HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2012-07-09 #A EA(
J'�ya ^e 9 S
AGENDA STAFF REPORT g� ss
��CIFORN�P',
DATE: July 9, 2012
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: Jill R. Ingram, City Manager
FROM: Sean P. Crumby P.E., Assistant City Manager/Public Works
SUBJECT: LETTER OPPOSING THE ORANGE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY INTERSTATE 405
WIDENING PROJECT
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
•
It is requested that the City Council authorize the Mayor to:
• Sign the attached letter opposing the 1-405 freeway widening project
(Alternates 2 and 3); and
• Sign and submit draft comments before July 17, 2012 regarding the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) related to the 1-405 freeway widening
project.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:
Environmental Review Process
Under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), public agencies are required to
prepare environmental documents for actions that potentially affect the
environment. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), acting in
the capacity of both federal and State "lead agency," has disseminated a
combined environmental impact report and environmental impact statement
(EIR/EIS) addressing the potential environmental impacts associated with
proposed improvements to the 1-405 (San Diego) Freeway between State Route
73 (SR-73) on the south and the 1-605 Freeway on the north. In fulfillment of
their environmental compliance obligations, Caltrans is now soliciting written
comments on that document. The EIR/EIS document was released on May 18,
2012 and has a review period that extends through July 17, 2012. The City of
Seal Beach has the ability to submit general and/or specific comments for
Caltrans' consideration. This agenda item is being brought before the City
Council to obtain direction concerning the nature and specificity of the City's
written response.
Agenda Item A
Proiect Background
The 1-405 widening project was included as a commitment with the passage of
"Measure M," as approved by Orange County voters in November 1990,
authorizing a 20-year program to finance specific transportation projects, and the
"Renewed Measure M Program" (Measure M2) Program which was authorized
by Orange County voters in November 2006. Specifically identified therein was
"Project K (San Diego Freeway Improvements between the 1-605 Freeway in Los
Alamitos area and Costa Mesa Freeway)," requiring that new lanes be added to
the San Diego Freeway between the 1-605 and SR-55 Freeways, generally within
the existing right-of-way. Because it was a voter-approved measure, the "project
sponsor" is the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). The OCTA has
an obligation to Orange County voters to pursue that mandate and the plans and
proposals presented in the EIR/EIS constitute the culmination of a multi-year
planning process.
In order to maximize the traffic-related benefits of an 1-405 Freeway improvement
project, the OCTA has formulated three "build" alternatives which exceed the
minimal mandate of Measures M/M2. As described in the EIR/EIS:
The Interstate 405 (1-405) Improvement Project proposes to widen the
corridor by adding: [1] one general purpose (GP) lane in each direction
between Euclid Street and Interstate 605 (1-605) [identified as "Alternative
1" in the EIR/EIS]; or [2] two GP lanes in each direction between
Brookhurst/Euclid Street and 1-605 [identified as "Alternative 2"]; or [3] one
GP lane between Euclid Street and 1-605 and one tolled Express Lane in
each direction between State Route 73 (SR-73) and State Route 22 (SR-
22) east of 1-405 to be managed jointly as a tolled Express Facility with
two lanes in each direction between SR-73 and 1-605. The tolled Express
Facility would operate so that HOV2s would be tolled and HOV3+ would
either be free or receive a discount [identified as "Alternative 3"]. The
proposed action would improve the freeway mainline and interchanges on
1-405 in Orange and Los Angeles counties for approximately 16 miles
between 0.2-mile south of Bristol Street and 1.4 miles north of 1-605, as
well as portions of SR-22, SR-73, and 1-605 to reduce congestion and
improve lane continuity through the corridor.
In addition to the three "build" alternatives examined in the EIR/EIS, a separate
"no build" alternative is also addressed therein. Under a "no build" scenario, with
the exception of the completion of the West County Connector Project primarily
along the SR-22 Freeway, no additional improvements to the 1-405 Freeway
would be undertaken.
Because the proposed project will primarily occur within the Caltrans' right-of-
way, with the exception of its potential participatory role under both CEQA and
NEPA, it is likely that the City lacks any discretionary authority over the project.
As such, the City may be unable to compel Caltrans and/or the OCTA to take (or
not take) any specific action. If implemented, the City may, however, need to
Page 2
amend its General Plan and Municipal Code to reflect the creation of a
substandard right-of-way along Almond Avenue.
Actions Conducted to Date
Based on a preliminary review of the EIR/EIS by the Public Works Department
(Department), it was determined that the existing soundwall separating the 1-405
Freeway from the College Park East neighborhood and generally paralleling
Almond Avenue would require relocation under two of the three proposed
alternatives. Because the existing soundwall is not located on the edge of the
freeway right-of-way but is inset onto Caltrans' property and because the Almond
Avenue pavement and curb edge extends past that property line, any plan to
move the soundwall northward would result in the loss of pavement, narrowing
the width of that residential street and necessitating the elimination of on-street
parking on one side. Almond Avenue serves as the only point of ingress and
egress to many residents within that neighborhood. As a result, both
construction-related and long-term impacts would be expected to significantly
and adversely affect the College Park East area.
