Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Santa Ana River Bridges - 11/17/97: Building of Bridges Acro
T N � CITY OF HUNTING O BEACH CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION To: Honorable Mayor Pro Tern and City Council Members From: Connie Boardman, Mayor ' = Date: August 6, 2003 Subject: H-ITEM FOR AUGUST 18, 2003, CITY COUNCIL MEETING— SANTA ANA RIVER BRIDGES STATEMENT OF ISSUE: At a Study Session earlier this year, the Council learned of a proposal by the city of Costa Mesa to reach a compromise regarding the removal/retention of the bridges over the Santa Ana River at Banning and Garfield Streets from the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. However, since the City Council of Costa Mesa had not yet acted on this plan, our Council chose not to pursue it. On July 21, 2003, the City Council of Costa Mesa did approve several actions that are included in the back up with this H-item. On August 6, 2003, 1 met with Mr. Ed DeMuelle, the President . of the Southeast Huntington Beach Neighborhood Association and Mr. John Scott to discuss the action of the Costa Mesa City Council. Both expressed support for the city of Huntington Beach to adopt similar measures as Costa Mesa. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the following actions on the proposed Santa Ana River Crossings (SARX) at Garfield and Banning Streets. 1. Once again, convey the city's opposition to the design and construction of the proposed bridges at Garfield and Banning Streets. 2. Request that OCTA Board of Directors certify the SARX Environmental Impact Report 3. In cooperation with OCTA and neighboring cities of Fountain Valley, Newport Beach and Costa Mesa, develop a program to implement the mitigation measures for the no bridges alternative. 4. Adopt mitigation measures identified in the SARX EIR required for the no bridges alternative. 5. Retain the Garfield and Banning bridges on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways at this time, but request that the surrounding jurisdictions not assume the two bridges will be built when considering long term planning studies, developments, and land use assumptions. 6. Request that OCTA upon completion of all feasible mitigations for the no bridges alternative, conduct a follow up study to confirm the deletion of the bridges from the circulation system and to take action to delete the bridges from the MPAH at that time. CB:cf Attachment xc: Ray Silver Connie Brockway Robert Beardsley CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT - MEETING DATE: July 21, 2003 ITEM NUMBER: Costa Mesa's City Council passed this staff recommendation by a 5-0 vote on 7-21. They SUBJECT: SANTA ANA RIVER CROSSINGS STUDY hope to get the 2 year old EIR certified and move forward with a regional traffic plan. DATE: JULY 8, 2003 FROM: PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT-TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DIVISION PRESENTATION BY: W ILLIAM J. MORRIS, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SERVICES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: PETER NAGHAVI, TRANSPORTATION SERVICES MANAGER, 714-754-5182 RECEIVED RECOMMENDATION: AUG 0 1 2003 ON of Hu b t Beach Adopt the following actions on the proposed Santa Ana River Crossings (SAF Wu °Ake Avenue and 19 Street in the City of Costa Mesa: 1. Reiterate and convey the City's opposition to the design and construction of the proposed bridges at Gisler Avenue and at 19t' Street; 2. Adopt mitigation measures identified in the SARX EIR required for the "No Bridges Alternative'; 3. Request the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Board of Directors to certify the SARX Environmental Impact Report (EIR); 4. In cooperation with OCTA and participating jurisdictions, develop a program to implement the mitigation measures for the "no bridges alternative; 5. Retain the Gisler Avenue and 19ffi Street bridges on the OCTA's Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) at this time. Request that the participating jurisdictions not assume that the two bridges will be built when considering long-term planning studies, developments, and land use assumptions; 6. Request OCTA that, upon completion of all feasible mitigations for the "No Bridges" Alternative, a follow-up study be conducted to reconfirm the deletion of the bridges from the circulation system, and to take action to delete the bridges from the MPAH at that time; and 7. Authorize staff to transmit City Council's final recommendation to OCTA and other affected jurisdictions. BACKGROUND: i The OCTA's Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) currently designates two future crossings over the Santa Ana River south of the 1-405 Freeway. These crossings are located at Gisler Avenue/Garfield Avenue within the Cities of Costa Mesa and Fountain Valley and at 19t' Street/Banning Avenue within the Cities of Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach (Attachment 1). The construction of bridges at these locations would impose a significant impact to several residential areas, schools, and parks that are in close proximity. The bridges will, in addition, create significant adverse impacts on the existing 1 e wetlands and biological res.,..rces along the Santa Ana River b— In consideration of these impacts, the City of Costa Mesa in November 1991 requested the County of Orange, who had the jurisdiction on MPAH, to remove these bridges from the MPAH. Based on this request, the City of Costa Mesa, in cooperation with the County of Orange, and the Cities of Fountain Valley, Newport Beach and Huntington Beach, initiated the Santa Ana River Crossings (SARX) study in 1993. Following the completion of this initial study, through a cooperative process, all involved cities adopted resolutions requesting the County to further analyze the possibility of deleting the Gisler Avenue/Garfield Avenue and 19th Street/Banning Avenue bridges from the MPAH. The City of Fountain Valley passed a resolution supporting the initiation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for potential deletion of the bridges. At that same time, the City of Newport Beach requested an EIR to study the impact of the bridge removals and to prepare a plan of alternative circulation system improvements, which would provide equivalent transportation capacity. The Orange County Board of Supervisors approved the initiation of an amendment process for consideration of deletion of the Gisler Avenue/Garfield Avenue and 19th Street/Banning Avenue bridges in their December 7, 1993 meeting. A Technical Advisory Group (TAG) was formed in 1994 to follow up on the County Board of Supervisors' directive. The TAG was comprised of staff representatives from the participating cities, the County of Orange and Caltrans. The TAG developed a list of alternatives to be studied along with a draft scope of work for the required EIR as approved by all involved cities including the City of Fountain Valley. In 1994, OCTA assumed responsibility for administration of the MPAH. Kimley-Horn and Associates was retained in 1998 to perform the required studies to prepare a program level EIR for the SARX Study. The Cities of Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, and Newport Beach, and OCTA contributed $100,000, $15,000, $35,000 and $50,000, respectively, towards the study. OCTA also provided the administrative and technical lead role. The objectives of the EIR are as follows: 1. To protect the residents that reside along Gisler Avenue and 19th Street and the students at Tewinkle Middle School in Costa Mesa from noise, safety, and traffic impacts; 2. To protect the wetlands near the western terminus. of 19th Street and Talbert Park within Costa Mesa; 3. To protect the residents that reside north and south of Banning Avenue in Huntington Beach from noise, safety, and traffic impacts; and 4. To continue to provide a level of mobility within the region commensurate to that of the current Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). Three alternatives were analyzed as part of this project: • Alternative 1, No Project: The No Project alternative would maintain the MPAH at its existing state, retaining both 19th Street/Banning Street as well as Gisler Avenue/Garfield Avenue bridges on the MPAH. • Alternative 2, Bridge Crossings Deletion: This alternative includes the deletion of the Gisler Avenue/Garfield Avenue and Banning Avenue/19th Street bridge crossings over the Santa Ana River from the MPAH. 2 • Alternative 3, A _rnative Bridge Crossings: Th alternative consists of deletion of the existing master planned bridges and construction of two alternative bridge crossings at the following two locations: (a) connect Garfield Avenue at its eastern terminus (on the west side of Santa Ana River) to the southbound 1-405 Freeway and connect the northbound 1-405 Freeway with Garfield Avenue; Gisler Avenue would remain unchanged; and (b) connect 17tn Street in Costa Mesa to Brookhurst Street in Huntington Beach at a point north of Banning Avenue from Bluff Road. ANALYSIS: The SARX study included the generation of horizon year (2020) traffic forecasts for the above three alternatives considered in the Project. The analysis covered over 300 roadway segments and approximately 90 intersections within the Cities of Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach and Newport Beach. The study included analysis for existing conditions as well as future year projections for all three alternatives. The criteria to identify significant impacts at roadway segments and intersections was discussed and approved by all involved agencies. Alternative 1, No Project, was considered as the base alternative to which the other alternatives were compared. Based on the approved criteria, the following was determined: • Alternative 2, Bridge Crossings Deletion — Impacts 8 roadway segments and 10 intersections. • Alternative 3, Alternative Bridge Crossings — Impacts 4 roadway segments and 5 intersections. Mitigation measures were proposed to reduce the level of impact at all significantly impacted locations. These mitigation measures consist of intersection improvements and roadway widenings. Implementation of these measures result in operation of all intersections and roadway segments in the study area at a level similar to or better than the MPAH conditions (No Project Alternative). Attachments 2 and 3 present the impacted locations and intersection improvements required, respectively, for Alternative 2. Attachments 4 and 5 present the impacted locations and intersection improvements required, respectively, for Alternative 3. The draft EIR was circulated for cities' review and public comment on June 22, 2001. There was a 45-day public review period, which ended on August 6, 2001. Four community workshops were held in the Cities of Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach, and Newport Beach during the public review period. Comments from 11 agencies and 545 citizens and/or associations and the respective responses to comments were included in the final EIR dated April 2002. During the entire program EIR process, OCTA staff has maintained that, in order for OCTA's Board of Directors to take action on this EIR, all agencies must agree on a collectively acceptable recommendation. Several meetings were held with technical staff as well as City Managers from all involved cities to discuss the results of this study. In a final meeting on May 28, 2002, the City Managers of the four cities discussed a multi-step plan as suggested by the City of Costa Mesa. The suggested plan includes the following: 3 a. Maintain both bridges on the MPAH at this time; b. Involved jurisdictions shall assume "no bridges at Gisler Avenue/Garfield Avenue and 19th Street/Banning Avenue" when considering land use decisions, review of development impacts and any other traffic and/or environmental studies; C. Adopt a plan to implement all feasible mitigations outlined in the study as a result of the bridge deletions (Alternative 2); and d. Request OCTA to conduct another analysis once all feasible mitigation measures are completed to verify the "bridge deletion" (Alternative 2) findings. Upon the completion of the above steps, and once the feasible mitigation measures are in place and their effectiveness is verified, then OCTA would proceed with the actual deletion of the bridges from the MPAH. Costa Mesa staff considers the above solution as a framework to eventual removal of the bridges from the OCTA MPAH. The solution also attempts to move the process beyond the current deadlock with a meaningful approach to the resolution of the proposed bridges. However, the proposed solution was not acceptable to the Cities of Fountain Valley and Newport Beach. The City of Fountain Valley is in favor of the Gisler Avenue/Garfield Avenue bridge construction and the City of Huntington Beach requested that the bridges be removed immediately. In early December 2002, the City of Costa Mesa sent correspondence to each of the participating cities requesting feedback in terms of their readiness in moving forward with official consideration (Attachment 6). However, there was no final consensus among the participating cities. Meanwhile, the City of Fountain Valley has solicited grant funds from OCTA Combined Transportation Funding Program (CTFP) for preliminary and final design of Gisler Avenue/Garfield Avenue bridge. In opposition to City of Fountain Valley's request for CTFP funds for design of Gisler Avenue/Garfield Avenue bridge, the Costa Mesa City Council passed an urgency Resolution in December 2002. In addition, several letters were sent to OCTA Board of Directors and their staff expressing the City's opposition for any CTFP funds for design of Gisler Avenue/Garfield Avenue bridge. The resolution and letters to OCTA are included in Attachment 7. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: The City Council may elect to not approve staff recommendations and may choose to recommend any or none of the alternatives analyzed for SARX for approval by the OCTA Board of Directors. However, the OCTA staff has stated that if the City Council recommendations are not unanimous among all participating agencies, the OCTA Board may not consider the matter for action. FISCAL REVIEW: The implementation of required mitigation measures for Alternative 2 are estimated to cost approximately $19 million. The cost of constructing the bridges is estimated at $46.5 million. The cost estimates for all alternatives are included in Attachment 8. If the City's proposal were to be adopted by OCTA, the participating agencies will be requested to 4 enter into a partnership tL rtermine ways to implement these t gation measures within a certain time frame. If Alternative 2 is ultimately approved, THE city of Costa Mesa will be expected to commit to its fair share of funding for the mitigation improvements, including those outside the City boundaries. A detailed fiscal review would be conducted and presented to the City Council following the development of the draft implementation plan. Potential sources of funds include Measure M and federal grants. LEGAL REVIEW: Legal review is not required for this item. CONCLUSION: Over the last 12 years, the City dedicated significant amounts of time, effort, and funding towards the proposed deletion of the "Master Planned" arterial roadway crossings of the Santa Ana River, at Gisler Avenue/Garfield Avenue and Banning Street/19 Street Bridges. To this end, a "Program level" Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been completed to identify the necessary mitigations if the "Master Planned" bridges are deleted. The results of the study showed that the improvements are required at some intersections and roadway segments to delete the bridges from the OCTA's MPAH. Staff believes that these required mitigations will result in far less impact to the community, and to the region in general, than the construction of the proposed bridges. Staff from all involved cities met on several occasions to discuss the results of the study and to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution on the future of the proposed bridges. However, to date, no particular alternative has been acceptable to all cities. The City of Huntington Beach favors immediate removal of bridges from the MPAH. The City of Fountain Valley is opposed to this action and has in fact solicited grant funds to initiate preliminary and final design of Gisler Avenue/Garfield Avenue bridge. The removal of 19th Street bridge is opposed by the City of Newport Beach. In consideration of the varying positions of involved cities, staff is proposing a compromise solution. Under this option, OCTA would need to certify the existing programmed EIR through the public hearing process. The cities would agree to maintain both bridges on the MPAH; however, these bridges will not be assumed when considering development studies, or when making land use decisions. The cities should develop a plan for the implementation of all feasible mitigations as outlined in the "No Bridges Alternative," and conduct another study once all mitigations are complete. Once the mitigations were proven effective, the bridges can be removed from the Master Plan. Staff recommends the City Council approval of the above multi-step plan. In addition, staff requests that the City Council reiterate its opposition to the design and construction of either bridge and to direct staff to convey the City Council recommend tions to OCTA and other jurisdictions. 