Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCosta Mesa, City of - Cooperative Agreement - Santa Ana River Crossing Cooperative Study 8/17/98 - 1998-08-17• • CITY OF COSTA MESA CALIFORNIA 92628-1200 P.O. BOX 1200 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK August 26, 1998 Ms. Connie Brockway City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Ms. Brockway: Enclosed is a fully executed copy of the Cooperative Agreement between the cities of Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa for the Santa Ana River Crossings (SARX) Study. This agreement was approved at the regular City Council meeting held on August 17, 1998. Very truly yours, MARY . ELLIOTT Deputy City Clerk MTE:rd cc: Transportation Division Finance Department 77 FAIR DRIVE PHONE: (714) 754-5223 • TDD: (714) 754-5244 • • ;, I& CITY OF HUNTINGTON. BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL OF ITEM APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL/ REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DATE: had 2j6t 02%, 199 g TO: L4/ TY OF l ' ,5;a Xe&o I' Nam � _ Stre�iL5T1S1 9��ai� City, State, Zip See Attached Action Agenda Item Date of Approval Enclosed For Your Records Is An Executed Copy Of The Above Referenced Agenda Item Remarks: Connie Brockway , City Clerk Attachments: Action Agenda Page Agreement Bonds Insurance RCA Deed Other Nam De p me RCA Agree;pK Insurance t Name Department RCA Agreement Insurance Other Name Department RCA Agreement Insurance Other Name Department RCA Agreement Insurance Other Risk Management Dept. Insurance Received by Name - Company Name - Date G:Followup/coverltr (Telephone: 714536-5227 ) (7) • 08/17/98 - Council/Opency Agenda - Page 7 E-11. (City Council) Approve Agreement For Land Purchase For Peck Water Reservoir Expansion — South Of Existing Peck Reservoir On Sprinadale Street — Authorize Public Works Director To Sian Escrow Instructions — Authorize Acceptance Of Deed (600.10) — 1. Approve the Agreement for Purchase, Sale and Escrow Instructions between McDonnell Realty Company and the City and authorize execution by the Mayor and City Clerk and authorize the opening of an escrow; and 2. Authorize the Public works Director to sign escrow instructions upon approval as to form by the City Attorney and 3. Authorize the City Clerk to affix the City's acceptance certificate to the deed and to record same upon City's receipt of deed (property located south of existing Peck Reservoir on Springdale Street.) Submitted by the Public Works Director and Deputy Citv Administrator -Administrative Services [Approved 7-0] F. Administrative Items F-1. (City Council) Approve Cooperative Aareement Between The Citv And The Citv Of Costa Mesa - Santa Ana River Crossing Cooperative Study & Approve Budget Appropriation (600.10) Communication from the Public Works Director informing the City Council that a Cooperative Agreement with the City of Costa Mesa is required to proceed with the Santa Ana River Crossing Cooperative Study (SARCCS) Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Funding for the City of Huntington Beach share of costs must be provided. Recommended Action: Motion to: 1. Approve the "Cooperative Agreement Between the City of Costa Mesa and the City of Huntington Beach." pertaining to the Santa Ana River Crossing Cooperative Study (SARCCS) Environmental Impact Report, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement; and 2. Appropriate $15,000 from the unencumbered General Fund for the City's contribution to the Santa Ana River Crossing Cooperative Study (SARCCS) Environmental Impact Report. [Approved 7-01 F-2. (City Council) Approve Professional Services Contract With The Ferauson Group. LLC For Intergovernmental Affairs Support Services & Approve Waiver For Professional Liability Insurance (600.10) Communication from Administration transmitting a proposed professional services contract between the City and Ferguson Group for the purpose of assisting the City with the development and implementation of an Intergovernmental Affairs Program designed to increase the amount of Federal and State monies coming back to the City in the form of State and Federal grants, budget allocations, and/or special projects. Recommended Action: Motion to: 1. Approve and authorize execution of a Professional Services Contract Between the City of Huntington Beach and the Ferguson Group, LLC to Assist the City in It's Intergovernmental Affairs Program in the preparation and implementation of an Intergovernmental Affairs Program designed to increase the amount of Federal and State funds received by the City. and 2. Based upon the March 11, 1998 recommendation of the Settlement Committee approve the waiver for Professional Liability Insurance. [Approved 7-01 (7) S .BEAko5Ley- OPW SQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIN MEETING DATE: August 17, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW 98-072 Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: dApproved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied rl_ n Duo cJry Po boo•/o Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date: August 17, 1998 I Department ID Number: PW 98-072 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administratordeg PREPARED BY: ROBERT F. BEARDSLEY, Director of Public Works 6� SUBJECT: Cooperative Agreement, Santa Ana River Crossing Cooperative Study Statement of Issue, Funding Source, Recommended Action, Alternative Action, Analysis, Environmental Status, Attac Statement of Issue: A Cooperative Agreement with the City of Costa Mesa is required to proceed with the Santa Ana River Crossing Cooperative Study (SARCCS) Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Funding for the City of Huntington Beach share of costs must be provided. Funding Source: Funds are available in the unencumbered General Fund. Recommended Action: Motion to: 1. Approve the "Cooperative Agreement between the City of Costa Mesa and the City of Huntington Beach" pertaining to the SARCCS EIR, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement; and 2. Appropriate $15,000 from the unencumbered General Fund for the City's contribution to the SARCCS Environmental Impact Report. Alternative Action(s): 1. Direct staff to modify the agreement per City Council direction, and return the revised document for consideration; or, 2. Reject the agreement without comment. Analysis: The City of Costa Mesa will act as the Contracting Agency, for the SARCCS EIR document. The Costa Mesa City Council will approve the contractual agreement between the Consultant and Costa Mesa. Cooperative Agreements have been or are being executed between the other, participating agencies (Fountain Valley, Newport Beach, OCTA) and Costa Mesa. RCA CM CoopAgreemnt.doc -2- 08/03/98 11:48 AM RQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIN MEETING DATE: August 17, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW 98-072 City of Costa Mesa staff will be responsible for processing payments to the consulting firm performing the work. The Consultant will perform the work under the supervision of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). OCTA will assure technical accuracy and CEQA compliance of the EIR document. The agreement between Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach provides for the payment of $15,000 to the City of Costa Mesa as the Huntington Beach share of the SARCCS EIR effort. That amount was approved by the City Council at their November 17, 1997 meeting. Huntington Beach staff will also provide support during the project as noted in the agreement. Environmental Status: Not Applicable Attachment(s): "Cooperative Agreement between City of Costa Mesa and City of Huntington Beach" Fiscal Impact Statement RCA CM CoopAgreemnt.doc -3- 08/03/98 11:48 AM COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF COSTA MESA AND CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 1998, by and between the City of Costa Mesa and the City of Huntington Beach, both California municipal corporations in the State of California. RECITALS: WHEREAS, Orange County Transportation Authority (herein after referred to as OCTA) is responsible for maintaining the integrity of the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (hereinafter referred to as the "MPAH), through its coordination with cities and the County of Orange and ultimately determines the cities' and County's consistency with the MPAH System; and WHEREAS, the MPAH designates Garfield Avenue/Gisler Avenue and 19th Street/Banning Avenue as two (2) bridges overcrossing the Santa Ana River, and WHEREAS, the Cities desire a study to determine the best solution to regional traffic flow in the area of the proposed bridges (hereinafter referred to as "STUDY"); and WHEREAS, the other parties effected by the traffic from the proposed bridges, cities of Newport Beach, Fountain Valley, the County of Orange, and OCTA have agreed to consider a plan of alternative highway improvement that may allow deletion of the bridges from MPAH; and WHEREAS, all of the effected parties propose that the "STUDY" identify