HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2013-08-12 #IAGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 12, 2013
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: Jill R. Ingram, City Manager
FROM: Sean P. Crumby P.E, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
INTERSTATE 405 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
That the City Council:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 6398 opposing toll lanes on the 1-405 freeway and
authorize the Mayor to sign the attached draft letter opposing toll lanes on
the 1-405 freeway widening project; and
2. Receive and file comments that were submitted on August 8, 2013 related
to the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report and
Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for the 1-405 freeway
improvement 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 may 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 solicited written comments
on that document beginning on May 18, 2012 and concluding on July 17, 2012.
The City of Seal Beach submitted comments during that period as a letter
opposing Alternates 2 and 3 of the project and formal comments to the
Environmental Impact Report. (See Attachment A). On June 28, 2013 a
Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS was released. The public had the same opportunity
to provide comments to the Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS as it had the original
EIR/EIS document. That comment period extends through August 12, 2013.
Agenda Item 1
Project 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 was also addressed. 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.
Since the release of the EIR/EIS, OCTA has authorized analysis of two additional
options, known as "Option A" and "Option B ". Option A includes transition of the
existing Carpool Lanes into a High Occupancy Toll facility similar to Alternative 3
with the addition of two general purpose lanes. Option B is a modified version of
Alternative 2 with one of the northbound general purpose lanes ending south of
Page 2
Valley View/Bolsa Chica. Analyses of these two options are not included in the
EIR/EIS. If either of these options is selected by the Board of Directors, there
may need to be future revisions to the EIR/EIS.
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
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 will require relocation under at minimum one 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 alternative design concepts that 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 multiple 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 not received
approval on those designs.
Community Meetings
Through the first public comment period of the EIR/EIS, the Department held two
community meetings in the College Park East area. These meetings were held
to inform residents regarding the project and encourage written comments be
submitted to the EIR/EIS. These meetings were held independent of the public
meetings held by OCTA. On June 12, 2012, a community meeting was
Page 3
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.
A wide range of environmental concerns were expressed at both meetings.
Many of the concerns expressed relate to the following issues:
1. Possible relocation of the existing College Park East Almond Avenue
soundwall;
2. Opposition to the creation of a toll road (Alternative 3);
3. Possible relocation of 2 gas /petroleum pipelines through College Park
East;
4. Increased traffic congestion along the 1 -405 freeway, including northbound
bottlenecks resulting from additional project lanes merging before the LA
County line; and
5. Air quality and public health concerns.
Many 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.
During the public comment period for the Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS, the
Department held similar meetings. In this case, a meeting was held on July 24,
2013 at the North Seal Beach Community Center and one on July 27th in Edison
Park. The meetings were again held to inform the community and encourage
comments to the EIR/EIS document.
Potential Impacts of the 1 -405 Freeway Widening Project
City staff and consultants reviewed the May 2012 EIR/EIS and the June 2013
Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS for the 1 -405 Freeway Widening Project documents
and concluded with four (4) potential impacts directly related to Seal Beach.
1. Relocation of Soundwall: On June 25, 2013, the City received a letter
from OCTA outlining the Almond Avenue Soundwall. (See Attachment C).
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), OCTA has revised the design and stated that the
Page 4
soundwall can remain in the current location. Relocating the 18 -foot tall
soundwall would result in the creation of a substandard street section
more narrow than the City's standard of 36 -feet. On- street parking would
need to be eliminated for portions of 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). On July 25, 2013, the City responded to OCTA's letter dated
June 25, 2013 with comments. (See Attachment D). Elimination of on-
street parking will prove a substantial hardship and safety concern to
residents and bicyclists. The City is currently waiting for a response from
OCTA.
2. 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 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." 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.
3. Backup at the County Line: The Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS was to
address concerns from the City of Long Beach regarding increase in traffic
due to the project. As a result, 36 intersections were studied and
improvements were recommended to 17 intersections north of the County
line. OCTA has stated that the Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS addresses
concerns regarding traffic backing up at the County line. This issue was
repeatedly encountered when the EIR/EIS was released in 2012 by
residents and the City. The initial draft EIR/EIS document included an
analysis of this issue, but the final document glosses over the item and
does not effectively address the concern.