6/ P ____'PETEK NAGHAVI, MANAGER WILL16M J. MORRIS Transportation Services Division Director of Public Services 5 DISTRIBUTION: City Manager Deputy City Clerk Deputy City Manager— Dev. Svcs. Director of Public Services Staff File ATTACHMENTS: 1 Study Area Map Depicting Location of Gisler Avenue/Garfield Avenue 19m Street/Banning Avenue Bridges 2 Alternative 2 (Bridge Crossings Deletion) Traffic 3 Impacts Alternative 2 (Bridge Crossings Deletion) Traffic 4 Mitigations Alternative 3 (Alternative Bridge Crossings) Traffic 5 Impacts Alternative 3 (Alternative Bridge Crossings) Traffic 6 Mitigations 7 Correspondence to Cities 8 Resolution 02-88 and letters to OCTA Board and staff Opinion of Capital Costs File Name Date Time 6 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES FOR SARX STUDY Huntington Beach 1. Restripe southbound Brookhurst to provide two left turn lanes, one shared through/left turn lane and one right turn lane at PCH 2. Brookhurst/Hamilton —add a second southbound left turn lane Newport Beach 1. West Coast Highway/17th Street Extension — provide two left turn lanes and two right turn lanes on the southbound approach. 2. Newport/Hospital —Add a second northbound left turn lane on Newport Boulevard 3. West Coast Highway/Superior—Add a second left turn lane on the westbound approach on West Coast Highway. Costa Mesa 1. Harbor/South Coast Drive— add a westbound left turn lane 2. Superior/17th Street—Add a fourth northbound through lane on Newport Boulevard 3. MacArthur/Hyland — On the northbound approach on Hyland Avenue, provide two left turn lanes and one shared lane for all movements(left/th roug h/rig ht). Fountain Valley 1. Slater/Magnolia— add a westbound right turn lane 2. Slater/Bushard — add a westbound right turn lane and a northbound right turn lane 3. Ellis/1-405 Southbound— provide new entrance ramp 4. Ellis/Ward — Modify northbound approach on Ward Street to provide one left turn lane, one through lane, and on a shared through/right turn lane, and one right turn lane. Santa Ana 1. Harbor/Warner—Add a fourth eastbound through lane on Warner Avenue. Unincorporated Area 1. Talbert over Santa Ana River—widen bridge to 6-lanes - / w Council/Agency Meeting Held: / r i Deferred/Continued to: Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date: February 3, 2003 Department ID Number: PW-03-008 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator6VO PREPARED BY: dQROBERT F. BEARDSLEY, Director of Public Works N) c :._ SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTIONS REGARDING FUTURE SANTA ANA RIVER CROSSINGS QS Statement of Issue,Funding Source, Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis, Environmental Status„•Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: The City has participated in a process to pursue the amendment of the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways to delete bridge crossings of the Santa Ana River at Garfield Avenue and Banning Avenue. Recent activity on the issue, including that of the city of Fountain Valley, prompted the City Council to request consideration of a formal position on the crossings. Funding Source: The recommended actions do not result in the expenditure of funds by the city of Huntington Beach. Recommended Action: Motion to: 1. Adopt Resolution No0003- reaffirming the City's commitment to pursuing the deletion of the Garfield Avenue and Banning Avenue bridges over the Santa Ana River from the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). 2. Adopt Resolution No2603- - 15 opposing the City of Fountain Valley's actions to advance preliminary engineering, environmental studies and final design of the Garfield Avenue bridge. Alternative Action(s): A10, 003- 1. Do not adopt Resolution l� , and retain the City's 1993 position on the deletion of the Garfield Avenue and Banning Avenue bridges from the MPAH. 2. Do not adopt Resolution N , and do not take a formal position on the actions of Fountain Valley regarding the funding of preliminary engineering, environmental studies and final design of the Garfield Avenue bridge. 3. Modify either resolution to reflect the City Council's position on the matter and adopt as appropriate. � c2- REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: February 3, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PW-03-008 Analysis: Background: The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) currently designates two future crossings over the Santa Ana River between the cities of Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley and Newport Beach. These crossings are located at Garfield Avenue/Gisler Avenue and at Banning Avenue/19th Street (Attachment 5). In consideration of potential impacts to adjacent communities, the city of Costa Mesa, in November 1991, requested the County of Orange to remove these bridges from the MPAH. In 1993, the city of Costa Mesa, in cooperation with the County of Orange, and the cities of Huntington Beach, Newport Beach and Fountain Valley initiated a Santa Ana River Crossings "SARX" study. Following the completion of this initial study, all involved cities adopted resolutions requesting the County to analyze the possibility of removing the bridges from the MPAH. The Orange County Board of Supervisors approved the initiation of an amendment process for consideration of deletion of the Garfield Avenue/Gisler Avenue and Banning Avenue/19th Street bridges at its December 7, 1993, meeting. A Technical Advisory Group (TAG) was formed to follow up on the Board of Supervisor's directive. The TAG was comprised of technical staff from the participating cities, the County of Orange and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Additional participants included citizen representatives from the four cities. The TAG developed a list of alternatives to be studied along with a draft scope of work for the required EIR. During this process, OCTA assumed responsibility of the MPAH from the County. City Manager/Administrators and representatives from the four cities met in June 1998 and unanimously recommended that the city of Costa Mesa develop and execute the agreement with the consultant for the EIR process and administer the contract. OCTA's role was to be the lead agency to manage the consultant's technical work for the EIR. On August 17, 1998, the Costa Mesa City Council approved individual cooperative agreements with the participating agencies including OCTA, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley and recognized cost shares of $50,000 from OCTA, $35,000 from Newport Beach, $15,000 from Huntington Beach and $100,000 from Costa Mesa for the study. A contract was then awarded to prepare the program level EIR for the study. The draft EIR was circulated for review by each agency and for public comment in June 2001. Community workshops were held with each of the cities during the review period. Comments from the public and the affected agencies, along with responses were included in the final EIR dated April 2002. GAR C A\2003\03-008 Feb 3 Stachelski (Resolutions for SARCS).doc -2- 1/24/2003 5:15 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: February 3, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PW-03-008 The EIR evaluated three basic alternatives for addressing the bridges: 1. Retain existing crossing designations 2. Delete bridges 3. Alternative bridge alignments/connections Alternative 3 is generally considered an impractical alternative based on the significant cost increases associated with pursing it. Therefore, the primary focus of discussion has been Alternative 2. The EIR identified several significant traffic impacts that would result from deleting the future bridges from the MPAH. Improvements that would be needed to mitigate these significant impacts were also identified and which would make the deletion of the bridges from the MPAH feasible. As a matter of policy, OCTA will only consider the removal of each bridge from the MPAH if all of the agencies affected are unanimously in support of the action. This would require the cities of Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa to agree on the treatment of the Garfield Avenue/Gisler Avenue bridge, and the cities of Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa and Newport Beach to agree to the treatment of the Banning Avenue/19t" Street bridge. OCTA will consider actions on each bridge individually. -The cities of Fountain Valley and Newport Beach have expressed some reluctance to support the outright removal of the two bridges from the MPAH, even with the implementation of the identified mitigation measures. To address its concerns, the city of Costa Mesa presented an alternative action that would place each bridge in a "reserve" status that would allow the planned bridges to be deleted from the MPAH in the future. The reserve status would leave each bridge on the MPAH in a special designation that would require all future transportation planning to assume that the bridges will not be constructed. During that time, the affected cities would commit to completing the identified mitigation measures totaling an estimated $19 million. Following completion of the mitigation measures, the area would be reevaluated to determine the actual effectiveness of the measures and make a final determination of the need for the future bridges. If the criteria established by OCTA were satisfied, then steps would be taken to remove the planned bridges from the MPAH. If the criteria were not satisfied, the bridges would remain on the MPAH. Action: The reserve alternative is not consistent with the position adopted by the City Council in 1993 through Resolution No. 6544 and as stated in the Circulation Element of the General Plan to support "the no bridge scenario", and has not been supported by the city of Huntington Beach staff. Attached is a new resolution for City Council consideration, to provide staff with any change in direction or affirmation of the existing position on this matter. In action directly related to this issue, the city of Fountain Valley recently requested project - level funding for several elements of the Garfield Avenue/Gisler Avenue bridge through GAR C A\2003\03-008 Feb 3 Stachelski (Resolutions for SARCS).doc -3- 1/24/2003 5:18 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: February 3, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PW-03-008 In action directly related to this issue, the city of Fountain Valley recently requested project - level funding for several elements of the Garfield Avenue/Gisler Avenue bridge through programs administered by OCTA. Requests were made for preliminary engineering and environmental studies through the Growth Management Area funding program with funds of $250,000 targeted for FY 2005/06. The Growth Management Area 6 (GMA6) Elected Officials, at their December 10, 2002, meeting, supported these requests. It must be emphasized that the city of Huntington Beach has opposed the City of Fountain Valley's requests for funding at every stage in the process. Fountain Valley also applied for funding of final design of the bridge through the competitive Master Plan of Arterial Highways program administered by OCTA; that request is still outstanding. In response to the actions by the city of Fountain Valley, the city of Costa Mesa has sent a letter to OCTA, dated January 9, 2003, expressing opposition to the funding applications and actions by Fountain Valley, along with its rationale for opposition. The Costa Mesa City Council also adopted a resolution in December 2002, formally stating its commitment to opposing any steps taken by the City of Fountain Valley to seek funds for the Garfield/Gisler bridge project. Attached is a resolution for City Council consideration that would provide a similar opposition to the actions being taken by the City of Fountain Valley. Environmental Status: Not applicable. Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number No. Description 1 D - sQraitat�-0-3- ��S A©, 2 Draft ResakAiGA-93- ,ees Al - 3 Resolution No. 6544 of the Huntington Beach City Council — 1993 4 January 9, 2003 Letter from Costa Mesa to OCTA 5 Circulation Element/Area Map RCA Author: R. Stachelski i G:\R C A\2003\03-008 Feb 3 Stachelski (Resolutions for SARCS).doc -4- 1/24/2003 5:15 PM r � RESOLUTION NO. 2003-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ASKING THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (OCTA) TO REMOVE THE BANNING AVENUE/19' STREET AND GARFIELD AVENUE/GISLER AVENUE BRIDGES FROM THE ORANGE COUNTY MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS (MPAH) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach has received significant input from the public regarding the viability, financial feasibility and construction of the westerly extension of 19th Street/easterly extension of Banning Avenue over the Santa Ana River and the westerly extension of Gisler Avenue/easterly extension of Garfield Avenue over the Santa Ana River; and Such concern affects the Circulation Element of the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach as well as the Master Plan of Arterial Highways of the County of Orange; and The City of Huntington Beach believes that construction of the Banning Avenue/19th Street and Garfield Avenue/Gisler Avenue bridges over the Santa Ana River will severely and adversely impact the adjacent residential neighborhoods; and The City of Huntington Beach has entered into a cooperative study with the Orange County Transportation Authority(OCTA) and the cities of Fountain Valley, Newport Beach, and Costa Mesa to study the need for, or the deletion of, the Banning Avenue/19th Street and Garfield Avenue/Gisler Avenue bridges over the Santa Ana River; and An adequate transportation circulation network can be provided through construction of certain intersection and roadway improvements without construction of the Banning Avenue/19th Street and Garfield Avenue/Gisler Avenue bridges over the Santa Ana River; and In November, 1993, the City Council passed Resolution No. 6544 requesting the County of Orange to initiate the process to remove the Banning Avenue/19th Street and Garfield Avenue/Gisler Avenue bridges from the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways, NOW, THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: 1. The City of Huntington Beach supports the "no bridge" scenario. 2. The City of Huntington Beach requests the Orange County Transportation Authority continue to pursue the deletion of the Banning Avenue/19th Street and Garfield Avenue Gisler Avenue bridges over the Santa Ana River from the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. 03reso/mpah/1/24/03 1 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of February , 2003. ayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorn y REVIEWED AND APPROVED: D AND APPROVED: City Adonistrator Director of Public Works 03reso/mpah/1/24/03 2 l \ Res. No. 2003-14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at an regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of February 2003 by the following vote: AYES: Sullivan, Coerper, Green, Boardman, Cook, Houchen, Hardy NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None City Clerk and ex-officio C rk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California RESOLUTION NO. 2003_1 s A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH OPPOSING THE CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY'S REQUEST TO THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALSYIS OF THE GISLER/GARFIELD BRIDGE WHEREAS, the City of Fountain Valley has applied for grant funds to the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) for preliminary engineering, environmental study and final design on the Garfield Avenue/Gisler Avenue bridge over the Santa Ana River; and The Santa Ana River Crossing (SARX) Study will be completed within the next few months and reviewed by the elected officials and the public from the cities of Fountain Valley,Newport Beach, Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa; and The SARX Study has identified a series of alternative mitigation measures, instead of construction of the bridge, that are more cost effective and less intrusive to the surrounding communities; and It would be an imprudent expenditure of public funds for the City of Fountain Valley to apply for grant funds at this time, nor should the OCTA fund additional design and environmental work for this bridge project until the SARX Study.is final; and Several years of work and over $200,000.00 in consultant costs have been expended in studying the Gisler/Garfield Bridge Proposal; and Since the magnitude of the adverse impact of the Gisler/Garfield Bridge on both Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley is enormous, the matter of Fountain Valley's application for OCTA funding for this bridge should be considered at a public hearing with input from all affected residents and not be scheduled as a consent calendar matter, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: That it will take action to oppose the project at each and every step of the approval process,_if the City of Fountain Valley approves an application to OCTA seeking funds for the Garfield/Gisler Bridge project. 