the potential environmental impacts and subsequent mitigations associated with the above proposed MPAH amendment through a program level Environmental Impact Report (EIR); and WHEREAS, the EIR will be conducted in accordance with Attachment A, Scope of Work Outline, prepared by OCTA and approved by the Santa Ana River Crossing (SARX) Technical Advisory • • group, and will be used to evaluate all impacts of additional proposed alternatives and to determine the operational and financial feasibility of subsequent mitigations; and WHEREAS, No MPAH amendment will be entertained until the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements are satisfied; and WHEREAS, STUDY will be prepared in cooperation with the cities of Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach, the County of Orange, and OCTA; and WHEREAS, STUDY will be conducted in accordance with the recommendations included in the Guidance for the Administration of the Master Plan of Arterial Highways issued by OCTA in November 1995, and will follow the Scope of Work Outline included as part of this Agreement, and WHEREAS, OCTA has agreed to be responsible for the following: A. To serve as lead agency for EIR. B. To be responsible for review and input to the Consultant on the preparation and processing of all necessary documentation related to the STUDY. C. To be responsible for all OCTA staff costs associated with the STUDY. D. To be responsible for $50,000.00 of cost to conduct the STUDY. E. To provide all OCTA support services identified in Scope of Work for the STUDY. F. To conduct public workshops either with staff or through a Consultant. WHEREAS, City of Costa Mesa and City of Huntington Beach wish to herein specify their respective responsibilities for performance of the STUDY; and WHEREAS, City of Costa Mesa and City of Huntington Beach possess full authority to enter into this Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by the parties hereto as follows: ARTICLE 1. RESPONSIBILITIES OF CITY OF COSTA MESA City of Costa Mesa agrees to the following responsibilities: A. To retain through its procurement process all Consultants necessary to conduct the study. 2 E • B. To be responsible for all City of Costa Mesa staff costs associated with the STUDY. C. To be responsible for $100,000.00 of all Consultant costs for the program level EIR. D. To be responsible for review and input to OCTA for the preparation and processing of all necessary documentation related to EIR. E. To provide all City of Costa Mesa support services identified in OCTA's Scope of Work for the STUDY. F. To provide all required public notices, convene and assist in public workshops, coordinate citizen input, and other related duties. ARTICLE 2. RESPONSIBILITIES OF CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City of Huntington Beach agrees to the following: A. To be responsible for all City of Huntington Beach staff costs associated with the STUDY. B. To be responsible for $15,000.00 of all Consultant costs for the Program Level EIR. C. To be responsible for review and input to OCTA for the preparation and processing of all necessary documentation related to EIR. D. To provide all City of Huntington Beach support identified in OCTA's Scope of Work for the STUDY. ARTICLE 3. MUTUAL AGREEMENTS It is mutually understood by the parties hereto that: A. Unless otherwise agreed upon by all cities involved and OCTA, the STUDY will be completed ONE YEAR from issuance of the notice to proceed. B. This Agreement does not prohibit the cities from conducting their own pubic hearings,. community workshops, or otherwise take input from its constituents concerning the EIR, separate from OCTA conducted public workshops. 3 • • C. Every notice, demand, request or other document or instrument delivered pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be either personally delivered, sent by Federal Express or other reputable overnight courier, sent by facsimile transmission with the original subsequently delivered by other means in accordance with this section, or sent by certified United States Mail to the address set forth below, or to such other address as a party may designate from time to time: TO CITY: City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive P. O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Attn: Allan Roeder, City Manager Tel: (714) 754-5328 TO CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH: City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attn: Ray Silver, City Administrator Tel: (714) 536-5575 D. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreements of the parties and integrates all of the terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto with respect to the subject matter thereof. E. This Agreement may be amended in writing at any time by the mutual consent of the parties. No amendment shall have any force or effect unless executed in writing by the parties. F. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said parties and that, by so executing this Agreement, the parties hereto are formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement. 4 G. Neither City of Costa Mesa nor any officer or employee thereof shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by City of Huntington Beach under or in connection With any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to City of Huntington Beach under this AGREEMENT. It is also understood and agreed that pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, City of Huntington. Beach shall fully indemnify, defend and hold City of Costa Mesa harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government Code Section 810,8), occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by City of Huntington Beach under or in conjunction with any Work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to City of Huntington Beach under this AGREEMENT. H. Neither City of Huntington Beach nor any° officer or employee thereof shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by City of Costa Mesa under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to City of Costa Mesa under this AGREEMENT- It is also understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, City of Costa Mesa shall fully indemnify, defend and hold City of Huntington Beach harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government Code Section 810.8), occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by City of Costa Mesa under or in conjunction with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to City of Costa Mesa under this AGREEMENT (REST OF PAGE NOT USED) 5 • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City of Costa Mesa has caused the Agreement to be executed by its Mayor and attested by its Clerk, and the City of Huntington Beach has caused the Agreement to be executed by its Mayor and attested by its Clerk authorized by minute orders of their City Council, respectively, on the date written opposite their signatures. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH A municipal corporation Date: / By: M or ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ' r City Clerk ��� 9g City Attorney �WpC q/ REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: Cit ministrator Director of Public Works CITY OF COSTA MESA a munici all corporatio Date: B Mayor ATTEST—' - APPROVED AS TO FORM: �;, _ty-Clerk City Attorney • ExHj&7"- 'A " • SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE SANTA ANA RIVER CROSSINGS COOPERATIVE STUDY TRAFFIC STUDY AND PROGRAM LEVEL EIR BACKGROUND: The Santa Ana River Crossing (SARX) Phase II Study is a coordinated effort between the County of Orange, Caltrans, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the cities of Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Newport Beach and Huntington Beach. The purpose of this effort is to evaluate alternative roadway improvements that may allow the deletion of the proposed Banning Avenue/19th Street and Garfield Avenue/Gisler Street bridge crossings over the Santa Ana River from the OCTA Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). The SARX study area is bounded by Warner Avenue to the north, Bristol Street and Upper Newport Bay to the east, Beach Boulevard to the west and Pacific Coast Highway to the south. The potential bridge crossings are located between the 1-405 and Pacific Coast Highway. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project consists of the preparation of a program level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that will provide sufficient analysis and detail to allow amendment of the General Plans for the cities of Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach to reflect deletion of the proposed Banning Avenue/19th Street and Garfield Avenue/Gisler Street bridge crossings over the Santa Ana River. Specifically, the EIR will evaluate the potential impacts of the deletion of the bridges, both with and without alternative roadway improvements, against a baseline alternative assuming construction of the bridges as shown in the existing MPAH. At a minimum, the EIR will evaluate the three alternatives summarized below: 1. Project The "Project" scenario will examine the deletion of the Garfield Avenue/Gisler Street and Banning Avenue/19th Street bridge crossings over the Santa Ana river from the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (Included as Exhibit A). 