HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2013-10-28 #EE
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 28, 2013
THRU: Jill R. Ingram, City Manager
FROM: Sean P. Crumby P.E., Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: LETTER REGARDING 1-405 IIVIPROVEIVIENT�---,�
PROJECT I
That the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign a letter reaffirming the City's
position to the 1-405 Improvements Project.
NX-11 ki F-11 K&M.
Proiect Background
The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) has been in the process of
planning improvements to the 1-405 freeway for almost 10 years. A Major
Investment Study was prepared that encouraged public participation from the
local agencies. In 2006, the voters of Orange County voted to extend Measure
M (1990-2010) into Measure M2. One of the projects committed to the voters
were improvements to the 1-405 freeway.
Current Project Status
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. Currently, an environmental document and analysis is being
prepared for the 1-405 Improvements Project; in this case an Environmental
Impact Report and Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) 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. The document has a
mandatory public comment period that was held between May 18, 2012 and July
17, 2012. After receiving comments, the document was amended with a Traffic
Supplement document to address comments from the City of Long Beach. A
second public comment period was held to receive public comments on the
supplement document between June 28, 2013 and August 12, 2013.
In participation with the CEQA and NEPA processes, the City of Seal Beach has
submitted formal comments during both comment periods. Additionally, the City
Agenda Item E
of Seal Beach has sent numerous letters of correspondence and spoken publicly
at numerous public meetings to effectively convey concerns regarding the 1-405
Improvements Project.
On October 22, 2012, the OCTA Board of Directors selected Alternative 1 as the
Locally Preferred Alternative for the 1-405 Improvements Project. Alternative 1
adds one additional general purpose lane in each direction to the 1-405 freeway.
Despite this action, on September 23, 2013, the OCTA Board of Directors
brought forward an update for the project and directed OCTA staff to bring
forward potential tolling policies for the 1-405 Improvements Project. Tolling
policies would only be necessary should Alternative 3 be implemented for the
project moving forward. Alternative 3 would add one general purpose lane, add
a second lane to the freeway as a High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane, and convert
the existing High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane to a HOT lane.
The City of Seal Beach has worked with OCTA to assist with the project delivery
goal of moving regional traffic on the 1-405 freeway, but has concerns regarding
the Project. These concerns have been repeatedly stated through the various
comment periods, but can be summarized as follows:
-
• Fhe Almond Avenue sound wall shall be retained in the current location;
• Any modifications to the Studebaker & College Park Drive intersection
shall include input from the City of Seal Beach and a safe and reliable
access be provided for College Park West residents;
• The consideration of HOT lanes be delayed until a more comprehensive
regional analysis can be performed; and
• Increased traffic congestion along the 1-405 freeway, including northbound
bottlenecks resulting from additional project lanes merging before the L.A.
County line.
This action seeks to add into the public record comments related to the 1-405
Improvements California Environmental Quality Act and National Environmental
Protection Act.
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
The City Attorney has reviewed and approved as to form
'ILI
There is no financial impact associated with sending of this letter.
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign a letter
reaffirming the City's position to the 1-405 Improvements project.
F-, s,
A. Letter to OCTA (10-28-13)
October 28, 2013
Chairman Gregory T. Winterbottom
Orange County Transportation Authority
550 South Main Street
Orange, California 92863 -1584
Dear Mr. Winterbottom:
Under both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), the City of Seal Beach (City) is a stakeholder in the current environmental process
now being conducted by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), California Department of
Transportation ( CALTRANS or Lead Agency), and Orange County Transportation Authority
(OCTA) for the proposed 1 -405 Freeway Improvement Project. As such, the City has previously
submitted comments to both CALTRANS and the OCTA relating to that project and to that
NEPA/CEQA process. Those comments have been formal (EIR comment period and EIR
Traffic Supplement period), and informal through numerous letters, City Council resolutions, and
public comments. The City appreciates the efforts of OCTA to participate in community
outreach efforts within affected scope of the project as stipulated under M2 legislative
requirements.
