board of Directors to take action on this EIR, all agencies must agree on a
collectively acceptable recommendation.
Several meetings were held with technical staff as well as City Managers from all
involved cities to discuss the results of this study. In a final meeting on May 28, 2002,
the City Managers of the four cities discussed a multi -step plan as suggested by the
City of Costa Mesa. The suggested plan includes the following:
3
a. Maintain both bridges on the MPAH at this time;
b. Involved jurisdictions shall assume "no bridges at Gisler Avenue /Garfield •
Avenue and 19`h Street/Banning Avenue" when considering land use
decisions, review of development impacts and any other traffic and /or
environmental studies;
C. Adopt a plan to implement all feasible mitigations outlined in the study as
a result of the bridge deletions (Alternative 2); and
d. Request OCTA to conduct another analysis once all feasible mitigation
measures are completed to verify the "bridge deletion" (Alternative 2)
findings.
Upon the completion of the above steps, and once the feasible mitigation measures are in
place and their effectiveness is verified, then OCTA would proceed with the actual deletion
of the bridges from the MPAH.
Costa Mesa staff considers the above solution as a framework to eventual removal of
the bridges from the OCTA MPAH. The solution also attempts to move the process
beyond the current deadlock with a meaningful approach to the resolution of the
proposed bridges. However, the proposed solution was not acceptable to the Cities of
Fountain Valley and Newport Beach. The City of Fountain Valley is in favor of the
Gisler Avenue /Garfield Avenue bridge construction and the City of Huntington Beach
requested that the bridges be removed immediately.
In early December 2002, the City of Costa Mesa sent correspondence to each of the
participating cities requesting feedback in terms of their readiness in moving forward
with official consideration (Attachment 6). However, there was no final consensus
among the participating cities. Meanwhile, the City of Fountain Valley has solicited
grant funds from OCTA Combined Transportation Funding Program (CTFP) for
preliminary and final design of Gisler Avenue /Garfield Avenue bridge.
In opposition to City of Fountain Valley's request for CTFP funds for design of Gisler
Avenue /Garfield Avenue bridge, the Costa Mesa City Council passed an urgency
Resolution in December 2002. In addition, several letters were sent to OCTA Board of
Directors and their staff expressing the City's opposition for any CTFP funds for design
of Gisler Avenue /Garfield Avenue bridge. The resolution and letters to OCTA are
included in Attachment 7.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
The City Council may elect to not approve staff recommendations and may choose to
recommend any or none of the alternatives analyzed for SARX for approval by the OCTA
Board of Directors. However, the OCTA staff has stated that if the City Council
recommendations are not unanimous among all participating agencies, the OCTA Board
may not consider the matter for action.
FISCAL REVIEW:
The implementation of required mitigation measures for Alternative 2 are estimated to cost
approximately $19 million. The cost of constructing the bridges is estimated at $46.5
million. The cost estimates for all alternatives are included in Attachment 8. If the City's
proposal were to be adopted by OCTA, the participating agencies will be requested to
enter into a partnership to determine ways to implement these mitigation measures within a
4
0
certain time frame. If Alternative 2 is ultimately approved, THE city of Costa Mesa will be
expected to commit to its fair share of funding for the mitigation improvements, including
those outside the City boundaries. A detailed fiscal review would be conducted and
presented to the City Council following the development of the draft implementation plan.
Potential sources of funds include Measure M and federal grants.
LEGAL REVIEW:
Legal review is not required for this item.
CONCLUSION:
Over the last 12 years, the City dedicated significant amounts of time, effort, and funding
towards the proposed deletion of the "Master Planned" arterial roadway crossin's of the
Santa Ana River, at Gisler Avenue/Garfield Avenue and Banning Street/19h Street
Bridges. To this end, a "Program level" Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been
completed to identify the necessary mitigations if the "Master Planned" bridges are deleted.