03reso/N funds/1/24/03 1 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of February , 2003. Mayor �L ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk U - ity Atto ey REVIEWED AND APPROVED: AT AND APP VED: City Admin trator Director of Public Works 03reso/fv funds/L/24/03 Res. No. 2003-15 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at an regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of February 2003 by the following vote: AYES: Sullivan, Coerper, Green, Boardman, Cook, Houchen, Hardy NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None r City Clerk and ex-officio C14rk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTAC H M E N T #3 n 7 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 6/resolut/1VI PAH/11/02/93 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the i st day of NovPmter , 1993. Mayor ATTE T: t� .�i* 4APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY: City Clerk City Attorney 2 6/resolut/MPAH/1 1/02/93 ATTACHMENT #4 yCC CITY OF COSTA MESA ' CALIFORNIA 92628-1200 P.O. BOX /200 _- FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER January 9, 2003 RECEIVED JAN 21 2003 Mr. Arthur Leahy CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Orange County Transportation Authority ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 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 19th Street/Banning Avenue bridges from the MPAH. The City of Fountain Valley passed a resolution supporting initiation of an Enviromnental 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 19th 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 I 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, $15,000 from Huntington Beach, and $100,000 from Costa Mesa for the SARX Study. During the same meeting, the City Council also awarded a professional services contract to Kimley-Horn and Associates to perform the required studies to prepare a program level EIR for the Santa Ana River Crossings Study. The draft EIR was circulated for cities' review and public comment on June 22, 2001. There was a 45-day public review period, which ended on August 6, 2001. Four community workshops were held in the Cities of Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach and Newport Beach during the public review period. Comments from 11 agencies and 545 citizens and/or associations and the respective responses to comments were included in the final EIR dated April 2002. Several meetings were held with traffic staff as well as City Managers from all involved cities to discuss the results of this study. In light of pending elections in each of the four cities and the need to further refine the mitigation measures identified in the SARX Study, no further official action was scheduled. Following the November municipal elections, the City of Costa Mesa sent correspondence to each of the participating cities (Attachment D) requesting feedback in terms of their readiness in moving forward with official consideration. While awaiting this response, the City learned of the subject action by the City of Fountain Valley to move forward with the environmental and design effort to construct the Gisler Avenue/Garfield Avenue Bridge. The City of Costa Mesa believes that while further input/comments are being processed on the SARX Study, no action should be taken by any of the involved agencies to study/design these bridges. Beyond issues such as the legal authority of the participating agencies to initiate environmental studies and the design of bridge crossings outside of their municipal City limits in areas under the jurisdiction of other governmental agencies (in this case, the County of Orange, the Army Corp of Engineers and the Santa Ana Regional Flood Control Agency), the CTFP application by the City of Fountain Valley undercuts the entire SARX effort. Approval of this CTFP application guarantees that the funding already approved for the SARX Study will have been a complete waste of precious transportation dollars. Beyond that, however, will be the lost opportunity to prove that regional cooperation in resolving conflicts in the MPAH can be accomplished. Such a setback affects not only OCTA and the four cities participating in the SARX Study but municipalities throughout Orange County. Based on the proposed action by the City of Fountain Valley, the Costa Mesa City Council on December 16, 2002, unanimously adopted an urgency 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 SARX Study so that needed transportation improvements are constructed. Along with the City of Fountain Valley, we support construction of those transportation improvements that both improve traffic circulation while maintaining if not improving the quality of life for our respective communities. Please understand that our position on this matter is not one of maintaining the transportation "status quo" but of moving forward aggressively with practical, cost-effective improvements in the foreseeable future. Finally, the City of Costa Mesa requests that the cooperative effort on the Santa Ana River Crossings study be accelerated with OCTA's leadership to a final acceptable solution. The City of Costa Mesa looks forward to working your staff on this important project. Sincerely, Allan L. Roeder City Manager Attachments A: Fountain Valley City Council Resolution 8580, November 16, 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 City Manager, City of Fountain Valley Supervisor, 2"d District Director of Strategic Planning, OCTA Public Services Director Transportation Services Manager Associate Engineer ATTACHMENT A RESOLTTION NO. 95HO A RESOL=CN OF Cl= COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNZA, REQUESTING THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO _ INITIATE THE PROCESS TO RT...?' CVE THE 19TH STREET/BANNING )AVENUE :WD GISIXR AV1=/GARFI...LD AVT�'N<JE BRIDGES ON THE COUNTY % S'TER PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS (I+iPAH) . V r i. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY DOES E[EP= RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the City has received input fz-u the public regarding certain existing elements of the County's Haste: Plan of Arterial Highways; and S.HEAS, this input raises concern for the viability, financial feasibility and cons---uctibility of o elements of the County's Master Plan of Highways, namely, the westerly extension of the 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 Rive:; and —'ais concern also affects the C`_ty's Faster Plan of Arterial Highways; and ti'H_4E;S, the City cf Fountain Vallev entered into a cooperative study with the County of Orange and the cities of Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach and Newport Beach to study the need for or the deletion of the 19th Street/Banning Avenue and Gisler Avenue/Garfield Avenue bridges of the Santa Ana River; and wn-r—?mAS, the City of Fountain Valley desires to enter into a cooperative agreement with the cities of Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, New�po:t Beach, County of Orange and Caltrans to assess the needed intersection and roadway improvements and determine mitigation costs if the two bridge crossings are re=cved from the Faster Plan of A.-aerial Highways; and i`,' Resolution No. ASAn Page 2 SEAS, any Change or deletion to the Ccur*_y MPAH requires a c=prebensive Environmental Impact Report (EZR) to be completed prior to proposed changes or deletions and that no action to remove the bridges can occur without said Environmental Impact Report; and SAS, the environmental impacts and potential mitigation measures to those impacts have not been fully identified for the bridge deletions and the recui_-ed added capacity at intersections and on roadway links. The City of Fountain Valley believes- that there will be significant impacts involved with the const--uction or deletion of the bridges and that there will be significant public input and concern related to :.here impac+.s; and WIMRZAS, the 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 satisfactory level of arterial highway 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 over the Santa Ana River. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLV�..'D that the City of Fountain Valley finds that an Environmental Impact Repor-, must be completed before it can make a recommendation for any amendments to the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. The report should include a funding program for arterial highways and intersection la improvements which would provide for a balanced land- . . . �� . . Resolution 8580 page 3 BE IT FURT= RESOI.W.-ED that the City of Fountain Valley wi11 participate in a program to prepare and evaluate an alternative plan of providing a zatisfactory 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 Ana River. BE IT FURTI-:rR RESOLVED that the City of Fountain Valley requests the County of Orange to initiate an Environmental Impact Report (E_IR) 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 Master Plan cf Arterial Highways (MPAH) - PASSED AND ADOPTED :_.'pis 16th day of November 1993 _ Mavor ATTEST: City Clerk - i STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss. CITY OF—FOUNTAIN VALLEY } I, Jane Irvin, do hereby certify tt= I am the Deputy City Clerk of the City of Fountain Valley; that the foregoing Resolution was regularly ii rb oduced to said Council at Its regular adjourned meeting held on the 16th day of November, 1993, and was at said meeting regularly Passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: CARROZZO, COLIJNS, PETRIKN, SCOTT, COOK NAYS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE Depu`#y City Clerk l� ATTACHMENT B RESOLU TION NO.93-76 A RESOLUTION OF 7. fE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW.PORT BEACH REQU-ESTiNG THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO INITIATE THE PROCESS TO UETERV NE THE UvPACTS TO THE CIRCULATION SYSTEM OF REMOVING THE 19T74 STREET/BAN"NING AVENUE AND GISLER AVENUE/GARFiELD AVENUE BRfDGES ACROSS TILE SANTA ANA RIVER FROM THE MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS (MPAH); AND TO PREPARE A PLAN OF ALTERNATE CIRCULATION SYSTEM IMPROVF_MENTS WHICH WILL PR0\,1DE EQUIVALENT TRAFFIC SERVICE. W1IfEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has participated in a cooperative study with the Co-mity of Orange, Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach to evaluate the Santa Ana River C:-)ssirgs (SARX) sout!erly of State Route 405 (the San Diego Freeway); and 'A'H ERGAS, the SARX Study shows that the river crossings at 19th Strcet/Uanning \venue and Gisler Avenue./Garfield Avenue, if constructed, would carry significant traffic and it' !lot constricted, cause increased traffic on various links in the NIPAH; and tvHEREAS, 1he County and the Cities have received significant input trom citizens near the pre•.iously mentioned crossings objecting to the construction of any new bridge crossings of the Santa Ana River southerly of the San Diego Freeway; and WHEREAS, this public input raises concern for the viability, financial feasibility and ccnstn;ctabilliy of a number of elements of the County's MPAH and the circulation elements of the four cities; and `A'HEREAS, the City of Newport Beach is uncertain that an adequate transportation circulation riclwork that is politically and environmentally acceptable can be provided through the construction. of the additional intersection, existing bridge, and roadway improvements required if the :9t11 Strcet,'713anning Avenue an, Gisler .Avenue.'Garfield Avenue bridges over the Santa Ana River are nor :orstructed, and W!IFRGAS, ;he envirotimental impacts and potential mitigation measures to those n pacts 'lave no; been F,.dly :dentifted for either the bridge deletions or the required added capacit; at :r.tersections, existing bridges and or. roadway links. The City of Newport Beach !:O;C es tliat ;here may be significant impacts invoivcd with providing the added intersection, lui(tge, ;wd randwav link capacity required it'the new bridges are not uo-,sinicted and :hnt there mnv be SILIniflCant public input and concern related to these iinlincts., ;uid t1 i IFRE,\S, the City of Newport Bc.%:h is willing to consider a cooperative agreement .viih Oiange County. Caltrans W appropr,ntc) and the cities of Costa Mcsa, Fountain V,dley, and I r.urlington [leach, to prepare an acceptable ,alternate plan of arterial 'ighwny improvements wliich would provide for a balanced land use/circulatien sys;:m among the four cities by providing a satisfactory level of alternate highway improvements in lieu of tite 19th StrectlBanning Avenue and Gisler AvenUdGarfcld Avenue bridges over the Santa Ana River Such a plait for highway improvements would need to identify: 1) necessary right-of-way acquisitions, 2) scope of roadway, existing bridge, and intersection widening improvements, 3) co ironmenial assessment of proposed roadway improvements and an environmental assessment 31 constructing the bridges, so that a true comparison can be made, 4) methods of construction ,mavcinc• and S)time frame for construction TI IGRL-:FORE, BE l r RESOLVED that the City of Newpon Beach finds that it is premature to support the "no bridge scenario' until it can be demonstrated that art acceptable alto^'ate ;`.an of arterial highway improvements, including a funding tregram, which would a ba!nnced land usc/circulation system among (lie four t:ties can be provided, ;i.,;cr:Pen;ally cleared, arid accepted by the four cities FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Newport Pcat h also finds that it is' ,;rc,••.,;.:,: In enter into a :ooperative agreement with Orange County, Costa Mesa, Fountain vai!e: .0 C i lut;tirgten Beach and Caltrans (if appropriate) to fund and construct an iltemalive n that i:as net •et been established or proven to be a better alternative to ;he 19th Szi ec,_Ph-.n:r.z A%c:,;;c ar.' Gisler t•:erue.'Garfield •kvecue"ridges ovc, -`c Santa Ana River ATTACHMENT C RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ` ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA � December 7 , 1993 On motion of Supervisor Wieder, duly seconded and carried, the R following Resolution was adopted : WHEREAS, by Agenda Item Transmittal for Board meeting this date, the Director, EHA, submitted a report and recommendations resulting from the Santa Ana River Crossings ( SARX) Cooperative Study; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board hereby: 1 . 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 10 Highways (RPA11) for considering deletion of Garfield Avenue/Gisler j Z , Street and Banning Avenue/19th Street bridges and adopts a plan of I» alternative highway improvements through a cooperative city, county, 14 and state process ; 20 3 . Initiates a transportation element amendment to delete 21 Atlanta Avenue/Wilson Street bridge crossing from the HPAH and downgrade East 19th Street/Dover Drive in accordance with the ,� cooperative study . 4 . Directs ERA to report back to this Board within ninety days 2� with a status report on the cooperative process . a -16 S . Directs ERA to provide monthly written status reports to 27 Board offices , cities and community groups . ig ZH Resolution No . 93- 1361 rublic 1f-ariM -- Song Ana River Crossings Cnopxsatdve Study J RG ep 1 v I i Chairman of the oard of Supervisors { SIGI4ED AND CERTIFIED THAT A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DELIVERED S TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD / � t PHYLLIS A. HENDERSON Clerkrbf the Board of Supervisors A Orange County, California AYES: SUPERVISORS HARRIETT M. WIEDER,THOMAS F. RILEY AND ROGER {� R. STANTON { { NOES: SUPERVISORS NONE {-' ABSENT: SUPERVISORS GADDI H. VASQUEZ AND WILLIAM G. STEINER STATE OF CALIFORNIA } { { } ss . COUNTY OF ORANGE } i � I , PHYLLIS A. HENDERSON, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify that the al}ove and { _ � foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the said Board i at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of December, 1993, 8 and passed by a unanimous vote of said Board members present. { IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this {1) 7th day of December, 1993 . �n PHYLLIS A. HENDERSON " Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of ` Orange County, California i 'S 1 i t { a 2 . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City c,I' Newport Ilea il! program to prepare and evaluate an alternate plan of arterial highway inipro•%cnrcnis •,;,;ticl, provide for a balanced land useIcirculation system among the four cities and the Coi:,It-, providing a satisfactory level of alternate highway improvements in he„ of, the I StrcetMa,Tning Avenue and Gisler Avenue/Garfield Avenue bridges- over the Santa Ant RiVc, Such a plan for highway improvements will need to identity: 1) necessary r1g1ht-o1*-« acquisitions, 2) scope of roadway, existing bridge a-nd intersection' widening 1111pr0•:erticnts, environmental impacts of both roadway, existing bridge and intersection improvements n,:d :!,_ new bridge crossings, so that a true comparison can be made. 4) mcihocls III' consrcucti�l, financing, and 5) time trance for construction. DE 11' FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Newport 13eitch is willing to c00;)e,;:tL- with all concerned agencies in an efTort to achieve a mutually satisfactory solution to the issiwr, and problems which exist, and will participate in a cooperative agrcenicnt if acceptable terms anc finding far the necessary work can be agreed upon. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day. of Novc::.ber, 1993 Mayor Pro Tc:n City c: e'••1 .,; Be-,--it AT TEST: �J,'IPfL City Clerk �SEW HUNT A 1RUE ANU CC..REO CCPY � n Y? rr CatA1C OF TK QrY of►tt Alr-RT 6tA,04. b+�Z. ATTACHMENT D CIIT OF COSTA MESS CAI:FCRNLA M28.1200 PA.BOX 1200 I FACM;..E CEPAR )AL T CF PUBLIC SEjWCZS Decernbe. 