4. SR22 Ramp Studebaker /College Park Drive Intersection: One of the
intersections recommended as needing improvements to mitigate an
increase in traffic in the Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS is the intersection of
College Park Drive and Studebaker Road off -ramp of the SR22 freeway.
This intersection has just been improved by the City of Seal Beach and
was completed in October 2012. The Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS
recommends placement of a traffic signal at the intersection. During the
Page 5
process of planning for the City project, a traffic signal was requested by
the City of Seal Beach and rejected by Caltrans. Upon first review of a
December 2012 Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS, the City Council authorized
the Mayor to sign and send a letter to OCTA on April 22, 2013. (See
Attachment B). The purpose of the letter was to express that no matter the
outcome for this intersection; access needs to be protected for the
residents of College Park West. The City of Long Beach has prepared an
alternate design for the intersection. If a traffic signal is not approved by
Caltrans at any point during the design of the 405 Improvement Project,
the City of Seal Beach will request that the alternate prepared by the City
of Long Beach be constructed.
Staff submitted written comments to Caltrans on August 8, 2013 in order to meet
the deadline of August 12, 2013. The comments can be viewed and downloaded
from the City's website, and the executive summary sheet for a brief overview of
all the City's comments to the June 2013 Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS.
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 as to form
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact associated with responding to the Supplemental
Draft EIR/EIS.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 6398 opposing toll lanes on the 1 -405 freeway and
authorize the Mayor to sign the attached draft letter opposing toll lanes on
the 1 -405 freeway widening project; and
2. Receive and file comments that were submitted on August 8, 2013 related
to the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report and
Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for the 1 -405 freeway widening
project.
Page 6
SUBMITTED BY: _ NOTED AND APPROVED:
Sean P. Crumby, P.E.
Director of Public Works
Attachments:
. Ingram, City
A. Letter of Opposition dated July 16, 2012
B. Letter of Opposition dated April 22, 2013
C. OCTA Letter June 25, 2013
D. City of Seal Beach Letter dated July 25, 2013
E. Resolution No. 6398
F. Draft Letter to OCTA Chairman August 12, 2013
G. Letter to Smita Deshpande, Branch Chief, Caltrans- District 12, dated August 8, 2013
cc to OCTA Chief Executive Officer
Page 7
Attachment A
SEA/ 'III
(11 Y HALL 211 'Fit 11111 STREET
S1:A1 B14ACIL, CA1,11-01INIA 90740
(562) 431-2527 4, www.ci,skail-beach.ca,us
,g1111!11N11111g111111g2a11'1111111k111:1111g11111151gg1111,111i11HH1921r'''
July 16, 2012
Orange County Transportation Authority
c/o Paul Glaab, Chair, Board of Directors
550 S. Main Street
Orange, CA 92863-1584
Subject: 1-405 Widening Project
Dear Chairperson 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 and the Orange County Transportation Authority's ability to successfully manage this
program. The 1-405 Freeway is a concern of the voter's and is in need of improvement. It is extremely
difficult to manage the Measure M program and in particular this 1-405 Improvement project with
competing interests and concerns from every agency and resident.
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 existing College Park East sound wall in the current location;
2. Possible relocation of 2 gas/petroleum pipelines through College Park East;
3. Creation of a toll road (Alternative 3);
4. Increased traffic congestion along the 1-405 freeway, including northbound bottlenecks resulting
from required lanes merging before the LA County line;
5. Air quality and public health concerns
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 NOUNOP 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/N01 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.
Orange County Transportation Authority
Page Two
July 16, 2012
Those two notices announced alternatives are not adequately examined in the BR/BS. Without these
a|tenl8dvms, the project's "stakeholders" are deprived theVppnrtuDib/tV review the environmental impact
and submit cornments under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National
Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). In lieu of the presentation of a reasonable range of alternatives
designed to foster- public dialogue and discourse, the BF/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 o|tennaUwaa, design vor|aUonu, and operational changes are not
considered. As suoh, for those and other reasons (e.g., lack of effective rnibgo1iOn), the current E|FUE|8
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 One 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 E|RXEI8 are s0 substantial as to prevent the City
from understanding the consequences of the three "build" alternatives on both the natural and human
environnneOt, ensuring its constituents that the project's impacts are effectively rniUgatad, and allowing
the City to support one course of action over another. The E[R/E|S 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 0o 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, | 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 to the project.