As the 1 -405 Freeway Improvement Project will affect the City of Seal Beach, its residents, and
business community, the City has been following the project and participated as much as
possible. The City has been an outspoken opponent of certain aspects of that project, including
(but not necessarily limited to), plans and proposals resulting in the removal and relocation of
the Almond Avenue soundwall within the College Park East neighborhood, the proposed
construction and operation of a high- occupancy toll (HOT) lane along the 1 -405 Freeway, and
traffic backup and congestion (with resulting air quality impacts) in the northbound direction at
the county line. Additionally, the City of Seal Beach has a concern regarding freeway ramp
improvements and modifications at Studebaker Road and State Route 22 with any proposed
project needing to insure safe and reliable access to the College Park West neighborhood,
Predetermination in violation of NEPA/CEQA
The actions of OCTA and CALTRANS have compromised the NEPA/CEQA process and made
the decision - making process perfunctory. Substantive actions and commitments have occurred
or are occurring between agencies (outside the realm of public participation and oversight) that
are or which may be limiting the range of options for the 1 -405 Freeway Improvement Project.
The outcome of the NEPA/CEQA process has been predetermined.
On September 16, 2013, the OCTA's Regional Planning and Highway Committee (RP&HC),
and on September 23, 2013 the OCTA Board of Directors (Board) considered 1) Cooperative
Agreement with the CALTRANS for the Interstate 405 Improvement Project between Interstate
605 and State Route 55, 2) CALTRANS High- Occupancy Vehicle Degradation Action Plan and
Managed Lanes Facilities Directive), and 3) Status of the Interstate 405 Improvement Project
between State Route 55 and Interstate 605. At both meetings a variety of actions yielded
questions that remain unanswered. Further, based upon statements made that at those
meetings, it has become evident that the outcome of the board CEQA/NEPA Interstate 405
Improvement Project has been predetermined.
On September 23, 2013 the Board approved a Cooperative Agreement with the CALTRANS for
the Interstate 405 Improvement Project between Interstate 605 and State Route 55. California's
environmental regulations (14 CCR 15004[b][2][B]) stipulate that "agencies shall not ... take any
action which gives impetus to a planned or foreseeable project in a manner that forecloses
alternatives or mitigation measures that would ordinarily be part of CEQA review of that public
project" (emphases added). Similarly, in City of Santee v. County of San Diego (2010), the
appellate court stated that the court has "adopted the general principle that before conducting
CEQA review, agencies must not `take any action' that significantly furthers a project 'in a
manner that forecloses alternatives or mitigation measures that would ordinarily be part of
CEQA review of that public project' ([Citation])."
As specified in the "Cooperative Agreement No. C- 202145 between Orange County
Transportation Authority and California Department of Transportation for the Interstate 405
Improvement Project ": " CALTRANS to provide Independent Quality Assurance to widen both
the northbound and southbound directions of Interstate 405 from approximately 0.2 -miles south
of Bristol Street to the Orange County /Los Angeles County line and in Los Angeles County from
the county line to 1.4 miles north of Interstate 605. Improvements are proposed on SR -22 West
in Orange County from 0.2 -mile west of 1 -605 to 1 -405 and on SR -22 East in Orange County
from 1 -405 to 0.2 -mile east of Beach Boulevard Undercrossing. Improvements on SR -73 will be
from the Bear Street Overcrossing to 1 -405. Improvements on 1 -605 in Orange County will be
from 1 -405 to the county line and in Los Angeles County from the county line to 0.9 -mile north of
the Spring Street Overcrossing" (September 23, 2013 Agenda, p. 346).
As such, as a governmental entity considering discretionary actions in furtherance of the 1 -405
Freeway Improvement Project, the OCTA is a "participating agency" under NEPA and a
"responsible agency" under CEQA. In that role, the OCTA cannot take action in violation of
those statutes. Absent from this "cooperative agreement" are any conditions stipulating that the
actions and authorities granted under that agreement are subject to faithful completion of the
NEPA/CEQA process.
Both NEPA and CEQA dictate that the environmental analysis include a "no action" or "no
project" (often referred to as a "no build ") alternative whereby the agency does not pursue the
contemplated action. In violation of NEPA/CEQA, the Board's decision to enter into a
cooperative agreement with CALTRANS "for preliminary engineering, right -of -way support,
right -of -way capital activities, and development of the request for qualifications for design -build
services for the Interstate 1 -405 improvement project between Interstate 605 in the City of Seal
Beach and State Route 55 in the City of Costa Mesa" (September 23, 2003 Agenda, p. 10)
constitutes a commitment to or declaration of intent by both agencies to undertake a "build"
option, thus effectively eliminating a "no build" alternative. In contravention of NEPA/CEQA, this
premature action serves to effectively foreclose reasonable consideration of the "no build"
option.