In order to assist City staff in assessing the potential implications of the proposed
project and ascertaining whether an alternative development plan could be
feasibly implemented, the City entered into consulting service agreements with
W.G. Zimmerman Engineering, Inc. (WGZE) and Environmental Impact Sciences
(EIS). WGZE has prepared a draft alternative design concept that would allow
Caltrans to proceed with any of its three • "build" alternatives, maintaining
adequate travel lane-width standards, and allowing for retention of the existing
soundwall. City staff has met with OCTA officials on three occasions to present
and discuss alternate designs. Additionally, City staff and two City Council
Members made a trip to Sacramento to inform State Elected officials of the
concerns with the project. WGZE's design plans have been submitted but the
City has received no formal commitment. EIS has prepared draft comments
addressing the adequacy of the EIR/EIS that could be submitted as part of any
formal response to that document.
Community Meetings
In order to solicit public input, the Department held two community meetings in
the College Park East area. These meetings were held independent of the public
meetings held by OCTA. On June 12, 2012, a community meeting was
conducted at the Seal Beach Tennis Center. On June 26, 2012, a second
meeting was held at the North Seal Beach Community Center. Representatives
of the OCTA attended the second outreach meeting, made a presentation about
the project, and responded to public comments. At each meeting over 200
people were in attendance. As evidenced by the number of individuals in
attendance at those meetings and the fervor of the comments received, it is
apparent that the proposed project has generated substantial public interest.
Page 3
A wide range of environmental concerns were expressed at both meetings.
Many of the concerns expressed relate to the following issues:
1. Retention of the existing soundwall,
2. Increased traffic congestion along the freeway, including northbound
bottlenecks based on required lane merging
3. Air quality and public health concerns,
4. Creation of a toll road (Alternative 3).
Many community residents have requested that the City actively participate in
the CEQA and NEPA process and take a formal action opposing some or all of
the proposed "build" alternatives.
Potential Impacts
Relocation of Soundwall: Under both the No Build Alternative and Alternative 1
(single GP lane in each direction), the existing soundwall adjacent to Almond
Avenue would be retained and no modification to that wall or to the overhead
Southern California Edison (SCE) lines adjacent to that wall would occur. Under
Alternative 2 (two GP lanes in each direction), the soundwall would need to be
removed and a new soundwall constructed 8 to 10 feet north of its current
location. Under Alternative 3 (one GP lane and one combined high-occupancy
vehicle and high-occupancy toll [HOV/HOT] lane in each direction), the
soundwall would again be demolished and a replacement wall constructed 7 to 8
feet north of its existing alignment. Relocating the 18-foot tall soundwall would
result in the creation of a substandard street section with a curb-to-curb width
ranging between 30.5 to 32 feet (assuming a 4-foot wide setback from the face of
the wall to the southern curb edge to accommodate landscaping and relocated
SCE distribution lines). On-street parking would need to be eliminated on at
least one side of Almond Avenue. The City's municipal code section 10.40.010
lists street design standards. The residential collector minimum street width is
36-40 feet (Title 10 —page 43). Elimination of on-street parking will prove a
substantial hardship and safety concern to residents and bicyclists.
Toll Road (Alternative 3): In addition to new GP lanes, under Alternative 3, a
second HOV lane would be constructed in both directions. The two HOV lanes
would be operated as an "express lane" system, with restricted access (i.e.,
limited points of ingress and egress) and with motorists being charged a time-
variable toll for usage. Single-occupant vehicles (SOVs) and vehicles with only
two passengers would be charged a full toll rate. Vehicles with three or more
passengers would be charged a discounted rate. Vehicle capacity would be
limited (through an escalating toll rate) so as to maintain free-flow conditions. In
addition to concerns over the fee, additional concerns center on the toll facilities
having limited access. A number of residents expressed opposition to the
proposed conversion of the 1-405 Freeway into a "toll road."
Page 4
The Department's independent analysis of the EIS/EIR validates the community's
expressed concerns relating to increased traffic congestion and localized air
quality impacts. Those issues, including any resulting health risks attributable to
increased exposure to mobile source emissions and toxic air contaminants,
appear insufficiently addressed and left unmitigated in the EIS/EIR.
