HomeMy WebLinkAbout13 SENATE BILL 116 03-19-01'AGENDA R RT
· ,
,,' .... .' No. 13
/
~.. :~ '~ 03-19-01
, ~ , , _
I~_ _ II I I I I II I II I II
MEETING DATE' MARCH 19, 2001
TO'
WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM'
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION
SUBJECT:
RESOLUTION OF OPPOSITION TO STATE SENATE BILL 116 (KUEHL)
SUMMARY
Adoption of Resolution 01-24 will formalize the City Council's opposition to State Senate Bill (SB)
116 (Kuehl). SB 116 seeks to prohibit road construction through property under the jurisdiction of
the California Department of Parks and Recreation. It would take land use planning authority
away from local communities impacted by these decisions. The bill is aimed at eliminating one of
the five alternatives for the Foothill Transportation Corridor South (FTCS) project approved for
study by the federal and state resource agencies prior to the completion of the project's
Environmental Impact Statement and subsequent Environmental Impact Report.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended th'at the City Council adopt Resolution 01-24 opposing State Senate Bill (SB)
116 (Kuehl).
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City at this time.
BACKGROUND
SB 116 was introduced by Senator Kuehl on January 24, 2001. It is virtually the same as last
session's SB 1277 authored by Senator Tom Hayden. That bill was passed by the Senate but did
not move forward in the Assembly. Due to term limits, Senator Kuehl recently replaced Senator
Hayden as the representative in the 23rd Senate District.
The bill prohibits construction, permitting for construction, or improvement to any road that
substantially increases vehicular traffic capacity in or through property under the jurisdiction of the
California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR). Included is state-owned property, leased
land, and land otherwise preserved under a conservation easement.
The prohibition on Construction, permitting, or road improvement applies to state agencies,
including departments, divisions, bureaus, boards, and commissions, and to local agencies,
including cities, counties, districts, joint powers authorities, and other public agencies and political
subdivisions of the state.
DISCUSSION
SB 116 would apply directly to the proposed south portion of the Foothill Transportation Corridor
(SR-241) toll road. For that reason the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) has requested
support from all of its member agencies in formally opposing the bill.
Resolution of Opposition to State Senate Bill 116 (Kuehl)
March 19, 2001
Page 2
Since the early 1970's the County of Orange and subsequently the TCA have planned for
construction of the FTCS project. That planning process proceeded with an EIR certified in 1991.
At that time, ICA EIR 3 analyzed the effects of three alternatives, the BX alignment, CP alignment
and No Project alternative. After extensive public review and input from affected south Orange
County communities, the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency Board of Directors
approved a modified version of the CP alignment as the best solution to address future congestion
on I-5 and the local arterial system. The modified CP alignment would pass through Department
of Navy property, Camp Pendleton, leased to the CDPR for park purposes. The CDPR operates
San Onofre State Beach Park on this property.
Last year, TCA, in conjunction with state and federal resource agencies, began studying additional
alternatives, including the Far East alignment, a hybrid of the CP alignment, The Central Corridor,
a hybrid of the BX alignment, The Alignment 7, arterial improvements, I-5 widening, and a no-build
alternative.
The Far East alignment enters onto the United States Department of Navy property leased in
1971 for fifty years to the CDPR for park use. The 1971 lease agreement between the
Department of Navy and the CDPR specifically envisioned the construction of future infrastructure
facilities. SB 116 seeks to interfere with the existing lease agreement between these two entities.
In addition, the bill seeks to eliminate an alternative to the FTCS that has been chosen as the best
solution to address future freeway and arterial congestion before the completion of the EIR/EIS.
The evaluation of all alternatives for the FTCS project will be complete in the federal
environmental document, the Environmental Impact Statement (ELS) prior to making alignment
selection decisions. Existing federal and state regulations, the National Environmental Policy Act,
and the California Environmental Quality Act provide comprehensive protection for park facilities.
As with.the other toll road projects, a thorough mitigation program will be included in the record of
decision when issued.
if the Far East alignment is again selected as the locally preferred alignment for the FTCS project,
The Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agencies will mitigate any impacts to the San Onofre
State Beach ~ark throu§h a comprehensive mitigation program similar to those of the Eastorn
Transportation Corridor and San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor projects.
On March 8, 2001 the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency Board of Directors and
the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency Board of Directors adopted a Joint Resolution
opposing SB 116.
Resolution of Opposition to State Senate Bill 116 (Kuehl)
March 19, 2001
Page 3
It is, therefore, recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution 01-24 to record the City's
opposition to SB 116.