If there are any questions please call 562.431.2527 ext. 1300.
Sincerely,
Michael Levitt
Mayor
City of Seal Beach
cc: OCTA Board
Will Kempton, CEO
California State Senator Tom Harman
California State Senator Lou Correa
California State Assembly Jose 8o|oho
California State Assembly Jim Silva
Attachment B
7
Y.«
s31 3
N1A 9Lt "tl
ibeu..h ,goN
April 22, 2013
Darrell Johnson
Chief Executive Officer
Orange County Transportation Authority
550 Main Street
Orange, California 92863
Subject: DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC STUDY IMPACT TO
STUDEBAKER RAMP INTERSECTION WITH COLLEGE
PARK DRIVE
Dear Mr. Johnson:
The City of Seal Beach has a neighborhood with its only access point located on
the SR 22 at Studebaker Road. In 2012, the City of Seal Beach in conjunction
with Caltrans, OCTA, and the City of Long Beach, completed a construction
project valued at over $600,000 to improve this access point and provide safe
travel for Seal Beach residents. The City of Seal Beach views this project as a
tremendous success between all of the agencies involved.
The City has reviewed the DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC STUDY
REPORT SAN DIEGO FREEWAY (1 -405) IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SR -73 TO
1 -605 DATED DECEMBER 2012. This letter serves to formalize the City's
position that the integrity of the improvements within the Studebaker Ramp -
College Park Drive Intersection Improvement Project needs to be protected.
Specifically, access on the Studebaker Ramp needs to be accessible from
College Park Drive.
The City will submit comments to the Draft Supplemental Traffic Study during the
comment period. Should you have any questions concerning these comments or
would like to schedule a meeting to discuss the City's concerns, please contact
Sean Crumby at (562) 431 -2527, extension 1318.
Sincerely,
t LAM
Gary A. Miller, Mayor
City of Seal Beach
Attachment C
OCTA
BOA RD OF DRECTORS
Gregory T Waltothottoto
Chairman
Snawn Nelson
Vh.`, Chairman
Patricia Sates
Dirt,.(tof
T Oft COOChAh
Di r ectryr
Eashrah
Matihew HaJpr
iiiwctor
Mwhaei
Dirt
VO Jones
Director
Jeffrey LPN/ay
,rectx
Gary A Mirior
Direaor
,tolin Aleortach
Director
Al Murray
Director
Janet Nguyen
Directrm
Mew& PoitcY0
Director
Tm Siww
Dvecto.r
Toact Spitzkr
Director
F mot, th'v
Di r wlor
Fir4 17 Cfidifilwflafe
EY-Officio Merrlyer
CHIEF F:XEC if VE OFFICE
Carroll Joh,7soo
Chief Exectilive Officer
June 25, 2013
Mr. Sean Crumby
Director of Public Works
City of Seal Beach
211 Eight Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Dear Mr. Crumby:
As the environmental phase of the Interstate 405 (1-405) Improvement
Project (Project) moves forward, staff continues to study issues previously raised
by the 1-405 corridor cities and other stakeholders. One of these issues relates to
the existing soundwall along 1-405 that parallels Almond Avenue in the City of
Seal Beach (City) constructed in the 1970s.
Project plans for the three build alternatives have differing impacts to the
soundwall: Project Alternatives 1 and 3 would not necessitate the reconstruction of
the soundwall as both alternatives provide just one additional general purpose (GP)
lane at this location. Alternative 2, however, does necessitate reconstruction of the
existing soundwall as this alternative provides two additional GP lanes on 1-405
along Almond Avenue, thus requiring some minimal additional right-of-way to
accommodate the second GP lane.
Previously, the City proposed that the Project include non-standard features such
as reduced widths for lanes and shoulders in order to reduce the Project footprint
and eliminate the need to reconstruct the soundwall. Orange County Transportation
Authority (OCTA) staff and consultants have met with the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans), City staff, and consultants to review these proposals.
