HomeMy WebLinkAbout16 - Santa Ana River Crossings (SARX)REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report for Santa Ana
River Crossings (SARX) Cooperative Study
SUGGESTED
ACTION: Direct staff to transmit comments to OCTA
The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), in cooperation with the cities of Newport
Beach, Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley, has evaluated the potential effects of
eliminating two bridge crossings over the Santa Ana River from the Orange County Master Plan
of Arterial Highways (MPAH). The two crossings are at 19" Street and Garfield/Gisler Avenues.
OCTA is the lead agency for the environmental impact report (EIR) because the project being
evaluated is an amendment to the County MPAH.
The Draft EIR was released for public review on June 22, and the public review period ends on
August 6. The Environmental Quality Affairs Committee had formed a subcommittee for this
project and commented on the Notice of Preparation for the EIR in 1999. The same
subcommittee reviewed the Draft EIR, and their comments (Attachment 1) were approved by the
full Committee on July 16, 2001.
Because of the importance of the Santa Ana River crossings to Newport Beach, City staff also
has reviewed the DEIR and prepared comments on it. Attachment 2 is a compilation of
comments from EQAC and staff. Staff believes that the most important area to be addressed in
the EIR is the potential traffic impacts if the 19' Street bridge is not built. The comments we
have prepared focus on these impacts. Staff recommends that the City Council approve and
direct us to transmit these comments to OCTA as comments from the City of Newport Beach.
SHARON Z. WOOD
Assis City Manager
Attachments: 1. Memorandum from Environmental Quality Affairs Committee
2. Draft letter to Orange County Transportation Authority
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Hearing Date:
July 24, 2001
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC
Agenda Item
16
-
`'•� ^'°`
DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
No.:
Staff Person:
Sharon Z. Wood
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
(949) 644 -3222
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
(714) 6443200; FAX (714) 644 -3250
REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report for Santa Ana
River Crossings (SARX) Cooperative Study
SUGGESTED
ACTION: Direct staff to transmit comments to OCTA
The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), in cooperation with the cities of Newport
Beach, Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley, has evaluated the potential effects of
eliminating two bridge crossings over the Santa Ana River from the Orange County Master Plan
of Arterial Highways (MPAH). The two crossings are at 19" Street and Garfield/Gisler Avenues.
OCTA is the lead agency for the environmental impact report (EIR) because the project being
evaluated is an amendment to the County MPAH.
The Draft EIR was released for public review on June 22, and the public review period ends on
August 6. The Environmental Quality Affairs Committee had formed a subcommittee for this
project and commented on the Notice of Preparation for the EIR in 1999. The same
subcommittee reviewed the Draft EIR, and their comments (Attachment 1) were approved by the
full Committee on July 16, 2001.
Because of the importance of the Santa Ana River crossings to Newport Beach, City staff also
has reviewed the DEIR and prepared comments on it. Attachment 2 is a compilation of
comments from EQAC and staff. Staff believes that the most important area to be addressed in
the EIR is the potential traffic impacts if the 19' Street bridge is not built. The comments we
have prepared focus on these impacts. Staff recommends that the City Council approve and
direct us to transmit these comments to OCTA as comments from the City of Newport Beach.
SHARON Z. WOOD
Assis City Manager
Attachments: 1. Memorandum from Environmental Quality Affairs Committee
2. Draft letter to Orange County Transportation Authority
By: Hawkins Law Offices;
M E M O
To:
From:
Subject:
949 650 1181; Jul -17 -01 10:24AM;
R A N D
Page 2
U M
The Honorable Mayor Garold Adams and Members of the City Council;
City of Newport Beach
Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee
City of Newport Beach
Santa Ana River Crossings ( "SARX ") Cooperative Study; Draft Program
Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. )
Date: July 17, 2001
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the captioned matter and to
continent on the captioned Project and the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report-
k "Program DEIR ") of the Orange County Transportation Authority ( "OCTA "). As set forth in
the Program DEIR and discussed more fully below, the Project is the proposed deletion of two
hridge crossings over the Santa Ana River (the "Proposed Project ") from the Orange County
Master Plan of Arterial Highways ( "MPAH ").
AS you know, the responsibilities of Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens
Advisory Committee (-'EQAC" or the "Committee'') include commenting on environmental
documents and on projects which may affect the City and its residents. In addition to our
continents below, we incorporate our earlier comments to the Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ").
We offer the following specific continents.
L Summary of Cnricerns:
We have several concerns. These include the following:
A. A tiered DEIR, not the current Program DEIR, may be the correct
vehicle to analyze the environmental effects of a general planning
proposal;
B. The Program DEIR should incorporate and analyze the deletion of
the Wilson Street crossing;
C. The Project Description appears to conflict with OCTA's mission
and purpose, and the Program DEIR's discussion of permitting
issues is confusing.