2. No Project The "No Project" scenario will serve as the baseline alternative, and will examine the construction of the Garfield Avenue/Gisler Street and Banning March 10, 1998 • Avenue/19th Street bridge crossings in accordance with the existing Master Plan of Arterial Highways (Included as Exhibit B). 3. Alternative Project The "Alternative" scenario will examine the construction of the following alternative bridge crossings: 1) connecting Garfield Avenue to SR-57 and/or 1-405 instead of Gisler Street and 2)connecting 17th street to Brookhurst Street (north of Banning Street) via Bluff Road instead of the Banning Avenue/19th Street bridge crossing (Included as Exhibit C). In addition, it is possible that an additional alternative may be developed through the scoping process. The Consultant should be prepared to include this additional alternative in the environmental analysis. STUDY ORGANIZATION OCTA shall serve as the Lead Agency. The Consultant shall work under the general direction of the OCTA project manager and in cooperation with the SARX Technical Advisory Group (TAG). The TAG consists of staff from the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), the cities of Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach, and Newport Beach, the County of Orange, and Caltrans. The TAG also includes citizen representatives from the four member cities. SCHEDULE The Study/EIR is anticipated to take approximately nine months, with an additional two months scheduled for public review and preparation of the Final EIR. Approximate milestone dates are shown below: • RFP Release: • Proposals due: • Consultant selection; • Traffic Study/EIR: • Public review period: • Final EIR: WORK PROGRAM March 16, 1998 April 24, 1998 May 28, 1998 June 1998 - February 1999 March 1999 April 1999 The Consultant shall prepare a complete Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to analyze and evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the project at a program level of analysis. The level of detail should be sufficient to allow amendment of the General Plans for the affected cities to reflect deletion of the 2 March 10, 1998 bridges. The Project, No Project and Alternative scenarios will be evaluated at an equal level of detail. The impact analysis will include Transportation, Land Use, Noise, Air Quality, Aesthetic, Hazards, Recreation, Public Services and Utilities, Population and Housing, Cultural Resources, Soils/Geology/Seismicity, Energy, Hydrology, Biological Resources, Cumulative Impacts and Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. Based upon the results of the impact analysis, the Consultant will develop a Mitigation Improvement Plan which would allow implementation of each of the alternatives. The development of traffic projections, including the development of a sub -area travel demand model based on the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model, version 3 (OCTAM 3), will be performed by OCTA. Specific tasks to be performed by OCTA include the following: Development of a sub -area model for the SARX project, based on OCTAM 3. Check the consistency of the model against OCTAM 3. • Development of the base year and future year street and highway networks for the alternatives. • Production of traffic projections for the base year and future year for the alternatives, including intersection turning movements. Traffic count data to be used for base year model validation shall be collected by the Consultant from local jurisdictions and public agencies if available. Counts for links and intersections for which no public data is available shall be collected directly by the Consultant. Task 1. Interagency Coordination and Public Participation 1.1 In coordination with participating agencies, the Consultant shall prepare a single standard size. sheet informational flyer to explain the project alternatives and the EIR process to the public. This flyer will encourage their participation in the process and will provide a schedule of upcoming meetings, and shall be prepared as soon as possible following the notice to proceed. The content of the flyer shall be reviewed and approved by the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) and agency staffs prior to distribution. Mailing lists shall be provided by participating cities. If possible, the flyers shall be distributed with water bills to residents in the affected area. The exact scope of distribution is yet to be determined; however, it is anticipated the maximum number would not exceed 50,000. 3 March 10, 1998 1.2 The Consultant shall prepare a draft "Notice of Preparation" (NOP) as required for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The draft NOP shall be reviewed by the TAG and agency staffs. The Lead Agency shall issue the final Notice of Preparation. 1.3 The Consultant shall be responsible for the preparation and placement in newspapers ...(english and spanish) of public notices related to the preparation of the EIR. These notices will be approved by the Lead Agency prior to release. 1.4 The Consultant shall arrange four scoping meetings with all cooperating agencies and others affected by this project to identify significant issues to be analyzed in the environmental document. The Consultant shall consult and coordinate with all cooperating and responsible agencies and other agencies/parties affected by the project. The Consultant shall arrange for, and participate in, formal scoping meetings. The Consultant shall be responsible for developing a scoping meeting report, including all tasks associated with the scoping process from inception to completion of this study. The Consultant shall be expected to coordinate extensively with related projects either completed or currently under way in the primary study area. The various projects must be researched and, where possible, the EIR must reference each environmental document. 1.5 The Consultant shall hold two focus workshops to address resolution of possible issues during this project. 1.6 The Consultant shall coordinate the review of the DER and will hold a review meeting. Furthermore, Consultant shall prepare response to comments to be included in the Final EIR (FEIR). 1.7 The Consultant shall hold four open house meetings, one in each of the four participating cities, during the review period for the DEIR. 1.8 The Consultant shall attend and present materials at a minimum of four SARX Technical Advisory Group meetings to be held during the conduct of the project. Deliverables: Informational flyer explaining EIR process and alternatives to be studied Draft Notice of Preparation Public Notices 4 March 10, 1998 • • 25 copies of the first screencheck EIR 25 copies of the second screencheck EIR 100 copies of the Draft EIR (DEIR) Notice of Completion Task 2. Environmental Analysis The Consultant shall conduct studies to identify the potential social, economic, and physical environmental impacts of each of the alternatives for each of the environmental topics listed below. The research and analysis performed in these studies may include the review of previous studies and environmental documentation. The Analysis of transportation impacts is addressed separately in Task 3. The Consultant shall prepare a complete Draft EIR which identifies, analyzes, and evaluates all potential environmental impacts of the alternatives at a General Plan level of analysis. All alternatives are to be analyzed in equal detail in the Draft EIR. 2.1 Land Use and Relevant Planning: Impacts on existing and planned land use resulting from implementation of the project and proposed alternatives shall be analyzed. 2.2 Population and Housing: Impacts on existing and planned population and housing resulting from implementation of the project and proposed alternatives shall be analyzed. 2.3 Geophysical: The impacts of the project and proposed alternatives resulting in, or exposing people to, local fault rupture, seismicity, landslides and mudslides, erosion, subsidence of land, expansive soils, and/or unique geologic or physical features shall be analyzed. 2.4 Water and Hydrology: A review and evaluation of the short and long- term impacts of the project and proposed alternatives on hydrology, including water quality, drainage patterns, flooding, surface water, and sedimentation, shall be performed. 2.5 Air Quality: An analysis of the impacts of the project and proposed alternatives on air quality shall be performed. This shall include a description of existing air quality conditions, including ambient readings for monitored pollutants, identification of sensitive receptors, and a discussion of conformity to Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) requirements. The Consultant shall use a model and procedures 5 March 10, 1998 approved by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2.6 Noise: An acoustical analysis shall be required to address noise impacts, including noise and vibration, on existing residences and businesses in the project area resulting from the project and proposed alternatives. 