The results of the study showed that the improvements are required at some
intersections and roadway segments to delete the bridges from the OCTA's MPAH.
Staff believes that these required mitigations will result in far less impact to the community,
and to the region in general, than the construction of the proposed bridges.
Staff from all involved cities met on several occasions to discuss the results of the study
and to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution on the future of the proposed bridges.
However, to date, no particular alternative has been acceptable to all cities. The City of
Huntington Beach favors immediate removal of bridges from the MPAH. The City of
Fountain Valley is opposed to this action and has in fact solicited grant funds to initiate
preliminary and final design of Gisler Avenue /Garfield Avenue bridge. The removal of
19th Street bridge is opposed by the City of Newport Beach.
In consideration of the varying positions of involved cities, staff is proposing a
compromise solution. Under this option, OCTA would need to certify the existing
programmed EIR through the public hearing process. The cities would agree to
maintain both bridges on the MPAH; however, these bridges will not be assumed when
considering development studies, or when making land use decisions. The cities should
develop a plan for the implementation of all feasible mitigations as outlined in the "No
Bridges Alternative," and conduct another study once all mitigations are complete.
Once the mitigations were proven effective, the bridges can be removed from the
Master Plan.
Staff recommends the City Council approval of the above multi -step plan. In addition,
staff requests that the City Council reiterate its opposition to the design and construction
of either bridge and to direct staff to convey the City Council recommendations to OCTA
and other jurisdictions.
PETER NAGHAVI, MANAGER
Transportation Services Division
WILLIAM J. MORRIS
Director of Public Services
I
DISTRIBUTION: City Manager
Deputy City Clerk
Deputy City Manager— Dev. Svcs.
Director of Public Services
Staff
File
ATTACHMENTS: 1 Study Area Map Depicting
Location of
Gisler
Avenue /Garfield Avenue. 19 Street/Banning
Avenue
Bridges
2 Alternative 2 (Bridge Crossings
Deletion)
Traffic
3 Impacts
Alternative 2 (Bridge Crossings
Deletion)
Traffic
4 Mitigations
Alternative 3 (Alternative Bridge
Crossings)
Traffic
5 Impacts
Alternative 3 (Alternative Bridqe
Crossings)
Traffic
6 Mitigations
7 Correspondence to Cities
8 Resolution 02 -88 and letters to OCTA Board and staff
Opinion of Capital Costs
File Name Date Time 0
r]
"RECEIV D AFTER AGENDA
PRINTED:" II
MEMORANDUM
;1 . ..
To: The Honorable Mayor Garold Adams and Members of the City Council;
City of Newport Beach
From: Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee
City of Newport Beach
Subject: Santa Ana River Crossings ( "SAR%") Cooperative Study; Draft Program
Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. )
Date:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the captioned matter and to
comment on the captioned Project and the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
( "Program DEIR') of the Orange County Transportation Authority ( "OCTA "). As set forth in
the Program DEIR and discussed more fully below, the Project is the proposed deletion of two
bridge crossings over the Santa Ana River (the "Proposed Project ") from the Orange County
Master Plan of Arterial Highways ( "MPAH ").
As you know, the responsibilities of Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens
Advisory Committee ( "EQAC" or the "Committee ") include commenting on environmental
documents and on projects which may affect the City and its residents. In addition to our
comments below, we incorporate our earlier comments to the Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ").
We offer the following specific comments.
I. Summary of Concerns:
We have several concerns. These include the following:
A. A tiered DEIR, not the current Program DEIR, may be the correct
vehicle to analyze the environmental effects of a general planning
proposal;
B. The Program DEIR should incorporate and analyze the deletion of
the Wilson Street crossing;
C. The Project Description appears to conflict with OCTA's mission
and purpose, and the Program DEIR's discussion of permitting
issues is confusing.
D. The Program DEIR assumes full buildout under current municipal
and county general plans; many of these projects including the
proposed West 17'h Street Extension in the City of Newport Beach
and the East 17`h Street widening in the City of Costa Mesa will
likely not proceed.