Based on discussions with Caltrans, there is no justification to substantiate
approval for any of the three proposed design exceptions to the mandatory design
safety standards that would be required to leave the soundwall in place with
Alternative 2.
Approval of the design exceptions must consider the tradeoffs between meeting the
mandatory design safety standards on 1-405 and the impacts to Almond Avenue.
The 1-405 in the vicinity of the Almond Avenue soundwall currently carries
approximately 370,000 vehicles per day at speeds of up to 65 miles per hour or
greater. Almond Avenue carries less than 5,000 vehicles per day at speeds of up
to 30 miles per hour. Almond Avenue is 40-feet wide and has one lane in each
direction and a parking lane on each side of the street. On-street parking on the
north side of Almond Avenue is light to non-existent, and non-existent on the south
side of Almond Avenue.
Orange County Transportation Authority
550 South Maio Street P.O. Box 14184 /Orange California 92863 -1584 /(714 560-OCTA (6282)
Mr. Sean Crurnby
June 25, 2013
Page 2
State approvals of mandatory design safety standard exceptions are contingent
upon implications to safety when not meeting standards. There are no safety
implications related to the removal of parking on the south side of Almond Avenue.
In comparison, this section of 1-405 has the highest accident concentrations in
Orange County. Maintaining design standards on 1-405 significantly outweighs the
minimal impacts to Almond Avenue when it comes to safety.
Attachment A provides a summary of the City proposals for Alternative 2 and
reasoning why Caltrans has determined there is no justification to accept the
proposed design exceptions to mandatory design safety standards.
Almond Avenue is approximately 5,500-feet long from Violet Street to Aster Street,
including diversions around Almond Park. Alternative 2 will maintain one lane of
traffic in each direction and parking on both sides of the street with the exception of
approximately 100 feet where parking will only be feasible on one side of the street.
This appears to be in general compliance with the City's Municipal Code.
Attachment B is a copy of the City Municipal Code, Title 10, page 43, which
provides the required travel lane and parking lane width for Almond Avenue, which
is a residential collector street.
OCTA looks forward to working closely with City staff as the Project progresses to
address all City concerns. OCTA holds regularly scheduled technical working group
meetings, which include representatives from the City, and will work towards
amenable solutions with the City and Caltrans.
OCTA and Caltrans staff are preparing the supplemental draft environmental
impact report/environmental impact statement that is scheduled to be circulated for
public review and comments in summer 2013. We look forward to the City's
comments during the public review period.
Please feel free to contact me at (714) 560-5646 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Jim Bell, P.E.
Executive Director, Capital Programs
JB:nb
Attachments
c: Ms. Jill Ingram, Seal Beach City Manager
I-405 Alternative 2
Proposed Design Exceptions to Mandatory Design Standards
To Avoid Relocation of the Almond Avenue Sound Wall
This document summarizes the three Highway Design Manual (HDM) Mandatory Design
Standards and the proposed Design Exceptions to an Interstate 405 (1-405) Improvement
Project Alternative 2 design tu avoid impacting the existing sound wall between the 1'405 and
Almond Avenue in the City of Seal Bemnh, as well as safety implications of approval of these
design exceptions.
Deviation from the three Mandatory Design Standards requires approval of Design Exceptions
by State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 12 design staff in Irvine,
Caltrans Headquarters design staff in Sacramento, and the Federal Highway Administration.
Proposed Design Exceptions to Mandatory Design Standards
Reference /
Notes*
Highway Design
Location and Description
Manual
(Length of Exception in Feet)
Section &Feature
HDM
Standard
Proposed
Northbound 1'405 @4O1D' radius curve
2O1 � 1—Sight
adjacent to west SR-22/North 1-405 connector
Distance
at right-of-way pinch point (615 feet)
750 feet
590 feet
2
Northbound 1-405 west of SR-22 East
(Total 5,565 ft)
11-foot-wide lanes for 2 HOV and 5
general purpose lanes (1,665 M)
�
3O1 1—Trove|ed
Way Width
11'fout+widm lanes for 2HOV and 2
general purpose lanes (3,200 ft)
11'foot-vvide lanes for 1 HOV and 2
general purpose lanes (700 ft)
12 feet
11 feet
3
302.1 —Shoulder
Width & 309.1(3)(a)
- Minimum
Horizontal
Clearance
NB 1-406 Left Median Shoulder (4,300 ft)
10 feet
8 feet
Attachment A
*Notes
With respect to the three design exceptions identified in the table above, none of the proposals
below are acceptable:
1. Sight Distance - Reducing sight distance below the standard has the potential to result
in a driver's inability to see an object or stopped vehicle in time to stop or take evasive
action before colliding with the object or stopped vehicle, resulting in a higher number of
rear -end collisions.