2.7 Biological Resources: The impacts resulting from implementation of the project and proposed alternatives on flora and fauna habitat in the project area shall be evaluated. 2.8 Aesthetics: The impacts resulting from implementation of the project and proposed alternatives on visual aesthetics in the project area will be evaluated. 2.9 Cultural and Scientific Resources: The impacts resulting from the implementation of the project and proposed alternatives on cultural and scientific resources, including wildlife refuges and historic and archeological sites, shall be evaluated. 2.10 Recreation: The impacts resulting from implementation of the project and proposed alternatives on park facilities and bicycle trails shall be evaluated. 2.11 Energy and Mineral Resources: The impacts resulting from implementation of the project and proposed alternatives on energy and mineral resources shall be evaluated. 2.12 Hazards: The exposure of the public to hazards resulting from the implementation of the project and proposed alternatives in the project area shall be evaluated. 2.13 Public services and Utilities: The impacts on existing and planned public services (such as fire, police, and transit services) and utilities (such as electric power, water and gas) resulting from implementation of the project and proposed alternatives shall be evaluated. Deliverables: First and second Screen Check, to include a discussion of methodologies, environmental analysis and impacts, and recommended mitigation and associated costs. Task 3. Transportation and Circulation Impacts 6 March 10,1998 3.1 Develop a subarea traffic model for the SARX study area. Note: This task will be performed by OCTA staff, except where noted. OCTA staff shall develop a subarea traffic model to be used for analysis of the transportation impacts of the alternatives included in this study. The model will be based on the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model, Version 3 (OCTAM 3), using the methodology described in the Orange County Subarea Modeling Guidelines. 3.1.1 Develop subarea network: In coordination with the TAG, OCTA staff will develop a refined three tier zone system consistent with adopted OCTA subarea modeling guidelines. This consists of the use of OCTAM zones within the secondary study area (Tier-2 area - to be defined), and a more detailed, disaggregated zone structure within the primary (focused) study (Tier-3) area. The Tier-3 zone system will be identical to the cities' model zone structure. The remainder of the SCAG region outside the secondary study area (Tier-1 area) will be represented by zones aggregated to the Regional Statistical Area (RSA) level. A subarea transportation network will then be developed based on the three tier zone system. The model will be checked for consistency with OCTAM 3. 3.1.2 Demographic/Socioeconomic Proiections: Demographic and socioeconomic projections will be based on the Orange County Projections - 96 (OCP-96). Within the primary study area, the model will use the adopted General Plan land use element for each jurisdiction as the basis for zonal demographic/socioeconomic data Trip productions and attractions will be based on the cities' land use based model within the primary study area. 3.1.3 Post Model Analysis: The post model adustment shall be performed by OCTA staff, based on a comparison of existing count data to base year model output. Traffic count data for the primary study area (link ADT and A.M. and P.M. peak hour intersection counts) shall be collected by the Consultant. Where possible, counts shall be obtained from local jurisdictions participating in the study. Where 1997 or post San Joaquin Hills Corridor opening data is not available, the Consultant shall obtain the required counts. Deliverables: A subarea transportation model A model validation report 7 March 10, 1998 • 0 Technical report summarizing existing transportation conditions, including ADT and intersection count data collected for the post model analysis (30 copies - To be prepared by the Consultant). 3.2 Develop Alternatives (This task will be performed by OCTA staff in coordination with the consultant) At a minimum, alternatives shall be developed for the three scenarios described under the Project Description section above ("Project", "No Project", and "Alternative Project"). In addition, OCTA staff should allow for development of a fourth alternative, depending on the outcome of the scoping meetings. 3.3 Evaluation of the Alternatives 3.3.1 Model Runs: Model output data for existing and future year (2020) conditions for all alternatives shall be provided to the Consultant by OCTA. Both ADT link volumes and A.M. and P.M. intersection turning movements will be provided (ADT). OCTA will apply a post -model adjustment procedure that is consistent with the Transportation Research Board (TRB) National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 255. These data shall be checked and validated for continuity and reasonableness by the Consultant. 3.3.2 Analysis of Alternatives: The Consultant shall use the model output provided by OCTA in task 3.3.1 to analyze the impacts of the alternatives under existing and future year conditions. For intersections, the Consultant shall be responsible for the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) calculations for both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. ICU shall be calculated by the Congestion Management Program (CMP) methodology, using a 1,700 vehicle per lane capacity and 5% lost time factor. Link capacity shall be based on the capacity listed for level of Service "E" in the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH), as shown in Table A-4-2 of the MPAH Guidelines (Included as Exhibit D). The analysis shall include the following: Identification of deficient links and intersections within the primary SARX study area. • Identification of links and intersections within the study area where there are measurable impacts due to the proposed bridge deletions or alternative improvements. Identification of all intersections within the study area with a change of .10 or greater in ICU value (no mitigation required). 8 March 10, 1998 Measurable impacts are defined as follows: • For intersections, where there is an increase of .01 in ICU value for intersections that exceed an ICU value of .90. • For links, where there is an increase in the maximum Average Daily Traffic (ADT) that exceeds Level of Service (LOS) "D", as identified in Table A-4-2 of the MPAH Guidelines (Included as Exhibit D) for each specific arterial roadway classification. Deliverables: Report summarizing the impacts of the project and alternatives, to include exhibits showing deficient intersections and links (30 copies). All ICU calculation work sheets (six copies) All ADT plots (six copies) Working Paper summarizing the findings of the work performed under Task 3.3.2 (six copies) Task 4: Identify Mitigation Measures 4.1 Develop Mitigation Improvement Plan Based on the results of Task 3, the Consultant shall identify feasible mitigation measures and develop an improvement plan which would allow implementation of the project and/or alternatives. The improvement plans should include, but not be limited to, the following: • Widening/re-striping roadways to increase capacity Intersection improvements Alternative roadways and/or bridge connections Deliverables: Report, to include exhibits showing the type and location of recommended mitigation improvements (30 copies). 4.2 Develop Cost Estimates The Consultant shall prepare rough order of magnitude cost estimates for the alternatives and associated mitigation improvement plan. These costs shall include the cost of right-of-way for both the alternatives and the mitigation improvements. 9 March 10,1998 Deliverables: Cost estimates for all alternatives and associated mitigation measures Task 5 Draft and Final EIR 5.1 Screenchecks The Consultant shall submit 25 copies of the first screencheck draft EIR to be reviewed by the participating agencies and the TAG. The Consultant shall incorporate collective comments from the participating agencies and the TAG and submit 25 copies of the second screencheck for review. 5.2 Draft EIR Upon completion of the second screencheck review, the Consultant shall prepare and submit 100 copies of the Draft EIR (DEIR) to the lead agency. The lead agency shall prepare a Notice of Completion and shall be responsible for distributing the Notice. The Consultant shall distribute the DEIR to the State Clearinghouse and other agencies. 5.3 Draft Findings Upon completion of the DEIR, or shortly thereafter as determined by the Lead Agency, the consultant shall submit a detailed set of proposed Findings for the DEIR. The Findings shall be prepared in accordance with the provisions of Sections 15091 and 15093 in the CEQA Guidelines and in a format specified by the Lead Agency. 