Tim D. Serlet k,_..
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Dana R. Kasdan
Engineering Services Manager
TDS:DRK:ccg:SB 116 Report & Reso. No. 01-24
Attachments'
Resolution No. 01-24
FTC-South Exhibit
Text of SB 116
l0
!1
13
16
18
19
20
RESOLUTION NO. 01-24
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN,
CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING SENATE BILL (SB) 116
5 WHEREAS, the Foothill Transportation Corridor ("FTC") has been identified
as a needed facility in studies of existing and projected travel demand in Orange
6 County beginning with the 1979 Multi-Modal Transportation Study; and
WHEREAS, in AuguSt 1981 and May 1983 the Orange County Board of
Supervisors certified Environmental Impact Reports 123 and 423 on the FTC; and
WHEREAS, the FTC was added to the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial
Highways ("MPAH") by Orange County Board of Supervisors in August 1981; and
WHEREAS, the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency certified final
Supplemental EIR 423, evaluating the northern portion of the FTC as a toll facility
in March 1990; and
WHEREAS, t. he FTC is shown on the current Regional Transportation Plan
adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments; and
WHEREAS, the FTC is shown on the 2020 Regional Transportation Plan
adopted by the San Diego Association of Governments; and
WHEREAS, THE Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency initiated
studies on the southern portion of the FTC in July 1985 and continued these
studies until October 1990; and
WHEREAS, the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency, U.S. Marine
Corps Base Camp Pendleton, the City of San Clemente and the California
Department of Parks and Recreation signed a memorandum of understanding
regarding the Modified C alignment; and
WHEREAS, on October 10, 1991 after receiving public input through an
extensive public outreach process, the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor
Agency certified Final Environmental Impact Report TCA No. 3 and selected the
Modified C alignment as the locally preferred alternative for the southern portion of
the FTC; and
WHEREAS, in 1993 the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency in
coordination with the Federal Highway Administration and Caitrans, initiated
preparation of an environmental impact statement for the southern portion of the
FTC, which addresses three alternatives' the CP (an updated version of the
Modified C), the BX and the No Project alternative; and
l0
11
l?
19
21
2,3
2,4
25
26
28
Resolution No. 01-24
March 19, 2001
Page 2
WHEREAS, in 2000 the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency
began studying additional alternatives, including the Far East Alignment, a
modification to the CP alignment as well as the Central Corridor (formerly the BX),
The Alignment 7, Arterial Improvements, a I-5 Improvement and a no-action
alternative; and
WHEREAS, existing federal and state regulations, including but not limited to
NEPA, CEQA and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966
(49 U.S.C. 303) provide protections for park facilities; and
WHEREAS, the evaluation of alternatives should be complete prior to making
alignment selection decisions and issuing a record of decision; a~d
WHEREAS, a comprehensive mitigation program representing state of the art
technology in habitat revegetation, scientific studies, habitat conservation and
management and endangered species protection will be included in the record of
decision when it is issued; and
WHEREAS, SB 116 has been introduced to prohibit the construction of
proposed new roads and other infrastructure in, or through, units of the state pa[k
system and land reserves that are either leased or held in fee simple title,
excluding infrastructure specifically identified in an approved general plan for the
park or reserve; and
WHEREAS, the Far East alternative enters onto United States of America,
Department of Navy property leased in 1971 for fifty years to the State of
California, Department of Parks and Recreation for park use; and.
WHEREAS, the 1971 lease agreement between the Department of Navy and
the Department of Parks and Recreation specifically contemplates the construction
of future infrastructure facilities; and
WHEREAS, SB 116 seeks to interfere with the existing lease agreement
between the Department of Navy and the Department of Parks and Recreation;
and
WHEREAS, SB 116 seeks to take the planning process for the Foothill
Transportation Corridor South (FTCS) project out of the hands of local
communities and their elected officials; and
WHEREAS, SB 116 further seeks to eliminate an alternative that has been
chosen as the best solution to address future freeway and arterial congestion' and
Resolution No. 01-24
March 19, 2001
Page 3
WHEREAS, in the event the Far East alternative is selected, the
Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency will mitigate impacts to the State
of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, San Onofre State Beach Park
through a comprehensive mitigation program.
NOW,. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Tustin opposes SB 116.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the CitY Council of the City of
Tustin held on the 19TM day of March 2001.
