HomeMy WebLinkAboutSANTA ANA RIVER CROSSING/MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS - 1996-07-15 Kuhnke, Elaine �4--� - R'Lk 5�
From: Beardsley, Robert ass 1. i 1b
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 4:11 PM
To: Kuhnke, Elaine
Cc: Slachelski, Bob: Martell, Judy; Emery, Paul; Webb, David
Subject: RE: study session
Good. This will work fine.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kuhnke, Elaine
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 2:20 PM
To: Beardsley, Robert
Subject: study session
Importance: High
Bob, Please see the blurb below for the council agenda for the SARX study session and revise as you see fit.
Study Session
The Director of Public Works and the Transportation Manager will provide a status update of the Santa Ana River
Crossings Study_
y
G
r,
1
(2) January 21, 2003 -Councegency Agenda - Page 2
2:' (City Council) Study Session on the Public Works Department Update on the Santa
Ana River Crossings (SARX) Study ( )
The Director of Public Works and the Transportation Manager will provide a status
update of the Santa Ana River Crossings Study.
Announced Late Communication & PowerPoint presented by Public Works
Director of options for Council- Return to Council Feb. 3, 2003 re: issues on
reserve status.
Call Closed Session of City Council/Redevelopment Agency
Approved 6-0-1 (Sullivan absent)
Recommended Action: Motion to recess to Closed Session on the following items:
1. (City Council) Closed Session- Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 to
meet with its designated representatives, Agency Negotiators: William Workman,
Assistant City Administrator; Clay Martin, Director of Administrative Services; and Jim
Engle, Director of Community Services, regarding labor relations matters - meet and
confer with the following employee organization: SCLEA. Subject: Labor Relations-
Meet& Confer. (120.80)
2. [City Council) Closed Session - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a)to
confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation, which has been initiated formally and
to which the agency is a party. The title of the litigation is Citizens Against
Redevelopment Excess v. City of Huntington Beach, et al. [CARE 11], California
Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, Case No. G030388; and
Citizens Against Redevelopment Excess v. City of Huntington Beach, et al.
[CARE III], Orange County Superior Court Case No. 02CC00344. (120.80)
CITY OF COSTA MESA "`�`
CALIFORNIA 92628.1200 P.O.BOX 1200
�I�t 'o3
_ FROM THE OFFICE OF THE_CITY MANAGER
�ECEtVE M v`�J 1 n�' 3
C��11 �SR AT
OF 7W CITY CLERK
January 9,2003 Y.C"Cum RECEIVED
JAN 21 2003
Mr. Arthur Leahy CITY OF
TINGTTRATIVE N 13 OFFICE
Orange County Transportation Authority
550 S. Main Street
Orange, CA 92863
Dear Mr. Leahy:
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.
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.
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 191h 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
l 91h Street/Banning Avenue bridges in their December 7, 1993 meeting(Attachment Q.
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
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Additional participants included citizen representatives
from the four cities to ensure that community interests are adequately represented in the process.
77 FAIR DRIVE (714)754.5327 FAX(714)754-5330 TDD(714)754-5244
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. 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, S 15,000 from Huntington Beach, and S 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 G, 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 EM 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 MPAE can be accomplished Such a setback
affects not only OCTA and the four cities participating in the SARX Study but municipalities throughout
OranL,e 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 Resolution 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 S ARX 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 fom-ard 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, 1993
B. 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 Citv Manager, Citv of fountain Valley
Supervisor, 2nd District
Director of Strategic Planning, OCTA
Public Services Director
Transportation Services Manager
Associate Engineer
OTTACNMENT A
REsOI,=oN no. _ R5AQ
A RESOLUTION OF = CQTY COUNCIL OF TEE CITY OF FOUhZ•AIN
VALIXY, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE CCUNTY OF ORANGE TO _
INTTMA_''E THE PROCESS TO RMOVE THE 19TH STRErT/BA►HNING
AVFNVB W O WSLER AVENUE/GARFIZLD AVE2IUE BRIDGES ON THE
COUNTY IiAST'`..si PIAR OF ARZTERM HIGMYS XWO .
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CT=Y OF FOURTAIN VALLEY DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOL7 ws:
the City has received input :ram the public regarding
certain existing elements of he Coiznty's Master Plan of Arterial
Highways; and
NEEWAS, this input raises concern ft= the viability,
financial feasibility and corst_ructibility of -1-w o elements of the
C-Du ty's Master Plan of Fighways, nanely, the westerly extension of
the 29th St_eet/easter?v extersion of B.*_nning Avenue over the Santa
.Rana River and westerly extension of Gisler Avenue/easterly
extension of Garfield Avenue over the Santa Ana River; and
W ""cEAS, his concern a'_sc affects the cit•.' s maser Plan of
A_`='e_ial Rigbways; and
WHEV..S, =he Ci:•. cf Fountain Valley entered into a
cooperative study v_tb We Coc oty of c:ange and the cities of Costa
Mesa, Huntington Beach and Newport Beach to study the need for or
the deletion of the 19 th Street/Banning Avenue and Gisler
Avenue/Garfield Avenue bridges of the Santa Ana River; and
WIRMS, the City of Fountain Valley desires to enter into a
cooperative aqr eeaent with the cities of Costa Mesa, Huntington
Beach. Newport Seacn, County of Orange and Calt:am to assess the
needed intersection and roadway improvements and deter=ine
mitigation costs if the two bridge crossings are rencved from the
N.astcr Plan of Arterial Highways: and
Resolution No. RSAf1
Page 2
WEERMS, any change or deletion to the CauTty ?SPAN requires a
camprebensive STAXtannex0tal Impact Report (E1R) to be completed
prior to proposed cbange.s or deletions and that no action to re=ove
the bridges can occur without said Environmental 1=pact Report; and
UITIRZAS, the environmental impacts and potential mitigation
measures to those impacts have not been fully identified for the
bridge deletions and the required added capacity at intersections
and on roadway links. The City of Fountain Valley believes- that
there will be significant impacts involves' with the construct:on or
deletion of the bridges and what Where will be significant public
input and concern related to obese impacts; and
W rRIAS, =he City of Fountain Valley is willing to consider a
cooperative agreement with orange county, Caltrans and the cities
of Costa Mesa, Newport Beach and Huntington Beach to prepare an
acceptable alternate plan of providing a satisfactov! level of
arterial highway i:provements which would provide for a balanced
land- use/circulation system a=ong 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, :'tS.. YFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Fountain
Valley finds that an Environmental Impact Report must be completed
before it Can bake a reco=mendation ;or any amendments to the
County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. The report should include
a funding program for arterial highways and intersection
Aprovenentr, which would provide for a balanced land- 1 ►�(1
Resolution 8580
Page 3
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED Wat 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
19th Street/Banning Avenue and Gisler Avenue/Garfield Avenue
bridges of the Santa Ara Rive:.
BE 17 FURTF:---R RESCLVLD that the City of Fountain. Valley
requests the County of orange to initiate an Environmental Impact
Repo.` (ETR) for the potential deletion of the 19th Street/Banning
Avenue and Gisler Avenue/Garfield Avenue bridges over the Santa Ana
River from the County 's raster Plan cf Arterial Highways (Y.PAH) .
PASSED AND ADOPTED =his 16th day of Qyewber 1993 .
r7<', — ,,"",-z &��:L
Mayor
!T:EST.
City Clerk —
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss.
CrTY GF'FOUNTAIN VALLEY }
I, Jane Irvin, do hereby certify that I am the Deputy City Clerk of the City of
Fountain Valley; that the foregoing Resdudon was reguiarty irtiroduced to said Council
at Its regular adjourned meeting held on the 16th day of November, 1993, and was at
said meeting regutarfy Passed and adopted by the following vote, to *it
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: CARROZZO, COLUNS, PETRIKIN, SCOTT, COOK
NAYS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
Dept Ay City Clerk
Rrsol.unoN No. »•:� ATTACHMENT B
A RESOLUTION of:M CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
REQUESTING THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO INITIATE THE PROCESS TO
DETERI NE THE IMPACTS TO THE CIRCULATION SYSTEM OF REMOVING
THE 19TH STREET/BANNING AVENUE AND GISLER AVENUE/GARFIELD
AVENUE BRIDGES ACROSS THE SANTA ANA RIVER FROM THE MASTER
PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS (MPAH); AND TO PREPARE A PLAN OF
ALTERNATE CIRCULATION SYSTEM Ih1PROVEMENTS WIIICH , WILL
P ROVIDE EQUIVALEVr TRAFFIC SERVICE.
%VIVEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has participated in a cooperative study with the
C•u:tttty of Orange,Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach to evaluate the Santa Ana
River C;nssings(SARX) southerly of State Route 405 (tile San Diego Freeway).and
.V11HREAS, the SARX Study shows that the river crossings at 19111 Slrcet/Danning
Avenue and Gisler Avenue/Garfield Avenue, if constructed, would carry significant trallic and if
:tot consiroc:ed• cause increased tragic on various links in the ATPAH;and
%VHEREAS, the County and the Cities have received significant input 11rom citizens near
the pre•.iously mentioned crossings objecting to the construction of any new bridge crossings of
the Santa Ann River southerly of the San Diego Frccway;and
WIWREAS, this public input raises concern for the viability, financial feasibilityr and
ccnstnumbility of a number of elements of the County's `1PAH and the circulation elements of
the four cities;and
:ATEREAS, the City of Newport Beach is uncerain that an adequate transportation
circulation nc::vork that is politically and environmentally acceptable can be provided through the
construction of:Ile additional intersection, existing bridge, and roadway improvements required if
the 19:h S:reetrBanning Avenue and Gisler Avenue/Garfield Avenue bridges over the Santa Ana
River are no: constructed; !nd
%VHEREAS, :he environmental impacts and potential mitigation measures to (hose
:w acts '•,.ave no: been f,aly identified for either the bridge deletions or the required added
capacity at intersections, existing bridges and on roadway links. The City of Newport Beach
he6eves that shore tnay be significant impacts involved with-providing the added intersection.
Iitidge, w.d :oad%vay Nnk capacity required if the new bridges arc not a%•:strttc:ed and :hat there
11111:•be significant pubUt:input and concern related to these impacts;and
A'liFREAS, the City of Newport Beach is willing to consider a cooperative agreement
.vith O:ange County. Caltrans W ap,roprtatc) and :he cities of Costa Mcxa, f ountain V.dlcy, and
Huntington Beach, to prepare an acceptable alternate plan of artc6al highway imprevcmcnts
:which :would provide for a balanced land use/circulation sys::m among the four cities by
providing a satisfactory level of alternate highway improvements in lieu of the 191h
Strcet/Danning Avenue and Gisler Avenue/Garfeld Avenue bridges over the Santa Ana River
Such a plan for highway improvements would need to identify: 1) necessary right•of--way
acquisitions, 2) scope of roadway, existing bridge, and intersection widening improvements, 3)
environmental assessment of proposed roadway improvements and an environmental assessment
of constructing the bridges, so that a true comparison can be made, 4) methods of construction
nancine. and S)time frame for construction.
N01W. THEREFORE. BE !T RESOLVL•D:hat the City of Newport Beach finds that it is
premature to support the 'no bridge scenario' until it can be demonstrated that an acceptable
abet..+.:e ^.!a^• of arts^al highw-ay improvements• including a funding ;rcgrasn, which would
I„rv,de ;-r a balanced land usdcirculation system among the four (:ties can be provided•
cn.ece:ten:ally clewed,and accepted by the four cities
?lf. 1 f 11:111'l1ER RESOLVED that the City of Newport beach also finds That it is
rcr•.t::re to colter in10 a cooperative agreement with Orange County, Costa Mesa. Fountain
val:c•: .+r.d I untingten Beach and Caltrans (if appropriate) to fund and construct an alternative
?tig:ttvay s%cem that i:as net yet been established or proven to be a better alternative to :he 191h
A-.cnue anj Gisler 1venue!Gariicld Avenue"ridges over -he Santa Ana River
' 17 '
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City ul' Newport Beach will parti;ill;r:: in
progra,n to prepare and evaluate -in alternate plan of arterial highway imprt venic:us t0lich
provide for a balanced land use1circulation systern among the four cities and the Count.:
providing a satisfactory level of alternate highway improvements in lieu ()l' the I
StrceVBanning Avenue artd Gisler Avenue/Garfield Avenue bridges over the Santa Ana Iti%*CI
Such a plan for highway improvements will need to identify: 1) necessary rial�t-at:tt
acquisitions, 2) scope of roadway, existing bridge and intersection widening irnpro•:enicrits,
environmental impacts of both roadway, existing bridge and intersection improvements -Ind th..
new bridge crossings, so that a true comparison can be made. 4) methods ul' construction
financing, and 5) time !tame for construction.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Newport 13cach 'is- willing to cooperstt•
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 cooperative ngreement if acceptable terms anc
landing for the necessary work can be agreed upon.