Recommendations
Among its purposes, CEQA and NEPA are intended to foster informed decision-
making. Agencies are not mandated to take the most environmentally sensitive
course of action but are required to first be fully informed about the choices they
elect to make. In that regard, the deficiencies of the existing EIR/EIS are
substantial as to prevent the City from understanding the consequences of the
three "build" alternatives on both the natural and human environment, ensuring
its constituents that the project's impacts are effectively mitigated, and allowing
the City to support one course of action over another.
In lieu of the nomination of a City preference among the "build" or "no build"
alternatives now presented, the response to the EIR/EIS is to encourage
Caltrans and OCTA to produce a technically and legally adequate assessment.
The declaration of a formal position is premature and remains dependent upon
the sufficiency of the project's environmental review.
In order to preserve its legal remedies, the City must formally respond to Caltrans
on or before July 17, 2012. The City is in the process of finalizing a formal
response. A copy of the response is available for review at the City Clerk's
office. The response is not attached to this staff report as it is a draft format and
still being updated. In addition to the City's formal response, all residents and the
public should actively and independently participate in the CEQA and NEPA
process by submitting written comments to Caltrans within that timeframe.
Concurrently, the City will continue its dialogue with the project sponsor in order
to advance the interests of the City, its residents, and business community.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
This action seeks to respond to requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act and National Environmental Protection Act.
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
The City Attorney has reviewed and approved this action.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact associated with responding to the EIS/EIS.
Page 5
•
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor to:
• Sign the attached letter opposing the 1-405 freeway widening project
(Alternates 2 and 3); and
• Sign and submit draft comments before July 17, 2012 regarding the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) related to the 1-405 freeway widening
project.
SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED:
Sean P. Crumby, 'I �'. Ingram, City a ager
Assistant City Manager/Public Works
Attachments:
A: Letter of Opposition
Page 6
4 su`. s t: �a: f:,'9 ., 'r €'. _•7 �._ n.A. ss• <•r A'k,f.,a",
'. :re ldx t.`�' '.xyx,,i:n. Ry.: -. :•I,,, , 'u+ Y, '[ wk z ,• ':"S �' tS
i, . ;r^:.jar. i, 3,:. a. -V`+':.:-:','' :•l, 1�� _; „ , 4.. ‘ - i• w.K�;^r *:.s . '''' F EQ[� , `'•-..a4-
� .:�; _ ::r, ix .ej 4 ¢'�� i
'ir '`.':K:r s4•�'� ~' a-;t•.�F'�! .. :.u*, wu., '� tq "r.P �.. .at� .r•n O a URA B''6'.‹.' F;rtR
.'�. <> y;• .,.• .x•311- a, f F1•,a'K, '7 --i-1,44-,.4...--:a-kr4r'a_ '.�;� "-,,"� 1- k� ''••'-'4 ? - '�� ' ''" CC i '` .-r
e.. _ ''r J���•1��,� ar}�,{+,�.,6�:_y ' 4."x'�..,,. ��.• � �o.,:.,�;r•{, ,h,�,g *... S'�'�d., ...al, �V f�" �T.v y .'.^�.:�'��":
ry 'F�'-'. )il 1• 4` i.11.8..' V :.. S.1 •.i`4i:'`
.-q 4 iv.1'r * .f° ^ ra` •:66.;IIIVAd;.'~•:.. G '' P\ ., ery'Y"}:•�,,n�, �r { ,mac.✓- '-`�'' r `' ��,.- ,;t%t+ '�w.r,;: >` - s � Q .,.1;::,
' :'>��1<��':-° I' �,� ,: ®1 �, c� , � ' : a;co ' `CS\•-:`, _
3V ..r- -?t•6;iii- crs:: P. .::.,.. q.'rs,{, r" . . •-_ ,.'i* ::.6:-.-',..6-:'';":".;`::.! r:":-fi._ .i�f: ' .Nia.- _ - ..
„S°'+dj; ..� ��,ry'r$'t.T� --ice��y((� .`t.� -t'.�:, ":ti• .�d ;�.�_..� .,+°x.i.. _L•°�'.`"•'�,� :.� '�'
..? i7' /. Si Ri .=e . :�5n Cr�. ." ,.,...1.§:;:m;;:).,-........7..,!.YJ1!, r - -_ li y�,�,��y•� 1
:,••l a .43,,,,,.-1.4.,_.:::'-N'r:.'.Y: .spin : ', ,!-.r,'' - ;I _
Y} '%?i''r „ 1,(.1.4!.-):r.q•.,w? .4 :: .rrr••%✓..c'p 1.x..: ..�: . _:r '_+ .;i":: SEAL°'BE-AC11 CAI?IFORNis\ 1 ~.