E. The Proposed Project threatens to cause substantial and
unmitigated impacts in many areas including land use, housing and
population, traffic, noise and aesthetics.
II. Introduction: EIR and Legal Standards.
An EIR constitutes the heart of CEQA: An EIR is the primary environmental
document which:
".. serves as a public disclosure document explaining the effects of
the proposed project on the environment, alternatives to the
project, and ways to minimize adverse effects and to increase
beneficial effects."
CEQA Guidelines section 15149(b). See California Public Resources Code section 21003(b)
(requiring that the document must disclose impacts and mitigation so that the document will be
meaningful and useful to the public and decisionmakers.)
EIR:
Further, CEQA Guidelines section 15151 sets forth the adequacy standards for an
"An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to
provide decision - makers with information which enables them to
make a decision which takes account of the environmental
consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a
proposed project need not be exhaustive, but sufficiency of an EIR
is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible.
Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate,
but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement
among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but
for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith attempt at full
disclosure."
Further, "the EIR must contain facts and analysis, notjust the agency's bare conclusions or
opinions." Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd District Agricultural Association.
(1986) 42 Cal. 3d 929.
In addition, an EIR must specifically address the environmental effects and
mitigation of the Project. But "[t]he degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to
the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR."
CEQA Guidelines section 15146. Some projects such as general plan adoption deal with general
issues; but CEQA also applies to small projects which require merely a conditional use permit.
The analysis in an EIR must be specific enough to further informed decision making and public
participation. The EIR must produce sufficient information and analysis to understand the
environmental impacts of the proposed project and to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives
so far as environmental aspects are concerned. See Laurel Heights Improvement Association v.
Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376.
CEQA Guidelines section 15168 addresses program EIRs such as the Program
DEIR for the Project. Section 15168 provides:
"A program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of
actions that can be characterized as one large project and are
related either:
(1) Geographically,
(1) As logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions,
(1) In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria
to govern the conduct of a continuing program, or
(1) As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or
regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be
mitigated in similar ways."
Because amendments to general planning documents such as the County's MPAH
are projects under CEQA, see CEQA Guidelines section 15378(a)(1), and require the preparation
of a Project EIR, see CEQA Guidelines section 15166, a Project specific EIR, not a program
EIR, is the appropriate tool to evaluate environmental impacts and mitigation. Al Larson Boat
Shop, Inc. v. Board of Harbor Commissioners (1993) 18 Cal. App. 4th 729, 741 (holding that an
EIR for a port master plan is a tiered EIR rather than a Program EIR).
The DEIR correctly points out the benefits of tiering but incorrectly labels the
current amendment to the MPAH a Program DEIR. The Program DEIR correctly quotes CEQA
Guidelines section 15385 regarding tiering but ignores the section's distinction between "a
general plan [e.g. the MPAH], policy or program EIR ...... Tiering can occur without the
preparation of a Program DEIR as noted in Al Larson:
"In practice the first `tier' may consist of a general plan or program
EIR, which discusses agency -wide programs, policies or
cumulative impacts. The second tier may consist of a specific plan
EIR, which discusses a particular region within the agency. The
third tier may consist of an ordinary development project EIR,
which discusses a particular site."
Koster v. County of San Joaquin (1996) 47 Cal. App. 4`h 29,36-37.
Further, CEQA Guidelines section 15164 discusses an EIR as part of the
amendment of a general planning document such as the MPAH. Among other things, it requires
submittal of the DEIR to the State Clearinghouse. CEQA Guidelines section 15164(b).
Although the Program DEIR notes that the State Clearinghouse received the NOP, it is silent on
its receipt of the Program DEIR.
Finally, we note that the Program DEIR contains no State Clearinghouse number.