5.4 Response to Comments Document Upon completion of all agency and public review within the prescribed time period, all comments will be responded to by the Consultant and submitted to the Lead Agency and TAG for review. Upon approval of the responses by the Lead Agency and TAG, the Consultant shall provide the Lead Agency with a photo -ready copy of all responses and comments for incorporation into the Final EIR (FEIR). 5.5 Mitigation Measure Monitoring and reporting Plan The Consultant shall prepare a screencheck Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP) and a final MMP. This plan will report the mitigation measures and costs of mitigation measures for the project and the alternatives. The lead agency will adopt the MMP that matches the approved project. 10 March 10, 1998 5.6 Final EIR The Consultant shall finalize the DER and will print and distribute the Final EIR (FEIR) and notices. Deliverables: 25 copies of the first and second Screenchecks 100 copies of the Draft EIR 100 copies of the Final EIR Agency Support Services: Participating agencies and cities shall provide the Consultant with the following: • Updated land use data (most recent available existing and General Plan buildout) and circulation plan. • Link ADT and intersection peak traffic counts for all impacted intersections. • Mailing list and labels for documents to be distributed, including the informational flyer, Notice of Preparation, workshop/meeting announcements, Draft EIR and Final EIR. • Aerial photographs of major intersections, if available. 11 March 10,1998 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF COSTA MESA AND CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of tl2( AIL5% , 1998, by and between the City of Costa Mesa and the City of Huntington Beach, both California municipal corporations in the State of California. RECITALS: WHEREAS, Orange County Transportation Authority (herein after referred to as OCTA) is responsible for maintaining the integrity of the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (hereinafter referred to as the "MPAH), through its coordination with cities and the County of Orange and ultimately determines the cities' and County's consistency with the MPAH System; and WHEREAS, the MPAH designates Garfield Avenue/Gisler Avenue and 19th Street/Banning Avenue as two (2) bridges overcrossing the Santa Ana River, and WHEREAS, the Cities desire a study to determine the best solution to regional traffic flow in the area of the proposed bridges (hereinafter referred to as "STUDY"); and WHEREAS, the other parties effected by the traffic from the proposed bridges, cities of Newport Beach, Fountain Valley, the County of Orange, and OCTA have agreed to consider a plan of alternative highway improvement that may allow deletion of the bridges from MPAH; and WHEREAS, all of the effected parties propose that the "STUDY" identify the potential environmental impacts and subsequent mitigations associated with the above proposed MPAH amendment through a program level Environmental Impact Report (EIR); and WHEREAS, the EIR will be conducted in accordance with Attachment A, Scope of Work Outline, prepared by OCTA and approved by the Santa Ana River Crossing (SARX) Technical Advisory • C1 group, and will be used to evaluate all impacts of additional proposed alternatives and to determine the operational and financial feasibility of subsequent mitigations; and WHEREAS, No MPAH amendment will be entertained until the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements are satisfied; and WHEREAS, STUDY will be prepared in cooperation with the cities of Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach, the County of Orange, and OCTA; and WHEREAS, STUDY will be conducted in accordance with the recommendations included in the Guidance for the Administration of the Master Plan of Arterial Highways issued by OCTA in November 1995, and will follow the Scope of Work Outline included as part of this Agreement, and WHEREAS, OCTA has agreed to be responsible for the following: A. To serve as lead agency for EIR. B. To be responsible for review and input to the Consultant on the preparation and processing of all necessary documentation related to the STUDY. C. To be responsible for all OCTA staff costs associated with the STUDY. D. To be responsible for $50,000.00 of cost to conduct the STUDY. E. To provide all OCTA support services identified in Scope of Work for the STUDY. F. To conduct public workshops either with staff or through a Consultant. WHEREAS, City of Costa Mesa and City of Huntington Beach wish to herein specify their respective responsibilities for performance of the STUDY; and WHEREAS, City of Costa Mesa and City of Huntington Beach possess full authority to enter into this Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by the parties hereto as follows: ARTICLE 1. RESPONSIBILITIES OF CITY OF COSTA MESA City of Costa Mesa agrees to the following responsibilities: A. To retain through its procurement process all Consultants necessary to conduct the study. PA • B. To be responsible for all City of Costa Mesa staff costs associated with the STUDY. C. To be responsible for $100,000.00 of all Consultant costs for the program level EIR. D. To be responsible for review and input to OCTA for the preparation and processing of all necessary documentation related to EIR. E. To provide all City of Costa Mesa support services identified in OCTA's Scope of Work for the STUDY. F. To provide all required public notices, convene and assist in public workshops, coordinate citizen input, and other related duties. ARTICLE 2. RESPONSIBILITIES OF CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City of Huntington Beach agrees to the following: A. To be responsible for all City of Huntington Beach staff costs associated with the STUDY. B. To be responsible for $15,000.00 of all Consultant costs for the Program Level EIR. C. To be responsible for review and input to OCTA for the preparation and processing of all necessary documentation related to EIR. D. To provide all City of Huntington Beach support identified in OCTA's Scope of Work for the STUDY. ARTICLE 3. MUTUAL AGREEMENTS It is mutually understood by the parties hereto that: A. Unless otherwise agreed upon by all cities involved and OCTA, the STUDY will be completed ONE YEAR from issuance of the notice to proceed. B. This Agreement does not prohibit the cities from conducting their own pubic hearings, community workshops, or otherwise take input from its constituents concerning the EIR, separate from OCTA conducted public workshops. 3 C. Every notice, demand, request or other document or instrument delivered pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be either personally delivered, sent by Federal Express or other reputable overnight courier, sent by facsimile transmission with the original subsequently delivered by other means in accordance with this section, or sent by certified United States Mail to the address set forth below, or to such other address as a party may designate from time to time: TO CITY: City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive P. O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Attn: Allan Roeder, City Manager Tel: (714) 754-5328 TO CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH: City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attn: Ray Silver, City Administrator Tel: (714) 536-5575 D. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreements of the parties and integrates all of the terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto with respect to the subject matter thereof. E. This Agreement may be amended in writing at any time by the mutual consent of the parties. No amendment shall have any force or effect unless executed in writing by the parties. F. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said parties and that, by so executing this Agreement, the parties hereto are formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement. 