12
ATTEST:
Tracy Wills Worley, Mayor
City Clerk
16
18
19
25
26
28
Alternatives
Under Study
Foothi, ~-SoUth .Toll
Road
·
·
,
x" c~.
'".,. 'F~' ~ ·
. ,,/
.... . , ..~ ~~.. . ~...~%. ~,,.,'
'. . . :..'
.... ~, . . ~;~..+Z~,~,~,:~ .... L,~..,-~... ,...' ,~,'~',~'' ~.;~;~'b~..~ ~';.'~:.. ' ' . O~
Not To Scale-
....
..
,,.
..
N
General Thomas F.
..
Riley Wilderness
Park ,r"'i :' . / . .
~i:::W..,,~' ""
Gob~rha'dora. ::Y:'. ~: i'"
RestcirauOn':i.?': ~ :i .'
Proj&ct::,/.. ..... .:' ~/.:
Rancho
Hission Viejo
Land
Conservancy
San Onofre
State Beach
Park
The Far East Corridor
The Central Corridor
'i I The Alignment 7 Corridor
:I Arterial Improvement
J:'==='.:-'=".':'~..') . I-5 Improvement
~==='=~..I Existing SR-241 Toll Road
San
Clemente
State Beach
Park
...
San
State Beach
. Park
~silone Road
date: 11-14-00 map is subject to change
FOOTttl LL-SOUTI-i i.~' /he.finai wn! o.f /hc 7)'a/~.V)Or/a/io~ C'orridor/~, ,'c.s" fiT-mile public loll road
When c.'ot~q#ele, il ~,i/I provide rc'Ik:/~/br much c~/'lhe pre. s'enl and. Ii, lure lrq#ic congexlion along Inle~:s'late 5 and local arlerialx
lhrough San Clemenle, San .Juan Cal)i,wrano and ulzilworporaled t)arl, s' q/Orange CounLy. Sludies are undemv~;.fi)r
prc~ecl ts' Environmenlal Impact Slalemenl and Suflplemenlal EnvironmenlaI ]mpacl Rcy)ort, lhe .wale andJ&deral documenlalion
lhal will disclose all the prqjecl alignmenls' impac'Is. Con,s'lruclion is planned lo begin in.fiscal year 2003/2004 and he
complete by 2007.
ALTERNATIVES
The Far East Corridor Alignment extends the 241 Toll Road south from where it now ends at Oso
Parkway near Rancho Santa Margarita to I-5 at Cristianitos Road south of San Clemente. It traverses portions of undeveloped,
privately owned land east of San Juan Capistrano and San Clemente, and portions of Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base.
The alignment crosses Ortega Highway approximately 2.5 miles east of Antonio Parkway/Avenida La Para. Variations include
stopping the alignment at Avenida La Para, Ortega Highway and Avenida Pico or swinging the alignment southwest to meet
with the Central Alignment near Avenida Pico. This alternative also includes three variations for the connection to I-5
fmnning roughly parallel to Cristianitos Road connecting to I-5 at Basilone Road, swinging into the Camp Pendleton agricultural
fi&lds before connecting to I-5 at Basilone Road, and connecting to existing Cristianitos Road, near where it now ends, in
Camp Pendleton).
~ o"~ ~ . .-- .. ~..
~~..,.-.~4~ . ~:~',. The Central Corridor Alignment extends the 241 Toll Road south from where it now ends at Oso
Parkway near Rancho Santa Margarita to I-5 at Avenida Pico in San Clemente. It crosses Ortega Highway approximately
¼ mile east of Antonio Parkway/Avenida La Para and travels south parallel and east of Avenida La Para and the city limits
of San Juan Capistrano. The alignment travels along the westerly edge of the Talega development (located east of San
Clemente) and swings southwesterly to continue parallel to and northwest of Avenida Pico to terminate with I-5. Variations
include stopping the alignment at Avenida La Pata or Ortega Highway.
The Alignment 7 Corridor extends the 241 Toll Road south from where it now ends at Oso Parkway near
Rancho Santa Margarita to I-5 at Avenida Pico in San Clemente. The alignment crosses Ortega Highway approximately 1
mile east of Antonio Parkway/Avenida La Pata. The alignment continues south within the easterly property line of Prima
Deshecha Sanitary Landfill, located east of San Juan Capistrano. It then enters the City of San Clemente, traverses through
the Talega development and swings southwest to continue parallel to and northwest of Avenida Pico to terminate with direct
connection to I-5. Variations include swinging the alignment to the Central Alignment (7 Swing) or swinging the alignment
to the Far East Alignment (7/Far East Crossover) or stopping the alignment at Avenida La Pata or Ortega Highway.