PASSED ARID ADOPTED this 8th da•: of November, 1993
i`�ayor Pro TentCity c:Ne••:p%,t u_;cis
ATTEST
City Clerk
��IE� CURT
O \,• ;%ilFrEJ AS A 1RUE ANU CC%REC.1 CCPY
n 'ITY CUILK Of iriiCry Of iCAI CC—�""
- i ATTACHMENT C
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD or SUPERVISORS OF
ORANGE CCUNTY, CAi,IFORNIA
December 7 , 1993
On motion of Supervisor Wieder, duly seconded and carried, the
A following Resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, by Agenda Item Transmittal for Board meeting this date,
the Director, EHA, submitted a report and recommendations resulting
r � from the Santa Ana River Crossings ( SARX) Cooperative Study;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE I; RESOLVED that this Board hereby:
I . Receives and directs the Clerk to file the SARX Cooperative
Study and Environmental Baseline Study.
2 . Initiates an amendment to the Master Plan of Arterial
<<' Highways (HPAIi) for considering deletions of Garfield Avenue/Gisler
Street and Banning Avenue/19th Street bridges and adopts a plan of
,R alternative highway improvements through a cooperative city, county,
and state process ;
3 . Initiates a transportation element amendment to delete
-� Atlanta Avenue/Wilson Street bridge crossing from the MPAH and
do-ngradp East 19th Street/Dover Drive in accordance with the
cooperative study.
4 . Directs EtJA to report back to this Board within ninety days
with a status report on the cooperative process .
'6 S . Directs EKA to provide monthly written status reports to
Board offices , cities and community groups .
-q Resolution No . 93- 1361
ihablic Santa Ana River
Crossings Cmperative Study
J RG ep 1 .
_ti•
I
LP
Chairman of the goard of Supervisors
t
SIGNED AND CERTIFIED THAT A COPY
OF THIS DOCUMENT SIAS BEEN DELIVERED
S TO THE CHAIRMAS OF THE BOARD
P tYLLIS A. HENDERSON
Clerk� of the Board of Supervisors
R Orange County, California
AYES: SUPERVISORS HARRIETT M. WIEDER,THOMAS F. RILEY AND ROGER
In R. STANTON
II DOES: SUPERVISORS NONE
I2 ABSENT: SUPERVISORS GADDI H. VASQUEZ AND WILLIAM G. STEINER
1I
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss.
COUNTY OF ORANGE }
• tS
I , PHYLLIS A. HENDERSON, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of
Orange County, California, hereby certify that the al}cve and
_ foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the said Board i
s at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of December, 1992,
and passed by a unanimous vote of said Board members present.
f8
IN 'FITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this '
7th day of December, 1993 .
PHYLLIS A. HENDER50H
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of
t Orange County, California
� r
` Il
{
f
3
2 .
a
ATTACHMENT D
CITY 4F COSTA MESA
CAL:FCRNIA 9262&i2oo P.O.BOX 1200
FFCM;r.E CEPAR7mE%T CF PVBUC 5'UMCES
December G, 2002
%Ir. Ho=er Bludau, CZ7 Manager
`L Ricta Edmoastoa,Traffic Engineer
City of Newport Beach
3300 `e%mort Boulevard
`ea-aort$each, CA 92638
Der..-;L. Bludau and %[r. Ed--cCston:
SUBJECT: Santa Ana River Crossings (SAR)q Study
TTe Fri :.r:c.^:e--m1 Imcac: Renon --FEM) for the SAR-N stud-, which �c.'Lded rmorries to a,=cr
and Dubuc commec;s, was cczr!iered =' Acr1 1-002. A r eecng of Gr Nian ge.-s was held in May 200?
to csc.�,,s staff recor-rnC,_Idatiors to -es-occ--i'v e City Cou:aLs. Following this meern&Gry of Costa Mesa
star. p:cpa_ed a dzaf, report for presentation to Cit Council. 71 s dmf report inclaced._
-ecor-me::danoes that ae=e consistent s.tb the cisc•.s_ions in t a \Iay Gr: r_^ng. A ccr,
of&s c_-a= :epos was forwarded m you in_Tune 7002 :or comments. HoWeye_, sty cid cat :ece:ve anv
incur :rcm the invoived Ices.
The Costa Mesa C::- Counc, 1=s .ccuesxc a tenor,on -.�.e star,:s of the subject pro'ec-.in ; e near :.troy.
.^c C:t" of Ccs� Mesa wot:d 2reacc apprrcate it it -ou could :e-:ew the amc�ed drar't srsff.eFort aad
pro%-cc �-cLz comments to Pete_`az-ac-., I=5por-mcoc Manage:. by the eYd of Decr-ibe:2002.
If --'-.c:e a_e fir..• Issues, Please cocmc: Peer \aghav: at 714-7;1�-5182 or Rain Sethum=an, Assoc're
E nznec:, at ..1-,S_3031 ir:meciatel:.
SMCC.CC�..
%X*LLLL\-%[J. aIMUS, P.E.
Public Services Ducctor
A.-tacti4:cnr
c k1an Roeder,Gry .1,Ixr,2ger
Pete: \aghavi, Manager of Transgortaaon Ser«ees
/Raja Sc&umman, Assoc;ate Engender
T7 FAIR CANE
P-ChE. ('14)7SA-SW FAX: I714)'3+•5028 TCO- ('try?5&5244
CITY OF COSTA MESA
CAL(FCANIA 92E261200 P.O.BOX 1200
r FACM HE CEPA rMENT OF PUSUC SUMCES
Decernbe.G,2002
.%r. Ray Silver, Clry 1lanager
%L RobeR Stachelslcti Transportation tifzuager
.%L-. Thomas Brohard
Cir.-of r'unu'ngton Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Dear %L-. Silver, Mr. Stachels4 and -%L--. Brohard:
SUBJECT: Santana River Crossings (SARY) Study
The Fir_al Environmental I=pac; Report (ELR) for the S ARY sradr, which inckded resporses to agear
and pubcc cc=e=,was completed :n Apr! 2002_ A meeting of City ti(aA2gerS acas head is ciao 2002
to disc.:ss staff recom-nendacCcs to rested e City Councils. FoLowmi g this mee ng,Cir..-of Costa Mesa—_..
snarl pre.acted a d.-a;� reoer-. for preserracon to Cir.- Council- T'ais drift report included
recor- =darions th= were consistent whiz •he disc:ssions in tye `Iav Gr: ` icage.-s' Mitering. A copy
of this :eYon was forrar;ed to :'ou in J=e 2002 for corr=euts. Howc-er, staff did not rece-re any
:hour 4cm the involved cities.
T'ce Cosn Mesa Cit-., Courcii has -ccuested a report on ±e starts of the subjec:project in the near fi:tum
The C:.. of Costa Mesa wouid gready at;orerate it if rou could re^e z the arza&ed dra' snit reoort and
pro 'de 0LZ comrrents to Pere_ Nagaar-,Tz^_soorncon NIanaze_,by the end of Decemb=200-
If t;.ere 3- act. ss,:es, r[e,<_e cor_tac: nit._ \agh.,- or R:.;a Se-.hur--=act, associate
Engreer,act-l4-f 5.' 503'_, irr.:.ediatelr.
Thank—.ou.
S►rccr
\t"I -LU-`t J. MORRIS. P.E.
Public Services Director
.fit-2cC,-:ter„
c Alan Roeder,Cir: Mawger
Peter Naghav� Manager of T=sporntion Services
.el Rays Sethuriman, :associate Engineer
n FAIR oAfVE
PHC14 r (7,+).s4-sy3 FAX: (714)TS4•s02E too: t714I rsA-s2.4
C*Y OF COSTA MMSR
Cua=CSNIA 92QZs-7200 P.O.BOX 1200
FFCryt;-!E CEPAF'LVE'r CF PUBLIC SEMACES
Decembe, G, 2002
L. R.a:=oad H. Krorrer, Cit,`.laaage:
.%L-. Mask Lewis, Cif.- Engineer
Cim of Founrain Ville-
10200 Slater Avenue
Founmin`allcv, C.-k 92If08
Dear %L. :Comer zed fir.Lewis:
SUBJECT: Santa Ana Rive::Crossings (SAR q Study
T:ie F imil EnvL-ormearal lr--Car Report (aT-R) for the S_ RX sradv, a:h c.' inckded respor'<es to 3gmc7
and public conrcena, was compicted in Apr! 2002- A meeting of Cry -'YLv=gc= was hdd M Mav 2002
LO discuss staff reCO :_enciacors :o rest cue Ciro Cou:ass. Follossir-9 this mt.ting,Ciro of Costa litsa
star: prepared a d=r"r repor_ for presentation to Cif. Council Tnis draft rti oft :nc'.uced
:ecor-me:dar:oas •,har were cocs:srevnt w;d� : e discussions in the \fa- Cirr -%La::agczs' me-.=9. A cope"
of rLis C.i:, --coonwas cornarcc^ to ;OU ?t:.^..e 2002 for comments. F.owevc:, staff did not remme a.us_
irmut -orr the :evolved cimes.
The Costa Mesa C.:7 Coy cil has :ecuested a :,-port on :ae status of-,_'^.e subsea oroject m' the near future
7ne Cir- of Costa Mesa would g:tadr at:-�rt att it if,ou could the zttachcd draft st&. report and
pr,-'%1-cz -c�=co^r:eh:s to Pete:\aFhar--T:--zs:or-.ar_'o^ Manager, b- _':e end o:Decembc:200z.
1.'e an- isst:cs' ple-�e contact �e:e_ Nagh I ar i 1.1- �+ S42 or Ram Ccthu'm..ar, AssoClCe
En ' ce_. ar �: 1 5032, ir.srcc�teic.
Tzarti .-cu.
Sincc1_c
%XU r L-..1(J. MORIUS, P.E.
Pubuc `,-::ices Director
A,-t--chm-c.^.t
c k Zan Roeder.Cir. Manage:
Peter `aghxa -, N[a.nager of Transpormcon Senices
Raja Set-hura-^.un, Assoa'Uc Engu ee:
s7 FAIR Cram
P"CNE. (It.)mA.S347 FAx: (7tA)T5+-501a TTM (714)7S-52"
�OLUTION NO. 02-88 Hl 1AUHMENT E
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
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.
1 993, 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"
y
scenario-, and - - -
WHEREAS, the Costa Mesa City Council does hereby emphatically reaffirm this
City.S position as stated in Resolution Nc. 93-89 along with the additional key elements
stated herein, and
WHEREAS. the Santa Ana River Crossing (SARX) Study will be completed anc
reviewed by the erected of`c:afs 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
worts for this bndge project until the SARX Study is final: and
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 cocperation and collaboration in__
resolving problems of joint concern; and
WHEREAS. the City of Fountain Valley's action to apply '[Cr OCTA funding at this
time is wholly inconsistent with that historic level of cgoperation.
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
III
111
every step of the approval process. if the City of Fountain Valte
. Y approves an
application to OCTA seeking funds for the Gisler-Garfield Bridge project.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 161n day of December, 2002.
ATTE 7
Deput dy Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa ayor of the—City of Costa Mesa
APPROVED AS TO FORM
City Attorney, � .y .
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss
CITY OF COSTA MESA j
I, JULIE FOLCIK, Deputy City Clerk and ex-of,ic,c Clerk of the City Council of the
City of Casta Mesa, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 02-88
was dury and regularly passed ana adopted by the said Ctty Council at a regular
meeting tI^ereof held on the 1 C' day of December, 2002, by the following roll call vote-
AYES Rcbinson , S�cee_ , Cowan , ucnanan , uansccr
NOES None
ABSENT �Icne
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
the City of Ccsta Mesa this 174" day of December. 2002.
".G lcr�'g�7nC., instrurrnn:iS o correct CODY W the
Origricl Gn fI:aA rnls Jt',C6
1 _ Ceput, +ty Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of
4
ATTEST: �� �� _ ___ the Ci y Council of the City of Costa Mesa
!Y./w CITY C�Cq bF THE CITY CF COSTA mr".^
r ((JJ
CGUNTY OF Or_,1%4G,C.fsrA7E OF CALIFORNIA
DATED
it
"PTY ;F
HUNPSC E-LAL"JI. CA
1003 JAN 21 p 1. S�nna wivera
Crossi-n 'S:r-�;- .
Coo erative t ' ,
h
Sz,-
r SWAY'
■Ci Council Sessioty t
j 1 ,
• J 1 r `4'a tt /''1�W- I
� �..
Santa Ana River Crossings
■ loint effort managed by 0CTA 7
■ Participating agencies
yh/k: Y
. Costa Mesao,
. Fountain Valley
. Huntington Beach
• Newport Beach j r
r r �
".2i
f;,,,fey �'�a:•'.�5*' 4.
Santa Ana River Crossings
■ Purpose of study
• imfdeletingEvaluate envir nmenta,Irpacts o
two
'� •
master plan bridg6,-, crossings Yw '
■ Garfield Avenue (Fountain Valley/Huntington ,
4
Beach to Gisler Avenue Mesa ., .