'';3:�rh•:, ` ,• :<s•*. o- r^k" •:c - ;k,. ;0629 1�1 ?5770` ••
� �c�r�sealbe�chca�aor
V>^• ,�Y'°� :• a =°,43.' .l.s•�. :=. l�=.Q .) s e P•. ;.:r.r ,f ` .• q 0. ..:1 a-��.}'!' r i
July 9, 2012
Orange County Transportation Authority
do Paul Glaab
550 S. Main Street
Orange, CA 92863-1584
Subject: 1-405 Widening Project
To Mr. Glaab:
The City of Seal Beach recognizes the fact that Orange County has a world class network of
infrastructure and freeways. The quality of this system is responsible in large part by the voter's
approval of Measure M/M2 and the Orange County Transportation Authority's (OCTA) ability to
successfully manage this program. The Interstate 405 freeway is a concern of the voter's and is
in need of improvement. It is extremely difficult to manage the Measure M/M2 program and in
particular the 1-405 improvement project with competing interests and concerns from every
agency and residents.
The City of Seal Beach does have concerns over the project. Seal Beach appreciates the
efforts that OCTA has made to work with our staff and residents regarding concerns over the
alternatives listed in the Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement
(EIR/EIS). Solutions to alleviate those concerns have to this point not been reached and the
City of Seal Beach is compelled to communicate with OCTA prior to the closure of the comment
period of the EIR/EIS document.
The main concerns expressed by residents of Seal Beach are:
1. Retention of the existing soundwall in the current location;
2. Increased traffic congestion along the 1-405 freeway, including northbound bottleneck
resulting from required lane merging before the LA County ling; and
3. Air quality, public health concerns, and safety issues; and
4. Creation of a toll road (Alternative 3)
In August of 2009 the Notice of Intent / Notice of Preparation (NOI/NOP) was issued
announcing commencement of the project. Seal Beach has been actively participating in the
project having representation on both the Technical Advisory Committee and the Policy
Advisory Committee throughout the Major Investment Study phase. The NOI/NOP stated that
four "build” alternatives would be considered in the EIR/EIS. As indicated therein, within the
confines of available Measure M/M2 funding, Alternative 4: Localized Improvements would
provide an additional General Purpose (GP) lane at various locations and improve certain
interchanges. In addition, the NOP/NOI and accompanying scoping notices stated that a
'Transportation Systems Management/Transportation Demand Management/Mass Transit
(TSM/TDM/Mass Transit) Alternative" would be examined in the EIR/EIS. That additional
alternative would involve low-cost operational improvements rather than major capital projects
and include auxiliary lanes, ramp metering, ridesharing, and traffic signal timing optimization.
The two notices announced alternatives that are not adequately examined in the EIR/EIS.
Without these alternatives, the project's "stakeholders" are deprived the opportunity to review
the environmental impact and submit comments under California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In lieu of the presentation of a
reasonable range of alternatives designed to foster public dialogue and discourse, the EIR/EIS
is limited to a discussion of only three "build" alternatives comprising nothing more than minor
variations to what amounts as the same project. A substantially broader array of possible
alternatives, design variations, and operational changes are not considered. As such, for those
and other reasons (e.g., lack of effective mitigation), the current EIR/EIS is inadequate and fails
to comply the statutory intent and purpose.
By examining only a short segment of the freeway and ignoring the consequences of those
adverse conditions, substantive issues affecting Seal Beach are all but ignored. Among its
purposes, CEQA and NEPA are intended to foster informed decision making. Agencies are not
mandated to take the most environmentally sensitive course of action but are required to first be
fully informed about the choices they elect to make. The deficiencies of the existing EIR/EIS are
so substantial as to prevent the City from understanding the consequences of the three "build"
alternatives on both the natural and human environment, ensuring its constituents that the
project's impacts are effectively mitigated, and allowing the City to support one course of action
over another. The EIR/EIS document needs to be revised technically with the required
additional alternatives and analysis to be a legally adequate assessment.
The City of Seal Beach appreciates working with OCTA and Caltrans regarding the concerns
over this project, and requests that the partnership continue. Seal Beach's concerns as detailed
within this letter will not be resolved without the continued effort to partner on the project.
Declaration of a formal position by the City of Seal Beach is premature and remains dependent
upon the completion of an adequate environmental review. In order to preserve its legal
remedies, however, the City of Seal Beach will formally respond to Caltrans before July 17,
2012. Despite this inadequacy, as Mayor, I am writing on behalf of the City Council and Seal
Beach to oppose Alternatives 2 and 3. Seal Beach takes very seriously these concerns and is
considering all options towards having those concerns addressed including outright opposition
of the project.
If there are any questions please call 562.431.2527 ext. 1300.
Sincerely,
Michael Levitt, Mayor
City of Seal Beach
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Cc: OCTA Board
Will Kempton,CEO
California State Senator Tom Harman
California State Senator Lou Correa
California State Assembly Jose Solario
California State Assembly Jim Silva