As indicated above, as a general planning document, it should be forwarded to the State
Clearinghouse. Further, the Program DEIR contains two volumes. However, the first volume
fails to note that it is "Volume One" of two volumes. The second volume helpfully notes on the
cover that it is "VOLUME II: APPENDICES."
11. Section 1: Introduction and the Project History:
Section 1.0 and following provides the crucial introduction to the Project:
the Project is an amendment to the County's MPAH. The amendment proposes to delete from
the MPAH two proposed arterial crossings of the Santa Ana River: "a connection between
Banning Avenue in Huntington Beach and 19`h Street in Costa Mesa/Newport Beach, and a
connection between Garfield Avenue in Fountain Valley/Huntington Beach and Gisler Avenue
in Costa Mesa." Program DEIR, p. 1 -1.
Section 1.6 addresses the Project history including the original full spectrum of
crossings: Originally, the MPAH contained five (5) crossings— Hamilton Avenue /Victoria
Street (completed), Adams Avenue (completed), Banning Avenue /19`h Street (planned), Garfield
Avenue /Gisler Avenue (planned), and Atlanta Avenue /Wilson Street (deleted). Although the
Program DEIR lists the latter crossing— Atlanta Avenue /Wilson Street— as deleted, the
Program DEIR fails to refer to the environmental document or study which supported that
deletion. The Program DEIR notes that an Environmental Baseline Study was performed which
concluded that substantial biological and land use impacts could result from such a crossing,
but the Program DEIR fails to cite any further recommendation or action by the County or
OCTA in connection with the deletion.
To the extent that little or no environmental study supported the earlier deletion of
the Atlanta Avenue /Wilson Street crossing, we recommend that the Program DEIR include such
an analysis.
111. Section 2: A Troublesome Project Description and Local Approvals.
Section 2 sets forth the Proposed Project— the deletion of two arterial river
crossings at 19'h Avenue and at Gisler Avenue as well as two alternatives including the current
MPAH Alternative which retains the two crossings and a Third Alternative which is the
Alternative Bridge Crossings at Garfield Ave to I -405 and at 17 °i Street in Costa Mesa to
Brookhurst Avenue in Huntington Beach. Gisler Ave. would remain unchanged.
The stated goals of the Project at Program DEIR at 2 -1 are:
"(1) To protect residents that reside along Gisler Avenue and 19`h Street and the
students at Tewinkle Middle School in Costa Mesa from noise, safety, and traffic
impacts;
(2) To protect wetlands near the western terminus of 19'h Street and Talbert Park
within Costa Mesa;
(3) To protect residents that reside north and south of Banning Avenue in Huntington
Beach from noise, safety and traffic impacts; and
(4) To continue to provide a level of mobility commensurate to that of the current
MPAH."
However, the stated mission of OCTA at the OCTA website conflicts with these goals:
"The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) was formed in 1991 by
the consolidation of seven separate transportation agencies to develop and
implement unified transportation programs and services for Orange County."
The conflict is manifold: the Project goals fail to further a unified traffic program: it supports the
safety and welfare of select groups of residents at the expense of other residents in Orange
County. Also, it promotes a biological goal which may itself conflict with OCTA's goals of
providing a unified transportation plan. Finally, the Project goals— select public safety and
transportation— appear to conflict internally. OCTA's mission is unified traffic plans: the
Project fails to further that mission.
Sections 2.6 and 2.7 address the relation between OCTA's MPAH and local municipal
general plans. Section 2.6 discusses the ability of the various cities to use the Program DEIR as
the environmental support for the proposed change to their general plans. Further, both
alternatives 2 (the Proposed Project) and 3 (the Alternative Bridge Project) would require the
various cities to amend their general plans before OCTA could amend its MPAH.
The Program DEIR must clearly state the priorities of approvals: should any city fail to
approve the Proposed Project, OCTA could not amend the MPAH. As we have noted above,
recent case law undercuts the ability of a Program EIR such as the Program DEIR for the Project
to support such a long range planning change.