D. The Program DEIR assumes full buildout under current municipal
and county general plans: many of these projects including the
en:* By: Hawkins Law Offices;
. The Honorable Mayor Adams
and Members of the City Council
Page 2
July 17, 2001
L.
949 650 1181; Jul -17 -01 10:25AM; Page 3
proposed West 17`h Street Extension in the City of Newport Beach
and the East 17`h Street widening in the City of Costa Mesa will
likely not proceed.
The Proposed Project threatens to cause substantial and
unmitigated impacts in many areas including land use, housing and
population, traffic, noise and aesthetics.
11. Introduction: F1R and Leal Standards.
An EIR constitutes the heart of CEQA: An EIR is the primary environmental
document which:
.. serves as a public disclosure document explaining the effects of
the proposed project on the environment, alternatives to the
project, and ways to minimize adverse effects and to increase
beneficial effects."
•CEQA Guidelines section 15149(b). See California Public Resources Code section 21003(b)
(requiring that the document must disclose impacts and mitigation so that the document will be
meaningful and useful to the public and decisionmakers.)
EIR:
Further, CEQA Guidelines section 15151 sets forth the adequacy standards for all
"Art EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to
provide decision - makers with information which enables them to
make a decision which takes account of the environmental
consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a
proposed project need not be exhaustive, but sufficiency of an EIR
is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible.
Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate,
but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement
among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but
for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith attempt at full
disclosure."
Further, "the EIR most contain facts and analysis, notjust the agency's bare conclusions or
opinions." Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa. Inc. v. 32nd District Aoicultural Association.
(1986) 42 Cal. 3d 929.
In addition, an FIR must specifically address the environmental effects and
mitigation of the Project. But "(tlhe degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to
,ant By: Hawkins Law Offices;
949 650 1181; Jul -17 -01 10:25AM; Page 4
The Honorable Mayor Adams .
and Members of the City Council
Page 3
July 17, 2001
the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR."
CEQA Guidelines section 15146. Some projects such as general plan adoption deal with general
issues; but CEQA also applies to small projects which require merely a conditional use permit.
The analysis in an EIR must be specific enough to further informed decision malting and public
participation. The EIR must pruduce sufficient information and analysis to understand the
environmental impacts of the proposed project and to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives
so far as environmental aspects are concerned. See Laurel Heights Improvement Association v
Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376.
CEQA Guidelines section 15168 addresses program EIRs such as the Program
DEIR for the Project. Section 15168 provides:
"A program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of
actions that can be characterized as one large project and arc
related either:
(1) Geographically,
(2) As logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions, •
(3) In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or
other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing
program, or
(4) As individual activities carried out under the same
authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having
generally similar environmental effects which can be
mitigated in similar ways."
Because amendments to general planning documents such as the County's hIPAH
are projects under CEQA, see CEQA Guidelines section 15378(a)(1), and require the preparation
of a Project EIR, see CEQA Guidelines section 15166, a Project specific EIR, not a program
EIR, is the appropriate tool to evaluate environmental impacts and mitigation. .Al Larson Boat
Shop. Inc. v. Board of I Iarbor Commissioners (1993) 18 Cal. App. 4" 729, 741 (holding that an
EIR for a port master plan is a tiered EIR rather than a Program EIR).
The DEIR correctly points out the benefits of tiering but incorrectly labels the
current amendment to the MPAH a Program DEIR. The Program DEIR correctly quotes CEQA
Guidelines section 15385 regarding tiering but ignores the section's distinction between "a
general plan fe.g. the MPAH], policy or program EIR ...." Tiering can occur without the 41 preparation of a Program DEIR as noted in Al out
Sent By: Hawkins Law officesi 949 650 11811 Jul -17 -01 10:26AMi Page 5
The Honorable Mayor Adams
and Members of the City Council
Page 4
July 17, 2001
"In practice the first 'tier' may consist of a general plan or program
EIR. which discusses agency -wide programs, policies or
cumulative impacts. The second tier may consist of a specific plan
EIR, which discusses a particular region within the agency. The
third tier may consist of an ordinary development project EIR,
which discusses a particular site."
Koster v. County of San Joaauh (1996) 47 Cal. App. 4" 29, 36 -37.
Further, CEQA Guidelines section 15164 discusses an EIR as part of the
amendment of a general planning document such as the MPAH. Among other things, it requires
submittal of the DEIR to the State Clearinghouse. CEQA Guidelines section 15164(6).