■ Banning Avenue (Huntington Beach) to 19th Street
(Costa Mesa New ort beach,) ;ra
f `t •
. Initiated by Costa Mesa
■ OCTA serving as Lead�' Agenc'y
:.w
Santa Ana River Crossings
■ OCTA Requirements for MPAH, -t- ri� ��+_ :w ..,,I,. .
Amendment _ •
■ Unanimous support from 3 affecteds, agencies
71t
■ Garfield/Gisler — HB, Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley
■ Banning/ 19t" - HB, Costa Mesa, Newpat Beach !f
■ Mitigation measures/ i m pl(�' mented far each
bridge deletion
r I
1115
4`2
--lap
!• I hl I I
f
Santa Ana River Crossings
■ What is the Master Plan of Arte-ria.l,,7,.,
Highways ( MPAH )?
• Regional plan of arterial roadwa s7
• Intended to ensure adequate mobiti,�, k,,
I
• Administered by OCTA!,
■ Measure M turnback'funds and other .' ' grams
tied to compliance
■ City's Circulation Element of',.GeneraI Plan
a. VlS .a
Santa n a River , Crossings
■ Three alternatives studied
■ Keep bridges
■ Delete bridges
■ Alternate bridge a l ign me.nts
{
■ Garfield connects to 405 Fr� ,eeway
■ 19th Street connects /to 1B
rob,,kh u rst nort of
Banning
■ Each bridge can be considered indidapendently
;fr
3
� . I „ �H..�..�..rr f�•l'9'�I
a7
2d
tl 4
r.
Santa n a River Crossings
Traffic im acts of deletion of..b.oth, =
■ p � n ,
0
bridges
• Eight street segments impacted r°
• PCH east of Brookhurs6n Huntington ,Beach I
• Ten intersections impacted
I
■ Brookhurst/Hamilton in HB
■ r ,•br s
PCH/Brookhurst in HB
• Longer trips and.`added travel time for same
.
4
Santa Ana River Crossings
■ Mitigation measures w ;: TTI }
a� r
• Mitigation can offset deletidn— of b ,t S bridges f
. PCH segment — Restrip Ito add second ,eastbound
left turn lane on PCH ati Brookhurst - HB
■ Brookhurst/Hamilton intersection — Restripe to add
second southbound left turn lane - HB:.,
■ Estimated total costof, = $ 19 million al i,n a I I r'
1 (tot i
cities)
21
:1
Santa Ana River Crossings
■ Preliminary costs
. Construct both bridgesr 47milNion
$ �,
. No bridges (mitigation $ 19 .m'illion
}
7A.:�
. Net savings $29 million
rl k
' r�� err-,�1+':��`,`•ew",' '{,.r.' '
S
Santa Ana River Crossings
■ Current Issues0
- � .
■ Reserve status of bridges
■ Lack of consensus among agencies' staff
■ Huntington Beach — opposed (both bridges,) 1
■ Costa Mesa — supported 1(b'oth bridges) jw f ?
■ New ort Beach — su �orted'�" Bannin 19t"�
p pp : ,C 9/ ) i
■ Fountain Valley — suppo;rted (Garfield/Gisi " r) '
■ Determine need to/pr6vide "staff irection
•
_ 1993 Reso' lution ,2-`
10
i.'n
Santa Ana River Crossings
■ Huntington Beach Options MOM, IT
■ Option 1 - Support Bred Reserve' status
■ Likely to be supported by other agencies (NB, CM,
FV
. $19 million in mitigation - rfunded
■ Does not guarantee deletion of crossings from ;
M PAH `
■ Future evaluation criteria uncertain.. i17". ., Y
a
SantaRiver na rossin s
■ Option 2 -- Reaffirm Support for,--Botll � 4
Brad a Deletions from .PA-H . yy0
■ Will not achieve unanim ous su i redppoft,'.�!,requ b oCTA
■ Bridges remain on MP H (without unanimous
' I
support)
■ $ 19 million in regWred` only,�. with 0`6' .g.e •
deletions
12
Santa Ana River Crossings
■ Option 3 - Support Crossing Reten;ti,ogp D no
MPAH .,
rJ ��
• Bridges remain due to lack of su .on for rpp . .s �
removal
w
µ I
■ Increased traffic and/access to south east HB//
f
5 ; '' rr 1
■ Bridge funding of $4' lli-on mi not likely to7
occur in near future •
• Retains bridges for future transportation
forecasts II`J 'Y .• r f . i
13
Santa Ana River Crossings
;' .q
End of Pre � entation
ff y
i I 1 j
,f r ,1 j •� ..4r1��14 1-�-
Santa Ana River Crossings
■ Project Milestones
• Baseline Study Initiated
4
■ City Council Resolution
■ OCTA Initiates EIR 1998
■ Draft EIR Circulation June r2001 !
r
■ City Comments to Draft/EIR August 2001
■ Revised Technical Studies , November 2001
4 � I •
■ Screencheck EIR
Apn l 2002
VM
15
Santa Ana River Crossings
Recent Activities 5
.
■ City Managers Meeting - �5/28/ ' ...�2
■ Costa Mesa Draft Report n 6 1 ,
p / 9�12
_ Meeting ! f i
■ GMA 6 TSC 11 6 & .13 02
r / r /
■ GMA-6 Board Meeting 12/ 10 j0:2
■ H B Letter to Costa Mesa f '}, 12/2 .j } 2 ;r f
I'I ! A
Santa Ana River Crossings
• Significant Street Segment ImDa cts 131,
■ Slater Ave — Magnolia to Bushard (FV) �
■ Ellis Ave — Ward to I-405 (--FV FT
■ Harbor Blvd -- Sunflower to South Coast Drive (CM) y
■ PCH -- Brookhurst to Santa Ana River (HB.. ;!
■ Hamilton Ave — Brookhustito Bluff (HB) .,,µ� !'
■ West Coast Hwy — Santa Ana kiver to 170 NB
■ Talbert Ave — Euclid to Newho e Coun
p ( tY) f
• � �r^y �_ ,me:,+.µ+
+• . t: 17
,x
Santa Ana River Crossings
• Significant Intersection Impacts40
,x
■ Ellis Ave Ward St (FV) `: a
■ Harbor Blvd/South Coast Yr (CM)
■ Superior Ave 17th St CM
■ Newport Blvd/17 St (CM) r
■ MacArthur Blvd/Hyland Ave (CM)
■ Brookhurst St./Hamilton Ave (HB) 1
■ Newport Blvd/Hospital id (NB `, fi
•:f: ,: .a.:; , i
■ West Coast Hwy/17 St (NB)
■ West Coast Hwy/Superior Ave (NB}
■ Harbor Blvd Warner Aver(S-a-n-t-a-Aff,a
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:
1. 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).
1
61resolut[MPAW 11/02/93
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof helot on the 1,� _day of NovPat),pr . 1993.
�zf -
Mayor
ATTE T:
•?U•G APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY:
City Clerk
//-ya City Attomey
2
6lreselutlMPAFl11 1102193
L_� �•-�L 12-k
• i
9CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 Main Street P . 0 - aox 1 90 California 92548
Robert F. Beardsley. P.E. Department of Public Works
Director (714) 536-5431
December 27, 2002
Mr. William J. Morris, P.E.
Public Services Director
City of Costa Mesa
P.O. Box 1200
Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200
Dear Bill,
Subject: Santa Ana River Crossings (SARX) Study
The City of Huntington Beach has received a copy of a draft staff report prepared by
your city; which was previously reviewed during a telephone meeting we
participated in on August 1. it was our understanding that we had expressed our
concerns with the draft report and could not support the recommended actions. In
response to your recent letter, we are submitting a formal response.
We have consistently supported the "no bridge" alternative for both bridges as
indicated in a 1993 Huntington Beach City Council resolution. While it is unclear
exactly how this issue was presented at the City Managers' meeting in May, we had
a very different understanding of the final consensus developed at the meeting from
what was presented in the draft report, and cannot support its recommendations at
this time.
Based on the lack of progress that has been made on this issue during the past five
months and the recent changes in our City Council, l believe it is appropriate to take
this issue back to our City Council for further review and consideration. The
earliest opportunity we have to schedule this issue for Council consideration is
February 3, 2003, pending our ability to expedite a meeting with OCTA and
representatives from the affected neighborhoods. At that time, we will discuss the
City's current position and the alternative presented in your draft report.
William J. Morris
City of Costa Mesa
December 27, 2002
Page Two
We continue to be committed to resolving the issues related to the Santa Ana River
tmssings and in successfully concluding the SARX study effort. If you have any
questions regarding the City's position or future actions on this matter, please have
your staff contact Bob Stachelski, Transportation Manager, at (714) 536-5523. ! will
make sure to keep you apprised of our pending action.
Sincerely,
Robert F. Beardsley
Director of Public Works
RFB:RS:cr
C: Ray Silver,City Admi n istTator
will<am P.Workman,Assistant Oty Administrator
Bob Stadelski,Transportanon Manager
Glen Carrpbell,OCTA
r -
�
i Council/Agency Meeting Held: 7,115426
i�
Deferred/Continued to:
®'Approved Q Conditio all pproved ❑ Denied OCity Clerk's Sign e
Council Meeting Date: 7/15/96 Department ID Number: PW 96-043
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
SUBMITTED BY: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Ad ra
IV
PREPARED BY: �s M. Jones 11, Director of Public Works '
SUBJECT: . Santa Ana River Crossings (SARX) Cooperative Study - Phase II
Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachments
Q
'Off-,
Statement of Issue: Staff representatives from the Cities of Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley,
Huntington Beach and Newport Beach, and from the Orange County Environmental
Management Agency (OCEMA) propose that the Orange County Transportation Authority
(OCTA) accept the role of lead agency for SARX Phase II and fund the necessary
Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement using Measure "M" funds.
Funding Source: N/A
Recommended Action: Authorize the City Administrator to sign the request to the OCTA to
accept the role of lead agency for SARX Phase II and fund the necessary Environmental
Impact Report/Environmehtal Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) using Measure "M" funds.
Alternative Action(s): Do not authorize the above request. Failure to authorize the request
could increase the likelihood that the City would assume financial responsibility for part of
the EIR/EIS.
C C
r— z
./3/
li
3 '
RtQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: 7/15/96 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW 96-043
Analysis: OCTA recently assumed responsibility for the regional transportation model as
well as administration of the Master Plan of Arterial Highways from the County of Orange.
Measure "M" and regional planning funds from the Southern California Association of
Governments were identified as the sources of funding for these programs.
As a part of the transfer of functions, OCTA also assumed responsibility for the SARX Phase
II Study for consideration of deletion of the Banning Avenue/19th Street and Garfield
Avenue/Gisler Avenue bridge crossings over the Santa Ana River.
The SARX Phase II EIR/EIS is a regional issue based on the number of affected agencies
involved. The cost to complete the EIR/EIS, estimated between $500,000 and $900,000, is
an appropriate and eligible expenditure of Measure "M" funds.
Environmental Status: N/A
Attachment(s):
1. Letter from City Managers of Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach, Newport
Beach, and the OCEMA
2. Orange County Board of Supervisors Staff Report Dated December 7, 1993
3. Technical Advisory Group Consensus Work Product
City Clerk's
Page Number
dk
0019770.01 -2- 07/03/96 3:57 PM
CITY OF COSTA MESA
< a CALIFORNIA 92628-1200 P. O- BOX 1200
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
June 17 , 1996
Mr. Michael T. Uberuaga
City Administrator
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
SUBJECT: SANTA ANA RIVER CROSSINGS (SARX) COOPERATIVE STUDY
PHASE II
/(I:e-P
Dear Mr. ,ybaL :
Following our previous discussion regarding the Santa Ana River
Crossings (SARX) related studies, enclosed for your signature is a
letter to the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) , on
behalf of the involved agencies, formally requesting OCTA to act as
the lead agency for SARX Phase II and to fund the entire cost of
the necessary Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact
Statement 1EIR/EIS} using Measure "M" funds. Please sign and
is-turn the letter to William J. Morris, City' s Public Services
Director, as soon as possible, so that it may be forwarded to the
other Participant jurisdictions for signature.
Thank you for your continued cooperation, and we look forward to
worx2.ng with you to ensure a successful resolution of the river
crossing issues.
Sincerely,
ALLAN ROEDER JUN
� � I��6 I' '
�
City Manager
City of Costa Mesa CITY OF HUNTIP(rTON SEAM
ADMUSTRAT(VE Off IC'
VSC:ps
Attachment
c: William J. Morris, Public Services Director
Peter Naghavi , Manager, Transportation Services
77 FAIR DRIVE (714) 754-5327
4!%- - CITY OF COSTA MESA
�z,.
CALIFORNIA 92628-1200 P.O.BOX 1200
�•...•,�' L 4•�.,;1 ►:agar.wrca�a.cVexrrsnyX.,e�i�.=:c:ri•r.+rsu4snte�naoa;o rr .e,.r:rein.:ta.vaar.s«zver
v:
FROM THE OFFICE OFTHE CITY MANAGER
June 17, 1996
Mr. Michael T. Uberuaga
City Administrator
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
SUBJECT: SANTA ANA RIVER CROSSINGS (SARX) COOPERATIVE STUDY -
PHASE II
Dear Mr. U aga:
Following our previous discussion regarding the Santa Ana River
Crossings (SARX) related studies, enclosed for your signature is a
letter to the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) , on
behalf of the involved agencies, formally requesting OCTA to act as
the lead agency for SARX Phase II and to fund the entire cost of
the necessary Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact
l Statement HEIR/EIS) using Measure "M" funds. Please sign and
return the letter to William J. %Morris, City' s Public Services
Director, as soon as possible, so that it may be forwarded to the
other participant jurisdictions for signature.