~~..~,.,,~[~~~,.,,.,,, ~,, ~. ~ ,:.,.~..,,,,. The Arterial Improvement altemative involves expansion of Antonio Parkwav/Avenida La Pata to
an eight-lane smart street from Oso Parkway to San Juan Creek Road. Smart street technologies would also be included on
Avenida La Para from San Juan Creek Road. south to Avenida Pico, on Ortega Highway, Camino Las Ramblas, and Avenida
Pico between Avenida La Para and I-5. In addition to these improvements, widening to provide additional lanes along I-5
will be necessary.
I-$ impr°vement: The ~-5 Widening Alternative would add additional lanes to I-5 bem, een the I-5/1-405 confluence and
..
Cristianitos Road to accommodate future traffic projections. Adding these lanes would require major reconstruction of
interchanges along the route.
No Action: Full implementation of the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways without the Foothill-South project.
sB 116 Senate Bill - INTRODUCED
http://www.k "..gov/pub/biliJ...b_ 1 i 6_bi11_20010124_introduccd.htmi
,
BILL NUMBER: SB 116
BILL TEXT
INTRODUCED
.INTRODUCED BY Senator Kuehl
JANUARY 24, 2001
An act to add Section 5012.3 to the Public Resources Code,
relating to state property.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL' S DIGEST
SB 116, as introduced, Kuehl. Department of Parks and Recreation:
roads: construction and improvements.
Existing law provides for the administration, operation, and
maintenance of units of the state park system. Existing law also
provides for the protection and preservation of ecological reserves
and coastal lands in the state.
This bill would prohibit a state or local agency from
constructing, or approving the construction of, any public road, or
from making any improvement to an existing road, that substantially
increases vehicular traffic capacity, in or through any property
under the jurisdiction of the Department of Parks and Recreation.
This prohibition would not apply if the department determines, among
other things, that the road project includes all feasible planning to
minimize harm to the property, or if the Secretary of Business,
Transportation and Housing and the Secretary of the Resources Agency
._ jointly make prescribed determinations.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 5012.3 is added to the Public Resources Code,
to read:
5012.3. (a) As used in this section, the following definitions
apply:
(1) "Local agency" means a city, county, city and county,
district, district association of governments, joint powers
authority, p~blic agency, political subdivision, or public or
municipal corporation in this state.
(2) "Road" means a highway, street, toll road, or toll highway, as
defined by Sections 360, 590, and 611 of the Vehicle Code.
(3) "State agency!' includes any state department, division,
bureau, board, commission, or any other office within a state agency.
(b) No state or local agency may construct, or approve the
construction of, any road, or make any improvement to an existing
road, that substantially increases vehicular traffic capacity in or
through any property under the jurisdiction of the department,
regardless of whether the property is held in fee simple, is leased,
or is otherwise preserved under a conservation easement. This
prohibition does not apply if either of the following conditions are
met:
(1) The department determines that the road project includes all
feasible planning to minimize harm to the property, and further
! of 2 3/1~001 4'19 PN
3B 116 S~nate Bill - INTRODUCED
htrp://www.leg:' gov/pub/biliJ...b_ 116_bi11_20010124_introduce, al.bt, re.
determines that one of the followin9 applies:
(A) The road is necessary for the operation, maintenance, or use
of the property.
(B) The road is necessary for the prevention or suppression of
fires occurring on the property.
(C) The road is necessary for the construction, operation, or
maintenance of utilities located on the property.
(2) The Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing and the
Secretary of the Resources Agency jointly determine all of the
following:
(A) That the road would not likely jeopardize the current uses of
the affected property.
(B) That the road project includes all feasible planning to
minimize harm to the property.
(C) That any impacts of the construction on the property are fully
mitigated.
(c) Any costs incurred by the state as a result of making the
determinations set forth in subdivision (b) may be recovered by fees
imposed on the project proponents.
(d) (1) A person or class of persons may file a civil action to
enjoin any other person or entity, including a state agency or any
other governmental entity or agency, that is alleged to be in
violation of this section.
(2) Any civil action brought pursuant to paragraph (1) may be
brought in the superior court in the county in which the violation, i.i'.
occurs. .... '..
(3) Any injunctive relief provided pursuant to this ··subdivision
shall not restrict any other right that a person or class of persons
may have under a statute or common law, including the right to seek
other legal remedies against the state, or a local government.
2 0,32 3/I/2001 4:19 PM