Although the Program DEIR notes that the State Clearinghouse received the NOP, it is silent on
its receipt of the Program DEIR.
Finally, we note that the Program DEIR contains no State Clearinghouse number.
As indicated above, as a general planning document, it should be forwarded to the State
Clearinghouse. Further. the Program DEIR contains two volumes. However, the first volume
.fails to note that it is "Volume Otte" of two volumes. The second volume helpfully notes on the
cover that it is "VOLUME IL APPENDICES."
II. Section 1: Introduction and the Project History:
Section 1.0 and following provides the crucial introduction to the Project:
the Project is ati amendment to the County's MPAH. The amendment proposes to delete fiom
die MPAH two proposed arterial crossings of the Santa Ana River: "a connection between
Banning Avenue in Huntington Beach and 19" Street in Costa Mesa/Newpori Beach, and a
connection between Garfield Avenue in Fountain Valley /Huntington Beach and Gisler Avenue in
Costa Mesa." Program DEIR, p. 1 -1.
Section 1.6 addresses the Project history including the original full spectrum of
crossings: Originally, the MPAH contained five (5) crossings— Hamilton AvenueNicioria Street
(completed), Adams Avenue (completed), Banning Avenue /19" Street (planned), Garfield
Avenue /Gisler Avenue (planned), and Atlanta Avenue /Wilson Sircei (deleted). Although the
Program DEIR lists the latter crossing— Atlanta Avenue /Wilson Street— as deleted, the Program
DEIR fails to refer to the environmental document or study which supported that deletion. The
Program DEIR notes that an Environmental Baseline Study was performed which concluded that
substantial biological and land use impacts could result from such a crossing,
but the Program DEIR fails to cite any further recommendation or action by the County or
OCTA in connection with the deletion.
•
Sent By: Hawkins Law Offices; 949 650 1181; Jul -17 -01 10:26AM; Page 6/12
The Honorable Mayor Adams •
and Members orthe City Council
Pace 5
July 17, 2001
To the extent that little or no environmental study supported the earlier deletion of
the Atlanta Avenue /Wilson Street crossing, we recommend that the Program DEIR include such
an analysis.
JII. Section 2: A Troublesome Project Description and Local Approvals
Section 2 sets forth the Proposed Project — the deletion of two arterial river
crossings at 19" Avenue and at Gisler Avenue as well as two alternatives including the current
NIPAH Altcmativc which retains the two crossings and a Third Alternative which is the
Alternative Bridge Crossings at Garfield Ave to I-405 and at 17" Street in Costa Mesa to
Brookhurst Avenue in Iluntington Beach. Gisler Ave. would remain unchanged.
The stated goals of the Project at Program DEIR at 2 -1 are:
"(l) To protect residents that reside along Gisler Avenue and 19`h Street and the
students at Tewinkle Middle School in Costa Mesa from noise, safety, and traffic
impacts;
(2) To protect wetlands near the western terminus of 19" Street and Talbert Park •
within Costa Mesa;
(3) To protect 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 commensurate to that of the current
MPAII."
However, the stated mission of OCTA at the OCTA website conflicts with these goals:
"The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) was formed in 1991 by
the consolidation of seven separate transportation agencies to develop and
implement unified transportation programs and services for Orange County."
"The conflict is manifold: the Project goals fail to further a unified traffic program: it supports the
safety and welfare of select groups of residents at the expense of other residents in Orange
County. Also, it promotes a biological goal which may itself conflict with OCTA's goals of
providing a unified transportation plan. Finally, the Project goals— select public safety and
transportation— appear to conflict internally. OCTA's mission is unified traffic plans: the
Project fails to further that mission.
Sections 2.6 and 2.7 address the relation between OCTA's NIPAH and local municipal •
general plans. Section 2.6 discusses the ability of the various cities to use the Program DEIR as
gent By: Hawkins Law Offices;
• The I lonorable Mayor Adams
and Members of the City Council
Page 6
July 17, 2001
949 650 1181; Jul -17 -01 10:27AM; Page 7/12
the environmental support for the proposed change to their general plans. Further, both
alternatives 2 (the Proposed Project) and 3 (the Alternative Bridge Project) would require the
various cities to amend their general plans before OCTA could amend its MPAH.
The Program DEIR must clearly state the priorities of approvals: should any city fail to
approve the Proposed Project. OCTA could not amend the MPAH. As we have noted above,
recent case law undercuts the ability of a Program EIR such as the Program DEIR for the Projcct
to support such a long range planning change.
Further, the Program DEIR must acknowledge that, as to the 19 " Street Bridge, this
property is within the City of Newport Beach, not the City of Costa Mesa. That is, the City of
Newport Beach has a special interest in the 19th Street crossing.