Thank you for your continued cooperation, and we look forward to
worxzng with you to ensure a successful resolution of the river
crossing issues.
Sincerely, . ;—•-
r.; .
ALLAN ROEDER �i'• JUN i9G'�
City Manager 4'' !
City of Costa Mesa C(iT- C:% r;U'fi;;;.:7`--'I T,7
VSC:ps
Attachment
c: William J. Morris, Public Services Director
Peter Naghavi, Manager, Transportation Services
77 FAIR DRIVE (714) 754-5327
� /--\ _ 1,oa,as
Council/Agency Meeting Held: 7 15 9L
Deferred/Continued to: '
®"Approved Conditional) pproved ❑ Denied OCity Clerk's Sign e
Council Meeting Date: 7/15/96 Department ID Number: PW 96-043
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
SUBMITTED BY: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City AdmigVaz
PREPARED BY: Les M. Jones II, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Santa Ana River Crossings (SARX) Cooperative Study - Phase II
Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachments
g I
Statement of Issue: Staff representatives from the Cities of Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley,
Huntington Beach and Newport Beach, and from the Orange County Environmental
Management Agency (OCEMA) propose that the Orange County Transportation Authority
(OCTA) accept the role of lead agency for SARX Phase II and fund the necessary
Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement using Measure "M" funds.
Funding Source: N/A
Recommended Action: Authorize the City Administrator to sign the request to the OCTA to
accept the role of lead agency for SARX Phase II and fund the necessary Environmental
Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) using Measure "M" funds.
Alternative Action(s): Do not authorize the above request. Failure to authorize the request
could increase the likelihood that the City would assume financial responsibility for part of
the EIR/EIS.
O
R QUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIR
MEETING DATE: 7/15196 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW 96-043
Analysis: OCTA recently assumed responsibility for the regional transportation model as
well as administration of the Master Plan of Arterial Highways from the County of Orange.
Measure "M" and regional planning funds from the Southern California Association of
Governments were identified as the sources of funding for these programs
As a part of the transfer of functions, OCTA also assumed responsibility for the SARX Phase
It Study for consideration of deletion of the Banning Avenuell9th Street and Garfield
Avenue/Gisler Avenue bridge crossings over the Santa Ana River
The SARX Phase it EIR/EIS is a regional issue based on the number of affected agencies
involved. The cost to complete the EIRIEIS, estimated between $500,000 and $900,000, is
an appropriate and eligible expenditure of Measure "M" funds.
Environmental Status: NIA
Attachments):
I. Letter from City Managers of Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach, Newport
Beach, and the OCEMA
2. Orange County Board of Supervisors Staff Report Dated December 7, 1993
3. Technical Advisory Group Consensus Work Product
City Clerk's
Page Number
dk
0019770.01 -2- 07103196 3:57 PM
CITY OF COSTA MESA
i 4 =
CALIFORNIA 92628-+200 P- o- eox 1200
Rr
'' -:`• = .�` FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
June 17, 1996
Mr . Michael T. Uberuaga
City Administrator
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
SUBJECT: SANTA ANA RIVER CROSSINGS (SARX) COOPERATIVE STUDY -
PHASE II
r-.,r-P
Dear Mr. Y-b�aga:
Following our previous discussion regarding the Santa Ana River
Crossings ( SARX) related studies, enclosed for your signature is a
letter to the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) , on
behalf of the involved agencies, formally requesting OCTA to act as
the lead agency for SARX Phase II and to fund the entire cost of
the necessary Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact
Statement IEIR/EIS) using Measure "M" funds . Please sign and
return the letter to William J. Morris, City' s Public Services
Director , as soon as possible, so that it may be forwarded to the
other participant jurisdictions for signature.
Thank you for your continued cooperation, and we loox forward to
worxing with you to ensure a successful resolution of the river
crossing issues.
Sincerely,
ALLAN ROEDER i JUN I"
City Manager
City of Costa Mesa -
SC:ps
Attachment
c: William J. Morris, Public Services Director
Peter Naghavi , Manager, Transportation Services
77 FAIR DRIVE (714) 754-5327
CITY OF COSTA MESA
}; �•.� \mi CAL_IFORNIA 92628-1200 P. O. BOX 1200
ff
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
May 24, 1996
Mr. Stan Oftelie
Chief Executive Officer
Orange County Transportation Authority
550 South Main Street
P.O. Box 14184
Orange, CA 92613-1584
SUBJECT: SANTA ARIA RIVER CROSSINGS (SARX) COOPERATIVE STUDY - PRASE 11
Dear Stan-
As you are aware, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) recently assumed
responsibility for the regional transportation model as well as administration of the Master
Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) from the County of Orange. Measure W" and regional
planning funds from the Southern California Association of Governments were Identified
as the sources of funding for these programs.
As part of the transfer of functions, OCTA also assumed responsibility for several MPAH
amendment studies In progress, Including the Santa Ana River Crossings (SARX) Phase
It Study for consideration of deletion of the Banning Avenue/19th Street and Garfield
Avenue/Gisler Avenue bridge crossings over the Santa Ana River. A brief history of this
study is given below for your information
The City of Costa Mesa, in November 1 991 , requested the County of Orange to initiate
a cooperative study for the deletion of the proposed Santa Ana River crossings at 19th
Street;Banning Avenue and Gisler Avenue./Garfield Avenue on the County's Master Plan
of Arterial High%,vays (MPAH)_ This request came as a result of many public hearings
during the City's 1990 General Plan reviev:i
i
77 FAIR DRIVE (714) 754-5327
Mr. Stan Oftelie
May 24, 1996
Page 2
Following Costa Mesa's request, and with the additional insistence of the cities of
Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, and Fountain Valley, the County of Orange initiated
a cooperative study, funded entirely by the County, that addressed all Santa Ana River
crossings south of Interstate 405.
With significant staff contributions by all involved agencies, a new traffic model was
developed to evaluate the impacts of changes to the circulation system within the four
cities. The study was completed with the preparation of a Final Report and an
Environmental Baseline Study. Three (3) community meetings were conducted by County
staff to solicit input frorn the public before this item was finally presented to the Board of
Supervisors on December 7, 1993- The Board of Supervisors approved the initiation of
an amendment process for consideration of deletion of the Banning Avenue/19th Street
and Garfield Avenue/Gisler Avenue bridges based on adoption of alternative highway
improvements developed through a cooperative city/county/state process. A copy of the
mentioned December 7, 1993, staff report is attached for your information.
A Technical Advisory Group (TAG) was formed to follow up on the Board of Supervisors'
directive_ The TAG is comprised of staff representatives from the participating cities, the
County of Orange, and Caltrans. Additional participants include representatives from the
four city communities and landowner/interest groups to ensure that community interests
are adequately represented in the process. The TAG has been meeting regularly for over
a year and has been successful in reaching consensus on several complex issues. A list
of alternatives has been finalized along with a draft scope of work for the required
Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS). Attached is the
approved work product of the TAG to date. The remaining tasks for the TAG include
identification of the lead agency for the environmental process, determination of funding
for the EIR/EIS, and hiring of a consultant to develop and complete the EIR/EIS.
The necessary Phase Il SARX Study EIR/EIS is clearly a regional issue based on the
number of affected agencies and jurisdictio,is involved. Given the regional nature and
scope of the SARX study, the cost to complete the EIR/EIS is an appropriate and eligible
expenditure of Measure "M" funds. The Measure "M" Ordinance allows up to five (5)
percent of total receipts to be, used for planning services and development of a regional
transportation model. The maximum allowed by the Measure "W Ordinance is
approximately $5 million per year_
3-12-1998 2: 16PI.1 FROH CITY OF FOUNTAIN VAL 714 96S 4494 P. 1
Mr. Stan Oftelie
May 24, 1996
Page 3
The undersigned respectfully request that OCTA take a proactive and leadership role in
acting as the lead agency for SARX Phase 11. It is also requested that OCTA fund the
development and completion of the necessary EIR/EIS using Measure "M" funds. The
estimated cost for this EIR/EIS is between $500,000 and $900,000, as indicated by your
staff.
We trust that you will respond favorably to our request and look forward to working with
you to ensure a successful resolution of the river crossing issues.
Sincerely,
ALLAN ROEDER MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA KEN R. SMITN
City Manager City Administrator Director of Transportation
City of Costa Mesa City of Huntington Beach OCEMA
21A �` coNr�tL Kxky, C,fy citstk
KEVIN J. MURV RA' KROMER
City Manager 0 y Manager
City of Newport Beach City of Fountain Valley
V S C.Ch1L05T4)
Attachment 1 - Orange County Board of Supervisors Staff Report Dated
December 7, 1993
Attachment 2 - TAG Consensus Work Product
c: Orange County Board of Supervisors »
City Councils of Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Fountain Valley, and Huntington Beach
David Elbaum, Director of Planning and Development, OCTA
William J. Morris, Public Services Director, City of Costa Mesa
Wayne Osborne, Public Works Director, City of Fountain Valley
Les Jones, Public Works Director, City of Huntington Beach
Don Webb, Public Works Director, City of Newport Beach
Jeff Sinn, City Engineer, City of Fountain Valley
Bob Eichblatt, City Engineer, City of Huntington Beach
Mr. Stan Oftehe
May. 24, 1996
Page 3
The undersigned respectfully request that OCTA take a proactive and leadership role in
acting as the lead agency for SARX Phase Il. It is also requested that OCTA fund the
development and completion of .the necessary E1R/ElS using Measure "M" funds- The
estimated cost for this EIRIEiS is between $500,000 and $900,000, as indicated by your
staff.
We trust that you will respond favorably to our request and look forward to working with
you to ensure a successful resolution of the river crossing issues.
Sincerely,
ALLAN ROEDER M:CHA�11UBERUAGA KEN R. SMITH
City Manager City Administrator Director of Transportation
City of Costa Mesa City of Huntington Beach OCEMA
�z-rEsr
7�1��.fv �onnC 3sock.�ty� Cfy C1E C
KEVIN ,- URP RAY KRorv1ER
City Manager City Manager
City of Newport Beach City of Fountain Valley
Attachment 1 Orange County Board of Supervisors Staff Report Dated
December 7, 1993
Attachment 2 TAG Consensus Work Product
c: Orange County Board of Suoervisors
City Councils of Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Fountain Valley, and Huntington Beach
David Elbaum, Director of Planning and Development, OCTA
William J. Morris, Public Services Director, City of Costa Mesa
.Wayne Osborne, Public Works Director, City of Fountain Valley
Les Jones, Public Works Director. City of Huntington Beach
Don Webb, Public Works Director, City of Newport Beach
Jeff Sinn, City Engineer, City of Fountain Valley
Bob Eichblatt, City Engineer, City of Huntington Beach
07iO3/95 15:31 TRPkNSPCRTRTjCN D1RSCTCP y 93741573
N0.491 C002
m .0 ACENCY/bLPT. US CLIRK V6L ONLY
A G- 3 N D A I T B N T R A N S K r T T A L
tAO RevIEW
a1
,4 Contur
COp56laT 1:1 YE3
Do met ConGtst
IrC ,r� �S r� NO �'X f"1
L^�j f Exempt
TO BOARD OFF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF ORANGE L �
co{ATAcT MR IAroAtSATIvr P!lopi
FROH: E2iA PILL: SARX Cooperative Robert Pete 834-5377
Stud Po zn a anlou 834-3155
MZZTXNQ oATZ suBJLC! sUPV.DZST•
December 7, 1993 Santa Ana River Crossings Cooperative Study 1,2,5
SUMlAXT OF RLQUEST (Description for egenda)
ENA submits a report and recommendations resulting from the Santa Ana River Crossings
(SARX) Cooperative Study.
� ADOZTIOXAL DATA:
COOPERATIVE STUDY PRESS
On December 2, 1991, the City of Costa Mesa requested the County to conduct a traffic study
analyzing the feasibility of deleting the proposed Garfield Avenue/Gisler Street, Atlanta
Street and Banning Avenue/19th Street bridges from the County's MPAB as yell
as downgrading East 19th Street frog a secondary arterial (4-lane undivided) to a commuter
arterial (2-lane undivided). $KA has completed the Santa Ana River Crossing Cooperative
Study (SARX) authorized b our Board on June 30, 1992. All three (continued on reverse)
I.Avenue,/Vilson
AMOUS RTLZVAnT BOARD ACTIONS ON THIS SPLCIPIC ITSK:
Board Minute Order of .Tune 30, 1992
ru"ING SouRCifs) CVxRZnT YEAR COST AXNUAL COST BVDGETED7 Y;S UrO
Road funds (Future cost will be N/A N/A N/A
determined via a cooperative study
WILL PROEOsAi. RSQUiRi ADDITTOaAL tSRSORNKL? CONSISTCUT WITH BOARD POLICY?