4 LJ G. Neither City of Costa Mesa nor any.officer, or employee thereof shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by City of Huntington Beach under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to City of Huntington Beach under this AGREEMENT. It is also understood and agreed that pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, City of Huntington Beach shall fully indemnify, defend and hold City of Costa Mesa harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government Code Section 810,8), occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by City of Huntington Beach under or in conjunction with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to City of Huntington Beach under this AGREEMENT. H. Neither City of Huntington Beach nor any officer or employee thereof shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by City of Costa Mesa under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to City of Costa Mesa under this AGREEMENT. It is also understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, City of Costa Mesa shall fully indemnify, defend and hold City of Huntington Beach harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government Code Section 810.8), occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by City of Costa Mesa under or in conjunction with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to City of Costa Mesa under this AGREEMENT (REST OF PAGE NOT USED) 5 • • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City of Costa Mesa has caused the Agreement to be executed by its Mayor and attested by its Clerk, and the City of Huntington Beach has caused the Agreement to be executed by its Mayor and attested by its Clerk authorized by minute orders of their City Council, respectively, on the date written opposite their signatures. Date: ATTEST: L� City Clerk 10 9g REVIEWED AND APPROVED: Date: ATTEST: Cit ministrator City Clerk CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH A municipal corporation By: M or APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney INITIATED AND APPROVED: 1��i �� f 3 > � Director of Public Works CITY OF COSTA MESA a municipal corporation Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Exm3l 7-A Is 0 SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE SANTA ANA RIVER CROSSINGS COOPERATIVE STUDY TRAFFIC STUDY AND PROGRAM LEVEL EIR BACKGROUND: The Santa Ana River Crossing (SARX) Phase II Study is a coordinated effort between the County of Orange, Caltrans, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the cities of Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Newport Beach and Huntington Beach. The purpose of this effort is to evaluate alternative roadway improvements that may allow the deletion of the proposed Banning Avenue/19th Street and Garfield Avenue/Gisler Street bridge crossings over the Santa Ana River from the OCTA Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). The SARX study area is bounded by Warner Avenue to the north, Bristol Street . and Upper Newport Bay to the east, Beach Boulevard to the west and Pacific Coast Highway to the south. The potential bridge crossings are located.between the 1-405 and Pacific Coast Highway. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project consists of the preparation of a program level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that will provide sufficient analysis and detail to allow amendment of the General Plans for the cities of Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach to reflect deletion of the proposed Banning Avenue/19th Street and Garfield Avenue/Gisler Street bridge crossings over the Santa Ana River. Specifically, the EIR will evaluate the potential impacts of the deletion of the bridges, both with and without alternative roadway improvements, against a baseline alternative assuming construction of the bridges as shown in the existing MPAH. At a minimum, the EIR will evaluate the three alternatives summarized below: 1. Project The "Project" scenario will examine the deletion of the Garfield Avenue/Gisler Street and Banning Avenue/19th Street bridge crossings over the Santa Ana river from the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (Included as Exhibit A). 2. No Project The "No Project" scenario will serve as the baseline alternative, and will examine the construction of the Garfield Avenue/Gisler Street and Banning 1 March 10, 1998 n • Avenue/19th Street bridge crossings in accordance with the existing Master Plan of Arterial Highways (Included as Exhibit B). 3. Alternative Project The "Alternative" scenario will examine the construction of the following alternative bridge crossings: 1) connecting Garfield Avenue to SR-57 and/or 1-405 instead of Gisler Street and 2)connecting 17th street to Brookhurst Street (north of Banning Street) via Bluff Road instead of the Banning Avenue/19th Street bridge crossing (Included as Exhibit C). In addition, it is possible that an additional alternative may be developed through the scoping process. The Consultant should be prepared to include this additional alternative in the environmental analysis. STUDY ORGANIZATION OCTA shall serve as the Lead Agency. The Consultant shall work under the general direction of the OCTA project manager and in cooperation with the SARX Technical Advisory Group (TAG). The TAG consists of staff from the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), 'the cities of Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach, and Newport Beach, the County of Orange, and Caltrans. The TAG also includes citizen representatives from the four member cities. SCHEDULE The Study/EIR is anticipated to take approximately nine months, with an additional two months scheduled for public review and preparation of the Final EIR. Approximate milestone dates are shown below: • RFP Release: • Proposals due: • Consultant selection: • Traffic Study/EIR: • Public review period: • Final EIR: WORK PROGRAM March 16, 1998 April 24, 1998 May 28, 1998 June 1998 - February 1999 March 1999 April 1999 The Consultant shall prepare a complete Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to analyze and evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the project at a program level of analysis. The level of detail should be sufficient to allow amendment of the General Plans for the affected cities to reflect deletion of the 2 March 10, 1998 bridges. The Project, No Project and Alternative scenarios will be evaluated at an equal level of detail. The impact analysis will include Transportation, Land Use, Noise, Air Quality, Aesthetic, Hazards, Recreation, Public Services and Utilities, Population and Housing, Cultural Resources, Soils/Geology/Seismicity, Energy, Hydrology, Biological Resources, Cumulative Impacts and Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. Based upon the results of the impact analysis, the Consultant will develop a Mitigation Improvement Plan which would allow implementation of each of the alternatives. The development of traffic projections, including the development of a sub -area travel demand model based on 'the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model, version 3 (OCTAM 3), will be performed by OCTA. Specific tasks to be performed by OCTA include the following: • Development of a sub -area model for the SARX project, based on OCTAM 3. Check the consistency of the model against OCTAM 3. • Development of the base year and future year street and highway networks for the alternatives. • Production of traffic projections for the base year and future year for the alternatives, including intersection turning movements. Traffic count data to be used for base year model validation shall be collected by the Consultant from local jurisdictions and public agencies if available. Counts for links and intersections_ for which no public data is available shall be collected directly by the Consultant. Task 1. Interagency Coordination and Public Participation 1.1 In coordination with participating agencies, the Consultant shall prepare a single standard size, sheet informational flyer to explain the project alternatives and the EIR process to the public. This flyer will encourage their participation in the process and will provide a schedule of upcoming meetings, and shall be prepared as soon as possible following the notice to proceed. The content of the flyer shall be reviewed and approved by the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) and agency staffs prior to distribution. Mailing lists shall be provided by participating cities. if possible, the flyers shall be distributed with water bills to residents in the affected area. The exact scope of distribution is yet to be determined; however, it is anticipated the maximum number would not exceed 50,000. 3 March 10, 1998 1.2 The Consultant shall prepare a draft "Notice of Preparation" (NOP) as required for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The draft NOP shall be reviewed by the TAG and agency staffs. The Lead Agency shall issue the final Notice of Preparation. 1.3 The Consultant shall be responsible for the preparation and placement in newspapers. (english and spanish) of public notices related to the preparation of the EIR. These notices will be approved by the Lead Agency prior to release. 1.4 The Consultant shall arrange four scoping meetings with all cooperating agencies and others affected by this project to identify significant issues to be analyzed in the environmental document. The Consultant shall consult and coordinate with all cooperating and responsible agencies and other agencies/parties affected by the project. The Consultant shall arrange for, and participate in, formal scoping meetings. The Consultant shall be responsible for developing a scoping meeting report, including all tasks associated with the scoping process from inception to completion of this study. The Consultant shall be expected to coordinate extensively with related projects either completed or currently under way in the primary study area. The various projects must be researched and, where possible, the EIR must reference each environmental document. 