Finally, the Proposed Project is the deletion of two crossings. The Project is then a
negative. Negatives have historically presented a problem: the Proposed Project suffers a similar
problem. The Negative is often converted into a positive Project. The Program DEIR attempts
to keep this straight; OCTA attempts to keep this straight; but the ultimate product suffers.
1V, Section 3: All Impacts Are Cumulative.
As indicated above. CEQA Guidelines section 15168(b) suggests that one of the
benefits of a Program EIR is to "[e]nsure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be
slighted in a case -by -case analysis ...."
With the Program DEIR, it is unclean that this benefit is realized. The Program DEIR
"assumes a complete buildout of Orange County pursuant to each city's and the County's
respective general plan land use elements." However, such an asstunption is only as good as the
elements which it assumes. As discussed below; some of these plans and elements have changed
in ways which would wndercut the assumptions of the Program DEIR.
V. Section 5: Poor Recognition and Appreciation of Envirnnmental impacts
Section 5.1: Substantial Land Use fmpacts in Newport Beach.
The Program DEIR concludes that the Proposed Project "would [not
create] substantial impact[s] ...." Yet the same document recognizes that the Proposed Project
would create substantial land use impacts in the City of Fountain Valley due to a "disportionate
shift of traffic onto segments of arterial streets ...." As discussed below, that very same
impact -a disportionate shift of traffic onto segments of arterial streets which are not sized
for such increase will occur in the City of Newport Beach. Thus, the Proposed Project will
• create substantial land use impacts in the City of Newport Beach.
Sent By: Hawkins Law Offices;
The Honorable Mayor Adams
and Members of the City Council
Pagc 7
July 17, 2001
949 650 1181; Jul -17 -01 1O:27MA; Page 8112
In addition. Alternative 3 may affect the current plans for the Banning Ranch project. We
understand that, under this Alternative, the 17'h Street Bridge may bisect that project. Such an
impact would be significant and require mitigation.
B. Section S 2� Substantial Rousing and Population Impacts in Ncr�p�rt
Beach.
The Program DEIR refers to the CEQA Guidelines for the threshold of
significance regarding housing and population impacts. The Proposed Project— deletion of two
major bridge crossings— will create substantial housing and population impacts though such
umpacts may not exactly fit into the Guidelines matrix.
Appendix G of the Guidelines states that the threshold is met if a project: (1) induces
growth; (2) displaces housing units; or (3) displaces people. Throughout this section. the
Program DEIR routinely concludes that the Proposed Project will "not induce substantial growth
nor displace existing housing or population within" any particular municipality.
However, if the Proposed Project creates substantial traffic impacts, it threatens to •
displace substantial numbers of people who cannot and will not tolerate prolonged traffic
congestion. As discussed below and as recognized in the Program DEIR. the Proposed Project
may create traffic congestion and prolong existing congestion. This impact, indirectly, threatens
to create substantial housing impacts for which the Program DEIR offers no mitigation. See
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G.
In addition. the Proposed Project requires significant traffic improvements in the region
including in the.City of Newport Beach. The locations of these improvements include the
Banning Ranch project: the residential developments as well as the assisted living facilities
which are all along Superior Avenue, and residential neighborhoods in West Newport in and
around the impacted West Coast Highway.
Section 5.3: Significant Traffic Impacts in Newport Beach.
The Proposed Project— the deletion of die two crossings— threatens to
cause substantial and unmitigated impacts on traffic in the City of Newport Beach.
I lowever, initially, we offer a procedural comment. The basis of the Program DEIR is a
sub - region -wide cumulative impact model run: such a model is virtually impossible to analyze
and verify without access to the complete model. We need to know the parameters of the sub-
region model: the Program DEIR fails to provide this crucial information which is necessary for
a complete understanding and analysis of the environmental document. Such a failing undercuts •
the viability of the Program DEIR.
;ent By: Hawkins Law Offices;
The Honorable Mayor Adams
and Members of the City Council
Page S
July 17. 2001
949 650 1181; Jul -17 -01 10:28Ah1; Page 9112
As to substantive continents, we have many: First, the Proposed Project will have
substantial impacts on West Coast Highway at the 17" Street Extension in the City of Newport
Beach. This intersection raises several issues. Initially, the 17" Street Extension is only
proposed; it may not occur.
More importantly, the Proposed Project will have very substantial and significant adverse
impacts on West Coast Highway: the Proposed Project will cause an increase of eleven (I I %)
percent of the capacity of the segment from the 17" Street Extension to the Santa Ana River
crossing. Such an increase will worsen the level of service for the segment from "D" to "E."