00 IF YES, STATE IMMBER PaR('"EXT LIX17cD TrAM X 7E3 XLN rrrM OR rXCEPTION
RECOPIPMED ACTIOR
I. Receive and file the Santa Ana River Crossings (SARX) Cooperative Study and
Environmental Baseline Study.
2. Adopt Resolution to: 1) initiate an amendment to the KPAH for considering deletion of
s Garfield Avenue/Gisler Street and Banning Avenue/19th Street bridges and adopt a plan
of alternative highway improvements through a cooperative city, county, state
process; and 2) initiate a transportation element amendment to delete Atlanta
Avenue/vilson Street bridge crossing from the MPAH and downgrade East 19th Street/Dover
Drive in accordance with the cooperative study.
(continued an page 5)
COriCVARtNCIS (I: ayplltable) A:YACHMi:7T3
A. SARX Study Draft Final Report
B. Environmental Baseline Study
(continued on page 5)
Ken R. Smith ° E Ki ael M. R Dire BMA
{ Director, Transportation Planning "
PM:XRS:pm:xm3111812094721
07/03/96 15:31 TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR d 93741573 NO.491 P003
AGENDA ITEM
TRANSHMAL -2-
ADDITIONAL DATA: (Continued)
of the bridge crossings over the Santa Ana River are located between the
1-405 Freeway and Pacific Coast Highway (Exhibit 1). Subsequent to your
Board's action, a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) composed of two members
each from Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley and
the Environmental Management Agency (EMA) was formed to oversee the study
process. A composite traffic model was developed, consisting of data from
each participating city's individual traffic model and general plan, to
evaluate different alternatives to the existing MPAH. Each-stage of the
model development and the validation process was carefully reviewed and
approved by each of the TAC members.
COOPBRATM STUDY REPORTS
The SARX Cooperative Study consists of a Draft Final Traffic Report
(Attachment A) produced from the traffic model results and an Environmental
Baseline Study (Attachment B) which presents a general inventory of existing
environmental conditions and a matrix of potential constraints -at the three
proposed bridge crossings shown on the MPAH.
The SARX Cooperative Study indicates that the existing MPAH appropriately
responds to existing and proposed land uses within the four city area and
provides for a balanced circulation system with 'the deletion of the
Atlanta/Wilson bridge crossing. The deletion of this bridge crossing is
recommended by EMA based on the construction of Hamilton Avenue/Victoria
Street to primary highway status between Brookhurst and Canyon Drive.
Hamilton Avenue roadway and bridge widenings have been completed and
currently provide the highway capacity that would have been provided by
Atlanta Avenue/Wilson Street bridge.
The SARK study indicates that substantial additional arterial highway
improvements must be constructed if the proposed Garfield/Gisler and
Banning/19th Street bridge crossings are deleted from Costa Mesa's
Circulation Element and the County MPAH. A more detailed description of the
study and the implications of its results are included in the November 3,
1993 EMA Report to the Planning Commission (Attachment Q.
CITY AND COMMUNITY COMMENTS
The results of the SARX Cooperative Study were presented and discussed in an
open forum at three public community meetings in the Cities of Costa Mesa,
Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach. EMA, together with the appropriate TAC
representatives, also presented the SARX Study results to each of the four
participating City's traffic commissions as well as their city councils,
either in study session or public hearing.
There is significant community opposition to the bridges in the cities of
Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach. Those in attendance at each of the meetings
were overwhelmingly in favor of removing the proposed bridges from the MPAH.
As a result; the city councils of both Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach
adopted resolutions recommending to your Board the deletion of both bridges
from the MPAH. The.cities of Newport Beach and Fountain Valley city councils
believe alternative arterial highway improvements which provide for balanced
07/03/96 15:31 TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR 4 93741573 NO.491 P004
AGBNDA ITEM
TWISHMAL -3-
land use and circulation systems are needed if the Garfield/Gisler and
Banning/19th Street bridges are deleted from the MPAH. Consequently, they
have adopted a resolution recommending to your Board to initiate an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to evaluate an alternative plan for the
potential deletion of these bridges. The City of Newport Beach, in addition,
adopted a separate resolution recommending to your Board the downgrading of
Dover Drive between Irvine Avenue and 17th Street on the MPAH in concert with
the downgrading of E. 19th Street. Dover Drive is an extension of East 19th
Street in the City of Newport Beach.
Representatives of the four city councils are continuing to meet to develop a
common understanding and request for County assistance in resolving the MPAH
issues.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS
The Orange County Planning Commission approved a motion (Attachment D)
recommending that: 1) the Board of Supervisors direct the Environmental
Management Agency to initiate an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to
evaluate the viability of the Garfield Avenue/Gisler Street and Banning
Avenue/19th Street Master Plan of Arterial Highway (MPAH) bridge connections
over the Santa Ana River and alternatives to these two bridge connections
within an expeditious time frame; and 2) that the Board of Supervisors direct
EMA to proceed with the deletion of the Atlanta Avenue/Wilson Street bridge
crossing and the downgrade of East 19th Street between Newport Boulevard and
Irvine Avenue to a two lane commuter arterial from the MPAH with appropriate
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) clearance.
PROBLEH ANALYSIS
The objective of the SARR study is to evaluate whether the HPAH could be
modified to delete the three bridge crossings over the Santa Ana River. It
was concluded that Atlanta/Wilson Street bridge could be deleted with no
substantial negative impacts to roadways in the surrounding four city area.
Alternative highway improvements are needed, however, to mitigate the adverse
impacts caused by deleting the remaining two bridge crossings. These
potential alternative improvements are under the jurisdiction and
responsibility of the four cities and Caltrans. The County of Orange may not
unilaterally impose construction of alternative improvements on either the
cities or Caltrans.
COOPERATM PROCESS
If alternative improvements to the bridge crossings are to be implemented, it
must be through a cooperative process which includes commitment by each
jurisdiction to implement the improvements. EHA has outlined a cooperative
process to amend the HPAH which is identified as Exhibit A in the attached
sample resolution. The first step of this process is to develop consensus
ramong the cities, County and Caltrans regarding acceptable alternative
improvements to the Banning Avenue/19th Street and Garfield Avenue/Gisler
Street bridge crossings. Once the alternative roadway improvements are
identified, an EIR Scope of Work, lead agency responsibility, and funding
icontributions can be determined. A highway improvement funding and phasing
07/03/96 15:31 TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR 4 93741573 NO.491 P005
r-
AGENDA ITEM
TRBNSHMAL -4-
plan would be developed concurrently with the preparation of an EIR for
alternative improvements to the bridges. A plan would be developed to tie
phasing and funding of alternative improvements to specific milestones (e.g.,
traffic counts) in each city similar to the Foothill Circulation Phasing Plan
and John Wayne Airport mitigations.
OPTION 1
Retain Garfield Avenue/Gisler Street and Banning Avenue/19th Street bridges
on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways.
This option provides a balanced land use and circulation system between the
four city area. The Cooperative Study identified this as the least costly
and most effective solution for meeting existing and future transportation
demands. This alternative does not take into account the strong objections
by Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa city councils and communities.
OPTION 2 - ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOl4SENDATION
Initiate an Environmental Impact Report to evaluate the viability of the
Garfield Avenue/Gisler Street and Banning Avenue/19th Street MPAH bridge
connections over the Santa Ana River and alternatives to these bridge
connections within an expeditious time frame.
This option recognizes city and community support for deletion of the bridges
and the need to evaluate alternative transportation improvements. The
recommendation focuses responsibility for solving highway deficiencies within
cities on the County Environmental Management Agency. This presents a
difficult dilemma since the county does not have authority to implement
improvements in city and state jurisdictions.
OPTION 3 - EHA RECOMMENDATION
Direct EMA to participate in a cooperative process to prepare an
Environmental Impact Report to modify the MPAH vith a plan of alternative
highway improvements to the Garfield Avenue/Gisler Street and Banning
Avenue/19th Street bridge crossings.
This recommendation recognizes that cities and Caltrans play an important
role in planning and implementing highway improvements within their
jurisdictions. It' also recognizes the widespread support for deletion of the
bridges, yet the fact that deletion of the bridges may create long term
i traffic impacts which must be mitigated through alternative highway
I improvements. The alternative improvements will only be viable if the local
agencies commit to implementation in a manner that is tied to future traffic
needs.
1
CRQA COMPLIANCE
The SAR% Cooperative Study is a feasibility study consisting of two
components, the Technical and Draft Final Report and the Environmental
Baseline Study, therefore it is statutorily exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA, "Feasibility and Planning
Studies."
07-'03/96 15:31 TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR i 93741573 10.491 p006
M
AGMA TM
TEWSHMAL -5-
RECOMMMDED ACTIONS (continued)
3. Direct EKA to report back to the Board of Supervisors within 90 days with
a status report on the cooperative process.
4. Direct EMA to provide monthly written status reports to Board offices,
cities and community groups.
ATTACHMENTS (Continued)
C. EMA Report to the Planning Commission
D. Planning Commission Minutes
E. Draft Board Resolution
Exhibit
I. Location Map
i
4
i
i •
4
� I RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
December 7 , 1993
On motion of Supervisor Wieder, duly seconded and carried, the
A following Resolution was adopted:
" WHEREAS , by Agenda Item Transmittal for Board meeting this date,
the Director , EMA, submitted a report and recommendations resulting
t � from the Santa Ana River Crossings ( SARX) Cooperative Study;
1' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board hereby:
[ ; 1 . Receives and directs the Clerk to file the SARX Cooperative
• [ s + Study and Environmental Baseline Study.
W "
2 . Initiates an amendment to the Master Plan of Arterial
' nv
Highways ( MPA11 ) 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,
1A and state process ;
2 3 . Initiates a transportation element amendment to delete
21 Atlanta Avenue/Wilson Street bridge crossing from the MPAH and
22 downgrade East 19th Street/Dover Drive in accordance with the
� cooperative study .
1.1 4 . Directs EMA to report back to this Board within ninety days
ZS
with a status report on the cooperative process .
"6 S . Directs EMA to provide monthly written status reports to 2-Board offices , cities and community groups .
2,9 Resolution No . 93- 1361
Public 11-aring -- Santa Ana River
Crossings Coorp—erative Study
JRGep 1 .
1
Chairman of the goard of Supervisors
t
1 SIGNED AND CERTIFIED THAT A COPY
OF THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DELIVERED
5 TO THE CUAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
��� Lycc
PHYLLIS A. H ENDERSON
Clerkfbf the Board of Supervisors
R Orange County, California
AYES: SUPERVISORS HARRIETT M. WIEDER,THOMAS F. RILEY AND ROGER
IB R. STANTON
} 1 � NOES: SUPERVISORS NONE
ABSENT: SUPERVISORS GADDI H . VASQUEZ AND WILLIAti G. STEINER
13 ,
t STATE Of CALIFORNIA
} ss .
_ COU14TY OF ORANGE }
t
I , PHYLLIS A. HENDERSON, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of
It' Orange County, California , hereby certify that the above and
foregoing Resolution Was duly and regularly adopted by the said Board
Ir at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of December, 1993,
and passed by a unanimous vote of said Board members present.
]8
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this
7th day of December, 1993 .
,n
PHY16LIS A. HENDERS014
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of
Orange County, California
4 ,
s
5 i
i
` 4
z.
i •
•
DRAFT
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
FOR
THE PREPARATION OF AN EIR
FOR
SANTA ANA RIVER CROSSINGS COOPERATIVE STUDY
I. INTRODUCTION
Lead Agency desires to engage the services of a firm or joint venture of
firms to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)/Environmental Impact
Statement (NIS) for the Santa :,na River Crossings Cooperative Study Phase
II in central Orange County.
Using the specific requirements of the attached Scopes of work (Attachments
A and B) , the firm should detail its methodology, level of detail and
qualifications for performing each task along with the approximate time and
percentage of total cost allocated to each task.
The submitted proposals will be initialler reviewed by a screening committee
consisting of a subcommittee of the Technical Advisory Group (TAG)
overseeing the SARX II study process. A slate of firms will be presented
to the Lead Agency, which will make the final award. Selection will be
based primarily upon: (1) the firm' s experience; (2) qualifications of the
project manager, principal (s) and assigned personnel; (3) comprehensives
and relevance of the firm' s capabilities to the work tasks and products set
forth in the scope of work; and (4) demonstrated ability to produce a
timely and high quality product.
The primary objective of "his project is to provide an environmental
analysis of the project consistent with CEQA requirements. The public and
all cities, districts and government agencies which will affect or be
affected by the project will be included in the planning process.
As part of the environmental process, up to four (4) public scoping
meetings will be necessary to introduce the public to the proposed project.