6, 2002 Mr. Hower Bludau,Ciro Manage: `Ir. Rich Edmonston,Trafnc Ezigmeer City or Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92638 Dear- %L-. Bludau had .',Ir. Edricnstoc: SUBJECT: Santa Ana River Crossings (SARX) Study T":e Fi`-i Report !EEZ} for the S_AJLX study, which --chided resaor ses to ag-eft arc public comments, was C--m:neted-in Azr1 2002. A mee=g of Cir.- �Isras^e_-s was helld in May 2002 i to csc:,Zs staff:reco endacors to :espec--Iwe City Cou:c1s. Following the mee=91 Clr of Costa Mesa s a:: pre::a:ed a draft redo:. for presentacon to City CouncL 71.s daft report incluced.- recoramer: :.aons t_at were consistent the discussioas in the lay Ciry \Linagers' mewing. A cep: of t.�^.is c.-a:� report was fom-asded to .ou in Tune 2002 for comments. However, star did hot:eceive anv in::U[ ,-om the invoived Ices. T:e Costa Mesa C' -. Count- ^= :ecuested a rcuort on t e scams of the subject projer,in •.ye a= lru,—. C:,: of Costs Mesa zvot:d 2r=Lv at;orecate it Lr 70U could :e^:e-.v the amcaed draft sraE, report and prox-de 70u:comments to Pere:\a2^ac--Transpor:ar cr: Managc:.by the end of December 2002. If ::ere a:e a:. Issues, please contact Pe:eft `aghac: at 714L754-=182 or Raia Sethur==—n, Asso=re En z eL , at -1-- 303_. i*- act iatel: WU-LLL%t 10RRIS. P.E. Pubic Seniecs D1ree:or :tachuncnr c Allan Roeder. City Minager Peter Naghavi, Manager of Transportation Sentees /R.a)a Scthuraman, Associatc Engineer ,7 FAIR CANE PMCNE. (71+)'5+-53U FAX: (714)-54.50:0 T•CO: RtA)75A.52AA CITY OF COSTA MESA CA11FCANtA 92628.1200 P.O.BCX 1200 ' FACM-)'E CEPARTMENT CF PUBUC SErWCFS I I I December 6, 2002 I %Lr. Rav Silver, Ciry Manager `L- Robe-Scachelslc, Transporamon Manage: `L-.Tnor_.as Brohard City of r'untingtoa Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear`L-. Silcer,�Lr. Smchels4 and Mr. Brobsrd: SUBJECT: Santa Ana River Crossings (SAR.X) Srudy j The Final Eavironmental Lmpac; Report (ELR) for the S_ F-X sr-dr, which :nc!Lded resporses to agener and public cc=.en:s, was completed in April 2002. 3 meeting of City N(anage_s was held in May 20M to discuss staff:ecorendacons to respective City Cou:cIs. Following this met ng, Cir;of Costs Mesa___..._ staff prepared a d_-a repot. for presentation to Cir. Cour:cL ` I'nis daft report inc?uded recommerdat:ons tW: were consistent w th he discussions in the ZLay Gr: Managers' mee=ng. A copy Of this repot, was forwarded to -ou in June 2002 for comments. Howe-er, surf did not rece.,ve any — =our Lot the involved dies. jTme Cos= Mesa Cir.-Council has recuested a :eport on the status of the subject project in the near furor'✓ The Cir.- of Costa Mesa wou:d gready appre:_ate it if;ou could :e^cw the atmc_^.ed draft smE renott and provide--our co=,,errs to Peter ,`agnavi'Ti mr, pormtion Manager, by the end of Dece=bc 2002_ i If &.ere Ir. issues, please cortrc: De;,_ �--5--3:a"_ or R-:1 Setl u:-..� Assocate Engineer,at 71'- 54-5O32,i ediatelc. I I Sircc: ic, \X II.LLL',t J. MCIRRIS, P.E. Public Sea^ees Director A,-..ac.'=c.^.t c .Milan Rocder,Cir.• Manager Peter Nagha%-%' ~Manager of T=spormaon Ser%ices Rita Scthum=n, Assoc ate Engineer n FAIR QRNE PHCNE. (7i 4)'s+-sw FAX n14>>s+-sme TOO: (7,4)-s+-s2" C 'Y OF COSTA NMV' CAL1FCFwtA 926M1200 P.C.Box 1200 FFCM—.-E CEPAR7VE`!7 CF PUBL:C SE.WCES i i j December 6,"2002 I `L-. Ra:blond H. Kromer, CX7`.lanage: `L-. Mark Le Cir. Engineer Cicv of Fountain Valle 10200 Slafe:Avenue Fountain L alle•,, CA 92708 Dear %L-. K.ome: and Mr. Lewis: I SUBJECT: Santa Ana River Crossings (SARY) Study The Final Envizon.mental Impac: Report ,'Ea) for the SARY sr:dv, which included responses to agency j and pubcc comments, was comcieted in Ap:i 2002. A meeting of City Nianagers was held in Nlav 2002 to discuss staff recom—endacom to respe_::ve City Councis. Following this meeting,Cirr of Costa-Mesa staff prepared a daft repot for presentation to Cit, Courc.L This draft report included -ec0rr11re^da1:ocs that were co=stent w th :ae discussions in the Ntav Cic. Nla=age_:s' mer=ing. A cope' of this d.-2 , report was forwarde^ to -ou in Tune 2002 for comments. Howeve:,stiff did not receive 3= I input uom the involved dies. The Cost: Mesa Cir Counci aas requested a =epor, on rye status of^e subject project in the near future. Tae C:r- of Costs Mesa would z_radv accrete it ii you could :e^e-v th:e artac ed draft stir report and pro,,Ce 7C r COi".:_^.e^_:S to Pete:Naghar-_ Ntanaee:, b- -`:e end of December 2002. If ct:e:r —,-r any, s petC issues, please contact Naghavt at 7 i-LDS-#-5:Q2 or Raja Set'auram:.:., Assecate Eri 'C-+, at -14-74—`032 ir: ec aceiv. Thar`-.-cu. j ,S.Lnce:e:' �t [LLL�Jt J. MORF.IS, P.E. Public Senlices Director Attacbim.crt c AUan Roedc:, ClR' Manage: Peter Nagha%;, Manager of Transcor3con SC vices Raja Sc&.u.^a.^zan, .•lssocate Eng rcc: n FAIR CAtvE P►+CINE. 14) 75A.5,W FAX: (714)7SA-502e rco (714)75.-52" A I I AUHMENT E o ,P:SOLUTION NO. 02-88 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA OPPOSING THE CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY'S REQUEST TO THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE GISLER- GARLFIELD BRIDGE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY i RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS. WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 93-83, on October 25, 1993, requesting the County of Orange to initiate the process to remove the Gisler- Garfield Bridge from the Master Plan of Highways and supporting the no bridge" scenario-, and - - WHEREAS, the Costa Mesa City Council does hereby emphatically reaffirm this C1ty's position as stated in Resolution No. 93-89 along with the additional key elements i stated herein; and WHEREAS, the Santa Ana River Crossing (SARX) Study will be completed and reviewed by the elected officials and the public in the cities of Fountain Valley, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa, in the next few months ; and WHEREAS, it would be a waste of scarce public funds for the City of Fountain i Valley to apply for grant funds at this time, nor should the ORANGE COUNTY i TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (OCTA) fund additional design and environmental i work for this bridge 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 i j have been expended in studying the Gisler-Garfield Bridge Proposal; and WHEREAS, the magnitude of the impact of the Gisler-Garfield Bridge on both 4 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 co-operation and collaboration in._ resolving problems of joint concern; and WHEREAS, the City of Fountain Valley's action to apply for OCTA funding at this time is wholly inconsistent with that historic level of cooperation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Costa Mesa City Council does hereby proclaim that it will be forced to take action to oppose the project at each and I i _ a every step of the approval\`process, if the City of Fountain Valley .approves an application to OCTA seeking funds for the Gisler-Garfield Bridge project. ! PASSED AND ADOPTED this 161" day of December, 2002. ATTE T: Deput ity Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa ayor of the City of Costa Mesa APPROVED AS TO FORM City Attorney, j STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF COSTA MESA ) I, JULIE FOLCIK, Deputy City Clerk and ex-officie Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 02-88 was duly and regularly passed anc adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16'rl day of December, 2002, by the following roll call vote: ` AYES: Rcbinson , Steei , Cowan , Monahan , Mansccr NOES: None ! ABSENT: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 17' day of December, 2002. ror,7 n n instrurnOnt is a Correct CoQy of the I OrICInCi on h;e.:rithis JftiCe. `� 1 1 Deput ity Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of ATTEST: the Ci y Council of the City of Costa Mesa CITY C:CR: bF TH[ CITY OF COSTA MT'iA CCUNTY OF 07n ticE. srATE OF CALIFORNIA DATED. -/LIf/ i�1� �y r i i i I I I I i I I i Z SEAL WESTMINSTER BEACH BOLSA AR GOS A z m o �� ��� �• IN —'F— ■■ EDINGER 1 . • 1 HEIL 1 . 1 WARNER FOUNTAIN 1 VALLEY SLATER COUNTY OF TALBERT cod ORANGE " .yam (BOLSACHICA) ���✓ zl- ELLIS � m m GARFIELD e OCEAN � '' roRKTo ADAMS 1 •• �Nor M / INDIANAPOLIS 1 1 M j=M -� ATLANTA � 1 Legend PER� y\ 0mr • HAMILTON •� CITY BOUNDARY i 1 •- 8 LANE PRINCIPAL(DIVIDED) BANNING 6 LANE MAJOR(DIVIDED) In order to remain eligible to receive Measure M funds-and Congestion Management Plan funds(Prop.111},the City" / COSTA -ram 4 LANE PRIMARY(DIVIDED) of Huntington Beach has kept certain elements of the Master MESA .+.+. 4 LANE SECONDARY Plan of Arterial Highways(MPAH)on the 2010 Circulation Plan of Arterial Highways.These items include the proposed Santa 2 LANE COLLECTOR Ana River Bridge crossings. In addition,the Orange Cougty.. STUDY SITES Transportation Authority and surrounding cities are currently discussing the appropriateness of elements,such as the Santa Ana River Bridges,of the OCMPAH. Therefore,future land use planning and transportation planning were based upon the possiblity that these road segments may never be constructed. OKSAwociates,1994 Please see discussion under Technical Synopsis Section F. AneWW June 199E (See TABLE CE-3) (see CE 1.1.3) POTENTIAL FOR 2010 CIRCULATION PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS wCE-3 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN III-CE-9 1 RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Public Works SUBJECT: Adopt Resolutions Regarding Future Santa Ana River Bridge Crossings COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 3, 2003 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial I Not Applicable EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff ( ) ( ) Assistant City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ( ) City Administrator (Initial) City Clerk r �- EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: Only)(Below Space For City Clerk's Use RCA Author: a REQUEST FOR LATE SUBMITTAL (To accompany RCA's submitted after Deadline Department: Public Works Subject SARX Study Council Meeting Date: 2/3/03 Date of This Request: 1127103 REASON (Why is this RCA being submitted late?): City Council requested the F-item be prepared at the 1/21/03 study session. Turn around time on resolutions precluded timely submittal. i i I EXPLANATION (Why is this RCA necessary to this agenda?): Council direction CONSEQUENCES (How shall delay of this RCA adversely impact the City?): Policy action by City is important to maintain proactive stance with other cities involved and community interest. e nature: M 'Approved 0 Denied Department Head Ray Silver City Administrator W PX4,y Itsubmtl n7/14/94 t.iiY 0` i {4�L�N i I... i F.i°4 C>1i r CA taxi RED —3 A 0: 4 Li a nt Ana Rwiver moor �- Crossi -n- 5ME s oo era ev e u Februar a , 2003 y Meetin CityCouncilgv . . Y 7�,am;"-177 I 1 Santa Ana River Crossings ■ Review of studymoor ■ Initiated by Costa Mesa�"----f" ; ■ OCTA serving as Lead Agency . Evaluate environmentaIb impacts of eleting two master plan bride crossings '- ■ Garfield Avenue (Fountain \alley/Hunt gton Beach) to Gisler Avenue (Costa Mesa) � ■ Banning Avenue (Huntington Beach) t 19t" Sireet � (Costa Mesa/Newport Beach) 2 """'""'"'"'"ji, '„�..�"'�."-.1':, - ..�"1:Y`��--��'-,.-^"'..a�„'���;R; _�:.a'`�,=�:•.t �_ w-IL'.-_* ,;.,.;fi._,.� +`-"!" _ r�;,,..'T -'��j"i'';'.;^..,,:;,i,i�'�'"..: a' p. ppo oil it All . �,i., ,,iki .e HA � 1 w ✓�.xw.l-+� } 'j�n`--r.*tc i "�' I I j�y4A, I..i,�. z..rt,+y�-, r---„�Yf`i '}j]. �r ,. �,r•. •fFh+s �5 `. {`}.�k�, '1 s '*', �" 53 r .I,S 7 Ni .�C5 •J t� -� 'Park . � 56 Mesa CGColf, Ali" �liff-� r' -.Fairview cour� . �r PT •� �s. `s.,, h�s } ,�. � �"'^�� �d x'��� � ny1-...+1-'c r..A" :�- � *.�-x+... �., ,,,,� 1� _ - •+t. _ g� - &�� •� �� 1l , y�..r rMMAMAS �. �r �' �.4pr-, Nit �Jikori : k` -� ii ' y Hrnilkpry � Hamilk�n,��, : -'rr = ` _ - �. OakA. •�" ..a. * ,1.•. r..' �; "-�'�yr..y� .� .1v �} .•-.,v..�fU f Y �� �7 4���• � t 1 F'� J 1r- A�f 1'�"r� r' i �' w"°`" �� , �yS�('p A +�'ti''� � ''4;��Fx.w j . .m �> '•D.' T, ,..u}?' a?� `. Arharkf.� k �1. + " n ' .5}^'^' y,' �W+w- -�.r��,.r,.��.-,w.:w•°am ..:.;-t'S+r+{+Rs«x.....! SO Ye ti t ell QQ rDu ,. Yt'r ! ';'. t. jet 5 IX�'..`' .+t•.>i" .r•'^4e+�60 VI , S1"� r 1� thk45 i77kht # #' iir1 ��� r r. 4��46 h St If ^ 2NtiarosaR o � Ala f ch;.a dforGiDT,In .1 3 "" -,1�...� •+�•)!"_ '•L"*uw,:a,_.aayht m': - 'tF"'7' ,K+.1`} 1.. �'1: 1c�'1 -r7 _-Y + � ' � ..,��� �I�' �',c.v •�j ZE y}r.a>��, � 'l+ F Iy!`-.,:. C�1l�l��*+:..FR"r"•• �+�.f1 } rSS`ppk i�.}. {�1 i ^4. '. f-.>•.*y-����yy, ..�ii� " 7 "J"ty t�-7`', , ,•�,L�, - - � f rt (� �, � .E '+•.�t.+x�l't q ix„ixar',=�"�'"•f Iq„+ _ ^`'{'.+'�s."``ik, y�,^•..`."`t� .�, p-.«NNID�Kj. ' ! t± «x•,�..,+-J { t. � ,. x <„��,.,,. :'•.'rt ,fir' °• ` fj ..,.� ry -.,.,M:.�,., �.'-"`'"""',,,E` �'' i y}A� � } vR�•.,..._�+ ��; �..., .'.�5�,7,' � � , f. �. .. � �", �s�,:.;t � ,a�.W-f-�-f , .'�I��I T�16��rkA� `. ��� ,r` ■■eems�■■� __� � r . T�irk- �u� � t �;tacrk�iUr ' R� +Q4 .`' f �Ll�.■7.L,�"^°ji`.n rr --, v h� rr 4 :Y �` .�[ ::. ' tx � `,•��swrN�� L I'Y" ' EA . ^ f e .'-. 0-'I....1 1 ,� .�' L"Y t,�i 'f�*" ¢ t..' - •t ,�.n -#k;rV N, r ! �f "+[ rF*^+�`` "E""'..x 3 lk,' "r�y" . $.: t•:. -._ S C ° cfi;•.�'f, f "�h ,{+ice - i i�r- 3 tV a Y"_ _"'ys x-N b• r'.` �i ' }-.A ,fc ...+r.+.' -k' f'.. ..•�{n-a«?�f F ru A.x:ec.l t '# 1 ! •{ v� P 9.• -".� "" .ay.`r.w+�; ( ,yf y � "_. i.�r - .r, rp ���� ��, i.' .•s. k�� � -�. { °' �is_� ...z t �.yar:,, j ya•.� x�rr !-,.+-++y R h+—. Ellis� �e'; _ C� � +f�t � ( [ p�l��v..erti'••^�1� �.�T^ �,�i� � �CM+^� � �� i� �•f r�y �•dA��Yr-��'yr4�'�.q'i 'F I pry Ave t f r�- <�� • �4k.+w.-..�,�(ay..R s. �� - �-Tw «.�t..•::�..s�.� � y;e. .. {-�•.,�� .. ��G�i��wF.rl..��w"'.a++�_g..�-i+.,•.+.us.�..w--r-ems.. C , Ga�rfi�ld� � :-- r- _ &field,Ave F . Harbor e:e i h�bMoNai Por #sue �_,. `_ ,ul �ii Onb �- - 4 Park.. J, - ate ' Verde ;�� ���}/*;� •�����. . •'✓ �aurrtry�kI�IJ'°h ?r'-or, , .,�_":,.�;�a». . •:r• ! ' .« i? t'�,( • wl { ,>+�k. ! - � .<.�« k ,.�.:<.'� "°� -�" "W y'°�'e*+:5�. .•s.•f ,e-,off ,. •. � t *" "",.� 1 " i Cis y�'+�. ,�, .?Sr'�y } •�➢ � � ::';."„ r1 �n• .•.. �.:,R'r',:.,� !��',ty � '� "�-?"� _t,..,-� �,,; 9 A` s - .r111.ai ! �.-�Fv- s r< -� "' ` "°, :•:u Hy{ .• v = J' I. :<.,. .�,elf'I'`p �jri+ i]5 ,.1,. r' r y�r"r 'b ,, !•, .xT�as.'KK� -•> •R'.:w�'_.:.,,,.,,5---i J" } 1,�" 5J1"��L�" # q„ J��.lr.1f, "` '^"%" S•�.�.i t . �-!. .?1 \ qi� � .1 d`.`"- 'f f 1, 7 at ` 7 ^�'� '# �" -w h yam•. -4 �1,�y '>r�r✓"'c-y' 3.i�" �,'°."'.*. _ - �Y,- s'+",a:. t"' -.�YY ..t_,...� al'I�LI/'i �'r1 "3 , " sno rti m x•. 6 • [ 1 y • ..1 1 52Min, Di� If �fy i F k��ki .J t _fT �;''"' y'� `" �,�� „„,.=So-., t ��rw•4 Xr+�a^""•' � C .4. �;,;=.«r-•P`..r'�-e""" � . .��..-,,,,z...,_� '{. t'�a.,:°'f`�,•� '��-` �'� ��`a i k,+`v ,G, :.� Swam-'Dr,� . cJzl ,J,�n,ager Dry' 4 r ` FaiNitw Park ' oo IY1i ras �C��p 002: laykc Santa Ana River Crossings ■ OCTA Requirements for MPAH,, Amendment � . Unanimous support fro,,m, , affected agencies ■ Garfield/Gisler — HB, Co to Mesa. Fou"n ain Valley ■ Banning/19t" — HB, Costa Mesa, New �� Beach ■ Mitigation measures implemented f r each bridge deletion s i antsAnaRiver • Three alternatives studied - =w : : Ti;;;! • Keep bridges • Delete bridges j • Alternate bridgegn aliments ■ Garfield connects to 405 Freeway r. ■ 1gt" street connects to BrOokhurst north of Banning • a can be considered indendentlg yEach brid + i Santa Ana River Crossings ■ TrafFic impacts of deletion of bothIRWIN ! Mr- bridges � f Eight street segment� impacted I ■ PCH east of Brookhua �t in Huntingto : Beach Ten intersections_ impacted ■ Brookhurst/Hamil to n in HB ■ PCH/Brookhurst in HB Longer trips and added travel tim for- sjome r f Santa Ana River Crossings ■ T ON ! Mitigation measures ,--�---;�;- ■ Mitigation can offset deletion of bob ; bridges � . PCH segment — Restrip��to add second ,eastbound left turn lane on PCH aTt, I rookhurst - ■ Brookhurst/Hamilton ante section — Re",4 ripe to adil d second southbound IeftJturn lane - HB ■ Estimated total cost = $19 million (tot, in all cities) _ III x �i SantaAna iv r e ■ Preliminary costs a Esr • Construct both bridge&- -, --:�'--"' $4-7 ion ■ No bridges (mitigation - $ 19 "ii. Alion ■ Net savings $29 imon i t � , S.. n i Santa Ana River Crossings ■ Current Issues Y „ . "Reserve" status of bridges ■ Lack of consensus amo�g agencies' st�`ff ■ Huntington Beach — opp ed (both bridg`. ■ Costa Mesa — supported (both bridges). t�,,--"' ■ Newport Beach — supported (Banning/19t ■ Fountain Valley — s up�po�rted (Garfield/Gill' r) ■ Draft Resolution Affirming �993 Vie: �motion based on current options . City of Fountain ��alle� Actions — Ci , poi ions . . . Santa Ana River Crossings ■ Huntington Beach Options . Option 1 - Support Md.