Likewise, the intersection of the proposed 17" Street Extension and West Coast Highwa%
will suffer substantial adverse impacts: the level of service for morning peak hour traffic would
worsen to an `'E, " whereas the No- Project Alternative would result in no change in service
levels. Worse, the level of service for afternoon peak hour traffic would substantially suffer: it
would exceed an ICU value of 1.23 artd result in an LOS of "F."
Correlatively, the proposed mitigation is shortsighted: It would mitigate only the
intersection congestion and would leave the main problem- diversion to arterials- unmitigated.
The mitigation would require that the proposed 17" Street extension be at least six (6) lanes and
would also require an unusual double right turn lane.
Second. the Proposed Project will also create substantial impacts at Hospital Road
between Placentia Street and Newport Boulevard within the City of Newport Beach. At the
outset, we note that currently circulation in this area in and around Hoag Hospital is
compromised: during various hours, circulation suffers substantial congestion, The Program
DEIR totes that, under Alternative A- the No Project Alternative- the road segment would
suffer a level of service "F." Although the Proposed Project would not worsen this LOS "F," the
worst level of service, it would result in a traffic volume increase of four (4 %) percent of
capacity which exceeds the "3% of capacity" threshold of significance.
Notwithstanding this significant impact, the Program DEIR offers "no additional
mitigation." Program DEIR p. 5 -136. The Program DEIR recognizes that, trader current plans
and funded by development "in the area, "several improvements may occur:
a. in the small canyon of Hospital Road, the addition of a second northbound left
turn lane onto Newport Boulevard; and
b. a second west bound left turn lane from Newport Boulevard onto Hospital Road.
As the City of Newport Beach's traffic engineer has noted, these improvements would be
extremely expensive and physically challenging. Further, only the second of these measures- -
the additional left turn front Newport Boulevard— is a project - related mitigation measure.
,ant By: Hawkins Law Offices;
The Honorable Mayor Adams
and Members of the City Council
Page 9
July J7.2001
949 650 1181; Jul -17 -01 10:28AM; Page 10(12
Third, the Proposed Project will also create substantial adverse impacts with difficult
mitigation at die very complex intersection of West Coast Highway and Superior Ave. Although
the afternoon peak hour traffic would not substantially increase, the morning peak hour traffic
ICU value would increase and would represent a significant impact. The proposed mitigation is
adding a second left turn lane on the West Coast Highway. This would require widening West
Coast Highway. However simply stated, the mitigation is complex: the side streets are at a
considerable skew; and the widening would require the reconstruction of a dual retaining wall
system.
Fourth, as the Program DEIR recognizes, traffic is a regional problem. The Proposed
Project would affect traffic in the City of Costa Mesa which would in turn create impacts in the
City of Newport Beach. The Program DEIR predicts that the increase of East IT' Street traffic
would exceed the capacity of the proposed six lane expansion which is currently called for in the
iVIPAI-1. However. this ignores the City of Costa Mesa's recent action on a proposed expansion
of East 17" Street. The City recently approved improvements which would be incompatible with
the six lane expansion: East 17 " Street as a six lane roadway lives only in dreams. Without this
improvement, the Program DdR's predictions will fall far short, and the impacts to the Cities of
Costa Mesa and Newport Beach will be significant.
In addition, with the Proposed Project, the level of service for the intersection of East 17 "'
and Newport Boulevard would significantly worsen from LOS "D" to LOS "F." The Program
DEIR proposes surprising mitigation: adding a fourth northbound lane on Newport Boulevard.
The Pro-rani DEIR fails to explain how this expansion could even occur. The practical problems
are huge. If it does not occur, traffic in the afternoon would back up into the City of Newport
Beach mid exacerbate the already impacted Hospital Road/Newport Boulevard intersection.
Finally, and most importantly, the Program DEIR at p. 5 -113 -114 predicts that the
Proposed Project would result in an additional six - thousand (6,000) miles traveled and almost
two thousand, seven hundred (2,700) additional vehicle hours of travel each day. Without
analysis or discussion, the Program DEIR concludes that these increases are "not significant
impacts." As discussed below, such increases will cause significant and adverse impacts on
traffic as well as on noise and other areas.
D. Section 5.7: Significant Noise Impacts in Newport Beach
Given that the Program DEIR predicts that the Proposed Project will
substantially increase miles traveled and vehicle hours, Section 5.7.6.2 candidly admits that, in
the City of Newport Beach:
"The proposed project would result in three roadway segments having a
substantial, permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
0
ent By: HawKins Law Offices;
The Honorable Mayor Adams
and Members of the City Council
Page 10
July 17, 2001
949 650 11611 Jul -17 -01 10:29AM; Page 11112
above levels existing without the project. The three roadway segments that would
result in significant adverse noise impacts are:
17' Street Extension between W. Coast Highway and 15" Street
17" Street Extension between 15' Street and Bluff Road
W. Coast Highway between SARX and 17' Street Extension"
(Emphasis supplied.) Many of these segments arc yet to be constructed: the affected area lies
between SARX and die proposed 17' Street Extension.