The purpose of the public meetings is to ensure that all relevant concerns
are identified and addressed in the EIR process. Additional meetings with
the SARX II Technical Advisory Group (TAG) , as well as presentations before
City Planning Commissions, City Traffic Committee/Commission, City
Councils, the Orange County Planning Commission, and the Orange County
Board of Supervisors will be required.
i
_1_
RFP: SANTA ANA RIVEOIZOSSINGS EIR •
Page 2
II. BACKGROUND
Location, Description and Purpose
The Santa Ana River Crossings (SARX) Phase II Cooperative Study area is
bounded by warner Avenue to the north, Bristol Street and Upper Newport
Bayto the east, Beach Blvd, to the west and Pacific Coast Highway to the
south. Potential bridge crossings are located between the I-405 Freeway
and Pacific Coast Highway. Affected agencies and jurisdictions within the
study area include the cities of Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Huntington
Beach and Newport Beach, the County of Orange, and Caltrans.
The Santa Ana River Crossings (SARX) Phase II is a coordinated effort
between the County, Caltrans, and the cities of Costa Mesa, Fountain
Valley, Huntington Beach and Newport Beach to develop a plan of alternative
highway improvements which would allow consideration of deleting the
Banning Avenue/19th Street and Garfield avenue/Gisler Street bridge
crossings over the Santa Ana River from the County Master Plan of Arterial
Highways (MPAH) .
On December 2, 1991, the City of Costa Mesa requested that the County
conduct a traffic study to analyze the feasibility of deleting currently
planned Banning Avenue/19th Street and Garfield Avenue/Gisler Street frcm
the County' s MPAH. The County, in response to the City' s request,
• completed the Santa Ana River Crossing Cooperative Study (SARX) Phase I
authorized by the Board of Supervisor's on June 30, 1992 .
In SARX I, a composite traffic model was developed, consisting of data from
each participating city' s individual traffic model and general plan, to
evaluate different alternatives to the current County Master Plan of
Arterial Highways (MPAH) .
At the conclusion of SARX I, due to the local community concern, the County
Board of Supervisors directed the County to work with the effected cities
and Caltrans to develop an alternative plan of arterial highway
improvements which would provide for a balanced land use/circulation system
in to area in lieu of the proposed river crossings.
Purpose
The purpose of SARX II is to evaluate all reasonable alternatives and
recommend transportation improvements and modifications to the MPAH which
would allow consideration of deleting the Banning Avenue/19th Street and
Garfield Avenue/Gisler Street bridge crossings over the Santa Ana River
under currently adopted land use plans.
s
RFP: SANTA ANA RIVER CROSSINGS EIR
Page 3
III. SUBMIT"T'AL OF PROPOSALS
A. Forma
Firms desiring to respond shall submit proposals in sufficient detail
to allow for a thorough evaluation and comparative analysis. The
proposals will not be judged by the volume of material presented and
therefore should be as brief and concise as possible without
sacrificing the clarity of the intended concept. Proposals should not
exceed 50 pages in length exclusive of appendix materials (e.g. ,
resumes) and shall use the attached standardized format. Proposals
containing irrelevant material or an overabundance of vague language
may be penalized in the screening process. The statements should
include as a minimum, the following information in sectionalized
format:
1. Introduction - Present an introduction to the proposal indicating
your understanding of the proposed project. If this is a joint
venture, indicate who will be the prime contractor. List all
subcontractors, if any.
2. Qualifications - Discuss the overall capabilities of the
organization(s) . include a brief description of the firm' s
history, recent experience, organizational structure and key
performing employees top level management. Similar information
should be provided for each joint venture participant and all
subcontractors, if any, along with the approximate percentage of
their contribution.
The EIR preparation firs shall be the lead consultant and shall be
responsible for product delivery, project management for
subcontractor tasks, and scheduling and public participation
program.
3 . Personnel - Identify the person to he designated project manager
and a detailed summary of his or her background. The project
manager shall be expected to be available on all occasions for
discussion with the head Agency staff and TAG or public
presentations.
Submit an organizational chart showing the name of the project
manager, other key personnel, and all supporting staff assigned to
the project. A brief resume for each key person on the chart
highlighting special qualifications relevant to their performance
of each task must be included. The specific responsibilities of
the project manager and other key personnel must be detailed along
with the anticipated total effort, expressed in percentages of
person-hours, to be provided by each member of the supporting
professional staff. No changes in key personnel shall be allowed
without prior approval of the Lead Agency.
RFP: SANTA ANA RTVERIROSSINGS EIR •
Page 4
4. Scope of Work - Present your response to the Scope of Work, concept
for conducting the work program and the interrelationship of all
products, including the depth and scope of analysis or research
proposed.
5 . The Cost Proposal - Four (4) copies of a Cost Proposal must be
separately_ bound and packaged. The Cost Proposal shall break down
the various elements of cost for the project into appropriate
categories on the attached form. In addition to submitting the
cost form, the offeror shall identify, in a separate exhibit, the
number of technical/professional hours (project manager and key
personnel) for each work task.
5 . Schedule - Present a comprehensive schedule to reflect the time
frame or period for completing the EIR in a manner consistent with
the attached Sccpe of Work. Specific milestones which are
sequentially interdependent should be clearly identified. Gant
chart is required.
7. References - List three (3) former clients for whom similar or
comparable services have been performed. Include the name, along
with the mailing address and telephone number of their principal
representatives.
B. Procedures
1. Pre proposal conference - 'A pre-proposal conference will be held on
1995 at at
. The purpose of the
meeting is to enable all prospective contractors to clarify
additional details considered pertinent for their evaluation prior
to the proposal submittal date. Attendance at this meeting_is
mandatory for prime and traffic consultant for any firm olan�n_,ng to
submit a proposal.
2 . Fifteen (15) copies of the statements must be submitted and
received by 4:00 p.m, on 1995. Statements will
not be accepted after this deadline. Hand-deliver or mail
proposals to:
(Insert address. )
Questions regarding this Request for Proposal should be directed to
at (714) -
3 . Lead Agency shall provide the following background material to the
consultant:
RFP; SANTA ANA RIVEROOSSINGS EIR •
Page 5
C. General Information
1. This Request for Proposal does not commit the Lead Agency to pay
any costs incurred in the preparation of a response or to procure
or contract for services or supplies. The Lead Agency reserves the
right to accept or reject, or to modify or cancel in part or in its
entirety, this Request for Proposal.
2 . All Model data, documents and other products used or developed
during the study will remain in the public domain upon completion
of the project. similarly, all responses to this Request for
Proposal shall become the property of the Lead Agency and will be
retained or disposed of accordingly.
3 . The method of payment upon negotiation of an A/E Agreement shall be
no more than once monthly and will be based upon satisfactory
progress and the submission of a request for reimbursement. Ten
percent of the accumulated billing will be retained by the Lead
Agency until the final products have been approved and accepted.
4 . The A/E Agreement will specify a starting date upon agreement of
all terms, and will include a termination clause based upon
substandard performance or preference of the Lead Agency.
5 . The Lead Agency is an Affirmative Action Employer. Consultants may
be required to submit copies of their Affirmative Action Programs.
6. Responses to this Request for Proposal shall be made in recognition
of and in conformance with terms 1-5 above.
7 . The cost of the SIR shall not exceed $
S. The consultant shall work closely with the mead Agency and TAG to
obtain specific information on the required format and content of
an environmental document. Among responsibilities to be assumed by
the consultant are the following:
a. The consultant shall keep the Lead Agency informed of potential
scope changes during coordination activities with the lead
agency. Approval must be given by the Lead Agency and TAG
prior to the consultant performing additional tasks beyond the
project scope.
b. The preliminary project development engineering, and
environmental documents shall be prepared in accordance with
state, county and city regulations, policies, procedures,
manuals, and standards. The consultant will be responsible for
providing the necessary environmental documentation for project
approval and environmental clearance under state procedures.
RFP: SANTA ANA RIVER CROSSINGS EIR
Pane 6
C. The consultant will have total responsibility for the accuracy
and completeness of all documents, plans and related designs
prepared for this project and shall check all such material
accordingly. The responsibility for accuracy and completeness
of such items will be solely that of the consultant.
d. Documents furnished by the consultant shall be of a quality
acceptable to lead agency and the Lead Agency project manager.
The criteria for acceptance shall be a product of neat
appearance, well-organized, technically and grammatically
correct, proofed and well documented. All information used in
the documents shall be referenced and included in the Technical
Appendices. Furthermore, all assumptions including those used
in calculations shall be described.
e. The consultant shall coordinate with the Lead Agency in
establishing direct contact with governmental regulatory and
resource agencies for the purpose of obtaining information,
expsr_is.e and assistance in developing baseline data and
resource inventories. 'These include, but are not limited to:
the cities of Costa Mesa, Fountain valley, Huntington Beach,
and Newport Beach, Caltrans, Southern California Association of
Governments (SLAG) , South Coast A;r Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) , and the Army Corps of Engineers.
f. The consultant will maintain a complete record of all such
contacts and will transmit copies of the contacts and records
promptly to the Lead Agency on a regular basis. The Lead
Agency and TAG will participate in and/or provide prior
approval for any and all inter-agency T^.eetings to discuss or
develop project mitigation proposals.
IV. SELECTION OF CONSULTANT(S)
A. Written Proposals
The proposals received as a result of this invitation will be screened
by a subcommittee of the TAG overseeing the SARX II study process.
Proposals will be rank ordered based on scores awarded by the
evaluation committee.
B. Oral interview
Oral interviews will be conducted with a maximum of five (5) top ranked
firms based upon scores received from the evaluation of the written
RFP: SANTA ANA RIVEROSSINGS EIR
Page 7
technical proposals. The firms will be notified in advance of the time
and place of the oral interview. Firms will also be notified of
additional information, if any, to be submitted at the oral interview.
Failure to appear at the interview will be considered non-responsive
and the firm will be eliminated from any further consideration. A
representative of the firm should be available by phone to discuss any
additional questions the selection committee may have.
C. Final Selection
Based upon a detailed review of the proposals and the oral interviews,
the three (3) proposals considered to offer the best potential will be
referred to the Lead Agency for final selection. Final selection of
the A/E consultant will be by the Lead Agency.
r
DRAFT
ATTACHMENT A
SCOPE OF WORK
FOR
SANTA ANA RIVER CROSSINGS COOPERATIVE STUDY EIR
I. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
A_ The consultant shall perform research and analysis for each of the
environmental topics listed below; research and analysis shall include,
but not be limited to the review of previous studies and environmental
documentation.
B. The consultant shall prepare a complete Draft EIR which analyzes,
describes, and evaluates all potential environmental impacts of the
proposed project at a General Plan level of analysis. The six (6)
principal alternatives are to be analyzed in equal detail in the Draft
EIR. Areas to receive particular emphasis incl%:de:
1. and Use and Relevant Planning: Impacts on existing and planned land use
resulting from implementation of the project and proposed
alternatives will be analyzed.
2 . Population and Hous_M: Impacts on existing and planned population
and housing projections resulting from implementation of the
project and proposed alternatives will be analyzed.
3 . Gec;.hvsical : Impacts of the project and its alternatives resulting
in or exposing people tc local fault rupture, seismicity, seismic,
landslides or mudslides, erosion, subsidence of land, expansive
soils, or unique geologic or physical features.
a . Water: Review and evaluation of the short-term and long-term
impacts of the proposed project and alternatives on hydrology must
be accomplished thereby quantifying the proposed project's and
alternatives impacts on water quality, drainage patterns, flooding,
surface water, and sedimentation.
5. Transoortation, Circulation and Traffic Study: impacts cn local
and regional transportation and circulation systems resulting from
implementation of the project and proposed alternatives will be
analyzed in order to insure maintaining balanced circulation system
(See Attachment. B) _
-1-
SOW: SARX II EIR •
Page 2
6. Air 4uality: An analysis of the impacts of the project and
proposed project alternatives on air quality will be included in
the EIR.
7. Noise: An acoustical analysis will be required to address noise
impacts on existing residences and businesses in the project area
resulting from the project and etch proposed alternatives under
consideration.
S. Biological Resources: The impacts resulting from implementation of
the project and proposed alternatives on flora and fauna habitat in
the project vicinity will be evaluated.
9. Aesthetics: The impacts resulting from implementation of the
project and proposed alternatives on aesthetics in the project
vicinity will be evaluated.
10. Cultural/Scientific_Resources: The impacts resulting from
implementation of the project and proposed alternatives on
cultural/scientific resources will be evaluated.
11. Recreation: The impacts resulting from implementation of the
project and proposed alternatives on park facilities and bike
trails in the project area will be evaluated.
12.. Enema and Mineral Resources: The impacts resulting from
implementation of the project and proposed alternatives on energy
and mineral resources in the project area will be evaluated.
13 . Hazards : The exposure of hazards resulting from implementation of
the project and proposed alternatives in the project area will be
evaluated.
14 . Public Services: Impacts on existing and planned public services
resulting from implementation of each proposed alternative will be
analyzed.
15. Utilities and Servi e Systems: Impacts on existing and planned
utilities (such as electric power, water and gas) resulting from
implementation of each proposed alternative will be analyzed.