Further, the Program DEIR must acknowledge that, as to the 19`h Street Bridge, this
property is within the City of Newport Beach, not the City of Costa Mesa. That is, the City of
Newport Beach has a special interest in the 19`h Street crossing.
Finally, the Proposed Project is the deletion of two crossings. The Project is then a
negative. Negatives have historically presented a problem: the Proposed Project suffers a similar
problem. The Negative is often converted into a positive Project. The Program DEIR attempts
to keep this straight; OCTA attempts to keep this straight; but the ultimate product suffers.
IV. Section 3: All Impacts Are Cumulative.
As indicated above, CEQA Guidelines section 15168(b) suggests that one of the
benefits of a Program EIR is to "[e]nsure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be
slighted in a case -by -case analysis ...."
With the Program DEIR, it is unclear that this benefit is realized. The Program DEIR
"assumes a complete buildout of Orange County pursuant to each city's and the County's
respective general plan land use elements." However, such an assumption is only as good as the
elements which it assumes. As discussed below, some of these plans and elements have changed
in ways which would undercut the assumptions of the Program DEIR.
V. Section 5: Poor Recognition and Appreciation of Environmental Impacts.
A. Section 5.1: Substantial Land Use Impacts in Newport Beach.
The Program DEIR concludes that the Proposed Project "would [not
create] substantial impact[s] ...... Yet the same document recognizes that the Proposed Project
would create substantial land use impacts in the City of Fountain Valley due to a "disportionate
shift of traffic onto segments of arterial streets ...." As discussed below, that very same
impact —a disportionate shift of traffic onto segments of arterial streets which are not sized
for such increase will occur in the City of Newport Beach. Thus, the Proposed Project will
create substantial land use impacts in the City of Newport Beach.
In addition, Alternative 3 may affect the current plans for the Banning Ranch project.
We understand that, under this Alternative, the 17`h Street Bridge may bisect that project. Such
an impact would be significant and require mitigation.
B. Section 5.2: Substantial Housing and Population Impacts in Newport
Beach.
The Program DE1R refers to the CEQA Guidelines for the threshold of
significance regarding housing and population impacts. The Proposed Project — deletion of two
major bridge crossings— will create substantial housing and population impacts though such
impacts may not exactly fit into the Guidelines matrix.
Appendix G of the Guidelines states that the threshold is met if a project: (1) induces
growth; (2) displaces housing units; or (3) displaces people. Throughout this section, the
Program DE1R routinely concludes that the Proposed Project will "not induce substantial growth
nor displace existing housing or population within" any particular municipality.
However, if the Proposed Project creates substantial traffic impacts, it threatens to
displace substantial numbers of people who cannot and will not tolerate prolonged traffic
congestion. As discussed below and as recognized in the Program DE1R, the Proposed Project
may create traffic congestion and prolong existing congestion. This impact, indirectly, threatens
to create substantial housing impacts for which the Program DE1R offers no mitigation. See
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G.
In addition, the Proposed Project requires significant traffic improvements in the region
including in the City of Newport Beach. The locations of these improvements include the
Banning Ranch project, the residential developments as well as the assisted living facilities
which are all along Superior Avenue, and residential neighborhoods in West Newport in and
around the impacted West Coast Highway.
C. Section 5.3: Significant Traffic Impacts in Newport Beach.
The Proposed Project— the deletion of the two crossings— threatens to
cause substantial and unmitigated impacts on traffic in the City of Newport Beach.
However, initially, we offer a procedural comment. The basis of the Program DEIR is a
sub - region -wide cumulative impact model run: such a model is virtually impossible to analyze
and verify without access to the complete model. We need to know the parameters of the sub-
region model: the Program DEIR fails to provide this crucial information which is necessary for
a complete understanding and analysis of the environmental document. Such a failing undercuts
the viability of the Program DEIR.