2. Traveled Way Width - Proposed nonstandard narrow lanes may increase the potential
for sideswipe accidents, since drivers have less room between themselves and vehicles
in adjacent lanes.
3. Shoulder Width 1 Minimal Horizontal Clearance - Narrow shoulders decrease the
protection of disabled and other stopped vehicles from traffic moving in the travel lanes
and reduce the protection of motorists, police officers, service patrol workers, and others
who must be outside their vehicles.
City of Seal Beach Municipal Code
The following page is taken from the City of Seal Beach Municipal Code, Title 10, Page 43,
Table 10.40.010.A, (the Code) which outlines the Street Design Standards for a Residential
Collector street such as Almond Avenue.
For Almond Avenue, the Code calls for a 36 foot minimum street width (curb -to -curb) to
accommodate two travel lanes of 10 feet each and two parking lanes of 8 feet each. If the
Mandatory Design Standards for lane and shoulder width on the 1 -405 are met, the sound wall
would be relocated narrowing Almond Avenue from its current 40 foot width to approximately 36
feet west of Almond Park, allowing the two existing travel lanes and two existing parking lanes
to be retained. East of Almond Park, for approximately 100 feet, Almond Avenue would be
narrowed to between 40 and 34 feet. Two travel lanes and one parking lane would be provided
along this 100 ft. stretch. As for the remaining 250 feet of impact, Almond Avenue would still
provide two travel lanes and two parking lanes.
In summary, Almond Avenue is approximately 5,500 feet from Violet Street to Aster Street,
including diversions around Almond Park. Per Table 10.40.010.A, the project will maintain one
lane of traffic in each direction and parking on both sides of the street with the exception of
approximately 100 feet where parking will only be feasible on one side of the street per the City
of Seal Beach's Municipal Code.
2
ATTACHMENT B
B. Intersections. Intersection design shall not compromise public
safety or emergency vehicle access. Final intersection design approval shall be
by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer.
1. Additional Lanes. Streets should have turn lanes or more
than 1 travel lane in each direction only if it can be demonstrated, through
modeling or other reliable means, that more than temporary congestion is
anticipated (Level of Service E or greater). Where a total of 4 or more travel
lanes are planned, a minimum 15-foot wide planted median should be provided
to reduce visual impacts of the pavement.
2. Curb-to-Curb Distances. Curb-to-curb distances at
intersections should be minimized to reduce vehicular speeds and pedestrian
crossing distances. At typical intersections, on-street parking should be replaced
by corner bulb outs that minimize curb-to-curb distances and slow traffic. (See
Figure 10.40.010.B.2: Comer Bulb Outs.)
City of Seal Beach
Title 10 — page 43
Municipal Code
Ord, No. 1567
Adopted 2008 - Revised 2011
6 ^
, ,
tiv,... gn Standards
k
- , -
Stroot
Totat ,
.
Travel
Number
Pet*Jrig
LocaRos:dental
Street
56-60
36-40
10
2
8
10
(i)
Residential
Collector &
Commercial
60
36-40
10
2
8
12
Street
Commercial
Street
64
40
12
2
8
12
(11)
Light
Manufacturing
64
44
12
2
10
10
(Hi)
Street
Divided Street
108-130
84-106
11
4-6
8
12
(iv), (v)
(i) Narrower parking lanes and bulb outs can be considered on a case-by-case basis.
(ii) On streets fronting commercial districts solid sidewalks and tree grates are required.
(iii) Sidewalk may be eliminated and utilized as additional landscaping based on level of
anticipated pedestrian activity, unless required pursuant to federal or State law.