Additionally, as the public record demonstrates, at the September 16, 2013 RP&HC meeting,
prior to the conclusion of the NEPA/CEQA process, CALTRANS' representative (Joseph Rouse,
Manager- Managed Lanes) commented about CALTRANS' acceptance or lack of acceptance of
specific design and development options (committed remedies) for the 1-405 Freeway. During
the RP&HC meeting OCTA staff was directed to convene a technical working group meeting
with the technical staff of the local Cities, and have a meeting prior to the September 23, 2013
Board meeting. During said technical working group meeting (held on September 18, 2013)
CALTRANS representative Gary Slater stated that the toll lanes are coming to the 405.
Shortcomings of Degredation Plan
The "California High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane Degradation Action Plan" (CALTRANS, July 31,
2013) offers conclusions and fails to discuss the range of factors affecting degradation,
including: (1) construction impacts; (2) merging problems (friction) when general purpose lanes
are congested; (3) single- occupancy vehicle (SOV) use of HOV lanes; (4) driver behavior (Slow
drivers); (5) violators; (6) freeway collisions/accidents and their impacts on slowing of the HOV
lanes, (7) weather conditions, (8) unreliable date collection, and (9) degree of degradation.
As illustrated in the 2011 Degradation Action Plan, in a graphic prepared by CALTRANS, only
limited segments of the 1-405 Freeway between the 1-605 Freeway on the north and the 1-55
Freeway on the south are illustrated as "degraded segments" (2011 Degradation Action Plan, p.
21). However, at the September 16, 2013 RP&HC and September 23, 2013 Board meetings,
an OCTA-prepared graphic illustrated the entire segment as being "degraded." This material
misrepresentation provides a false picture of the study's findings and appears prompted by
continuing multi-agency efforts to promote the advancement of a HOT-lane option along the I-
405 Freeway. The data gathered by the Degradation Action Plan is incomplete as the plan's
findings and recommendations are based only a single six-month 2011 snap-shot and, based
on CALTRANS' own admonition, will be superseded by a 2012 document which is already in
preparation.
The degradation action plan offers no coordination within an individual CALTRANS district nor
across the CALTRANS districts. An example of lack of interdistrict coordination is evident in the
fact that the 1-5 Widening - 73 to El Toro project (public comment period closed in October of
2013) does not discuss the use of HOT lanes as a remedy to address degradation of the High
Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes as stated in the plan. In direct contrast to the 1-405
improvements project, the "Strategies for District 7," for the abutting segment of the 1-405
Freeway in Los Angeles County contain neither policy directives to add HOV or HOT lanes nor
present similar "remediation strategies" for abutting highway segments (see 2011 Degradation
Action Plan, pp. 27-29). The lack of communication or coordination between districts needs to
be addressed. Additionally, no discussion has been presented regarding the impact of travelling
in a HOT lane through Orange County and how the transition will occur to a HOV lane in Los
Angeles County. How will this transition affect future degradation?
As indicated in the OCTA staff report accompanying the Board's Agenda Item 17 (California
Department of Transportation High-Occupancy Vehicle Degradation Action Plan and Managed
Lanes Facilities Directive): "The Action Plan provides detailed remedies for every freeway
segment with carpool lanes where speeds are consistently below 45 miles per hour during peak
hours. These remedies include further study of: (1) additional carpool lanes; (2) carpool
merging lanes; (3) conversion of carpool lanes to toll lanes for single occupant vehicles; (4)
increased carpool lane occupancy requirements; (5) conversion of limited access carpool lanes
to continuous access; (6) new carpool direct access ramps at select locations; and (7) new
freeway-to-freeway carpool lane connections. Overall, the proposed remedies are capital-
intensive and require further analysis and planning' (emphasis added) (Agenda Item 17, p 2).
In fact no consideration is given to the operational remedies identified within the plan.
The assertion that the plan "provides detailed remedies" is a misleading and inaccurate. That
statement appears offered only to either prompt the Board into a particular course of action or to
subsequently support requisite environmental findings stating the rationale for rejecting specific
alternatives and taking specified actions. Although not directly presented in the context of the I-
405 Freeway Improvement Project, the 2011 Degradation Action Plan clearly has implications
with regards to both OCTA's and CALTRANS' selection of the "preferred alternative" for that
project.