Having recognized these significant adverse noise impacts; the Program DEIR offers no
mitigation: "No mitigation measures are available that could effectively reduce the effects of the
noise increase along the affected roadway segments." So, the City of Newport Beach would have
to live with these significant impacts.
However, the Program DEIR summary fails to appreciate the nature and extent of the
significant noise impacts or the lack of mitigation:
"8.7 Noise
The proposed project would result in no significance (sic) adverse noise impacts."
The summary fails to recognize the significant and unmitigated noise impacts identified in
Section 5.7.
The noise impacts within the City of Newport Beach will be significant and permanent
These impacts will affect residents permanently. Either the Program DEIR must provide some
mitigation or the No Project Alternative roust go forward.
Section 5.8: Unidentified Significant Aesthetic Impacts.
Section 5.8.2 attempts to identify the criteria for evaluating significant
aesthetic impacts; unfortunately, it incorrectly refers to "population and housing impacts:
" ... a proposed project would result in a significant adverse population and
housing impact if it were to :
• Have substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
• Substantially damage scenic resources;
• Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site
and the surrounding area; or
Hawkins Law Offices; 949 650 1181; Jul -17 -01 10:29AM;
The Honurible Mayor Adams
and Members of the City Council
Page I I
July 17. 2001
Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area."
(Emphasis supplied.)
Page 12/12
Although the Program DEIR recognizes that the substantial increase in vehicle hours and
miles affect noise, it surprisingly ignores the impact of such increases on the visual resources
within the City of Newport Beach, Indeed, the Program DEIR incorrectly finds that the
Proposed Project would have no impact on the City's visual resources- Traffic congestion and
traffic backups on West Coast Highway would very likely substantially and adversely affect the
visual resources in West Newport.
V1. Alternatives Analysis; the SuVerior "No Project" Alternative
The Program DEIR concludes that the status quo— the "No Project" Alternative
which maintains the two bridge crossings— is the environmentally superior alternative. Given
our comtnents above, we agree with this assessment.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons. we recommend that OCTA revise the Program
DEIR to address the following concerns:
A. A tiered DEIR. not the current Program DEIR, may be the correct vehicle
to analyze the environmental effects of a general planning proposal;
B. The Program DEIR should incorporate and analyze the deletion of the
Wilson Street crossing;
C. The Project Description appears to conflict with OCTA's mission and
purpose, and the Program DEIR's discussion of permitting issues is
confusing.
D. The Program DEIR assumes full buildout under current municipal and
county general plans; many of these projects including the proposed 17'h
Street Extension likely will not proceed.
E. The Proposed Project threatens to cause substantial and unmitigated
impacts in many areas including land use, housing and population, traffic,
noise and aesthetics.
0
0
•
DRAFT
July 25, 2001
Orange County Transportation Authority
600 South Main Street
Orange, CA 92686
Attn: Kia Mortazavi
Comments on Santa Ana River Crossings Cooperative Studv
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
Dear Mr. Mortazavi:
The City of Newport Beach appreciates the opportunity to comment on the subject Draft
EIR. The comments contained in this letter reflect review of the document by the City's
Environmental Quality Affairs Committee and staff, and have been reviewed and
approved by the City Council.
Sections 2.6 and 2.7 address the relation between OCTA's Master Plan of Arterial
Highways (MPAH) and local municipal general plans. Section 2.6 discusses the ability
of the various cities to use the Program DEIR as the environmental support for the
proposed change to their general plans. Further, both alternatives 2 (the Proposed
Project) and 3 (the Alternative Bridge Project) would require the various cities to amend
their general plans before OCTA could amend its MPAH. The Program EIR must clearly
state the priorities of approvals: should any city fail to approve the Proposed Project,
OCTA could not amend the MPAH. We question the ability of a Program EIR to support
such a long range planning change, especially in light of recent case law.
Further, the Program DEIR must acknowledge that, as to the 191h Street Bridge, this
property is within the City of Newport Beach, not the City of Costa Mesa. The City of
Newport Beach has a special interest in the 19`h Street crossing.
The fourth OBJECTIVE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT (Page 4 -1, Summary), "To
continue to provide a level of mobility commensurate to that of the current MPAH" is not
met due to the unmitigated impacts, especially in the vicinity of West Coast Highway.