C. Proiect
The project will examine the deletion of Garfield Avenue/Gisler Street
and Banning Avenue/19th Street bridge crossings from the Master Plan of
Arterial Highways (MPAH) [Exhibit A] .
SOW: SARX II EIR
' Page 3
t D. No Project
The No Project Alternative would be the construction of the Garfield
Avenue/Gisler Street and Banning Avenue/19th Street bridge crossings in
accordance with the existing MPAH (Exhibit B) .
E. Alternatives
1. Primary Alternatives: The Project Description and Analysis
Sections of the EIR will contain 6 equal project alternatives which
will be analyzed. The primary alternatives are described as
follows:
a. Garfield Avenue/Gisler Street Component (no Banning/19th
Street)
1. Construct Garfield Avenue/Gisler Street bridge crossing
only (Exhibit C) . -
10
2. The connection of Garfield Avenue to SR-57 and/or I-405
(Exhibit D) .
3. The connection of Ellis to southbound I-405 (Exhibit E) .
b. Banning Avenue/19th Street Component (no Garfield/Gisler)
1. Construct Banning Avenue/19th Street bridge. No through
movements onto Banning Avenue. Delete Banning Avenue
(Brookhurst to Magnolia) from the MPAH (Exhibit F) .
2. The extension of 17th Street to Brookhurst Street via Bluff
Road. No through movements onto Banning Avenue. Delete
Banning Avenue (Brookhurst to Magnolia) and 19th Street
(Placentia to Bluff Road) from the MPAH (Exhibit H) .
c. No Banning Avenue/19th Street; No Garfield Avenue/Gisler
Street; No Bluff Road (Exhibit G)
This alternative will evaluate the Master Plan of Arterial
Highways (MPAH) without the Banning Avenue/19th Street and
Garfield Avenue/Gisler Street bridge crossings and without the
Bluff Road connection.
2. Other: Alternatives considered and reasons for their rejection
(Attachment D) .
t, NOTE: Transportation/Circulation and Traffic analysis should follow the
attched scope of work.
SOW: SARX II EIR
Page 4
F. Procedures to be Followed
The selected consultant shall furnish all necessary personnel,
equipment, materials and transportation to perform work described
herein in a professional and timely manner.
1. Meetings
The consultant project manager will be responsible for
attending Technical Advisory Group (TAG) meetings. The TAG
will meet monthly and will consist of staff from the OCEMA,
representatives from the cities of Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley,
Huntington Beach and Newport Beach, and public representatives.
Each meeting shall involve a review of the-project status,
schedule, and other relevant issues.
The consultant shall serve as staff to the TAG, providing
discussion materials as well as writing and distributing
minutes. In addition, the consultant is responsible for
attending and presenting report material at public workshops,
public scoping meetings, transportation commission/committee
meetings, city planning commission and council meetings, Orange
County Planning Commission public hearings, and Orange County
Board of Supervisors public hearing. The number of meetings
are described in Section II.
Furthermore, the consultant shall assist the Lead Agency in
preparing for public meetings. This will include providing
technical information, exhibits, documentation of public
meetings, scheduling, and assistance in preparation and
placement of public notices. The Lead Agency and TAG will
review and approve all material prepared by the consultant for
these meetings.
2. Preliminary Activities
a. Notice of Preparation. The consultant shall prepare a
draft "Notice of Preparation" (NOP) as required for
implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) guidelines. This effort shall include establishing
the distribution list for this notice, including a mailing
to the residents and businesses located in the project
area. The consultant will be responsible for updating and
maintaining a comprehensive mailing list of affected
property owners and occupants. This notice shall be
prepared for the Lead Agency and be identified as a
document generated by the Lead Agency and not by the
consultant. The Lead Agency will issue the Notice of
Preparation.
SOW: SARX II EIR
Page 5
•
b. Scoping. Scoping is the process for determining the issues
to be addressed and for identifying significant issues to
be analyzed in depth in the environmental document. The
consultant shah consult and coordinate with all
cooperating/responsible agencies and other agencies/parties
affected by the project. The consultant will arrange for,
and participate in, formal scoping meetings.
The consultant will be responsible for developing a scoping
meeting report, including all tasks associated with the
Scoping process from inception to completion of this
project.
The consultant -dill be expected to coordinate extensively
with related projects either completed or currently
underway in the cities and unincorporated area in the
project study area. The various projects :rust be
researched and, where possible, the E,IR must reference each
environmental document.
This project will include extensive coordination between
the consultant and the participating agencies. Significant
effort will be dedicated to a public participation program
which includes the scoping meeting, planning commission and
city council meetings and Board of Supervisors public
hearings. The consultant will be instrumental in this
process and therefore strong interpersonal skills, as well
as experience in public meetings, is essential in the
project team.
G. Technical Reports
The consultant shall prepare the following technical studies as
background material for preparation of the environmental document.
Basic findings will be summarized in the appropriate section of the
environmental document. Each study shall be prepared and submitted
to the Lead Agency for at least one round of review and approval
prior to final acceptance and inclusion in the draft environmental
document. The consultant shall coordinate with the Lead Agency and
TAG in determining the specific content and format requirements for
these studies.
1. Geotechnical Report. This report shall focus on the geology
and seismicity of the project area, noting geological features
that would affect or be affected by the project- and
alternatives.
2. Air Quality Analysis and Impact Report. The Lead Agency will
provide automotive emission factors for use in this analysis.
Consultant shall use CEQA guidelines and AQMD standards to
determine the adequate level of analysis needed.
SOW: SARX II EIR • •
Page 6
3. Noise Impact Report. The Noise Impact Report will use data
collected by the consultant. The report shall address the
impact of any increases in noise levels from ambient levels to
properties adjoining the arterial highways. All analysis
should be in accordance with Lead Agency standards and should
be compatible with the noise ordinance of the city and or
county with jurisdiction over that particular section of
roadway.
4 . Flood Plain/Location Hydraulic Study. A Flood Plain/Location
Hydraulic Study shall be prepared by the consultant.
5. Biological Survey Report . The consultant shall prepare a
Biological Survey report to identify and assess impacts on
sensitive biological resources.
6 . Transportation, Circulation and Traffic. The report shall
address the impacts of the project and alternatives upon
traffic circulation in the project area in order to insure
balanced circulation system. (See Scope of work for the
Circulation Study, Attachment B)
7. Other Reports. Other technical reports the consultant shall be
responsible to develop include, but may not be limited to, an
analysis of safety, hazardous wastes, land uses and a visual
analysis.
H. Draft Findings
Upon completion of the Draft EIR, or shortly thereafter as
determined by the Lead Agency, the consultant shall submit a
detailed set of proposed Findings for the Draft EIR. The Findings
shall be prepared in accordance with the provisions of Sections
15091 and IS093 in the CEQA Guidelines and in a form specified by
the Lead Agency.
I. Resnonse to Comments Document
Upon completion of all Agency and public review within the
prescribed time period, all comments will be responded to by
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.
J. Mitigation Measure Monitoring and Reporting Plan
The consultant should prepare a comprehensive mitigation measure
monitoring and reporting plan and costs of mitigation measures for
each alternative for the proposed project. This plan should meet
SOW: SARX II EIR
Page 7
the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and
should utilize the Lead Agency format for monitoring programs.
II. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM AND REQUIRED PRESENTATIONS
The study will require a public participation program designed to
inform public on the project status and receive their input. The
consultant will be responsible for developing a public participation
program which should include, at a minimum, the following components:
1 . A schedule of project activities
2 . An information flyer mailed to all the owners of properties
affected by the project (Cost of the development and postage of
these flyers is the Consultant's responsibility) . The LEAD AGENCY
and the TAG should review and approve the flyer and the mailing
list prior to mailing.
3 . A large scale mosaic aerial photo :nap appropriate for public
presentations.
4 . Public presentation (Video taping of all presentations are
required)
The study will require extensive coordination with the participating
cities. The consultant will participate in a number of meetings and
presentations. These meetings and presentations are summarized below:
Eight (8) Scoping meetings/workshops
Three (3) Traffic Commission
:'en (10) Planning Commission
- Four (4) City Council meetings
Two (2) Board of supervisor meetings
The number of meetings are approximate and subject to change according to
community and city interest.
SOW: SARX II EIR • f
Page 8
. III. PROJECT DELIVERABLES
A. Exhibits, Reports and videotaping
Exhibits should be viewed as an integral part of the EIR and utilized
wherever possible to describe information in the EIR. The consultant
will be required to verify and defend that all information submitted as
services rendered is accurate and current. Furthermore, the consultant
will be required to document the source(s) of all compiled information.
All exhibits within the EIR must be photo-intensity reduced for clarity
between existing conditions and proposed improvements. All public
meetings shall be videotaped.
All information generated as part of the consultant' s or
sub-consultant's work shall become part of the Lead Agency's public
record on the project. Technical Reports should be included as part of
the Appendix to the EIR and should be made available at the time the
Draft EIR is submitted.
B. Printing Recruirements
:he A/E shall deliver:
- Seventy five (75) copies of the preliminary Screencheck EIR with
Apperdi ces.
Seventy five (75) copies of the Screencheck EIR with Appendices.
- Seventy five (75) copies of the preliminary Draft EIR.
- Seventy five (75) cop=es of the Draft EIR.
- Two hundered (200) copies of the. Draft EIR Appendices.
- One (1) reproducible master of the Draft EIR and Appendices, if
necessary.
One (1) set of camera-ready, colored originals/artwork and any
photomechanical film negatives used in connection with production
of the EIR, as well as any special exhibits used in connection with
public presentations.
- Twenty five (25) copies of the Response to Comments document
cross-referenced to the Draft EIR.
- Twenty five (25) copies of the Mitigation Monitoring Program.
- One (1) reproducible master of the Final EIR, including revisions
to the EIR as a result of comments/hearings.
- additional copies to each participating jurisdiction as needed.
SOW: SARX II EIR • •
Page 9
C. Acceptability of Products
All products will be submitted throughout the period of
performance. At each submittal date, the Lead Agency's, Project
Manager, participating jurisdictions, and TAG, if necessary, will
review the product to ensure that it meets the terms of the
contract and scope of work. If the product is unacceptable, the
consultant will be advised not to proceed with the next phase of
the contract until the product is determined "acceptable. ,,
D. Progress_Reports
The project consultant shall provide a monthly progress report to
the Lead Agency' s project manager that includes:
1. A summary of worst completed during the previous month;
2 . Discussion of any significant problems encountered;
3 . Total effort expended by task broken dcwn into hours spent at
each staff level; and
4 . Percent of project completion by task.
PROJECT SCHEDULE, AND MILESTONES
The actual written work on the EIR will be completed within _ months after
the effective' date of contract. The consultant shall, within calendar
days of the effective date of the contract, provide the Lead Agency with a
Screencheck EIR. To the extent possible, the Screencheck E'IR shall contain
all exhibits, tables and information pertinent to the environmental
documentation for the project. The consultant (s) shall, within fifteen
(15) calendar days after the Lead Agency's and TAG's approval of the Draft
EIR for renroducticn, deliver the required number of copies to the Lead
Agency.
Within fifteen (15) calendar days after receipt by consultant of all
comments received by the Lead agency on the Draft EIR, consultant shall
deliver to the Lead Agency the required number of the copies of Response to
Comments on Draft EIR and a completed photo-ready of all comments and
consultant's responses thereto.
The consultant shall plan work in accordance with the project schedule
(Figure 1) .
FIGURE 1
PROPOSED SANTA ANA RIVER CROSSINGS EIR SCHEDULED
Lead Agency selects A/E
Lead Agency Issues Consultant Notice-:o-Proceed
Lead Agency and Cities provide deliverables to Consultant
• 1st Submittal :
- Environmental Checklist
- Detailed Study Plan
- Area of Potential Impact Map
Notice of Preparation (NOP) issued
Scopirg Meetings
Closing Date for NOP Responses
• 2nd Subrr.�ttal : Screencheck EIR/Draft EIR
Review by the Lead Agency and TAG
• 3rd Submittal : Preliminary Draft EIR
Review by the Lead Agency and TAG
° 4th Submittal : Draft EIR
Reviewed by the Lead Agency and TAG
Consultant receives approval to circulate
Draft EIR Circulated
Closing date for comments (circulate 90 days)
Presentations - City Planning Commissions Councils, Transportation
Committee/Commissions, County Planning Commission
0 5th Submittal :
- Record of Public Meetings
- Draft Response to Comments Document
- Draft Final Documents
Review/Approval by Lead Agency staff and TAG
• 6th Submittal: Final Approval Documents
Lead Agency Council/Board
Lead Agency Approval, Notice of Determination
i
•
ATTACHMENT H
DRAFT
SCOPE OF WORK
FOR
SANTA ANA RIVER CROSSINGS
PHASE II
TRANSPORTATION, CIRCULATION AND TRAFFIC STUDY
BACKGROUND: The Santa Ana River Crossings (SARX) Phase II is a coordinated
effort between the County, Caltrans, and the Cities of Costa Mesa, Fountain
Valley, Huntington Beach and Newport Beach to develop a plan of alternative
highway improvements which would allow consideration of deleting the
Banning/19th Street and Garfield/Gisler Street bridge crossings over the Santa
Ana River from the County Master Plan of arterial highways (MPAH) .