(iv) Where on street parking is not perrnitted, replace parking lane with additional landscaping
and Class 1 bike plan as appropriate.
(v) Center landscaped median to be provided, no greater than 16 feet wide.
B. Intersections. Intersection design shall not compromise public
safety or emergency vehicle access. Final intersection design approval shall be
by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer.
1. Additional Lanes. Streets should have turn lanes or more
than 1 travel lane in each direction only if it can be demonstrated, through
modeling or other reliable means, that more than temporary congestion is
anticipated (Level of Service E or greater). Where a total of 4 or more travel
lanes are planned, a minimum 15-foot wide planted median should be provided
to reduce visual impacts of the pavement.
2. Curb-to-Curb Distances. Curb-to-curb distances at
intersections should be minimized to reduce vehicular speeds and pedestrian
crossing distances. At typical intersections, on-street parking should be replaced
by corner bulb outs that minimize curb-to-curb distances and slow traffic. (See
Figure 10.40.010.B.2: Comer Bulb Outs.)
City of Seal Beach
Title 10 — page 43
Municipal Code
Ord, No. 1567
Adopted 2008 - Revised 2011
Attachment D
11:A(..11, CALIFOlt NIA 90740
(562).431-2527 svsyssr.vi.se61.46:act).ca.43-
.7
July 25.2O1J
Mr. Jim BeiL P.E.
Executive Director, Capilal Programs
550 South Main Street
P.O. Box 14184
Orange, California 92863-1584
Dear Mr. Beil:
We are in receipt of OCTA's letter dated June 25, 2013. After careful consideration, the City has
developed the following comments. The City appreciates OCTA's continued collaboration and
partnership to find solutions that mitigate impacts for this project, hVvv8v9r, those current solutions are
not sufficiently mitigating those impacts to Seal Beach. The following five items and/or issues have
been identified by Seal Beach. The City expects that OCTA will review these items and respond or
clarify.
Item 1: Highest Accident Rate in Orange County
The City compared the accident rate provided in the OCTA letter to the "Fact Sheet — Exceptions to
Mandatory Design exceptions, April 2012", Section 4 Accident Analysis — Table 4.1 1-405 Accident Data
(TASAS Table B) for PN12000001800/Unit 2994 and have the following comments:
The actual accident rate between SR-22 and Seal Beach Boulevard is 0.60 in the northbound
direction and 0.71 in the soulhbound direction.
Segment between SR-22 and Seal Beach Boulevard is lower than the total average segment for
the corridor ("Entire Length"). The average (actual) accident rate for the northbound is 0.82 and
southbound isO.7O.
The statewide standard for this segment (Average) is 0.94 in the northbound direction and 0.85
in the southbound direction.
The results based upon TASAS Table B and the Fact Sheet show (hat this segment preforms
better than the project corridor by having a lower accident rate than the project corridor and
under the state-wide average.
Item 2: City's Concept Design Exceptions:
The OCTA states that the City is requesting three design exceptions, however; only two were
mentioned; reduced shoulder width and reduced lane widths.
OCTA is requesting design excep(ions for this segment related to sight distance as stated in the
"Fact Shaat — ExoepUnns to Mandatory Design exceptions, April 2012"
•
This is based upon lower accident rates for this segmerit.
• The City's request should also be considered as part of this request for 8-foot shoulders and twa
11 foot lanes for only a segment of the SR-22 to 1-405 transition.
Item 3: Speed (up to 30MPM) and Parking (Light to non-existent)
The OCTA letter identifies that "There are no safety implications related to the removal of parking on
the south side of Almond Avenue."
* A safety evaluation was not provided with this letter to support this statement. The City of Seal
Beach respectively requests that OCTA provide the analysis for evaluation by the City's
consultants.
�
Almond Avenue is defined as a ''Local CnUacto[" in the City's Circulation Element. The Speed
Limit for Almond Avenue is set as Prima Facia of 30 MPH. It should be noted that the 85 m
Speed or Average Speed for Almond Avenue is 36 miles per hour and higher than 30 MPH,
• Parking is generally light during the weekday from 8:O0AK4 to 6:0OPK4. Al nights and weekends,
the parking on Almond Avenue is more heavily utilized on both sides of the road.