The failure to meet this objective is not discussed.
Land Use .
The conclusion that there would be no significant land use impact in Newport Beach due
to the project is questionable (Page 4 -4, Summary, and Section 5.1). The document
recognizes that the Proposed Project would create substantial land use impacts in the City
of Fountain Valley due to "a disproportionate shift of traffic onto segments of arterial
streets..." That very same impact, a disproportionate shift of traffic onto segments of
arterial streets which are not sized for such increase, will occur in Newport Beach.
The discussion on the City of Newport Beach Land Use Element on page 5 -4 should
include the Element's narrative on the Newport Banning Ranch, and not just the short
summary included. On the same page, the discussion on the City's Circulation Element
should state that the Master Plan of Bikeways designates a "Backbone Bikeway" on the
191" Street Bridge. On page 5 -5, the discussion of Newport Banning Ranch should be
undated (i.e., the deletion of the 10 -acre elementary school site.
Alternative 3 may affect the current plans for the Banning Ranch project. Under this
alternative, the 17`" Street Bridge may bisect that project. Such an impact would be
significant and require mitigation.
The Proposed Project requires significant traffic improvements in the region, including in
Newport Beach. The locations of these improvements include the Banning Ranch, the
residential developments and assisted living facilities along Superior Avenue, and •
residential neighborhoods in West Newport in and around the impacted West Coast
Highway. These improvements will cause both land use and housing impacts.
Finally, the additional traffic shifted to West Coast Highway by the proposed project has
significant implications on land use decisions within Newport Beach. The increase will
certainly make it more difficult for development, including that already included in the
General Plan, to be implemented due to the poor level of service that will be identified by
the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance at intersections on West Coast Highway, long
before 2020. In addition, it will limit the City's ability to consider land use changes in
the future.
Traffic /Circulation
The impacts to West Coast Highway of the proposed project are not fully discussed and
the proposed mitigation does not reduce those impacts to a level of insignificance. For
the link between the Santa Ana River and the future extension of 17`" Street, mitigating
the project impact at 17`" Street does nothing to address the impact of an additional 6000
vehicles per day upon the businesses and residences who have no alternative arterial
access. This increase of nearly 11 % will increase the difficulty of access for hundreds of
residential properties, restaurants, motels and other retail businesses.
To understand the full impact of this, one also needs to consider that, of the three most .
southerly river crossings in place today, only West Coast Highway is projected to see a
traffic increase between now and the year 2020. Both Adams and Hamilton are expected
to keep their existing volumes while West Coast Highway is expected to increase from
45,000 to 50,000 daily trips and with no bridge at 19`h Street, it would increase an
additional 6,000 trips. This segment of roadway experiences considerable congestion
during the PM peak period today. A combined increase of over 24% in traffic, if no
bridge is built, will have a major impact on residents, businesses and motorists.
The Proposed Project will have substantial impacts on West Coast Highway at the 17`h
Street Extension in the City of Newport Beach. This intersection raises several issues.
First, the 17`h Street Extension is only proposed; it may not occur. More importantly, the
Proposed Project will cause an increase of 11% of the capacity of the Coast Highway
segment from the 17`h Street Extension to the Santa Ana River crossing. Such an
increase will worsen the LOS for this segment from D to E. Likewise, the intersection of
the proposed 17`h Street Extension and West Coast Highway will suffer substantial
adverse impacts: the LOS for the AM peak period would worsen to an E, whereas the No
Project Alternative would result in no change in LOS. Worse, the LOS for the PM peak
period would substantially suffer; it would exceed an ICU value of 1.28 and result in
LOS F.
The proposed mitigation for the 17`h Street intersection is shortsighted. It would mitigate
only the intersection congestion and would leave the main problem, diversion to arterials,
unmitigated. It calls for four through lanes in both directions on West Coast Highway,
• which is not consistent with the current Circulation Element of the Newport Beach
General Plan. This segment would need to be reclassified from a Major Road to a Major
Augmented Road. The mitigation also would require an unusual double right turn lane.
The Proposed Project also would create substantial impacts on Hospital Road, in an area
where circulation is already compromised. Under the No Project Alternative, the road
segment between Placentia Street and Newport Boulevard would suffer LOS F.
Although the Proposed Project would not worsen this LOS, it would result in a traffic
volume increase of 4% of capacity, which exceeds the City of Newport Beach "3% of
capacity" threshold of significance. Notwithstanding this significant impact, the Program
DEIR offers no additional mitigation (Page 5 -136). The Program DEIR recognizes that,
under current plans and funded by development in the area, several improvements may
occur:
1. In the small canyon of Hospital Road, the addition of a second northbound left turn
lane onto Newport Boulevard; and
2. A second westbound left turn lane from Newport Boulevard onto Hospital Road.
These improvements would be extremely expensive and physically challenging. Further,
only the second of these measures is a project related mitigation measure.