-, e-Reserve � � atus ■ Likely to be supported by other agenci � s (NB,, CM, FV) ■ $19 million in mitigation - unfunded � . Does not guarantee deletion of crossit from MPAH k ■ Future evaluation criter ia uncertairfi7t � i Y 11 Santa Ana River Crossings . Option 2 - Reaffirm Support for, ,A , e th Bridge Deletions from �- MPAH . Will not achieve unani � ous suppo ,11 required by OCTA ■ Bridges remain on MAPED A /N� H (without � � animous support) / . $ 19 million in reouil edl only with�br deletions Santa Ana River Crossings ■ Option 3 - Support Crossing son— , MPAH . Bridges remain due to 4,,ack of supp rt for removal \ 1 . Increased traffic and alccess in sou east HB . Bridge funding of $47 million not lid � I to occur in near future \ ; . J . Retains bridges for future transport t on forecasts k. 13 Santa Ana River Crossings ■ City of Fountain Valley Actions . Requested funding- thrQ,,u-g;-W- Ottk-' - r Garfield/Gisler bridge ■ Preliminary Engineering non-compete ive funds ■ Environmental Analysis/s � non-competi e funds ■ Final Design — competit�ive\funding pr' s am . Program funding in" /F. YJ 2005/06 position■ Costa Mesa iri Decembe , �2: . Draft resolution opposing Fountain'"', alley actions i 14 Santa An River . Crossings Cooperat 'iveStu y February 3, 2003 City Council Meeting Santa Ana River Crossings J Review of study . Initiated by Costa Mesa ■ OCTA serving as Lead Agency ■ Evaluate environmental impacts of deleting two master plan bridge crossings Garfield Avenue (Fountain Valley/Huntington Beach) to Gisler Avenue (Costa Mesa) Banning Avenue (Huntington Beach) to 19t" Street (Costa Mesa/Newport Beach) z ........ .. .......v.,,,,>g...a J.t...,-...,, >, f..r.X.,t'.^.w_ t�:.�C'_�&:;�_�" � ':►i-" .r.-.µ �..? �"^ - `�-,;:�*a^ Yr y. w'��•` •�!� y� '">�' �`.2`;i'i. S.v 'Y�'t .&._v 'qqy 1{��T� 1� �IJ' gyp` _�,�.,-e,.,W.;as. *� d,+i" ,sz; `;-3�� p '�'t`� :�-''"f`. ,�:�` _ �^ - _a;,.. - —.•a*,f'.Y.;. "t' �°",+ t - s YNI_ Y yy ei�i.' .f } } Y7 fit.. �^:�;•', 'I t}' t3�r "6 C . � `.Y'.� ,tom �Ylyf - �U�+3'n .�.�" •S`gif�,r ".r`'W # `4J� 1�''11� '3`.Et Y� "�'."� ry .�r3•" . .:t..-Y:.''9-:`i2+ ♦fr ,<-,_ "?" ax,# yy ,1•• �, ,'«.F..k _ F' ;'.+w'. :-3`>;.t,..�..,;� _ S" 'S;.,^sd!..;,.z.,.,�,,,t ?`"1 .,;;u , . i- e,.�f`�3 .,d-..t-,. s -5 -#�. ^.).. �., .fh 3;" r ;:.,�-{.w 'ad�'=L�`:J'e^" rewxa.-ter ,:.i.;�n �.j.;.... ;,'jy}- .wl,', _ t _a. F g 34 ,7t 8 ry 1{ 1 .,' cat• r f.n ,8.ii, .^. "r -: 'Lr'�V�1J�..✓ N,.s' .ra;+- vr-,' .1. }-. ,,,,}sue, 'vb"'�tta, z - a ,ipcc J.,.. ,d„aA,;: .::'.y + Irti ian;ap��lis}rl V� } : .• > - <.P' rl ;. _ 4',,r �, ....r Mess ,r� ,} doff v�diff � ursU 'Park T X .� r" • . .fiat' }d F ._ M 4a. -h$ � c , ; ' �• - e � t +ti% .:y ..t_�- } si`:.€, s nll '.:- _ �a 1a 'i,,,�_,,. J". r-'" ., ,��;,I.�',.'r'3-:r,.#. # 3..,m+ >' {c �,..`�+ " "�- �} y,y .y�-•,.., ,.�'=gers � .� a`,.q....S �� s• �y-., �ii'�` ;.w�:, .1-,;a--.� 2, "47! .,.'""�"""""""g�"" '�Y'Y" �����n LSk. � apik0pong f:, :. ,��� �,� ,.� '��: RFJ x, 'x # $ {` ,ti -�xy r %--` �t.. �y ...�.a� 3 �,,..rs,�. k, ►'�' a' -rs�- - 4 �` •'.�,.. ".+� - am _" �Hmilk�nk n : Hilk6n, � I .: y, .- 6'Vi'#,•r�, 1 k'; " '�'d .'.'7 );.'Z a L'^,. .,r.�,....3,'�.:. } ;S 1: !11" �: 'rv•-;:,rt�...: .A."� j." cr r3r777,t #- � „G.g r`7 �; #� � � ��' to '"a i" aced a*i ,�., .� '•� j s^' �y �r,;'✓?V t� xr4"�3 _ r;l +°,>." !. j��P��b k -fi " 1"11' ��r Ba"rir�in !. '� m : � x _ � 1xkh ask J"s ` #' - ' # '- �F 3#"'���$ - ,+'` X { s �z�a �e � i tom".� � r� ,•...,5 �. ."e, '^'x .� �'s ��- 1 d I ------------------------------------------- -------— ---------------- - - - , - — , . � I . � I . 1-l- -;, --j7- I. ,-,, � ,�--,--I,--,7I�,- =4-,,,i-- ,1-=i, ' —-- ,r,��-- ' —,- -'- -��,*l-.-, ,r-,'-II1-7-1L-1 - , _ - �""I1,-. ,,,', " �1w-,� 4.,3y�:.� -.�-"1 ,-�1".,�I,, �. i,,I,--", � _- ,- r I�," .-"-"� �,-7I-,� - �� F-,- - I' .?- ,�--0 �,.l. �. '-,,�I,�, - �I -"-. �,-",,"'.J ,,�',"I I'-� " 1�- , ,"I � , � - I.. ' -' . ,.�--'- I ,. -� - :� n'l� , , � - r -"-- ,r':- -,, �I,---- ;� �"" , ,! , " — � -,,- .L " , 7 - ,---J,$'-- �a-� ,�-,A, " ,�l t,�i , t"l —+�-7�, f;"",;I��-� R .- - -. ,- ,�- � 1 - L,.--- _ " �*z � , � .-. . ,L � -,, - 1 A .t' f-,Vzu, j • i� I , l -,rC"c,-'--. f J-,J,- ,—f-, t' 4,,AO "ll .� -Y. 6 , l_ , f`� k E1,-t , - ,� �1 ' , 1� sa�ldi 4 I,1 - , . .,-�--u r-� ,:—,I � � x �A. �— - , .�-,t , , ,- W . 1 " �3 .. � - 1 ;J.:� W p . .x I, "I N ,-1 j I , �- — 1 3 I Ub ,It 8 T �F �- &I Ibrtfv, � kk th4 - - 11,mr l 1 �� "i , ttt8in-IJ,�,� ,, ,;� � , 3 " � 1 f 0 li ,A� i ,-- r� f,V w * � ! , , LiY� ��11 t " - -�--"�- s 1 r � f ,i� ; ;—laq 4r -"! _ _.� , "j,"i , I-V - �, , . " 4 ' P - -1 y —f— " n. -- ," &—k * :i" , 11 q-U , -I e 1 - , t F ? ' ,I,- 6,uq4an ve ' a, °" j — I a , f # - = -,,,., - 6 z ,i ; �I' f T I-" "I i j� a,, ,a con AVe V,, f , S- 4 A _�' f , - s F 4 r G H,Ield Ave , arfie f I � � ,, 4I7 , - H6rbb �Re1' , r ; P -;Dr i, �, 4miilpat V I _ L , - I 1 �-�— C-,7-- i, A F�, # , _ Y ' i Li I 6s;a yl erde. �i ,�, i ,*� , -I- .��,,I -- -1 � 6�,kW ' "1�� ; I, N � j 4I , f ; ,oryqCIU " N r I Y-1" t - h., ,�"'e ,,�- ,j, , T �. � , J 7 , � A� ".j 4��, % �11 r'- �Av , �� i ,- � �, "N' W , , A i 1 � " J, Z _Tti1 � - r"4. ;.I; A , �6 ituti fi"Dr, _JV ,� �tv i ���t II , ,o, w -, 4 f, �� JJ i r�' �1 - �� ,�- e c Ir..j� : ; 7, - � S J � , j , ,,,I s 1— VI "Z . ` f- k - , -M arf. -,' . ; �N � " _� o �I , ---; f k 1� l� �I � 4 ! 1! ��X�, ",1�l. - 1. ,i " - l ,. am A �—' , �l'�, ; , 4.; � - Y t i ;.�, "., "_4 � "�r'L, " _ � , ,e �I . ,; :4%i. I'4-$ V� -0t I V 1 i A ,- K , -�"---AI , ; "` l%1 v - A; , I J =- , � , -, .L ,- j - l-- - � , -I , � 1 'I-,- ��- �I , .--,� , - -,- I- �C11, , , 1�I )I )' ,'v -, � ,:�:,', I � I - L I- ,!,�-,-,p,l i�,' <,,',"-,.�,;--,�,--f,-,-,-',�: - - ,_Q--�,:� �- � -- I I. p I I -L ,,, ,,-, , I .' I--.: ,'- ���',1,�1 - , , - , � - - I L� ',_,I.� � 1', -,,�.;�, :, . a7,�,,,�,��,-,:--f- . - ,, ., - , ��,� . � � , - � . i,.":�,,w,'z ��-�; :L,,V",,-,,�-��-- , " - , , ,�' !,�,- -- I 1 , �-,"'-'�i�,- , ", �t� - - -, - - ,, - � , ,, ,,,� ;�, .�-,.- �-,- I �11� -'. "-- -�-_, - � ---.. !z .,,! ,4- , �,,4. �,,---,,,..--��,-rL , ,: --�, ,,,,,, . � - I . � . I I � . . � . I . . I I I Santa Ana River Crossings OCTA Requirements for MPAH Amendment • Unanimous support from affected agencies Garfield/Gisler — HB, Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley Banning/19t" — H6, Costa Mesa, Newport Beach ■ Mitigation measures implemented for each bridge deletion 5 0- Santa Ana River Crossings Three alternatives studied . Keep, bridges • Delete bridges • alternate bridge alignments Garfield connects to 405 Freeway 19t" Street connects to Brookhurst north of Banning . Each bridge can be considered independently 6 Santa Ana River Crossings J Traffic impacts of deletion of both bridges Eight street segments impacted PCH east of Brookhurst in Huntington Beach Ten intersections impacted Brookhurst/Hamilton in HB PCH/Brookhurst in HB Longer trips and added travel time for some Santa Ana River Crossings Mitigation measures • Mitigation can offset deletion of both bridges PCH segment — Restripe to add second eastbound left turn lane on PCH at Brookhurst - HB Brookhurst/Hamilton intersection — Restripe to add second southbound left turn lane - HB Estimated total cost = $19 million (total in all cities) 8 Santa Ana River Crossings Preliminary costs . Construct both bridges $47million . No bridges (mitigation) $ 19 million ■ Net savings $29 million Santa Ana River Crossings Current Issues . "Reserve" status of bridges Lack of consensus among agencies' staff • Huntington Beach — opposed (both bridges) . Costa Mesa — supported (both, bridges) . Newport Beach — supported (Banning/19th) . Fountain Valley — supported (Garfield/Gisler) . Draft Resolution Affirming 1993 Resolution based on current options City of Fountain Valley Actions — City position 10 Santa Ana River Crossings Huntington Beach Options • Option 1 - Support Bridge Reserve Status Likely to be supported by other agencies (NB, CM, FV) $19 million in mitigation - unfunded Does not guarantee deletion of crossings from M PAH Future evaluation criteria uncertain Santa Ana River Crossings J Option 2 - Reaffirm Support for Both Bridge Deletions from. MPAH . Will not achieve unanimous support required by OCTA . Bridges remain on MPAH (without unanimous support) . $ 19 million in required only with bridge deletions 12 Santa Ana River Crossings Option 3 - Support .Crossing Retention on MPAH . Bridges remain.. due to lack of support for removal .� Increased traffic and access in southeast HB . Bridge funding of $47 million not likely to occur in near future . Retains bridges for future transportation forecasts 13 Santa Ana River Crossings J City of Fountain Valley Actions . Requested funding through OCTA for Garfield/Gisler bridge Preliminary Engineering — non-competitive funds Environmental Analysis — non-competitive funds Final Design — competitive funding program . Program funding in FY 2005/06 • Costa Mesa position in December 2002 . Draft resolution opposing Fountain Valley actions 14 wmvv • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH K. MOAP 7-v HU WING TONBEACH CITY COUNCIL MEMO IV C o To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members m o-� From: Ralph Bauer, City Council Member MCA oM Date: July 10, 2001 �T'�c' Subject: "H"ITEM FOR JULY 16, 2001 CITY COUNCIL MEETING— BANNING AND GARFIELD BRIDGES cwn T' The comment period for the EIR concerning the Banning and Garfield bridges over the Santa Ana River will end August 6. Although OCTA is holding some open houses in Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Costa Mesa, and Newport Beach, there is no public hearing being held by OCTA to receive public comments prior to August 6. MOTION: It is requested that the OCTA Board hold a public hearing to receive input on the Santa Ana River bridges EIR prior to closing of the comment time period. If this cannot be scheduled prior to the current closing date, extend the comment period to accommodate public input. The OCTA staff alone has decided that in the case of both bridges, a unanimous vote of the affected cities is required to eliminate the bridges from the master plan of arterial highways. We disagree with this policy. Historically, the cities were never unanimous in their views on the bridges; thus, the EIR was a waste of time and money. MOTION: It is requested that the OCTA Board adopt a policy that requires only a majority vote of the cities affected to eliminate the Garfield and Banning bridges from the Orange County Master Plan of arterial highways. It is requested that the results of both of these motions be forwarded to the OCTA Board and the OCTA Executive Director. RB:cf xc: Ray Silver Connie Brockway Howard Zelefsky r AGENDA n CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 27, 1998 COMMUNITY OUTREACH MEETING 7:00 P.M. -Auditorium Eader Elementary School 9291 Banning Avenue Huntington Beach, California 92646 7:00 P.M. - Eader Elementary School Auditorium Call City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting To Order Pledge Of Allegiance Roll Call Julien, Harman, Green, Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan, Garofalo Welcome By Mayor Shirley Dettloff 1. (City Council) Santa Ana River Bridge Crossings (15 Minutes) Slide presentation from the Acting Public Works Director regarding the Santa Ana River Crossings EIR (Environmental Impact Report) Process. Staff Presentations - Daryl Smith, Acting Public Works Director Public Participation - Questions and Answers 2. (City Council) NEST Rotary Mud Dump Site -s/w Corner Magnolia Street& Hamilton Avenue (Formerly ASCON) (15 Minutes) Communication from the Community Development Director regarding the NESI (ASCON) Landfill/Hazardous Waste Site. Staff Presentations- Herb Fauland, Senior Planner, Community Development Department Public Participation - Questions and Answers V I Fq% v I u EM11,1111 City of Huntington Beach History, prior actions, OCTA process _ �frr?J•:!:ini f???r xi:ii:iiiiiii:::^Y.•i}i:••.•�:1:it::•i:?:•:??ti?ff.•i::rtixq ---v::.�x:•:m:...................................................::::::x:r::::rJ...?iiiiiiiiii:�::i:nn.. ::.•fr r:f•::::.•.•::::::fy.. :::•••••• :......:::.:-i..i:-..iii:4iiiiii::::L:•iti?ti:iiiiiiiiiiii:-i:-ii:•::•::•::•i:•::::4: r....... r....... ...J:::i:-iiiiiiiii::i:-iii::..:f.r.:ri:r.r::r:.�:::::/ry�•ir•• :ii'f.-i:-iiiii:iii :�:i:�:?•iti?•::•ii!�i?i:S:::ii :•%ryiiiij-:?-i:-i:-i:-i:-i:-iiii•::-:ii:•::•::•::::::::::::::.i:-ii-':••ii::::::.::-:-�i....................:::.:::. :.r`. •i:/f........ ...f.r.;:;:•.;•?r:. :::,/...r^rr4:?�:iiiiii:?•i:i+Y-iiiii:•i:•i:?4:4::•: .:+1 :::::::::{::::::::::{i.:?!?-ii:^:-iiiiiiii::-iir•:-:•:::.::::::::.i:-i:-i:-:�i:•:::?-:••::?... r..f r.;.;:.........r:;r........ ..........:.. :.�•:::.::::.:......... .................................rrrv/:flJ.-i...............iiii:�:r::rr:rrrrrr.r+:.•.•:::r....rfrr.r..::r:::::::I.-:.rrr._::rr:::::.:ff:.:::::::.::•iiii in or Amend the MPAH Street tem m the Costa Mesa General Plan m the Newport Beach General - ------ -- -------------- i evaluate alternative roadway � ovements that may allow the deletion e proposed Banning Avenue/19th t and Garfield Avenue/Gisler Street e crossings over the Santa Ana River the OCTA Master Plan of Arterial � ways (MPAH)." ----------- ------- A Request for Proposals (RFP) 8-0141 issued 3/16/98 ated by Costa Mesa General Plan � ndment sta Mesa deleted remaining ossings EMA and Huntington Beach ncurred with Atlanta deletion > udy required for removing remaining ossings ragency Study Performed suits show significant impacts to reet system w process started with full public rticipation hnical Advisory Group Formed � EMA conducted TAG meetings nsensus reached on issues any alternatives identified for EIR alysis rk completed � TA given authority over MPAH A defines goals and sets limits � ultiple alternatives too costly eetings held to refine project ited alternatives chosen City Council contributes $15,000 P for EIR sent out 3116/98 --- ---- ------------ - ---------------- ----------------------------------------- ............. ............. ......... ........ ............... .......... sultant Selection Team to � luate Proposals TA, city, and citizen members eeting scheduled for 4/27/98 view and evaluate RFP submittals ore each on merit and understanding ------------------ describes process for selection award A Board of Directors approves rd Section III. t ic Study and EIR: June 1998 to ruary 1999 lic Review Period : March 1999 1 EIR : April 1999 al Agency and OCTA Board : May my 1999 (?) MY NAME IS CINDY MORGAN. I 'VE BEEN A RESIDENT HERE IN SEHB SINCE 1989. THIS EVENING I WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS MY THOUGHTS ON THE SIDEWALK REPAIRS PROCESS AND THE PROPOSED BRIDGE. I SELL RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE AS MY PROFESSION AND FOCUS PRIMARILY ON LISTINGS IN THE SEHB AREA. SPEAKING FROM A R.E. PROFESSIONAL'S POINT OF VIEW, SEHB REAL ESTATE HAS HISTORICALLY OFFERED BUYERS UNDER-VALUED COASTAL HOMES AS COMPARED TO OTHER BEACH CITIES SUCH AS NEWPORT BEACH OR SEAL BEACH. EVEN NOW WHEN COMPARED -TO OTHER HB COMMUNITIES SUCH AS DOWNTOWN, HUNTINGTON HARBOR AND SEACLIFF, SEHB IS STILL THE LOWEST ON THE TOTEM POLE AS FAR AS THE AVERAGE PRICE PER SQ. FT OF A HOME. THERE ARE PROBABLY AS MANY REASONS FOR THIS AS THERE ARE ISSUES BEING DISCUSSED THIS EVENING; HOWEVER, IN PARTICULAR, SIDEWALK REPAIR AND TREE REPLACEMENT ARE JUST TWO THINGS -- (TWO THINGS THAT ARE FAIRLY EASY TO ACCOMPLISH COMPARED TO ALL THE OTHER ISSUES THAT FACE SEHB) -- THAT COULD BOOST THE CURB APPEAL AND NEIGHBORHOOD APPEAL OF THIS AREA AND THUS HELP BOOST HOME PRICES, WHICH IN TURN COULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL MONEY TO THE CITY BY INCREASED PROPERTY TAX REVENUES RECEIVED BY HIGHER SALES PRICES OF HOMES. I UNDERSTAND CITY STAFF HAS A PROCESS ALREADY IN PLACE OF ACCOMPLISHING THIS TASK. I KNOW THE SIDEWALK REPAIR WORK STARTED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HB AND HAS PROGRESSED IN A GRID-LIKE SIDEWAYS AND DOWNWARD FASHION. I ALSO UNDERSTAND SEHB WILL BE THE VERY LAST AREA WITHIN THE WHOLE CITY TO HAVE THEIR SIDEWALKS REPAIRED AND OLD TREES REPLACED. I PERSONALLY HAVE WONDERED MANY TIMES WHAT WAS THE DECIDING FACTOR FOR BEGINNING THE SIDEWALK REPAIR PLAN ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HB RATHER THAN THE SOUTH? BUT SINCE THAT'S A RATHER IRRELEVANT QUESTION NOW THAT THE PROCESS IS IN PLACE, MY NEXT QUESTION TO CITY COUNCIL AND STAFF IS THIS: WHEN THE CITY' S UNDERGROUND INFRASTRUCTURE AND STREET REPAIRS BEGIN, WILL THAT FOLLOW THE SAME PATH AS THE SIDEWALK REPAIR, AND WILL SEHB AGAIN BE THE LAST TO RECEIVE THE BENEFITS, OR WILL IT BE OUR TURN TO BE FIRST THIS TIME? BRIDGE I DON'T WANT A BRIDGE PUT THROUGH WHICH MAY SERIOUSLY IMPACT MY FAMILY' S QUALITY OF LIVING WITH ADDED POLLUTION AND NOISE. ADDITIONALLY, I DON'T WANT A BRIDGE DUMPING TRAFFIC ONTO BANNING AVENUE WHICH WILL PUT MY CHILDREN' S SAFETY AT RISK WHEN THEY NEED TO CROSS BANNING AVENUE TO VISIT A FRIEND IN THE NEXT TRACT. I RECENTLY READ A VERY INTERESTING ARTICLE IN O.C. METRO ENTITLED "NORTH VS. SOUTH, A COUNTY DIVIDED. " THIS ARTICLE DISCUSSES THE VAST DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WHAT NEWER COMMUNITIES IN SOUTHERN ORANGE COUNTY OFFER AS COMPARED TO WHAT ESTABLISHED COMMUNITIES SUCH AS ANAHEIM, SANTA ANA, OR THE OLDER PARTS OF HUNTINGTON BEACH OFFER. IT IS, A FACT THAT SOUTHERN ORANGE COUNTY IS ATTRACTING MANY OF THE YOUNG FAMILIES WHO ARE EITHER IMMIGRATING INTO ORANGE COUNTY OR WHO I ARE ALREADY ESTABLISHED IN THE OLDER COMMUNITIES OF ORANGE COUNTY AND READY FOR A CHANGE. AFTER ALL, WHO WOULDN'T WANT THE BEAUTIFULLY LANDSCAPED STREETS AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD TRACTS, SEVERAL OF WHICH ARE LINKED TOGETHER TO FORM THE MASTER PLANNED, SAFETY- ORIENTED COMMUNITIES SOUTH COUNTY OFFERS? I BELIEVE THE OLDER AREAS OF HB CAN COMPETE WITH THESE NEWER COMMUNITIES IN SOUTH COUNTY, BUT FIRST WE MUST RECONFIGURE THE WAY OUR OLDER NEIHBORHOODS WERE ORIGINALLY PLANNED INTO SOMETHING THAT YOUNG FAMILIES TODAY ARE LOOKING FOR. WE WANT A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT OFFERS ITS RESIDENTS SAFETY AND NEIGHBORLY COMMRADERY BY CONNECTING SEVERAL HOUSING TRACTS TOGETHER. WITH THAT THOUGHT IN MIND, I 'D LIKE TO STATE THAT SOME FOLKS MAY SEE A BRIDGE THAT OUTLETS TRAFFIC ONTO BANNING AS A WAY TO SOLVE THE FUTURE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS FACING PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. I SEE BANNING AS A WAY TO RECONFIGURE THE OLD WAY OUR SOUTHEAST HB NEIGHBORHOOD WAS PLANNED BY BRINGING SEVERAL HOUSING TRACTS TOGETHER THAT ARE NOW DIVIDED. ORANGE COUNTY'S BUSINESS LIFESTYLE MAGAZINE APRIL 23, 1998 SULK RATE US POSTAGE P AID DELTO.CA PERWIT>Y89 . 