Only by first understanding the factors that contribute to degradation is it possible to engage in a
meaningful discussions about the 2011 Degradation Action Plan and the range of remedies that
may be available to increase HOV-Iane capacity. The 2011 Degradation Action Plan was also
prepared absent any opportunities for public review and participation and is only the product of
an internal CALTRANS' assessment. While it may serve a valuable planning function, the lack
of public participation invalidates the 2011 Degradation Action Plan as a policy document. By
focusing only the limited range of options outlined therein, other creative and less
environmentally damaging options are never explored.
Completion of Degradation Action Plan with Public Input.
The City is concerned that the information presented and the issues raised therein: (1) although
constituting "new information of substantive importance" (14 CCR 15162), occurred outside the
context of the NEPA/CEQA process (e.g., absent notification of and participation by affected
stakeholders); (2) will likely have significant implications with regards to any subsequent actions
by the OCTA's Board concerning the future of the 1-405 Freeway Improvement Project; (3) to
the detriment of other alternatives, prematurely commits CALTRANS and the OCTA to specific
"build" actions; (4) prematurely and artificially narrows the range of options for that highway; and
(5) constitutes a predetermination of both the outcome of the environmental process and the
discretionary actions of CALTRANS and the OCTA with regards to nature of the proposed
improvements.
On May 18, 2012, CALTRANS and the OCTA released the "Draft Environmental Impact
Report/Environmental Impact Statement — San Diego Freeway Improvement Project, Orange
and Los Angeles Counties, California, SCH #2009091001" (DEIR/S). On June 28, 2013,
CALTRANS and the OCTA release the "Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact
Report/Environmental Impact Statement — San Diego Freeway Improvement Project, Orange
and Los Angeles Counties, California" (SDEIR/S) and "Supplemental Traffic Study Report —
Long Beach Area" (STS). As indicated in the SDEIR/S: "As a result of comments received
during circulation of the Draft EIR/EIS on project-related traffic effects within the City of Long
Beach, and new information, analysis, and project effects in the Supplemental Traffic Study,
CALTRANS, as the Lead Agency, made the decision to disclose this new information to the
public by preparing and circulating this Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS. The [State] CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088.5(c) allow for the lead agency to recirculate an environmental
document that has been modified and address the new information that is the basis for the
recirculation" (emphasis added) (p. S-1).
The 2011 Degradation Action Plan and its alleged dictates for the 1-405 Freeway constitute "new
information of substantial importance" warranting the preparation of an additional
"supplemental" environmental analysis relating to its project-related implications. The existence
of linked freeway segments also deemed by CALTRANS to be degraded further serves to
highlight the fallacy of the 14-mile "logical termini" (DEIR/S, p. 2-20) posited by CALTRANS and
the OCTA as the appropriate limits of analyses.
The Degradation Action Plan drastically impacts the outcome of the CEQA/NEPA process with
incomplete information and no public input to the decision-making process. The Degradation
Action Plan needs to be studied in greater detail and incorporated into the NEPA/CEQA
process. OCTA has complied with NEPA/CEQA in acknowledging that "new information of
substantial importance" warrants a supplement when doing so for the "Supplemental Traffic
Study Report — Long Beach Area" (STS). At a minimum the "Option B" should be reconsidered
and included in an amended NEPA/CEQA supplement to the 1-405 Improvements EIR.
The City of Seal Beach has repeatedly expressed it's concerns. In continuing efforts to exhaust
our administrative remedies the concerns have again been outlined in this letter. Should the I-
405 Improvements Project be modified to address these concerns (as follows) the City of Seal
Beach could be supportive of the project moving forward:
• Congestion of air quality mitigated at the county line,
• Retain the Almond Avenue soundwall in the current location,
• Incorporate input and suggestions by the City and it's residents in the plans to
modify the Studebaker & College Park Drive intersection
• Provide a safe and reliable access at that intersection for College Park West
Residents, and
• Delay consideration of HOT lanes until a more comprehensive regional analysis
is performed.
Sincerely,
Gary A %filler
Mayor
City of Seal Beach
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Cc: OCTA Board of Directors members, Darrell Johnson, Ryan Chamberlain