There would also be significant impacts to the Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road and
. West Coast Highway/Bluff Road intersections in the PM peak period. The suggested
mitigation is already included in the City's Circulation Element and should have been
3
considered in the calculations for the ICU of the three Alternatives. There would also be
significant impacts to the Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road and West Coast
Highway/Bluff Road intersections in the PM peak period. These impacts remain
significant or worsen with Alternative 3. The proposed mitigation measures appear to
reduce these impacts to below a level of significance. However, the City of Newport
Beach needs to be assured that these improvements are consistent with the City's
Circulation Element and planned improvements.
The Proposed Project also would create substantial adverse impacts with difficult
mitigation at the very complex intersection of West Coast Highway and Superior
Avenue. The AM peak period ICU value would increase and represent a significant
impact. The proposed mitigation is adding a second left turn lane on West Coast
Highway. The severe skew angle of this intersection and its operational characteristics
make this a highly questionable improvement. In the morning peak hour when the
mitigation is required, the westbound left -tum volume is projected to be less than 90
vehicles. A second turn lane typically is not considered as operationally appropriate until
turning volumes are close to 300 per hour. Thus it is more realistic to consider this as an
unmitigable impact resulting from the proposed project.
As the Program DEIR recognizes, traffic is a regional problem. The Proposed Project
would affect traffic in the City of Costa Mesa, which would in turn create impacts in the
City of Newport Beach. The DEIR predicts that the increase of East 17`h Street traffic
would exceed the capacity of the proposed six -lane expansion that is currently called for .
in the MPAH. However, this ignores the City of Costa Mesa's recent action on a
proposed expansion of East 171h Street, which approved improvements that would be
incompatible with the six -lane expansion. Without this improvement, the DEIR's
predictions will fall far short, and the impacts to the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa
Mesa will be significant.
With the Proposed Project, the level of service for the intersection of East 17`h Street and
Newport Boulevard would significantly worsen from LOS D to F. The Program DEIR
proposes the mitigation of adding a fourth northbound lane on Newport Boulevard, but
fails to explain how this expansion could occur. We believe the practical problems are
huge. If this mitigation does not occur, traffic in the afternoon would back up into the
City of Newport Beach and exacerbate the already impacted Hospital Road/Newport
Boulevard intersection.
Under "Other Impacts" in the Summary, the additional miles of travel and the additional
delay from not building a bridge at 19`h Street have been trivialized by dividing a
significant number by all the miles of travel and hours of travel in a very large study area.
These increases would occur not just one day, but daily, for decades. It should be noted
that for Alternative 3 (page 4 -24) these numbers are actually reduced below the MPAH
alternative.
Finally, the DEIR predicts at page 5- 113 -114 that the Proposed Project would result in an .
additional 6,141 miles of travel and almost 2,700 additional vehicle hours of travel each
2
day. Without analysis or discussion the document concludes that these increases are not
significant impacts. The City believes that such increases would significantly impact air
quality, noise and other areas.
Biological Resources
The Alternative 3 alignment would impact some coastal bluff scrub that the Newport
Banning Ranch project is trying to avoid (Page 5 -164). This impact would not be
significant.
Public Services and Utilities
The Program DEIR's statement (Page 5 -176) that there will no impacts on the services
provided by the City of Newport Beach Fire and Police Departments is not credible with
the traffic impacts identified, and in light of the fact that these departments were not
contacted during preparation of the DEIR.
Noise
The DEIR acknowledges that, in the City of Newport Beach, "the proposed project would
result in three roadway segments having a substantial, permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project." Having
. recognized these noise impacts, the DEIR offers no mitigation. So, the City of Newport
Beach would have to live with these significant impacts. However, the Summary fails to
recognize the significant and unmitigated noise impacts identified in Section 5.7.
Conclusion
The Program DEIR identifies significant unmitigated impacts of the proposed deletion of
the bridge on 19`h Street. West Coast Highway carries the highest volume of the three
southerly bridges in existence today, and an additional bridge is necessary to provide a
balanced transportation network to carry traffic between Huntington Beach and Costa
Mesa. The DEIR concludes that the No Project Alternative, which maintains the two
bridges, is the environmentally superior alternative. The City of Newport Beach agrees
with this assessment.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the Program DEIR. The City of
Newport Beach looks forward to working with the other parties in this study to resolve
the issues we have raised.
Sincerely,
Homer L. Bludau
City Manager
5