1.5 The Consultant shall hold two focus workshops to address resolution of possible issues during this project. 1.6 The Consultant shall coordinate the review of the DER and will hold a review meeting. Furthermore, Consultant shall prepare response to comments to be included in the Final EIR (FEIR). 1.7 The Consultant shall hold four open house meetings, one in each of the four participating cities, during the review period for the DEIR. 1.8 The Consultant shall attend and present materials at a minimum of four SARX Technical Advisory Group meetings to be held during the conduct of the project. Deliverables: Informational flyer explaining EIR process and alternatives to be studied Draft.Notice of Preparation Public Notices 4 March 10, 1998 r7 LJ 0 25 copies of the first screencheck EIR 25 copies of the second screencheck EIR 100 copies of the Draft EIR (DEIR) Notice of Completion Task 2. Environmental Analysis The Consultant shall conduct studies to identify the potential social, economic, and physical environmental impacts of each of the alternatives for each of the environmental topics listed below. The research and analysis performed in these studies may include the review of previous studies and environmental documentation. The Analysis of transportation impacts is addressed separately in Task 3. The Consultant shall prepare a complete Draft EIR which identifies, analyzes, and evaluates all potential environmental impacts of the alternatives at a General Plan level of analysis. All alternatives are to be analyzed in equal detail in the Draft EIR. 2.1 Land Use and Relevant Planning: Impacts on existing and planned land use resulting from implementation of the project and proposed alternatives shall be analyzed. 2.2 Population and Housing: Impacts on existing and planned population and housing resulting from implementation of the project and proposed alternatives shall be analyzed. 2.3 Geophysical: The impacts of the project and proposed alternatives resulting in, or exposing people to, local fault rupture, seismicity, landslides and mudslides, erosion, subsidence of land, expansive soils, and/or unique geologic or physical features shall be analyzed. 2.4 Water and Hydrology: A review and evaluation of the short and long- term impacts of the project and proposed alternatives on hydrology, including water quality, drainage patterns, flooding, surface water, and sedimentation, shall be performed. 2.5 Air Quality: An analysis of the impacts of the project and proposed alternatives on air quality shall be performed. This shall include a description of existing air quality, conditions, including ambient readings for monitored pollutants, identification of sensitive receptors, and a discussion of conformity to Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) requirements. The Consultant shall use a model and procedures 5 March 10, 1998 approved by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2.6 Noise: An acoustical analysis shall be required to address noise impacts, including noise and vibration, on existing residences and businesses in the project area resulting from the project and proposed alternatives. 2.7 Biological Resources: The impacts resulting from implementation of the project and proposed alternatives on flora and fauna habitat in the project area shall be evaluated. 2.8 Aesthetics: The impacts resulting from implementation of the project and proposed alternatives on visual aesthetics in the project area will be evaluated. 2.9 Cultural and Scientific Resources: The impacts resulting from the implementation of the project and proposed alternatives on cultural and scientific resources, including wildlife refuges and historic and archeological sites, shall be evaluated. 2.10 Recreation: The impacts resulting from implementation of the project and proposed alternatives on park facilities and bicycle trails shall be evaluated. 2.11 Energy and Mineral Resources: The impacts resulting from implementation of the project and proposed alternatives on energy and mineral resources shall be evaluated. 2.12 Hazards: The exposure of the public to hazards resulting from the implementation of the project and proposed alternatives in the project area shall be evaluated. 2.13 Public services and Utilities: The impacts on existing and planned public services (such as fire, police, and transit services) and utilities (such as electric power, water and gas) resulting from implementation of the project and proposed alternatives shall be evaluated. Deliverables: First and second Screen Check, to include a discussion of methodologies, environmental analysis and impacts, and recommended mitigation and associated costs. Task 3. Transportation and Circulation Impacts 6 March 10, 1998 3.1 Develop a subarea traffic model for the SARX study area. Note: This task will be performed by OCTA staff, except where noted. OCTA staff shall develop a subarea traffic model to be used for analysis of the transportation impacts of the alternatives included in this study. The model will be based on the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model, Version 3 (OCTAM 3), using the methodology described in the Orange County Subarea Modeling Guidelines. 3.1.1 Develop subarea network: In coordination with the TAG, OCTA staff will develop a refined three tier zone system consistent with adopted OCTA subarea modeling guidelines. This consists of the use of OCTAM zones within the secondary study area (Tier-2 area - to be defined), and a more detailed, disaggregated zone structure within the primary (focused) study (Tier-3) area. The Tier-3 zone system will be identical to the cities' model zone structure. The remainder of the SCAG region outside the secondary study area (Tier-1 area) will be represented by zones aggregated to the Regional Statistical Area (RSA) level. A subarea transportation network will then be developed based on the three tier zone system. The model will be checked for consistency with OCTAM 3. 3.1.2 Demographic/Socioeconomic Proiections: Demographic and socioeconomic projections will be based on the Orange County Projections - 96 (OCP-96). Within the primary study area, the model will use the adopted General Plan land use element for each jurisdiction as the basis for zonal demographic/socioeconomic data Trip productions and attractions will be based on the cities' land use based model within the primary study area. 3.1.3 Post Model Analysis: The post model adustment shall be performed by OCTA staff, based on a comparison of existing count data to base year model output. Traffic count data for the primary study area (link ADT and A.M. and P.M. peak hour intersection counts) shall be collected by the Consultant. Where possible, counts shall be obtained from local jurisdictions participating in the study. Where 1997 or post San Joaquin Hills Corridor opening data is not available, the Consultant shall obtain the required counts. Deliverables: A subarea transportation model A model validation report 7 March 10, 1998 Technical report summarizing existing transportation conditions, including ADT and intersection count data collected for the post model analysis (30 copies - To be prepared by the Consultant). 3.2 Develop Alternatives (This task will be performed by OCTA staff in coordination with the consultant) At a minimum, alternatives shall be developed for the three scenarios described under the Project Description section above ("Project", "No Project", and "Alternative Project"). In addition, OCTA staff should allow for development of a fourth alternative, depending on the outcome of the scoping meetings. 3.3 Evaluation of the Alternatives 3.3.1 Model Runs: Model output data for existing and future year (2020) conditions for all alternatives shall be provided to the Consultant by OCTA. Both ADT link volumes and A.M. and P.M. intersection turning movements will be provided (ADT). OCTA will apply a post -model adjustment procedure that is consistent with the Transportation Research Board (TRB) National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 255. These data shall be checked and validated for continuity and reasonableness by the Consultant. 3.3.2 Analysis of Alternatives: The Consultant shall use the model output provided by OCTA in task 3.3.1 to analyze the impacts of the alternatives under existing and future year conditions. For intersections, the Consultant shall be responsible for the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) calculations for both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. ICU shall be calculated by the Congestion Management Program (CMP) methodology, using a 1,700 vehicle per lane capacity and 5% lost time factor. Link capacity shall be based on the capacity listed for level of Service "E" in the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH), as shown in Table A-4-2 of the MPAH Guidelines (Included as Exhibit D). The analysis shall include the following: • Identification of deficient links and intersections within the primary SARX study area. • Identification of links and intersections within the study area where there are measurable impacts due to the proposed bridge deletions or alternative improvements. • Identification of all intersections within the study area. with a change of .10 or greater in ICU value (no mitigation required). 