1 z� GOODBYE E. t SEINFELD, HELLO MR. PETERMRN 4 �v .'J�MJli1 .f. t a a a u, Gi 1�u+a1L3,46cYiaJ .4 4 �I�{ a � a >♦ � TELECOMMUTING: r , N4W, .�: .. NO LONGER R FRD BUT'R GROUNG RERLITY _� . . MOTHER'S DRY GIFT GUIDE MF . 4 �1y1Y 'awn � ,. ." �• .. ... ., �. la A I � A Co U`nty �1 viti e d a n � r a re ..c E —e Soto and 1 It. "I fell A reading h, ,,,p she sweep so 1 can n i o Turnci c She bu rb d bookstore one,a we CTd her.Some specialize �1 "Santa �J she says,a C downtown "I've it. OR", � ha" CC Cot. ' I Curtain, ■ cultural ai T two adjac, Now,a a u n tforces cha, and the htgl �J to build a Toro Many, • unity threatened by El , , reuse, county is, ��� permanent Pro-aui a South.Latn, ' fortunes explores the divergence Orange Co a modern Montague ethnic `Todayi diviA and de the c it divide, i i r= d Th, rb ,e f 1 Toro khatE 'Ili Turner is buying books at the Irvine Spectrum in South Orange E County.In her arms are novels by Gabriel Garcia Marquez,Rudolfo ,/ µ, ,} 7 KAnaya and Carlos Fuentes,and poetry books by Julia Alvarez,Gary Some pros and cons of U le airpol L. Soto and Pablo Neruda,all for her Latino literature class at college. j t 66 1W e haven't seen anything that has divided r4 "I fell in love with the movie about Pablo Neruda,'The Postman;and started the county this sharply since we've been E ra doing the annual survey,"said Cheryl reading his poetry,"she says,pronouncing the name with a Spanish inflection as Katz of UC Irvine when the results of the school's annual 1 = survey came out in December 1997.'There have been she sweeps her long blonde hair behind her shoulder."And I'm studying Spanish differences over the years,but we haven't seen an issue that has split the county like this:' so I can read his work the way he wrote it." The annual survey,which measures county attitudes o on a number of issues,found that citizens in North Orange Turner is 19. She grew up in South Orange County. County favor an airport at El Toro by 46 to 41 percent, while South County opposes it 68 percent to 25 percent. She buys textbooks at commercial bookstores to avoid high prices at her college Slated to close by July 1999 as part of the downsizing of military bases nationwide,the future use of the El Toro d bookstore in Arizona.Today,she's found all the assigned works for her class but Marine Corps Air Station's 4,717 acres in South Orange County has become a flash point between the north and one,a work by Los Angeles writer Ixta Maya.The clerk says he can order it for the south. her.Someone else suggests she might find the book in Santa Ana at a store that The airport proposal selected by a 3-2 vote the �J County Board of Supervisors calls for 24 million passengers specializes in Latino authors. annually at El Toro,about one-third the size of LAX, Fy with full passenger and cargo service.Opponents have "Santa Ana?Right.Like my parents wouldn't kill me if I drove to Santa Ana;' offered a non-aviation plan focused on high-tech industry, I 'parks and museums,residential villages,and sports she says,as if she were talking about a place far from her,rather than a city whose . facilities. - Supporters of an airport,cite an increased demand j C downtown is just minutes away. for both passenger and cargo flights in the region,a demand they say the county's existing John Wayne airport "I've never even been there,"she says."I'd be scared to go." can't meet.Pro-airport advocates emphasize that the El C= Toro base has served as a military airport for decades, r or years,people in Los Angeles overwhelmingly Anglo communities includes already existing runways,as well as acres of k �-y have mockingly referred toOrange clustered to the west and south from the open space that will serve as a buffer for noise impacts L^C 1 County as being behind the Orange immigrant areas concentrated in such older of a commercial airport Curtain,perceiving a great divide- communities as Anaheim and Santa Ana:' Opponents of an El Toro airport counter that John W.— cultural and political-separating the writes Joel Kotkin of the Pepperdine Wayne Airport can handle the region's immediate air two adjacent counties. Institute for Public Policy in his report needs,especially when a legally imposed cap on the Now,as demographic and economic "Orange County:The Fate of a Post number of passengers expires in the year 2005.Anti- forces change the face of Orange County, Suburban Paradise." airport activists point out that the strongest pro-airport and the highly divisive debate over whether The recession and subsequent recovery support comes from Newport Beach,much of which aL� to build a commercial airport at the El left the north at an economic disadvantage is under the John Wayne flight path,and that the support Toro Marine Corps Air Station looms over to the south,as cutbacks in the aerospace is less about the wisdom of an airport at El Toro and county issues,there is the danger of a and defense industry centered in North -more about wanting to limit or eliminate future flights permanent split in Orange County itself. Orange County were offset by the dramatic , at John Wayne. Pro-airport vs.anti-airport.North vs. growth of the high-tech sector in the south. Supporters of an airport counter that for the local and South Latino vs.Anglo.This special report In 1990,North Orange County had ,regional economy to stay prosperous and efficient the { explores the issues that currently pit some 60.7 percent of all businesses and 69.2 ability to move cargo through the air must be improved. Orange County groups against others in percent of thejobs in the county,according Today,there are only two air cargo flights a day at John a modern version of Shakespeare's to a report by Anil K.Puri,chairman of Wayne Airport,meaning that almost all Orange County Montagues and Capulets. the Department of Economics at Cal State air cargo must be trucked to LAX or other regional airports. L4_J 'Today the real'Orange Curtain'doesn't Fullerton.By the second quarter of 1995, Former Irvine Mayor Larry Agran,an airport foe, divide the county from Los Angeles;instead the north's percentage of businesses had says,"This is less a battle between North Orange it divides the increasingly affluent, .County and South Orange County than a battle between CoNI ea on papa 26 certain vested interests in Newport Beach and the rest of the county:' Supervisor William Steiner,who represents North ' Orange County District 4 on the Orange County Board of Supervisors,generally votes pro-airport,though at times his vote has swung to the non-aviation side. .'The El Toro reuse permeates all debate in the county r C1D on all sorts of issues;'says Steiner."It's caused frayed relationships:'0CM - OC METa0/APaIL 23, 1999 From page 25 €:s1 "• r l' fallen to 58.6,while payroll employment € �,;� N 67 i fell to64.5 percent. '{ Just as important,the wages of North County jobs are dropping relative to the • " south a3 well,according to the Puri report In 1991,the average wage in North Orange County was 97.3 percent of the average wage in South County-That ratio dropped to 95.3 percent in 1994 and to 93.5 percentPA r in 1995. rI l �gpGd The differences between the north and south in Orange County are very real, with ethnicity and wealth perhaps the two r - ,i� - most apparent points of divergence.For example,Santa Ana is 74 percent Latino and 14 percent non-Latino white.Newport pti;•aa�w-� w-;p,s .. • ,t, s T Beach is over 90 percent white and 5 `%" �k!'%- percent Latino.The per capita income in �` t`�s ads Newport is$56,000 per year,in Santa - ��--- Ana it's$10,813.(For other cities,see James W Silva ? - •" '- ` chart on page 37). Second District - While the economic and demographic Airport. ° -' '• t' - ' gap in Orange County has been developing 56 <" ) along a north-south axis for decades, recent events have defined and focused differences to the point where a rivalry is ar., developing. _ Thomas Wilsoni The Orange County bankruptcy added quieter than military fighters(90 decibels - District _v( s.m to the distrust anddistancebetweencitizens compared to 120 decibels),but critics Alrport.No and count government.Citizens in the answer that commercial jets will land Y g J south were especially outraged about the and take off with more frequency. lack of oversight by Santa Ana-based Clarence Turner,former mayor oflsjr;=,•a N4c6tt officials over the county's investment Newport Beach,calls the noise concerns pool. And the contentious debate over "absolutely ridiculous"He points out that +�� „r . . the eaJ future ew�o cale El l forhseeess une Air n o�fthe worst-case scenarioon 90 decibels every included laded in theseconds init al s the A map of Orange Coanty's five supevlsorlal dlstNch and the NA•'�4 south from the north to forth a new county. environmental impact report submitted S Pell Thus far this is onlya rhetorical gesture b the count and that the numbers were current Incumbents pasltlons Wiz'`- --<•-, .� ,.=�. .n s d on an El Toro alrpoR. -, r, ,S;y: g^- —nothing like the organized effort in the for an airport supporting 38 million air San Fernando Valley to secede from the passengers a year.Turner says he backs an ,t m. rest of Los Angeles.None of the civic airport at El Toro handling 20 millions',' leaders interviewed for this report thought passengers. corporation has broken ground on a new a breakaway to be either likely or wise. County supervisors voted 3-2 in favor 34-acre campus-like location at Irvine i- l But if tempers rise that could change. of an airport plan that could handle 24 Center Drive and Sand Canyon,not far ` million passengers a year by 2020.By from the airbase. ••i• i comparison,Los Angeles International "We are in an extremely competitive How do Airport currently serves 60 million business;'Cornelius says."Most of the y Tech Coast concerns passengers a year, San Francisco talent pool is up in the Silicon Valley,and t0 Share y( Some opponents of an airport at El International Airport currently handles we have a facility there as well.We will "In the Silicon Valley,you have San 1 Toro worry about how a commercial airport 39.5 million and John Wayne has an annual be where that talent pool is.It's a recruiting Francisco,San lose and Oakland airports S''1 mpl N' would affect the high-tech businesses limit of 8.4 million passengers until2005. and retention issue" nearby.High-tech areas in Virginia and Y developing in the Irvine Spectrum.Monica McDade is concerned that even the Western Digital could easily move its Boston are clustered near airports,"says search, thl McDade works in Irvine for Rainbow smallest proposed airport will affect the workers to Northern California if an airport Turner.He adds that import-export and Technologies,a$94 million-a-year maker high-tech industry,especially in recruiting is built at El Toro,Cornelius says.He cites international trade are key to Orange making set of security software.McDade,who lives top-level employees, concerns about the potential noise impact County's economic health."And as for succes under the flight path of John Wayne Airport, "It used to take an average of 3 months at the new headquarters and on workers quality of life,the major factor there is a opposes the El Toro airport proposals to fill a high-tech•position,now it takes' who live in the area.In addition,having good strong economy" and her as, largely because of noise. 6-9 months because the economy is so an influx of trucks and warehouses . Critics respond by saying that the "Ten years ago we were told the Irvine competitive;'she says."I think an airport supporting a shipping industry could have county's industry of the future will rely match you Spectrum area would be a clean and safe could kill the Tech Coast before it really a negative impact on the quality of life, less on the manufacture and shipping of high-tech region,"McDade says."How takes off." Cornelius says.He is worried about the goods and more on services and software. are knowledge-based workers supposed Other Tech Coast leaders are concerned "possibility that the infrastructure in the "For the high-tech industry,many of to create when they have 90 decibels going as well."Our company is clearly and area won't be as attractive,especially our products are downloaded over the off every 60 secondsT' forcefully opposed to the commercial with a cargo airport" Intemet,"McDade says,though she admits The extent,intensity and frequency airport project,"says Mike Cornelius, But others argue that an airport would there is a distinction between hardware of commercialjets taking off and landing Western Digital's vice president of Law be especially valued by high-tech workers and software companies in this regard. at El Toro is a matter of intense debate and Administration.Western Digital,one and similar professionals who demand "The future belongs to knowledge and among critics and proponents of a .of the world's leaders in the hard disc mobility.Flights out of John Wayne service-based high-tech industries in the commercial airport.Proponents point out drive industry, has its corporate Airport are limited by legal restrictions that the newest commercial jets are much headquarters in the Irvine Spectrum.The and a very short runway. Continued on pege 28 P E 11 Beverly Hills OC METRO I APRIL 23, I— I From page 26 The supervisors can put the initiative on issues and talks about wanting to secede, While many would argue the tracts of the ballot,and if they don't we can get it that's not in the cards.There's far more Irvine or Mission Viejo are just updated t region.Do we want to risk that industry on by petition,"he says. that binds us together." versions of the same thing,at least they to make shipping a bit cheaper? In the meantime,planning for the airport are newer,residents say.There are "Ibis is the largest land-use opportunity goes on,as do lawsuits opposed to it. i landscaped boulevards and well-groomed we'll ever see.It should be a uniting issue, Though lawsuits may hold up the marks-a11 according to a community not divisive:'McDade says."Now that process,the pro-airport side is anxious to A county without a center master plan. there are other choices,and real research begin cargo flights once the Marines leave Much of Orange County's growth over ft s those very plans that make it difficult has been done,people should be given the the base in July 1999.The danger,according the past 40 years,whether from ntigmtion to bring unity to the county,according to }1 ; opportunity to come to a rational reasonable to Ellstrand,is that"once you start flights from within California or from immigration William Fulton,an urban planner who has t conclusion." in,cargo,passenger,etc.,it leads you down from elsewhere,is due to a simple fact: studied the development of Orange County _ 'r•M'^°•'i^°• The other choice she mentions is the the road until eventually it's a done deal:' It's a wonderful place to live and work. and greater Los Angeles.According to Call for I recently unveiled Millennium Plan, Supervisor Steiner,who has lived in For much of South County,that quality Fulton,much of Orange County was which is the non-aviation alternative to _ �-' 2792 n an airport presented by South County cities.The plan includes a 360-acre ;- ;• central park,an NFL football stadium, high-tech business centers,colleges,an arts and culture district,open space and a habitat reserve. Supporters of the Millennium Plan � � >:� -- -" - G C believe this type of development would pump$10.4 to$12.9 billion into the ,, x it AVision ofBearify. economy each year,adding up to 51,000 *- 0 high-income jobson site and as manyZn ate` .. - An Innovation of rut - + as 112,000jobs countywide. Critics of the non-aviation plan ` note that it was designed by planners - and government officials with no g , assurance that it would be profitable for the private sector to develop and operate.Anti-airport forces say a similar �� k - charge can be made about the rosy .s�� ' - "�` lg 'r .. ..,. financial picture painted about a commercial airport at El Toro. In sum,a good portion of South County is ardently opposed to an airport at El Toro, r ' „ter I�Ilj III 5:— while their more populous northern ANA` itlu a ",.