Item 4: City Minimum Design Standard:
OCTA is stating that a segment of Almond Avenue (east of Almond Park) will be required to reduce to a
section of 34 feet. The City has the following comments regarding this statement.
Almond Avenue will not meet the City minimum design standard for Collector roads of 36 feet by
OCTA reducing Almond Avenue down to 34 feet from Almond Park to the east. The safety
tradeoffs of children, bicyclists, and emergency service vehicles using this reduced non-
standard street width was not considered. Even one child fatality caused by this reduced
section wlI devastate this community for years to come.
A safety analysis will be required before the City will consider this non-standard reduced
section.
Item 5: Mandatory Design Safety:
The City will require a ''Safety and Impact Study" for Almond Avenue. This study and Evaluation shall
include the following:
• Evaluate Parking 24/7 days a week for a typical week
• Evaluate pedeethans, bicyclist, and number of children in the area.
• Evaluate School Bus routes and Pick up/Drop-off areas.
• Park usage and pedestrian circulation.
The City still has not received a response to the original BR comments regarding the 1'405
|rnpnoVarnanta, the analysis regarding the backup of traffic northbound at the County Line, nor the traffic
analysis related to the Corridor Cities modified Alternative 2 proposal. Seal Beach still maintains that
relocation of the Almond Avenue Soundwall is unacceptable and asks that OCTA continue to look for
designs that allow the College Park East Soundwall (0 remain in the current location.
Sean Crumby. RE.
Director of Public Works
City of Seal Beach
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Attachment E
RESOLUTION NUMBER 6398
A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL
OPPOSING THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY 1-405 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, on June 28, 2013 Orange County Transportation Authority release
the Supplemental Draft Environmental |mAao(REPORT/Envinmmania| Impact
Statement for the San Diego Freeway (1-405) lmprovement PROJECT from 1-605
to 73 Freeway; and
WHEREAS, said REPORT proposed three alternatives. Alternative 1 adds one
general purpose lane in each direction. Alternative 2 adds two general purpose
lanes in each direction and Alternative 3 adds one general purpose lane and one
High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane.
WHEREAS, the PROJECT will create significant congestion approaching the
north bound County line effecting the Seal Beach vicinity area and relocation of
the Almond Avenue soundwall.
WHEREAS, the City proposes and supports a modified Alternative 2, by only
adding one additional general purpose lane between the 1'605 Freeway and 22
Freeway to eliminate the relocation of the Almond soundwall and reduce the
congestion approaching the County line.
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a written response in opposition to Alternative
three (3), Toll Lanes for the 1-405 Improvement Project.
THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY RESOLVE:
Section 1. City proposes and supports a modified Alternative 2, by only adding
one additional general purpose lane between the 1-605 Freeway and 22 Freeway
to eliminate the relocation of the Almond soundwall and reduce the congestion
approaching the County line.
Section 2. The City opposes to Alternative 3 Toll Lanes for the 1405
Improvement Project.
Section 3. Authorize the Mayor to sign the letter to OCTA's Chairman in
opposition to the 1-405 Toll Lanes
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a
regular meeting held on the 12\h day of August .2013by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members
NOES: Council Members
ABSENT: Council Members
ABSTAIN: Council Members
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Resolution Number 6398
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE )S3
CITY OF SEAL BEACH }
|. Linda Devma, City Clerk of the City of Seal Buaoh, do hereby certify that the
foregoing resolution 15 the original copy of Resolution Number 8398 on file
in the office of the City C|erk, panned, mppmvad, and adopted by the City Council
at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of August , 2013.
City Clerk
Attachment F
CD:
t Ill 11 \I 1 2 1 1 I 11,11 1 SIRI I I
sl 131 \( II. \I II OR\ \
(562. 1 4', I 2- • \\
•
August 12, 2013
~~DRAFT~~
Chairman Gregory T. Winterbottom
Orange County Transportation Authority
550 S. Main Street
Orange, CA 92863-1584
SUBJECT: 1-405 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Dear Chairman Winterbottom:
The City of Seal Beach would like to acknowledge OCTA for its dedicated work
on the 1-405 Improvement Project for the voters in support of Measure M, Project
P. Countless meetings and outreach, especially in Seal Beach, has proven that
OCTA is committed to deliver to the voters Project P.