8 March 10,1998 Measurable impacts are defined as follows: • For intersections, where'there is an increase of .01 in ICU value for intersections that exceed an ICU value of .90. For links, where there is an increase in the maximum Average Daily Traffic (ADT) that exceeds Level of Service (LOS) "D", as identified in Table A-4-2 of the MPAH Guidelines (Included as Exhibit D) for each specific arterial roadway classification. Deliverables: Report summarizing the impacts of the project and alternatives, to include exhibits showing deficient intersections and links (30 copies). All ICU calculation work sheets (six copies) All ADT plots (six copies) Working Paper summarizing the findings of the work performed under Task 3.3.2 (six copies) Task 4: Identify Mitigation Measures 4.1 Develop Mitigation Improvement Plan Based on the results of Task 3, the Consultant shall identify feasible mitigation measures and develop an improvement plan which would allow implementation of the project and/or alternatives. The improvement plans should include, but not be limited to, the following: Widening/re-striping roadways to increase capacity Intersection improvements Alternative roadways and/or bridge connections Deliverables: Report, to include exhibits showing the type and location of recommended mitigation improvements (30 copies). 4.2 Develop Cost Estimates The Consultant shall prepare rough order of magnitude cost estimates for the alternatives and associated mitigation improvement plan. These costs shall include the cost of right-of-way for both the alternatives and the mitigation improvements. 9 March 10, 1998 Deliverables: Cost estimates for all alternatives and associated mitigation measures Task 5 Draft and Final EIR 5.1 Screenchecks The Consultant shall submit 25 copies of the first screencheck draft EIR to be reviewed by the participating agencies and the TAG. The Consultant shall incorporate collective comments from the participating agencies and the TAG and submit 25 copies of the second. screencheck for review. 5.2 Draft EIR Upon completion of the second screencheck review, the Consultant shall prepare and submit 100 copies of the Draft EIR (DEIR) to the lead agency. The lead agency shall prepare a Notice of Completion and shall be responsible for distributing the Notice. The Consultant shall distribute the DEIR to the State Clearinghouse and other agencies. 5.3 Draft Findings Upon completion of the DEIR, or shortly thereafter as determined by the Lead Agency, the consultant shall submit a detailed set of proposed Findings for the DEIR. The Findings shall be prepared in accordance with the provisions of Sections 15091 and 15093 in the CEQA Guidelines and in a format specified by the Lead Agency. 5.4 Response to Comments Document Upon completion of all agency and public review within the prescribed time period, all comments will be responded to by the Consultant and submitted to the Lead Agency and TAG for review. Upon approval of the responses by the Lead Agency and TAG, the Consultant shall provide the Lead Agency with a photo -ready copy of all responses and comments for incorporation into the Final EIR (FEIR). 5.5 Mitigation Measure Monitoring and reporting Plan The Consultant shall prepare a screencheck Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP) and a final MMP. This plan will report the mitigation measures and costs of mitigation measures for the project and the alternatives. The lead agency will adopt the MMP that matches the approved project. 10 March 10, 1998 5.6 Final EIR The Consultant shall finalize the DER and will print and distribute the Final EIR (FEIR) and notices. Deliverables: 25 copies of the first and second Screenchecks 100 copies of the Draft EIR 100 copies of the Final EIR Agency Support Services: Participating agencies and cities shall provide the Consultant with the following: • Updated. land use data (most recent available existing and General Plan buildout) and circulation plan. • Link ADT and intersection peak traffic counts for all impacted intersections. • Mailing list and labels for documents to be distributed, including the informational flyer, Notice of Preparation, workshop/meeting announcements, Draft EIR and Final EIR. • Aerial photographs of major intersections, if available. 11 March 10, 1998 FOE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICA TION To: Ray Silver, City Administrator From: Robert J. Franz, Deputy City Administrator Subject: FIS 98-58 Santa Ana River Crossings Study Date: August 4, 1998 As required by Resolution 4832, a Fiscal Impact Statement has been prepared for "Santa Ana River Crossings Study". If the City Council approves this action (total appropriation $15,000), the estimated unappropriated, undesignated General Fund balance at S�teMbgr,3 /1 998 will be reduced to $5,093,828. Robert-J. F,(6nz Deputy City Adq ini r • 0 FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT QUESTIONNAIRE 1. Title of RCA: Cooperative Agreement, Santa Ana River Crossing Study 2. Why is this budget amendment needed: Payment for City's share of preparation of EIR for the subject study. A. Why was it not anticipated? Agreement on method of payment had not be agreed upon by agencies involved. B. Why can't anticipated current year budget savings be used to fund this item? No related budget item for this project was included in current year funding. C. Why can't the Department re -prioritize current year expenses so that this item can be funded instead of approved budget items? Current department budget does not include non -essential budget items that can be eliminated or deferred. 3. What will be the cost? $15, 000.00 A. Direct Cost: Current Fiscal Year: Future Years: B. Indirect Cost: 4. Funding Source: A. Fund: B. Specific Revenue Source: C. Alternative Funding Sources: 5. History: $15000 0 Unknown General Fund None None Staff was directed at the November 17, 1997 City Council meeting to prepare a request for appropriation in this amount. The Santa Ana River Crossing Cooperative Study (SARCCS) will be managed by the City of Costa Mesa. FIS for SARCCS.doc 08/03/98 11:01 AM 0 • Beginning Fund Balance 10/1/97 (audited) $ 5,118,690 $ 9,183,000 Plus: Estimated Revenue 102,472,050 105,982,740 Less: Estimated Expenditures (102,631,445) (101,310,292) Less Self -Insurance Transfers (1,800,000) Less Transfers to C.I.P. (3,300,000) Less Labor Contingencies (233,153) Less Approved FIS's (3,413,467) Less FIS 98-56 (15,000) Estimated 9/30/98 Balance $ 4,959,295 $ 5,093,828 ❑444❑❑ ❑QQQQQ QQ(aIJ4❑ City of Huntington Beach Santa Ana River Crossings SARCCS Traffic Study & Program Level EIR SARCCS Phase II Study ■ Crossings are part of OCTA Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) ■ Coordinated effort also includes OCTA, cities of Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Fountain Valley and County of Orange ■ Agreement will consider plan on alternatives to Garfield/Gisler and Banning/19th bridges between Huntington Beach & Costa Mesa 0>10 cZvm zg_ z , ` cm, v mTma"n WMEIao 5�z�� 0 -n . *Ax mm-� m n� m . �r- Or m 77 �� v m �n y. August 17, 1998 City of Huntington Beach Proposed SARCCS Study ■ Review three alternatives — Project — No project — Alternative project per agreement ■ Identify potential environmental impacts ■ Determine operational and financial feasibility of subsequent mitigations ❑4;14a;a 44444❑ Q1 ❑ Proposed Work Program QQ ■ Evaluate potential impacts of the three alternatives with equal level of detail ■ Identify mitigation measures ■ Develop cost estimates ■ Present material at SARCCS Technical Advisory Group meetings J❑ J❑ J❑ J❑ J❑ -1 ❑ August 17, 1998 y . City of Huntington Beach Proposed Work Program (cant.) ■ Provide notice for City mailings to inform public about project draft EIR ■ Hold focus workshops and public meetings ■ Explain project alternatives & EIR process to the public ■ Incorporate all comments into final document ❑4444❑ 444444 ❑❑ ❑❑ QU SARCCS Study Funding UU City of Costa Mesa $1005000 OCTA (lead agency) $ 50,000 City of Huntington Beach $ 159000 �❑ j7j aj7J August 17, 1998 • • City of Huntington Beach SARX Study Proposed Schedule ■ Complete Traffic Study/EIR February 1999 ■ Public review period ends March 1999 ■ Final EIR adopted April 1999 Q Q August 17, 1998 • 6 J� City of Huntington Beach Inter -department Communication DATE: August 14, 1998 TO: Honorable City Council FROM: Robert F. Beardsley, Director of Public Works I 4 SUBJECT: Agenda Item F-1, Cooperative Agreement Amendment Request by City of Costa Mesa The City of Costa Mesa requested that an addition be made to the draft agreement originally submitted. The amendment adds mutual hold harmless agreements between the two agencies. The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the amendment. Please remove Page 5 from your copy of the draft agreement, and insert the attached Page 5 and Page 6 of the draft agreement.