On December 2, 1991, the city of Costa Mesa requested that the County conduct
a traffic study to analyze the feasibility of deleting currently planned
Banning/19th Street and Garfield/Gisler Street from the County's MPAH. The
County, in response to the City's request, Completed the Santa Ana River
Crossing Cooperative Study (SARX) Phase I authorized by the Board of
Supervisor' s on June 30, 1992 .
IN SARX I, a composite traffic model was developed, consisting of data from
each participating city's individual traffic model and general plan, to
evaluate different alternatives to the current MPAH.
At the conclusion of SARX I, due to the local community concern, the County
Board of Supervisors directed the County to work with the affected cities and
Caltrans to develop an alternative plan of arterial highway improvements which
would provide for a balanced land ::se/circulation system in the area in lieu
of proposed river crossings.
subsequently, a technical advisory group (TAG) composed of members from each
participating city, county staff and citizens was formed to oversee the SARX
cooperative study process.
STUDY PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the SARX II traffic study is to
evaluate all reasonable alternatives and recommend transportation
improvements, modifications to the MPAH and funding responsibilities which
would allow consideration of deleting the Banning/19th Street and
Garfield/Gisler Street bridge crossings over the Santa Ana River under
currently adopted land use plans.
To achieve this purpose, the objectives of SARX Il cooperative study are:
° Identify improvements to provide acceptable peak hour level of service
(mid-block Level-of-Service D, and an intersection Level-of-Service D) for
existing and buildout conditions (P2010) .
1
. SOW: Transportation, Orculation and Traffic •
Page 2
c Identify the necessary right-of-way required for all alternatives and
proposed mitigations.
Develop cost estimate and phasing plans for the recommended improvements.
° Provide a technical basis for amending the County's and the Cities'
General Plan Circulation Elements.
STUDY ORGANIZATION AND SCHEDULE: The selected consultant will work under
the general direction of the LEAD AGENCY. A Technical Advisory Group (TAG)
composed of members from County, participating cities' staff, Caltrans and
citizens will oversee the study process. A subcommittee of the TAG will work
closely with the consultant throughout the study. The subcommittee will
require a meeting with the consultant, at a minimum, at the end of each
sub-task.
Time is of the essence. A total of one year is desired for completion of the
study from the issuance of the Notice to Proceed.
WORK PROGRAM: The work program for the SARX II study consists of 5 major
tasks which are outlined below. The SARX Phase I study report and SARX model
will be furnished for reference in the preparation of this study. Data such as
turning movements and ADTs will be collected on an as needed basis.
TASK 1: DEVELOP A COMPOSITE SUBAREA TRAFFIC MODEL THAT ADDRESSES (OTHER MODES
OF TRANSPORTATION PLANNED FOR THE COUNTY
':his task primarily involves development of a subarea model for the SARX II
study.
° Use to OC':AM T-iI Model to develop the composite Subarea Traffic Model
based on TAZ structure, network and land use data of the participating
jurisdictions land uses as identified below:
Costa Mesa - Existing land use element
Huntington Beach - Existing land use element, no
consideration of current amendment (NOTE: The City had its
first hearing on the General Plan update and anticipates its
adoption by July 1995. Therefore, the subcommittee recommends
that the TAG consider using the updated General Plan Land Use
and Circulation elements for this study)
SOW: Transportation, Circulation and Traffic
Page 3
° Fountain Valley - Determine after initial hearing on land use
element amendment (NOTE: The City had its first hearing on
the General Plan update. The City Council's approval of the
General Plan is expected in April 1995. Therefore, the
subcommittee recommends that The newly adopted General Plan
Land Use and Circulation elements be used for this study)
° Newport Beach - Existing land use element, except West
Newport Oil sphere
° County - Alternative scenario for West Newport Oil: 1)
Newport Beach land use plan, sphere of influence. 2) County
open space.
° Validate the model using year 1990
° Reflect the Central Orange County Fixed Guideway Project.
° The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) should be incorporated in
the model by reflecting 1.5 Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR) for
employers of 100 or more employees.
TASK 1 .PRODUCT:
° A composite Subarea Traffic Model
° A Model validation report
° A technical memorandum summarizing the findings of work completed in
this task.
TASK 2: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
This task will use the Model, completed in task 1, to analyze the impacts of
Transportation Improvements outlined in the TAG's revised report No.2
(attached) under existing and buildout conditions (P2010) .
° Analyze the SARX study area and identify deficient links and
intersections.
° Analyze links and intersections where there are measurable impacts due
to the bridge deletion and all alternatives.
° Measurable Impact for an intersection is a change of .01 in
ICU value for intersections that exceed .90
SOW: Transportation, 'Circulation and Traffic
Page 4
Identify intersections with a change of .10 or greater in ICU
value (No mitigation required)
Measurable impact for a link is an increase in Maximum
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) that exceeds Level of Service
(LOS) D (i.e. 67,000 for an eight-lane facility) as
identified in the County Transportation Element Table A-4-2
for specific arterial highways classification (see attached
table)
• Intersection Capacity shall be calculated by the CMP methodology
(Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) ) using 1700 lane capacity and
Sk lost time.
• Link capacity shall be determined by the Highway Capacity manual
methodology referred to as Florida Tables and intersection analysis.
• All alternatives be analyzed with and without Pacific Cost Highway
(PCH) widening.
TASK 2 PRODUCTS:
A report summarizing the impacts of the project and the alternatives
o ,
Exhibits showing deficient intersections and links
o All ICU Calculation work sheets
• All ADT plots
TASK 3 : ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS
This task will also use the Model, completed in task 1, to perform the
following:
° Sensitivity analysis with SR-57 extension (SR-22 to SR-73)
° Sensitivity analysis without SR-55 extension (19th Street to 15th
Street) will be analyzed for all alternatives for which there are
measurable impacts.
° Conduct origin and destination study
. SOW: Transportation, lorculation and Traffic
Page 5
TASK 3 PRODUCTS:
° A technical memorandum summarizing findings of the work completed
° All ADT plots
TASK 4 : IDENTIFY FEASIBLE SYSTEM OF IMPROVEMENTS AND PHASING OF
IMPROVEMENTS FOR EXISTING AND BUILDOUT (P2010) CONDITIONS
Based on the information in tasks 2 and 3, develop an improvement plan
(mitigation measures) which would allow implementation of the project and/or
any alternatives equally.
° The improvement plans should include, but not be limited to:
° widening/restriping roadways to increase number of travel
lanes
° Intersection improvements
° Alternative roadways and/or bridge connections
° Prepare a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) cost estimate for recommended
improvements (mitigation measures) . The cost estimate should also
include the cost of right-of-way acquisitions needed for
implementation of recommended improvements and recommended
mitigation.
° Develop a phasing plan for implementation of recommended improvements
for both existing and P2010 conditions.
TASK 4 PRODUCTS :
° Exhibits showing the location of recommended improvements
° Cost estimates for all recommended improvements
° A report summarizing findings of work completed in this task
TASK 5: DRAFT REPORT AND FINAL REPORT
The Draft Report to be prepared for the study will include the findings and
recommendations developed in all tasks.
SOW: Transportation, Irculation and Traffic
Page 6
The Draft report should be submitted to the LEAD AGENCY and TAG for review and
comment prior to circulation to the public. Comments from TAG should be
incorporated in the draft final report prior to circulation to the public. The
response to comments received from public agencies and other interested
parties will be reviewed by the TAG and incorporated into the Final report
including any appropriate revisions to the Final Report.
TASK 5 PRODUCTS:
o A reproducible master and twenty five (25) copies of the Draft Report
A reproducible master and twenty five '(25) copies of Final Report
A reproducible master and twenty five (25) copies of the Executive
Summary of the Final report
(COMMENT: MEDIA, CD ROM, COMPUTER PRODUCTS, ETC.)
DELIVERABLES:
The consultant will be responsible for delivering the following products for
this study:
Monthly status report to the LEAD AGENCY that will include a summary of
work accomplished in the preceding month, an account of any significant
problems encountered, and a listing of the percent of project ccmpleted
by task.
An original and twenty five (25) copies each, at a minimum, of the
technical memoranda and report are required.
° Cost estimates for all recommended improvements
° One reproducible master and twenty five (25) copies, at a minimum, of
the Draft Report
One reproducible master and twenty five (25) copies, at a minimum, of
the Final Report
One reproducible master and twenty five (25) copies, at a minimum, of
the Executive Summary of the Final Report
All data, maps, ADT plots, ICU calculation work sheets and all other materials
prepared or collected under this contract shall beccme the property of the
LEAD AGENCY.
� SRNTA flNA BIDER
CROSSINbS STUDY
TECHNICHL ADUISURY GROUP
REPORT #2
CDSTH MESA
HUNTiNGiON BfBCN
FDUNTRIN URLLEY
NElllP9RT BEACH
COUNTY OF OHHNGE
September 1994
r - 7r
J']'J
FP Ilk fl�l9 'i; Tr _
No bridges at Garfield Avenue/Gisler Street and Banning Avenue/19th Street (Exhibit A)
• Evaluate widening Ellis, Victoria and Pacific Coast Highway
• Evaluate failing intersections
Construct Garfield Avenue/Gisler Street and Banning Avenue/19th Street in accordance
with existing MPAH (Exhibit H)
A. Garfield/Gisler Component (no Banning/19th Street)
• Construct Garfield Avenue/Gisler Street Bridge (Exhibit c)
Evaluate widening Pacific Coast Highway and Victoria
Evaluate failing intersections
• Connect Garfield Avenue to SA-5-7 and/or 1-405 (Exhibit o)
Evaluate widening Pacific Coast Highway and Victoria
Evaluate failing intersections
• Connect Ellis to southbound 1-405 (Exhibit E)
Evaluate widening Pacific Coast Highway and Victoria
Evaluate failing intersections
B. Banningll9th Street Component (no Garfield/Gisler)
• Construct Banning Avenue/19th Street bridge. No through movements onto Banning
Avenue. Delete Banning Avenue (Brockhurst to Magnolia) from the MPAH (Exhibit F)
Evaluate widening Ellis (and Pacific Coast Hignway?)
Evaluate failing intersections
• Extension of 17th Street to Brockhurst Street via Bluff Road. No through movements
onto Banning Avenue. Delete Banning Avenue ('Brookhurst to Magnolia) and 19th
Street (Placentia to Bluff) from the MPAH (Exhibit H)
Evaluate widening Ellis
Evaluate :`ailing intersections
C. No Banningll9th Street; No Garfield/Gisler; No Bluff Road (Exhibit G)
• Evaluate widening Ellis, Victoria (ana Pacific Coast Highway?)
• Evaluate failing intersections
I
rLOR[li Sr
BRISIOL sr
Kai
tiY I ArrvlLIF _ nt1
N r /
Plkl
Lu
� C
L9 IlAnbort
ILn
xvell t.
\\\\ \ r
oll
If4ftT)R0011fUI1ST s T ~'
_ousllnrlo sr -__ �II�suAno—
u
g
f
G
�.1 a s •�
�.t4
6
YLOREII
o t;
ant ?(OIL ST
e.
Al
rr
rrn x no —Y ,Cr -- — _ rArrvr.or �1 uU_ g
r,
�( � w l S5 in �- '� � •�y�
G O V ;•
1'
p
HTLAHO yY
LA
w v f + _ — LALEM IA_
1
e
\ ra
ILXLID SI t— �' �I LAC.fNfIA _ yet Jr
` r ar`
�^ Y
n.r a
RArlo s•� '��.
OnOOKOIPS1 .._�,�_ .__RR _�...............
y >
�—. .. OUS,IARD _ —sl.._. — rw�ifnno— ---_.. —sf-- 8
SIr (a Irsfcx t
N
.............
...........
-----------------
............
)v wN�
34M
AV
VPyuoauvli
4A
ou M A AMAY I
is
Vel
10
is
Q ti
CC► '1 G o '� iRR
Y
� c1
--- �•--rs --- —�--. ..rnt�rlsr7p- --- —� - ---�5-- ---- nirirlisne F-- -
............
�—� �-�•--`I5� --._�, .�—._.... —s_ -- '� I1r11�o0l1B -
�nLJ
afr
.�qll,
:ff ltilj 'ra1+�.S-fu -i h i
J
.AT MY1lll
UOGuvtt
nu 1►71nuY1 — IW • emri
r C)
Is V39
L '� A •I
_ a
isul
�orsrlre
i;
� � Z
S� is f1�Y011
0 �
� o
s�
COMO
SEt�$'ACu 'Q
°+AV
.L!
AV
atvp
` } SL-,L OwEA AV
l s
SWTW
a
T� �
SaN
�' •I i '�� UFO � :'�'-:VG"v ^4 ��
J
•%},xW'L S � _Y I ?� !Z % a J I °iyyyy .3 j
1 ro
4 N N I4
-V
Exhibit G
0 Mv dm
,ynw w/ice