As to substantive comments, we have many: First, the Proposed Project will have
substantial impacts on West Coast Highway at the 17`h Street Extension in the City of Newport
Beach. This intersection raises several issues. Initially, the 17`h Street Extension is only
proposed; it may not occur.
More importantly, the Proposed Project will have very substantial and significant adverse
impacts on West Coast Highway: the Proposed Pro�ect will cause an increase of eleven (1 I%)
percent of the capacity of the segment from the 17` Street Extension to the Santa Ana River
crossing. Such an increase will worsen the level of service for the segment from "D" to "E."
Likewise, the intersection of the proposed 17`h Street Extension and West Coast Highway
will suffer substantial adverse impacts: the level of service for morning peak hour traffic would
worsen to an "E, " whereas the No- Project Alternative would result in no change in service
levels. Worse, the level of service for afternoon peak hour traffic would substantially suffer: it
would exceed an ICU value of 1.28 and result in an LOS of "F."
Correlatively, the proposed mitigation is shortsighted: It would mitigate only the
intersection congestion and would leave the main problem— diversion to arterials— unmitigated.
The mitigation would require that the proposed 17 °i Street extension be at least six (6) lanes and
would also require an unusual double right turn lane.
Second, the Proposed Project will also create substantial impacts at Hospital Road
between Placentia Street and Newport Boulevard within the City of Newport Beach. At the
outset, we note that currently circulation in this area in and around Hoag Hospital is
compromised: during various hours, circulation suffers substantial congestion. The Program
DEIR notes that, under Alternative A— the No Project Alternative— the road segment would
suffer a level of service "F." Although the Proposed Project would not worsen this LOS "F," the
worst level of service, it would result in a traffic volume increase of four (4 %) percent of
capacity which exceeds the "3% of capacity" threshold of significance.
Notwithstanding this significant impact, the Program DEIR offers "no additional
mitigation." Program DEIR p. 5 -136. The Program DEIR recognizes that, under current plans
and funded by development "in the area, "several improvements may occur:
a. in the small canyon of Hospital Road, the addition of a second northbound left
turn lane onto Newport Boulevard; and
b. a second west bound left turn lane from Newport Boulevard onto Hospital Road.
As the City of Newport Beach's traffic engineer has noted, these improvements would be
extremely expensive and physically challenging. Further, only the second of these measures —
the additional left turn from Newport Boulevard— is a project - related mitigation measure.
Third, the Proposed Project will also create substantial adverse impacts with difficult
mitigation at the very complex intersection of West Coast Highway and Superior Ave.
Although the afternoon peak hour traffic would not substantially increase, the morning peak hour
traffic ICU value would increase and would represent a significant impact. The proposed
mitigation is adding a second left turn lane on the West Coast Highway. This would require
widening West Coast Highway. However simply stated, the mitigation is complex: the side
streets are at a considerable skew; and the widening would require the reconstruction of a dual
retaining wall system.
Fourth, as the Program DE1R recognizes, traffic is a regional problem. The Proposed
Project would affect traffic in the City of Costa Mesa which would in turn create impacts in the
City of Newport Beach. The Program DE1R predicts that the increase of East 17th Street traffic
would exceed the capacity of the proposed six lane expansion which is currently called for in the
MPAH. However, this ignores the City of Costa Mesa's recent action on a proposed expansion
of East 17`h Street. The City recently approved improvements which would be incompatible with
the six lane expansion: East 17th Street as a six lane roadway lives only in dreams. Without this
improvement, the Program DE1R's predictions will fall far short, and the impacts to the Cities of
Costa Mesa and Newport Beach will be significant.
In addition, with the Proposed Project, the level of service for the intersection of East 17 "h
and Newport Boulevard would significantly worsen from LOS "D" to LOS "F." The Program
DE1R proposes surprising mitigation: adding a fourth northbound lane on Newport Boulevard.