�" neighbors are less intense in their support. �, a sc � � t� Some see the clash as a classic case of Nimbyism.Others say other factors are 4 sM! involved. Currently,the pro-airport forces have a slight edge in the debate:Aviation use of El Toro was approved by a ' 't jcountywide vote and has the support of a r - �. a majority on the Board of Supervisors �o ,o " a, rv..s. A pivotal swing vote %s On Dec.11,1996,the Orange County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 tof recommend a cargo and international passenger airport at El Toro.Today,the t same vote is closer:3-to-2 in favor of an ,r4 ' - f i % �, F k �, airport.But now the majority on the Board yb4e>fans buffs auebaa r t r a t of Supervisors is up for grabs in the June - �►:rrif 1,"r"s election.Seats up for election include the r tesfdsafss�?" .fs. 7' retiring William Steiner's District seat saryserangeBeaafy ,�a narAM work(ngathor as well as Thomas Wilson's District 5 sea[ and lira Silva's sent in District 2.Steiner and Silva have been pro-airport,while " r Wilson is opposed. Depending on the election,the one- the city of Orange for30 years,hopes that of life has been planned.And for many, specifically designed to not feel like a fi — votedifferenceontheairponcouldchange. the deep splits in the county are mostly moving to South County from Los Angeles cohesiveconununit "The sense of If is does,and an anti-airport majority over the airport,and can be healed once or North County has little todo with fear interconnectedness is not thene rind it's We encourage you i, takes over,Allan Ellstrand of Project 99, the issue is resolved. of the changing ethnic makeup of those deln crately set up ihat wa,"he says. diamonds.Custn a nonprofit group opposed to the airport, "lthinkthatthedivisionsbe[ween areas.Residents are simply sick of When hecommunitiesol'SoutnCounty most i believes the change would"effectively north and south are overblown and congesuonan mind-numbing sameness were planned in the late 1960sand early cripple the airport"Ile foresees another they're pretty much all wrapped up in this o eac ou evard,for exam le,and its '70s,there was revolution in the air,or at Ir vote on the airport,now that the non- El Toro debate,and we need to have a mi c a ter mr a of strip malls and auto 'least the smell of tear gas frorn urban aviation alternative,or Millennium Plan, broader perspective in terms of this eaers ips,ort e end ess an cm erblock unrest.Developments in Irvine and Mission is public. . county,"Steiner says."Even though wa s enclosing the 1960s-era housing "There will be another ballot initiative. South County is furious over the airport tracts of many,North County neighborho(Xds. Continued on page 90 14310-D G � Between MONI) mOC METRO/APRIL 23, 1998 L EYh' � A s,4 �' f fa, ^tt t e . r �et Participating it In... d ?d Selecting tl s mNso� btbkrtMaeA {` step in prel Western Stal P g t class to givc r0 V y You'll alsi by the Amc: building an( f ', rs mr Adnussioi ar ,d a Reservations reserved h : tea WESTERP UNIVEI COLLEGE 75" 1111 North State C v e w`- t a a -7S al •� k Fullerton,Calif From page 21 "The efuture exile Orange County iican "Can ou create a whole out of an area � ��''���= %--,. s£��s t• of the great experiments in American Y Viejo provided a feeling of safety.They urbanism,"says Fulton,author of"The were set apart from the urban and suburban Reluctant Metropolis:The Politics of megalopolis. Urban Growth in Los Angeles." designed to be nothing but parts? In a r Ask a resident of Irvine w "Can you create a whole out of an area ;3 live'md they'll often say" gOslktid •' designed to be nothing but parts?In a N: or"Purtle Rock"before they'11 say I ine. county that's been deliberately designed county that's been deliberately designed They i(entd'more with their particular io be diffuse,I don't see how you link it at ban yillape than with the community together." ` traditional urban areas,orange Infrastructure and jobs to be diffuse, I don't see how you link r' Co County has no central city or downtown. While there may be no downtown for l� This decentralized pattern is called an the county as a whole,many North County �' Edge City,and it's the post-urban trend cities have older central cores they are it together." around the world,according to Fulton. redeveloping.But with the for rs on emwth �0U are Invdec'. With the Edge City,there really is no in the south over the past decades,Murh —William Fulton urban planner J central core. of t to money for development has Flowed f ! Athletic Club.SI: For Orange County,the civic downtown, away from the older ecrahs ched citirc in with the courts and county administration, the nort� h. gentlemen's athletic cl, is Santa Ana.For some,the center is — ,u etmcca,chairmanof UCirvine's about it.There was no supervisor thereto that most South County cities do not qualify simple.UAC isaComf, Anaheim,with Disneyland and the sports Department of Politics and Society,cites complain.There's never been a Todd for." arena and stadium.For others,it's the a distinction in infrastructure between Spitzer from the North County before. While there may be a dispute about our select and limited I Costa Mesa/Newport Beach/Irvine area, north and south as an example of a None of the past supervisors wanted to development funds,there is no question friends and CIXltfaderit with South Coast Repertory and South southern bias. rock the boat or bite the hand that was that South County is booming with high- Coast Plaza,the John Wayne Airport "I looked at the numbers around.the feeding them. incomejobs while North County has yet -arWAere in Orange D business area,and Newport Center and bankruptcy time and for years an But Susan Helper,redevelopment to recover from losing some of its major 'n Fashion Island. infrastructure expenditure disparity has manager for Garden Grove,points out that employers. s6rAce_-.fresh mrkou The challenge for the planner of the been evident,"says Petracca. He points there is an important difference between District 3 Supervisor Spitzer,whose complimentary shoe sl future,one that light rail proponents are out that developers have pushed for development and redevelopment. constituents live in the northern and southern facing now,is how can you efficiently infrastructure to provide access to the tract "I don't see redevelopment as a north- parts of the county,has made a reputation promotes your persona, link a community with no center?When homes now covering hills and ridges south issue,"Helpersays."In South County, for knocking the county establishment: I:'- fitness and Card the hub and spokes model of the throughout South County. development is financed(largely)through Now he's making an issue ofthe growing --. traditional urban center doesn't work, "The amazing thing is,the people in tolls and Mello-Roos,while North County ti ;•Cl)flfl3r2f>ce facilities. what takes its place? the North County haven't complained redevelopment comes from separate funds Continue,on page 32 mOC METRO I APRIL 23, 1998 t m r�P E^ Rom page 30 The company 80d the COI Some critics believe th.ii economic disparity between North and county interests—both politic. power brokers behind the hea, ,,p.= *� . .r. .,'za x,°',✓ $% t - .3a �'" �L4s ,f da`,.4 '*' y �,,, "It's very important that people too focused on economic des, zt j ON3 Cr ^-''' ` understand very clearly that I'm absolutely South County and are ignorim dedicated to address the very difficult problems in North County. �' �•; say. 'Pi� issue ofjob loss from North Orange County "One of the big problem �".�, �= T to South Orange County;'says Spitzer. County is that The Irvine C, "It has the potential to be a serious problem facto government of a third of 5 t kf ? 9 ` +. ." a ' over the next 5 to 10 ears. and they're only interested m th, ,�t 1 Y Y Y 1��F � `", 4 "Historically,North Orange County says Kotkin."I think they're I . � � has been the home to the powerhouse sighted.If Santa Ana deteriorat, lj t� cities;'Spitzer points out."In Fullerton do Irvine any good longterm It `� `� �,"'' ,'"x*F. �+�* `*'L •.V} '�. ,r aftV we had Hughes and Rockwell,but(hose difficult to get them focu, defense firms have moved out.So the countywide perspective." ' - clout Fullerton had has warted considerably. As the biggest landowner ni We're trying to attract big businesses back in the county,The Irvine Co.h to North Orange County." a position on the airport.Whiles Spitzer is studying the proposal fora might benefit economically frr r:' 1'e ad SaFe€ - 1 - light cool system that would connect South at El Toro,it also is the des c, x ;'ibnl7rin" ' d - j .I and North Orange County.'9t'sproposed master-planned Irvine and s - ;,,,.„,. } to o Irom Irvine all the wa u to ,. , t g Y P Spectrum,ground zero of the # '�7^` #798Gt�arerat '�•` _� ^' Fullerton.I'm not commiued to light rail,b business boom. but I'm supporting the studies to see if Spitzer says that Kotkin', a6feboNmtd mz - r" i ' it could be a catalyst for retention of unwarranted,but the supet tf ;;;NubaksMt7on, business and economic development in similar charges against moll 'r' '; - v:. e North Orange Count " b Y Orange County organization r� ,x-�,,` 'a F -�;3",..,4,i_;e:,�- ':5,�.� �II I ,' ,, While South County is attracting more "Instead of putting it no of the high-tech companies,Helper points Co.,because 1 think that's an u 1 • •` 3 out that cities like Santa Ana have been they're trying to develop the k able to attract traditional manufacturing that's what they should be, _ t r` businesses that take advantage of the put it on the Orange Count available labor pool. Council,"Spitzer says.TI Council is Orange Court T11UTL IT10 �;� EP T00004W a 1 orma s owe20 SPECIAI it every a2v prices on sports Illness nu n Ion pro tic s F, Lj1 Sa I F Save I�� � •.Assort[ 222 E.17th Street,(osta Mesa,(a 92627 �� � Limited 714-712.0247 Fax 114-722-0920 -` �` ��` °ffe parking amilahle in rear -' F Verne Beach 310-396-5663 Fax 310.396 9443 Los Angeles 213 467-2016 Fox 213-467-6533 West Hollywood 310-360-9426 Fax 310-360.9437 apt i ® OC MEtBO I APmL 23, IsH The Cef/lpai., .,rd the Council - influential business organization. War,in., .mper stickers read,"Would Some critics believe that powerful Spitzer notes:'The fact of the matter the IastAmerican to leave Garden Grove isparity between North and county interests—both politicians and the is the Business Council is best equipped please take down the flag." - 1 y- power brokers behind the headlines—are to develop regional policy and programs Now the Asian communities in Orange ' iy Important that people too focused on economic development in- that will improve the economic development County are well-established and increasingly P cry clearly that I'm absolutely South County and are ignoring important of the whole county.However,their primary successful.Kotkin's report finds over 60 address the very difficult problems in North County. focus has not been on North Orange County. percent of Asians are homeowners.In "They have to realize that their focus Irvine,the five nations with the largest fmm Noah Orange County "One of the big problems for Orange .Inge County;'says Spitzer. County is that The Irvine Co.is the de can't just be on Irvine and the southern groups of permanent residents are Vietnam, �`', s Icnlial to be a serious problem facto government of a third of the county, part of Orange County.I think it's essential Mexico,the Philippines,Korea and Iran, S l5to 10years. and they're only interested in their property," for the Business Council to take a in descending order. ,ally,North Orange Count Y S Y says Kotkin."I think they're being short- leadership role:' Asian immigrants are an important part .:home to the powerhouse sighted.If Santa Ana deteriorates,it doesn't Spitzer says he's made it clear to council of the Tech Coast boom,withone-thirdof ` gar points out."In Fullerton do Irvine any good long term.It's extremely leaders,including CEO Stan Oftelie,that the engineers in the county of Asian birth, 'v hes and Rockwell,but those difficult to get them focused on any in order to get his support for funding,the according to Kotkin's report.Yet,for those n s have moved out.So the countywide perspective:' OCBC will have to be dedicated to North most concerned with immigration,the immigration,only illegal immigration. �n had has waned considerably. As the biggest landowner and developer County redevelopment. greatest attention is paid to migrants from Coe says,"It's extremely frightening 10 attract big businesses back in the county,The Irvine Co.has not taken Oftelie agrees that the council needs Mexico and Central America. _ to me.Leaders of Latino groups say they're urge County." a position on the airport While the company to help lead the county,and that working Today,many are concerned about going to take our country from us by the .sudying the proposal for a might benefit economically,from an airport together is the only way, immigration,some to a much greater extent vote or by violence if necessary,"she ern that would connect South at El Toro,it also is the developer of the "One thing we have to avoid is guerrilla than others.A combination of allegedly clafms.'There's no doubt in my mind that range County"It's proposed master-planned Irvine and the Irvine warfare on every issue.'saysOBelie."Because illegal voters,dual nationality citizens, it's all part of a game plan" Irvine all the way up to Spectrum,ground zero of the Tech Coast people are unhappy about the airportthey and legal and illegal immigrationthreaten Reuben Martinez'voice is not angry, n not committed to light rail, business boom. start submarining other issues,causing that not only the economic well-being of Orange though he is saddened by the angry voices porting the studies to see if Spitzer says that Kotkin's criticism is gap to get worse and worse." County,but the very sovereignty of the he hears.He has lived in North Orange a catalyst for retention of unwarranted,but the supervisor levels U.S.,according to the California Coalition County for years,whilesome of his grown I cumonuc development in similar charges against another powerful for Immigration Reform. children have moved to South County.He 2c County." Orange County organization. • I I "We're looking at a deluge of people: owns a bookstore and an gallery speci:dizing oth County Is attracting more "Instead of putting it on The Irvine millions,millions and millions,"says in books and art by Latinces.It's in downtown -ch companies,Helper points Co.,because l think that's an unfair burden, Amelting pet? Orange County resident Barbara Coe,one Santa Ana,the downtown the college 11 like Santa Ana have been they're trying to develop the Spectrum— There's a history of loud and angry of the co-authors of Proposition 187.She student couldn't imagine visiting. .1 traditional manufacturing that's what they should be doing—let's voices in Orange County,especially on says her group includes many Latinos who 'The customers who come in here are hat take advantage of the put it on the Orange County Business issues of race and immigration.When "came here the right way." the nicest people in the world;'he says, gal pool. Council,"Spitzer says.The Business Asian refugees formed communities in She and other immigration activists Council is Orange County's most North Orange County following theViemam point out that they are not against Continued on gage 35 SALE s � ' ' AN ' C x SPECIAL PURCHASES SINKING PRICES! �� Samsonite• *ON ALL BRANDS �� J TM ON ALL MERCHANDISE Y S T E R except selected brands 799MS � Don't Be Fooled by Department Store Sale PricesRP$200 Don't Be Fooled By 111 Save $ 120 Other Luggage Store Sale Prices Service! Selection! Price! -Assorted Colors 29' No One Compares! 4; d Limited to Stock on Han Offer expires May 10,1998 R.►ww�iS Lu99o9►6 W-4.9s COSTA MESA LAGUNA HILLS � , .-L__i" • tMetro Point a-11 Coos1 Plazal ILag�rw Hills Malll , A05 of Swlh Come nr/1-73 al seer 51 1-5 el El Toro Road 714-641-2071 949-855-1147 __ _•- ------ - -'- 111 ---- IT ---- OC METRO/APRIL 23, 1998 From gag, better for some North County cities.Irvine Unified School District's graduation rate "because they want to learn.We have a was 97.3 percent(as reported in Focus __ lot of Anglo customers who want to learn Orange County's 1997 report),compared .,_ about other cultures. to 72.8 percent for Santa Ana,while the axw„ ` "I still get a lot ofpeople who call me advanced placement test pass rate Top Dollar For and ask if it's safe to come to Santa Ana. percentage for the Irvine schools was 41.5 '- r My answer is yes.If it wasn't safe I compared to 6.4 for the Santa Ana district. GOLD-DIAMONDS-JEWELRY " r'' wouldn't be here;'he says. Granted,Irvine has one of the highest In fact,the city's crime rate has dropped rated suburban school districts in the state, �" ROLEX WATCHES - r - "It's ironic to me that Orange County,which , r 722 was the incubator in many ways of Prop. .il 187, has one of the most upwardly mobile, r ' ' work oriented, non-welfare dependent Latino populations in the country," --Joel Kotkin, 50 percent in the last five years.While t. there were 78 homicides in SantaAna in Pepperdine Institute 1993,the number dropped to 27 in 1997, Santa Ana is now one of the 25 safest of for Public Policy t' the 200 largest cities in the U.S. 7 Born in Arizona,Martinez first worked as a barber,setting up shop in Santa Ana but the discrepancy between neighboring 25 years ago.He started offering books districts is striking. and art in his barber shop until it became Oftelie agrees that education is the .r more bookstore than barber shop.For key to closing the gap between north Martinez,the lack of understanding between and south. people in the county is painful. "SAT scores are the most telling;'says "We look at America as a land of Oftelie."Hle overall SAT scores for Orange opportunity,it's been very good to me County are much higher than the state or i, and my family.I thank California,I thank .national level.Higher than Silicon Valley, C the United States,and I thank my culture," orjust about any other major area with a r Expansive he says. high-tech background.That's very positive Practice "All of my kids grew up healthy,they for recruiting workers and companies to Facility went on to higher education,now they're the area.But if you then look at the with Grass raising families,and all of my kids are breakdown by district,we find a 250- Hitting buying homes in very nice neighborhoods point spread between the neighboring- _ Tees throughout Orange County,south and Irvine and Santa Ana school districts. north,"says Martinez. "Because they That's an enormous problem. have the education,they can buy a big "We have to set some goals on what house,because they're working hard,they we want to achieve with our schools,and have the education and they're making we have to set goals both from a business the money." and a more broad social view.We need The key is education,says Martinez. to train people to be able to go to work. "1 want to see young kids stay in school, We have to be able to provide people go on and get an education,respect people, with opportunity so they can do things respect cultures,respect their neighbors advantageous for themselves and for y and to get along." society." But the differences in education levels in the county are startling. Ethnic diversity In Santa Ana the percentage of adults "Nearly one out of four Orange County with a college degree is 9.67,in Anaheim residents is foreign born,a percentage Quality it's 15.7 percent By contrast,in Newport roughly equal to New York City,"Kotkin Merchandise Beach almost 42 percent have college notes,adding that the county ranked sixth degrees,in Laguna Beach it's over 45 nationally as the intended residence of percent,while in Irvine 39.9 percent have immigrants arriving in the U.S.between degrees. ' The high school numbers aren't any Continued on page 36 OC METRO/APRIL 23, 1999 _ From page ss to Labor Department statistics. population will sob.