The City of Seal Beach is in full support of improving the regional capacity of the
1-405 to reduce congestion and increase throughput.
The City of Seal Beach has formalized its opposition to High Occupancy Toll
(HOT) lanes in the form of a Resolution of Opposition. This Resolution was
unanimously approved during the August 12, 2013 City Council meeting. In that
regard, the City Council expects that this declaration of formal opposition will be
considered very seriously by the Board of Directors.
The City of Seal Beach would like to formally thank OCTA and Caltrans in
working with the City regarding the concerns over this project and look forward to
continuing this partnership.
If there are any questions, please contact City Manager Jill Ingram at
(562) 431-2527 ext. 1300.
Respectfully,
Gary A. Miller
Mayor
Attachment G
O
ceeacit
(IT) 11 \11 211 11(111TH 1/4,11{E.Li
"70 ii! V H. ( \I II OR \ I \ 90740
4',1-252" VOA V% ,,eallle,ichLa
August 8, 2013
Smita Deshpande, Branch Chief
Caltrans-District 12, "Attn: 405 SDEIR-DEIS Comment Period"
2201 Dupont Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92612
Subject: 1-405 Improvement Project — Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS
Dear Ms. Deshpande:
The City of Seal Beach submits this letter in response to the Supplemental Draft
EIR/EIS for the 1-405 Improvements project. The City appreciates Caltrans and
OCTA's efforts to expand the scope of the EIR/EIS to include and address
impacts that contribute to backup of traffic at the County line. These impacts
have a direct impact to the quality of life for Seal Beach and Orange County
residents. The City of Seal Beach still strongly maintains the concerns listed in
the letter dated July 9, 2012 and expects Caltrans and OCTA to ensure
resolution of those issues.
The main concerns expressed by residents of Seal Beach within that letter were:
1. Possible relocation of the existing College Park East Almond Avenue
soundwall;
2. Opposition to the creation of a toll road (Alternative 3);
3. Possible relocation of 2 gas/petroleum pipelines through College Park
East;
4. Increased traffic congestion along the 1-405 freeway, including northbound
bottlenecks resulting from additional project lanes merging before the LA
County line; and
5. Air quality and public health concerns.
Within the Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS the City of Seal Beach has concerns in
two areas. The areas of concern are:
1. The Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS does not adequately address the
congestions northbound on the 1-405 freeway at the County Line.
Orange County Transportation Authority
Page Two
August 8, 2013
The traffic supplement studies intersections north of the County line related to
impacts from an increase in traffic. Even with these improvements the main line
of the freeway does not have capacity to accommodate the added traffic arising
from the 1-405 improvement project. The traffic supplement does not address the
impacts of a deficiency within the 1-405 freeway north of the County line.
2. Ingress/Egress should be guaranteed for College Park Drive at the
Studebaker Road off-ramp of the 22 Freeway
In October of 2012 the City of Seal Beach completed improvements to the
intersection of College Park Drive at the Studebaker Road off-ramp of the 22
Freeway. This project improved a long standing problem of access. In the
development of the City project, Caltrans denied the request for a traffic signal at
the intersection. If OCTA is able to gain approval for a traffic signal at the
intersection that ensures access for College Park Drive, the City of Seal Beach
agrees with the recommendation in the Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS. However,
the City of Long Beach has developed an alternate design for the intersection. If
the traffic signal for the existing intersection is not approved by Caltrans, the City
of Seal Beach requests that the intersection be upgraded per the alternate
design currently proposed by the City of Long Beach, or access for College Park
Drive is granted to the satisfaction of the City of Seal Beach.
Attached to this letter are a full set of comments regarding the subject document.
If there are any questions, please contact City Manager Jill Ingram at
(562) 431-2527, ext. 1300.
Respectfully,
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
Gary A. Miller
Mayor
cc: Orange County Transportation Authority
c/o Darrell Johnson, Chief Executive Officer
550 S. Main Street
Orange, CA 92863-1584