The Program DE1R fails to explain how this expansion could even occur. The practical
problems are huge. If it does not occur, traffic in the afternoon would back up into the City of
Newport Beach and exacerbate the already impacted Hospital Road/Newport Boulevard
intersection.
Finally, and most importantly, the Program DE1R at p. 5- 113 -114 predicts that the
Proposed Project would result in an additional six - thousand (6,000) miles traveled and almost
two thousand, seven hundred (2,700) additional vehicle hours of travel each day. Without
analysis or discussion, the Program DEIR concludes that these increases are "not significant
impacts." As discussed below, such increases will cause significant and adverse impacts on
traffic as well as on noise and other areas.
D. Section 5.7: Significant Noise Impacts in Newport Beach.
Given that the Program DEIR predicts that the Proposed Project will
substantially increase miles traveled and vehicle hours, Section 5.7.6.2 candidly admits that, in
the City of Newport Beach:
"The proposed project would result in three roadway segments having a
substantial, permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project. The three roadway segments that would
result in significant adverse noise impacts are:
< 17`h Street Extension between W. Coast Highway and 15`h Street
< 17`h Street Extension between 15`h Street and Bluff Road
< W. Coast Highway between SARX and 17 °i Street Extension"
(Emphasis supplied.) Many of these segments are yet to be constructed: the affected area lies
between SARX and the proposed 17'h Street Extension.
Having recognized these significant adverse noise impacts, the Program DEIR offers no
mitigation: "No mitigation measures are available that could effectively reduce the effects of the
noise increase along the affected roadway segments." So, the City of Newport Beach would
have to live with these significant impacts.
However, the Program DEIR summary fails to appreciate the nature and extent of the
significant noise impacts or the lack of mitigation:
"8.7 Noise
The proposed project would result in no significance (sic) adverse noise impacts."
The summary fails to recognize the significant and unmitigated noise impacts identified in
Section 5.7.
The noise impacts within the City of Newport Beach will be significant and permanent.
These impacts will affect residents permanently. Either the Program DEIR must provide some
mitigation or the No Project Alternative must go forward.
E. Section 5.8: Unidentified Significant Aesthetic Impacts.
Section 5.8.2 attempts to identify the criteria for evaluating significant
aesthetic impacts; unfortunately, it incorrectly refers to "population and housing impacts:"
' ... a proposed project would result in a significant adverse population and
housing impact if it were to :
X Have substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
X Substantially damage scenic resources;
X Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and the
surrounding area; or
X Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area."
(Emphasis supplied.)
Although the Program DEIR recognizes that the substantial increase in vehicle hours and
miles affect noise, it surprisingly ignores the impact of such increases on the visual resources
within the City of Newport Beach. Indeed, the Program DEIR incorrectly finds that the
Proposed Project would have no impact on the City's visual resources. Traffic congestion and
traffic backups on West Coast Highway would very likely substantially and adversely affect the
visual resources in West Newport.
VI. Alternatives Analysis: the Superior "No Project" Alternative.
The Program DEIR concludes that the status quo— the "No Project" Alternative
which maintains the two bridge crossings— is the environmentally superior alternative. Given
our comments above, we agree with this assessment.
VII. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we recommend that OCTA revise the Program
DEIR to address the following concerns:
A. A tiered DEIR, not the current Program DEIR, may be the correct vehicle
to analyze the environmental effects of a general planning proposal;
B. The Program DEIR should incorporate and analyze the deletion of the
Wilson Street crossing;
C. The Project Description appears to conflict with OCTA's mission and
purpose, and the Program DEIR's discussion of permitting issues is
confusing.
D. The Program DEIR assumes full buildout under current municipal and
county general plans; many of these projects including the proposed 17`h
Street Extension likely will not proceed.
E. The Proposed Project threatens to cause substantial and unmitigated
impacts in many areas including land use, housing and population, traffic,
noise and aesthetics.