� ' "It's ironic to me that Orange County, concentrated than it toil. Tl�/ //� 1992 and 1996. which was the incubator in many ways of more concentrated."G:q �I l mil'OU h ,v��G!I Latinos and whites will each make up Prop.187,has one of the most upwardly you look at Latinos who I about 41 percent of the population of mobile,work oriented,non-welfare several generations,the Orange County by they year 2020, dependent Latino populations in the different than anybody r one she prefers• according to a study prepared by Bill country,"says Kotkin. demographic occupation. Nt Gayk,head of the Center for Demographic The UC Irvine survey found that the fertility,occupation-ed _ Research at Cal State Fullerton. political profile of county Latinos is very first-M>m rgenerationst, u are d! Californians'attitudes towards Latinos similar to the overall county profile:55 very different,but by the I have shifted depending on economic percentoflatinos call themselves middle- those differences toil conditions.The federal government has, of-rhe-road or somewhat conservative, 2020,we will culll see ee a n at the request of California employers, compared to 60 percent of all Orange north,but at the same amp developed programs to import Mexican County residents.Just 30 percent of Latinos the very large dispersion of 1_� P� the county' g r agricultural workers at least three times consider themselves somewhat liberal or = 'thus,the split this century.But during the Depression very liberal,compared to 28 percent of terms, m d least on ethnic tes,, �i ma) �•'"��� i"'; � '� legal and illegal immigrants,along with countywide residents. time.That is if cooler he. - a-' many U.S.citizens of Mexican descent, In Orange County, one in four were deported. businesses are minority owned,according the differences aren't explai Modem anti-immigrant feelings found to U.S.Census statistics cited by Kotkin. or political ends. I a voice in the passage of 1994's Prop.187, While there is value in citing these Supervisor Steiner bcl which soughtY to den medical and figures to show that stereotypes about on divisions between north educational benefits to illegal immigrants. ethnic groups are rarely based on fact, the point"Orange Count Man viewed the proposition,and the there is danger too.The'ud in ofgroupfuture, with $90 bills Y P P g 1 S g c it .. unemployment a nda.k racially charged advertising in support of of people as good or bad based on how being the sixth largest coin Premiere 4-we it,as part of a wider antipathy toward the closely they resemble societal norms may people can putty much hai, - 4 -- growing Latino population in the state. serve to marginalize those who don't. County,whether they live u t, in terms of their quality t For tnfompqtion "I want my kids to see the way other "You havee greater minorities and n in old t of deterioration m older.� live so the can see how much mean there'sgoingto '�-`b '_. people � y different Orange Counoe _ s 1 don't think so.North '4,' we really are alike." -Jim Owens, Irvine father With the current economic boom,Prop. "We don't learn mirth about each other;' 187 era anti-immigrant fervor,which arose says UCI's Petracca."People who live in during the height of the recession,may Mission Viejo and spend their time and be dissipating,while the measure itself money at Knott's Berry Farm take the - Ethical Workhabits, Trainable, has been delayed in the courts, highway and get off at the nearest exit. UC Irvine's most recent Annual Survey They don't take the'scenic route.'That OK Credit Needed, No up-front found thatjust 36 percent of Orange County diminishes the ability for people living in ' residents feel that"immigrants today are different parts of the community to develop Money;Excellent Benefits. a burden on our country,"while 53 percent a sense of sympathy with other people j say they believe"immigrants strengthen who are living there." our country".This is compared to 54 Gayk of Cal State Fullerton doesn't percent nationwide who see immigrants believe the county will be split between .x as a burden. a highly Latino north and Anglo south 0 �} 1 I ' to ' ' Whether or not those numbers hold true in the future,because as newly arrived Potential in the future,the future of Orange County immigrants assimilate they become AT will to a large part depend on if residents more similar demographically than develop tolerance of ethnic diversity. different,and then tend to disperse , . 000to I 000 Experts argue that one of the first throughout the county. j 311R goals in breaking down prejudice is Immigrant waves have followed the r breaking through stereotypes.The same pattern in the past Asltalians,Irish, Space Planning'01 stereotypes that drive animosity toward Polish,German and others came to the Latinos and immigrants are often deep- country,they gathered together in poor i. I P mope in 3 to ' ON seated,though in Orange County they ghettos in the inner cities,where they are increasingly false. suffered from disrnminarion while pursuing ll THELatinos fit easily within the Orange economic opportunity.As they succeeded County self-image as home to a hard- they moved to more affluent areas and ' 1 working and upwardly mobile populace. assimilated into the majority as sharply NEW Today,almost 40 percent of Latinos in drawn distinctions and stereotypes of Coll 7.14.8 the countyare homeowners Orange County previous generations faded away. Latinos have the highest labor participation The same is we of Latinos. rate(72.5 percent)in the U.S.,according "I think we'll find that the Latino I 0" METRO I 1111fil 2a, 1— ��tmentstatistics. popular. ill probably be less 3Q T n t, Q T n M P p c - u me that Orange County, concentrates than it is today by 2020,not t ncubator in many ways of more concentrated,"Gayk says."When White Asian Latino Black Other De ,tie of the most upwardly you look at Latinos who have been here Degree P/C Income Median Age oriented,non-welfare several generations,they're not much Fullerton 55.41 14.87 27.17 2.08 .46 25.87 $21,907 33.9 t mo populations in the different than anybody else in terms of �otki❑ demographic characteristics like education, Anaheim 45.77 11.33 40.07 2.35 .49 15.74 $18,002 31.5 me survey found that the fertility,occupation.New arrivals and of county Latmos is very first-bom generations are demographically Santa Ana 13.63 10.08 74.2 1.77 .32 9.67 $10,813 26 oral I county profile.55 very different,but by the third generation call themselves middle- those differences tend to disappear.So by .oniewhat conservative, 2020,we will still see a concentration up Newport 90.29 3.84 5.26 .32 .28 41.87 $56,000 43.5 I percent of all Orange north,but at the same time l would expect last 30 percent of Latinos t a very large dispersion of Latinos throughout Irvine 69.29 22.34 6.26 1.79 .31 33.01 $29,163 34.6 Ives somewhat liberal or the county." mpared to 28 percent of ( Thus,the split in Orange County,at Laguna 86.99 2.19 9.86 .72 .24 45.39 $47,835 43.7 t dents. least on ethnic terms,may heal itself given County, one in four time.That is if cooler heads prevail and Mission Viejo 81.45 8.16 9.17 .94 .29 26.17 $26,246 36.5 mmrlty owned,according thedifferences;uen'texploitedforeconomic daustics cited by Kotkin. or political ends. 1997 figures from the Clarhas Data Base Co.and Focus:Orange County is value in citing these Supervisor Steiner believes the focus that stereotypes about on divisions between north and south miss the point."Orange County has such a great communities realize the need to revitalize to take his kids to a community a bit out "To be unified we need to change our .re rarely based on fact, i o.Thejudging ofagmup future, with $90 billion GNP, low their neighborhoods and business centers. of the comfort zone.They go to movies attitudes,we're not working together.I don't nl or had based on how unemployment and a skilled work force, "There are affluent area throughout in L.A.,festivals in Orange,museums in cam whether you five in downtown Santa Ana mole societal norms may being the sixth largest county in America. Orange County,notjust south.Certainly Santa Ana."I want my kids to see the way or by the bay in Newport Beach.Its working I� dine those who don't. People can pretty much have it all in Orange there are strong business centers through other people live,so they can see how together,understanding each other,and County,whether they live in north orsouth, out Orange County,not just in South much we really are alike,"he says. respecting each other,"Martinez says. in terms of their quality of life. County.And there's very vital communities One place he may want to go is a little "We need to care about everybody,so t waher "You have a greater proportion of throughout Orange County,notjust in the bookstore in Santa Ana.The one that everybody cares about us:' Y other minorities and neighborhoods on the verge south.There's more in common between specializes in Latino authors.There he'll "The future isn't written yet,"says of deterioration in older areas.Does that North Orange County and South County find Reuben Martinez,who has his own the OCBC's Oftelie."If we aren't able t how much mean there's going to be two starkly then there are differences:' ideas about how to overcome the rifts that to come together and work on these different Orange Counties in the future? One Irvine father,Jim Owens,notes keep people apart,and threaten to divide issues in a collaborative effort, I I don't think so.North Orange County- that he tries at least every other weekend north from south. guarantee we'll fail." 0CM Irvine father - ,in much about each otIff," icca."People who live in r off ind spend their time and is Berry Farm take the 't off at the nearest exit. the'scenic route.'That bility for people living in the community to develop s ,athy with other people v �� ',ere." � t• i � Ns., III State Fullerton doesn't ay will be split between north and Anglo south cause as newly arrived X ,nilate they become _ lemographically than - Then tend to disperse , , ,r ounty. eves have followed the is past.As Italians,Irish, and others came to the •� thered together in poor i ner cities,where they intination while pursuing t As succeeded ore t r r lore affluent areas and the majority as sharply LL ,ns and stereotypes of tons faded away. t tie of Latinos. UNITOWDel 01 ' ' ' II find that the Latino OC METRO/APRIL 23, 1998 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH � � - CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION fl ,,�-7" ;,� `" .a-11Q. 4"K"--o 7- o TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk FROM: Ralph Bauer, Mayor DATE: November 5, 1997 SUBJECT: H ITEM FOR THE NOVEMBER 17 COUNCIL AGENDA Please place the following the November 17, 1997, City Council Agenda under my "H" item. The selection of a firm to do an-EIR concerning the building of bridges across the Santa Ana River is moving forward. The cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach, along with the Orange County Transit Authority, are funding such a study. Since Huntington Beach is impacted by this type of study, it is suggested that to have a voice we participate financially in the EIR. I have previously requested that our staff determine what our fair participatory share should be and provide the City Council with that information. RB:paj xc: City Council Members Ray Silver, Acting City Administrator NOV-14-1997 11136 CITY OF COSTA MESA 5TH FL 714 754 5332 P,� City of Costa Date 11114197 6 - ---- Number ofpagii lhcluding covar shoot 1 Mesa FAX - 70t Ray Silver, Aas/stant City FROM: Allan L. Roeder, 00o Manager Administrator City of Costa Mesa City of Huntington Beach 77 Fair Drive 2000 Maln Streat Costa Mesa, Ca 92626-1200 PO Box 190 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Phone (714)7$4-5327 Phone 536.5511 Fax Phone (714)114-1330 Fax Phone 536.5233 W. REMARKS: ❑ Urgent ® For your review ❑ Reply ASAP 0 Please Comment Ray - As follow up to our telephone conversation earlier this week on the SARX Study, it is my understanding that the Agreement will be distributed by OCTA to the participating cities within a matter of days. The Agreement itself will include the Scope of Work (which has been developed with our respective staff and reviewed with local community groups from the various cities), funding responsibilities and staff commitments from. each Agency. I feel I can accurately speak Mayor Peter Buffa and the rest of the Costa Mesa City Council in stating their supporting for any level of financial contribution the City of Huntington Beach can make towards this effort. The funding presently identified in the Agreement is not based on any real formula but is more a statement of the City of Costa Mesa's interest in moving this effort forward to the inutual benefit of all of the participating agencies. I should also stress that while a financial commitment towards the Study would be very helpful, active participation by City technical staff is essential; I believe the same will hold true for citizen participation as the Study progresses. As I suggested in our conversation, the City of Huntington Beach may want to take final action on financial participation in the Study at the time you receive the above Agreement to insure it meets with your approval. Let me know if I can be of further assistance... Zs►v Lo hl i dl�v:�,'�:;�3a hulaFi�i►��H f .iQ �11;• b �1N3'!� 1,11J 03AI333H TOTAL P.ei I1- t4-s^ :417F1.: F191 d ;'d3i_ 7i1 LS—fii-1,r3d NOV-14-1997 11:35 :ITY OF COSTA MESH 5TH F'l. 714 754 5a-2 F, City of Costa Date 11114197 MesaFAX Number ifpagas fncludh7a covar sheet ! ro.. Ray Silver, Assistant City FROM Allan L. Roeder, City Manager Administrator City of Costa Mesa City of Huntington Beach 77 Fair Drtvs 2000 Main Srreat Costa Mtsa, Ca. 92626-12UU P4 Box 190 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Pltorce (714)7S44327 Phone 336-5511 Fax Phone (714)154-5330 Fax,Phone 336.5233 CC: REMAM: ❑ Urgent ® For your review ❑ Reply AS4P ❑ Please Cvmntent Ray - As follow up to our telephone conversation earlier this week on the SAIX Study, it is nay understanding that the Agreement will be distributed by OCTA to the participating cities within a matter of days. Tho Agreement itself will include the Scope of Work (which has been developed with our respective staff and reviewed with local community groups from the various cities); funding responsibilities and staff commitments from each Agency. I feel I can accurately speak Mayor Peter Buffa and the rest of the Costa Mesa City Council in stating their supporting for any level of financial contribution the City of Huntington Beach can make towards this effort. The funding presently identified in the Agreement is not based on any real formula but is more a statement of the City of Costa Mesa's interest in moving this effort forward to the mutual benefit of all of the participating agencies. I should also stress that while a financial commitment towards the Study would be very helpful, active participation by City technical staff is essential, I believe the same will hold true for citizen participation as the Study progresses. As I suggested in our conversation, the City of Huntington Beach inay want to take final action on financial participation in the Study at the time you receive the above Agreement to insure it meets with your approval. Let me know if I can be of further assistance... 1w6 L0 V�3�3 J,11� a3N333� TOTAL P.01 R�CE�VED -17Y CtERC. Ralph Bauer HUNT1tit4T H-Item 1 1 /1 7/97 To be placed on as a late communication with the understanding that Council will need to take a vote on taking action on these items before their discussion: 1 . Impact on the budget of any increase in employee's salaries and fringe benefits. (The adopted budget does not allow for an increase in salaries or fringe benefits. Therefore, any such increase would need to be accommodated by a budget modification.) 2. Presentation to the City Council of comparative salary and fringe benefit data generated by Leagues of California Cities. 3. Presentation to the City Council of lists by employees of combined salary and fringe benefits; similar to the lists previously given to newspapers and public at large. 11 5,